content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{The simplest tripartite Bell scenario}
A tripartite Bell scenario (see Fig.~\ref{Bellsce}) consists of three parties (Alice, Bob and Charlie) each of which can act locally on their share of a system. The parties are assumed to be in spatially separated locations, and no information can travel from one party to another during the experiment. Otherwise, no assumptions are made on the systems the parties possess or the specific way the measurements are implemented. That is, the only information the parties have access to is the classical labels of their measurement choices $x$, $y$ and $z$ and outcomes $a$, $b$ and $c$, respectively for Alice, Bob and Charlie. The correlations between measurement outcomes are then succinctly summarized as a collection of conditional probabilities $\vec{p}=\{p(abc|xyz)\}$. {Hereafter,} we focus on the simplest case where the parties can perform two dichotomic measurements, i.e., $x,y,z \in \{0,1\}$ and $a,b,c \in \{0,1\}$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.9]
\shade[draw, thick, ,rounded corners, inner color=white,outer color=gray!50!white] (-3.25,0.7) rectangle (-1.75,2) ;
\shade[draw, thick, ,rounded corners, inner color=white,outer color=gray!50!white] (-0.75,0.7) rectangle (0.75,2) ;
\shade[draw, thick, ,rounded corners, inner color=white,outer color=gray!50!white] (1.75,0.7) rectangle (3.25,2) ;
\draw[thick, ->] (0,2.7) -- (0,2);
\draw[thick, ->] (-2.5,2.7) -- (-2.5,2);
\draw[thick, ->] (2.5,2.7) -- (2.5,2);
\draw[thick, ->] (0,0.7) -- (0,0);
\draw[thick, ->] (-2.5,0.7) -- (-2.5,0);
\draw[thick, ->] (2.5,0.7) -- (2.5,0);
\node at (-2.5,3.75) {Alice};
\node at (2.5,3.75) {Charlie};
\node at (0,3.75) {Bob};
\node at (-2.5,3) {$x$};
\node at (-2.5,-0.3) {$a$};
\node at (0,3) {$y$};
\node at (0,-0.3) {$b$};
\node at (2.5,3) {$z$};
\node at (2.5,-0.3) {$c$};
\draw[thick, decoration={brace},decorate] (3.3,-0.7) -- (-3.3,-0.7);
\node at (0, -1.5) {$p(abc|xyz)$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{A tripartite Bell scenario. Three parties (Alice, Bob and Charlie) can operate locally each on their share of a system, depicted as a black box. They choose measurements labelled by $x$, $y$ and $z$ and register the obtained outcomes $a$, $b$ and $c$, respectively. The correlations between measurement outcomes observed are captured by the vector of conditional probability distributions $\vec{p}=\{p(abc|xyz)\}$. }\label{Bellsce}
\end{figure}
Classical (i.e., Bell-local~\cite{RMP}) conditional probability distributions are those where the correlations among the parties can only be caused by a common classical agent $\lambda$, referred to as `shared randomness' or `local hidden variables'. These correlations can be written as $p(abc | xyz) = \int {d\lambda}\,q(\lambda) p_\mathrm{A}(a|x,\lambda) \, p_\mathrm{B}(b|y,\lambda) \, p_\mathrm{C}(c|z,\lambda)$, where $q(\lambda)$ is a normalised distribution over the shared randomness and $p_\mathrm{A}(a|x,\lambda)$ is a well-defined conditional probability distribution for Alice for each $\lambda$ (similarly for Bob and Charlie). Hereafter, we denote the set of Bell-local correlations by $\L$.
The set of quantum correlations $\mathcal{Q}$ are those that arise by the parties performing measurements on a shared quantum state (possibly entangled). A given correlation $\vec{p}$ belongs to the quantum set if there exists a normalised quantum state $\rho$ and two projective measurements per party, $\{\Pi_{0|x}, \Pi_{1|x} = \mathbbm{1} - \Pi_{0|x} \}_{x=0,1}$ (similarly for Bob and Charlie) such that the correlations arise via Born's rule: $p(abc|xyz) = \tr{\Pi_{a|x} \, \Pi_{b|y} \, \Pi_{c|z} \, \rho}$. One important property that these projectors should satisfy is that those corresponding to different parties commute, i.e., $[\Pi_{a|x},\Pi_{b|y}] = 0$ $\forall \, a,b,x,y$ (similarly for the other two combinations of parties). Note that there are no restrictions on the dimension of the Hilbert space.
The set of almost quantum correlations~\cite{aq}, denoted by $\tilde{\mathcal{Q}}$, can be understood as a relaxation of the quantum set in the following sense. A given $p(abc|xyz)$ belongs to the almost quantum set if there exists a normalised quantum state $\rho$ and two projective measurements per party, $\{\Pi_{0|x}, \Pi_{1|x} = \mathbbm{1} - \Pi_{0|x} \}_{x=0,1}$ (similarly for Bob and Charlie) such that the correlations arise via Born's rule: $p(abc|xyz) = \tr{\Pi_{a|x} \, \Pi_{b|y} \, \Pi_{c|z} \, \rho}$. However, here we do not demand that the projectors corresponding to different parties commute, {instead we impose the following: $\Pi_{a|x} \, \Pi_{b|y} \, \Pi_{c|z} \, \rho \, (\Pi_{a|x} \, \Pi_{b|y} \, \Pi_{c|z})^\dagger = \Pi \, \rho \, \Pi^\dagger$, where $\Pi$ is any permutation of $\Pi_{a|x} \, \Pi_{b|y} \, \Pi_{c|z}$ (a nontrivial permutation, for instance, is given by $\Pi = \Pi_{a|x} \, \Pi_{c|z} \Pi_{b|y} \, $, which swaps the projectors $\Pi_{b|y}$ and $\Pi_{c|z}$).} As this last requirement on the operators does not ensure that projectors associated with different parties, such as $\Pi_{a|x}$ and $\Pi_{b|y}$, commute, it thus follows that the set of quantum correlations is a subset to the almost quantum set.
Finally, the set of no-signalling correlations $\mathcal{NS}$ are defined as those $\vec{p}$ such that all their marginals are well-defined, i.e., they do not depend on the measurement choices of the parties that are traced out, and therefore do not allow for faster-than-light communication. More precisely, {$\sum_{c} p(abc|xyz)$ should be independent of $z$, $\sum_{bc} p(abc|xyz)$} should be independent of $y,z$, and analogous conditions should hold for other marginal distributions.
\section{The almost quantum set and the tripartite local polytope}
\label{Sec:Local}
In this simplest Bell scenario that we are considering, the set of local correlations is fully characterised by 53\,856 tight (i.e., {\em facet}) Bell inequalities~\cite{Pitowsky:PRA:2001}. In other words, a correlation $\vec{p}$ is local if and only if it satisfies all these distinct Bell inequalities. These inequalities can be classified into 46 inequivalent\footnote{Following Ref.~\cite{Collins:JPA:2004}, we say that two Bell inequalities are inequivalent if they cannot be obtained from one another via the relabelling of measurement settings, outcomes and parties.} classes~\cite{sliwa}. Hereafter, we will focus on the representative of each of these classes as provided by Sl\'iwa in Ref.~\cite{sliwa}. Specifically, we are interested in the maximum violation that almost quantum correlations yield for these representative inequalities and whether any of these {\em cannot} be achieved by $\vec{p}\in\mathcal{Q}$.
Computing the maximum violation of a Bell inequality for correlations restricted to the set of almost quantum correlations turns out to be a semidefinite program (SDP) (see Appendix~\ref{App:AQ}), which is a kind of convex optimization problem that can be efficiently solved on a computer.\footnote{This can be achieved with the help of a modeling software such as CVX~\cite{cvx} or YALMIP~\cite{yalmip}, in conjunction with an SDP solver, such as sedumi~\cite{sedumi} or SDPT3~\cite{sdpt3}.} Likewise, computing an upper bound on the maximal quantum violation can also be achieved by solving, for instance, the hierarchy of SDPs introduced by NPA~\cite{npa} {(see Appendix~\ref{App:NPA}) or Moroder {\em et al.}~\cite{Moroder:PRL:2013} (see Appendix~\ref{App:AQ}).} To ensure that the upper bound obtained is tight (i.e., indeed corresponds to the maximal violation allowed by quantum theory), we also perform iterative optimisation by considering local projective measurements on three-qubit states, which is known~\cite{lluis} to be sufficient in this Bell scenario. For all of the 45 nontrivial (representative) facet Bell inequalities of this scenario, the best lower bounds that we have obtained using standard iterative optimisation techniques (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{Opt}), match with the corresponding upper bound obtained by solving the aforementioned SDP
(up to the numerical precision of the solver\footnote{This is of the order of $10^{-8}$.}).
Our results are presented in Table~\ref{Bounds322}, following the labelling of Ref.~\cite{sliwa}. Out of the 45 nontrivial inequalities, 43 display the same phenomenon as in the bipartite CHSH scenario (up to {the numerical precision of the solver}): the maximum violation {attainable by the almost quantum correlations (column four, Table~\ref{Bounds322}) can also be achieved by the quantum ones (column three, Table~\ref{Bounds322})}. However, two inequalities (n$^o$ 23 and 41) display a gap, that is, they demonstrate that quantum correlations cannot be as nonlocal as the almost-quantum ones. This is the first time that such a behaviour is observed for scenarios with two dichotomic measurements per party using facet Bell inequalities. The particular form of these two inequalities is:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
&\text{Ineq. 23:} \nonumber\\
&E(x=0)+E(x=1)+E(y=0)-E(x=0,y=0)-E(x=1,y=0)+E(y=1)-E(x=0,y=1)\\
&-E(x=1,y=1)+E(x=0,z=0)-E(x=1,z=0)-E(000)+E(100)-E(010)+E(110) \nonumber\\
& +E(y=0,z=1)-E(001)-E(101)-E(y=1,z=1)+E(011)+E(111) \stackrel{\L}{\leq} 4\,,\nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{align}
&\text{Ineq. 41:} \nonumber\\
&E(x=0)+E(y=0)+E(x=0,y=0)+E(z=0)+E(x=1,z=0)-3E(000)-E(100)+E(y=1,z=0)\\
&-E(010)-2E(110)+E(x=0,z=1)-E(x=1,z=1)+E(y=0,z=1)-4E(001)+E(101) \nonumber \\
&-E(y=1,z=1)+E(011)+2E(111) \stackrel{\L}{\leq} 7 \,, \nonumber
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
where $\L$ signifies that the inequality holds for all correlations $\vec{p}\in\L$, while $E$ are single, two and three-body correlators defined as follows: $E(x) = p_A(0|x)-p_A(1|x)$ (similarly for Bob and Charlie), $E(xy) = \sum_{ab} (-1)^{a+b} p_{AB}(ab|xy)$ (similarly for the other pairs of parties) and $E(xyz) = \sum_{abc} (-1)^{a+b+c} p(abc|xyz)$. Here $p_{AB}(ab|xy) = \sum_c p(abc|xyz)$ and $p_A(a|x) = \sum_{b,c} p(abc|xyz)$, which are well-defined marginals for no-signalling correlations.
\begin{table*}
\begin{tabular} {|c|c|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Inequality & $\L$ & $\mathcal{Q}$ & $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}$ & $\mathcal{Q}_2$ & $\mathcal{NS}$ & $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_{1}^\text{\tiny $T_A$}$ & $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_{1}^\text{\tiny $T_B$}$ & $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_{1}^\text{\tiny $T_C$}$ & $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_{1}^\text{\tiny $T_{all}$}$ & $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_{6}^\text{\tiny $T_A$}$ & $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_{6}^\text{\tiny $T_B$}$ & $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_{6}^\text{\tiny $T_C$}$ & $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_{6}^\text{\tiny $T_{all}$}$ \\
\hline
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
2 & 2 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 2.8284 & 2.8284 & 2.8284 & 2.0000 & 2.8284 & 2.8284 & 2.8284 & 2.0000\\
3 & 2 & 2.8284 & 2.8284 & 2.8284 & 4 & 2.0000 & 2.8284 & 2.8284 & 2.0000 & 2.0000 & 2.8284 & 2.8284 & 2.0000 \\
4 & 2 & {$2(2\sqrt{2}-1)$} & 3.6569 & 3.6569 & 6 & 3.6569 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 3.6569 & 2 & 2 & 2\\
5 & 3 & 4.8885 & 4.8885 & 4.8885 & 7 & 4.6569 & 4.6569 & 4.6569 & 3.2097 & 4.6569 & 4.6569 & 4.6569 & 3.0187 \\
6 & 3 & 4.6569 & 4.6569 & 4.6617 & 7 & 4.6569 & 4.6569 & 3.0000 & 3.0000 & 4.6569 & 4.6569 & 3.0000 & 3.0000\\
7 & 4 & 20/3 & 6.6667 & 6.6667 & 10 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 4.0000 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 4.0000\\
8 & 4 & 6.6667 & 6.6667 & 6.6667 & 8 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 4.0000 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 4.0000 \\
9 & 4 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 8 & 5.6569 & 4.0000 & 5.6569 & 4.0000 & 5.6569 & 4.0000 & 5.6569 & 4.0000 \\
10 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 5.3211 & 20/3 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4\\
11 & 4 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 8 & 4.0000 & 4.0000 & 5.6569 & 4.0000 & 4.0000 & 4.0000 & 5.6569 & 4.0000\\
12 & 4 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 8 & 4.3695 & 4.3695 & 5.6569 & 4.2830 & 4.0085$^*$ & 4.0088$^*$ & 5.6569 & 4.0007$^*$\\
13 & 4 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 8 & 5.6569 & 4.0000 & 5.6569 & 4.0000 & 5.6569 & 4.0000 & 5.6569 & 4.0000 \\
14 & 4 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 8 & 4.0000 & 4.0000 & 5.6569 & 4.0000 & 4.0000 & 4.0000 & 5.6569 & 4.0000\\
15 & 4 & 6.0000 & 6.0000 & 6.0000 & 8 & 5.6569 & 4.4517 & 5.6569 & 4.2243 & 5.6569 & 4.0095$^*$ & 5.6569 & 4.0000\\
16 & 4 & 6.1289 & 6.1289 & 6.1289 & 8 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 4.0000 & 5.6568 & 5.6569 & 5.6569& 4.0000\\
17 & 4 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 8 & 4.0000 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 4.0000 & 4.0000 & 5.6569 & 5.6569& 4.0000\\
18 & 4 & 5.7538 & 5.7538 & 5.7538 & 8 & 5.6569 & 4.3130 & 4.3130 & 4.2247 & 5.6569 & 4.0000 & 4.0000& 4.0000\\
19 & 4 & 5.7829 & 5.7829 & 5.7829 & 8 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 4.3063 & 4.1865 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 4.0000& 4.0000 \\
20 & 4 & 6.4853 & 6.4853 & 6.4853 & 10 & 6.4853 & 4.5000 & 4.6903 & 4.1328 & 6.4853& 4.5000& 4.6847& 4.0000\\
21 & 4 & 5.9555 & 5.9555 & 5.9555 & 60/7 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 4.1749 & 5.6569& 5.6569& 5.6569& 4.0000\\
22 & 4 & 6.1980 & 6.1980 & 6.1980 & 8 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 4.2748 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 5.6569 & 4.0000\\
23 & 4 & 4.6847 & 4.7754 & 5.2939 & 8 & 4.5000 & 4.5000 & 4.6847 & 4.1135 & 4.5000 & 4.5000 & 4.6847 & 4.0000\\
24 & 5 & 7.9401 & 7.9401 & 7.9401 & 31/3 & 6.6569 & 6.6569 & 6.6569 & 5.2372 & 6.6569 & 6.6569 & 6.6569 & 5.0000\\
25 & 5 & 6.8243 & 6.8243 & 6.8415 & 31/3 & 6.6569 & 6.6569 & 6.4272 & 5.1652 & 6.6569 & 6.6569 & 6.4272 & 5.0000 \\
26 & 5 & 7.9282 & 7.9282 & 7.9282 & 31/3 & 6.4272 & 6.4272 & 6.4272 & 5.1819 & 6.4272 & 6.4272 & 6.4272 & 5.0000 \\
27 & 5 & 6.9547 & 6.9547 & 6.9588 & 31/3 & 6.4272 & 6.6569 & 6.6569 & 5.1808 & 6.4272 & 6.6569 & 6.6569 & 5.0000 \\
28 & 6 & 9.9098 & 9.9098 & 9.9098 & 14 & 9.3137 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 6.2123 & 9.3137 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 6.0000 \\
29 & 6 & 9.3137 & 9.3137 & 9.3137 & 14 & 9.3137 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 6.1624 & 9.3137 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 6.0000 \\
30 & 6 & 9.3137 & 9.3137 & 9.3137 & 14 & 9.3137 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 6.1723 & 9.3137 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 6.0000 \\
31 & 6 & 7.8043 & 7.8043 & 7.9226 & 12 & 7.6569 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 6.1866 & 7.6569 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 6.0000\\
32 & 6 & 8.1516 & 8.1516 & 8.1754 & 12 & 7.6569 & 7.6569 & 7.4272 & 6.2086 & 7.6569 & 7.6569 & 7.4272 & 6.0000\\
33 & 6 & 9.7899 & 9.7899 & 9.7899 & 12 & 7.6569 & 7.6569 & 7.6569 & 6.3217 & 7.6569 & 7.6569 & 7.6569 & 6.0000\\
34 & 6 & 8.2515 & 8.2515 & 8.2723 & 12 & 7.6569 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 6.2444 & 7.6569 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 6.0000\\
35 & 6 & 7.8553 & 7.8553 & 8.0776 & 12 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 6.1794 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 6.0000\\
36 & 6 & 9.4614 & 9.4614 & 9.4614 & 14 & 9.3137 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 6.1904 & 9.3137 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 6.0000 \\
37 & 6 & 9.3137 & 9.3137 & 9.3137 & 14 & 9.3137 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 6.1817 & 9.3137 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 6.0000 \\
38 & 6 & 9.3137 & 9.3137 & 9.3137 & 14 & 9.3137 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 6.1627 & 9.3137 & 7.4272 & 7.4272 & 6.0000\\
39 & 6 & 9.3253 & 9.3253 & 9.3253 & 12 & 7.6569 & 7.6569 & 7.6569 & 6.4378 & 7.6569 & 7.6569 & 7.6569 & 6.0000\\
40 & 6 & 8.1298 & 8.1298 & 8.1458 & 12 & 7.4272 & 7.6569 & 7.4272 & 6.2677 & 7.4272 & 7.6569 & 7.4272 & 6.0000\\
41 & 7 & 10.3677 & 10.3735 & 10.3769 & 15 & 10.3137 & 10.3137 & 8.4272 & 7.2012 & 10.3137 & 10.3137 & 8.4272 & 7.0000\\
42 & 8 & 13.0470 & 13.0470 & 13.0470 & 16 & 10.9852 & 10.9852 & 11.3137 & 8.2933 & 10.9852 & 10.9852 & 11.3137 & 8.0000\\
43 & 8 & 11.3137 & 11.3137 & 11.3137 & 16 & 10.9852 & 9.4272 & 11.3137 & 8.2481 & 10.9852 & 9.4272 & 11.3137 & 8.0000\\
44 & 8 & 12.9706 & 12.9706 & 12.9706 & 20 & 12.9706 & 9.3693 & 9.3693 & 8.2812 & 12.9706 & 9.3693 & 9.3693 & 8.0000 \\
45 & 8 & 12.9706 & 12.9706 & 12.9706 & 20 & 12.9706 & 9.3693 & 9.3693 & 8.2675 & 12.9706 & 9.3693 & 9.3693 & 8.0000 \\
46 & 10 & 12.9852 & 12.9852 & 13.2668 & 62/3 & 12.8543 & 12.8543 & 12.9852 & 10.4006 & 12.8543 & 12.8543 & 12.9852 & 10.0000\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Maximal value (violation) of the Bell polynomials (inequalities) presented in Ref.~\cite{sliwa} for various sets of correlations. From the second column to the sixth column, we have, respectively, the maximal value attainable by correlations from the local set $\L$, the quantum set $\mathcal{Q}$, the almost quantum set $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}$, the 2nd level of the NPA relaxations $\mathcal{Q}_2$ and the no-signalling set $\mathcal{NS}$. The next four columns show the maximal value attainable by {subsets of} almost quantum correlations that arise from a moment matrix {having} positive partial transposition~\cite{Peres:PPT} (PPT) with respect to certain bipartition (for example, $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}^{\tiny T_A}_1$ means that the corresponding moment matrix $\chi_1$ is further subjected to the PPT constraint $\chi_1^{\tiny T_A}\succeq 0$, while $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_1^{\tiny T_{all}}$ means that the PPT condition is imposed for all bipartitions concurrently). The {last} four columns show the maximal value attainable by correlations described by a higher-level refinement of $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}$ (specifically, local level six as described in Ref.~\cite{Moroder:PRL:2013}) when subjected to further PPT constraints as described above (see text in Sec.~\ref{Sec:Refine} for more details). We see that two out of the 46 inequalities (n$^o$ 23 and 41) display a gap between the maximal violation from $\mathcal{Q}$ and $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}$, hence witnessing the post-quantumness of the latter set. Note that from the relations among the violations we can recognise that Mermin inequality~\cite{mermin} belongs to family n$^o$ 2, the party-lifting~\cite{lifting} of the CHSH inequality {---whose maximal quantum violation inherits directly from that of the CHSH inequality---} belongs to family n$^o$ 4 , and the GYNI~\cite{gyni} belongs to n$^o$ 10. Entries marked with $^*$ represent bounds which are not known to be saturated by any three-qubit states featuring the same kind of positive partial transposition.} \label{Bounds322}
\end{table*}
\section{Almost quantum and the NPA hierarchy}
\label{Sec:NPA}
Characterisation of the set of quantum correlations $\mathcal{Q}$ is a notoriously difficult problem. A first systematic approach to this problem was introduced by {NPA} \cite{npa} where they provided an algorithmic characterisation of $\mathcal{Q}$ via a hierarchy $\mathcal{Q}_1 \supseteq \mathcal{Q}_2 \supseteq \ldots \supset \mathcal{Q}_k$ of (postquantum) subsets to $\mathcal{NS}$ which converges to $\mathcal{Q}$ in the asymptotic limit of $k \rightarrow \infty$ (see also Ref.~\cite{Doherty:qmp}). Algorithmically, each set $\mathcal{Q}_k$ (for positive integer $k$) is characterised by the set of feasible solutions to an SDP (see Appendix~\ref{App:NPA} for details), which demands that a {Hermitian} matrix $\Gamma_k$---whose entries being {\em all} the {moments} (expectation values) up to order $2k$---can have only non-negative eigenvalues. Importantly, some of these moments {correspond precisely to} those joint conditional probabilities $p(abc|xyz)$ between measurement outcomes that can be estimated directly from a Bell-type experiment. For instance, in an $n$-partite Bell scenario, each joint conditional probability given in $\vec{p}$ is a moment of order $n$. If $\vec{p}\in\mathcal{Q}$, then as mentioned in Sec.~\ref{Sec:Local}, $\vec{p}$ {[as well as other (higher-order) moments]} can be accountable for through Born's rule, thereby resulting in a moment matrix that has only non-negative eigenvalues~\cite{npa} {(see also Appendix~\ref{App:NPA})}.
{In general, however, the non-negativity of a moment matrix $\Gamma_k$ is not sufficient to guarantee that $\vec{p}$ has a quantum origin. In other words, for {\em any} given $k$, all given $\vec{p}$ where the corresponding $\Gamma_k$ (which contains $\vec{p}$ as entries) can be made non-negative form a superset of $\mathcal{Q}$, which is precisely the NPA set $\mathcal{Q}_k$.}
In particular, since the moment matrix $\Gamma_{k+1}$ associated with the characterisation of $\mathcal{Q}_{k+1}$ contains the moment matrix $\Gamma_k$ associated with the characterisation of $\mathcal{Q}_{k}$ as a submatrix, it thus follows that $\mathcal{Q}_{k+1}\subseteq\mathcal{Q}_k$ for all positive integer $k$.
Instead of the definition given in Sec.~\ref{Sec:Local} via permutations, the almost quantum set $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}$ can equivalently be defined~\cite{aq} as the set of $\vec{p}$ that can be characterised using an analogous SDP involving a moment matrix of appropriate size. In fact, it turns out~\cite{miguel} that this SDP characterization of $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}$ is precisely the {\em lowest level} superset characterisation of $\mathcal{Q}$ introduced by Moroder {\em et al.}~\cite{Moroder:PRL:2013}. In the bipartite case, it is thus known~\cite{npa,aq} that\footnote{The set $\mathcal{Q}_{1+AB}$ is an intermediate level in the NPA hierarchy, whose moment matrix $\Gamma_{1+AB}$ {has rows and columns labelled} by words which involve single party operators as well as all the two party ones (see Appendix \ref{App:AQ}).} $\mathcal{Q}_1 \supset \widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}=\mathcal{Q}_{1+AB} \supset \mathcal{Q}_2$, and more generally in the $n$-partite case, we must have $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}\supseteq \mathcal{Q}_n$. What about the relationship between $\mathcal{Q}_{n-1}$ and $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}$? Does the strict inclusion that holds in the bipartite ($n=2$) case also generalise to the situation when $n>2$?
To answer this question, let us now focus our attention on the fourth and fifth columns of Table~\ref{Bounds322}, which shows the maximum violation of {the 46 facet} Bell inequalities presented in Ref.~\cite{sliwa}, respectively, for $\vec{p}\in\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}$ and $\vec{p}\in\mathcal{Q}_2$.
We see that for some of these non-trivial tripartite Bell inequalities, there exists correlations $\vec{p}$ in $\mathcal{Q}_2$ that are more nonlocal (in the sense of giving a stronger Bell violation) than those restricted to the almost quantum set. From here, we can thus conclude that $\mathcal{Q}_2\not\subseteq\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}$ in this tripartite Bell scenario. Could it then be that $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}\subset\mathcal{Q}_2$? Inspired by the construction given in Ref.~\cite{aq}, we found that the following tripartite Bell inequality answers this in the negative:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i\in{A,B,C}} \left[\tfrac{30}{31}p_i (0|0) -\tfrac{167}{9} p_i(0|1)\right] - \sum_{ij\in\{AB,AC,BC\}} \tfrac{74}{11} p_{ij}(00|00) + \tfrac{174}{11} \left[p_{AB}(00|01) + p_{AB} (00|10)\right] + \tfrac{244}{23} p_{AB}(00|11) \stackrel{\L}{\leq} \tfrac{30}{31}\,.
\end{equation*}
\end{widetext}
Specifically, the set of tripartite almost quantum correlations $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}$ achieve a maximal violation of $1.0232$ for this Bell inequality, whereas correlations in $\mathcal{Q}_2$ only yields a maximum violation of $0.9724$. This implies that there exist tripartite almost quantum correlations that do not belong to $\mathcal{Q}_2$.
Our results then show that in this tripartite scenario, neither the almost-quantum set {contains} the second level of the NPA set nor the other way around, i.e., we have both $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}} \not\subseteq \mathcal{Q}_2$ and $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}} \not\supseteq \mathcal{Q}_2$. In other words, for general $n\ge 3$, the inclusion relation $\mathcal{Q}_{n-1}\supseteq\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}$ need not hold true.
\section{Refinements to the almost quantum set}
\label{Sec:Refine}
For any correlation that arises from local measurements on a quantum state $\rho$, it was noted~\cite{Moroder:PRL:2013} that when the expectation values $\{\expect{O_i^\dag O_j}_\rho\}$ are organized as entries of an NPA moment matrix, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:Gamma_k}
\Gamma_k=\sum_{i,j} \ket{i}\expect{O_i^\dag O_j}_\rho \bra{j}
\end{equation}
the corresponding $\Gamma_k$ (for any $k$) can be seen as the result of a global, completely positive map {$\Lambda$} acting on $\rho$, that is, $\Gamma_k=\Lambda(\rho)$.
Moreover, for $k=n\ell$ with $n$ being the number of parties and $\ell$ being a positive integer, a particular submatrix of $\Gamma_k$, which we denote by $\chi_\ell$ (see Appendix~\ref{App:AQ}), can even be seen as the result of a separable, completely positive map acting on the underlying state $\rho$, i.e., $\chi_\ell=\Lambda_1\otimes\Lambda_2\otimes\cdots\Lambda_n(\rho)$. See Ref.~\cite{Moroder:PRL:2013} for details.
For reasons that will become obvious below, let us denote by $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_\ell$ the set of $\vec{p}$ compatible with the constraint of $\chi_\ell\succeq 0$, the positivity of the NPA moment {\em submatrix} as mentioned above {(see Appendix~\ref{App:AQ} for details)}. As with the original NPA hierarchy of moment matrices, the series of structured moment matrices {$\chi_1,\chi_2,\ldots,\chi_\ell$ also give rise to a hierarchy of superset $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_1,\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_2,\ldots,\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_\ell$ characterization} of $\mathcal{Q}$ which asymptotically converges~\cite{Moroder:PRL:2013} to $\mathcal{Q}$ as $\ell\to\infty$. Similarly, let us denote by $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_\ell^\text{\tiny $T_i$}$ the set of correlations compatible with both the constraints of $\chi_\ell\succeq 0$ and $\chi_\ell^\text{\tiny $T_i$}\succeq0$, where {$(.)^{\tiny T_i}$} denotes partial transposition~\cite{Peres:PPT} with respect to party $i$. As was shown in Ref.~\cite{Moroder:PRL:2013}, as $\ell\to\infty$, the series of $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_\ell^\text{\tiny $T_i$}$ converge to $\mathcal{Q}^\text{\tiny $T_i$}\subset\mathcal{Q}$, i.e., the set of quantum correlations arising from a density matrix $\rho$ that has the property of $\rho^\text{\tiny $T_i$}\succeq 0$.
Incidentally, $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_1$ as explained above is exactly~\cite{miguel} the equivalent formulation of the almost quantum set that we have alluded to in Sec.~\ref{Sec:NPA} (see also Ref.~\cite{aq}), i.e., $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}=\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_1$. All the higher level relaxations of $\mathcal{Q}$ discussed in Ref.~\cite{Moroder:PRL:2013} can thus be seen as some kind of refinements to the almost quantum set. Let us denote this by {$\P=\{A,B,C\}$.} Then, one can similarly see $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_1^\text{\tiny $T_i$}$ for different bipartitions of {$\P$} into disjoint subsets $\mathcal{A}$ and {$\P\setminus\mathcal{A}$} as different refinements of the almost quantum set which allows only a ``PPT" resource between the group of parties in $\mathcal{A}$ and those in ${\P}\setminus\mathcal{A}$. {In the rest of this paper, we thus posit that $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_1^\text{\tiny $T_i$}$ is the subset of $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}$ where only a separable resource with respect to the bipartition of party $i$ vs $\P\setminus\{i\}$ is available.}
In Table~\ref{Bounds322}, we have included in the seventh to the ninth columns the maximal value of all the inequalities given in Ref.~\cite{sliwa} when only such weaker resources from the almost quantum {set, i.e., $\vec{p}\in\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_1^\text{\tiny $T_i$}$ are allowed}. {To facilitate comparison, we have included in columns 11--13 of Table~\ref{Bounds322}, respectively, the maximal value of each inequality attainable by $\vec{p}\in\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_6^\text{\tiny $T_i$}$ for $i\in\{A,B,C\}$.\footnote{Note that at this level of the hierarchy, one already needs to deal with a moment matrix of size $2197\times 2197$, which involves 8192 distinct moments.} Evidently, these values illustrate how these higher-level refinements of the almost quantum set differ from $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}$ when only these weaker forms of ``biseparable" resources are allowed. It is worth noting that apart from a few exceptional cases (which we marked with an asterisk $^*$ in the table), all these bounds are saturated (within the numerical precision of the solver) by some biseparable three-qubit states\footnote{{The recent work of Ref.~\cite{Adan16} independently came to this conclusion that the maximal quantum violation of many of these Bell inequalities can already be attained using a biseparable three-qubit state.}}. }
Interestingly, among those nontrivial inequalities, the maximal value attainable by the almost quantum set $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}$ {(column four, Table~\ref{Bounds322})} for 19 of these inequalities\footnote{These concern inequalities 3, 4, 6, 9-14, 17, 20, 29, 30, 37, 38, 43-46.} can already be attained (within {the numerical precision of the solver}) by $\vec{p}\in\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_1^\text{\tiny $T_i$}$ for some {$i\in\P$ (columns seven to nine, Table~\ref{Bounds322}). Moreover,} the same applies to the maximal quantum value {(column three, Table~\ref{Bounds322})} of these inequalities and what can be achieved assuming only quantum resources that are {biseparable (columns eleven to thirteen, Table~\ref{Bounds322})} with respect to the same bipartition. {Intriguingly,} for inequality 23, the maximal almost-quantum value when assuming such weaker resource across the bipartition of $A|BC$ {is even} closer to the maximal quantum value than to the maximal almost-quantum value.
{Apart from fundamental interests, the fact that the bounds presented in the last four columns can be (mostly) saturated by biseparable quantum states also has pragmatic implications. In particular, for} all those Bell inequalities where there is a gap between its maximal quantum violation (column three) and the maximum value of $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_6^\text{\tiny $T_i$}$ (columns eleven to thirteen), we can possibly use the extent to which the inequality is violated to conclude directly from the measurement statistics (i.e., in a device-independent~\cite{RMP} manner) the presence of a genuine {tripartite} entangled state. For example, with the appropriate bound in place, the quantum violation of inequality 7~\cite{DIWED} can be used as a device-independent witness for genuine tripartite entanglement~\cite{DIEW}:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{x,y,z=0}^1E(xyz)-4E(111) \stackrel{\text{\tiny 2-prod.}}{\leq} 4\sqrt{2}\,,
\end{equation}
where the superscript ``2-prod." here means that the bound holds for {\em any} 2-producible~\cite{k-prod} quantum states (or equivalently, tripartite but biseparable quantum states). Note also that in some cases, such as for inequality 20, quantum violation of the distinct biseparable bounds (for the different bipartitions) can even be used to certify the presence of entanglement across {\em particular} bipartition(s).
Finally, let us focus on the tenth column and the fourteenth column of Table~\ref{Bounds322} which list, respectively, the maximal value of $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_1$ and $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_6$ when we assume the weakest form of {``biseparable"} resource, namely, one that has a moment matrix that is {concurrently PPT across all three bipartitions}. Clearly, in the case of $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_6$, we see that apart from inequality 5 and inequality 12, no quantum violation is possible when only these weakest forms of resources are available.\footnote{Note that $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}}_6\supseteq\mathcal{Q}$. Thus if an inequality cannot be violated by (fully) biseparable higher-level almost-quantum correlation, it also cannot be violated by (fully) biseparable quantum correlation.} In stark contrast, the almost quantum correlation can still violate 32 out of the 45 nontrivial Bell inequalities even if only such weakest form of resources are available. In the quantum setting, the violation of a Bell inequality due to such resources has been used to construct a counterexample~\cite{Vertesi} to the tripartite Peres conjecture~\cite{PeresConj}. If one can give an analogous interpretation of such a violation in the almost-quantum setting, then it would suggest that an undistillable but nonlocal almost-quantum resource in the tripartite setting is considerably more common than it is in the quantum setting.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{Sec:Conclusion}
In this work we explored properties of the set of almost quantum correlations and their refinements in the simplest tripartite Bell scenario, namely one with two dichotomic measurements per party. First we computed the maximum violations of all the facet Bell inequalities that define the set of classical correlations in this scenario, respectively, by the set of almost quantum correlations and by the set of quantum correlations themselves. We found that the difference between these two sets may indeed be witnessed by their violation of these Bell inequalities. This is in strong contrast with its bipartite counterpart, where all values of the CHSH Bell inequality achievable by almost quantum correlations have a corresponding quantum realisation. Our findings highlight how complex and rich multipartite Bell scenarios are, even in their simplest form.
Then, we asked how the set of almost quantum correlations compares to other sets that include postquantum correlations. In particular, we focused on the NPA hierarchy for {this tripartite scenario}, where it is already known that $\mathcal{Q}_1 \supseteq \widetilde{\mathcal{Q}} \supseteq \mathcal{Q}_3$. In this work we proved that there is no such inclusion relation between the second level of NPA ($\mathcal{Q}_2$) and the almost quantum correlations, that is, we showed that neither $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}} \subseteq \mathcal{Q}_2$ nor $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}} \supseteq \mathcal{Q}_2$. More generally, this implies that in an $n$-partite scenario where $n>2$, neither $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}} \subseteq \mathcal{Q}_{n-1}$ nor $\widetilde{\mathcal{Q}} \supseteq \mathcal{Q}_{n-1}$.
Finally, we investigated refinements of the almost quantum sets as characterised by the hierarchies of semidefinite programs proposed in Ref.~\cite{Moroder:PRL:2013}. In particular, by positing that a ``biseparable" almost-quantum resource is captured through the additional requirement of positive partial transposition~\cite{Peres:PPT} on the corresponding moment matrices, we could pinpoint some subtle similarities and differences between the quantum set and the almost quantum set of correlations. For example, a significant fraction of these facet Bell inequalities can already be violated maximally for both sets of correlations using a biseparable resource. However, if we demand that the resource is simultaneously biseparable with respect to all bipartitions, then quantum correlations apparently can no longer violate most (but 2) of these inequalities, while the almost quantum correlations can still often provide an advantage over classical resources. Of course, in the light of the frameworks discussed in Refs.~\cite{DIEW,DIWED,Flo}, the bounds that we have computed are also useful as device-independent~\cite{RMP} witnesses for nontrivial properties of the underlying quantum systems.
Our results also open the door to several open questions. {For example, it} would be interesting to find an interpretation as a game or a physical principle of those tight Bell inequalities that witness almost quantum correlations beyond quantum theory. We believe this will shed light on the problem of characterising quantum correlations from basic principles. Finally, it would be interesting to explore protocols to check violations of IC via these postquantum almost quantum correlations.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank Jean-Daniel Bancal, Ad\'an Cabello, Matty Hoban, Miguel Navascu\'es, Paul Skrzypczyk, Sandu Popescu, {Elie Wolfe for fruitful discussions, and Denis Rosset for spotting a typo in en earlier version of Table~\ref{Bounds322}.} We are particularly grateful to Zhen-Peng Xu for bringing to our attention issues in an earlier version of this manuscript. {ABS thanks Jean-Daniel Bancal for sharing his codes that facilitate the computation of some of the SDP bounds presented and} acknowledges financial support from ERC AdG NLST and Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Research at Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science. YCL acknowledges financial support by the Ministry of Education, Taiwan, R.O.C., through ``Aiming for the Top University Project" granted to the National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (Grant No.104-2112-M-006-021-MY3).
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
I have been asked to write an appreciation of Guido Altarelli's role
in the evolution of QCD. By evolution, I mean not only the evolution of
the parton distributions, for which Guido is justly famous, but also
the evolution in our ability to calculate with the QCD Lagrangian.
In the Autumn of 1972 I arrived in Rome as a
second-year graduate student, having been granted leave of absence
from the University of Oxford where I was enrolled in the Theoretical
Physics Department. My motivations for leaving Oxford were not
entirely scientific, (see~\cite{Peierls}), but Rome La Sapienza turned
out to be a wonderful department, with an astonishing array of
talent. As well as Guido Altarelli, there were Franco Buccella, Nicola
Cabibbo, Raoul Gatto, Giorgio Parisi, Giuliano Preparata, and Massimo
Testa and fellow students Roberto Petronzio and later Guido
Martinelli. The nearby institutions hosted Sergio Ferrara, Etim Etim,
Mario Greco, Luciano Maiani, Giulia Panchieri and Bruno Touschek.
As always in Italy, the organisational details were a little fuzzy and
real progress was only to be made by exploiting personal relationships. I
was formally assigned to study with Raoul Gatto, but the only office
available for me was the office of Giuliano Preparata in a small
corridor next to the office of Guido. I spent much of the first year
in Italy, learning Italian and adapting to the new way of life. I had
tried to work on a topic offered by Giuliano Preparata, but made
little progress and when Giuliano left to take up a position at CERN,
I started to work on a project suggested by Guido and Luciano
Maiani. Thus began a 12-year collaboration with Guido. He was my
mentor, collaborator and friend. After I moved to Fermilab in 1984, we
remained close friends until his untimely demise in 2015, although we
never collaborated again.
This intense period of our
relationship corresponded with the establishment of QCD, initiated by
the discovery of asymptotic freedom. How QCD evolved from a
Lagrangian with the property of asymptotic freedom to a sophisticated
tool for the calculation of high-energy processes is the subject of
this note. I would like to identify five periods of great change
punctuating the evolution of the theory of the strong interactions,
called Quantum Chromodynamics.
\begin{itemize}
\item 1970-1972, the pre-QCD years.
\item 1973-1974, the discovery of asymptotic freedom and the first applications.
\item 1976-1977, the Altarelli-Parisi equation, the demise of the $k_T$-cutoff, factorization
and infra-red safety.
\item 1979, the Drell-Yan mechanism and the beginning of QCD corrections to hadronic processes,
and factorization beyond the leading logs.
\item 1983-1984, the discovery of the $W$ and the $Z$ and the conclusion of the S$p \bar{p}$S era.
\end{itemize}
Guido himself has written his own perspective on these
years~\cite{Altarelli:2011zv}. Like that document, this note is not a
professional history, but rather a sketch of these years as I remember
them.
\section{Pre-QCD.}
The years 1973-1974 were watershed years for particle physics. Prior
to 1973 there were models of strong interactions, but no real
candidate theory. Although approximate scaling was established in
deep inelastic scattering, the explanations for it were somewhat
baroque. One explanation was that the commutator of the
electromagnetic currents comported itself as a free field theory on
the light cone, but somehow conspired to be strongly interacting off
the light cone. Another explanation was the parton
model~\cite{Feynman:1969ej,Bjorken:1969ja}, which required an
{\it ad hoc} cutoff on the transverse momentum of the partons to explain the
scaling behaviour. The state of the theory was nicely summarized in
the book of Feynman~\cite{Feynman:1973xc}, written as a reaction to
the data presented at the Cornell conference~\cite{Cornell}.
Guido spent 1968-1969 at NYU and academic year 1969-1970 as a
Fulbright fellow at Rockefeller University. Early in the spring of
1970, the group of Leon Lederman presented preliminary results on the
production of muon pairs at the meeting of the American Physical
Society. Two months later Drell and Yan produced their
paper~\cite{Drell:1970wh} proposing the quark antiquark annihilation
mechanism.
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d \sigma}{dQ^2} &=&\frac{4 \pi \alpha^2}{3 Q^2} \frac{1}{Q^2} {\cal F}(\tau) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{4 \pi \alpha^2}{3 Q^2} \frac{1}{Q^2}
\int_0^1 dx_1 \int_0^1 dx_2 \delta(x_1 x_1 - \tau) \sum_{a} \lambda_a^{-2} F_{2a}(x_1)F^\prime_{2 \bar{a}}(x_2)
\end{eqnarray}
$F_{2a}$ are (the components of $a$-type quarks and anti-quarks in)
the deep inelastic structure functions, and $\lambda_a$ is the charge of the parton of type $a$.
In a modern formulation there would be an additional
factor of $1/3$, due to the fact that e.~g. a red quark can only annihilate with an anti-red quark,
The final data of the Lederman group~\cite{Christenson:1970um},
published in September 1970, showed a rapidly falling continuum spectrum in
the mass $Q$ of the muon pairs with a shoulder in the region $Q
\approx 3-4$~GeV. With the benefit of hindsight the shoulder can be
ascribed to the $J/\psi$ and $\psi^\prime$ observed at low mass resolution.
Altarelli, Brandt and Preparata (ABP) followed the results
of Lederman's group closely, (perhaps too closely) and
in September 1970 published a paper,
based on a quark model with a scattering cross section having Regge-like
properties which produced a shoulder in the region of $3$~GeV.
The model of ABP predicted non-scaling behaviour,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d \sigma}{dQ^2} \sim \Big[\frac{1}{Q^2} F_1(\tau) +F_2(\tau)\Big]
\end{equation}
Although, ultimately the model of Drell and Yan gave the correct description,
the familiarity with the muon-pair production process would prove to be important
for future research.
\section{Asymptotic freedom.}
The years 1973-1974 were years of great change for both theoretical
and experimental particle physics. The papers indicating that
non-Abelian gauge theories were asymptotically free were published in
June 1973 by Politzer~\cite{Politzer:1973fx} and by Gross and
Wilczek~\cite{Gross:1973id}. 1974 started with the
prediction that charmed quarks should have masses less than
$5$~GeV~\cite{Gaillard:1974hs}, based on the cancellations inherent in
the GIM mechanism~\cite{Glashow:1970gm}. Subsequently, in November
1974, the $J/\psi$ was
discovered~\cite{Aubert:1974js,Augustin:1974xw}. The ADONE accelerator
at Frascati was able to raise the energy to 3.1GeV to produce the
$J/\psi$~\cite{Bacci:1974za}, and private communications with the
experimenters indicated an observed forward backward asymmetry in the
muon pairs produced on resonance. This apparent asymmetry gave rise
to two papers from the Rome group, the first~\cite{Altarelli:1974wm},
interesting but incorrect, claiming the particle discovered was the
$Z$-boson,
the second~\cite{Altarelli:1975za}, (presumably) correct,
but by the time it appeared uninteresting (because the large asymmetry had gone away),
calculating the forward-backward asymmetry in the presence of a vector
resonance.
In January of 1975, Guido and other members of the Rome group returned to consider the
Drell-Yan process, with an explicit model of the parton
distributions~\cite{Altarelli:1975qw}, this time taking into account
the production of the $J/\psi$.
\subsection{The first applications}
The acceptance of QCD as the correct theory of the strong interactions was slow.
For a time many papers (including ours)
began with tentative phrases, such as {\it The gauge theory of colored quarks
and gluons (QCD) is at present the best candidate for a theory of
the strong interactions}~\cite{Altarelli:1977kt}. Many influential
people felt that when a correct theory was found, it should instantly
make sense out of a disparate range of experimental data. Thus, as
late as 1976--1977, Feynman and Field, proposed their black box model
to explain inclusive scattering data~\cite{Field:1976ve}. This
despite the fact that reliable lowest order cross sections for
parton-parton scattering became available in
1977~\cite{Combridge:1977dm}. The energies were not high enough for
the $1/p_T^4$-behaviour characteristic of Rutherford-like scattering
to reveal itself.
In addition to the insufficient energy, the other reasons for this
theoretical hesitation are not hard to understand, and were presented
by Guido in his write-up of the 1983 session of the Moriond
conference. {\it `Although QCD essentially imposes itself as the only
theory of the strong interactions within reach of the weapon arsenal
of conventional quantum field theory, yet QCD is still the less
established sector of the standard model. Testing QCD is in fact
more difficult than testing the electroweak sector. In the latter
domain perturbation theory can always be applied. Also the leptons
and the weak gauge bosons are at the same time the fields in the
lagrangian and the particles in our detectors. Instead QCD is a
theory of quarks and gluons while only hadrons are
observable. Moreover perturbation theory can only be applied in
those particular domains of the strong interaction where approximate
freedom, which is only asymptotic, can be
reached'}~\cite{Altarelli:1984fq}.
But the excitement of having a candidate theory of the strong interactions
was lost on no-one. The first applications were limited to
processes governed by the operator product expansion. In addition to
deep inelastic scattering, which was treated shortly after the discovery of asymptotic
freedom by the protagonists themselves~\cite{DeRujula:1974rv,Gross:1974cs},
Ken Wilson had
suggested~\cite{Wilson:1970ag} that the $\Delta I =1/2$ rule might be
explained by strong interaction effects, but now one had a theory with
which one could calculate. The challenge was taken up by Altarelli
and Maiani~\cite{Altarelli:1974exa} in Italy and and Gaillard and
Lee~\cite{Gaillard:1974nj} in the United States. It was found that
in the standard model, the strong interactions
did indeed give an enhancement of about $4-6$ in amplitude, too small
to explain the whole observed amplitude enhancement of 20.
My thesis project
was to calculate whether there was a similar pattern of enhancement in
parity violating processes in nuclei which proceed via the weak
interaction~\cite{Altarelli:1974ni}. However at this point the real challenge was to
find a way of going beyond the operator product expansion.
\section{The Altarelli-Parisi equation}
The precursors of the paper on the Altarelli-Parisi equation were
presented at two back-to-back winter conferences at Flaine in the
French Alps in 1976 by Altarelli~\cite{Altarelli:1976dp} and by
Parisi~\cite{Parisi:1976qj}. The first paper deals with the
translation of deep inelastic data, especially neutrino data, from the
language of the operator product expansion into scale dependent parton
distributions. The second paper contains an early form of the AP
equation; versions of the splitting functions are presented, but
some of the details are wrong. I am acknowledged in the paper by
Parisi, but only because I helped to correct the English.
In September 1976, frustrated with the progress of his career in Rome,
Guido went on sabbatical to ENS in Paris. As luck would have it
Giorgio Parisi was also visiting Paris. The paper on the evolution of
the parton distributions was written there. The Altarelli-Parisi
(DGLAP) equation~\cite{Altarelli:1977zs,Dokshitzer:1977sg} changed the
way that we thought about deep inelastic scattering. It made it quite
clear that the scale dependence of the parton distributions was
processs independent. In the paper the splitting functions were
calculated from the branching probabilities, without reference to any
particular hard scattering process. This simple branching picture
only holds in a physical gauge in which only the transverse degrees of
freedom of the gluon field propagate. The splitting functions were
calculated in old-fashioned perturbation theory, in which manifest
Lorentz invariance is lost, but unitarity is simpler. Importantly, the
calculation thrust the attention back on the Feynman diagrams, rather
than the operator product expansion, the proofs of which were not
widely understood. Before the publication of their paper there was
little understanding of the diagrams resummed by the renormalization
group in the operator product treatment of deep inelastic scattering.
Guido worked on the manuscript of the paper~\cite{Altarelli:1977zs}
through the winter of 1976-1977, and I passed through Paris and was
shown a copy of the manuscript. He was concerned that the paper would
not be accepted for publication, because although the paper introduced
a new language for the unpolarized structure functions, the results
were simply the inverse Mellin transform of results previously
obtained by Christ, Hasslacher and Mueller~\cite{Christ:1972ms} for
the Abelian case, and Gross and Wilczek~\cite{Gross:1974cs} and Georgi
and Politzer~\cite{Georgi:1951sr} for the non-Abelian case. To be
sure it was an inverse Mellin transform that required the introduction
of a new quantity, the plus distribution, similar in spirit to the
delta function of Dirac, but neverthless it was just an inverse Mellin
transform. To forestall any possible objection by a referee,
calculations of the polarized splitting functions, which had recently
been calculated by others~\cite{Ahmed:1976ye,Sasaki:1975hk} were included.
The treatment of Altarelli and Parisi raises the question of how QCD
and the parton model could be reconciled for the Drell-Yan process.
In the summer of 1977 Politzer wrote his first paper on
factorization~\cite{Politzer:1977fi} in hard processes treating the
specific case of muon-pair production.
\section{Drell Yan and the $K$-factor.}
The first order of business was to determine whether the transverse
momentum of the muon pairs, was limited as predicted by the naive
parton model, or whether it grew with $Q^2$ at fixed $Q/\sqrt{S}$ as
required by QCD. The issue was clouded by the fact that an experiment
running at fixed $\sqrt{S}$, could not directly investigate this scaling.
Detailed calculations~\cite{Altarelli:1977kt,Altarelli:1978pn} showed
that the average value of the transverse momentum was expected to be
approximately constant at fixed $\sqrt{S}$ and increasing $Q$,
as the perturbative growth with $Q$ was balanced
against the fall-off of the structure functions.
The next challenge was to calculate higher order corrections to the
Drell-Yan process. From an operational point of view, parton
distributions measured in leptoproduction were used to predict cross
sections for muon pair production. In our
theoretical approach~\cite{Altarelli:1978id} we followed a similar logic,
finessing the issue of how much was factorized into the parton distribution by
comparing the perturbative results for deep inelastic and Drell-Yan.
Thus parton distributions were defined beyond the leading order in terms
of the radiatively corrected deep inelastic structure function $F_2$.
As a consequence of the Adler sum rule, which has no perturbative corrections,
this choice had the nice feature that the number of valence quarks in the
proton remains fixed at all orders in QCD perturbation theory.
To perform these calculations a regulator is required to control the
divergences associated with soft and collinear parton emission. In our
first paper this was achieved by taking the quarks slightly off their
mass shell. This was doable, but quite cumbersome. The second
paper~\cite{Altarelli:1979ub} regulated the singularities using
dimensional regularization, which was much more efficient. This is now
a textbook calculation, and established the method used to calculate
all higher radiative corrections to hard processes in QCD. The
corrections to the Drell-Yan turn out to be large at the values of $Q$
which were probed at that time. In fact they were so large that one might doubt the
validity of perturbation theory. The data~\cite{Badier:1979jd} also
showed an excess over the tree level prediction of the Drell-Yan
model by a factor of about two. This was dubbed the $K$-factor by Guido~\cite{Altarelli:1979zh}.
Particularly significant was the data with antiproton beams,
which in the Drell-Yan picture proceeded via the annihilation of two valence quarks.
The occurrence of the same $K$-factor in this case
showed that ignorance of the true size of the sea quark
distributions, could not be responsible for the effect.
In 1979 I moved from MIT to Caltech. On arrival I was pleased to
discover that Feynman and Field were repeating the calculations that
we had done and published~\cite{Altarelli:1979ub,Altarelli:1979kv}
the previous year. The fact that Feynman
felt that our calculations were important enough to repeat was a big
psychological boost for me; Guido's leadership had placed us in the
major league.
\section{S$p\bar{p}$S collider: the discovery of the $W$ and $Z$.}
The S$p\bar{p}$S collider was an opportunistic project to exploit quark antiquark annihilation,
with the explicit goal of discovering the $W$ and the $Z$.
Given our history with the Drell-Yan process we were perfectly poised to
exploit the physics of the S$p\bar{p}$S collider, which in the main was the physics of
quark-antiquark annihilation.
To be sure, we were able to write authoritative
papers on the total cross section for $W$ and $Z$ production, but also for the
the $p_T$ and rapidity distributions for the produced bosons~\cite{Altarelli:1984pt,Altarelli:1984kp}.
Our theoretical prediction for the $p_T$ distribution of the $W$-bosons
is quoted in the Nobel lecture of Carlo Rubbia~\cite{Fraengsmyr:1993ii}.
As an historical aside, I note that the discovery
of the $W$ and $Z$ caused consternation in America,
since the bold strategy of building the S$p \bar{p}$S at CERN initiated the transfer
of the leadership in experimental high energy physics to Europe.
This loss of primacy was especially bitter at Fermilab
since the proton anti-proton machine had been originally
proposed for the Fermilab main ring~\cite{Cline:1976cp}.
Although it might be a {\it post-facto} rationalization,
the experiment would probably not have worked at Fermilab.
``The vacuum system was terrible, so beam lifetime (number of
antiprotons) and, worse, luminosity lifetime (beam size due to
multiple scattering) would have been very poor. At injection (8 GeV)
the beam lifetimes were measured in seconds, which was made worse by poor
magnetic field at injection. As one accelerates those problems become
less severe, but the top energy was limited by the magnet design.
The Main Ring magnets could not be operated DC at more than, probably, 200
GeV because they would burn up''~\cite{Limon}.
After the great success of the S$p\bar{p}$S collider in discovering the
$W$ and $Z$ bosons and confirming the standard model,
there was a desire to exploit the machine to the utmost. Could it also give signatures
of physics beyond the standard model?
At the Bern Conference in 1984, Carlo Rubbia presented evidence for five events with greater than
40 GeV of missing energy~\cite{Arnison:1984qu}, and, in my recollection, declared the Standard Model to be dead.
The following year, directly after the presentation of Rubbia at the Saint-Vincent conference~\cite{Rubbia:1985ng},
Guido stated his opinion that a cocktail of standard model processes plus a few cracks
in the detector could explain the monojet events.
Our theoretical understanding of the $p_T$ distributions of produced $W,Z$ bosons, gave us
great confidence in the predicted rates for monojets coming from $Z$+jet events,
with the $Z$ decaying to neutrinos. As stated by Roy Schwitters in his conference summary~\cite{Schwitters:1985nb},
`The basic point is that by a combination of improbable but conventional processes
such as $Z^0$ + gluon where the $Z^0$ decays to neutrinos, single $W$ production followed by tau decay,
and measurement errors, one may be eventually able to explain all the mono-jets. At the workshop
this became known as the Altarelli cocktail.'
The Altarelli cocktail was the beginning of the end for beyond-the-standard-model
explanations of the monojet events.
\section{The man himself}
Guido was a masterful conference summarizer, managing to take stock of
all the important issues with great clarity. His presentations were
colourful and presented in an idiosyncratic English that left no doubt
about his Mediterranean origins. I remember him with his tall frame
leaning slightly toward his interlocutor, his long elegant hands
gesticulating to emphasize his point.
As Guido's student I was given various pieces of advice. One was to
cultivate `il senso del gioco', an understanding of the strategy of
the game, a concept taken from professional soccer. Throughout his
professional life Guido displayed a consummate understanding of the
game, a keen understanding of what was important, and what was not.
I may not have mastered `il senso del gioco' but I certainly learnt
from Guido's sense of fun, his wry sense of humour and his playful use
of the Italian language.
When my time as a post-doc in Rome came to an end, it was time to get
letters of reference. Nicola Cabibbo was the most famous person in the department
with whom I had been in contact. So I summoned up my courage and asked him for
a letter of recommendation. Nicola's answer was that if I wrote the letter of
recommendation, he would sign it! (Nicola was not a man to trouble himself
with things that did not interest him). I tried to draft such a letter, but found out
impossible. When informed of my dilemma, Guido's response was immediate and predictable,
`Write a letter which says that Keith Ellis is more talented than Nicola Cabibbo, and see if
he signs it.'
\section{In conclusion}
It has been one of the most rewarding periods of my professional life
to work with Guido Altarelli. With his leadership, we were able to
play our part in turning the fledgling theory of QCD into the sophisticated
calculational engine that it has become today. As a recapitulation of what was
achieved in those early years, I can do no better than quote Guido himself, and so here is
a sentence from his plenary talk~\cite{Altarelli:1985az} at the Bari
conference in 1985.
`{\it The beautiful ‘naive’ parton model of Bjorken, Feynman and
others has by now evolved into the ‘QCD improved’ parton model. This
powerful language has become such a familiar and widespread tool for
everyday practice in high energy physics that one is led to take all
its new successes as granted and in a way obvious.}'
\bibliographystyle{varenna} |
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Cluster randomised trials (CRTs), also known as group randomised trials, are increasingly being used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in health services research \cite{campbell2007developments, Donnerandklar2000}. The unit of randomisation for such trials are identifiable clusters of individuals such as medical practices, schools, or entire communities. However, individual-level outcomes of interest are observed within each cluster. One important feature of CRTs is that the outcomes of individuals within the same cluster are more likely to be similar to each other than those from different clusters, which is usually quantified by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC, denoted as $ \rho $). Although typically in primary care and health research the value of ICC is small ($ 0.001 <\rho<0.05 $) \cite{murray_blitstein2003}, it can lead to substantial variance inflation factors and should not be ignored \cite{Donnerandklar2000, murray1998}. This is because ignoring the dependence of the outcomes of individuals within the clusters will underestimate the variance of the intervention effect estimates and consequently give inflated Type I error rates \cite{Murray2004}. It is well known that the power and precision of CRTs are lower compared to trials that individually randomise the same number of units \cite{Donnerandklar2000}. However, in practice, CRTs have several advantages including that the nature of the intervention itself may dictate its application at the cluster level, less risk of intervention contamination and administrative convenience \cite{hayes2009}. These advantages are sometimes judged by researchers to outweigh the potential loss of statistical power and precision.
Missing data are a commonly occurring threat to the validity and efficiency of CRTs. In a systematic review of CRTs published in English in 2011, 72\% of trials had missing values either in outcomes or in covariates or in both, and only 34\% of them reported how missing data had been handled \cite{DiazOrdaz2014}. Dealing with missing data in CRTs is complicated because of the clustering of the data. In statistical analysis, if there are missing values, an assumption must be made about the relationship between the probability of data being missing and the underlying values of the variables involved in the analysis. The mechanisms which caused the data to be missing can be classified into three broad categories. Data are missing completely at random (MCAR) if the probability of missingness is independent of the observed and unobserved data. MCAR is generally a very restrictive assumption and is unlikely to hold in many studies. A more plausible assumption is missing at random (MAR) where, conditioning on the observed data, the probability of missingness is independent of the unobserved data. Missing not at random (MNAR) is the situation where the probability of missingness depends on both the observed and unobserved data. In CRTs, an assumption regarding missing outcomes that is sometimes plausible is that missingness depends on baseline covariates, but conditioning on these baseline covariates, not on the outcome itself. We refer to this as covariate dependent missingness (CDM). This is an example of MAR when baseline covariates are fully observed. In this paper, we will consider the case of a binary outcome which is partially observed, and assume that all baseline covariates are fully observed.
Two approaches for analysing CRTs are cluster-level analyses, which derive summary statistics for each cluster, and individual-level analyses, which use the data for each individual in each cluster \cite{hayes2009}. Complete records analysis (CRA) and multiple imputation (MI) (described in Section \ref{Methods_handling_missing_data}) are the most commonly used methods for handling missing data. A number of recent studies have investigated how to handle missing binary outcomes in CRTs under the assumption of CDM \cite{Ma2011, Ma2012comparing, Ma2013, Caille2014}. However, as we describe in detail in Section \ref{Methods_handling_missing_data}, these previous studies simulated datasets in ways which arguably do not correspond to how data arise in CRTs raising doubt about their conclusions.
In the case of missing outcome under MAR for individually randomised trials, Groenwold \textit{et al.} \cite{Groenwold2012} showed that CRA with covariate adjustment and MI give similar estimates as long as the same set of predictors of missingness are used. It can be anticipated that a similar result holds for CRTs. In the case of missing continuous outcomes in CRTs, Hossain \textit{et al.} \cite{Hossain2016} showed that there is no gain in terms of bias or efficiency of the estimates using MI over CRA adjusted for covariates, where both approaches used the same set of baseline covariates and modelling assumptions. Therefore in situations where they are equivalent, CRA is clearly preferable.
All of these previous studies \cite{Ma2011, Ma2012comparing, Ma2013, Caille2014} considered only individual-level analysis and estimated odds ratio (OR) as a measure of intervention effect. The risk difference (RD) or risk ratio (RR) may be of interest as measures of intervention effect, and have a number of advantages over OR \cite{Davies1998}. For example, they are arguably easier to understand, and they are `collapsible', i.e., the population marginal and conditional (on covariates or cluster effects or both) values are identical. Cluster-level analysis methods can be used to analyse CRTs where RD or RR is estimated as a measure of intervention effect \cite{hayes2009}, and these analyses can also incorporate adjustment for baseline covariates. These methods have the advantage of being simple to apply compared to the individual-level analysis methods. To date the performance of cluster-level analysis approaches with incompletely-observed binary outcomes has not been investigated.
The aim of this paper is two-fold. The first is to investigate the validity of estimating RD and RR as measures of intervention effect using unadjusted and adjusted cluster-level analysis methods when binary outcomes are missing under a CDM mechanism. The second is to investigate the validity of individual-level analysis approaches considering the limitations of previous studies \cite{Ma2011, Ma2012comparing, Ma2013, Caille2014}, which we describe in Section \ref{Methods_handling_missing_data}. CRA and MI are used to handle the missing outcomes.
This paper is organised as follows. We begin in Section \ref{analysis_of_CRTs_with_complete_data} by giving a brief review of the approaches to the analysis of binary outcome in CRTs with full data. Section \ref{Methods_handling_missing_data} describes methods of handling missing data in CRTs. In Section \ref{validity_CRA}, we investigate the validity of CRA of CRTs under CDM assumption for missing binary outcomes. In Section \ref{sim_study}, we report the results of a simulation study to investigate the performance of our considered methods. Section \ref{example} presents an example of application of our results to an actual CRT. We conclude in Section \ref{dis_con} with some discussion.
\section{Analysis of CRTs with full data}
\label{analysis_of_CRTs_with_complete_data}
We begin by describing the two broad approaches to the analysis of CRTs in the absence of missing data. These two approaches are cluster-level analysis and individual-level analysis. Let $ Y_{ijl} $ be a binary outcome of interest for the $ l $th $ (l=1,2,\ldots,m_{ij}) $ individual in the $ j $th $ (j=1,2,\ldots,k_i) $ cluster of the $ i $th $ (i=0,1) $ intervention group, where $ i=0 $ corresponds to control group and $ i=1 $ corresponds to intervention group. For convenience, we assume that both control and intervention groups have the same number of clusters $ (k_{i}=k) $ and constant cluster size across the groups $ (m_{ij}=m) $. Also let $ X_{ijl} $ be an individual-level baseline covariate value for $ l $th individual in the $ (ij) $th cluster. Note that these methods can be extended to the case of multiple baseline covariates, some of which are individual-level and some are cluster-level.
\subsection{Cluster-level analysis}
This approach is conceptually very simple and can be explained as a two-stage process. Two different ways of doing cluster-level analysis are unadjusted cluster-level analysis and (baseline covariate) adjusted cluster-level analysis. For binary outcomes, RD or RR is usually estimated as a measure of intervention effect in cluster-level analysis \cite{hayes2009}.
\subsubsection{Unadjusted cluster-level analysis ($ \text{CL}_\text{U} $)}:
\label{unadjusted_full}
In the first stage of analysis, a relevant summary measure of outcomes is obtained for each cluster. For binary outcomes, the cluster-level proportion of success is usually used as the summary measure for each cluster. Let $ p_{ij} $ be the observed proportion of successes in the $ (ij) $th cluster. Then RD is estimated as
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{unadj}}=\bar{p}_1 -\bar{p}_0
\end{equation}
where $ \bar{p}_i $ is the mean of the cluster-specific proportions of success in the $ i $th intervention group. In the second stage, a test of the hypothesis $ \text{RD}=0 $ is performed using an appropriate statistical method. The most popular one is the standard $ t- $test for two independent samples with degrees of freedom (DF) $ 2k-2 $. The reason for using this test is that the cluster-specific summary measures are statistically independent, which is a consequence of the clusters being independent of each other.
Based on the first stage cluster level summary measures, RR is estimated as
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{unadj}}=\frac{\bar{p}_1}{\bar{p}_0}
\end{equation}
Then, in the second stage, a test of the hypothesis $ \log\text{(RR)}=0 $ is performed using $ t- $test with DF $ 2k-2 $, where $ \widehat{\text{V}}\left( \log(\widehat{\text{RR}}_\text{unadj})\right) $ can be calculated as \cite{hayes2009}
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\widehat{\text{V}}\left( \log(\widehat{\text{RR}}_\text{unadj})\right) \approx \frac{s_0^2}{k\bar{p}_0^2}+\frac{s_1^2}{k\bar{p}_1^2} \qquad \text{with}\qquad s_i^2=\frac{\sum_{j=1}^{k}\left(p_{ij}-\bar{p}_i \right)^2 }{k-1}
\end{equation}
It can be shown that, with full data, $ \widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{unadj}} $ is unbiased for RD and $\widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{unadj}}$ is consistent for RR as $ k \rightarrow \infty $ (Appendix \ref{app1}).
\subsubsection{Adjusted cluster-level analysis ($ \text{CL}_\text{A} $)}:
\label{adjusted_full}
In CRTs, baseline covariates that may be related to the outcome of interest are often collected and incorporated into the analysis. The main purpose of adjusting for covariates is to increase the credibility of the trial findings by demonstrating that any observed intervention effect is not attributable to the possible imbalance between the intervention groups in terms of baseline covariates \cite{Hernandez2004}.
In an adjusted cluster-level analysis, an individual-level regression analysis of the outcome of interest is carried out at the first stage of analysis ignoring the clustering of the data, which incorporates all covariates into the regression model except intervention indicator \cite{hayes2009,Gail1988}. A standard logistic regression model is usually fitted for binary outcomes, which assumes that
\begin{equation}
\text{logit}\left( \pi_{ijl}\right)= \lambda_1+\lambda_2X_{ijl}
\label{model_firststage}
\end{equation}
where $ \pi_{ijl} $ is the probability that $ Y_{ijl} $ is 1. Let $ n_{ij} $ and $ \hat{n}_{ij} $ be the observed and predicted number of successes in the $ (ij) $th cluster, respectively. After fitting model (\ref{model_firststage}), $ \hat{n}_{ij} $ is calculated as
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\hat{n}_{ij} = \sum_{l=1}^{m}\hat{\pi}_{ijl} = \sum_{l=1}^{m} \text{expit} \left( \hat{\lambda}_1+\hat{\lambda}_2X_{ijl} \right)
\end{equation}
where $ \text{expit}(t)= \exp(t)/(1+\exp(t)) $. Then the observed and predicted number of successes for each cluster are compared by computing a residual for each cluster. In the case of no intervention effect, the residuals should be similar on average in the two intervention groups.
If we want to estimate the adjusted RD, the residual, known as difference-residual, for each cluster is calculated as
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\epsilon^{d}_{ij}=\frac{n_{ij}-\hat{n}_{ij}}{m}
\end{equation}
where the $ d $ superscript refers to difference-residual. The adjusted RD is then estimated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\widehat{\mbox{RD}}_{\text{adj}}&=&\bar{\epsilon}^{\,d}_1-\bar{\epsilon}^{\,d}_0\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \bar{\epsilon}^{d}_i $ is the mean of the difference-residuals across the clusters of intervention group $ i $, and where $ \widehat{\mbox{RD}}_{\text{adj}} $ can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
\widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{adj}}&=& \widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{unadj}} + \frac{1}{mk}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\left( \hat{n}_{0j} - \hat{n}_{1j} \right)\label{full_adj}
\end{eqnarray}
Since the distribution of $ X $ (in expectation) is the same between the intervention groups as a consequence of randomisation, and the prediction from the first-stage regression model (\ref{model_firststage}) depends only on $ X_{ijl} $, $ \text{E}\left( \hat{n}_{0j}\right) = \text{E}\left( \hat{n}_{1j}\right) $. Hence, from (\ref{full_adj}), $\widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{adj}} $ is unbiased for RD since $ \widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{unadj}} $ is unbiased for RD. In the second stage, a test of hypothesis $ \text{RD}_{\text{adj}}=0 $ is performed using $ t- $test with DF $ 2k-2 $.
If we want to estimate the adjusted RR, the residual, also known as ratio-residual, for each cluster is calculated as
\begin{equation}
\epsilon^{r}_{ij}=\frac{n_{ij}}{\hat{n}_{ij}}
\end{equation}
where the $ r $ superscript refers to ratio-residual. The adjusted RR is then estimated as
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{adj}}=\frac{\bar{\epsilon}^{\,r}_1}{\bar{\epsilon}^{\,r}_0}\nonumber
\end{equation}
where $ \bar{\epsilon}^{\,r}_i $ is the mean of the ratio-residuals across the clusters of intervention group $ i $. Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{E}\left( \widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{adj}}\right) = \text{E}\left( \frac{{\bar{\epsilon}^{\,r}_1}}{{\bar{\epsilon}^{\,r}_0}}\right) \longrightarrow \frac{\text{E} \left( \bar{\epsilon}^{\,r}_1 \right)}{\text{E} \left( \bar{\epsilon}^{\,r}_0 \right)} \text{~as~} k\rightarrow \infty
\label{RRadj_consistent}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{E}\left( \bar{\epsilon}^{\;r}_i\right) =\text{E}\left( \frac{1}{k}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\frac{n_{ij}}{\hat{n}_{ij}} \right)= \text{E}\left( \frac{n_{ij}}{\hat{n}_{ij}} \right) \longrightarrow \frac{\text{E}\left( n_{ij}\right)}{\text{E}\left( \hat{n}_{ij}\right) } \text{~as~} m\rightarrow \infty \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
If $ \pi_i $ is the true proportion of success in the $ i $th intervention group, then
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\text{E}\left( \bar{\epsilon}^{\;r}_i\right)\longrightarrow \frac{\pi_i}{\text{E}\left( \hat{n}_{ij}/m\right) } \text{~as~} m\rightarrow \infty
\end{equation}
Hence, from equation (\ref{RRadj_consistent}), we can write
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\text{E}\left( \widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{adj}}\right) \longrightarrow \text{RR}\; \frac{\text{E}(\hat{n}_{0j})}{\text{E}(\hat{n}_{1j})} \text{~as~} (k, m)\rightarrow \infty
\end{equation}
As noted before, by randomisation $ \text{E}\left( \hat{n}_{0j}\right) = \text{E}\left( \hat{n}_{1j}\right) $. Hence $ \widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{adj}} $ is unbiased for true RR as $ (k,m)\to \infty $, and therefore consistent. In the second stage, a test of hypothesis $ \log\left( \text{RR}_{\text{adj}}\right) =0 $ is performed using $ t- $test with DF $ 2k-2 $, where $ \widehat{\text{V}}\left( \log(\widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{adj}})\right) $ can be calculated as
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\text{V}}\left( \log(\widehat{\text{RR}}_\text{adj})\right) \approx \frac{s_{\epsilon 0}^2}{k\left( \bar{\epsilon}_0^r\right) ^2}+\frac{s_{\epsilon 1}^2}{k\left( \bar{\epsilon}_1^r\right) ^2} \qquad \text{with}\qquad s_{\epsilon i}^2=\frac{\sum_{j=1}^{k}\left(\epsilon_{ij}^r-\bar{\epsilon}_i^r \right)^2 }{k-1}
\label{var_adj_RR}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Individual-level analysis}
In individual-level analysis, a regression model is fitted to the individual-level outcome which allows us to analyse the effects of intervention and other covariates in the same model. For binary outcomes, two commonly used individual-level analysis methods are random-effects logistic regression (RELR), which estimates cluster-specific (also known as conditional) intervention effects, and generalised estimation equations (GEE), which estimates population-averaged (also known as marginal) intervention effects. Both of these approaches are extensions of the standard logistic regression models modified to allow for correlation between the outcomes of individuals in the same cluster.
\subsubsection{Random-effects logistic regression:}
Random-effects logistic regression (RELR) models take into account of between-cluster variability by incorporating cluster-specific random effects, which are almost always assumed to be normally distributed, into the logistic regression. These models are fitted by maximising the likelihood function numerically, because the likelihood function and its derivative can not be derived analytically as this involves an integral over the distribution of the random effects. Numerical integration methods are used to approximate the integral and so approximate the likelihood function. It is recommended to have at least 15 cluster in each intervention group to get the correct size and coverage for significance tests and confidence interval \cite{hayes2009}. Li and Redden \cite{Li2015} examined the performance of five denominator degrees of freedom (DDF) approximations, namely, residual DDF, containment DDF, between-within DDF, Satterthwaite DDF and Kenward-Roger DDF. They recommended to use between-within DDF approximation, which is equal to the total number of clusters in the study minus the rank of the design matrix, as it gave Type I error rate close to nominal level and higher power compared to the other four methods. Ukoumunne \textit{et al.} \cite{Ukoumunne2007} examined the properties of $ t- $based confidence intervals for log(OR) from CRTs using degrees of freedom $ 2k-2 $ assuming the same number of clusters in the two intervention groups. They found that the coverage rates were close to the nominal level, although this approach gave overcoverage with very small ICC (0.001). In this paper, we used the quantiles from $ t- $distribution with degrees of freedom $ 2k-2 $ rather than quantiles from $ \mathcal{N}(0,1) $ to construct the confidence interval for intervention effect.
\subsubsection{Generalised estimating equations:}
Generalised estimating equations (GEE) are commonly used as a method for analysing binary outcomes in CRTs, while taking into account the correlation among the outcomes of the same cluster using a working correlation matrix. In CRTs, it is usual to assume that the correlation matrix is exchangeable, since outcomes on individuals in different clusters are uncorrelated, while outcomes on individuals in the same cluster are equally correlated.
In GEE, the sandwich standard error estimator is typically used to estimate the standard error of the parameter estimates. Although the sandwich standard error estimator is consistent even when the working correlation structure is specified incorrectly, the sandwich standard error of the regression coefficient tends to be biased downwards when the number of clusters in each intervention group is small \cite{hayes2009, Ukoumunne2007}. Moreover, the estimate of standard error is highly variable when the number of clusters is small. It is recommended to have at least 40 clusters in the study to get reliable standard error estimates \cite{Murray2004}. A number of methods have been proposed for dealing with the limitations of the sandwich variance estimator \cite{Mancl2001, Ukoumunne2007}. In this paper, we used the method proposed by Ukoumunne (2007) \cite{Ukoumunne2007} to correct the bias for small number of clusters in each intervention group. Firstly, the downward bias of the sandwich standard error estimator was adjusted by multiplying it by $ \sqrt{k/(k-1)} $, where $ k $ is the number of clusters in each intervention group. Secondly, the increased small sample variability of the sandwich standard error estimator was accounted for by constructing the confidence interval for intervention effect based on the quantiles from a $ t- $distribution with degrees of freedom $ 2k-2 $ rather than quantiles from $ \mathcal{N}\left( 0,1 \right) $. However, if some baseline covariates were cluster-level, the DF would be adjusted downwards as $ 2k-2-d $ to account for this, where $ d $ is the number of parameters corresponding to the cluster-level baseline covariates.
\section{Methods of handling missing data in CRTs }
\label{Methods_handling_missing_data}
Common methods for handling missing data in CRTs are complete records analysis (CRA), single imputation and multiple imputation (MI). In this paper, we focused on CRA and MI since they are the most commonly used methods for handling missing data. This section briefly describes these two approaches.
\subsection{Complete records analysis}
\label{CRA}
In complete records analysis (CRA), often referred to as complete case analysis, only individuals with complete data on all variables in the analysis are considered. It has the advantage of being simple to apply, and is usually the default method in most statistical packages. It is well known that CRA is valid if data are MCAR. CRA is also valid if, conditioning on covariates, missingness is independent of outcome and and the outcome model being fitted is correctly specified \cite{littlerubin2002}. Based on simulations for CDM in CRTs, Ma \textit{et al.} \cite{Ma2012comparing, Ma2013} showed that GEE using CRA performs well in terms of bias when the percentage of missing outcomes is low. In contrast, they concluded that RELR using CRA dose not perform well. This is because they generated the data in such a way that they knew what the true population-averaged log(OR) was, but after fitting RELR, they compared estimates of conditional (on cluster random effects and covariates) log(OR) to the true population averaged log(OR). In addition, in the data generating mechanism used in these studies \cite{Ma2012comparing, Ma2013}, the baseline covariate was generated independently of the outcome, which in general is not a plausible assumption. It is therefore difficult to draw conclusions about what would happen in CRTs where the baseline covariates are related to the outcome. Caille \textit{et al.} \cite{Caille2014} reported through simulations that GEE using unadjusted CRA and using adjusted (for covariates) CRA are biased for estimating intervention effects. However, in their simulation study, individual-level continuous outcomes were generated at first using a linear mixed model which includes intervention indicator and a cluster random effect for each cluster, but without covariates. Each continuous outcome was then dichotomised to obtain a binary outcome. Then, baseline covariates were generated dependent on the continuous outcomes. So it appears the data generation mechanism used would mean that baseline covariates were associated with intervention group, which is not possible (in expectation) due to randomisation. In addition, as the authors noted, they compared estimates of covariate conditional ORs to the true unconditional ORs, which would be expected to differ even with full data due to non-collapsibility. It is therefore difficult to draw general conclusions from their results about the methods' performance in CRTs.
\subsection{Multiple Imputation}
\label{MI}
In multiple imputation (MI) method, a sequence of $ N $ imputed data sets are obtained by replacing each missing outcome by a set of $ N\ge 2 $ imputed values that are simulated from an appropriate distribution or model. Imputing multiple times allows the uncertainty associated with the imputed values due to the fact that the imputed values are sampled draws for the missing outcomes instead of the actual values. This uncertainty is taken into account by adding between-imputation variance to the average within-imputation variance. Each of the $ N $ imputed data sets are analysed as a full data set using standard methods and the results are then combined using Rubin's rules \cite{rubin1987}. One important feature of MI is that the imputation model and the analysis model do not have to be the same. However, in order for Rubin's rules to be valid, the imputation model needs to be compatible or congenial with the analysis model in the sense that the imputation model has to ``contain" the analysis model \cite{meng1994}.
There are at least four different types of MI that have been used in CRTs \cite{DiazOrdaz2014}. These are \textit{standard} MI, also known as \textit{single-level} MI, which ignores clustering in the imputation model, \textit{fixed effects} MI which includes a fixed effect for each cluster in the imputation model, \textit{random effects} MI where clustering is taken into account through a random effect for each cluster in the imputation model and \textit{within-cluster} MI where standard MI is applied within each cluster. From now, we refer to random effects MI as multilevel multiple imputation (MMI).
The multiple imputation inference is usually based on a $ t- $ distribution with degrees of freedom (DF) given by
\begin{equation}
\upsilon=(N-1)\left( 1+\frac{N}{N+1} \frac{W}{B}\right)^2
\label{df_com}
\end{equation}
where $ B $ and $ W $ are the between-imputation variance and the average within-imputation variance, respectively. This DF is derived under the assumption that the complete data (full data) DF, $ \upsilon_\text{com} $, is infinite \cite{Barnard1999}. In CRTs, the value of $ \upsilon_{\text{com}} $ is calculated based on the number of clusters in the study rather than the number of individuals and, therefore, is usually small. In CRTs with equal number of clusters in each intervention group, $ \upsilon_{\text{com}} $ is calculated as $ 2k-2 $ \cite{Andridge2011}. If $ \upsilon_{\text{com}} $ is small and there is a modest proportion of missing data, the value of $ \upsilon $ can be much higher than $ \upsilon_{\text{com}} $, which is not appropriate \cite{Barnard1999}. In such a situation, a more appropriate DF, proposed by Barnard and Rubin (1999) \cite{Barnard1999}, is calculated as
\begin{equation}
\nu_{\text{adj}}=\left({\upsilon}^{-1} +\hat{\upsilon}_{\text{obs}}^{-1}\right)^{-1} \le \nu_{\text{com}}
\label{df.adj}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \nonumber
\hat{\nu}_{\text{obs}}= \left( \frac{\nu_{\text{com}}+1}{\nu_{\text{com}}+3}\right)\nu_{\text{com}} \left( 1+\frac{N+1}{N} \frac{B}{W} \right)^{-1}
\end{equation}
Ma \textit{et al.} \cite{Ma2011} examined within-cluster MI, fixed effects MI and MMI for missing binary outcomes under CDM mechanism in CRTs. They showed that all these strategies give quite similar results for low percentages of missing data or for small value of ICC. With high percentage of missing data, the within-cluster MI underestimate the variance of the intervention effect which may result in inflated Type I error rate. In two subsequent studies, Ma \textit{et al.} \cite{Ma2012comparing, Ma2013} compared the performance of GEE and RELR with missing binary outcomes using standard MI and within-cluster MI. Results showed that GEE performs well when using standard MI and the variance inflation factor (VIF) is less than 3; and using within-cluster MI when VIF $ \ge 3$ and cluster size is at least 50. Ma \textit{et al.} \cite{Ma2013} concluded that RELR does not perform well using either standard MI or within-cluster MI. However, in the later two studies \cite{Ma2012comparing, Ma2013}, as we described in Section \ref{CRA}, they compared estimates of conditional (on cluster random effects and covariates) log(OR) to the true population averaged log(OR); and their data generation mechanisms do not corresponds to how data arise in CRTs. In the first study \cite{Ma2011}, the simulation was based on a real dataset, so the conclusions to other design settings may be limited. It is therefore again difficult to draw conclusions from their results about the performance of GEE and RELR with different MI strategies under CDM mechanism. Caille \textit{et al.} \cite{Caille2014} compared different MI strategies through a simulation study for handing missing binary outcomes in CRTs assuming CDM, assessing bias, standard error and coverage rate of the estimated intervention effect. They showed that MMI with RELR and single-level MI with standard logistic regression give better inference for intervention effect compared to CRA in terms of bias, efficiency and coverage. However, as we described in Section \ref{CRA}, their data generation mechanism does not correspond to how data arise in CRTs. It is therefore again difficult to draw general conclusions from their results about the MI strategies' performance in CRTs.
In the case of missing continuous outcome in CRTs, Andridge \cite{Andridge2011} showed that the true MI variance of group means are underestimated by single-level MI, and are overestimated by fixed effects MI. She also showed that MMI is the best among these three methods and recommended its use for practitioners. Diaz-Ordaz \textit{et al.} \cite{Diazordaz2016} showed that for bivariate outcomes MMI gives coverage rate close to nominal level, whereas single-level MI gives low coverage and fixed effects MI gives overcoverage. In this paper, we therefore used MMI for missing binary outcome.
\section{Validity of CRA of CRTs}
\label{validity_CRA}
In this section, we investigate the validity of $ \text{CL}_\text{U} $, $ \text{CL}_\text{A} $, RELR and GEE using complete records, when binary outcomes are missing under CDM.
In settings where the expectation of the outcome is assumed to be linearly dependent on the covariate and intervention indicator, both unadjusted and adjusted cluster-level analyses for estimating mean difference as a measure of intervention effect are unbiased in general only when the two intervention groups have the same CDM mechanism and the same covariate effect on the outcome \cite{Hossain2016}. However, the assumption of the expectation of the outcome being linear in baseline covariate and intervention indicator is not very plausible in the case of a binary outcome. Two common alternatives to assuming the expectation is a linear function of baseline covariates and intervention indicator are to use a log or logit link between the mean of the outcome and the linear predictor.
Assuming the true data generating model has log link, suppose that each binary outcome $ Y_{ijl} $ is generated by
\begin{equation}
\pi_{ijl}=\exp(\beta_0+\beta_1 i+f_{i}(X_{ijl})+\delta_{ij})
\label{model_loglink}
\end{equation}
where $ \beta_0 $ is a constant, $ \beta_1 $ is the true intervention effect, $ f_{i}(X_{ijl}) $ is a function of baseline covariate $ X $ in the $ i $th intervention group, $ \delta_{ij} $ is the $ (ij) $th cluster effect with mean 0 and variance $ \sigma_{b}^2 $, and $ \pi_{ijl}=P\left( Y_{ijl}=1| \delta_{ij},X_{ijl}\right) $. If on the other hand, we assume a logit link for the true data generating model, we have
\begin{equation}
\pi_{ijl}=\text{expit}\left( \beta_0+\beta_1 i+f_{i}(X_{ijl})+\delta_{ij}\right)
\label{model_logitlink}
\end{equation}
Define a missing data indicator $ R_{ijl} $ such that
\begin{equation}
R_{ijl}=\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if~} Y_{ijl} \text{~ is observed}\\
0, & \text{if~} Y_{ijl} \text{~ is missing}
\end{cases}
\label{miss_indicator}
\end{equation}
Then $ \sum_{l=1}^{m}R_{ijl} $ is the number of complete records in the $ (ij) $th cluster. \subsection{Cluster-level analyses for estimating RD}
\label{validity_RD}
In unadjusted cluster-level analysis using complete records, RD is estimated as
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}} =\bar{p}^{\text{~cr}}_{1}-\bar{p}^{\text{~cr}}_{0}\label{rd_cra}
\end{equation}
where $ \bar{p}^{\text{~{cr}}}_{i} $ is the mean of the cluster-specific proportions of success, calculated using complete records, in the $ i $th intervention group. The superscript \textbf{cr} refers to complete records.
In adjusted cluster-level analysis, recall that a logistic regression model is fitted to the data at the first stage of analysis ignoring intervention and clustering of the data. Then the observed and predicted number of successes in each cluster are compared by computing a residual for each cluster. The adjusted RD using complete records is estimated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{adj}}^{\text{cr}} &=&\bar{\epsilon}_1^{\,d\text{(cr)}}-\bar{\epsilon}_0^{\,d\text{(cr)}}
\label{estimate_RD_CCA}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \bar{\epsilon}_i^{\,d\text{(cr)}}$ is the average of the cluster-specific difference-residuals in the $ i $th intervention group using complete records, which are calculated as
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\epsilon_{ij}^{d\text{(cr)}}=\frac{n_{ij}^{\text{cr}}-\hat{n}_{ij}^{\text{cr}}}{\sum_{l=1}^{m}R_{ijl}}
\end{equation}
where $ n_{ij}^{\text{cr}} $ and $\hat{n}_{ij}^{\text{cr}} $ are the observed and predicted number of successes in the $ (ij) $th cluster using complete records. Then $ \widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{adj}}^{\text{cr}} $ can be written in terms of $ \widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}} $ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{adj}}^{\text{cr}}
&=& \widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}} + \frac{1}{k}\sum_{j=1}^{k} \left[ \frac{1}{\sum_{l=1}^{m}R_{ijl}}\left(\hat{n}_{0j}^{\text{cr}} - \hat{n}_{1j}^{\text{cr}} \right) \right]
\label{RDadj_CRA}
\end{eqnarray}
We aim to derive conditions under which the cluster-level analyses for RD using complete records are unbiased. To this end, we write the individual-level probabilities of success, $ \pi_{ijl} $, as
\begin{equation}
\pi_{ijl}=\pi_i+g_i\left( X_{ijl}, \delta_{ij}\right)
\end{equation}
where $ g_i\left( X_{ijl}, \delta_{ij}\right) $ is a function of baseline covariate $ X_{ijl} $ and random cluster-effect $ \delta_{ij} $, and which determines how individual-level probabilities of success differ from group level probability of success in each intervention group. Then
\begin{equation}
\text{E}_{j,l}\left( \pi_{ijl}|R_{ijl}=1\right) = \pi_i + \text{E}_{j,l}\left( g_i\left( X_{ijl}, \delta_{ij}\right)| R_{ijl}=1 \right)\nonumber
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{E}\left( \widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}}\right) &=& \text{E}\left( \pi_{1jl}|R_{1jl}=1\right)-\text{E}\left( \pi_{0jl}|R_{0jl}=1\right)\nonumber\\
&=& \pi_1-\pi_0 + \text{E}\left( g_1\left( X_{1jl}, \delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1 \right)-\text{E}\left( g_0\left( X_{0jl}, \delta_{0j}\right)|R_{0jl}=1 \right) \nonumber\\
&=&\text{RD} + \text{E}\left( g_1\left( X_{1jl}, \delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1 \right)-\text{E}\left( g_0\left( X_{0jl}, \delta_{0j}\right)| R_{0jl}=1 \right) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
So $ \widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}} $ will be unbiased for true RD if and only if
\begin{equation}
\text{E}\left( g_1\left( X_{1jl}, \delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1 \right)= \text{E}\left( g_0\left( X_{0jl}, \delta_{0j}\right)| R_{0jl}=1 \right)
\label{conditon1}
\end{equation}
Assuming the data are generated from a log link model (\ref{model_loglink}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}
g_i\left(X_{ijl},\delta_{ij} \right)&=&\pi_{ijl}-\pi_i \nonumber\\
&=& \exp(\beta_0+\beta_1 \,i)\left\lbrace \exp\left( f_{i}(X_{ijl})+\delta_{ij}\right)-\text{E}_{j,l}\left( \exp\left(f_{i}(X_{ijl})+\delta_{ij}\right)\right) \right\rbrace
\label{log_RD_condition}
\end{eqnarray}
since $ \pi_i=\text{E}_{j,l}\left(\pi_{ijl} \right) $. If there is an intervention effect in truth $ (\beta_1\ne 0) $, in general, we have from (\ref{log_RD_condition})
\begin{equation}
\text{E}\left( g_1\left( X_{1jl}, \delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1\right) \ne \text{E}\left( g_0\left( X_{0jl}, \delta_{0j}\right)| R_{0jl}=1\right)\nonumber
\end{equation}
even if the two intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism and the same covariate effects in the data generating model for the outcome. Hence, $\widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}} $ is biased for true RD when the true data generating model has log link. However, under the null hypothesis of no intervention effect $ (\beta_1=0) $, if the two intervention groups have the same covariate effect, i.e. $ f_{i}(X_{ijl})=f(X_{ijl}) \text{ for } i \in \{0,1\} $, we have
\begin{equation}
g_i\left(X_{ijl},\delta_{ij} \right)
= \exp(\beta_0)\left\lbrace \exp\left( f(X_{ijl})+\delta_{ij}\right)-\text{E}_{j,l}\left( \exp\left(f(X_{ijl})+\delta_{ij}\right)\right) \right\rbrace \nonumber
\end{equation}
and then, in addition, if the two intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism, we have
\begin{equation}
\text{E}\left( g_1\left( X_{1jl}, \delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1\right) = \text{E}\left( g_0\left( X_{0jl}, \delta_{0j}\right)| R_{0jl}=1\right)\nonumber
\end{equation}
and hence $ \widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}} $ is unbiased for true $ \text{RD}=0 $.
On the other hand, if we assume the data are generated from a logit link model (\ref{model_logitlink}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}
g_i\left(X_{ijl},\delta_{ij} \right)&=&\pi_{ijl}-\pi_i\nonumber \\
&=& \text{expit}\left( \beta_0+\beta_1 i+f_{i}(X_{ijl})+\delta_{ij}\right) -\text{E}_{j,l}\left( \text{expit}\left( \beta_0+\beta_1 i+f_{i}(X_{ijl})+\delta_{ij}\right)\right)
\label{logit_RD_condition}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, again with $ \beta_1\ne 0 $,
\begin{equation}
\text{E}\left( g_1\left( X_{1jl}, \delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1\right) \ne \text{E}\left( g_0\left( X_{0jl}, \delta_{0j}\right)| R_{0jl}=1\right)\nonumber
\end{equation}
even if the two intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism and the same covariate effect. Hence, $ \widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}} $ is biased for true RD when the true data generating model has logit link. However, like log link, under the null hypothesis of no intervention effect $ (\beta_1=0) $, if the two intervention groups have the same covariate effect, i.e. $ f_{i}(X_{ijl})=f(X_{ijl}) \text{ for } i \in \{0,1\} $, we have
\begin{equation}
g_i\left(X_{ijl},\delta_{ij} \right)= \text{expit}\left( \beta_0+f(X_{ijl})+\delta_{ij}\right) -\text{E}_{j,l}\left( \text{expit}\left( \beta_0+f(X_{ijl})+\delta_{ij}\right) \right) \nonumber
\end{equation}
and then, in addition, if the two intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism, we have
\begin{equation}
\text{E}\left( g_1\left( X_{1jl}, \delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1\right) = \text{E}\left( g_0\left( X_{0jl}, \delta_{0j}\right)| R_{0jl}=1\right)\nonumber
\end{equation}
and hence $ \widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}} $ is unbiased for true $ \text{RD}=0 $.
Referring to equation (\ref{RDadj_CRA}), if the two intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism and the same covariate effect, then $\text{E}\left( \hat{n}_{0j}^{\text{cr}}\right) = \text{E}\left( \hat{n}_{1j}^{\text{cr}}\right) $. Hence, with $ \beta_1\ne 0 $, from equation (\ref{RDadj_CRA}), we can conclude that since $ \widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}} $ is biased with both log and logit links for the true data generating model, $ \widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{adj}}^{\text{cr}} $ is also biased for RD with both log and logit links in the true data generating model. However, with $ \beta_1=0 $, since $ \widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}} $ is unbiased for RD with both log and logit links, when the two intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism and the same covariate effect, $ \widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{adj}}^{\text{cr}} $ is also unbiased for RD under the same conditions. It can also be seen from (\ref{log_RD_condition}) and (\ref{logit_RD_condition}) that
\begin{equation}
\text{E}_{j,l}\left( g_i\left( X_{ijl}, \delta_{ij}\right)\right) = 0 \text{ for } i \in \{0,1\}\nonumber
\end{equation}
for both log and logit links in the data generating model, and hence both $ \widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{adj}} $ and $ \widehat{\text{RD}}_{\text{adj}} $ are unbiased for true RD with full data.
\subsection{Cluster-level analyses for estimating RR}
\label{validity_RR}
In unadjusted cluster-level analysis using complete records, RR is estimated as
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}}=\frac{\bar{p}^{\text{~cr}}_{1}}{\bar{p}^{\text{~cr}}_{0}}\nonumber
\end{equation}
and, in adjusted cluster-level analysis, the adjusted RR using complete records is estimated as
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{adj}}^{\text{cr}} =\frac{\bar{\epsilon}_1^{\,r\text{(cr)}}}{\bar{\epsilon}_0^{\,r\text{(cr)}}}
\label{RRadj_CRA}
\end{equation}
where $\bar{\epsilon}_i^{\,r\text{(cr)}}$ is the average of the ratio-residuals in the $ i $th intervention group using complete records, which are calculated as
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\epsilon_{ij}^{r\text{(cr)}}=\frac{n_{ij}^{\text{cr}}}{\hat{n}_{ij}^{\text{cr}}}\\
\end{equation}
We aim to establish conditions under which the cluster-level analyses for RR using complete records are consistent. To this end, we write $ \pi_{ijl} $ as
\begin{equation}
\pi_{ijl}=\pi_i \;h_i\left( X_{ijl}, \delta_{ij}\right)
\end{equation}
where $ h_i\left( X_{ijl}, \delta_{ij}\right) $ is a function of baseline covariate $ X_{ijl} $ and random cluster-effect $ \delta_{ij} $, and which determines how individual-level probabilities of success differ from group level probability of success. Then
\begin{equation}
\text{E}_{j,l}\left( \pi_{ijl}|R_{ijl}=1\right) = \pi_i \; \text{E}_{j,l}\left( h_i\left( X_{ijl}, \delta_{ij}\right)|R_{ijl}=1 \right)\nonumber
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{E}\left( \widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}}\right) & \longrightarrow & \frac{\text{E}\left( \pi_{1jl}| R_{1jl}=1\right)}{\text{E}\left( \pi_{0jl}| R_{0jl}=1\right)} \text{ as } (k,m) \longrightarrow \infty \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{\pi_1\; \text{E}\left( h_1\left( X_{1jl}, \delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1 \right)}{\pi_0\;\text{E}\left( h_0\left( X_{0jl}, \delta_{0j}\right)| R_{0jl}=1 \right)} \nonumber\\
&=&\text{RR} \; \frac{\text{E}\left( h_1\left( X_{1jl}, \delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1 \right)}{\text{E}\left( h_0\left( X_{0jl}, \delta_{0j}\right)| R_{0jl}=1 \right)} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
So $ \widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}} $ will be consistent for true RR if only if
\begin{equation}
\frac{\text{E}\left( h_1\left( X_{1jl}, \delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1 \right)}{\text{E}\left( h_0\left( X_{0jl}, \delta_{0j}\right)| R_{0jl}=1 \right)}=1
\label{conditon2}
\end{equation}
Assuming the data are generated from a log link model (\ref{model_loglink}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}
h_i\left(X_{ijl},\delta_{ij} \right)&=&\frac{\exp\left( \beta_0+\beta_1 i + f_i(X_{ijl})+\delta_{ij}\right)}{\text{E}_{j,l}\left( \exp\left(\beta_0+\beta_1 i +f_i(X_{ijl})+\delta_{ij}\right)\right)} \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{\exp\left( f_i(X_{ijl})+\delta_{ij}\right)}{\text{E}_{j,l}\left( \exp\left(f_i(X_{ijl})+\delta_{ij}\right)\right)} \nonumber
\label{log_RR_condition}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\text{E}\left( h_1\left( X_{1jl},\delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1\right)}{\text{E}\left( h_0\left( X_{0jl},\delta_{0j}\right)| R_{0jl}=1\right)}= \frac{\text{E}\left( \exp\left( f_1(X_{1jl})+\delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1\right) }{\text{E}\left( \exp\left( f_0(X_{0jl})+\delta_{0j}\right)| R_{0jl}=1\right)}
\times\frac{\text{E}\left( \exp\left(f_0(X_{0jl})+\delta_{0j}\right) \right)}{\text{E}\left( \exp\left(f_1(X_{1jl})+\delta_{1j}\right) \right)} \nonumber
\end{equation*}
Then if the two intervention groups have the same covariate effect, i.e. $ f_i(X_{ijl})=f(X_{ijl}) \text{ for } i\in \{0,1\} )$, we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{\text{E}\left( \exp\left(f_0(X_{0jl})+\delta_{0j}\right)\right)}{\text{E}\left( \exp\left(f_1(X_{1jl})+\delta_{1j}\right)\right)}=1 \nonumber
\end{equation}
and, in addition, if the two intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism, we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{\text{E}\left( \exp\left( f_1(X_{1jl})+\delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1\right) }{\text{E}\left( \exp\left( f_0(X_{0jl})+\delta_{0j}\right)| R_{0jl}=1\right)}=1 \nonumber
\end{equation}
Therefore, if the two intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism and the same covariate effects, we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{\text{E}\left( h_1\left( X_{1jl},\delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1\right)}{\text{E}\left( h_0\left( X_{0jl},\delta_{0j}\right)| R_{0jl}=1\right)}=1\nonumber
\end{equation}
and hence $ \widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}} $ is consistent for true RR.
On the other hand, assuming the data are generated from logit link model (\ref{model_logitlink}), we have
\begin{eqnarray}
h_i\left(X_{ijl},\delta_{ij} \right)
&=& \frac{\text{expit}\left( \beta_0+\beta_1 i+f_i(X_{ijl})+\delta_{ij}\right)}{\text{E}_{j,l}\left( \text{expit}\left( \beta_0+\beta_1 i+f_i(X_{ijl})+\delta_{ij}\right)\right)} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{multline}
\frac{\text{E}\left( h_1\left( X_{1jl},\delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1\right)}{\text{E}\left( h_0\left( X_{0jl},\delta_{0j}\right)| R_{0jl}=1\right)}= \frac{\text{E}\left( \text{expit}\left( \beta_0+\beta_1+f_1(X_{1jl})+\delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1\right) }{\text{E}\left( \text{expit}\left(\beta_0+ f_0(X_{0jl})+\delta_{0j}\right)| R_{0jl}=1\right)}\\
\times\frac{\text{E}\left( \text{expit}\left(\beta_0+f_0(X_{0jl})+\delta_{0j}\right) \right)}{\text{E}\left( \text{expit}\left(\beta_0+\beta_1+f_1(X_{1jl})+\delta_{1j}\right) \right)}
\label{result_logit}
\end{multline}
If $ \beta_1\ne 0 $, we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{\text{E}\left( \text{expit}\left(\beta_0+f_0(X_{0jl})+\delta_{0j}\right) \right)}{\text{E}\left( \text{expit}\left(\beta_0+\beta_1+f_1(X_{1jl})+\delta_{1j}\right) \right)}\ne 1 \nonumber
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\frac{\text{E}\left( \text{expit}\left( \beta_0+\beta_1+f_1(X_{1jl})+\delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1\right) }{\text{E}\left( \text{expit}\left(\beta_0+ f_0(X_{0jl})+\delta_{0j}\right)| R_{0jl}=1\right)} \ne 1 \nonumber
\end{equation}
even if the two intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism and the same covariate effects. Hence
\begin{equation}
\frac{\text{E}\left( h_1\left( X_{1jl},\delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1\right)}{\text{E}\left( h_0\left( X_{0jl},\delta_{0j}\right)| R_{0jl}=1\right)}\ne 1 \nonumber
\end{equation}
and therefore $ \widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}} $ is not consistent for true RR. However, under the null hypothesis of no intervention effect $ (\beta_1=0) $, if the two intervention group have the same missingness mechanism and the same covariate effect, the both ratios of expectations in the right side of equation (\ref{result_logit}) equal to one, and hence we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{\text{E}\left( h_1\left( X_{1jl},\delta_{1j}\right)| R_{1jl}=1\right)}{\text{E}\left( h_0\left( X_{0jl},\delta_{0j}\right)| R_{0jl}=1\right)} = 1 \nonumber
\end{equation}
Therefore, if the data generating model has logit link and there is no intervention effect in truth, $ \widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}} $ is consistent for true $ \text{RR}=1 $ when the two intervention groups have the same missingness and the same covariate effect.
From equation (\ref{RRadj_CRA}), we can write
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{E}\left( \widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{adj}}^{\text{cr}}\right)
&\longrightarrow & \text{E} \left( \widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}} \right) \frac{\text{E}\left(\hat{p}_{0j}^{\text{cr}} \right) }{\text{E}\left(\hat{p}_{1j}^{\text{cr}} \right)} \text{ as }(k,m)\to \infty. \quad
(\text{ see Appendix \ref{Appendix B}})
\label{equation_RRadj}
\end{eqnarray}
If the two intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism and the same covariate effect, then $\text{E}\left(\hat{p}_{0j}^{\text{cr}} \right)=\text{E}\left(\hat{p}_{1j}^{\text{cr}} \right)$ since the distribution of $ X $ is the same (by randomisation) across the intervention groups. As we have already shown that $ \widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}} $ is consistent for RR with log link in the true data generating model, when the two intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism and the same covariate effects, $ \widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{adj}}^{\text{cr}} $ is also consistent for RR under the same conditions. Similarly, in the presence of a true intervention effect, since $\widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}} $ is not consistent for RR if the true data generating model has a logit link, $ \widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{adj}}^{\text{cr}} $ is also not consistent for RR under the same conditions. However, under the null hypothesis, since $\widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{unadj}}^{\text{cr}} $ is consistent for $ \text{RR}=1 $ if the true data generating model has logit link and the two intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism and the same covariate effects, $ \widehat{\text{RR}}_{\text{adj}}^{\text{cr}} $ is also consistent for $ \text{RR}=1 $ under the same conditions.
\subsection{RELR and GEE using complete records}
For individually randomised trials, it is well known that likelihood based CRA is valid under MAR, if missingness is only in the outcome and all predictors of missingness are included in the model as covariates \cite{littlerubin2002}. So it is anticipated that RELR using CRA will give consistent estimates of intervention effect, if the covariate $ X $, which is associated with the missingness, is included in the model and the model is correctly specified. We also expect that GEE using CRA adjusted for covariate $ X $ which is associated with the missingness in outcomes will give consistent estimates of intervention effect.
When it is assumed that the two intervention groups have the same covariate effects on outcome, we fit RELR with fixed effects of intervention indicator and covariate, and a random effect for cluster; while we fit GEE with intervention indicator and covariate assuming exchangeable correlation for the outcomes of the same cluster. If it is assumed that the baseline covariate effect on outcome could be different in the two intervention groups, an interaction between intervention and covariate must be included in the model. This implies that the intervention effect varies with level of covariate values. In those scenarios where an interaction is present, we will target the intervention effect at the mean value of the covariate. Let $ X^* $ denote the empirically centred covariate $ X-\bar{X} $, where $ \bar{X} $ is the mean of $ X $ using data from all individuals. Then, we fit RELR with fixed effects of intervention indicator, $ X^* $ and their interaction, and a random effect for cluster; while we fit GEE including the intervention indicator, $X^* $ and their interaction, and assuming an exchangeable correlation for the outcomes of the same cluster. One may need to account for the centreing step in the variance estimation. We will investigate in the simulation whether ignoring this has any negative impact on confidence interval coverage.
\section{Simulation Study}
\label{sim_study}
A simulation study was conducted to assess the performance of $ \text{CL}_\text{U} $, $ \text{CL}_\text{A} $, RELR and GEE under CDM mechanism. CRA and multilevel multiple imputation (MMI) were used to handle the missing data. The average estimate of intervention effect, its average estimated standard error (SE) and coverage rates were calculated for each of the methods and compared to each other. We considered balanced CRTs, where the two intervention groups have the same number of clusters and constant cluster size (before missing outcomes were introduced), and a single continuous individual-level baseline covariate.
\subsection{Data generation}
Data were generated using the model in equation (\ref{model_logitlink}) with a logit link, as described in Section \ref{validity_CRA}, with $ f_i(X_{ijl})=\beta_{2(i)}X_{ijl} $, where $ \beta_{2(i)} $ is the effect of covariate of $ X $ in the $ i $th intervention group. Firstly, for each individual in the study, a value of $ X_{ijl} $ was generated using the model
\begin{equation} \nonumber
X_{ijl}=\alpha_{ij} +u_{ijl}
\end{equation}
where $ \alpha_{ij} $ is the $ (ij) $th cluster effect on $ X $ and $ u_{ijl} $ is the individual-level error on $ X $. We assumed that $ \alpha_{ij}\sim \mathcal{N}\left( \mu_x,\sigma_{\alpha}^2 \right)$ independently of $ u_{ijl}\sim \mathcal{N}\left( 0,\sigma_u^2 \right) $, where $ \mu_{x} $ is the mean of $ X $, $ \sigma_{\alpha}^2 $ and $ \sigma_{u}^2 $ are the between-cluster and within-cluster variance of $ X $, respectively. The total variance of $ X $ can be written as $ \sigma_x^2 =\sigma_{\alpha}^2+\sigma_u^2 $ and thus the ICC of $ X $ is $ \rho_{x}=\sigma_{\alpha}^2/\sigma_{x}^2 $. Then we generated $ \text{logit}(\pi_{ijl}) $ for each individual in the study using model (\ref{model_logitlink}) assuming $ \delta_{ij}\sim \mathcal{N}\left( 0,\sigma_b^2 \right) $. Finally, $ Y_{ijl} $ was generated as Bernoulli random variable with parameter $ \pi_{ijl} $. Without loss of generality, we set $ \beta_0=0 $ in equation (\ref{model_logitlink}) for convenience and chose the others parameters to obtain pre-specified value of success rates $ \pi_0 $ and $ \pi_1 $ in the control and intervention groups, respectively, on average over 1000 data sets. We varied the number of clusters in each intervention group as $ k=(5,10,20,50) $ and fixed the cluster size $ m=50 $.
Once the complete data (full data) sets were generated, we introduced missing outcomes by generating a missing outcome data indicator $ R_{ijl} $ (defined in equation (\ref{miss_indicator})), independently for each individual, under covariate dependent missingness (CDM) mechanism according to a logistic regression model
\begin{equation}
\text{logit}(R_{ijl}=0|\boldsymbol{Y}_{ij},\boldsymbol{X_{ij}})=\psi_{i}+\phi_{i}X_{ijl}
\label{miss}
\end{equation}
where $ \boldsymbol{Y}_{ij} $ and $ \boldsymbol{X}_{ij} $ are the vectors of outcome and covariate values, respectively, of the $ (ij) $th cluster. The constants $ \psi_{i} $ and $ \phi_{i} $ were chosen such that the $ i $th intervention group had the desired proportion of observed outcomes. The value of $ \phi_{i} $ in (\ref{miss}) represents the degree of association between the missingness and the covariate $ X $ in the $ i $th intervention group. In this study, we assumed the same covariate effects for the probability of having a missing outcome in the two intervention groups and thus set $ \phi_{0}=\phi_{1}=1 $ in (\ref{miss}) corresponding to the OR of having a missing outcome of 2.72 for a 1 unit change in $ X $.
We investigated four scenarios, varying whether the baseline covariate effects on outcome and the missingness mechanisms were the same in the two intervention groups. Table \ref{table_par} shows the parameters values used to simulate complete data (full data) and incomplete data under four different scenarios. In \textbf{scenario 1 (S1)} and \textbf{scenario 3 (S3)}, there were 30\% missing outcomes in each of the two intervention groups, while in \textbf{scenario 2 (S2)} and \textbf{scenario 4 (S4)}, there were 30\% missing outcomes in the control group and 60\% missing outcomes in the intervention group.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Parameters values used in the data generation process under four different scenarios: scenario 1 (\textbf{S1}), scenario 2 (\textbf{S2}), scenario 3 (\textbf{S3}) and scenario 4 (\textbf{S4})}.
\begin{tabular}{cc|cccc}
\toprule
\multirow{9}{*}{\begin{turn}{90}full data \end{turn} } & & \textbf{S1} & \textbf{S2} & \textbf{S3} & \textbf{S4} \\
\midrule
& $ \beta_0 $ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{0}\\
& $ \beta_1 $ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{1.36}\\
& $ \beta_{2(0)} $ & 1 & 1 & 0.588 & 0.588\\
& $ \beta_{2(1)} $ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{1}\\
\cline{2-6}
& $ \sigma_{x}^2 $ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{3.55} \\
& $ \rho_{x} $ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{0.05} \\
& $ u_{ijl} $ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$ \mathcal{N}\left( 0, 3.37^2\right)$ }\\
& $ \alpha_{ij} $ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$ \mathcal{N}\left( 0, 0.18^2\right)$ }\\
& $ \delta_{ij} $ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$ \mathcal{N}\left( 0, 0.2^2\right)$ } \\
& & & & &\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{\begin{turn}{90} Missing data \end{turn} }
& $ \psi_0 $ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{-1.34}\\
& $ \psi_1 $ & -1.34 & 0.65 & -1.34 & 0.65\\
& $ \phi_0 $ & \multicolumn{4}{c} {1} \\
& $ \phi_1 $ & \multicolumn{4}{c} {1} \\
& & & & &\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{table_par}
\end{table}
\subsection{Data analysis}
Each generated full and incomplete data sets were then analysed by $ \text{CL}_\text{U} $, $ \text{CL}_\text{A} $, RELR and GEE. Missing outcomes were handled using CRA and MMI. We included the interaction between intervention and baseline covariate into the RELR and GEE in the case of \textbf{S3} and \textbf{S4}. The R packages \textbf{lme4} and \textbf{geepack} were used to fit RELR and GEE, respectively. We used MMI, with a random effects logistic regression imputation model so that the imputation model was correctly specified. For \textbf{S3} and \textbf{S4}, an interaction between intervention and baseline covariate was included in the imputation model. The R package \texttt{jomo} \cite{matteo} was used to multiply impute each generated incomplete data set 15 times, although this package uses probit link between the mean of the outcome and the linear predictor. Both links give similar results as long as individual-level probabilities of success are not too small and not too large. The algorithm of \texttt{jomo} \cite{matteo} is basically the same with the algorithm of REALCOM-IMPUTE software for MMI \cite{carpenter2011realcom}. We used 100 burn-in iterations, which through preliminary investigations we found to be sufficient for convergence of the posterior distribution of the parameters of our imputation model, and thinning rate 25 to avoid autocorrelation between successive draws. When fitting the GEE models using the package \textbf{geepack} in R, we encountered convergence problems (maximum of three times out of 1000 simulation runs) in the case of \textbf{S2} and \textbf{S4}. In such situation, we fitted GEE assuming independent correlation structure.
\subsection{Simulation results}
Table \ref{table1} displays the average estimates of RD, their average estimated standard errors (SE) and coverage rates of nominal 95\% confidence intervals over 1000 simulation runs using $ \text{CL}_\text{U} $ and $ \text{CL}_\text{A} $ for each of the four scenarios. The RD estimates using full data and using MMI followed by cluster-level analyses were unbiased for each of the four scenarios. However, CRA estimates were biased using both the $ \text{CL}_\text{U} $ and $ \text{CL}_\text{A} $ for each of the four scenarios. These results support our derived analytical results for RD estimates in Section \ref{validity_RD}. Under scenario 3, the CRA estimates of RD using both the $ \text{CL}_\text{U} $ and $ \text{CL}_\text{A} $ were coincidently close to the true value of RD. Another simulation has been run by changing the parameter values and the estimates of RD using both the $ \text{CL}_\text{U} $ and $ \text{CL}_\text{A} $ were found to be biased (results are given in Table \ref{table_extra})in Appendix \ref{Appendix C}. As expected, the average estimated standard errors of $ \text{CL}_\text{A} $ are smaller than that of $ \text{CL}_\text{U} $, using full data, CRA and MMI. This is because the $ \text{CL}_\text{A} $ removes the differences between the outcomes values of the two intervention groups which can be attributed to differences in the baseline covariate. MMI with adjusted DF estimates gave overcoverage for nominal 95\% confidence intervals for small number of clusters in each intervention group.
Table \ref{table2} shows the average estimates of $ \log(\text{RR}) $, their average estimated standard errors (SE) and coverage rates for nominal 95\% confidence intervals over 1000 simulation runs using $ \text{CL}_\text{U} $ and $ \text{CL}_\text{A} $ for the all four considered scenarios. Again the full data estimates and MMI followed by cluster-level analyses estimates of $ \log(\text{RR}) $ were unbiased for all four considered scenarios. The CRA estimates were biased using both $ \text{CL}_\text{U} $ and $ \text{CL}_\text{A} $ for all four considered scenarios. These results support our derived analytical results for RR in Section \ref{validity_RR}. MMI with adjusted DF estimates resulted overcoverage of nominal 95\% confidence intervals for small number of clusters in each intervention group.
Recall that RELR estimates cluster-specific (also known as conditional) intervention effect, while GEE estimates population-averaged (also known as marginal) intervention effect. In this study, the simulation data were generated using a RELR model (equation (\ref{model_logitlink})), where we set $ \beta_1=1.36 $, which can be interpreted as conditional (on cluster random effects and baseline covariate $ X $) log(OR) of developing the event of interest in the intervention group compared to the control group. For GEE, the corresponding value of $ \beta_1 $ will be smaller because the general effect of using a population averaged model over cluster-specific model is to attenuate the regression coefficient \cite{campbell2014}. Table \ref{table3} displays the average estimates of the $ \log(\text{OR}) $, their average estimated SE and coverage rates of nominal 95\% confidence intervals using RELR and GEE. The full data estimates of GEE is slightly lower as expected than that of RELR. For GEE, the CRA and MMI estimates were compared with the mean of the full data estimates as the true population-averaged log(OR) was unknown. The CRA estimates of RELR and GEE were unbiased with very good coverage rates. This is because we were adjusting for the baseline covariate which was associated with missingness. However, RELR with MMI gave slightly upward biased (maximum 8.6\%) estimates of intervention effect with small number of clusters in each intervention group; while GEE with MMI gave unbiased estimates. The study by Caille \textit{et al.} \cite{Caille2014} showed similar results to ours regarding good performance of GEE with respect to bias and coverage rate using MMI. The average estimated SEs of RELR estimates using CRA were lower than that of RELR using MMI, whereas the average estimated SEs of GEE estimates using CRA and MMI are fairly similar. Therefore, there is no benefit in doing MMI over CRA when the CRA and MMI use the same set of baseline covariates.
\begin{sidewaystable}
\centering
\caption{Average estimates of RD, their average estimated standard errors (SE) and coverage rates for nominal 95\% confidence intervals over 1000 simulation runs, using unadjusted cluster-level ($ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $) and adjusted cluster-level ($ \text{CL}_{\text{A}} $) analyses with full data, CRA and MMI. Monte Carlo errors for average estimates and average estimated SEs are all less than 0.003 and 0.001, respectively. The true value of RD is 20\%.}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc}
\toprule
& \multirow{3}{*}{$ k $} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{Average estimate (\%)} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{Average estimated SE} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Coverage (\%)} \\
\cline{3-20}
& & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Full} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{CRA} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{MMI} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Full} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{CRA} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{MMI} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Full} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{CRA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{MMI} \\
\cline{3-20}
& & $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{S1}
& 5 & 20.0 & 19.9 & 22.7 & 22.5 & 20.2 & 20.1 & 0.069 & 0.051 & 0.074 & 0.061 & 0.074 & 0.058 & 93.8 & 94.3 & 93.4 & 90.3 & 97.3 & 97.1 \\
& 10 & 20.0 & 20.1 & 22.6 & 22.6 & 20.1 & 20.2 & 0.049 & 0.037 & 0.053 & 0.044 & 0.053 & 0.042 & 95.8 & 95.1 & 93.2 & 91.2 & 96.5 & 96.7 \\
& 20 & 20.1 & 20.1 & 22.6 & 22.6 & 20.2 & 20.2 & 0.035 & 0.027 & 0.037 & 0.031 & 0.037 & 0.029 & 95.5 & 94.0 & 89.6 & 86.1 & 95.5 & 95.5 \\
& 50 & 20.0 & 20.0 & 22.6 & 22.6 & 20.1 & 20.1 & 0.022 & 0.017 & 0.024 & 0.020 & 0.023 & 0.018 & 95.1 & 94.8 & 81.5 & 75.5 & 95.2 & 95.5 \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{S2}
& 5 & 20.0 & 20.0 & 11.7 & 21.9 & 19.8 & 19.8 & 0.068 & 0.052 & 0.083 & 0.070 & 0.080 & 0.066 & 95.7 & 94.8 & 86.8 & 95.4 & 98.5 & 98.8 \\
& 10 & 20.2 & 20.0 & 12.0 & 21.9 & 20.1 & 19.9 & 0.049 & 0.037 & 0.059 & 0.049 & 0.056 & 0.045 & 96.1 & 95.9 & 74.4 & 94.9 & 97.5 & 97.3 \\
& 20 & 19.9 & 19.9 & 11.7 & 21.9 & 20.0 & 19.9 & 0.035 & 0.027 & 0.042 & 0.036 & 0.039 & 0.032 & 95.0 & 94.5 & 52.2 & 93.0 & 94.9 & 96.2 \\
& 50 & 20.0 & 20.1 & 11.8 & 22.0 & 20.0 & 20.1 & 0.022 & 0.017 & 0.027 & 0.023 & 0.024 & 0.020 & 95.7 & 94.9 & 13.6 & 87.5 & 95.2 & 95.7 \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{S3}
& 5 & 20.2 & 20.1 & 19.7 & 19.6 & 20.3 & 20.1 & 0.068 & 0.058 & 0.075 & 0.067 & 0.076 & 0.067 & 93.8 & 94.5 & 93.8 & 94.1 & 96.6 & 97.2 \\
& 10 & 19.9 & 19.9 & 19.6 & 19.6 & 20.0 & 20.0 & 0.050 & 0.042 & 0.055 & 0.048 & 0.055 & 0.047 & 95.7 & 95.9 & 95.7 & 96.1 & 96.3 & 96.8 \\
& 20 & 20.0 & 20.0 & 19.6 & 19.6 & 20.1 & 20.0 & 0.036 & 0.030 & 0.039 & 0.034 & 0.039 & 0.033 & 94.6 & 94.0 & 94.6 & 94.1 & 95.7 & 95.3 \\
& 50 & 20.0 & 20.0 & 19.6 & 19.6 & 20.1 & 20.1 & 0.023 & 0.019 & 0.025 & 0.022 & 0.024 & 0.021 & 95.4 & 95.0 & 95.2 & 94.7 & 95.1 & 94.8 \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{S4}
& 5 & 20.3 & 20.2 & 9.2 & 17.4 & 20.0 & 19.9 & 0.071 & 0.058 & 0.085 & 0.076 & 0.086 & 0.075 & 94.7 & 94.0 & 82.3 & 94.4 & 98.6 & 98.8 \\
& 10 & 20.1 & 20.1 & 9.2 & 17.4 & 20.2 & 20.2 & 0.050 & 0.042 & 0.060 & 0.054 & 0.059 & 0.052 & 93.9 & 94.5 & 60.9 & 92.6 & 95.9 & 96.9 \\
& 20 & 19.9 & 20.0 & 8.8 & 17.1 & 19.9 & 20.0 & 0.036 & 0.030 & 0.043 & 0.038 & 0.041 & 0.037 & 95.2 & 94.1 & 29.4 & 89.5 & 95.5 & 96.2 \\
& 50 & 20.0 & 20.0 & 8.8 & 17.1 & 20.0 & 20.0 & 0.023 & 0.019 & 0.027 & 0.024 & 0.026 & 0.023 & 95.0 & 95.7 & 2.3 & 80.0 & 94.8 & 94.4 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{table1}
\end{sidewaystable}
\begin{sidewaystable}
\centering
\caption{Average estimates of log(RR), their average estimated standard errors (SE) and coverage rates for nominal 95\% confidence intervals over 1000 simulation runs, using unadjusted cluster-level ($ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $) and adjusted cluster-level ($ \text{CL}_{\text{A}} $) analyses with full data, CRA and MMI. Monte Carlo errors for average estimates and average estimated SEs are all less than 0.005 and 0.001, respectively. The true value of $\log(\text{RR})$ is 0.337.}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc}
\toprule
& \multirow{3}{*}{$ k $} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{Average estimate} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{Average estimated SE} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Coverage (\%)} \\
\cline{3-20}
& & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Full} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{CRA} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{MMI} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Full} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{CRA} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{MMI} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Full} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{CRA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{MMI} \\
\cline{3-20}
& & $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $ & $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{S1}
& 5 & 0.339 & 0.344 & 0.461 & 0.464 & 0.344 & 0.348 & 0.123 & 0.096 & 0.159 & 0.136 & 0.135 & 0.110 & 94.4 & 93.9 & 90.5 & 86.2 & 97.3 & 98.0 \\
& 10 & 0.338 & 0.345 & 0.456 & 0.464 & 0.340 & 0.348 & 0.087 & 0.069 & 0.114 & 0.098 & 0.094 & 0.078 & 95.0 & 94.8 & 85.7 & 78.1 & 96.3 & 97.4 \\
& 20 & 0.339 & 0.345 & 0.456 & 0.464 & 0.341 & 0.348 & 0.062 & 0.049 & 0.080 & 0.069 & 0.066 & 0.054 & 94.7 & 93.4 & 71.6 & 58.8 & 95.6 & 95.3 \\
& 50 & 0.336 & 0.343 & 0.453 & 0.461 & 0.339 & 0.346 & 0.039 & 0.031 & 0.051 & 0.044 & 0.041 & 0.034 & 95.5 & 95.1 & 38.2 & 18.4 & 95.7 & 95.5 \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{S2}
& 5 & 0.339 & 0.346 & 0.261 & 0.515 & 0.338 & 0.344 & 0.122 & 0.096 & 0.186 & 0.161 & 0.142 & 0.119 & 95.8 & 94.7 & 94.0 & 85.8 & 98.7 & 98.8 \\
& 10 & 0.341 & 0.344 & 0.266 & 0.514 & 0.340 & 0.343 & 0.087 & 0.069 & 0.130 & 0.112 & 0.098 & 0.082 & 95.7 & 95.8 & 92.2 & 69.1 & 97.5 & 97.8 \\
& 20 & 0.336 & 0.342 & 0.260 & 0.512 & 0.337 & 0.343 & 0.062 & 0.049 & 0.093 & 0.081 & 0.069 & 0.057 & 95.4 & 94.6 & 88.0 & 45.4 & 95.4 & 96.2 \\
& 50 & 0.337 & 0.345 & 0.263 & 0.516 & 0.337 & 0.346 & 0.039 & 0.031 & 0.059 & 0.052 & 0.043 & 0.036 & 95.7 & 94.3 & 76.2 & 6.1 & 96.7 & 95.2 \\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{S3}
& 5 & 0.343 & 0.342 & 0.388 & 0.387 & 0.347 & 0.346 & 0.123 & 0.107 & 0.155 & 0.141 & 0.140 & 0.126 & 93.9 & 93.6 & 94.0 & 93.8 & 96.7 & 96.8 \\
& 10 & 0.336 & 0.338 & 0.383 & 0.383 & 0.338 & 0.340 & 0.089 & 0.077 & 0.112 & 0.102 & 0.099 & 0.088 & 95.7 & 95.8 & 93.6 & 94.3 & 96.5 & 96.9 \\
& 20 & 0.338 & 0.339 & 0.382 & 0.382 & 0.339 & 0.340 & 0.064 & 0.055 & 0.080 & 0.073 & 0.070 & 0.062 & 94.8 & 94.3 & 91.4 & 90.1 & 96.0 & 95.2 \\
& 50 & 0.337 & 0.339 & 0.383 & 0.384 & 0.339 & 0.341 & 0.040 & 0.035 & 0.051 & 0.046 & 0.044 & 0.039 & 95.6 & 95.2 & 86.5 & 84.2 & 95.8 & 95.7\\
\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{S4}
& 5 & 0.347 & 0.346 & 0.200 & 0.385 & 0.342 & 0.341 & 0.128 & 0.109 & 0.186 & 0.167 & 0.154 & 0.138 & 94.2 & 94.2 & 91.8 & 94.6 & 98.9 & 99.0 \\
& 10 & 0.340 & 0.342 & 0.198 & 0.385 & 0.342 & 0.344 & 0.089 & 0.078 & 0.130 & 0.118 & 0.105 & 0.095 & 93.5 & 94.0 & 81.8 & 93.4 & 95.8 & 97.2 \\
& 20 & 0.336 & 0.340 & 0.189 & 0.377 & 0.336 & 0.339 & 0.063 & 0.055 & 0.092 & 0.084 & 0.073 & 0.066 & 95.3 & 94.2 & 66.2 & 92.6 & 95.4 & 95.6 \\
& 50 & 0.336 & 0.340 & 0.189 & 0.376 & 0.338 & 0.340 & 0.040 & 0.035 & 0.058 & 0.053 & 0.045 & 0.041 & 94.8 & 96.0 & 30.4 & 89.3 & 94.8 & 95.4 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{table2}
\end{sidewaystable}
\begin{sidewaystable}
\centering
\caption{Average estimates of log(OR), their average estimated standard errors (SE) and coverage rates for nominal 95\% confidence intervals over 1000 simulation runs, using RELR and GEE with full data, CRA and MMI. Monte Carlo errors for average estimates and average estimated SEs are all less than 0.016 and 0.003, respectively. The true value of conditional log(OR) in RELR is 1.36. The true value of population- averaged log(OR) for GEE was empirically estimated using full data.}
\scalebox{0.85}{
\begin{tabular}{c|c|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc}
\toprule
& \multirow{3}{*}{$ k $} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{Average estimate} & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{Average estimated SE} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Coverage (\%)} \\
\cline{3-20}
& & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Full} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{CRA} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{MMI} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Full} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{CRA} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{MMI} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Full} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{CRA} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{MMI} \\
\cline{3-20}
& & RELR & GEE & RELR & GEE & RELR & GEE & RELR & GEE & RELR & GEE & RELR & GEE & RELR & GEE & RELR & RELR & RELR & GEE \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{S1}
& 5 & 1.363 & 1.321 & 1.360 & 1.320 & 1.384 & 1.328 & 0.341 & 0.363 & 0.364 & 0.382 & 0.391 & 0.372 & 94.6 & 95.2 & 94.4 & 94.7 & 97.7 & 96.5 \\
& 10 & 1.365 & 1.321 & 1.368 & 1.323 & 1.392 & 1.329 & 0.252 & 0.258 & 0.268 & 0.271 & 0.284 & 0.272 & 94.6 & 95.2 & 94.4 & 95.1 & 96.1 & 96.0 \\
& 20 & 1.361 & 1.315 & 1.363 & 1.317 & 1.385 & 1.322 & 0.182 & 0.184 & 0.193 & 0.192 & 0.201 & 0.195 & 94.7 & 95.0 & 95.0 & 94.7 & 95.8 & 95.5 \\
& 50 & 1.359 & 1.310 & 1.361 & 1.310 & 1.380 & 1.316 & 0.118 & 0.117 & 0.125 & 0.122 & 0.129 & 0.124 & 94.4 & 95.1 & 94.8 & 95.4 & 94.8 & 95.0 \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{S2}
& 5 & 1.345 & 1.311 & 1.368 & 1.333 & 1.402 & 1.335 & 0.336 & 0.320 & 0.405 & 0.417 & 0.456 & 0.438 & 94.7 & 94.8 & 95.5 & 94.9 & 98.6 & 98.6 \\
& 10 & 1.350 & 1.309 & 1.356 & 1.313 & 1.384 & 1.308 & 0.250 & 0.258 & 0.298 & 0.301 & 0.330 & 0.317 & 93.2 & 94.4 & 94.7 & 95.4 & 97.0 & 97.1 \\
& 20 & 1.358 & 1.311 & 1.352 & 1.305 & 1.376 & 1.301 & 0.184 & 0.185 & 0.215 & 0.213 & 0.232 & 0.224 & 94.8 & 95.8 & 95.0 & 94.9 & 96.7 & 96.4 \\
& 50 & 1.366 & 1.316 & 1.367 & 1.318 & 1.389 & 1.316 & 0.118 & 0.117 & 0.138 & 0.135 & 0.146 & 0.141 & 95.3 & 95.7 & 95.0 & 95.0 & 95.8 & 96.0 \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{S3}
& 5 & 1.391 & 1.353 & 1.407 & 1.367 & 1.434 & 1.374 & 0.343 & 0.358 & 0.392 & 0.400 & 0.414 & 0.389 & 94.8 & 94.1 & 95.2 & 94.4 & 97.7 & 97.4 \\
& 10 & 1.352 & 1.307 & 1.359 & 1.314 & 1.385 & 1.320 & 0.254 & 0.259 & 0.284 & 0.286 & 0.299 & 0.285 & 92.8 & 94.1 & 94.0 & 94.5 & 95.4 & 95.0 \\
& 20 & 1.372 & 1.326 & 1.370 & 1.325 & 1.395 & 1.330 & 0.183 & 0.184 & 0.204 & 0.202 & 0.212 & 0.203 & 93.2 & 94.4 & 93.2 & 94.1 & 94.1 & 94.1 \\
& 50 & 1.363 & 1.313 & 1.363 & 1.313 & 1.386 & 1.317 & 0.118 & 0.117 & 0.132 & 0.127 & 0.135 & 0.129 & 95.1 & 95.1 & 94.8 & 95.5 & 95.4 & 95.4 \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{S4}
& 5 & 1.375 & 1.336 & 1.413 & 1.378 & 1.476 & 1.390 & 0.346 & 0.366 & 0.497 & 0.493 & 0.535 & 0.505 & 94.5 & 95.2 & 97.0 & 94.0 & 98.6 & 98.5 \\
& 10 & 1.366 & 1.325 & 1.377 & 1.334 & 1.431 & 1.342 & 0.252 & 0.258 & 0.353 & 0.351 & 0.375 & 0.357 & 94.6 & 95.3 & 95.3 & 94.6 & 96.5 & 96.6 \\
& 20 & 1.376 & 1.328 & 1.387 & 1.339 & 1.432 & 1.346 & 0.183 & 0.184 & 0.252 & 0.247 & 0.266 & 0.251 & 94.7 & 94.8 & 94.3 & 94.4 & 94.5 & 94.8 \\
& 50 & 1.360 & 1.312 & 1.362 & 1.313 & 1.397 & 1.317 & 0.118 & 0.117 & 0.160 & 0.156 & 0.167 & 0.157 & 95.4 & 95.7 & 94.8 & 94.5 & 94.4 & 94.2 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\label{table3}
\end{sidewaystable}
\section{Example}
\label{example}
We now illustrate the methods compared here using the data from a factorial cluster randomised trial designed to investigate the impact of two interventions among school children in class 1 and class 5 on the south coast of Kenya \cite{Halliday2014}. The interventions were intermittent screening and treatment (IST) for malaria on the health and education of school children in class 1 and class 5; and a literacy intervention (LIT) on education only being applied in class 1. One hundred and one government primary schools were randomised to one of the four groups receiving either (i) IST alone (25 schools); (ii) LIT alone (25 schools); (iii) both IST and LIT (26 schools); or (iv) neither IST nor LIT (25 schools). On average, the number of children per school in the four groups were, respectively, 107 ( standard deviation (SD)=7.54 ), 99 (SD=17.84), 103 (SD=6.28) and 102 (SD=7.51). The primary outcomes were anaemia at either 12 or 24 months and educational achievement at 9 months and 24 months assessed by a battery of tests of reading, writing and arithmetic. Baseline characteristics of the school (school mean exam score and school size), the child (age, sex, sleep under net and baseline anaemia) and the household (paternal education and household size) were collected. For the purpose of illustration, we restricted attention to anaemia (binary) measured at the 24 months follow-up. A paper published based on this study \cite{Halliday2014} showed no evidence of interaction between the two interventions in class 1 where both were implemented. We therefore merged the groups (i) and (iii) where IST was implemented and considered this as the intervention group; and merged the groups (ii) and (iv) where IST was not implemented and considered this as the control group. The control group and the intervention group consisted of 2502 and 2674 children, respectively; and among them 475 (18.98\%) and 501 (18.74\%) had missing anaemia at 24 months, respectively. The covariate baseline anaemia had some missing values as well. To illustrates our methods for the case where only outcomes are missing and all baseline covariates are fully observed, we excluded the children from the analysis with missing baseline anaemia value. Hence, in our analysis, the control group and the intervention group consisted of 2373 and 2451 children, respectively; and among them 430 (18.12\%) and 424 (17.30\%) had missing anaemia at 24 months, respectively.
The original trial's prespecified analysis planned to adjust for the baseline covariates age, sex, exam score, literacy group and baseline anaemia. In our analysis, first we investigated the association of the baseline covariates (age, sex, exam score, literacy group and baseline anaemia) with anaemia at 24 months and with the probability of anaemia at 24 months being missing by fitting random effects logistic regression models. Table \ref{datatable1} displays the estimates of conditional log odds ratios of the two models. Age and baseline anaemia were strongly associated with anaemia at 24 months and there was no evidence of interaction between IST intervention and baseline covariates in the model for anaemia at 24 months. Older children were more likely to have anaemia at 24 months missing; and children receiving literacy intervention were less likely to have anaemia at 24 months missing. There was weak evidence of interaction between IST intervention and literacy group on the missingness of anaemia at 24 months. Based on these analyses a working assumption is that missingness of anaemia at 24 months depends mainly on age, and that this dependence does not differ between the two intervention groups as there was no evidence of interaction between IST intervention and age.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Estimates of log odds ratios as measures of association of the baseline covariates with anaemia at 24 months and with the probability of anaemia at 24 months being missing}
\begin{threeparttable}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccc|ccc}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Anaemia} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Missingness of anaemia}\\
\midrule
& Estimate & Std. Error & p-\text{value} & Estimate & Std. Error & p-\text{value} \\
\midrule
Intercept & -1.72 & 0.81 & 0.03 & -2.10 & 0.60 & 0.00 \\
IST (intervention) & 0.36 & 1.10 & 0.74 & -0.27 & 0.83 & 0.74 \\
Age (years) & 0.07 & 0.02 & $ <0.001 $ & 0.06 & 0.02 & $ <0.001 $ \\
Sex (male vs female) & -0.04 & 0.10 & 0.73 & -0.08 & 0.11 & 0.48 \\
Exam score & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.77 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.91 \\
Literacy group & 0.06 & 0.19 & 0.74 & -0.28 & 0.13 & $ 0.03 $ \\
Baseline anaemia & 1.57 & 0.11 & $ <0.001 $ & 0.09 & 0.11 & 0.42 \\
IST: Age \tnote{*} & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.62 & 0.04 & 0.03 & 0.12 \\
IST: Sex \tnote{*} & 0.10 & 0.14 & 0.49 & -0.18 & 0.15 & 0.24 \\
IST: Exam score \tnote{*} & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.59 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.62 \\
IST: Literacy group \tnote{*} & 0.37 & 0.26 & 0.15 & 0.38 & 0.19 & $ 0.04 $ \\
IST: Baseline anaemia \tnote{*} & -0.19 & 0.15 & 0.19 & -0.03 & 0.15 & 0.86 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[*] Interaction terms
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\label{datatable1}
\end{table}
\begin{sidewaystable}
\caption{Risk difference, risk ratio and odds ratio estimates using CRA and MMI for the IST intervention trial data. }
\begin{threeparttable}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\toprule
Analysis Approach & & $ N_0 $ & $ N_1 $ & Risk difference (RD) & Risk ratio (RR) & Odds ratio (OR)\\
\hline
& & & & Estimate (95\% CI) & Estimate (95\% CI) & Estimate ( 95\% CI )\\
\hline\hline
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\textbf{Cluster-level Analysis}\tnote{a}}\\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\textbf{}}\\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\textbf{CRA}}\\
Unadjusted & & 2027 & 2173 & 0.019 (-0.040, 0.077) & 1.047 (0.908, 1.208) & \\
Adjusted & & 1935 & 2027 & 0.022 (-0.033, 0.077) & 1.037 (0.908, 1.185) & \\
& & & & & & \\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\textbf{MMI}}\\
Unadjusted & & 2373 & 2451 & 0.021 (-0.038, 0.080) & 1.053 (0.911, 1.218) & \\
Adjusted & & 2373 & 2451 & 0.017 (-0.035, 0.070) & 1.040 (0.910, 1.189) & \\
\midrule
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\textbf{Individual-level Analysis}}\\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\textbf{}}\\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\textbf{CRA}}\\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\textbf{RELR}}\\
Unadjusted & & 2027 & 2173 & & - & 1.090 (0.841, 1.414)\\
Adjusted & & 1935 & 2027 & & - & 1.088 (0.839, 1.409)\\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\textbf{GEE}\tnote{b}}\\
Unadjusted & & 2027 & 2173 & & 1.048 (0.908, 1.209) & 1.082 (0.850, 1.378)\\
Adjusted & & 1935 & 2027 & & 1.019 (0.911, 1.141) & 1.070 (0.842, 1.359)\\
& & & & & & \\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\textbf{MMI}}\\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\textbf{RELR}}\\
Unadjusted & & 2373 & 2451 & & - & 1.101 (0.849, 1.428)\\
Adjusted & & 2373 & 2451 & & - & 1.089 (0.841, 1.413)\\
\multicolumn{7}{l}{\textbf{GEE}}\\
Unadjusted & & 2373 & 2451 & & 1.053 (0.912, 1.215) & 1.090 (0.856, 1.389) \\
Adjusted & & 2373 & 2451 & & 1.019 (0.911, 1.140) & 1.072 (0.843, 1.363) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[a] Cluster-level analysis was used to estimate the risk difference and the risk ratio.
\item[b] GEE was used to estimate the risk ratio using log link and to estimate the marginal odds ratio using logit link.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\label{datatable2}
\end{sidewaystable}
We analysed the data using the methods $ \text{CL}_{\text{U}} $, $ \text{CL}_{\text{A}} $, RELR and GEE; assuming that the missingness in anaemia at 24 months depends on the baseline covariates age, but conditioning on age, not on the anaemia at 24 months itself, i.e. a CDM mechanism. GEE models were fitted assuming both logit and log links for the true outcome model to estimate odds ratio and risk ratio, respectively. The missing anaemia at 24 months were handled using CRA and MMI. The RELR, GEE and adjusted cluster-level analysis were adjusted for the baseline covariates age, sex, school mean exam score, literacy group and baseline anaemia. MMI was done using the R package \texttt{jomo} \cite{matteo}, with an imputation model adjusted for the aforementioned baseline covariates. We used 100 imputed datasets in MMI. GEE with log link after MMI was not congenial with the imputation model, as the imputation model used probit link. The estimates and confidence intervals (CIs) of RD, RR and OR obtained by CRA and MMI are displayed in Table \ref{datatable2}. The column $ N_0 $ and $ N_1 $ in Table \ref{datatable2} represent the number of children in the control and intervention groups, respectively. All measures showed no evidence of IST intervention effect in improving health of school children by alleviating anaemia. The CRA estimates of RD and RR using cluster-level analyses are very similar to the corresponding estimates obtained by MMI. This is because CRA is valid in this case as there is no evidence of intervention effect and no evidence of interaction between covariates and intervention. The estimates and CIs of unadjusted and adjusted OR obtained by CRA were found to be very close to the corresponding estimates obtained by MMI. This is because, as we found in our simulation results, there is no gain in terms of bias or efficiency of the estimates using MMI over CRA as long as the same set of predictors of missingness are used by both methods.
\vskip 2cm
\section{Discussion and conclusion}
\label{dis_con}
In this paper, we showed analytically and through simulations that cluster-level analyses for estimating RD using complete records are valid only when there is no intervention effect in truth and the intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism and the same covariate effect in the outcome model. For estimating RR, cluster-level analyses using complete records are valid if the true data generating model has log link and the intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism and the same covariate effect in the outcome model. However, if the true data generating model has logit link, cluster-level analyses using complete records for estimating RR are valid only when there is no intervention effect in truth and the intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism and the same covariate effect in the outcome model. But, in practice, it is impossible to know in advance whether there is an intervention effect. We therefore caution researchers that cluster-level analyses using complete records, assuming logit link for the true data generating model, in general results in biased inferences in CRTs. However, when the true data generating model follows a log link and the parameter of interest is RR, cluster-level analyses using complete records give valid inferences if the intervention groups have the same missingness mechanism and the same covariates effect in the outcome model.
In contrast, MMI followed by cluster-level analyses gave unbiased estimates of RD and RR regardless of whether missingness mechanisms were the same or different between the intervention groups and whether there is an interaction between intervention and baseline covariate in the outcome model, provided that an interaction was allowed for in the imputation model when required. However, MMI resulted in overcoverage for the nominal 95\% confidence interval with small number of clusters in each intervention group. Similar results were found for continuous outcomes in CRTs by Hossain \textit{et al.} \cite{Hossain2016}.
The full data estimates of conditional $ \log(\text{OR}) $ using RELR were unbiased with good coverage rates. These results differ from the results found by Ma \textit{et al.} \cite{Ma2013}, where they concluded that full data estimates using RELR were biased. As noted previously, we believe this is because they generated the data in such a way that they knew what the true population-averaged $ \log(\text{OR}) $ was, but after fitting RELR, they compared the estimates of conditional (on the cluster random effects) $ \log(\text{OR}) $ with the true population averaged $ \log(\text{OR}) $. As noted earlier, population averaged $ \log(\text{OR}) $ is marginal with respect to the cluster random effects \cite{Faraway2006}.
The CRA estimates of conditional $ \log(\text{OR}) $ using RELR were unbiased with coverage rates close to the nominal level regardless of whether the missingness mechanism is the same or different between the intervention groups and whether there is an interaction between the intervention and baseline covariate in the data generating model for outcome, provided that if there is an interaction in the data generating model for the outcome then this interaction is included in the model fitted to the data. This conclusion contradicts the results of a previous study by Ma \textit{et al.} \cite{Ma2013}, where they found that CRA estimates using RELR are biased under covariate dependent missingness (CDM) assumption. Again we believe this is because they compared RELR estimates of the conditional $ \log(\text{OR}) $ to the true marginal $ \log(\text{OR}) $. The conclusions of Ma \textit{et al.} \cite{Ma2013} have subsequently been cited in a recent textbook on CRT design and analysis \cite{campbell2014}. We hope that our results and explanations help in understanding some of the surprising results and conclusion in Ma \textit{et al.} \cite{Ma2011, Ma2012comparing, Ma2013}. In our study, we also found that the RELR with MMI gave slightly upward biased estimates of conditional $ \log(\text{OR}) $ for small number of clusters in each intervention groups.
GEE using CRA and MMI gave unbiased estimates of population averaged $ \log(\text{OR}) $ with coverage rates close to the nominal level regardless of whether the missingness mechanism was the same between the intervention groups and whether there was an interaction between the intervention group and baseline covariate in the data generating model. Similar results had been found by Ma \textit{et al.} \cite{Ma2013} for GEE in terms of bias, although as described earlier, in their data generating mechanism the covariate was generated independently of the outcome.
In this study, we have assumed baseline covariate dependent missingness assumption for binary outcome, which is an example of MAR as our baseline covariate was fully observed. In practice, it cannot be identified on the basis of the observed data which missingness assumption is appropriate \cite{White2010,carpenterKen2013}. Therefore, sensitivity analyses should be performed \cite[Ch. 10]{carpenterKen2013} to explore whether inferences are robust to the primary working assumption regarding the missingness mechanism. Furthermore, we focused on studies with only one individual-level baseline covariate; the methods described can be extended to more than one baseline covariate.
In conclusion, as long as both MMI and CRA use the same set of baseline covariates, RELR or GEE using complete records can be recommended as the primary analysis approach for CRTs with missing binary outcomes if we are willing to assume that the missingness depends on baseline covariates and conditional on these, not on the outcome. In addition, where the aim is to estimate RD or RR, MMI can be used followed by cluster-level analysis to get valid estimates under the covariate dependent missingness assumption for missing binary outcomes, but one should be cautious when making inferences as this approach results in overcoverage for small number of clusters in each intervention group.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
A Hossain was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), UK, via Bloomsbury Doctoral Training Centre (ES/J5000021/1). K Diaz-Ordaz was funded by Medical Research Council (MRC) career development award in Biostatistics (MR/L011964/1). J W Bartlett's contribution to this paper was partly supported by MRC fellowship (MR/K02180X/1) while he was a member of the Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene \& Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). The authors would like to thank Professor Elizabeth Allen, Department of Medical Statistics, LSHTM, for giving us permission to use the IST intervention trial data. We also would like to thank all teachers, children and parents who participated in this trial.
|
\section{I. Introduction}
Many independent experimental data \cite{CMBR}-\cite{SNeIa}, support the hypothesis according to which the today observed universe has an accelerating expansion due to an unknown form of energy, called dark energy, which has a negative pressure. The dark energy represents approximately $68\%$ of the total matter--energy density of the universe and it is distributed isotropically throughout the universe.
Moreover, astronomical observations relative to the speed of rotating galaxies indicate that an unknown form of matter, not interacting electromagnetically, is need in order to permits the stability of the galaxies and of cluster of galaxies. The dark matter
makes up about $27\%$ of the universe.
Different models have been proposed to solve the dark energy \cite{odintsovreport}- \cite{odintsovreport12} and dark matter puzzles \cite{kam}- \cite{kam6}, however, the explanation of the dark components of the universe represents still a very big challenge.
Apparently separate research lines regard the study of physical systems characterized by vacuum condensates
\cite{Hawking:1974sw}-\cite{Birrell}, such as for example the Hawking or the Casimir effect \cite{Casimir,Casimir1}.
Such phenomena
have a non-zero vacuum energy which cannot be removed by use of the normal ordering procedure.
This fact, in a supersymmetric context, induces the spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry \cite{Capolupo:2010ek}-\cite{Mavromatos1}.
In the present paper it is shown that
these interesting issues are intimately bound together in such way that
the vacuum condensate energy can provide contributions to the dark energy
and to the dark matter.
It is shown that all the condensates have state equations depending on the particular regime one considers (high momentum (UV) and low momentum (IR) regime). The particular cases of the vacuum energy induced by thermal states, by curved spaces and by the mixing of particles are analyzed in detail.
One shows that the thermal states, the Hawking and the Unruh radiations do not contribute significatively to the energy of the universe.
Only the vacuum energy induced by the Hawking effect of hypothetical primordial black holes and
the thermal vacuum of the intracluster medium (ICM), i.e. the vacuum of hot plasma present at the center of a galaxy cluster, can represent a dark matter component.
The vacuum of fields in curved space has a similar behavior \cite{maroto}.
A further discussion deserves the particle mixing phenomena, i.e. the neutrino and quark mixing in the fermion sector, and the axion photon mixing
and the meson mixing in the boson sector.
For such systems, starting from the results of our previous works \cite{Capolupo:2006et,Capolupo:2008rz,Capolupo:2007hy3}, and from the ones presented in Refs.\cite{Mavromatos1,Mavromatos2}, obtained in a supersymmetric context,
one shows that the flavor neutrino vacuum can give a contribution to the dark matter with a value compatible with its estimated upper bound, while, the quark condensate, because of the quark confinement inside the hadrons should
not interact gravitationally.
Moreover, one shows that the condensate of mixed boson
\cite{Blasone:2001du,Capolupo:2004pt}, as axions and axion like particles (ALPs) in their interaction with photons, and of superpartners of mixed neutrinos, can contribute to the dark energy with the state equation of the cosmological constant.
It is expected that mixed particles like kaons, $B^{0}$, $D^{0}$ mesons and $\eta-\eta^{\prime}$ system do not contribute to the energy on large scale, since they are unstable and not elementary particles.
We point out that, the common origin of the non trivial vacuum energy contributions of the systems above described resides in the fact that the physical vacuum of these systems is a condensate of couples of particles and antiparticles which lift the zero point energy to a positive value.
The formal analogy (Bogoliubov transformations) among the disparate phenomena generating condensates could allow to simulate the systems here analyzed by means of phenomena as the superconductivity, the Casimir effect and the Schwinger effect, which are reproducible in table top experiments.
In the computations a particular care has been placed to the renormalization procedure since different schemes may provide different renormalized expressions. The choice of the scheme to adopt is imposed by the need to preserve the symmetries of the system considered. For example, to preserve the Lorentz invariance of the Minkowski space time,
the dimensional regularization has been used in ref.\cite{Akhmedov}.
In this way, one has $p_{vacuum} = - \rho_{vacuum}$, which is the cosmological constant equation. On the contrary, in the case of curved spaces, as the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker background, the Lorentz invariance is no more a symmetry of the metric and a cut-off regularization can be utilized.
In Ref.\cite{maroto} a comoving cut-off on the momenta has been proposed.
Notice that the cut-off regularization represents a valid choice also for the other vacuum condensates since the Lorentz invariance is not a symmetry of such systems. Motivated by such facts, in the following the cut-off regularization will be used for all the phenomena considered, apart from the thermal vacuum for which the regularization is not needed.
The paper is structured as follows,
in Sec.II, the Bogoliubov transformations in QFT are introduced and the condensate structure of the transformed vacuum is shown. In Sec.III, it is presented the general form of the energy density and pressure of vacuum condensates for boson and fermion fields. In Sec.IV it is analyzed the contribution given to the energy of the universe by thermal states, with reference to the Hawking and Unruh effects. In Sec.V the fields in curved space are considered, and in Sec.VI the contributions to the dark energy and to the dark matter given by the particle mixing phenomena are presented. Sec.VII is devoted to the conclusions.
\section{II. Bogoliubov transformation and vacuum condensate}
The Bogoliubov transformations in the QFT context \cite{Umezawa:1993yq}
describe disparate phenomena such as the Hawking-Unruh effect \cite{Hawking:1974sw,Unruh:1976db}, the Schwinger effect \cite{Schwinger:1951nm}, the BCS theory of superconductivity \cite{Bardeen:1957mv}, the Thermo Field Dynamics \cite{Takahasi:1974zn}, the particle mixing phenomena \cite{Blasone:2002jv}-\cite{Capolupo:2007hy}, the QFT in curved spacetimes \cite{Birrell} and so on.
For bosons and fermions they are given by
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\label{Bog1}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
{\tilde a}_{\mathbf{k}}( \xi, t) &=& U^{B}_{\mathbf{k}} \, a_{\mathbf{k}}(t) - V^{B}_{-\mathbf{k}} \,a^{\dagger}_{-\mathbf{k}}(t)\,,
\\
{\tilde a^{\dag}}_{-\mathbf{k}}( \xi, t) &=& U^{B *}_{-\mathbf{k}} \, a^{\dag}_{-\mathbf{k}}(t) - V^{B *}_{\mathbf{k}} \,a_{\mathbf{k}}(t)\,,
\eea
and
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
\label{Bog2}
{\tilde \alpha}^r_{\mathbf{k}}(\xi, t) &=& U^{F}_{\mathbf{k}} \, \alpha^r_{\mathbf{k}}(t) + V^{F}_{-\mathbf{k}} \, \alpha^{r\dagger}_{-\mathbf{k}}( t)\,, \nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
\\
{\tilde \alpha}^{r\dagger}_{-\mathbf{k}}(\xi, t) &=& U^{F *}_{-\mathbf{k}} \, \alpha^{r\dagger}_{-\mathbf{k}}(t) + V^{F *}_{ \mathbf{k}} \, \alpha^{r}_{\mathbf{k}}(t)\,,
\eea
with $a_{\mathbf{k}}(t) = a_{\mathbf{k}} e^{-i\omega_{k}t}$, $\alpha^r_{\mathbf{k}}(t) = \alpha^r_{\mathbf{k}} e^{-i\omega_{k}t}$, annihilators for bosons and fermion fields, respectively, such that $a_{\mathbf{k}}|0\rangle_{B} = \alpha^r_{\mathbf{k}}|0\rangle_F =0$ and $\omega_{\mathbf{k}}=\sqrt{k^2 + m^2}$.
The coefficients satisfy the conditions
$
U^{B}_{\mathbf{k}} = U^{B}_{-\mathbf{k}}$, $ V^{B}_{\mathbf{k}} = V^{B}_{-\mathbf{k}}$, $|U^{B}_{\mathbf{k}}|^2 - |V^{B}_{\mathbf{k}}|^2 = 1\,,
$
for bosons, and
$
U^{\psi}_{\mathbf{k}} = U^{F}_{-\mathbf{k}}$, $ V^{F}_{\mathbf{k}} = -V^{F}_{-\mathbf{k}}$, $|U^{F}_{\mathbf{k}}|^2 + |V^{F}_{\mathbf{k}}|^2 = 1\,,
$
for fermions. Thus, they have the general form:
$U^{B}_{\mathbf{k}} = e^{i\gamma_{1\mathbf{k}}}\cosh\eta_{\mathbf{k}}(\zeta)$, $ V^{B}_{\mathbf{k}} =e^{i\gamma_{2\mathbf{k}}}\sinh\eta_{\mathbf{k}}(\zeta)$, $U^{F}_{\mathbf{k}} =e^{i\phi_{1\mathbf{k}}}\cos\xi_{\mathbf{k}}(\zeta)$,
$ V^{F}_{\mathbf{k}} =e^{i\phi_{2\mathbf{k}}}\sin\xi_{\mathbf{k}}(\zeta)$, respectively.
The parameter $\zeta$ controls the physics underlying the transformation. For example, $\zeta$ is related to the temperature $T$ in the Thermo Field Dynamics case, or to the acceleration of the observer in the Unruh effect case.
The phases $\phi_{i\mathbf{k}}$, $\gamma_{i\mathbf{k}}$, with $i=1,2$, are irrelevant in our discussions.
The transformations (\ref{Bog1}) and (\ref{Bog2}) can be written at any time $t$ in terms of the generator $J_{\lambda}(\xi, t)$ as:
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
{\chi}^r_{\mathbf{k}}( \xi, t) &=& J_{\lambda}^{-1} (\xi, t)\,\chi^r_{\mathbf{k}}(t) J_{\lambda}(\xi, t)\,,
\eea
with $\chi= a, \alpha$ and $\lambda = B,F$. Similar relations hold for the creation operators. The generators
have the property $J_{\lambda}^{-1}(\xi)=J_{\lambda}(-\xi)$.
The vacua $ |0( \xi, t)\rangle_{\lambda}$ annihilated by the new annihilators are related to the original ones $|0\rangle_{\lambda}$ by the formal relations
$ |0( \xi, t)\rangle_{\lambda} = J^{-1}_{\lambda}(\xi, t)|0\rangle_{\lambda} $, with $\lambda = F , B$.
This is a unitary operation if $\mathbf{k}$ assumes a discrete range of values, which happens in quantum mechanics in which there is a finite or countable number of canonical (anti-) commutation relations CCRs. In this case, the Fock spaces built on the two vacua are equivalent and any vector in one space can be expressed in terms of a well defined sum of vectors in the other space. But in QFT, $\mathbf{k}$ assumes a continuous infinity of values, then one has, for bosons,
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
|0(\xi,t) \rangle_{B} &=& \exp\left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[ -\delta(\mathbf{0})\int\, d^3 \mathbf{k}\; \log\cosh\xi_{\mathbf{k}} \right}\def\ti{\tilde]
\\ &\times & \exp\left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[ \int\, d^3 \mathbf{k}\; \tanh\xi_{\mathbf{k}} (a_{\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger})^2\right}\def\ti{\tilde] |0\rangle_{B} \,,
\eea
which is not a unitary transformation any more \cite{Umezawa}. This shows that the vacuum $| 0 (\xi,t) \rangle_{B}$ cannot be expressed as a superposition of vectors in the Fock space built over $|0\rangle_{B}$. The same is true for the whole Fock space built over $| {0}(\xi,t )\rangle_{B}$, i.e. the two Fock spaces are unitarily inequivalent \cite{Umezawa}. Similar discussion holds for fermions.
In general, the existence in QFT of infinitely many representations which are unitarily inequivalent to each other, leads to the problem of the right choice of the Fock space and of the physical vacua associated with the particles which appear in observations.
For the mentioned systems \cite{Hawking:1974sw}--\cite{Birrell}, ruled by Bogoliubov transformations, the physical vacua to be used in the computations are the $|0(\xi,t) \rangle_{\lambda}$ ones \cite{Umezawa}.
Notice that, $|0(\xi,t)\rangle_{\lambda}$ is a condensate of couples of particles and antiparticles. Indeed one has
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\label{cond1}
&&_{\lambda}\langle 0(\xi,t)| \chi^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}} \chi_{\mathbf{k}} |0(\xi,t)\rangle_{\lambda} = |V_{\mathbf{k}}^{\lambda}|^2;\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \label{cond2}
\eea
where $\chi =a, \alpha$, $\lambda =B,F$ and Eqs.(\ref{Bog1})--(\ref{Bog2}) have been used.
Such a condensate structure leads to an energy momentum tensor different from zero for $|0(\xi,t)\rangle_{\lambda} $.
\section{III. Energy-momentum tensor of vacuum condensate}
One considers the free energy momentum tensor densities $T^{\mu\nu}(x)$ for real scalar fields $\phi$ $,
T_{B}^{\mu\nu}(x) = \partial_{\mu}\phi(x) \partial^{\mu}\phi(x) -\frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} (\partial^{\rho}\phi(x) \partial_{\rho}\phi(x) - m^{2}\phi(x)^{2})\,,
$ and for Majorana fields $\psi$,
$
T_{F}^{\mu\nu}(x) = \frac{i}{2} \bar{\psi}(x)\gamma_{\mu} \overleftrightarrow{\partial}^{\mu}\psi(x) \,.
$
One computes the expectation value of $T^{\lambda}_{\mu \nu}(x)$, ($\lambda =B,F$) on the transformed vacuum
$| 0 (\xi, t)\rangle_{\lambda}$,
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
\Xi^{\lambda}_{\mu \nu}(x) & \equiv & _{\lambda}\langle 0 ( \xi, t)|: T^{\lambda}_{\mu \nu}(x): | 0 (\xi, t)\rangle_{\lambda}
\\\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
& = & _{\lambda}\langle 0 ( \xi, t)| T^{\alpha}_{\mu \nu}(x) | 0 (\xi, t)\rangle_{\lambda}
- _{\lambda}\langle 0 | T^{\lambda}_{\mu \nu}(x) | 0 \rangle_{\lambda}\,.
\eea
The simbol, $:...:$, denotes the normal ordering with respect to the original vacuum $|0 \rangle_{\lambda}$.
Notice that the off-diagonal components of the expectation value of $T^{\lambda}_{\mu \nu}(x)$ in Eq.(\ref{tensor}) are zero, $\langle 0 ( \xi, t)|: T^{\lambda}_{i,j}(x): | 0 (\xi, t)\rangle = 0$, for $i \neq j$,
being different from zero only the diagonal components. This implies that the condensates induced by Bogoliubov transformations behave as a perfect fluid and the energy density and pressure of boson and fermion condensates can be defined as
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
\rho^{\lambda} & = & \langle 0 ( \xi, t)|: T_{0 0}^{\lambda}(x): | 0 (\xi, t)\rangle\,,
\\
p^{\lambda} & = & \langle 0 ( \xi, t)|: T_{j j}^{\lambda}(x): | 0 (\xi, t)\rangle\,,
\eea
respectively.
In the boson case, one has
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray} \label{T00Bos}
\rho_{B} & = & \frac{1}{2} \langle 0 ( \xi, t)| : \Big[\pi^{2}( x) + \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow(\vec{\nabla} \phi( x) \right}\def\ti{\tilde)^{2}
+ m^{2} \phi^{2}( x) \Big]: |0( \xi, t) \rangle\,;
\\ \label{TjjBos}
p_{B} & = & \langle 0 ( \xi, t)| :\Big(\left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[ \partial_{j} \phi( x) \right}\def\ti{\tilde]^{2}+ \frac{1}{2}\Big[\pi^{2}( x)
- \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow(\vec{\nabla} \phi( x) \right}\def\ti{\tilde)^{2}
- m^{2}
\phi^{2}( x) \Big] \Big): |0 ( \xi, t) \rangle\,.
\eea
\end{widetext}
In the particular case of the isotropy of the momenta, $k_1 = k_2 =k_3$, one has,
$ \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[ \partial_{j} \phi( x) \right}\def\ti{\tilde]^{2} = \frac{1}{3} \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[\vec{\nabla} \phi( x) \right}\def\ti{\tilde]^{2}$, then the pressure can be written as
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}}\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}
\label{Press-Bos}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
p_{B} = \frac{1}{2} \langle 0 ( \xi, t)| : \Big[\pi^{2}( x)
- \frac{1}{3} \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow(\vec{\nabla} \phi( x) \right}\def\ti{\tilde)^{2}
- m^{2} \phi^{2}( x) \Big] : |0 ( \xi, t) \rangle\,.
\eea
\end{widetext}
In general, the vacuum condensates $|0 ( \xi, t) \rangle_{\lambda}$ are space or time dependent, therefore they violate the Lorentz invariance. This fact implies that the kinetic and gradient terms of Eq.(\ref{Press-Bos}) can be different from zero. Namely,
$\langle 0 ( \xi, t)|: \pi^{2}( x) : | 0 (\xi, t)\rangle \neq 0$ and
$\langle 0 ( \xi, t)|:\left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[\vec{\nabla} \phi( x) \right}\def\ti{\tilde]^{2} : | 0 (\xi, t)\rangle \neq 0$.
Therefore, from Eqs.(\ref{T00Bos}) and (\ref{Press-Bos}), one can have the following state equations: $w_{B} = p_{B}/\rho_{B}= 1$, if the kinetic term dominates;
$w_B = -1/3$, if the gradient term dominates, and $w_B = -1$, (cosmological constant state equation) for dominating mass term. Moreover, the radiation state equation, $w_B = 1/3$ can be achieved if the kinetic and gradient terms are of the same order, and the mass term is negligible. Such a result is achieved in the high momenta regime, $k \rightarrow \infty$. Finally, the state equation of the dark matter, $w_B = 0$, is obtained for negligible gradient term and for kinetic and mass terms of the same order. This situation happens in the low momenta regime $k \rightarrow 0$.
If all the terms (kinetic, gradient and mass ones) are taken into account, the energy density and pressure are given by
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\label{enBos1}
\rho_{B} & = & \int \frac{d^{3} {\bf k}}{(2 \pi)^{3}}\, \omega_{k }\, \langle 0 ( \xi, t)| a^{\dagger}_{\bf k}\, a_{\bf k}\, |0( \xi, t) \rangle\,;
\\\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
\\ \label{PreBos}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
p_{B} & = & \int \frac{d^{3} {\bf k}}{(2 \pi)^{3}}\, \Big[\frac{1}{3} \frac{k^2}{\omega_k} \langle 0 ( \xi, t)| a^{\dagger}_{\bf k}\, a_{\bf k}\,|0 ( \xi, t) \rangle
\\\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
& - & \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow( \frac{1}{3} \frac{k^2}{\omega_k} + \frac{1}{2} \frac{m^2}{\omega_k} \right}\def\ti{\tilde)
\langle 0 ( \xi, t)|\Big( a_{\bf k}\, a_{-\bf k} e^{-i \omega_k t}\,
\\
& + &
a^{\dagger}_{\bf k}\, a^{\dagger}_{ -\bf k} e^{ i \omega_k t}\Big) |0 ( \xi, t) \rangle \Big]\,,
\eea
which, explicitly become
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\label{energy-Bos}
\rho_{B} & = & \frac{1}{2 \pi^{2}} \int_{0}^{\infty} dk k^{2}\omega_{k } |V_{ k}^{B}|^{2}\,,
\\\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
\\\label{pressure-Bos}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
p_{B} & = & \frac{1}{6 \pi^{2}} \int_{0}^{\infty} dk k^{2}\, \Big[ \frac{k^2}{\omega_k}
|V_{ k}^{B}|^{2}
\\
& - & \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow( \frac{ k^2}{ \omega_k} + \frac{3 m^2}{2 \omega_k} \right}\def\ti{\tilde) |U_{ k}^{B}||V_{ k}^{B}| \cos (\omega_{k} t) \Big] \,.
\eea
The state equation is then
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
w_{B} & = & \frac{1}{3}\frac{\int d^{3}\, \mathbf{k} \frac{k^2}{\omega_k}|V_{k}^{B}|^2 }{\int d^{3} \mathbf{k}\, \omega_k |V_{k}^{B}|^2}
\\
& - & \frac{1}{3}\frac{\int d^{3} \mathbf{k}\, \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow( \frac{ k^2}{ \omega_k} + \frac{3 m^2}{2 \omega_k} \right}\def\ti{\tilde) U_{k}^{B} V_{k}^{B} \cos (\omega_k t) }{\int d^{3} \mathbf{k}\, \omega_k |V_{k}^{B}|^2}\,.
\eea
In the fermion case, the energy density and the pressure are
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray} \label{T00Ferm}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
\rho_{F} & = & \frac{1}{2} \langle 0 ( \xi, t)| : \Big[-i \bar{\psi}\, \gamma_{j} \partial^{j}\, \psi + m \bar{\psi} \psi \Big]: |0( \xi, t) \rangle\,;
\\
\\ \label{TjjFerm}
p_{F} & = & \langle 0 (\xi, t)| :\Big( \frac{i}{2} \bar{\psi} \,\gamma_{j} \overleftrightarrow{\partial_{j}} \psi \Big): |0 (\xi, t) \rangle\,.
\eea
In Eq.(\ref{T00Ferm}), one used the relation $\frac{i}{2} \bar{\psi} \,\gamma_{0} \overleftrightarrow{\partial_{0}} \psi = i \bar{\psi} \,\gamma_{0} {\partial_{0}} \psi = -i \bar{\psi}\, \gamma_{j} \partial^{j}\, \psi + m \bar{\psi} \psi$.
By considering the following form of the energy momentum tensor density
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
:T_{F}^{\mu\nu} : & = & :\left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[\frac{i}{2} \bar{\psi} \gamma_{\mu} \overleftrightarrow{\partial}_{\nu}\psi
- \eta_{\mu\nu} \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow(\frac{i}{2} \bar{\psi} \gamma_{j} \overleftrightarrow{\partial}^{j}\psi - m \bar{\psi} \psi \right}\def\ti{\tilde) \right}\def\ti{\tilde]:
\eea
one can obtain for fermion vacuum condensates the same state equations achieved for boson condensates (see above).
When all the terms are considered (kinematic, gradient and mass ones), from Eqs.(\ref{T00Ferm}) and (\ref{TjjFerm}), one has
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray} \label{T00Fer1}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
\rho_{F} & = & \sum_{r} \int \frac{d^{3} {\bf k}}{(2 \pi)^{3}} \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow(\frac{k^{2}}{\omega_{k}}+ \frac{m^{2}}{\omega_{k}} \right}\def\ti{\tilde) \langle 0 ( \xi, t)| \alpha^{r \dag}_{k} \alpha^{r }_{k}|0(\xi, t) \rangle\,;
\\
\\ \label{TjjFer1}
p_{F} & = & \frac{1}{3}\sum_{r} \frac{d^{3} {\bf k}}{(2 \pi)^{3}} \frac{k^{2}}{\omega_{k}} \langle 0 ( \xi, t)| \alpha^{r \dag}_{k} \alpha^{r }_{k}|0( \xi, t) \rangle\,,
\eea
where $ \alpha^{r}_{k}$ is the annihilator of fermion field, with $r =1,2$.
The explicit expressions of the energy density and pressure are
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\label{energy-Ferm}
\rho_{F} &= & \frac{1}{\pi^{2}} \int_{0}^{\infty} dk k^{2} \omega_{k } |V_{ k}^{F}|^{2}\,,
\\\label{pressure-Ferm}
p_{F} &= & \frac{1 }{3 \pi^{2}} \int_{0}^{\infty} dk \frac{k^{4}}{\omega_{k }}|V_{ k}^{F}|^{2}\,.
\eea
The state equation is then
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
w_{F} & = & \frac{1}{3}\frac{\int d^{3}\, \mathbf{k} \frac{k^2}{\omega_k}|V_{k}^{F}|^2 }{\int d^{3} \mathbf{k}\, \omega_k |V_{k}^{F}|^2}\,.
\eea
The origin of the non-zero $\rho_{\lambda}$ and $p_{\lambda}$ is due to the fermionic and bosonic
condensates structure of the physical vacuum which lift the vacuum energy and pressure by positive amounts.
Notice also that, being $J^{-1}(\xi,t) = J^{\dag}(\xi,t) = J(-\xi,t)$, one can write
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\label{tensor}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
&&_{\lambda}\langle 0 ( \xi, t)|: T^{\lambda}_{\mu \nu}(x): | 0 (\xi, t)\rangle_{\lambda} =
\\&& = _{\lambda}\langle 0 |J^{-1}_{\lambda}(-\xi,t) : T^{\lambda}_{\mu \nu}(x): J_{\lambda}(-\xi,t)| 0 \rangle_{\lambda} \,.
\eea
Such a property will be used in the following and the notation $\Theta(-\xi,x) = J^{-1}(-\xi,t) \Theta(x) J(-\xi,t) $ will be adopted to denote the operators transformed by the generator $J (-\xi,t)$.
Systems such as the thermal states and the particle mixing phenomenon, have the generators $J's$ which satisfy the condition, $ \vec{\nabla} J(\xi,t) = 0 $. Then, the energy density and pressure for bosons and fermions become,
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray} \label{T00Bos1}
\rho_{B} & = & \frac{1}{2} \langle 0| : \Big[\pi^{2}(-\xi,x) + \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[\vec{\nabla} \phi(-\xi,x) \right}\def\ti{\tilde]^{2}
+ m^{2} \phi^{2}(-\xi,x) \Big]: |0 \rangle\,;
\\ \label{TjjBos1}
p_{B} & = & \langle 0| :\Big(\left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[ \partial_{j} \phi(-\xi,x) \right}\def\ti{\tilde]^{2}+ \frac{1}{2}\Big[\pi^{2}(-\xi,x)
- \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[\vec{\nabla} \phi(-\xi,x) \right}\def\ti{\tilde]^{2}
- m^{2}
\phi^{2}(-\xi,x) \Big] \Big): |0 \rangle\,,
\eea
\end{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\label{T00Fer1}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
\rho_{F} &=& - i \langle 0| : \Big[\psi^{\dag}(-\xi,x)\gamma_{0} \gamma^{i} \partial_{i} \psi(-\xi,x)
\\
&&+ m
\psi^{\dag}(-\xi,x) \gamma_{0} \psi(-\xi,x)\Big]: |0 \rangle\,,
\\\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
\\
\label{TjjFer1}
p_{F} &=& i \langle 0| :\Big[\psi^{\dag}(-\xi,x)\gamma_{0} \gamma_{j} \partial_{j} \psi(-\xi,x) \Big]: | 0 \rangle \,,
\eea
respectively.
Eqs.(\ref{T00Bos1})-(\ref{TjjFer1}) will be used to describe the vacuum contributions of the mixed particles.
Notice that Eqs.(\ref{T00Bos1}), (\ref{TjjBos1}) and (\ref{T00Fer1}), (\ref{TjjFer1}) do not coincide with the more general
Eqs.(\ref{T00Bos}), (\ref{TjjBos}) and (\ref{T00Ferm}), (\ref{TjjFerm}), respectively, since, as a rule, the operator $\nabla$ and the generators $J's$ do not commute.
Eqs.(\ref{T00Bos}), (\ref{TjjBos}) and (\ref{T00Ferm}), (\ref{TjjFerm}), hold for disparate physical phenomena. The explicit form of the Bogoliubov coefficients $U^{\lambda}_{\textbf{k}}$ and $V^{\lambda}_{\textbf{k}}$, $\lambda = B, F$,
specifies the particular system. In the following only few phenomena will be considered in detail. However, the formal analogy among the systems characterized by the condensates, i.e. the Bogoliubov transformations, permits to extend the discussions contained in the next sections also to different phenomena, some of which reproducible in laboratory.
\section{IV. Thermal states, Hawking and Unruh effects}
We consider the formal framework of the Thermo Field Dynamics (TFD) \cite{Takahashi:1974zn}--\cite{Umezawa:1993yq},
which has been successful applied to a number of physical problems at non-zero temperature, in condensed matter physics, in nuclear physics, in particle physics and cosmology.
In the case of systems at non-zero temperature, the physical vacuum is the thermal vacuum state $|0(\xi(\beta))\rangle_{\lambda}$, with $\lambda = B,F$, $\beta \equiv 1/(k_{B}T)$ and $k_{B}$ the Boltzmann constant \cite{Takahashi:1974zn}--\cite{Umezawa:1993yq}. The state $|0(\xi(\beta))\rangle_{\lambda}$ is defines in such a way that the thermal statistical average ${\cal N}_{\chi_{\bf k}}(\xi)$ is given by
${\cal N}_{\chi_{\bf k}}(\xi) = _{\lambda}\langle 0(\xi(\beta))| N_{\chi_{\bf k}} |0(\xi(\beta))\rangle_{\lambda}$, with $N_{\chi_{\bf k}} = \chi^{\dag}_{\bf k} \chi_{\bf k} $, ($\chi = a, \alpha$) the number operator \cite{Takahashi:1974zn,Umezawa}. In the boson case,
$|0(\xi(\beta))\rangle_{B}$ is expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
\lab{(2.12)} |0(\xi(\beta))\rangle_{B} = \prod_{\bf k}
{1\over{\cosh{\xi_k}}} \exp{ \left ( \tanh {\xi_k} ~a_{\bf
k}^{\dagger} {b}_{\bf k}^{\dagger} \right )} |0\rangle_{B} \,,
\eea
where $|0\rangle_{B}$ is the vacuum annihilated by $a_{\bf k}$ and $b_{\bf k}$.
The auxiliary boson operator $b_{\bf k}$ commutes with $a_{\bf k}$ and is introduced in order to produce the trace operation in computing thermal averages. Similar discussions hold for fermions.
The thermal vacuum $| 0(\xi(\beta)) \rangle_{\lambda}$ is normalized to one, and in the infinite volume
limit one has $
{_{\lambda} \langle 0(\xi(\beta)) | 0 \rangle _{\lambda} \rightarrow 0~~ {\rm
as}~~ V\rightarrow \infty }, ~~~\forall~ \beta\,
$.
Moreover, for $\beta' \neq \beta$, one has $ {_{\lambda} \langle 0(\xi(\beta)) | 0(\xi(\beta')) \rangle_{\lambda} \rightarrow 0~
{\rm as}~ V\rightarrow \infty}$. Therefore, $\{ |0(\xi(\beta)) \rangle_{\lambda} \} $ provides a representation of
the CCR defined at each {\it $\beta$} and unitarily inequivalent $\forall~ \beta'\neq \beta$ to any other representation $\{ |0(\beta') \rangle_{\lambda} \}$ in the infinite volume limit \cite{Takahashi:1974zn}--\cite{Umezawa:1993yq}.
The annhilation operators of $| 0(\xi(\beta)) \rangle_{\lambda}$ (the tilde operators) are obtained by means of a Bogoliubov transformations similar to Eqs.(\ref{Bog1}) and (\ref{Bog2}), with $a_{- \bf k}$ and ${\tilde a}_{- \mathbf{k}}(\xi,t)$ replaced for bosons by $b_{ \bf k}$ and ${\tilde b}_{ \mathbf{k}}(\xi(\beta))$, respectively, and $\alpha_{- \bf k}$ and ${\tilde \alpha}_{- \bf k}(\xi,t)$ replaced for fermions by the auxiliary operators $\beta_{ \bf k}$ and ${\tilde \beta}_{ \bf k}(\xi(\beta))$, respectively. The Bogoliubov coefficients are given by
$U^{T}_{{\bf k}} = \sqrt{\frac{e^{\beta \omega_{\bf k} }}{e^{\beta \omega_{\bf k } }\pm 1}}$ and
$V^{T}_{{\bf k}} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{e^{\beta \omega_{\bf k} } \pm 1}}$, with $-$ for bosons and $+$ for fermions, $\beta = 1/ k_{B}T$
and $\omega_{\bf k } = \sqrt{k^{2} + m^{2} }$ \cite{Takahashi:1974zn}--\cite{Umezawa:1993yq}.
Such coefficients, used in Eqs.(\ref{energy-Bos}), (\ref{pressure-Bos}) and (\ref{energy-Ferm}), (\ref{pressure-Ferm}) give the contributions of the thermal vacuum states to the energy and pressure.
If one considers the cosmic microwave background temperature, i.e. $T = 2.72 K$, one has that the non-relativistic particles give negligible contribution to the vacuum energy. Only photons and particles with masses of order of $(10^{-3} - 10^{-4})eV$ can contribute significatively to the energy radiation \cite{CapolupoCMB:2016}. Indeed in such cases one obtains energy densities of order of $ 10^{-51}GeV^{4} $ and state equations, $w = 1/3$ \cite{CapolupoCMB:2016}.
The thermal states can describe also the Unruh and of the Hawking effects.
The temperature is $T = \frac{\hbar a}{2 \pi c k_{b}}$ for Unruh effect, with $a$ acceleration of the observer, and $T=\frac{\hbar c^{3}}{8 \pi G M k_{b}}$, for Hawking effect,
with $M$ black hole mass and $G$ gravitational constant.
Both of the phenomena do not contribute to the energy of the universe since their temperature is very low. For example, a black hole of one solar mass has a temperature of only $60 nK$ and the thermal vacuum energy of any particle is negligible. Only primordial black holes with very small mass could have temperatures higher than the one of the cosmic microwave background and then give a contribution to the energy of the universe.
A non-trivial contribute can be given by the thermal vacuum of the intracluster medium.
Such a hot plasma filling the center of galaxy clusters has temperatures of order of $(10 \div 100) \times 10^{6}K $.
For example, the thermal vacuum of free electrons with temperature of $80 \times 10^{6}K $ has an energy of $10^{-47} GeV^4$ and a state equation $w = 0.01$. Such values are in agreement with the ones on the dark matter.
\section{V. Fields in curved background}
Another example of condensed vacuum system is represented by fields in curved spaces. In these cases, the energy momentum tensor for spin $0$ and $1/2$ are given by \cite{Birrell}
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
T_{\mu \nu}^{s=0}(x) & = & (1 - 2 \xi) \phi_{;\mu} \phi_{;\nu} + (2 \xi - \frac{1}{2}) g_{\mu \nu}g^{\rho\sigma}\phi_{;\rho} \phi_{;\sigma}
\\\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
& - & 2 \xi \phi_{;\mu \nu } \phi + \frac{2}{n} \xi g_{\mu \nu} \phi \Box \phi
\\ \nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
& - & \xi \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}R g_{\mu\nu} + \frac{2(n - 1)}{n}\xi R g_{\mu\nu} \right}\def\ti{\tilde]\phi^{2}
\\
& + & 2 \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[ \frac{1}{4} - \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow(1 - \frac{1}{n} \right}\def\ti{\tilde)\xi \right}\def\ti{\tilde] m^{2} g_{\mu \nu} \phi^{2}\,,
\eea
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
T_{\mu \nu}^{s=\frac{1}{2}}(x) = \frac{i}{2} \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[ \bar{\psi} \gamma_{(\mu} \nabla_{\nu)}\psi - \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow(\nabla_{(\mu} \bar{\psi} \right}\def\ti{\tilde)\gamma_{\nu)}\psi \right}\def\ti{\tilde]\,,
\eea
respectively, and the energy density and pressure depend on the particular metric considered.
Let us consider the spatially flat Friedmann Robertson-Walker metric
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
d s^{2} = d t^{2} - a^{2}(t) d {\bf x}^{2} = a^{2}(\eta) (d \eta^{2}- d {\bf x}^{2})\,,
\eea
where $a$ is the scale factor, $t$ is the comoving time, $\eta$ is the conformal time, $\eta(t) = \int_{t_{0}}^{t} \frac{d t }{a(t)}$, with $t_0$ arbitrary constant.
The boson field $\phi(\mathbf{x},\eta)$ can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}
\phi(\mathbf{x},\eta) = \int d^{3} \mathbf{k} \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[a_{\mathbf{k}} \phi_{k}(\eta)+ a^{\dag}_{-\mathbf{k}}\phi^{*}_{-k}(\eta) \right}\def\ti{\tilde] e^{i \mathbf{k}\mathbf{x}}\,,
\eea
where the mode functions $\phi_{k}(\eta)$ have analytical expression only in particular cases.
However, in any case, the energy density and pressure, after the introduction of a cut-off on the momenta, can be written as \cite{Parker1,Parker2}
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
\rho_{curv} &=& \frac{2 \pi}{a^2}\int_{0}^{K} dk k^{2} \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow(|\phi_{k}^{\prime}|^{2} + k^{2} |\phi_{k}|^{2} + m^{2} |\phi_{k}|^{2} \right}\def\ti{\tilde),
\\
\\\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
p_{curv} &=& \frac{2 \pi}{a^2}\int_{0}^{K} dk k^{2} \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow(|\phi_{k}^{\prime}|^{2} - \frac{k^{2}}{3} |\phi_{k}|^{2} - m^{2} |\phi_{k}|^{2} \right}\def\ti{\tilde).
\\
\eea
In Ref.\cite{maroto} it has been shown that at late time the cutoff on the momenta can be assumed much smaller than the comoving mass of the field, $K \ll m a$. Moreover, assuming that $m \gg H$, in an arbitrary Robertson-Walker metric for infrared regime, one obtains \cite{maroto}
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
\rho_{curv} &=& \frac{1}{8 \pi^2} \int_{0}^{K} dk k^{2} \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow(\frac{2 m}{a^{3}} + \frac{9 H^{2}}{4 m a^{3}} + \frac{k^2}{m a^{5}} \right}\def\ti{\tilde),
\\
\\\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
p_{curv} &=& \frac{1}{8 \pi^2}\int_{0}^{K} dk k^{2} \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow( \frac{9 H^{2}}{4 m a^{3}} - \frac{k^2}{3 m a^{5}} \right}\def\ti{\tilde).
\\
\eea
Therefore, state equation is $w_{curv} \simeq 0$, i.e. the energy of the vacuum of a scalar field in curved space behaves as a dark matter component in the infrared regime. The energy density is \cite{maroto}
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\label{curv}
\rho_{curv} = \frac{m K^{3}}{12 \pi^{2} a^{3} }.
\eea
The value of $\rho_{curv}$ depends on the values of the mass field $m$, on the scale factor $a$ and on the cutoff on the momenta $K$. Thus, numerical values compatible with the ones of dark matter can be found only for the values of the parameters such that,
$\frac{m K^{3}}{ a^{3} } \sim 10^{-45}GeV^{4}$.
We expect a similar result for fermion fields in curved spaces.
Further study on such topics represents a work in progress.
\section{VI. Particle mixing}
The field mixing phenomenon is represented by the mixing of neutrinos and quarks in fermion sector and by the axion-photon mixing and the mixing of kaons, $B^0$, $D^0$, and $\eta-\eta^\prime$ systems, in boson sector. For two fields, it is expressed, both for fermions and bosons, as
%
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\label{mixing}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
\varphi_{1}(\theta,x) &=& \varphi_{1}(x) \cos(\theta) + \varphi_{2}(x) \sin(\theta)\,,
\\
\varphi_{2}(\theta,x) &=& - \varphi_{1}(x) \sin(\theta) + \varphi_{2}(x) \cos(\theta)\,,
\eea
%
where, $\theta$ is the mixing angle, $ \varphi_{i}(\theta,x)$ are the mixed fields and $ \varphi_{i}(x)$ are the free fields, with $i =1,2$.
In the case of neutrino mixing, the mixed fields are the flavor neutrino fields, $\varphi_{1}(\theta,x) \equiv \nu_{e}$, $\varphi_{2}(\theta,x) \equiv\nu_{\mu}$ and the free fields are the neutrinos with definite masses $m_1$ and $m_2$, $\varphi_{1}(x)\equiv \nu_1$ and $\varphi_{2}(x)\equiv \nu_2$. The two flavor neutrino mixing case has been considered. In the boson sector, for axion--photon mixing in the presence of a magnetic field one has, $\varphi_{1}(\theta,x) \equiv \gamma_{\|}(z)$, $\varphi_{2}(\theta,x) \equiv a (z)$, (with $\gamma_{\|}(z)$ photon polarization field parallel to the purely transverse magnetic field $\mathbf{B} = \mathbf{B}_{T}$ and $a$ axion field).
The free fields are $\varphi_{1}(x)\equiv \gamma^{\prime}_{\|}(z)$ and $\varphi_{2}(x)\equiv a^{\prime} (z) $, with
$\gamma^{\prime}_{\|}(z) = \gamma^{\prime}_{\|}(0) e^{- i \omega_{\gamma} z}$, $a^{\prime} (z) = a^{\prime} (0) e^{- i \omega_{a} z}$
and
\[
\omega_{\gamma} = \omega + \Delta_{-}\,, \quad
\omega_{a} = \omega+ \Delta_{+}\,,
\]
\[
\Delta_{\pm} = - \frac{\omega_{P}^{2}+ m_{a}^{2}}{4 \omega} \pm \frac{1}{4 \omega} \sqrt{(\omega_{P}^{2}- m_{a}^{2})^{2} + (2 g \omega B_{T})^2}\,.
\]
The mixing angle is
$\theta_{a} = \frac{1}{2} \arctan \displaystyle{\left(\frac{2 g \omega B_{T}}{m_{a}^{2}-\omega^2_P} \right)}$, where $g \in [10^{-16}-10^{-10}]GeV^{-1} $ is the axion-photon coupling, $m_{a}\in [ 10^{-6} - 10^{-2}]eV$ is the axion mass and $\omega_P$ is the plasma frequency.
Moreover, for instable mesons,
the mixed fields are $K^{0}$ and $\bar{K}^{0}$, $B^{0}$ and $\bar{B}^{0}$, or $D^{0}$ and $\bar{D}^{0}$. The corresponding free fields are $K_{L}$ and $K_{S}$, $B_{L}$ and $B_{H}$, and $D_{L}$ and $D_{H}$, respectively and
$\cos(\theta) = \frac{1}{2 p} \sqrt{1 - z} $, $\sin(\theta) = \frac{1}{2 p} \sqrt{1 + z} $,
with $
\frac{q}{p}\,=\, \sqrt{\frac{\mathcal{H}_{21}}{\mathcal{H}_{12}}}\,,
$ (${\mathcal{H}_{ij}}$ are the elements of the
effective Hamiltonian ${\mathcal{H} }$ of mixed meson systems) and $z$ parameter describing the $CPT$ violation.
The mixing transformations (\ref{mixing}) can be written as $\varphi_{i}(\theta,x) \equiv J^{-1}(\theta, t) \varphi_{i}(x) J (\theta, t)$, where $ i =
1,2$, and $J (\theta, t)$ is the transformation generator \cite{Blasone:2002jv,Blasone:2001du}.
Analogously, the mixed
annihilation operators are $\chi^{r}_{{\bf k},i}(\theta, t)
\equiv J^{-1}(\theta, t)\;\chi^{r}_{{\bf k},i}(t)\;J (\theta, t)$, with
$\chi^{r}_{{\bf k},i} = a_{{\bf k},i}, \alpha^{r}_{{\bf k},i}$, for bosons and fermion, respectively and $i =1,2$.
They annihilate the mixed vacuum
$|0(\theta, t)\ran \,\equiv\,J^{-1}(\theta, t)\;|0\ran_{1,2} $, where
$|0\ran_{1,2}$ is the vacuum annihilated by $\chi^{r}_{{\bf k},i} $.
The physical vacuum where particle oscillations appears is $|0(\theta, t)\ran $. It is a (coherent) condensate
of $\chi_{{\bf k},i}$ particles
(antiparticles) \cite{Blasone:2002jv,Blasone:2001du}:
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray} \label{con} \langle 0(\theta, t)| \chi_{{\bf k},i}^{r \dag} \chi^r_{{\bf
k},i} |0(\theta, t)\rangle = \sin^{2}\te ~ |\Upsilon^{\lambda}_{{\bf
k}}|^{2},
\eea
where $\lambda = B,F$, $i=1,2$ and the reference frame ${\bf k}=(0,0,|{\bf k}|)$ has
been adopted for convenience. $\Upsilon^{\lambda}_{{\bf
k}}$ is the Bogoliubov
coefficient entering the mixing transformation. For boson and fermion one has \cite{Blasone:2002jv,Blasone:2001du}
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\label{Bogoliubov}
| \Upsilon^{B}_{{\bf
k}}| &=& \frac{1}{2} \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow( \sqrt{\frac{\Omega_{k,1}}{\Omega_{k,2}}} -
\sqrt{\frac{\Omega_{k,2}}{\Omega_{k,1}}} \right}\def\ti{\tilde)\,,
\\
|\Upsilon^{F}_{{\bf
k}}| &=& \frac{ (\Omega_{k,1}+m_{1}) - (\Omega_{k,2}+m_{2})}{2
\sqrt{\Omega_{k,1}\Omega_{k,2}(\Omega_{k,1}+m_{1})(\Omega_{k,2}+m_{2})}}\, |{\bf k}| \,,
\eea
respectively,
with $| \Sigma^B_{{\bf k}}|^{2} - | \Upsilon^B_{{\bf k}}|^{2} = 1 $ and $| \Sigma^F_{{\bf k}}|^{2} + | \Upsilon^F_{{\bf k}}|^{2} = 1 $,
($\Sigma^\lambda_{{\bf k}}$ are the other coefficients entering in the transformations), $\Omega_{k,i}$ energies of the free fields, for example,
$\Omega_{k,i} = \omega_{\gamma}, \omega_{a}$ for axions-photon mixing, $\Omega_{k,i} = \omega_{k,i}$ for neutrinos, $i=1,2$.
.
\subsection{Boson mixing}
For mixed bosons,
Eqs.(\ref{T00Bos1}) and (\ref{TjjBos1}) become
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray} \label{T00BosMix}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
\rho^{B}_{mix} & = & \langle 0 ( \theta, t)|: T^{B-mix}_{0 0}(x): | 0 (\theta, t)\rangle
\\
& = & \frac{1}{2} \langle 0| : \sum_i \Big[\pi^{2}_{i}(-\theta,x) + \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[\vec{\nabla} \phi_{i}(-\theta,x) \right}\def\ti{\tilde]^{2}
+ m^{2}_{i} \phi^{2}_{i}(-\theta,x) \Big]: |0 \rangle\,;
\\\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
\\ \label{TjjBosMix}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
p^{B}_{mix} & = & \langle 0 ( \theta, t)|: T^{B-mix}_{j j}(x): | 0 (\theta, x)\rangle
\\
& = & \langle 0| :\sum_i \Big(\left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[ \partial_{j} \phi_{i}(-\theta,x) \right}\def\ti{\tilde]^{2}+ \frac{1}{2}\Big[\pi_{i}^{2}(-\theta,x)
-
\left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[\vec{\nabla} \phi_{i}(-\theta,x) \right}\def\ti{\tilde]^{2}
- m_{i}^{2}
\phi_{i}^{2}(-\theta,x) \Big] \Big): |0 \rangle\,,
\eea
\end{widetext}
respectively, where
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes\label{mixing-rel}
\pi_{1}(-\theta,x) &=& \pi_{1}(x) \cos(\theta) - \pi_{2}(x) \sin(\theta)\,,
\\
\pi_{2}(-\theta,x) &=& \pi_{1}(x) \sin(\theta) + \pi_{2}(x) \cos(\theta)\,.
\eea
From Eqs.(\ref{mixing-rel}), one can immediately see that, $\sum_i \pi^{2}_{i}(-\theta,x) = \sum_i \pi^{2}_{i}(x) $,
$\sum_i [\vec{\nabla} \phi_{i}(-\theta,x)]^{2} = \sum_i [\vec{\nabla} \phi_{i}(x)]^{2} $, and $\sum_i [\partial_{j} \phi_{i}(-\theta,x)]^{2}= \sum_i [\partial_{j} \phi_{i}(x)]^{2}$, i.e. such operators are invariant under the action of the generator $J(-\theta,t)$.
This fact implies that the kinetic and gradient terms of the mixed vacuum are equal to zero
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
&& \langle 0| : \sum_i \pi^{2}_{i}(-\theta,x):|0 \rangle\, = \langle 0| : \sum_i \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[\vec{\nabla} \phi_{i}(-\theta,x) \right}\def\ti{\tilde]^{2}
: |0 \rangle\,
\\
&& = \langle 0| :\sum_i \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow[ \partial_{j} \phi_{i}(-\theta,x) \right}\def\ti{\tilde]^{2}:|0 \rangle\, = 0\,.
\eea
Then, Eqs.(\ref{T00BosMix}) and (\ref{TjjBosMix}) become
%
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray} \label{T00BosMixF}
\rho^{B}_{mix} & = & \langle 0| :\sum_{i}
m^{2}_{i}
\phi_{i}^{2}(-\theta,x) : |0 \rangle\,,
\\ \label{TjjBosMixF}
p^{B}_{mix} & = & - \langle 0| :\sum_{i}
m^{2}_{i}
\phi_{i}^{2}(-\theta,x) : |0 \rangle\,,
\eea
%
and the state equation is $w^{B}_{mix} = - 1$, (which is the state equation of the cosmological constant), independently on the choice of the cut-of on the momenta.
Similar result has been obtained in supersymmetric context in Refs. \cite{Mavromatos1,Mavromatos2}.
Here one analyzes the possible phenomenological implications of such result.
Denoting with $\Delta m^{2}= |m_{2}^{2}-m_{1}^{2}|$, the energy density of the boson mixed vacuum is explicitly given by
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\label{integral}
\rho^{B}_{mix} = \frac{\Delta m^{2} \sin ^{2}\theta}{8 \pi^{2}} \int_{0}^{K} dk k^{2} \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow(\frac{1}{\omega_{k,1}}- \frac{1}{\omega_{k,2}}\right}\def\ti{\tilde),
\eea
where $K$ is the cut-off on the momenta.
Eq.(\ref{integral}) will be now solved for
the mixing of axion-like particles and for the flavor mixing of supersymmetric partners of neutrinos.
- {\it Contribution of axion like particles} - In the case of the mixing between the photon and the axion-like particles, denoting with $m_1 = m_\gamma = 0 $, the photon mass and with $m_{2} = m_{a} $, the axion mass, one has
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\label{ener-axion}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
\rho^{axion}_{mix} &=& \frac{ m_{a}^{2} \sin ^{2}\theta_{a}}{16 \pi^{2} } \Big[K \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow(K -\sqrt{K^{2}+ m_{a}^{2}} \right}\def\ti{\tilde)
\\
&+& m_{a}^{2} \log \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow( \frac{K+\sqrt{K^{2}+ m_{a}^{2}}}{m_{a}} \right}\def\ti{\tilde)
\Big]\,.
\eea
In astrophysical contexts, as in the case of active galactic nuclei, quasars, supernova and magnetars,
the magnetic field strength vary between, $B \in [10^{6} - 10^{17}] G$. Also the plasma frequencies and the photon energies $\omega$ vary considerably. Therefore the mixing angles $\theta_{a}$ depends by the particular system one consider.
Notice, however that for axion mass $m_{a}$ of order of $2 \times 10^{-2}eV$ and $\sin^{2}_{a}\theta \sim 10^{-2}$ (which could be obtained for different astrophysical objects), using the Planck scale cut-off, $K\sim 10^{19} GeV$, one has $\rho^{axion}_{mix} = 2.3 \times 10^{-47}GeV^{4}$,
which is compatible with the estimated upper bound on the dark energy.
Smaller values of $m_{a}$ or of $\sin^{2}\theta \sim 10^{-2}$, lead to smaller values of $\rho^{axion}_{mix}$.
- {\it Contribution of neutrino superpartners } -
In the case superpartners of the neutrinos, the integral (\ref{integral}) leads to
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\label{ener-Bos}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
\rho^{B}_{mix} &=& \frac{\Delta m^{2} \sin ^{2}\theta}{16 \pi^{2} } \Big[K \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow(\sqrt{K^{2}+ m_{1}^{2}}-\sqrt{K^{2}+ m_{2}^{2}} \right}\def\ti{\tilde)
\\\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
&+& m_{2}^{2} \log \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow( \frac{K+\sqrt{K^{2}+ m_{2}^{2}}}{m_{2}} \right}\def\ti{\tilde)
\\
&-& m_{1}^{2} \log \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow( \frac{K+\sqrt{K^{2}+ m_{1}^{2}}}{m_{1}} \right}\def\ti{\tilde)\Big]\,.
\eea
One considers then, masses similar to the ones of the neutrinos, $m_1 = 10^{-3} eV$ and $m_2 = 9 \times 10^{-3} eV$, in order that $\Delta m^{2} = 8 \times 10^{-5} eV^{2}$. Moreover, one assumes
$\sin^{2} \theta = 0.3$. One obtains, $\rho^{B}_{mix} = 7 \times 10^{-47}GeV^{4}$ for a cut-off on the momenta $K =10 eV$, and $\rho^{B}_{mix} = 6.9 \times 10^{-46}GeV^{4}$ for a cut-off of order of the Planck scale, $10^{19} GeV$.
Smaller values of the mixing angle lead to values which are compatible with the estimated value of the dark energy also in the case in which the cut-off is $K = 10^{19} GeV$, indeed $\rho^{B}_{mix}$ depends linearly by $\sin^{2}\theta$.
\subsection{Fermion mixing}
In the case of fermion mixing, Eqs. (\ref{T00Fer1}), (\ref{TjjFer1}) become
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\label{T00FerMix}
\rho_{mix}^{F} & = & - \langle 0| : \sum_i \Big[\psi_{i} ^{\dag}(-\theta,x)\gamma_{0} \gamma^{j} \partial_{j} \psi_{i}(-\theta,x)
+ m
\psi_{i}^{\dag}(-\theta,x) \gamma_{0} \psi_{i}(-\theta,x)\Big]: |0 \rangle\,;
\\\label{TjjFerMix}
p_{mix}^{F} & = & i \langle 0| :\sum_i \Big[\psi_{i}^{\dag}(-\theta,x)\gamma_{0} \gamma_{j} \partial_{j} \psi_{i}(-\theta,x) \Big]: | 0 \rangle \,,
\eea
\end{widetext}
where $\psi_{i}(-\theta,x)$ are the flavor neutrino fields or the quark fields.
Being
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
\sum_i \bar{\psi}_{i}(-\theta,x)\gamma^{j} \partial_{j} \psi_{i}(-\theta,x) &=& \sum_i \bar{\psi}_{i}(x) \gamma^{j} \partial_{j} \psi_{i}(x)
\\\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
\sum_i \Big[\psi_{i}^{\dag}(-\theta,x)\gamma_{0} \gamma_{j} \partial_{j} \psi_{i}(-\theta,x)\Big]&=& \sum_i \Big[\psi_{i}^{\dag}(x) \gamma_{0} \gamma_{j} \partial_{j} \psi_{i}(x) \Big] ,
\eea
then
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
&& \langle 0| : \sum_i \bar{\psi}_{i}(-\theta,x)\gamma^{j} \partial_{j} \psi_{i}(-\theta,x): | 0 \rangle \ =
\\
&& \langle 0| : \sum_i \Big[\psi_{i}^{\dag}(-\theta,x)\gamma_{0} \gamma_{j} \partial_{j} \psi_{i}(-\theta,x)\Big]: | 0 \rangle \ = 0\,.
\eea
Thus the energy density and pressures of Eqs.(\ref{T00FerMix}) and (\ref{TjjFerMix}), become
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\label{T00FerMixF}
\rho_{mix}^{F} & = & - \langle 0| : \sum_i \Big[m_i
\psi_{i}^{\dag}(-\theta,x) \gamma_{0} \psi_{i}(-\theta,x)\Big]: |0 \rangle,
\\\label{TjjFerMixF}
p_{mix}^{F} & = & 0 \,,
\eea
respectively.
The pressure of the fermion mixed vacuum $| 0 (\theta, t)\rangle $ is equal to zero independently on the regularization adopted. Then the state equation in this case is $w^{F}_{mix} =0$, which is the one of the dark matter.
Similar result has been obtained in supersymmetric context in Refs. \cite{Mavromatos1,Mavromatos2}.
Now one shows the consequences of such a result.
Solving Eq.(\ref{T00FerMixF}), the energy density of the fermion mixed vacuum is
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\label{ener-Fer}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
\rho^{F}_{mix} = \frac{\Delta m \sin ^{2}\theta}{2 \pi^{2}} \int_{0}^{K} dk k^{2}
\left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow( \frac{m_2 }{ \omega_{k,2}} - \frac{m_1}{ \omega_{k,1}}\right}\def\ti{\tilde)\Big]\,,
\eea
and explicitly, one has
\begin{eqnarray}}\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}\label{ener-Fer}\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
\rho^{F}_{mix} &=& \frac{\Delta m \sin ^{2}\theta}{2 \pi^{2}} \Big[K \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow(m_{2} \sqrt{K^{2}+ m_{2}^{2}}- m_{1}\sqrt{K^{2}+ m_{1}^{2}} \right}\def\ti{\tilde)
\\\nonumber}\def\ot{\otimes
&-& m_{2}^{3} \log \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow( \frac{K+\sqrt{K^{2}+ m_{2}^{2}}}{m_{2}} \right}\def\ti{\tilde)
\\
&+& m_{1}^{3} \log \left}\def\lrar{\leftrightarrow( \frac{K+\sqrt{K^{2}+ m_{1}^{2}}}{m_{1}} \right}\def\ti{\tilde)\Big]\,.
\eea
For masses of order of $10^{-3}eV$, such that $\Delta m^{2}$ is of order of $8 \times 10^{-5}eV^2$ and a cut-off on the momenta $K = m_1 + m_2$, one obtains $\rho^{F}_{mix} = 4 \times 10^{-47 } GeV^4$, which is in agreement with the estimated upper bound of the dark matter.
A possible mechanism which imposes a very low cut-off for neutrinos is given in Ref.\cite{Mavromatos3}.
Values of $K$ of order of the Plank scale leads to $\rho^{F}_{mix} \sim \times 10^{-46 } GeV^4$.
We point out that we have considered an empty universe without matter and gravitational interaction. This fact produces the homogeneity of the condensates.
The presence of matter interacting with the neutrino flavor vacuum and with the vacuum condensates above presented could generate clustered matter and therefore the irregularities which are observed in the universe.
By considering the quark masses, the value of $\rho^{F}_{mix}$ one obtains is much higher than the ones above obtained.
However, the quark confinement inside the hadrons should inhibit the gravitational interaction of the quark vacuum condensate. Therefore such condensate should play none role in the formation of structures on large scale and it should not affect the dark matter component.
Moreover, the condensates induced by the mixed bosons, which behaves as a cosmological constant, can evolve remaining homogeneous also in the presence of matter, since their pressure is negative.
\section{VII. Conclusions}
It has been shown that the vacuum condensates induced by different phenomena can contribute to the dark sector of the universe. The vacuum states of these systems are indeed condensates of couples of particles and antiparticles which generate non-zero vacuum energies and which, under particular conditions, behave as dark matter or dark energy.
The contributions given by the thermal states, by the fields in curved space and by the particle mixing phenomenon have been analyzed.
It has been shown that the thermal states and the condensates due to Unruh and Hawking effects do not contribute considerably to the vacuum energy.
Non-trivial contributes to the energy are given by the thermal vacuum of the intercluster medium, by the vacuum of fields in curved space-time and by the flavor vacuum of neutrinos. Such vacuum condensates have a negligible pressure, therefore their state equations are similar to the dark matter one. Moreover the values of the energies are compatible with the one estimated for the dark matter.
On the other hand, the mixing between photons and axion-like particles can reproduce the behavior and the estimated value of the dark energy component.
The formal analogy existing among completely different phenomena, characterized by vacuum condensates, suggests to investigate the properties
of the condensates of the systems here studied, in phenomena like the superconductivity, the Casimir effect and the Schwinger effect, which can be analyzed in table top experiments. Therefore, the results presented in this paper can open a completely new way in the research of dark matter and in the study of the dark energy.
\section{Conflict of Interests}
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests
regarding the publication of this paper.
\section{Acknowledgements}
Partial financial support from MIUR is acknowledged.
|
\section{Introduction}
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity(GTR) helped us to understand
the dynamics of the universe. But there are some fundamental issues
that could not be addressed in GTR \cite{eref1} and several
attempts are being made to modify the GTR to find solutions to
these fundamental issues. GTR is a theory based on massless
gravitons with two degrees of freedom. A way of modifying GTR
essentially implies giving mass to the graviton and in the
present study we consider massive gravity. The attempts to modify
GTR resulted in the so called \lq Alternative Theories of Gravity\rq
\cite{1}. Theories concerning the breaking up of Lorentz invariance
and spin had been explored in depth\cite{2}. The first attempt
towards constructing a theory of massive gravity was done by Fierz
and Pauli\cite{3} in 1939. Only by 1970s researchers showed
interests in this formulation. van Dam and Veltman\cite{4} and
Zhakharov\cite{5} in 1970 showed that a theory of massive gravity
could never resemble GTR in the massless limit and this is known as
vDVZ discontinuity. Later Vainshtein\cite{6} proposed that the
linear massive gravity can be recovered to GTR through the \lq
Vainshtein Mechanism\rq\, at small scales by including non-linear
terms in the hypothetical massive gravity action. But this model
suffers from a pathology called \lq Boulware-Deser\rq (BD) ghost and
was ruled out on the basis of solar system tests\cite{7}. Later a
class of massive gravity was proposed by de Rham, Gahadadze and
Tolley called \lq dRGT massive gravity\rq\, that evades the BD
ghost\cite{8,9}. In this theory the mass terms were produced by a
reference metric. A class of black hole solutions in the dRGT model
and their thermodynamic behavior were studied later\cite{10,11,12}.
Vegh\cite{13} proposed another type of massive gravity theory. This
theory was similar to dRGT except that the reference metric was a
singular one. Using this theory he showed that graviton behaves like
a lattice and showed Drude peak. This theory was found to be
ghost-free and stable for arbitrary singular metric. \\ \\
It was Hawking\cite{14} who first showed that black holes thermally
radiate and calculated its temperature. Thereafter the
thermodynamics of black holes got wide acceptance and interests
among researchers. The question of thermal stability is one of the
important aspects of black hole thermodynamics\cite{15,16}. The
thermodynamics and phase transition shown by black holes have been
largely explored for almost all space times\cite{17,18,19,20} and
references cited therein. In the realm of massive gravity also, the
thermodynamics and phase transitions have been studied for different
black hole space time\cite{21,22}.\\ \\
Recently there has been a growing interest in the asymptotically
Anti de Sitter(AdS) spacetimes. The black hole solution proposed by
Banados-Teitelboim-Zanelli (BTZ) in $(2+1)$ dimensions deal with
asymptotically AdS space time and has got well defined charges at
infinity, mass, angular momentum and makes a good testing ground
especially when one would like to go beyond the asymptotic
flatness\cite{23}. Another interesting aspect of the black hole
solution is related to the AdS/CFT (Conformal Field Theory)
correspondence. In $(2+1)$ dimensions, the BTZ black hole solution
is a space time of constant negative curvature and it differs from
the AdS space time in its global properties\cite{24}. The
thermodynamic phase transitions and area spectrum of the BTZ black
holes are studied in detail\cite{25,26,27}. Also, the charged BTZ
black hole solutions are studied for the phase transition in
Ref.\cite{28,29}.\\ \\
Another important aspect of a black hole is its Quasi Normal Modes
(QNMs). QNMs can be found out as a solution to the perturbed field
equation corresponding to the scalar, gravitational and
electromagnetic perturbations of black hole space time. It comes out
as a natural response to these perturbations. The existence of QNMs
was first found by Visweshwara\cite{30} and attempts were made to
find out QNMs for different space times. QNMs of black holes were
first numerically computed by Chandrasekhar and Detweiler\cite{31}.
It was Cardoso and Lemos\cite{32} who first calculated the exact
QNMs of the BTZ black holes. They have found out both analytical and
numerical solutions to the BTZ black hole perturbation for
non-rotating BTZ black holes. It is interesting to note that they
got exact analytical solutions to the wave equation that made BTZ an
important space time where one can prove or disprove the conjectures
relating to QNMs, critical phenomena or area quantization.\\ \\
Electromagnetic field can be a good choice of source for getting
deep insights into the 3 dimensional massive gravity. In this paper
the QNMs, the associated phase transition and thermodynamics of BTZ
black hole in massive gravity in the presence of Maxwell's field
has been studied. The paper is organized as follows: In section $2$
the QNMs of a linearly charged BTZ black holes in massive gravity
are studied for different values of the massive parameter and charge
for de Sitter and Anti de Sitter space-times. The behavior of quasi
normal frequencies and phase transition are also dealt with. Section
$3$ deals with the thermodynamics of such black holes. The influence
of the massive parameter and charge of the black hole on the various
thermodynamic factors are studied. Section $4$ concludes the paper.
\section{Quasi normal modes of a linearly charged BTZ black hole in massive gravity}
In this section, we first look into the perturbation of black hole
space time by a scalar field. For a linearly charged black hole, the
Einstein-Maxwell action in $(2+1)$ dimension is given by\cite{33},
\begin{equation}\label{}
S_{EM} = \frac{1}{16\pi G}\int d^3 x\sqrt{-g}\left[R + \frac{2}{l^2} - 4\pi G F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\right],
\end{equation}
where $R$ is the Ricci scalar, $F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu} -
\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}$ is the Faraday tensor, $A_{\mu}$ is the gauge
potential, and $F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}$ is the Maxwell invariant. The
action given above can be generalized to include the massive gravity
for the de Sitter space time as\cite{34},
\begin{equation}\label{}
\begin{split}
S &= \frac{-1}{16\pi}\int d^3 x\sqrt{-g}[R + 2\Lambda + L(\mathcal{F})+\\
&\,\,\,\,\,\, m^2\sum_{i}^{4} c_i \mathcal{U}_i(g,f)],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{F}=F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}$, $L$ is an arbitrary
Lagrangian of electrodynamics, $\frac{1}{l^2}=\Lambda$, the
cosmological constant in the de Sitter (dS) space time,
$\mathcal{U}_i$ is the effective potential, $m$ is the massive
parameter and $c_i$s are constants. Varying $(2)$ with respect to
the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$, we can obtain the gravitation field
equation as,
\begin{equation}\label{}
G_{\mu\nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}L(\mathcal{F}) -
2 L_{\mathcal{F}}F_{\mu\rho}F^{\rho}_{\nu} + m^2 \mathcal{K}_{\mu\nu} =0,
\end{equation}
where,\\ \\
$G_{\mu\nu}=R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}R,$
$L_{\mathcal{F}}=\frac{dL(\mathcal{F})}{d\mathcal{F}}$,
$\mathcal{K}^{\mu}_{\nu}=\sqrt{g^{\mu\alpha}f_{\alpha\nu}},$ \\ \\
and,\\ \\
\begin{equation}\label{}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{K}_{\mu\nu}&=\frac{-c_1}{2}(\mathcal{U}g_{\mu\nu} - \mathcal{K}_{\mu\nu}) - \frac{c_2}{2}(\mathcal{U}_2 g_{\mu\nu} -
2\mathcal{U}_1 \mathcal{K}_{\mu\nu} +\\
& 2\mathcal{K}_{\mu\nu}^2) - \frac{-c_3}{2}(\mathcal{U}_3 g_{\mu\nu} -
4\mathcal{U}_3\mathcal{K}_{\mu\nu} +\\
&12\mathcal{U}_2 \mathcal{K}_{\mu\nu}^2
- 24\mathcal{U}_1 \mathcal{K}_{\mu\nu}^3 +
24\mathcal{K}_{\mu\nu}^4).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
To obtain static charged black hole solution we consider the $3$
dimensional metric,
\begin{equation}\label{}
ds^2 = -f(r) dt^2 + f^{-1}(r) dr^2 + r^2 d\theta^2.
\end{equation}
To get an exact solution for this metric, the following ansatz is
employed\cite{13},
\begin{equation}\label{}
f_{\mu\nu} = diag(0,0,c^2 h_{ij}),
\end{equation}
where $c$ is a positive constant. One of the solutions after proper
rescaling leads to the metric function in the dS space
as\cite{33,34},
\begin{equation}\label{}
f(r) = \Lambda r^2 - m_0 - 2Q\ln{\frac{r}{\alpha}} + m^2 c c_1 r,
\end{equation}
where $m_0$ is related to the mass of the black hole, $Q$ is the
charge parameter, $\alpha$ is an arbitrary constant and $c_1$ is a
constant. For an Anti de Sitter space, $\Lambda$ will take negative
values. From the metric function, it can be understood that the
contribution of the massive term depends on the sign of $c_1$. In
this Section, we look into the behavior of QNMs of the linearly
charged BTZ black hole with metric function given by $(7)$. A
massless scalar field perturbation in this space time satisfies the
Klein-Gordon equation,
\begin{equation}\label{}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{a}}\left((g^{ab}\sqrt{-g}\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{b}}\right)\Phi=0,\\
\end{equation}
which on expanding gives,
\begin{equation}\label{}
\frac{1}{f(r)}\frac{\partial^{2}\Phi}{\partial t^2}-\frac{\partial}{\partial
r}f(r)\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial
r}-\frac{1}{r^{2}}\frac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial \phi^2}=0.
\end{equation}
The metric function $f(r)$ is given by $(7)$. To separate the
angular variables, we make use of the ansatz,
\begin{equation}\label{}
\Phi = \frac{R(r)}{r}e^{-i\omega t} e^{i m_l\phi},
\end{equation}
where $\omega$ is the frequency, $m_l$ is the angular momentum
quantum number. Using the above ansatz, the Klein-Gordon equation
can be re-written as,
\begin{equation}\label{}
\frac{d^2 R}{dr^2} + \frac{f'(r)}{f(r)} \frac{dR}{dr} +
\left[\frac{\omega^2}{f(r)^2}-\frac{(\frac{m_l^2}{r^2}-\frac{2 Q}{r^2}+\frac{c c_1
m}{r})}{f(r)}\right] R = 0.
\end{equation}
Quasi normal modes are in going waves at the event horizon and
outgoing waves at the cosmological horizon, leading to the boundary
condition,
\begin{equation}
R\rightarrow
\begin{cases}
e^{i\omega x}, &\text{as } x\rightarrow\infty\\
e^{-i\omega x}, &\text{as } x\rightarrow-\infty
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Making a variable change $r\rightarrow 1/\xi$, the wave equation
becomes,
\begin{equation}\label{}
\frac{d^2R}{d\xi^2} + \frac{p'}{p}\frac{dR}{d\xi} + \left[
\frac{\omega^2}{p^2} - \frac{2Q + \frac{2\Lambda}{\xi^2} - \frac{c
c_1 m}{\xi} - m_l^2}{p}\right]R=0,
\end{equation}
where,
\begin{eqnarray}
p &=& M\xi^2 - c c_1 m\xi + 2Q \xi^2\ln{(\frac{1}{\alpha\xi})} + \Lambda, \\
p' &=& 2(M-Q)\xi - c c_1 m + 4Q \xi\ln{(\frac{1}{\alpha\xi})}.
\end{eqnarray}
The wave equation given by $(13)$ has got the singularities at the
event horizon and at an outer horizon. In order to solve the wave
equation, the singularities have to be scaled out. Here, we first
scale out the divergent behavior at the outer horizon and then
re-scale to avoid the event horizon. To scale out the divergence at
outer horizon, we take\cite{35},
\begin{equation}\label{}
R(\xi)=e^{i\omega \xi}u(\xi),
\end{equation}
where,
\begin{equation}
e^{i\omega \xi}=(\xi-\xi_1)^{\frac{i\omega}{2\kappa_1}
(\xi -\xi
_2)^{\frac{i\omega}{2\kappa_2}},
\end{equation}
and,
\begin{equation}\label{}
\kappa_i = \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial f}{\partial r}\mid r\rightarrow
r_i,
\end{equation}
is the surface gravity at each horizon. The master equation then
will take the form,\\ \\
\begin{equation}\label{}
p u'' + (p' - 2 i\omega) u' - \left(2Q - \frac{2\Lambda}{\xi^2} - \frac{c c_1 m}{\xi} -
m_l^2\right)u = 0
\end{equation}
This can be viewed as,
\begin{equation}\label{}
u''=\lambda_0(\xi)u' +s_0(\xi)u,
\end{equation}
with,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_0 &=& -\frac{(p' - 2 i\omega)}{p}, \\
s_0 &=& \frac{\left(2Q - \frac{2\Lambda}{\xi^2} - \frac{c c_1 m}{\xi} -
m_l^2\right)}{p}.
\end{eqnarray}
We employ the Improved Asymptotic Iteration Method (Improved AIM)
explained in Ref.\cite{36,37,38}. The coefficients are found out
upto $(n+2)^{th}$ derivative of $u$. It is assumed that when $n$ is
large the ratio of the derivatives,
$\frac{u^{n+2}}{u^{n+1}}=\frac{\lambda_{n-1}}{\lambda_n}$ converges
to a constant value, $\alpha$. This makes the quantization condition
given by,
\begin{equation}\label{}
\lambda_n(x)s_{n-1}(x)-\lambda_{n-1}(x)s_n(x)=0,
\end{equation}
a possible one. It can be seen from $(21)$ that $\lambda_0$ contains
the quasi normal frequencies. So, the quantization condition given
by $(23)$ can be used to determine the quasinormal frequencies of
the black hole.
\begin{table*}
\caption{QNMs of linearly charged BTZ black hole for different
values of the massive parameter for dS space time with $Q=0.25$}
\centering
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}|lr|lr|lr|@{}
\hline
&$m=1$ &&$m=1.05$ &&$m=1.1$\\
\hline
$\Lambda$ & $\omega=\omega_R+\omega_I$ &$\Lambda$& $\omega=\omega_R+\omega_I$ &$\Lambda$ & $\omega=\omega_R+\omega_I$\\
\hline\hline
0.05 & 1.10826 - 0.11372 i& 0.13& 2.34196 - 0.20795 i& 0.19 & 4.17236 - 1.06710 i\\
0.06 & 1.11679 - 0.12335 i& 0.15& 2.44520 - 0.20739 i& 0.21 & 4.27438 - 1.24924 i\\
0.07 & 1.12571 - 0.13415 i& 0.17& 2.54513 - 0.20066 i& 0.23 & 4.36708 - 1.46493 i\\
0.08 & 1.13484 - 0.14622 i& 0.19& 2.63890 - 0.19441 i& 0.25 & 4.44633 - 1.71966 i\\
0.09 & 1.14390 - 0.15966 i& 0.21& 2.72810 - 0.19347 i& 0.27 & 4.50586 - 2.02037 i\\
0.10 & 1.15262 - 0.17447 i& 0.21& 2.72810 - 0.19347 i& 0.28 & 4.52540 - 2.19059 i\\
\hline
0.11 & 1.57071 - 0.17563 i& 0.22& 2.77213 - 0.19538 i& 0.29 & 0.54837 - 2.25384 i\\
0.12 & 1.57561 - 0.17204 i& 0.23& 2.81604 - 0.19882 i& 0.30 & 0.50212 - 2.32018 i\\
0.13 & 1.58260 - 0.16856 i& 0.25& 2.90460 - 0.20967 i& 0.31 & 0.45065 - 2.39119 i\\
0.14 & 1.59172 - 0.16559 i& 0.27& 2.99477 - 0.22423 i& 0.32 & 0.39409 - 2.46833 i\\
0.15 & 1.60312 - 0.16277 i& 0.29& 3.08568 - 0.24039 i& 0.33 & 0.33391 - 2.55151 i\\
0.16 & 1.61655 - 0.16277 i& 0.31& 3.25912 - 0.27670 i& 0.34 & 0.26958 - 2.63657 i\\
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\end{table*}
\\ \\In Table $1$ we list the Quasi normal frequencies of the black hole
in the de Sitter space time for $m=1$, $m=1.05$ and $m=1.1$ for
different values of the cosmological constant. We have used the
parameter values $Q=0.25$, $m_l=1$, $\alpha=1$, $c=1$ and $c_1=1$.
In the numerical calculations we have used $15$ iterations. It is
observed that the behavior of the quasi normal frequencies change
after a particular $\Lambda$ value. This change in behavior is shown
in the table by a horizontal line as a separator. This sudden change
in behavior happens at $\Lambda=0.1$ for $m=1$, at $\Lambda=0.21$
for $m=1.05$ and at $\Lambda=0.28$ for $m=1.1$. The variation of the
QNMs with $\Lambda$ is shown in Fig. $1$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=15pc]{QNM3D.eps}\\
\caption{The behavior of QNMs with $\Lambda$ for $m=1.1$}
\end{figure}
The behavior of the QNMs for $m=1,0.05$ and $1.1$ given by Table $1$
are plotted in Fig. $2$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm]{QNMBA.eps}\includegraphics[width=4.3cm]{QNMBB.eps}\\
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm]{QNMBC.eps}\\
\caption{QNM behavior for linearly charged BTZ black hole for the massive parameter value $m=1,1.05,1.1$.
The sudden change in the slope can be treated as an indicative of a possible phase transition.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
From the figures it can be clearly seen that the slope of the curve
changes suddenly at some transition point for $m=1,1.05,1.1$. This
behavior can be treated as a clear indication of a phase transition.
However for the same values of the constant parameters this phase
transition occurs at different values of $\Lambda$ for the different
$m$ values. The higher the value of $m$, the larger
the value of $\Lambda$ at which the phase transition occurs.\\ \\
\begin{table*}[ht]
\caption{QNMs of linearly charged BTZ black holefor different values
of the massive parameter for dS space time with $Q=0.35$} \centering
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}|lr|lr|lr|@{}
\hline
&$m=0.9$ &&$m=0.95$ &&$m=1.0$\\
\hline
$\Lambda$ & $\omega=\omega_R+\omega_I$ &$\Lambda$& $\omega=\omega_R+\omega_I$ &$\Lambda$ & $\omega=\omega_R+\omega_I$\\
\hline\hline
0.09 & .898571 - .0783066i & 0.05 &1.16072 - .0686295i &0.01 & 1.68971 - .172263i\\
0.10 & .901026 - .0798863i & 0.06 &1.18398 - .0690504i &0.015 & 1.69779 - .581786i\\
0.11 & .902855 - .0851571i & 0.07 &1.20614 - .0630027i &0.02 & 1.70293 - .198065i\\
0.12 & .902565 - .0947457i & 0.08 &1.21651 - .0514301i &0.025 & 1.70506 - .214255i\\
0.13 & 1.03909 - .107478i & 0.09 &1.21431 - .0415960i &0.03 & 1.70405 - .232616i\\
\hline
0.14 & 1.01865 - .0859070i & 0.10 &1.20180 - .0347956i &0.04 & 1.69178 - .27573i\\
0.15 & 1.00159 - .0683552i & 0.11 &1.17941 - .0303883i &0.05 & 1.66379 - .327079i\\
0.16 & .983281 - .0666629i & 0.12 &1.14639 - .0274678i &0.06 & 1.61649 - .386106i\\
0.17 & .961166 - .0464981i & 0.13 &1.10110 - .0251206i &0.07 & 1.54442 - .451769i\\
0.18 & .933873 - .0396936i & 0.14 &1.04093 - .0224859i &0.08 & 1.43902 - .521872i\\
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\end{table*}
In Table $2$, we have shown the Quasi normal frequencies for
$Q=0.35$ for $m=0.9$, $m=0.95$ and $m=1.0$ with the parameter values
$m_l=c=c_1=1$. The behavior of these QNMs are shown in Figure $3$.
Just like in the case where $Q=0.25$, here also there is a sudden
change in the slope of the curve after a particular $\Lambda$
indicating that of a phase transition.\\
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm]{QNMBQ351.eps}\includegraphics[width=4.3cm]{QNMBQ352.eps}\\
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm]{QNMBQ353.eps}
\caption{QNM behavior for linearly charged BTZ black hole for dS spece time with $Q=0.35$ for the massive parameter value $m=0.9,0.95,1.0$.
The sudden change in the slope can be treated as an indicative of a possible phase transition.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Thus for both values of $Q$ the black hole shows phase transition.
We can see that for the value $m=1.0$ the phase transition happens
at a different value of $\Lambda$ compared to $Q=0.25$ and $Q=0.35$
cases.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=15pc]{QNMBQdS.eps}\\
\caption{Variation of QNMs with charge $Q$ for the dS space time}
\end{figure}
In Table $3$ we show the QNMs for an AdS space time for the
parameter values $Q=0.1$, $\alpha=1$, $c=1$, $c_1=1$ and
$m=1,1.05,1.1$. From the table, it can be observed that the
$\omega_R$ and $\omega_I$ continuously decrease and after reaching a
particular point $(\Lambda=0.12)$, the real part suddenly increases
and then continuously decrease whereas the imaginary part continues
to decrease. This jump can be treated as an indication of an
inflection point.
\begin{table*}[ht]
\centering \caption{QNMs of linearly charged BTZ black hole for
different values of the massive parameter for AdS space time with
$Q=0.1$ }
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}|lr|lr|lr|@{}
\hline
&$m=1.0$ &&$m=1.05$ &&$m=1.1$\\
\hline
$\Lambda$ & $\omega=\omega_R+\omega_I$ &$\Lambda$& $\omega=\omega_R+\omega_I$ &$\Lambda$ & $\omega=\omega_R+\omega_I$\\
\hline\hline
-0.06 & 1.83077 - 5.78701 i &-0.05 &1.39873 - 7.68495 i & &\\
-0.07 & 1.70014 - 5.33444 i &-0.06 &1.29210 - 7.27705 i &-0.04 &0.75408 - 9.41718 i \\
-0.08 & 1.53828 - 4.92198 i &-0.07 &1.14457 - 6.93423 i &-0.05 &0.63741 - 9.08170 i \\
-0.09 & 1.34563 - 4.54476 i &-0.08 &0.95604 - 6.62556 i &-0.06 &0.48892 - 8.73203 i \\
-0.10 & 1.11762 - 4.20206 i &-0.09 &0.72592 - 6.35819 i &-0.07 &0.21318 - 8.39613 i\\
-0.11 & 0.84041 - 3.89983 i &-0.95 &0.58718 - 6.23146 i &&\\
-0.12 & 0.48197 - 3.66706 i &-0.10 &0.40624 - 6.12793 i &&\\
\hline
-0.13 & 0.81813 - 4.06506 i &-0.11 &1.57334 - 7.10865 i &-0.08 &2.18254 - 10.2207 i\\
-0.135& 0.75562 - 3.41486 i &-0.13 &1.12639 - 5.99601 i &-0.09 &1.44272 - 10.1043 i\\
-0.14 & 0.32251 - 2.91165 i &-0.14 &0.86214 - 5.07753 i &-0.10 &1.41871 - 9.40952 i \\
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\end{table*}
The $\omega_R$ versus $\omega_I$ is plotted in Fig. $3$. It can be
seen from the figure that there is no drastic change in the slope
and the behavior of the QNMs are same. Hence it can be inferred that
there will be no phase transition.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm]{QNMBD.eps}\includegraphics[width=4.3cm]{QNMBE.eps}\\
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm]{QNMBF.eps}\\
\caption{QNM behavior for linearly charged BTZ black hole with charge Q =0.1 for AdS space time for the massive parameter value $m=1,1.05,1.1$. The dotted line represents the
behavior of QNMs after the inflection point.
The behavior of QNMs are seen to be the similar in the plots. There is no much difference in the slope of the curves}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Table $4$ we have calculated the QNMs for the AdS space time for
the charge $Q=0.25$. Fig. $6$ shows the behavior of quasi normal
frequencies for the above case. It can be seen that there is a
sudden change in slope of the curve after reaching a particular
$\Lambda$ indicating a phase transition. For $Q=0.1$ the AdS black
hole space time did not show any phase transition behavior but for
$Q=0.25$ it is found to be showing a phase transition behavior.
Hence, it can be inferred that the phase transition behavior depends
on the charge $Q$.
\begin{table*}
\caption{QNMs of linearly charged BTZ black hole for different
values of the massive parameter for AdS space time with $Q=0.25$}
\centering
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}|lr|lr|lr|@{}
\hline
&$m=0.95$ &&$m=1.0$ &&$m=1.05$\\
\hline
$\Lambda$ & $\omega=\omega_R+\omega_I$ &$\Lambda$& $\omega=\omega_R+\omega_I$ &$\Lambda$ & $\omega=\omega_R+\omega_I$\\
\hline\hline
0.01 & .292587 - 9.19482i & 0.13 & .820054 - 4.96149i &0.29 & 1.01098 - .0351877i\\
0.02 & .772162 - 8.39220i & 0.15 & .431983 - 3.38060i &0.31 & 1.02868 - .0148701i\\
0.03 & .844245 - 7.75702i & 0.17 & .00879691 - .0348464i &0.32 & 1.04119 - .00215093i\\
\hline
0.04 & .820904 - 7.24016i &0.19 & 1.72429 - .0660172i &0.33 &1.62431 - .102106i\\
0.05 & .759655 - 6.75177i &0.20 & 1.73419 - .0561830i &0.34 &1.62400 - .083530i\\
0.07 & .551068 - 5.89321i &0.21 & 1.74461 - .043151i &0.35 &1.61905 - .067770i\\
0.09 & .390010 - 4.86350i &0.22 & 1.75581 - .0330092i &0.36 &1.60957 - .060276i\\
0.11 & .243717 - 3.77402i &0.23 & 1.76769 - .0186321i &&\\
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm]{QNMBQ251.eps}\includegraphics[width=4.3cm]{QNMBQ252.eps}\\
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.3cm]{QNMBQ253.eps}
\caption{QNM behavior for linearly charged BTZ black hole for $Q=0.25$ the massive parameter value $m=0.95,1.0,1.05$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\\ \\Now, it would be interesting to check the variation of QNMs with $Q$.
Table $5$ shows the variation of quasi normal frequencies with
charge $Q$ for dS space time. It can be seen that the behavior of
quasi normal frequency changes frequently. The phase transition
behavior is highly dependent on the charge. The phase does not
remain the same for a wide range of charge and hence phase
transition is found to happen frequently over a range of charges.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Table showing the variation of QNMs with $Q$ for dS space time}\label{}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|}
\hline\hline
Q & $\omega$ \\
\hline
0.15 & 4.47348 - 0.19884 i \\
0.20 & 4.33915 - 0.108836 i \\
\hline
0.25 & 0.0930679 - 0.0668980 i \\
0.30 & 1.54638 - 0.132502 i \\
0.35 & 1.68971 - 0.172263 i \\
\hline
0.40 & 0.0325096 - 0.466834 i \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The variation of QNMs with charge for the AdS case is shown in Table
$6$.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Table showing the variation of QNMs with $Q$ for the AdS space}\label{}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|}
\hline\hline
Q & $\omega$ \\
\hline
0.05 &1.12930 - 9.66585 i\\
0.10 &1.14048 - 9.54589 i\\
0.15 &2.42998 - 12.8629 i\\
0.20 &3.49176 - 14.0316 i\\
0.25 &3.64711 - 13.9835 i\\
\hline
0.30 &0.294699 - 9.56518 i\\
0.35 &0.557735 - 9.42807 i\\
0.40 &0.792729 - 9.21181 i\\
0.45 &0.940783 - 9.04476 i\\
0.50 &1.03930 - 8.88485 i\\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
It can be seen that compared to the dS case, phase transition does
not happen frequently, ie., the phases remain the same for most of
the values of charge and a transition happens only for certain small
range of charge values. This behavior can be seen in Fig $7$.\\
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=15pc]{QNMBQAdS.eps}
\caption{Variation of QNMs with charge $Q$ for AdS space time}
\end{figure}
\section{Thermodynamics of the black hole}
In this section, we study the thermodynamics of the linearly charged
BTZ black hole in the (Anti)de Sitter space time in massive gravity.
The mass of the black hole, $m_0$, is given by the solution of the
condition $f(r)|_{r\rightarrow r_H}=0$ as,
\begin{equation}\label{}
m_0= m^2 c c_1 r_H+\Lambda r_{H}^2-2 Q \ln{(\frac{r_H}{\alpha})}.
\end{equation}
The temperature of the black hole is given by
$\frac{1}{4\pi}f'(r)|_{r\rightarrow r_{H}}$ which gives,
\begin{equation}\label{}
T=\frac{c c_1 m^2}{4 \pi }-\frac{Q}{2 \pi r_H}+4 P r_H.
\end{equation}
where $P=\frac{\Lambda}{8\pi}$. Finally, the entropy is evaluated
from the expression $S=\int_{0}^{r_H}\frac{1}{T}\frac{\partial
m_0}{\partial r}dr$ which gives,
\begin{equation}\label{}
S=4\pi r_H.\\
\end{equation}
Then the equation of state, $P(V,T)$ can be obtained from the
expression for temperature, $(25)$, as,
\begin{equation}\label{}
P=\frac{Q}{8 \pi r_H^2}+\frac{-c c_1 m^2+4 \pi T}{16 \pi r_H}.
\end{equation}
For an $(n+2)$ dimensional massive gravity, the volume is given
by\cite{39}, $V=(\frac{\partial H}{\partial
P})_{S,Q}=\frac{V_n}{n+1}r^{n+1}$. With, $n=1$, the calculation
gives the horizon radius in terms of its volume as,
$r_H=(\frac{V}{8\pi})^{1/2}$.\\ \\
To specify the phase transition it will be useful to introduce the
Gibbs free energy as a Legendre transformation of enthalpy as,
\begin{equation}
G=H-TS,
\end{equation}
where $H$ is the enthalpy, $T$ is the temperature given by $(25)$
and $S$ is the entropy given by $(26)$. We use the black hole mass
$m_0$ as the enthalpy since $H\equiv m_0$ rather than the internal
energy of the gravitational system\cite{21}. Substituting $(24)$,
$(25)$ and $(26)$ in $(28)$, we get an expression for the Gibbs free
energy as,
\begin{equation}\label{12 a}
G(T,\Lambda)=2Q + \Lambda r_H^2 - 2 Q \ln{(\frac{r_H}{\alpha})}.\\
\end{equation}
Fig. $8$ shows the variation of Gibbs free energy with temperature
plotted using $(25)$ and $(29)$. Top of the figure shows the G-T
plot for $P=\frac{\Lambda}{8\pi}=0.001$. It can be seen that the
upper branch which lies in the positive Gibbs free energy region
moves towards the lower branch which lies in the \lq positive
temperature-negative Gibbs free energy\rq\, region which indicates a
possible phase transition. The bottom plot shows variation of G with
T for $P=-0.001$. The plot lies in the positive Gibbs free energy
region and shows a cusp like behavior.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16pc]{GT1.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=16pc]{GT2.eps}
\caption{Variation of Gibbs free energy with temperature for
the dS space time (top) and AdS space tome (bottom).}
\end{figure}
Fig. $9$ shows the variation of pressure, $P$ and temperature, $T$
with the horizon radius, $r_H$, for fixed values of temperature and
pressure respectively. Top of the Fig. $9$, shows the variation of
temperature with $r_h$ given by $(25)$ for the pressure values
$P=-0.003$, $-0.002,$ $-0.001,$ $0.001,$ and $0.002$. The bottom of
the Fig. $9$ shows the variation of pressure with $r_h$ given by
$(27)$ for the fixed values of temperature, $T=-0.3,$ $-0.2,$
$-0.1,$ $0.1,$ and $0.2$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=15pc]{Trnew.eps}\hspace{0.5cm}\includegraphics[width=15pc]{Prnew.eps}\\%Tr1, Pr
\caption{\textbf{Top : }Variation of $T$ with $r_H$. \textbf{Bottom : }Variation of $P$ with $r_H.$}
\end{figure}
More details regarding the phase transition can be extracted form
the entropy of the system. The temperature-entropy relation would be
worth looking at. For that the expression for $r_H$ derived from
$(26)$ is substituted into $(25)$ so that we get an expression
relating the entropy and temperature as,
\begin{equation}\label{}
T=-\frac{2 Q}{S}+\frac{2\pi c c_1 m^2 + \Lambda\, S }{8 \pi
^2}.
\end{equation}
Fig. $10$ shows the $S-T$ plots for the values $\Lambda=0.1$ and
$\Lambda=-0.1$, with the parameter values $m_0=c=c_1=1$, $\alpha=1$,
$Q=0.25$ and $m=1$. It can be seen that $S$ remains positive only
for a small range of temperature and both of them show phase
transition behavior.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{minipage}{\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=17pc]{TempEntropy.eps}\\ \includegraphics[width=17pc]{TempEntropyAds.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The variation of thermal entropy with temperature for the
$\Lambda=0.1$(top) and $-0.1$(bottom) in dS space time}
\end{figure}
Now, in order to study the stability of the phases or the
feasibility of the above phase transitions, it may be worth looking
at the behavior of specific heat with temperature. If the behavior
of heat capacity indicates that as the temperature varies the heat
capacity makes a transition from negative values to positive
values the system undergoes a phase transition. Negative heat
capacity represents unstable state while positive value of
specific heat implies a stable state. The specific heat is given
by,
\begin{equation}\label{}
C_Q=\frac{T}{(\frac{\partial T}{\partial S})_Q},
\end{equation}
which from $(26)$ and $(30)$ leads to,
\begin{equation}\label{}
C_Q=2\pi r_h \frac{\left(-2 Q+r_h \left(m^2+2 r_h \Lambda \right)\right)}{Q+r_h^2 \Lambda }.
\end{equation}
The plots of specific heat versus temperature for $\Lambda=0.1$ and
$\Lambda=-0.1$ is given in Fig. $11$ for the parameter values
$m=c=c_1=1$ and $Q=0.25$ . From the plot it can be clearly
understood that for $\Lambda=0.1$, the specific heat changes from
negative to positive values indicating a phase transition from
unstable to stable configuration. For $\Lambda=-0.1$, from the
figure we can say that it somewhat shows a phase transition behavior
however, it is observed that for given constant parameter values,
the black holes in AdS space time show this phase transition
behavior only for a very small range of $\Lambda$ values whereas in
dS space time it shows phase transition for a wide range of
$\Lambda$ values.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=17pc]{SpecificHeat.eps}\\ \includegraphics[width=17pc]{SpecificHeatAds.eps}
\caption{Figure showing the variation of specific heat with temperature for $\Lambda=0.1$(top) and
$\Lambda=-0.1$(bottom). }
\end{figure}
It would also be worth noting that the variation of the behavior of
specific heat with $Q$. For this, we have plotted variation of
specific heat with temperature for $Q=0.1,0.25,0.5,0.6$ for dS space
time; the other parameters remaining the same and is shown in Fig
$12$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{minipage}{\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=10pc]{dSQ1.eps}\hspace{0.5cm}\includegraphics[width=10pc]{dSQ25.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=10pc]{dSQ5.eps}\hspace{0.5cm}\includegraphics[width=10pc]{dSQ6.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The variation of thermal entropy with temperature for
$Q=0.1,0.25,0.5,0.6$ respectively from top left in dS space time}
\end{figure}
It can be seen that upto $Q=0.5$ it shows a phase transition and
then after reaching $Q=0.6$, it no more shows any phase transition.
Also it is found that above this value no phase transition is
observed.\\ \\
The variation of the behavior of specific heat with $Q$ for the AdS
space time for the values $Q=0.1,0.25,0.3,0.4$ is shown in FIg $13$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{minipage}{\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[width=9pc]{AdSQ1.eps}\hspace{0.5cm}\includegraphics[width=9pc]{AdSQ25.eps}\\
\includegraphics[width=9pc]{AdSQ3.eps}\hspace{0.5cm}\includegraphics[width=9pc]{AdSQ4.eps}\\
\end{minipage}
\caption{The variation of thermal entropy with temperature for
$Q=0.1,0.25,0.3,0.4$ respectively from top left in AdS space time}
\end{figure}
It can be seen that for $Q=0.1$ it does not show any phase
transition and upto $Q=0.3$ it shows a phase transition and then
after reaching $Q=0.4$, it no more shows any phase transition. Also
it is found that above this value no phase transition is observed.
From this it can also be concluded that AdS space time shows phase
transition only for a small range of $Q$ when compared with the dS
space time.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper we have calculated the QNMs for a linearly charged BTZ
black hole in massive gravity. The values of the parameters are so
chosen that in the metric function, the massive parameter dominates.
It is found that in the de Sitter space time as the cosmological
constant $\Lambda$ is increased, the quasi normal frequencies varied
continuously and then after reaching a particular value of
$\Lambda(=0.1)$, their behavior is found to be abruptly changing
afterwards. This is shown in the $\omega_I-\omega_R$ plot where
there is a drastic change in the slope of the curve after a
particular value of $\Lambda$. This can be seen as a strong
indication of a possible phase transition occurring in the system.
When the massive parameter $m$ is increased, a similar behavior is
found but the $\Lambda$ at which the change of behavior of QNMs is
found to be shifted to a higher value$(\Lambda=0.28)$. Also, it can
be inferred that the variation of the massive parameter will only
alter the point at which the phase transition happens. For different
values of $Q$ the phase transition occurs for different values of $\Lambda$.\\\\
The QNMs for an (Anti)de Sitter space time is also calculated and
the behavior of their quasi normal frequencies are analyzed. For
$Q=0.1$ the behavior of QNMs showed an inflection point but no phase
transition. However for $Q=0.25$ it showed a phase transition. Thus
it is seen that the phase transition behavior is found dependent on
$Q$ for the AdS case. It is also observed by studying the variation
of QNMs with $Q$ that AdS space time shows phase transition only for
certain limited ranges of $Q$ compared to the dS case.\\ \\
The thermodynamics of such black holes in the dS space is then
looked into. The behavior of specific heat showed phase transition
for the dS case for a wide range of $Q$ whereas for AdS space time
phase transition is shown only for a limited range of $Q$.
\section*{Acknowledgements} One of us (PP) would like to thank UGC,
New Delhi for financial support through the award of a Junior
Research Fellowship(JRF) during the period $2010$-$2013$. PP would
also like to acknowledge Govt. College, Chittur for allowing to
pursue her research. VCK would like to acknowledge Associateship of
IUCAA, Pune.
|
\section{Introduction}
The total reaction cross section $\sigma^{\rm R}$ is one of the most
important physics observables for nuclear data studies. For proton-nucleus
reactions, $\sigma^{\rm R}$ has been investigated in many experiments found in the
literature (see, e.g., Refs.~\cite{Sih93,Car96,Mac99,Auc05,Abu10,Koh14} and references therein).
On the basis of about 1000 data values, Carlson~\cite{Car96} proposed a
simple formula of practical use for the proton-nucleus $\sigma^{\rm R}$,
$\sigma_p^{\rm R}$, at incident energies between 40~MeV and 560~MeV.
On the other hand, for deuteron-nucleus reactions, such systematic
studies on $\sigma^{\rm R}$ have not been performed. This is mainly
because of the lack of experimental data in comparison with those for
the proton-nucleus reactions. The global parametrizations of
the deuteron-nucleus optical potential by Daehnick {\it et al.}~\cite{Dae80}
and by Bojowald~{\it et al.}~\cite{Boj88} were highly successful but
limited up to around 90~MeV of the deuteron incident energy $E_d$.
Quite recently, a new global potential was developed by An and Cai~\cite{AC06}
that is applicable to the reactions up to $E_d=183$~MeV. However,
the maximum energy, i.e., 92~MeV per nucleon, is still much lower than that
of Carlson's formula for $\sigma_p^{\rm R}$. Furthermore, it should be
kept in mind that, in general, deuteron optical potentials are more ambiguous
than those for nucleon, since deuteron is a weakly-bound system and
the coupling to its breakup channels can affect the elastic scattering.
In other words, it is not trivial that one can describe the dynamical
polarization potential corresponding to the breakup channels
by a standard parametrization of the optical potential, e.g., the Woods-Saxon
form and its derivative.
To circumvent this, in the present study we propose to describe the
deuteron-nucleus reaction by means of a $p+n+{\rm A}$ three-body
reaction model, where A stands for the target nucleus. We adopt the
continuum-discretized coupled-channels method
(CDCC)~\cite{Kam86,Aus87,Yah12} that has successfully been applied to
deuteron-nucleus reactions in a wide range of energies. CDCC is a
non-perturbative reaction model that treats the couplings to projectile
breakup channels explicitly. The theoretical foundation of CDCC is given
in Refs.~\cite{Aus89,Aus96}, and the reaction observables calculated
by CDCC are shown~\cite{Del07} to agree with those by the Faddeev
theory~\cite{Fad61}, i.e., the exact solution of the three-body scattering
problem.
The input of the CDCC calculation is the nucleon-nucleus
($N$-A) optical potential, for which well-established global
potentials such as the parametrization by Koning and Delaroche~\cite{KD03}
and the so-called Dirac phenomenology~\cite{Coo09} are available.
In this study, however, we adopt a microscopic $N$-A potential
so as to calculate potentials for not only stable but also unstable
nuclei. This method is regarded as an application of the
microscopic reaction theory based on the nucleus-nucleus multiple
scattering theory~\cite{Yah08} to the deuteron-induced reactions.
Thus, we calculate unambiguously the deuteron-nucleus $\sigma^{\rm R}$,
$\sigma_d^{\rm R}$, for various target nuclei and for
$10 \le E_d \le 1000$~MeV. Then we parametrize the resulting
$\sigma_d^{\rm R}$ as a function of $E_d$, the target mass number $A$
and its atomic number $Z$.
In Section~2, we briefly describe the framework of the reaction model
and numerical inputs. We show in Section~3 typical results for
$\sigma_d^{\rm R}$ and give its functional form for practical use.
Section~4 is devoted to summary.
\section{Three-body description of deuteron-nucleus reactions}
In CDCC the total wave function $\Psi$ of
the $p+n+{\rm A}$ three-body system is expanded in terms of
the set $\{ \phi_i \}$ of the eigenstates of the internal Hamiltonian $h$
of the $p$-$n$ system:
\begin{equation}
\Psi({\bm r},{\bm R})
=\sum_{i=0}^{i_{\rm max}} \phi_i({\bm r}) \chi_i({\bm R}),
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
where ${\bm R}$ is the coordinate of the center-of-mass of the $p$-$n$
system relative to the target nucleus A and ${\bm r}$ is that of
$p$ to $n$. The index $i$ specifies the $p$-$n$ eigenstate; $i=0$
corresponds to the deuteron ground state and $i>0$ to the
discretized-continuum states of the $p$-$n$ system.
The expansion coefficient denoted by $\chi_i$ describes the
scattering wave function between the $p$-$n$ system
in the $i$th state and A.
The three-body Schr\"{o}dinger equation to be solved is given by
\begin{equation}
\left[
T_{\bm R}+U_p+U_n+h-E
\right]
\Psi({\bm r},{\bm R})
=0,
\label{eq2}
\end{equation}
where $T_{\bm R}$ is the kinetic energy operator regarding ${\bm R}$
and $E$ is the total energy of the three-body system.
CDCC is the ordinary coupled-channel description of the three-body
reaction with the discretization of the $p$-$n$ continua; for more details
of CDCC as well as its theoretical foundation,
see Refs.~\cite{Kam86,Aus87,Yah12,Aus89,Aus96}.
In Equation~(\ref{eq2}), $U_p$ ($U_n$) is the $p$-A ($n$-A) scattering potential
consisting of nuclear and Coulomb parts.
For the nuclear part, we adopt the single folding model with the Melbourne nucleon-nucleon
$g$-matrix interaction~\cite{Amo00} and the one-body density $\rho$ of the nucleus A.
The nucleon-nucleus microscopic optical potentials, thus, constructed are
shown to reproduce the elastic scattering observables for various reaction
systems with no free adjustable parameters~\cite{Amo00,Min10,Toy13}.
In this study, $\rho$ is obtained by solving Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov equations
in coordinate space with SLy4 Skyrme energy density functionals~\cite{Ben03}.
We use the computer code {\sc lenteur}~\cite{BenUPB}, which enforces
time-reversal and spherical symmetries.
For odd nuclei, the so-called filling approximation is adopted.
The model space of CDCC is as follows. We include $s$-, $p$- and $d$-waves
of $\phi$ calculated with the Ohmura potential~\cite{Ohm70}.
The $p$-$n$ continua are truncated at $k=1.0$~fm$^{-1}$, where $k$ is
the $p$-$n$ relative wave number, and the width of the momentum bin
is set to 0.1~fm$^{-1}$. The maximum value of $r$ ($R$) is
taken to be 100~fm (200~fm).
The Coulomb breakup effects are included in all cases, and the resulting $\sigma_d^{\rm R}$ converges
with this model space within 1\%.
We have calculated $\sigma_d^{\rm R}$ for $^{9}$Be, $^{12}$C, $^{16}$O, $^{28}$Si, $^{40}$Ca, $^{56}$Fe,
$^{58}$Ni, $^{79}$Se, $^{90}$Zr, $^{93}$Zr, $^{107}$Pd, $^{116}$Sn, $^{120}$Sn, $^{135}$Cs and $^{208}$Pb
at incident energies $E_d$ from 10~MeV to 1000~MeV. We emphasize that
we have not introduced any free adjustable parameters in the present
calculation.
\section{Results}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{fig1.eps}
\caption{
The predicted $\sigma_d^{\rm R}$ for
$^{12}$C (solid line), $^{58}$Ni (dashed line), $^{120}$Sn (dotted line) and $^{208}$Pb (dash-dotted line)
as a function of $E_d$.
The closed squares, triangles and inverted triangles are the experimental data
taken from Refs.~\cite{Auc96}, \cite{Mat80} and \cite{Mil54}, respectively.
The open circles represent the results calculated with the An-Cai global potential~\cite{AC06}.
The four thin lines represent the results of NASA's formula~\cite{Tri96,Tri97,Tri99}
implemented in PHITS~\cite{PHITS}.
}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{fig1}, we show the predicted $\sigma_d^{\rm R}$ for
$^{12}$C, $^{58}$Ni, $^{120}$Sn and $^{208}$Pb by the
solid, dashed, dotted and dash-dotted lines, respectively,
as a function of $E_d$.
The experimental data taken from Auce {\it et al.}~\cite{Auc96}
(squares), Matsuoka {\it et al.}~\cite{Mat80} (triangles) and
Millburn {\it et al.}~\cite{Mil54} (inverted triangles) are shown by closed symbols.
The open circles represent the results calculated with the
An-Cai global potential~\cite{AC06}.
The prediction of the microscopic
CDCC calculation agrees well with the experimental data except for
the data measured at 160~MeV~\cite{Mil54}, at almost the same level
as that of the global optical potential~\cite{AC06}.
One sees from Figure~\ref{fig1}
that the $\sigma_d^{\rm R}$ for $^{12}$C measured at 160~MeV seems to deviate
from the energy dependence of the data at
lower energies, and that of the result of the An-Cai potential.
Systematic
measurement of $\sigma_d^{\rm R}$ at around 200~MeV with high precision
will be of great importance.
The four thin lines shown in Figure~\ref{fig1} represent the
results of NASA's formula~\cite{Tri96,Tri97,Tri99} implemented in the particle
and heavy ion transport code system (PHITS)~\cite{PHITS}; a severe
undershooting of the experimental data as well as the prediction of
the CDCC calculation is found.
Next we parametrize the $\sigma_d^{\rm R}$ calculated for
the 15 nuclei mentioned in Section~2 at
$10\le E_d \le 1000$~MeV by the following form:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_d^{\rm R}(E_d,A,Z)
=
\pi[R_d(E_d)+R_{\rm A}(E_d)A^{1/3}+\delta(E_d)A]^2C(E_d,Z),
\label{fit1}
\end{equation}
where $A$ ($Z$) is the mass number (atomic number) of the target nucleus A.
The effective radii of $d$ and A, and the correction term $\delta$ are defined by
\begin{equation}
R_d(E_d)=\dfrac{a_1}{1+a_2 \exp(-E_d/a_3)},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm A}(E_d)=\dfrac{b_1}{1+b_2 \exp(-E_d/b_3)}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\delta(E_d)=\dfrac{c_1}{1+c_2 \exp(-E_d/c_3)},
\end{equation}
respectively.
The Coulomb damping factor is given by
\begin{equation}
C(E_d,Z)=\exp(-d_1 Z/E_d).
\label{fit2}
\end{equation}
This parametrization is quite similar to that of
Carlson's formula~\cite{Car96} for $\sigma_p^{\rm R}$ but
we have slightly changed the energy dependence of $R_d$ and $R_{\rm A}$,
and newly introduced $\delta$ and $C$. The ten parameters, $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$,
$b_1$, $b_2$, $b_3$, $c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$ and $d_1$, determined by the least squares method,
are given in Table~\ref{tab1}.
The present formula well reproduces the
results of CDCC as shown in Figure~\ref{fig2}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Fitting parameters for $\sigma_d^{\rm R}(E_d,A,Z)$.}
\label{tab1}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{$i$} \\
\cline{2-4}
& 1 & 2 & 3 \\
\hline
$a_i$ & 0.306~fm & $-0.923$ & 590~MeV \\
$b_i$ & 1.33~fm & $-0.112$ & 248~MeV \\
$c_i$ & 0.00204~fm & $-0.788$ & 453~MeV \\
$d_i$ & 0.272~MeV & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{fig2.eps}
\caption{
$\sigma_{\rm R}$ for
$^{12}$C (solid lines), $^{58}$Ni (dashed lines), $^{120}$Sn (dotted lines) and $^{208}$Pb (dash-dotted lines) targets,
as a function of $E_d$.
The thin and thick lines correspond to the
results of CDCC and those of Equation~(\ref{fit1}).
}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary}
We have calculated the deuteron-nucleus total reaction cross sections
$\sigma_d^{\rm R}$ for various target nuclei at deuteron incident energies
from 10~MeV to 1000~MeV, by means of the three-body reaction model, i.e.,
CDCC.
The nucleon-nucleus optical potential, which is the central input of CDCC
in the present study, was evaluated by the single-folding
model with the Melbourne $g$-matrix interaction and the nuclear one-body
density obtained by the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov method. Thus, the microscopic
description for the deuteron-nucleus reactions has been carried out.
The resulting values $\sigma_d^{\rm R}$ agree well with the experimental data
and the results of the An-Cai global optical potential.
NASA's formula for $\sigma_d^{\rm R}$ implemented in PHITS was found to severely
undershoot the results of CDCC, at low energies in particular.
We have parametrized our results of $\sigma_d^{\rm R}$ by a simple
functional form.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
The authors thank K. Niita, Y. Watanabe and K. Yoshida for useful discussions.
This work is supported in part by
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Nos. 16K05352 and 16K17698)
from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
and by the ImPACT Program of Council for Science,
Technology and Innovation (Cabinet Office, Government of Japan).
The numerical calculations in this work were performed at RCNP.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The basic theory of a turbulent interstellar medium (ISM) with the
concept of the hierarchy of eddies was outlined by
\citet{vonWeizsaecker1951}. The energy flow from large eddies to smaller
ones was described in terms of wave numbers $k$, the reciprocal length
of the associated Fourier component, giving rise to the well known
Kolmogorov relation for the power distribution $ P(k) \propto k^{-5/3}$.
In a more general way for the decay of turbulent energy within a
compressible medium a constant power law index $ P(k) \propto
k^{-\gamma}$ is expected. When the turbulent flow reaches the
dissipative range where turbulent motion is converted to heat, the power
distribution should steepen strongly, $ P(k) \propto k^{-7}$.
The measurement of $ P(k)$ is, in principle, straightforward for radio
synthesis telescopes by using the squares of the observed visibility
amplitudes at various baselines. In practice, however, a number of
important details such as calibration, noise performance, UV plane
coverage (sampling bias) and projection effects need to be taken into
account \citep{Green1993}. Most important is to apply a uniform taper in
the UV plane which is usually avoided when generating sensitive
interferometer maps \citep{Briggs1995}. Inappropriate tapering may
degrade power spectra seriously.
Single-dish radio telescopes can be used to generate 1D power spectra
from drift scans or average power spectra from 2D maps. Tapering issues,
discussed later in more detail (Sect. \ref{Apodisation}), are also in
this case important. Essentially 2D single-dish data have to be
processed analogous to interferometer data for an accurate power
spectrum analysis; instrumental effects need to be eliminated carefully.
Attempts to quantify ISM power law indices for a turbulent \ion{H}{i}
distribution were made by several authors. In the first instance 2D
interferometer channel maps, slices of the observed brightness
temperature distribution at a constant velocity, were
used. \citet{Crovisier1983} found power law spectra that were
independent of position angle with typical values of $\gamma \sim -3$
for Westerbork synthesis telescope observations. From additional 1D
Arecibo and Nan\c{c}ay drift scans they derived $\gamma \sim
-2$. Erroneously it was concluded that interferometer and single-dish
telescopes sample \ion{H}{i} distributions with different properties. This
issue was solved later, as it was realized that power laws derived from
1D and 2D distributions result in power law indices differing by one
\citep{Green1993}.
\citet{Kalberla1983} used also Westerkork observations, supplemented by
short spacing data from the Effelsberg 100-m telescope, and derived for
local \ion{H}{i} gas toward 3C147 $\gamma = -2.5 \pm 0.3$. Using the DRAO
Galactic Plane Survey for \ion{H}{i} emission, \citet{Green1993} derived power
law indices between $ -3 < \gamma < -2.2 $. More distant \ion{H}{i} gas, which
corresponds to large physical scales, tends to have more negative
indices than the nearer \ion{H}{i}.
After these early investigations it became obvious that turbulence in
the \ion{H}{i} gas cannot be described by a unique power law. Rather turbulence
in the \ion{H}{i} is governed by processes that inject the kinetic energy to
the ISM with different decay processes. In fact, the power spectrum
of a velocity channel is a complex mixture of velocity and density
fluctuations. \citet{Lazarian2000} studied these issues in detail. They
argued that intensity fluctuations within individual channel maps are
generated predominantly by turbulent velocity fields. Increasing the
thickness of the observed velocity slices causes density fluctuations to
dominate the emissivity. For thin slices in velocity preferentially a
power law index close to $\gamma = -8/3$, the 2D Kolmogorov index,
is expected. The analysis of column density maps (thick slices in
velocity) should result in power law indices that are steeper by one
\citep[][Eq. 28]{Lazarian2000}. \citet{Esquivel2005} argued that
velocity centroids are most useful as tracers of turbulence and favor
centroid maps for anisotropy studies.
Using data from the Southern Galactic Plane Survey in the fourth
Galactic quadrant, \citet{Dickey2001} derived turbulence spectra with
power law indices between $ -4 < \gamma < -3 $, confirming essentially
the predicted steepening for column density maps.
\citet{Miville-Deschenes2003} studied the Ursa Major Galactic cirrus and
found that the spectral index is similar for the 3D density and velocity
fields with a value of $ -3.6 \pm 0.2$. Also
\citet{Miville-Deschenes2007} found that the power spectra of the
integrated emission and velocity centroids are both well fit by a
slope of $-3.4 \pm 0.2$. Using Arecibo data \citet{Dedes2012} report for
thin slices a spectral index of -2.67 for the local gas and -2.5 for the
extra-planar component. \citet{Martin2015}, using the Green Bank
Telescope (GBT), studied the \ion{H}{i} distribution in toward the northern
ecliptic pole. They derived power spectra of column density maps for
low-, intermediate-, and high-velocity gas components (LVC, IVC, and
HVC) with indices of $-2.86 \pm 0.04, -2.69 \pm 0.04$, and $-2.59 \pm
0.07$, respectively. \citet{Blagrave2016} observed several fields at
intermediate Galactic latitudes with the DRAO and the GBT and find
exponents ranging from -2.5 to -3.0. Power spectra of maps of the
centroid velocity for these components give similar results.
For the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) \citet{Stanimirovic1999} derived
power law indices in the range $\gamma = -3.04 \pm 0.02 $. This
implies that the dynamics of the \ion{H}{i} distribution are similar for both
the Galaxy and the SMC.
All these investigation are consistent with the assumption that the ISM
is dominated by turbulence. Since a few years increasingly attention
was drawn to the fact that typical astrophysical fluids are accompanied
by magnetic fields. These fields may be strong enough to affect the
dynamics of the turbulent cascade from large to small eddies. The motion
along the magnetic field is free and unaffected, but perpendicular to
the field motions are hindered. During the energy cascade this leads
to increasingly asymmetric eddies. Thus magneto hydrodynamical (MHD)
turbulence in presence of a magnetic field is expected to be strongly
anisotropic \citep{Goldreich1995}, for reviews see
\citet{Cho2003,Brandenburg2013}.
So far, imprints to the spectral power distribution from anisotropies in
the \ion{H}{i} distribution were not reported. However recently new powerful
single-dish \ion{H}{i} surveys became available. For the northern sky there is
the Galactic Effelsberg--Bonn \ion{H}{i} Survey \citep[EBHIS,][]{Winkel2016a},
in the south the Parkes Galactic All Sky Survey
\citep[GASS,][]{Naomi2009,Kalberla2010}. \citet{Kalberla2016}, merging
EBHIS with the 3rd release of the GASS \citep[GASS III,][]{Kalberla2015}, have
shown that the cold neutral medium (CNM) in the local vicinity is mostly
organized in filaments. A comparison with structures measured by {\it
Planck} at 353 GHz \citep{Planck2016} disclosed that the CNM filaments
are well aligned with the thermal dust emission. Moreover, the \ion{H}{i}
filaments are well aligned with the magnetic field direction measured by
{\it Planck} and anisotropies in the CNM distribution are common. We
therefore find that a search for anisotropic MHD turbulence is overdue
and decided to dedicate this analysis to anisotropies in \ion{H}{i} turbulence
spectra.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_01-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Brightness temperature distribution in direction to 3C~196
in Galactic coordinates at a velocity of -5 km\,s$^{-1}~$ on large
scales. 3C~196 is marked in red, the yellow circles have radii of
2.5\degr and 5\degr. Filamentary features from USM maps are
overlaid with contours of 0.2, 1, and 5 K. }
\label{Fig_HI_gal}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_02-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Centroid map (Faraday depth in rad m$^{-2}$) in ecliptic
coordinates derived from the LOFAR polarized emission in direction
to 3C~196. The filamentary features from an
\ion{H}{i} USM map at $v_{\rm LSR} = -3.76$ km\,s$^{-1}~$ are overlaid with
contours of 0.2, 1, and 2 K. The position of 3C~196 in the field
center is indicated. }
\label{Fig_cubep_USM}
\end{figure}
\section{Source selection}
\label{source}
Linear polarization structures in LOFAR observations of the interstellar
medium in the 3C~196 field have been observed by \citet{Jelic2015}. This
is one of the three primary fields of the LOFAR-Epoch of Reionization
key science project. The high band antennas (HBA) have been used to
image this region and the distribution of polarized structures in
Faraday depth was derived by rotation measure (RM) synthesis.
These observations disclosed an interesting morphological
feature, a strikingly straight filament at a Faraday depth of +0.5 rad
m$^{-2}$, approximately in north/south direction in the center across
3C~196, and parallel to the Galactic plane. The width of the central
filament is roughly 8 to 10 arcmin. Moreover, there are also linear
depolarization canals conspicuous in images at the peaks of the Faraday
spectra. \citet{Jelic2015} conclude that the filamentary structure is
probably caused by an ionized filament in the ISM, located somewhere in
the foreground.
We used the EBHIS to study the \ion{H}{i} distribution
in direction to 3C~196. The LOFAR field field is located in a region at
intermediate Galactic latitudes that is dominated by numerous \ion{H}{i}
filaments, running approximately parallel to the Galactic plane. The
large scale structure of the filaments is best visualized at a velocity
of -5 km\,s$^{-1}$. Figure \ref{Fig_HI_gal} displays color coded an overview of
the observed brightness temperature $T_{\rm B}$. Filaments are best
visible after unsharp masking (USM) the observations. We generated USM
maps by subtracting from the observed $T_{\rm B}$ distribution a
smoothed distribution with an effective resolution of 0\fdg5
\citep[see][for details]{Kalberla2016}. For the local gas the resulting
filamentary structures are found to have low Doppler temperatures,
characteristic for the CNM. This gas is shown in Fig. \ref{Fig_HI_gal}
with isophotes. These structures are typical for the filamentary CNM
described by \citet{Kalberla2016}.
For a more detailed comparison between \ion{H}{i} filaments and the polarized
emission we calculate the centroid map from the LOFAR data cube of
polarized emission at various Faraday depths. Such a centroid map should
be sensitive to shifts in Faraday depth, caused by foreground
filaments. In Fig. \ref{Fig_cubep_USM} we display this centroid map,
overlaid with CNM filaments (red contours) from the EBHIS \ion{H}{i} USM
database at a velocity of $v_{\rm LSR} = -3.76$ km\,s$^{-1}$. We find most of
the \ion{H}{i} filaments aligned with dips (dark blue) in the LOFAR centroid
map but there is no unambiguous one-to-one correlation, even when
checking the CNM at other velocities. However a comparison between \ion{H}{i}
gas and LOFAR data shows in general a good alignment between CNM
filaments and polarized structures in Faraday depth. Moreover,
\citet{Zaroubi2015} find a very clear correlation between the
filamentary structures, detected with LOFAR, and the magnetic field
orientation, probed by the {\it Planck} satellite. This is consistent
with \citet{Kalberla2016} who report that there is in general a good
agreement between CNM filaments and the magnetic field direction, probed
by {\it Planck}.
After comparing LOFAR, EBHIS and {\it Planck} data at 353 GHz we suspect
that LOFAR filaments in polarized emission and \ion{H}{i} are related to each
other. Both probe the magnetic field as observed by {\it Planck}. We
consider therefore the 3C~196 field as a prime target to study the
relations between magnetic field orientation and induced anisotropic
turbulence in the \ion{H}{i} gas.
\section{Preparing the data for analysis }
\label{data_analysis}
\subsection{Database}
\label{Data_base}
We use data from the first EBHIS data release \citep{Winkel2016a}. This
survey covers all declination $\delta > -5\degr $. The rms uncertainties
of the brightness temperatures per channel are 90\,mK at a full width at
half maximum (FWHM) width of $\delta v = 1.44$ km\,s$^{-1}$. From the original
EBHIS database, corrected for instrumental baselines, radio
interference and stray radiation, we generated FITS data cubes, covering
a region of 10\degr x 10\degr~ in equatorial coordinates with a
rotational symmetric Gaussian beam of 10\farcm8 FWHM beam-size
\citep{Winkel2016b}.
\subsection{Spectral analysis}
\label{Apodisation}
To quantify anisotropies in the spectral power distribution it is
necessary to derive unbiased angular dependencies. Calculating a map of
the \ion{H}{i} distribution demands restricting the range of the source
distribution on the sphere by applying a window function. After Fourier
transform one obtains a convolution of the transformed true distribution
with the transform of the window function \citep{Bracewell2000}. For a
rectangular window this causes a cross-like structure in the UV plane,
with a particular nasty strong response at low spatial frequencies. To
mitigate this effect the image data are usually apodized at the field
boundaries with a $\sim 5$ pixel wide cosine function, afterwards the
median is used to calculate the power spectrum, avoiding strong biases
from the cross \citep[e.g.,][]{Martin2015}.
This recipe mitigates effects from the window response in case of
average power spectra. When deriving an angular power distribution we
found that the artificial cross structure is still dominant. To overcome
this bias, a strictly spherical apodization with a strong taper is
needed. It is further desirable to use a large untapered region but with
low sidelobes of the window function in the Fourier domain. After some
tests we have chosen a rotational symmetric 50\% cosine taper (Tukey)
window \citep{Harris1978}, leaving the central 50\% of the image
untapered and applying then a cosine taper that reaches zero at the
field boundary. In the UV plane this taper function leads to a slight
smoothing, similar to the smoothing caused by the Fourier transform of
the primary beam function in case of interferometer observations. The
first sidelobe of the Fourier transformed Tukey taper is at a level of
-20 dB \citep[see Fig. 31,][]{Harris1978}.
In the following we demonstrate the individual steps is our data
processing. In Fig. \ref{Fig_HI_gal} we indicate with yellow circles the
inner untapered 50\% and the outer range (100\%) where the data are
tapered to zero. In Fig. \ref{Fig_image_37} we display on the left side
the original image of the \ion{H}{i} distribution at $v_{\rm LSR} = -3.76$
km\,s$^{-1}$. On the right the same after apodization with a 50\% Tukey taper.
In analogy to a synthesis radio telescope, this image resembles a
primary beam attenuated image. Figure \ref{Fig_power_37} displays the
power distribution, the squared moduli of the image after Fourier
transform. Here we used for display a logarithmic representation, at the
left without and at the right with apodization.
The EBHIS maps are gridded with a Gaussian kernel. Data processing as
well as smoothing due to the telescope beam result in an effective
Gaussian beam of 10\farcm8. A deconvolution is thus necessary. After
Fourier transform we divide the derived 2D power distribution by the
square of the transformed beam response. The result is shown in
Fig. \ref{Fig_power_37_correct}. On the right is the 2D power spectrum
that we use for further analysis. It is obvious from this Fig. that
high spatial frequencies are severely affected by instrumental noise
that was amplified by the beam response function. This contribution can
safely be considered as isotropic, without position angle dependent
biases.
\begin{figure*}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.0cm,angle=-90]{Fig_3a-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=6.0cm,angle=-90]{Fig_3b-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{{\it left:} \ion{H}{i} $T_{\rm B}$ distribution at $v_{\rm LSR} = -3.76$
km\,s$^{-1}~$ as observed, {\it right:} \ion{H}{i} $T_{\rm B}$ distribution after
apodization with a 50\% Tukey taper. }
\label{Fig_image_37}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm,angle=-90]{Fig_4a-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm,angle=-90]{Fig_4b-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{{\it left:} normalized power distribution at $v_{\rm LSR} = -3.76$
km\,s$^{-1}~$ as observed, {\it right:} \ion{H}{i} power distribution
of the apodized \ion{H}{i} map. The scales are logarithmic in dB. }
\label{Fig_power_37}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm,angle=-90]{Fig_5a-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=6.3cm,angle=-90]{Fig_5b-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{{\it left:} normalized power distribution at $v_{\rm LSR} =
-3.76$ km\,s$^{-1}$, beam corrected, {\it right:} \ion{H}{i} power distribution of
the beam corrected apodized \ion{H}{i} map. The scales are logarithmic in
dB. }
\label{Fig_power_37_correct}
\end{figure*}
\section{Deriving the spectral index}
\label{Deriving}
After generation of \ion{H}{i} maps, subsequent apodization and Fourier
transform with correction for beam convolution as explained in the
previous Sect., we proceed with the data analysis.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_06-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{EBHIS averaged angular power spectrum (black dots) at
$v_{\rm LSR} = -3.76\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$. Systematic and statistical
uncertainties are estimated quantitatively by the power spectra
calculated for emission free portion of the EBHIS data at $v_{\rm
LSR} = +50\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$ (green) and $v_{\rm LSR} =
-200\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$ (blue). Data after subtraction of a noise
template $N(k)$ are plotted in red. The distribution for $ k <
0.07$ arcmin$^{-1}$ (vertical line) is approximated by a power-law
with $\gamma = -2.86\,\pm\,0.03$. }
\label{Fig_spec_aver}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Average power spectrum and noise}
\label{Averagepower}
To determine the average (isotropic) power spectrum we integrate the 2D
power distribution in annuli of constant spatial frequencies $ k =
(k^2_x + k^2_y)^{1/2} $. As an example we use here the data from
Fig. \ref{Fig_power_37_correct} (right panel) at $v_{\rm LSR} = -3.76$
km\,s$^{-1}$. The result is plotted in Fig. \ref{Fig_spec_aver} marked by black
dots. We obtain an average power distribution $P(k)$ that can be
described by the relation
\begin{equation}
P(k) = c \cdot k^\gamma + N(k).
\label{eq:Pav}
\end{equation}
Here $c$ is an arbitrary scale factor, resulting from the fact that we
normalize in all cases the total power of the 2D power maps.
$\gamma$ is the spectral index and $N(k)$ the contribution due to
instrumental noise. It is obvious from Fig. \ref{Fig_power_37_correct}
(right panel) that the noise dominates at high spatial frequencies. This
is also clearly visible in Fig. \ref{Fig_spec_aver}.
The noise contribution $N(k)$ to the power spectrum is in principle
unknown, but can easily be estimated from channel maps without \ion{H}{i}
emission. In Fig. \ref{Fig_spec_aver} we plotted as examples the noise
power measured at $v_{\rm LSR} = +50 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$ and $v_{\rm LSR} = -200$
km\,s$^{-1}~$ after matching the power spectra at high spatial frequencies. A
slight matching of the noise power is necessary because the system noise
is not constant across the observed band, also the system noise
increases with line temperature.
The observations suffer from uncertainties caused by radio frequency
interference (RFI) and residual baseline uncertainties, including
remaining errors in the correction for stray radiation, see
\citet{Winkel2016a} for discussion. The noise spectra in
Fig. \ref{Fig_spec_aver} differ predominantly for $ k < 0.008 $
arcmin$^{-1}$, corresponding to scales larger than 2\degr\ and are
caused by such systematic uncertainties. The two examples in
Fig. \ref{Fig_spec_aver} represent approximately the range of expected
uncertainties for EBHIS observations. Using 40 emission free
channels we derive a noise template $N(k)$. Subtracting $N(k)$ we
derive the unbiased normalized power spectrum $P_{\rm av}(k) = k^\gamma $,
plotted in Fig. \ref{Fig_spec_aver} in red, and fit the spectral index
$\gamma = -2.86 \pm .03$ using all spatial frequencies $ k < 0.07 $
arcmin$^{-1}$.
It is obvious from Fig. \ref{Fig_spec_aver} (red) that uncertainties in
the derived power spectrum increase rapidly for $ k \ga 0.08 $
arcmin$^{-1}$. This limit depends on the signal-to-noise ratio of the
observations but reflects also the limited spatial sensitivity of the
100-m telescope. For our analysis in the 3C~196 field we strictly use in
the following only data at spatial frequencies $ k < 0.07 $
arcmin$^{-1}$. This limit is indicated in all plots with a horizontal
line.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_07-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Angular peak power distribution for single channels at
velocities of $v_{\rm LSR} = -8.92, -3.76, 11.69$, and 50.3
km\,s$^{-1}$. Data for $ k > 0.07$ arcmin$^{-1}$ (vertical line) are
affected by the instrumental noise. The average position angle for
$v_{\rm LSR} = -8.92$ and -3.76 km\,s$^{-1}$ is $\phi = 7\fdg5$. }
\label{Fig_spec_angle}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_08-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Position angles fit for each channel at
spatial frequencies $ 0.005 < k < 0.05 $. The average position
angle $\phi = 7\fdg5$ from Fig. \ref{Fig_spec_angle} is indicated
with a horizontal line. }
\label{Fig_3C196_angle}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Angular power distribution}
\label{Angular}
To determine anisotropies, we first search for an average position
angle. We average data within sectors $\Phi \pm \delta\Phi$ to obtain
the power $P(\Phi,k)$ at position angles $\Phi$. Some care is necessary
here, since we need enough samples per sector for statistical
significant results. Position angles are ambiguous by 180\degr. Dividing
this range into $n$ sectors implies that the noise increases by a factor
of $\sqrt n$. Searching for an average position angle over a range of
spatial frequencies, this amplification is balanced by averaging over
$m$ spatial frequencies, the formal increase of the uncertainties is
then $\sqrt{n/m}$. After some tests we have chosen $n = 45$, since the
typical number of samples in spatial frequencies turned out to be $m
\sim 23$, hence $\sqrt{n/m} \sim \sqrt 2$ with our choice of
$2\delta\Phi = 4\degr$. Thus the selection of $\delta\Phi$ is not
critical as long as position angles are correlated over a certain range
in spatial frequencies.
Figure \ref{Fig_spec_angle} displays some characteristic results of our
search for anisotropies. This plot displays the position angle $\Phi$
for the peak power emission. For two channels at velocities $v_{\rm LSR}
= -8.92$ and -3.76 km\,s$^{-1}~$ we find a rather narrow and well defined
distribution for the peaks around an average of $\Phi = 7\fdg5$ for
spatial frequencies between $0.005 < k < 0.05 $ arcmin$^{-1}$ (black and
blue points). The channel map at $v_{\rm LSR} = 11.69$ km\,s$^{-1}~$ (green) has
quite a different angular power distribution with an average at $\Phi
\sim -45 \degr$, but with a large scatter. We also display the
distribution for a $v_{\rm LSR} = 50$ km\,s$^{-1}~$ (red), this case shows a
random scatter. The distribution at high spatial frequencies, $ k > 0.07
$ arcmin$^{-1}$ is in general very noisy and the first data point at $ k
= 0.00075 $ arcmin$^{-1}$ is affected by smoothing from the apodization
function.
We analyse henceforth data in the range $ 0.005 < k < 0.05 $
arcmin$^{-1}$ for an automated determination of anisotropies in the
spectral power distribution and fit average position angles for all
velocity channels. Figure \ref{Fig_3C196_angle} shows for velocities
$-11.5 < v_{\rm LSR} < -1.2$ km\,s$^{-1}~$ a constant position angle with a
typical dispersion of 8 km\,s$^{-1}$ and a weighted mean of $\Phi =
6\fdg9$. This angle corresponds to the position angle $\Phi_{\rm mag}
\sim 97\degr$ of the \ion{H}{i} filaments, shown in Fig. \ref{Fig_cubep_USM}
and is aligned with the magnetic field \citep{Zaroubi2015}. Thus we use
in the Fourier plane $\Phi_{\perp} = 7\fdg5$.
We can draw here our first conclusion about the nature of the observed
MHD turbulence. According to \citet{Kandel2016} Alfv{\'e}n and slow
modes cause the eddies to be elongated in direction parallel to the
sky-projected mean magnetic field, while for fast modes the elongation
is perpendicular. We find elongation parallel to the magnetic field,
hence no evidence for fast modes.
\subsection{Anisotropic power spectra }
\label{Anisotropic}
We verified that the peaks in the angular power distribution are
associated with minima in the power distribution at angles offset by
typically 90\degr. We define for each velocity channel $v_{\rm LSR}$ the
power anisotropy
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
Q(k,v_{\rm LSR}) = P(\Phi_{\perp},k,v_{\rm LSR}) / P(\Phi_{\parallel},k,v_{\rm LSR}) \\
= P_{\perp}(k,v_{\rm LSR})/P_{\parallel}(k,v_{\rm LSR}),
\label{eq:Q}
\end{eqnarray}
such that $Q = 1$ denotes isotropy, while larger values of $Q$ mean larger
anisotropy with eddies elongated parallel to the magnetic field. We
calculate $Q$ by integrating in sectors $ 0\degr < \Phi_{\perp} <
15\degr $ and $ 90\degr < \Phi_{\parallel} < 105\degr $.
The anisotropies $Q(k,v_{\rm LSR})$ show quite some scatter. We
define therefore a geometric mean anisotropy
\begin{equation}
Q_{\rm aver}(v_{\rm LSR}) = {\rm exp} \left[ \frac{1}{n}
\sum_{i=1}^n {\rm ln}~ Q(k_i,v_{\rm LSR}) \right],
\label{eq:Qav}
\end{equation}
for $n$ data-points in the range $ 0.005 < k_i < 0.05 $ arcmin$^{-1}$.
$Q_{\rm aver}(v_{\rm LSR})$ is close to the median anisotropy $Q_{\rm
median}(v_{\rm LSR})$ for this spatial frequency range.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_09-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Average power spectrum observed for $v_{\rm LSR} = -3.76$
km\,s$^{-1}~$ and fit power law (black) with $\gamma = -2.86 \pm
0.03 $ for $ k < 0.07$ arcmin$^{-1}$ (vertical line). In addition
the power spectrum for $0\degr < \Phi < 15\degr $ (red) and
$90\degr < \Phi < 105\degr $ (green) is given. The average
anisotropy factor is $Q_{\rm aver} = 12.1$ }
\label{Fig_spec_37}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_10-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Average power spectrum observed for $v_{\rm LSR} = -8.92$
km\,s$^{-1}~$ (black dots) and fit power law with $\gamma = -2.76 \pm
0.04 $ for $ k < 0.07$ arcmin$^{-1}$ (vertical line). In addition
the power spectrum for $0\degr < \Phi < 15\degr $ (red) and
$90\degr < \Phi < 105\degr $ (green) is given. The average
anisotropy factor is $Q_{\rm aver} = 18.8$ }
\label{Fig_spec_33}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_11-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Average power spectrum observed for $v_{\rm LSR} = 11.69$
km\,s$^{-1}~$ (black dots) and fit power law with $\gamma = -2.85\pm
0.03 $ for $ k < 0.07$ arcmin$^{-1}$ (vertical line). In addition
the power spectrum for $0\degr < \Phi < 15\degr $ (red) and
$90\degr < \Phi < 105\degr $ (green) is given. The average
anisotropy factor is $Q_{\rm aver} = 1.8$. }
\label{Fig_spec_49}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{Fig_spec_37} and \ref{Fig_spec_33} show power spectra at
$v_{\rm LSR} = -3.76$ km\,s$^{-1}~$ and $v_{\rm LSR} = -8.92$ km\,s$^{-1}~$ with rather
strong average anisotropies, $Q_{\rm aver} = 12.1$ and 18.8. Particular
strong local anisotropies are visible in Fig. \ref{Fig_spec_37}. For
comparison we add in Fig. \ref{Fig_spec_49} a plot for $v_{\rm LSR} =
11.69$ km\,s$^{-1}$, a case without significant anisotropy ($Q_{\rm
aver} = 1.8 $), see also Fig. \ref{Fig_spec_angle} (green).
To summarize our finding from Figs. \ref{Fig_spec_37} to
\ref{Fig_spec_49}, we find significant anisotropies at channels with
velocities around $v_{\rm LSR} \sim -4$ km\,s$^{-1}~$ in contrast to $v_{\rm LSR}
\sim 11$ km\,s$^{-1}$, where no significant anisotropies are detected. Except
for some deviations in the range $ 0.005 \la k \la 0.02 $ arcmin$^{-1}$,
the red and green power spectra appear in logarithmic presentation just
to be displaced from the isotropic distribution, sharing a similar slope
but on average with slight inclinations in opposite directions.
\subsection{\ion{H}{i} parameter dependencies on $v_{\rm LSR}$}
\label{vlsr}
Figure \ref{Fig_overview} summarizes global properties of the \ion{H}{i} gas
distribution in the 3C~196 field. To characterize the \ion{H}{i} emission
we calculate the average brightness temperature as the weighted mean
over the apodized brightness temperature,
\begin{equation}
T_{\rm B\, aver} = \frac{\sum T_{\rm B} \cdot W} { \sum W}.
\label{eq:Taver}
\end{equation}
Here $W$ is the apodization weight due to the 50\% Tukey taper function.
The \ion{H}{i} distribution (plotted in red) shows two major components in
emission, peaking at $v_{\rm LSR} = -1.2 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$ and at $v_{\rm LSR} =
13$ km\,s$^{-1}$. For comparison we plot also the derived anisotropy $Q_{\rm
aver}(v_{\rm LSR})$ (blue) and the average spectral index
$\gamma(v_{\rm LSR})$ (green). Anisotropies are strongest for channels
with best defined position angles (compare Fig. \ref{Fig_3C196_angle}
with Fig. \ref{Fig_overview}). The major local minima in the spectral
index distribution $\gamma$ coincide with the peaks of the \ion{H}{i}
components. A similar trend was found by \citet{Stanimirovic1999} in the
SMC.
The velocities of CNM components tend to be closely related to the
center velocities of the warm neutral medium (WNM)
\citep{Kalberla2016}. It is also well established that the velocity
dispersion of the WNM is significantly larger than the dispersion of the
CNM components \citep[e.g.,][]{Heiles2003}. The CNM is clumpy while the
WNM has a diffuse structure. Thus the CNM adds extra power at high
spatial frequencies and for a mix of CNM and WNM gas one expects that
the spectral index should be flattest close to the center velocity of
the WNM component where the CNM is most pronounced. Correspondingly
\citet{Martin2015}, after decomposing WNM and CNM components, find for
the column density distribution that the spectral index of the CNM is
shallower than that of the WNM.
For the observed mix of WNM and CNM we find the opposite. Consistent
with \citet{Stanimirovic1999}, the spectral index for thin slices in
velocity is steepest at the center velocity of the WNM component.
Figure \ref{Fig_overview2} shows that the spectral index steepens as the
CNM Doppler temperature (hence the velocity dispersion) decreases. We
find no indications for a break in the spectral power distribution that
could be attributed to either the CNM or the WNM. This suggests that
turbulence in the WNM and CNM cannot be considered
independently. Turbulence may induce the formation of CNM when the WNM
is pressurized and put in a thermally unstable state
\citep{Saury2014}. Since turbulence is probably playing a major r\^ole in
regulating the ratio between WNM and CNM, phase transitions must be the
key in understanding the steepening of the spectral index. The usual
assumption is that steep spectra correspond to random fields dominated by
large-scale fluctuations \citep{Lazarian2000}. In our case the \ion{H}{i}
filaments, visible over many degrees, may be indicative for an event
that could have driven phase transitions.
The anisotropy measure $Q_{\rm aver}$, does not correlate with
$T_{\rm B\, aver}$, nor with $\gamma$.
\citet{Kalberla2016} found that the CNM is mostly organized in cold \ion{H}{i}
filaments with Doppler temperatures $T_{\rm D} \sim 223 $ K. To check,
whether $T_{\rm D}$ might be correlated with $\gamma$ or $Q_{\rm aver}$, we
determined the geometric mean $T_{\rm D}$ for the CNM filaments toward the
3C~196 field. Again we find no correlation with $Q_{\rm aver}$, but
Fig. \ref{Fig_overview2} shows that for the coldest parts of the filaments
also the spectral index $\gamma$ (green) is steep.
\ion{H}{i} absorption line data against the continuum source 3C~196 show two
components, at a velocity of $ v_{\rm LSR} = -2.2 $ km\,s$^{-1}$ with an optical
depth of $\tau = 0.086$ and at $ v_{\rm LSR} = 15.3 $ km\,s$^{-1}$~ with $\tau =
0.130$. The component at $ v_{\rm LSR} = 15.3 $ km\,s$^{-1}$~ has a spin
temperature of 80.9 K \citep{Mebold1982}. This temperature compares well
with the low geometric mean $T_{\rm D}$ determined by us for the whole
field, but we note that we find the lowest geometric mean $T_{\rm D}$ at $
v_{\rm LSR} = 11.69 $ km\,s$^{-1}$. \citet{Crovisier}, using the Nan\c{c}ay
telescope, find evidence for absorption at $ v_{\rm LSR} = -7.0, -2.2 $,
and 15.7 km\,s$^{-1}$. The additional component at $ v_{\rm LSR} = -7.0$ km\,s$^{-1}~$
most probably is due the fan beam of the Nan\c{c}ay telescope, extending in
north/south direction and thus being more sensitive to filaments
oriented in the same direction.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_12-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Comparison between average brightness temperature $T_{\rm
B\, aver}$ (red), anisotropy factor $Q_{\rm aver}$ (blue), and
spectral index $\gamma$ (green) for the 3C~196 field. }
\label{Fig_overview}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_13-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Comparison between the geometric mean Doppler temperature
$T_{\rm D}$ (black) and the spectral index $\gamma$ (green dashed)
for the 3C~196 field. }
\label{Fig_overview2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Thick slices, velocity centroid}
\label{Thick}
So far we analyzed only individual channel maps, in each case covering a
range of $\delta v_{\rm LSR} = 1.44 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$ in velocity, the limiting
resolution of the EBHIS \citep{Winkel2016a}. This channel width formally
corresponds to a Doppler temperature of $T_{\rm D} \sim 50 $ K. The
median Doppler temperature of the CNM is $T_{\rm D} \sim 223 $ K
\citep{Kalberla2016}. Figure \ref{Fig_overview2} discloses that some of
the filaments in the 3C~196 field are colder ($T_{\rm D} \ga 160$) than
the median.
A velocity channel $\delta v_{\rm LSR} = 1.44 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$ is, according to
the definition of \citep{Lazarian2000}, thin if the line-of-sight
FWHM velocity width of the gas is larger than the channel
width. Otherwise the observed slice is thick. Our observational setup
implies that an individual velocity channel is thin for most of the gas
but in the limit it may be thick for the coldest CNM components.
\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_14-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Average power spectrum for a thick slice, $-8.9 < v_{\rm
LSR} < 6.5$ km\,s$^{-1}~$ (black dots) and fit power law with $\gamma
= -3.07 \pm 0.04 $ for $ k < 0.07$ arcmin$^{-1}$ (vertical
line). In addition the power spectrum for $0\degr < \Phi < 15\degr
$ (red) and $90\degr < \Phi < 105\degr $ (green) is given. The
average anisotropy factor is $Q_{\rm aver} = 7.5$ }
\label{Fig_spec_33_45}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_15-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Average power spectrum for the velocity centroid in the
range $-8.9 < v_{\rm LSR} < 6.5$ km\,s$^{-1}~$ (black dots) and fit
power law with $\gamma = -2.75 \pm 0.04 $ for $ 0.0015< k < 0.07$
arcmin$^{-1}$ (vertical lines). In addition the
power spectrum for $0\degr < \Phi < 15\degr $ (red) and $90\degr <
\Phi < 105\degr $ (green) is given. The average anisotropy factor
is $Q_{\rm aver} = 8.2$. }
\label{Fig_spec_33_45_centroid}
\end{figure}
Filamentary features are mostly sheets, seen tangentially, with a median
thickness between 0.1 and 0.3 pc
\citep{Heiles2005,Kalberla2016}. Because the sheets are cold, we observe
along the line of sight different radial velocities which causes in many
cases an apparent positional shift perpendicular to the filament
\citep[see Figs. 10, 25, and 26 of][]{Kalberla2016}. The 3C~196 field
under investigation contains several filaments (or sheets),
approximately oriented parallel to each other.
The average \ion{H}{i} emission contains two components. To cover the major
part of the anisotropic filamentary range, we integrate over the
channels for $ -8.9 < v_{\rm LSR} < 6.5 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$ (see
Fig. \ref{Fig_overview}). This slice is thick \citep{Lazarian2000} with
respect to the CNM but, because of blending with the isotropic component
at $v_{\rm LSR} \sim 11$ km\,s$^{-1}$, does not cover the full width of the WNM
as requested by \citet{Lazarian2000} for a representative thick slice. A
general problem with the \ion{H}{i} distribution is that several \ion{H}{i} components
may be superposed along the line of sight. An overlap in velocity may
then, as in our case, smear out or merge individual \ion{H}{i} features. In
this case it is difficult to derive a representative thick slice. Figure
\ref{Fig_spec_33_45} shows a power law $\gamma = -3.07 \pm 0.04 $ with
$Q_{\rm aver} = 7.5$. For the velocity centroid over the same velocity
range we determine $\gamma = -2.75 \pm 0.04 $, see Fig.
\ref{Fig_spec_33_45_centroid}. The anisotropy is this case slightly
larger, $Q_{\rm aver} = 8.2$.
According to \citet[][Eq. 28]{Lazarian2000}, thin and thick sheets
should have distinct different power indices. We find only a moderate
steepening with slice thickness by $\delta \gamma \sim 0.2$, comparable to
\citet{Stanimirovic2001}. Anisotropies are noticeable but weaker than for
most of the prominent thin slices. Velocity centroids, proposed by
\citet{Esquivel2005}, are apparently not always the best choice when
studying anisotropies.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_16-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Apodized \ion{H}{i} distribution in direction to the FN1 field at a
velocity of $v_{\rm LSR} = 3.97$ km\,s$^{-1}$. This map is used to test the
methodology of our approach in case of diffuse HI structures.}
\label{Fig_FN1_Image}
\end{figure}
\section{Diffuse HI structures at high Galactic latitudes}
\label{Diffuse}
The 3C~196 spectral component at $v_{\rm LSR} \sim 11$ km\,s$^{-1}~$ shows in
Fig. \ref{Fig_spec_49} only weak anisotropies with $Q_{\rm aver} =
1.8$. To get an estimate, how far power spectra and anisotropies in
direction to the 3C~196 field deviate from typical diffuse \ion{H}{i} structures,
we decided to analyze for comparison a field without obvious filaments
or anisotropies.
\citet{Miville-Deschenes2007} studied such a case, a very diffuse \ion{H}{i}
filament located in the extra-galactic window known as Firback North 1
\citep[FN1,][]{Dole2001} at high Galactic latitudes ($l = 84\degr, b =
45\fdg1 $). They used data from the Leiden/Dwingeloo Survey
\citep[LDS,][]{LDS} and from the Green Bank Telescope (GBT) and
calculated the integrated emission and the velocity centroid for
$-86.2 < v_{\rm LSR} < 47.8$ km\,s$^{-1}$. We are going to use this velocity
range, representing a thick slice, for reference.
\begin{figure}[hbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_17-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Position angles fit for each channel at spatial
frequencies $ 0.005 < k < 0.05 $. The position angles for the
centroid and the average emission, $ \phi = 36\degr \pm 19\degr $
and $ \phi = 30\degr \pm 15\degr$, respectively, are also
indicated. }
\label{Fig_FN1_angle}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_18-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Comparison between average brightness temperature $T_{\rm
B\, aver}$ (red), anisotropy factor $Q_{\rm aver}$ (blue), and
spectral index $\gamma$ (green) for the FN1 field. }
\label{Fig_FN1_overview}
\end{figure}
For the FN1 field we applied the same data-processing pipeline as
described in Sect. \ref{data_analysis}. We used the EBHIS to generate a
field with 38\degr in diameter and apodized this with an inner diameter
of 19\degr, see Fig. \ref{Fig_FN1_Image}. We derived the angular
power distribution and determined position angles for all emission
channels. Figure \ref{Fig_FN1_angle} shows angles $ 45\degr \ga \phi
\ga 0\degr$, but typically with a huge dispersion. The velocity range
$ -5 \la v_{\rm LSR} \la 10 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$ is outstanding, here we find better
defined position angles, but with a systematical rotation by almost
40\degr. The position angles for the centroid and the average emission
are $ \phi = 36\degr \pm 19\degr $ and $ \phi = 30\degr \pm 15\degr$,
respectively, also indicated in Fig. \ref{Fig_FN1_angle}.
Figure \ref{Fig_FN1_overview} displays the average emission (red)
according to Eq. \ref{eq:Taver}, average anisotropies (blue) and the
fit average spectral index $\gamma$ (green). The emission is weak
with a long extended tail to negative velocities; we plot only the
most significant range $ -50 \la v_{\rm LSR} \la 30 $ km\,s$^{-1}$. To avoid
spurious results, we determined spectral indices $\gamma$ only for
$T_{\rm B\, aver} > 1 $ K.
Close to the peak of the average emission $T_{\rm B\, aver}$, but
shifted by two channels to positive velocities we find a remakable
narrow minimum in the spectral index distribution. One more channel
shifted to positive velocities, at $v_{\rm LSR} = 3.97$ km\,s$^{-1}~$, there
is a narrow peak for $Q_{\rm aver}$. We checked this channel in more
detail and found anisotropies peaking at an angle of $ \phi \sim
30\degr$. The average power spectrum at this velocity is shown in
Fig. \ref{Fig_FN1_74}, together with power spectra in direction of the
derived position angle and perpendicular. There are marked
anisotropies. In comparison to this single channel, representing a
thin velocity slice, we find for the velocity centroid and the average
emission, both determined for $-86.2 < v_{\rm LSR} < 47.8$ km\,s$^{-1}$, only
insignificant anisotropies $Q_{\rm aver} = 2.2$
(Figs. \ref{Fig_FN1_centroid} and \ref{Fig_FN1_integrated}).
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_19-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Average power spectrum at $v_{\rm LSR} = 3.97$ km\,s$^{-1}~$ and
fit power law (black) with $\gamma = -3.02\pm 0.03 $ for $ k < 0.06$
arcmin$^{-1}$ (vertical line). In addition the power spectrum for
$15\degr < \Phi < 45\degr $ (red) and $115\degr < \Phi < 135\degr $
(green) is given. The average anisotropy factor is $Q_{\rm aver} =
9.7$. }
\label{Fig_FN1_74}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_20-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Average power spectrum for the velocity centroid and fit
power law (black) with $\gamma = -2.86\pm 0.06 $ for $ k < 0.05$
arcmin$^{-1}$ (vertical line). In addition the power spectrum for
$30\degr < \Phi < 60\degr $ (red) and $120\degr < \Phi < 150\degr $
(green) is given. The average anisotropy factor is $Q_{\rm aver} =
2.0$. }
\label{Fig_FN1_centroid}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_21-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Average power spectrum for the integrated emission and
fit power law (black) with $\gamma = -3.00 \pm 0.03 $ for $ k <
0.05$ arcmin$^{-1}$ (vertical line). In addition the power
spectrum for $30\degr < \Phi < 60\degr $ (red) and $120\degr < \Phi
< 150\degr $ (green) is given. The average anisotropy factor is
$Q_{\rm aver} = 2.0$. }
\label{Fig_FN1_integrated}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_22-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{To demonstrate biases in power distribution and derived
spectral indices we repeat the analysis from Fig
\ref{Fig_FN1_integrated} without a beam correction. The power
spectrum at high spatial frequencies is biased.}
\label{Fig_XFN1_integrated}
\end{figure}
The spectral index for the velocity centroid is $\gamma = -2.80 \pm
0.03 $ and $\gamma = -2.97 \pm 0.02 $ for the average emission profile.
\citet{Miville-Deschenes2007} find for centroid and integrated
emission $\gamma = -3.4 $, inconsistent with our result. Their analysis
might suffer from systematic biases, causing a steep spectral
index. They deconvolved the LDS power distribution assuming a FWHM beam
width of 30\hbox{$^\prime$} while the telescope beam is 36\hbox{$^\prime$}. When
generating maps there is some additional smoothing, depending on the
methods used. Last not least, the LDS is not Nyquist sampled; this
introduces some additional biases that cannot easily be specified.
We repeated our spectral analysis for the integrated emission omitting
the beam correction. The result is plotted in
Fig. \ref{Fig_XFN1_integrated} and should be compared with
Fig. \ref{Fig_FN1_integrated}. The distribution at high spatial
frequencies with a spectral steepening is a fraud, though it appears to
be less noisy. When omitting a beam correction, the slope steepens from
$\gamma = -2.97 $ to $\gamma = -3.45 $. We see that a subtle lapse in
data processing may lead to significant biases. Anisotropies at high
spatial frequencies are suppressed. After reviewing the literature
cited in Sect. \ref{intro} we note that it is not obvious whether in all
cases a proper beam correction has been applied to the data. Some of the
steep spectral indices might be due to this systematic bias, also a
steepening of the power spectrum should be carefully investigated.
Recently \citet{Blagrave2016} reported a similar problem in in the Ursa
Major region. \citet{Miville-Deschenes2003} derive there a power law
index $\gamma = -3.6 \pm 0.2$ for both, column density map as well as
velocity centroid, while \citet{Blagrave2016} measured $\gamma = -2.68
\pm 0.14$ for column densities and $-2.54 < \gamma < -2.42 $ for the
velocity centroid. We tested this case with EBHIS data and obtained for
column densities and velocity centroid $\gamma = -2.68 \pm 0.07$,
consistent with \citet{Blagrave2016}.
Our conclusion after calculating power spectra and anisotropies for the
FN1 field is that the 3C~196 anisotropies at $v_{\rm LSR} \sim -3.76$
km\,s$^{-1}~$ are outstanding. For $ -11.5 < v_{\rm LSR} < -1.2 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$ all
filaments are aligned with the magnetic field. Anisotropies for the
3C~196 field at $v_{\rm LSR} \sim 11$ km\,s$^{-1}~$ as well as for the two
comparison fields are mostly around $Q_{\rm aver} \sim 2$. However even
in the FN1 field we find channels with strong anisotropies. The major
difference is that in this case the anisotropies are restricted to
narrow velocity intervals and the position angles change
systematically. Checking the dust emission observed by {\it Planck} at
353 GHz we find a pretty weak and noise limited signal without any
indications for filamentary structures. Thus there is no clear evidence
that one of the velocity channels is associated with a dust filament in
this region. The power distribution at $v_{\rm LSR} = 3.97$ km\,s$^{-1}~$ will
be discussed later in more detail. As long as further studies about
anisotropies in the \ion{H}{i} are missing, we consider $Q_{\rm aver} \sim 2$
as typical for the unperturbed \ion{H}{i} distribution. As ``unperturbed'' we
understand regions that are not affected by obvious CNM filaments that
can be seen in USM maps.
\section{Discussion}
\label{Discussion}
After characterizing anisotropies for an unperturbed \ion{H}{i} distribution,
we return to a discussion of the 3C~196 field. We also compare
observations with predictions from theoretical models.
To compare the derived power law index and the
anisotropy measure $Q$ with anisotropies as expected for MHD turbulence,
we first need to relate $Q$ to the wave vector anisotropy in terms of
turbulence theories. These are usually based on the analysis of the
structure of the eddies as a function of scale in presence of a local
magnetic field. Parallel and perpendicular to the magnetic field eddies
become correlated. As the turbulent cascade proceeds to larger spatial
frequencies the eddies become more and more elongated along the
direction of the magnetic field. The deformation increases until
dissipation is affecting the turbulent flow \citep{Goldreich1995} for
recent reviews see \citet{Cho2003,Brandenburg2013}.
For a description how eddies (or wave packets) are related to the
corresponding wave vectors see \citet[][Fig. 6]{Cho2000}. For a wave
packet with extension $L_1$ perpendicular to the local magnetic field
direction and $L_2$ parallel to the field, the corresponding wave
vectors in Fourier space are for $L_1$ transformed to $1/k_{\perp}$ and
for $L_2$ respectively to $1/k_{\parallel}$. Anisotropy implies in the
Fourier domain isophotes with scales $k_{\parallel} < k_{\perp}$. The
power spectra $P_{\parallel}$ and $P_{\perp}$ are defined
correspondingly, $P_{\parallel}(k) < P_{\perp}(k)$.
According to \citet{Goldreich1995}, turbulence spectra $P_{\perp}$ are
in Alfv{\'e}n and slow modes nearly unaffected by the magnetic field
with power spectra close to the isotropic case.
\subsection{Field direction and spectral index }
\label{Power}
We determined spectral indices $\gamma$ with respect to the field angle
$\Delta\Phi = \Phi - \Phi_{\perp}$, restricting the fit to spatial
frequencies with clear anisotropies, $0.005 < k < 0.05$. Figure
\ref{Fig_plot_fit} shows the results for two cases, the channel at $
v_{\rm LSR} = -3.76 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$ (black) and the velocity centroid (red). We
find in both cases a complex distribution but a general trend for a
steep power index in field direction, consistent with the mean
(isotropical) spectral indices indicated with the horizontal lines in
Fig. \ref{Fig_plot_fit}. Parallel to the magnetic field, for $\Delta
\Phi \sim 90\degr$, the spectral indices flatten, approaching $\gamma
\sim -2.1 $. \citet{Goldreich1995} predict for $P_{\perp}$ that the
spectral index for anisotropic turbulence is nearly identical to the
isotropic case as indicated by the horizontal lines in
Fig. \ref{Fig_plot_fit}. This prediction is in good agreement with our
result.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_23-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Distribution of spectral index $\gamma$ with respect to the
field angle $\Delta\Phi = \Phi - \Phi_{\perp}$. Fits for
individual sectors with width $2\delta\Phi = 7\fdg5$ (black) are
shown for the channels at $ v_{\rm LSR} = -3.76 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$ and the
velocity centroid (red). Only spatial frequencies $0.005 < k <
0.05$ arcmin$^{-1}$ are considered. Isotropic spectral indices are
plotted with horizontal lines for comparison. }
\label{Fig_plot_fit}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Anisotropies $Q(v_{\rm LSR},k)$}
\label{Anisotropies}
From observations, $Q_{\rm aver}$ appears far more useful to
characterize anisotropic turbulence than fitting spectral indices to
power spectra. Here we try to go a step further to find out whether
$Q(k)$ can be used to determine systematic changes in spectral indices.
Figure \ref{Fig_3C196_angle} shows that anisotropies have a constant
position angle for velocities $-11.5 < v_{\rm LSR} < -1.2$ km\,s$^{-1}$, also
$Q_{\rm aver}$ is well defined in this range
(Fig. \ref{Fig_overview}). We choose spectral channels that may be
considered as independent and typical for this range. In
Fig. \ref{Fig_chan_aniso_35} we display $Q(k)$ for the channel map at $
v_{\rm LSR} = -6.3 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$ (black dots), $ v_{\rm LSR} = -8.9 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$
(blue), and for the velocity centroid (red). There is quite some scatter
but we obtain a general increase of the anisotropies up to $ k \sim
0.025 $ arcmin$^{-1}$. For $ 0.025 \la k \la 0.07$ arcmin$^{-1}$
(enclosed by horizontal lines) the anisotropies appear to decay, the
highest spatial frequencies are noise dominated and cannot be
interpreted. For the rising branch we fit for each of our samples a
power law $Q(k) \propto k^{\beta}$ and obtain $ 0.59 \la \beta \la 0.81
$. We find clear evidence that anisotropies increase with spatial
frequencies as predicted by \citet{Goldreich1995} but the slope appears
not to be very well defined. The observed data are affected by local
effects that cause quite some scatter.
\subsection{Decay of anisotropies? }
\label{Decay}
For $ k > 0.025$ arcmin$^{-1}$ we find in Fig. \ref{Fig_chan_aniso_35} a
general systematical decrease of $Q(k)$. This tail suggests a decay of
the observed anisotropies in the same sense as the energy decays in the
turbulent flow to progressively smaller scales. The question arises
whether this apparent decay may be caused by instrumental limitations.
A decay may be mimicked by noise limitations. We calculate the
signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the anisotropies by comparing
$P_{\parallel}(k)$ with the power in the matched noise template $N(k)$
(compare Fig. \ref{Fig_spec_37} with Fig. \ref{Fig_spec_aver}). For $ k
< 0.054$ arcmin$^{-1}$ we find a SNR of three or better. The SNR for
$P_{\perp}(k = 0.054)$ is more than five times better. Hence $Q(k)$ is
for $ k < 0.054$ arcmin$^{-1}$ significant and unaffected by
instrumental problems. Numerical uncertainties may also cause
limitations. We use the Singleton FFT algorithm in double precision and
are not aware about accuracy limitations.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_24-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Anisotropies $Q(k)$ for the channels at $ v_{\rm LSR} = -6.3
$, -8.9 km\,s$^{-1}~$ (black and blue), and for the velocity centroid
(red). Power laws $Q \propto k^{\beta}$ were fit for $k < 0.025$
arcmin$^{-1}$.}
\label{Fig_chan_aniso_35}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_25-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Anisotropies $Q(k)$ for the channel at $ v_{\rm LSR} = -3.76
$ km\,s$^{-1}$ (black dots). The strong local anisotropy of $Q \sim 130$ at
$ k = 0.0056 $ arcmin$^{-1}$ decays as $Q \propto k^{-2.7}$. Also
the anisotropies at $k > 0.04$ arcmin$^{-1}$ appear to decay in a
similar way. For comparison we show thick slice anisotropies for
$-8.9 < v_{\rm LSR} < 6.5$ km\,s$^{-1}~$ with red crosses. }
\label{Fig_chan_37_aniso}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_26-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Anisotropies $Q(k)$ in the FN1 field for the channel at $
v_{\rm LSR} = 4.0 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$ (black dots) and neighbor channels at $
v_{\rm LSR} = 2.7 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$ (red) and $ v_{\rm LSR} = 5.3 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$
(blue). Anisotropies at $ v_{\rm LSR} = 4.0 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$ appear to rise
with a spectral index of $\gamma \sim 2.4 $ and decay with $\gamma
\sim -1.6 $ (dotted lines). }
\label{Fig_spec_Q_FN1_74}
\end{figure}
Common in Fig. \ref{Fig_chan_aniso_35} is that the increase of the
anisotropies $Q(k)$ is accompanied with quite some scatter. This scatter
is much stronger then the expected random noise and appears to indicate
local but systematical deviations caused by external forces. The channel
map at $ v_{\rm LSR} = -3.76 $ km\,s$^{-1}$, shown in Fig.
\ref{Fig_chan_37_aniso}, has the strongest local scatter with the
strongest anisotropy of $Q \sim 130$ at $ k = 0.0056 $
arcmin$^{-1}$. Considering the turbulent flow from large eddies to
smaller ones, this outstanding anisotropy pops suddenly up (by a factor
of ten), is highly significant but inconsistent with the typical
anisotropies that are observed at other velocities. Towards high spatial
frequencies this anisotropy decays as $Q \propto k^{-2.70 \pm .24}$
(green line in Fig. \ref{Fig_chan_37_aniso}), a slope that is in good
agreement with the 2D Kolmogorov index.
It may be fortuitous to relate the decaying part of the anisotropies to
the Kolmogorov index. Figure \ref{Fig_spec_Q_FN1_74} shows that the
strongest anisotropy in the FN1 field has a comparable pattern with a
rising part at low spatial frequencies up to $Q = 74$ at $k = 0.0064
$. This branch can be fit with a power law index $\gamma = 2.4 \pm
0.4$. The anisotropies appear to decay for larger spatial frequencies
with a power law index $\gamma = -1.6 \pm 0.1$. These spectral indices
differ significantly from the results obtained for 3C~196, possibly
indicating different processes causing the anisotropies. The 3C~196
filaments are clearly aligned with the magnetic field but using 353 GHz
{\it Planck} data for the FN1 field it is hardly possible to relate the
filament to a magnetic field direction. The average magnetic field
position angle for an area with a diamenter of 10\degr is $\phi_{\rm
mag} = 111\fdg4 \pm 2\fdg2$ and $\phi_{\rm mag} = 106\fdg4 \pm 1\fdg0$
respectively for a diamenter of 20\degr (F. Boulanger, private
communication). Different processes may cause different spectral
indices.
The strong FN1 anisotropy is caused by CNM with a geometric mean Doppler
temperature of $T_{\rm D} \sim 250 $ K. Due to the low temperature,
neighbor channels are nearly uncorrelated and show significantly
different anisotropies. The position angles show significant changes
(Fig. \ref{Fig_FN1_angle}), it is not possible to assign an unambiguous
relation between filament and magnetic field direction. We found peak
anisotropies $ \phi \sim 30\degr$ for $ v_{\rm LSR} = 3.97 $ km\,s$^{-1}$. The
velocity channel at $ v_{\rm LSR} = 10.4 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$ has $\phi = 9.3\degr
\pm 13\degr $ with a peak anisotropy of $Q = 55$, the channel at $
v_{\rm LSR} = -1.2 $ km\,s$^{-1}$ has $\phi = 40\degr \pm 11\degr $ with a peak
anisotropy of $Q = 10$ respectively. In both cases we derive Doppler
temperatures $T_{\rm D} \la 350 $ K, the \ion{H}{i} gas belongs to the CNM.
\citet{Miville-Deschenes2007} argue that 2/3 of the column density in
the FN1 region is made of WNM and 1/3 of thermally unstable gas ($T \sim
2600$ K). They further find that this field contains a signature of CNM
type gas at a very low level which could have been formed by a
convergent flow of WNM gas. Details of the CNM component are not
specified but we conclude that this gas probably corresponds to the
component that shows anisotropies.
The 3C~196 filament showing strong anisotropies at $ v_{\rm LSR} =
-3.76 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$ is aligned with the magnetic field and is of
particular interest since the CNM \ion{H}{i} distribution at this velocity
shows the best visible correlation of all \ion{H}{i} USM channel maps with the
LOFAR filaments, see Fig. \ref{Fig_cubep_USM}. The strong local
anisotropy is also visible in Fig. \ref{Fig_spec_37}. Perpendicular to
the magnetic field (red) the spectral power increases locally with $k$
while there is a stagnation in parallel direction (green). We interpret
this as an indication for a strong local interaction.
Assuming that the observed anisotropies are caused by MHD turbulence, we
might consider the case whether the magnetic field could cease at $ k
\ga 0.025$ arcmin$^{-1} $. It is difficult to prevent the magnetic field
from small scales but from the deformation of eddy shapes, reconnection
appears to be a possibility. \citet[][Eq. A13]{Lazarian1999} estimated
for this case under typical CNM conditions a scale of 0.03 pc. For
dissipation effects, the only known mechanism in the ISM that leads to
comparable scales is the ion-neutral friction. \citet{Hennebelle2013}
estimate the length associated to the ion-neutral friction in the
typical CNM to be in the range $ 3~10^{-3}$ to $ 2~10^{-2}$ pc. We may
compare these scales with estimates of the filament thickness from
observations. For unresolved filaments, assumed to be sheets seen
edge-on, \citet{Kalberla2016} estimate a median thickness of 0.3 pc, and
in case that magnetic pressure confinement applies, a thickness of 0.1
pc. \citet{Naomi2006} and \citet{Clark2014} obtained comparable
results.
For local \ion{H}{i} filaments at a distance of 100 pc, based on the
median distance to the wall of the local cavity \citep[][from color
excess measurements]{Lallement2014}, the break in the anisotropy
distribution at $ k \sim 0.025$ arcmin$^{-1}$ corresponds to an eddy
extension of $l \sim 1.2$ pc perpendicular to the magnetic field. This
is by far too large to explain a decay of anisotropies by reconnection
or dissipation by ion-neutral friction. A different explanation needs to
be found.
\subsection{Spectral index dependencies}
\label{Index}
We find in case of well defined anisotropies in the range $ 0.005 < k <
0.05 $ arcmin$^{-1}$ always $Q(k) = P_{\perp}(k) /P_{\parallel}(k) \gg 1
$. The spectral index $\gamma_{\perp}$ for $P_{\perp}$ is well defined
and close to the isotropic index $\gamma_{\rm iso} \sim -8/3$, one of
the basic predictions by \citet{Goldreich1995}. For $P_{\parallel}(k)$
we obtain an average power index $ \gamma_{\parallel} = -2.06 \pm
0.2$ (Fig. \ref{Fig_plot_fit}).
According to $Q(k) = P_{\perp}(k) /P_{\parallel}(k) \propto
k^{\gamma_{\perp}}/k^{\gamma_{\parallel}} = k^\beta $ this implies that
anisotropies increase with a spectral index $\beta \sim 2/3$, we fit $
0.59 < \beta < 0.81 $ (see Fig. \ref{Fig_chan_aniso_35}), consistent
with the second prediction by \citet{Goldreich1995}.
However, anisotropies do not increase in an unlimited way. Our data
suggest that anistropies decrease for $ k \ga 0.025$ arcmin$^{-1}$.
Also the power distribution for the channel at $ v_{\rm LSR} = -3.76 $
km\,s$^{-1}~$ does not agree with the predictions. At $ k = 0.0056 $
arcmin$^{-1}$ we find a strong anisotropy $Q(k) \sim 130$ which is
inconsistent with MHD model assumptions. This anisotropy decays
according to $Q(k) = P_{\perp}(k) /P_{\parallel}(k) \propto
k^{\gamma_{\perp}}/k^{\gamma_{\parallel}} = k^\beta \sim k^{-2.7}$. For
this channel we measure $\gamma_{\rm iso} \sim \gamma_{\perp} \sim
-2.86$, implying $\gamma_{\parallel} \sim 0.16 $. Within the errors the
power distribution parallel to the field is flat, $P_{\parallel} =
const$. The flat part of the power distribution can be seen in
Fig. \ref{Fig_spec_37} (green) for $ 0.0056 < k < 0.02 $ arcmin$^{-1}$.
Quite surprisingly, we observe for the affected range in spatial
frequencies a signal that is completely uncorrelated. For
$P_{\parallel}(k)$ the turbulent cascade is suspended, there is no
turbulent energy transport from larger to smaller eddies. This
interpretation assumes that the $ P_{\perp}$ distribution is largely
unaffected by the decay and close to $ P_{\rm iso}$ as predicted by
\citet{Goldreich1995}.
\subsection{Eddy shapes}
\label{Eddy}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_27-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Eddy anisotropies $L_{\parallel}/L_{\perp} \propto
Q(k)^{3/8}$ for the channel at $ v_{\rm LSR} = -3.76 $ km\,s$^{-1}$ (black
dots). Thick slice eddy anisotropies for $-8.9 < v_{\rm LSR} < 6.5$
km\,s$^{-1}~$ are added for comparison (red crosses). }
\label{X_Fig_chan_37_aniso}
\end{figure}
For local \ion{H}{i} filaments we estimate a distance of 100 pc, based on
\citet{Lallement2014}. The filaments extend approximately over 20\degr
(see Fig. \ref{Fig_HI_gal}), corresponding to an outer turbulence scale
of $l_o \sim 35$ pc. The break in the anisotropy distribution at $ k
\sim 0.025$ arcmin$^{-1}$ corresponds for this distance to an average
eddy extension of 40\hbox{$^\prime$} or $l \sim 1.2$ pc perpendicular to the
magnetic field. For a power law index of $\gamma = -8/3$ the wave vector
anisotropy is $k_{\perp} / k_{\parallel} \sim Q^{3/8} \sim 2.4$
\citep{Chen2010}. Hence the dominant eddy size is 1.2 pc by 2.8 pc. For
$Q = 130$ we get accordingly an eddy shape that is typically 6.2 times
more extended along the field line than perpendicular. The size is here
5.2 pc by 32 pc. In Fig. \ref{X_Fig_chan_37_aniso} we display eddy
anisotropies $L_{\parallel} / L_{\perp} $ as function of spatial
frequency.
In Fig. \ref{Fig_Im37_mask} we display data for the channel at $v_{\rm
LSR} = -3.76$ km\,s$^{-1}~$ for spatial frequencies $k > 0.0056 $
arcmin$^{-1}$. From our data this is the most extreme anisotropy and
probably the best possible visualization of what one may consider as
eddies or wave packets. For comparison we plot in
Fig. \ref{Fig_Im37_USM} the CNM gas, indicating that these eddies
coincide with rather cold \ion{H}{i} gas. In this case we derive the average
anisotropies $Q_{\rm aver} = 11$ but the peak anisotropy reaches $Q =
65$, only 50\% compared to the \ion{H}{i} channel map in
Fig. \ref{Fig_Im37_mask}. When generating USM maps, spatial frequencies
$ k \la 0.033$ arcmin$^{-1}$ are attenuated including the anisotropies
observed at $ 0.01 < k < 0.03 $ arcmin$^{-1}$. Due to the fact that MHD
driven anisotropies increase with spatial frequency, USM maps give a
good first order approximation of the anisotropic distribution of the
\ion{H}{i} at high spatial frequencies. The visual inspection of the USM map
implies that most of the filaments are unresolved.
\section{Summary and conclusions}
\label{Summary}
It was recently shown that a major part of the CNM is organized in cold
filaments with median Doppler temperatures $T_{\rm D} \sim 223$ K that
are aligned with the magnetic field \citep{Kalberla2016}. These
structures can be highly anisotropic with aspect ratios up to $\sim 400$
\citep{Heiles2005,Naomi2006,Clark2014,Kalberla2016}. Such a medium is
expected to be driven by MHD turbulence and asymmetries should have a
large impact on the dynamics of the turbulent cascade.
To determine anisotropies in MHD driven turbulence we decided to analyze
the \ion{H}{i} distribution in direction to 3C~196. This field is one of
the primary fields of the LOFAR-Epoch of Reionization key science
project. Linear polarization structures have been observed with LOFAR by
\citet{Jelic2015}. Strikingly straight filaments
were found to be aligned with the magnetic field \citep{Zaroubi2015} and
\ion{H}{i} shows a similar filamentary structure (Fig. \ref{Fig_cubep_USM}).
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_28-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Apodized brightness temperature distribution in direction to
3C~196 at $v_{\rm LSR} = -3.76$ km\,s$^{-1}~$ for spatial frequencies $k >
0.0056$ arcmin$^{-1}$ with anisotropies $ Q < 130$. }
\label{Fig_Im37_mask}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm,angle=-90]{Fig_29-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Apodized USM temperature map for the CNM in direction
to 3C~196 at $v_{\rm LSR} = -3.76$ km\,s$^{-1}$, demonstrating that the CNM
is dominated by filaments. Anisotropies at high spatial frequencies
can be inferred from CNM maps. }
\label{Fig_Im37_USM}
\end{figure}
We find that average power spectra, as well as power spectra
perpendicular to the magnetic field, are for thin slices in velocity
close to the expected Kolmogorov index $\gamma = -8/3$. The general
impression is that in case of anisotropies the parallel and
perpendicular power spectra appear to the first order in logarithmic
presentation just ``offset'' from the isotropic distribution, see
Figs. \ref{Fig_spec_angle} to \ref{Fig_spec_49}, \ref{Fig_spec_33_45},
and \ref{Fig_spec_33_45_centroid}. More important are however local and
correlated deviations from the isotropic power distribution. The data
show quite some fluctuations which we interpret as caused by external
forces.
The \ion{H}{i} distribution in direction to 3C~196 has two major components
(Fig. \ref{Fig_overview}), at $v_{\rm LSR} \sim -1 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$ and $ \sim
13$ km\,s$^{-1}~$ but only the component at $v_{\rm LSR} \sim -1 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$ appears
visually to be related to the LOFAR filaments. We observe strong
average anisotropies, $ 10 < Q_{\rm aver} < 20 $, in the spectral power
distribution of the $v_{\rm LSR} \sim -1 $ km\,s$^{-1}~$ component. The $v_{\rm
LSR} \sim 13$ km\,s$^{-1}~$ component does not show significant
anisotropies. Thus anisotropies are clearly linked to \ion{H}{i} filaments that
appear visually to be correlated with LOFAR filaments. The analysis of
two more comparison fields show that anisotropies, unrelated to
filamentary structures, are mostly restricted to $Q_{\rm aver} \sim 2$.
The derived anisotropy position angle (Fig. \ref{Fig_spec_angle}) agrees
well with the orientation of the LOFAR filaments \citep{Jelic2015} and
the direction of the associated magnetic field, derived from {\it
Planck} 353 GHz data \citep{Zaroubi2015}. The anisotropies are caused
by cold CNM filaments, we derive a geometric mean Doppler temperature
$T_{\rm D} \sim 161 $ K. The power law index $\gamma$ tends to be
steepest close to the minima of the Doppler temperature. Anisotropies $Q_{\rm
aver}$ are not correlated with Doppler temperature or average line
emission, also we found no correlation with the power law index
$\gamma$. Anisotropies lead to significant changes in the power
distribution, $P_{\parallel}(k) < P_{\perp}(k)$. Typical ratios reach
$Q(k) = P_{\perp}(k)/P_{\parallel}(k) \sim 10 $ to 20, peaking at $Q(k)
\sim 130$. Anisotropies increase with spatial frequency, $Q(k) \propto
k^{\beta}$ with $ 0.59 \la \beta \la 0.81 $ until $k \sim 0.025$
arcmin$^{-1}$.
We observe a decay of anisotropies at high spatial frequencies $ k \ga
0.025$ arcmin$^{-1}$. From theory, MHD anisotropies should increase with
spatial frequency until a scale is reached where the turbulent flow
becomes dissipative. However we find no indications for a turnover in
the isotropic spectral distribution that might be considered as an
indication for dissipation. The average power distribution remains
unchanged. All we notice is a systematic decrease of the anisotropies.
Also the angular power spectrum of integrated polarized emission,
derived by \citet{Jelic2015} from LOFAR data, shows no change in
spectral slope down to the resolution limit at a scale of 4 armin.
A similar anisotropy decay with a spectral index of $ \gamma \sim -2.7$
is observed for the extreme case $Q \sim 130$ in the 3C~196
field. While the power law index $\gamma_{\perp}(k)$ is almost
unaffected by the decay we find here within the errors
$\gamma_{\parallel}(k) \sim 0$, implying for the decay branch that there
is no turbulent energy transport for $P_{\parallel}(k)$. The turbulent
cascade appears to be suspended for $P_{\parallel}(k)$ until $k \sim
0.02$ arcmin$^{-1}$ with an anisotropy of $4 \la Q \la 8$, typical for
the other velocity channels, is reached. In other words, this process is
terminated when anisotropy according to the relation $Q(k) \propto
k^{2/3}$ \citep{Goldreich1995} is reached.
Our interpretation for the $ Q\sim 130$ case is that for the scale
length (eddy size) under consideration the enhanced power $P_{\perp}(k)$
was forced by an event that affected the eddy shape in a sense that
power from $P_{\parallel}(k)$ was transferred to $P_{\perp}(k)$
(compression of the eddy). After the external force is removed,
the turbulent cascade continues for a while in an isotropic way; the
eddy shapes need to relax according to the $Q(k) \propto k^{2/3}$
condition.
Our interpretation of the 3C~196 anisotropies may be fortuitous, the
processes causing these anisotropies are not yet understood. In case of
our comparison field, the FN1 region, we observe for a narrow velocity
interval another strong anisotropy (peak at $Q = 74$) but with
significant different spectral indices concerning the rise and decay of
anisotropies with spatial frequency (Fig. \ref{Fig_spec_Q_FN1_74}).
In our analysis we compare power spectra derived from thin and thick
slices as well as from centroid maps. The predicted steepening of power
indices \citep{Lazarian2000}, comparing thin and thick slices, is only
partly verified by us. We find that anisotropies are always best defined
for thin slices. Figure \ref{Fig_chan_37_aniso} demonstrates that thick
slices show less anisotropies and a further comparison with Fig. \ref
{Fig_chan_aniso_35} leads to the result that velocity centroids,
calculated for the same velocity range, may even be less suitable to
characterize anisotropies. Interestingly, our result contradicts one of
the main results by \citet{Kandel2016}, who finds that turbulence
anisotropies increase with velocity slice thickness.
The interpretation of our result is straightforward. Since the
filamentary CNM in the 3C~196 field is very cold ($T_{\rm D} \sim 160 $
K), adjacent velocity channels are uncorrelated for $\delta v_{\rm LSR}
\ga 3 $ km\,s$^{-1}$. On the other hand filaments in neighboring channels show
very similar structures. Filaments are probably \ion{H}{i} sheets seen
edge-on. Different slices, systematically offset from each other, are
observed at different velocities. These structures are not random but
correlated. Integrating the data to obtain thick slices or velocity
centroids means for the analysis that local (uncorrelated) anisotropies
are smoothed out. Filaments, running parallel \citep[see Figs. 10, and
25 to 27 of][]{Kalberla2016}, are broadened artificially by averaging
and anisotropy is lost. The fluctuations caused by the CNM within a
single thin velocity slice is dominated by density effects but changes
in the observed density distribution with velocity are correlated
because of global anisotropies, probably influenced by the magnetic
field, that extend over a few channels.
For the FN1 field we find that position angles change systematically
with velocity. The CNM that is associated with the anisotropies is also
in this case sufficiently cold that neighbor channels are nearly
independent. Calculating the mean emission or the velocity centroid over
a range of velocities (in a thick slice), anisotropies smooth out and
loose significance. The result from our investigations is clearly that
anisotropies are associated with the CNM and not with the more extended
but diffuse WNM.
Alfv{\'e}n modes are incompressible and to the first order approximation
they do not create any density fluctuations. The expected power law
index is $\gamma = -11/3$ \citep{Kandel2016}. In Sect. \ref{Angular} we
excluded fast modes since these would cause eddies elongated
perpendicular to the magnetic field. The power spectrum in this case
would be isotropic with an index of $\gamma = -9/2$. For both modes this
is not what we observe. We conclude that we probably observe slow modes
in a particular favorable condition, the magnetic field is mostly
oriented perpendicular to the line of sight. According to
\citep{Heiles2005} the expected average field strength is $ 6~ \mu$G,
the turbulent $\beta \sim 0.3$, the Alfv{\'e}nic Mach number $M_{\rm A}
\sim 1.1$, and the Alfv{\'e}n velocity $v_{\rm A} \sim 1.5$ km\,s$^{-1}$. LOFAR
observations and polarized dust emission by {\it Planck} restrict the
total magnetic field strength for the central filament to $ B_{\rm tot}
\la 6.5 \mu$G and the component along the line of sight to $ B \ga 1.2\
\mu$G. The pulsar J081558+461155, is located about $2\hbox{$^\circ$}$ south of
3C~196. \citet{Jelic2015} derived from the RM to dispersion measure ratio
a mean line-of-sight magnetic field component of $ B_{\parallel} = 0.3
\pm 0.1 \mu$G and its variations across the 3C~196 field to $ 0.1
\mu$G. The 3C~196 field is well studied and we hope that follow-up
investigations can lead to more precise results.
The morphology of \ion{H}{i} filaments in the 3C~196 field is typical for the
CNM studied by \citet{Kalberla2016}. For ``unperturbed'' \ion{H}{i}, thus for
regions that are not affected by obvious CNM filaments, we find only
weak anisotropies around $Q_{\rm aver} \sim 2$. But this result, as well
as examples and results for strong anisotropies are based on a rather
limited sample.
This is to our knowledge the first study of turbulent anisotropies in
the \ion{H}{i} gas. Some more investigations are necessary for a
generalization of our results, but the EBHIS
\citep{Winkel2016a,Winkel2016b},
as well as the GASS III \citep{Kalberla2015},
are available for such an analysis. The only limitation of these surveys
is caused by the different beam sizes, because of different telescope
diameters. That disables an analysis of fields close to the ecliptic
equator. The LDS, as well as the Leiden/Argentine/Bonn survey
\citep[LAB,][]{Kalberla2005} are obsolete and should no longer be used to
determine properties of a turbulent flow. Our results are incompatible
with previous investigations using the LDS.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We thank F. Boulanger for providing data on the magnetic field
direction in the FN1 region and V. Jeli{\'c} for comments.
The authors thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for
support under grant numbers KE757/7--1, KE757/7--2, KE757/7--3 and
KE757/11--1. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data
System. EBHIS is based on observations with the 100-m telescope of
the MPIfR (Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Radioastronomie) at Effelsberg.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
Face landmark detection plays a fundamental role in many computer vision tasks, such as face recognition, expression analysis, and 3D face modeling. In the past few years, many methods have been proposed to address this problem, with significant progress being made towards systems that work in real-world conditions (``in the wild'').
Regression-based approaches \cite{XiongCVPR13,CaoIJCV14} have achieved impressive results by cascading discriminative regression functions that directly map facial appearance to landmark coordinates. In this framework, deep convolutional neural networks have proven effective as a choice for feature extraction and non-linear regression modeling \cite{ZhangECCV14,Lai2015,ZhangTangECCV14}. Although these methods can achieve very reliable results in standard benchmark datasets, they still suffer from limited performance in challenging scenarios, e.g., involving large face pose variations and heavy occlusions.
A promising direction to address these challenges is to consider video-based face alignment (i.e., sequential face landmark detection) \cite{ShenICCVW15}, leveraging temporal information as an additional constraint~\cite{WangCVPR16}. Despite the long history of research in rigid and non-rigid face tracking \cite{BlackCVPR95,OliverCVPR97,DecarloIJCV00,PatrasFG04}, current efforts have mostly focused on face alignment in still images \cite{SagonasICCVW13,ZhangECCV14,TzimiropoulosCVPR15,ZhuCVPR15}. In fact, most methods often perform video-based landmark detection by independently applying models trained on still images in each frame in a tracking-by-detection manner \cite{WangTPAMI15}, with notable exceptions such as \cite{AsthanaCVPR14,PengICCV15}, which explore incremental learning based on previous frames. How to effectively model long-term temporal constraints while handling large face pose variations and occlusions is an open research problem for video-based face alignment.
In this work, we address this problem by proposing a novel recurrent encoder-decoder deep neural network model (see Figure \ref{fig:fig_overview}). The encoding module projects image pixels into a low-dimensional feature space, whereas the decoding module maps features in this space to 2D facial point maps, which are further regularized by a regression loss. In order to handle large face pose variations, we introduce a feedback loop connection between the aggregated 2D facial point maps and the input. The intuition is similar to cascading multiple regression functions \cite{XiongCVPR13,ZhangECCV14} for iterative course-to-fine face alignment, but in our approach the iterations are modeled jointly with shared parameters, using a single network model.
For more effective temporal modeling, we first decouple the features in the bottleneck of the network into temporal-variant factors, such as pose and expression, and temporal-invariant factors, such as identity. More specifically, we split the features into two components, where one component is used to learn face recognition using identity labels, and recurrent temporal learning is applied to the other component, which encodes temporal-variant factors only. We show in our experiments that recurrent learning in both spatial and temporal dimensions is crucial to improve performance of sequential face landmark detection. In summary, our work makes the following {\bf contributions}:
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose a novel recurrent encoder-decoder network model for real-time sequential face landmark detection. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time a recurrent model is investigated to perform video-based facial landmark detection.
\item Our proposed {\em spatial recurrent learning} enables a novel iterative coarse-to-fine face alignment using a single network model. This is critical to handle large face pose changes and a more effective alternative than cascading multiple network models in terms of accuracy and memory footprint.
\item Different from traditional methods, we apply {\em temporal recurrent learning} to temporal-variant features which are decoupled from temporal-invariant features in the bottleneck of the network, achieving better generalization and more accurate results.
\item We provide a detailed experimental analysis of each component of our model, as well as insights about key contributing factors to achieve superior performance over the state-of-the-art. The project page is public available. \footnote{\url{https://sites.google.com/site/xipengcshomepage/project/face-alignment}}
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}
Face alignment has been advanced in last decades. Remarkably, regression based methods~\cite{AsthanaCVPR13,SunCVPR13,XiongCVPR13,CaoIJCV14,ZhangECCV14,AsthanaCVPR14,ZhuCVPR15,TzimiropoulosCVPR15,JourablooCVPR16,WuCVPR16,ZhuCVPR16} significantly boost the generalization performance of face landmark detection, compared to algorithms based on statistical models such as Active shape models \cite{Cootes92BMVC,StephenECCV08} and Active appearance models~\cite{Gao2010}.
A regression-based approach directly regresses landmark locations where features extracted from face images serve as regressors. Landmark models are learned either in an independent manner, or in a joint fashion \cite{CaoIJCV14}.
This paper performs landmark detection via both a classification model and a regression model. Different from most of the previous methods, this work deals with face alignment in a video. It jointly optimizes detection output by utilizing multiple observations from the same person.
Learning cascade-like regression models show superior performance on the face alignment task~\cite{XiongCVPR13,SunCVPR13,ZhangECCV14}. Supervised descent method~\cite{XiongCVPR13} learns cascades of regression models based on SIFT feature.
Sun \emph{et. al.}~\cite{SunCVPR13} proposed to use three levels of neural networks to predict landmark locations.
Zhang \emph{et. al.}~\cite{ZhangECCV14} studied the problem via cascades of stacked auto-encoders which gradually refine the landmark position with higher resolution inputs.
Compared to these efforts which explicitly define cascade structures, our method learns a spatial recurrent model which implicitly incorporates the cascade structure with shared parameters. It is also more "end-to-end" compared to previous works that handcraftly divide the learning process into multiple stages.
Recurrent neural networks (RNNs) are widely employed in the literature of speech recognition~\cite{MikolovInterspeech10} and natural language processing~\cite{MikolovArxiv14}.
They are also recently used in computer vision. For example, in the task of image captioning~\cite{Karpathy_2015_CVPR} and video captioning~\cite{Yao_2015_ICCV}, RNNs are employed for text generation. Veeriah \emph{et. al.}~\cite{VeeriahICCV15} use RNNs to learn complex time-series representations via high-order derivatives of states for action recognition. Benefiting from the deep architecture, RNNs are naturally good alternatives to Conditional Random Fields (CRFs) ~\cite{ZhengICCV15} which are popular in image segmentation.
Encoder and decoder networks are well studied in machine translation~\cite{ChoArxiv14} where the encoder learns the intermediate representation and the decoder generates the translation from the representation. It is also investigated in speech recognition~\cite{llu_is2015b} and computer vision~\cite{BadriCoRR15,HongCoRR15}. Yang \emph{et. al.}~\cite{YangNIPS15} proposed to decouple identity units and pose units in the bottleneck of the network for 3D view synthesis. However, how to fully utilize the decoupled units for correspondence regularization \cite{LongNIPS14} is still unexplored. In this work, we employ the encoder to learn a joint representation for identity, pose, expression as well as landmarks. The decoder translates the representation to landmark heatmaps. Our spatial recurrent model loops the whole encoder-decoder framework.
\section{Recurrent Encoder-Decoder Network}
In this section, we first give an overview of our approach. Then we describe the novelty of our work in detail: spatial and temporal recurrent learning, supervised identity disentangling, and constrained shape prediction.
\subsection{Method Overview}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{fig_overview}
\caption{Overview of the recurrent encoder-decoder network: \textbf{(a)} spatial recurrent learning (Section \ref{sec:spatial}); \textbf{(b)} temporal recurrent learning (Section \ref{sec:temporal}); \textbf{(c)} supervised identity disentangling (Section \ref{sec:identity}); and \textbf{(d)} constrained shape prediction (Section \ref{sec:shape}). $f_{ENC},f_{DENC},f_{sRNN},f_{tRNN},f_{CLS},f_{REG}$ are potentially nonlinear and multi-layered mappings.}
\label{fig:fig_overview}
\end{figure*}
Our task is to locate $L$ landmarks in sequential images using an end-to-end deep neural network. Figure \ref{fig:fig_overview} shows the overview of our approach. We consider $f_{\star}$ as potential nonlinear and multi-layered functions. The input of the network are the image $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{w \times h \times 3}$ and the landmark label map $\mathbf{z} \in \mathbb{R}^{w \times h \times 1}$. Each pixel in $\mathbf{z}$ is a discrete label $\{0,\cdots,L\}$ that marks the presence of the corresponding landmark, where $0$ denotes a non-landmark area.
The \textit{encoder} ($f_{ENC}$) performs a sequence of convolution, pooling and batch normalization \cite{IoffeCoRR15} to extract a representation code from inputs:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{C} = f_{ENC}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z}; \theta_{ENC}), \; \mathcal{C} \in \mathbb{R}^{w_c \times h_c \times d_c},
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{C}$ represents the encoded features. $\theta_{ENC}$ denotes encoder parameters. Symmetrically, the \textit{decoder} ($f_{DENC}$) performs a sequence of unpooling, convolution and batch normalization to upsample the representation codes to a multi-channel response map:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M} = f_{DENC}(\mathcal{C}; \theta_{DENC}), \; \mathcal{M} \in \mathbb{R}^{w \times h \times (L+1)},
\end{align}
where $\theta_{DENC}$ denotes the decoder parameters. The first channel of $\mathcal{M}$ represents the background, while the rest $L$ channels of $\mathcal{M}$ present pixel-wise confidence of the corresponding landmarks. The $(L+1)$-channel response map is crucial to preserve the landmark unity, compared with a 2-channel setup (landmark {\em v.s.} non-landmark).
The encoder-decoder framework plays an important role in our task. {\bf First}, it is convenient to perform {\em spatial recurrent learning} ($f_{sRNN}$) since $\mathcal{M}$ has the same dimension (but different number of channels) as $\mathbf{x}$. The output of the decoder can be directly fed back into the encoder to provide pixel-wise spatial cues for the next recurrent step. {\bf Second}, we can decouple $\mathcal{C}$ in the bottleneck of the network into temporal-variant and -invariant factors. The former is further exploited in {\em temporal recurrent learning} ($f_{tRNN}$) for robust alignment, while the latter is used in {\em supervised identity disentangling} ($f_{CLS}$) to facilitate the network training. {\bf Third}, $\mathcal{M}$ can be further regularized in {\em constrained shape prediction} ($f_{REG}$) to directly output landmark coordinates. The details of each module are explained in following subsections.
\begin{figure}[t]
\minipage{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.89\linewidth]{fig_fsrnn}
\caption{An unrolled illustration of {\em spatial recurrent learning}. The response map is pretty coarse when the initial guess is far away from the ground truth if large pose and expression exist. It eventually gets refined in the successive recurrent steps.}\label{fig:fig_fsrnn}
\endminipage\hfill
\minipage{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig_ftrnn}
\caption{An unrolled illustration of {\em temporal recurrent learning}. $\mathcal{C}_{id}$ encodes temporal-invariant factor which subjects to the same identity constraint. $\mathcal{C}_{pe}$ encodes temporal-variant factors which is further modeled in $f_{tRNN}$.}\label{fig:fig_ftrnn}
\endminipage\hfill
\end{figure}
\subsection{Spatial Recurrent Learning} \label{sec:spatial}
The purpose of spatial recurrent learning is to pinpoint landmark locations in a coarse-to-fine manner. Unlike existing approaches \cite{SunCVPR13,ZhangECCV14} that employ multiple networks in cascade, we accomplish the coarse-to-fine search in a single network in which the parameters are jointly learned in successive recurrent steps.
Given an image $\mathbf{x}$ and initial guess of the shape $\mathbf{z}_0$, we refine the shape prediction iteratively $\{\mathbf{z}^1,\cdots,\mathbf{z}^k\}$ by feeding back the previous prediction:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{z}^k = f_{sRNN}(\mathcal{M}^{k-1}) = f_{sRNN}( f_{DENC}( f_{ENC}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{z}^{k-1}) ) ), \; k=1,\cdots,K,
\end{align}
where we omit network parameters $\theta_{ENC}$ and $\theta_{DENC}$ for concise expression. The network parameters are learned by recurrently minimizing the classification loss between the annotation and the response map output by the encoder-decoder:
\begin{align} \label{eq:srnnloss}
\argmin_{\theta_{ENC},\theta_{DENC}} \sum_{k=1}^{K} \sum_{l=0}^{L} \ell ( \mathcal{M}^*_l, f_{DENC}( f_{ENC}(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{z}^k) )_l ),
\end{align}
where $k$ counts iterations and $l$ counts landmarks. $\mathcal{M}^*_l \in \mathbb{R}^{w \times h \times 1}$ is the ground truth of the response map for the $l$-th landmark. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fig_fsrnn}, our recurrent model progressively improves the prediction accuracy when a face exhibits challenging pose or expression. The whole process is learned end-to-end during training.
\subsection{Temporal Recurrent Learning} \label{sec:temporal}
The recurrent learning is performed at both the spatial and temporal dimensions. Given $T$ successive frames $\{\mathbf{x}^{t}; t=1, \cdots, T\}$, the encoder extracts a sequence of representation codes $\{\mathcal{C}^{t}; t=1, \cdots, T\}$. We can decouple $\mathcal{C}$ as: identity code $\mathcal{C}_{id}$ that is {\em temporal-invariant} since all frames are subject to the same identity constraint; and pose/expression code $\mathcal{C}_{pe}$ that is \textit{temporal-variant} since pose and expression changes over time \cite{PengCVIU15}. We exploit the temporal consistence of $\mathcal{C}_{pe}$ via the proposed temporal recurrent learning.
Figure \ref{fig:fig_ftrnn} shows the unrolled illustration of the proposed temporal recurrent learning. More specifically, we aim to achieve a nonlinear mapping $f_{tRNN}$, which simultaneously tracks the latent state $\{h^t;t=1,\cdots,T\}$ and updates $\mathcal{C}_{pe}$ at time $t$:
\begin{align}
h^t = p(\mathcal{C}_{pe}^t, h^{t-1}; \theta_{tRNN}), \; {\mathcal{C}_{pe}^t}^{\prime} = q(h^t; \theta_{tRNN}), \; t=1,\cdots,T
\end{align}
where $p(\cdot)$ and $q(\cdot)$ are functions of $f_{tRNN}$. ${\mathcal{C}_{pe}^t}^{\prime}$ is the update of $\mathcal{C}_{pe}^t$. $\theta_{tRNN}$ corresponds to mapping parameters which are learned in the end-to-end task using the same classification loss as Equation \ref{eq:srnnloss} but unrolled at the temporal dimension:
\begin{align} \label{eq:trnnloss}
\argmin_{\theta_{ENC},\theta_{DENC},\theta_{tRNN}} \sum_{t=1}^{T} \sum_{l=0}^{L} \ell_{tRNN} ( {\mathcal{M}^t_l}^*, f_{DENC}( \mathcal{C}_{id}^t, \mathcal{C}_{pe}^t )_l ),
\end{align}
where $t$ counts time steps and $l$ counts landmarks. Note that both spatial and temporal recurrent learning are performed to jointly learn $\theta_{ENC}$, $\theta_{DENC}$ and $\theta_{tRNN}$ in the same task according to Equation \ref{eq:srnnloss} and \ref{eq:trnnloss}.
The temporal recurrent learning memorize the motion patterns of pose and expression variations from offline training data. It can significantly improve the fitting accuracy and robustness when large variations and partial occlusions exist.
\subsection{Supervised Identity Disentangling} \label{sec:identity}
There is no guarantee that temporal-invariant and -variant factors can be completely decoupled in the bottleneck by simply splitting the representation codes into two parts. More supervised information is required to achieve the decoupling. To address this issue, we propose to apply a face recognition task on the identity code, in addition to the temporal recurrent learning applied on pose/expression code.
The supervised identity disentangling is formulated as an $N$-way classification problem. $N$ is the number of unique individuals present in the training sequences. In general, the classification network $f_{CLS}$ associates the identity code $\mathcal{C}_{id}$ with a vector indicating the score of each identity. Classification loss is used to learn the mapping parameters:
\begin{align}
\argmin_{\theta_{CLS}} \sum_{m=1}^{M} \ell_{CLS} ( \mathbf{e}^*, f_{CLS}( \mathcal{C}_{id}; \theta_{CLS} ) ),
\end{align}
where $m$ counts the number of training images in a mini batch.
$\mathbf{e}^*$ is the one-hot identity annotation vector with a $1$ for the correct identity and all $0$s for others.
It has been shown in \cite{ZhangTangECCV14} that learning the face alignment task together with correlated tasks, \textit{e.g.} head pose, can improve the fitting performance. We have the similar observation when adding face recognition task to the alignment task. More specifically, we found that supervised identity disentangling can significantly improve the generalization as well as fitting accuracy at test time. In this case, the factors are better decoupled, which facilitates $f_{tRNN}$ to better handle temporal variations.
\subsection{Constrained Shape Prediction} \label{sec:shape}
The response map output by the encoder-decoder may have a few false high responses when distractions exist in the background. Although this issue is significantly alleviated by spatial recurrent learning, it still impairs the fitting accuracy in challenging conditions. Besides, the response map uses separate channels to depict each landmark. The spatial dependencies among landmarks are not well explored. To overcome these limitations, we append nonlinear mappings after the encoder-decoder to learn the shape constraint for shape prediction.
$f_{REG}$ takes the response map as the input and outputs landmark coordinates $\mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^{2L \times 1}$. Regression loss is used to learn the mapping parameters:
\begin{align}
\argmin_{\theta_{REG}} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \ell_{REG} ( \mathbf{y}^*, f_{REG}( \mathcal{M}; \theta_{REG} ) ),
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{y}^*$ is the ground truth of landmark coordinates. All coordinates are normalized by subtracting a mean shape calculated from training images. The summation accumulates loss within a mini batch to avoid gradient jiggling.
\section{Network Architecture and Implementation Details} \label{sec:arch}
All modules are embedded in a unified framework that can be trained end-to-end. Next we provide more details about how we guarantee efficient training convergence and robust performance at test time.
\subsection{$f_{ENC}$ and $f_{DENC}$}
Figure \ref{fig:fig_architecture1} illustrates the detailed configuration of the encoder-decoder. The encoder is designed based on a variant of the VGG-16 network \cite{SimonyanCoRR14,KendallCoRR15}. It has 13 convolutional layers with constant $3 \times 3$ filters which correspond to the first 13 convolutional layers in VGG-16. We can therefore initialize the training process from weights trained on large datasets for object classification. We remove all fully connected layers in favor of \textit{fully convolutional networks} (FCNs) \cite{LongCoRR14} and output two $4 \times 4 \times 256$ feature maps in the bottleneck. This strategy not only reduces the number of parameters from 117M to 14.8M \cite{BadriCoRR15}, but also preserves spatial information in high-resolution feature maps instead of fully-connected feature vectors, which is crucial for our landmark localization task.
There are 5 max-pooling layers with $2 \times 2$ pooling windows and a constant stride of 2 in the encoder to halve the resolution of feature maps after each convolutional stage. Although max-pooling can help to achieve translation invariance, it inevitably results in a considerable loss of spatial information especially when several max-pooling layers are applied in succession. To solve this issue, we use a 2-bit code to record the index of the maximum activation selected in a $2 \times 2$ pooling window \cite{ZeilerECCV14}. As illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:fig_architecture1}, the memorized index is then used in the corresponding unpooling layer to place each activation back to its original location. This strategy is particularly useful for the decoder to recover the input structure from the highly compressed feature map. Besides, it is much more efficient to store the spatial indices than to memorize the entire feature map in float precision as proposed in FCNs \cite{LongCoRR14}.
The decoder is symmetrical to the encoder with a mirrored configuration but replacing all max-pooling layers with corresponding unpooling layers. The final output of the decoder is a $(L + 1)$-channel response map which is fed to a softmax classifier to predict pixel-wise confidence. We find that batch normalization \cite{IoffeCoRR15} can significantly boost the training speed as it can effectively reduce internal shift within a mini batch. Therefore, batch normalization and rectified linear unit (ReLU) \cite{NairICML10} are applied after each convolutional layer.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{fig_architecture1}
\caption{Architecture of $f_{ENC}$ and $f_{DENC}$. The input of the encoder is the concatenation of 3-channel image and 1-channel label map. The decoder is exactly symmetrical to the encoder except the output is a $(L+1)$-channel response map. The representation code is split into $\mathcal{C}_{id}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{pe}$ in the bottleneck, where each one is a $4 \times 4 \times 256$ feature map. 3 $\times$ 3 kernels are used in all convolutional layers. 2 $\times$ 2 max-pooling or unpooling windows are applied in all pooling layers. The corresponding max-pooling and unpooling share pooling indices with a 2-bit switch for each 2 $\times$ 2 pooling window.}
\label{fig:fig_architecture1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{fig_architecture2}
\caption{Architecture of $f_{tRNN}$, $f_{CLS}$ and $f_{REG}$. In $f_{tRNN}$, pooling and unpooling with spatial indices are applied to cut down the input and output complexity of LSTM module. In $f_{REG}$, intermediate feature maps from the encoder, \textit{i.e.} conv2\_2 and conv4\_3, are concatenated to incorporate both global and local features.}
\label{fig:fig_architecture2}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{$f_{sRNN}$ and $f_{tRNN}$}
As shown in Figure \ref{fig:fig_overview} and \ref{fig:fig_fsrnn}, $f_{sRNN}$ maps the $(L+1)$-channel response map $\mathcal{M}$ to a single-channel label map $\mathbf{z}$. This mapping can be achieved efficiently in two steps. First, we merge $\mathcal{M}$ to a single map with $(L+1)$ clusters. The value of the map at location $(i,j)$ is set to the channel index of $\mathcal{M}$ that has the largest confidence:
\begin{align}
m_{ij} = \argmax_{l} (\mathcal{M}_{ij})_{l}, \ where \ l = 0,\cdots,L.
\end{align}
The second step is to generate a label map from the clustering. We label each landmark with a small square centered at the corresponding clustering center with varied sizes. The sizes are set to 7-pixel, 5-pixel, and 3-pixel for the three recurrent steps, respectively, in order to provide the spatial feedback in a coarse-to-fine manner.
We employ Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) \cite{HochreiterNC97,OhNIPS15} networks to model $f_{tRNN}$. $256$ hidden units are used in the LSTM layer we empirically set $T=10$. The prediction loss is calculated at each time step and then accumulated after $T$ steps for backpropagation. Directly feeding $\mathcal{C}_{pe}^t$ into the LSTM layer leads to a low training rate as it needs $4 \times 4 \times 256 = 4096$ neurons for both the input and output. We apply $4 \times 4$ pooling and unpooling to compress $\mathcal{C}_{pe}$ to a $256 \times 1$ vector as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:fig_architecture2}.
\subsection{$f_{CLS}$ and $f_{REG}$}
To facilitate the decoupling in the bottleneck, we use a classification network to predict identity labels from $\mathcal{C}_{id}$. $f_{CLS}$ takes $\mathcal{C}_{id}$ as input and applies $4 \times 4$ average pooling to obtain a $256d$ feature vector for identity representation. Instead of using a very long feature vector in former face recognition network \cite{TaigmanCVPR14}, {\em e.g.} $4096d$, we use a more compact vector, {\em e.g.} $256d$, to reduce the computational cost without losing recognition accuracy \cite{SchroffCVPR15,SunCVPR15}. To avoid overfitting, $0.4$ dropout is applied, followed with a fully connected layer with $M$ neurons to predict the entity using the cross-entropy loss.
The regression network takes $128 \times 128 \times (L+1)$ response map as input to directly predict $2L \times 1$ normalized landmark coordinates. The network architecture is similar to the encoder but using fewer feature maps in each convolutional layer: 64-64-256-256-512. The dimension of feature maps is halved after each $2 \times 2$ max-pooling layer except the last $8 \times 8$ pooling layer to achieve a $512d$ feature vector. Similar to the classification network, $0.4$ dropout is applied. A fully connected layer with $2L \times 1$ neurons is used to output landmark coordinates, which is used to compute the Euclidean loss.
We experienced suboptimal performance with the designed $f_{REG}$ at the beginning. The reason is the response map is highly abstract and missing detailed information of the input image. To address this issue, we incorporate feature maps from the encoder to boost the regression accuracy. More specifically, we concatenate feature maps from both shallow layer ({\em conv2\_2}) and deep layer ({\em conv4\_3}) to the corresponding layers in $f_{REG}$ to utilize both global and local features. Figure \ref{fig:fig_architecture2} illustrates the idea.
Both {\em conv2\_2} and {\em conv4\_3} are learned in the encoder-decoder and remain unchanged in $f_{REG}$.
\section{Experiments}
In this section, we first demonstrate the effectiveness of each component in our framework, followed with performance comparison against the state-of-the-arts on both controlled and unconstrained datasets.
\subsection{Datasets and Settings}
\textbf{Datasets.} We conduct our experiments on widely used benchmark datasets as listed in Table \ref{tab:data}. These datasets present challenges in multiple aspects such as large pose, extensive expression variation, severe occlusion and dynamic illumination.
We generated 7-landmark annotation for all datasets to locate eye corners, nose tip and mouth corners. Besides, we followed \cite{SagonasICCVW13} for unified 68-landmark annotation for Helen, LFPW, Talking Face (TF), Face Movie (FM) and 300-VW. Moreover, we manually labeled the identity for each video in TF, FM and 300-VW. The landmark annotation of LFW is given by \cite{Gary14}.
AFLW and 300-VW have the largest number of labeled images. They are also more challenging than others due to the extensive variations. Therefore, we used them for both training and evaluation. More specifically, $80\%$ of the images in AFLW and $90$ out of $114$ videos in 300-VW were used for training, and the rest were used for evaluation. We sampled videos to roughly cover the three different scenarios defined in \cite{ChrysosICCVW15}, \textit{i.e.} "Scenario 1", "Scenario 2" and "Scenario 3", corresponding to well-lit, mild unconstrained and completely unconstrained conditions, respectively.
We performed data augmentation by sampling ten variations from each image in the image training datasets. The sampling was achieved by random perturbation of scale ($0.9$ to $1.1$), rotation ($\pm 15^\circ$), translation ($7$ pixels), as well as horizontal flip. To generate sequential training data, we randomly sampled 100 clips from each training video, where each clip has 10 frames. It is worthy mentioning that no augmentation is applied on video training data to preserve the temporal consistency in the successive frames.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{The \textit{image} and \textit{video datasets} used in training and evaluation. LFW, TF, FM and 300-VW have both landmark and identity annotation. AFLW and 300-VW are split into two sets for both training and evaluation.} \label{tab:data}
\begin{tabular}{c | c c c c | c c c }
\toprule
& AFLW \cite{Koestinger11} & LFW \cite{Gary14} & Helen \cite{LeECCV12} & LFPW \cite{BelhumeurCVPR11} & TF \cite{fgnet04} & FM \cite{PengICCV15} & 300-VW \cite{ShenICCVW15} \\
\hline
in-the-wild & Y & Y & Y & Y & N & Y & Y \\
image & 21,080 & 12,007 & 2,330 & 1,035 & 500 & 2,150 & 114,000 \\
video & - & - & - & - & 5 & 6 & 114 \\
landmark & 21 & 7 & 194 & 68 & 68 & 68 & 68 \\
identity & - & 5,371 & - & - & 1 & 6 & 105 \\
\hline
training & 16,864 & 12,007 & 2,330 & 1,035 & 0 & 0 & 90,000 \\
evaluation & 4,216 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 500 & 2150 & 24,000 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\noindent \textbf{Training.} Our approach is capable of end-to-end training on the video datasets. However, there are only 105 different identities in 300-VW.
To make full use of all annotated datasets, we conducted the training through three steps. In each step, we optimized the network parameters by using \textit{stochastic gradient descent} (SGD) with 0.9 momentum. The learning rate started at 0.01 and decayed $20\%$ after every 10 epochs.
In the first step, we trained the network without $f_{CLS}$ and $f_{tRNN}$ using AFLW, Helen and LFPW. We initialized $f_{ENC}$ using pre-trained weights in VGG-16 \cite{SimonyanCoRR14}, and left other modules with Gaussian initialization \cite{JiaACMM14}. The training was performed for 30 epochs. In the second step, we added $f_{CLS}$ and fine-tuned other modules using LFW. The training was performed for 20 epochs. In the third step, we added $f_{tRNN}$ and fine-tuned the entire network using 300-VW. The mini-batch size was set to 5 clips that had no identity overlap to avoid oscillations of the identity loss. For each training clip, we performed temporal recurrent learning for another 50 epochs in both forward and backward direction to double the training data.
\noindent \textbf{Evaluation.} To avoid overfitting, we ensure that the training and testing videos do not have identity overlap on the 300-VW (16 videos share 7 identities). We used normalized \textit{root mean square error} (RMSE) \cite{SagonasICCVW13} for fitting accuracy evaluation. A prediction with larger than $10\%$ mean error was reported as a failure \cite{ShenICCVW15,TangTIP12}.
\subsection{Validation of Spatial Recurrent Learning}
We validate the proposed spatial recurrent learning on the validation set of AFLW. To better investigate the benefits of spatial recurrent learning, we partitioned the validation set into four image groups according to the absolute value of yaw angle \cite{PengFG15}: $0^{\circ}$-$15^{\circ}$, $15^{\circ}$-$30^{\circ}$, $30^{\circ}$-$45^{\circ}$ and $45^{\circ}$-$90^{\circ}$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\minipage{0.49\textwidth}
\center
\includegraphics[width=.98\linewidth]{fig_fsrnn_hist}
\caption{Mean errors after each spatial recurrent step on the validation set of AFLW \cite{Koestinger11}. The fitting improvement is more significant on faces with large head poses ($45^{\circ}$-$90^{\circ}$) than near frontal faces ($0^{\circ}$-$15^{\circ}$). Three-step recurrent learning achieve a good trade-off between fitting accuracy and efficiency, as the fourth step has very limited improvement.}\label{fig:fig_fsrnn_hist}
\endminipage\hfill
\minipage{0.49\textwidth}
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.94\linewidth]{fig_fsrnn_img}
\caption{Examples of three-step spatial recurrent learning. Successive recurrent steps are not necessary in easy cases (first row), but is crucial in challenging cases such as large pose and intense expression (rest of rows). The response clusters shrink and converge in successive recurrent steps, which moves landmarks toward ground truth step by step.}\label{fig:fig_fsrnn_img}
\endminipage\hfill
\end{figure}
First, we trained a 4-step recurrent model and reported the mean error after each step in Figure \ref{fig:fig_fsrnn_hist}. From which, we had the following observations: \textbf{(1)} The fitting errors decrease in the successive recurrent steps. \textbf{(2)} The improvement of fitting accuracy is much more significant on faces with large head poses than near frontal faces, \textit{e.g.} $23.3\%$ improvement on $45^{\circ}$-$90^{\circ}$ set and $6.10\%$ improvement on $0^{\circ}$-$15^{\circ}$ pose set. \textbf{(3)} The improvement is saturated after the first three recurrent steps as the fourth step has very limited improvement. These observations validate the proposed spatial recurrent learning to improve the fitting accuracy especially in challenging cases such as large pose. Besides, we set the number of recurrent steps to 3 in the following experiments, as it achieves a good trade-off between fitting accuracy and efficiency. Figure \ref{fig:fig_fsrnn_img} shows examples of recurrent learning. The response clusters shrink and converge in successive recurrent steps, which moves landmarks from initial to ground truth step by step.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Mean error comparison between the proposed spatial recurrent learning and the widely used cascade learning on large pose ($> 30^{\circ}$) set of AFLW. Each network in cascade has exactly the same architecture as the recurrent version but not sharing weight among cascades. The recurrent learning beats the cascade variant in terms of fitting accuracy and efficiency.} \label{tab:cascadevsrecurrent}
\begin{tabular}{c | C{1.2cm} C{1.2cm} C{1.cm} C{1.cm} | C{1.cm} C{1.cm} C{1.cm} | C{1.cm} C{1.2cm}}
\toprule
& Left eye & Right eye & Nose & Mouth & Mean & Std & Failure & Time & Memory \\
& $\%$ & $\%$ & $\%$ & $\%$ & $\%$ & $\%$ & $\%$ & ms & MB \\
\hline
Cascade & 8.32& 7.37 & 9.60 & 7.52 & 8.07 & 6.36 & 25.5 & 31.7 & 88.9 \\
Recurrent & 7.59 & 7.21 & 8.76 & 6.45 & 7.33 & 3.94 & 17.3 & 28.5 & 29.6 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
Second, it is reasonable to compare the proposed spatial recurrent learning with the widely used cascade learning such as \cite{SunCVPR13,ZhangECCV14}. For a fair comparison, we implemented a three-step cascade variant of our approach. Each network in the cascade has exactly the same architecture as the spatial recurrent version but there is no weight sharing among cascades. We fully trained the cascade networks using the same training set and validated the performance on the large pose (> $30^\circ$) set of AFLW. The comparison is presented in Table \ref{tab:cascadevsrecurrent}. We can see that the spatial recurrent learning can significantly improve the fitting performance. The underlying reason is the recurrent network learns the tep-by-step fitting strategy jointly, while the cascade networks learn each step independently. It can better handle the challenging case where the initial guess is usually far away from the ground truth. Moreover, a single network with shared weights can instantly reduce the memory usage to one third of the cascaded implementation.
\subsection{Validation of Temporal Recurrent Learning}
In this section, we validate the proposed temporal recurrent learning on the validation set of 300-VW. To better study the performance under different settings, we split the validation set into two groups: 9 videos in common settings that roughly match "Scenario 1", and 15 videos in challenging settings that roughly match "Scenario 2" and "Scenario 3". The common, challenging and full sets were used in the following evaluation.
We implemented a variant of our approach that turns off the temporal recurrent learning $f_{tRNN}$. It was also pre-trained on the image training set and fine-tuned on the video training set. Since there was no temporal recurrent learning, we used frames instead of clips to conduct the fine-tuning which was performed for the same 50 epochs. We showed the result with and without temporal recurrent learning in Table \ref{tab:ftrnn}.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Mean error comparison between the proposed temporal recurrent learning and the variant without $f_{tRNN}$ on the validation set of 300-VW \cite{SagonasICCVW13}. The temporal recurrent learning significantly improves the tracking accuracy (smaller mean error) and robustness (smaller std and lower failure rate), especially on the validation set in challenging settings. } \label{tab:ftrnn}.
\begin{tabular}{ c C{1cm} C{1cm} C{1cm} c C{1cm} C{1cm} C{1cm} c C{1cm} C{1cm} C{1cm} }
\toprule
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{Common} & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Challenging} & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Full}\\
\cline{2-4} \cline{6-8} \cline{10-12}
& Mean & Std & Failure & & Mean & Std & Failure & & Mean & Std & Failure\\
& $\%$ & $\%$ & $\%$ & & $\%$ & $\%$ & $\%$ & & $\%$ & $\%$ & $\%$\\
\hline
w/o $f_{tRNN}$ & 4.52 & 2.24 & 3.48 & & 6.27 & 5.33 & 13.3 & & 5.83 & 3.42 & 6.43 \\
$f_{tRNN}$ & 4.21 & 1.85 & 1.71 & & 5.64 & 3.28 & 5.40 & & 5.25 & 2.15 & 2.82\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{fig_ftrnn_curve}
\caption{Examples of validation results in challenging settings. The tracked subject undergoes intensive pose and expression variations as well as severe partial occlusions. The proposed temporal recurrent learning has substantial improvement in terms of tracking accuracy and robustness, especially for landmarks on nose tips and mouth corners.} \label{fig:fig_ftrnn_curve}
\end{figure*}
For videos in common settings, the temporal recurrent learning achieves $6.8\%$ and $17.4\%$ improvement in terms of mean error and standard deviation respectively, while the failure rate is remarkably reduced by $50.8\%$. Temporal modeling produces better prediction by taking consideration of history observations. It may implicitly learn to model the motion dynamics in the hidden units from the training clips.
For videos in challenging settings, the temporal recurrent learning won with even bigger margin. Without $f_{tRNN}$, it is hard to capture the drastic motion or changes in consecutive frames, which inevitably results in higher mean error, std and failure rate. Figure \ref{fig:fig_ftrnn_curve} shows an example where the subject exhibits intensive pose and expression variations as well as severe partial occlusions. The curve showed our recurrent model obviously reduced landmark errors, especially for landmarks on nose tip and mouth corners. The less oscillating error also suggests that $f_{tRNN}$ significantly improves the prediction stability over frames.
\subsection{Benefits of Supervised Identity Disentangling}
The supervised identity disentangling is proposed to better decouple the temporal-invariant and temporal-variant factors in the bottleneck of the encoder-decoder. This facilitates the temporal recurrent training, yielding better generalization and more accurate fittings at test time.
To study the effectiveness of the identity network, we removed $f_{CLS}$ and follow the exact training steps. The testing accuracy comparison on the 300-VW dataset is shown in Figure \ref{fig:fig_fcls}. The accuracy was calculated as the ratio of pixels that were correctly classified in the corresponding channel(s) of the response map.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=.47\linewidth]{fig_fcls1}}\ \subfloat{\includegraphics[width=.47\linewidth]{fig_fcls2}}\\
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=.47\linewidth]{fig_fcls3}}\ \subfloat{\includegraphics[width=.47\linewidth]{fig_fcls4}}
\caption{Testing accuracy of different facial components with respect to the number of training epochs. The proposed supervised identity disentangling helps to achieve a more complete factor decoupling in the bottleneck of the encoder-decoder, which yields better generalization capability and more accurate testing results.}\label{fig:fig_fcls}
\end{figure*}
The validation results of different facial components show similar trends: \textbf{(1)} The network demonstrates better generalization capability by using additional identity cues, which results in a more efficient training. For instance, after only 10 training epochs, the validation accuracy for landmarks located at the left eye reaches 0.84 with identity loss compared to 0.8 without identity loss. \textbf{(2)} The supervised identity information can substantially boost the testing accuracy. There is an approximately $9\%$ improvement by using the additional identity loss. It worth mentioning that, at the very beginning of the training (< 5 epochs), the network has inferior testing accuracy with supervised identity disentangling. It is because the suddenly added identity loss perturbs the backpropagation process. However, the testing accuracy with identity loss increases rapidly and outperforms the one without identity loss after only a few more training epochs.
\subsection{Comparison with State-of-the-art methods}
We compared our framework with both traditional approaches and deep learning based approaches. The methods with hand-crafted features include: \textbf{(1)} DRMF \cite{AsthanaCVPR13}, \textbf{(2)} ESR \cite{CaoIJCV14}, \textbf{(3)} SDM \cite{XiongCVPR13}, \textbf{(4)} IFA \cite{AsthanaCVPR14}, and \textbf{(5)} PIEFA \cite{PengICCV15}. The deep learning based methods include: \textbf{(1)} DCNC \cite{SunCVPR13}, \textbf{(2)} CFAN \cite{ZhangECCV14}, and \textbf{(3)} TCDCN \cite{ZhangTangECCV14}. All these methods were recently proposed and reported state-of-the-art performance. For fair comparison, we evaluated these methods in a tracking protocol: fitting result of current frame was used as the initial shape (DRMF, SDM and IFA) or the bounding box (ESR and PIEFA) in the next frame. The comparison was performed on both controlled, \textit{e.g.} Talking Face (TF) \cite{fgnet04}, and in-the-wild datasets, \textit{e.g.} Face Movie (FM) \cite{PengICCV15} and 300-VW \cite{ShenICCVW15}.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Mean error comparison with state-of-the-art methods on multiple video validation sets. The top performance in each dataset is highlighted. Our approach achieves the best fitting accuracy on both controlled and unconstrained datasets. } \label{tab:soa_compare}.
\begin{tabular}{ c C{3em} C{4em} C{6em} c c C{3em} C{4em} C{6em} }
\toprule
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{7 landmarks} & & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{68 landmarks} \\
\cline{2-4} \cline{7-9}
& TF\cite{fgnet04} & FM\cite{PengICCV15} & 300-VW\cite{ShenICCVW15} & & & TF\cite{fgnet04} & FM\cite{PengICCV15} & 300VW\cite{ShenICCVW15} \\
& $\%$ & $\%$ & Challenging & & & $\%$ & $\%$ & Challenging \\
\cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
DRMF \cite{AsthanaCVPR13} & 4.43 & 8.53 & 9.16 & & ESR \cite{CaoIJCV14} & 3.49 & 6.74 & 7.09\\
ESR \cite{CaoIJCV14} & 3.81 & 7.58 & 7.83 & & SDM \cite{XiongCVPR13} & 3.80 & 7.38 & 7.25\\
SDM \cite{XiongCVPR13} & 4.01 & 7.49 & 7.65 & & CFAN \cite{ZhangECCV14} & 3.31 &6.47 & 6.64\\
IFA \cite{AsthanaCVPR14} & 3.45 & 6.39 & 6.78 & & TCDCN \cite{ZhangTangECCV14} & 3.45 & 6.92 & 7.59 \\
DCNC \cite{SunCVPR13} & 3.67 & 6.16 & 6.43 & & PIEFA \cite{PengICCV15} & 3.24 & $\bf{6.07}$ & 6.37\\
\cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
OURS & $\bf{3.32}$ & $\bf{5.43}$ & $\bf{5.64}$ & & OURS & $\bf{3.17}$ & 6.18 & $\bf{6.25}$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
We report the evaluation results for both 7 and 68 landmark setups in Table ~\ref{tab:soa_compare}. Our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance under both settings. It outperforms others with a substantial margin on all datasets under 7-landmark evaluation. The performance gain is more significant on the challenging datasets (FM and 300-VW) than controlled dataset (TF). The performance of our approach degrades slightly under 68-landmark evaluation. It is a reasonable degradation considering training images (3k) that have 68-landmark annotation are much less than the ones that have 7-landmark annotation (30k). Although the training set of 300-VW contains 90k frames, the variations are limited as only 105 different identities are present. Our alignment model runs fairly fast, it takes around 30ms to process an image using a Tesla K40 GPU accelerator.
\section{Future Work}
In this paper, we proposed a novel recurrent encoder-decoder network for real-time sequential face alignment. Intensive experiments demonstrated the effectiveness of our framework and its superior performance. It decouples temporal-invariant and -variant factors in the bottleneck of the network, and exploits recurrent learning at both spatial and temporal dimensions.
The proposed method provides a general framework that can be further applied to other localization-sensitive tasks, such as human pose estimation, object detection, scene classification, etc. In the future, we plan to further exploit the proposed recurrent encoder-decoder network for boarder impact.
\bibliographystyle{splncs03}
|
\section*{\label{results} Results}
The optical absorption spectrum of the nanoplatelets displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig1}b reveals two transitions, which correspond to the lower energy heavy hole (hh) exciton with $E_{\rm{hh}} \approx$ \SI{2.42}{\electronvolt} and the higher-energy light hole (lh) exciton with $E_{\rm{lh}} \approx$ \SI{2.56}{\electronvolt}. These states have binding energies of $R_{\rm{hh}} = (178 \pm 34)$ \SI{}{\milli\electronvolt} and $R_{\rm{hh}} = (259 \pm 3)$ \SI{}{\milli\electronvolt} respectively \cite{naeem_giant_2015}.
To probe the mode structure of the strongly coupled nanoplatelet-cavity system the cavity length $L$ is varied which leads to a shift in the energy of the cavity mode by $\Delta E_{c} = E_{c} \frac{\Delta L}{L}$, where $E_{c} = \frac{qhc}{2L}$ is the energy of the original cavity mode with longitudinal mode number $q$ and $\Delta L$ the variation in cavity length.
The cavity length dependent optical transmission of the nanoplatelet-cavity system is shown in figure \ref{fig2}a. For the maximum cavity length of $L \approx$ \SI{1.62}{\micro\meter} a transmission peak corresponding to the lower polariton branch (LPB) is visible at \SI{2.3}{\electronvolt}, which moves to higher energy with reducing the cavity length (note the reversed $x$-axis of \ref{fig2}a). As the LPB peak approaches the energy of the hh exciton at \SI{2.42}{\electronvolt}, a second transmission peak, corresponding to the middle polariton branch (MPB), of energy \SI{2.45}{\electronvolt} appears above $E_{\rm{hh}}$. The LPB and MPB energies display an anticrossing about $E_{\rm{hh}}$. As the cavity length is decreased further, a third higher energy transmission peak above $E_{\rm{lh}}$ appears (the upper polariton branch (UPB)) which undergoes an anticrossing with the MPB about $E_{\rm{lh}}$.
\begin{figure*}
\hspace{-20pt}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figs/Fig2.png}
\caption{Normalised transmission spectra as cavity length is varied, obtained experimentally (a) and by transfer-matrix calculations (b). The bare light and heavy hole exciton energies and the unperturbed cavity mode are overlaid in white, the polariton branches obtained from the Hamiltonian $H$ (Eq. \ref{eq1}) in color. The avoided crossing around the heavy hole transition is resolved fully with a Rabi splitting of $66 \pm \SI{1}{\milli\electronvolt}$, the broad linewidth of the higher energy light hole exciton prevents the resolution of the corresponding splitting, but mode position and intensity clearly indicate the coupling. c) and d) Transmission spectra for cavity lengths $L = \SI{1.528}{\micro\meter}$ and $L = \SI{1.440}{\micro\meter}$ respectively and fits with two Lorentzians revealing the Rabi splitting for the heavy hole and light hole transition.
e) Square of coefficients $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ showing the hybridisation of photonic mode and excitonic transitions as obtained from diagonalisation of Eq. \ref{eq1}. The three different subplots correspond to the upper (UP), middle (MP) and lower (LP) polariton branches (from top to bottom).
\label{fig2} }
\end{figure*}
This system of one cavity mode simultaneously coupled to two excitonic transitions is described by the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
H = \ & E_c b^\dagger b
+ E_{\rm{hh}} x_{\rm{hh}}^\dagger x_{\rm{hh}}
+ E_{\rm{lh}} x_{\rm{lh}}^\dagger x_{\rm{lh}} +\\
& \ V_{\rm{hh}} (b^\dagger x_{\rm{hh}} + c.c. )
+ V_{\rm{lh}} (b^\dagger x_{\rm{lh}} + c.c. )
\end{split}
\label{eq2}
\end{equation}
where $V_{\rm{hh}}$ and $V_{\rm{lh}}$ are the interaction potentials between the cavity mode and heavy and light hole excitons. $b, x_{\rm{hh}}$ and $x_{\rm{lh}}$ are the photon, hh exciton and lh exciton annihilation operators respectively. In the stationary case the system can be reduced to:
\begin{equation}
H \ket{\Psi}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
E_{c} & V_{\rm{hh}} & V_{\rm{lh}} \\
V_{\rm{hh}} & E_{\rm{hh}} & 0 \\
V_{\rm{lh}} & 0 & E_{\rm{lh}}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha \\
\beta \\
\gamma
\end{pmatrix} = E \ket{\Psi}
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}
Here the state $\ket{\Psi}$ is defined by the three coefficients $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$, which quantify the contribution of photon, hh exciton and lh exciton respectively.
\begin{figure*}
\hspace{-20pt}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{figs/Fig3.png}
\caption[flushleft]{a) Photoluminscence intensity of polariton branches as cavity length is varied. Sample is excited off-resonantly with a continuous wave laser with $\lambda = \SI{405}{\nano\meter}$. b) Normalised polariton population obtained from experimental data by scaling each frame with the corresponding inverse of the square of the photonic coefficient $\alpha$. \label{fig3} }
\end{figure*}
Using the known values of $E_{\rm{hh}}$, $E_{\rm{lh}}$ and $E_{c}$, and treating $V_{\rm{hh}}$ and $V_{\rm{lh}}$ as free variables, we fit equation \ref{eq1} to the observed polariton dispersion. At the crossing between unperturbed cavity mode and exciton energy the polaritons are half-light, half-matter quasi-particles. The splitting at this point is the Rabi splitting which corresponds to twice the interaction potential $\hbar \Omega_{hh(lh)} = 2V_{hh(lh)} $. In our system the splitting is well resolved for the heavy hole exciton, where we obtain $\hbar \Omega_{\rm{hh}} = 66 \pm \SI{1}{\milli\electronvolt}$ with linewidths of $\Gamma_{lp} = 35 \pm \SI{3}{\milli\electronvolt}$ and $\Gamma_{mp} = 45 \pm \SI{3}{\milli\electronvolt}$ for lower and middle polariton branch respectively. The light hole transition shows a similar avoided crossing with $\hbar \Omega_{\rm{lh}} = 58 \pm \SI{4}{\milli\electronvolt}$ but the corresponding linewidths of $\Gamma_{mp} = 68 \pm \SI{13}{\milli\electronvolt}$ and $\Gamma_{up} = 83 \pm $\SI{14}{\milli\electronvolt} for middle and upper polariton branch respectively result in a splitting that is not fully resolved. The linewidths and splitting values are obtained by fitting two superposed Lorentzian lineshapes to the transmission spectra at the maximal photon-exciton mixing point (see Fig.~\ref{fig2}c-d), which correspond to vertical cuts through the data presented in Fig.~\ref{fig2}a at cavity lengths $L \approx$ \SI{1.53}{\micro\meter} and $L \approx$ \SI{1.44}{\micro\meter}.
Equation \ref{eq1} allows us to determine the polariton mixing coefficients as a function of cavity length, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}e. For a longitudinal cavity mode with mode number $q$ (in Fig \ref{fig2}a-e we have $q = 6$) the LPB is largely photon like for cavity lengths $L_{cav} >$ \SI{1.53}{\micro\meter}, becoming more hh exciton-like as the cavity mode energy crosses the exciton energy. The UPB similarly is lh exciton-like when the cavity length $L_{cav} >$ \SI{1.44}{\micro\meter}, becoming more photon-like for smaller cavity lengths. Meanwhile, the MPB has hh and lh exciton-like character when close in energy to the hh and lh exciton energies respectively. For cavity lengths \SI{1.53}{\micro\meter} $ > L_{cav} > $ \SI{1.44}{\micro\meter} it has mostly photonic character, however, it also is composed of approximately 10\% of both exciton states, hence it is called a hybridised polariton state. We note that in a transmission experiment, light couples into and out of the cavity via the polariton photon component resulting in greater visibility of photon-like polariton states and observation of a mode structure as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}a.
If the number of randomly aligned platelets $N$ coupled to the mode is known, it is possible to deduce the transition dipole moment $\mu$ of a single platelet from the equation \cite{fox_quantum_2006}:
\begin{equation}\label{rabi_splitting}
\hbar \Omega = \frac{1}{3} \mu \sqrt{N} \left( \frac{2\hbar \omega}{\varepsilon_0 n_{\rm{eff}}^2 V_{\rm{eff}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
Here $\hbar \omega$ is the exciton energy, $n_{\rm{eff}}$ is the effective refractive index within the cavity and $V_{\rm{eff}}$ is the electric field mode volume. We can then infer the dipole moment of the excitonic transition of a single platelet from the respective Rabi splitting. We find (see. Suppl. Inf.):
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
& N = (3.9 \pm 1.5) \times 10^{5} \\
& \mu_{\rm{hh}} = (1.92 \pm 0.37)\times10^{-27} \, \SI{}{\coulomb\meter} = (575 \pm 110) \, \text{D} \\
& \mu_{\rm{lh}} = (1.70 \pm 0.35)\times10^{-27} \, \SI{}{\coulomb\meter} = (509 \pm 104) \, \text{D}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
This compares to transition dipole moments of $100$~D found in epitaxially grown GaAs quantum dots \cite{guest_measurement_2002} and
$21 \; \text{to} \; 210$ ~D in InGaN quantum dots with a diameter of \SI{5.2}{\nano\meter} \cite{ostapenko_large_2010}. The lateral dimensions of the platelets studied here are $L_{\rm{x}} = 32.5\pm$\SI{2.5}{\nano\meter} and $L_{\rm{y}} = 8.2\pm$\SI{0.9}{\nano\meter} as obtained by TEM microscopy. The transition dipole moment $\mu$ translates to a lifetime $\tau$ of the heavy hole exciton of $\tau = (1.3 \pm 0.5) $ \SI{}{\pico\second}. Similarly the oscillator strength $f$ of the transition can be found as $f = (280 \pm 107)$ (see Suppl. Materials Eq. (9) and (10)). These results confirm the giant oscillator strength associated with the large exciton coherence area found in CdSe nanoplatelets \cite{naeem_giant_2015,achtstein_$p$-state_2016}.
Fig.~\ref{fig2}b shows the modelled dispersion curves obtained by Transfer-Matrix-Modelling with the experimentally obtained absorption for the nanoplatelet film. The modelled thickness of the film is $\SI{700}{\nano\meter}$ (see Suppl. Mat. for AFM data) with a peak absorbance of the heavy hole transition of $A = 0.35$, as inferred directly from optical absorption measurement. The absorption curve was converted to complex refractive index values with a classical Lorentz oscillator model\cite{fox_optical_2010} for both transitions, neglecting the continuum of states above $E =$ \SI{2.8}{\electronvolt}. The modelled transmission through the device is in excellent agreement with the experimental data presented in Fig.~\ref{fig2}a.
Fig.~\ref{fig3}a shows the cavity length dependent photoluminescence collected at normal incidence, following non-resonant high energy excitation with a continuous wave laser with $\lambda = \SI{405}{\nano\meter}$. We observe bright emission from the lower polariton branch at cavity lengths between $\SI{1.6}{\micro\meter}$ and $\SI{1.5}{\micro\meter}$, corresponding to a LPB energy of $\SI{2.3}{\milli\electronvolt}$ to $\SI{2.4}{\milli\electronvolt}$. Some weak residual PL is also visible at the energy of the nanoplatelet PL (shown to right of Fig.~\ref{fig3}a). This signal results from the recombination of excitons that are not coupled to the cavity mode, some of which leaks directly though the mirrors. Emission from the MPB and UPB is not visible, as has previously been shown to be a result of fast relaxation pathways between polariton and lower lying exciton states \cite{virgili_polariton_relaxation}. Scaling the photoluminescence intensity with the square of the inverse of the photonic coefficient of the polariton branch allows to see changes in the polariton population along the dispersion, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}b. We note that before scaling the PL intensity to obtain the polariton population, we subtract the uncoupled exciton emission (i.e. the PL spectrum at shortest cavity length). The maximum polariton population occurs at the same energy as the peak exciton emission, suggesting that polariton states are populated primarily through `optical pumping' from uncoupled exciton decay\cite{lidzey_experimental_2002,litinskaya_fast_2004,litinskaya_excitonpolaritons_2006,michetti_exciton-phonon_2009,michetti_simulation_2008}. Here, the radiative decay of excitons directly populates the photonic component of polariton states, however there must be an energetic overlap between the exciton emission and polariton. The small Stokes shift of \SI{12}{\milli\electronvolt} \cite{naeem_giant_2015} therefore limits this population mechanism to polariton states close to the exciton energy.
\section*{\label{conclusion} Conclusion and Outlook}
We have demonstrated the strong coupling between photonic cavity modes and excitons in quasi-two-dimensional colloidal nanoplatelets. The coherent exchange of energy between those two constituents results in the formation of hybridised exciton-polaritons at room temperature with a vacuum Rabi splittings of $66 \pm \SI{1}{\milli\electronvolt}$ and $58 \pm \SI{1}{\milli\electronvolt}$ associated with the heavy hole and light hole exciton transitions respectively. We find that the polariton states are emissive due to the high fluorescence quantum yield of the nanoplatelets, and that polariton states appear to mostly be populated through an optical pumping from uncoupled exciton states. Nanoplatelets represent a promising candidate for polariton based devices due to their large exciton binding energies allowing for room temperature operation. Compared to other colloidal nanoparticles, they are more efficient light absorbers and could become an integral part of future photonic devices.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Radka Chakalova at the Begbroke Science Park for helping with the thermal evaporation and dicing of the mirrors. L.F. acknowledges funding from the Leverhulme Trust. D.M.C. acknowledges funding from the Oxford Martin School and EPSRC grant EP/K032518/1. The authors declare no competing financial interest.
\putbib
\end{bibunit}
\onecolumngrid
\newpage
\clearpage
\pagebreak
\widetext
|
\section{Introduction}
Computing is the backbone of the modern society; from economics to security, scientific advancement to social welfare, each and every aspect of our lives has been enriched by the technology revolution. We have enjoyed the benefits of Moore's Law over the last four decades as technology scaling brought the power of supercomputers to our smartphones. With increasing challenges in scaling, came ground-breaking innovations in the transistor technology. As we look ahead, limits of traditional scaling are already in sight. The demise of Dennard scaling and slowing down of Moore's Law have further exposed the fundamental scaling limitations of the Von Neumann execution models of computing. This transition is accompanied by the realization that in a fast evolving, socially interconnected world, we are observing a seismic shift in the amount of unstructured data that need to be processed in real-time; and consequently future systems will be limited by the energy growth of data movement rather than compute. Therefore, we need fundamentally new approaches to sustain the exponential growth in performance beyond the end of the CMOS roadmap. This will require new execution models coupled with new devices to implement them. In particular, we observe that new models that deal with data analytics have compute and storage interleaved in a fine grained manner - not separated as in the Von Neumann world. Moving forward, computing technology will heavily penalize separation of data and compute and we need to marry them in better ways to handle emergent applications. This may necessitate that barriers of abstraction are broken. Next generation of computational models should map natively to the physics and dynamics of the physical devices, without a Boolean abstraction. Of course, it is a fool's endeavor to assume that the Von Neumann architecture will perish; rather newer computing models and dedicated hardware accelerators will supplement traditional Von Neumann machines in ``data centric'' tasks.
In today's computing landscape, ever harder problems are being encountered each day. From social networks to graph analytics, from weather prediction to scientific computation, computationally hard problems are present everywhere. Some of these problems are challenging just because of the sheer
size of the data-sets. But many other
problems like optimization problems, though small in size, are intractable
because of their inherent complexity and often combinatorial
nature of solution spaces\cite{garey1979computers}. The sequential
Von Neumann machine has been useful for most problems
we have encountered in the past, but as the complexity of problems increase, significant research is underway for
alternative paradigms, architectures and hardware which can be used
for solving complex problems more efficiently. Most of these efforts
borrow essential ideas from natural computing processes. These include
distributed computing, distributed memory, integrated processing and
memory, shifting information representation from symbolic to physically
meaningful quantities, and switching from sequential discrete time
to continuous time dynamics.
Among the different problems of interest, associative computing, scientific computing (including solution of coupled Partial Differential Equations (PDEs)) and optimizations form important classes of data-centric as well as model-centric computations. Active research in all these areas suggest that analog or continuous time systems may offer alternative, faster and more energy-efficient solutions that their traditional digital counterparts. For example, in case of hard optimization problems
alternative paradigms and architectures include, but are not limited
to, cellular automata\cite{wolfram1986theoryand}, quantum computing\cite{shor1997polynomialtime},
Ising model based systems\cite{lucas2014isingformulations,wang2013coherent},
neural networks\cite{hopfield1985textquotedblleftneuraltextquotedblright},
stochastic searching architectures\cite{mostafa2015aneventbased}
and memcomputing\cite{traversa2015memcomputing}. Among architectures
for solving PDEs cellular neural networks (CNN) have been studied\cite{chua1988cellular2,chua1988cellular}.
Some studies have also suggested using cellular automata for solving
PDEs\cite{toffoli1984cellular}.
The basic philosophy of most of these networks for optimization, e.g.
artificial neural networks, is to first come up with an energy function which
can be a penalty function or a rewarding function depending on how
far the current solution is from the optimal solution\cite{hopfield1985textquotedblleftneuraltextquotedblright}.
The next step is to tune the parameters of the network such that as
time evolves the dynamics of the system decreases the penalty function,
or increases the reward. But even if such a massively parallel system
is devised which can solve a NP-hard optimization problems, exponential
resources of space, time or precision will be required\cite{siegelmann1995computation,vergis1986thecomplexity}.
Another direction is often explored where instead of trying to solve
the optimization exactly, an approximation is targeted which works
well for \textit{most} problems on average and allows less optimal
solutions in harder instances. There can be other kinds of trade-offs like
in the case of Hopfield networks where even though the optimal solution
maps exactly to global minima, there can be too many local minima
where the system can get trapped. Finally, the physical layer of computing, namely the semiconductor device platform needs to be able to support such systems and the CMOS transistor is not always an optmial device choice.
Recently, the development of novel phase transition materials like
Vanadium Dioxide (VO\textsubscript{2}) and corresponding electronic devices, which show insulator-to-metal
(IMT) transitions\cite{imada1998metalinsulator} have sparked interest
in creating compact relaxation oscillators\cite{shukla2014synchronized,shukla2014pairwise}.
These oscillators, when coupled to each other exhibit phase synchronization which
can be used for phase based computing. Such new kinds of devices present
interesting opportunities to create systems with novel synchornization dynamics. The
impact of using such devices as basic units in circuits can break the abstraction between the physical and the algorithmic layers of computing. It should be noted that the synchronization dynamics of coupled oscillators not only have a wide variety of applications in engineering but they also explain many natural, chemical and biological synchronization phenomena like the synchronized flashing of fireflies, pacemaker cells in the human heart, chemical oscillations, neural oscillations, and laser arrays, to name a few. These novel computing primitives, of course, are neither drop-in replacements for CMOS transistors nor straightforward extensions of the existing computing architectures. It requires rethinking of the basic computational entities in new kinds
of system architectures. In this paper we review some computational models
using coupled relaxation oscillators based on VO\textsubscript{2}metal-insulator-transition
devices focusing on how the system dynamics can be modeled and the applications they can enable. We limit our discussion on applications in image processing for the sake of brevity. However, the potential of dynamical systems extend far beyond image analytics and promises to be a competing computational model for post-CMOS technologies.
\section{A Perspective on Coupled Oscillatory Networks}
The area of coupled oscillators has been dominated mostly by theoretical
models and numerical simulations, but very few successful physical
implementations. The reason being the assumptions made for analytical
simplification in those theoretical models are too difficult to realize
in practice. Also an important limitation of such systems, which is
true for any dynamical system, is that if a dynamical system is able
to solve computationally hard (NP-class) problems exactly, then it necessarily have to be
chaotic in nature which would require exponential precision in both simulations and physical implementations.
The most popular coupled oscillator models in this area are the \textit{Kuramoto}
oscillator models\cite{strogatz2000fromkuramoto} which rely on sinusoidal
oscillators coupled using \textquotedblleft weak\textquotedblright{}
and linear phase coupling. A \textit{Kuramoto} system of N oscillators is described
by
\[
\dot{\theta_{i}}=\dot{\omega_{i}}+\frac{K}{N}\sum_{j=1}^{N}\sin(\theta_{j}-\theta_{i}),\,\,\,i=1,...,N
\]
where $\theta_{i}$ and $\omega_{i}$ are the phase and frequency
respectively of $i^{th}$ oscillator. Major challenges in this kind
of coupled oscillator model is the notion of weak coupling, i.e. $K\ll N$
and the idea that the coupling effects phase only without disturbing the frequencies. Moreover,
creating arrays of compact sinusoidal oscillators with many oscillators
coupled to each other pose serious challenges given the requirements
Similar models of weak linear phase coupling were also explored for
Van Der Pol oscillators\cite{vanderpol1934thenonlinear} which have
an additional nonlinearity. But the implementation of such oscillators
is also non-trivial and the coupling behavior becomes too complicated to tackle
large connected networks\cite{rand1980bifurcation,storti1982dynamics,kopell1995antiphase,hirano2003existence}.
Nevertheless, the ability of coupled oscillatory systems to encode computing has long been realized. Associative computing, with applications in pattern detection and machine learning have been demonstrated in theory. Similarly oscillatory cellular neural networks have been show to possess extraordinary computing ability in solving problems as varied as template matching, PDEs and ODEs and so on. More recently, this effort has been augmented by advances in the development of compact oscillators in non-silicon technologies. One prominent effort is the use of Spin Torque Oscillators (STOs) coupled using spin diffusion currents and providing a computational platform for machine learning, spiking neural networks and others~\cite{7120163,cite-key-kroy}. However, the high current densities of STOs and the limited range of spin diffusion currents continue to pose serious challenges to technologists.
In our studies, we explore phase transition based relaxation oscillators with piecewise
linear dynamics, which means the system is described by different
linear dynamical systems in different ``states'' of the system. These
states are basically charging and discharging of a capacitive element. The coupling is also electronic and is accomplished by linear capacitors and/or resistors.
The repeated switching between these states gives rise to oscillatory
behavior and the notion of phase. But because the switching is itself
determined by the state variables (voltage thresholds), and not explicitly by time, the
coupling dynamics and hence the overall system dynamics are often mathematically intractable and closed form approximations like the Kumamoto model are not possible. This further complicates the analysis when
the goal is to perform computation in phase space. Hence model development coupled with numerical analysis and an intuitive understanding of how complex systems evolve over time become essential tools to engineer such systems. The relaxation oscillators we investigate,
are built using phase change devices, which are devices that switch
state between a metallic state with low resistance and and insulating
state with high resistance depending on the voltage across them. In the next section, we will describe simple mathematical constructs that can assist in analyzing these oscillators and the results obtained once they are coupled electrically.
\section{Relaxation oscillators based on phase change devices}
\subsection{State changing devices}
The state changing devices we consider are essentially linear conductances
(or resistances), but can transition between two conducting states
- insulating state with conductance $g_{di}$ and metallic state with
conductance $g_{dm}$. We assume that $g_{dm}\gg g_{di}$. They are
also called Insulator-Metal-Transition (IMT) devices. We use Vanadium
Dioxide (VO2) as the material choice. A state transition is triggered
by the voltage applied across the devices as well as the history.
When the voltage across the device increases above a higher threshold
voltage $V_{h}$ the device changes its state to metallic with conductance
$g_{dm}$ and when the voltage decreases below a lower threshold $V_{l}$
it changes to insulating state with conductance $g_{di}$. There is
hysteresis in switching, i.e. $V_{h}\neq V_{l}$, which means when
the voltage applied is between $V_{h}$ and $V_{l}$ the device retains
the last state it was in. An internal capacitance is associated with
the device which ensures gradual buildup and decaying of the voltage
(and energy) across the device. Rigorous mathematical analysis of
such oscillator configurations can be found in \cite{parihar2015synchronization}.
\subsection{Single oscillator configurations}
There can be multiple configurations/circuits of a relaxation oscillator
based on state changing device. On a simplistic level, two basic configurations
exist - (a) two state changing devices in series, called D-D where
D stands for device (figure \ref{fig:dd_dr_load}a), and (b) a state
changing device in series with a resistance, called D-R (figure \ref{fig:dd_dr_load}b).
In the former, the charging and discharging rates are equal, but they
are different in the latter. The functioning of the two circuits is
as follows.
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics{dd_dr_load}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{(a) D-D oscillator circuit configuration and its equivalent circuit
(b) D-R oscillator circuit configuration and its equivalent circuit.
(c) Load line graph for the D-R circuit and the region of operation
of D-R oscillator.\label{fig:dd_dr_load}}
\end{figure}
In case of two devices in series (D-D), the two devices must be in
opposite conduction states (one metallic and the other insulating)
all the time for oscillations to occur. If the threshold voltages
$v_{l}$ and $v_{h}$ are equal for the devices and the following
condition holds:
\begin{equation}
V_{l}+V_{h}=V_{DD}\label{eq:dd-constraint}
\end{equation}
and at $t=0$ the devices are in different conduction states, then
any time one device switches, the other will make the opposite transition
as well. As $g_{dm}\gg g_{di}$, the devices can be considered as
switches which are open in insulating state and closed in metallic
with conductance $g_{dm}$. The mechanism of oscillations is essentially
charging and discharging of the internal capacitances of the devices.
The device in metallic state connects the circuit and charges (discharges)
the lumped internal capacitance. The voltage at the output node increases
(decreases) and eventually reaches the threshold voltage. Because
of (\ref{eq:dd-constraint}) both devices will switch at the same
time causing their behavior to switch. The charging (discharging)
becomes discharging (charging) and the cycle continues. The modeling
of a DD oscillator is as follows. All the lowercase voltages referred
in the paper are normalized voltages with respect to $V_{DD}$. Which
means $v_{h}=V_{h}/V_{DD}$ and $v_{l}=V_{l}/V_{DD}$. Also $v_{dd}$
is used as normalized and hence $v_{dd}=1$.
The single D-D oscillator can be described by the following set of
piecewise linear differential equations:
\[
cv'=\begin{cases}
(v_{dd}-v)g_{1dm} & charging\\
-g_{2dm} & discharging
\end{cases}
\]
where $g_{1dm}$ and $g_{2dm}$ are metallic conductances of the two
devices respectively. As $g_{di}\gg g_{dm}$ there is no term involving
$g_{di}$ in the equations. The equation can be re-written as:
\[
cv'=-g(s)v+p(s)
\]
where $s$ denotes the conduction state of the device (0 for metallic,
and 1 for insulating) and $g(s)$ and $p(s)$ depend on the device
conduction state $s$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
g(s) & = & \begin{cases}
g_{1dm}, & s=0\\
g_{2dm}, & s=1
\end{cases}\\
p(s) & = & \begin{cases}
g_{1dm}, & s=0\\
0, & s=1
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
For D-R oscillators, the oscillations occur due to a lack of stable
point as seen in the load line graph of figure \ref{fig:dd_dr_load}c.
Solid lines with slopes $r_{i}$ and $r_{m}$ are the regions of operation
of the device in insulating and metallic states respectively. The
system does not enter the dashed line region as a transition occurs
to the other conduction state at the red points. The stable points,
denoted by green points, are the points where the load line intersects
the I-V curve of the device. These stable points in each state lie
outside the region of operation the circuit and hence the circuit
shows self sustained oscillations. This is a much more practical configuration
from an electrical implementation point of view, as the conditions
required for oscillations are not very strict. Following similar analysis
as in the D-D oscillator case, the dynamics of the single D-R oscillator
can be described as:
\[
cv'=\begin{cases}
(v_{dd}-v)g_{dm}-vg_{s} & charging\\
-vg_{s} & discharging
\end{cases}
\]
which can be re-written as:
\[
cv'=-g(s)v+p(s)
\]
where,
\begin{eqnarray*}
g(s) & = & \begin{cases}
g_{dm}+g_{s}, & s=0\\
g_{s}, & s=1
\end{cases}\\
p(s) & = & \begin{cases}
g_{dm}, & s=0\\
0, & s=1
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
and $s$ denotes the conduction state of the system as before. Detailed
analysis of configurations and modeling of such oscillators can be
found in \cite{parihar2015synchronization}.
\subsection{Pairwise coupling}
Analysis of two coupled relaxation oscillators can give interesting
insights into how such coupling dynamics can be used in various computing
applications, and can also help understand and exploit dynamics from
complex couplings. There can be many ways in which the oscillators
can be coupled. We've looked at coupled oscillator circuits where
the oscillators are coupled through their output nodes using a capacitance,
a resistance, or a parallel RC combination (figure \ref{fig:dd_dr_coupled}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics{dd_dr_coupled}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{D-D (a) and D-R (b) coupled oscillator circuits using parallel RC
circuit as the coupling circuit.\label{fig:dd_dr_coupled}}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{D-D oscillators}
The D-D configuration, though difficult in an electrical implementation
point of view, is very simple to analyse and gives interesting insights
about dynamics of such piecewise linear systems. Two identical D-D
oscillators coupled using a RC circuit can be modeled as follows.
When coupled, the system has 4 conduction states $s=s_{1}s_{2}\in\{00,01,10,11\}$
corresponding to the 4 combinations of $s_{1}$ and $s_{2}$. The
coupled system can be described in matrix form as:
\begin{eqnarray*}
c_{c}Fx'(t) & = & -g_{c}A(s)x(t)+P(s)\\
x'(t) & = & -\frac{g_{c}}{c_{c}}F^{-1}A(s)\left(x(t)-A^{-1}(s)P(s)\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
where $x(t)=\left(v_{1}(t),v_{2}(t)\right)$ is the state variable
at any time instant $t$. The $2\times2$ matrices $F$ and $A(s)$,
and vector $P(s)$ are given by:
\[
F=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
1+\alpha_{1} & -1\\
-1 & 1+\alpha_{2}
\end{array}\right]
\]
\[
\begin{array}{cc}
A(00)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-\beta_{11}-1 & 1\\
1 & -\beta_{21}-1
\end{array}\right], & P(00)=\left[\begin{array}{c}
\beta_{11}\\
\beta_{21}
\end{array}\right]\\
A(10)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-\beta_{12}-1 & 1\\
1 & -\beta_{21}-1
\end{array}\right], & P(10)=\left[\begin{array}{c}
0\\
\beta_{21}
\end{array}\right]\\
A(01)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-\beta_{11}-1 & 1\\
1 & -\beta_{22}-1
\end{array}\right], & P(01)=\left[\begin{array}{c}
\beta_{11}\\
0
\end{array}\right]\\
A(11)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-\beta_{12}-1 & 1\\
1 & -\beta_{22}-1
\end{array}\right], & P(11)=0
\end{array}
\]
Here, $\alpha_{i}=c_{i}/c_{c}$ is the ratio of the combined lumped
capacitance of $i^{th}$ oscillator to the coupling capacitance $c_{c}$,
and $\beta_{ij}=g_{ijdm}/g_{c}$ is the ratio of the metallic state
resistance of $j^{th}$ device of $i^{th}$ oscillator, where $i\in\{1,2\}$
and $j\in\{1,2\}$. The fixed point in a conduction state $s$ is
given by $p_{s}=A^{-1}(s)P(s)$ and the matrix determining the flow
(the \emph{flow matrix} or the \emph{velocity matrix}) is given by
$\frac{g_{c}}{c_{c}}F^{-1}A(s)$.
When two identical D-D oscillators are coupled using a parallel RC
circuit with coupling resistance $R_{C}$ and coupling capacitance
$C_{C}$, they can lock in-phase or anti-phase depending on the relative
values of $R_{C}$ and $C_{C}$. In the extreme case of purely capacitive
coupling with $R_{C}=0$ the anti-phase locking orbit is stable and
the in-phase locking orbit is unstable. In case of purely resistive
coupling with $C_{C}=0$ the in-phase locking orbit is stable and
the anti-phase locking orbit is unstable. For other values, the system
always have in-phase locking periodic orbit as well as anti-phase
periodic locking orbits, with the stable locking being the in-phase
locking when the coupling is close to purely resistive, and when the
coupling is close to purely capacitive the stable locking is the anti-phase
locking. Interestingly, considering the parameter space of $R_{C}$
and $C_{C}$ there exist a region with bistable orbits, i.e. both
the in-phase and anti-phase orbits are stable. In this region, the
steady state locking depends on the initial starting voltages at $t=0$
of the oscillators.
\subsubsection{D-R oscillators}
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics{vo2_mosfet}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{(a) Oscillator circuit with MOSFET in series with a VO\protect\textsubscript{2}
device (b) Small signal equivalent circuit of the oscillator with
VO\protect\textsubscript{2} in series with a MOSFET (c) Coupled oscillator
circuit with a series MOSFET in place of a series resistance.\label{fig:vo2_mosfet}}
\end{figure}
From a computing application point of view pairwise coupled D-R oscillators
have interesting applications. When the series resistances are replaced
by transistors as shown in figure \ref{fig:vo2_mosfet} and the coupling
is a simple capacitive coupling, a pair of coupled D-R oscillators
can be used as a analog comparator whose output has the form of a
difference norm\cite{datta2014neuroinspired,parihar2014exploiting,shukla2014pairwise}.
Typical steady state orbits of the coupled system plotted in a $v_{1}\times v_{2}$
plane are shown in figure \ref{fig:xor_butterflies}a. When $v_{gs1}-v_{gs2}$
increases, the steady state orbits of the oscillators gets deformed.
Such deformation of the steady sate orbits can be measured using a
simple averaged thresholding-and-XOR operation on the steady state
outputs of the oscillators. This averaged XOR measure is defined as
first thresholding the output to binary values, second applying XOR
operation on these binary values at every time instant and finally
averaging this XOR output over some time duration. The averaged XOR
output as a function of $v_{gs1}$ and $v_{gs2}$ is shown in figure
\ref{fig:xor_butterflies}b. The XOR surface reaches minimum value
along the line $v_{gs1}=v_{gs2}$. Within the locking range, it rises
as an even function of $v_{gs1}-v_{gs2}$ resembling a difference
norm. Outside the locking range, it averages to about 0.5. These characteristics
of the curve can be explained by realizing that the averaged XOR measure
by construction is equal to the fraction of the time the system spends
in the grey region (region where XOR output is 1\textemdash determined
by the thresholds on $v_{1}$ and $v_{2}$) in steady state as shown
in figure \ref{fig:xor_butterflies}a. It can be seen that the XOR
measure should have least value in the symmetric case $v_{gs1}=v_{gs2}$
when the system locks out-of-phase and should increase as values diverge.
Such a system can be used as an analog comparator with output as a
difference norm. Arrays of such comparators can be used for template
matching applications where element-wise comparisons suffice to decide
a match.
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics{xor_butterflies}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{(a) XOR surface 3D figure\label{fig:xor_butterflies}}
\end{figure}
\section{IMT Oscillators}
\subsection{IMT Basics}
Vanadium dioxide undergoes a first order metal-insulator phase transition marked by an abrupt change in conductivity up to five orders in magnitude. This abrupt change in conductivity which is also accompanied by changes in optical properties and can be triggered externally using thermal~\cite{Qazilbash1750}, optical~\cite{PhysRevLett.87.237401}, electronic~\cite{PhysRevB.77.235401} or strain~\cite{cite-key-nnano} stimuli can pave the way for novel electronic devices including steep slope switching devices, memory elements and ultra-fast optical switches. One of the characteristic features of the electrically driven first order metal-insulator transition in VO2 is its inherently hysteretic nature as shown in figure~\ref{fig:vo2_device}(a). In previous publications, we demonstrated an electric field driven non-hysteretic phase transition in VO2 and showed novel device functionalities like coupled oscillations that may enable efficient implementation of novel, non-Boolean computing models. The electrically driven first-order phase transition in results in abrupt switching in conductivity but always comes at the cost of an intrinsic hysteresis, because the electrical field at which insulator to metal (IMT) transition occurs is always higher than that at which the metal to insulator transition happens (MIT). HIN our experiments, the VO2 is epitaxially grown on (001) TiO2 (-0.86\% compressive strain) using Molecular Beam Epitaxy (MBE), then patterned to form channels and followed by deposition of Au/Pd contacts to electrically access the VO2 channel (details of growth and fabrication are given the supplementary section). First, the device is electrically driven across the phase transition boundary with zero external series resistance. A current compliance is set to limit the current in the metallic state (to prevent excess joule heating resulting in permanent damage). The insulator to metal transition (IMT) and the reverse metal to insulator transition (MIT) occur at two critical fields, $E_2$ and $E_1$, respectively. The critical field $E_2$ is the field required to attain the Mott criteria and thereby trigger the formation of the metallic phase. Since transport in the insulating phase is dominated by hopping transport, we use the field dependent hopping conductance to understand its electrical properties. .
The Negative Differential Resistance (NDR) region, where the VO2 is characterized by a conductivity intermediate between the metallic and insulating states is referred to as the phase coexistence region. The net conductivity in this region is due to contributions from the metallic and insulating phase4. In-situ nano XRD characterization performed simultaneously with the transient waveform measurement confirms that the nature of the insulating phase is Monoclinic M1 and that of the metallic phase is Rutile which is expected as the films are -0.86\% compressively strained. When such a phase transition device is operated in the hystertic region, it breaks into spontaneous oscillations as shown in figure~\ref{fig:vo2_device}(b). This is a relaxation oscillator with piecewise linear dynamics as has been discussed in the previous section.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{VO2-devices}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{(a) Measured I-E characteristics of a VO2 device illustrating the hysteretic window (b) Measured characteristics show oscillations when biased with a pull down resistor, (c) Measurements and simulations illustrate frequency locking when two oscillators are coupled electrically. \label{fig:vo2_device}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Coupling IMT Oscillators: Electrical and Optical}
In our experiments and model development, we focus on electrical coupling using resistors and capacitors. The coupling dynamics has been discussed in the previous section and in more details in our earlier publications~\cite{parihar2015synchronization,parihar2014exploiting}. For example, two oscillators with slightly different native frequencies when coupled show frequency locking as observed in experiments and simulations~\ref{fig:vo2_mosfet}(c). A major challenge in scaling up chip-scale coupled oscillator circuits to solve practical computational problems lies in the difficulty in implementing an all-to-all oscillator coupling schemes. Recently, it has been proposed that cavity field coupled oscillators can overcome this challenge~\cite{PhysRevE.85.066203}. Lipson et. al.~\cite{PhysRevLett.109.233906} has demonstrated experimentally the synchronization of a pair of silicon nitride optomechanical oscillators (OMOs) that are optically coupled through the radiation pressure field as opposed to mechanically coupled. The researchers were able to turn the optical coupling on and off using a heating laser via thermooptic effect. The ability to manipulate the coupling strength using well known nanophotonics techniques such as colossal electro-optic or thermo-optic effects, increase their future potential to realize large scale on-chip nonlinear dynamical systems. This is an area of research which lies unexplored from a computational point of view, and success in creating complex systems with many to many connections will be key to achieving hardware platforms capable to truly delivering the promise of coupled dynamical systems as computational elements.
\section{Oscillator Networks and Applications}
\subsection{Image Data Processing and Analytics}
Arrays of such IMT oscillator based comparators can be used for template matching applications where element-wise comparisons suffice to decide a match. Figure~\ref{fig:iedm}(a,b) illustrate the XOR-ed output of the phases of two coupled oscillators configured as figure~\ref{fig:vo2_mosfet}. We observe from figure~\ref{fig:iedm}(c,d) a close match between experiments and simulations and it demonstrates that the XOR measure between the outputs of the two oscillators is a measure of distance between two inputs as given by $\Delta V_{GS} = V_{GS1}-V_{GS2}$.
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{iedm-figs}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{(a,b) XOR output of pairwise coupled oscillators show close similarity with fractional norm measure between two inputs (c,d) Experimental results and simulations reveal the capability of coupled oscillator phases to encode a measure of difference between two inputs ($\Delta V_{GS}$), (e) Saliency detection of images using coupled oscillator systems and a digital implementation, (f) a pairwise XOR measure is extended to illustrate pattern matching between an input and a template. A lighter color corresponds to a better match.}
\label{fig:iedm}
\end{figure}
We investigate the application of pairwise coupled oscillators for visual saliency approximations (detecting parts of the image that visually standout). Oscillator-based edge detection is performed using an array of pairwise oscillators to approximate the degree of dissimilarity between a given image pixel and its immediate neighbors. Different edges, vertical, horizontal, diagonal, are detected based on the selection of neighboring pixels for comparison. As this concept is expanded to include the comparison of pixels within a larger neighborhood (pixels surrounding reference pixel; a 3x3 neighborhood is used here), the output approximates the visual saliency. We also note that pairwise coupling of oscillators lead to the inherent calculation of fractional norms between templates and inputs, a task which is notoriously painstaking on a digitally abstracted computer. It is evident from figure~\ref{fig:iedm}(e) that the coupled oscillators show higher sensitivity to image contrast in comparison to a CMOS ASIC accelerator that uses a linear norm.
We further demonstrate this by comparing images of faces and hand-written numbers as shown in figure~\ref{fig:iedm}(f). We first use the XOR measure for each pixel and calculate the number of pixels with XOR output below a threshold value . Figure~\ref{fig:iedm}(f) shows the results of comparing faces with a relaxation comparator, where the grey shade corresponds to the fraction of pixels with positive match, white being the highest. Such system followed by a winner-take-all (WTA), i.e. a threshold on the number of pixels that give a positive match, can be used to decide if the input image matches a stored template pattern. The value of is chosen around 0.2 considering the minimum values of the XOR surface in the operating range of values. The two thresholds described above depend on different factors. The threshold of the number of pixels for WTA would depend on the database and the error statistics required or estimated. On the other hand, would be decided more by the nature of the XOR surface (Figure 10) and its minimum values.
A coupled VO2-MOSFET configuration cascaded with a XOR provides a way of measuring a form of fractional distance using FSK. Such associative networks can be used in more complex pattern matching and classification problems with potentially large benefits in energy efficiency.
The advantage of such oscillator based computing systems can be truly harnessed is they are miniaturized, made compact and integrated. We expect such systems to provide large improvements in energy-efficiency opening up possibilities in areas as varied as surveillance, consumer electronics and in-sensor processing. For comparison, a digital baseline design is designed and simulated. All digital circuits are implemented with 11nm node transistor models. We observe that the coupled oscillators provide a power reduction of ~20X over CMOS reflecting the advantage of `let physics do the computing' approach and potentially removing the Boolean bottleneck. For further details interested readers are pointed to the previous work by the authors~\cite{shukla2014pairwise}.
\subsection{Complex Global Connections and Possibilities for Computation}
The full computational power of such coupled dynamical systems can
be further harnessed using complex global interactions among oscillators instead
of just pairwise interactions. Such coupled oscillators provide a Hopfield type networks, but with piecewise linear dynamics and hysteretic
switching of oscillators. When connected in complex
networks with both global and local connectivity, instead of pairwise coupling, these networks of oscillators can be much more powerful and
can possibly compute approximate solutions of many hard optimization
problems. In one implementation of globally coupled D-R oscillators
(with a series resistance), we have recently demonstrated using theory and
experimental implementations that such networks are capable of approximating
the solution of NP-hard minimum graph coloring problems. When $n$
identical D-R oscillators are coupled using identical capacitors,
such network settles to a steady state wherein the relative phases
of the oscillators get ordered in a way that corresponds to the solution
of graph coloring. The time evolution of the piecewise linear dynamical
system of such coupled D-R oscillators inherits the properties of
and hence mimics approximate graph coloring algorithms because of
the construction of such networks. Basic functioning of such a system
is shown in figure \ref{fig:graph_coloring}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics{graph_coloring}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{Overview of the proposed graph coloring system\label{fig:graph_coloring}}
\end{figure}
\section{Concluding Remarks}
In this article, we have demonstrated that the dynamics that evolve from the complex interactions among oscillators can be a powerful computing paradigm. However, this requires innovations in fabrication of compact and coupled networks of oscillators; and the current implementation using phase transition devices is one promising candidate. Even with advances in post-silicon devices and technology, the true potential of integrated dynamical systems can only be harnessed when controllable and programmable coupling can be realized and the phase and frequency dynamics carefully measured and read out. A plethora of challenges remain; however the opportunities offered by dynamical systems to make a significant impact in a post-CMOS world in undeniable.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
\subsection{Motivation and Results}
The dynamical aspect of automorphisms of K3 surfaces was studied by Cantat \cite{C} and McMullen \cite{Mc}. It gave a new perspective of the study of automorphisms of algebraic varieties. After that, Oguiso studied the case of \hkmfds. A \hkmfd \ is a simply connected compact K\"ahler manifold with an everywhere non-degenerate holomorphic two form unique up to scalar. Typical examples are K3 surfaces and Hilbert schemes of points on them. More generally, Mukai \cite{Muk84} proved that moduli spaces of Gieseker stable sheaves on projective K3 surfaces give examples of hyperK\"ahler manifolds deformation equivalent to Hilbert schemes of points on K3 surfaces i.e. of $\text{K3}^{[n]}$-type. In this paper, we study the dynamical aspect of automorphisms of moduli spaces of Gieseker stable sheaves on projective K3 surfaces using technique of derived categories. A pair $(X,f)$ of a compact Hausdorff space $X$ and a homeomorphism $f: X \to X$ is called a discrete topological dynamical system. Then we are interested in behavior of iteration of the homeomorphism $f$. The topological entropy $\htop(f)$ of $f$ is a fundamental invariant of the discrete topological dynamical system $(X,f)$, which measures complexity of $(X,f)$. The positivity of the topological entropy $\htop(f)$ means that $(X,f)$ is complicated. For example, a homeomorphism of finite order gives the null entropy. From now on, we focus on dynamics on projective \hkmfds. It is known that birational automorphism groups of \hkmfds \ of Picard number one are finite groups.
\begin{lem}$($\cite{Huy99}$)$\label{kernel}
Let $M$ be a hyperK\"ahler manifold. Consider a homomorphism $\mathrm{Bir}(M) \to \mathrm{O}(H^2(M,\mathbb{Z})), f^{-1} \mapsto f^*.$ Then it's kernel is a finite group.
\end{lem}
\begin{cor}\label{picard}
Let $M$ be a hyperK\"ahler manifold of Picard number one. Then $\mathrm{Bir}(M)$ is a finite group.
\end{cor}
Since automorphisms of positive entropy have infinite order, \hkmfds \ of Picard number one do not have automorphisms of positive entropy. In the case of Picard number two, Oguiso found a two dimensional example \cite{Ogu2} and a four dimensional example \cite{Ogu1} of \hkmfds \ with automorphisms of positive entropy. They are constructed via the study of period maps. The geometry of the two dimensional example can be understood explicitly \cite{FGGL}. On the other hand, there are no explicit higher dimensional examples of \hkmfds \ of Picard number two with automorphisms of positive entropy so far. In general setting, Amerik and Verbitsky proved that the following theorem recently.
\begin{thm}$($\cite{AV16}$)$\label{AV}
Let $M$ be a hyperK\"ahler manifold with $b_2(M)\geq 5$. Then $M$ admits a projective deformation $M^{\prime}$ of Picard number two with symplectic automorphisms of positive entropy.
\end{thm}
The main theorem of this paper gives explicit construction of such \hkmfds \ as moduli spaces of Gieseker stable sheaves on projective K3 surfaces of Picard number one. Moreover, we discuss relations between automorphisms of moduli spaces and autoequivalences of derived categories of projective K3 surfaces. We will give the precise statement in Theorem \ref{mainintro}. In the case of Picard number three, we can easily construct higher dimensional examples of \hkmfds \ with automorphisms of positive entropy. Let $S$ be the Oguiso's K3 surface of Picard number two with an automorphism $f$ of positive entropy. Then the natural automorphism $f^{[n]}: S^{[n]} \to S^{[n]}$ of $f$ has a positive entropy for any positive integer $n$. It is well known that automorphism groups of projective K3 surfaces of Picard number one are $\ZZ/2\ZZ$ or $1$. The first case occur only for projective K3 surfaces of degree two. So natural automorphisms are not interesting in this case. Moreover, the following holds.
\begin{prop}$($\cite{Ogu1}$)$\label{hilb}
Let $S$ be a projective K3 surface of Picard number one. Let $n>0$ be a positive integer.
Then the birational automorphism group $\mathrm{Bir}(\mathrm{Hilb}^n(S))$ of the Hilbert scheme of points on $S$ is a finite group.
\end{prop}
The main idea of this paper is that we use autoequivalences of derived categories of K3 surfaces instead of automorphisms on them. Dimitrov, Haiden, Katzarkov and Kontsevich \cite{DHKK} introduced the notion of the categorical entropy $\hcat(\Phi)$ of an endofunctor $\Phi$ on a triangulated category $\D$. In the context of the algebraic geometry, this is a generalization of topological entropy in the sense of the following Theorem due to Kikuta and Takahashi \cite{KT16}.
\begin{thm}$($\cite{KT16}$)$
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety and $f:X\to X$ be a surjetive endomorphism. Then we have
\[ h_{\mathrm{cat}}(\mathbf{L}f^*)=h_{\mathrm{top}}(f). \]
\end{thm}
The first observation of this paper is the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{positivederived}
Let $S$ be a projective K3 surface. Then there is an autoequivalence $\Phi \in \Aut(D^b(S))$ such that $\hcat(\Phi)>0$.
\end{prop}
Even for a projective K3 surface of Picard number one, we have autoequivalences of positive entropy. We hope that some autoequivalences of positive categorical entropy as in Proposition \ref{positivederived} can be understood as symmetry of moduli spaces of Bridgeland stable objects. Bayer and Macri \cite{BM12}, \cite{BM13} proved that moduli spaces of Bridgeland stable objects in derived categories of projective K3 surfaces are projective \hkmfds \ of $\text{K3}^{[n]}$-type. By Bayer and Macri's work, moduli spaces of Gieseker stable sheaves on projective K3 surfaces can be described as moduli spaces of stable objects with respect to some Bridgeland stability condition. Since autoequivalences change stability conditions, autoequivalences do not induce automorphisms of moduli spaces of stable objects in general. So we study variation of stability conditions, namely wall and chamber structures on the space of stability conditions. For a given Mukai vector $v$, there is the wall and chamber structure in the space of stability conditions. Bayer and Macri proved that there are three types of walls, flopping walls, divisorial walls and fake walls. Before giving the main theorem, we fix some notation. Let $S$ be a projective K3 surface. Let $H^*(S,\ZZ)$ be the Mukai lattice and $\Halg$ be the $(1,1)$-part of the Mukai lattice. We denote the distinguished connected component of the space of stability conditions on $D^b(S)$ by $\stab(S)$. For a primitive vector $v \in \Halg$ and a $v$-generic stability condition $\sigma \in \stab(S)$, the moduli space $M_\sigma(v)$ of $\sigma$-stable objects with Mukai vector $v$ is a projective \hkmfd \ of $\text{K3}^{[n]}$-type and $2n=v^2+2$ \cite{BM12}, \cite{BM13}. The main results of this paper are as follows.
\begin{thm}\label{mainintro}$($\rm{Theorem \ref{converse} Corollary \ref{maincor}}$)$\it{}
Let $S$ be a projective K3 surface of Picard number one. Let $v \in \Halg$ be a primitive vector with $v^2 \geq2$. Assume that all walls with respect to $v$ are fake walls. For any $v$-generic stability condition $\sigma \in \stab(S)$, there is an autoequivalence $\Phi \in \Aut(D^b(S))$ such that the morphism
\[ \phi : M_\sigma(v) \to M_\sigma(v), \ [E] \mapsto [\Phi(E)] \]
is an automorphism of $M_\sigma(v)$ of positive entropy $\htop(\phi)>0$. Moreover, we have an inequality
\[ \frac{1}{2}\dim M_\sigma(v) \cdot \hcat(\Phi) \geq \htop(\phi).\]
\end{thm}
If Conjecture \ref{KTconj} (Conjecture 5.3 in \cite{KT16}) is true, then the following holds.
\begin{conj}In the setting in Theorem \ref{mainintro}, we have the equality
\[ \frac{1}{2}\dim M_\sigma(v) \cdot \hcat(\Phi) = \htop(\phi).\]
\end{conj}
We can construct examples of Mukai vectors having only fake walls.
\begin{ex}\label{mainexintro}
Let $S$ be a K3 surface with $\mathrm{NS}(S)=\ZZ h$. Assume one of the followings.
\begin{itemize}
\item[\rm{(1)}]\it{}$h^2=132, v=(4,h,16), v^2=4$
\item[\rm{(2)}]\it{}$h^2=510, v=(6,h,42), v^2=6$
\item[\rm{(3)}]\it{}$h^2=1160, v=(8,h,72), v^2=8$
\item[\rm{(4)}]\it{}$h^2=2210, v=(10,h,110), v^2=10$
\end{itemize}
Then there are only fake walls with respect to $v$.
\end{ex}
We will construct four dimensional examples of Theorem \ref{mainintro} from cubic fourfolds.
\subsection{From cubic fourfolds}
The geometry of cubic fourfolds give examples of \hkmfds. Beauville and Donagi \cite{BD} proved that the Fano scheme $F(X)$ of lines on a cubic fourfold $X$ is a hyperK\"ahler fourfold of $\text{K3}^{[2]}$-type. CF.Lehn, M. Lehn, CH. Sorger and D. Van straten \cite{LLSS} constructed the hyperK\"ahler eightfold $Z(X)$ of $\text{K3}^{[4]}$-type from twisted cubic curves on a cubic fourfold $X$ not containing a plane. Conjecturely, these hyperK\"ahler manifolds can be described as moduli spaces of stable objects in some K3 categories constructed from cubic fourfolds. We recall the construction of the K3 category. Let $X$ be a cubic fourfold. There is a semi-orthogonal decomposition
\[ D^b(X)=\langle \A_X, \mathcal{O}_X, \mathcal{O}_X(1), \mathcal{O}_X(2) \rangle. \]
Kuznetsov \cite{Kuz03}, \cite{Kuz10} proved that $\A_X$ is a K3 category i.e. $[2]$ is a Serre functor. Let $\pr : D^b(X) \to \A_X$ be the left adjoint of the inclusion functor. We expect that $F(X)$ is a moduli space of stable objects in $\A_X$ with the numerical class $[\pr(\mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{line}}(1))]$ \cite{KM}, \cite{MS}. Similarly, the hyperK\"ahler eightfold $Z(X)$ is constructed as a moduli space of stable objects in $\A_X$ with the numerical class $[\pr(\mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{point}}(1))]$ \cite{AT}, \cite{AL}, \cite{O} conjecturelly. In this paper, we treat only Fano schemes of lines on cubic fourfolds. Sometimes, the K3 category $\A_X$ is equivalent to the derived category of some K3 surface. Kuznetsov proposed the following conjecture.
\begin{conj}$($\cite{Kuz10}$)$\label{Kuzconj}
A cubic fourfold $X$ is rational if and only if there is a K3 surface $S$ such that $\mathcal{A}_X$ is equivalent to $D^b(S)$.
\end{conj}
Note that there are no known irrational cubic fourfolds so far. We recall works by Hassett \cite{Has00}, Addington and Thomas \cite{AT}, Galkin and Shinder \cite{GS} and Addington \cite{Ad}. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be the moduli space of cubic fourfolds. Let $X$ be a cubic fourfold. We say that $X$ is special if $\mathrm{rk}H^{2,2}(X,\mathbb{Z}) \geq2$ holds. Otherwise, $X$ is called very general. More specifically, if $X$ has a rank $2$ primitive sublattice $K \subset H^{2,2}(X,\mathbb{Z})$ of discriminant $d$ such that $H^2 \in K$, then $X$ is called a special cubic fourfold of discriminant $d$. Here, $H \in H^2(X,\mathbb{Z})$ is the hyperplane class. Let $\mathcal{C}_d$ be the (possibly empty) codimension one subvariety of special cubic fourfolds of discriminant $d$. Hassett proved that $\mathcal{C}_d$ is not empty if and only if
\begin{center}($*$): $d>6$ and $d \equiv 0$ or $2$ (mod $6$).\end{center}
Moreover, Hassett \cite{Has00} proved that $X$ has an associated K3 surface at the level of Hodge theory if and only if $d$ satisfies ($*$) and
\begin{center}($**$): $d$ is not divisible by $4$, $9$ or any odd prime $p\equiv2$ (mod $3$). \end{center}
Addington and Thomas \cite{AT} proved the following theorem from the viewpoint of derived categories.
\begin{thm}$($\cite{AT}$)$
Let $X$ be a cubic fourfold.
\begin{itemize}
\item If there is a K3 surface $S$ such that $\mathcal{A}_X \simeq D^b(S)$, then we have $X \in \mathcal{C}_d$ for some integer $d$ satisfying $(*)$ and $(**)$.
\item Let $d$ be an integer satisfying $(*)$ and $(**)$. Then the set
\[U_d:=\{X \in \mathcal{C}_d \mid \mathcal{A}_X \simeq D^b(S) \} \subset \mathcal{C}_d \]
is a non-empty Zariski open subset.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
By Galkin and Shinder's work \cite{GS}, we have the following conjecture.
\begin{conj}\label{GSconj}
If $X$ is a rational cubic fourfold, then $F(X)$ is birational to the Hilbert scheme of two points on some K3 surface.
\end{conj}
This conjecture comes from calculation in the Grothendieck ring of algebraic varieties. They proved Conjecture \ref{GSconj} under some assumption. However, there are counterexamples of their assumptions (See \cite{B}, \cite{M}, \cite{IMOU}). Addington \cite{Ad} proved that Conjecture \ref{Kuzconj} and Conjecture \ref{GSconj} are not compatible. Conjecture \ref{GSconj} is true for known rational cubic fourfolds\cite{BD}, \cite{Ad}, \cite{Op}.
\begin{thm}$($\cite{Ad}$)$\label{Adthm}
Let $X$ be a cubic fourfold.
\begin{itemize}
\item There is a K3 surface $S$ such that $F(X)$ is birational to a moduli space of stable sheaves on $S$ if and only if $d$ satisfies $(*)$ and
$(**)$.
\item There is a K3 surface $S$ such that $F(X)$ is birational to a Hilbert scheme of two points on $S$ if and only if there is an integer $d$ satisfying $(*)$ and
\begin{center}
$(***)$: The equation $a^2d=2n^2+2n+2$ has an integral solution $(a,n)$.
\end{center}
\end{itemize}
The integer $74$ satisfies $(*)$ and $(**)$. However, it does not satisfy $(***)$.
\end{thm}
We study automorphisms of Fano schemes of lines on special cubic fourfolds of discriminant $74$.
\begin{thm}\label{cubicintro}
Take $X \in \C_{74}$ such that $\rk\Hodge=2$. Then there is an automorphism $\phi \in \Aut(F(X))$ such that $\htop(\phi)>0$.
\end{thm}
Theorem \ref{cubicintro} gives examples of Theorem \ref{mainintro}.
\subsection{Plan of the paper}
In Section 2, we review the lattice theory, hyperK\"ahler manifolds, Bridgeland stability conditions on K3 surfaces, moduli spaces of stable objects, the theory of entropy and some results about automorphisms of hyperK\"ahler manifolds.
In Section 3, we prove Proposition \ref{positivederived}, Theorem \ref{mainintro}, Example \ref{mainexintro} and Theorem \ref{converse}.
In Section 4, we prove Theorem \ref{cubicintro}.
\subsection{Notation}
We work over the complex number field $\mathbb{C}$. For a triangulated category $\D$ of finite type over $\mathbb{C}$, let $K(\D)$ be the Grothendieck group of $\D$. For objects $E,F \in \D$, we define $\chi(E,F):=\sum_{i\in\ZZ}\mathrm{dim}\mathrm{Ext}^i(E,F)$. we define the numerical Grothendieck group $K_{\mathrm{num}}(\D)$ as the quotient group $K(\D)/\mathrm{Ker}\chi$. Here, the subgroup $\mathrm{Ker}\chi$ consists of objects $E$ such that $\chi(E,F)=0$ for any object $F \in \D$.
If $\D$ is the derived category of a smooth projective variety $X$, we write $K(X)$ (resp. $K_{\mathrm{num}}(X)$) shortly. For a smooth projective variety $X$, we denote the real vector space of $1$-cycles on $X$ modulo numerical equivalence by $N_1(X)$. We assume that hyperK\"ahler manifolds are projective. We write the spherical twist $\mathrm{ST}_E$ of a spherical object $E \in D^b(X)$ for a smooth projective variety.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
The author would like to express his sincere gratitude to Professor Yukinobu Toda and Professor Keiji Oguiso for valuable comments and warmful encouragement. The author also would like to thanks Naoki Koseki for listening his talk patiently. This work was supported by the program for Leading Graduate Schools, MEXT, Japan. This work is also supported by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Research Fellow 15J08505.
\section{PRELIMINARY}
\subsection{Lattices}
In this subsection, we collect fundamental facts about the lattice theory.
\begin{dfn}
A lattice is a pair $(L,q)$ of a finitely generated free abelian group $L$ and an integer-valued non-degenerate quadratic form $q$. A lattice $(L,q)$ is called even if $q(v) \in 2\mathbb{Z}$ holds for any $v\in L$. We often denote a lattice $(L,q)$ by $L$. The signature of $L$ is the signature of the quadratic form $q$.
\end{dfn}
Primitivity of sublattices and discriminants of lattices are used in the definition of special cubic fourfolds of discriminant $d$.
\begin{dfn}
Let $L$ be a lattice. A sublattice $N$ of $L$ is called primitive if the quotient $L/N$ is torsion free. A vector $v \in L$ is called primitive if the sublattice $\mathbb{Z}v$ is primitive, equivalently $v=\lambda w$ for some $\lambda \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $w \in L$ implies $\lambda = \pm1$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}\label{disc}
Let $L$ be a lattice. The discriminant $\mathrm{disc}L$ of $L$ is the determinant of a Gram matrix of $L$. A lattice $L$ is called unimodular if the discriminant $\mathrm{disc}L$ is $\pm1$.
\end{dfn}
Recall the notion of discriminant groups to give the statement of Lemma \ref{Nik}.
\begin{dfn}
Let $(L,q)$ be an even lattice. Using the quadratic form $q$, we get the natural injective map $L \to L^*$. The quotient group $L^*/L$ is called the discriminant group $d(L)$ of $L$. This is an finite abelian group. The discriminant form $q_L:d(L) \times d(L) \to \mathbb{Q}/2\mathbb{Z}$ is the quadratic form on $d(L)$ induced by the quadratic form $q$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}
Let $L$ be an even lattice. We denote the group of isometries of $L$ by $O(L)$. The group $O(L)$ is called the orthogonal group of $L$. We also denote the group of isometries of the discriminant group by $O(d(L))$. For $g \in O(L)$, $\overline{g}$ is the isometry of $d(L)$ induced by $g$. There is the homomorphism $O(L) \to O(d(L))$ sending $g \to \overline{g}$.
\end{dfn}
The following lemma will be used in Proposition \ref{infiniteorder}.
\begin{lem}\label{Nik}$($\cite{N}$)$
Let $N$ be a primitive sublattice of an even unimodular lattice $(L,q)$. Consider an isometry $g \in O(N)$. If $\overline{g}=1$ holds, then there is a lift $\tilde{g} \in O(L)$ such that $\tilde{g}|_N=g$ and $\tilde{g}|_{L^{\perp}}=1$.
\end{lem}
From K3 surfaces, we get the notion of Mukai lattice.
\begin{dfn}
Let $S$ be a K3 surface. We define the Mukai pairing $\langle -, - \rangle$ on $H^*(S,\mathbb{Z})$ as follow:
\[ \langle(r_1,c_1,m_1),(r_2,c_2,m_2) \rangle := c_1c_2-r_1m_2-r_2m_1.\]
The lattice $H^*(S,\mathbb{Z})$ is called the Mukai lattice and it is the even unimodular lattice of signature $(4,20)$.
The Mukai lattice $H^*(S,\mathbb{Z})$ has the weight two Hodge structure $\widetilde{H}(S)$ defined by $\widetilde{H}^{2,0}(S)=H^{2,0}(S)$. We denote the algebraic part of the Mukai lattice $H^*(S,\mathbb{Z})$ by
\[ \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z}) = \Big(\bigoplus_{i=0}^{2}H^{i,i}(S,\mathbb{Q})\Big) \cap H^*(S,\mathbb{Z}). \]
We denote the group of Hodge isometries on $H^*(S,\mathbb{Z})$ by $\OH(H^*(S,\ZZ))$. Let $\OHH(H^*(S,\ZZ)) \subset \OH(H^*(S,\ZZ))$ be the subgroup of all Hodge isometries preserving positive definite 4-spaces in $H^*(S,\mathbb{R})$.
\end{dfn}
We will use the derived Torelli theorem to construct autoequivalences.
Taking cohomological Fourier-Mukai transforms, we get the homomorphism $(-)^H :\mathrm{Aut}(D^b(S)) \to \OH(H^*(S,\ZZ))$.
\begin{thm}\label{torelli}$($\cite{Muk87}, \cite{Orl97}, \cite{HMS09}$)$
The image $\mathrm{Im}(-)^H$ of the homomorphism $(-)^H$ is equal to $\OHH(H^*(S,\ZZ))$.
\end{thm}
\begin{dfn}
We denote the subgroup $\mathrm{Aut}^0(D^b(S))$ of $\mathrm{Aut}(D^b(S))$ as follow:
\[ \mathrm{Aut}^0(D^b(S)):= \mathrm{Ker}((-)^H : \mathrm{Aut}(D^b(S)) \to\OHH(H^*(S,\ZZ)). \]
\end{dfn}
\subsection{HyperK\"ahler manifolds}
In this section, we recall basic terminology on hyperK\"ahler manifolds.
\begin{dfn}
A hyperK\"ahler manifold is a simply connected smooth projective variety $M$ such that $H^0(\Omega_M^2)$ is spanned by an everywhere non-degenerate holomorphic two form.
\end{dfn}
In this paper, we always assume that hyperK\"ahler manifolds are projective.
Let $M$ be a hyperK\"ahler manifold. The second cohomology group of $M$ has the non-degenerated quadratic form $q_M : H^2(M,\mathbb{Z}) \to \mathbb{Z}$ so called the Beauville-Bogomolov-Fujiki form. Then $H^2(M,\mathbb{Z})$ becomes an even unimodular lattice of signature $(3,b_2(M)-3)$ and $q_{M}$ satisfies the Fujiki relation
\[ \int_M \alpha^{2n} = F_M\cdot q_M(\alpha)^n. \]
Here, we write $\mathrm{dim}M=2n$ and $F_M>0$ is the Fujiki constant of $M$.
\begin{dfn}
Let $D$ be a divisor on $M$. The divisor $D$ is called movable if the intersection $\cap_{m\geq1}\mathrm{Bs}|mD|$ of base loci of $mD$ has at least codimension two in $M$. The divisor $D$ is called positive if $q_M(D)>0$ and $DH>0$ hold for a fixed ample divisor $H$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}
The ample cone $\mathrm{Amp}(M)$ of $M$ is the real cone generated by ample divisors on $M$. The movable cone $\mathrm{Mov}(M)$ of $M$ is the real cone generated by movable divisors on $M$. The positive cone $\mathrm{Pos}(M)$ is the positive cone of $M$ with respect to the Beauville-Bogomolov-Fujiki form.
\end{dfn}
\subsection{Bridgeland stability conditions on K3 surfaces}
In this subsection, we recall the notion of Bridgeland stability conditions on derived categories of K3 surfaces. Let $S$ be a K3 surface.
\begin{dfn}
Let $E \in D^b(S)$ be an object in $D^b(S)$. We define the Mukai vector $v(E)$ of $E$ as follow:
\[ v(E):= \mathrm{ch}(E)\sqrt{\mathrm{td}(S)} \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z}).\]
The Mukai vector induces the surjective homomorphism
\[ v: K(S) \to \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z}).\]
\end{dfn}
\begin{rem}
By Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch theorem, we have $-\chi(E,F)=\langle v(E),v(F) \rangle$ for any $E,F \in D^b(S)$. So the Mukai vector gives isometry $v : K_{\mathrm{num}}(S) \to \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ with respect to the Euler pairing $-\chi(-,-)$ and the Mukai pairing $\langle-,- \rangle$.
\end{rem}
\begin{dfn}$($\cite{Bri07}$)$
Fix a norm $||-||$ on $K_{\mathrm{num}}(S)\otimes{\mathbb{R}}$. A stability condition $\sigma=(Z,\{\mathcal{P}(\phi)\}_{\phi \in \mathbb{R}})$ is a pair of a group homomorphism $Z:K_{\mathrm{num}}(S) \to \mathbb{C}$ (called a central charge) and a collection $\{\mathcal{P}(\phi)\}_{\phi \in \mathbb{R}}$ of full additive subcategories $\mathcal{P(\phi)}$ (called $\sigma$-semistable objects with phase $\phi$) such that the followings hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item For any $\phi \in \mathbb{R}$ and $0 \neq E \in \mathcal{P}(\phi)$, we have $Z(E) \in \mathbb{R}_{>0}e^{i \pi \phi}$.
\item For any $\phi \in \mathbb{R}$, we have $\mathcal{P}(\phi+1)=\mathcal{P}(\phi)[1]$.
\item If $\phi_1 > \phi_2$, then we have $\mathrm{Hom}(E_1,E_2)=0$ for any $E_i \in \mathcal{P}(\phi_i)$.
\item For any $E \in D^b(S)$, there exists exact triangles $E_{i-1} \to E_i \to F_i$ $(1 \leq i \leq n)$ and $\phi_1 > \phi_2 > \cdot \cdot \cdot >\phi_n$ such that $F_i \in \mathcal{P}(\phi_i)$ and $E_0=0, E_n=E$.
This property is called the Harder-Narasimhan property.
\item There exists a constant $C>0$ such that $||E||<C\cdot |Z(E)|$ for any $0 \neq E \in \cup_{\phi \in \mathbb{R}} \mathcal{P}(\phi)$. This property is called the support property.
\end{itemize}
We denote the set of all stability conditions on $D^b(S)$ by $\mathrm{Stab}(S)$.
For $\phi \in \mathbb{R}$, a simple object of $\mathcal{P}(\phi)$ is called a $\sigma$-stable object with phase $\phi$.
\end{dfn}
Bridgeland \cite{Bri07} proved that there is a structure of a complex manifold on $\mathrm{Stab}(S)$.
\begin{thm}$($\cite{Bri07}$)$
There is the topology on $\mathrm{Stab}(S)$ such that the map
\[\mathrm{Stab} (S) \to \mathrm{Hom}_{\mathbb{Z}}(K_{\mathrm{num}}(S) ,\mathbb{C}), (Z,\mathcal{P}) \mapsto Z \]
is a local homeomorphism. In particular, the space of stability conditions $\mathrm{Stab}(S)$ on $S$ has a structure of a complex manifold.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}$($\cite{Bri07}$)$
Let $\sigma=(Z,\mathcal{P}) \in \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$ be a stability condition. For an interval $I$, we denote by $\mathcal{P}(I)$ the extension-closed subcategory generated by objects $E \in \mathcal{P}(\phi)$ for all $\phi \in I$. Then $\mathcal{P}((0,1])$ is the heart of a bounded t-structure in $D^b(S)$.
\end{rem}
We recall the properties of spaces of stability conditions on K3 surfaces. Let $\mathcal{P}(S)$ be the set of all classes in $\widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})\otimes \mathbb{C}$ , whose real and imaginary parts span a positive definite real plane in $ \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z}) \otimes \mathbb{R}$. The subset $\mathcal{P}^+(S)$ is the connected component of $\mathcal{P}(S)$, which contains a class $e^{i\omega} \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})\otimes \mathbb{C}$ for an ample divisor $\omega$ on $S$. Let $\Delta(S)$ be the set of $(-2)$-classes in $\widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$.
We define the subset $\mathcal{P}^+_0(S)$ as
\[\mathcal{P}^+_0(S):=\mathcal{P}^+(S) \setminus \bigcup_{\delta \in \Delta(S)}\delta^\perp.\]
\begin{thm}[\cite{Bri08}]
There is a connected component $\mathrm{Stab}^*(S) \subset \mathrm{Stab}(S)$ such that the map $\pi : \mathrm{Stab}^*(S) \to \mathcal{P}^+_0(S)$ which sends $(Z,\mathcal{P}) \mapsto \Omega$ is a covering map. Here, the class $\Omega$ is determined by the property $Z(-)=\langle \Omega, - \rangle$. The group of all autoequivalences preserving $\mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$ and acting trivially on $H^*(S,\mathbb{Z})$ is the group of deck transformations of $\pi$.
\end{thm}
\begin{conj}[\cite{Bri08}]\label{Briconj}
The group $\mathrm{Aut}(D^b(S))$ of autoequivalences of $D^b(S)$ preserves the connected component $\mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$. Moreover, $\mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$ is simply connected.
\end{conj}
\begin{thm}$($\cite{BB}$)$
Assume that $S$ has Picard number $\rho(S)=1$. Then Conjecture \ref{Briconj} is true.
\end{thm}
The following proposition is a stronger version of Theorem \ref{torelli}. We will use this version in Section 3.
\begin{prop}$($\cite{Huy14}$)$\label{Huysurj}
Let $\mathrm{Aut}^*(D^b(S))$ be the group of autoequivalences of $D^b(S)$ preserving $\mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$.
The homomorphism
\[(-)^H :\mathrm{Aut}^*(D^b(S)) \to \OHH(H^*(S,\ZZ))\]
is surjective.
\end{prop}
We recall wall and chamber structures on spaces of stability conditions on K3 surfaces.
\begin{dfn}
Let $v$ be a primitive Mukai vector. A stability condition $\sigma \in \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$ is called $v$-generic if there is no strictly $\sigma$-semistable objects with Mukai vector $v$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{prop}$($\cite{Bri08}, \cite{Tod08}, \cite{BM13})
Fix a primitive Mukai vector $v \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$. There is a locally finite set of walls (real codimension one submanifolds) in $\mathrm{Stab}(S)$, which satisfies the following properties. We call a connected component of the complement of walls a chamber.
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a chamber. If $E$ is a $\sigma$-semistable object with Mukai vector $v$, then $E$ is $\tau$-semistable for any $\tau \in \mathcal{C}$.
\item A stability condition $\sigma \in \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$ is in some chamber if and only if $\sigma$ is $v$-generic.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
In Subsection 2.4, we will recall Bayer and Macri's classification of walls \cite{BM12}, \cite{BM13}.
\subsection{Moduli spaces of Bridgeland stable objects on K3 surfaces}
In this subsection, we recall Bayer and Macri's work on moduli spaces of Bridgeland stable objects on K3 surfaces \cite{BM12}, \cite{BM13}.
Let $S$ be a K3 surface. Let $v \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ be a primitive Mukai vector with $v^2>0$. Take a $v$-generic stability condition $\sigma \in \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$. Denote the moduli stack of $\sigma$-semistable objects with Mukai vector $v$ by $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(v)$.
Bayer and Macri \cite{BM12} proved existence and projectivity of coarse moduli spaces of Bridgeland stable objects on K3 surfaces.
\begin{thm}$($\cite{BM12}, \cite{BM13}$)$\label{moduli}
Let $v \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ be a primitive Mukai vector with $\langle v,v \rangle \ge -2$. Let $\sigma \in \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$ be a $v$-generic stability condition.
Then the coarse moduli space $M_{\sigma}(v)$ of $\sigma$-stable objects with Mukai vector $v$ exists as a hyperK\"ahler manifold of $\text{K3}^{[n]}$-type and $\dim{M_{\sigma}(v)}=2+\langle v,v \rangle$. Note that the coarse moduli space $M_\sigma(v)$ is non-empty.
\end{thm}
Recall the notion of quasi-universal families on the coarse moduli space $M_\sigma(v)$.
\begin{dfn}$($\cite{BM12}$)$
Let $M$ be a connected algebraic space of finite type over $\mathbb{C}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item An object $\mathcal{E} \in D^b(M \times S)$ is called a quasi-family of objects in $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(v)(\mathrm{Spec}\mathbb{C})$ if for any closed point $p \in M$, there is an object $E \in \mathcal{M}_\sigma(v)$ and a positive integer $\rho >0$ such that $\mathcal{E}|_{p \times S} \simeq E^{\oplus \rho}$. Then $\rho$ is independent to a choice of $p \in M$ and called the similitude of $\mathcal{E}$.
\item Two quasi-families $\mathcal{E}, \mathcal{E}^{\prime} \in D^b(M \times S)$ are called equivalent if there are vector bundles $V, V^{\prime}$ on $M$ such that $\mathcal{E} \otimes p_{M}^*V \simeq \mathcal{E}^{\prime} \otimes p_{M}^*V^\prime$,
\item A quasi-family $\mathcal{E} \in D^b(M \times S)$ is called a quasi-universal family if for any algebraic scheme $M^\prime$ and a quasi-family $\mathcal{E}^\prime \in D^b(M^\prime \times S)$, there is a unique morphism $f : M^\prime \to M$ such that $\mathbf{L}f^* \mathcal{E}$ is equivalent to $\mathcal{E}^\prime$.
\end{itemize}
\end{dfn}
\begin{rem}$($\cite{BM12}$)$
Let $v \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ be a primitive Mukai vector with $\langle v,v \rangle \ge -2$. Let $\sigma \in \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$ be a $v$-generic stability condition. Then the coarse moduli space $M_\sigma(v)$ has a quasi-universal family $\mathcal{E} \in D^b(M_\sigma(v) \times S)$, unique up to equivalence.
\end{rem}
Using it, we obtain the following Hodge isometry, so called Mukai homomorphism.
\begin{prop}$($\cite{BM12}$)$\label{Mukai iso}
Let $v \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ be a primitive Mukai vector with $\langle v,v \rangle >0$. Let $\sigma \in \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$ be a $v$-generic stability condition. Let $\mathcal{E} \in D^b(M_\sigma(v) \times S)$ be a quasi-universal family of similitude $\rho$. We define a homomorphism $\theta : v^{\perp} \to H^2(M_\sigma(v),\mathbb{Z})$ as follow:
\[ \theta_{v}(w) := \frac{1}{\rho}\cdot [\Phi_{\mathcal{E}}^H(w)]_2. \]
Here, $[-]_2$ means the degree two part and we consider the orthogonal complement $v^\perp$ in $H^*(S,\mathbb{Z})$.
Then the homomorphism $\theta_v : v^\perp \to H^2(M_\sigma(v),\mathbb{Z})$ is a Hodge isometry and independent to a choice of $\mathcal{E}$.
\end{prop}
Bayer and Macri \cite{BM12} constructed nef divisors on $M_\sigma(v)$ from stability conditions on $D^b(S)$.
Let $\mathcal{C} \in \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$ be the chamber containing the stability conditon $\sigma$. Then we write $M_\mathcal{C}(v):=M_\sigma(v)$.
Let $\mathcal{E} \in D^b(M_\sigma(v) \times S)$ be a quasi-universal family of similitude $\rho$.
\begin{thm}$($\cite{BM12}$)$
For a stability condition $\tau=(Z,\mathcal{P}) \in \overline{\mathcal{C}}$, we define a divisor $l_\tau \in \mathrm{NS}(M_\mathcal{C}(v))_{\mathbb{R}}$ as follow:
\[ l_\tau([C]):= \mathrm{Im}\biggl(-\frac{Z(v(\Phi_\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{O}_C))}{Z(v)}\biggr) \in \mathbb{R}. \]
Here, $[C] \in N_1(M_\mathcal{C}(v))$ is a numerical class of a curve $C$ on $M_\mathcal{C}(v)$.
Then $l_\tau \in \mathrm{NS}(M_\mathcal{C}(v))$ is a well-defined nef divisor. If $\tau$ is $v$-generic, then we have $l_\tau \in \mathrm{Amp}(M_\mathcal{C}(v))$.
\end{thm}
Let $\sigma_0 \in \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$ be a generic stability condition on a wall $\mathcal{W}$. Let $\sigma_+$ and $\sigma_-$ be $v$-generic stability conditions nearby $\mathcal{W}$ in opposite chambers.
\begin{thm}$($\cite{BM12}$)$
The divisors $\l_{\sigma_0, \pm} \in \mathrm{NS}(M_{\sigma_\pm}(v))$ are nef and big. Moreover, they induce birational contractions $\pi^\pm : M_{\sigma_\pm}(v) \to \overline{M}_\pm$ contracting objects which are S-equivalent each other with respect to $\sigma_0$.
\end{thm}
We recall the classification of walls.
\begin{dfn}$($\cite{BM12}, \cite{BM13}$)$\label{walldef}
We call a wall $\mathcal{W}$:
\begin{itemize}
\item a fake wall, if $\pi_\pm : M_{\sigma_\pm}(v) \to \overline{M}_\pm$ is an isomorphism.
\item a totally semistable wall, if $M_{\sigma_0}^\mathrm{st}(v)=\emptyset$..
\item a flopping wall, if we can identify $\overline{M}_{+}=\overline{M}_{-}$ and the $\pi^{\pm}$ induce flopping contractions.
\item a divisorial wall, if the morphisms $\pi^{\pm}: M_{\sigma_{\pm}}(v) \to \overline{M}_{\pm}$ are both divisorial contractions
\end{itemize}
\end{dfn}
Bayer and Macri \cite{BM13} classified walls in term of Mukai lattices.
\begin{dfn}$($\cite{BM13}$)$
For a wall $\mathcal{W} \subset \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$, we define a sublattice $\mathcal{H}_{\mathcal{W}} \subset \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ as follow:
\[ \mathcal{H}_{\mathcal{W}} := \bigl\{ w \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z}) \mid \mathrm{Im}\frac{Z(w)}{Z(v)}=0 \ \text{for all}\ (Z,\mathcal{P}) \in \mathcal{W} \bigr\}. \]
Then $\mathcal{H}_{\mathcal{W}}$ is a rank two hyperbolic lattice containing the Mukai vector $v$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}$($\cite{BM13}$)$
Let $\mathcal{H} \subset \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ be a hyperbolic sublattce. A class $w \in \mathcal{H}$ is called positive if $w^2 \geq 0$ and $\langle v,w \rangle >0$ hold.
\end{dfn}
The following is the classification of walls.
\begin{thm}$($\cite{BM13}$)$\label{wall}
Let $\mathcal{W} \subset \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$ be a wall.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] The wall $\mathcal{W}$ is a divisorial wall if one of the three conditions hold:
\bf{(Brill-Noether):} \it there exists a $(-2)$-class $a \in \mathcal{H}_{\mathcal{W}}$ with $\langle a, v \rangle =0$.
\bf{(Hilbert-Chow):} \it there exists an isotropic class $a \in \mathcal{H}_{\mathcal{W}}$ with $\langle a, v \rangle =1$.
\bf{(Li-Gieseker-Uhlenbeck):} \it there exists an isotropic class $a \in \mathcal{H}_{\mathcal{W}}$ with $\langle a, v \rangle =2$.
\item[(b)] Otherwise, if there are positive classes $a, b \in \mathcal{H}_{\mathcal{W}}$ such that $v=a+b$, or if there is a $(-2)$-class $a \in \mathcal{H}_{\mathcal{W}}$ with $0<\langle a, v \rangle \leq v^2/2$, then the wall $\mathcal{W}$ is a flopping wall.
\item[(c)] Assume that (a) or (b) does not hold. Then the wall $\mathcal{W}$ is a fake wall.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
We can deduce the following description of the nef cone $\mathrm{\overline{Amp}}(M_\sigma(v))$ from Theorem \ref{wall}.
\begin{thm}$($\cite{BM13}, \rm{Theorem 12.1}$)$\label{nefcone} \it{}
Consider the chamber decomposition of the positive cone $\overline{\mathrm{Pos}}(M_\sigma(v))$ whose walls are given by linear subspaces of the form
\[ \theta_{v}(v^\perp \cap a^\perp) \]
for all $a \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ such that $-2 \leq a^2 <v^2/4$ and $0 \leq \langle v, a \rangle \leq v^2/2$. Then the nef cone $\overline{\mathrm{Amp}}(M_\sigma(v))$ is one of the chambers of above chamber decomposition.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
In Theorem \ref{nefcone}, the upper bound $a^2<v^2/4$ comes from the hyperbolicity of the lattice $\mathcal{H}:= \langle v, a \rangle$.
\end{rem}
\begin{thm}$($\cite{BM13}$)$
Let $\mathcal{W} \subset \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$ be a wall. Let $\sigma_0 \in \mathcal{W}$ be a generic stability condition. Take stability conditions $\sigma_\pm$ nearby $\mathcal{W}$ in opposite chambers. Then there is a possibly contravariant autoequivalence $\Phi : D^b(S) \to D^b(S)$ and a common open subset $U \subset M_{\sigma_\pm}(v)$ such that for any $u \in U$, the corresponding objects $E_u \in M_{\sigma_{+}}(v)$ and $F_u \in M_{\sigma_-}(v)$ are related via $F_u = \Phi(E_u)$. If $\mathcal{W}$ is a fake wall, then we can take an open set $U$ as $M_{\sigma_+}(v), M_{\sigma_-}(v)$ respectively and $\Phi \in \mathrm{Aut}^0(D^b(S))$.
\end{thm}
\subsection{Topological entropy}
In this subsection, we recall the notion of topological entropy. We need only Theorem \ref{GY} and Theorem \ref{firstdeg}.
Let $X$ be a compact topological space with a metric space structure $(X,d)$. Let $f :X \to X$ be a surjective continuous map. To define the topological entropy, we need the notion of $(n.\epsilon)$-separated subsets of $X$.
\begin{dfn}$($\cite{Ruf71}$)$
Take a positive real number $\epsilon >0$ and a positive integer $n>0$. Points $x ,y \in X$ are $(n,\epsilon)$-separated if $\mathrm{max}_{0 \leq i \leq n-1}d(f^i(x),f^i(y)) \geq \epsilon$. A subset $F \subset X$ is called $(n,\epsilon)$-separated if any two distinct points $x,y \in F$ are $(n,\epsilon)$-separated. Due to compactness of $X$, we can prove that
\[N_d(n,\epsilon):=\mathrm{max}\{\# F \mid \text{$F \subset X$ is $(n,\epsilon)$-separated}.\}\]
is finite.
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}$($\cite{Ruf71}$)$
The topological entropy $h_{\mathrm{top}}(f)$ of $f$ is defined as follow:
\[ h_{\mathrm{top}}(f):= \lim_{\epsilon \to +0}\limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{\log N_d(n,\epsilon)}{n} \in [0,\infty].\]
The topological entropy $h_{\mathrm{top}}(f)$ of $f$ is independent of a choice of a metric $d$ on the topological space $X$.
\end{dfn}
Topological entropy is related to spectral radii.
\begin{dfn}
Let $V$ be a finite dimensional vector space and $\phi : V \to V$ be an linear map. The spectral radius $\rho(\phi)$ of $\phi$ is the maximum of the absolute value of eigen values of $\phi$.
\end{dfn}
We can compute topological entropy by the following theorems.
\begin{thm}$($\cite{Gro1}, \cite{Gro2}, \cite{Yom}$)$ \label{GY}
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety. Consider a surjective holomorphic endomorphism $f : X \to X$.
Then the following holds:
\begin{align*}
h_{\mathrm{top}}(f)&=\log \rho(f^*|_{\bigoplus_{p=0}^{\mathrm{dim}X} H^{p,p}(X,\mathbb{Z})})\\
&=\log \rho(f^*|_{\bigoplus_{p=0}^{\mathrm{dim}X} H^{2p}(X,\mathbb{Z})}).
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}\label{firstdeg}$($\cite{Ogu0}$)$
Let $M$ be a hyperK\"ahler manifold. Let $f:M \to M$ be a surjective holomorphic endomorphism. Then we have
\[ h_{\mathrm{top}}(f)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{dim}M \cdot \log \rho(f^*|_{H^2(M,\mathbb{Z})}).\]
\end{thm}
\subsection{Categorical entropy}
In this subsection, we recall the notion of the categorical entropy of endofunctors on triangulated categories \cite{DHKK}. Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a triangulated category. Consider an endofunctor $\Phi : \mathcal{D} \to \mathcal{D}$.
\begin{dfn}
An object $G$ in $\mathcal{D}$ is called a splitting generator if for any object $E \in \mathcal{D}$, there are exact triangles $E_{i-1} \to E_i \to G[n_i]$ $(1 \leq i \leq k)$ and some object $E^{\prime} \in \mathcal{D}$ such that $E_0=0, E_k=E \oplus E^{\prime}$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{thm}$($\cite{Orl09}$)$
Let $X$ be a quasi-projective scheme. Let $\mathcal{O}_X(1)$ be a very ample line bundle on $X$.
Then $G:=\bigoplus_{i=0}^{\mathrm{dim}X}\mathcal{O}_X(i)$ is a splitting generator of the triangulated category $\mathrm{Perf}(X)$ of perfect comlexes on $X$. In particular, if $X$ is smooth, $G$ is a splitting generator of $D^b(X)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{dfn}$($\cite{DHKK}$)$
Let $E$ and $F$ be objects in $\mathcal{D}$. Take a real number $t \in \mathbb{R}$.
We define the complexity $\delta_{t}(G,E)$ of $F$ with respect to $E$ as follow:
\[ \delta_{t}(G,E):=\inf \biggl\{\sum_{i=1}^{k}e^{n_i t} \mid E_{i-1} \to E_i \to G[n_i] (1 \leq i \leq k) ,E_0=0, E_k=E \oplus E^{\prime}\biggr\}. \]
\end{dfn}
Using complexity, we can define the notion of the categorical entropy.
\begin{dfn}$($\cite{DHKK}$)$
Let $G$ be a splitting generator of $\mathcal{D}$. We define the categorical entropy $h_{t}(\Phi)$ of $\Phi$ at $t \in \mathbb{R}$ as follow:
\[ h_{t}(\Phi):= \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{\log \delta_{t}(G, \Phi^n(G))}{n} \in \mathbb{R} \cup \{-\infty\}. \]
We call the entropy $h_{0}(\Phi)$ of $\Phi$ at $0$ the categorical entropy $h_{\mathrm{cat}}(\Phi)$ of $\Phi$.
Then we have $h_{\mathrm{cat}}(\Phi) \geq 0$. The entropy of $\Phi$ is independent to a choice of a generator $G$.
\end{dfn}
The following is the analogue of Theorem \ref{GY}.
\begin{thm}$($\cite{DHKK}$)$
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety with $H^{\mathrm{odd}}(X, \mathbb{C})=0$. Consider an autoequivalence $\Phi \in \mathrm{Aut}(D^b(X))$ and let $\Phi^H : H^*(X, \mathbb{C}) \to H^*(X,\mathbb{C})$ be the induced linear map on the cohomology group.
Then $h_{\mathrm{cat}}(\Phi) \geq \log \rho (\Phi^H)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
This is Theorem 2.8 in \cite{DHKK}. The assumption $H^{\mathrm{odd}}(X, \mathbb{C})=0$ implies the assumption in Lemma 2.7 in \cite{DHKK}.
\end{proof}
For a K3 surface $S$, we have $H^{\mathrm{odd}}(S,\mathbb{C})=0$.
Kikuta and Takahashi \cite{KT16} proposed the following conjecture.
\begin{conj}$($\cite{KT16}$)$\label{KTconj}
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety. For $\Phi \in \Aut(D^b(X))$, we have
\[ \hcat(\Phi)=\log \rho([\Phi]).\]
Here, $[\Phi]$ is the induced isomorphism on $K_{\mathrm{num}}(X)$.
\end{conj}
\subsection{Automorphisms of hyperK\"ahler manifolds of Picard number two}
In this subsection, we collect important facts about automorphisms of hyperK\"ahler manifolds of Picard number two.
First, Hilbert schemes of points on K3 surfaces of Picard number one have finite birational automorphism groups.
\begin{prop}\label{hilb}$($\cite{Ogu1}$)$
Let $S$ be a K3 surface of Picard number one. Let $n>0$ be a positive integer.
Then the biratiuonal automorphism group $\mathrm{Bir}(\mathrm{Hilb}^n(S))$ of the Hilbert scheme of points on $S$ is a finite group.
\end{prop}
The following theorem due to Oguiso \cite{Ogu1} is important in the proof of the main theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{Oguiso}$($\cite{Ogu1}$)$
Let $M$ be a hyperK\"ahler manifold of Picard number two. Let $l_1 =\mathbb{R}_{\geq0}x_1$ and $\l_2=\mathbb{R}_{\geq0}x_2$ be boundary rays of the nef cone $\overline{\mathrm{Amp}}(M)$.
Then the followings hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The boundary ray $l_1$ is rational if and only if the boundary ray $l_2$ is rational.
\item If the boundary ray $l_1$ is rational, then the automorphism group $\mathrm{Aut}M$ is a finite group.
\item If the boundary ray $l_1$ is irrational, then $\overline{\mathrm{Amp}}(M)=\overline{\mathrm{Mov}}(M)=\overline{\mathrm{Pos}}(M)$ and $\mathrm{Aut}M=\mathrm{Bir}M$ is an infinite group. Moreover, an automorphism $f \in \mathrm{Aut}M$ with $\mathrm{ord}(f)=\infty$ has the positive topological entropy.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
The following theorem due to Amerik and Vervitsky \cite{AV16} ensures the existence of hyperK\"ahler manifolds satisfying Theorem \ref{Oguiso} (3).
\begin{thm}$($\cite{AV16}$)$
Let $M$ be a (possibly non-projective) hyperK\"ahler manifold with $b_2(M)\geq 5$. Then $M$ admits a projective deformation $M^{\prime}$ with infinite group of symplectic automorphisms and Picard number two.
\end{thm}
\section{MAIN THEOREMS}
\subsection{Derived automorphisms of positive entropy on K3 surfaces}
In this subsection, we will prove the existence of autoequivalences of derived categories of K3 surfaces with positive entropy.
\begin{thm}\label{posent}
Let $S$ be a K3 surface. Then there is an autoequivalence $\Phi \in \mathrm{Aut}(D^b(S))$ such that $h_{\mathrm{cat}}(\Phi) \geq \log{\rho(\Phi^H)} >0$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We will construct $\Phi \in \mathrm{Aut}(D^b(S))$ as a composition of two spherical twists.
The first spherical twist is defined by $\Phi_1 := \mathrm{ST}_{\mathcal{O}_S}$.
We will define the second spherical twist $\Phi_2$. Take an ample divisor $h$ on $S$ and write $h^2=2d$. Consider a $(-2)$-class \[w:=(d+1,dh,d^2-d+1) \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z}).\]
Take a general ample divisor $H$ on $S$ with respect to $w$. Then there is a $H$-stable sheaf $E$ with Mukai vector $v(E)=w$ by non-emptyness result (\cite{Yos99}, Theorem 0.1).
Since $w^2=-2$, $E$ is a spherical object. We define the second spherical twist by $\Phi_2:=\mathrm{ST}_{E}$. We set $\Phi := \Phi_1 \circ \Phi_2 \in \mathrm{Aut}(D^b(S))$.
Consider a sublattice $L$ of the Mukai lattice defined by
\[ L:=H^0(S,\mathbb{Z}) \oplus \mathbb{Z}h \oplus H^4(S,\mathbb{Z}). \]
The representation matrices of $\Phi_1^H|_L,\Phi_2^H|_L$ with respect to $(1,0,0), (0,h,0),(0,0,1) \in L$ are as follow:
\[\Phi_1^H|_L=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 & -1\cr 0 & 1 & 0\cr -1 & 0 & 0\end{pmatrix}, \Phi_2^H|_L=\begin{pmatrix}-d^3 & 2d^2(d+1) & -(d+1)^2\cr -d(d^2-d+1) & 2d^3+1 & -d(d+1)\cr -(d^2-d+1) & 2d^2(d^2-d+1) & -d^3\end{pmatrix}.\]
So we have
\[ \Phi^H|_L=\begin{pmatrix}(d^2-d+1)^2 & -2d^2(d^2-d+1) & d^3\cr -d(d^2-d+1) & 2d^3+1 & -d(d+1)\cr d^3& -2d(d+1) & (d+1)^2\end{pmatrix}.\]
The eigen values of $\Phi^H|_L$ are
\[1, \frac{d^4+4d^2 \pm (d^3+2d) \sqrt{d^2+4}}{2}.\]
Since $d \geq 1$, we have
\[ h_\mathrm{cat}(\Phi) \geq \log{\rho(\Phi^H)} \geq \log{\frac{7+3\sqrt{5}}{2}}>0.\]
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Let $S$ be a K3 surface with $\mathrm{NS}(S)=\mathbb{Z}h$ and $h^2=2d$. If $d=1$, then $\mathrm{Aut}(S)=\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$. If $d>1$, then $\mathrm{Aut}(S)=1$. However, there is an autoequivalence $\Phi \in \mathrm{Aut}(D^b(S))$ with $h_{\mathrm{cat}}(\Phi) \geq \log \rho(\Phi^H)>0$ by Theorem \ref{posent}.
\end{rem}
In the next subsection, we will discuss the relation between autoequivalences on K3 surfaces and automorphisms of moduli spaces of stable objects. Unfortunately, there is an autoequivalence on a K3 surface with positive entropy such that it does not induce automorphisms of moduli spaces of stable objects.
\begin{ex}\label{counter}
Let $S$ be a K3 surface with $\mathrm{NS}(S)=\mathbb{Z}h$ and $h^2=4$. Consider a Mukai vector $v:=(1,0,-1)$. Then there is an autoequivalence $\Phi \in \mathrm{Aut}(D^b(S))$ such that $h_{\mathrm{cat}}(\Phi) \geq \log \rho(\Phi^H) >0$ and $\Phi^H(v)=v$. Take a $v$-generic stability condition $\sigma \in \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$. Then the moduli space $M_\sigma(v)$ is birational to the Hilbert scheme $\mathrm{Hilb}^2(S)$ of two points on $S$. So $\mathrm{Bir}(M_\sigma(v))$ is finite by Proposition \ref{hilb}. In particular, $\Phi$ does not induce an automorphism on $M_\sigma(v)$.
\end{ex}
\begin{proof}
Consider a $(-2)$-class $w:=(3,2h,3) \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$. This is used in the proof of Theorem \ref{posent}.
So we can take a spherical object $E \in D^b(S)$ with Mukai vector $v(E)=w$. By Theorem \ref{posent}, $\Phi:=\mathrm{ST}_{\mathcal{O}_S} \circ \mathrm{ST}_E$ satisfies $h_{\mathrm{cat}}(\Phi) \geq \log \rho(\Phi^H) >0$.
Since $v=(1,0,-1)$ is orthogonal to $v(\mathcal{O}_S)=(1,0,1)$ and $w$, we have $\Phi^H(v)=v$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Crossing fake walls}
In this subsection, we discuss the relation between autoequivalences of K3 surfaces and automorphisms of moduli spaces of stable objects. Let $S$ be a K3 surface. First, we prove that automorphisms of moduli space of stable objects with infinite order induce autoequivalences on $S$.
\begin{prop}\label{infiniteorder}
Let $v \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ be a primitive Mukai vector with $v^2>0$. Let $\sigma \in \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$ be a $v$-generic stability condition. If $\phi \in \mathrm{Aut}(M_\sigma(v))$ is an automorphism of infinite order, then there is a positive integer $n>0$ and $\Phi \in \mathrm{Aut}^*(D^b(S))$ such that $\Phi^H(v)=v$ and the following diagram commutes.
\[\xymatrix{v^\perp \ar[r]^{\Phi^H} \ar[d]_{\theta_{\sigma,v}} & v^\perp \ar[d]_{\theta_{\sigma,v}} \\ H^2(M_\sigma(v),\mathbb{Z}) \ar[r]^{\phi^{*n}} & H^2(M_\sigma(v),\mathbb{Z})} \]
Here, we take the orthogonal $v^{\perp}$ in $H^*(S,\mathbb{Z})$ and all homomorphisms are Hodge isometries.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Consider the composition $g:=\theta_{\sigma, v}^{-1} \circ \phi^* \circ \theta_{\sigma, v}$. By lemma \ref{kernel}, we have $\mathrm{ord}(g)=\infty$. Since $d(v^{\perp})$ is a finite group, there is a positive integer $m>0$ such that $\overline{g^m}=1$. So we can take a Hodge isometry $\psi \in \OH(H^*(S,\ZZ))$ such that $\psi|_{v^{\perp}}=g^{m}, \psi(v)=v$ by Lemma \ref{Nik}. Then $\psi^2$ preserves positive definite $4$-spaces in $H^*(S,\mathbb{R})$. By Proposition \ref{Huysurj}, there is an autoequivalence $\Phi \in \mathrm{Aut}^*(D^b(S))$ such that $\Phi^H=\psi^2$. Putting $n:=2m$, we have the commutative diagram in the statement.
\end{proof}
By Example \ref{counter}, an autoequivalence of infinite order does not necessarily induce an automorphism of a moduli space of stable objects. We will consider the converse problem in Theorem \ref{converse} . First, we show the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{commute}
Let $v \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ be a primitive Mukai vector with $v^2>0$. Consider an autoequivalence $\Phi \in \mathrm{Aut}(D^b(S))$. Let $\sigma \in \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$ be a $v$-generic stability condition and $\tau \in \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$ be a $\Phi^H(v)$-generic stability condition. If $\Phi$ induces an isomorphism $\Phi : M_\sigma(v) \to M_\tau(\Phi^H(v))$ defined by $[E] \mapsto [\Phi(E)]$, then we have the following commutative diagram:
\[\xymatrix{v^{\perp} \ar[d]_{\theta_{\sigma,v}} \ar[r]^{\Phi^H} & v^\perp \ar[d]_{\theta_{\tau, v}} \\
H^2(M_\sigma(v),\mathbb{Z}) \ar[r]^{\Phi_*} & H^2(M_{\tau}(v),\mathbb{Z})} \]
\end{prop}
The following theorem is deduced from Proposition \ref{commute}.
\begin{thm}\label{converse}
Let $v \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ be a primitive Mukai vector with $v^2>0$. Let $\sigma \in \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$ be a $v$-generic stability condition. Consider an autoequivalence $\Phi \in \mathrm{Aut}(D^b(S))$ such that $\Phi_*\sigma \in \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$ and $\Phi^H(v)=v$. If there is a generic path $\gamma : [0,1] \to \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$ crossing only fake walls with $\gamma(0)=\Phi_*\sigma$ and $\gamma(1)=\sigma$, then there is $\Phi_\gamma \in \mathrm{Aut}^0(D^b(S))$ such that $\Phi_\gamma \circ \Phi$ induces an automorphism $\Phi_\gamma \circ \Phi : M_\sigma(v) \to M_\sigma(v)$ satisfying the following commutative diagram:
\[\xymatrix{v^{\perp} \ar[d]_{\theta_{\sigma,v}} \ar[r]^{\Phi^H} & v^\perp \ar[r]^{\Phi_\gamma^H=1} \ar[d]_{\theta_{\Phi_*\sigma, v}} &v^\perp \ar[d]_{\theta_{\sigma,v}} \\
H^2(M_\sigma(v),\mathbb{Z}) \ar[r]^{\Phi_*} & H^2(M_{\Phi_*\sigma}(v),\mathbb{Z}) \ar[r]^{\Phi_{\gamma*}} & H^2(M_\sigma(v),\mathbb{Z})}\]
Here, all homomorphisms are Hodge isometries and we take the orthogonal complement $v^\perp$ in $H^*(S,\mathbb{Z})$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{commute}]
Let $\mathcal{E} \in D^b(M_\sigma(v) \times S)$ be a quasi-universal family of similitude $\rho$. Let $\mathcal{F} \in D^b(M_\tau(\Phi^H(v)) \times S)$ be a Fourier-Mukai kernel of the composition $\Phi\Phi_\mathcal{E}\phi^* : D^b(M_\tau(\Phi^H(v))) \to D^b(S)$ of Fourier-Mukai functors. Here, we denote the isomorphism $\Phi : M_\sigma(v) \to M_\tau(\Phi^H(v))$ by $\phi : M_\sigma(v) \to M_\tau(\Phi^H(v))$. It is enough to show that $\mathcal{F}$ is a quasi-universal family of $M_\tau(\Phi^H(v))$ by Proposition \ref{Mukai iso}. We can prove that $\mathcal{F}$ is a quasi-family. In fact, for any point $[E] \in M_\tau(\Phi^H(v))$, we have $\Phi_{\mathcal{F}}(\mathcal{[E]}) \simeq E^{\oplus \rho}$ by the definition of $\mathcal{F} \in D^b(M_\tau(\Phi^H(v)) \times S)$.
Take a quasi-universal family $\mathcal{E}^{\prime} \in D^b(M_\tau(\Phi^H(v)) \times S)$ of similitude $\rho^{\prime}$. Then there exists a unique morphism $f : M_\tau(\Phi^H(v)) \to M_\tau(\Phi^H(v))$ such that $\mathbf{L}(f \times \mathrm{id}_S)^* \mathcal{E}^{\prime}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ are equivalent. So there are vector bundles $V_1$ and $V_2$ on $M_\tau(\Phi^H(v))$ such that $\mathbf{L}(f \times \mathrm{id}_S)^* \mathcal{E}^{\prime} \otimes p^*V_1 \simeq \mathcal{F} \otimes p^*V_2$, where $p :M_\tau(\Phi^H(v)) \times S \to M_\tau(\Phi^H(v))$ is the projection. Let $[E] \in M_\tau(\Phi^H(v))$ be a point. We have the isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
E^{\rho \cdot \mathrm{rk}V_2}& \simeq (\mathcal{F} \otimes p^*V_2)|_{[E] \times S} \\
& \simeq (\mathbf{L}(f \times \mathrm{id}_S)^* \mathcal{E}^{\prime} \otimes p^*V_1)|_{[E] \times S}\\
&\simeq \mathbf{L}(f \times \mathrm{id}_S)^* \mathcal{E}^{\prime}|_{[E]\times S}^{\oplus \mathrm{rkV_1}} \\
&\simeq (\mathbf{L}(f \times \mathrm{id}_S)^* \mathcal{E}^{\prime} \otimes p^*f^*V_1)|_{[E] \times S} \\
&\simeq (\mathbf{L}(f \times \mathrm{id}_S)^* \mathcal{E}^{\prime} \otimes \mathbf{L}(f \times \mathrm{id}_S)^*p^*V_1)|_{[E] \times S} \\
&\simeq \mathbf{L}(f \times \mathrm{id}_S)^*(\mathcal{E}^{\prime} \otimes p^*V_1)|_{[E] \times S} \\
&\simeq f([E])^{\oplus \rho^{\prime} \cdot \mathrm{rk}V_1}.
\end{align*}
The last isomorphism is due to the following commutative diagram:
\[\xymatrix{[E] \times S \ar[d] \ar[r]^{f \times \mathrm{id}_S} & f([E]) \times S \ar[d] \\ M_\tau(\Phi^H(v)) \times S \ar[r]^{f \times \mathrm{id}_S} & M_\tau(\Phi^H(v)) \times S } \]
Since $E$ and $f(E)$ are $\tau$-stable in the same phase, we have $f(E) \simeq E$ and $\rho \cdot \mathrm{rk}V_1=\rho \cdot \mathrm{rk}V_2$. So we have $f=\mathrm{id}_S$. Hence, we have proved that $\mathcal{F}$ is a quasi-universal family of $M_\tau(\Phi^H(v))$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{maincor}
Let $S$ be a K3 surface of Picard number one. Let $v \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ be a primitive Mukai vector with $v^2>0$. If there does not exist a vector $a \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ such that $-2 \leq a^2 <v^2/4$ and $0 \leq \langle v, a \rangle \leq v^2/2$, then there is an autoequivalence $\Phi \in \mathrm{Aut}(D^b(S))$ such that $\Phi^H(v)=v$ and $\log\rho(\Phi^H)>0$. In particular, for any $v$-generic stability condition $\sigma \in \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$, there exist an autoequivalence $\Psi \in \mathrm{Aut}^0(D^b(S))$ such that $\phi:=\Psi\Phi : M_\sigma(v) \to M_\sigma(v)$ is an automorphism with
\[ \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{dim}M_\sigma(v) \cdot h_{\mathrm{cat}}(\Phi) \geq h_{\mathrm{top}}(\phi)>0. \]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Take a $v$-generic stability condition $\sigma \in \mathrm{Stab}^*(S)$. By Theorem \ref{nefcone} and the assumption for the vector $v$, we obtain $\overline{\mathrm{Amp}}(M_\sigma(v))=\overline{\mathrm{Pos}}(M_\sigma(v))$. By Proposition \ref{Mukai iso} and the assumption for the vector $v$, the boundary rays of the nef cone $\overline{\mathrm{Amp}}(M_\sigma(v))$ are irrational. So there is an automorphism $\psi \in \mathrm{Aut}(M_\sigma(v))$ with $h_{\mathrm{top}}(\psi)>0$ due to Theorem \ref{Oguiso}.
Using Proposition \ref{infiniteorder}, there exist an positive integer $n$ and an autoequivalence $\Phi \in \mathrm{Aut}^*(D^b(S))$ such that $\Phi^H(v)=v, \Phi^H|_{v^\perp}=\psi^{*n}$ and $\log\rho(\Phi^H)=\log\rho(\psi^{*n}|_{H^2(M_\sigma(v),\mathbb{Z})})>0$. The positivity is deduced from Theorem \ref{firstdeg}. Due to the assumption for the vector $v$, all walls with respect to $v$ are fake walls by Theorem \ref{wall}. So we can show the remaining statement by Theorem \ref{converse}.
\end{proof}
In the next subsection, we will construct examples of Corollary \ref{maincor}.
\subsection{Examples}
In this subsection, we give examples of K3 surfaces and Mukai vectors satisfying the assumption in Corollary \ref{maincor}. First, we see six and eight dimensional examples. We will see a four dimensional example in the next section.
\begin{ex}\label{6dimex}
Let $S$ be a K3 surface with $\mathrm{NS}(S)=\mathbb{Z}h$ and $h^2=132$. Let $v:=(4,h,16) \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ be a Mukai vector. Then $v$ is primitive and $v^2=4$. Moreover, there does not exist a vector $a \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ such that $-2 \leq a^2 <v^2/4$ and $0 \leq \langle v, a \rangle \leq v^2/2$.
\end{ex}
\begin{proof}
Let $a=(s,th,u) \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$. Since $\langle v,a \rangle=132t-16s-4u \in 4\mathbb{Z}$ and the Mukai lattice is even, it is enough to consider the equations
\[ \langle v,a \rangle=0, a^2=-2,0 \]
by Corollary \ref{maincor}.
Then we have $u=33t-4s$ and
\[v^\perp= \langle (1,0,-4),(0,h,33) \rangle_{\mathbb{Z}}. \]
Here, we take the orthogonal complement in $\widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$.
Note that the Gram matrix of $v^\perp$ is $\begin{pmatrix}
8 &-33\\ -33 & 132
\end{pmatrix}$. Since the determinant of the Gram matrix is $33$, $v^\perp$ does not have isotropics. So we consider the equation
\begin{equation}\label{inteq}
4x^2-33xy+66y^2=-1.
\end{equation}
Taking modulo $3$, we obtain the contradiction $x^2 \equiv 2$ $(\mathrm{mod}3)$. Hence, the equation (\ref{inteq}) does not have integral solutions. So there does not exist a vector $a \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ such that $-2 \leq a^2 <v^2/4$ and $0 \leq \langle v, a \rangle \leq v^2/2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{ex}\label{8dimex}
Let $S$ be a K3 surface with $\mathrm{NS}(S)=\mathbb{Z}h$ and $h^2=510$. Let $v:=(6,h,42) \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ be a Mukai vector. Then $v$ is primitive and $v^2=6$. Moreover, there does not exist a vector $a \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ such that $-2 \leq a^2 <v^2/4$ and $0 \leq \langle v, a \rangle \leq v^2/2$.
\end{ex}
\begin{proof}
In the same way as the proof of Example \ref{6dimex}, it is sufficient to prove thet the equation
\begin{equation}\label{inteq2}
7x^2-85xy+255y^2=-1
\end{equation}
does not have integral solutions. Taking mudulo $5$, we obtain the contradiction $x^2 \equiv 2$ $(\mathrm{mod}5)$. Hence the equation (\ref{inteq2}) does not have integral solutions.
\end{proof}
We can construct more examples similarly.
\begin{ex}\label{10dimex}
Let $S$ be a K3 surface with $\mathrm{NS}(S)=\mathbb{Z}h$ and $h^2=1160$. Let $v:=(8,h,72) \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ be a Mukai vector. Then $v$ is primitive and $v^2=8$. Moreover, there does not exist a vector $a \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ such that $-2 \leq a^2 <v^2/4$ and $0 \leq \langle v, a \rangle \leq v^2/2$.
\end{ex}
\begin{proof}
In the same way as the proof of Example \ref{6dimex} and Example \ref{8dimex}, it is sufficient to prove that the equation
\begin{equation}\label{inteq3}
9x^2-145xy+580y^2=-1
\end{equation}
does not have integral solutions. We can check it using \cite{Al}.
\end{proof}
\begin{ex}\label{12dimex}
Let $S$ be a K3 surface with $\mathrm{NS}(S)=\mathbb{Z}h$ and $h^2=2210$. Let $v:=(10,h,110) \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ be a Mukai vector. Then $v$ is primitive and $v^2=10$. Moreover, there does not exist a vector $a \in \widetilde{H}^{1,1}(S,\mathbb{Z})$ such that $-2 \leq a^2 <v^2/4$ and $0 \leq \langle v, a \rangle \leq v^2/2$.
\end{ex}
\begin{proof}
In the same way as the proof of Example \ref{6dimex}, Example \ref{8dimex} and Example \ref{10dimex}, it is sufficient to prove that the equation
\begin{equation}\label{inteq4}
9x^2-145xy+580y^2=\pm1
\end{equation}
does not have integral solutions. We can check them using \cite{Al}.
\end{proof}
\section{FROM CUBIC FOURFOLDS}
Let $X$ be a cubic fourfold. Consider the semiorthogonal decomposition
\[ D^b(X)=\langle \A_X, \mathcal{O}_X, \mathcal{O}_X(1), \mathcal{O}_X(2) \rangle \]
and the projection functor $\pr : D^b(X) \to \A_X$.
For $i \in \ZZ$, we define $\lambda_i := [\pr(\mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{line}}(i))] \in K_{\mathrm{num}}(\A_X)$.
Addington proved the following lemmas.
\begin{lem}\label{NS}$($\cite{Ad}, \rm{Proposition 7}$)$\it{}
Let $X$ be a cubic fourfold.
Then there is a Hodge isometry
\[ \mathrm{NS}(F(X))(-1) \simeq \lambda_1^{\perp}. \]
Here, we take the orthogonal complement $\lambda_1^{\perp}$ in $K_{\mathrm{num}}(\A_X)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\label{cubicmukai}$($\cite{Ad}, \rm{Lemma 9}$)$\it{}
If $X \in \C_d$, then there is an element $\tau \in \KA$ such that $\langle \lambda_1, \lambda_2, \tau \rangle$ is a primitive sublattice of discriminant $d$ with Euler pairing
\[\begin{pmatrix}
-2 &1 &0 \\ 1 & -2 & 0\\ 0&0 & 2k
\end{pmatrix} \ \ \ \text{where} \ d=6k\]
\[\begin{pmatrix}
-2 &1 &0 \\ 1 & -2 & 1\\ 0&1 & 2k
\end{pmatrix} \ \ \ \text{where} \ d=6k+2.\]
\end{lem}
For a special cubic fourfold $X$ with $\rk\Hodge=2$, the Picard number of $F(X)$ is two.
\begin{thm}
Let $X$ be a special cubic fourfold of discriminant $74$. Assume that $\rk\Hodge=2$. Then there is an automorphism $\phi \in \Aut(F(X))$ such that $\htop(\phi)>0$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Note that $74=6\cdot12+2$. Moerover, $F(X)$ is isomorphic to a moduli space of stable objects in the derived category of some K3 surface by Theorem \ref{Adthm} and \cite{BM13}. By lemma \ref{cubicmukai}, there is $\tau \in K_{\mathrm{num}}(\A_X)$ such that
\[K_{\mathrm{num}}(\A_X)=\langle \lambda_1, \lambda_2, \tau \rangle\]
with the Gram matrix $\begin{pmatrix}
-2 &1 &0 \\ 1 & -2 & 1\\ 0&1 & 24
\end{pmatrix}$.
By Lemma \ref{NS}, we obtain
\[ \mathrm{NS}(F(X))=\langle \lambda_1+2\lambda_2, \tau \rangle\]
with the Gram matrix
$\begin{pmatrix}
6 &-2 \\ -2 & -24
\end{pmatrix}$.
Since \[ \mathrm{det}\begin{pmatrix}
6 &-2 \\ -2 & -24
\end{pmatrix}=-148, \]
$\mathrm{NS}(F(X))$ does not contain any isotropies. So it is enough to show that the equation
\[ 6x^2-4xy-24y^2=-2 \]
does not have any integral solutions by Corollary \ref{maincor}.
In fact, we can check it using \cite{Al}.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
The spectrum of electrons from the decay of a muon bound in an
atom (decay in orbit, DIO) has two parts. The low-energy part,
$E_e \lesssim m_\mu/2$ ($E_e$ is the electron energy and $m_\mu$ is
the muon mass) is present also in the free muon decay but is
reshuffled because the bound muon is moving and the daughter electron
interacts with the electric field of the nucleus. This modification of
the spectrum was observed by TWIST \cite{Grossheim:2009aa}.
In addition, the possibility of transferring momentum to the nucleus
approximately doubles the range of energy accessible to the electron,
adding the high-energy region $m_\mu/2 \lesssim E_e \lesssim m_\mu$.
This region has already been explored for some nuclei including
titanium, sulfur and gold \cite{Bertl:2006up,
Dohmen:1993mp,Ahmad:1988ur,Burnham:1987gr, Badertscher:1981ay}.
Upcoming experiments COMET and Mu2e \cite{Bartoszek:2014mya,Cui:2009zz,Kuno:2013mha} will measure it for aluminum with
a high precision. Their main goal is
to discover the lepton-flavor violating muon-electron
conversion. High-energy electrons from the DIO are a background in this search.
The purpose of this paper is to improve the theoretical description of
the entire spectrum by determining logarithmically enhanced radiative
corrections. We focus on aluminum, the stopping
material in COMET and Mu2e.
The spectrum of the free muon decay is known including corrections of
the first \cite{Behrends:1956mb} and of the second
order \cite{Anastasiou:2005pn} in the fine structure constant
$\alpha\approx {1}/{137}$,
as well as the leading logarithms in the third order $\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\ln\frac{m_{\mu}}{m_{e}}\right)^{3}$ \cite{Arbuzov:2002rp}.
In the case of the bound muon, even $\order{\alpha}$
effects are known only in a limited range of electron energies.
Radiative corrections near the top of the electron spectrum in
the free muon decay ($E_{e}\sim\frac{m_{\mu}}{2}$) were evaluated
in \cite{Czarnecki:2014cxa} by convoluting the $\order{\alpha}$
free-muon spectrum with the so-called shape function
\cite{Szafron:2015mxa}, reconciling TWIST results
\cite{Grossheim:2009aa} with quantum electrodynamics. This approach
had been developed in the heavy quark effective theory to describe
decays of $B$-mesons \cite{Neubert:1993ch,Bigi:1993ex} using factorization theorems.
Alas, the factorization cannot be applied
when the electron energy is much larger than the half of the muon
mass.
Fortunately, the highest energy endpoint of
the DIO spectrum ($E_{e}\sim
m_{\mu}$) offers a different simplification: one can expand in
the number of photons exchanged with the nucleus, parameterized by
$Z\alpha$ where $Z$ is the proton number of the nucleus (for aluminum, $Z=13$).
Radiative corrections in the endpoint region have been evaluated
in \cite{Szafron:2015kja}. It is still unknown how to compute full
radiative corrections for intermediate electron energies $\frac{1}{2}m_{\mu}<E_{e}<m_{\mu}$
\cite{Szafron:2015wbm}.
However, the likely largest corrections can be computed.
Enhanced effects
$\sim\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\ln\frac{m_{\mu}}{m_{e}}$ arise from
collinear photons and can be found from collinear
factorization theorems \cite{Ellis:1991qj}, without a
new loop calculation.
In a muonic atom, vacuum polarization (VP) is an additional source of
large logarithms. It modifies the Coulomb potential and is taken into
account numerically together with the effects of the finite charge
distribution in the nucleus. Typically, the VP correction is on the
order of $\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \ln\frac{Z\alpha
m_{\mu}}{m_{e}}$, or
$\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \ln\frac{m_{\mu}}{m_{e}}$ near the DIO endpoint.
Section \ref{sec:2} presents details of both collinear and VP
corrections. Section \ref{sec:3} summarizes numerical results. In Section \ref{sec:4}
we discuss the uncertainty due to the nuclear charge distribution
and suggest a means of lowering it.
\section{Leading logarithmic corrections to the DIO spectrum}
\label{sec:2}
We assume that the daughter electron is relativistic. For a
low-energy electron, additional non-perturbative phenomena would have
to be considered. For example, a slow electron can be captured into
the atom in the final state. The low-energy part of the spectrum is
not yet fully understood \cite{Greub:1994fp}. However, it involves only
a small fraction of electrons because of the phase space suppression
and it is not relevant for conversion experiments, sensitive only to the
high-energy region of the spectrum.
\subsection{Collinear photons}
Focusing on an energetic electron, we first consider the emission of
collinear photons. For electron energies much larger than
the electron mass $E_{e}\gg m_{e}$, Coulomb corrections are small
and do not affect the collinear limit of the amplitude in the leading
order in $Z\alpha$. Before
the emission of a collinear photon, the electron is almost on-shell
and propagates over distances large compared with the size of the muonic
atom. Hence, the collinear emission is a long-distance phenomenon that takes
place after the electron escapes the region of the
strong binding potential. On the other hand, if the photon
is emitted before the last scattering of an electron on the nucleus,
the electron is still off-shell and the amplitude is not
singular. In such case, the corrections are not enhanced by a
large logarithm $\ln\frac{m_{\mu}}{m_{e}}$ or are suppressed
by additional powers of $\Zal$. For aluminum,
$\Zal \ln\frac{m_{\mu}}{m_{e}}\sim\frac{1}{2}$. These corrections
are comparable with the non-logarithmic term
$\order{\alpha }$ and we neglect them.
Collinear corrections can be calculated using a
factorization theorem, previously employed to improve
the free muon spectrum \cite{Arbuzov:2002pp,Arbuzov:2002cn,Arbuzov:2002rp}.
Following Ref.~\cite{Arbuzov:2002pp} we evaluate the
collinear logarithms $\frac{\d \GLL}{\d E_{e}}$
convoluting the leading order spectrum $\frac{\d \GLO}{\d E_{e}}$
with the electron structure function,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\d \GLL}{\d E_{e}}=\frac{\d \GLO}{\d E_{e}} \otimes D_{e} +\order{\Zal\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\ln\frac{m_{\mu}}{m_{e}}},\label{eq:conv}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
D_{e}(x)=\delta(1-x)+\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\left(\ln\frac{m_{\mu}^{2}}{m_{e}^{2}}-1\right)P_{e}\left(x\right)+\order{\alpha^{2}}
\end{equation}
and the electron splitting function is
\[
P_{e}(x)=\left[\frac{1+x^{2}}{1-x}\right]_{+}.
\]
We employ the dimensionless variable
$x=E_{e}/\Emax$ with $\Emax$ denoting
the maximum electron energy. The convolution is defined as $A\otimes
B\left(z\right)=\int_{0}^{1}\d x\int_{0}^{1}\d y\delta\left(z-xy\right)A(x)B(y)$
and the leading order term $\frac{\d \GLO }{\d E_{e}}$ includes
Coulomb effects to all orders in $\Zal$.
Eq.~(\ref{eq:conv}) ensures a cancellation of the mass singularity
in the correction to the bound muon lifetime, in agreement with the
Kinoshita-Lee-Nauenberg theorem \cite{Kinoshita:1962ur,Lee:1964is}.
\subsection{Vacuum polarization}
The second type of large logarithms comes from the vacuum
polarization that strengthens the binding. The VP does
not contribute to the free muon spectrum at one loop, hence this
correction is exclusive to the bound muon and related to
other binding effects. The $\order{\alpha}$ correction to the
potential is known as the Uehling term \cite{Uehling:1935uj}. For a
pointlike nucleus the binding potential is
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
V(r)=-\frac{\Zal}{r}\left(1+\frac{2\alpha}{3\pi}\int_{1}^{\infty}\d
xe^{-2m_{e}rx}\frac{2x^{2}+1}{2x^{4}}\sqrt{x^{2}-1}\right)+\order{\left(\Zal\right)^{3}}.
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
The VP potential for an arbitrary charge distribution
is given in Ref.~\cite{Hylton:1985zz}.
The electron loop modifies the potential at distances comparable
to the Compton wavelength of electron $r_{e}\sim\frac{1}{m_{e}}$
or smaller. The VP term
reduces the endpoint energy and increases the number of high-energy
electrons. It also shrinks the muon orbit. As a result, the muon kinetic
energy and the lifetime increase.
In muonic atoms, the VP effect is much larger than
in ordinary atoms \cite{Borie:1982ax}. The binding
energy,
\begin{equation}
E_{b}\simeq -m_{\mu}\frac{\left(\Zal\right)^{2}}{2},
\label{eq:Eb}
\end{equation}
receives a correction that is not suppressed by extra powers of $\Zal$. In
an ordinary atom the Lamb shift contributes at the $(\Zal)^4$
order. For example, the VP correction starts with
$-\frac{4}{15}\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\left(\Zal\right)^{4}m_{e}$.
This behaviour follows from the range of the VP potential, much
smaller than the size of the electron orbit
$\frac{1}{m_{e}}\ll\frac{1}{m_{e}\Zal}.$ When the electron is replaced
by a muon, the potential reaches beyond the muon orbit,
$\frac{1}{m_{e}}\gg\frac{1}{m_{\mu}\Zal}$, and the correction to the
binding energy behaves as
$\sim\frac{\alpha}{\pi}(\Zal)^2\ln\frac{m_{\mu}\Zal}{m_{e}}$. For a
pointlike nucleus and using non-relativistic muon wave function, in
the limit $m_{e}\ll m_{\mu}$, we get the correction to the binding energy
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta \BVP &=&\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\left(\Zal\right)^{2}m_{\mu}
\left(\frac{11}{9}-\frac{2}{3}\ln\frac{2m_{\mu}\Zal}{m_{e}}\right)
\nonumber \\
&=&-2.7 \text{ keV for aluminum.}
\label{eq:DeltaE}
\end{eqnarray}
This is larger than the total uncertainty in the binding energy and
has to be included in the evaluation of the endpoint energy. We will
return to this correction in the discussion of numerical results in
Section \ref{sec:3}.
The logarithmic terms in the VP correction can also be reproduced
by using in eq.~(\ref{eq:Eb}) the running coupling constant
$\alpha\left(Q^{2}\right)=
\frac{\alpha}{1-\frac{\alpha}{3\pi}\ln\left(\frac{Q^{2}}{m_{e}^{2}}\right)}$,
with $\sqrt{Q^2}=m_{\mu}\Zal$.
In the DIO spectrum, the VP effects do not factorize, unlike the
collinear corrections. They are accounted for, together with the
finite nuclear size, by numerically solving the Dirac equation.
Large corrections with logarithms of $\Zal$ are also present
in the DIO spectrum. Pure relativistic corrections can contain $\ln \Zal$,
typically suppressed by two powers of $\Zal$ \cite{Szafron:2013wja}.
In our numerical approach, we solve the Dirac equation without any non-relativistic
expansion; hence, these terms are automatically included in our leading
order spectrum.
Logarithms of $\Zal$ will appear also in radiative corrections
involving ultra-soft photons, like in the classical calculation of the
Lamb shift \cite{Pineda:1997ie}. These Bethe-type logarithms are
suppressed by additional powers of $\Zal$, in the same manner
as the VP shift of the binding energy in electron atoms.
\section{Numerical results}
\label{sec:3}
We compute wave functions of the bound muon and of the daughter
electron by numerically solving the Dirac equation
\cite{rosebook,BetaWF}. An analytical solution is not known for a
realistic distribution of the nuclear charge density. In order to
find the DIO spectrum we have implemented in Python matrix elements,
including nuclear recoil corrections, given in
\cite{Czarnecki:2011mx}. As a check of the numerical code, we have
compared the muon binding energy and the DIO spectrum with previous
results \cite{Czarnecki:2011mx,Watanabe:1987su}.
We use the Fermi model for the nuclear charge density
distribution fitted to the electron elastic scattering data
\cite{vries87}. In Section \ref{sec:4} we discuss other possible
models and the uncertainty related to the nuclear charge radius.
Near the endpoint, the spectrum rapidly varies with
energy, like $(\Emax-E_e)^5$, so a precise value of $\Emax$ is
critical.
We predict, including the charge distribution corrections, the VP
term, and the recoil correction (see eq.~(13) in \cite{Czarnecki:2011mx}),
\begin{equation}
\Emax=m_{\mu}-E_\text{rec}+E_{b}=104.971(1)\;\text{MeV}.
\label{eq:Emax}
\end{equation}
The error comes from the uncertainty in the charge distribution.
The difference between our result and the endpoint energy without the VP
correction, $E_{\mu e}=104.973(1)$ \cite{Czarnecki:2011mx},
is consistent with Eq.~(\ref{eq:DeltaE}).
\begin{figure}
\noindent \begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{corP}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:LLcor}Leading corrections to the bound muon
spectrum. The VP correction $\frac{\NVP-\NLO}{\NLO}$ is
mostly positive (solid line). We have shifted the electron energies
in the VP term,
$E_e\rightarrow E_e+\Delta \BVP$, so that the $\NVP$ and $\NLO$
spectra have a common endpoint energy, $E_{\mu e}$. The correction
$\frac{\NLL-\NLO}{\NLO}$, due to collinear photons, decreases the
number of electrons near the endpoint (dotted line). The dashed line
represents the total correction. See text for details. }
\end{figure}
We denote $\NLL =\frac{\d \GLL}{\d E_{e}}$ and
$\NLO=\frac{\d \GLO }{\d E_{e}}$. We also introduce
$\NVP =\frac{\d \GVP}{\d E_{e}}$ as the leading order spectrum that
includes the VP correction only. Relative collinear
$\frac{\NLL-\NLO}{\NLO}$ and VP
$\frac{\NVP-\NLO}{\NLO}$ corrections are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:LLcor}. For a
1~MeV signal window near the endpoint, we obtain a 12\% reduction of
the number of DIO events, consistent with \cite{Szafron:2015kja}.
Should the DIO spectrum be needed for electron energies closer to the
endpoint, we recommend using eq.~(2) in
\cite{Szafron:2015kja}, where soft photons have been exponentiated.
For low electron energies, $E_e \leq \frac{m_{\mu}}{2}-m_\mu \Zal$,
the DIO spectrum is dominated by the free muon decay corrected by the
binding effects. Consequently, in this region, the VP is a relatively
unimportant subleading effect. The VP correction becomes significant
for electron energies above the free muon endpoint,
$E_{e}>\frac{m_{\mu}}{2}$, where the free muon spectrum is
absent. Here, the spectrum is dominated by the binding effects and is
sensitive to the details of the binding potential. The VP correction
is particularly important near the endpoint $E_e \simeq \Emax$ where
highly-virtual Coulomb photons transfer a large momentum to the
nucleus.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:VPend} we show the VP correction in the DIO endpoint
region, where the spectrum has a simple dependence on the electron
energy,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\d \Gamma}{\d E_{e}}\equiv N\sim\left(\Emax-E_{e}\right)^{5}.
\label{eq:delta^5}
\end{equation}
Here the VP correction manifests itself in two ways.
The correction due to the shift in the endpoint energy (\ref{eq:DeltaE})
is important only very close to $\Emax$. For smaller electron
energies it becomes negligible. To illustrate this effect we plotted
$\left(\frac{\Emax-E_e}{E_{\mu e}-E_e}\right)^5-1$ in
Fig.~\ref{fig:VPend}.
The VP also modifies muon and electron wave functions. This effect
does not depend strongly on the electron energy, because it
is dominated by the running of the coupling constant
$\alpha\left(Q^{2}\right)$. It varies slowly for
$\left|Q^{2}\right|\sim m_{\mu}^{2}$.
To quantify this effect, we define
the shift of the spectrum due to the VP correction to the wave functions as
\begin{equation}
\dVP=\frac{\NVP \left(E_{e}+\Delta \BVP\right)-\NLO
\left(E_{e}\right)}{\NLO \left(E_{e}\right)}\label{eq:DVP}
\end{equation}
in the limit when $E_{e}$ approaches the endpoint of the leading order
spectrum $E_{\mu e}$. We find
numerically $\dVP=2.5\%$. Ref.~\cite{Szafron:2015kja} provided the correction to
the leading term of the spectrum expanded in $\Zal$:
$\delta_{\text{VP},\left(\Zal\right)^{5}}=2.9\%$. The difference with
$\dVP$ is caused by higher orders in $\Zal$, estimated as minus 20\%
of the leading
$\left(\Zal\right)^{5}$ term \cite{Szafron:2015kja}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{VP}
\caption{\label{fig:VPend} Vacuum polarization correction to the DIO
spectrum around the endpoint. The solid line illustrates the relative
change of the spectrum due to the decrease of the endpoint energy,
$\left(\frac{\Emax-E_e}{E_{\mu e}-E_e}\right)^5-1$. The dotted line
is a correction due to the shift in the wave functions $\dVP$, see
Eq.~(\ref{eq:DVP}). The dashed line shows both effects combined. }
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
As a check, we have compared our results with the spectrum measured by
TWIST \cite{Grossheim:2009aa}. The results are presented in
Fig.~\ref{fig:TWIST}. The quality of the fit is comparable to our
previous approach based on the shape function (see Fig. 3 in
\cite{Czarnecki:2014cxa}). However, now we are not limited to
electron energies $E_{e}\lesssim\frac{m_{\mu}}{2}$. Also, we are not
including the energy scale uncertainty in the fit. This reduces the
number of fit parameters to one: the overall normalization of the
spectrum. The quality of the fit is characterized by $\chi^2$ per
degree of freedom, $\chi^2$/dof. The leading order DIO spectrum gives
$\chi^2$/dof=8.8. When radiative corrections are included using the
shape function, this decreases to $\chi^2$/dof=3.9. The spectrum
obtained in the present paper gives a slightly better
$\chi^2$/dof=2.8. The quality of the fit could likely be improved by
including the TWIST systematic errors and correlations among energy
bins but we are not qualified to do this.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[height=0.6\columnwidth]{TWIST} \includegraphics[height=0.6\columnwidth]{TWISTLog}
\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:TWIST}Left panel: the difference between TWIST data
and the theoretically calculated spectrum normalized to our theoretical
evaluation of the DIO spectrum. Crosses represent the leading order evaluation
without any radiative corrections. Dots correspond to our new evaluation
that includes leading logarithmic corrections. Right panel: the
DIO spectrum (solid line) fitted to TWIST data (dots). With the
results of this paper, a measurement of
the DIO spectrum at energies
$E_e\sim \frac{m_\mu}{2}$ can be used to calibrate the energy response in the future conversion experiments. }
\end{figure*}
\section{Nuclear charge distribution}
\label{sec:4}
In order to quantify the uncertainty due to the nuclear charge
density, we have examined three experimental sources. Two use the Fermi model,
\begin{equation}
\varrho(r)=\frac{\varrho_{0}}{1+\exp\left(\frac{r-r_{0}}{a}\right)},\label{eq:Fermi}
\end{equation}
where $r_0$ is a fitted parameter describing the radius of the
distribution and $a$ is related to the so-called skin thickness.
Elastic electron scattering gives \cite{vries87} $r_{0}=2.84(5)$~fm
for $a= 0.569$~fm and transitions in muonic aluminum
\cite{Fricke:1992zza} give, more precisely, $r_{0}=3.0534(13)$~fm for
$a= 0.523$~fm. Even though the radii seem to differ by more than
one standard deviation, they have been fitted at different values of
the parameter $a$. In our calculation these differences partially
compensate one another, as we shall see below.
Another parameterization employs the spherical Bessel function $j_{0}$,
\begin{equation}
\varrho(r)=\sum_{n}a_{n}j_{0}\left(\frac{n\pi r}{R}\right),\;r<R;\;\;\varrho(r)=0,\;r\geq R,\label{eq:Bessel}
\end{equation}
where $R$ is a cutoff beyond which the density is assumed to be zero,
taken to be $R=7$~fm, and the coefficients $a_{i}$, for $i=1,\dots,12$,
are given in \cite{vries87}. Unfortunately, no error estimate seems to
be available for $a_i$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\noindent \begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\columnwidth]{Errr}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{\label{fig:Error} Relative uncertainty in the DIO spectrum near the endpoint
related to nuclear charge distribution. The shaded region is obtained
by varying $r_{0}$ in (\ref{eq:Fermi}) within limits
obtained from electron scattering data \cite{vries87}. Solid line
corresponds to the Bessel parametrization (\ref{eq:Bessel}) and the dashed
line to the Fermi distribution obtained from muonic
atoms \cite{Fricke:1992zza}.}
\end{figure}
Only the high-energy part of the DIO spectrum is sensitive to the
smearing of the nuclear charge. Fig.~\ref{fig:Error} shows the
predictions of the three models in that region, consistent within the
electron scattering errors.
Electron scattering data give the largest error for the
charge density.
We use them to tabulate the
DIO spectrum for aluminum including leading logarithmic
corrections; see supplemental material \cite{DIO}. This choice is further justified by
the muon DIO amplitude near the endpoint being proportional to the
elastic scattering amplitude \cite{Szafron:2015kja}. To quantify the
dependence
of the error on the electron energy, we approximate the one-sigma boundaries
(the shaded region in Fig.~\ref{fig:Error}) by
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta N}{N} \approx \sigma \frac{2E_{e}-\Emax}{\Emax},\;\text{with}\;\sigma=0.022.\label{eq:DNLL}
\end{equation}
The coefficient 2 in front of $E_e$ reflects the approximate vanishing
of the sensitivity to the nuclear distribution in the low-energy
region: at $E_e=\Emax/2$ and below.
The uncertainty (\ref{eq:DNLL}) can be reduced by measuring, in
conversion experiments, the DIO spectrum outside the conversion signal
window. To fit $r_0$, such measurements should use the radiatively
corrected DIO spectrum; not only are the corrections large but they also
change the simple functional form of the DIO spectrum near the
endpoint, Eq.~(\ref{eq:delta^5}).
To achieve the necessary accuracy, the DIO spectrum measurement
requires a precise energy calibration. The endpoint energy has
been calculated with a precision of $1$~keV, see Eq.~(\ref{eq:Emax}).
The upcoming experiments will measure the endpoint energy with a larger uncertainty,
$\Delta \Emax$. From Eq.~(\ref{eq:delta^5}) we estimate
how $\Delta \Emax$ influences the number of electrons with
energy $E_{e}=\Emax-\delta$. Denoting the uncertainty in the spectrum
due to $\Delta \Emax$ as $\Delta N_{E}$ we get
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta N_{E}}{N}\approx5\frac{\Delta \Emax}{\delta},\label{eq:DNE}
\end{equation}
hence in order to constrain the error related to the nuclear charge
distribution, the number of DIO events $N$ with energy $E_{e}$ has
to be measured with an experimental precision $\Delta N_{\exp}$ such
that
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{\left(\frac{\Delta N_{\exp}}{N}\right)^{2}+\left(\frac{\Delta N_{E}}{N}\right)^{2}}\lesssim\frac{\Delta N}{N}
\end{equation}
It is most efficient
to use the DIO measurement at an energy for which the largest
$\frac{\Delta N_{\exp}}{N}$ can be tolerated. This optimal energy can be calculated
using (\ref{eq:DNLL}) and (\ref{eq:DNE}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:1}
\frac{E^\text{opt}_{e}}{\Emax}&=&1- \xi - \frac{2}{3}\xi^2 - \frac{4}{3}\xi^3 +\order{\xi^4}
\nonumber\\
\xi & \equiv &
\sqrt[\leftroot{-1}\uproot{2}\scriptstyle 3]{\frac{25}{2} \left(\frac{\Delta \Emax}{\sigma\Emax}\right)^2}
\end{eqnarray}
For example, for $\Delta \Emax=30\;\text{keV}$, the optimal
energy is 90 MeV, and the experimental uncertainty should be smaller than
$\frac{\Delta N_{\exp}}{N}\lesssim 0.012$.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conc}
We have calculated the energy spectrum of electrons in the bound muon decay including leading logarithmic
corrections.
For electron energies $E_{e}>100\;\mbox{MeV}$
the sum of vacuum polarization and collinear photon effects decreases
the number of DIO events by more than 10\%, in agreement with the
endpoint expansion \cite{Szafron:2015kja}.
Our present result is valid in the entire energy range $E_{e}\gg
m_{e}$ and can be used to calibrate the energy in conversion experiments.
This was not possible with previous results available only near the
endpoint $\Emax$ and in the low-energy (shape function) region,
without means to interpolate in the remaining high-energy region.
The dominant remaining uncertainty comes from the nuclear charge
distribution. Here new input from experiments
is required. We suggest that the DIO spectrum be used to constrain
the charge distribution, as a byproduct of the conversion search.
We have neglected the screening by the electron cloud (see
\cite{Czarnecki:2011mx} for a discussion). In order
to further improve the theoretical description of the DIO spectrum,
this effect should be included together with non-logarithmic radiative
corrections $\order{\frac{\alpha}{\pi}}$.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This research was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council (NSERC) of Canada. R.S.~acknowledges support
by the Fermilab Intensity Frontier
Fellowship. Fermilab is operated by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC under
Contract No.~De-AC02-07CH11359 with the United States Department of
Energy.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Intro}
Ever since its inception \cite{Marcelin15,Evans35,Wigner38,Horiuti38}
Transition State Theory (TST) has provided a powerful conceptual framework
for reaction rate theory.
Though originally devised to describe chemical reactions of small molecules,
it has been
applied to a wide variety of activated processes, that proceed
from suitably defined ``reactant'' to ``product'' states%
\cite{Toller85,Eckhardt95,Hernandez93,Hernandez94,Jaffe99,Jaffe00,Koon00,%
Jaffe02,Uzer02,Komatsuzaki02}.
In all these cases, TST identifies the rate limiting step of the reaction,
and thus the reaction mechanism, and provides a simple approximation to
the reaction rate.
More precisely, TST applies to systems in which the rate limiting step
is the crossing of an energetic barrier.
In this situation the vast majority of reactive trajectories will pass
very close to the top of the barrier.
If a dividing surface (DS) between reactant and product regions of
phase space is chosen close to the barrier top, the reaction rate
can be computed from the steady-state flux of trajectories through
this surface.
To avoid overestimating the rate, one must ensure that trajectories
are only included in the flux calculation if they are actually reactive.
The identification of reactive trajectories requires, in principle,
a study of the reaction dynamics in all its complexity.
A simple method to perform this central task is therefore highly desirable.
The crudest
approach to identify reactive trajectories is to assume
that every trajectory that crosses the DS from the reactant to the
product side is reactive.
This approximation, which leads to the standard TST~rate formula,
is equivalent to the postulate that no trajectory can cross the
DS more than once.
Depending on the choice of DS, the TST~approximation can be more or
less accurate.
However, for gas phase reactions and energies close to the reaction threshold,
a DS can be constructed that is rigorously recrossing free and therefore
TST renders exact rates \cite{Uzer02,Waalkens04a,Waalkens04c}.
A recrossing free DS cannot be found at
higher energies
\cite{Pechukas79,Pollak80,Allahem12} or if the reactive system is
strongly coupled to an environment, for example a liquid solvent.
In the latter case, in particular, a typical trajectory will cross and recross
any given DS many times, so that TST will grossly overestimate the reaction rate.
For this reason, much effort has been invested into the construction of a
DS that minimizes recrossings (see Ref.~\onlinecite{Garrett05a} for a review).
Since for reactions in solution the recrossing problem cannot be overcome
by a suitable choice of DS, other methods must be sought.
A numerical simulation of trajectories does, of course,
provide a reliable criterion, but it can be computationally very demanding.
The simplicity of TST suggests that a more straightforward criterion might be available.
For reactive systems coupled to a heat bath modeled by a Langevin
equation (LE), we recently suggested such a criterion~\cite{Revuelta12,Bartsch12}:
the trick is to shift focus away from the DS onto
hypersurfaces in phase space that separate reactive from non-reactive
trajectories.
These surfaces, which are invariant manifolds, can be characterized
dynamically from a more fundamental point of view,
and this characterization allows one to compute them.
In the present work we generalize the method of Refs.~\onlinecite{Revuelta12,Bartsch12}
to a heat bath modeled by a generalized Langevin equation (GLE),
which takes the finite relaxation time of the bath into account.
Some of these results have already been reported in Ref.~\onlinecite{Revuelta16}.
We will here supply the missing details
and extend the result to multidimensional systems.
The usual LE has been widely used to model the interaction of a
reactive system with a surrounding heat bath.\cite{Haenggi90,Pechukas76,Chandler78}
It neglects quantum effects such as barrier tunneling, which can be important
in the case of light particles \cite{Bothma10}, and the interaction with
electronic excited states through conical intersections \cite{Polli10}.
More importantly for our purposes, it also neglects the internal dynamics of
the heat bath and assumes instead that the bath equilibrates infinitely fast.
A more realistic model of a heat bath will take into account that the
heat bath molecules need a finite time to move.
As a consequence, the stochastic forces that the bath exerts on the reactive
system at different times must be correlated, and this correlation will decay
on a time scale that is given by the dynamics of the bath.
This effect can be described by a GLE
(see Refs.~\onlinecite{Haenggi90,Pechukas76,Chandler78}
and Sect.~\ref{sec:GLE} below).
The original LE as well as its generalization for correlated
noise are equivalent to a Hamiltonian model in which the reactive system is
coupled to a bath of infinitely many harmonic oscillators.\cite{Zwanzig73}
Via this representation, the rate theory originally developed
by Kramers\cite{Kramers40} for white (uncorrelated) noise
and by Grote and Hynes\cite{Grote80} for colored (correlated) noise,
can be obtained from a TST in an infinite-dimensional phase space.\cite{Pollak86}
This approach could then be extended to include the corrections due
to anharmonic barriers.\cite{Pollak93a,Talkner93,Talkner94a}
In this work we avoid using an explicit model of the heat bath that
introduces an infinite-dimensional phase space.
Instead, we work directly in the phase space of the GLE,
which is finite-dimensional for the friction kernels we consider.
This choice is convenient both from a computational
and from a conceptual points of view,
since it allows to visualize the relevant phase space structures more easily.
In this paper, we present a detailed study of the phase space structures
of the GLE introduced in Ref.~\onlinecite{Revuelta16}
that determine reactivity.
This work is based on a recent series of papers
\cite{Bartsch05b,Bartsch05c,Bartsch06a,Bartsch08,Hernandez10,Revuelta12,
Bartsch12,Revuelta16}
that describe such structures and their use in rate theory,
including the identification of reactive trajectories\cite{Bartsch06a}
and rate calculation\cite{Bartsch08,Revuelta12,Bartsch12, Revuelta16}.
With the exception of Refs.~\onlinecite{Revuelta16} and~\onlinecite{Bartsch05c},
the previous papers were restricted to the LE with white noise.
They show that the LE gives rise to a particular trajectory called the
Transition State (TS) trajectory that remains in the vicinity of the
barrier top for all times,
without ever descending into either well.
It depends on the realization of the noise and takes over the role played
by the saddle point in the TST of autonomous systems.
For the case of a harmonic barrier,
it was shown in Refs.~\onlinecite{Bartsch05b,Bartsch05c}
that the LE becomes noiseless if the dynamics is studied
in a time-dependent coordinate system with the TS~trajectory as the origin.
It is then easy to identify a recrossing free DS in the moving coordinate system,
as well as hypersurfaces that separate reactive from nonreactive trajectories.
The most important of these surfaces is the stable manifold of the TS~trajectory.
It contains all trajectories that asymptotically approach the TS~trajectory
for long times.
This stable manifold separates trajectories that descend into the product
well in the distant future from those that descent into the reactant well.
A knowledge of the stable manifold therefore allows one to distinguish reactive
from nonreactive trajectories without any further computation.
It solves the diagnostic problem that is fundamental to rate theory.
The stable manifold will persist if the barrier is not harmonic.
In Refs.~\onlinecite{Revuelta12,Bartsch12} we demonstrated how it can be
computed by perturbation theory.
As already announced in Ref.~\onlinecite{Revuelta16},
we will demonstrate here in detail that the stable manifold
also exists in a reactive system described by a
GLE with correlated noise, and we will use it to derive anharmonic
barrier corrections to the reaction rate for such systems.
In the first part of the paper,
in Secs.~\ref{sec:GLE}-\ref{sec:kappa},
we consider one-dimensional systems.
Leading order rate corrections are derived for a generic one-dimensional
barrier potential.
For an application to a realistic system,
i.e.~LiNC$\rightleftharpoons$LiCN isomerization, see
Ref.~\onlinecite{Revuelta16}.
In the second half of the paper, in Sec.~\ref{sec:2d},
we extend the same computational method
to multidimensional systems.
We then derive the first and second order rate corrections for the
anharmonic two-dimensional model potential that was already used in
Refs.~\onlinecite{Bartsch06a,Bartsch08,Revuelta12,Bartsch12}.
The outline of the paper is as follows.
In Sect.~\ref{sec:rate} we introduce the fundamentals of the rate theory
that are necessary for our purposes.
Section~\ref{sec:GLE} presents the GLE and its phase space coordinates.
The geometrical structures that characterize the phase space of a system
of one degree--of--freedom (dof) and are central for our study are
described in Sect.~\ref{sec:mf}.
Section~\ref{sec:vCrit} is devoted to the calculation of a critical velocity
that allows a unique identification of reactive trajectories.
In Sect.~\ref{sec:kappa} we explain how this critical velocity can be used
for the calculation of the transmission factor.
Finally, we summarize in Sect.~\ref{sec:conclu} the conclusions of our work.
\section{The fundamental rate formula}
\label{sec:rate}
In this section, we summarize the fundamentals of reaction rate theory
that will be used in the rest of the paper.
For a more detailed discussion,
see for example Refs.~\onlinecite{Haenggi90, Pechukas76, Chandler78}.
As mentioned above, TST is based on the assumption that there is
a recrossing free DS between reactants and products,
that is crossed once and only once by every reactive trajectory.
If we assume that this DS is placed at~$x^\ddag$ and that
the reactant and product regions are defined by~$x<x^\ddag$ and~$x>x^\ddag$,
respectively, the TST approximation to the reaction rate is given by the
flux-over-population expression
\begin{equation}
\label{kexact}
k=\frac{J}{N},
\end{equation}
where~$N$ is the average population of the reactant region
and~$J$ is the reactive flux out of it.
In a system with $n$ dof, the DS $x=x^\ddag$ can be parameterized
by $2n-1$ phase space coordinates:
the velocity $v_x$ perpendicular to the surface and the coordinates
$\vec q_\perp$ and corresponding velocities $\vec v_\perp$
in the transverse directions.
The reactive flux is then given by
\begin{equation}
\label{Jexact}
J=\avg{v_x \, \chi_\alpha(v_x,\vec q_\perp, \vec v_\perp)}_{\alpha,\textnormal{IC}},
\end{equation}
where the average extends over all realizations $\alpha$ of the noise and over a
stationary-state ensemble of initial conditions (IC's) on the~DS.
The characteristic function $\chi_\alpha$ takes now a value equal to~1
if the trajectory given by the IC~$(x^\ddag, v_x, \vec{q}_\perp, \vec{v}_\perp)$
is reactive if driven by the noise sequence $\alpha$ and~0 otherwise.
It ensures that a trajectory is only included in the reactive flux
if it actually leads to a reaction, i.e., if it descends from the barrier
into the product region and thermalizes there.
The main dynamical challenge in a rate calculation consists in the evaluation
of the characteristic function $\chi_\alpha$.
We will later propose a simple explicit expression for $\chi_\alpha$,
in Eq.~\eqref{chi_r}, that concentrates the potentially intricate dynamics
of the system into a single function.
Standard TST sidesteps the dynamical problem by assuming
that the DS is recrossing free.
It then follows that a trajectory that crosses the DS with a positive velocity~$v_x$
will move from the reactant to the product side, contributing to the reactive flux,
whereas a trajectory with a negative~$v_x$ will end in the reactant side and,
as a consequence, will be nonreactive.
In other words, TST assumes the characteristic function
\begin{equation} \label{chi}
\chi^\textnormal{TST}(v_x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
1, & \textnormal{if } v_x>0, \\
0, & \textnormal{if } v_x<0 .\\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
In the corresponding flux
\begin{equation}
\label{Jtst}
J^\textnormal{TST}=\avg{v_x \, \chi^\textnormal{TST}(v_x)}_{v_x},
\end{equation}
the average only needs to be extended over the velocity $v_x$ because the
argument is independent of all other coordinates and of the noise.
The standard TST~approximation to the reaction rate
\begin{equation}
\label{ktst}
k^\text{TST}=\frac{J^\text{TST}}{N},
\end{equation}
always overestimates the true rate.
The extent to which a given system violates the no-recrossing
assumption is measured by the transmission factor
\begin{equation}
\label{kappa}
\kappa=\frac{k}{k^\textnormal{TST}}<1.
\end{equation}
Unless the friction caused by the heat bath is very weak, the stationary-state
distribution of IC's in the barrier is given by a Boltzmann equilibrium distribution.
This assumption will always be made in the rate calculations presented here,
though the dynamical theory at the heart of this study does not require it.
The exact expression~\eqref{chi_r} for the characteristic function applies
to equilibrium as well as nonequilibrium systems.
The average over IC's is then performed over an ensemble with
probability density
\begin{equation}
\label{prob}
p(x, v_x, \vec{q}_\perp,
\vec{v}_\perp)=\delta(x-x^\ddag) \exp\left( -\frac{m v_x^2}{2k_\text{B}T} \right)
p_\perp(\vec{q}_\perp, \vec{v}_\perp),
\end{equation}
where~$m$ is the particle mass and $p_\perp$ is a Boltzmann distribution
\begin{equation}
\label{Pperp}
p_\perp(\vec{q}_\perp, \vec{v}_\perp)=\frac{1}{Z}
\exp\left( -\frac{m v_x^2/2+U(x^\ddag, \vec{q}_\perp)}{k_\text{B}T} \right)
\end{equation}
for the transverse coordinates and velocities,
being~$U(x^\ddag, \vec{q}_\perp)$ the potential of mean force.
The factor~$Z$ in Eq.~\eqref{Pperp} is the partition function that ensures
\begin{equation}
\int d\vec{q}_\perp d\vec{v}_\perp \, p_\perp(\vec{q}_\perp, \vec{v}_\perp) = 1.
\end{equation}
Under this assumption, the TST~flux~\eqref{Jtst} can be evaluated analytically
to give
\begin{equation}
J^\textrm{TST} = \sqrt{\frac{k_\text{B}T}{2\pi\,m}}.
\end{equation}
The exact flux~\eqref{Jexact} is evaluated by randomly sampling
IC's from the ensemble~\eqref{prob} and noise sequences.
To provide a benchmark for the perturbative calculations, classical trajectories
are numerically propagated, using
the algorithm described in Refs.~\onlinecite{Hershkovitz98, Hershkovitz01}
until their energy is far enough below the saddle point,
so that they can be considered thermalized.
As will be demonstrated below, the selection of this cutoff energy is
much more critical for the correct computation of reaction rates
in presence of colored noise than for the case of environments
characterized by white noise.
Actually, no matter how low the value of the cutoff is chosen,
some trajectories will always recross the DS if one waits long enough.
However, if the particle remains for long enough in the well into which it has descended,
any further recrossing can be regarded as part of subsequent reaction events.
\section{The generalized Langevin equation}
\label{sec:GLE}
The reduced dynamics of an $n$--dof system coupled to an external heat bath
that has memory effects can be accurately described by the GLE
\begin{equation}
\label{genLE_I}
m \ddot{\vec{q}} = -\nabla_{\vec{q}} U(\vec{q})
- m \int_{-\infty}^t \mathbf{\Gamma}(t-s)\, \dot{\vec q}(s)\,ds + m \,\vec{R}_{\alpha}(t),
\end{equation}
where $m$ is the particle mass,
$\vec{q}$ is an $n$--dimensional coordinates vector,
$\mathbf{\Gamma}(t)$ is the friction kernel $n\times n$ matrix,
and $\vec{R}_{\alpha}(t)$ is the fluctuating noise force exerted by the heat bath.
Moreover, $\mathbf{\Gamma}(t)$ and~$\vec{R}_\alpha(t)$ are related to
each other according to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:R0Rt}
\avg{\vec{R}_\alpha(0) \vec{R}^{\rm T}_\alpha(t)}_\alpha =
\frac{k_\text{B}T\,\mathbf{\Gamma}(t)}{m},
\end{equation}
where $\avg{...}_\alpha$ denotes an average over the different realizations~$\alpha$
of the noise.
In the first part of this paper, we will focus on the study of one-dimensional problems.
In this case, the coordinate vector~$\vec{q}$ has a single component $x$,
and Eq.~\eqref{genLE_I} reduces to
\begin{equation}
\label{genLE}
m \ddot x = - \frac{d U(x)}{d x} - m \int_{-\infty}^t \gamma(t-s)\, \dot x(s)\,ds
+ m R_\alpha(t).
\end{equation}
The potential energy can be expanded as a Taylor series around its saddle point as
\begin{equation}
\label{Uexpand}
U(x) = -\frac{m\omega_\text{b}^2}{2}x^2 + \varepsilon \frac{m c_3}{3} x^3
+\varepsilon^2 \frac{m c_4}{4} x^4+\ldots,
\end{equation}
where the formal perturbation parameter~$\varepsilon$ measures the strength of the
anharmonicity that comes into play as the particle moves away from the saddle point.
It is only used to keep track of the expansion order
and will be set equal to~1 at the end of the calculations.
Using this expansion, the mean force turns into
\[
-\frac{d U(x)}{d x} = m\omega_\text{b}^2x + m\,f(x)
\]
with $f(x)=-\varepsilon c_3 x^2 - \varepsilon^2 c_4 x^3 - \dots$ denoting
the anharmonic terms.
\subsection{The extended phase space}
\label{subsec:PS1D}
In this work, we assume an exponential friction kernel
\begin{equation}
\label{gammaExp}
\gamma(t) = \frac{\gamma_0}{\tau}\, e^{-t/\tau},
\end{equation}
with a characteristic correlation time~$\tau$ and a damping strength~$\gamma_0$.
It accurately describes the behavior of many realistic chemical reactions~\cite{Muller10}.
In this case, as for a variety of other friction kernels, the GLE~\eqref{genLE},
which is a complicated integro-differential equation,
can be replaced by a system of differential equations on a finite dimensional
extended phase space~\cite{Ferrario79,Grigolini82,Marchesoni83,Martens02}
with an auxiliary coordinate
\begin{equation}
\label{zetaDef}
\zeta = -\int_{-\infty}^t \gamma(t-s)\,\dot x(s)\,ds.
\end{equation}
On the extended phase space, the GLE with exponential friction can be represented by
the system of differential equations
\begin{align}
\label{eqExp}
\dot x &= v, \nonumber \\
\dot v &= -\frac{1}{m}\,\frac{\partial U(x)}{\partial x} + \zeta, \nonumber \\
\dot \zeta &= -\frac{\gamma_0}{\tau}\,v - \frac{1}{\tau}\,\zeta + \xi_\alpha(t)
\end{align}
now with a white noise source $\xi_\alpha$ that satisfies the
fluctuation--dissipation theorem
\begin{equation}
\label{flucdis}
\avg{\xi_\alpha(t) \xi_\alpha(s)}_\alpha = \frac{2k_\text{B}T\,\gamma_0}{m\tau^2}\,\delta(t-s).
\end{equation}
In the definition of the auxiliary coordinate~\eqref{zetaDef}, the choice of $-\infty$
as the lower limit of integration represents the assumption that the system was prepared
in the infinite past.
This assumption is essential to guarantee that the phase space is indeed the
three-dimensional space with coordinates $x$, $v$ and $\zeta$,
rather than a submanifold thereof~\cite{Bartsch09}.
In thermal equilibrium, the auxiliary coordinate follows a
Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance
\begin{equation}
\label{zetaVar}
\avg{\zeta^2} = \frac{k_\text{B}T \gamma_0}{m \tau},
\end{equation}
i.e.,~it is not correlated with either position or velocity~\cite{Marchesoni83}.
Accordingly, in the rate calculation, the average over IC's in Eq.~\eqref{Jexact}
must be supplemented by an average over the distribution of the auxiliary coordinate.
\subsection{Dynamics near a harmonic barrier}
In the harmonic approximation and temporarily neglecting the noise,
the equations of motion (EoM)~\eqref{eqExp} can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\label{duMu}
\dot{\vec u} = \mathbf{M} \vec u,
\end{equation}
with the coefficient matrix
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{M}= \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0 \\
\omega_\text{b}^2 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & -\displaystyle \frac{\gamma_0}{\tau} & \displaystyle-\frac{1}{\tau}
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
and the phase space vector
\[
\vec u = \begin{pmatrix} x \\ v \\ \zeta \end{pmatrix}.
\]
The eigenvalues $\lambda_0$, $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ of the matrix~$\mathbf{M}$,
obtained as the zeros of the characteristic polynomial
\begin{equation}
\label{charPoly}
P(\lambda) = -\lambda^3 - \frac{1}{\tau}\,\lambda^2
+ \left(\omega_\text{b}^2-\frac{\gamma_0}{\tau}\right) \lambda + \frac{\omega_\text{b}^2}{\tau}.
\end{equation}
are, in general, different.
The corresponding eigenvectors are
\begin{equation}
\label{evec}
\vec{\tilde{u}}_i = \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ \lambda_i \\ \lambda_i^2-\omega_\text{b}^2
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Algebraic expressions for the eigenvalues could in principle be given,
but they are unwieldy.
More useful are the Vieta relations obeyed by the eigenvalues
\begin{subequations}
\label{Vieta}
\begin{align}
& \lambda_0 + \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 = -\frac 1{\tau}, \label{Vieta1} \\
& \lambda_0 \lambda_1 + \lambda_0 \lambda_2 + \lambda_1 \lambda_2
= \frac{\gamma_0}{\tau} - \omega_\text{b}^2, \label{Vieta2} \\
& \lambda_0 \lambda_1 \lambda_2 = \frac{\omega_\text{b}^2}{\tau}. \label{Vieta3}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
They can be obtained by multiplying out the factorized form
\[
P(\lambda) = (\lambda_0-\lambda)(\lambda_1-\lambda) (\lambda_2-\lambda)
\]
of the characteristic polynomial and then comparing coefficients.
As
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:P}
P(0) = \frac{\omega_\text{b}^2}{\tau}>0 \qquad \text{and} \qquad
P(\omega_\text{b}) = -\frac{\gamma_0\omega_\text{b}}{\tau}<0,
\end{equation}
at least one of the eigenvalues, say $\lambda_0$,
must be real and lie between $0$ and $\omega_\text{b}$.
This eigenvalue describes an unstable direction in phase space.
The two remaining eigenvalues, $\lambda_1$ and~$\lambda_2$,
must either be both real and negative, or form a complex conjugate pair
with real negative parts since, according to the Vieta relations~\eqref{Vieta},
\begin{equation}
\label{l1+l2_n1l2}
\lambda_1+\lambda_2 = -\frac{1}{\tau} - \lambda_0 < 0 \quad \text{and}\quad
\lambda_1\lambda_2 = \frac{\omega_\text{b}^2}{\tau\lambda_0} > 0.
\end{equation}
In either case, a trajectory will approach the origin in the stable
directions as $t\to\infty$,
either in an oscillatory manner (if $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ are complex),
or monotonically (otherwise).
The boundary between these different types of behavior in parameter space is
given by the condition $\lambda_1=\lambda_2$.
In this case, the discriminant of the characteristic polynomial
$P(\lambda)$ must be zero.
The boundary curve obtained in this way is shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(a).
Observe that it separates the distinct regions of parameter space
described above.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{ParamsOrig}
\medskip
\includegraphics{ParamsMuNu}
\caption{Parameters leading to oscillatory and monotonic behavior for
the GLE given by Eq.~\eqref{genLE} with exponential friction.
(a) Physical parameters $\gamma_0$ and $\tau$.
(b) Parameters~$\mu$ and~$\nu$.}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
The corresponding linearized system, $f(x)=0$, is described by three parameters:
the barrier frequency $\omega_\text{b}$, the damping constant $\gamma_0$,
and the bath correlation time~$\tau$,
that have either the dimension of a time or an inverse time.
The three eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ also have the dimension of an inverse time.
It is convenient to express these quantities in terms of $\omega_\text{b}$,
which sets the overall time scale, and the two dimensionless parameters
\begin{equation}
\label{munu}
\mu = \frac{\lambda_0}{\omega_\text{b}},
\quad \text{and} \quad
\nu^2 = \frac{\lambda_0(1+\lambda_0\tau)}{\omega_\text{b}^2\,\tau}
= \mu^2 \left(1+\frac{1}{\mu\, \omega_\text{b} \tau}\right).
\end{equation}
The parameter $\mu$ takes values between $0$ and $1$,
while $\nu$ varies between $\mu$ and $\infty$.
In the white noise limit, $\tau\to 0$ and consequently $\nu\to\infty$.
This new parameter space is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(b).
The boundary between monotonic and oscillatory behavior is now
given by the simple condition
\[
2\mu = \nu \sqrt{4-\nu^2}.
\]
In order to solve Eq.~\eqref{duMu}, we introduce now the diagonal coordinates $z_i$,
by decomposing the phase space vector
\begin{equation}
\label{diagTrafo}
\vec u = z_0 \vec{\tilde{u}}_0 + z_1 \vec{\tilde{u}}_1 + z_2 \vec{\tilde{u}}_2
\end{equation}
in the basis set of eigenvectors $\vec{\tilde{u}}_i$.
In components, the transformation~\eqref{diagTrafo} reads
\begin{align}
\label{fromDiag}
x &= z_0 + z_1 + z_2, \nonumber \\
v &= \lambda_0 z_0 + \lambda_1 z_1 + \lambda_2 z_2, \nonumber \\
\zeta &= (\lambda_0^2-\omega_\text{b}^2) z_0 + (\lambda_1^2-\omega_\text{b}^2) z_1
+ (\lambda_2^2-\omega_\text{b}^2) z_2.
\end{align}
Its inverse is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{toDiag}
(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)(\lambda_i-\lambda_k)\,z_i
= (\lambda_j\lambda_k + \omega_\text{b}^2) x - (\lambda_j+\lambda_k) v + \zeta,
\end{equation}
where the indices $i,j,k=0,1,2$ always take different values.
In the new coordinates the EoM~\eqref{eqExp} take the form
\begin{equation} \label{eqmotion}
\dot z_i = \lambda_i z_i
+ K_i\,f(x) + \frac{1}{F_i}\,\xi_\alpha(t) ,
\end{equation}
where the abbreviations
\begin{equation*}
K_i = - \frac{\lambda_j+\lambda_k}{(\lambda_i-\lambda_j)(\lambda_i-\lambda_k)}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
F_i = (\lambda_i-\lambda_j)(\lambda_i-\lambda_k)
\end{equation*}
have been used.
In the next section, we describe how Eqns.~\eqref{eqmotion}
can be solved using a perturbative scheme.
\section{Time-dependent invariant manifolds}
\label{sec:mf}
The equations~\eqref{eqmotion}, describing the linearized motion of the system,
can be solved by making the shift of origin in the relative coordinates
\begin{equation} \label{relcoor}
\Delta z_i(t) = z_i(t) - z_i^\ddag(t), \quad i=0, 1, 2,
\end{equation}
where $z_i^\ddag$ are the components of the TS~trajectory,
which is defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{TSDef}
z_i^\ddag(t) = \frac{1}{F_i}\,
S[\lambda_i, \xi_\alpha; t] ,
\end{equation}
with the $S$~functionals
\begin{equation}
\label{SDef}
S_{t'}[\mu, g;t] = \begin{cases}
\displaystyle -\int_t^\infty g(t')\,\exp(\mu(t-t')) \,dt' \!\!\!
& :\; \Re\mu>0, \\[3ex]
\displaystyle +\int_{-\infty}^t g(t')\,\exp(\mu(t-t')) \,dt' \!\!\!
& :\; \Re\mu<0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
introduced in Refs.~\onlinecite{Bartsch05b, Kawai07a}.
The Subscript~$t'$ indicates the integration variable,
and it will be omitted unless necessary to avoid ambiguities.
The TS~trajectory clearly depends on the realization~$\alpha$ of the noise.
It is the only trajectory that for a given noise sequence remains
(``jiggling'') in the vicinity of the saddle point for all times.
By contrast, a typical trajectory will descend either
into the reactant or product wells in the distant past or future.
Notice that the TS trajectory defined by Eq.~\eqref{TSDef} is analogous to
that appearing in the Refs.~\onlinecite{Bartsch05b,Kawai07a,Revuelta12,Bartsch12}.
Since phase space is three-dimensional, it has the additional coordinate $z_2^\ddag(t)$,
which vanishes in the white noise limit, since
in that case~$\lambda_2 \rightarrow -\infty$.
From the fluctuation-dissipation relation~\eqref{flucdis} for the white noise source $\xi_\alpha$,
the correlation functions for the components of the TS~trajectory are found to be
\begin{subequations}
\label{correTS}
\begin{align}
\langle z_0^\ddag (t) z_0^\ddag (0) \rangle_\alpha
&= \frac{k_\text{B}T \gamma_0}{m \tau^2\lambda_0 F_0^2}\, e^{-\lambda_0 t}, \label{z0tz00} \\
\langle z_0^\ddag (t) z_i^\ddag (0) \rangle_\alpha
&=0, \label{z0tzi0} \\
\langle z_i^\ddag (t) z_0^\ddag (0) \rangle_\alpha
&=\frac{2k_\text{B}T\gamma_0 \left(e^{-\lambda_0 t}
- e^{\lambda_i t}\right)}{m \tau^2(\lambda_0+\lambda_i)F_0F_i} \label{zitz00}, \\
\langle z_i^\ddag (t) z_j^\ddag (0) \rangle_\alpha
&=-\frac{2k_\text{B}T\gamma_0}{m \tau^2(\lambda_i+\lambda_j)F_iF_j}\,e^{\lambda_i t},
\label{zitzj0}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $i,j=1,2$ and $t\ge 0$.
The EoM~\eqref{eqmotion} for the relative coordinates~\eqref{relcoor}
simplify, in this limit, to
\begin{equation}
\label{relEq}
\Delta \dot z_i = \lambda_i \, \Delta z_i + K_i \, f(x),
\end{equation}
which is time-independent.
Notice that the influence of the stochastic driving does, however, appear
implicitly through the time-dependent shift of origin to the TS~trajectory
[cf.~Eq.~\eqref{relcoor}].
In the harmonic limit, $f(x)=0$, Eqns.~\eqref{relEq} are decoupled and
can be easily solved as
\begin{equation}
\label{zjEqIntharm}
\Delta z_j(t) = \Delta z_j(0) e^{\lambda_j t}, \quad j=0, 1, 2.
\end{equation}
The coordinates $\Delta z_0(t)$ and~$\Delta z_j(t)$ (for $j=1,2$)
have very different time dependence because $\lambda_0>0$ and $\Re\lambda_j<0$:
$\Delta z_0(t)$ grows exponentially in time,
whereas $\Delta z_1$ and $\Delta z_2$ shrink.
All trajectories that asymptotically approach the TS~trajectory as $t\to\infty$
lie in the plane $\Delta z_0=0$.
This plane is called the stable manifold of the TS~trajectory.
Similarly, trajectories that approach the TS~trajectory backwards in time,
as $t\to-\infty$, lie on the $\Delta z_0$ coordinate axis,
i.e., the line $\Delta z_1=\Delta z_2=0$.
This axis is the unstable manifolds of the TS~trajectory.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{manif_harm}
\includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{manif_anharm}
\caption{Extended phase space of the generalized Langevin equation~\eqref{genLE}
for an harmonic (a) and anharmonic (b) potential barrier.
Yellow dot: instantaneous position of the TS~trajectory.
Dark blue curve: unstable manifold.
Light blue surface and trajectories within: stable manifold (SM).
The dividing surface ($v$--$\zeta$ plane) is partitioned into
reactive (green) and nonreactive (brown) regions by the
purple curve that indicates the intersection of the dividing surface
with the stable manifold and defines the critical velocity $V^\ddag(\zeta)$.
Representative reactive (green) and nonreactive (red) trajectories intersect
the dividing surface as indicated by black dots.
}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}
The resulting geometry is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}(a)
where the configuration of these invariant manifolds is shown.
The instantaneous position of the TS~trajectory is indicated by a yellow dot.
Attached to it there is one unstable direction in which trajectories
move away from the TS~trajectory, and two stable directions from which
neighboring trajectories approach the TS~trajectory.
The plane spanned by the two stable directions is the stable manifold.
This plot captures the location of the manifolds at
one instant of time.
As the TS~trajectory moves, the invariant manifolds will move with it.
Because the eigenvectors $\tilde{\vec u}_i$ that determine the direction
of the manifolds do not depend on time, this motion will be rigid,
without rotation or distortion.
If the barrier potential is not harmonic, i.e.~$f(x)\ne 0$,
the solution of the EoM~\eqref{relEq} becomes more complicated.
However, general theorems on dynamical systems guarantee that the invariant
manifolds persist in the presence of an anharmonic perturbation,
as long as the perturbation is not too strong.
They will, however, be distorted
and will no longer be a straight line or a plane,
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}(b).
Moreover, the distortion is time-dependent,
so that the motion of the manifolds is no longer rigid.
Nevertheless, the relative configuration
of the manifolds will qualitatively remain
as in the harmonic case,
even though their precise location may be more difficult to determine.
The critical problem in rate theory is the correct identification of
reactive trajectories.
A careful examination of Fig.~\ref{fig:2} shows that
a knowledge of the invariant manifolds solves this problem:
All trajectories outside the stable manifold will leave for
large times the barrier region in the direction of the unstable manifold.
Those that depart in the direction of positive $\Delta z_0$,
which by Eq.~\eqref{fromDiag} corresponds to $x>0$ and therefore
to the product region, are reactive,
while those that leave in the direction of negative $\Delta z_0$
are nonreactive.
The boundary between these two classes of trajectories is
the stable manifold, which contains all those trajectories
that approach the TS~trajectory and never leave the barrier region.
There is an important difference between this scenario and the situation
in 1-dof systems under the influence of white noise:
In the latter case, the stable and unstable manifolds are both
one-dimensional curves in a two-dimensional phase space.
Each of them partitions the phase space into two regions, i.e.,
trajectories will enter the reactant or product regions in the distant
future depending on what side of the stable manifold they are on.
Similarly, the location of a trajectory relative to the unstable manifold
determines whether it came from reactants or products in the remote past.
The phase space is thus partitioned into four regions with qualitatively
different behavior.
Under colored noise the stable manifold separates trajectories with
different future behavior, as we have seen.
The unstable manifold, by contrast, is only a curve in a three-dimensional
phase space and is therefore not large enough to partition phase space
into distinct regions.
This complication, which occurs for white noise only in systems
with several dof, is introduced by the presence of the auxiliary
coordinate $\zeta$, that raises the dimension of phase space.
Now we come to an important point.
In order to carry out a rate calculation,
we do not need to classify arbitrary trajectories as reactive or nonreactive.
The flux expression~\eqref{Jexact} contains only trajectories that
start at the DS~$x=0$.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}, the stable manifold intersects the DS in
the purple curve that can be regarded as the graph of a function $V^\ddag(\zeta)$.
This function will be called the critical velocity.
Though this is not explicit in our notation, the critical velocity
depends on the realization $\alpha$ of the noise that determines
the location of the stable manifold.
Trajectories that start with velocities greater than $V^\ddag(\zeta)$ are reactive,
while trajectories with lower initial velocities are not.
This is indicated by the red and green trajectories
in Fig.~\ref{fig:2},
that start on the DS but on opposite sides of the stable manifold.
The red trajectory begins with an initial velocity smaller
than $V^\ddag$ and it is therefore nonreactive, while
the green trajectory is reactive because its initial velocity is
sufficiently high.
Note that both trajectories recross the DS:
The red trajectory starts with positive velocity
and therefore leaves the DS towards the product region,
but then turns around and leaves towards the reactant side.
Conversely, the green trajectory initially moves towards reactants,
but ultimately moves off, towards the product side.
This illustrates why traditional TST,
using the criterion of Eq.~\eqref{chi},
fails in the classification of these two trajectories.
Because the critical velocity encodes all relevant information about reactivity,
the characteristic function $\chi_r$ can be expressed in terms of it, as
\begin{equation}
\label{chi_r}
\chi_r(v_x,\zeta)=\begin{cases}
1, & \textnormal{if } v_x>V^\ddag(\zeta), \\
0, & \textnormal{if } v_x<V^\ddag(\zeta).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Despite its simplicity, Eq.~\eqref{chi_r} is still exact,
and if we carry out the average over initial velocities in the
flux~\eqref{Jexact} we obtain the transmission factor
\begin{equation}
\label{defkappaAvg}
\kappa = \avg{e^{-m V^{\ddag\,2}/2k_\text{B}T}}_{\alpha,\zeta},
\end{equation}
which must still be averaged over both the noise and the initial value of~$\zeta$.
Equation~\eqref{defkappaAvg} was originally derived to study the harmonic limit
in Ref.~\onlinecite{Bartsch08}, but it has also been successfully used
in Refs.~\onlinecite{Revuelta12,Bartsch12,Revuelta16}
to study anharmonic systems by adequately modifying the harmonic approximation
to the critical velocity.
In the following section, we describe how this task can be performed
for colored noise using a perturbative scheme.
\section{The critical velocity}
\label{sec:vCrit}
To calculate the critical velocity $V(\zeta)$ for a fixed value of $\zeta$ in an
anharmonic potential,
the trajectory on the stable manifold that intersects
the DS $x=0$ at the given value $\zeta$ needs to be determined.
If we take time~$\protect{t=0}$ as the moment of intersection,
we are looking for a trajectory with IC $x(0)=0$ and a given value $\zeta(0)$
that is on the stable manifold.
Its initial velocity $v(0)$ is then the critical velocity $V^\ddag(\zeta(0))$.
In terms of the diagonal coordinates~\eqref{fromDiag}, the constraints on the
IC's read
\begin{subequations}
\label{critIC}
\begin{align}
0 = x(0) &= z_0(0) + z_1(0) + z_2(0) , \label{critICx} \\
\zeta(0) &= \lambda_0^2\, z_0(0) + \lambda_1^2\, z_1(0) + \lambda_2^2\, z_2(0),
\label{critICzeta}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where Eq.~\eqref{critICzeta} has been simplified with the help of Eq.~\eqref{critICx}.
These conditions can be used to eliminate two of the three initial values $z_i(0)$.
At this point it is convenient to express the initial values
of the stable dof in terms of the unstable one as
\begin{subequations}
\label{critIC_stab}
\begin{align}
z_1(0) &= - \frac{\zeta(0)
+ (\lambda_2^2-\lambda_0^2)\, z_0(0)}{\lambda_2^2-\lambda_1^2}, \\
z_2(0) &= + \frac{\zeta(0)
+ (\lambda_1^2-\lambda_0^2)\, z_0(0)}{\lambda_2^2-\lambda_1^2}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
With these results, the critical velocity is obtained, after some tedious algebra, as
\begin{align}
\label{V0}
V^\ddag = v(0)
&= \lambda_0\,z_0(0) + \lambda_1\,z_1(0) + \lambda_2\,z_2(0) \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{K_0}\,z_0(0) + \frac{1}{\lambda_1+\lambda_2}\,\zeta(0).
\end{align}
In this expression the value $\zeta(0)$ is known, but $z_0(0)$ is not.
It is determined by imposing the condition
that the trajectory lies on the stable manifold.
In general, this requires a detailed analysis of the dynamics.
In the case of a harmonic barrier, however, the stable manifold is simply
given by $\Delta z_0=0$, or $z_0=z_0^\ddag$, and then
the critical velocity is
\begin{equation}
\label{VCritHarm}
V^{\ddag(0)} = \frac{1}{K_0}\,z^\ddag_0(0) + \frac{1}{\lambda_1+\lambda_2}\,\zeta(0).
\end{equation}
For the anharmonic case, we use
the perturbative expansion
\begin{equation}
\label{VCritExp}
V^\ddag = V^{\ddag(0)} + \varepsilon V^{\ddag(1)} + \varepsilon^2 V^{\ddag(2)} + \dots
\end{equation}
for the critical velocity, and similar expansions
\begin{equation}
\label{ICExp}
z_j(0) = z_j^{(0)} (0) + \varepsilon z_j^{(1)} (0) + \varepsilon^2 z_j^{(2)} (0) + \dots
\end{equation}
for the coordinates.
The expansions are carried out under the assumption that the initial value
$\zeta(0)$ of the auxiliary coordinate remains unchanged.
Substituting expansions~\eqref{VCritExp} and~\eqref{ICExp} into
Eqns.~\eqref{critIC_stab} and~\eqref{V0}, one obtains
\begin{align}
V^{\ddag(k)} &= \frac{1}{K_0}\,\Delta z_0^{(k)}(0), \label{Vk} \\[1ex]
\Delta z_1^{(k)}(0) &= -\frac {\lambda_2^2-\lambda_0^2}{\lambda_2^2 - \lambda_1^2} \,
\Delta z_0^{(k)}(0)
= K_1 V^{\ddag(k)}, \label{z10} \\[1ex]
\intertext{and}
\Delta z_2^{(k)}(0) &= +\frac {\lambda_1^2-\lambda_0^2}{\lambda_2^2 - \lambda_1^2} \,
\Delta z_0^{(k)}(0)
= K_2 V^{\ddag(k)}. \label{z20}
\end{align}
Thus, if we can determine the initial value $\Delta z_0^{(k)}(0)$ from the condition
that the trajectory is on the stable manifold,
we immediately obtain the corresponding correction to the critical velocity,
as well as the initial values of the other two coordinates,
which in turn determine the trajectories completely.
To proceed, we use a formal solution of the EoM~\eqref{relEq},
similar to that used in Refs.~\onlinecite{Revuelta12,Bartsch12}.
For the unstable coordinate $\Delta z_0$, the general solution is
\begin{equation}
\label{z0EqInt}
\Delta z_0(t) = C_0 e^{\lambda_0 t} +
K_0\,S[\lambda_0,f(x^\ddag+\Delta z_0 + \Delta z_1 + \Delta z_2); t].
\end{equation}
To incorporate the boundary condition that $z_0(t)$ remains bounded as $t\to\infty$,
$C_0=0$ must be set.
The solutions for the stable coordinates can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{zjEqInt}
\Delta z_j(t) = \Delta z_j(0) e^{\lambda_j t} +
K_j\,\bar S[\lambda_j,f(x^\ddag+\Delta z_0 + \Delta z_1 + \Delta z_2); t]
\end{equation}
for $j=1,2$ in terms of the modified $S$~functional~\cite{Bartsch12}
\begin{equation}
\label{SmodDef}
\bar S_{t'}[\mu,g;t] = \int_0^t g(t') e^{\mu(t-t')}\,dt'
\end{equation}
that satisfies the differential equation
\[
\frac{d}{dt} \bar S[\mu,g;t] = \mu\, \bar S[\mu,g;t] + g(t)
\]
and the IC $\bar S[\mu,g;0]=0$.
The integral equations~\eqref{z0EqInt} and~\eqref{zjEqInt} represent only a formal
solution to the EoM, since the unknown functions $\Delta z_i(t)$
occur on the right hand side.
They are, however, well suited to a perturbative treatment: for a harmonic barrier,
i.e.~$f(x)=0$, we obtain the solutions
$\Delta z_0(t)=0$ and $\Delta z_j(t)=\Delta z_j(0)\,e^{\lambda_jt}$ for $j=1,2$.
If we can insert this result into Eqns.~\eqref{z0EqInt} and~\eqref{zjEqInt},
they will yield first order corrections to the stable manifold.
This procedure can be iterated to obtain, in principle, corrections of arbitrarily
high order.
In practice, solving the EoM~\eqref{z0EqInt} and~\eqref{zjEqInt} perturbatively
requires an expansion not around $x=0$ but around the harmonic trajectory
\begin{equation} \label{X}
X(t) = x^\ddag(t) + \Delta z_1(0)\,e^{\lambda_1 t} + \Delta z_2(0)\,e^{\lambda_2 t},
\end{equation}
which can be split into a part that depends solely on the realization of the noise
\begin{align} \label{Xalpha}
X_{\alpha}(t)=x^\ddag(t)
&+\left[\frac{K_{1}}{K_{0}} z_{0}^\ddag(0)-z_{1}^\ddag(0)\right] e^{\lambda_{1} t}
\nonumber \\
&+\left[\frac{K_{2}}{K_{0}} z_{0}^\ddag(0)-z_{2}^\ddag(0)\right] e^{\lambda_{2} t},
\end{align}
and another term
\begin{align} \label{Xperp}
X_{\perp}(t) &= \frac{\zeta(0)}{\lambda_{1}^2-\lambda_{2}^2} \left(e^{\lambda_{1} t}
- e^{\lambda_{2} t}\right)
\end{align}
that depends on the IC.
Then, the coordinate~$x$ can be expanded as
\begin{equation}
\label{posExp}
x(t) = X(t) + \varepsilon \Delta x^{(1)}(t) + \varepsilon^2 \Delta x^{(2)}(t) + \dots,
\end{equation}
where
\[
\Delta x^{(k)}(t) = \Delta z_0^{(k)}(t) + \Delta z_1^{(k)}(t) + \Delta z_2^{(k)}(t)
\]
are the corrections of order $k$ to the position $x$, and
\begin{subequations}
\label{z0jk}
\begin{align}
\Delta z_0^{(k)}(t) &=
K_0\,S[\lambda_0,f^{(k)}; t], \label{z0k} \\
\Delta z_j^{(k)}(t) &= \Delta z_j^{(k)}(0) e^{\lambda_j t}
+ K_j\,\bar S[\lambda_j,f^{(k)}; t],
\label{zjk}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with $j=1, 2$, are the corrections to Eqns.~\eqref{z0EqInt} and~\eqref{zjEqInt}.
The~$f^{(k)}$ terms appearing in Eq.~\eqref{z0jk} are the coefficients
in the expansion of the anharmonic force:
\begin{align}
f(X+\varepsilon \Delta x^{(1)} + \dots ) &=
- \varepsilon c_3 X^2 \nonumber \\
&\quad \, - \varepsilon^2 (2c_3 X\,\Delta x^{(1)} + c_4 X^3) + \dots
\nonumber \\
&= \varepsilon\,f^{(1)} + \varepsilon^2 f^{(2)} + \dots
\end{align}
It is important to note that $f^{(1)}$ is a known function of time because
it depends solely on the harmonic trajectory~$X$.
The next correction term $f^{(2)}$ depends on $X$ and the first order
correction to the position, $\Delta x^{(1)}$.
Similarly, each $f^{(k)}$ will be known once the lower order corrections
to position have been evaluated up to order~$k-1$.
The first order corrections to the relative coordinates can be calculated
using Eqns.~\eqref{z10},~\eqref{z20} and~\eqref{z0jk} which yield
\begin{subequations}
\label{z0j1}
\begin{align}
\Delta z_0^{(1)}(t) &= K_0\, S[\lambda_0, f^{(1)}; t] \nonumber \\
&= -K_0 \,c_3\,S[\lambda_0,X^2;t], \label{z01} \\
\Delta z_j^{(1)}(t) &= K_j\,V^{\ddag(1)} e^{\lambda_j t}
+ K_j \bar S[\lambda_j, f^{(1)}; t]. \label{zj1}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The first order correction to the critical velocity can then be obtained by
combining Eqns.~\eqref{Vk} and~\eqref{z01}
\begin{align}
\label{V1}
V^{\ddag(1)} &= -c_3\,S[\lambda_0,X^2;0].
\end{align}
The second order correction to the critical velocity is calculated in a similar way,
which yields
\begin{align}
\label{V2}
V^{\ddag(2)} &= -2 c_3\,S[\lambda_0, X\,\Delta x^{(1)}; 0] - c_4\,S[\lambda_0, X^3; 0] ,
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
\Delta x^{(1)}(t) &= \Delta z_0^{(1)} (t)+ \Delta z_1^{(1)}(t)
+ \Delta z_2^{(1)}(t) \nonumber .
\end{align}
In the next section, we explain how Eqns.~\eqref{VCritHarm},
\eqref{V1} and \eqref{V2} can be used to obtain analytical corrections
to the transmission factor~\eqref{kappa}.
\section{The transmission factor}
\label{sec:kappa}
The transmission factor~\eqref{kappa} can be expanded in terms of the
perturbative parameter~$\varepsilon$ by substituting Eq.~\eqref{VCritExp}
in Eq.~\eqref{defkappaAvg}, this rendering
\begin{align}
\label{kappaAvgExpan}
\kappa &= \kappa^{(0)} + \varepsilon \kappa^{(1)} + \varepsilon^2 \kappa^{(2)} + \ldots,
\end{align}
where
\begin{subequations}
\label{kappaAvg}
\begin{align}
\kappa^{(0)} &= \avg{ P }_{\alpha\zeta}, \label{kappaAvg0} \\
\kappa^{(1)} &= -\frac{m}{k_\text{B}T} \avg{ P V^{\ddag(0)} V^{\ddag(1)}}_{\alpha\zeta},
\label{kappaAvg1}\\
\kappa^{(2)} &= \frac{m^2}{2(k_\text{B}T)^2} \avg{P V^{\ddag(0)\,2} V^{\ddag(1)\,2}}_{\alpha\zeta}
\nonumber \\
&\quad - \frac{m}{k_\text{B}T} \avg{P V^{\ddag(0)} V^{\ddag(2)}}_{\alpha\zeta}
- \frac{m}{2k_\text{B}T} \avg{P V^{\ddag(1)2}}_{\alpha\zeta} ,
\label{kappaAvg2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with the abbreviation
\begin{equation}
\label{PDef}
P = \exp\left(-\frac{m V^{\ddag(0)2}}{2k_\text{B}T}\right).
\end{equation}
To evaluate Eqns.~\eqref{kappaAvg}, we need to compute averages
of the form $\langle P (\ldots) \rangle_{\alpha \zeta}$,
which we will call distorted correlation functions.
This problem will be addressed in the following subsection.
\subsection{Distorted correlation functions}
\label{sec:distcorrfunc}
The factor~$P$ appearing in Eqns.~\eqref{kappaAvg} can be absorbed into a
modified covariance matrix.
This is done similarly to Refs.~\onlinecite{Revuelta12,Bartsch12},
where full details of the procedure are given.
Assume that the random variables $( w_1=V^\ddag_0, w_2, w_3, \dots, w_n)$
follow a multidimensional Gaussian distribution with zero mean and
covariance matrix $\Sigma$.
Introduce a modified covariance matrix $\Sigma_0$ that satisfies
\[
\Sigma_0^{-1} = \Sigma^{-1} + \frac{m}{k_\text{B}T}\,J ,
\]
with
\[
J = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & \dots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \dots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \dots \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
Using $\avg{...}_0$ to denote an average over a multidimensional
Gaussian distribution with zero mean and covariance matrix $\Sigma_0$,
we can write
\begin{align}
\avg {P (\dots)}_{\alpha\zeta}
= \frac{\lambda_0}{\omega_\text{b}}\, \avg{...}_0.
\label{modGaussian}
\end{align}
The matrix $\Sigma_0$ is explicitly given by
\begin{align}
\label{S0}
\Sigma_0 &= \Sigma-\frac{m}{k_\text{B}T+m\sigma^2}\,\Sigma J \Sigma,
\end{align}
where~$\sigma^2=\avg{V^{\ddag(0)\,2}}_{\alpha\zeta}$.
Moreover,~$\sigma^2$ can be easily computed by noting that the harmonic
approximation to the critical velocity~\eqref{VCritHarm} is a sum of two Gaussian
random variables that are independent because the first term,~$z_0^\ddag(0)$,
depends only on the noise and the second,~$\zeta(0)$, only on the IC.
With the help of Eqns.~\eqref{zetaVar} and~\eqref{z0tz00} we can compute
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{sigmaV0}
\sigma^2 &=& \avg{V^{\ddag(0)\,2}}_{\alpha\zeta} \nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{(\lambda_0-\lambda_1)^2(\lambda_0-\lambda_2)^2}
{(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)^2}\, \avg{z_0^{\ddag\,2}(0)}_\alpha \nonumber \\
&\quad
&+ \frac{1}{(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)^2}\,\avg{\zeta^2(0)}_\zeta \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{k_\text{B}T\gamma_0}{m\lambda_0(1+\lambda_0\tau)},
\end{eqnarray}
In the last step it has been taken into account that
$(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)\tau = -(1+\lambda_0\tau)$ according to~\eqref{Vieta}.
The modified covariance matrix~\eqref{S0} can then be simplified to
\begin{align}
\label{modSigma}
\Sigma_0 &= \Sigma - \frac{m}{k_\text{B}T}\,\frac{\lambda_0^2}{\omega_\text{b}^2}\,\Sigma J\Sigma
\end{align}
with the help of the algebraic relation
\begin{align}
\label{GHDivision}
\frac{\lambda_0^2}{\omega_\text{b}^2}\left[\lambda_0(1+\lambda_0\tau)+\gamma_0\right]
&= -\frac{\tau}{\omega_\text{b}^2}\,\lambda_0\,P(\lambda_0) + \lambda_0(1+\lambda_0\tau)
\nonumber \\
&= \lambda_0(1+\lambda_0\tau).
\end{align}
For its components we find
\begin{equation}
\label{modSigmaComp}
\avg{w_i w_j}_0 = \avg{w_i w_j}_{\alpha\zeta}
- \frac{m}{k_\text{B}T}\,\frac{\lambda_0^2}{\omega_\text{b}^2}
\avg{V^{\ddag(0)} w_i}_{\alpha\zeta} \! \! \! \avg{V^{\ddag(0)} w_j}_{\alpha\zeta} \! ,
\end{equation}
which allows one to obtain the moments of the distorted Gaussian distribution,
once those of the original Gaussian are known.
If we take a random variable $w_\alpha$ depending only on the noise,
and another one $w_\zeta$ depending only on the IC,
the original covariance $\avg{w_\alpha w_\zeta}_{\alpha\zeta}$ vanishes,
but $\avg{w_\alpha w_\zeta}_0$ is, in general, nonzero, since $V^{\ddag (0)}$
depends both on the noise and on the IC $\zeta(0)$.
If $w_i=V^{\ddag (0)}$, the modified moment becomes a multiple of the original one
\begin{align}
\avg{V^{\ddag(0)} w_j}_0 &=
\avg{V^{\ddag(0)} w_j}_{\alpha\zeta}
\left( 1-\frac{m}{k_\text{B}T}\,\frac{\lambda_0^2}{\omega_\text{b}^2}
\avg{V^{\ddag(0)\,2}}_{\alpha\zeta} \right) \nonumber \\[1ex]
&= \avg{V^{\ddag(0)} w_j}_{\alpha\zeta}
\,\frac{\omega_\text{b}^2(1+\lambda_0\tau)-\lambda_0\gamma_0}
{\omega_\text{b}^2(1+\lambda_0\tau)}
\nonumber\\[1ex]
&= \frac{\lambda_0^2}{\omega_\text{b}^2}\avg{V^{\ddag(0)} w_j}_{\alpha\zeta}. \label{V0wj}
\end{align}
In this calculation we have used Eq.~\eqref{sigmaV0} and the fact that
\[
\lambda_0^2(1+\lambda_0\tau) = (\omega_\text{b}^2\tau-\gamma_0)\lambda_0 + \omega_\text{b}^2
\]
because $\lambda_0$ is a zero of the characteristic polynomial~\eqref{charPoly}.
In particular, we have
\begin{align}
\avg{V^{\ddag(0)\,2}}_0
&= \frac{\lambda_0^2}{\omega_\text{b}^2}\,\avg{V^{\ddag(0)\,2}}_{\alpha\zeta}=
\frac{k_\text{B}T}{m}\left(1-\frac{\lambda_0^2}{\omega_\text{b}^2}\right)
\label{VVcorr}
\end{align}
since by a similar argument
\[
\lambda_0\gamma_0 = -\lambda_0^3\tau - \lambda_0^2 + \omega_\text{b}^2\lambda_0\tau+\omega_\text{b}^2
= (1+\lambda_0\tau)(\omega_\text{b}^2-\lambda_0^2).
\]
As will be seen in Sec.~\ref{subsec:results1d}, the calculation of reaction
rates requires the correlation functions
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{VXcorr}
\avg{V^{\ddag(0)}\,X(t)}_0
&=& \frac{k_\text{B}T}{m \, \lambda_0}\left[e^{-\lambda_0 t}
+\frac{\lambda_2\tau\,(\lambda_0+\lambda_2)}
{(\lambda_2-\lambda_1)}\,e^{\lambda_1t} \right.\nonumber \\
& &\qquad \qquad + \left.\frac{\lambda_1\tau\,(\lambda_0+\lambda_1)}
{(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)}\,e^{\lambda_2t} \right]
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{align}
\label{XXcorr}
\avg{X(t)\,X(s)}_0 &=
\frac{k_\text{B}T}{m}\left[\frac{K_0}{\lambda_0}\,e^{-(t-s)\lambda_0}
+\frac{K_1}{\lambda_1}\,e^{(t-s)\lambda_1} \right. \nonumber \\[1ex]
&+\frac{K_2}{\lambda_2}\,e^{(t-s)\lambda_2}
+\frac{1}{\omega_\text{b}^2}\,e^{-(t+s)\lambda_0} \nonumber \\[1ex]
&+\frac{\lambda_0 \lambda_2 +\omega_\text{b}^2}{F_1 \omega_\text{b}^2}\,
\left(e^{-\lambda_0t+\lambda_1 s} + e^{-\lambda_0 s + \lambda_1 t}\right)
\nonumber\\[1ex]
&
\left.+\frac{\lambda_0 \lambda_1 +\omega_\text{b}^2}{F_2 \omega_\text{b}^2}\,
\left(e^{-\lambda_0t+\lambda_2 s} + e^{-\lambda_0 s + \lambda_2 t}\right) \right]
\end{align}
for $t\ge s \ge 0$.
Distorted averages involving more than two factors
of~$V^{\ddag(0)}$ and~$X(t)$
can be reduced to the correlation functions~\eqref{VVcorr}, \eqref{VXcorr}
and~\eqref{XXcorr} by Isserlis' theorem~\cite{Isserlis16,Isserlis18}, e.g.
\begin{align*}
\avg{w_1 w_2 w_3 w_4}_0 &= \avg{w_1 w_2}_0 \avg{w_3w_4}_0
+ \avg{w_1 w_3}_0 \avg{w_2w_4}_0 \\
&\,\, + \avg{w_1 w_4}_0 \avg{w_2 w_3}_0.
\end{align*}
This expression contains a sum over all possible pairings of the four factors.
Other even order moments can be evaluated in a similar way,
and all odd order moments are zero.
In this way, the modified averages of arbitrary polynomials can be calculated.
\subsection{Results for the one--dimensional potential}
\label{subsec:results1d}
The correlation functions~\eqref{VXcorr} and~\eqref{XXcorr} allow us to
evaluate the corrections to the transmission factor.
For the leading order, Eqns.~\eqref{kappaAvg0} and~\eqref{modGaussian}
immediately give
\begin{equation}
\label{kappaGH}
\kappa^{(0)} = \frac{\lambda_0}{\omega_\text{b}} \avg{1}_0 = \frac{\lambda_0}{\omega_\text{b}},
\end{equation}
which is the well-known Grote--Hynes~\cite{Grote80} result for a harmonic barrier.
The first order rate correction to Eq.~\eqref{kappaGH} can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
\kappa^{(1)}
&= \frac{m}{k_\text{B}T}\,\frac{\lambda_0}{\omega_\text{b}} \avg{V^{\ddag(0)} V^{\ddag(1)}}_0
\nonumber \\
&= -\frac{m c_3}{k_\text{B}T} \,\frac{\lambda_0}{\omega_\text{b}}\,
S[\lambda_0, \avg{V^{\ddag(0)}\,X^2}_0 ; 0]
\nonumber \\
&= 0,
\end{align}
which is zero because the correlation function is of third order in
$V^{\ddag(0)}$ and $X$.
Similarly, all higher rate corrections of odd order vanish.
As a consequence, the expansion~\eqref{kappaAvgExpan} contains only even
powers of the perturbation parameter~$\varepsilon$.
It will therefore yield an expansion in integer powers of $k_\text{B}T$,
rather than an expansion in powers~$\sqrt{k_\text{B}T}$,
as one might expect at first sight.
The second order correction in Eq.~\eqref{kappaAvg2} to the rates has three terms.
The first one is given by
\begin{align}
&\qquad
\frac{m^2}{2(k_\text{B}T)^2}\,\frac{\lambda_0}{\omega_\text{b}} \avg{V^{\ddag(0)\,2} V^{\ddag(1)\,2}}_0
\nonumber \\[1ex]
&= \frac{m^2 c_3^2}{2(k_\text{B}T)^2}\,\frac{\lambda_0}{\omega_\text{b}}
S_t\Big[ \lambda_0, S_s[\lambda_0, \avg{V^{\ddag(0)\,2}
X^2(t) X^2(s)}_0 ; 0 ] ; 0 \Big].
\end{align}
The remaining correlation function can be reduced to~\eqref{VXcorr} and~\eqref{XXcorr}
by means of Isserlis' theorem.
It will yield a sum of exponentially decaying terms, for which the $S$~functionals,
which are short-hand notation for the integral~\eqref{SDef}, can be computed.
The calculation is straightforward with the help of a computer algebra system,
\textit{Mathematica}~\cite{Mathematica} in our case,
giving the rate correction
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:kappa2}
\kappa^{(2)} &= -\frac{c_3^2\, k_\text{B}T}{6 m \omega_\text{b}^6}
\frac{ \mu \left(\mu ^2-1\right)^2}
{\left(\mu ^2+\nu ^2\right) \left[\mu ^4+2 \mu ^2 \left(\nu ^2-2\right)+4
\nu ^2\right] \left[\mu ^4+\mu ^2 \left(\nu ^2-1\right)+\nu ^2\right]^2 \left[4
\mu ^4+\mu ^2 \left(2 \nu ^2-1\right)+\nu ^2\right]} \times \nonumber \\[1ex]
& \qquad\qquad \bigg[ 2 \left(10 \mu^4+41 \mu ^2+10\right) \nu^{10}+
\left(110 \mu ^4+329 \mu ^2-12\right) \mu^2\nu ^8+
2 \left(115 \mu ^4+197 \mu ^2-28\right) \mu ^4 \nu ^6+ \nonumber\\[1ex]
& \qquad\qquad\quad 2 \left(115 \mu ^4+22 \mu ^2+8\right) \mu^6 \nu ^4+
2 \left(55 \mu ^4-94 \mu ^2+6\right) \mu^8 \nu^2+
5 \left(4 \mu^4-17 \mu ^2+4\right) \mu ^{10}
\bigg] \nonumber\\
& \quad -\frac{3 \,c_4 \,k_\text{B}T}{4 m \, \omega_\text{b}^4}
\frac{\mu \left(\mu ^2-1\right)^2 \left(\mu ^2+\nu ^2\right)^2}
{ \left[\mu ^4+\mu ^2 \left(\nu ^2-1\right)+\nu ^2\right]^2}.
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
In the limit $\nu\to\infty$, which corresponds to white noise, this expression
reduces to
\begin{align}
\label{eq:kappa2white}
\kappa^{(2)}(\nu\to\infty) &= -\frac{c_3^2\, k_\text{B}T}{6m\omega_\text{b}^6}\,
\frac{ \mu \left(1-\mu ^2\right)^2 }{(1+\mu^2)^2}\,
\frac{(10+41\mu^2+10\mu^4)}{(2+5\mu^2+2\mu^4)} \nonumber \\
&\quad -\frac{3 \,c_4 \,k_\text{B}T}{4 m \omega_\text{b}^4}\,
\frac{ \mu \left(1-\mu ^2\right)^2 }
{(1+\mu^2)^2},
\end{align}
which agrees with the known result for this case,
see Refs.~\onlinecite{Talkner93,Pollak93a,Revuelta12,Bartsch12}.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics{KappaCubicColor}}
\medskip
\centerline{\includegraphics{KappaQuarticColor}}
\caption{Transmission factor for an anharmonic barrier with
(a) cubic and (b) quartic perturbation.
Horizontal black line: Grote-Hynes transmission factor given by Eq.~\eqref{kappaGH},
red curve: leading order perturbation theory result obtained
from~\eqref{kappaGH}+\eqref{eq:kappa2}.
Symbols: numerical simulation with $1\sigma$ statistical error bars and cutoff energy
equal to $-3k_\text{B}T$ (blue plus symbols), $-5k_\text{B}T$ (brown circles), $-7k_\text{B}T$ (green stars), $-9k_\text{B}T$ (purple squares).
Parameters used are equal to $m=1$, $\omega_\text{b}=1$, $\gamma_0=5$, $\tau=4$, $k_\text{B}T=1$.
}
\label{fig:rates}
\end{figure}
The rate correction obtained from Eq.~\eqref{eq:kappa2} is compared to the
result of numerical simulations, computed as described in Sect.~\ref{sec:rate},
in Fig.~\ref{fig:rates}.
To obtain converged results, the cutoff energy at which trajectories are
considered to be thermalized on either reactant or product side
must be chosen sufficiently low.
Actually, it must be significantly lower than what would be
required for a similar computation with white noise.
This effect can be clearly seen in the top panel of the figure.
An energy cutoff of~$-3k_\text{B}T$ (blue plus symbols) is not enough to identify the reactive
trajectories reliably, even in the harmonic limit, $c_3=0$,
where the Grote--Hynes result~\eqref{kappaGH} is exact (black horizontal line).
This is due to the memory effect inherent in correlated noise:
The friction force remembers that the trajectory came from the barrier top
and therefore tends to push it back up
Thus, a lower energy cutoff has to be chosen.
As can be seen in the same panel,
the numerical simulations for~$-5k_\text{B}T$ (brown circles), $-7k_\text{B}T$ (green stars)
and $-9k_\text{B}T$ (purple squares) provide more accurate results.
Indeed, results are well converged for a cutoff energy of $-7k_\text{B}T$,
and this value will be used in all further calculations.
The converged transmission factors are in good agreement with the perturbative results.
If $c_3\ne 0$, the potential has a minimum on one side of the barrier.
The cutoff energy cannot be chosen below the minimum, or conversely,
for given cutoff energy the coupling strength $c_3$ must be chosen such as
to produce a sufficiently low minimum.
For this reason, the data in the figure cover a smaller range of $c_3$
if the cutoff is lower.
Similar comments apply to Fig.~\ref{fig:rates}(b),
where the transmission factor is shown as a function of a quartic
coupling strength $c_4$.
Again, the numerical results decrease as the cutoff energy is lowered,
finally converging to a limit that is in good agreement with the
perturbative results if the coupling is not too strong.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[]{KappaGLE_Tau_gam5_c,1}
\medskip
\includegraphics[]{KappaGLE_Tau_gam5_c,1_diff}
\caption{Transmission factor as a function of memory time.
Top black line: Grote-Hynes transmission factor~\eqref{kappaGH},
bottom red line: leading order perturbation theory obtained
from~\eqref{kappaGH}+\eqref{eq:kappa2}.
Blue symbols: numerical simulation with 1$\sigma$ error bars and cutoff energy $-7k_\text{B}T$.
(a) Transmission factor, (b) deviation from the harmonic approximation.
Parameters used are $m=1$, $\omega_\text{b}=1$, $\gamma_0=5$, $c_3=0.1$, $c_4=0$, $k_\text{B}T=1$.}
\label{fig:ratesTau}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:ratesTau} shows the dependence of the transmission factor
on the memory time.
This dependence is strong, and more importantly it is largely accounted for
by the harmonic approximation.
Nevertheless, the deviation from the harmonic approximation also varies
strongly with the memory time.
The absolute value of the anharmonic correction is smallest in the white noise
limit $\tau\to 0$.
It grows for nonzero memory times, has a maximum
at~$\tau_\text{min}\approx 4.5$
and then it decreases again.
This behavior is qualitatively well described by the leading order perturbation theory.
The agreement between perturbation theory and simulation is excellent also in
quantitative terms for memory times shorter than $\tau_\text{min}$.
For larger times, it is only approximate.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[]{KappaGLE_Gam_tau4_c,1}
\medskip
\includegraphics[]{KappaGLE_Gam_tau4_c,1_diff}
\caption{Transmission factor as a function of damping.
Top black line: Grote-Hynes transmission factor~\eqref{kappaGH},
bottom red line: leading order perturbation theory obtained
from~\eqref{kappaGH}+\eqref{eq:kappa2}.
Blue symbols: numerical simulation with 1$\sigma$ error bars and cutoff
energy $-7k_\text{B}T$.
(a) Transmission factor,
(b) deviation from the harmonic approximation.
Parameters used are $m=1$, $\omega_\text{b}=1$, $\tau=4$, $c_3=0.1$, $c_4=0$, $k_\text{B}T=1$.
}
\label{fig:ratesGamma}
\end{figure}
Similar results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ratesGamma} for the transmission
factor as a function of damping strength.
The transmission factor depends strongly on the strength of the damping,
and again most of this dependence is accounted for by the harmonic approximation.
The anharmonic correction is zero for $\gamma_0=0$, increases in magnitude for
nonzero friction, then goes through a minimum and finally decreases again.
Perturbation theory is in good agreement with the numerical results over
the entire range of $\gamma_0$.
It should be kept in mind that the results are not physically meaningful
in the limit of weak damping, because the rate theory outlined in
Sec.~\ref{sec:rate} assumes that the rate is determined by spatial diffusion.
As $\gamma_0\to 0$, a turnover to an energy diffusion limited rate will occur
at a value of $\gamma_0$ that depends on the details of the potential well.
It cannot therefore be stated in general how strong the damping has to be for the
results of Fig.~\ref{fig:ratesGamma} to be applicable.
For an assessment of the perturbative results, however, this question is not relevant.
Finally, let us remark that the theory outlined here has been also successfully
applied to more realistic chemical models~\cite{Revuelta16}.
Actually, we were able to accurately reproduce the reaction rates of the
LiNC$\rightleftharpoons$LiCN isomerization reaction in the presence
of an argon bath computed obtained using all-atom molecular dynamics by using a
simple one-dimensional model defined along the minimum energy path of the molecule.
\section{Concluding remarks}
\label{sec:conclu}
The computation of chemical reaction rates using TST and similar
approaches is very common in the chemistry community.
However, the results rendered by standard
TST depend dramatically on the choice of an adequate DS.
This is particularly important in reactions that take place in a solvent,
where a typical reactive trajectory recrosses the DS many times and,
as a consequence, standard TST grossly overestimates
the true reaction rate.
In this paper we present a method that overcomes the recrossing problem.
It identifies reactive trajectories precisely by computing the geometrical
structures that divide the phase space into reactive and nonreactive parts.
More specifically, all the information on the reactivity of the system
is encoded in the stable manifold, whose intersection with the DS defines
a critical velocity that trajectories must exceed in order to be reactive.
Notice that this procedure is independent of the selected DS as the stable
manifold acts as a separatrix throughout the (extended) phase space.
The intersection of the stable manifold with a different DS renders a
different critical velocity but if a trajectory is reactive it will cross
each DS with a velocity larger than the corresponding critical velocity.
The method reported here is based on a perturbative scheme.
It extends a previous series of studies%
\cite{Bartsch05b,Bartsch05c,Bartsch06a,Bartsch08,Hernandez10,%
Revuelta12,Bartsch12,Revuelta16} to the case of colored noise and
it has also been successfully applied to calculate the reaction rates
of a realistic molecular system~\cite{Revuelta16}.
Furthermore, it has enabled us to obtain analytic corrections to the
Grote--Hynes expression for anharmonic multidimensional potentials,
while providing at the same time a clear geometrical picture
of the reaction mechanism.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The research leading these results has received funding from
the Minis\-terio de Econom\'ia y Competitividad under Contract
MTM2015-63914-P, ICMAT Severo Ochoa under
SEV-2015-0554,
and the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union's Seventh
Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013/under REA Grant Agreement No. 294974.
|
\section{Introduction}
In nuclear reactions the detailed studies of the three-flavor
processes, including $u$, $d$ and $s$ quarks, will be mandatory to
develop fundamental nuclear theories of hadrons and nuclei, as well as
the large spectacular cosmic objects like neutron stars.
Having a core with supra-nuclear densities and a crust with
sub-nuclear densities, these stellar objects merge all aspects of nuclear
physics. Baryons with strangeness embedded in
the nuclear environment, i.e., hypernuclei, are the only available tool to
approach the many-body aspect of the strong interaction at low energies.
Hypernuclei are formed when hyperons ($Y=\Lambda,\Sigma,\Xi,\Omega$)
produced in high-energy interactions are captured by nuclei. They live
significantly longer than the typical reaction times, therefore, they
can serve as a tool to study the hyperon--nucleon and hyperon--hyperon
interactions.
The investigation of hypernuclei is a very progressing
field of nuclear physics, since it provides complementary methods to
improve traditional nuclear methods and open new horizons for studying
particle physics and nuclear astrophysics
(see, e.g., \cite{Ban90,Sch93,Gre96,Has06,Sch08,Gal12,Buy13,Hel14}
and references therein).
Recently very encouraging results on hypernuclei
come from experiments with relativistic ion collisions.
Many experimental collaborations (e.g., STAR at RHIC \cite{star};
ALICE at LHC \cite{alice}; PANDA \cite{panda}, FOPI, HADES, CBM
\cite{Hades,Vas15}, and
HypHI, Super-FRS, R3B at FAIR \cite{saito-new,super-frs,Rap13};
BM@N and MPD at
NICA \cite{nica}) have started or plan to investigate hypernuclei and
their properties in reactions induced by relativistic hadrons and ions.
The limits in isospin space, unstable nuclear states, multiple strange
nuclei and precision lifetime measurements are unique topics of these
fragmentation reactions.
It is important in this respect to note that the very first experimental
observation of a hypernucleus was obtained in the 1950-s in reactions of
nuclear multifragmentation induced by cosmic rays \cite{Dan53}. Recently
a remarkable progress was made in investigation of the multifragmentation
reactions associated with relativistic heavy-ion collisions (see, e.g.,
\cite{Bon95,Xi97,Sch01,Ogu11} and references therein). This gives us an
opportunity to apply well known theoretical methods adopted for description
of these reactions also for production of hypernuclei \cite{Bot07,Das09}.
Specially, we emphasize a possibility to form hypernuclei
in the fragmentation processes in peripheral collisions.
The insight into mechanisms of such processes will provide access to the EoS
of hyper-nuclear matter and explain the phase
transition phenomena at low temperature.
As already discussed \cite{Buy13,Bot11} in these reactions one can get a very
broad distribution of produced hypernuclei including the exotic ones
and with extreme isospin. This can help to investigate the structure
of nuclei by extending the nuclear chart into the strangeness sector
\cite{Ban90,Sch93,Gre96,Has06}. In addition,
complex multi-hypernuclear systems incorporating more than two hyperons
can be created in such energetic nucleus-nucleus collisions, and this
may be the only conceivable method to go even beyond $|s|$=2.
It was demonstrated in the previous works \cite{Bot13,Bot15} that the yields
of single hypernuclei originating from the spectator residues in
peripheral ion collisions will saturate with energies above 3--5 A GeV
(in the laboratory frame). Therefore, the accelerators of moderate
relativistic energies can be used for the intensive studies of
hypernuclei. The subthreshold production of hyperons
becomes possible in these reactions down to the energies of $\sim$1 A GeV.
At the laboratory energies of ions around 1--2 A GeV
the detection of hypernuclei can become very effective and this give an
advantage despite of their smaller yields in comparison with high energy
beams. For example, the novel experimental set-ups, like FRS/Super-FRS
\cite{Rap13,aumann,frs},
can be effectively used for separation of nuclei with energies less than
2 A GeV, that essentially extends opportunities for their investigation.
This gives chances to measure many new exotic hypernuclei.
The acceptance of other modern detectors, like CBM at GSI/FAIR \cite{Vas15}
or STAR at RHIC \cite{star} allows to register particles coming mostly
from the kinematic region around midrapidity. Therefore, the decreasing
of the beam energy will increase considerably the probability for fragments
produced in the target/projectile region to enter the detection domain.
Since the formation of large hypernuclei is shifted toward the
target/projectile rapidities \cite{Bot15}, this can open possibilities
to form novel hypernuclear states. Another research direction is related to
producing multi-strange hyper-fragments which may require a higher beam
energy. This needs a systematic theoretical investigation of double- and
multi-strange fragment yields at least at beam energies up to $\sim$10
A GeV in order to understand if any saturation phenomenon can be observed.
The light multi-strange clusters can be measured with the high precision
detectors, for example, by CBM collaboration \cite{Vas15}. The aim of
this theoretical work is to investigate the hypernuclei production in
detail the region of the beam energies of 1--10 A GeV,
including the comparison with available experiments and the parameter
dependence of the results,
in order to
provide the future experiments with reliable predictions of these reactions.
\section{Models for production of hypernuclei at relativistic collisions}
We recall shortly the mechanisms for producing hypernuclei which
were discussed previously:
The formation processes of hypernuclei are apparently different in central
and peripheral ion collisions. There are indications that in central
collisions of very high energy the coalescence mechanism, which
assembles light hyper-fragments from the produced hyperons and
nucleons (including anti-baryons), is essential
\cite{star,alice,ygma-nufra,camerini-nufra}.
Thermal models suggest also that only the lightest clusters, with
mass numbers A$\loo$4, can be noticeably produced in this way because
of the very high temperature of the fireball (T$\approx$160 MeV)
\cite{And11,Ste12}.
On the other hand, it was claimed long ago that the absorption
of hyperons in the spectator regions
after peripheral nuclear collisions is a promising way to produce
hypernuclei \cite{Bot11,Wak88,Cas95,giessen}.
The special reactions associated with these processes, e.g., the
hyper-fission, were under investigation too \cite{Arm93,Ohm97}.
An important feature of peripheral collisions is that large pieces of
nuclear matter around normal nuclear density at low temperature
can be created in contrast to the highly-excited nuclear matter
at mid-rapidity. Nucleons from the overlapping parts of the projectile
and target (participant zone) interact strongly among themselves
and with other hadrons produced in primary and secondary collisions.
Nucleons from the non-overlapping parts do not interact intensively, and
they form residual nuclear systems, which we call spectator residues.
We remind that these residues are formed during first 30--60 fm/c
after starting the collision, when energetic hadron-nucleon interactions
inside nuclei cease and the remaining nucleons do not escape the
nucleus potential \cite{Bon95,Bot11}.
The nuclear system evolves toward thermalization in this case.
It is well established that low excited spectator
residues (T$\loo$5-6 MeV) are produced in such reactions
\cite{Bon95,Xi97,Sch01,Poc97}.
The production of hyperons is associated with nucleon-nucleon collisions,
e.g., p+n$\rightarrow$n+$\Lambda$+K$^{+}$, or collisions of secondary
mesons with nucleons, e.g., $\pi^{+}$+n$\rightarrow \Lambda$+K$^{+}$.
Strange particles may be produced in the participant zone, however, the
particles can re-scatter and undergo secondary interactions. As a result
the produced hyperons populate the whole momentum space around the
colliding nuclei, including the vicinity of nuclear spectators,
and can be captured by the spectator residues. General
regularities of the decay of such hyper-residues into hyper-fragments
can be investigated with statistical models (e.g., generalized
Statistical Multifragmentation Model SMM \cite{Bot07,Das09}), which were
previously applied for description of normal fragments in similar processes
with great success \cite{Bon95,Xi97,Sch01,Ogu11}.
The theoretical predictions of strangeness and hyperon production
in hadron and ion reactions can be performed with various
dynamical models employing similar general assumptions on the
hadron transport in nuclei but with different methods of solution of the
kinetic equations. In addition, the models can also be different
(especially at high energy) in the description of elementary hadron-hadron
interactions and production of new particles. Previously we have investigated
the model-dependence of the results \cite {Bot11,Bot15}.
At relatively low-energy elementary hadron collisions (less than 1--3 GeV
in the laboratory frame) the models use usually some
approximations for the reaction channels supported by the analysis
of available experimental data. However, at higher energies, where
hyperon formation probability is large, theoretical evaluations are mostly
used. For example, the Dubna Cascade Model (DCM) \cite{Bot11,Bot13,Ton90}
involves the quark gluon string model (QGSM). The Ultrarelativistic Quantum
Molecular Dynamics (UrQMD) model \cite{Bas98,Ble99} has adopted the string
formation and its fragmentation according to the PYTHIA model for hard
collisions.
In particular, the current versions of DCM and UrQMD include up to
70 baryonic species (including their anti-particles), as well as up to
40 different mesonic species, which are involved in binary interactions.
The Lund FRITIOF string model (including PYTHIA) is used in
the Hadron String Dynamics model (HSD) \cite{Cas08}, however, for
simulations including in-medium self-energies of particles.
We have shown that at high energy the difference between these models
have a moderate
influence (within the factor of two) on the yield of hypernuclei, that can
be considered as an uncertainty of their prediction \cite{Bot15}.
The capture of produced $\Lambda$ hyperons by nuclear spectator residues
can be easily obtained within the potential criterion \cite{Bot11}:
It takes place if a hyperon
kinetic energy in the rest frame of the residue is lower than the
attractive potential energy generated by neighbouring nucleons, i.e.,
the hyperon potential, which is around 30 MeV in matter at normal nuclear
density $\rho_0 \approx 0.15 fm^{-3}$.
The variation (mostly, decreasing) of the nuclear density is taken into
account during the hadron cascade development in nuclei and the hyperon
capture potential varies correspondently \cite{Bot11}.
The coalescence criterion \cite{Ste12}, which uses
the proximity of baryons in momentum and coordinate space,
is consistent with the potential one.
A generalization of the coalescence model \cite{Bot15}, the
coalescence of baryons (CB), can be applied after the dynamical stage
described, for example, by DCM, UrQMD, and HSD models.
In such a way it is possible to form primary
fragments of all sizes, from the lightest nuclei to the heavy residues,
including hypernuclei within the same mechanism.
We have found previously \cite{Bot15} that the optimal time for applying the
coalescence (as the final state interaction) is around 40--50 fm/c after
starting the heavy-ion collisions, when the rate of individual inelastic
hadron interactions decreases very rapidly. A variation of the time within
this interval leads to an uncertainty in the yield around 10$\%$ for a fixed
coalescence parameter. This is essentially smaller than the uncertainty in
the coalescence parameter itself.
It is important that the calculations are performed on the event-by-event
basis, like the experimental data are obtained.
The following break-up of excited primary fragments can be described
with the statistical models \cite{lorente,Bot07,Bot13} by using the same
Monte-Carlo method, which allows to keep information on each produced
particle. The advantage of this hybrid procedure is the possibility
to predict the correlations of yields of hypernuclei, including their sizes,
with the rapidity, and with other produced particles.
In this paper we concentrate on the transport approaches and the capture
of $\Lambda$ hyperons. In particular, we show new systematic calculations
with DCM and UrQMD models for various target/projectiles at relevant
energies, as well as the comparison with available experimental data
on strangeness production.
We demonstrate also the sensitivity of the hyper-fragment yields
to the parametrization of the hyperon production and its capture.
We believe that in this way one can realistically estimate
the primary hyper-fragments yields that is important
for the planning of future experiments.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{hyphidcm_fig1.eps}
\caption{\small{ (Color online)
Rapidity distribution of $\Lambda$ hyperons as measured by FOPI
collaboration \cite{FOPI04} in comparison with DCM calculations.
The Ni + Ni reaction at 1.93 A GeV is analyzed for central
and semi-central events.
}}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{hyphidcm_fig2.eps}
\caption{\small{ (Color online)
Double differential cross sections as functions of the laboratory particle
momenta for the production of K$^{+}$ mesons in the gold-on-gold collisions
at subthreshold energies under different angles.
The experimental data (solid circles) are taken from Ref.~\cite{PRL01}.
The DCM calculations (solid histograms) are integrated over all
impact parameters to meet the experimental conditions.
The energies and angles in the laboratory system are given in the panels.
The scaling factors
are given in the brackets.
}}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{hyphidcm_fig3.eps}
\caption{\small{ (Color online)
Invariant cross sections for the production of K$^{+}$ mesons in the
center-of-mass system versus their kinetic energy under the angle of 90
degree, in the gold, nickel and carbon symmetric ion collisions.
The experimental data (solid symbols) are taken from Ref.~\cite{PRC07}.
The DCM calculations are given by histograms.
The energies in the laboratory system (in A GeV) and the
scaling factors are shown in the panels.
}}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{hyphidcm_fig4.eps}
\caption{\small{ (Color online)
The same as in Fig.~3, however, in the collisions at higher energies,
and for K$^{+}$ and K$^{-}$ mesons (top and bottom panels).
}}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{hyphidcm_fig5.eps}
\caption{\small{ (Color online)
Invariant cross sections for the production of K$^{+}$ and K$^{-}$ mesons
in reactions induced by protons with the energies of 3.5 GeV on
the gold target versus their momenta under several angles. All values are
in the laboratory system, see notations on the panels. The symbols are
experimental data taken from Ref.~\cite{PRL06},
the DCM calculations are histograms.
}}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
\section{Formation of hyperons and strange particles}
The transport models were used successfully for description of strangeness
production (see, e.g., Refs.~\cite{Bot11,Bra04,Har12,Fuc01}). However,
there are only few experimental data concerning the hyperon production.
Some of them were analyzed in the previous works \cite{Bot11}. In Fig.~1
we show the comparison of DCM with the $\Lambda$-hyperon rapidity
distributions measured by FOPI (GSI) collaboration for central and
semi-central events (the estimated impact parameters are less than 5.5 fm).
One can see a rather good agreement, which was obtained when the processes
involving secondary interactions of produced particles were included
\cite{Cas95,Bot11}.
In the rapidity region of the projectile/spectators, one can note
a slight surplus of the hyperons in the calculations. This should be tested
with future measurements when the experimental efficiency will be improved
at these rapidities.
The above projectile energy is still larger than the threshold for $\Lambda$
production in the nucleon-nucleon collision ($E_{thr} \approx 1.6$ A GeV).
On the other hand the subthreshold production is possible, because of the
Fermi motion of nucleons in colliding nuclei and secondary rescattering
processes. In order to
verify the calculations at energies lower than $E_{thr}$ we could look at
the reaction products which accompany the hyperon production in this
case. In particular, the channels with the K$^{+}$ formation, are
dominating here. Therefore, in Fig.~2 and Fig.~3 we analyze the yields
of positive kaons at the subthreshold energies.
One see a quite reasonable agreement
of the DCM transport calculations with the KAOS experimental data on the
differential spectra at various angles. We should take into account that
namely these spectra are used for the final fit and evaluation
of the total kaon yields in the experiments. One can see a slight
overestimation of the kaon production in the model under large angles
(in the backward direction). However, they are responsible for a small part
of the yield. Unfortunately, it was not possible to detect kaons with
very low momenta and this leads to an uncertainty in the estimate of the
total yield. However, we believe that within the model
we can give a reasonable evaluation of the strangeness production
in the subthreshold region. It is sufficient for the preparation of
experiments on strange particles and fragments, if one can detect
such particles (via products of their decay)
with the cross sections of around nanobarns.
If we analyze the laboratory energies around and above the threshold, then
the model predictions reproduce the experimental data better.
This can be seen from Figs.~4 and 5. An underestimation of the positive
kaons of high energy with DCM (Fig.~4) should have a minor effect, and it
is just indicating that the number of $\Lambda$ hyperons, which accompany
the kaons, may be even larger. Though at this energy range the kaons were
under selective study with other transport models (for example, see
\cite{Bra04,Har12} and references therein) the mechanism of their
formation is still under discussion. We believe that the available
direct hyperon distributions, shown here in Fig.~1 and in Ref.~\cite{Bot11},
should be analyzed within other models too.
As seen from our analysis all kaon spectra can be reasonably
described within DCM transport approach and this is a good justification
for extending the model predictions to other strange particles. In our
opinion it would be useful to perform a cross-comparison of different
models on strangeness production around the threshold energy for clarifying
the physics behind.
Having in mind that controlling
verifications of the transport codes are still necessary, we think
we can afford a reasonable estimate of the hyper-fragment yields
with the determination of the yield uncertainty also. In this case the
effect of the hyperon capture by nucleons and clusters can be evaluated
with help of additional model parameters.
\section{Production of hyper-residues}
It was discussed that the hyperon capture can be described by both the
potential and the coalescence approach \cite{Bot11,Bot15}. The coalescence
is very popular and it exists on the market in different modifications,
see, for example, its application for the hyperon capture within other
transport approaches \cite{giessen,Gai14,LeFev16}. The connection of the
potential and coalescence capture conceptions was demonstrated previously.
In particular, the momentum distribution of the hyperon
captured in the nuclear potential well reminds a step-like function,
see Fig.~10 in Ref.~\cite{Bot11}. This can be approximated with
the coalescent capture of hyperons if their momenta (or velocities) relative
to other nucleons less than a certain value. It is important
to compare the capture probability within the two approaches.
Our understanding is that this capture is a fast process, which
happens during the time around few tens fm/c from the beginning of the
reaction. As a result, the most produced hyper-clusters should be excited
from low excitations up to few MeV per nucleons. They will decay afterwards
during a very prolonged time ($\sim 10^{2}-10^{4}$ fm/c). It is well known
that the secondary decay involves many-particle correlations which are usually
not included in transport models. Such decay processes were already under
examination \cite{Bot07,Buy13,lorente} with the statistical models.
We plan to pursue it in the forthcoming papers because these processes are
universal and can take place
not only in ion reactions. Below we demonstrate in detail the results
concerning the hot primary hyper-residues' production, obtained within
DCM and UrQMD+CB approaches.
In Figs.~6, 7, and 8 we show the yields of spectator residues after the
capture of 1, 2, and 3 $\Lambda$ hyperons. The collisions of light,
medium, and heavy nuclei were considered in the large range of the
projectile energies. The DCM calculations were performed with the potential
capture criterion. The yields are presented in millibarns for the
future convenient comparisons with experiments. Some curves are scaled
with the factors shown in brackets on the figures. As was previously reported
there is a trend of the yield's saturation at high energy \cite{Bot13}.
The present calculations with large statistics demonstrate that this
saturation trend can be still partly valid for double and even triple
hyper-residues if the energy is well above the threshold. This confirms
that the energies of $\sim$10 A~GeV are already sufficient for
producing multi-strange hypernuclei.
We have also investigated the influence of the hyperon capture potential
on the hyper-fragment formation. Its formal decreasing from 30 to 15 MeV
(for normal nuclear matter), which we consider as a maximum reasonable
variation, leads to decreasing the hyper-residue yields by around 20$\%$
only. The reason is that the hyperon--nucleon cross-section increases
very much at low energy, as assumed in the parametrization adopted
in Ref.~\cite{Bot11}.
Since the nuclear matter is moderately diluted after the cascade of first
fast particles the low-energy interactions with remaining nucleons become
more probable. Therefore, as a result of these secondary interactions
the $\Lambda$ hyperon energy decreases very fastly in this energy domain
and this looks as thermalization.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{hyphidcm_fig6.eps}
\caption{\small{ (Color online)
Absolute yields (in mb) of the hyper-spectator residues (projectiles or
targets) in lead on lead collisions versus the laboratory energies.
The numbers of captured $\Lambda$ hyperons (H) are shown in the figure.
The statistical variances ('error bars') of the performed DCM calculations
are shown if they are larger than the size of the symbols.
}}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{hyphidcm_fig7.eps}
\caption{\small{ (Color online)
Absolute yields (in mb) of the hyper-spectator residues (projectiles or
targets) in nickel on nickel collisions. The notations are as in Fig.~6,
besides the scaling factors given in the brackets.
}}
\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{hyphidcm_fig8.eps}
\caption{\small{ (Color online)
Absolute yields (in mb) of the hyper-spectator residues (projectiles or
targets) in carbon on carbon collisions. The notations are as in Figs.~6, 7.
}}
\label{fig8}
\end{figure}
The production of hypernuclei around the threshold energy is instructive
since it is sensitive to the properties of particles inside the nuclear
matter of colliding nuclei, including the nucleon correlations.
It is also practical since it can facilitate the experimental identification
of hypernuclei, as we have mentioned in Introduction.
To verify the predictions of the transport approaches at these energies
we have also performed UrQMD calculations with a large statistics
for lead on lead collisions at the energies of 1, 1.5 and 2.0 A GeV.
With this model we can use the coalescence capture criterion and
estimate the influence of various coalescence parameters. The procedure was
described in detail in our previous work \cite{Bot15} and concerns both
the relative coordinates and velocities between the coalescent nucleons.
In particular, the
velocity coalescence parameter $v_c \approx 0.1$ should correspond to the
formation of lightest clusters in the ground states. While the parameter
$v_c \approx 0.22$, encloses the nucleons with velocities close to the
Fermi motion in nuclei. This large parameter
is also consistent with the momenta of
hyperons absorbed by big spectators \cite{Bot11}, therefore, it
should be more realistic to describe the formation of larger nuclei
which are expected for the target and projectile residues.
As a result, the UrQMD+CB calculations for $v_c = 0.22$ predict the
following cross-sections for producing the single hyper-residues:
0.35 mb at 1 A GeV, 2.4 mb at 1.5 A GeV, and 9.0 mb at 2 A GeV.
By comparing it with the DCM presented in the fig.~6, one can evaluate
the difference between DCM and UrQMD results.
The artificial reducing of $v_c$ to 0.1 leads to decreasing the yields to
0.1 mb, 0.75 mb, and 2.6 mb, respectively. However, it is a clearly
underestimated case since such small parameters are typical for lightest
clusters (A$\loo$4), not for heavy residues.
For the capture of two hyperons by the spectator residues in the more
realistic $v_c = 0.22$ case we have got the following cross sections:
0.0013 mb, 0.011 mb and 0.045 mb for 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 A GeV, correspondently.
One can say that various models may lead to the deviations of up to one
order at the very low subthreshold beam energy (1 A GeV), and the difference
becomes smaller, approximately the factor two-three, at 2 A GeV.
At high energy, as was discussed in
the previous works \cite{Bot11,Bot15}, the deviations in predictions of
transport models are not more than the factor two.
We have analyzed that
by increasing the coalescence parameters one may try to simulate
the effect of the spectator nucleon density fluctuations within the
coalescence picture and increase the capture effectively. However, the main
discrepancy between the models
comes from the difference in the hyperon production: The yield of
hyperons integrated over all impact parameters
in DCM is nearly 4 times larger than in UrQMD for Pb + Pb collisions
at 1 A GeV. This discrepancy comes from the different parametrizations
for strangeness production and particle rescattering at low energy.
It depends also on the effective masses and potentials of particles in
medium. The Fermi motion of nucleons may allow for high momentum components,
that is very important in subthreshold reactions. All these phenomena,
which are not very crucial at very high energy, are treated in the models in
different ways. The lack of the experimental data on low energy particles
in subthreshold heavy-ion collisions is the main obstacle for the adequate
adjustment of the models.
However, we think that the presented results on the production of
hypernuclei in the subthreshold region is a reasonable guide-line for
their future experimental studies. Moreover, we believe that the experimental
determination of the yields of spectator heavy hypernuclei, for example,
by measuring remnants of the hyper-fission, may provide additional
opportunities for the better description of the strangeness mechanisms
inside nuclear matter at
such low energies. This can also put the important constraint on interaction
of hyperons in medium, since slow hyperons can be captured by
the residues.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{hyphidcm_fig9.eps}
\caption{\small{ (Color online)
The average numbers (per event) of the $\Lambda$-hyperon production in lead
on lead collisions versus the laboratory energies. The DCM calculations are
integrated over all impact parameters and are performed under the standard
assumption on the smooth transition between the low-energy to high-energy
elementary hadron interactions (solid line), and by assuming that the
employed
low-energy cross-section parametrizations can also be applied at the energies
which are higher approximately by two GeV (dashed line).
}}
\label{fig9}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{hyphidcm_fig10.eps}
\caption{\small{ (Color online)
Relative yields (per one inelastic event) of the hyper-spectator residues
(projectiles or targets) in lead on lead collisions versus the laboratory
energies. Solid lines and symbols are the DCM standard calculations.
Dashed lines are the calculations with an alternative assumption for
the $\Lambda$-hyperon formation shown by the dashed line in Fig.~9.
Other notations are as in Fig.~6.
}}
\label{fig10}
\end{figure}
It is especially instructive that the excitation functions for
multi-strange hypernuclear residues (figs.~6--8)
have the same saturation-like behavior.
The probability for the formation of residues with one additional captured
hyperon decreases by two order of magnitude in the collisions of heavy
nuclei. This difference increases up to four order of magnitude for the
very light nuclei. Actually, our predicted yields of the hyper-residues
may be parameterized in the wide mass range (from carbon to lead) and used
for preparing the corresponding measurements.
The reason of the decreasing of the hyper-residues yields for smaller
colliding nuclei is just that less hyperons are
produced in the collision events. Still these cross sections are sufficient
for the systematic investigation of hypernuclei. Moreover, in some cases
the light colliding nuclei have advantages: The background conditions are
better for experimental identification of hypernuclei, and their mesonic
decay channels gives a chance to use the invariant mass methods well
established in hypernuclei studies \cite{saito-new}.
In relativistic ion reactions these correlations were investigated
theoretically too (Ref.~\cite{Bot13}).
Therefore, the first experiments may take place on light nuclei
\cite{Rap13}. One can see that in the case of carbon collisions (fig.~8)
at the beam energy around 2 A GeV even double light hyper-residues can
be produced with the cross-section
approximately $\sim$1 nanonbarn. Taking into account the high intensities
of future accelerators (e.g., the planned rate is nearly 10$^{12}$ per
second for
the FAIR beam \cite{frs}) it is sufficient for starting a rich hypernuclear
program.
It is also instructive to understand within the transport models how the
variation of the hyperon production parameters can be seen in the production
of hyper-residues. In fig.~9 we show the prediction of the $\Lambda$
hyperon yields by using different parametrizations inside DCM:
The solid line is the standard assumption on the transition from the
well-known low-energy regime to the high energy elementary interactions
described within the QGSM \cite{Ton90}. The dashed line presents another
procedure for fitting these two limits. We note that up to now there are no
sufficient experimental data available for comparison to make unambiguous
conclusion about the correct excitation function of the hyperons. A small
variation of the $\Lambda$ yields at the energies slightly below 10 A GeV
may result in a specific feature of the hyper-residue yields: We see from
Fig.~10 that if we involve an alternative DCM parametrization, leading to
the dashed line in Fig.~9, one can get
even local maxima of these yields at the corresponding energies. This is a
consequence of that the secondary interactions, as well as the hyperon
capture in the potential
well, are very sensitive to the details of the hyperon origin and energy.
Such kind of behaviour of the excitation functions could be a very
instructive experimental signature complementary to measuring high-energy
spectra of strange particles. It may compensate partly the lack of the
low-energy kaon data, since predominantly low-energy hyperons can be
absorbed inside nuclei.
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{hyphidcm_fig11.eps}
\caption{\small{ (Color online)
The average mass numbers of the produced residues, divided by mass number
of the corresponding target and projectile, versus their excitation energy
per nucleon. The 'error bars' by the symbols give the standard deviations
of the DCM calculations. Reactions and laboratory energy of collision
nuclei are indicated in the figure by symbols.
}}
\label{fig11}
\end{figure}
For the following description of the reaction processes it is important
to have information about the properties of the spectator hyper-residues.
Since the masses and excitation energies of nuclei in such intermediate
states serve as input for the statistical de-excitation models. This problem
was under intensive studies in relativistic heavy-ion collisions leading
to the normal nuclear fragmentation. For example, as was experimentally
established, there is a special correlation between a residue masses and
the excitations \cite{Bon95,Xi97,Ogu11,Ima15}
which results in an universal fragmentation picture.
The hyper-residue masses have been demonstrated in our previous works,
see, e.g., fig.~7 in Ref.~\cite{Bot11} and fig.~2 in Ref.~\cite{Bot15}:
They range from the small mass numbers to the ones close to the target and
projectile. This allows for investigating a very broad distribution of
hypernuclei (in mass and isospin) in the same collisions. The
connection between masses and excitations obtained in the DCM calculations,
for the first time,
is shown in Fig.~11. One can see that by increasing the collision violence
the more nucleons are lost and the more
excitation energy is deposited per nucleons. However, there is a saturation
trend for the excitation, so the excitation energies which exceed essentially
the nuclear binding energies are not realized in thermalized residues.
We have checked that in our calculations this trend is fully
consistent with the previous analysis of experimental data and it remains
valid for collisions in the wide range of relativistic energies available
at GSI/FAIR and other accelerators.
Actually, such excited residual nuclei will decay in the fast
multifragmentation/break-up and/or sequential evaporation/fission processes
leading to cold hyper- and normal nuclei \cite{Bon95,Bot07,Bot13}.
In the case of such de-excitation the captured hyperons
will be predominantly concentrated in the biggest final fragments
because of the considerable hyperon binding energy, see Ref.~ \cite{Buy13}.
As the last step, for identification of hypernuclei,
the correlation measurements (of pions, baryons and fragments) are the
most promising tool for future research in this field
\cite{star,alice,saito-new,Bot13,Arm93,Ohm97}.
Besides identifying hypermatter,
the correlations can reveal the hypernuclei properties.
For example, by detecting the momenta of the decay products one can find
the life-time of the hypernuclei and their binding energies. By analyzing
the decay of free $\Lambda$ hyperons and hypernuclei in the same events one
can investigate the unbound hyperon states in double hypernuclei. It is
crucial for
constraining the hyperon interaction in matter and determining the
properties of hypermatter at low temperatures.
\section{Conclusion}
We conclude that the spectator region in relativistic collisions of hadron
and ion with ions can be a very promising source of hyper-fragments.
We point that the general mechanism of such reactions leading to
fragmentation and multifragmentation is well established for normal nuclear
processes. Hyperons are also participating in such a process
because the hyperon-nucleon interaction is of the same order as
the nucleon-nucleon one. The
primary produced hypermatter is relatively cold (the expected temperature
of the spectator residues is not higher than T$\sim$5--7 MeV), therefore,
large hypernuclei can be
produced in comparison with the central collisions. A great variety
of hypernuclei of all masses and in a wide range of isospin can be formed,
that is similar to the phenomena existing in normal nuclei.
Systematic investigations of strange and, especially,
multi-strange hypernuclei can be
naturally performed in these reactions. We have demonstrated the quantitative
estimates for the yields of such primary hyperfragments.
The calculations are partly confirmed by a rather good description of
experimental data available on the strangeness production.
We have also investigated the
theoretical uncertainties of the predictions by considering the variations of
the model parameters, and different transport models.
As we have found these
uncertainties can be related to the treatment of the strange
particle interaction in medium at low energy, and this opens an complementary
way for experimental investigation of such processes.
From the current experiments we know that the values of the hypernuclei
yields obtained within our approach are sufficient for the systematic
experimental measurements.
Moreover, our predictions of the yields can be naturally extended
for the whole mass and energy range available for targets/projectiles in
future experiments.
The saturation of the hypernuclei production
at high laboratory energies indicate that high intensities of the accelerators
and a more sophisticated detection technique are more important for this
purpose than the ultra-high colliding energies.
In this respect it is encouraging that the residues of ions and their decay
products with energies from 1--2 A GeV (i.e., around the hypernuclear
threshold) and up to 10--15 A GeV can be effectively studied with the
modern experimental installations, like FRS/Super-FRS and CBM at GSI and FAIR.
These experiments are in preparation. New exotic hypernuclei
can be investigated in such reactions, and new methods of their
determination (e.g., by using many-particle correlations)
can be applied, which may give advantages over the traditional hypernuclear
studies.
\begin{acknowledgments}
A.S.B. acknowledges the support of BMBF. Also we acknowledge a partial
support of GSI and the Research Infrastructure
Integrating Activity Study of Strongly Interacting Matter HadronPhysics3
under the 7th Framework Programme of EU (SPHERE network). A.S.B. and K.K.G.
thank the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies J.W. Goethe University
for hospitality.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
In the current paradigm of galaxy evolution, galaxies grow mainly by internal star formation along a fairly tight relationship between stellar mass and star formation (so-called main sequence), at a rate that is set by the balance between gas accretion from the cosmic web, internal star formation and outflows driven by active galactic nuclei (AGN), supernovae, and massive stars \citep{2010ApJ...718.1001B,2012MNRAS.421...98D,2013ApJ...772..119L}.
Once galaxy masses reach the Schechter mass, $\log(M_*/M_\odot)\sim10.9$ \citep[e.g.,][]{2009ApJ...701.1765M,2013ApJ...777...18M,2013A&A...556A..55I}, star formation appears to drop within a short timescale of $\sim$1 Gyr \citep{2013ApJ...770L..39W,2015ApJ...804L...4M,2015ApJ...799..206B,2015ApJ...808..161O} and galaxies transition to the passive population below the main sequence.
Star-forming galaxies on the main sequence have exponential optical light and mass distributions \citep[e.g.,][]{2011ApJ...742...96W,2015ApJ...811L..12W} with orbital motions dominated by rotation in $\sim$70\% of the massive star-forming galaxy population \citep[e.g.,][]{2009ApJ...706.1364F,2009ApJ...697.2057L,2012MNRAS.426..935S,2015ApJ...799..209W,2016MNRAS.457.1888S,2016ApJ...819...80P}.
However, high-redshift star-forming galaxies exhibit significant random motions (turbulent) such that the disks are hot and geometrically thick \citep{2015ApJ...799..209W,2014ApJ...792L...6V}.
In contrast, quiescent galaxies are more compact and cuspy than the star-forming galaxies at a given mass, at all redshifts \citep{2014ApJ...788...28V,2012ApJ...753..167B,2014ApJ...788...11L}.
Given these findings, quenching of star formation must be accompanied by significant structural change, from extended exponential distributions to more compact and more cuspy ones.
To explain the morphological transformation, two main evolutionary paths have been proposed in the literature.
A slow cosmological path naturally follows from the strong redshift evolution of galaxy sizes, $R\propto(1+z)^{-1}$ \citep{2012ApJ...746..162N,2012ApJ...756L..12M,2014ApJ...788...28V,2015ApJS..219...15S}.
Star-forming galaxies quench star formation and add to the passive population with approximately the same size in a later epoch \citep{2015ApJ...813...23V,2016arXiv160406459L}.
A second, fast path involves a downward transition in the mass--size plane, at approximately constant redshift \citep{2013ApJ...765..104B,2014ApJ...791...52B,2014MNRAS.438.1870D,2015MNRAS.450.2327Z}.
This process requires a substantial ``compaction'' of the formally extended star-forming galaxies.
One possible mechanism would be a major merger, which is known from observations and simulations to lead to substantial angular momentum redistribution, orbit reconfiguration and mixing \citep{1996ApJ...464..641M,2010ApJ...722.1666W}.
Another possibility is an internal angular momentum redistribution within the star-forming disk.
This process has been considered to be effective at high redshift \citep{1999ApJ...514...77N,2004A&A...413..547I,2004ApJ...611...20I,2008ApJ...688...67E,2008ApJ...687...59G,2011ApJ...741L..33B}, when galaxies are gas rich \citep{2013ApJ...768...74T} and effective viscous dissipation leads to radial inward transport of gas and stars with a time scale of a few 100 Myr \citep{2009ApJ...703..785D} and buildup of a central dense core (bulge component) through circumnuclear concentration of gas.
\cite{2016ApJ...817L...9N} find in massive galaxies at $z\sim1.4$ that central 1 kpc regions are highly attenuated by dust and are responsible for half of the total star formation rate (SFR).
In conjunction with morphological quenching \citep{2009ApJ...707..250M,2014ApJ...785...75G}, and powerful AGN outflows \citep{2006MNRAS.365...11C,2006MNRAS.370..645B,2014ApJ...787...38F,2014ApJ...796....7G},
the compaction process may then lead to an inside-out quenching near the Schechter mass \citep{2015Sci...348..314T,2016MNRAS.458..242T}.
In the following paper, we report observations of submillimeter dust continuum emission with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) to search for compact concentrations of interstellar medium as a unique telltale sign of the fast evolutionary path.
An advantage of our study is there is no selection bias in galaxy morphologies.
Therefore, the key goal is to address the issue of morphological transformation from extended exponential disks to quiescent spheroids using the high-resolution ALMA/870 $\mu$m maps.
We show that bulges can be formed in massive extended, rotating disks at $z\sim2$, in a short timescale of several hundred Myr (Section \ref{sec;bulge}).
We assume a Chabrier initial mass function (IMF; \citealt{2003PASP..115..763C}) and adopt cosmological parameters of $H_0$ =70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\rm M}$=0.3, and $\Omega_\Lambda$ =0.7.
\section{High-resolution 870 $\mu$m imaging}
\subsection{Sample selection}
\label{sec;sample}
Our sample is selected from a narrow-band imaging survey with the MOIRCS on the Subaru Telescope, tracing H$\alpha$ emission at $z=2.19\pm0.02$ or $2.53\pm0.02$ \citep{2013ApJ...778..114T, 2013IAUS..295...74K}, in the SXDF-UDS-CANDELS field, where 0\arcsec.18-resolution HST images at four passbands ($V_{606}$, $I_{814}$, $J_{125}$, and $H_{160}$) are publicly available \citep{2011ApJS..197...35G,2011ApJS..197...36K}.
The limiting H$\alpha$ line fluxes for the narrow-band survey correspond to dust-uncorrected SFRs of 4 $M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ at $z=2.19$ and 10 $M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ at $z=2.53$ \citep{1998ARA&A..36..189K}.
Interlopers with a different emission line such as \oiii at $z\sim3$ are excluded by utilizing colors to pick up the Balmer/4000\AA~break \citep{2015ApJ...806..208S}.
Follow-up spectroscopic observations demonstrate our method robustly picks up only galaxies at the redshift range of interest \citep{2011PASJ...63S.437T, 2013ApJ...778..114T}.
For ALMA observations of 25 galaxies, we prioritize bright objects in MIPS 24 $\mu$m maps, which are taken from the SpUDS Spitzer Legacy program (PI: James Dunlop), to increase the feasibility of detection in the ALMA Early Science phase. Four out of 25 galaxies are not detected at 24 $\mu$m.
\subsection{Galaxy properties}
\label{sec;properties}
To derive galaxy properties, we use the 3D-HST catalog, including photometric data at 18 bands from $U-$band to 8.0 $\mu$m \citep{2014ApJS..214...24S,2016ApJS..225...27M}.
Using the {\tt FAST} code \citep{2009ApJ...700..221K}, we perform spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting with stellar population synthesis models of \citet{2003MNRAS.344.1000B} under a solar metallicity, exponentially declining star formation histories (SFHs), and dust attenuation law of \citet{2000ApJ...533..682C} to estimate stellar masses.
We also create a deep PACS 160 $\mu$m map from archival data with {\tt UNIMAP} \citep{2015MNRAS.447.1471P} and extract sources on the basis of 24 $\mu$m priors (see also \citealt{2011A&A...532A..90L} for the methodology).
Following the recipes of \citet{2011ApJ...738..106W}, we compute total SFRs from a combination of the rest-frame 2800 \AA~and infrared luminosities with PACS 160 $\mu$m or MIPS 24 $\mu$m fluxes ($L_\mathrm{IR}$).
For four galaxies without detection at mid-infrared, we use H$\alpha$-based SFRs with dust correction from SED modeling \citep{2015ApJ...811L...3T}.
Table \ref{tab;1} summarizes the galaxy properties for our ALMA sample of 25 galaxies.
We adopt uncertainties of $\pm$0.15 dex for the stellar mass and $\pm$0.20 dex for the SFR taking into account systematic errors although uncertainties associated with photometry measurements are somewhat smaller \citep{2011ApJ...738..106W}.
For dusty star-forming galaxies such as submillimeter sources, the random uncertainties in the stellar mass estimates could be larger because the stellar components hide behind dust.
SFRs of galaxies are well correlated with their stellar masses, with a scatter of $\pm$0.3 dex \citep[e.g.,][]{2007ApJ...660L..43N,2007ApJ...670..156D,2007A&A...468...33E,2009ApJ...698L.116P,2011ApJ...739L..40R,2013ApJ...777L...8K,2012ApJ...754L..29W,2014ApJ...795..104W,2015ApJ...815...98S,2015A&A...581A..54T}.
Our ALMA sample of 25 galaxies is on/around the star-formation main sequence (Figure \ref{fig;MS}), indicating that they probe the normal star-forming population at $z\sim2$.
At $z=2.2-2.5$, HST/WFC3 $H_{160}$-band traces the rest-optical light ($\lambda_{rest}=0.46-0.50~\mu$m) of galaxies.
The structural parameters such as circularized half-light radius and S$\acute{\mathrm{e}}$rsic index are derived with {\tt GALFIT} \citep{2010AJ....139.2097P} in the $H_{160}$-band maps \citep{2012ApJS..203...24V, 2014ApJ...788...28V}.
We do not use U4-27289 and U4-16795 for optical size arguments because the best-fit S$\acute{\mathrm{e}}$rsic index reached the constrained limit ($n=8.0$ or $n=0.2$).
\begin{table*}[t]
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Galaxy properties for our ALMA sample of 25 star-forming galaxies. \label{tab;1}}
\begin{tabular}{llccccccccc}
\hline
3D-HST ID & $z_\mathrm{NB}$\tablenotemark{a} & $\log~M_*$\tablenotemark{b}& $\log~$SFR\tablenotemark{b} & SNR$_\mathrm{0.5}$\tablenotemark{c} & SNR$_\mathrm{0.2}$\tablenotemark{c} & $S_\mathrm{aper}$\tablenotemark{c} & $S_\mathrm{model}$\tablenotemark{d} & $R_\mathrm{1/2}$\tablenotemark{d} & $R_\mathrm{1/2,cor}$\tablenotemark{e} & $v_\mathrm{rot}/\sigma_0$\tablenotemark{f}\\
(Skelton+14) & & ($M_\odot$) & ($M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$) & & & (mJy) & (mJy) & (arcsec) & (arcsec) & \\
\hline
U4-13952 & 2.19 & 11.33 & 2.25 &13.4 & 7.9 & 2.51$\pm$0.31 & 2.94$\pm$0.55 & 0.24$\pm$0.04 & 0.28$\pm$0.06 & 3.8$\pm$1.3\\
U4-34817 & 2.19 & 11.26 & 2.36 & 7.8 & 5.4 & 1.73$\pm$0.28 & 2.13$\pm$0.78 & 0.31$\pm$0.10 & 0.38$\pm$0.12 & \ha detection\\
U4-20704 & 2.19 & 11.46 & 2.36 & 8.1 & 6.3 & 3.00$\pm$0.40 & 4.28$\pm$1.11 & 0.44$\pm$0.10 & 0.48$\pm$0.11 & 4.2$\pm$1.4\\
U4-28702 & 2.19 & 11.03 & 2.10 &10.1 & 9.7 & 1.73$\pm$0.36 & 1.64$\pm$0.31 & 0.10$\pm$0.02 & 0.13$\pm$0.03 & \\
U4-36568 & 2.19 & 11.02 & 2.49 & 4.0 & $<$5.0 & 0.71$\pm$0.24 & & & & 5.3$\pm$1.8\\
U4-24247 & 2.19 & 10.71 & 1.98 & 4.4 & $<$5.0 & 1.09$\pm$0.36 & & & & \ha detection\\
U4-32171 & 2.19 & 10.71 & 2.15 & $<$4.0 & $<$5.0 & & & & &\\
U4-11582 & 2.19 & 10.83 & 2.01 & $<$4.0 & $<$5.0 & & & & & 6.9$\pm$2.4\\
U4-27289 & 2.19 & 10.78 & 1.78 & $<$4.0 & $<$5.0 & & & & &\\
U4-36247 & 2.19 & 11.07 & 2.42 & 13.5 & 16.0 & 1.80$\pm$0.24 & 1.41$\pm$0.18 & 0.05$\pm$0.01& 0.07$\pm$0.02 & 3.5$\pm$2.3\\
U4-32351 & 2.19 & 11.05 & 2.18 & 6.5 & 6.8 & 0.95$\pm$0.26 & 0.74$\pm$0.24 & 0.10$\pm$0.04& 0.17$\pm$0.08 & 5.2$\pm$0.9\\
U4-18807 & 2.19 & 10.98 & 1.86 & $<$4.0 & 5.5 & 0.58$\pm$0.26 & & & & 7.1$\pm$4.9\\
U4-27939 & 2.19 & 10.60 & 2.06 & $<$4.0 & $<$5.0 & & & & &\\
U4-14574 & 2.19 & 10.59 & 1.99 & 4.0 & $<$5.0 & 1.20$\pm$0.46 & & & & \\
U4-15198 & 2.53 & 10.93 & 2.24 & $<$4.0 & $<$5.0 & & & & & \\
U4-16795 & 2.53 & 11.26 & 2.62 & 31.0 & 29.2 & 4.59$\pm$0.31 & 4.46$\pm$0.27 & 0.12$\pm$0.01 & 0.13$\pm$0.01\\
U4-34138 & 2.53 & 11.00 & 2.24 & 9.7 & 11.4 & 1.60$\pm$0.29 & 1.10$\pm$0.19 & 0.06$\pm$0.02 & 0.08$\pm$0.03 & 3.8$\pm$2.0\\
U4-28473 & 2.53 & 11.31 & 2.59 & 26.0 & 22.5 & 4.87$\pm$0.45 & 5.12$\pm$0.39 & 0.13$\pm$0.01 & 0.14$\pm$0.02 & 6.1$\pm$4.0\\
U4-33135 & 2.53 & 11.02 & 2.07 & 8.6 & 9.8 & 1.47$\pm$0.34 & 1.27$\pm$0.25 & 0.07$\pm$0.02 & 0.09$\pm$0.03 & \\
U4-27046 & 2.53 & 10.83 & 2.41 & $<$4.0 & $<$5.0 & & & & & \ha detection\\
U4-16504 & 2.53 & 11.25 & 2.37 & 20.4 & 15.7 & 2.82$\pm$0.23 & 3.16$\pm$0.34 & 0.15$\pm$0.02 & 0.17$\pm$0.03 &\\
U4-11780 & 2.53 & 10.42 & 1.93 & $<$4.0 & $<$5.0 & & & \\
U4-13197 & 2.53 & 10.94 & 1.55 & $<$4.0 & $<$5.0 & & & & &\\
U4-34617 & 2.53 & 11.04 & 2.42 & 10.6 & 13.0 & 1.67$\pm$0.28 & 0.93$\pm$0.13 & 0.02$\pm$0.01 & 0.04$\pm$0.02 &\\
U4-14870 & 2.53 & 10.50 & 1.63 & $<$4.0 & $<$5.0 & & & & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[a] Redshifts derived from the narrow-band imaging survey with Subaru \citep{2013ApJ...778..114T}.
\item[b] Stellar masses estimated with SED modeling and total star formation rates computed from rest-frame 2800 \AA and infrared luminosities \citep{2011ApJ...738..106W}. We adopt uncertainties of $\pm$0.15 dex for the stellar mass and $\pm$0.20 dex for the SFR.
\item[c] Signal-to-noise ratios of the peaks in 0\arcsec.5- and 0\arcsec.2-resolution ALMA/870 $\mu$m maps. We measure total fluxes, $S_\mathrm{aper}$, with 1\arcsec.5 aperture in the 0\arcsec.5-resolution maps or with 1\arcsec.0 aperture in the 0\arcsec.2-resolution maps.
\item[d] 870 $\mu$m fluxes and half-light radii for the best-fit exponential model.
\item[e] Half-light radii corrected for residual emission with $S_\mathrm{extra}=$0.4 mJy (section \ref{sec;size_measurements}).
\item[f] Ratios of rotation velocity to local velocity dispersion measured with KMOS.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{image_MSHa+Ha.eps}
\caption{
(left) Stellar mass versus star formation rate for our ALMA sample of 25 star-forming galaxies at $z=2.2$ or $z=2.5$.
Red circles indicate the best sample that is detected both in the low-resolution and high-resolution 870 $\mu$m maps and green triangles show all objects detected in either maps.
Small dots show our parent sample of galaxies identified by the narrow-band H$\alpha$ imaging. They lie on/around the main-sequence of star formation at $z=2.0-2.5$ (solid line; \citealt{2014ApJ...795..104W}).
(middle) Ratio of UV-based SFR over total one, derived from UV and infrared luminosities, as a function of stellar mass. (right) Ratio of H$\alpha$-based SFR over total one. H$\alpha$ fluxes are measured in the narrow-band maps \citep{2013ApJ...778..114T}. A dashed red line corresponds to a dust extinction of $A_{\mathrm{H}\alpha}=3$ mag.
}
\label{fig;MS}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{image_870um.flux.2panel.eps}
\caption{
Comparisons between 870 $\mu$m fluxes and galaxy properties. Symbols are the same as in Figure \ref{fig;MS}. For non-detected objects, the 3$\sigma$ upper limits are plotted.
}
\label{fig;870flux}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{ALMA observations}
\label{sec;observation}
We have carried out ALMA observations for 25 galaxies on the main-sequence at $z=2$ with 32--49 antennas and baseline lengths of 20--1600 m.
On-source time is 6--8 minutes per object.
We use the band 7 receivers with the 64-input correlator in Time Division Mode in a central frequency of 345 or 350 GHz ($\sim$870 $\mu$m).
We utilize the Common Astronomy Software Application package ({\tt CASA}; \citealt{2007ASPC..376..127M}) for the data calibration.
We reconstruct two kinds of clean maps: low-resolution maps with $uv$-taper of the on-sky FWHM=0\arcsec.5 and high-resolution ones with natural weighting.
The synthesized beamsizes are 0\arcsec.47-0\arcsec.54 and 0\arcsec.15-0\arcsec.21, respectively.
We measure total fluxes, $S_\mathrm{aper}$, with 1\arcsec.5 aperture photometry in the low-resolution maps or with 1\arcsec.0 aperture in the high-resolution maps.
Uncertainties of total fluxes are derived by computing standard deviations of 50 random apertures in each of the maps.
The rms levels are 98-142 $\mu$Jy beam$^{-1}$ for the low-resolution maps and 56-74 $\mu$Jy beam$^{-1}$ for the high-resolution maps
For detections, we adopt a 4$\sigma$ threshold in a peak flux density on the low-resolution maps or 5$\sigma$ on the high-resolution maps, where sources with negative signal become zero.
We have detected 16 out of the 25 galaxies either in the low-resolution or the high-resolution maps.
Massive and active star-forming galaxies tend to be bright at 870 $\mu$m (Figure \ref{fig;MS}).
For galaxies at at similar redshifts ($z$=2.19 or 2.53), we find the measured 870 $\mu$m fluxes to be correlated both with stellar masses and SFRs (Figure \ref{fig;870flux}).
The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients are 0.66 for stellar masses and 0.69 for SFRs.
The detection rate is 100\% (13/13) in the stellar mass range of log($M_*$/$M_\odot$)$>11$ while some galaxies with high SFRs are not detected.
Given the correlation and the mass dependence of the detection rate, stellar masses are likely to be a good predictor of 870 $\mu$m fluxes \citep{2016arXiv160600227D}.
The total average flux is $\langle S_\mathrm{aper}\rangle$=2.0 mJy (0.6-4.9) in all detected objects, fainter than those of classical submillimetre galaxies identified by single dish telescopes \citep[e.g.,][]{2015ApJ...799...81S}.
\subsection{KMOS observations}
\label{sec;kmos}
We have observed 12 of 25 galaxies with the near-infrared integral-field spectrometer KMOS on the Very Large Telescope (VLT) as part of the KMOS$^\mathrm{3D}$ survey \citep{2015ApJ...799..209W} to study the spatially resolved ionized gas kinematics of these sources.
For our ALMA sample, a typical integration time is 11 hours.
We reduced the data with the Software Package for Astronomical Reduction ({\tt SPARK}; \citealt{2013A&A...558A..56D}).
All of our targets show \ha emission and are spectroscopically confirmed to be at $z=2.19$ or $z=2.53$ within the expected uncertainty from the width of the narrow-band filters ($\Delta z=\pm0.02$).
Our method to derive kinematic parameters is described in detail by \cite{2016ApJ...826..214B} (see also \citealt{2015ApJ...799..209W,2016arXiv160303432W}).
Here, we summarize procedures to obtain the rotation velocity ($v_\mathrm{rot}$), the local velocity dispersion ($\sigma_0$), and the disk angular momentum ($j_\mathrm{disk}$) from the reduced 3D cubes.
A fundamental assumption is that high-redshift star-forming galaxies are symmetric oblate, thick disks with an exponential profile, which is supported by observations \citep{2009ApJ...697.2057L, 2009ApJ...706.1364F,2011ApJ...742...96W,2014ApJ...785...75G,2014ApJ...792L...6V}.
First, we create velocity field and velocity dispersion maps by fitting Gaussian profiles to the data in each spatial pixel.
After determining the largest total velocity gradient and the radius at which this velocity gradient reaches a maximum value ($R_\mathrm{max}$), we measure rotation velocities at $R_\mathrm{max}$ and local velocity dispersions in outer disks.
Here we correct for observational effects (inclination and beam smearing) on the basis of structural parameters for the rest-optical light in the H$_{160}-$band maps.
For symmetric oblate disks, the inclination, $i$, is estimated from the projected minor-to-major axis ratio, $q_\mathrm{obs}=b/a$, as $\sin^2(i)=(1-q_\mathrm{obs}^2)/(1-q_\mathrm{int}^2)$,
with an intrinsic finite thickness of $q_\mathrm{int}=0.15-0.25$ \citep{2009ApJ...697.2057L, 2009ApJ...706.1364F, 2015ApJ...799..209W, 2016arXiv160303432W}.
The impact of the beam smearing depends on the ratio of half-light radius to HWHM of the PSF, $R_{1/2}/R_\mathrm{PSF}$, and $R_\mathrm{max}/R_{1/2}$.
We also correct for turbulent pressure to derive a circular velocity, $v_{circ}$, and the correction factor is 1.03--1.32 in our sample.
The specific angular momentum of ionized gas is computed as
\begin{equation}
j_\mathrm{disk}=k_\mathrm{disk}\times v_\mathrm{circ}\times R_{1/2}.
\end{equation}
\noindent
Here, we take into account deviations from exponential profiles.
The correction factors, $k_\mathrm{disk}$, are $k_\mathrm{disk}=1.19$ in $n=1$, $k_\mathrm{disk}=2.29$ in $n=4$ and $k_\mathrm{disk}=0.89-1.36$ in our sample \citep{2012ApJS..203...17R}.
We eventually obtain the kinematic parameters for nine galaxies (Table \ref{tab;1}).
They are all rotation-supported with $\langle v_\mathrm{rot}/\sigma_0\rangle=5.1~(3.5-7.1)$ as is the case for most of galaxies on/around the main-sequence \citep{2015ApJ...799..209W}.
Therefore, our ALMA sample is a typical star-forming population at $z\sim2$ in star-forming activity, morphology and kinematics.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{image_postagestamp.ALMA3color.H.12SFG.3arcsec+LR.eps}
\caption{Three-color images with HST/$I_{814}$, $H_{160}$ and ALMA/870 $\mu$m-band (3\arcsec $\times$3\arcsec) for our sample of 12 galaxies with 870 $\mu$m size measurements.
Red contours display the 870 $\mu$m flux densities in the high-resolution maps and are plotted every 8$\sigma$, starting at 4$\sigma$. \label{fig;HST}}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\section{Spatial extent of star formation within galaxies}
\label{sec;size}
The most straightforward way to know the subsequent evolution of galaxy morphologies is to reveal where and how much stars are formed within galaxies at the observed epoch.
Many previous studies use the rest-frame UV or H$\alpha$ maps to investigate the spatial distribution of star formation \citep[e.g.,][]{2011ApJ...733..101G,2012ApJ...747L..28N,2016ApJ...828...27N,2013ApJ...779..135W}.
However, for our ALMA sample of massive galaxies, the measured ratios of SFR$_\mathrm{UV}$/SFR$_\mathrm{IR+UV}$ and SFR$_\mathrm{H\alpha}$/SFR$_\mathrm{IR+UV}$ indicate that $\sim$99\% of the total SFR is obscured by dust and even \ha emission misses 90-95\% of star formation, corresponding to a dust extinction of $A_\mathrm{H\alpha}\sim$3 mag (Figure \ref{fig;MS}).
Therefore, the 870 $\mu$m maps tracing dust emission itself have a great advantage over H$\alpha$ to approximately provide the spatial distribution of star formation within galaxies if the dust temperature is constant across galaxies.
In this section, exploiting the ALMA data taken in the extended configuration, we study the spatial distributions of star formation within galaxies.
We use the best sample of 12 galaxies which are detected both in low-resolution and high-resolution maps because the detections in a wide range of $uv$ distance allow us to constrain the spatial extent of dust continuum emission.
Using the similar spatial resolution maps with HST/WFC3, we directly compare dusty star-forming regions with the rest-optical light mainly from stars.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{image_visibility.fitting.3DHST_exp.eps}
\caption{Visibility amplitudes versus uv distances for our sample of 12 galaxies with size measurements.
Red lines indicate the best-fitting model, $S_\mathrm{model}\times k_0^3/(u^2+k_0^2)^{3/2}$.
The fitting was done with individual visibilities, not plotted in this figure.
For reference, the amplitudes averaged over $uv$ distance are shown by gray circles.}
\label{fig;visibility}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{High-resolution 870 $\mu$m maps}
First, we visually inspect the high-resolution 870 $\mu$m maps before quantitatively measure sizes of the dust continuum emission.
Figure \ref{fig;HST} shows the ALMA maps along with the similar resolution ACS/I$_{814}$ (rest-UV) and WFC3 $H_{160}$ (rest-optical) light distributions for the 12 galaxies.
For about half of our sample, there is very little UV emission probably due to strong dust extinction.
A common remarkable feature is that 870 $\mu$m emission is radiated from a single region close to the rest-optical center rather than multiple components like star-forming clumps in disks, seen in the rest-UV or H$\alpha$ maps.
Given that they are highly obscured, the concentrated component at 870 $\mu$m is primarily responsible for star formation in the galaxies.
An absence of dust emission in UV clumps means their 870 $\mu$m flux density could be below the lower limit of our ALMA observations.
Also note that these high-resolution maps are sensitive to compact components with a spatial scale of $\sim$0\arcsec.2 and we might miss extended, diffuse components.
We assess impacts by faint components and/or extended ones in the next section.
For U4-34817 and U4-20704, the 870 $\mu$m emission appear to be faint in the high-resolution maps in spite of a relatively large flux ($S_{aper}=1.7, 3.0$ mJy).
They are likely to be associated with extended emission as they are more robustly detected in the low-resolution maps.
\subsection{Size measurements for 870 $\mu$m continuum emission}
\label{sec;size_measurements}
We measure half-light radii ($R_{1/2}$) of the primary component for dust emission, identified in the high-resolution maps.
As interferometric telescopes do not directly provide images, the Fourier transform must be performed to reconstruct maps (clean algorithm).
Then, image properties such as rms level, spatial resolution and source structures depend on clean parameters.
To avoid these uncertainties, we perform visibility fitting with a circular exponential profile as seen in the rest-optical light.
In previous studies, a Gaussian model is commonly used for size measurements in $u-v$ plane \citep{2015ApJ...810..133I,2015ApJ...799...81S,2015ApJ...811L...3T}.
However, a radial profile of galaxy disks is approximately described by an exponential function, $n=1$ \citep[e.g.,][]{2011ApJ...742...96W}.
As our concern in this paper is primarily size differences between the rest-optical and 870 $\mu$m emission, an exponential model is preferred for a consistent comparison.
For an exponential function in the image plane, $f(R)=\exp(-1.678 R/R_{1/2})$, the Hankel transform (equivalent to a two-dimensional Fourier transform) is given by
\begin{equation}
g(u)=S_\mathrm{model}\times\frac{k_0^3}{(u^2+k_0^2)^{3/2}},
\end{equation}
\begin{table*}
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Galaxy properties for 12 galaxies with 870 $\mu$m size measurements. \label{tab;2}}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
\hline
3D-HST ID\ \ \ \ & \ \ \ $n_\mathrm{1.6\mu m}$\tablenotemark{a}\ \ \ & \ \ $R_\mathrm{1/2,1.6\mu m}$\tablenotemark{a}\ \ & \ \ $R_\mathrm{1/2,870\mu m}$\tablenotemark{b}\ \ & \ \ log$\Sigma M_{*\mathrm{1kpc}}$\tablenotemark{c}\ \ & \ \ log$\Sigma$SFR$_{\mathrm{1kpc}}$\tablenotemark{d}\ \ & \ \ \ \ \ log$\tau_\mathrm{bulge}$\tablenotemark{e}\ \ \ \ \ & \ \ log$\tau_\mathrm{depl}$\tablenotemark{f}\ \ \\
& & (kpc) & (kpc) & $M_\odot$kpc$^{-2}$ & $M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$kpc$^{-2}$ & (yr) & (yr)\\
\hline
U4-13952 & 2.2$\pm$0.2 & 3.6$\pm$0.2 & 2.3$\pm$0.5 & 9.63$\pm$0.15 & 1.00$\pm$0.23 & 8.96$\pm$0.26 & 8.56$\pm$0.31 \\
U4-34817 & 0.6$\pm$0.6 & 5.0$\pm$0.5 & 3.1$\pm$1.0 & 9.17$\pm$0.15 & 0.93$\pm$0.30 & 9.14$\pm$0.30 & 8.48$\pm$0.31 \\
U4-20704 & 3.4$\pm$0.2 & 5.8$\pm$0.8 & 4.0$\pm$0.9 & 9.83$\pm$0.15 & 0.72$\pm$0.26 & 8.96$\pm$0.41 & 8.55$\pm$0.31 \\
U4-28702 & 1.2$\pm$0.5 & 2.5$\pm$0.3 & 1.0$\pm$0.3 & 9.45$\pm$0.15 & 1.28$\pm$0.22 & 8.79$\pm$0.23 & 8.52$\pm$0.31 \\
U4-36247 & 0.5$\pm$0.4 & 2.9$\pm$0.3 & 0.6$\pm$0.2 & 9.68$\pm$0.15 & 1.76$\pm$0.20 & 8.19$\pm$0.25 & 8.39$\pm$0.31 \\
U4-32351 & 1.9$\pm$0.8 & 2.6$\pm$0.2 & 1.4$\pm$0.6 & 9.56$\pm$0.15 & 1.28$\pm$0.24 & 8.74$\pm$0.26 & 8.49$\pm$0.31 \\
U4-16795 & & & 1.0$\pm$0.1 & 9.38$\pm$0.15 & 1.81$\pm$0.20 & 8.29$\pm$0.21 & 8.34$\pm$0.31 \\
U4-34138 & 1.2$\pm$0.2 & 5.8$\pm$0.4 & 0.6$\pm$0.2 & 9.41$\pm$0.15 & 1.55$\pm$0.21 & 8.55$\pm$0.21 & 8.41$\pm$0.31 \\
U4-28473 & 1.5$\pm$1.2 & 2.4$\pm$0.5 & 1.2$\pm$0.1 & 9.73$\pm$0.15 & 1.73$\pm$0.20 & 8.16$\pm$0.27 & 8.37$\pm$0.31 \\
U4-33135 & 1.0$\pm$2.1 & 1.5$\pm$0.8 & 0.8$\pm$0.2 & 9.76$\pm$0.15 & 1.36$\pm$0.21 & 8.50$\pm$0.29 & 8.49$\pm$0.31 \\
U4-16504 & 1.0$\pm$0.8 & 3.1$\pm$0.8 & 1.4$\pm$0.2 & 9.46$\pm$0.15 & 1.43$\pm$0.21 & 8.64$\pm$0.22 & 8.44$\pm$0.31 \\
U4-34617 & 0.9$\pm$0.3 & 5.0$\pm$0.7 & 0.3$\pm$0.2 & 9.17$\pm$0.15 & 1.76$\pm$0.20 & 8.40$\pm$0.20 & 8.35$\pm$0.31 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[a] S$\acute{\mathrm{e}}$rsic indices and half-light radii at 1.6 $\mu$m. We do not use U4-16795 because the best-fit S$\acute{\mathrm{e}}$rsic index reaches the constrained limit of $n=8$.
\item[b] Half-light radii at 870 $\mu$m.
\item[c] Stellar mass surface density within a central 1 kpc calculated in stellar mass maps.
\item[d] SFR surface density within a central 1 kpc calculated from the best-fit exponential models at 870 $\mu$m and total SFRs.
\item[e] Bulge formation timescales to reach the stellar mass surface density of log($\Sigma M_{\mathrm{bulge}}$/$M_\odot$kpc$^{-2}$)=10 (Equation (\ref{eq;1})).
\item[f] Gas depletion timescales by star formation and outflows (Equation (\ref{eq;2})).
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
\noindent
where $S_\mathrm{model}$ is the total flux of the model and $k_0$ is the spatial frequency to characterize a spatial extent.
For the visibility fitting, we use the {\tt UVMULTIFIT} tool \citep{2014A&A...563A.136M}, which outputs full width at half maximum (FWHM) of a two-dimensional flux distribution (FWHM=0.826 $R_{1/2}$).
In some cases, unexpected 870 $\mu$m sources are serendipitously detected within the primary beam. As they affect the visibility amplitudes of our main targets, we create a model of the interlopers and subtract it from the observed visibilities in advance.
Figure \ref{fig;visibility} shows the observed visibility amplitudes after binning and the best-fit models, whose size and flux density are summarized in Table \ref{tab;1}.
We obtain uncertainties in the sizes from fitting errors.
If adopting a circular Gaussian model, the estimated 870 $\mu$m sizes would become smaller by 7$\pm$6\%.
We also search for systematic positional offsets between ALMA/870 $\mu$m and HST/1.6 $\mu$m centers.
There is a small systematic offset of 19 mas in R.A. and 70 mas in declination.
U4-34817 has a significant offset of 405 mas between 870 $\mu$m and 1.6 $\mu$m peak.
Except for this galaxy, a mean separation is 130$\pm$68 mas, supporting the dust continuum emission arises from a central region of the galaxies.
For the size measurements, we investigate the impact of residual emission, which could be due to an additional extended component over entire disks, sub-structures like clumps, or deviations from an exponential model.
In clean maps after subtraction of the best-fit model, no residual emission is detected above 3$\sigma$.
To increase sensitivity, especially to extended emission, we perform a stacking analysis of the model-subtracted visibilities for nine compact sources, using the {\tt STACKER} tool \citep{2015MNRAS.446.3502L}.
The phase center is shifted to the center position of the best-fit model before the stacking.
A clean map is created from the stacked visibility with $uv$-taper of the on-sky FWHM=1\arcsec.0 and the resultant synthesized beam size is 0\arcsec.81$\times$0\arcsec.87.
The residual emission is detected at 4.3$\sigma$ and its flux density within 2\arcsec.0 aperture is $S_\mathrm{extra}$=0.42 mJy, corresponding to 21\% of the total average flux.
Conservatively assuming that this residual flux originates outside the half-light radius, we calculate the corrected half-light radius, $R_{1/2,\mathrm{cor}}$, which encloses half of the total flux, $S_{1/2,\mathrm{cor}}=(S_\mathrm{model}+S_\mathrm{extra})/2$, in the primary exponential component.
The amount of correction depends on the ratio of $S_{1/2,\mathrm{cor}}/S_\mathrm{model}$.
This has the largest impact on size measurements for U4-32351 with the faintest model flux as $R_{1/2,\mathrm{cor}}$ corresponds to a radius enclosing 78\% of the flux in the exponential model.
For nine out of the 12 star-forming galaxies, the corrected 870 $\mu$m sizes are less than 1.5 kpc (Figure \ref{fig;size}, Table \ref{tab;2}), which is more than a factor of 2 smaller than their rest-optical sizes and is comparable with optical sizes of massive quiescent galaxies \citep[e.g.,][]{2007MNRAS.382..109T,2007ApJ...671..285T,2008ApJ...677L...5V,2012ApJ...746..162N}.
They have an extended exponential profile with $R_{1/2,1.6\mu\mathrm{m}}$=3.2 (1.5--5.8) kpc and S$\acute{\mathrm{e}}$rsic index $n$=1.2 (0.5--1.9) in the rest-optical maps.
In the stellar mass range of log($M_*/M_\odot)<11$, star-forming galaxies could form stars within somewhat larger disks than the bulk of stars to slowly grow in size with increasing stellar mass as seen in the mass-size relation of normal star-forming galaxies \citep{2016ApJ...828...27N,2016arXiv160707710R}.
Our best ALMA sample of 12 star-forming galaxies is all massive with log($M_*/M_\odot)>11$.
Their individual detection of compact dust emission above the Schechter mass suggests that star formation preferentially occurs in the compact central region.
This has a potential to change galaxy morphologies from disk-dominated to bulge-dominated with high stellar mass surface densities (see next section).
In the analysis of size measurements, we do not include two massive star-forming galaxies with log($M_*/M_\odot)>11$ in the parent sample of galaxies identified by the narrow-band survey.
One is not observed with ALMA and the other one (U4-36568) is not detected in the high-resolution map (Figure \ref{fig;MS}).
Given the high completeness of 86\% (12/14) in the stellar mass range, our results are not significantly affected by the sample selection.
Therefore, we find massive galaxies to commonly form stars in the extremely compact central region as at least 64\% (9/14) have small 870 $\mu$m sizes of $R_{1/2,870\mu\mathrm{m}}<$1.5 kpc.
This result is in excellent agreement with similar and independent evidence coming from an ALMA/870 $\mu$m study of 6 massive star-forming galaxies at $z\sim2$ \citep{2016ApJ...827L..32B}.
\cite{2016ApJ...827L..32B} find that the mean half-SFR radius is $\sim$30\% smaller than the mean half-mass radius.
The main difference between our work and \cite{2016ApJ...827L..32B} is that they pre-select only optically compact star-forming galaxies while our study almost completely select main-sequence galaxies.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.]{image_mass.size.3DHST.H.exp.eps}
\caption{Comparison of circularized half-light radii at ALMA/870 $\mu$m (red circles) with those at HST/$H_{160}-$band (cyan squares) for our sample of 12 galaxies with size measurements at 870 $\mu$m.
Gray circles indicate the rest-optical sizes for star-forming galaxies around the main-sequence at $z=1.9-2.7$, which are drawn from the 3D-HST survey.
A dashed line shows their fitting function, $\log(R_{1/2})=0.14\log(M_*)-1.11$.
\label{fig;size}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Bulge formation in extended, rotating disks}
\label{sec;bulge}
Given that our ALMA sample is already massive, $\log(M_*/M_\odot)>11.0$, they are likely to soon thereafter quench the active star formation and to be observed as quiescent galaxies in the local Universe.
Quiescent galaxies are always smaller than star-forming galaxies at any redshift and any stellar mass and have a cusp profile ($n>2$) unlike star-forming galaxies with exponential disks \citep{2011ApJ...742...96W,2014ApJ...788...28V}.
A spatial distribution of stars within galaxies would not be changed unless a violent process like major mergers happens.
However, centrally-concentrated star formation reduces the half-light or half-stellar-mass radii of galaxies and their S$\acute{\mathrm{e}}$rsic index would increase by central bulge formation.
We quantitatively assess the possibility of bulge formation in our sample of the 12 massive galaxies with reliable size measurements of dust continuum emission.
Quiescent galaxies generally have a dense core with high stellar mass surface densities within 1 kpc of galaxy centers of $\log(\Sigma M_\mathrm{*,\mathrm{1kpc}}/M_\odot~\mathrm{kpc}^{-2})=10$ while star-forming galaxies mostly do not \citep{2014ApJ...791...45V,2015arXiv150900469B}.
For our sample, we create stellar mass maps by spatially resolved SED modeling with multi-band HST data \citep{2012ApJ...753..114W, 2014ApJ...788...11L} to calculate stellar mass surface densities within 1 kpc from the 870 $\mu$m center.
None of our sample satisfy the criterion of a dense core at the current moment (Table \ref{tab;2}).
The spatial distribution of star formation within galaxies allows us to understand when the dense core is formed by subsequent star formation.
Exploiting the geometric information of the best-fit exponential models at 870 $\mu$m, we derive the SFR surface densities within the central 1 kpc ($\Sigma$SFR$_\mathrm{1kpc}$) from the Spitzer/Herschel-based total SFRs over galaxies.
For nine galaxies with compact dust emission of $R_{1/2,870\mu\mathrm{m}}<1.5$ kpc, they are intensely forming stars in the central region with $\Sigma$SFR$_\mathrm{1kpc}$=40 (19--65) $M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$kpc$^{-2}$ (Table \ref{tab;2}).
Then, bulge formation timescales to reach $\log(\Sigma M_\mathrm{*,\mathrm{1kpc}}/M_\odot$kpc$^{-2})=10$ are estimated by
\begin{equation}
\tau_\mathrm{bulge}=\frac{10^{10}-\Sigma M_{*,\mathrm{1kpc}}}{w\times \Sigma \mathrm{SFR}_\mathrm{1kpc}},
\label{eq;1}
\end{equation}
\noindent
taking into account mass loss due to stellar winds ($w=0.6$ in Chabrier initial mass function, see also \citealt{2014ApJ...791...45V}).
The estimated bulge formation timescales are $\langle\log \tau_\mathrm{bulge}\rangle= 8.47$ (8.16--8.79) for the nine galaxies with $R_{1/2,870\mu\mathrm{m}}<1.5$ kpc.
They can complete the dense core formation by $z=2$ when the current level of star formation is maintained for several hundred Myr.
Galaxies forming stars in disks as extended as the rest-optical light would have to keep the current star formation for a longer time ($\sim$2 Gyr).
This is not consistent with stellar populations obtained in high-redshift quiescent galaxies, where timescales for star formation are $\tau<1$ Gyr \citep[e.g.,][]{2015ApJ...799..206B, 2015ApJ...808..161O}.
We also estimate gas depletion timescales for our ALMA sample using the \cite{2015ApJ...800...20G} scaling relations, combining CO-based, Herschel far-infrared-dust based and submillimeter-dust based estimates, in order to average over the systematic uncertainties inherently present in all of these techniques.
We use the updated version of this scaling relation (Tacconi et al. in prep), $\log(M_\mathrm{gas}/\mathrm{SFR})=0.15-0.79\log(1+z)-0.43\log(\mathrm{sSFR}/\mathrm{sSFR}_{\mathrm{MS}})+0.06(\log M_*-10.5)$ where $\mathrm{sSFR}_{\mathrm{MS}}$ is the specific star formation rate on the main-sequence line of \cite{2014ApJ...795..104W} at given redshift and stellar mass.
We adopt uncertainties of $\pm$0.24 dex for the $\log(M_\mathrm{gas}/\mathrm{SFR})$ \citep{2015ApJ...800...20G}.
The gas is partly consumed by star formation and partly ejected by outflows from the central region with comparable rates to SFR, $\eta\times$SFR ($\eta\sim1$), especially for massive galaxies \citep{2014ApJ...796....7G}.
Thus, gas depletion timescales are re-defined as
\begin{equation}
\tau_\mathrm{depl}=\frac{M_\mathrm{gas}}{\mathrm{SFR}(1+\eta)}.
\label{eq;2}
\end{equation}
\noindent
The gas depletion timescales are, on average, similar to the bulge formation timescales, $\langle\tau_\mathrm{bulge}/\tau_\mathrm{depl}\rangle\sim1.2$ for the nine galaxies with $R_{1/2,870\mu\mathrm{m}}<1.5$ kpc, suggesting that the formation of a dense core does not necessarily require additional gas accretion onto the galaxies.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1.]{image_AM.v1.full.SFG.eps}
\caption{Specific angular momentum of disks versus stellar mass for our ALMA sample.
Magenta pentagons and red circles denote galaxies with $R_{1/2,870\mu\mathrm{m}}<1.5$ kpc and with $R_{1/2,870\mu\mathrm{m}}>2.0$ kpc, respectively.
The kinematic properties are derived from ionized gas.
Gray circles indicate the KMOS$\mathrm{3D}$ sample of galaxies at $z=0.8-2.6$ along with their median values in stellar mass bins of 0.4 dex (dashed line).
The relations for local spiral and elliptical galaxies are shown by a blue and red solid line, respectively \citep{2013ApJ...769L..26F}.
Here, the redshift dependence is removed by multiplying $j_\mathrm{disk}$ with $H(z)^{1/3}$.}
\label{fig;AM}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Next, we look at the kinematic properties for nine galaxies that were observed as part of the KMOS$^\mathrm{3D}$ program.
Six out of them have 870 $\mu$m size measurements (Table \ref{tab;1}).
We note that they are all rotation-supported ($v_{rot}/\sigma_0>3$).
Figure \ref{fig;AM} shows specific angular momenta as a function of stellar mass for galaxies at $z=0.8-2.6$ from the KMOS$^\mathrm{3D}$ survey \citep{2016ApJ...826..214B}.
They span a range of disk angular momenta from local spirals to ellipticals \citep{2013ApJ...769L..26F}.
A lower offset at fixed stellar masses suggests that galaxies have lost a significant fraction of their original angular momentum (e.g., major mergers \citealt{2014MNRAS.444.3357N,2015ApJ...804L..40G}) or that they had a small initial angular momentum.
We find the specific angular momentum of galaxies with $R_{1/2,870\mu\mathrm{m}}<1.5$ kpc to be broadly consistent with a large sample of primarily mass-selected galaxies from the KMOS$^\mathrm{3D}$ survey.
Our result plausibly indicates that these galaxies as a group are not all galaxies with very low angular momentum, either due to large angular momentum loss of the baryonic component or due to a small initial dark matter angular momentum parameter.
The compact nuclear dust components we have detected are most likely caused by internal angular momentum redistribution, such as has been proposed by recent observations and theoretical studies \citep{2016ApJ...826..214B, 2015MNRAS.450.2327Z, 2014MNRAS.438.1870D}.
Finally, we speculate that the halo masses inferred from our KMOS observations and a Monte-Carlo modeling are log($M_\mathrm{halo}/M_\odot)>$12 \citep{2016ApJ...826..214B}.
In such massive halos, infalling gas along cosmic filaments is heated to the halo virial temperature by shocks and cold gas is not directly supplied to galaxies \citep[e.g.,][]{2006MNRAS.368....2D}.
Given the bulge formation timescales are comparable with the gas depletion timescales by central starbursts and outflows, they can naturally quench star formation soon after the dense core is formed.
Even if some amount of cold gas accretes onto galaxy disks after cooling, a steep potential by the dense core (morphological quenching) helps galaxies to keep quiescent properties after nuclear starbursts consume all central gas or outflows eject it.
Therefore, galaxies with compact dust emission would be a key population for understanding the morphological and star formation evolution from star-forming disks to quiescent spheroids at the massive end of the main-sequence.
On the other hand, our observations detect relatively extended dust emission of $R_{1/2,870\mu\mathrm{m}}>2$ kpc from the remaining three massive galaxies.
Although the bulge formation timescale is longer than the gas depletion timescale, $\tau_\mathrm{bulge}/\tau_\mathrm{depl}>2$, two of them show a high S$\acute{\mathrm{e}}$rsic index, $n>2$, in the rest-optical, suggesting the bulge is already formed.
They can directly become large quiescent galaxies after consuming gas, not through the compaction phase \citep{2015ApJ...813...23V}.
This mode would become dominant at a later epoch when the number density of optically compact galaxies decreases \citep{2013ApJ...765..104B}.
\section{Summary}
We have presented 0\arcsec.2-resolution 870 $\mu$m observations for 25 H$\alpha$-selected star-forming galaxies on/around the main sequence at $z=2.2$ and $z=2.5$ with ALMA.
We have robustly detected the dust continuum emission from 16 galaxies and measured the half-light radii for the best sample of 12 massive galaxies with $\log (M_*/M_\odot)>11$.
In this paper, we have investigated dense core formation in extended star-forming disks and verified the evolutionary scenarios from disk-dominated galaxies to bulge-dominated ones.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We have discovered nine massive galaxies associated with extremely compact dust emission with $R_{1/2,870\mu\mathrm{m}}<1.5$ kpc.
In spite of the compact appearance at 870 $\mu$m, they have an extended, rotating disk with $R_{1/2,1.6\mu\mathrm{m}}=3.2$ kpc and $n_{1.6\mu\mathrm{m}}=1.2$ in the rest-optical.
The difference of morphologies between dusty star formation and stars suggests they would reduce the half-light or half-mass radius by the subsequent star formation and increase the S$\acute{\mathrm{e}}$rsic index.
Given the high completeness in the stellar mass range of $\log (M_*/M_\odot)>11$,
they are likely a common population of massive star-forming galaxies at $z\sim2$.
\item Galaxies with $R_{1/2,870\mu\mathrm{m}}<1.5$ kpc can complete the formation of a dense core in several hundred Myr if the current level of star formation is maintained.
This would be reasonable because the bulge formation timescales are comparable with the gas depletion timescales by star formation and nuclear outflows.
Therefore, they can naturally quench star formation after the dense core is formed.
\item Three massive star-forming galaxies show somewhat extended dust emission with $R_{1/2,870\mu\mathrm{m}}>2.0$ kpc.
As two of them already have a cusp profile ($n>2$) rather than exponential disks, they can evolve into extended quiescent galaxies.
This direct pathway is not the norm at $z\sim2$, but could dominate at later epochs.
\item For our ALMA sample, available integral field observations of \ha emission with KMOS provide the kinematic parameters of ionized gas such as rotation velocity, local velocity dispersion, and specific angular momentum.
They are all rotation-supported disks and their disk angular momenta are consistent with a large sample of mass-selected star-forming galaxies at $z=0.8-2.6$ in the KMOS$^\mathrm{3D}$ survey.
Our finding suggests that internal processes are primarily responsible for the bulge formation rather than major mergers.
\end{enumerate}
\
We thank the anonymous referee who gave us many useful comments, which improved the paper.
This paper makes use of the following ALMA data: ADS/JAO.ALMA\#2012.1.00245.S and 2013.1.00566.S. ALMA is a partnership of ESO (representing its member states), NSF (USA) and NINS (Japan), together with NRC (Canada), NSC and ASIAA (Taiwan), and KASI (Republic of Korea), in cooperation with the Republic of Chile.
The Joint ALMA Observatory is operated by ESO, AUI/NRAO and NAOJ.
We thank the staff at Paranal Observatory for their helpful support. Data analysis was in part carried out on the common use data analysis computer system at the Astronomy Data Center, ADC, of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. K.T. was supported by the ALMA Japan Research Grant of NAOJ Chile Observatory, NAOJ-ALMA-34.
This paper is produced as a part of our collaborations through the joint project supported by JSPS and DAAD under the Japan - German Research Cooperative Program.
S I. acknowledges the support of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) through the Top Grant Project 614.001.403.
\bibliographystyle{apj}
|
\subsection{Error Analysis}
In this section, the error incurred due to the approximation mentioned in \ref{sec:proposed_strategy} is assessed. Hereafter, the sigma points and mean calculates using the proposed approximation will be denoted as $\bf \widetilde{Y}_i$ and $\bf \widetilde{\overline{Y}}$.
\subsection{Error in mean due to approximation}
Let ${\bf Y_i}(t)$ is propagated using numerical integration from the equation \ref{eq:propagation}. Then, from \ref{eq:sigmapt} and \ref{eq:sigma_approx} error due to approximation in each sigma point (neglecting the truncation and round off error) is
\begin{align}
{\bf Y_i}(t+\delta t) - {\bf \widetilde{Y}_i}(t+\delta t) &= \frac{{\bf D_{\Delta Y_i}^2 F}}{2!} +\frac{{\bf D_{\Delta Y_i}^3 F}}{3!}+....\nonumber\\
&= e_i
\label{eq:error_i}
\end{align}
The mean state vector using the original Unscented transformation \cite{Julier2000}
\begin{align}
{\bf\overline{Y}}^-(t+\delta t) &= \frac{1}{n+\kappa}\left[\kappa{\bf Y_0}(t+\delta t) +\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\left[{\bf Y_i}(t+\delta t)\right]\right]\nonumber\\
&={\bf Y_0}(t+\delta t) + \frac{1}{2(n+\kappa)}\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\left[{\bf D_{\Delta Y_i}F} + \frac{{\bf D_{\Delta Y_i}^2 F}}{2!} +\frac{{\bf D_{\Delta Y_i}^3 F}}{3!}+....\right]\label{eq:mean_UKF}
\end{align}
Similarly using the proposed approximation, the mean vector is
\begin{align}
{\bf\widetilde{\overline{Y}}}^-(t+\delta t) &= \frac{1}{n+\kappa}\left[\kappa{\bf Y_0}(t+\delta t) +\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\left[{\bf \widetilde{Y}_i}(t+\delta t)\right]\right]\nonumber\\
&={\bf Y_0}(t+\delta t) + \frac{1}{2(n+\kappa)}\sum_{i=1}^{2n}{\bf D_{\Delta Y_i}F}\label{eq:approx_ukf}
\end{align}
The error in mean prediction due to the approximation is
\begin{align}
{\bf\overline{Y}}^-(t+\delta t)-{\bf\widetilde{\overline{Y}}}^-(t+\delta t)&= \frac{1}{2(n+\kappa)}\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\left[\frac{{\bf D_{\Delta Y_i}^2 F}}{2!} +\frac{{\bf D_{\Delta Y_i}^3 F}}{3!}+....\right]
\nonumber\\
&=\bar{e}\label{eq:mean_error}
\end{align}
\subsection{Error in covariance due to approximation}
Let us define the predicted covariance using the original Unscented transformation as \cite{Julier2000}
\begin{equation}
{\bf P^-_{YY}}(t+\delta t)=\frac{1}{n+\kappa}\left[\kappa\left[{\bf Y_0}-{\bf \overline{Y}^-}\right]\left[{\bf Y_0}-{\bf \overline{Y}^-}\right]^T+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\left[{\bf Y_i}-{\bf \overline{Y}^-}\right]\left[{\bf Y_i}-{\bf \overline{Y}^-}\right]^T\right]
\label{eq:cov}
\end{equation}
and the predicted covariance using the new approximation as
\begin{equation}
{\bf \widetilde{P}_{YY}}^-(t+\delta t)=\frac{1}{n+\kappa}\left[\kappa\left[{\bf Y_0}-{\bf \widetilde{\overline{Y}}^-}\right]\left[{\bf Y_0}-{\bf \widetilde{\overline{Y}}^-}\right]^T+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\left[{\bf \widetilde{Y}_i}-{\bf \widetilde{\overline{Y}}^-}\right]\left[{\bf \widetilde{Y}_i}-{\bf \widetilde{\overline{Y}}^-}\right]^T\right]
\label{eq:cov_aprx}
\end{equation}
Using equations \ref{eq:error_i}, \ref{eq:mean_error}, \ref{eq:cov} and \ref{eq:cov_aprx}, one can write,
\begin{align}
{\bf P^-_{YY}}(t+\delta t)=&{\bf \widetilde{P}_{YY}}^-(t+\delta t)+\frac{\kappa}{n+\kappa}\left[\bar{e}\bar{e}^T-\bar{e}\left[{\bf Y_0}-{\bf \widetilde{\overline{Y}}^-}\right]^T-\left[{\bf Y_0}-{\bf \widetilde{\overline{Y}}^-}\right]\bar{e}^T\right]\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{2(n+\kappa)}\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\left[[e_i-\bar{e}]\left[{\bf \widetilde{Y}_i}-{\bf \widetilde{\overline{Y}}^-}\right]^T+\left[{\bf \widetilde{Y}_i}-{\bf \widetilde{\overline{Y}}^-}\right][e_i-\bar{e}]^T+[e_i-\bar{e}][e_i-\bar{e}]^T\right]
\label{eq:cov_error}
\end{align}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In conclusion, two new methods of implementing unscented estimation algorithms are presented to reduce the computational complexity. Reduction in processing time for the SPUKF and the ESPUKF with respect to the UKF is summarised in table \ref{tab:reduction}.
\begin{table}[h!]%
\caption{Processing time reduction by the new algorithms}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
\rule{0pt}{2ex}Algorithm & Processing time & Processing time reduction\\
& reduction for re-entry & for LEO satellite\\
&vehicle tracking & position estimation\\ \hline
\rule{0pt}{2ex} SPUKF & 90.5\% & 92.6\%\\
ESPUKF & 85.5\% & 86.8\%\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tab:reduction}
\end{table}
Both the methods have significantly less processing time than the original UKF. This reduction in computation time will make the implementation of the unscented filter easier in a micro-processor with limited computational power for stand-alone real-time application. However, the error characteristics of the two methods are different for the presented two different example applications. These two example applications indicate the existence of two different classes of non-linear estimation problems:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Non-linear estimation problems for which the UKF provides better accuracy than the EKF. The SPUKF can be used to reduce the computation time and the ESPUKF is required to achieve an estimation accuracy similar to the UKF.
\item Non-linear estimation problems, for which the UKF and the EKF provide similar accuracy. For this class of problems, the SPUKF and the ESPUKF reduces the computation time for the UKF implementation, however the estimation accuracy is the same for the both algorithms.
\end{enumerate}
From the above observation, it can be hypothesised that there could be a third, intermediate class of non-linear estimation problems, for which the UKF performs better than the EKF and the SPUKF not only reduces the computation time of the UKF but also provides the estimation accuracy similar to the UKF. With further research, a rigorous classification of the non-linear estimation problems can be developed which will facilitate the choice of the estimation algorithm out of the available non-linear estimation techniques.
\subsection{State Estimation using Extrapolated Single Propagation Unscented Kalman Filter}
\begin{figure}[h!]%
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{prcsT_vs_error.jpg}%
\caption{Processing time vs. estimation error for different algorithms}%
\label{fig:comp_graph}%
\end{figure}
It is observed that the ESPUKF provides lower altitude estimation error compared to the SPUKF. The altitude estimation error using the ESPUKF is comparable with the UKF and the SSUKF results. In table \ref{tab:EUKF}, processing time per time step and average altitude estimation error at steady state is shown. In figure \ref{fig:comp_graph} processing time vs. absolute average steady state estimation error is plotted. It is clear that ESPUKF provides the most desirable performance as compared to the other algorithms when processing time is a constraint.
\section{Introduction}
The Kalman Filter is a long-established state estimation technique and many variants of this filter are widely used in numerous engineering applications, for example: object tracking, navigation, computer vision, economics and many more. The classical Kalman Filter was designed to address the estimation problem for linear systems \cite{Kalman1960}. NASA Ames Research Centre applied this optimal estimation formula for estimating the position and the velocity of a space vehicle. As the dynamics of a space vehicle are non-linear, the system was linearised using a first-order Taylor series approximation around an operating region to calculate the conditional error covariance and the Kalman gain \cite{Smith1964,Bernstein1966}. This is known as the Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) and is now widely used for numerous non-linear estimation problems. However this approach leads to a suboptimal solution to the non-linear estimation problem \cite{Cox1964,Athans1968} and requires an additional process noise covariance matrix for convergence of the solution \cite{Julier2000}. Athans et al. proposed a second-order approximation technique to improve the estimation performance \cite{Athans1968}. This second-order filter requires calculation of both Jacobian and Hessian of the non-linear system under consideration and proved to be computationally expensive. Then N$\phi$rgaard et al. presented an approximate derivative calculation procedure using Stirling's interpolation formula to avoid analytical calculation of the Jacobian and the Hessian for the second-order filter \cite{NøRgaard2000}. This method provides good estimation results for non-linear systems, yet the solution is not exact. A theoretical solution to the non-linear filtering problem requires solving the Fokker-Planck Equation (FPE) which expresses the evolution of the conditional probability density function of the state vector in the form of a partial differential equations \cite{Daum2005}. Daum and Benes discussed the exact solution of non-linear estimation without directly solving the FPE in \cite{Daum1986} and \cite{Benes1985}. However these methods are difficult to implement for high dimensional systems due to computational complexity\cite{Julier2000}.
Julier and Uhlmann in their seminal work on non-linear filters, showed a new approach to predict the mean state vector and the error covariance using deterministic sampling \cite{Julier1997,Julier1998,Julier2000,Julier2004}. This approach is known as the Unscented Transformation (UT) and the filter which uses the UT in the prediction step is widely referred as the Unscented Kalman Filter (UKF). The UKF ensures an accuracy of at least the second-order Taylor series approximation without Jacobian and Hessian calculation. Application of the UKF can be found in satellite navigation, attitude determination and control \cite{Crassidis2003,Fisher2008,Choi2010a}, GPS/INS integration for Unmanned Areal Vehicles \cite{Zhou2010}, indoor positioning \cite{Jiang2014}, target tracking \cite{Leven2009,Li2012} and in various other estimation problems. Unlike the EKF, the UKF does not require an additional process noise matrix and subsequent tuning to compensate for the linearisation. Instead a UKF requires propagation of multiple sampled state vectors which are known as sigma points \cite{Julier2000} to calculate the \textit{a priori} state vector at every time step. For a system with $n$ state elements, $2n+1$ sigma points must be propagated. If the exact difference equation is available for a non-linear system, this propagation of multiple state vectors is not computationally burdensome and the computational effort is comparable to the EKF. But most physical systems are described using non-linear continuous-time differential equations and the system description in the form of difference equations is an approximation of these differential equations. For accurate state propagation, performing a numerical integration is inevitable. From this point of view, multiple numerical integrations must be performed at each UKF prediction stage to calculate the \textit{a priori} state vector, whereas, for the EKF, only one numerical integration operation is required at each step. Due to this reason, implementation of a UKF for a continuous-time system is more computationally expensive than for an EKF.
The most obvious strategy for reducing the computation time of a UKF is reducing the number of sigma points. From this perspective, several contributions have discussed methods to improve the computational efficiency of the UKF. Julier and Uhlmann showed that at least $n+1$ sigma points are required to capture the uncertainty associated with the system \cite{Julier2002reduced}. The Spherical Simplex Unscented Transform (SSUT) was introduced in their later work. The UKF with SSUT is referred to as the Spherical Simplex Unscented Kalman Filter (SSUKF) in this paper. The SSUT requires $n+2$ sigma points, $n+1$ of which lie on a hypersphere \cite{Julier2003simplex}. However this reduction can lead to a degraded estimation performance \cite{Chang2013MUT} and the reduction in the computational time is intuitively less than 50\% of the same if the UT is used. Chang suggested the Marginal Unscented Transformation (MUT) to reduce the number of sigma points in \cite{Chang2013MUT}. The MUT can be applied to a special type of non-linear function containing linear substructures. It was suggested that, if $n_a$ state elements out of the $n$ state elements are mapped non-linearly then the number of sigma points can be reduced to $2n_a+1$.
Unlike the previously mentioned methods, this paper explores a possibility of reducing the computational time significantly without reducing the number of sigma points. A new approach to the state vector propagation for the UKF prediction stage is presented with the aim of reducing the computational effort. In this method, the \textit{a posteriori} state vector of the previous time step is propagated to the current time step and the other $2n$ sigma points at the current step are calculated approximately from the information of the previous step using a first-order Taylor series approximation. This approach requires propagation of one state vector instead of $2n+1$. The UKF with this strategy is referred as the Single Propagation Unscented Kalman Filter (SPUKF) in the rest of the paper. It is shown in the next section of the paper that the error in the \textit{a priori} state computation using the new method of the order of the second-order terms of the Taylor series expansion and leads to a lower estimation accuracy for the SPUKF compared to the classical UKF. To reduce the error in the \textit{a priori} state prediction, a second method inspired by Richardson Extrapolation is adopted. In the subsequent sections of the paper a UKF with the aforementioned state propagation strategy and the multidimensional extrapolation method is referred to as the Extrapolated Single Propagation Unscented Kalman Filter (ESPUKF). The estimation accuracy and computational effort of the EKF, UKF, SPUKF and the ESPUKF were compared using a non-trivial non-linear re-entry vehicle tracking problem previously used as a benchmark in \cite{Athans1968,Julier2000,NøRgaard2000} and \cite{Sarkka2007}.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows: section \ref{sec:prb_stmnt} establishes the problem statement. Section \ref{sec:strat} derives the mathematical formulation for the new state propagation strategy, the error in the \textit{a priori} and the \textit{a posteriori} mean state vectors and error covariances. The extrapolation technique is also derived. In section \ref{sec:complexity} the computation complexity analysis of the SPUKF and the ESPUKF is shown. The two methods are then verified with the re-entry vehicle tracking problem in section \ref{sec:rep_cs}. The state estimation error and computational time for the SPUKF and the ESPUKF are compared with the EKF, UKF and SSUKF. In Section \ref{sec:satnav} the EKF, UKF, SSUKF, SPUKF and ESPUKF are applied to a multi-GNSS based satellite position determination problem and the result is discussed. Section \ref{sec:conclusion} concludes the paper with a discussion of the possibility of real-time application of Unscented Filters using the proposed methods when computational resources are limited.
\section{Estimation Algorithms Based on the Approximate Sigma Point Propagation}
\label{sec:strat}
\subsection{Single Propagation Unscented Kalman Filter}
\label{sec:proposed_strategy}
The sigma points at time $t$ are
\begin{align*}
\bm{Y}_i(t) &= {\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t)+\Delta\bm{Y}_i, (i = 1,2,3,...2n)
\end{align*}
The $i$th ($i\neq 0$) sigma point using the UT at time $t+\delta t$ will be
\begin{align}
\bm{Y}_i(t+\delta t) &= \bm{F}(t,\bm{Y}_i(t),{\bm{\nu}}(t))\nonumber\\
& = \bm{F}(t,{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t),{\bm{\nu}}(t)) + \bm{ D_{\Delta Y_i}F}\nonumber\\
& + \frac{\bm{D_{\Delta Y_i}^2 F}}{2!} + \frac{\bm{D_{\Delta Y_i}^3 F}}{3!}+....
\label{eq:sigmapt}
\end{align}
Here $\bm{ D_{\Delta Y_i}F}=\left.\bm{\frac{\partial F}{\partial Y}}\right|_{\bm{\widehat{Y}}^+(t)}{\Delta \bm{Y}_i}$ is the total differential of $\bm{F}$. If a first order approximation is considered for (\ref{eq:sigmapt}) then
\begin{align}
\bm{Y}_i(t+\delta t) &\approx \bm{F}(t,{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t),{\bm{\nu}}(t)) + \bm{ D_{\Delta Y_i}F}\nonumber\\
&= \bm{Y}_0(t+\delta t) + \left.\bm{\frac{\partial F}{\partial Y}}\right|_{\bm{\widehat{Y}}^+(t)}{\Delta \bm{Y}_i}\label{eq:sigma_approx}
\end{align}
One can easily evaluate $\bm{\frac{\partial F}{\partial Y}}$ as \cite{montenbruck2000satellite}
\begin{equation}
\bm{\frac{\partial F}{\partial Y}} = e^{\bm{\mathcal{J}}\delta t}
\label{eq:}
\end{equation}
where, $\bm{\mathcal{J}}$ is the Jacobian of $\bm{f}$ evaluated at $\bm{Y} = \bm{\widehat{Y}}^+(t)$. By evaluating the Jacobian of $\bm{f}$ once per step, all the sigma points can be propagated over time. Therefore, in this method, instead of evaluating the function $\bm{f}$ $4h(2n+1)$ times, all the sigma points at the current time step are computed by evaluating the function $\bm{f}$ $4h$ times, the Jacobian matrix and matrix exponential once in each step. Section \ref{sec:complexity} will verify that the processing time decreases significantly using this method because of the reduction of the number of evaluation of the function $\bm{f}$. In the SPUKF, this prediction strategy is used. The steps for measurement prediction, Kalman gain computation, the mean state vector and the error covariance calculation is same as the UKF.
\subsubsection{Error in the Mean and the Covariance}
\label{sec:error}
In this subsection, the error incurred due to the approximation mentioned in section \ref{sec:proposed_strategy} is assessed. Hereafter, the sigma points and mean calculated using the proposed approximation will be denoted as $\bm{\widetilde{Y}}_i$ and $\bm{\widetilde{Y}}$ respectively.
Let ${\bm{Y}_i}(t)$ be propagated using a 4th order Runge-Kutta numerical integration from (\ref{eq:propagation}). Then, from (\ref{eq:sigmapt}) and (\ref{eq:sigma_approx}) the error due to approximation for each sigma point (neglecting the truncation and round off error) is
\begin{align}
{\bm{Y}_i}(t+\delta t) - {\bm{\widetilde{Y}}_i}(t+\delta t) &= \frac{\bm{D_{\Delta Y_i}^2 F}}{2!} +\frac{\bm{D_{\Delta Y_i}^3 F}}{3!}+....
\label{eq:error_i}
\end{align}
which is denoted as $\bm{e_i}$. The mean state vector using the original UT \cite{Julier2000}
\begin{align}
{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^-(t+\delta t) &= \frac{1}{n+\kappa}\left[\kappa{\bm{Y}_0}(t+\delta t) +\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\left[{\bm{Y}_i}(t+\delta t)\right]\right]\nonumber\\
&={\bm{Y}_0}(t+\delta t) + \frac{1}{2(n+\kappa)}\nonumber\\
&\times\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\left[\bm{ D_{\Delta Y_i}F} + \frac{\bm{D_{\Delta Y_i}^2 F}}{2!} +\frac{\bm{D_{\Delta Y_i}^3 F}}{3!}+....\right]\label{eq:mean_UKF}
\end{align}
Similarly the \textit{a priori} mean state vector for the SPUKF is
\begin{align}
\bm{\widetilde{Y}}^-(t+\delta t) &= \frac{1}{n+\kappa}\left[\kappa{\bm{Y}_0}(t+\delta t) +\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\left[{\bm{\widetilde{Y}}_i}(t+\delta t)\right]\right]\nonumber\\
&={\bm{Y}_0}(t+\delta t) + \frac{1}{2(n+\kappa)}\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\bm{ D_{\Delta Y_i}F}\label{eq:approx_ukf}
\end{align}
The error in the prediction due to the approximation is
\begin{align}
&{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^-(t+\delta t)-\bm{\widetilde{Y}}^-(t+\delta t)\nonumber\\
&= \frac{1}{2(n+\kappa)}\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\left[\frac{\bm{D_{\Delta Y_i}^2 F}}{2!} +\frac{\bm{D_{\Delta Y_i}^3 F}}{3!}+....\right]\label{eq:mean_error}
\end{align}
This mean prediction error is denoted as $\bm{\bar{e}}$.\label{sec:cov}
Let us define the predicted covariance using the original UT as \cite{Julier2000}
\begin{align}
{\bm{P}^-_{YY}}(t+\delta t) &= \frac{1}{n+\kappa}\kappa\left[{\bm{Y}_0}-{\bm{\widehat{Y}}^-}\right]\left[{\bm{Y}_0}-{\bm{\widehat{Y}}^-}\right]^T\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{2(n+\kappa)}\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\left[{\bm{Y}_i}-{\bm{\widehat{Y}}^-}\right]\left[{\bm{Y}_i}-{\bm{\widehat{Y}}^-}\right]^T\label{eq:cov}
\end{align}
and the predicted covariance using the new approximation is
\begin{align}
\bm{\widetilde{P}_{YY}}^-(t+\delta t)&=\sum_{i=0}^{2n}W_i\left[{\bm{\widetilde{Y}}_i}-\bm{\widetilde{Y}}^-\right]\left[{\bm{\widetilde{Y}}_i}-{\bm{\widetilde{Y}}}^-\right]^T\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{n+\kappa}\kappa\left[{\bm{Y}_0}-{\bm{\widetilde{Y}}^-}\right]\left[{\bm{Y}_0}-{\bm{\widetilde{Y}}^-}\right]^T\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{2(n+\kappa)}\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\left[{\bm{\widetilde{Y}}_i}-{\bm{\widetilde{Y}}^-}\right]\left[{\bm{\widetilde{Y}}_i}-{\bm{\widetilde{Y}}^-}\right]^T\label{eq:cov_aprx}
\end{align}
Using (\ref{eq:error_i}), (\ref{eq:mean_error}), (\ref{eq:cov}) and (\ref{eq:cov_aprx}),
\begin{align}
&{\bm{P}^-_{YY}}(t+\delta t)\nonumber\\
&= {\bm{\widetilde{P}}_{YY}}^-(t+\delta t)+\frac{\kappa}{n+\kappa}\left[\bm{\bar{e}}\bm{\bar{e}}^T-\bm{\bar{e}}\left[{\bm{Y}_0}-{\bm{\widetilde{Y}}^-}\right]^T\right.\nonumber\\
&-\left.\left[{\bm{Y}_0} - {\bm{\widetilde{Y}}^-}\right]\bm{\bar{e}}^T\right] + \frac{1}{2(n+\kappa)}\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\left[[\bm{e}_i-\bm{\bar{e}}]\left[{\bm{\widetilde{Y}}_i}-{\bm{\widetilde{Y}}^-}\right]^T\right.\nonumber\\
&+\left.\left[{\bm{\widetilde{Y}}_i}-{\bm{\widetilde{Y}}^-}\right][\bm{e}_i-\bm{\bar{e}}]^T+[\bm{e}_i-\bm{\bar{e}}][\bm{e}_i-\bm{\bar{e}}]^T\right]
\end{align}
For the ease of further calculation, the above equation is rewritten as,
\begin{equation}
{\bm{P}^-_{YY}}(t+\delta t) = {\bm{\widetilde{P}}_{YY}}^-(t+\delta t) + \bm{P}_{YY_e}
\label{eq:Cov_err}
\end{equation}
Here, $\bm{P}_{YY_e}$ is the error in predicted error covariance calculation due to the approximation.
From the above equations it can be inferred that the error in the prediction of the mean and the error covariance with the proposed method is of the order of the second-order Taylor series terms of the original the UT.
\subsubsection{Error in State Estimation}
\label{sec:Error_estimate}
Define $\bm{\widetilde{Z}}_i = \bm{h}(\bm{\widetilde{Y}_i})$ as the computed measurement vector corresponding to the sigma point $\bm{\widetilde{Y}}_i$ and $\bm{\widetilde{Z}}^-$ as the predicted measurement vector at time $t+\delta t$ for the SPUKF. Then,
\begin{align}
\bm{{Z}}_i &= \bm{h}(\bm{Y}_i)\nonumber\\
&= \bm{h}(\bm{\widetilde{Y}_i + \bm{e_i}})\nonumber\\
&= \bm{\widetilde{Z}}_i + \bm{D}_{\bm{e_i}}\bm{h} + \frac{\bm{D}^2_{\bm{e_i}}\bm{h}}{2!}+....\label{eq:Zi_ZiSP}
\end{align}
Let, $\bm{D}_{\bm{e_i}}\bm{h} + \frac{\bm{D}^2_{\bm{e_i}}\bm{h}}{2!}+.... = \bm{e_{z_i}}$. It is to be noted that, the error term $\bm{e_{z_i}}$is of the order of the first order Taylor series terms, but $\bm{e_i}$ is of the order of the second-order Taylor series terms of (\ref{eq:sigma_approx}). The predicted measurement vector using the UT is
\begin{align}
\bm{\widehat Z}^- &= \sum_{i=0}^{2n}\bm{W}_i\bm{Z}_i\nonumber\\
&= \sum_{i=0}^{2n}\bm{W}_i\bm{\widetilde{Z}}_i + \sum_{i=0}^{2n}\bm{W}_i\bm{e_{z_i}}\nonumber\\
&= \bm{\widetilde{Z}}^- + \sum_{i=0}^{2n}\bm{W}_i\bm{e_{z_i}}\label{eq:Z_ZSP}
\end{align}
Then, the error in the mean measurement vector prediction using the SPUKF is $\bm{\bar{e}_z} = \sum_{i=0}^{2n}\bm{W}_i\bm{e_{z_i}}$. The innovation $\bm{\Delta Z}$ computed using the UKF can be expressed as
\begin{align}
\bm{\Delta Z}&= \bm{Z} - (\bm{\widetilde Z}+\bm{\bar e}_z)\nonumber\\
&= \bm{\Delta\widetilde {Z}} - \bm{\bar e}_z
\end{align}
Here, $\bm{\Delta\widetilde {Z}} = \bm{Z} - \bm{\widetilde Z}$ is the innovation computed using the SPUKF.
The cross covariance matrix at time $t+\delta t$ using the UT is
\begin{align}
P_{YZ}&= \sum_{i=0}^{2n}W_i\left[\bm{Y}_i - \bm{\widehat{Y}}^-\right]\left[\bm{Z}_i - \bm{Z}^-\right]^T\nonumber\\
&= \sum_{i=0}^{2n}W_i\left[\bm{\widetilde Y}_i - \bm{\widetilde{Y}}^-\right]\left[\bm{\widetilde Z}_i - \bm{\widetilde Z}^-\right]^T\nonumber\\
&+ \sum_{i=0}^{2n}W_i\left[\bm{e}_i - \bm{\bar{e}}\right]\left[\bm{\widetilde Z}_i - \bm{\widetilde Z}^-\right]^T\nonumber\\
&+ \sum_{i=0}^{2n}W_i\left[\bm{\widetilde Y}_i - \bm{\widetilde Y}^-\right]\left[\bm{e}_{z_i} - \bm{\bar{e}}_z\right]^T\nonumber\\
&+ \sum_{i=0}^{2n}W_i\left[\bm{e}_i - \bm{\bar{e}}\right]\left[\bm{e}_{z_i} - \bm{\bar{e}}_z\right]^T\nonumber\\
&= \bm{\widetilde P}_{YZ} + \bm{P}_{e_{YZ}}\label{eq:P_YZ}
\end{align}
Here, $\sum_{i=0}^{2n}W_i\left[\bm{\widetilde Y}_i - \bm{\widetilde{Y}}^-\right]\left[\bm{\widetilde Z}_i - \bm{\widetilde Z}^-\right]^T = \bm{\widetilde P}_{YZ}$, which is the cross covariance matrix computed using the SPUKF. $\bm{P}_{e_{YZ}}$ is the error in the cross covariance computation. From (\ref{eq:error_i}) and (\ref{eq:mean_error}), it can be deduced that $\bm{P}_{e_{YZ}}$ is of the order of the second-order Taylor series terms. Similarly, the innovation covariance $\bm S$ computed using the UT can also be expressed as,
\begin{equation}
\bm S = \bm{\widetilde S} + \bm{S}_e
\label{eq:S_SSP}
\end{equation}
Here $\bm{\widetilde S}$ is the innovation covariance computed using the SPUKF and $\bm{S}_e$ is the error in innovation covariance calculation, which is also of the order of the second-order Taylor series terms. The Kalman gain $\bm K$ for the original UKF is,
\begin{align}
\bm K &= \bm{P}_{YZ}S^{-1}\nonumber\\
&= (\bm{\widetilde P}_{YZ} + \bm{P}_{e_{YZ}})(\bm{\widetilde S} + \bm{S}_e)^{-1}\nonumber\\
&= \bm{\widetilde P}_{YZ}\bm{\widetilde S}^{-1} + \bm{P}_{e_{YZ}}\bm{\widetilde S}^{-1}\nonumber\\
&- (\bm{\widetilde P}_{YZ} + \bm{P}_{e_{YZ}})[\bm{\widetilde S}^{-1}\bm{S}_e(\bm{S}_e+\bm{S}_e\bm{\widetilde S}^{-1}\bm{S}_e)\bm{S}_e\bm{\widetilde S}^{-1}]\label{eq:K_KSP}
\end{align}
Here, $\bm{\widetilde P}_{YZ}\bm{\widetilde S}^{-1}$ is the Kalman gain $\bm{\widetilde K}$ calculated using the SPUKF. The second and third terms in (\ref{eq:K_KSP}) are the difference in Kalman gains computed using the UKF and the SPUKF and denoted as $\bm{K}_e$. The estimated mean state vector using the UKF is
\begin{align}
\bm{\widehat Y}^+ &= \bm{\widehat Y}^- + \bm{K}\Delta Z\nonumber\\
&= \bm{\widetilde Y}^- + \bm{\bar e} + (\bm{\widetilde K} + \bm{K}_e)(\bm{\Delta\widetilde{Z}}- \bm{\bar e}_z)\nonumber\\
&= \bm{\widetilde Y}^- + \bm{\widetilde K}\bm{\Delta \widetilde{Z}} + \bm{\bar e} + \bm{K}_e\bm{\Delta \widetilde{Z}} - \bm{\widetilde K}\bm{\bar e}_z - \bm{K}_e\bm{\bar e}_z\label{eq:estimate_error}
\end{align}
In the above equation $\bm{\widetilde Y}^- + \bm{\widetilde K}\bm{\Delta\widetilde{Z}}$ is the estimated mean state vector using the SPUKF. The fourth, fifth and the sixth terms in the equation can be neglected. This implies that, the error in state estimation in the SPUKF is predominantly due to $\bm{\bar e}$. The estimated error covariance using the UKF is
\begin{align}
\bm{P}^+_{YY} &= \bm{P}^-_{YY} - \bm{K}\bm{S}\bm{K}^T\nonumber\\
&= \bm{\widetilde P}^-_{YY} + \bm{P}_{YY_e} - [\bm{\widetilde K} + \bm{K}_e][\bm{\widetilde S} + \bm{S}_e][\bm{\widetilde K} + \bm{K}_e]^T\nonumber\\
&= \bm{\widetilde P}^-_{YY} - \bm{\widetilde K}\bm{\widetilde S}\bm{\widetilde K}^T + \bm{P}_{YY_e}\nonumber\\
&- [\bm{\widetilde K}\bm{S}_e\bm{\widetilde K}^T + \bm{\widetilde K}\bm{\widetilde S}\bm{K}_e^T + \bm{\widetilde K}\bm{S}_e\bm{K}_e^T + \bm{K}_e\bm{\widetilde S}\bm{\widetilde K}^T\nonumber\\
&+ \bm{K}_e\bm{S}_e\bm{\widetilde K}^T + \bm{K}_e\bm{\widetilde S}\bm{K}_e^T + \bm{K}_e\bm{S}_e\bm{K}_e^T]\label{eq:estimate_cov_err}
\end{align}
In this equation, $\bm{\widetilde P}^-_{YY} - \bm{\widetilde K}\bm{\widetilde S}\bm{\widetilde K}^T$ is the estimated error covariance using the SPUKF. The remaining terms contributes to the error in the covariance calculation. Except $\bm{P}_{YY_e}$, the other terms are negligibly small. Hence, the error in estimated error covariance using the SPUKF is $\bm{P}_{YY_e}$. From this analysis, it is discerned that, the error in the mean state vector and the error covariance estimation using the SPUKF is of the order of the second-order Taylor series terms compared to the UKF.
\section{Example Application}
\label{sec:rep_cs}
To demonstrate the performance of the SPUKF and the ESPUKF, a non-trivial non-linear re-entry vehicle problem was examined. The problem was used in \cite{Athans1968,Julier2000,NøRgaard2000} and \cite{Sarkka2007} to demonstrate the performance of the respective estimation schemes and as such is a benchmark for this type of work. In the problem a body is considered with a high velocity, which is re-entering the atmosphere at a very high altitude. A radar is used to measure the range of the body in discrete time. The measurement is corrupted by Gaussian noise. The direction of the motion of the body is assumed to be perpendicular to the local horizon. The altitude of the radar is 100000 ft (H) and the horizontal distance between the radar and the body is 100000 ft (M). For convenience of comparison with the work of Julier and Uhlman on the UKF, Imperial units are used in this example. The altitude $x_1(t)$, velocity $x_2(t)$ and the constant ballistic coefficient $x_3(t)$ of the body are to be estimated. The continuous-time dynamics of the system are:
\begin{align}
\dot{x}_1(t) &= -x_2(t) + w_1(t)\\
\dot{x}_2(t) &= -e^{-\lambda x_1(t)}x_2(t)^2x_3(t) + w_2(t)\\
\dot{x}_3(t) &= w_3(t)
\label{eq:dynamics}
\end{align}
here, $w_1(t),w_2(t)$ and $w_3(t)$ are zero-mean, uncorrelated noises with covariance given by ${\bf Q}$ and $\lambda$ is a constant ($5\times 10^{-5}$) that relates the air density and the altitude \cite{Julier2000}. These stochastic dynamical equations are used to generate $x_1$, $x_2$ and $x_3$ and considered as the true value. The random noises used in the generation of the true value of $x_1$, $x_2$ and $x_3$ are considered as unknown during the estimation. All the estimation errors are obtained by subtracting the estimated state element from the corresponding true state element. The range from the radar at time t, $r(t)$ is
\begin{equation}
r(t) = \sqrt{M^2 + [x_1(t)-H]^2} + \nu(t)
\label{eq:measurement_radar}
\end{equation}
here $\nu(t)$ is Gaussian noise. The covariance is considered as $10^4$ ft/s. The initial true state is:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cl}
$x_1(0)$ &= $30000$ ft\\
$x_2(0)$ &= $20000$ ft/s\\
$x_3(0)$ &= $10^{-3}$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The state and the error covariance for the filter initialization are:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cl}
$\widehat{x}_1(0)$ &= $300000$ ft\\
$\widehat{x}_2(0)$ &= $20000$ ft/s\\
$\widehat{x}_3(0)$ &= $3\times 10^{-5}$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{align}
\bm{P}(0) &= \left[\begin{array}{ccc}
10^6 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 4\times 10^6 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 10^{-4}
\end{array}\right]\nonumber
\end{align}
The discrete process noise covariance matrix is considered as
\begin{align}
\bm{Q} &= \left[\begin{array}{ccc}
10^{-30} & 0 & 0\\
0 & 10^{-30} & 0\\
0 & 0 & 10^{-30}
\end{array}\right]\nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{figure}%
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{./Figures/comp_SSUKF.eps}%
\caption{Performance comparison of the SPUKF and ESPUKF with other estimation algorithms}%
\label{fig:EUKF_res}%
\end{figure}
The elements of the $\bm{Q}$ matrix are chosen to be very small value, because arbitrary large values of $\bm{Q}$ matrix entries suppress the approximation error of EKF. For the EKF, UKF, SSUKF, SPUKF and ESPUKF the same initial conditions and $\bm{Q}$ matrix are selected. The state vector is estimated for 1000 seconds using different algorithms separately. Fig. \ref{fig:EUKF_res} shows the estimation errors for the EKF, UKF, SPUKF and ESPUKF for the first 60 seconds of tracking. The altitude errors for the UKF, SSUKF, SPUKF and ESPUKF, are significantly less than for the EKF. But due to the approximate sigma point propagation, the altitude error for the SPUKF is higher than for the original UKF and the SSUKF. The average steady state altitude error and the processing time per time step for different algorithms are presented in Table \ref{tab:EUKF}. The processing time of the SPUKF is significantly lower than for the original UKF and the SSUKF. The average altitude error for the SPUKF is lower than for the EKF. However, the SPUKF provides 14.69 ft (4.48 m) of average altitude error where as the UKF and the SSUKF deliver average altitude errors of 1.19 ft (0.36 m) and 1.53 ft (0.46 m). Estimation using the UKF in general is accurate to the order of the second-order Taylor series terms. From the error analysis presented in sections \ref{sec:error}, \ref{sec:Error_estimate} and the result for the re-entry vehicle tracking problem, the first-order Taylor series approximation for the sigma point propagation is identified as the reason of larger error in the SPUKF.
\begin{figure}[h]%
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{./Figures/prcsT_vs_err.eps}%
\caption{Processing time vs. estimation error for different algorithms}%
\label{fig:comp_graph}%
\end{figure}
It is observed that the ESPUKF provides lower altitude estimation error compared to the SPUKF due to the elimination of the second-order Taylor series terms. The altitude estimation error using the ESPUKF is comparable with the UKF and the SSUKF results. In Fig. \ref{fig:comp_graph} processing time vs. absolute average steady state estimation error is plotted. It is clear that ESPUKF provides the most desirable performance as compared to the other algorithms when processing time is a constraint.
\section*{Biographies}
\textbf{Sanat Biswas} is a PhD student in the School of Electrical Engineering and Telecommunications at the University of New South Wales (UNSW). He received BE (2010) in Instrumentation and Electronics from Jadavpur University and M. Tech (2012) in Aerospace Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology Bombay. Sanat is currently associated with Australian Centre for Space Engineering Research (ACSER) and Satellite Navigation and Positioning (SNAP) Laboratory. His research focus is non-linear estimation techniques for on-board space vehicle navigation using GNSS receivers. He has been awarded the Emerging Space Leaders Grant 2014 by the International Astronautical Federation.
\textbf{Li Qiao} is a Research Associate in the School of Engineering and Information Technology at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Canberra. She joined UNSW as a visiting PhD student from 2009 to 2010, and obtained her PhD in Guidance, Navigation and Control at Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics in 2011. Her research interests are satellite orbit modelling, satellite autonomous navigation and integrated navigation.
\textbf{Andrew Dempster} (M`92\hyp{}SM`03) has a BE (1984) and MEngSc (1992) from UNSW and a PhD from University of Cambridge (1995) in efficient circuits for signal processing arithmetic.
He is Director of the Australian Centre for Space Engineering Research (ACSER) at the University of New South Wales (UNSW). Prof. Dempster was system engineer and project manager for the first GPS receiver developed in Australia in the late 80s and has been involved in satellite navigation ever since. He has published in the areas of arithmetic circuits, signal processing, biomedical image processing, satellite navigation and space systems. His current research interests are in satellite navigation receiver design and signal processing, areas where he has six patents, new location technologies, and space systems.
\section{Computation Complexity Analysis}
\label{sec:complexity}
To analyse the computation complexity of the UKF, the SPUKF and the ESPUKF, times required to perform mathematical operations are defined as followed:\\ \\
\begin{tabular}{ll}
$t_f$ & time required to evaluate the function $\bm{f}$\\
$t_{mm}$ & time required to multiply a $n\times n$ and\\
& a $n\times n$ matrix\\
$t_m$ & time required to multiply a $n\times n$ and\\
& a $n\times 1$ matrix\\
$t_a$ & time required to add two $n\times 1$ matrix\\
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
$t_{ms}$ & time required to multiply a scaler with\\
& a $n\times 1$ matrix\\
$t_{md}$ & time required to divide a $n\times 1$ matrix by a scaler\\
$t_{diag}$ & time required to eigen-decompose a $n\times n$ matrix\\
$t_{sa}$ & time required to perform scaler addition\\
& or subtraction\\
$t_{sm}$ & time required to perform scaler multiplication\\
$t_{sd}$ & time required to perform scaler division\\
$t_{exp}$& time required to evaluate scaler exponential\\
\end{tabular}\\ \\
Computation complexities of matrix multiplication of two $n\times n$ matrices and matrix multiplication of one $n\times n$ and one $n\times 1$ are $\bm{O}(n^3)$ and $\bm{O}(n^2)$ respectively. Computation complexity of eigen-decomposition is $\bm{O}(n^3)$. Considering $t_{sa}, t_{sm}, t_{sd}, t_{exp}$ as the basic operations, define $t_{max}$ in a fashion that it satisfies the following inequalities,
\begin{align}
t_{max}&\geq max\{t_{sa}, t_{sm}, t_{sd}, t_{exp}\}\label{eq:time_unit}\\
t_{mm} & \leq n^3t_{max}\label{eq:mat_multnn}\\
t_m & \leq n^2t_{max}\label{eq:mat_multn1}\\
t_{diag}& \leq n^3t_{max}\label{eq:diag}
\end{align}
$t_a$, $t_{ms}$ and $t_{md}$ can be expressed as,
\begin{align}
t_a & = nt_{sa}\nonumber\\
& \leq nt_{max}\label{eq:scaler_add}\\
t_{ms} & = nt_{sm}\nonumber\\
& \leq nt_{max}\label{eq:scaler_mult}\\
t_{md} & = t_{sd} + nt_{sm}\nonumber\\
& \leq (n+1)t_{max}\label{eq:scaler_div}
\end{align}
If number of basic operations required to evaluate the function $\bm{f}$ is $j (j \in \mathbb{N})$ then,
\begin{equation}
t_f \leq jt_{max}
\label{eq:t_f}
\end{equation}
Here, $j$ reflects the difficulty to evaluate the function $\bm{f}$.
By counting the number of mathematical operations, time required to compute one step of 4th order Runge-Kutta method $t_{RK}$ can be expressed as,
\begin{align}
t_{RK} & = 4t_f + 3t_{sa} + 6t_{ms} + 7t_a + 2t_{sd}\nonumber\\
& \leq (13n + 4j + 5)t_{max}\label{eq:t_RK}
\end{align}
Similarly, computation time for Jacobian calculation $t_{\bm{\mathcal{J}}}$ is,
\begin{align}
t_{\bm{\mathcal{J}}} &= nt_f + nt_a + nt_{md} + nt_{sa}\nonumber\\
&\leq [2n^2 + (j+2)n]t_{max}\label{eq:t_J}
\end{align}
Computation time to calculate matrix exponential of a $n\times n$ matrix $t_e$ can be expressed as,
\begin{align}
t_e &= t_{diag} + nt_{exp} + 2t_{mm}\nonumber\\
&\leq (3n^3+n)t_{max}\label{eq:mat_exp}
\end{align}
Computation time required to propagate $2n+1$ state vectors using the UKF is
\begin{equation}
t_{UKF} = h(2n+1)t_{RK}
\label{eq:t_ukf}
\end{equation}
From (\ref{eq:t_RK}),
\begin{align}
t_{UKF} & \leq [26hn^2 + (8hj+23h)n + 4hj + 5h]t_{max}\label{eq:T_UKF}
\end{align}
here, $h (h \in \mathbb{N})$ is number of steps selected to propagate the state vectors from time $t$ to time $t+\delta t$, i.e. $\delta t/h$ is the step size for the Runge-Kutta algorithm.
\subsection{Computation complexity of the SPUKF}
\label{sec:t_SPUKF}
By observing (\ref{eq:sigma_approx}), the computation time required to propagate $2n+1$ state vectors using the SPUKF is
\begin{equation}
t_{SP} = ht_{RK} + t_{\bm{\mathcal{J}}} + t_e + 2nt_m + 2nt_a
\label{eq:T_SP}
\end{equation}
Similar to the UKF, it is assumed that, the Runge-Kutta method uses $\delta t/h$ step size for state propagation.
Using (\ref{eq:mat_multn1}), (\ref{eq:scaler_add}), (\ref{eq:t_RK}), (\ref{eq:t_J}) and (\ref{eq:mat_exp})
\begin{align}
t_{SP} &\leq [5n^3 + 4n^2 + (13h + j + 3)n + 4hj + 5h]t_{max}\label{eq:T_SPUKF}
\end{align}
$t_{UKF}$ and $t_{SP}$ can be written as
\begin{align}
t_{UKF} & = [26hn^2 + (8hj+23h)n + 4hj + 5h]t_{max}\label{eq:T_MAX_UKF}\nonumber\\
& -\delta_{UKF}~,~\delta_{UKF}\geq 0\\
t_{SP} & = [5n^3 + 4n^2 + (13h + j + 3)n + 4hj + 5h]t_{max}\label{eq:T_MAX_SP}\nonumber\\
& -\delta_{SP}~,~\delta_{SP}\geq 0
\end{align}
The terms $\delta_{UKF}$ and $\delta_{SP}$ contain the low level details of the matrix operations if each of the scaler addition, multiplication, division and the scaler exponential operations is considered as one unit operation. Hence, the values of $\delta_{UKF}$ and $\delta_{SP}$ entirely depend on the choice of the algorithms for matrix operations. To make the computation complexity analysis of the Kalman Filters independent of the algorithms used for matrix operations, $\delta_{UKF}$ and $\delta_{SP}$ can be neglected. This assumption leads to comparison of the maximum possible value of $t_{UKF}$ and $t_{SP}$ for a given estimation problem.
In the SPUKF framework, only the state propagation method is different to the UKF and the computation time required to generate sigma points at the current time, the computation of the predicted error covariance and the computation of the \textit{a posteriori} mean and error covariance for the SPUKF and the UKF are equal. The reduction in computation time for the SPUKF will be only due to the reduction in computation time for the state propagation. Hence, the difference in computation time between the UKF and the SPUKF is $t_{UKF} - t_{SP}$. For computation time reduction, $t_{UKF} - t_{SP}>0$. The computation time reduction of the SPUKF as a percentage of the computation time of the UKF can be defined as,
\begin{equation}
C_{SP} = \frac{t_{UKF} - t_{SP}}{t_{UKF}}\times 100\%
\label{eq:EFF_SPUKF}
\end{equation}
here, $C_{SP}$ is the percentage computation time reduction for the SPUKF with respect to the UKF. From (\ref{eq:T_MAX_UKF}) and (\ref{eq:T_MAX_SP}) and neglecting $\delta_{UKF}$ and $\delta_{SP}$,
\begin{align}
&C_{SP}\nonumber\\
&= \frac{(26h-4)n^2 + (8hj+10h-j-3)n - 5n^3}{26hn^2 + (8hj+23h)n + 4hj + 5h}\times 100\%\label{eq:C_SP}
\end{align}
\begin{figure}%
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{./Figures/SPUKF_eff.eps}%
\caption{Computation efficiency improvement of the SPUKF}%
\label{fig:eff_SPUKF}%
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}%
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{./Figures/SPUKF_lim.eps}%
\caption{Limit of $n$ for which the SPUKF is more efficient than the UKF}%
\label{fig:lim_SPUKF}%
\end{figure}
This equation implies that, for the computation time of the SPUKF to be reduced compared to the UKF, the numerator of $C_{SP}$ has to be greater than $0$. This limits the number of state elements $n$ that can be estimated using the SPUKF to result in a reduced computation time. Exceeding the limit will result in a higher computation time than the UKF. The limit of $n$ is the real positive root of the polynomial $5n^3 - (26h-4)n^2 - (8hj+10h-j-3)n$,
because at $5n^3 - (26h-4)n^2 - (8hj+10h-j-3)n=0$, $t_{SP} = t_{UKF}$. For different values of $h$ and $j$, $C_{SP}$ vs. $n$ is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:eff_SPUKF}. Fig. \ref{fig:eff_SPUKF} shows that, using the SPUKF more than $90\%$ computation time reduction is possible. With increasing $n$, the computation time reduction increases rapidly and after a certain value of $n$ the reduction decreases slowly. The maximum possible computation time reduction increases with increase in $j$ or $h$. Fig. \ref{fig:lim_SPUKF} shows that, with increasing $j$ and $h$ the limit of $n$ also increases. This implies that, for a higher complexity of the system function $\bm f$ and a higher number of integration steps $h$, the computation time of the SPUKF remains less than that for the UKF at a larger range of $n$, the number of state variables.
\subsection{Computation complexity of the ESPUKF}
From section \ref{sec:richardson1}, the computation time required to propagate $2n+1$ state vectors using the ESPUKF is
\begin{equation}
t_{ESP} = t_{N1} + 2nt_{N2} + 2nt_{ms} + 2nt_a
\label{eq:T_ESP}
\end{equation}
where, $t_{N1}$ and $t_{N2}$ are the computation time required to calculate $N_1(\Delta Y_i)$ and $N_2(\frac{\Delta Y_i}{2})$. If $\delta t/h$ is the step size chosen for the Runge-Kutta method, then from (\ref{eq:N1}),
\begin{equation}
t_{N1} = t_{SP}\nonumber
\label{eq:T_N1}
\end{equation}
and, from (\ref{eq:N2}),
\begin{align}
t_{N2} & = t_{md} + t_a + t_m + t_{\bm{\mathcal{J}}} + t_e\nonumber\\
& \leq [3n^3 + 3n^2 + (j+5)n + j + 1]t_{max}\label{eq:T_N2}
\end{align}
From (\ref{eq:scaler_add}), (\ref{eq:scaler_mult}), (\ref{eq:scaler_div}), (\ref{eq:T_N1}), (\ref{eq:T_N2}) and (\ref{eq:T_ESP})
\begin{align}
t_{ESP} & \leq [6n^4 + 11n^3 + (2j+18)n^2\nonumber\\
& + (13h+3j+4)n + 4hj +5h]t_{max}
\label{eq:T_ESPUKF}
\end{align}
\begin{figure}%
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{./Figures/ESPUKF_eff.eps}%
\caption{Computation efficiency improvement of the ESPUKF}%
\label{fig:eff_ESPUKF}%
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}%
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{./Figures/ESPUKF_lim.eps}%
\caption{Limit of $n$ for which the ESPUKF is more efficient than the UKF}%
\label{fig:lim_ESPUKF}%
\end{figure}
$t_{ESP}$ can be written as,
\begin{align}
t_{ESP} & = [6n^4 + 11n^3 + (2j+18)n^2\nonumber\\
& + (13h+3j+4)n + 4hj +5h]t_{max}\nonumber\\
& -\delta_{ESP}~,~\delta_{ESP}\geq 0\label{eq:T_MAX_ESP}
\end{align}
$\delta_{ESP}$ contains the low level details of the matrix operations and as discussed in \ref{sec:t_SPUKF}, this can be neglected for the purpose of generality. Similar to the SPUKF, the difference in the computation time of the UKF and the ESPUKF is due to the different state propagation strategy. For reduction of the computation time of the ESPUKF, $t_{UKF}-t_{ESP}>0$. The percentage computation time reduction for the ESPUKF with respect to the UKF ($C_{ESP}$) is defined as
\begin{equation}
C_{ESP} = \frac{t_{UKF} - t_{ESP}}{t_{UKF}}\times 100
\label{eq:EFF_ESP}
\end{equation}
From (\ref{eq:T_MAX_UKF}) and (\ref{eq:T_MAX_ESP}) and neglecting $\delta_{UKF}$ and $\delta_{ESP}$,
\begin{align}
&C_{ESP}=\nonumber\\
&\frac{(26h-2k-18)n^2+(8hk+10h-3k-4)n-6n^4-11n^3}{26hn^2 + (8hj+23h)n + 4hj + 5h}\nonumber\\
&\times 100\%\label{C_ESP}
\end{align}
For improvement in computation time, the numerator of $C_{ESP}$ must be greater than $0$. The real positive root of this polynomial $6n^4 + 11n^3 - (26h-2k-18)n^2 - (8hk+10h-3k-4)n$ is the limit of $n$ for the ESPUKF to achieve computation time lower than the UKF. Fig. \ref{fig:eff_ESPUKF} shows $C_{ESP}$ vs $n$ for different values of $j$ and $h$. Depending on the values of $n$, $j$ and $h$, above $80\%$ computation time reduction is possible using the ESPUKF. The characteristics of the graphs are the same as that of the SPUKF however, after reaching the maximum value, the percentage of computation time reduction decreases rapidly with increase in $n$ and as a result the value of $n$ at which, $t_{ESP} = t_{UKF}$ is reduced. Fig. \ref{fig:lim_ESPUKF} shows the limit of $n$ for different values of $j$ and $h$. It is observed that for the ESPUKF at a substantially small value of $n$ than that of the SPUKF, the computation time becomes equal to the computation time of the UKF. This indicates a restricted useful range of the ESPUKF.
\section{Problem Statement}
\label{sec:prb_stmnt}
Consider a continuous-time non-linear stochastic dynamical system
\begin{align}
\dot{\bm{Y}}(t) &= {\bm{f}}(t,{\bm{Y}}(t),{\bf \bm{\nu}}(t))\label{eq:system}\\
{\bm{Z}}(k) &= {\bm{h}}({\bm{Y}}(k)) + {\bm{w}}(k)\label{eq:measurement}
\end{align}
Here, $t$ denotes continuous time, $k$ is the discrete equivalent of $t$, $\bm{Y}$ is a $n$-dimensional state vector to be estimated from the discrete measurement ${\bm{Z}}(k)$. $\bm{f}$ and $\bm{h}$ are non-linear functions, ${\bf \bm{\nu}}(t)$ is the process noise and ${\bm{w}}(k)$ is the measurement noise. The uncertainty of $\bm{Y}$ is modelled as a probability distribution. In a Kalman Filter framework, the dynamic model of the system is utilized to compute the \textit{a priori} mean and the error covariance of the probability distribution of $\bm{Y}$. To reduce the error in prediction due to model uncertainties, measurement $\bm{Z}$ is used to estimate the \textit{a posteriori} mean state vector and the error covariance of $\bm{Y}$. To apply a classical UKF to this estimation problem, the continuous-time system equation must be converted to a discrete-time difference equation \cite{Julier2000} as shown below.
\begin{equation}
{\bm{Y}}(k+1) = {\bm{F}}(k,{\bm{Y}}(k),{\bf \bm{\nu}}(k))
\label{eq:disc_sys}
\end{equation}
Here $\bm{F}$ is a non-linear function and the discrete time equivalent of $\bm{f}$. In the UKF framework the UT is used to calculate the predicted mean state vector and the error covariance. In the UT $2n+1$ weighted samples or sigma points are calculated at the $k$th time step from the estimated mean state vector $\widehat{\bm{Y}}^+(k)$ and the error covariance ${\bm{P}}^+_{YY}(k)$ \cite{Julier2000}. The $i$th sigma point $\bm{Y}_i$ and the corresponding weight $W_i$ are \cite{Julier2000}
\begin{align}
{\bm{Y}}_i(k) &= \left \{\begin{array}{ll}
\widehat{\bm{Y}}^+(k) &, (i = 0)\\
\widehat{\bm{Y}}^+(k) + \Delta {\bm{Y}_i} &, (i = 1,2,3...2n)
\end{array}\right.\\
W_i &= \left \{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\kappa}{n+\kappa} &, (i = 0)\\
\frac{1}{2(n+\kappa)} &, (i = 1,2,3...2n)
\end{array}\right.
\label{eq:sigmapt_K}
\end{align}
and\\
\begin{tabular}{lcl}
$\Delta{\bm{Y}}_i$ &= $(\sqrt{(n+\kappa){\bm{P}}^+_{YY}(k)})_i$ & for $i = 1,2,3....n$\\
$\Delta{\bm{Y}}_i$ &= $-(\sqrt{(n+\kappa){\bm{P}}^+_{YY}(k)})_i$ & for $i = n+1,2,3....2n$\\
\end{tabular}
Here $(\sqrt{(n+\kappa)\bm{P}^+_{YY}(k)})_i$ is the $i$th column of the matrix $\sqrt{(n+\kappa)\bm{P}^+_{YY}(k)}$.
$\kappa$ is a parameter that can be used for `fine tuning' and if the noise is considered Gaussian, then heuristically $\kappa$ can be selected in such a way that $n+\kappa=3$ \cite{Julier1997}. The sigma points are propagated to the $(k+1)$th time step using (\ref{eq:disc_sys}). The predicted mean $\bm{\widehat{Y}}^-$ at the $(k+1)$th time step can be computed as \cite{Julier2000}
\begin{align}
\bm{\widehat{Y}}^-(k+1) &=\sum_{i=0}^{2n}W_i{\bm{Y}_i}(k+1)\nonumber\\
&= \sum_{i=0}^{2n}W_i\bm{F}(k,\bm{Y}_i(k),\bm{\nu}(k))
\label{eq:UKF_mean}
\end{align}
and the predicted covariance \cite{Julier2000}
\begin{align}
{\bm{P}^-_{YY}}(k+1)=&\sum_{i=0}^{2n}W_i\left[{\bm{Y}_i}(k+1)-\bm{\widehat{Y}}^-(k+1)\right]\nonumber\\
&\times\left[{\bm{Y}_i}(k+1)-{\bf \widehat{Y}}^-(k+1)\right]^T
\label{eq:UKF_cov}
\end{align}
The predicted measurement is calculated from the computed measurements corresponding to the $i$th propagated sigma point and can be expressed as \cite{Julier2000}
\begin{equation}
{\bm{Z}}_i(k+1) = {\bm{h}}({\bm{Y}}_i(k+1))
\label{eq:sigma_m}
\end{equation}
Then the predicted measurement ${\bm{\widehat Z}}^-$ at $(k+1)$th time step is \cite{Julier2000}
\begin{equation}
{\bm{\widehat Z}}^-(k+1) = \sum_{i=0}^{2n}W_i\bm{Z}_i(k+1)
\label{eq:mean_meas}
\end{equation}
The innovation covariance i.e. the error covariance of the predicted measurement, is \cite{Julier2000}
\begin{align}
\bm{S} = &\sum_{i=0}^{2n}W_i\left[{\bm{Z}}_i(k+1) - {\bm{\widehat Z}}^-(k+1)\right]\nonumber\\
&\times\left[{\bm{Z}}_i(k+1) - {\bm{\widehat Z}}^-(k+1)\right]^T + \bm{R}
\label{eq:innov_cov}
\end{align}
where, $\bm R$ is the measurement noise covariance matrix. The cross covariance matrix is calculated by \cite{Julier2000}
\begin{align}
\bm{P}_{YZ} = &\sum_{i=0}^{2n}W_i\left[{\bm{Y}_i}(k+1)-\bm{\widehat{Y}}^-(k+1)\right]\nonumber\\
&\times\left[{\bm{Z}}_i(k+1) - {\bm{\widehat Z}}^-(k+1)\right]^T
\label{eq:cross_cov}
\end{align}
The measurement update of the estimation can be performed by the standard Kalman Filter equations
\begin{align}
\bm{K} &= {\bm{P}}_{YZ}\bm{S}^{-1}\nonumber\\
\bm{P}^+_{YY} &= \bm{P}^-_{YY} - \bm{K}\bm{S}\bm{K}^T\nonumber\\
\Delta{\bm{Z}} &= {\bm{Z}}(k+1) - {\bm{\widehat Z}}^-(k+1)\nonumber\\
\bm{\widehat{Y}}^+(k+1) &= \bm{\widehat{Y}}^-(k+1) + \bm{K}\Delta{\bm{Z}}\nonumber
\end{align}
As previously mentioned, the implementation of the UT requires system representation in the form of difference equations. However, the rigorous mathematical models of most physical systems are expressed in the form of differential equations and the difference equation forms of such systems are predominantly first order Taylor series approximations. For example, consider the mathematical process of converting the differential equation (\ref{eq:system}) to a difference equation. (\ref{eq:system}) can be expressed as
\begin{align}
\lim_{\delta t\to 0}\frac{{\bm{Y}}(t+\delta t)-{\bm{Y}}(t)}{\delta t} &= {\bm{f}}(t,{\bm{Y}}(t),{\bf \bm{\nu}}(t))\label{eq:lim}
\end{align}
This can be approximated as
\begin{align}
{\bm{Y}}(t+\delta t) \approx {\bm{Y}}(t)+{\bm{f}}(t,{\bm{Y}}(t),{\bf \bm{\nu}}(t))\delta t\label{eq:aprx}
\end{align}
If we consider the time interval $\delta t$ in a manner that $t/\delta t = k$ where, $k$ is a positive integer, then the above approximate equation becomes a difference equation
\begin{equation}
{\bm{Y}}(k+1) = {\bm{Y}}(k)+{\bm{f}}(k,{\bm{Y}}(k),{\bf \bm{\nu}}(k))\delta t
\label{eq:approx_eq}
\end{equation}
which is fundamentally a first order Taylor series approximation of ${\bm{Y}}(t)$ around $t$. In the UKF framework, propagation of sigma points requires $2n+1$ evaluations of the function $\bm{f}$. Use of a difference equation for sigma point calculation results in almost the same order of computational efficiency as an EKF depending on the complexity of the system. But this simple approximation can lead to huge prediction error for a highly non-linear system. To avoid this computation error, the differential equation must be used. (\ref{eq:system}) can be rewritten as
\begin{figure}%
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{./Figures/UKF_prop.eps}%
\caption{Propagation of sigma points using conventional UT}%
\label{fig:ukf_prop}%
\end{figure}
\begin{align}
{\bm{Y}}(t+\delta t) &= {\bm{Y}}(t)+\int_{t}^{t+\delta t}{{\bm{f}}(\tau,{\bm{Y}}(\tau),{\bf \bm{\nu}}(\tau))}d\tau\nonumber \\
&= {\bm{F}}(t,{\bm{Y}}(t),{\bf\bm{\nu}}(t))\label{eq:propagation}
\end{align}
To determine the \textit{a priori} mean and the error covariance using the UT, $2n+1$ sigma points must be propagated using (\ref{eq:propagation}). The UT approach is shown graphically in Fig. \ref{fig:ukf_prop}. Most of the time a numerical integration technique is adopted for the state propagation using a differential equation, and in this case the computation time for the UT will be much higher. Let us consider a case where a 4th order Runge-Kutta numerical integration method is adopted for the state propagation. Let ${\bm{\widehat{Y}}^+}(t)$ be the \textit{a posteriori} estimate of the state and $\bm{P}^+_{YY}$ be the estimated error covariance at time $t$. Using the Runge-Kutta technique at time $t+\delta t$ the first propagated sigma point will be,
\begin{equation}
{\bm{Y}}_0(t+\delta t) = {\bm{\widehat{Y}}^+}(t) + \frac{\delta t}{6}(\bm{k}_1+2\bm{k}_2+2\bm{k}_3+\bm{k}_4)
\label{eq:runge-kutta}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
\bm{k}_1 &= {\bm{f}}(t,{\bm{\widehat{Y}}^+}(t),{\bf \bm{\nu}}(t))\nonumber\\
\bm{k}_2 &= {\bm{f}}(t+\frac{\delta t}{2},{\bm{\widehat{Y}}^+}(t)+\frac{1}{2}\bm{k}_1\delta t,{\bf \bm{\nu}}(t+\frac{\delta t}{2}))\nonumber\\
\bm{k}_3 &= {\bm{f}}(t+\frac{\delta t}{2},{\bm{\widehat{Y}}^+}(t)+\frac{1}{2}\bm{k}_2\delta t,{\bf \bm{\nu}}(t+\frac{\delta t}{2}))\nonumber\\
\bm{k}_4 &= {\bm{f}}(t+\delta t,{\bm{\widehat{Y}}^+}(t)+\bm{k}_3\delta t,{\bf \bm{\nu}}(t+\delta t))\nonumber
\end{align}
The above-mentioned operations must be performed $2n+1$ times to propagate all the sigma points. As a result, in every prediction step the function $\bm{f}$ must be evaluated $4(2n+1)$ times. However, for accuracy, if $\frac{\delta t}{h}$ $(h \in \mathbb{N})$ step size is chosen to propagate the state vector from time $t$ to $t+\delta t$ then, the function $\bm{f}$ must be evaluated $4h(2n+1)$ times. To account for the process noise in the UKF, the state vector is augmented with the process noise terms \cite{Julier1997},
\begin{equation}
\bm{Y}_a(t) = \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{Y}(t)\\
\bm{\nu}(t)
\end{bmatrix}
\label{eq:augmented}
\end{equation}
and the sigma points for the UT are calculated from \cite{Julier1997},
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\bm{Y}}_a(t) = \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{\widehat Y}^+(t)\\
\bm{0}_{q\times 1}
\end{bmatrix}
\label{eq:augmented_0}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\bm{P}_a(t) = \left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\bm{P}(t) & \bm{P}_{Y\nu}(t)\\
\bm{P}_{Y\nu}(t) & \bm{Q}(t)
\end{array}\right]
\label{eq:augmented_cov}
\end{equation}
Here $\bm{P}_{Y\nu}$ is the cross covariance matrix of $\bm{Y}(t)$ and $\bm{\nu}(t)$, $q$ is the number of elements in $\bm{\nu}(t)$. The dimension of the augmented state vector is $m = n+q$. Then the number of sigma points to be propagated will be increased to $2m+1$. This puts a substantial computational burden on the processor. Computation time is one of the major constraints of any real-time system. Also, for many real-time applications, the computation power is limited due to several constraints. This makes the UKF difficult to implement in many real-time applications and the EKF remains the first choice of engineers regardless of the fact that UKF can provide a more accurate solution without adding fudge factors in the $\bm{Q}$ matrix. Prior work on improving the computational efficiency of the UKF involves reducing the number of sigma points, compromising the solution accuracy. Therefore, the underlying problem in implementation of the UKF for real-time application is the absence of a sigma point propagation method which is computationally efficient as well as capable of producing an estimation accuracy comparable to the original UKF. In this paper this problem is targeted and a different approach is suggested to significantly improve the computational efficiency of a generic UKF without reducing the number of sigma points.
\begin{figure}%
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{./Figures/UKFmod_prop.eps}%
\caption{Approximate sigma point propagation}%
\label{fig:ASPP}%
\end{figure}
To reduce the computation time we propose to propagate the \textit{a posteriori} state vector of the previous time step to the current time step using numerical integration as per the EKF and then approximate the other $2n$ (or $2m$) sigma points at the current time step. Fig. \ref{fig:ASPP} shows the hypothesised approach graphically. For approximate calculation of sigma points at the current time step, the deviations of the corresponding sigma points from the \textit{a posteriori} state vector at previous time step are used in the Taylor series expansion.
\subsection{Multi-dimensional Richardson Extrapolation and the ESPUKF}
\label{sec:richardson1}
As previously discussed, the accuracy of the state estimation using the UKF is of the order of the second-order Taylor series terms. To achieve similar accuracy using the new sigma point propagation, the second-order Taylor series terms must be included in the \textit{a priori} state vector computation. This can be performed by calculating the Hessian for the function $\bm{f}$. Computation of the Hessian matrix for a complex non-linear system with many state elements is difficult. However, Richardson Extrapolation method is renowned for improving the accuracy of a general approximation technique by an order of the Taylor series terms \cite{richardson1927deferred}. To avoid calculation involving the computation of the Hessian of a non-linear system a time-varying approximation of the Richardson Extrapolation method is adopted to include the second-order Taylor series terms in the \textit{a priori} state vector computation. Using Taylor series approximation,
\begin{align}
{\bm{Y}}_i(t+\delta t) &= {\bm{F}}(t,{\bm{Y}}_i(t),\bm{\nu}(t))\nonumber\\
&= {\bm{F}}(t,{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t),\bm{\nu}(t)) + \bm{ D_{\Delta Y_i}F}|_{{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t)}\nonumber\\
&+ \left[\frac{\bm{ D_{\Delta Y_i}^2}}{2!} +\frac{\bm{ D_{\Delta Y_i}^3}}{3!}+....\right]{\bm{F}}|_{{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t)}\nonumber\\
&= N_1\bm{ (\Delta Y_i)} + \left[\frac{\bm{ D_{\Delta Y_i}^2}}{2!}+\frac{\bm{ D_{\Delta Y_i}^3}}{3!}+....\right]{\bm{F}}|_{{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t)}
\label{eq:method1}
\end{align}
here
\begin{equation}
N_1\bm{ (\Delta Y_i)} = {\bm{F}}(t,{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t),\bm{\nu}(t)) + \bm{ D_{\Delta Y_i}F}|_{{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t)}
\label{eq:N1}
\end{equation}
The Taylor series expansion can also be performed in two steps as shown below:
\begin{align}
&{\bm{Y}}_i(t+\delta t)\nonumber\\
&= {\bm{F}}(t,{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t)+\frac{\bm{\Delta Y}_i}{2}+\frac{\bm{\Delta Y_i}}{2},\bm{\nu}(t))\nonumber\\
&= {\bm{F}}(t,{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t)+\frac{\bm{\Delta Y_i}}{2},\bm{\nu}(t))\nonumber\\
&+\left[{\bm{D_{\Delta Y_i/2}}}+\frac{\bm{D_{\Delta Y_i/2}^2}}{2!} +\frac{\bm{{D_{\Delta Y_i/2}^3}}}{3!}+....\right]{\bm{F}}|_{{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t) + \frac{\bm{\Delta Y_i}}{2}}\nonumber\\
&= {\bm{F}}(t,{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t),\bm{\nu}(t)) + {\bm{D_{\Delta Y/2}}}{\bm{F}}|_{{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t)}\nonumber\\
&+ {\bm{D_{\Delta Y/2}}}{\bm{F}}|_{{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t) + \frac{\bm{\Delta Y_i}}{2}}\nonumber\\
&+ \left[\frac{\bm{D_{\Delta Y_i/2}^2}}{2!} +\frac{\bf{{D_{\Delta Y_i/2}^3}}}{3!}+....\right]{\bm{F}}|_{{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t)}\nonumber\\
&+ \left[\frac{\bm{D_{\Delta Y_i/2}^2}}{2!} +\frac{\bf{{D_{\Delta Y_i/2}^3}}}{3!}+....\right]{\bm{F}}|_{{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t) + \frac{\bm{\Delta Y_i}}{2}}\nonumber\\
&= N_2(\frac{\bm{\Delta Y_i}}{2})+\left[\frac{1}{2^2}\frac{\bm{D^2_{\Delta Y_i}}}{2!} + \frac{1}{2^3}\frac{\bm{D^3_{\Delta Y_i}}}{3!}+...\right]{\bm{F}}|_{{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t)}\nonumber\\
&+ \left[\frac{1}{2^2}\frac{\bm{D^2_{\Delta Y_i}}}{2!} + \frac{1}{2^3}\frac{\bm{D^3_{\Delta Y_i}}}{3!}+...\right]{\bm{F}}|_{{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t)+\frac{\bm{\Delta Y_i}}{2}} \label{eq:method2}
\end{align}
here
\begin{align}
N_2(\frac{\bm{\Delta Y_i}}{2}) =& {\bm{F}}(t,{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t),\bm{\nu}(t)) + \bm{D_{\Delta Y/2}}{\bm{F}}|_{{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t)}\nonumber\\
& + \bm{D_{\Delta Y/2}}{\bm{F}}|_{{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t) + \frac{\bm{\Delta Y_i}}{2}}
\label{eq:N2}
\end{align}
Considering ${\bm{F}}(t,{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t),\bm{\nu}(t)) \approx{\bm{F}}(t,{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t)+\frac{\bm{\Delta Y_i}}{2},\bm{\nu}(t))$ and from (\ref{eq:method1}) and (\ref{eq:method2})
\begin{align}
{\bm{Y}}_i(t+\delta t) =& 2N_2(\frac{\bm{\Delta Y_i}}{2})-N_1{\bm{(\Delta Y_i)}}\nonumber\\
&-\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{\bm{D^3_{\Delta Y_i}}}{3!} + \frac{3}{4}\frac{\bm{D^4_{\Delta Y_i}}}{4!}+...\right]{\bm{F}}|_{{\bm{\widehat{Y}}}^+(t)}
\label{eq:Richardson}
\end{align}
The implication of (\ref{eq:Richardson}) is: if ${\bm{Y}}_i(t+\delta t)$ is approximated using the method $(2N_2(\frac{\bm{\Delta Y_i}}{2})-N_1(\bm{\Delta Y_i}))$, then the error due to the approximation term will be of the order of the 3rd order terms of the Taylor series expansion. With this improvement, a better mean and error covariance propagation is expected and improved estimation accuracy is anticipated. In the ESPUKF, this extrapolation method is utilized to obtain better estimation accuracy. Using the similar approach of section \ref{sec:Error_estimate}, it can be proved that, the error in the state and the error covariance estimation using the ESPUKF is of the order of the third-order Taylor series terms.
\section{Application of the SPUKF and the ESPUKF to Satellite Navigation}
\label{sec:satnav}
\begin{table}%
\begin{center}
\caption{Processing time and average altitude error for different algorithms}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
\rule{0pt}{2ex}Algorithm & Processing time & Average steady state\\
& per time step (ms) & altitude error (ft)\\ \hline
\rule{0pt}{2ex}EKF & 1.5 & 27.91\\
UKF & 21.1 & 1.19 \\
SSUKF & 14.98 & 1.53 \\
SPUKF & 2.0 & 14.69\\
ESPUKF & 3.0 & 2.04\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:EUKF}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Implementation of a UKF in a real-time on-board satellite navigation scenario was the primary motivation for developing a method of reducing the processing time of the UKF. In the problem under consideration, position of a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite is to be determined from the Global Positioning System (GPS) and Galileo measurements. A SPIRENT Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) simulator was used to simulate the the GPS and Galileo constellations, the signals to be received by the user LEO satellite from all the GNSS satellites and the orbital motion of the user LEO satellite. A University of New South Wales (UNSW) Namuru V3.3 multi-GNSS receiver was used to acquire the simulated signal. The pseudo-range measurements are recorded and used to estimate position of the user satellite using the EKF, UKF, SSUKF, SPUKF and the ESPUKF.
\subsection{System Model}
The state vector associated with the satellite motion is:
\begin{equation}
\bm{X}_{sat} = \begin{bmatrix}
{\bm{r}}\\
{\bm{v}}
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}x &y &z &v_x &v_y &v_z\end{bmatrix}^T
\label{eq:eq1}
\end{equation}
where
${\bm{r}}=[x\quad y\quad z]^T$ is the position vector of the satellite in the Earth Centred Inertial (ECI) frame and
${\bm{v}}=[v_x \quad v_y \quad v_z]^T$ is the velocity vector of the satellite in the ECI frame. $J_2$, $J_3$ and $J_4$ zonal harmonics and neglecting the effect of the Sun and the Moon on the acceleration, the acceleration of the satellite due to the Earth's gravity field are considered in the satellite acceleration model \cite{vallado2001fundamentals,qiao2009multiple}. The differential equation for the states can be represented as:
\begin{equation}
\bm{\dot{X}}_{sat} = \begin{bmatrix}
{\bm\dot{r}}\\
{\bm\dot{v}}
\end{bmatrix} + \bm{W}_{sat}(t) = \begin{bmatrix}
{\bm v}\\
{\bm\ddot{r}}
\end{bmatrix} + {\bm W_{sat}(t)}
\label{eq:eq3}
\end{equation}
Here the $\bm W_{sat}$ vector is the process noise vector which represents the unmodeled dynamics of the motion. Apart from the states associated with satellite motion, the receiver clock biases for GPS and Galileo are separately considered in the estimable state vector. Although the Namuru V3.3 receiver uses a single clock for both the GPS and Galileo constellations, internally an inter-system bias is introduced. For this reason, two state elements associated with the receiver clock bias are included. A receiver clock bias model can be represented as a first order Markov process. The receiver clock biases dynamics can be represented as \cite{Misra2006}:
\begin{equation}
\bm{\dot{X}}_{clk} = \begin{bmatrix}
w_{GPS}\\
w_{GAL}
\end{bmatrix}
\label{eq:eq4}
\end{equation}
where,
${\bm X_{clk}} = [\delta t_{GPS}\quad \delta t_{GAL}]^T$, ${\bm W_{clk}} = [w_{GPS}\quad w_{GAL}]^T$ is a random noise vector. $\delta t_{GPS}$ is the receiver clock bias for GPS and $\delta t_{GAL}$ is the receiver clock bias for Galileo. The complete state vector and the process noise for the estimation are:
\begin{align*}
\bm{X} = \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{X}_{sat}\\
\bm{X}_{clk}
\end{bmatrix} &&
\bm{W} = \begin{bmatrix}
\bm{W}_{sat}\\
\bm{W}_{clk}
\end{bmatrix} &&
\end{align*}
\subsection{Measurement model}
Pseudo-range measurements of the GNSS are modelled as \cite{kaplan2005understanding,Misra2006} :
\begin{equation}
\rho_{i}(t) = r_i(t) + c[\delta t_u(t) - \delta t_i(t - \tau)] + I(t) + \epsilon_{\rho}(t)
\label{eq:eq5}
\end{equation}
here, $i$ is the GNSS satellite index, $\rho_i$ is the pseudo-range from the LEO satellite, $\rho_i$ is the pseudo-range from the LEO satellite to the navigation satellite, $r_i$ is the geometric distance from LEO satellite to the navigation satellite, $\delta t_u$ is the receiver clock bias, $\delta t_i$ is the clock bias of the navigation satellite, $\tau$ is the signal transmission time, $c$ is the velocity of light, $I(t)$ is the ionospheric error, $\epsilon_{\rho}(t)$ is the random noise in the pseudo-range measurement. For a space application the ionospheric error is insignificant unless precise position is required. The ionospheric error is neglected in the measurement simulation for this reason.
\subsection{Simulation Result}
Using the system model described by (\ref{eq:eq3}) and (\ref{eq:eq4}), the measurement model equation (\ref{eq:eq5}) and the simulated measurements, the position of the user satellite is estimated using different algorithms. The simulation time span was 120 minutes. The GPS time system was used in the simulation and the time axis in all the plots represents the seconds of the GPS week. The initial position of the satellite was fixed using Least Squares Estimation and used for initialization of all the filters. In Fig. \ref{fig:sat_filter} the norm of the position estimation errors for different estimation algorithms in the ECI frame are plotted for 60 seconds from the starting time. It can be observed that the norm of the estimated position errors lies within $20$m for the EKF, UKF, SSUKF, SPUKF and the ESPUKF.
\begin{figure}[h!]%
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{./Figures/sat_nav.eps}%
\caption{Comparison of the estimated position error}%
\label{fig:sat_filter}%
\end{figure}
\begin{table}%
\caption{Processing Time and Average Position Error for Different Algorithms}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|}
\hline
\rule{0pt}{2ex}Algorithm & Processing time & Average\\
&per Time Step (ms) & position error (m)\\ \hline
\rule{0pt}{2ex}EKF & 4.4 & 3.461\\
UKF & 75.9 & 3.448 \\
SSUKF & 45.1 & 3.450 \\
SPUKF & 5.6 & 3.455\\
ESPUKF & 10 & 3.455\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:sat}
\end{table}
Compared to the UKF, the SPUKF and ESPUKF requires much less processing time. The processing time for the SPUKF is reduced by 92.6\% compared to the original UKF. The ESPUKF provides the same average estimation error and the processing time is reduced by 86.8\%. However, the processing time for the ESPUKF is almost twice of the processing time of the SPUKF because the propagated sigma points must be approximated twice. It is to be noted that, the estimation accuracy of the SPUKF and the ESPUKF for the re-entry vehicle problem are different, whereas for the GNSS based satellite navigation problem the estimation accuracies for both the methods are similar. It is anticipated that, for the satellite position estimation problem using the SPUKF the prediction error due to the second-order terms of the Taylor series expansion is not significant but the same has a significant effect on the re-entry vehicle tracking problem. Table \ref{tab:sat} shows the processing time per time step and the estimation errors for different algorithms.
The computational efficiency of the suggested two methods can be compared with the established processing time reduction techniques like the SSUT and the MUT. State vector prediction using the SSUT requires propagation of $n+2$ sigma points. In this paper it is shown that, theoretically only the \textit{a posteriori} state vector can be propagated to the current time and all the sigma points can be approximated. The results in sections \ref{sec:rep_cs} and \ref{sec:satnav} confirm that the approximation works satisfactorily. In view of the fact that only one state vector is propagated in each time step for the SPUKF and the ESPUKF, it can be argued that the computational efficiency of the aforementioned methods are significantly higher than the SSUKF. The results of the re-entry vehicle tracking problem and the GNSS based satellite navigation problem support the argument. A similar argument can be applied for the comparison with the MUT. Apart from better computational efficiency, the SPUKF and the ESPUKF have another advantage over the MUT. These two methods can be applied to any non-linear system which is continuous in $\mathds{R}^n$ but the MUT can be applied only to the systems which contain linear substructures. |
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Large scale structures with highly anisotropic shapes were first theoretically predicted by Zeldovich approximation (hereafter ZA) \citep{Zeldovich1970}. The model based on ZA suggested that the eigenvalues of the deformation tensor dictate the shapes of the {\it collapsed} structures at the beginning non-linear stage of gravitational instability (\citealt{Arnold1982}, see also \citealt{Shandarin1989} and \citealt{Hidding2014}). These structures were found to be crudely characterised as two-, one- and zero- dimensional which actually meant that three characteristic scales of each structure ($L_1\ge L_2\ge L_3$) are approximately related as $L_1^{(p)} \approx L_2^{(p)} \gg L_3^{(p)}$ or $L_1^{(f)} \gg L_2^{(f)} \approx L_3^{(f)}$ or $L_1^{(h)} \approx L_2^{(h)} \approx L_3^{(h)} $ respectively. In addition it implied that $L_1^{(p)} \approx L_1^{(f)}$ and $L_3^{(p)} \approx L_2^{(f)} \approx L_1^{(h)}$.\footnote{The multi-scale character of the cosmic web was not discussed until 1990s.} At present these generic types of structures are referred to as walls/pancakes/sheets/membranes, filaments and haloes. Although the accuracy of the Zeldovich approximation deteriorates from pancakes to filaments and especially to halos on qualitative level there are no more types of structures. Altogether these structures contain the most of mass in the universe nevertheless they occupy very little space. The most of space is almost empty and is referred to as voids.
\cite{Klypin1983a} (firstly reported in \citealt{Shandarin1983}) were the first to identify a `three dimensional web structure' in the N-body simulation of the hot dark matter scenario. The simulation with $32^3$ particles used Cloud-in-Cell (CIC) technique on equal mesh revealed that the gravitationally bound clumps of mass -- haloes in the present-day terminology -- were linked by the web of filamentary enhancements of density which spanned throughout the entire simulation box with the side of about 150$h^{-1}$Mpc in co-moving space. In addition \cite{Klypin1983a} suggested that pancakes must be considerably less dense than the filaments since they were not detected in the simulation. These results were quickly confirmed by \cite{Centrella1983} and \cite{Frenk1983}. In addition \cite{Centrella1983} who ran the simulation on similar mesh but with 27 times more particles also detected pancakes at $\rho/\bar{\rho} = 2$ level. At present this picture is widely accepted, and is referred to as the `cosmic web' (\citealt{Bond1996} and \citealt{Weygaert2008c}).
Galactic distributions in redshift surveys have also revealed distinct geometries and topologies of the cosmic web. One of the first indications of the connection of the clusters of galaxies by filaments was demonstrated by \cite{Gregory1978} who discovered a conspicuous chain of galaxies between Coma and A1367 clusters using a sample of 238 galaxies. Later this result was confirmed by \cite{DeLapparent1986} who used a significantly greater redshift catalogue of 1100 galaxies of the same region. \cite{Zeldovich1982} compared the percolation properties of the redshift catalogue of 866 local galaxies provided by J. Huchra with three theoretical distribution of particle in space: a Poisson distribution, the hierarchical model by \cite{Soneira1978} and the particle distribution obtained from N-body simulation by \cite{Klypin1983a}. They found that the both the galaxy sample and the density field obtained in N-body simulation percolated at considerably smaller filling factors than the Poisson distribution. On the other hand the hierarchical model percolated at higher filling factors than the Poisson distribution. Further studies confirmed that the galaxies and the particles in the hot dark matter model are arranged in the web-like structures \cite{Zeldovich1982}, \cite{Shandarin1983}, \cite{Shandarin1983b}, \cite{Shandarin1984}. This result was confirmed in more detailed analysis by \cite{Einasto1984}. \cite{Melott1983b} also found similar percolation properties in the mass distribution in the N-body simulation of a CDM model.
Thus by the early 1990s it was clearly demonstrated that the web like structure is a generic type for a wide range of initial conditions in both two-(\citealt{Melott1990}, \citealt{Beacom1991}) and three- dimensional \citep{Melott1993} cosmological N-body simulations. However it also was demonstrated that the quantitative parameters of the web structures depend on the initial power spectrum. Remarkably the simulations also showed that adding small scale perturbations does not ruin the large scale structures if the slope of the power spectrum is negative in both two- and three- dimensional simulations.
All aspects of these studies have been experiencing great advancements in three decades passed since the discovery and first studies of the geometry and topology of the large-scale structures. The galaxy redshift catalogues have grown by thousands of times (by surveys such as Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) \citealt{Tegmark2003} and \citealt{Albareti2016} and the 2MASS Redshift Survey \citealt{Huchra2012}), the sizes of cosmological N-body simulations (modern large scale simulations like Millennium \citealt{Springel2005b} and Q-Continuum \citealt{Heitmann2015}) by more than a million times. The number of various methods for identifying structures has also grown practically from one method\footnote{FOF was used for the topological studies via percolation technique and identifying super clusters of galaxies (\citealt{Zeldovich1982}, \citealt{Shandarin1983}, \citealt{Shandarin1983b} on the one hand and for identifying halos \citealt{Davis1985} on the other.} to several dozens (\citealt{Colberg2008}, \citealt{Knebe2011a}, \citealt{Onions2012}, \citealt{Knebe2013} and references therein). Measuring or quantifying the structures always has been a difficult problem and many sophisticated techniques both mathematically and computationally have been proposed and investigated (see reviews by \citealt{Weygaert2008c}, \citealt{Weygaert2008}).
\begin{comment}
Most of structure finders are halo finders only and most of them are stemmed from three types suggested long ago.
One of them is the SO (Spherical Over-density) halo finder that defines halos as spherical regions whose mass density
exceeds the mean density by a specified factor \citep{Press1974}.
Another is the FOF (Friends-of-Friends) halo finder describing haloes as the groups of particles separated less than
a specified linking length often chosen as 0.2 times the mean particle separation \citep{Davis1985}.
Finally the DENMAX (DENsity MAXimum) halo finder assumes that the halos are the peaks of the density fields
and thus selects the particles concentrated in the vicinity of the density maxima \citep{Bertschinger1991}.
One of the common features of these techniques is that all three are density based in one form or another.
And all of them depend on free parameters that are chosen chiefly on the `merits principle' \citep{Forero-Romero2009a}
rather than on physics. Over the years all three kinds of the halo finders have been experiencing various modifications and
improvements. A few examples from a long list of these modifications may include: (i) more accurate sophisticated
techniques of generation the density field from the particle positions,
(ii) adaptive methods controlling the linking length in methods using FOF,
(iii) hybrid halo finders,
(iv) adaptive methods for searching the positions of density maxima,
(v) additional physical principles like excluding particle that are not gravitationally bound to the haloes,
(vi) generalization of FOF and DENMAX techniques to six-dimensional phase space,
and many others.
A nice summary discussing these developments as well as describing a few new suggestions is given
in four comparison project papers quoted above.
In addition to the refinements and generalizations of these basic methods a few new techniques have been
developed for identifying haloes and structures with other geometries like filaments and walls.
\end{comment}
Cosmic web structures have been characterized using several geometrical and topological indicators such as genus curves (\cite{Gott1986}). In an attempt to characterize the shapes of individual regions in the excursion sets of the density field, \cite{Sahni1998} suggested to use partial Minkowski functionals. They developed the method labelled SURFGEN and applied it to CIC density field obtained in N-body simulations
(\citealt{Sathyaprakash1998}, \citealt{Sheth2003}, \citealt{Shandarin2004}). \cite{Aragon-Calvo2007} have developed the multi-scale MMF (Multi-scale Morphology Filter) detection technique based on the signs of three eigenvalues of the Hessian computed for a set of replicas of the density field filtered on different scales. Similar multi-scale approaches to identifying structures is adopted in NEXUS and its extensions to velocity shear, divergence, and tidal fields \cite{Cautun2013}. More recently, persistence and Morse-Smale complexes in the density fields are analysed by \cite{Sousbie2011a}, \cite{Sousbie2011b} and \cite{Shivshankar2015a} to detect multi-scale morphology of the cosmic web.
There is also an increasing interest in the measures for detecting filaments in large astronomical surveys. Topology in the large scale structure was analysed by Betti Numbers for Gaussian fields \citep{Park2013} and SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey \citep{Parihar2014}. \cite{Sousbie2008a} detected skeleton of filaments of the SDSS and compared to the corresponding galaxy distribution. In smoothed density of mock galaxy distribution, \cite{Bond2010a} studied the projection of eigenvalues. The Hessian eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue is used by \cite{Bond2010b} to trace individual filaments in N-body simulations and the SDSS redshift survey data. Majority of the above analyses, however, ignore the dynamical information from the velocity field.
On the other hand, detection of voids and study of their morphological properties are done via numerous methods too. Traditional detection of void regions using just the particle coordinates differ based on the various methods used to identify them (see comparison of void finders in \citealt{Colberg2008} and references therein). Some methods involve using under-density thresholds. \cite{Blumenthal1992} proposed that the mean density in voids is $\delta = -0.8$ by applying linear theory argument. Similar threshold was used by \cite{Colberg2005} to identify voids. Under-dense excursion set approach was used by \cite{Shandarin2006} to identify percolating voids. \cite{Sheth2004a} used the excursion set formalism to develop an analytical model for the distribution voids in hierarchical structure formation (also see the excursion set approaches applied to voids by \citealt{Paranjape2012}, \citealt{Jennings2013} and \citealt{Achitouv2015}). Voids are also detected by isolating regions around local minima of density fields. For instance, the watershed transform is used by WVF-\cite{Platen2007}, ZOBOV-\cite{Neyrinck2008} and VIDE-\cite{Sutter2015} for segmentation of under-dense regions.
The unfiltered density field was generated using DTFE-Delaunay Tessellation Field Estimator (\citealt{Schaap2000}, \citealt{Weygaert2009a} and \citealt{Cautun2011}) by applying it to the particle coordinates. Earlier it was shown that DTFE is superior to CIC techniques (\citealt{Schaap2007} and \citealt{Weygaert2009a}) in generation of the density field with high spatial resolution. In a new approach to the analysis of the shapes of the large-scale structures, \cite{Sousbie2011a} introduced DIScrete Persistent Structure Extractor ({DisPerSE}) based on Morse-smale complex. By implementing it on realistic cosmological simulations and observed redshift catalogues \cite{Sousbie2011e} found that DisPerSE traces very well the observed filaments, walls and voids.
An additional dimension to the scope of the structure shapes is related to the question whether the density distribution (regardless of it form: continuous or discrete) is the only physical diagnostic of the cosmic web shapes or not. If not, then whether it is the best of all or not. And even if it is the best, then whether the other fields or distributions can provide a valuable contribution to understanding the shapes of the cosmic web or not. The answer to the latter question seems to be positive. In fact there are examples of attempts to bring new players into the field. For instance \cite{Hahn2007} and \cite{Forero-Romero2009a} studied the relation between the geometry of structures and the Hessian of the gravitational potential. \cite{Shandarin2011} demonstrated that the study of the multistream field reveals some features of the structures that cannot be easily seen in the density field. This has become even more evident when \cite{Shandarin2012} and \cite{Abel2012b} showed that the full dynamical information in the form of three-dimensional sub-manifold in six-dimensional phase space can be easily obtained from the initial and final coordinates of the particles in DM simulations. \cite{Hahn2015a} showed that this method provides extremely accurate estimates of the cosmic velocity fields and its derivatives. It has been shown that the multistream field provides a physical definition of voids in N-body DM simulations by the local condition $n_{str} = 1$ (\citealt{Shandarin2012} and \citealt{Ramachandra2015}). \cite{Falck2012} proposed the {ORIGAMI} method of assigning particles to structures based on the number of axes along which particle crossing has occurred. Void, wall, filament, and halo particles are particles that have been crossed along 0, 1, 2, and 3 orthogonal axes, respectively. \cite{Shandarin2016} identify the void particles as the ones that do not undergo any {\it flip-flop} through the evolution. Each of above definitions completely independent of any free parameters, with small differences in the physical implication.
Tracing the Lagrangian sub-manifold also provides rich insights into caustics (\cite{Arnold1982} and \citealt{Hidding2014}) and halo collapse \cite{Neyrinck2015a}. Recently, there are attempts to improve N-body simulations (see \cite{Hahn2013}, \cite{Angulo2013a}, \cite{Angulo2013b}, \cite{Sousbie2015} and \cite{Hahn2016a}) by solving the Vlasav-Poisson equation using tessellations in the Lagrangian sub-manifold. Galaxy evolution and star formation in the context of multi streaming phenomenon are studied by \cite{Aragon-Calvo2016b}.
Despite the considerable improvements in simulating, identifying and measuring the cosmic web
-- briefly discussed above -- many aspects remain unsettled and are vigorously debated.
The intention of this work is to further investigate the strengths and weaknesses of the multistream field as a complimentary diagnostic of the shapes in the DM web.
Multi-stream filed is simply the number of DM streams at every point of Eulerian space. Thus it is an odd positive integer at a given point (\citealt{Arnold1982}, see also \citealt{Shandarin1989} and \citealt{Hidding2014}). We estimated it on a regular mesh of a chosen resolution from the tessellation of of the simulation particles in Lagrangian space and the particle coordinates at a chosen time \cite{Shandarin2012}.
The external boundaries of the cold DM web are the caustics in the density field which are clearly seen in
the simulations with adequate resolution of the density field (see e.g. Fig 7 in \citet{Hahn2015a}). However the exactly same boundaries of the DM web can be identified as the boundaries of a single-stream flow which is a local parameter. The multistream field even a better indicator of the boundaries of the DM web than caustics because caustics are present everywhere the number of streams varies (from 1 to 3, from 3 to 5, etc) but the boundary of the web are only the one where the number of stream changes from 1 to 3.
In particular we would like to discuss the differences in defining voids in density and multistream fields. It is closely related to the definition and distinguishing of linear and non-linear structures or regimes. One simple statistical definition that often used is as follows: after defining the std of the density contrast $\sigma_{\delta} \equiv <(\rho(x)/ \bar{\rho} - 1)^2>^{1/2}$ one can roughly separate the linear and non-linear regimes by the boundary $\sigma_{\delta}=1$. This is obviously very crude characteristic which does not say much about the geometry and topology of the non-linear structures. The parameter $\sigma_{\delta}$ is frequently is evaluated for filtered fields $\sigma_{\delta} = \sigma_{\delta}(R_{\rm f})$. Unfortunately the transition from `non-linear' field at small $R_{\rm f}$ to `linear' field at large $R_{\rm f}$ is smooth and thus choosing a particular value of $R_{\rm f}$ is remarkably subjective.
A related but different question is how to select individual non-linear structure, like halos, filaments and walls by using a local parameter. In particular the density threshold has been used on numerous occasions especially for identifying halos and voids. As a rule the choices of particular values have not been justified by solid physical evidences. The virial mass and virial radius of a halo are often used as direct indicators of gravitationally bound objects but they are determined by a nonlocal quantity -- the mean overdensity of the halo.
An interesting compaison of several kinds of boundaries of halos was provided by \cite{More2015}. In particular they considered the virial radius $R_{\rm vir}$, $R_{\rm 200m}$, the splashback radius $R_{\rm sp}$, and $R_{\rm infall}$. The splashback
radius is defined as an average distance from the center of the halo to the most external caustic if it was resolved. The authors argue
that it is ``a more physical halo boundary choice" than ``commonly defined to enclose a density contrast $\Delta_{\rm m,c}$ relative to
a reference (mean or critical) density.
This is the boundary where the number of streams falls from three to one in the multistream field.
Gravitationally bound structures could be defined as linear in the sense that $\delta({\bf x}) \ll 1$ for all points in the structure. A simple example is a progenitor of large halo at linear stage. However one cannot accurately identify such an object at linear
stage using a local criterion like a density threshold. Even at the nonlinear stage of N-body simulation one cannot predict
when a particular fluid element with a given value of $\delta$ in a void will be accreted to a wall or filament. Among other factors
the size of the void and proximity to a wall would play significant roles. In addition the walls accrete expanding fluid elements
as well thus the velocity divergence on the fluid element would not help.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows: we describe the cosmological simulations in Section \ref{sec:simulation}. Some of the important features of the multistream field are described in Section \ref{sec:multiCalc}. Topology of the single-streaming voids is discussed in \ref{sec:voids} and that of the multistream structure is investigated using percolation theory in Section \ref{sec:percolation}. . Discussion of the local geometry of multistream field using Hessian matrices is done in Section \ref{sec:hessian}.
\begin{comment}
In Section \ref{sec:haloDetection}, we prescribe a framework to identify dark matter haloes using Hessian eigenvalues in the multistream field. We also discuss a few properties of the haloes and comparison with AHF and FOF algorithms.
We also discuss the spatial distribution of the dark matter haloes along the percolating structure.
\end{comment}
\section{The simulation}
\label{sec:simulation}
In this analysis, we use cosmological N-body simulations generated by the tree-PM code {GADGET-2} (\citealt{Springel2005} and \citealt{Springel2001}).
The periodic side lengths $L$, number of particles $N_p$, masses of each particle $m_p$ and the gravitational softening length $\epsilon$ for the two simulations are tabulated in \autoref{tab:Simulations}. Initial conditions at redshift of $z_{ini}= 80$ are generated by {MUSIC} \citep{Hahn2011a} with the transfer function from \cite{Eisenstein1998a}. We adopt the $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model with cosmological parameters $\Omega_{m}= 0.276$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}= 0.724$, the Hubble parameter, $h = 0.703$, the power spectrum normalization, $\sigma_8 = 0.811$ and the spectral index $n_s= 0.961$.
\begin{table}
\caption{Parameters for the simulation boxes: Side length $L$, number of particles $N_p$, mass of each particle $m_p$, and the gravitational softening length $\epsilon$ for the GADGET simulations are shown.}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c| }
\hline
$L$ & $N_p$ & $m_p$ & $\epsilon$ \\ \hline
$100 h^{-1} Mpc$ & $128^3$ & $ 3.65 \times 10^{10} h^{-1} M_{\sun}$ & $20 h^{-1} kpc$\\ \hline
$100 h^{-1} Mpc$ & $256^3$ & $ 4.57 \times 10^{9} h^{-1} M_{\sun}$ & $10 h^{-1} kpc$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:Simulations}
\end{table}
\begin{comment}
Two halo finders are also used to identify potential haloes with 20 or more particles at $z= 0$: a classic Friends-of-Friends method (FOF-\citealt{Davis1985}) using a popular linking length, $ b= 0.2$ (e.g. \citealt{Frenk1988} and \citealt{Lacey1994}) and the Adaptive Mesh Investigations of Galaxy Assembly (AMIGA halo finder or AHF-\citealt{Knollmann2009a}, \citealt{Gill2004a}). Halo catalogue from these halo finders are used to compare with our implementation of halo detection in the multistream field.
\end{comment}
\subsection{Multi-stream field at $z=0$}
\label{sec:multiCalc}
\begin{figure}
\centering\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig1.pdf}
\caption{3D rendering of the multistream field: the cosmic web structure of a $ 50 h^{-1} \text{Mpc} \times 50 h^{-1} \text{Mpc} \times 50 h^{-1} \text{Mpc}$ slice in a simulation box of side length $100 h^{-1}$ Mpc and $128^3$ particles. The multistream field is calculated at 8 times the native resolution. void(black) is a percolating structure with $n_{str} = 1$. Regions $n_{str} \geq 17$ show a filamentary structure (gray) and the bright spots at the intersections of the filaments are regions with $n_{str} \geq 100$. }
\label{fig:full}
\end{figure}
The multistream field objectively characterizes the level of non-linearity in the cosmic web. The `number-of-streams' field or $n_{str}(\bmath{x})$ is computed from the Lagrangian sub-manifold $\bmath{x}(\bmath{q})$, which is a continuous three-dimensional sheet in a six-dimensional $(\bmath{q}, \bmath{x})$ space. In this paper, we utilize the tessellation implementation by \cite{Shandarin2012} to calculate the multistream flow field on the GADGET-2 snapshot at $z=0$. This implementation only requires initial and final coordinates of the dark matter particles.
The $n_{str}(\bmath{x})$ values are mostly odd-numbered since each folding in the Lagrangian sub-manifold results in an increase of $n_{str}$ by 2. Exception to this are only at caustics - which have volume measure zero, then the $n_{str}$ is even-valued number. The particles in $n_{str} = 1$ have not experienced orbit crossings and thus these regions are unambiguously identified as void \citep{Shandarin2012}. Foldings in the Lagrangian sub-manifold generally occur one-by-one. For example, a contour of $n_{str} = 7$ will be within a region of $n_{str} \leq 5$. Hence the multistream field commonly has nesting shells, i.e., $ 3 \supseteq 5 \supseteq 7 \supseteq 9 \supseteq 11 \ldots$. Some of the important features of the multistream field are discussed in Appendix \ref{appendix:nstream}.
The first non-linear DM structures that reach non-perturbative stage of gravitational evolution have $n_{str} = 3$. By visual inspection, these regions generally form a fabric-like open structures that resemble walls. N-body simulations suggest that a DM fluid element after the first
crossing of a caustic never returns in a single-streaming state. Therefore the {\it local} condition $n_{str}({\bf r}_{\rm f.e.}) \geq 3$
(where ${\bf r}_{\rm f.e.}$ is the position of the fluid element) is sufficient for the fluid element to be bound to the DM web.
All particles that have fallen into a wall will never return to any single-streaming regions, therefore they can be labeled as gravitationally bound to pancakes/walls. The surface contours of higher $n_{str}$ are embedded within the walls. \autoref{fig:full} shows a filamentary structure of the multistream web at $n_{str} \geq 17$. The figure also shows regions around local maxima of the multistream field, which are generally located at the intersections of filaments.
The multistream field can be computed at arbitrary resolutions of diagnostic grids. The parameter `refinement factor' denotes the ratio of separation of the particles in Lagrangian grid, $l_l$, to side length of diagnostic grid $l_d$. In a simulation of $128^3$ particles, for instance, multistream field computed on a diagnostic grid of size $256^3$ would have a refinement factor of $l_l/l_d = 2$.
\begin{comment}
The effects of refinement of the diagnostic grid are discussed in Section \ref{sec:voids} and Section \ref{sub:HaloProperties}.
\end{comment}
\section{Voids in the multistream field}
\label{sec:voids}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[height=11cm]{fig2.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Opposite faces of the multistream field for the simulation box with $N_p = 128^3$. Non-void regions (gray) have $n_{str} > 1$. The largest void (white) in the entire field spans over the entire box. Rest of the smaller isolated voids (red) occupy very small volume fraction. }
\label{fig:voidFace}
\end{figure*}
Gravitational instability results in movement of the collision-less fluid particles in the Universe from voids to walls, walls to filaments, and filaments to haloes. As we mentioned above in the multistream portrait, the entry of mass particles from single-streaming regions into $n_{str} > 1$ region is irreversible. The converse is obviously not true, that is, the particles in $n_{str} = 1$ regions may move to multistreaming region at a later time in the evolution. At a given cosmic time, sufficient condition for dark matter particles to be bound to non-perturbative and non-linear structures like walls/filaments/haloes is being in multistream regions. Therefore, a single-stream flow implies that gravitationally bound structures haven't yet formed, and thus defined as a void region. This definition of void is unambiguous and physically motivated, as demonstrated by \cite{Shandarin2012}. It is worth stressing that while the density in voids varies, the number-of-streams is uniformly equal to unity.
For simulation box with $128^3$ particles, $n_{str} = 1$ regions have a large volume fraction of $VF_V \approx 93$ per cent regardless of the value of refinement factor (shown in \autoref{tab:VoidStat}). Multi-stream web structure in the simulation with higher mass resolution ($N_p = 256^3$) is better enhanced, and the single streaming void occupies around $90$ per cent of the volume. \autoref{fig:voidFace} shows the single streaming voids occupying large volume of the simulation with $128^3$ particles at refinement factor of 4.
\begin{table}
\caption{Volume fraction $VF_V$ of the voids, total number of isolated voids $N_V$ and the filling fraction of the largest void $FF_1/VF_V$ at different refinement factors $l_l/l_d$. The filling fractions of the largest void at each refinement factor show that most of the $n_{str} = 1 $ region is almost entirely a single percolating structure.}
\begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|r|r| }
\hline
$N_p$ & $l_l/l_d$ & $VF_V$ & $N_V$ & $FF_1/VF_V$ \\ \hline
$ 128^3$ & $ 1$ & 93.46\% & 1 & 100\% \\ \hline
$ 128^3$ & $ 2$ & 93.44\% & 11 & 99.999\% \\ \hline
$ 128^3$ & $ 4$ & 93.44\% & 113 & 99.999\% \\ \hline
$ 128^3$ & $ 8$ & 93.44\% & 914 & 99.997\% \\ \hline
$ 256^3$ & $ 1$ & 90.80\% & 11 & 99.999\% \\ \hline
$ 256^3$ & $ 2$ & 90.80\% & 97 & 99.999\% \\ \hline
$ 256^3$ & $ 4$ & 90.80\% & 1029 & 99.997\% \\ \hline
$ 256^3$ & $ 8$ & 90.80\% & 7259 & 99.964\% \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:VoidStat}
\end{table}
\subsection{Connectivity of the voids}
\label{sec:voidPerc}
In order to find whether the void regions of the multistream field are connected or not, we isolate three-dimensional segments with $n_{str} = 1$ and separately label them. The number of disconnected voids in the simulation with $N_p = 128^3$ range from 1 (for refinement factor, $l_l/l_d = 1$) to about $900$ (for $l_l/l_d= 8$) as shown in \autoref{tab:VoidStat}. Number of isolated voids increases similarly in the simulation with $N_p = 256^3$ particles as well.
Smoothing of the structure at lower resolution of the multistream field results in increased connectivity of single-streaming regions. In \autoref{fig:voidFace}, opposite faces on each axes of the multi-field, show a large connected void (white). This means that the largest void percolated throughout the multistream field in all directions. This result is in agreement with \cite{Falck2015}, who studied percolation of ORIGAMI-voids in simulations with side lengths of $100$ and $200 h^{-1} \text{Mpc}$. In addition to the percolating the field, the largest void also fills most of the void volume: the ratio of filling fraction of the largest void $FF_1$ to the volume fraction of $n_{str} = 1$ regions in the simulation is close to unity (see \autoref{tab:VoidStat}). This phenomenon is seen at each of the refinement factors in our analysis. Hence, over $99.9$ per cent of the single-streaming sites are connected throughout the simulation box, and they form a single empty region.
As previously mentioned, the multistream web structures of $n_{str} = 3$ form the first gravitationally collapsed structures. These tiny structures are better resolved in higher refinement factors, and they tend to enclose greater number of pockets of single-streaming voids inside them. The red regions in \autoref{fig:voidFace} some of the small voids on faces of the simulation box with $128^3$ particles. Despite increase in the number of small voids at each of the refinement factors, these void regions (i.e., the single streaming regions excluding the largest void) collectively occupy less than $0.1$ per cent of the total void volume in both the simulations. It is also likely that the small voids are simply due to numerical noise. However, the major conclusion regarding small voids remains the same up to refinement factor of 8. We do not pursue further investigation due to tiny effects.
\subsection{Halo boundaries within the void}
\label{sec:voidHaloes}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{fig3.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Single-streaming void distribution on diagnostic spheres around FOF-haloes are considered. At radius $r_{10}$, each diagnostic sphere has $n_{str} = 1$ on 10 per cent of its spherical surface. Distribution function of $r_{10}$ (blue) and FOF-radii $r_{vir}$ (red) are shown. Inner plot shows the distribution function of $r_{10}/r_{vir}$. The haloes within the dashed line have at least 10 per cent of their virial-surfaces in contact with $n_{str} = 1$ regions.}
\label{fig:Vfr_all}
\end{figure}
Dark matter haloes are the most non-linear objects in the cosmic web. With the exception of ORIGAMI \citep{Falck2012}, most of the halo finders do not consider multistreaming in the configuration space for finding haloes. Potential haloes found by several such halo finding methods, hence, may have boundaries that intersect with the single-streaming void, which is the least non-linear structure in the dark matter universe. \cite{Colberg2008} even mention existence of `void-haloes' in several halo finder algorithms.
We studied the $n_{str}$ environment of the haloes detected using the Friends-of-Friends method (FOF-\citealt{Davis1985}) as illustrated in \autoref{fig:Vfr_all}. FOF-haloes with more than 20 particles are detected using linking-length of $b=0.2$ in the simulation with $128^3$ particles. We implement the diagnosis method prescribed in \cite{Ramachandra2015}: a large number of points are randomly selected on diagnostic spherical surfaces centred at the FOF-centre of the halo. Multi-stream values are iteratively calculated at these spherical surfaces of various radii. We define the distance from centre of a halo, $r_{10}$, where $n_{str} = 1$ at 10 per cent of the surface of the diagnostic sphere. Distribution of this void-distance parameter is compared to the virial radii $r_{vir}$ of the FOF-haloes. Surprisingly, $r_{10}$ distribution peaks at slightly lower values than the $r_{vir}$ distribution. This implies a large number of FOF-haloes are in the vicinity of the void.
For specific examples of some FOF-haloes, \cite{Ramachandra2015} showed that single-stream may appear within their virial radii too. The distribution of $r_{10}/r_{vir}$ in the inner plot of \autoref{fig:Vfr_all} shows the same phenomenon. The FOF-haloes within $r_{10}/r_{vir} < 1$ (represented by the vertical dashed line) have $n_{str} = 1$ on 10 per cent of their virial surfaces. The figure illustrates that a large number of FOF-haloes satisfy this condition, thus are in contact with the void surfaces. Hence not all the FOF particles have undergone a gravitational collapse during their evolution.
For methods such as FOF, there is no unambiguous linking-length criterion for voids. Similarly for the density fields, a range of under-densities are prescribed by various void finder methods (cf. \citealt{Colberg2008}). On the other hand, the multistream field unambiguously identifies all the regions without a single gravitational collapse as voids. Haloes detected on the multistream field may address the issue of haloes being in contact with voids.
\begin{comment}
In the halo finding framework in Section \ref{sec:haloDetection}, we explicitly make sure that haloes are not in contact with the void at their boundaries.
\end{comment}
\section{Percolation in the multistream web}
\label{sec:percolation}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{fig4.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Percolation plot in the multistream field and mass density. Two density estimators - CIC and DTFE are shown. Percolation transition (at $f_1/f_{ES} = 0.5$ shown by the horizontal red line) occurs at smaller excursion set volumes for the multistream field, as seen by the dashed lines for both the curves. It is worth stressing that the percolation curves for $n_{str}$ field are bounded by conditions $f_{ES} < 0.1$. }
\label{fig:PercTh}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[height=5.7cm]{fig5.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Percolation threshold in the multistream (left panel) and matter density fields. Matter density is calculated using DTFE (middle panel) and CIC (right panel) with a refinement factor of 2 in the simulation with $256^3$ particles. The volume fraction of excursion set and the filling fraction of the largest structure is shown. Percolation transition in multistream field at $n_{str} = 17$ is shows by the dashed vertical line. Percolation at $\rho_{DTFE}/ \rho_b = 5.16 $ and $\rho_{CIC}/ \rho_b = 5.49 $ are shown by the dashed vertical line. }
\label{fig:HaloFil}
\end{figure*}
A single percolating void fills the $n_{str} = 1$ regions almost entirely, as discussed in Section \ref{sec:voidPerc}. Disconnected pockets of void may exist, but they collectively occupy very small volume fraction (less than 0.1 per cent of the total volume as tabulated in \autoref{tab:VoidStat}). Whereas, the non-void structure in the multistream field has a different topological structure. The regions selected with a lower bound on $n_{str}$ could be isolated (generally for high $n_{str}$ thresholds) or connected in a percolating region (for low $n_{str}$ thresholds). We investigate the topological transitions in these excursion sets of multistream field.
The volume fraction as a function of number-of-streams decreases according to a power law in the $n_{str} > 1$ structure (\citealt{Shandarin2012} and \citealt{Ramachandra2015} report $\text{VF}(n_{str})$ decreasing as ${n_{str}}^{-2.8} $ and ${n_{str}}^{-2.5}$ respectively for their simulations). The volume fraction of the excursion set $f_{ES}(n_i)$ is the ratio of volume of all the regions with a lower bound $n_i$ on the multistream field to the total volume $V_{tot}$ of the simulation box, i.e, $ \displaystyle f_{ES}(n_i) = \frac{V_{ES}}{V_{tot}} = {\sum\limits_{n_{str} \geq n_i} \text{VF} ({n_{str}})}$. Since volume fraction of the each $n_{str}$ rapidly increases with an decrease in multistream value, so does the $f_{ES}$.
The excursion set may have number of isolated segments of different volumes. A measure of connectivity in the excursion set regions can be given by the filling fraction, $f_1/f_{ES}$, where $f_1$ is the volume fraction of the largest isolated region in the excursion set. $f_1$ can be computed numerically in the simulations. If the value of $f_1/f_{ES}$ is close to 0, then none of the isolated regions dominate the excursion set. This implies absence of percolation. If $f_1/f_{ES}$ is close to one, it implies a single connected structure dominates most of the excursion set.
The filling fraction $f_1/f_{ES}$ grows from 0 to 1 occurs rapidly $f_{ES}$ during percolation phase transition. A practical robust definition of the percolation transition is at $f_1/f_{ES} = 0.5$, i.e, when the largest region occupies more than 50 per cent of the excursion set volume. The percolation plot in \autoref{fig:PercTh} reveals this phenomenon. Excursion volume fraction $f_{ES}$ at this transition, $f_{ES}^{(p)} = 0.48$ and $0.75$ per cent for the simulations with with $128^3$ and $256^3$ particles respectively (although the numbers were obtained in one simulation each. The difference may be well within the range of statistical errors for this size of simulation box). After the percolation transition, the filling fraction of the largest structure stabilizes towards unity.
The nature of the transition in mass density field is similar to that in multistream field. For the simulation simulation with $256^3$ particles, the density is calculated using CIC method at $256^3$ and $512^3$ grid points. In \autoref{fig:PercTh}, the percolation phenomenon in both mass density fields is shown along with that of multistream fields. The excursion set volume fraction at percolation transition, $f_{ES}^{(p)}$ is lower for multistream field, because the filaments in the multistream field are thinner than that of density picture. Volume fraction of the largest structure detected in the density field also tends to unity with decreasing $f_{ES}$, albeit less rapidly as that of the multistream field. This means that while the largest structure in a multistream web occupies most of the structure, the over-density excursion set is more fragmented.
The excursion volume fraction of the multistream web structure is limited to a small fraction of less than 10 per cent since rest of the volume is void. The excursion set volume fraction increases with decreasing number-of-streams and reaches it's maximum at $n_{str} = 3$. At this limit the filling fraction $f_1/f_{ES}$ is still less than unity, about 95 per cent. These two peculiar properties of the multistream field explain the shape of the percolation curves in \autoref{fig:PercTh}.
Since the multistream flow field is a discrete data field, the percolation transition is seen to occurs at a particular value of $n_{str}$ rather than a large range of values. For $n_{str} = 17$, the largest structure in the excursion set occupies more than half the volume of the entire excursion set. At this multistream threshold, the largest segment starts spanning large volume of the simulation box (as observed in the left panel of \autoref{fig:HaloFil}). The volume fraction of the excursion set at this percolation transition is $f_{ES}^{(p)} = 0.75$ per cent for simulation with $256^3$ particles.
The percolation transition at $n_{str} = 17$ could be used as a criterion for detecting filaments in the cosmic web. Since the largest $n_{str} \geq 17$ region occupies more than 50 per cent of the excursion set, it is essentially the `backbone' of the cosmic web \citep{Shandarin2010b}. Heuristic analysis as discussed by \cite{Ramachandra2015} also arrived at the same threshold for identifying filaments. That analysis was based on a multistreams variation in halo environments, hence a local value. From our percolation analysis, we see that it is also justified globally.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{fig5n.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Percolation threshold in the multistream field with refinement factor of 2 in the simulation with $256^3$ particles. The volume fraction of excursion set and the filling fraction of the largest structure is shown. Percolation transition at $n_{str} = 17$ is shows by the dashed vertical line. }
\label{fig:HaloFilDen}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{fig6n.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Percolation threshold in the density field of the simulation with $256^3$ particles calculated from the CIC method. The volume fraction of excursion set and the filling fraction of the largest structure is shown. Percolation at $\rho/ \rho_b = 4.8 $ is shown by the dashed vertical line.}
\label{fig:HaloFilNst}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
In the simulation with $256^3$ particles, percolations in the density field occurs at $\rho_{DTFE}/ \rho_b = 5.16 $ and $\rho_{CIC}/ \rho_b = 5.49 $ for densities calculated with DTFE and CIC respectively. Here $\rho_b = 256^3 / 100^3 M_{\sun} h^{-3} \text{Mpc}^{-3}$, the background density. Notice that these values correspond to the density as calculated by the CIC and DTFE algorithms, and it might be different for other density finding methods. The volume fraction of the excursion set of over-densities at the percolation, $f_{ES}^{(p)} = 2.7$ per cent, is considerably higher than the corresponding $f_{ES}^{(p)}$ value in the multistream field. This implies that the percolation occurs at larger values of filling fraction in mass densities.
\section{Local geometry of the multistream field}
\label{sec:hessian}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{fig6.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Probability distribution function of the sorted eigenvalues of the Hessian $\mathbfss{H}(-n_{str})$ in the simulation box with $N_p = 128^3$. Top panel: Distribution in the entire simulation box. The multistream field is calculated at refinement factor $l_l/l_d= 2$ and smoothing scale of equal to $l_d$. All the three eigenvalue data fields have a highest number of points where their value is 0. Bottom panel: Hessian eigenvalues for the non-void region ($n_{str} > 1$) is shown. Total number of eigenvalue triplets are less than $10$ per cent of that of the full simulation box. Eigenvalues close to zero in non-void regions are notably fewer than in the entire simulation box.}
\label{fig:lambdasPDF}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{fig7.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Comparison between small eigenvalues of the multistream Hessian $\mathbfss{H}(-n_{str})$. Percentage of eigenvalues with absolute values less than a cut-off, $\lambda_{th}$ are shown for full simulation box (dashed lines) and the multistream web structure (solid lines). The multistream web has fewer eigenvalues below $\lambda_{th} = 0.1$. The void seems to have most of the small eigenvalues. }
\label{fig:lambdasSmall}
\end{figure}
The multistream field has a constant value of $1$ for around $90$ per cent of the simulation box. At least one gravitational collapse occurs in the remaining $10$ per cent of the volume. In these non-void regions, the $n_{str}$ value varies from 3 to very high values, often in the order of thousands. In the multistream field of refinement factor of 2 for simulation with $N_p = 128^3$ particles, maximum $n_{str}$ is 2831. Within the non-void structure, the multistream field may have several local maxima, minima and saddles. Variation of $n_{str}$ is especially high inside halo boundaries, where the particles in their non-linear stage of evolution have undergone a large number of flip-flops.
Local second order variation in a scalar field $f$ like the multistream field can by found using the Hessian matrix $\mathbfss{H}(f)$. An element of the Hessian matrix is given in \autoref{eq:Hess}, where $i$ and $j$ can be any of $x$, $y$ or $z$ directions.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Hess}
\mathbfss{H}_{ij}(f) = \frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x_i \partial x_j}
\end{equation}
In our analysis, we have chosen $f = -n_{str}(\bmath{x})$ for understanding local variations of the multistream field. The resulting Hessians at each point on the configuration space are always symmetric matrices, as illustrated in Appendix \ref{appendix:Eigen}. The eigenvalues of these Hessian matrices are always real, and depending on if their values are positive or negative, one may infer local geometrical features in the multistream field.
\begin{comment}
We utilise a framework based on Hessian eigenvalues in smoothed multistream field for the detection of haloes.
\end{comment}
Within the void, there is no variation in the multistream values. Hessians $\mathbfss{H}(-n_{str})$ are zero matrices in large volume fraction of the simulation box (around 90 per cent in both the simulations) due to the constant value of $n_{str} = 1$ in this percolating void. Eigenvalues of these Hessian matrices, sorted as $ \lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq \lambda_3 $ are close to 0 at a large number of regions as shown in the top panel of \autoref{fig:lambdasPDF}. In the simulation with $128^3$ particles, the median values of each eigenvalue are $0.09$, $-3\times 10^{-10}$ and $-0.11$ for $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$ respectively. By selecting just the non-void region by $n_{str} > 1$, notably fewer number of eigenvalues have small absolute values. The median values of each of the eigenvalues in the non-void regions are $4.01$, $0.48$, and $-0.85$ respectively for $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$. Bottom panel in \autoref{fig:lambdasPDF} shows a significant change in the probability distribution of Hessian eigenvalues around 0, the distribution pattern at the tails are mostly identical to the distribution pattern in the entire simulation box.
A large fraction of eigenvalues in non-void regions are still around 0, but their percentage is quite less compared to that of the entire box. For instance, nearly 66 per cent of $\lambda_1$'s, 72 per cent of $\lambda_2$'s and 48 per cent of $\lambda_3$'s are within in the range of $0.0 \pm 0.1$ in the entire simulation box. However, with the exclusion of void regions, these volume fractions drops to 0.1, 7.7 and 8.4 per cent respectively (\autoref{fig:lambdasSmall}). Hence most of the eigenvalues at the void region have small absolute values.
Hessian eigenvalues in multistream fields differ from that in density, gravitational potential or velocity shear tensor. Constant scalar value of $n_{str}$ facilitates the Hessian $\mathbfss{H}(-n_{str})$ matrices to be presumptively close to zero. On the other hand, in density field manifests in a range of low values in the voids, resulting in non-zero Hessian matrices. Eigenvalues of velocity shear tensor do not peak at zero either \cite{Libeskind2013}. For the deformation tensor, morphological characterization of the cosmic web using Zel'dovich formalism shows that each eigenvalue must be negative in voids.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[height=14.cm]{fig8.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix $\mathbfss{H}(-n_{str})$ in a slice of 50 $h^{-1}$ Mpc $\times$ 50 $h^{-1}$ Mpc slice of the simulation box of $128^3$ particles. Variation in the eigenvalues in the multistreaming web structure is shown. The largest eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ (top left panel) has positive values throughout the structure. The smallest eigenvalue $\lambda_3$ (bottom left) has negative values surrounding positive definite regions of the $n_{str}$ field. Corresponding multistream field is shown in the bottom right panel for single, three and more than five streams.}
\label{fig:evals123}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=6.cm]{fig9.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Surfaces identified in the multistream field. Blue regions are closed regions with $\lambda_3 > 0 $, which we identify as two haloes. Other surface has an open curvature along one direction, with $\lambda_1 > \lambda_2 > 0$ and $ \lambda_3 < 0$. }
\label{fig:SmallBox}
\end{figure}
The eigenvalues of $\mathbfss{H}(-n_{str})$ span a large range of values in our cosmological simulation. The largest eigenvalue of the triplets, $\lambda_1$ having large positive values throughout the multistream web structure ( see \autoref{fig:evals123} ). Absolute values $|\lambda_1|$, $|\lambda_2|$ and $|\lambda_3|$ peak around the neighbourhood of intersections of filaments. These junctions are usually high streaming regions due to shell crossing from multiple directions. \cite{Ramachandra2015} observed that these regions with intersecting filaments are in the vicinity of large FOF haloes.
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{fig5.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Probability distribution function of the sorted eigenvalues of the Hessian $\mathbfss{H}(-n_{str})$ in the non-void region ($n_{str} > 1$). Total number of eigenvalue triplets are less than $10$ per cent of that of the full simulation box. Eigenvalues close to zero in non-void regions are notably fewer than in the entire simulation box.}
\label{fig:lambdasPDFNonVoid}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
If the Hessian matrices are positive definite in a region, i.e., if all the eigenvalues are strictly positive, then the interior of this convex region has at-most one minimum. For our choice of $-n_{str}(\bmath{x})$ as the domain of Hessian, this means that the convex neighbourhoods around local maxima of the multistream field are isolated by the positive definite Hessian matrices. Closed surface contours at high streaming or the most non-linear regions are selected. These regions my indeed be the regions of dark matter haloes.
The smallest eigenvalue, $\lambda_3$ has lowest volume fraction of all the eigenvalues in the positive tail of the distributions in \autoref{fig:lambdasPDF}. Since the condition $\lambda_3 > 0$ ensures the Hessian matrix to be positive definitive, we may use it as a primary criterion in isolating compact regions of dark matter haloes. These regions also roughly correspond to isolated globs as seen in \autoref{fig:SmallBox}. Local geometry analysis is pertinent for halo detection due to compact geometry of the haloes. In principle, other components of the cosmic web could also be detected. Tubular structures in filaments could be detected, as shown in \autoref{fig:SmallBox}, using conditions on the eigenvalues as $\lambda_1 > \lambda_2 > 0$ and $ \lambda_3 < 0$ . Fabric-thin walls could be detected by $\lambda_1 > 0$ and $ \lambda_3 < \lambda_2 < 0$.
\begin{comment}
However, we only focus on using the local geometrical indicators to identify potential haloes in this study.
\end{comment}
\subsection{Softening of the multistream field}
\label{sub:Softening}
Hessian eigenvalues are generally defined on continuous functions. Although our domain of the Hessian is an inhererntly integer-valued field, it describes the multistream structure at the level of diagnostic grid. Hence it may be considered to be numerically equivalent to a continuous function where the numerical approxiamtion of differentation is a valid operation. This can be verified mathematically by finding that Hessian $\mathbfss{H}(-n_{str})$ is symmetric (Appendix \ref{appendix:Eigen} shows the numerical approximation of the Hessian matrix term for generic unfiltered multistream field.)
Smoothing the multistream field (at the refinement level of $l_l/l_d=$ $1$ or $2$) effectively reduces noise. There is also a systematic variation in the distribution of smoothed $n_{str}$ values as shown in \autoref{fig:nstrSmooth}. Volume fraction of the single-streaming voids only varies from $90.8$ per cent without smoothing to $89.1$ per cent for the Gaussian softening length of 0.39 $h^{-1} Mpc$ (twice the length of diagnostic grid $l_d$). On the other hand, $n_{str} = 3$ regions gain volume fraction from $4.9$ per cent in un-smoothed field to $7.1$ per cent for 0.39 $h^{-1} Mpc$. This is seen in the multistream structures of smootheing scales of 0.39 $h^{-1} Mpc$ in \autoref{fig:nstrSmoothSmall}. Multi-stream regions with $ 3 < n_{str} \leq 100 $ occupy correspondingly lower volumes for higher smoothing, and the variation is noisy beyond $n_{str} > 100$. \autoref{fig:nstrSmoothSmall} shows the multistream field on a small slice of the simulation at different softening scales, and walls and filaments are resolved better with increasing softening.
\begin{comment}
The effect of smoothing scale on the distribution of the eigenvalue $\lambda_3$ in the simulation of $128^3$ particles is shown in \autoref{fig:Eval3Smooth}.
No smooth
nstr = 1: 90.8026777208
nstr = 3: 4.86832410097
nstr > 3: 4.32899817824
0.10 $h^{-1} Mpc$
nstr = 1: 90.447498858
nstr = 3: 5.46239987016
nstr > 3: 4.09010127187
0.20 $h^{-1} Mpc$
nstr = 1: 90.0112554431
nstr = 3: 6.1724729836
nstr > 3: 3.81627157331
0.39 $h^{-1} Mpc$
nstr = 1: 89.0503048897
nstr = 3: 7.13266804814
nstr > 3: 3.81702706218
\end{comment}
Smoother multistream fields result in less noisy PDFs of the Hessian eigenvalues. For instance, the volume fraction of regions with positive curvature (i.e. $\lambda_3 > 0$) is $2.4\%$, $2.3\%$ and $2.5\%$ for scales $0.20 h^{-1} \text{ Mpc}$, $0.39 h^{-1} \text{ Mpc}$, $0.78 h^{-1} \text{ Mpc}$ respectively. Further analysis of smoothed positive definite regions is relevant in determining halo boundaries, and will be extensively discussed in the next paper.
\begin{comment}
For the detection of haloes in Section \ref{sec:haloDetection}, we only look at these regions. Multi-scale phenomena of our halo detection algorithm at different smoothing is discussed in Section \ref{sub:Smooth}.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{fig9.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{The distribution of $\lambda_3$ in the simulation box of $128^3$ particles and multistream field of refinement factor $l_l/l_d = 2$. Three smoothing scales are shown. }
\label{fig:Eval3Smooth}
\end{figure}
\end{comment}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{fig10.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Probability distribution function of the multistream $n_{str}$ values in the simulation box with $N_p = 256^3$. The multistream field is calculated at refinement factor $l_l/l_d= 2$. Unsmoothed multistream field is compared with different Gaussian filtering scales. Softening scales of equal to $0.5$, $1$, and $2$ times the side length of diagnostic grid $l_d$ correspond to $0.10 h^{-1} \text{Mpc}$, $0.20 h^{-1} \text{Mpc}$, and $0.39 h^{-1} \text{Mpc}$ respectively.}
\label{fig:nstrSmooth}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{fig11.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Multi-stream field at various softening scales in the simulation box with $N_p = 256^3$. The multistream field is calculated at refinement factor $l_l/l_d= 2$. Unsmoothed multistream field is compared with different Gaussian filtering scales equal to $0.10 h^{-1} \text{Mpc}$, $0.20 h^{-1} \text{Mpc}$, and $0.39 h^{-1} \text{Mpc}$ respectively.}
\label{fig:nstrSmoothSmall}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Resolution dependence}
\label{sub:resolution}
Multi-stream calculation can be done at arbitrarily high resolutions by populating the tetrahedral simplices. For our resolution study, we have chosen a smaller slice of $ 50 h^{-1} \text{Mpc} \times 50 h^{-1} \text{Mpc} \times 50 h^{-1} \text{Mpc}$ (grid of size $64^3$ from the N-body simulation) from the simulation with $N_p = 128^3$ particles. The multistream field is calculated at 4 different refinement factors, i.e., at diagnosis grids of size $64^3$ ($l_l/l_d = 1$), $128^3$ ($l_l/l_d = 2$), $256^3$ ($l_l/l_d = 4$) and $512^3$ ($l_l/l_d = 8$) respectively.
Volume fractions of each multistream does not change systematically for different levels of refinement, except at very high $n_{str}$ values (see \citealt{Ramachandra2015} for dependence of $n_{str}$ variation on refinement of the diagnostic grid). At high multistream values, higher resolutions reveal a considerably less noisy multistream fields.
There are no variations in the volume fractions of the cosmic web components classified using the global $n_{str}$ thresholds as shown in \autoref{tab:VolfrRefNst}. Voids ($n_{str} = 1$) occupy about 90 per cent of the volume at each refinement factor. Rest of the heuristic thresholds that identify the structure components (as prescribed by \citealt{Ramachandra2015}) are constant multistream contours: $3 \leq n_{str} < 17$ for walls, $17 \leq n_{str} < 90 $ for filaments and $n_{str} \geq 90 $ for haloes. Since the volume fraction of each $n_{str}$ values are about the same at each refinement factor, the volume fraction of the cosmic web components corresponding to global multistream thresholds do not vary considerably.
\begin{table}
\caption{Volume fraction (in per cent) of $n_{str}$ thresholds for cosmic web structures as defined by \protect\cite{Ramachandra2015}. Multi-stream field is calculated at 1, 2, 4, and 8 times the native simulation resolution of $64^3$ grids. Small slice of $ 50 h^{-1} \text{Mpc} \times 50 h^{-1} \text{Mpc} \times 50 h^{-1} \text{Mpc} $ is chosen for the analysis.}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l}
\hline
Global thresholds & $64^3$ & $128^3$ & $256^3$ & $512^3$ \\ \hline
$n_{str} = 1$ (Void) & 90.87 & 90.92 & 90.94 & 90.94 \\ \hline
$3 \leq n_{str} < 17$ (Wall) & 8.71 & 8.66 & 8.63 & 8.64 \\ \hline
$17 \leq n_{str} < 90 $ (Filaments) & 0.39 & 0.39 & 0.39 & 0.39 \\ \hline
$n_{str} \geq 90 $ (Haloes) & 0.034 & 0.035 & 0.036 & 0.036 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:VolfrRefNst}
\end{table}
However, local geometry analysis of the multistream flow field varies considerably on the resolution of the analysis grid. For our Hessian $\mathbfss{H}(-n_{str})$, the regions with $\lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq \lambda_3 > 0$ in non-void regions occupy 1.8 per cent of the entire box in native resolution of diagnostic grid, as shown in \autoref{tab:VolfrRefLambda}. This fraction reduces to 1.3 per cent at diagnostic grid of $512^3$ resolution. Variations with refinement factors are seen in other eigenvalue conditions in the non-void too: volume fraction of $\lambda_1 > 0 > \lambda_2 \geq \lambda_3 $ regions increases from 1.7 per cent at refinement factor of 1 to 3 per cent at refinement factor of 8. Volume fraction of $\lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 > 0 > \lambda_3 $ regions decreases from 5.6 to 4.6 per cent with the increase of refinement from 1 to 8.
In principle, the conditions for geometric criteria are: $\lambda_1 > 0 > \lambda_2 \geq \lambda_3$ for locally flat regions, $\lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 > 0 > \lambda_3 $ for locally tubular structures and $\lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq \lambda_3 > 0$ for clumped blobs. However, the tabulated the volume fractions in \autoref{tab:VolfrRefLambda} does not correspond to cosmic web components themselves. Identification of the components may require post processing steps.
\begin{comment}For detection of dark matter haloes, the algorithm prescribed in Section \ref{sec:haloDetection} lists out a set of physically motivated processes that filter out the noisy $\lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq \lambda_3 > 0$ regions that cannot be identified as haloes.
\end{comment}
High resolution studies of multistream fields would play an important role in detection of walls and filaments. These two components have smaller length scales along at least one direction with respect to others. As seen in Section \ref{sec:voidPerc}, walls are more resolved in high resolution of multistream fields, enclosing pockets of voids (see \autoref{fig:voidFace}).
However, a Hessian analysis to identify filaments and walls may be considerably different from that of halo finding due to the following reasons: First, a local geometrical analysis is uniquely convenient for detecting dark matter haloes since they are local structures. Filaments and walls, alternatively, are structures that span over large distances. Secondly, we try to find regions around local maxima of multistream field for haloes. Whereas, filaments and walls have much weaker relationship with local multistream maxima. Filaments and walls usually deviate from flat planar or straight tubular geometries: they often have complicated structures several connections and branches. For these reasons, Hessian eigenvalues alone would not be sufficient in detecting walls or filaments.
\begin{comment}
In our analysis in Section \ref{sec:haloDetection}, we only concentrate on halo detection using local geometry indicators. Hessian analysis for identifying walls and filaments are beyond the scope of this paper.
\end{comment}
\begin{table}
\caption{Volume fraction of criteria based on $n_{str}$ and $\lambda$s of $\mathbfss{H}(-n_{str})$ calculated at various resolutions. We chose a smaller slice of $ 50 h^{-1} \text{Mpc} \times 50 h^{-1} \text{Mpc} \times 50 h^{-1} \text{Mpc} $ i.e., half the volume of the original GADGET simulation box. The refinement factors are the multiplication factors of 1, 2, 4 and 8 times of the native resolution ($64^3$) of the simulation grid along each axis. Eigenvalues of the Hessian of the field are local geometric parameters. The void is globally defined as $n_{str} = 1$ and the multistream web structure as $n_{str} > 1$.}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l}
\hline
Global/local conditions & $64^3$ & $128^3$ & $256^3$ & $512^3$ \\ \hline
$n_{str} = 1$ (Void) & 90.87 & 90.92 & 90.94 & 90.94 \\ \hline
$n_{str} > 1$; $\lambda_1 > 0 > \lambda_2 \geq \lambda_3 $ & 1.72 & 2.22 & 2.67 & 2.96 \\ \hline
$n_{str} > 1$; $\lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 > 0 > \lambda_3 $ & 5.60 & 5.28 & 4.91 & 4.57 \\ \hline
$n_{str} > 1$; $\lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq \lambda_3 > 0$ & 1.81 & 1.56 & 1.37 & 1.26 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:VolfrRefLambda}
\end{table}
\begin{comment}
\section{Haloes in the multistream field}
\label{sec:haloDetection}
We intend to identify haloes in the $n_{str}(\bmath{x})$ field instead of using just the position coordinate data. While the eigenvalue analysis itself is done at a chosen time, the multistream field inherently has data from six-dimensional Lagrangian space $(\bmath{q}, \bmath{x})$ that contains the full dynamical information,similar to the phase-space sheet albeit in a different form. Dynamical history that is embedded in the multistream field is crucial in understanding the strength of gravitational binding of the particles.
Moreover, as explained in Section \ref{sec:voids}, a physically motivated distinction between void and gravitationally collapsed regions is a unique feature of multistream analysis. Thus the haloes detected from local maxima of the $n_{str}$ field can be ensured to be away from the single streaming voids. Methods based on linking-length or density fields may not able to ensure that all the particles in haloes are away from voids, as shown for FOF method in Section \ref{sec:voidHaloes}.
Numerical analyses of scalar fields generally depend on resolution as opposed to particle coordinates analysis tools like FOF. The multistream field conveniently has an advantage of being less noisy than mass density (\citealt{Shandarin2012}, also see Appendix \ref{appendix:nstream}). For the illustration halo detection framework in this section, we have calculated the number-of-streams at refinement factor of 2 and smoothing scale of $0.39 h^{-1} Mpc$ (equal to the grid length of the multistream field) for the simulation box of $128^3$ particles and size $L = 100 h^{-1} Mpc$. Hessian matrices and eigenvalues are calculated on the same diagnosis grid. Results of the halo detection scheme for simulation box of higher mass resolution, and different smoothing factors are discussed in Sections \ref{sub:compareHalo} and \ref{sub:Smooth}. Hereafter we refer to the potential dark matter haloes detected from the Hessian analysis of the multistream field as $\lambda_3$-haloes for brevity. Similarly, the haloes candidates from AHF and FOF algorithms are referred to as AHF-haloes and FOF-haloes respectively.
\subsection{Halo finder algorithm}
\label{subsec:technique}
Our goal is to isolate the locations of convex geometries in the multistream flow field. Prospective regions of the halo locations in the web structure are selected by positive definite condition of the Hessian $\mathbfss{H}(-n_{str})$: $\lambda_1 > 0$, $\lambda_2 > 0$ and $\lambda_3 > 0$, or simply the smallest of the eigenvalues, $\lambda_3 > 0$. We also filter out the regions if the multistream values inside do not suggest gravitational collapse into haloes. The sequence of our halo detection framework is listed below:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The multistream flow field is calculated on a diagnostic grid. The number of tetrahedra that encompass each vertex in the grid gives the $n_{str}$ field. Top left panel of \autoref{fig:labelsfilter} shows the multistream web structure in a slice of the simulation with $n_{str} > 1$ in gray and $n_{str} \geq 7$ in blue.
\item The discrete multistream flow field is smoothed in order to reduce numerical noise. We have used Gaussian kernel for smoothing in our analysis. Effect of smoothing scales in the halo identification is discussed in Section \ref{sub:Smooth}.
\item Second order variations of the smoothed $-n_{str}(\bmath{x})$ is computed at each point in the field. This gives symmetric Hessian matrices for this field whose eigenvalues are real. Ordered eigenvalues of the Hessian, $ \lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq \lambda_3$ are calculated. The $\lambda_3$ field is shown in the top right panel of \autoref{fig:labelsfilter}.
\item Using segmentation techniques, each region with $ \lambda_3 $ strictly greater than $0$ within $n_{str} \geq 3$ regions of multistream field are isolated and labelled. This condition for each halo candidate guarantees that it is in the region where at least one gravitational collapse happened within the halo boundary. Mass particles belonging to these regions are shown shown as dark spots in in the top right panel of \autoref{fig:labelsfilter}.
\item The multistream field has a range of values within the isolated sites. We impose constraints on the isolated regions to rule out the labels with low multistream values. The local maxima of $n_{str}$ inside each halo must be at least 7. By this restriction, it is ensured that the halo sites with three Lagrangian sub-manifold foldings are selected. Bottom left panel of \autoref{fig:labelsfilter} shows patches that are discarded in red. The resulting $\lambda_3$-haloes are shown in the bottom right.
\item In our comparisons with other halo finders in Section \ref{sub:compareHalo}, we also used an additional constraint on the minimum number of mass particles in the haloes to be 20 - which is generally used as a criteria in several halo finders.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[height=8.5cm]{fig10.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{ Detection of potential halo candidates in the multistream field: algorithm of segmentation and filtering are illustrated in a smaller slice of $40 h^{-1} Mpc \times 40 h^{-1} Mpc$ slice of the simulation box. Top left figure shows the multistream field of the slice. Voids (white) are the regions with $n_{str} =1$, rest are non-void structures. Blue patches within the structure (gray) are the regions with gravitational collapses in more than one direction, i.e., $n_{str} \geq 7$. Top Right figure shows the smallest eigenvalue $\lambda_3$ field. The value of $\lambda_3$ is close to 0 in most of the regions (yellow), including the voids. Regions with $\lambda_3 > 0$ and $n_{str} > 1$, are isolated (black spots) using image segmentation techniques. Bottom left panel shows the filtering scheme: the red patches do not have maxima of $n_{str} \geq 7$ in the regions, hence are filtered out. The remaining potential halo regions with more than 20 particles are shown in the bottom right panel.}
\label{fig:labelsfilter}
\end{figure}
Applying the above scheme on the simulation with side length of $100 h^{-1}$ Mpc and $128^3$ particles (with cosmological parameters mentioned in Section \ref{sec:simulation}), we detected approximately 50000 regions satisfying $\lambda_3 > 0$ within the non-void in the multistream field of refinement factor $l_l/l_d = 2$ and smoothing scale of grid length, i.e, $0.39 h^{-1} Mpc$. We filtered out the segments with local maxima of $n_{str} < 7$, and around 14000 regions remained as prospective haloes. On the whole, our algorithm detected about 4500 haloes with more than 20 particles in the entire simulation box. The halo candidates we obtained are generally observed to be compact. We have not applied virialisation to define the halo boundaries. A more detailed study of halo edges, and comparison with that of FOF-haloes and AHF-haloes is done in Section \ref{sub:HaloProperties}.
The maximum values of $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$ in each of the haloes have peaks away from 0 as shown in \autoref{fig:maxL3}. The median values of $max(\lambda_1)$ and $max(\lambda_2)$ are in the range of 1-10 (\autoref{tab:maxL3}), in-spite of the threshold for $\lambda_3$ being barely positive, by definition. Hence the interior of the potential halo segments is quite convex, with a local maxima inside. In some haloes, the local maxima of eigenvalue are in the order of thousands, as tabulated in \autoref{tab:maxL3}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{fig11.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{PDF of highest $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$ values in each of 4492 haloes detected by out algorithm. The peaks of the PDF are in the range 1-10. Shaded regions represent 1$\sigma$ error. }
\label{fig:maxL3}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\caption{Statistics of the the Hessian eigenvalues in halo candidates: Local maxima of $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$ in each of 4492 haloes are shown. }
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|}
\hline
Statistics & $\lambda_1$ & $\lambda_2$ & $\lambda_3$\\ \hline
Minimum & $ 1.5 $ & $ 0.5 $ & $ 1.3 \times 10^{-2} $ \\ \hline
Maximum & $1.7 \times 10^3$ & $1.5 \times 10^3$ & $1.1 \times 10^3$ \\ \hline
Median & $10.5$ & $5.5$ & $1.9$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:maxL3}
\end{table}
With this algorithm, we obtain prospective dark matter haloes - regions with a local maximum of the multistream field in the interior of their closed surfaces. The haloes are detected without using density fields or linking lengths between particles. The parameters in the algorithm are entirely based on features of the multistream field and local geometry using Hessian matrices.
\subsection{Halo properties}
\label{sub:HaloProperties}
Multi-stream environment of haloes can be very diverse. \cite{Ramachandra2015} demonstrated that a majority of the FOF-haloes are in contact with the single-streaming voids. Illustration in \autoref{fig:Vfr_all} also shows that a large number of FOF-haloes have more than 10 per cent void on the spherical surfaces with virial radii. The $\lambda_3$ haloes are significantly different: none of the $\lambda_3$-haloes are in contact with the regions where gravitational collapse has not occurred. This is guaranteed by the lower bound of $n_{str} = 3$ on all potential halo candidates.
Condition on the multistream field within the $\lambda_3$-halo also ensures that there are collapses along more than one direction, which corresponds to $n_{str} = 7$. For a large number of $\lambda_3$-haloes candidates, the maximum $n_{str}$ is higher than this threshold, as shown in \autoref{tab:minmaxstr} and \autoref{fig:minmaxstr}. The regions selected by $\lambda_3 > 0$ on Hessian of $-n_{str}$ have a maxima of $n_{str}$ within their boundaries. For simulation with $128^3$ particles, the median of this peak $n_{str}$ value is $17$. Unsurprisingly, the global maximum of the multistream field ($n_{str} = 2831$) is also a local maximum for one of the haloes. On the other hand, the median of minimum $n_{str}$ in the haloes is 3 (\autoref{tab:minmaxstr}), which is also the first stage of non-linearity.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{fig12.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Maximum, minimum and median of $n_{str}$ in each of 4492 halo candidates. The closed contours of haloes encompass a wide range of multistream values. None of the haloes are in contact with the void region, since lowest value of min$(n_{str})$ is 3. Shaded regions are the 1$\sigma$ absolute errors in the number of $\lambda_3$-haloes. }
\label{fig:minmaxstr}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\caption{Local maxima and minima of $n_{str}$ in each of 4492 haloes. The highest $n_{str}$ values in the interior of haloes span over a large range of values. Low values of $n_{str}$ in haloes, which are generally near halo boundaries, have a median of 3.}
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|}
\hline
Statistics & high $n_{str}$ & low $n_{str}$ \\ \hline
Minimum & $7$ & $3$ \\ \hline
Maximum & $2831$ & $459$ \\ \hline
Median & $17$ & $3$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:minmaxstr}
\end{table}
An important feature of our halo detection method is that the detected $\lambda_3$-haloes do not have a global threshold on $n_{str}$ or mass density values. The local conditions may be more suited in identifying haloes in multistream fields, since the multistream environments around haloes are very diverse. For instance, regions with $n_{str} \geq 25$ is tubular around one of the the large haloes in \autoref{fig:l3Nst}. Even the region with more than $75$ streams does not enclose a convex multistream region. Whereas, for $n_{str} \geq 200$ the region is convex and the particles detected by our method reside mostly within. We detect closed regions in the multistream field as long as they are not in void, and have gravitational collapse in more than one directions.
However, the $\lambda_3$-halo boundary is different from any constant multistream contour. That is, from the function $n_{str}(\bmath{x})$, convex regions in the four-dimensional function space $(-n_{str}, x, y, z)$ are projected onto three-dimensional co-ordinate space using eigenvalues. This is different from projecting `iso-multistream' slice onto three-dimensional co-ordinate space. Appendix \ref{appendix:Eigen} illustrates the difference in the two approaches for a one-dimensional function.
The multistream field usually has concentric shells in the regions of successive gravitational collapses (as explained in Section \ref{sec:multiCalc} and Appendix \ref{appendix:nstream}). In a specific scenario of \autoref{fig:l3Nst}, regions of lower number-of-streams ($n_{str} = 25$ and lower) is tubular and has regions of higher $n_{str}$ inside ($n_{str} = 200$ and higher) that is closed. However, this transition from concavity to convexity of the multistream field does not occur at a constant value of $n_{str}$ throughout the field. Instead, it is a local geometrical change that occurs at $\lambda_3 = 0$. For the $\lambda_3$-haloes in this simulation, a range of minimum $n_{str}$ for each halo has a range of values, as shown in \autoref{tab:minmaxstr} and \autoref{fig:minmaxstr}. Hence a global condition on $n_{str}$ does not guarantee that the region is closed.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=7.cm]{fig13.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Multi-stream environment of a $\lambda_3$-halo. The contours represent regions with 3 different multistream values: Outermost $n_{str} \geq 25$ (gray) is tubular, The blue region has $n_{str} \geq 75$. The inner region is highly non-linear with $n_{str} \geq 200$. The black dots represent the mass particles belonging to a $\lambda_3$-halo, as detected by our algorithm.}
\label{fig:l3Nst}
\end{figure}
The particles in a massive $\lambda_3$-halo shown in \autoref{fig:l3Nst} form a spheroidal structure. The number of particles in similar massive haloes are in the order of $10^3$ particles. For instance, the most massive halo in the simulation (with $N_p = 128^3$) has $5593$ particles. We have chosen a minimum threshold of 20 particles, which is an artificial parameter used by most halo finder methods. Majority of the $\lambda_3$-haloes have low number of particles; median of number of particles per halo is $49$. Each particle in this simulation is approximately $ 3.65 \times 10^{10} h^{-1} M_{\sun}$. Hence the halo mass range varies in the order of $10^{11} M_{\sun}$ to $10^{14} M_{\sun}$. Combined mass of all the $\lambda_3$-halo candidates is about $31$ per cent of the total mass in the simulation. In contrast, the haloes occupy just $0.3$ per cent of the total volume. Thus the $\lambda_3$-haloes are extremely dense structures. Further analysis of halo mass function of $\lambda_3$-haloes and comparison with AHF- and FOF-haloes is done in the Section \ref{sub:compareHalo}.
\subsection{Correspondence with other halo finders}
\label{sub:compareHalo}
Comparison of haloes obtained from AHF and FOF method, along with our geometric analysis of the multistream field reveals several interesting features. The number of haloes with at least 20 particles that were detected by all the algorithms is shown in \autoref{tab:HaloFinderMF}. For both the simulations, FOF detects the highest number of haloes and AHF detects the least. By applying the Hessian algorithm on multistream fields smoothed at the scale of diagnostic grid size, $l_d$, we detected around $4500$ and $28000$ haloes in simulations with $128^3$ and $256^3$ particles respectively. Multi-stream field both the simulations has a refinement factor of $l_l/l_d = 2$.
\begin{table}
\caption{Number of haloes detected by the three halo finder algorithms in the two simulations of $L = 100 h^{-1} \text{Mpc}$ with different mass resolutions. Values shown for $\lambda_3$-haloes are done in the multistream fields with refinement factor of 2, and smoothing scale equal to the diagnostic grid size.}
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|}
\hline
$N_p$ & AHF & FOF & $\lambda_3$ \\ \hline
$128^3$ & 3374 & 5440 & 4492 \\ \hline
$256^3$ & 24710 & 35765 & 27929 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:HaloFinderMF}
\end{table}
Mass fraction of the halo particles in the simulation are shown in a Venn diagram in \autoref{fig:HaloFinderMF}. For the simulation with $128^3$ particles, AHF-, FOF- and $\lambda_3-$haloes occupy $22$, $35$ and $31$ per cent of the total mass respectively. For simulation with $256^3$ particles, the corresponding halo mass fractions are $30$, $42$, and $32$ per cent respectively. However, large fractions of these mass particles are concurrently detected as belonging to haloes by different methods. As shown in \autoref{fig:HaloFinderMF}, $19-23$ per cent of the mass particles are detected by all three halo finder methods as belonging to halo regions.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{fig14}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Mass fractions (in per cent) of haloes detected by the three finders. The particles concurrently detected as belonging to haloes are shown in the intersections. }
\label{fig:HaloFinderMF}
\end{figure}
The halo mass functions from all three finders are shown in \autoref{fig:hmf}. For smaller haloes of order of $10^{13} M_{\sun}$, our method predicts a slightly higher number of haloes than FOF and AHF. For the most massive haloes of mass around $10^{14} M_{\sun}$, number of $\lambda_3$-haloes is fewer than the other 2 methods, albeit around the range of error.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{fig15.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Halo Mass functions from AHF-, FOF- and $\lambda_3$-haloes. The AHF-haloes are fewer than FOF- or $\lambda_3$-haloes. The number of haloes above a mass threshold are binned and taken along vertical axis, normalized to simulation box volume. Error of 1$\sigma$ is shown in shaded region. }
\label{fig:hmf}
\end{figure}
By observing some of the massive haloes, like the one in \autoref{fig:FinderCompareAll}, we find that the $\lambda_3$-halo particles are within AHF- or FOF-halo region. This is generally observed in other massive haloes too: the large $\lambda_3$-haloes have fewer particles than corresponding AHF- or FOF-haloes. For haloes greater than $10^{14} M_{\sun}$, $\lambda_3$-haloes have boundaries slightly within the AHF virial radius. Without unbinding, the FOF-haloes can be very large compared to other methods, as seen in \autoref{fig:FinderCompareAll}. This results in a deviation in the $\lambda_3$-halo mass function (\autoref{fig:hmf}) from the other two methods over halo mass of $10^{14} M_{\sun}$. Further discussion of size of the detected $\lambda_3$-haloes in the context of smoothing of the multistream is done in Section \ref{sub:Smooth}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{fig16.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{A large halo that was detected by AHF (red), FOF (blue) and our geometric analysis in the multistream field (green). Halo boundary differs for each halo finder method. AHF detects particles within a sphere of virial radius. FOF-halo is irregularly shaped. $\lambda_3$-halo particles are in a non-spherical, yet compact structure. }
\label{fig:FinderCompareAll}
\end{figure}
The particles identified by the AHF as belonging to haloes form spherical structures due to a series of processes (including virialization) applied to unbind the particles. Inherently, the iso-density contours at virial levels are not spherical or spheroidal. The virialized AHF-haloes on the web are shown in the left panel of \autoref{fig:FinderCompare3}. However, the spherical AHF-haloes are fewer in number compared to the other methods.
The popular choice of linking length of $b=0.2$, although corresponding to virial density, does not ensure that the haloes have positive curvature. Most algorithms based on the FOF method re-define the halo boundaries by unbinding the particles outside a truncation radius. This truncation radius maybe the distance from the centre of mass of the halo to the farthest particle, rms distance, or an inflection point in the density field (For details on these methods, see \citealt{Knebe2011a} and references therein). Some halo finders define the virial radius, $r_{vir}$ at the distance from halo center where the density is $\Delta_{vir}$ times the background density. In the middle panel of \autoref{fig:FinderCompare3}, the FOF-haloes are shown without any of the above post-processing schemes. Without any unbinding, the FOF-haloes are generally larger in size than $\lambda_3$-haloes in the right panel of \autoref{fig:FinderCompare3}. For a specific case of a massive halo, \autoref{fig:FinderCompareAll}, FOF identifies more particles as bounded, than AHF or our algorithm.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{fig17a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{fig17b.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{fig17c.pdf}
\caption{Potential haloes detected by AHF (left), FOF (centre) and our analysis (right). Most of the haloes are embedded in a percolating filament with $n_{str} \geq 9$. AHF-haloes are spherical by definition. FOF-haloes without any post processing are elongated along the filament. $\lambda_3$-halo candidates are neither spherical, nor elongated. Boundaries of $\lambda_3$-haloes are well resolved. }
\label{fig:FinderCompare3}
\end{figure*}
In contrast to the AHF and FOF algorithms, our halo method directly detects a closed compact surface (approximately the largest one, since $\lambda_3 >0$) for each of the haloes. There is no unbinding procedure on the particles identified within the halo site. The $\lambda_3$-haloes themselves are not spherical or of any regular structure, but they are closed, as seen in the right panel of \autoref{fig:FinderCompare3}.
Haloes from the three finders in \autoref{fig:FinderCompare3} also show other differences in the halo boundaries. While all the AHF-haloes are spherical, the FOF-haloes are irregular. The $\lambda_3$ haloes are not spherical either, but are more compact than FOF-haloes. At some junctions of the filaments, FOF identifies a large region as belonging to single halo, whereas AHF and our algorithm detect multiple isolated haloes. Each isolated $\lambda_3$-halo region enclose one maximum of multistream field, thus guaranteeing that multiple haloes are always resolved. On the other hand, a linking length cut-off or a constant threshold on scalar fields may enclose regions with multiple local maxima ( For one-dimensional fields, an illustration of this is shown in Appendix \ref{appendix:Eigen}).
\subsection{Effect of smoothing}
\label{sub:Smooth}
In addition to reducing the numerical noise (Section \ref{sec:hessian}), smoothing of the multistream field also results in softening of the sub-structures. Since our framework of detecting haloes isolates the multistream regions with local maxima, the closed curvatures are resolved separately. The halo or a sub-halo regions, that enclose the local maxima of the $n_{str}$ field, vary with the smoothing scale of the multistream field. By increasing smoothing of the multi-str eam field, the number of haloes are reduced as shown in \autoref{tab:HaloesSmooth}. In the simulation with $256^3$ particles, $27929$ $\lambda_3$-haloes are detected at smoothing scale equal to the diagnostic grid length, $l_d = 0.20 h^{-1} \text{Mpc}$. The number of haloes decreases to $18221$ and $7897$ at softening scales of two- and four times the grid lengths respectively.
\begin{table}
\caption{Number of $\lambda_3$-haloes identified at smoothing of $n_{str}(\bmath{x})$ at different scales.}
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|}
\hline
$N_p$ & $0.20h^{-1} \text{Mpc}$ & $0.39 h^{-1} \text{Mpc}$ & $0.78 h^{-1} \text{Mpc}$ \\ \hline
$128^3$ & $5181$ & $4492$ & $2923$ \\ \hline
$256^3$ & $27929$ & $18221$ & $7897$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:HaloesSmooth}
\end{table}
Moreover, since the spatial resolution is higher at the low softening, more small haloes are detected, as shown in lower mass regime of halo mass functions in \autoref{fig:hmfSmooth}. The tail of halo mass functions reveal that large haloes are more massive for higher softening scales. For instance, the largest haloes for the same simulation with multistream softening length of $0.20 h^{-1} \text{Mpc}$, $0.39 h^{-1} \text{Mpc}$ and $0.78 h^{-1} \text{Mpc}$ have $30650$, $38333$ and $56257$ particles respectively.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{fig18.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Top panel shows Halo Mass functions of the potential $\lambda_3$-haloes in the multistream field refinement factor $l_l/l_d = 2$ with various smoothing scales. Simulation box has $256^3$ particles. Lower panel shows the deviation of the each halo mass function with respect to their average.}
\label{fig:hmfSmooth}
\end{figure}
The sub-halo finder methods (see \citealt{Onions2012} and references therein) identify substructures within a large host halo. The sub-haloes are resolved individually as $\lambda_3$-haloes at different scales from our algorithm if the local maxima of the smoothed multistream field is enclosed within the boundary.
\\ SECTION 6.1 that has been removed from paper-1
\subsection{Haloes in the percolating filament}
The excursion set of multistreams above an $n_{str}$ threshold hosts a varying number of haloes. We compare the multistream halo candidates from our geometric method with the AHF and the FOF method in \autoref{fig:HaloFilAll} for the simulation with $N_p = 256^3$. The regions in the co-ordinate space are classified into excursion set and non-excursion set regions based on whether the multistream is over or under the $n_{str}$ threshold. In the excursion set, we can also check if the region belong to the largest structure or the rest of the structures. Based on the coordinates of the halo particles, we check if the haloes are in contact with the largest excursion set. If not, the haloes may be in contact with rest of the excursion set. For rest of the halo sites, the $n_{str}$ values are under the threshold, hence the haloes are in the non-excursion set.
The fraction of haloes in the non-excursion set are shown at various $n_{str}$ thresholds in the top panel of \autoref{fig:HaloFilAll}. At thresholds greater than 17 streams, a large fractions the AHF-, FOF- and $\lambda_3$-haloes are in the non-excursion set, as shown in the top panel of \autoref{fig:HaloFilAll}. The fraction of $\lambda_3$-haloes is slightly higher than FOF or AHF in this regime. At relatively high threshold of, say, $n_{str} = 35$, about 65 per cent of the AHF-haloes, about 75 per cent of the FOF-haloes and about 80 per cent of the $\lambda_3$-haloes are in the non-excursion set.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=8.cm]{fig22.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{ Percentage of haloes detected (in the simulation with $N_p = 256^3$) that are embedded in the non-excursion set (top panel), largest excursion set segment (center panel) and the rest of excursion set regions (bottom panel). Multi-stream haloes, AHF-haloes and FOF-haloes are shown in green, red and blue respectively. Vertical dashed line at $n_{str} = 17$ is where percolation transition occurs. }
\label{fig:HaloFilAll}
\end{figure}
For multistream values lower than the percolation threshold of $n_{str} = 17$ (from percolation transition analysis from Section \ref{sec:percolation}), a large number of AHF-, FOF- and $\lambda_3$-haloes are seen to be embedded in the excursion set ( middle and bottom panel in \autoref{fig:HaloFilAll}). In the excursion set, majority of the haloes are embedded in structures disconnected with largest filament, until about $n_{str} = 11$. The percolating structure fills higher volumes of the excursion set with decreasing $n_{str}$ threshold. Below the threshold of $n_{str} = 9$, majority of the haloes belong to the single percolating structure (shown for the simulation with $N_p=128^3$ in \autoref{fig:FinderCompare3}, similar spatial distribution of Subfind haloes \citealt{Springel2001a} in the multistream regions is shown by \citealt{Aragon-Calvo2016b}) and at $n_{str} = 3$, all the haloes are attached to the web.
At $n_{str} = 3$, the ratio $f_1 / f_{ES}$ is almost close to unity (see \autoref{fig:HaloFilNst}). Most halo candidates from all three algorithms are at least in contact with the large percolating cosmic web. Due to the threshold on $n_{str}$ in our halo detection method, the $\lambda_3$-haloes are not only in contact, but completely within this structure.
\end{comment}
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
Formation of multiple velocity streams in the context of structure formation has been known in the past, starting from Zel'dovich approximation. Quantification of the multistreams in N-body simulations, however, was recently achieved by \cite{Shandarin2012} and \cite{Abel2012b} using the Lagrangian sub-manifold. In our study, the multistream fields are calculated using the tessellation algorithm by \cite{Shandarin2012}. We have analysed, for the first time, the local geometry and percolation properties of the cosmic web using this multistream field.
Distinguishing the configuration space into void and non-void is one of the uses of the multistream field. Lagrangian sub-manifold has no folds in the beginning, thus $n_{str} = 1$ uniformly throughout the simulation. Gravitational instability folds the sub-manifold in complicated ways, however, most of the volume has particles without any collapse. \cite{Shandarin2012} and \cite{Ramachandra2015} observed that the single-streaming voids occupy around 85-90 per cent of the simulations at $z=0$. In this study, we found that the void regions are also connected in a way that the largest percolating void occupies more than 99 per cent of the all the single-streaming regions. Recent study by \cite{Wojtak2016a} uses a watershed transform method in the density field prescribed by Lagrangian tessellations (\citealt{Shandarin2012} and \citealt{Abel2012b}) to analyse the evolution of isolated voids. Another recent study by \cite{Falck2015} on ORIGAMI-voids also reveal a similar percolation at the limit of simulation resolution. They observed persistence of this phenomenon for different resolutions of the N-body simulation. Multi-stream analysis, on the other hand, is not limited to mass resolution of the simulation. Our multistream analysis refined upto 8 times the simulations resolution revealed that the percolation phenomenon still persists. However, at high refinements of the multistream field, we observed small voids that are enclosed by highly resolved non-void membranes.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{.99\linewidth}
\centering\includegraphics[width=10.cm]{fig12a.pdf}
\centering\includegraphics[width=10.cm]{fig12b.pdf}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Two top panels show three contours ($n_{str}=3, 11, 17$) in a slice $100h^{-1} \text{Mpc} \times 100h^{-1} \text{Mpc} \times 10h^{-1} \text{Mpc}$ in the simulation with $128^3$ particles, computed at two refinement factors: 2(upper) and 8 (lower). The bottom panel shows the caustic surfaces in the same slice. }
\label{fig:NstrCaust}
\end{figure}
Walls are the first collapsed structures in the dark matter Universe. At highly refined multistream field, thin membranes of the structures are often resolved, revealing small voids enclosed by them (compare two top panels in \autoref{fig:NstrCaust}). These preliminary structures are separated from the voids by caustic surfaces. These caustics have volume measure zero, which makes detection of their surface harder in the multistream field, even at very high resolutions. On the other hand, caustic surfaces themselves can by detected using the Lagrangian sub-manifold by identifying the common faces of neighbouring tetrahedra
with opposite volume signs \citep{Shandarin2012}. They are shown in the bottom panel in \autoref{fig:NstrCaust}. One can see that increasing the refinement factor from 2 to 8 adds mostly walls but the complete wall structure shown in the bottom panel is still considerably greater. Please note that the plots in two top panels adjusted exactly to the simulation box in Eulerian space, and the bottom plot shows the Lagrangian box mapped to Eulerian space without adjusting to the simulation box.
There are extensive number of topological indicators in the context of density fields or spatial co-ordinates - such as alpha shapes, Betti numbers, genus statistics. Although a comparitive study of these topolgical measures in multistream fields may be interesing, it is not the intent of this paper. In this study, we only investigate percolation transitions in excursion sets of multistreams as a preliminary analysis of topological connectivities. Excursion sets in density fields are shown to have quick percolation transitions \citep{Shandarin2010b} and a similar trend in multistream field is investigated here.
Excursion sets of multistream and density field (calculated using CIC and DTFE in this study) reveal some of the topological differences. At any volume fraction of excursion set $f_{ES}$, the filling factor of the largest structure $f_{1}/f_{ES}$ is lower for mass density (both CIC and DTFE). This concludes that the mass density field is more fragmented than the multistream field. A large number of disconnected segments are seen at high $n_{str}$ or $\rho/ \rho_b$ thresholds, and the number of connections increase with decreasing $n_{str}$ threshold.
Global connectivities in the cosmic web is slightly different for multistream field and the density field. The largest structure in the excursion set starts percolating at certain values of excursion volume fraction ($f_{ES}$). As shown in Section \ref{sec:percolation}, these percolation transitions occur at $\rho_{DTFE}/ \rho_b = 5.16 $, $\rho_{CIC}/ \rho_b = 5.49 $ for density fields and $n_{str} = 17$ for the multistream field. The corresponding percolation volume fraction $f_{ES}^{(p)}$ is smaller for multistream fields ( $f_{ES}^{(p)} = 0.75$ per cent for multistream field and $f_{ES}^{(p)} = 1.7$ per cent for the CIC-density field $f_{ES}^{(p)} = 2.9$ per cent for the DTFE-density field). This indicates that the percolating multistream filament is over 2 times thinner than that of $\rho_{DTFE}$ and over 3 times thinner than $\rho_{CIC}$ field.
Since the $n_{str}$ field in this study is calculated on regular grids, the boudaries of the structures are not exactly traced. Outlining foldings in the Lagrangian sub-manifolds exactly as shown in \autoref{fig:NstrCaust} or in the {\it flip-flop} calculations shown in \cite{Shandarin2016} give point datasets which are considerably more difficult to analyze. However, recent advancements in computational topology - such as the adaptation of the watershed transforms (using SpineWeb -\citealt{Aragon-Calvo2008} and Morse theory (using DisPerSe - \citealt{Sousbie2011e} and Felix - \citealt{Shivshankar2015a}) to inherently discrete datasets may be useful in the topological analyses of flip-flop fields and caustics.
The multistream field is a scalar function of Eulerian coordinates. We have analysed functional variation of the $-n_{str}(\bmath{x})$ field using Hessian eigenvalues. The Hessian analysis is generally done for inherently continuous fields, For example, Hessian analysis has been previously studied for smoothed density fields (see \citealt{Sousbie2008a}, \citealt{Aragon-Calvo2007}, \citealt{Aragon-Calvo2010}, \citealt{Cautun2014a} etc.), gravitational potential and velocity shear tensor (\citealt{Hoffman2012a}, \citealt{Libeskind2013}, \citealt{Hahn2007}, \citealt{Forero-Romero2009a}, \citealt{Hoffman2012a} and \citealt{Cautun2014a}). Although the multistream field has discrete values by definition, it may be considered smooth for numerical analysis at the scale of grid length of the field. The resulting Hessian eigenvalues characterize the geometry in a four-dimensional hyper-space of ($-n_{str}, x, y, z$). The boundary of a region with $\lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq \lambda_3 > 0$ is a closed convex contour in this hyper-space, and thus it's projection onto the three-dimensional Lagrangian space is also closed and convex.
\begin{comment}
Our algorithm for detecting potential dark matter haloes is unique due to two important factors: the geometrical attribute and the choice of field. Local geometrical analysis on the multistream field conveniently delineates the non-void structures without any free parameters. The dark halo candidates have compact surfaces that enclose local maxima of the multistream field. We do not employ non-local thresholds that several halo finders use (see \citealt{Knebe2011a}, \citealt{Knebe2013} and \citealt{Onions2012} for comparisons of various halo finders). Global thresholds (like a constant $n_{str}$ cut-off) might be unsuitable for detecting halo candidates since the halo multistream environments are generally not categorical. Secondly, the $n_{str}$ field enables us to mask out the regions belonging to single-stream regions without a heuristic criteria. Our method guarantees that none of the $\lambda_3$-halo particles belong to void region.
The applicability of non-local thresholds in detecting haloes deserves deeper investigation. Lower bounds on over-density or linking-length thresholds traditionally define halo regions in several halo finders. Values such as $\Delta_{vir} \approx 180$ or $b \approx 0.2$ correspond to virial theorem applied to isolated spherical collapse models. Recently \cite{More2011} demonstrated that depending on halo environment, cosmology and redshift over-densities corresponding to $b = 0.2$ have different values. The virial theorem itself is a good measure of equilibrium of a system. However, the global thresholds empirically derived from it may not be pertinent to diverse environment of dark matter haloes.
The algorithm prescribed in Section \ref{sec:haloDetection} lists out a set of physically motivated steps that filter out the noisy $\lambda_3 > 0$ regions that cannot be identified as haloes. The analysis in the simulation of $100 h^{-1}$ Mpc side length and $128^3$ particles, with the multistream calculated on $256^3$ diagnosis box, approximately 40000 labelled segments satisfying $\lambda_3 > 0$ criterion in the non-voids were filtered out by a lower limit on multistreaming regions. One of the possible improvements in our algorithm would be to use information of number of flip-flops of each particle (For instance, using methods prescribed by \citealt{Shandarin2014a}). Such methods involving the Lagrangian sub-manifold may reveal rich sub-structure in the haloes.
We note that present halo finders employ a variety of physical and numerical processes to identify dark matter halo candidates. Furthermore, there is no consensus in the definition of haloes itself (see discussion in \citealt{Knebe2011a}). We have provided yet another algorithm to detect potential dark matter halo based on a definition that each halo should have closed convex surfaces with a multistream maximum inside. This requirement may identify sub-haloes in large haloes but is too demanding because a halo with sub-haloes must have saddle points in the $n_{str}$ field. This may explain the shortage of massive haloes shown in \autoref{fig:hmf}.
Applying a filter for smoothing the $n_{str}$ field increases the number of massive haloes but reduces the number of low mass haloes. Applying a more sophisticated procedure for linking $\lambda_3$-sub-haloes in a more massive halo will be done in the follow-up paper.
\end{comment}
Dark matter haloes, being localised structures, are uniquely convenient for our local Hessian analysis. Conditions of $\lambda_1 > 0 > \lambda_2 \geq \lambda_3 $ and $\lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 > 0 > \lambda_3 $ also give information about curvature. Hessian eigenvalue analysis at high resolution of multistream fields may be very interesting in understanding the tubular edges of filaments and surfaces of walls at smaller scales.
\begin{comment}However, in this study, Hessian analysis is only applied to haloes. Walls and filaments span large volumes in the dark matter simulations, and we employ topological tools to investigate them.
\end{comment}
\section{Summary}
\label{sec:summary}
We studied certain geometrical and topological aspects of the multistream field in the context of large scale structure of the Universe. Several features were found to be considerably different from traditional density fields. The major findings from our analysis are briefly summarized as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We use the multistream field as a proxy for distinguishing of the DM web from DM voids: the web is defined as the regions
with number of streams greater than one and thus voids as a single stream regions. The boundary between them
representing a sharp transition from one-- to three-- stream flow regions
would be a caustic surface in the density field if the mass and spatial resolutions were sufficiently high. They were clearly seen in
2D simulations by \cite{Melott1989} as well as in 3D simulations by \cite{Angulo2016}, \cite{Hahn2016a}, \cite{Hahn2013} and in velocity fields \cite{Hahn2015a}.
\item Regions without any folds in the Lagrangian sub-manifold are mostly connected. These single streaming void regions at $z=0$ occupy around 90 per cent of both simulations used in this study, most of which belong to a single percolating structure. However at high resolution multistream analysis, we identify a number of isolated pockets that are entirely enclosed by boundary of walls. But these voids are tiny and collectively occupy less than 0.1 per cent of the volume of the simulation box.
\item The Hessian components of the multistream field are universally zero in the interior of the void, due to constant value of $n_{str}$. Density field need not have zero Hessians since mass density is not unequivocally constant at $z=0$.
\begin{comment}
\item We present a novel halo detection algorithm for identifying dark matter halo candidates in the multistream field. Conditions on the local geometric indicators of the field are used to ensure that each closed halo boundary hosts a local multistream maxima. The
positive signs of all principal curvatures (please note that we use curvatures of $-n_{str}(\bmath{x})$ field) inside the boundary also guarantee that the boundary is convex.
Bounds on $n_{str}$ guarantee that all the halo particles are in the non-void structure. We also ensure that the halo regions have foldings in the Lagrangian sub-manifold in more than one direction.
\item The multistream field within the halo boundaries may be very diverse. We do not detect halo candidates from a global lower bound on $n_{str}$. Instead, we look for closed convex regions in the multistream field. For the simulation with $128^3$ particles, minima of $n_{str}$ in each halo vary from 3 to nearly 450. Maxima of $n_{str}$ in the halo vary from 7 to about 2800.
\item Our multistream halo candidates had a reasonably good correspondence with haloes from AHF and FOF catalogues. One notable difference was found with massive haloes. Our algorithm predicted fewer particles than the FOF method. This is likely to be caused
by the requirement that the multistream field in the regions of the $\lambda_3$-halo candidates is convex which may be a reasonable approximation for simple haloes (i.e. having no subhaloes) but massive haloes are more likely to have subhaloes and therefore the $n_{str}$ field in the corresponding regions must have saddle points ant therefore cannot be entirely convex. Our study of the smoothing effects has shown that the number of massive subhaloes tend to increase with growing smoothing scale which
seems to agree with the above explanation. We will address this problem in the following study.
\end{comment}
\item We studied the global topology of the non-void ($n_{str} > 1$) structure using percolation analysis. A rapid percolation transition occurred in our multistream field at $n_{str} = 17$. The percolating filament in multistream field is thinner than the percolating filament in mass density field.
\begin{comment}
\item Halo candidates were mostly embedded on the excursion set of the multistream field after percolation transition ($n_{str} = 17$ in the simulation with $256^3$ particles). At lower thresholds (around $n_{str} = 5 \text{ to } 11$), the largest percolating structure in the excursion set hosts most of the haloes.
\end{comment}
\end{enumerate}
The Lagrangian sub-manifold contains dynamical information of structure formation. We analysed the multistream field that contains the information of foldings in the sub-manifold. Connectivities in the void and non-void components of the multistream web reveal several details about structure of the Universe that are not probed by traditional density fields. In addition, we demonstrated the use of geometrical features of the multistream field in identifying potential dark matter halo candidates in cosmological N-body simulations.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work has been funded in part by the University of Kansas FY 2017 Competition General Research Fund, GRF Award 2301155. This research used resources of the Advanced Computing Facility, which is part of the Center for Research Computing at the University of Kansas. We thank Mark Neyrinck and Mikhail Medvedev for discussions and suggestions. We also thank the anonymous referee for insightful comments on improving this manuscript.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Introduction}
The strong coupling constants of hadrons with mesons are the key quantity
for understanding the dynamics of the existing hadron--hadron,
hadron--meson, and photoproduction experiments. Among many couplings, only
nucleon--pion coupling constant has been measured accurately from
experiments. With increasing experimental information there appears
the necessity for an accurate determination of the strong coupling
constants of hadrons with pseudoscalar mesons. These coupling constants have
so far been estimated within various approaches (relevant references can be
found in \cite{Rfts01}).
The strong coupling constants
of the octet baryons with pseudoscalar mesons are calculated in framework of
the light cone QCD sum rules \cite{Rfts01}.
In the present note we calculate the $N^\ast N^\ast \pi$ coupling constant in light
cone QCD sum rules. Compared to the all other sum rules approaches that take
only one positive party baryon into consideration, the main novelty of the
present calculation is that the contributions to the sum rules coming from
the two positive parity $N(938)$ and $N(1440)$ states are taken into
account. This fact makes the analysis of the sum rules more complicated in
determination of the $N^\ast N^\ast \pi$ coupling constant.
In the present work a new method is explored for eliminating
the unwanted contributions coming from the $N(938) \to N(938)$,
$N(1440) \to N(1440)$, $N^\ast \to N(938)$, $N^\ast \to N(1440)$
transitions. In the following discussion we shall customarily denote
$N(1440)$ as $N^\prime$. It should be noted here that the $N^\ast N^\ast
\pi$ coupling constant is determined in \cite{Rfts02} in framework of the
3--point QCD sum rules.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we derive the sum rules for
the $N^\ast N^\ast \pi$ coupling constant. In section 3 we present the
numerical analysis of the sum rules for this parameter, and compare our
result with the prediction of 3--point QCD sum rules.
\section{Sum rules for the $N^\ast N^\ast \pi$ coupling}
In this section sum rules for the $N^\ast N^\ast \pi$ coupling constant
within the light cone QCD sum rules method is derived. In determining this
coupling constant we consider the following correlation function,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{efts01}
\Pi(p,q) = i \int d^4x e^{ipx} \left< \pi(q) \left| J_N (x) J_N^\dag (0) \right| 0
\right>\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{efts02}
J_N = \varepsilon^{abc} \Big\{ \left(u^{a\dag} C d^b \right) \gamma_5 u^c +
\beta \left(u^{a\dag} C\gamma_5 d^b\right) u^c \Big\}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
is the interpolating current of the nucleon, $a,\,b,\,c$ are the color
indices, $C$ is the charge conjugation operator, and $\beta$ is an arbitrary
parameter. The sum rules for the $N^\ast N^\ast \pi$ coupling can be
obtained by following the QCD sum rules procedure. On the one hand, the
correlation function is calculated in terms of hadrons. On the other hand,
it can be calculated in the deep Eucledian domain
$p^2\!\ll \!0,~(p+q)^2 \!\ll \!0$
by using the operator product expansion (OPE) over twist. By matching then
these two representations, the sum rules for the $N^\ast N^\ast \pi$
coupling is obtained.
The hadronic part of the correlation function is obtained by inserting a
complete set of baryons, and isolating the ground state contributions of the
baryons as follows,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{efts03}
\Pi = \sum_{i,j} {\left< 0 \left| J_N \right| N_i(p,s) \right> \left< \pi(q) N_i \vert N_j
(p+q) \right> \left< N_j \left| \bar{J}_N \right| 0 \right> \over
(p_i^2-m_i^2)[(p+q)^2 - m_j^2] }\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $i$ and $j$ run over $N$, $N(1440)$ and $N^\ast(1535)$, and dots
denote higher state contributions. The matrix elements in Eq. (\ref{efts03})
are defined as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{efts04}
\left< 0 \left| J_N\right| N(N^\prime) \right> \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! \lambda_{N(N^\prime)}
u_{N(N^\prime)}(p)\,, \nonumber \\
\left< \pi(q) N_i \vert N_j(p+q) \right> \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! g_{N_i N_j\pi} \bar{u}_{N_i} \Gamma_j
u_{N_j}\,, \nonumber\\
\left< 0 \left| J_N \right| N^\ast \right> \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! \lambda_{N^\ast} \gamma_5 u_{N^\ast}
(p)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_j = \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
i\gamma_5,~\mbox{for }N\to N,~N^\prime \to N^\prime,~N^\prime \to N,~N^\ast
\to N^\ast~\mbox{transitions},\\
~~I,~\mbox{for }N^\ast \to N,~N^\ast \to N^\prime ~\mbox{transitions}.\\
\end{array} \right. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Using Eqs. (\ref{efts03}) and (\ref{efts04}), for the hadronic part of the
correlation function we get,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{efts05}
\Pi \!\!\! &=& \!\!\!
A (\not\!{p} + m_N) i\gamma_5 (\not\!{p} + \not\!{q} + m_N) +
B (\not\!{p} + m_{N^\prime}) i\gamma_5 (\not\!{p} + \not\!{q} + m_{N^\prime}) \nonumber \\
&+& \!\!\! C (\not\!{p} + m_{N^\prime}) i\gamma_5 (\not\!{p} + \not\!{q} + m_N) +
D (\not\!{p} + m_N) i\gamma_5 (\not\!{p} + \not\!{q} + m_{N^\prime}) \nonumber \\
&+& \!\!\! E \gamma_5 (\not\!{p} + m_{N^\ast}) i\gamma_5 (\not\!{p} + \not\!{q} +
m_{N^\ast}) (-\gamma_5) +
F i\gamma_5 (\not\!{p} + m_{N^\ast}) (\not\!{p} + \not\!{q} + m_N) \nonumber \\
&+& \!\!\! K i \gamma_5 (\not\!{p} + m_{N^\ast}) (\not\!{p} + \not\!{q} +
m_{N^\prime}) +
L (\not\!{p} + m_N) (\not\!{p} + \not\!{q} + m_{N^\ast}) (-i\gamma_5) \nonumber \\
&+& \!\!\! N (\not\!{p} + m_{N^\prime}) (\not\!{p} + \not\!{q} + m_{N^\ast})
(-i\gamma_5)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{efts06}
A \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! {\left| \lambda_N \right|^2 g_{NN\pi}\over (p^2-m_N^2) [(p+q)^2 - m_N^2]}\,,\nonumber \\
B \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! {\left| \lambda_{N^\prime}\right|^2 g_{N^\prime N^\prime \pi} \over (p^2-m_{N^\prime}^2)[(p+q)^2 -
m_{N^\prime}^2]}\,,\nonumber \\
C \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! { \lambda_N^\ast \lambda_{N^\prime} g_{N N^\prime \pi}\over (p^2-m_{N^\prime}^2)[(p+q)^2 -
m_N^2]}\,,\nonumber \\
D \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! { \lambda_{N^\prime}^\ast \lambda_N g_{N^\prime N \pi}\over (p^2-m_N^2)[(p+q)^2 -
m_{N^\prime}^2)]}\,,\nonumber \\
E \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! {\left| \lambda_{N^\ast} \right|^2 g_{N^\ast N^\ast \pi} \over (p^2-m_{N^\ast}^2) [(p+q)^2 -
m_{N^\ast}^2]}\,,\nonumber \\
F \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! { \lambda_{N^\ast}^\ast \lambda_N g_{N^\ast N \pi} \over (p^2-m_{N^\ast}^2) [(p+q)^2 -
m_N^2]}\,,\nonumber \\
K \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! { \lambda_{N^\ast}^\ast \lambda_{N^\prime} g_{N^\ast N^\prime \pi}\over (p^2-m_{N^\ast}^2) [(p+q)^2 -
m_{N^\prime}^2]}\,,\nonumber \\
L \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! { \lambda_N^\ast \lambda_{N^\ast} g_{N N^\ast \pi}\over (p^2-m_N^2)
[(p+q)^2 - m_{N^\ast}^2]}\,,\nonumber \\
N \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! { \lambda_{N^\prime}^\ast \lambda_{N^\ast} g_{N^\prime N^\ast \pi}\over (p^2-m_{N^\prime}^2)
[(p+q)^2 - m_{N^\ast}^2]}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The correlation function can be calculated from the QCD side by using Wick's
theorem. In calculation of the correlation function from theoretical side
the expression of the light quark operators in the presence of an external
field are needed, and it is calculated in \cite{Rfts03}. It should be noted
here that the quark propagator gets contributions from three--particle
$\bar{q}Gq$, four--particle $\bar{q}G^2 q$, $\bar{q}q\bar{q}q$ nonlocal
operators. In further calculations we take into account only three--particle
$\bar{q}Gq$ operator and neglect contributions coming from four--particle
operators. It is demonstrated in \cite{Rfts03} that neglecting these
contributions can be legitimated on the basis of an expansion over conformal
spin. Under this approximation the light quark propagator in the background
field is given by,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{efts07}
S_q(x) \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! {i \rlap/x\over 2\pi^2 x^4} - {m_q\over 4 \pi^2 x^2}
- {i g_s \over 16 \pi^2 x^2} \int_0^1 du \Bigg[\rlap/{x} \bar{u}
\sigma_{\alpha \beta} G^{\alpha \beta} (ux)
+ u \sigma_{\alpha \beta} G^{\alpha \beta} (ux) \nonumber \\
&-& \!\!\! {1\over 2} i m_q x^2 \sigma_{\alpha \beta} G^{\alpha \beta} (ux)
\left( \ln {-x^2 \Lambda^2\over 4} +
2 \gamma_E \right) \Bigg]\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Lambda$ is the parameter separating the perturbative and
nonperturbative domains, whose value is estimated to be $\Lambda=(0.5 \div
1.0)\,GeV$ in \cite{Rfts04}.
Using the expression of the light quark propagator, the correlation function
can be calculated from the QCD side straightforwardly in deep Eucledian
region $p^2 \to - \infty$, $(p+q)^2 \to - \infty$ by using the operator
product expansion over twist. In this calculation the matrix elements of the
nonlocal operators $\bar{q}(x) \Gamma q(0)$ and $\bar{q}(x) \Gamma
G_{\mu\nu} (ux) q(0)$ between the vacuum and pion states appear, where
$\Gamma$ corresponds to the matrices from full set of Dirac matrices.
The matrix elements up to twist--4 are parametrized in terms of the pion
distribution amplitudes in the following way
\cite{Rfts05,Rfts06,Rfts07,Rfts08,Rfts09}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{efts08}
\left< \pi(p)\left| \bar q_1(x) \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 q_1(0)\right| 0 \right> \!\!\! &=& \!\!\!
-i f_\pi q_\mu \int_0^1 du e^{i \bar u q x}
\left( \varphi_\pi(u) + {1\over 16} m_\pi^2
x^2 {\Bbb{A}}(u) \right) \nonumber \\
&-& \!\!\! {i\over 2} f_\pi m_\pi^2 {x_\mu\over qx}
\int_0^1 du e^{i \bar u qx} {\Bbb{B}}(u)\,,\nonumber \\
\left< \pi(p)\left| \bar q_1(x) i \gamma_5 q_2(0)\right| 0 \right> \!\!\! &=& \!\!\!
\mu_\pi \int_0^1 du e^{i \bar u qx} \phi_P(u)\,,\nonumber \\
\left< \pi(p)\left| \bar q_1(x) \sigma_{\alpha \beta} \gamma_5 q_2(0)\right| 0 \right> \!\!\! &=& \!\!\!
{i\over 6} \mu_\pi \left( 1 - \widetilde{\mu}_\pi^2 \right)
\left( q_\alpha x_\beta - q_\beta x_\alpha\right)
\int_0^1 du e^{i \bar u qx} \phi_\sigma(u)\,,\nonumber \\
\left< \pi(p)\left| \bar q_1(x) \sigma_{\mu \nu} \gamma_5 g_s
G_{\alpha \beta}(v x) q_2(0)\right| 0 \right> \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! i \mu_\pi \left[
q_\alpha q_\mu \left( g_{\nu \beta} - {1\over qx}(q_\nu x_\beta +
q_\beta x_\nu) \right) \right. \nonumber \\
&-& \!\!\! q_\alpha q_\nu \left( g_{\mu \beta} -
{1\over qx}(q_\mu x_\beta + q_\beta x_\mu) \right) \nonumber \\
&-& \!\!\! q_\beta q_\mu \left( g_{\nu \alpha} - {1\over qx}
(q_\nu x_\alpha + q_\alpha x_\nu) \right) \nonumber \\
&+& \!\!\! q_\beta q_\nu \left. \left( g_{\mu \alpha} -
{1\over qx}(q_\mu x_\alpha + q_\alpha x_\mu) \right) \right] \nonumber \\
&\times& \!\!\! \int {\cal D} \alpha e^{i (\alpha_{\bar q} +
v \alpha_g) qx} {\cal T}(\alpha_i)\,,\nonumber \\
\left< \pi(p)\left| \bar q_1(x) \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 g_s
G_{\alpha \beta} (v x) q_2(0)\right| 0 \right> \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! q_\mu (q_\alpha x_\beta -
q_\beta x_\alpha) {1\over qx} f_\pi m_\pi^2
\int {\cal D}\alpha e^{i (\alpha_{\bar q} + v \alpha_g) qx}
{\cal A}_\parallel (\alpha_i) \nonumber \\
&+& \!\!\! \left[q_\beta \left( g_{\mu \alpha} - {1\over qx}
(q_\mu x_\alpha + q_\alpha x_\mu) \right) \right. \nonumber \\
&-& \!\!\! q_\alpha \left. \left(g_{\mu \beta} - {1\over qx}
(q_\mu x_\beta + q_\beta x_\mu) \right) \right]
f_\pi m_\pi^2 \nonumber \\
&\times& \!\!\! \int {\cal D}\alpha e^{i (\alpha_{\bar q} + v \alpha _g)
q x} {\cal A}_\perp(\alpha_i)\,,\nonumber \\
\left< \pi(p)\left| \bar q_1(x) \gamma_\mu i g_s G_{\alpha \beta}
(v x) q_2(0)\right| 0 \right> \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! q_\mu (q_\alpha x_\beta - q_\beta x_\alpha)
{1\over qx} f_\pi m_\pi^2 \int {\cal D}\alpha e^{i (\alpha_{\bar q} +
v \alpha_g) qx} {\cal V}_\parallel (\alpha_i) \nonumber \\
&+& \!\!\! \left[q_\beta \left( g_{\mu \alpha} - {1\over qx}
(q_\mu x_\alpha + q_\alpha x_\mu) \right) \right. \nonumber \\
&-& \!\!\! q_\alpha \left. \left(g_{\mu \beta} - {1\over qx}
(q_\mu x_\beta + q_\beta x_\mu) \right) \right] f_\pi m_\pi^2 \nonumber \\
&\times& \!\!\! \int {\cal D}\alpha e^{i (\alpha_{\bar q} +
v \alpha _g) q x} {\cal V}_\perp(\alpha_i)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu_\pi = f_\pi {m_\pi^2\over m_u + m_d}\,,~~~~~
\widetilde{\mu}_\pi = {m_u + m_d \over m_\pi}\,, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and ${\cal D}\alpha = d\alpha_{\bar q} d\alpha_q d\alpha_g
\delta(1-\alpha_{\bar q} - \alpha_q - \alpha_g)$.
In these expressions $\varphi_\pi(u)$ is the leading twist--two, $\phi_\pi(u)$,
$\phi_\sigma(u)$, ${\cal T}(\alpha_i)$ are the twist--three, and
remaining ones are twist--four DAs, respectively, whose explicit expressions
are given in the following section.
It follows from Eq. (\ref{efts05}) that we have four independent Lorentz structures
$\rlap/{p}\rlap/{q}\gamma_5$, $\rlap/{q}\gamma_5$, $ \rlap/{p}\gamma_5$ and
$\gamma_5$ for the problem under consideration. In principle,
the relevant sum rules can be obtained by performing double Borel
transformation over the variables $-p^2$ and $-(p+q)^2$ on the theoretical
and hadronic parts, and matching the coefficients of the corresponding
Lorentz structures. At this point we face the following problem.
Among the nine coefficients given in Eq. (\ref{efts07})
only coefficient $E$ describes the $N^\ast N^\ast \pi$ coupling constant.
However, as has already been noted, we have only four independent Lorentz
structures, and we need additional five more equations to determine the
$N^\ast N^\ast \pi$ coupling constant uniquely. Four of these additional five
equations can be obtained by taking derivatives of the four equations with
respect to the inverse Borel mass square. The fifth equation is obtained by
taking second derivative of the coefficient of the structure
$\rlap/{p}\rlap/{q}\gamma_5$ with respect to again the inverse Borel mass square.
From the numerical solution of these nine equations we get,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{efts09}
g_{N^\ast N^\ast \pi} \left| \lambda_{N^\ast} \right|^2 e^{-m_{N^\ast}^2/M^2} \!\!\! &=& \!\!\!
0.097 \Pi_1^B + 0.029 \Pi_2^B - 0.178
\Pi_3^B - 0.143 \Pi_4^B - 0.116 \Pi_1^{B\prime} \nonumber \\
&-& \!\!\! 0.051 \Pi_2^{B\prime} + 0.062 \Pi_3^{B\prime} - 0.013 \Pi_4^{B\prime}
+ 0.024 \Pi_1^{B\prime \prime} +\cdots
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Pi_1^B$, $\Pi_2^B$, $\Pi_3^B$, and $\Pi_4^B$ are the coefficients of the
structures $\rlap/{p}\rlap/{q}\gamma_5$, $\rlap/{q}\gamma_5$, $
\rlap/{p}\gamma_5$ and $\gamma_5$ after Borel transformations with respect
to the variables $-(p+q)^2$ and $-p^2$ are performed, respectively;
$\Pi_i^{B\prime}$ stands for
the first derivative of $\Pi_i^B$ with respect to $1/M_1^2$, i.e.,
$d\Pi_i^B/d(1/M_1^2)$, and $\Pi_1^{B\prime \prime}$ is the second derivative of
$\Pi_1^B$ with respect to $1/M_1^2$. Here we set $m_\pi^2=0$,
and dots correspond to contributions of continuum and
higher states. These contributions can be calculated by using the hadron--quark
duality, i.e., above some threshold in the $(s_1,s_2)$ plane the hadronic
spectral density is equal to the quark spectral density.
Note that after taking derivatives of the invariant functions
we set $M_1^2=M_2^2=2 M^2$. The expressions of the functions $\Pi_1^B$, $\Pi_2^B$,
$\Pi_3^B$ and $\Pi_4^B$ are quite lengthy and for this reason we do not
present them in the present work.
Once Fourier and Borel
transformations are carried out, continuum subtraction can be performed by
using the following formula,
\begin{eqnarray}
M^{2n} \to {1\over \Gamma(n)} \int_0^{s_0} ds\,e^{-s/M^2}
(s-n_{N^\ast}^2)^{n-1}\,,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
which leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
M^2 \to M^2\left( 1- e^{-s_0/M^2} \right)\,.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
For the higher twist terms that are proportional to the negative power of
$M^2$, the subtraction procedure is not performed, since their contributions
are negligibly small (for more details, see \cite{Rfts05}).
Our final remark in this section is about the residue of the negative parity
baryons, which is determined from the two--point correlation function,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{efts10}
\Pi(p^2) = i \int d^4x e^{ipx} \left< 0 \left| \mbox{T}\Big( \bar{\eta}_N(x)
\eta_N (0) \Big) \right| 0 \right> \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\eta$ is given in Eq. (\ref{efts02}). Saturating this correlation
function with positive and negative parity baryons we get,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{efts11}
\Pi(p^2) \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! { \left| \lambda_N \right|^2 (\not\!{p}+m_N) \over (p^2-m_N^2)}
+ { \left| \lambda_{N^\prime} \right|^2 (\not\!{p}+m_{N^\prime}) \over
(p^2-m_{N^\prime}^2)} +
{ \left| \lambda_{N^\ast} \right|^2 (\not\!{p}+m_{N^\ast}) \over
(p^2-m_{N^\ast}^2)}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
When we calculate this correlation function from theoretical side we get,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{efts12}
\Pi(p^2) \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! \not\!{p} \Pi_1(p^2) I \Pi_2(p^2)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Pi_i$ are the corresponding invariant functions. Performing Borel
transformation over $p^2$, and equating the coefficients of the structures we
get,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{efts13}
\left| \lambda_N \right|^2 e^{-m_N^2/M^2} + \left| \lambda_{N^\prime} \right|^2
e^{-m_{N^\prime}^2/M^2} + \left| \lambda_{N^\ast} \right|^2
e^{-m_{N^\ast}^2/M^2} \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! \widetilde{\Pi}_1^B\,,\nonumber\\
m_N \left| \lambda_N \right|^2 e^{-m_N^2/M^2} + m_{N^\prime} \left|
\lambda_{N^\prime} \right|^2 e^{-m_{N^\prime}^2/M^2}
- m_{N^\ast} \left| \lambda_{N^\ast} \right|^2 e^{-m_{N^\ast}^2/M^2} \!\!\! &=& \!\!\!
\widetilde{\Pi}_2^B\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Expressions of the invariant functions $\widetilde{\Pi}_1^B$ and
$\widetilde{\Pi}_2^B$ are given in \cite{Rfts10}.
As can easily be seen from these equations there are six unknowns, namely,
$m_N$, $\lambda_N$, $m_{N^\prime}$, $\lambda_{N^\prime}$,
$m_N^\ast$ and $\lambda_{N^\ast}$, and therefore we need six equations to be
able to solve for these unknown parameters. Two of these equations are given
in Eq. (\ref{efts13}), and the remaining four equations can be obtained from
Eq. (\ref{efts13}) by taking first and second derivatives with respect to
$(-1/M^2)$. Solving then these six equations we can determine
$\lambda_{N^\ast}$. Our numerical analysis shows that $\left| \lambda_{N^\ast}
\right|^2$ is positive in the regions $-1.0 \le
\cos\theta \le -0.8$ (where $\beta=\tan\theta$), and $0.8\le\cos\theta
\le 1.0$, and it is unphysical for all other values of $\cos\theta$.
therefore in further numerical analysis we will use these domains in
determination of the $N^\ast N^\ast \pi$ coupling constant.
\section{Numerical analysis}
In this section numerical analysis for the sum rules of the
strong coupling constant $g_{N^\ast N^\ast \pi}$ obtained in the previous
section is performed. In this analysis the values of the input parameters,
as well as the expressions of the pion distribution amplitudes (DAs) are needed,
which are the main ingredients of the light cone QCD sum rules. The
expressions of the pion DAs are given as,
\cite{Rfts05,Rfts06,Rfts07,Rfts08,Rfts09}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{efts17}
\varphi_{\cal P}(u) \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! 6 u \bar u \left[ 1 + a_1^{\cal P} C_1(2 u -1) +
a_2^{\cal P} C_2^{3/2}(2 u - 1) \right]\,, \nonumber \\
{\cal T}(\alpha_i) \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! 360 \eta_3 \alpha_{\bar q} \alpha_q
\alpha_g^2 \left[ 1 + w_3 {1\over 2} (7 \alpha_g-3) \right]\,, \nonumber \\
\phi_P(u) \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! 1 + \left[ 30 \eta_3 - {5\over 2}
{1\over \mu_{\cal P}^2}\right] C_2^{1/2}(2 u - 1)\,, \nonumber \\
&+& \!\!\! \left( -3 \eta_3 w_3 - {27\over 20} {1\over \mu_{\cal P}^2} -
{81\over 10} {1\over \mu_{\cal P}^2} a_2^{\cal P} \right)
C_4^{1/2}(2u-1)\,, \nonumber \\
\phi_\sigma(u) \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! 6 u \bar u \left[ 1 + \left(5 \eta_3 - {1\over 2} \eta_3 w_3 -
{7\over 20} \mu_{\cal P}^2 - {3\over 5} \mu_{\cal P}^2 a_2^{\cal P} \right)
C_2^{3/2}(2u-1) \right] \,, \nonumber \\
{\cal V}_\parallel(\alpha_i) \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! 120 \alpha_q \alpha_{\bar q} \alpha_g
\left( v_{00} + v_{10} (3 \alpha_g -1) \right) \,, \nonumber \\
{\cal A}_\parallel(\alpha_i) \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! 120 \alpha_q \alpha_{\bar q} \alpha_g
\left( 0 + a_{10} (\alpha_q - \alpha_{\bar q}) \right) \,, \nonumber \\
{\cal V}_\perp (\alpha_i) \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! - 30 \alpha_g^2\left[ h_{00}(1-\alpha_g) +
h_{01} (\alpha_g(1-\alpha_g)- 6 \alpha_q \alpha_{\bar q}) +
h_{10}(\alpha_g(1-\alpha_g) - {3\over 2} (\alpha_{\bar q}^2+
\alpha_q^2)) \right] \,, \nonumber \\
{\cal A}_\perp (\alpha_i) \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! 30 \alpha_g^2(\alpha_{\bar q} - \alpha_q)
\left[ h_{00} + h_{01} \alpha_g + {1\over 2} h_{10}(5 \alpha_g-3) \right] \,, \nonumber \\
B(u)\!\!\! &=& \!\!\! g_{\cal P}(u) - \varphi_{\cal P}(u) \,, \nonumber \\
g_{\cal P}(u) \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! g_0 C_0^{1/2}(2 u - 1) + g_2 C_2^{1/2}(2 u - 1) +
g_4 C_4^{1/2}(2 u - 1) \,, \nonumber \\
\Bbb{A}(u) \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! 6 u \bar u \left[{16\over 15} + {24\over 35} a_2^{\cal P}+
20 \eta_3 + {20\over 9} \eta_4 +
\left( - {1\over 15}+ {1\over 16}- {7\over 27}\eta_3 w_3 -
{10\over 27} \eta_4 \right) C_2^{3/2}(2 u - 1) \right. \nonumber \\
&+& \!\!\! \left. \left( - {11\over 210}a_2^{\cal P} - {4\over 135}
\eta_3w_3 \right)C_4^{3/2}(2 u - 1)\right] \,, \nonumber \\
&+& \!\!\! \left( -{18\over 5} a_2^{\cal P} + 21 \eta_4 w_4 \right)
\left[ 2 u^3 (10 - 15 u + 6 u^2) \ln u \right. \nonumber \\
&+& \!\!\! \left. 2 \bar u^3 (10 - 15 \bar u + 6 \bar u ^2) \ln\bar u +
u \bar u (2 + 13 u \bar u) \right]\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $C_n^k(x)$ are the Gegenbauer polynomials, and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{efts18}
h_{00}\!\!\! &=& \!\!\! v_{00} = - {1\over 3}\eta_4 \,, \nonumber \\
a_{10} \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! {21\over 8} \eta_4 w_4 - {9\over 20} a_2^{\cal P} \,, \nonumber \\
v_{10} \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! {21\over 8} \eta_4 w_4 \,, \nonumber \\
h_{01} \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! {7\over 4} \eta_4 w_4 - {3\over 20} a_2^{\cal P} \,, \nonumber \\
h_{10} \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! {7\over 4} \eta_4 w_4 + {3\over 20} a_2^{\cal P} \,, \nonumber \\
g_0 \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! 1 \,, \nonumber \\
g_2 \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! 1 + {18\over 7} a_2^{\cal P} + 60 \eta_3 + {20\over 3} \eta_4 \,, \nonumber \\
g_4 \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! - {9\over 28} a_2^{\cal P} - 6 \eta_3 w_3\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The values of the parameters $a_1^{\cal P}$, $a_2^{\cal P}$,
$\eta_3$, $\eta_4$, $w_3$, and $w_4$ entering Eq. (\ref{efts18}) are listed in
Table (\ref{param}) for the pseudoscalar $\pi$, $K$ and $\eta$ mesons.
\begin{table}[h]
\def\lower 0.25cm\hbox{{\vrule width 0pt height 0.7cm}}{\lower 0.25cm\hbox{{\vrule width 0pt height 0.7cm}}}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline\hline
& \lower 0.25cm\hbox{{\vrule width 0pt height 0.7cm}} $\pi$ & $K$ \\
\hline
$a_1^{\cal P}$ & \lower 0.25cm\hbox{{\vrule width 0pt height 0.7cm}} 0 & 0.050 \\
\hline
$a_2^{\cal P}~\mbox{(set-1)}$ & \lower 0.25cm\hbox{{\vrule width 0pt height 0.7cm}} 0.11 & 0.15 \\
\hline
$a_2^{\cal P}~\mbox{(set-2)}$ & \lower 0.25cm\hbox{{\vrule width 0pt height 0.7cm}} 0.25 & 0.27 \\
\hline
$\eta_3$ & \lower 0.25cm\hbox{{\vrule width 0pt height 0.7cm}} 0.015 & 0.015 \\
\hline
$\eta_4$ & \lower 0.25cm\hbox{{\vrule width 0pt height 0.7cm}} 10 & 0.6 \\
\hline
$w_3$ & \lower 0.25cm\hbox{{\vrule width 0pt height 0.7cm}} $-3$ & $-3$ \\
\hline
$w_4$ & \lower 0.25cm\hbox{{\vrule width 0pt height 0.7cm}} 0.2 & 0.2 \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Parameters of the wave function calculated at the renormalization scale $\mu = 1 \,GeV$}
\label{param}
\end{table}
The sum rules for the $N^\ast N^\ast \pi$ coupling constant contains three
additional auxiliary parameters, namely Borel mass $M^2$, continuum
threshold $s_0$ and the arbitrary number $\beta$. Obviously, the result for
the $N^\ast N^\ast \pi$ coupling constant should be independent of these
parameters. This leads to the necessity to find such regions of these
parameters where the strong coupling constant does not depend on them.
This issue can be handled by the following procedure. The first attempt is
to find a such a region of $M^2$ at several predetermined fixed values
of $s_0$ and $\beta$ so that $N^\ast N^\ast \pi$ coupling constant is
independent of its variation. The lower bound of $M^2$ is determined from
the condition that higher twist contributions are less than the leading
twist contributions. The upper bound is obtained by requiring that higher
states and continuum contributions constitute, say, 40\% of the perturbative
contribution. These conditions are both satisfied if the Borel mass parameter
varies in the region $1.5\,GeV^2 \le M^2 \le 2.5\,GeV^2$. Note that this
working region of $M^2$ is also obtained from analysis of the magnetic
moment of negative parity baryons \cite{Rfts10}.
In Figs. (1) and (2) we present the dependence of the strong coupling constant
$g_{N^\ast N^\ast \pi}$ on the Borel parameter $M^2$ at the fixed values
of the auxiliary parameter $\beta = -0.5$, $-0.3$, $0.0$, $0.3$, $0.5$
and at two fixed values
of the continuum threshold $s_0=4.0\,GeV^2$ and $s_0=4.5\,GeV^2$, respectively.
It follows from these figures that $g_{N^\ast N^\ast \pi}$ shows rather stable
behavior to the variation of $M^2$ in its working region.
The continuum threshold is the other arbitrary arbitrary parameter of the
sum rules. This parameter is related to the energy of the first excited
state. Analysis of various sum rules shows that $\sqrt{s_0} = m_{ground} +
\Delta$, where $m_{ground}$ is the ground state mass, and $\Delta$ is the
energy difference between ground and first excited states which varies in
the domain $0.3\,GeV \le \sqrt{s_0} \le 0.8\,GeV$. In the present analysis we
use the average value $\sqrt{s_0} = (m_{ground} + 0.5)\,GeV$.
We also studied the dependence of the $N^\ast N^\ast \pi$ coupling
constant on $s_0$, at four different values of the auxiliary parameter
$\beta = -0.5;-0.3;0.0;0.3,0.5$, and at two fixed values of the Borel mass
parameter $M^2 = 2.0\,GeV^2$ and $M^2 = 2.5\,GeV^2$. We observe that
$g_{N^\ast N^\ast \pi}$ is practically insensitive to the variations in
$s_0$. The total result changes about 5--6\%
The final stage of sum rules is to find such a region of $\beta$ where
$g_{N^\ast N^\ast \pi}$ be independent of the variation in $\beta$. The
arbitrary parameter varies in the domain $-\infty \le \beta \le +\infty$.
This infinitely large region can be mapped into a more restricted domain by
introducing the definition $\beta = \tan\theta$, by running $\theta$ in the
region $0 \le \cos\theta \le \pi$.
In Figs. (3) and (4) we present the dependence of the coupling constant
$g_{N^\ast N^\ast \pi}$ on $\cos\theta$, at two fixed values of the continuum
threshold $s_0=4.0\,GeV^2$ and $s_0=4.5\,GeV^2$, and at the fixed values
of the Borel mass parameter $M^2=(1.5,\,2.0,\,2.5)\,GeV^2$, respectively.
We find that the coupling constant $g_{N^\ast N^\ast \pi}$ is
weakly dependent to the variation of $\cos\theta$ in the region $-1.0 \le \cos\theta
\le -0.85$. We also perform similar analysis at two more fixed values of
the continuum threshold, $s_0=4.2\,GeV^2$ and $s_0=4.8\,GeV^2$, which shows
that the result for $g_{N^\ast N^\ast \pi}$ changes at most 7--8\%.
Taking into account the uncertainties coming from input parameters entering
into the pion DAs, as well as from quark condensates, residues of $N^\ast$
and from the parameters $M^2$ and $s_0$, we finally get the following
result,
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{N^\ast N^\ast \pi} = (10\pm 2)\,. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Note that our prediction on $N^\ast N^\ast \pi$ coupling is about 50\% larger
compared to that obtained in 3--point QCD sum rules \cite{Rfts02}. This can
be explained by the fact that in the limit $q\to 0$ the result predicted by
3--point QCD sum rules is not reliable (for more details, see \cite{Rfts16}.
Finally we compare our result on the $N^\ast N^\ast \pi$ strong coupling constant
with the predictions of the $N N \pi$ coupling constant for the positive
parity baryons. The $g_{N N \pi}$ coupling constant is calculated in various works
and the results obtained are summarized in the table below,
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{N N \pi} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
12\pm 5&\mbox{\cite{Rfts11,Rfts12}}\,, \\
9.76\pm 2.04&\mbox{\cite{Rfts13}}\,, \\
13.3 \pm 1.2&\mbox{\cite{Rfts14}}\, \\
14 \pm 4&\mbox{\cite{Rfts01}}\,, \\
13.5 \pm 0.5&\mbox{\cite{Rfts15}}\,.\nonumber
\end{array} \right. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
When we compare our results on the strong coupling constants of negative
parity baryons with pion with those similar coupling constants for the
positive parity baryons, we observe that our predictions are quite close the
results exiting in literature for the positive parity nucleon pion coupling
constant. Small difference in the results can be attributed to the different
values of the input parameters, value of the residue, and continuum
threshold $s_0$.
In summary, we calculate the strong coupling constant of negative parity
baryons with pion in framework of the light cone QCD sum rules. The unwanted
contributions coming from positive--to--positive, and positive--to--negative
parity transformations are eliminated by constructing combination of sum
rules corresponding to different Lorentz structures. In the case of nucleons
the situation becomes more challenging due to the second positive parity
baryon $N^\prime (1440)$ in addition to the ground state $N(938)$. Our
prediction on $N^\ast N^\ast \pi$ coupling constant is in good agreement
with those results for the positive parity baryons existing in literature,
but considerably different from the value predicted by the 3--point QCD sum
rules method.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Identifying the sector responsible for electroweak symmetry
breaking~(EWSB) has all along been the pre-condition for putting the
final stamp of approval on the Standard Model~(SM). The
discovery~\cite{Aad:2012tfa, Chatrchyan:2012xdj} of a largely SM-like
Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has, for all practical
purpose, accomplished this task. The measurement of properties of
this scalar boson is consistent with the minimal choice of the scalar
sector, namely, a single complex doublet. However, the data still
allow an extended scalar sector, which, in turn, can accommodate a
more elaborate mechanism for EWSB. One immediate extension of this
kind is the presence of either additional doublet(s) or scalars
belonging to some higher representation of SU(2). Even a marginal role
of such scalars can in principle be probed in the next round(s) of
experiments, utilising their interaction with the electroweak gauge
bosons.\footnote {It should be noted that the new scalars may not
always participate in EWSB, {\em e.g.,\ } as in the inert doublet model
\cite{Deshpande:1977rw}.}
If indeed there are additional scalars coupling to the W-and Z-bosons,
longitudinal vector boson scattering~(VBS) including scalar exchanges
should provide a complementary way to direct search methods to probe
the scalar sector. In the SM, the Higgs boson helps preserve the
unitarity of the $S$-matrix for the longitudinal electroweak vector
boson scattering $V_L V_L \rightarrow V_L V_L$ (where $V\equiv
W^{\pm}~{\rm or}~Z$). The Higgs boson mediated
diagram precisely cancels the residual $s$-dependence (where $s$ is
the square of the energy in the centre-of-mass frame), thus taming the
high energy behaviour of the cross-section
appropriately~\cite{Dawson:1998yi}. With an extended scalar sector,
the preservation of unitarity could be a more complex process. Several
factors then modify the $\sqrt{s}$-dependence of the $V_{L}-V_{L}$
scattering. The first of these is the modification, albeit small, of
the strength of the 125~GeV scalar to gauge boson pairs. Secondly, the
extent of the influence of other scalars present in an extended
scenario depends on their gauge quantum numbers and on the theoretical
scenario in general. Thirdly, the observed mass of the 125~GeV scalar
makes it kinematically impossible for it to participate as an
s-channel resonance in $V_{L}-V_{L}$ scattering processes. However,
such resonant peaks may in general occur when heavier additional
scalars enter into the arena.
One can thus expect that the $\sqrt{s}$-dependence of $V_{L}-V_{L}$
scattering cross-sections will be modified with respect to
SM-expectations as a result of the above effects. Such modifications
have been formulated in terms of certain general parameters in some
recent studies~\cite{Bhattacharyya:2012tj, Choudhury:2012tk,
Chang:2013aya, Cheung:2008zh}. An apparent non-unitarity of the
scattering matrix may be noticed here when the SM-like scalar with
modified interaction strength is participating as the only
scalar. However, unitarity is restored once the full particle spectrum
is taken into consideration. We emphasize here that the three effects
mentioned above leave the signature of the specific non-standard EWSB
sector in the modified energy-dependence, so long as the new scalars
have their masses within or about the TeV-range.
The aim of the present work can thus be summarised as follows. Making
use of the resonant peaks in various $V_{L}-V_{L}$ scattering processes, we illustrate that it may
be possible to distinguish between different extensions of the scalar
sector, once the high-energy run of the LHC continues long enough. The
shapes of the energy-dependence curves, especially the presence of
resonant peaks, can shed light on the relevant scalar spectra of these
models. We use for illustration some popular extensions like the
Type-II two Higgs doublet model (2HDM) and real as well as complex
Higgs triplet models (HTM). It is shown in the ensuing study how the
$\sqrt{s}$-dependence of the cross-sections reflect the
characteristics of each of these scenarios so long as the additional
scalars lie within about 2 TeV. This supplements rather faithfully
other LHC-based phenomenology, and thus spurs the improvement of
techniques to extract the dependence of $V_{L}-V_{L}$ scattering
cross-sections on $\sqrt{s}$. We also present analytical
expressions for $V_{L}-V_{L}$ scattering amplitudes in these otherwise
well-motivated models. To the best of our knowledge, these full
expressions have not yet been presented in the literature.
In ref.\;\cite{Cheung:2008zh} the authors have studied this kind of
exercise by parametrising the coupling between SM Higgs and pair of
weak gauge bosons without introducing any new scalar, as a result the
scattering amplitude grow after the light Higgs pole due to incomplete
cancellation of the bad high-energy behaviour terms. On the other
hand, we have studied this issue in different models from a new
perspective, keeping in mind that unitarity is respected by the models
considered in our analysis. Consequently, the
$\sqrt{s}$-dependence of the cross-sections does not display any
ungainly growth; however, the specific character of the augmented
scalar sector is captured, basically through the occurrence of
resonant peaks, and from the invariant mass distributions in the
neighbourhood of the peaks.
In section~\ref{EssenPrinPl}, we outline the basic principles involved
in $V_{L}-V_{L}$ scattering. The extended scalar sectors specifically
covered in this study have been summarised in
sections~\ref{NewModel}. In section~\ref{Nemeresult}, we present our
analysis and numerical results. We conclude in
section~\ref{conclusionSUM}.
\section{$V_L -V_L$ scattering: the essential points}\label{EssenPrinPl}
The differential cross-section for a $2 \rightarrow 2$ scattering
process is \begin{equation}\label{dexse}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}=\frac{1}{64\pi^2s}\frac{|p_f|}{|p_i|}|{\cal
M}|^2, \end{equation} where the scattering amplitude ${\cal M}$ is a function
of CM energy $\sqrt{s}$ and the scattering angle $\theta$, or
equivalently, of the Mandelstam variables $s$, $t$ and $u$. $p_i, \,
p_f$ are momenta of the incoming and outgoing particles respectively,
where we use the center of mass coordinate system. ${\cal M}$ for
$V_{L}-V_{L}$ scattering processes for the extended scalar sectors
discussed here can be found in the Appendix~\ref{feynmanamp}.
Partial wave decomposition of the amplitude, followed by application
of the optical theorem,
leads to
\begin{equation}\label{optcl}
\sigma=\frac{1}{s}Im\bigg[{\cal
M}(\theta=0)\bigg]=\frac{16\pi}{s}\sum_0^\infty(2l+1)|a_l|^2,
\end{equation}
which implies
\begin{equation}\label{unicond}
|Re(a_l)|\leq\frac12.
\end{equation}
Here, $a_l$ is the partial wave coefficients corresponding to specific
angular momentum values $l$. This condition is instrumental in
extracting unitarity bounds on any model. At energies large compared
to the gauge boson masses (or, more precisely, for $\sqrt{s} >>
M^2_V$), the equivalence theorem~\cite{Lee:1977eg} implies that
calculations done in terms of the longitudinal modes of the gauge
bosons are same at the lowest order to those using the corresponding
Goldstone bosons, thereby simplifying the calculations. In this limit
the longitudinal gauge boson polarisation vectors can be approximated
as $\epsilon^{\mu}_L(p)\simeq \frac{p^\mu}{M_V}$.
Without a Higgs boson, the unitarity condition is not fulfilled at
high energies. The inclusion of Higgs-mediated diagrams restores
unitarity rather spectacularly. Any extended scalar sector is in
general expected to satisfy the same requirement, unless one can
come to terms with strongly coupled physics controlling electroweak
interactions at high energy. Thus the $V_{L}-V_{L}$ scattering
cross-sections in a `well-behaved' new physics scenario should fall at
high centre-of-mass energies. However, if the scattering process
involves the participation of an s-channel resonance at mass $M$, then
one expects a peak at $\sqrt{s} = M$, above which the cross-section
should die down gradually. The energy-dependence of the
cross-sections, along with the appearance (or otherwise) of such
resonant peaks should thus be computed if one has to verify the
imprints of new physics in VBS when the appropriate measurements are
feasible.
We have calculated the amplitudes in different models, using the
exact expressions for polarisation vectors\footnote{One can find the
these expressions of polarisation vectors in
Appendix~\ref{feynmanamp}.}, as we are dealing with the
energy range ($\sim 200 $ GeV $\rightarrow 2000$ GeV). However, we
have checked that at high-energy limit, our results are
consistent with calculations based on the equivalence theorem.
\section{Extended scalar sectors} \label{NewModel}
As has been mentioned already, our purpose is to show the
modifications to the energy-dependence of $V_{L}-V_{L}$ scattering
cross-sections in extended scalar sectors, and point out the
model-dependence in such modifications. Before presenting the results
of our calculation, we outline in the next three sub-sections the
relevant traits of three illustrative used here. In each case,
we re-iterate only those features which influence the calculation of
$V_{L}-V_{L}$ scattering rates. In addition, the obvious constraints
to which each scenario needs to be subjected, such as constraints from
the LHC or precision electroweak data, are mentioned in the
corresponding subsection. We have used parameters consistent with such
constraints in section~\ref{Nemeresult}, and have also ensured that
they do not affect theoretical requirements such as vacuum stability.
\subsection{Type-II two-Higgs doublet model (2HDM)}
In a two Higgs doublet model, an extra $SU(2)_L$ doublet ${\Phi'}$
with hypercharge $Y=1$ is added to the standard model. The extended
scalar potential then looks like~\cite{Branco:2011iw,
Chakrabarty:2014aya}
\begin{eqnarray}
V(\Phi,\Phi^{\prime}) &=&
m^2_{11}\, \left(\Phi^\dagger \Phi\right)
+ m^2_{22}\, \left(\Phi^{\prime\dagger} \Phi^{\prime}\right) -
m^2_{12}\, \left(\Phi^\dagger \Phi^{\prime} + \Phi^{\prime\dagger} \Phi\right)
+ \frac{\lambda_1}{2} \left( \Phi^\dagger \Phi \right)^2
+ \frac{\lambda_2}{2} \left( \Phi^{\prime\dagger} \Phi^{\prime} \right)^2
\nonumber \\
&&
+ \lambda_3\, \left(\Phi^\dagger \Phi\,\right) \left(\Phi^{\prime\dagger} \Phi^{\prime}\right)
+ \lambda_4\, \left(\Phi^\dagger \Phi^{\prime}\,\right)\left(\Phi^{\prime\dagger} \Phi\right)
+ \frac{\lambda_5}{2} \left[
\left( \Phi^\dagger\Phi^{\prime} \right)^2
+ \left( \Phi^{\prime\dagger}\Phi \right)^2 \right]
\nonumber \\
&&
+\lambda_6\, \left(\Phi^\dagger \Phi\right)\, \left(\Phi^\dagger\Phi^{\prime} + \Phi^{\prime\dagger}\Phi\right) + \lambda_7\, \left(\Phi^{\prime\dagger} \Phi^{\prime}\right)\, \left(\Phi^\dagger\Phi^{\prime} + \Phi^{\prime\dagger}\Phi\right).
\label{pot}
\end{eqnarray}
As we are not interested in $CP$ violating interactions, we take the
couplings to be real. To avoid tree level FCNCs we will adhere to
Type-II 2HDM scenario in which a discrete symmetry is imposed so that
$\Phi \to -\Phi$, $\Phi^{\prime} \to \Phi^{\prime}$ and
$\psi_{R}^{i}\to -\psi_{R}^{i}$, where $\psi$ stands for charged
leptons or down-type quarks and $i$ represents the generation index.
When this symmetry is exact, $m_{12}$, $\lambda_6$ and $\lambda_7$
vanish. However, to allow a mixing between the two scalar doublets,
the symmetry is softy broken by taking $m_{12}\ne0$. In the Type-II
2HDM, the down-type quarks and the charged leptons couple to $\Phi$
and the up-type quarks couple to
$\Phi^{\prime}$~\cite{Pich:2009sp}. In such a scenario, we have five
massive physical scalars after EWSB --- a pair of charged Higgs
$H^\pm$, two $CP$-even Higgs $h,H$ and one $CP$-odd Higgs $A$. The
mixing angles in the neutral and the charged scalar sectors are
conventionally denoted by $\alpha$ and $\beta$ respectively.
Measurements of the couplings of the SM-like Higgs with the vector bosons
put indirect constraints~\cite{sigstrn} on the models with an extended
scalar sector. For example, a charged Higgs can contribute to
$h\gamma\gamma$ at one loop. In our analysis, the heavier scalars are
taken to be as heavy as 500~GeV so that $h\gamma\gamma$ constraints
are not that important. $hWW$ and $hZZ$ coupling measurements at
present agrees with SM values, thereby restricting couplings of the
heavier scalars appreciably. As a result, 2HDM is pushed towards the
decoupling regime where couplings of heavier Higgs bosons with SM
particles tend to vanish. We have taken care of all such constraints
at $1\sigma$ in our analysis.
\subsection{Higgs triplet mode (HTM),~$Y=0$ }\label{HTM0}
The scalar sector can be extended by adding a real isospin triplet
$\widetilde{\Phi}$ of hypercharge $Y=0$. The most general scalar
potential is given by~\cite{Chen:2008jg}:
\begin{eqnarray}
V(\Phi,\widetilde{\Phi})&=&\mu_1^2\left(\Phi^\dagger \Phi\right)
+\frac{\mu_2^2} {2} \left(\widetilde{\Phi}^\dagger \widetilde{\Phi}\right)
+\frac{\widetilde{\lambda}_1 }{2} \left(\Phi^\dagger \Phi\right)^2
+\frac{\widetilde{\lambda}_2}{2} \left(\widetilde{\Phi}^\dagger \widetilde{\Phi}\right)^2
\nonumber \\ &&
+\frac{\widetilde{\lambda}_3}{2}\left(\Phi^\dagger \Phi\right)^2\left(\widetilde{\Phi}^\dagger \widetilde{\Phi}\right)^2
+\widetilde{\lambda}_4\Phi^\dagger \sigma^a \Phi\widetilde{\Phi}_a\, .
\label{Scalarpot}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ are the mass parameters and the coupling
constants $\widetilde{\lambda}_i, ~i=1,4$ are taken to be real. After
EWSB, one is left with the following physical scalar fields: A pair of
charged Higgs $H^\pm$ and two neutral $CP$-even Higgs $h, H$. The
mixing angles corresponding to the charged and neutral scalar sectors
are denoted by $\widetilde{\beta}$ and $\widetilde{\gamma}$
respectively. $H^{\pm}$ can couple with $W_L^\mp$ and $Z_L$ to
produce a resonance in the $W_L^\mp Z_L\to W_L^\mp Z_L$ channel which
is absent in the Type-II 2HDM.
As HTM models contribute to the $\rho$ parameter at the tree level,
the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the neutral component of a Higgs
triplet $v_t$ is restricted to be less than
$4$~GeV~\cite{Forshaw:2003kh, Forshaw:2001xq} from measurements of
electroweak precision observables at LEP.
\subsection{Higgs triplet mode (HTM),~$Y=2$ }
There is another variant of the Higgs triplet model with hypercharge
of the triplet $\Delta$ as $Y=2$. This model has the added virtue
that it can generate neutrino masses. The scalar potential is given
by~\cite{Arhrib:2011uy}:
\begin{eqnarray}
V(\Phi,\Delta) &=& -m^2_\Phi(\Phi^\dag \Phi)+\frac{\lambda^{\prime}}{4}(\Phi^\dag \Phi)^2+M^2_\Delta {\rm Tr}(\Delta ^\dag \Delta)+ \left(\mu \Phi^{\sf T}i\sigma_2\Delta^\dag\Phi+{\rm h.c.}\right)\,\nonumber\\
&& \lambda^{\prime}_1(\Phi^\dag\Phi){\rm Tr}(\Delta ^\dag \Delta)+\lambda^{\prime}_2\left[{\rm Tr}(\Delta ^\dag \Delta)\right]^2+\lambda^{\prime}_3{\rm Tr}(\Delta ^\dag \Delta)^2+\lambda^{\prime}_4\Phi^\dag\Delta\Delta^\dag\Phi.
\label{eq:Vpd}
\end{eqnarray}
$m_\Phi, M_\Delta~{\rm and}~\mu$ are mass parameters, whereas
$\lambda'$ and $\lambda^{\prime}_i$ ($i=1, 4$) are real coupling
constants. The physical particle spectrum consists of a pair of
doubly-charged Higgs $H^{\pm\pm}$, a pair of singly-charged Higgs
$H^\pm$, two neutral $CP$-even Higgs $h, H$, and a $CP$-odd Higgs
$A$. We have denoted the mixing angles corresponding to the
singly-charged Higgs, $CP$-even neutral Higgs and $CP$-odd neutral
Higgs as $\beta'$, $\gamma'$ and $\delta'$ respectively. $H^{++}$ can
couple with two $W_L^+$ bosons to produce a unique resonance in the
$W_L^+W_L^+\to W_L^+W_L^+$ channel. Similarly $H^{+}$ can couple with
$W_L^+$ and $Z_L$ to produce a resonance in the $W_L^+Z_L\to W_L^+Z_L$
channel as was in the $Y=0$ triplet model.
In this model, neutrino masses are generated at the tree level. In the
flavour basis, the neutrino mass matrix can be written as
$(M_\nu)_{ij}\propto v_t ~(Y_\nu)_{ij}$, where $Y_\nu$ are the Yukawa
couplings of the Higgs triplet with the neutrinos. Indication of
sub-eV neutrino masses can thus further restrict $v_t$, depending on
the value of $Y_\nu$. For $Y_\nu\sim {\cal O}(1)$, this implies
$v_t\sim{\cal O}(10^{-9})$ GeV. At this limit, the new scalar
particles couple feebly to the SM particles and the decay width of
them would be too small to have a detectable peak at the vector boson
resonances. One can contemplate of the other extreme, when $v_t$ is
saturated to assume its aforesaid maximum value $v_t\lesssim 4$~GeV,
so that $Y_\nu\sim{\cal O}(10^{-9})$. We will work with this extreme
$v_t\sim3$~GeV as this will imply wider resonances in the $V_L V_L$
scattering processes. It will also serve as a conservative choice as
it would mean that the resonances cannot be significantly more wide in
this model.
\section{$V_LV_L$ scattering with extended scalar sectors}\label{Nemeresult}
Next, we demonstrate how it is possible to distinguish among
2HDM, HTM~($Y=0$) and HTM~($Y=2$) using the five VBS processes: $W_L^+
W_L^- \rightarrow W_L^+ W_L^-$, $W_L^+ W_L^- \rightarrow Z_L Z_L$, $Z_L Z_L \rightarrow Z_L
Z_L$, $W_L^+ W_L^+ \rightarrow W_L^+ W_L^+$ and $W_L^+ Z_L\rightarrow W_L^+ Z_L$. One
can immediately see that the mediating scalar can be a neutral
scalar, as also a singly or doubly charged Higgs.
Thus the very constituents of 2HDM or triplet scenarios
are potential players in the game.
Two things turn out to be crucial here: (a) nature of the energy-dependence,
and (b) the centre-of-mass energy at which the resonances occur.
The shape of the resonance depends on the
decay width, and hence, on the mass and the coupling of the resonating
scalar. Thus an identification of the resonance can guide one
to the theoretical scenario including the particle spectrum.
In any model with an extended scalar sector around a TeV, the very
fact that the $VVh$ interactions ($V \equiv W, Z$ and $h$ = the 125
GeV scalar) are largely SM-like makes the non-resonant additional
contributions small. In 2HDM, however, these constraints allow enough
parameter space for the heavier scalars to have a large decay width so
that the effect of resonances can be felt for a wider range of
$\sqrt{s}$. In HTM models, however, this is not the case and the
resonances are narrow. Hence, width of the resonances does not help
in identifying the hypercharge of the scalar triplet.
For a 2HDM scenario, the lighter $CP$-even scalar in the particle
spectrum is usually interpreted as the SM-like Higgs. Going
especially by the rate of decays into pairs of gauge bosons, the
couplings of this state is expected to be `nearly SM-like', implying
that a 2HDM can be feasible largely in the `alignment limit'. Recent
LHC data are by and large consistent with this limit
\cite{Broggio:2014mna, Das:2015mwa}. Hence we have performed our analysis almost in
that limit. Among the five scattering modes, we have resonant peaks
for only three channels, namely, $W_L^+ W_L^- \rightarrow W_L^+ W_L^-$,
$W_L^+ W_L^- \rightarrow Z_L Z_L$ and $Z_L Z_L \rightarrow Z_L Z_L$ (see
Fig.\;\ref{fig:2hdm}) involving the heavier $CP$-even Higgs ($H$). We
have set its mass ($M_H$) at two benchmark values (500 GeV and
1500 GeV). The corresponding decay widths ($\Gamma_H$) can be read
off from the resonance peaks in Fig.\;\ref{fig:2hdm}. Using the
high-energy scattering amplitudes given in
Appendices~\ref{feynmanamp} and \ref{highenergy}, one should be able
to predict the shapes of plots which contain such resonance peaks. It
is quite evident from the plots, that apart from the occurrence of
the peaks, the cross-sections are almost SM-like, as expected in the
alignment limit. It should also be noted here that in 2HDM, $H^+$
does not couple to a $W_L^+$ and a $Z_L$. Moreover, $H^{++}$ does not
exist in this model. As a result there are no resonances in $W_L^+
W_L^+ \rightarrow W_L^+ W_L^+$ and $W_L^+ Z_L\rightarrow W_L^+ Z_L$ modes. The
cross-sections for these processes are also similar to that of SM,
due to the feeble coupling strength of $H$ with gauge bosons.
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ | c | c | c | c |}
\hline
Process & ${\rm 2HDM}$ & ${\rm HTM}(Y=0)$ & ${\rm HTM}(Y=2)$ \\
\hline
$W_L^+ W_L^- \rightarrow W_L^+ W_L^-$ & $\text{\ding{51}}$, $(H)$& $\text{\ding{51}}$, $(H)$& $\text{\ding{51}}$, $(H)$ \\
\hline
$W_L^+ W_L^+ \rightarrow W_L^+ W_L^+$ & $\text{\ding{55}}$ & $\text{\ding{55}}$ & $\text{\ding{51}}$, $(H^{++})$ \\
\hline
$W_L^+ W_L^- \rightarrow Z_L Z_L$ & $\text{\ding{51}}$, $(H)$ & $\text{\ding{51}}$, $(H)$ & $\text{\ding{51}}$, $(H)$ \\
\hline
$W_L^+ Z_L \rightarrow W_L^+ Z_L$ & $\text{\ding{55}}$ & $\text{\ding{51}}$, $(H^+)$ & $\text{\ding{51}}$, $(H^+)$ \\
\hline
$Z_L Z_L \rightarrow Z_L Z_L$ & $\text{\ding{51}}$, $(H)$ & $\text{\ding{51}}$, $(H)$ & $\text{\ding{51}}$, $(H)$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{ \textit{Different scattering processes and corresponding
mediator particles for resonance in various extended scalar
sectors. $``\text{\ding{51}}"$ indicates presence of a resonance where
as $``\text{\ding{55}}"$ corresponds to no resonance peak.} }
\label{table1}
\end{center}
\end{table}
We have also studied triplet models with two different values of the
$U(1)$ hypercharge ($Y=0$ and 2). In these models we can have
interactions of charged scalars with pairs of gauge bosons. Of these,
we primarily focus on a $Y=2$ HTM. This scenario is relevant in the
context of the Type-II see-saw mechanism of neutrino mass generation,
and it also arises in left-right symmetric gauge theories. Now the
question is, how to isolate such a scenario from a $Y=0$ HTM or even a
Type-II 2HDM models? We summarise our findings in Table~\ref{table1}
which clearly indicates that HTM ($Y=0$) and 2HDM can be distinguished
via a s-channel $H^+$ resonance in $W_L^+ Z_L\rightarrow W_L^+ Z_L$ scattering
process, as $H^+$ couples to $W_L^+$ and $Z_L$ only in the triplet models.
As HTM ($Y=2$) contains a $H^{++}$ that can couple to a pair of $W^+$,
in contrast to the 2HDM and HTM ($Y=0$) models, the distinguishing
feature of this model would be a s-channel $H^{++}$ resonance in
$W_L^+ W_L^+\rightarrow W_L^+ W_L^+$ scattering process.
As mentioned earlier, the shapes of the resonances carry significant
information about the model. Here, for the sake of illustration we
will concentrate on 2HDM only. As shown in Fig.\;\ref{fig:2hdm},
$W_L^+ W_L^- \rightarrow W_L^+ W_L^-$ resonances are significantly different
in shape compared to $W_L^+ Z_L\rightarrow W_L^+ Z_L$ and $Z_L Z_L\rightarrow Z_L Z_L$
channel resonances. This is due to the interplay between relative
contributions from the SM and new physics models. The cross-section
can be thought of having three contributions: SM-like, new physics and
an interference between these two. The new physics and the
interference pieces can provide resonance peaks if there exists an
s-channel resonance due to some heavy scalar Higgs. However the
manifestation of such resonances are distinctively different. The new
physics piece for the resonating channel is proportional to
$\frac{M\Gamma}{(s-M^2)^2+(M\Gamma)^2}$, so that it gives a
Breit-Wigner-like contribution. Here $M$ and $\Gamma$ stand for the
mass and the decay width of the heavy scalar, responsible for the
resonance. In contrary, the corresponding interference piece contains
a factor $\frac{s-M^2}{(s-M^2)^2+(M\Gamma)^2}$, which leads to a shape
that is asymmetric around the pole, which can be understood as
follows. When $\sqrt{s} < M$, there is a destructive interference, if
(otherwise) the relative sign between the SM-like and new physics
piece in the amplitude is positive. On the other hand, for $\sqrt{s} >
M$, the interference is constructive in nature, and hence the
cross-section increases. If the relative sign between the SM-like and
new physics terms flips, the destructive and then constructive nature
of resonance also gets interchanged.
Near the pole, the new physics term is more dominant. Away from the
pole, the interference term may dominate depending on the relative
sizes of the SM-like and new physics contributions. In each
resonating VBS mode, the relative sizes are different. For the
channel $W_L^+ W_L^- \rightarrow W_L^+ W_L^-$ mode, the new physics term
containing the Breit-Wigner resonance overwhelms the interference piece,
so the above-mentioned cross-over
is not prominent, and one gets a peak. In the other two resonating modes $W_L^+ Z_L\rightarrow
W_L^+ Z_L$ and $Z_L Z_L\rightarrow Z_L Z_L$, the
interference term dominates over the new physics term slightly away
from the pole, so that one gets a flip. Between $W_L^+ Z_L\rightarrow
W_L^+ Z_L$ and $Z_L Z_L\rightarrow Z_L Z_L$, the effects of such a cross-over
are reversed (Fig.~\ref{fig:2hdm}), as the SM contribution flips sign due
to the absence of a quartic gauge vertex in the latter. Although here
we are referring to the 2HDM case, such arguments can also be extended for the triplets.
Due to the aforementioned interference between the SM and the new physics contributions, the manifestations of resonances are of different nature than a simple Breit-Wigner one. For example,
the CM energy at which the peak or the flip occurs can be shifted from the mass of the resonating scalar and this shift depends not only on the width of the scalar but also on the new physics parameters. As an illustration of this, in 2HDM, for the chosen benchmark points, one can experience such shifts: In Fig.~\ref{fig:2hdm} for a resonating scalar mass of 1500\,GeV, the peak shifts by $\sim 20$\,GeV, whereas for triplets (Figs.~\ref{fig:htm0}, \ref{fig:htm2}) such shifts are rather tiny $\sim1-2$\,GeV. As the magnitude of the triplet VEV is severely restricted by the $\rho$-parameter, the decay width of the scalar, and hence the shift of the peak or flip from the resonating scalar mass are rather small compared to what could come from the doublet scalars.
One should be similarly careful in interpreting the width of the resonances as it depends not only on the decay width of the resonating scalar particle but also
directly on the new physics parameters.
In the high-energy limit ($E_{CM} \gg M_H$), the amplitudes can be
expressed as a power series in the energy (see
Eq.\;\ref{energyseries}). In this limit the terms proportional
to $E^4_{CM}$ and $E^2_{CM}$ of the amplitude become zero. The
remaining terms are either independent of energy or go in negative
powers of energy, so that the cross-section decreases with rising
energy, thus ensuring perturbative unitarity. We present analytical
expressions for the dominant terms at such energies in
Appendix~\ref{highenergy} to help the reader in reproducing
cross-sections at a very high $\sqrt{s}$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
{
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=5.85cm, angle=0]{./WWScatPlot/dwwww}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm, angle=0]{./WWScatPlot/dwwwwplus}\\
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm, angle=0]{./WWScatPlot/dwwzz}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm, angle=0]{./WWScatPlot/dwzwz}
\\
\hspace{-2cm} \includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm, angle=0]{./WWScatPlot/dzzzz}
\hskip 2pt \includegraphics[width=6cm,height=5cm, angle=0]{./WWScatPlot/Benchmarkdoub}
\caption{\label{fig:2hdm} \textit{Plots for~$VV$~scattering in 2HDM. } }
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
{
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=5.85cm, angle=0]{./WWScatPlot/t0wwww}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm, angle=0]{./WWScatPlot/t0wwwwplus}\\
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm, angle=0]{./WWScatPlot/t0wwzz}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm, angle=0]{./WWScatPlot/t0wzwz}
\\
\hspace{-2cm}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm, angle=0]{./WWScatPlot/t0zzzz}
\hskip 2pt
\includegraphics[width=6cm,height=5cm, angle=0]
{./WWScatPlot/Benchmarktripy0}
\caption{\label{fig:htm0} \textit{Plots for~$VV$~scattering in Y=0 HTM. } }
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
{
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm, angle=0]{./WWScatPlot/t2wwww}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm, angle=0]{./WWScatPlot/t2wwwwplus}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm, angle=0]{./WWScatPlot/t2wwzz}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm, angle=0]{./WWScatPlot/t2wzwz}
\\
\hspace{-2cm}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=6cm, angle=0]{./WWScatPlot/t2zzzz}
\hskip 2pt \includegraphics[width=6cm,height=5cm, angle=0]{./WWScatPlot/Benchmarktripy2}
\caption{\label{fig:htm2} \textit{Plots for~$VV$~scattering in Y=2 HTM. } }
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary and conclusion}\label{conclusionSUM}
For the scattering of longitudinally polarised weak gauge bosons,
we point out that the resonances arising in some extended scalar
sectors can be noticed in the distribution in the subprocess
centre-of-mass energies, which can play a complementary (or
confirmatory) role in the search of such new scalars. Both the new
physics term containing a Breit-Wigner-resonance and the interference
term between the new physics and the standard model contributions
involved in computing cross-sections conspire to demonstrate the
effect of new scalar resonances.
We have presented our results on different scattering channels for
longitudinally polarised gauge bosons in various extended scalar
sectors. VBS processes are sensitive to the scalar sector as the
scalars ensure the unitarity of the scattering matrix.
We worked with unapproximated polarisation vectors and used complete set
of Feynman diagrams. This is the reason we have provided the complete
analytical expressions which can help the reader to compute the
discussed VBS processes in various extensions of the scalar sector of
the standard model. Exact forms of the polarisation vectors have been used,
and all relevant Feynman diagrams as well as the complete analytical expressions
have been presented in the Appendix.
For the sake of illustration, we have chosen three models with an
extended scalar sector, namely the 2HDM and triplet models with
hypercharge $Y=0$ and $2$. All these models are endowed with heavier
scalars -- for the chosen benchmark points the masses are at 500~GeV
or at 1500~GeV. From the presence of resonances at various VBS modes,
we have tried to identify the underlying model.
The shape of the invariant mass distribution in
the vicinity of the resonance is found to offer rather distinctive features in this respect. First, the decay width of the mediating scalar, occurring in the Breit-Wigner propagator, along with the other parameters of the theory, determines the small shift of the resonant point from the actual mass of the charged or neutral scalar involved. This in turn depends on the scalar VEV, and thus provides a substantial distinction between the cases where a member of an SU(2) doublet or a triplet is the mediator, because the VEV of the latter is constrained to be much smaller. In addition, the model parameters (especially the VEVs) also determine the relative contributions of the purely `new physics part' and its interference term with the SM in the squared matrix element. When the former is bigger, one usually observes just a resonant peak. With sizeable or dominant contribution from the latter, a sign flip in the propagator causes a dip followed by a peak (or the other way around) in the plot against $\sqrt{s}$.
This work is aimed at pointing out the above model-specific features in longitudinal gauge boson scattering, which can supplement the phenomenology involving the scalar sector itself. A more detailed description of the collider observables that enable one to extract faithful information on the resonant peaks (or accompanying dips) will be presented in a later study.
\section{Acknowledgements}
The work of N.K. is supported by a fellowship from University Grants
Commission, India. B.M. and A.S. acknowledge the funding available
from the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, for the
Regional Centre for Accelerator based Particle Physics~(RECAPP),
Harish-Chandra Research Institute. S.R. is funded by the Department
of Science and Technology, India via Grant No. EMR/2014/001177.
The visit of A.S. at IIT Indore was also supported from this grant.
S.R. acknowledges hospitality of RECAPP while this work was in progress.
|
\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{10pt}{-1.25ex plus -1ex minus -.1ex}{0ex plus 0ex}{\normalsize\bf}}
\def\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{10pt}{-1.25ex plus -1ex minus -.1ex}{0ex plus 0ex}{\normalsize\textit}}
\renewcommand\@biblabel[1]{#1}
\renewcommand\@makefntext[1
{\noindent\makebox[0pt][r]{\@thefnmark\,}#1}
\makeatother
\renewcommand{\figurename}{\small{Fig.}~}
\sectionfont{\large}
\subsectionfont{\normalsize}
\fancyfoot{}
\fancyfoot[LO,RE]{\vspace{-7pt}\includegraphics[height=9pt]{headers/LF}}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\vspace{-7.2pt}\hspace{12.2cm}\includegraphics{headers/RF}}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\vspace{-7.5pt}\hspace{-13.5cm}\includegraphics{headers/RF}}
\fancyfoot[RO]{\footnotesize{\sffamily{1--\pageref{LastPage} ~\textbar \hspace{2pt}\thepage}}}
\fancyfoot[LE]{\footnotesize{\sffamily{\thepage~\textbar\hspace{3.45cm} 1--\pageref{LastPage}}}}
\fancyhead{}
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{1pt}
\renewcommand{\footrulewidth}{1pt}
\setlength{\arrayrulewidth}{1pt}
\setlength{\columnsep}{6.5mm}
\setlength\bibsep{1pt}
\twocolumn[
\begin{@twocolumnfalse}
\noindent\LARGE{\textbf{Dewetting and Spreading Transitions for Active
Matter on Random Pinning Substrates}}
\vspace{0.6cm}
\noindent\large{\textbf{Cs. S\'{a}ndor,\textit{$^{1,2}$}, A. Lib\'{a}l,$^{\ast}$\textit{$^{1,2}$},
C. Reichhardt,\textit{$^{2}$}, and
C. J. Olson Reichhardt\textit{$^{2}$} }}\vspace{0.5cm}
\noindent\textit{\small{\textbf{Received Xth XXXXXXXXXX 20XX, Accepted Xth XXXXXXXXX 20XX\newline
First published on the web Xth XXXXXXXXXX 20XX}}}
\noindent \textbf{\small{DOI: 10.1039/b000000x}}
\vspace{0.6cm}
\noindent \normalsize{We show that sterically interacting self-propelled
disks in the presence of random pinning substrates
exhibit transitions among a variety of different states.
In particular, from a phase separated cluster state, the disks
can spread out and homogeneously cover the substrate in what
can be viewed as an example of an active matter wetting transition.
We map the location of this transition as
a function of activity, disk density, and
substrate strength, and we also identify other phases
including a cluster state, coexistence between a cluster
and a labyrinth wetted phase, and a pinned liquid.
These phases can be identified
using the cluster size, which dips at the wetting-dewetting
transition, and the
fraction of sixfold coordinated particles, which drops when
dewetting occurs.
}\vspace{0.5cm}
\end{@twocolumnfalse}
]
\section{Introduction}
\footnotetext{\textit{$^{1}$~Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science,
Babe\c{s}-Bolyai University, Cluj, Romania 400084
Fax: +40 264 591 906; Tel: + 40 264 405 300 /5240; E-mail: <EMAIL>}}
\footnotetext{\textit{$^2$~Theoretical Division and Center for Nonlinear Studies,
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA.}}
A wide class of systems exhibit pinning-induced
order-disorder transitions in the presence of quenched disorder,
including vortices in type-II superconductors \cite{1,2},
two-dimensional (2D) electron crystals \cite{3,4}, charged colloids \cite{5,6,7},
soft matter systems with core-softened potentials \cite{8}, and
hard disks \cite{9}.
When the ordered state is crystalline,
a transition to the disordered state as a function of increasing substrate strength
or decreasing particle density occurs through
the proliferation of topological defects.
In addition to such equilibrium phases,
distinct phases can emerge under nonequilibrium conditions
in active matter or self-driven particle systems \cite{10,11},
including biological systems such as run-and-tumble bacteria \cite{12}
or artificial swimmers such as self-motile colloids \cite{11,13,14}.
One of the simplest
models of active matter is monodisperse sterically interacting
disks undergoing active Brownian motion or run and tumble dynamics.
These can transition
from a uniform liquid state to a clump or phase separated state
with increasing disk density,
increasing persistence length \cite{15,16,17,18,N,New1} or increasing
run length \cite{19,20,21}.
In the phase separated regime,
which appears even in the absence of an attractive component in the
particle-particle interactions,
large clumps of densely packed disks are
separated by
a low density gas of active particles.
Monodisperse disks exhibit crystalline or polycrystalline ordering
within the high density regions inside the clumps \cite{16}.
A natural question to ask is how robust these cluster
phases are in the presence of quenched disorder and
whether pinning-induced transitions
can occur as a function of increasing substrate strength.
Obstacle arrays, which have been considered in several studies
of swarming models \cite{22,23} and run and tumble disks \cite{21},
produce quite
different effects from the collective behavior that can arise in pinning
arrays. The distinction between a pin and an obstacle is that it is possible
for particles to pass through a pinning site
either individually or collectively, while obstacles present an impenetrable
barrier.
The dynamics of many physically relevant active matter systems,
such as particles moving over rough substrates,
are better described in terms of an effective pinning landscape instead of
in terms of obstacle avoidance.
Studies of modified Vicsek models
in the presence of obstacles
showed that swarming was optimized
at a particular noise value \cite{22},
while in
other studies, increasing the disorder strength
caused a phase transition from a swarming to a non-swarming state \cite{24}.
In studies of self-propelled disks interacting
with obstacle arrays, the mobility of the disks was
a non-monotonic function of the running length, since disks
with long running times spend more time trapped behind obstacles \cite{21}.
Here we consider
self-propelled disks interacting
with a substrate composed of randomly placed pinning sites.
A transition from a pin-free phase separated state to a homogeneous state
can be induced by increasing the substrate strength.
This transition can be viewed as an active matter version
of a wetting-dewetting or spreading transition \cite{25}, where the active
particles spread out to cover the surface when the pinning is strong.
We also show
that a variety of different states can occur as function of disk density, substrate
strength, and activity, including cluster phases, coexisting clustered and
wetted states,
a wetted percolating state, and a pinned liquid state.
These different states can be characterized by the size of the clusters and the
amount of sixfold ordering of the disks.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{Fig1.png}
\caption{ The disk positions (dots) for run and tumble disks interacting
with a random pinning substrate in samples with $l_r=300$ and
$N_p/N_s=0.5$.
Colors indicate
the largest clusters in the system.
(a) A dewetted state (Phase I) at $F_{p} = 1.0$ and $\phi=0.55$. (b)
A partially wetted state (Phase II) at $F_{p} = 2.25$ and $\phi=0.55$.
(c) At $F_{p} = 8.0$ and $\phi=0.55$, the disk density is uniform and
the system forms a wetted state with disordered clusters (Phase III).
(d) At $F_{p} = 8.0$ and $\phi = 0.349$, there is a pinned liquid state (Phase IV).
}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
\section{Simulation}
We numerically simulate a 2D system of
$N_s=8000$ to 20,000 self-propelled disks using GPU based
computing.
The disk radius is
$R = 1.0$ and the system size is $L \times L$ with $L=300.0$,
giving a filling factor
of $\phi = \pi R^2/L^2 = 0.279$ to $0.698$. The disks obey the following overdamped
equation of motion:
\begin{equation}
\eta \frac{d{\bf r}_i}{dt} = {\bf F}_{\rm inter}^i + {\bf F}_m^i + {\bf F}_p^i ,
\end{equation}
where $\eta=1$ is the drag coefficient,
${\bf F}_{\rm inter}^i=\sum_{i\neq j}^{N_s}\Theta(d-2R)k(d-2R){\bf \hat d}$ is the
repulsive disk-disk interaction force,
$d=|{\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j|$, ${\bf \hat d}=({\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j)/d$,
$k=20.0$ is the harmonic spring contact
force, and $\Theta(x)$ is the Heaviside function.
The motor force
${\bf F}_m^i=F_m{\bf \hat m}_i$ with fixed $F_m=1.0$ acts
on each disk in a direction ${\bf \hat m}_i$
that changes randomly via a run and tumble protocol every
$t_r$
simulation time steps.
The time step used in the simulations is $dt=0.001$.
We characterize the activity of the disks by
$\tilde l_{r}=F_mt_r dt$, which is the distance a disk would travel in a single
running time in the absence of disk-disk interactions or pinning, and take
$\tilde l_r$ to be uniformly distributed over the range
[$l_r,2l_r$].
${\bf F}_p^i$, the pinning force exerted by the substrate,
is modeled by an array of $N_p$
randomly
placed circular parabolic traps with a finite radius of $R_p=0.5$,
${\bf F}_p^i=\sum_{k=1}^{N_p}F_p(r_p^{ik}/R_p)\Theta(r_p^{ik}-R_p){\bf \hat r}_p^{ik}$
where $F_{p}$ is the maximum
pinning force exerted at the edge of the trap,
$r^{ik}=|{\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_k^{(p)}|$ is the distance
from the center of disk $i$ to the center of pinning site $k$,
and ${\bf \hat r}_p^{ik}=({\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_k^{(p)})/r^{ik}$.
Since $R_p<R$, a given pinning site can trap no more than one disk at a time.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{Fig2.png}
\caption{ (a) The fractional size of the largest cluster $C_{l}/N_s$ vs $F_{p}$ at
$l_{r} = 300$ and $N_p=8000$ for
$N_s=8000$ to 20,000 corresponding to $\phi=0.279$ to 0.698.
The letters {\bf a}, {\bf b}, {\bf c}, and {\bf d}
indicate the points at which the images in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(a-d) were obtained.
The dip near $F_p=2.5$ occurs at the transition from
the dewetted phase I or the partially wetted phase II to the wetted phase III.
(b) The corresponding fraction of sixfold coordinated particles $P_{6}$ vs $F_{p}$ shows
a drop as the system enters phase III.}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:1} we show four representative images of the phases that appear
for active disks moving over a quenched pinning landscape in a sample
with $l_r=300$ and $N_p/N_s=0.5$.
The coloring highlights the largest individual clusters of disks, identified using
the algorithm of Luding and Herrmann
\cite{26}.
In the absence of a substrate, $F_p=0.0$, the disks form
a phase separated state
for these parameters.
For $F_p=1.0$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(a),
a phase separated state containing a single high density cluster
is still present. Disks in the surrounding low density gas state can be
temporarily pinned since $F_m=F_p$, but overall the morphology is
similar to that of the pin-free state. We term this the active dewetted state, or Phase I.
At $F_{p} = 2.25$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(b), a large
cluster is still present but numerous smaller clusters have nucleated due to
the trapping of gas phase disks by the pinning sites.
As a result, the large cluster is smaller than that shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(a) while
the gas phase density is higher.
This partially wetted state,
called Phase II, can be viewed as a coexistence of the dewetted state,
consisting of the large cluster, and a wetted state, in which the particles
coat the entire substrate.
At $F_{p} = 8.0$
in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(c), the single large cluster has vanished and the system adopts
a uniform labyrinth morphology which we refer to as the wetted state
or Phase III.
In general we
observe a similar sequence of phases at lower disk densities but find that the
wetted state becomes less labyrinthine as the disks contact each other
less frequently,
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(d) for $F_{p} = 8.0$
and $\phi = 0.349$ where the system forms a pinned liquid state called Phase IV.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{Fig3.png}
\caption{ A heat map of $C_l/N_s$ showing the locations of the different phases
as a function of $\phi$ vs $F_{p}$ for fixed $l_r=300$ and $N_p=8000$.
Red areas for $F_p<2.75$ indicate the formation
of large compact clumps, while in the green areas for $F_p \geq 2.75$, large
branching clumps appear.
I: dewetted phase; II: partially wetted phase (along dashed line);
III: wetted phase; IV: pinned liquid.
The letters {\bf a}, {\bf b}, {\bf c}, and {\bf d} indicate the values of
$\phi$ and $F_p$ at which the images in Fig.~\ref{fig:1} were obtained.}
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{Fig4.png}
\caption{ (a) The size of the largest cluster $C_{l}/N_s$ vs $F_{p}$ at fixed
$\phi = 0.55$ and $N_p/N_s=0.5$ for run lengths ranging from $l_r=1$ to $l_r=500$.
(b) The corresponding fraction of sixfold coordinated particles $P_{6}$ vs
$F_{p}$ shows a drop as the system enters phase III.}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:2}(a) we plot the fraction of particles in the largest cluster $C_{l}/N_s$
versus $F_{p}$ for the system in Fig.~\ref{fig:1} at a fixed run length of $l_r=300$
for varied $\phi$. Figure~\ref{fig:2}(b) shows the corresponding fraction $P_6$ of
sixfold coordinated disks obtained using the CGAL library\cite{30}.
For $\phi > 0.315$,
we find $C_l/N_s>0.8$ and $P_6>0.8$ at low $F_p$
since the system forms a
single large clump with strong sixfold ordering.
In the range $ 0.315 < \phi < 0.5$,
there is a pronounced drop in both $C_l/N_s$ and $P_6$ with increasing $F_p$ as the
system transitions from the
clump phase illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(a) to
a pinned liquid phase of the type shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(d).
For $\phi>0.5$,
just before $C_l/N_s$ reaches a minimum value at $F_p \approx 2.5$
the system enters a
partially wetted state similar to that shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(b).
As $F_p$ increases further,
$C_{l}/N_s$ increases again but $P_6$
continues to decease, indicating that clusters with disordered structure have emerged,
as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}(c) at $F_{p} = 8.0$
where the system forms a labyrinth state and the disk density becomes uniform.
The morphology of the large cluster is different in the two high $C_l/N_s$ regimes,
with a compact cluster forming in the dewetted state for $F_p < 2.5$, and a
much more porous, extended, and branching cluster appearing in the wetted state
for $F_p > 2.5$.
For $\phi < 0.5$ at high $F_p$, interconnections between small branching clusters
can no longer percolate across the sample, so there is no giant branching cluster and
$C_{l}/N_s$ remains low.
Overall, we find that for the dewetted cluster (I), $C_l/N_s$ and $P_6$ are both large
and the disk density is heterogeneous.
In the partially wetted phase (II), $C_l/N_s$ is low and $P_6$ has an intermediate
value while the disk density remains heterogenous.
The wetted labyrinth phase (III) has high $C_l/N_s$ and high $P_6$ along with a
homogeneous disk density.
Finally, in the pinned liquid phase (IV), $C_l/N_s$ and $P_6$ are both low and the disk density
is homogeneous.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:3}(a) we show a heat map \cite{31} based on $C_l/N_s$ values
as a function of $\phi$ versus $F_{p}$ indicating the locations of phases I through IV.
For $\phi < 0.35$, the system is too dilute to form clusters, so $C_l/N_s$
remains low at all values of $F_p$.
A dewetting-wetting transition from phase I to phase III occurs for $\phi \geq 0.35$,
with the dashed line indicating the sliver of partially wetted phase (II) that exists
close to this transition.
The transition from phase I to phase II is not sharply defined.
For the clump-forming densities $\phi \geq 0.35$, over the range
$0.0 < F_{p} < 2.75$ the radius $R_{\rm cl}$ of the compact clump decreases with
increasing $F_p$ while the density of the gaslike phase surrounding the clump
increases.
A direct measurement of $R_{\rm cl}$
in the $\phi = 0.55$ sample gives $R_{\rm cl} \propto (F_c - F_{p})^\alpha$
with $\alpha = 1.0$ and $F_{c} = 2.75$.
In the dewetted phase I, there is a coexistence between a high density phase
inside the clumps in which the local density $\phi_h$ is close to the monodisperse
packing limit of $\phi_h \approx 0.9$, along with a low density phase with local density
$\phi_l \ll \phi_h$. As $F_p$ increases, more disks become trapped by pinning sites, so that
the spatial extent of the dense phase decreases while
$\phi_h$ remains constant. At the same time, $\phi_l$ increases until, at the transition
to the fully wetted phase III, $\phi_l=\phi$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{Fig5.png}
\caption{A heat map of $C_{l}/N_s$ showing the locations of the
different phases as a function of $l_{r}$ vs $F_{p}$ for fixed $\phi=0.55$
and $N_p/N_s=0.5$.
Red areas for $F_p<2.5$ indicate the formation
of large compact clumps, while in the green areas for $F_p \geq 2.5$, large
branching clumps appear.
I: dewetted phase; II: partially wetted phase (along dashed line); III: wetted phase;
IV: pinned liquid.
}
\label{fig:5}
\end{figure}
We have also considered the effect of the run length by fixing
the disk density
at $\phi=0.55$ and increasing $l_r$,
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:4}(a,b) where we plot $C_{l}/N_s$ and $P_{6}$ versus $F_{p}$.
For small $l_{r} < 20$,
$C_{l}/N_s$ and $P_{6}$ are both low and the system is in a pinned liquid state.
For large $l_{r} \geq 20$, a clump phase
appears for $F_{p} < 2.75$ and we observe a dip feature
in $C_{l}/N_s$ and a drop in $P_6$ at the dewetting-wetting transition.
The overall behavior is very similar to that shown for varied $\phi$ and fixed $l_r$
in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}.
The heat map diagram of $C_l/N_s$ values in Fig.~\ref{fig:5}
as a function of $l_{r}$ versus $F_{p}$ illustrates
the locations of phases I through IV.
To test the effect of the pinning site density, we fix $l_r=300$, $\phi=0.55$, and
$F_p=2.0$ and increase the number of pinning sites $N_p$.
We find that at low pinning densities, a dewetted clump phase appears that transitions
to a wetted phase as $N_p$ increases.
One difference between sweeping $F_{p}$ and
sweeping $N_{p}$ is that at the highest pinning densities the
percolating cluster phase disappears. Since overlapping of pinning sites is
not allowed, trapped disks are not likely to come into contact with each other to form
a cluster, and at large $N_p$ almost every disk is trapped, so $C_l/N_s$ drops nearly
to zero.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{Fig6.png}
\caption{ The local density $\phi_h$ inside the clusters (green) and
$\phi_l$ in the gas phase (brown) at fixed $\phi=0.55$.
(a) $\phi_h$ and $\phi_l$ vs $F_p$ for $l_r=300$ and $N_p/N_s=0.5$.
(b) $\phi_h$ and $\phi_l$ vs $l_r$ for $F_p=2.0$ and $N_p/N_s=0.5$.
c) $\phi_h$ and $\phi_l$ vs $N_p/N_s$ for $l_r=300$ and $F_p=5.0$.
Dashed lines indicate the point at which the large cluster disappears
from the system.}
\label{fig:6}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:6} we plot the changes in the local density $\phi_h$ inside the clusters
and $\phi_l$ in the gas phase as a function of $F_p$, $l_r$, and $N_p/N_s$.
In each case, $\phi_h$ decreases slightly
from $\phi_h=0.9$ before suddenly dropping to $\phi_h=0$ when the cluster disappears
and the system reaches a uniformly wetted state.
At the same time, $\phi_l$ gradually increases as the transition to the
fully wetted cluster-free
state is approached.
The gentle decrease in $\phi_h$ in the cluster state occurs since
the effective pressure inside the cluster falls as the cluster shrinks.
The increase in $\phi_l$ is caused by a simple conservation of mass; as disks
leave the cluster they become part of the gas phase which fully wets the
substrate once $\phi_l=\phi$.
Our results could be tested using active mater systems in the presence
of a rough substrate. One method that can be used to create such a substrate
is optical trapping, which allows the substrate strength to be tuned by
varying the light intensity.
There has already been some work examining the behavior of
run and tumble bacteria in optical trap arrays \cite{27,28}.
Although we focus on run and tumble systems, our results should
be general to driven Brownian particle systems in which similar clustering
transitions occur due to the density dependence of the particle motility \cite{29}. Since
the disks in a cluster are less strongly coupled to the substrate
than disks that are not part a cluster, the onset of
clustering may be a useful strategy
that could be exploited by living active matter to
collectively escape from a disordered environment.
\section{Summary}
We have numerically examined run and tumble disks interacting with a
random pinning substrate where we find that there can be active matter
wetting-dewetting transitions as a function of pinning strength,
disk density, and run length. In regimes where the pin-free system
forms a cluster state, we find that increasing the substrate strength
causes the size of the cluster to shrink gradually until the disk density
becomes homogeneous. Here, the cluster phase can be viewed as a dewetted
state while the homogeneous phase is like a wetted state.
We show that the system exhibits different phases including
a clump state, a partially wetted state in which clumps coexist with a gas of pinned
disks, a fully wetted labyrinth state, and a pinned liquid state.
Transitions between these states can be identified by measuring
the size of the largest cluster and
the fraction of sixfold coordinated particles.
Our results indicate that
pinning can induce transitions in the behavior of active matter systems
that are similar to the pinning-induced order-disorder transitions in equilibrium
condensed matter systems.
\section{Acknowledgments}
This work was carried out under the auspices of the
NNSA of the U.S. DoE at LANL under Contract No. DE-AC52-06NA25396.
Cs. S\'{a}ndor and A. Lib\'{a}l
thank the Nvidia Corporation
for their graphical card donation that was used in carrying out
these simulations.
\footnotesize{
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec_intro}
In 1992, the new stellar opacities from \citeauthor*{Rogers1992} (computed with the OPAL code) revolutionized asteroseismology of massive stars by providing an explanation to what was called the $\beta$ Cephei problem: none of the commonly considered excitation mechanisms could account for the presence of pulsations in these B-type stars. As a consequence of these new computations, the mean Rosseland opacity was increased by a factor 3 at $\log T\simeq 5.2$, allowing the excitation of modes in these stars through the $\kappa$-mechanism in the iron opacity bump \citep[e.g.][]{Kiriakidis1992}. The inclusion of some additional metals in the OPAL computations by \cite{Iglesias1996} increased even further the opacity in that region. Meanwhile, similar results -- though with a slightly hotter metal opacity bump -- were also obtained in parallel by the OP project \citep{Badnell2005}.
\citet{Pam99} was the first to present an updated overview of the theoretical predictions for instability domains in the upper main sequence (MS) accounting for these new opacities. These domains, which mainly refer to the regions of the Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagram where the so-called $\beta$ Cephei and SPB (slowly pulsating B) stars are located, were subsequently revised by \citet{Miglio2007a,Miglio2007b} considering the updated solar metal mixture\footnote{Previous computations used the solar metal mixture proposed by \citet[][]{Grevesse1993}.} of \citet[][]{Asplund2005}, and different choices in the assumed opacities \cite[see also][]{Pamyatnykh2007}.
All these computations improved the agreement between models and observations. However, some problems still remained. For example, standard theoretical models were not able to fit all the observed frequencies in some Galactic $\beta$ Cephei stars \citep[e.g. $12$~Lac and $\nu$~Eri,][]{Ausseloos2004,Pamyatnykh2004,Dziembowski2008,Desmet2009}. In addition, some Galactic late O-type stars were found to exhibit $\beta$~Cephei-type pulsations, while they are located outside the predicted instability domains \citep[e.g.,][]{Briquet2011}. Moreover, with the progress in detection capabilities, B pulsating stars were also discovered in the Small Magellanic Cloud \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{Kou14} while, adopting the typical metallicity of this galaxy
\citep[$Z\approx 0.003$, e.g.][]{Buchler2008},
no modes could be excited in a theoretical standard $\beta$ Cephei model \citep{Salmon2009}. The solution to these discrepancies between theoretical predictions and observations may still be related to the considered opacities \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Salmon2012,TurckChieze2013,Mor16}, or to the existence of other type of driving mechanisms of stellar oscillations not accounted for in the computations.
Moving up in the HR diagram to the O star and B supergiant domain (hereafter OB stars), we enter in a more uncharted territory in terms of instability predictions, in particular for the more evolved models. Due to the very high contrast in density between the core and the superficial layers in post-MS models (compared to MS models for the same initial mass), the number of nodes of the pulsation modes in the central layers become extremely high and numerical problems appear. But still it has become clear from both an observational and a theoretical point of view that OB stars present various types of oscillations.
Indeed, as an extension to the $\beta$ Cephei and SPB instability strips in the B star domain, these more massive stars are predicted to present pressure (p-) and gravity (g-) pulsation modes excited by the $\kappa$-mechanism.
Depending on the stellar effective temperature ($T_{\rm eff}$), the iron or the helium opacity bumps are the main responsible for the occurrence of these modes in stars with masses $\gtrsim 9\, {\rm M}_{\odot}$ \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Dziembowski1993, Pam99, Saio2011}.
In addition, \cite{Saio2011} showed that oscillatory convective modes are expected to be excited in the HR diagram in a large portion of the MS and post-MS region of the massive star domain. These are modes punctually excited thanks to the convective motions in the iron and helium opacity bumps. Furthermore, modes excited by the $\epsilon$-mechanism \citep[e.g.][]{Noe86, Scu86, Unn89}, strange mode instabilities \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{Saio1998,Gla09}, and even stochastically excited waves excited by various driving mechanisms \citep[][]{Belkacem2010,Samadi2010,Shi13,Mat14,Aer15,Gra15} are predicted in massive OB stars. Actually, some of these predictions have already found empirical support \citep[e.g.,][]{Aer10,Degroote2010,Mor12,Buy15}. Recent reviews describing the state-of-the-art of the theoretical knowledge about pulsations in massive OB stars can be found in \cite{Saio2011,Godart2014,Saio2015} and \cite{Samadi2015}.
The slow but sure increase in the amount of observational data coming from space missions (e.g. MOST, CoRoT, Kepler, K2, BRITE), supported by on-ground spectroscopic material is not only showing us the rich and complex variety of pulsational-type phenomena present in the OB star domain \citep[see][and references therein]{Aer15a}, but is also providing us invaluable empirical information to step forward in the characterization and understanding of the pulsational properties of these massive stellar objects. This situation will improve thanks to future missions as TESS and PLATO, or coordinated on-ground telescope facility networks (e.g. SONG).
It is timely to combine all the promptly available empirical information with our current theoretical knowledge of stellar oscillations in massive stars. In this regards, it is interesting to note that despite the remarkable progress made in the last decades we still lack from a comprehensive, homogeneous, in-depth pulsational stability analysis in the massive star domain (from the zero age MS to the more evolved phases and the complete massive star range above 3~${\rm M}_{\odot}$). Indeed, results are limited to low degree modes ($\ell\le3$) even combining heterogeneous computations by several authors \citep[][]{Miglio2007a,Pamyatnykh2007,Godart2011,Saio2011,Das13,Saio2015,Mor16}, except for the study of \citet{Bal99} that limited their high-degree computations to MS stars.
Higher-degree modes are usually disregarded because of the difficulty to be detected photometrically \citep[e.g.][]{Bal99,Aer10b} but can be important when interpreting spectroscopic observations \cite[see, e.g.,][]{Sch97}. An example of this situation was highlighted in \cite{Sim16}, where we presented the first comprehensive attempt to evaluate empirically the proposed hypothesis that the so-called macroturbulent broadening in O and B stars is produced by the collective effect of multiple non-radial pulsation modes \citep[e.g.][]{Luc76,Aer09}. Using high-spectral resolution, single snapshot observations of $\approx$~430 Galactic stars\footnote{From the IACOB spectroscopic database \citep[last described in][]{Sim15b}.} with spectral types ranging from O4 to B9, we investigated the potential connection between stellar oscillations driven by a heat mechanism and this ubiquitous and dominant non-rotational broadening component shaping the line profiles of O stars and B Supergiants. The result was not very promising when accounting only for dipole modes predictions ($\ell$=1). However, the consideration of a larger number of modes of higher degree might help improving the situation.
As a continuation to the work by \cite{Godart2011} and motivated by these recent advances in the investigation of the macroturbulent broadening in the OB star domain,
we present in this paper new theoretical predictions for instability domains of $\ell\le 20$ non-radial modes for stars with masses between 3 and 70~${\rm M}_{\odot}$. We aim at providing a global homogeneous overview of the instability domains predicted in the upper part of the HR diagram together with some indications about the characteristics (in terms of type of modes and frequency spectrum) of the various unstable modes found in the whole region. We also expect that this theoretical work will become a useful tool for the interpretation of data gathered in on-going and future observational campaigns, especially in spectroscopy.
The paper is structured as follows. The model input physics is presented in Sect.~\ref{sec_computations}, while we introduce in Sect.~\ref{sec_diagnostic} the diagnostic diagrams used for the determination of the instability boundaries for pulsations. The instability domains resulting from a comprehensive pulsational instability analysis for MS and post-MS models from 3 to 70~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ for $\ell$=1 and 2 $\le \ell \le$ 20 are presented in Sects.~\ref{sub_bi_l_equal1} and \ref{sub_bi_l_larger1}, respectively. This is complemented with a discussion about the behavior
of high-degree modes as the stars evolve from the MS to the post-MS in Sect.~\ref{sub_global_l}. We then investigate in Sect.~\ref{sec_macro} possible correlations between the location of stars characterized by having an important contribution of so-called macroturbulent broadening to their line profiles and the predicted instability domains associated with heat-driven pulsating modes (Sect.~\ref{sec_macro_shr}). We then discuss the physical ingredients of the models that can alter the results, such as a change in the metallicity or in the adopted opacities (Sect.~\ref{sec_zams}). With this study we want to assess whether this spectroscopic feature is an observational signature of the existence of a distribution of motions in the line-formation region induced by this specific type of stellar pulsations. Last, other possible sources of macroturbulent broadening are briefly discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec_sources}, and the main conclusions of our work -- along with some future prospects -- are summarized in Sect.~\ref{sec_conclusions}.
\section{Stellar models and non-radial modes}\label{sec_computations}
We concentrate in this paper on the instability domain predictions for heat-driven pulsation modes produced by the $\kappa$-mechanism in the iron opacity bump.
To this aim, we benefit from the computations performed in \citet{Godart2011}. The stellar models were computed using the ATON evolutionary code \citep{Ventura2008}. In order to cover the whole mass range of observations, we extended the grid of stellar models to 3\,--\,70~${\rm M}_{\odot}$.
We briefly mention here the main physical ingredients of these models:
\begin{itemize}
\item convective transport is treated following the Mixing Length Theory of convection \citep{Bohm-Vitense1958} and by adopting the Schwarzschild criterion for convection \citep{Schwarzschild1906},
\item no overshooting is included: asteroseismology of massive stars shows a rather large dispersion in the determination of the overshooting parameter (e.g. \citeauthor[][]{Noe15} \citeyear[][]{Noe15}, though \citeauthor{Cas14} \citeyear{Cas14} have argued that a mass dependent overshooting is necessary to recover the HR diagram features at high masses),
\item mass loss is taken into account for masses larger than 7~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ following the prescription of \cite{Vink2001},
\item we used the OPAL opacity tables \citep{Iglesias1996}, extended with the opacities of \cite{Ferguson2005} for $T<6000$~K,
\item the considered metallicity is $Z=0.015$, and we used the metal mixture determined by \cite{Grevesse1993},
\item microscopic diffusion and radiative levitation are ignored.
\end{itemize}
At this point, we remark that our main set of computations (see also below) do not use the most recently accepted values of metallicity \citep[$Z=0.014$ and the metal mixture from][]{Asplund2009}. In addition, while we considered the OPAL opacity tables, we are aware of the availability of other computations, such as the OP tables which favor the excitation of modes in the considered domain of stellar parameters \citep[e.g.][]{Miglio2007a,Pamyatnykh2007}. The computations performed here are still valid for the main purpose of this work, namely the investigation of the possible connection between heat driven modes and the so-called macroturbulent broadening in O and B stars. A detailed explanation of the reason of using the set of assumption quoted above, along with notes about the effect of considering a higher metallicity, a different metal mixture and/or the opacities from the OP project on the computed instability domains and, therefore, on the conclusions of our study is presented in Sect.~\ref{sec_zams}.
Adiabatic and non-adiabatic computations for non-radial pulsations in the whole range of masses described above were performed using the Li{\`e}ge Oscillation code \citep[LOSC,][]{Scu08a} and the non-adiabatic code MAD \citep{Dupret2003} combined with the numerical method described in \citet{Godart2009} for the computations of g-modes in models presenting an intermediate convective shell surrounding the He core. This method allows us to avoid the computation of the full dense spectrum of non-radial modes by pre-selecting the modes that are reflected at the bottom of the convective shell and potentially excited.
The adiabatic and non-adiabatic frequencies were computed in the range $\omega=$0.05 to 20 where $\omega$ is the dimensionless frequency\footnote{The dimensionless frequency is defined as $\omega = \, \sigma \, \tau_{\sf dyn} \,= \, 2\,\pi\, f \, \tau_{\sf dyn}$ where $f$ is the frequency in Hz and $\tau_{\sf dyn}=\sqrt{R^3/GM}$ is the dynamical time in seconds. For the fundamental radial mode, $\omega$ is of the order of 3.}. This range covers periods from minutes to several hundreds of days.
The degree $\ell$ of the mode was chosen to vary from 1 to 20 considering zonal modes only ($m=0$).
We remark the novelty and importance of the $\ell>$~3 (and up to 20) computations for the purpose of the study presented here.
As already mentioned, higher-degree modes are usually disregarded because of the difficulty to be detected using photometric observations \citep[the amplitudes are averaged out over the unresolved stellar disc, see][for an analysis of the visibility of high-degree modes]{Bal99}. However, these modes, especially when they are combined together in a dense frequency spectrum, have a more important effect on the line profiles. Therefore, they become interesting in a spectroscopic context and, in particular, for the investigation of line-profile variability and line-broadening effects \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Sch97, Aer09, Sim16}.
To identify the excited modes, we first evaluate whether the work produced by the star during a pulsation cycle is positive \citep[e.g.][]{Unn89}.
This criterion, used in all non-adiabatic codes, gives
a first indication on the stability of the pulsation. However, it may not be sufficiently reliable when studying instabilities of massive stars. Under certain circumstances, some modes, which would be considered excited according to the work integral criterion, present peculiar eigenfunctions. In particular, in the most massive and evolved models, we have found excited modes that are misinterpreted by the non-adiabatic code due to the huge number of nodes compared to the limited number of mesh points we imposed in the code. Indeed, the asymptotic formula for g-modes \citep[][]{Tas80}
\begin{equation}
k^2\approx \frac{N^2}{\sigma^2}\frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{r^2} \,\,\, \rm{( if}\,\, \sigma\ll N,L_\ell\,\rm{)}
\end{equation}
shows that for a given frequency ($\sigma$), the number of nodes ($k$) for a mode is very large in the region of the peaks of $N^2$ (i.e., the Brunt-V\"{a}is\"{a}l\"{a} frequency, see Eq.~\ref{eq-bv}) and/or for large values of $\ell$. When studying the eigenfunctions in detail, these modes are actually not physically excited.
These issues are recurrent over the whole spectra of computed frequencies for the most evolved and/or the most massive models, but the modes with the largest periods are the most problematic to compute due to their very large number of nodes (for $\omega\lesssim 0.2$ though this upper limit increases with increasing $\ell$).
Therefore, we decided to inspect visually every modal diagram (see Sect.~\ref{sec_diagnostic}) resulting from the non-adiabatic code computations to identify the potential unphysical modes. For all these dubious modes, we evaluate the reliability of the results by studying in detail the corresponding eigenfunctions. In particular, whenever necessary, we increased the number of mesh points (usually around 5000 points) in the most critical regions of the star such as, for example, in the non-zero mean molecular weight gradient zone or where the work produced by the star reaches high absolute values. As a result, we ended up with what we call {\em cleaned} modal diagrams in which only these physically meaningful modes are included.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{Bmodel-freqwsquare-bv_worked12-crop.pdf}
\caption{
\textbf{Left} Modal diagram: range of dimensionless frequencies for a 50~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ MS model (labeled B in Tab.~\ref{tab_parameters}) as a function of the degree $\ell$ of the mode. Stable modes are represented by gray points while excited modes are shown with solid blue circles. \textbf{Right} Propagation diagram for the same model.
The solid red line stands for the Brunt-V\"{a}is\"{a}l\"{a} frequency, and the Lamb frequency for three different degrees ($\ell$=1,3 and 20) is represented by the dotted, dashed and dot-dashed lines, respectively. The propagation zones for p and g modes with $\ell$=1 are highlighted by the dark gray and light blue shadow regions, respectively. The solid horizontal black line stands for an example of the propagation zones for a mode of $\omega=1.0$ with $\ell=3$.
}
\label{fig_prop_diag_bv}
\end{figure*}
\section{Diagnostic diagrams}\label{sec_diagnostic}
In order to obtain a global picture of the stable and unstable modes for each computed model we used a version of the so-called modal diagrams\footnote{A modal diagram displays generally the frequency spectrum as a function of one global stellar parameter (e.g. $\log T_{\rm eff}$, $\log g$)} in which the dimensionless frequency $\omega$ (or, alternatively, the frequency $f$) is displayed as a function of the degree $\ell$ of the mode.
Left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig_prop_diag_bv} shows an illustrative modal diagram of this type for the particular case of a 50~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ MS model (see model B in Table~\ref{tab_parameters} for the global properties). Stable and unstable modes are represented by gray and big blue points, respectively. As discussed in the previous section, all the modal diagrams presented along this paper have been cleaned from the unphysical modes encountered in the computations (i.e., only the excited modes that have survived the visual inspection of the eigenfunctions are marked in blue).
The information provided by the modal diagrams is also complemented by analyzing the associated propagation diagrams. This second type of diagnostic diagrams allows us to identify the cavities in which p and g modes can propagate in a given model and for a certain value of $\ell$ \citep[e.g.][]{Unn89}. This is achieved by plotting together as a function of, e.g., $\log T$, the Lamb frequency
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_lamb}
L^{2}_{\ell}={\ell(\ell+1)\,c^{2}}/{r^{2}}
\end{equation}
(where $c$ is the sound speed and $r$ is the radius), and the Brunt-V\"{a}is\"{a}l\"{a} frequency
\begin{equation}
\label{eq-bv}
N^{2}=\frac{g_r}{r}\frac{d\ln P}{d\ln r} \, \bigg[\,\bigg(\frac{\partial \ln \rho}{\partial \ln T}\bigg)_{P,\mu}(\nabla_{ad}-\nabla)-\nabla_\mu\,\bigg(\frac{\partial \ln \rho}{\partial \ln \mu}\bigg)_{T,P}\bigg]
\end{equation}
(where $g_r$ is the local gravity, $P$, $\rho$, $T$, and $\mu$ are the pressure, density, temperature, and mean molecular weight, respectively, $\nabla_{ad}$ and $\nabla$ are the adiabatic and real temperature gradient, and $\nabla_\mu$ is the mean molecular weight gradient $\nabla_\mu=$ d$\ln\mu/$d$\ln P$).
This is illustrated in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig_prop_diag_bv}, which shows the propagation diagram corresponding to the model B mentioned above. The Lamb frequency (for $\ell=1,3$ and $20$) and the Brunt-V\"{a}is\"{a}l\"{a} frequency are drawn with dashed and solid lines, respectively.
The propagation zones for p and g modes for the case $\ell$=1 are indicated by the dark gray and light blue areas, respectively, while the solid horizontal black line stands for an example of the propagation zones for a mode of $\omega$=1 with $\ell$=3. Generally speaking, those modes with $\omega^2>$ max$(N^2,L^2_\ell)$ are p modes and propagate in the more superficial layers, while those modes with $\omega^2<$ min$(N^2,L^2_\ell)$ correspond to g modes and propagate in the deeper layers. However, as illustrated by the horizontal line, there are also \emph{mixed} modes, which present both behavior depending of the regions of the stellar interior where they are propagating.
For example, the $\omega=1.0$, $\ell=3$ mode in Fig.~\ref{fig_prop_diag_bv} will have characteristics of p modes in the outer regions and of g modes in the inner one.
In summary, as described above, the combined information provided by the modal and the propagation diagrams shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_prop_diag_bv} allows to identify the frequency spectrum, the associated propagation cavity, and the mode type of excited modes in each considered stellar model.
\subsection{Some notes on the propagation diagrams}
For a better understanding of the following sections, we describe here in more details the propagation diagram for massive stars (Fig.~\ref{fig_prop_diag_bv}). We concentrate on the behavior of the Brunt-V\"{a}is\"{a}l\"{a} frequency since it plays a major role in the excitation of the instabilities computed in this paper.
As shown in the propagation diagram, the Lamb frequency ($L_{\ell}$) is very large in the center and decreases monotonously towards the surface, following the decreasing c and the increasing r (see also Eq.~\ref{eq_lamb}). Its behavior is very similar from one model to another.
On the contrary, the Brunt-V\"{a}is\"{a}l\"{a} frequency ($N$) can be very different depending on the specific mass and evolutionary state of the associated stellar model.
During the MS, $N^2 =0$ in the convective core (see Eq.~\ref{eq-bv}). In the layers surrounding the core, the presence of a $\nabla_\mu$ (due to the receding convective core during the evolution) produces a peak in the Brunt-V\"{a}is\"{a}l\"{a} frequency which intensity depends on the sharpness of the $\mu$ gradient \citep[e.g.][]{Noe10}.
As a matter of fact, MS stars with intermediate masses (3 -- 20~${\rm M}_{\odot}$), usually present a unique peak in $N^2$(r) while the star evolves from the zero age main-sequence (ZAMS) due to the increasing $\nabla\mu$ region.
Therefore, in that case, the star presents mainly 2 big cavities (p and g), and the frequency spectrum is characterized by avoided crossings between low-order p and g modes during which the modes exchange their behavior.
In more massive stars, the behavior of $N^2$(r), and hence the propagation diagram, is more complex. In addition to the sharp peak due to the $\nabla\mu$ region on the MS, the Brunt-V\"{a}is\"{a}l\"{a} frequency presents other bumps almost equally important leading to new cavities in which different types of modes may propagate. The propagation diagram (Fig.~\ref{fig_prop_diag_bv}, right panel) illustrates the most important characteristics of the Brunt-V\"{a}is\"{a}l\"{a} frequency in massive stars. Starting from the innermost region of the star (A), the actual limit of the convective core is shown by a first discontinuity in $N^{2}$ at $\log T$ $\sim$~7.4 (B). The subsequent decrease in $N^{2}$ (B-C) is due to the decrease of $g$ and $\mu$ (see Eq.~\ref{eq-bv} where $P/\rho\sim T/\mu$) in the region of variable $\mu$. It is followed by another discontinuity at $\log T \sim 7.1$ (C) once $\nabla\mu$ becomes 0.
This discontinuity corresponds to the maximal extension of the convective core during MS.
Since above the $\nabla\mu$ region, $\nabla_{\rm rad}$ becomes smaller following the decreasing opacity, the shift between both temperature gradients in Eq.~\ref{eq-bv} gets larger and $N^{2}$ increases (C-D). This feature is discussed in more detail below.
The next minimum in $N^{2}$ is produced by the deep opacity bump at $\log T \sim 6.25$ due to the L-transition of iron (E). One can also see the convective zone due to the iron opacity bump at $\log T \sim 5.2$ (F-G) and a superficial convective zone due to the ionization of helium ($\log T \sim 4.6$, H-I).
Apart from the large deep opacity bump, the most important characteristic of the $N^{2}$ frequency in massive stars is related to the sharp feature produced by the important radiation pressure around $\log T \sim 7.0$ (C-D).
Actually, the increasing contribution of the radiative pressure to the total pressure (with mass, and during the evolution on the MS, due to the increasing central temperature) induces a decreasing adiabatic temperature gradient. Since, both gradients ($\nabla_{\rm rad}$ and $\nabla_{\rm ad}$) are already close to one another, the $\nabla_{\rm rad}$ becomes more easily larger than $\nabla_{\rm ad}$, leading eventually to the appearance of an intermediate convective zone (ICZ) on the post-MS (see Sect.~\ref{sub_bi_l_equal1}).
However, even before the onset of an ICZ, the discontinuity in the Brunt-V\"{a}is\"{a}l\"{a} frequency (C), already present during MS at the upper limit of the $\nabla_{\mu}$ region, shows a minimum value smaller and smaller as the mass increases due to the increasing radiation pressure leading to a smaller coefficient $(\partial \ln \rho / \partial \ln T)_{P,\mu}$ (Eq.~\ref{eq-bv}). This lower minimum value in the Brunt-V\"{a}is\"{a}l\"{a} frequency will have a similar effect as the ICZ, as we will see in Sect.~\ref{sub_bi_l_larger1}.
\section{Instability strips}\label{sec_instabilitystrips}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{shrl1_models_worked-crop.pdf}
\caption{Instability domain predictions in the sHR diagram for dipole modes ($\ell=$~1, see Sect.~\ref{sub_bi_l_equal1}). P-mode instabilities are represented by the blue area and the g-mode domain is shown in red.
The ATON, non-rotating evolutionary tracks are over plotted. The horizontal dashed line indicates the limit above which strange mode oscillations are most likely expected. Black asterisks stand for 9 selected models labeled A to I which will be more deeply investigated in Sect.~\ref{sub_bi_l_larger1}. The global properties of these models are given in Tab.~\ref{tab_parameters}.
}
\label{fig_inst_l1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{shrllarge_kappameca_models_worked-crop.pdf}
\caption{Same caption as in Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_l1} except that the instability domain predictions are now done for 2~$\le\ell\le$~20 pulsation modes (see Sect.~\ref{sub_bi_l_larger1}).
}
\label{fig_inst_lgtab_parameters}
\end{figure}
\begin{table} [tb]
\caption[]{Global stellar parameters of 11 selected models: mass, effective temperature, gravity, the quantity $\mathscr{L}$ defined as $T_{\rm eff}^4/g$, central hydrogen abundance, and dynamical time in hour. See the location of these models in the spectroscopic HR diagram in Figs.~\ref{fig_inst_l1} and \ref{fig_inst_lgtab_parameters}.
}
\label{tab_parameters}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
\hline\hline
& $M/{\rm M}_{\odot}$ & $\log T_{\rm eff}$ & $\log g$ & $\log \mathscr{L}/\mathscr{L}_{\odot}$ & $X_c$ & $\tau_{\rm dyn}$ \\
\hline
A & 50 & 4.60 & 3.79 & 3.99 & 0.363 & 20.8 \\
B & 50 & 4.50 & 3.33 & 4.06 & 0.161 & 44.3 \\
C & 30 & 4.38 & 2.97 & 3.95 & 0.000 & 76.3 \\
D & 15 & 4.42 & 3.69 & 3.38 & 0.140 & 19.9 \\
E & 15 & 4.36 & 3.36 & 3.49 & 0.000 & 34.8 \\
F & 15 & 4.22 & 2.79 & 3.49 & 0.000 & 93.9 \\
G & 6 & 4.30 & 4.32 & 2.26 & 0.697 & 5.34 \\
H & 6 & 4.25 & 3.96 & 2.43 & 0.303 & 9.88 \\
I & 6 & 4.20 & 3.67 & 2.51 & 0.035 & 16.5 \\
J & 8 & 4.33 & 3.97 & 2.72 & 0.331 & 10.5 \\
K & 4 & 4.14 & 4.00 & 1.96 & 0.316 & 8.45 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{freq_range_AAAmodels_cd-1-rotated180-crop.pdf}
\caption{Range of frequencies in cycle per day (c/d) for models A to I. Gray dots stand for the frequencies of the stable modes computed whereas excited mode frequencies are represented by blue bigger dots. From left to right, the rows represent the evolution from the MS to the post-MS: models A to C for high masses (30 -- 50~${\rm M}_{\odot}$), models D to F for 15~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ and models G to I for 6~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ MS models only (see Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_l1} and Tab.~\ref{tab_parameters}). Rough evolutionary states are indicated for each model in the right bottom corner (ZAMS, EMS, MMS, TAMS and post-MS stand for zero age MS, early MS, middle of MS, terminal age MS and hydrogen burning shell models).
Note that the detectability of the pulsation modes in photometry is limited to the low degree ($\ell$ up to 3 -- 4) whereas higher degree modes should be observed thanks to spectroscopy.}
\label{fig_models_AI}
\end{figure*}
By investigating modal diagrams, we have determined the instability boundaries of pulsations due to the $\kappa$-mechanism in the iron opacity bump. These results, along with the ATON, non-rotating evolutionary tracks are presented in the spectroscopic Hertzsprung-Russell diagram \citep[sHR diagram, ][]{Lan14, Cas14}, separating the case of dipole modes ($\ell=1$, Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_l1}) and higher-degree modes ($2\le \ell \le 20$, Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_lgtab_parameters}). These figures are complemented with some illustrative cleaned modal diagrams for 11 selected models, labeled from A to K (Figs.~\ref{fig_models_AI} and \ref{fig_models_JK}). The location of these models in the sHR diagram are shown by black asterisks in Figs.~\ref{fig_inst_l1} and \ref{fig_inst_lgtab_parameters} and their main parameters are summarized in Table~\ref{tab_parameters}. In this case, we have used the dimensional frequency $f$ in cycles per day (instead of the dimensionless frequency $\omega$ as in Fig.~\ref{fig_prop_diag_bv}) for a better utility of these diagrams from an observational point of view. The values of $\tau_{\rm dyn}$ (in hours) provided in Table~\ref{tab_parameters} for each model can be used to transform $f$ into the dimensionless variable $\omega$.
The panels of Figs.~\ref{fig_models_AI} and~\ref{fig_models_JK} are organized following the location of the selected models in the sHR diagram. In Fig.~\ref{fig_models_AI}, every row displays models with similar masses (except for model C; decreasing masses from the top to the bottom row), and, the models are evolving from the beginning of the MS to the post-MS from left to right (i.e. every column corresponds to a given evolutionary state). Rough evolutionary states are indicated for each model in the right bottom corner of the modal diagram (ZAMS, EMS, MMS, TAMS and post-MS stand for zero age MS, early MS, middle of MS, terminal age MS and hydrogen burning shell models). Finally, Fig.~\ref{fig_models_JK} represents models with different masses (8 to 4~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ from the top to the bottom panel) selected at the same evolutionary stage (MMS, $X_c=0.3$).
Modes appear into 2 groups depending on their frequencies (in particular, see models B, C and E in Fig.~\ref{fig_models_AI}):
\begin{itemize}
\item modes with high frequencies (small periods) behave mainly like p modes, these modes are excited with low orders;
\item modes with low frequencies (large periods) have a general g-mode behavior, and these modes are usually excited with high orders.
\end{itemize}
The limit between these two kinds of modes depends on the frequency but also on the degree $\ell$ of the mode. For this reason, we do not use the usually accepted criterion in dimensionless frequencies of $\omega>1$ ($\omega<1$) for p modes (resp. g modes), and we mainly refer in the following to the high-frequency and low-frequency modes, especially when discussing the results for $\ell>1$.
For a better understanding of the instability domain predictions, we first concentrate on the results for $\ell=1$, and then extend the description of the results to higher-degree modes (2 $\le\ell\le$ 20), for which the physics discussed in the $\ell=1$ case applies too.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{freq_range_AAAmodels_cd-1_6Msun-crop.pdf}
\caption{Same caption as in Fig.~\ref{fig_models_AI} but for models J to K, selected, from top to bottom, at the same evolutionary state ($X_c\sim 0.3$) but with decreasing masses from 8 to 4~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_l1} and Tab.~\ref{tab_parameters}).}
\label{fig_models_JK}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Instability domains for dipole modes ($\ell=1$)}\label{sub_bi_l_equal1}
The results for dipole modes ($\ell=1$) are presented in the sHR diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_l1} while the associated modal diagrams for the selected models A--K are highlighted with a vertical gray band in Figs.~\ref{fig_models_AI} and \ref{fig_models_JK}. We separate the discussion below into the three major instability domains.
We start by discussing the lower mass regime (from 3 to 6~${\rm M}_{\odot}$) for which instabilities are found for MS stars only. These models are characterized by high-order g modes only (represented by the red area limited by dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_l1}), which basically maps the SPB instability strip for $\ell$=1. The periods related to these modes are of $1 - 3$ days (see panels I and K in Figs.~\ref{fig_models_AI} and \ref{fig_models_JK}, respectively).
Moving up in the sHR diagram, we find low-order p and g modes, which are predicted on the MS and also on the early post-MS of massive models. These modes are represented by a blue area limited by dotted lines in Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_l1}.
In the intermediate mass range ($\sim$ 10 -- 30~${\rm M}_{\odot}$), these excited modes with periods of the order of $6$ hours constitute the $\beta$ Cephei instability strip (e.g., model D, $\ell=1$).
For the models with larger masses (M~$\ge$ 30~${\rm M}_{\odot}$), some adiabatic strange modes are also excited with periods of a few hours (models A and B), in addition to the low order p and g modes. These adiabatic strange modes are excited in the iron opacity bump due to the $\kappa$-mechanism and their strange mode behaviour is related to the amplitude enhancement of the mode trapped into a superficial cavity \citep[e.g.][]{Saio1998,Gla09}. The nature of these modes has been confirmed by investigating the eigenfunctions.
These instabilities extend to the post-MS phase, especially for models with masses up to 40~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ (with dimensionless frequency $\omega\sim 3$, i.e. periods of the order of hours).
In particular, in these post-MS models, the instabilities are essentially due to low-order g modes that present a mixed mode behavior, i.e. they propagate into the central layers as g modes and they have a p mode behavior in the superficial layers.
Finally, a large number of high-order g modes are expected to be excited mainly during the post-MS phase of stars with masses larger than 9~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ (red area in Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_l1} and models C and F in Fig.~\ref{fig_models_AI}). These modes have periods of about $\sim 5 - 15$ days, and this region of the sHR diagram is often referred to as the extension of the SPB instability strip to higher masses.
They are predicted in models which present an ICZ surrounding the radiative core. The ICZ acts as a barrier and prevents the modes from entering the damping core.
Indeed, the density contrast between the helium core and the envelope is very high in massive post-MS models. As a result, the Brunt-V\"{a}is\"{a}l\"{a} frequency reaches huge values in the core and a large radiative damping occurs \citep[the radiative damping is proportional to $N^2$, see Eq.~3 in][]{Dupret2009}.
However, the ICZ, which develops above the radiative core during post-MS evolution, reflects the modes and allows therefore a sufficient excitation by the $\kappa$-mechanism in the iron opacity bump \citep{Saio2006,Gau09,Godart2009}, similarly to the excited modes in SPB stars.
In our models, the ICZ appears in the models of 12~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ (up to higher masses) although g-mode instabilities are already predicted in models of 9~${\rm M}_{\odot}$. Actually, we found here that the sharp feature in the Brunt-V\"{a}is\"{a}l\"{a} frequency discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec_diagnostic} (at $\log T \sim 7.1$ in Fig.~\ref{fig_prop_diag_bv}) already produces the reflection needed for exciting the g modes if the minimum is low enough, in agreement with \cite{Das13}, as it is the case for our models with M~$\ge$ 9~${\rm M}_{\odot}$.
The instability strip for these high-order g modes (low frequencies) overlaps with the low-order p and g modes instability strip (high frequencies) for the most massive models. The overlapping of both areas appears in purple in Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_l1}. Mainly located on the post-MS (for $\sim$ 15 -- 30~${\rm M}_{\odot}$), it reaches the MS for masses of 40 -- 50~${\rm M}_{\odot}$.
When both these frequency ranges are excited at the same time (as it is the case at the end of the MS for a 40~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ star for example, for which the frequency spectrum is similar to model C), a stable region lies between the frequency domains of excited modes (Fig.~\ref{fig_models_AI}). The amplitude of the modes in that range of intermediate radial orders are larger in the core than in the envelope, and the important radiative damping prevents the $\kappa$-mechanism to be efficient enough.
Two effects explain this behavior: (1) the evanescent zone is larger in this frequency range which leads to a larger coupling between p and g cavities and thus to a larger radiative damping \citep{Dupret2008} and (2) the amplitudes of the eigenfunctions in the superficial layers
show a minimum in this frequency range \citep{Dziembowski1993}.
All these theoretical predictions for the dipole instability domains are in good agreement with the work of \citet{Saio2011}.
For a more extensive description of the properties of the various theoretical instability domains for massive stars for low degree $\ell$ and for modes excited by other mechanism than the opacity mechanism we refer the reader to \citet[][]{Saio2011,Saio2015a,Saio2015} and the reviews of \citet[][]{Godart2014,Samadi2015}.
\subsection{Instability domains for $~2~\le\ell\le~20$}\label{sub_bi_l_larger1}
As stated in Sect.~\ref{sec_intro}, the motivations that guided us through this work are the investigation of the physical origin of the macroturbulent broadening and the interpretation of the observed line-profile variability of OB stars. In this context, we extended our computations to high degree modes ($\ell >$ 3), which signatures can be visible in spectroscopy, though they are not detectable in photometry.
The instability domains predicted for $\ell$=~2 to 20 are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_lgtab_parameters} by shaded areas. They are complemented by the information contained in the modal diagrams (as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig_models_AI} and \ref{fig_models_JK}).
We divided our predictions for the frequency ranges and instabilities into two groups. First, a group of modes with high frequencies (small periods),
for which $\omega \sim 2-3$, is represented by the blue area limited by dotted lines in Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_lgtab_parameters}. This group of pulsations presents mostly a p-mode behavior and constitutes a rather sparse and discrete spectrum (see modes with f $\sim$ 4.0 c/d for models A and D, $f \sim$ 1.5-2 c/d for models B and E, and modes with f $\sim$ 0.8 c/d for model C). The periods associated to these modes correspond to $\sim 8$ hours for models A and D, $\sim 12$ h for model B and E and $\sim 24$ h for model C, with increasing periods along the evolution. As for dipole modes, these modes are excited with low orders.
Secondly, a group of lower frequencies (large periods), for which $\omega\sim$1, is represented in the red area with dashed contour lines. These pulsations mainly present a g-mode behavior and are mainly excited with high orders. These modes constitute a much denser spectrum (see the lower frequency group in models B, C, E, F, G, H, I). The periods range from a couple of hours to $10$ days.
Usually well detached, these two groups of modes reach a roughly common frequency range in the most massive models (see model B), in which the excited frequencies from p and g modes are found very close to each other and the modes behave as mixed modes, in agreement with \citet{Bal99} (see the explanation in Sect.~\ref{sub_bi_l_equal1}).
As expected, the instability domains cover a wider region of the sHR diagram when considering high-degree pulsations.
This effect is noticed in low-order p and g mode instabilities, for which the instability domain mainly widens towards smaller masses and reaches MS models of 8~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ (rather than 10~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ for dipole modes). It is also marked when considering the high-order g-mode domain. Indeed, the instability bands reach hotter $T_{\rm eff}$ in all the instability region. In particular, the post-MS gap between low-order p and g modes and high-order g modes is now completely filled in by excited modes in models from 9 to 12-15~${\rm M}_{\odot}$.
In these models, as for example in model E, g modes are only predicted when considering $\ell \ge 3$ which would, in this case, make them difficult to be observed in photometry.
Furthermore, theoretical computations predict now excited g modes in the high-mass models (up to 70~${\rm M}_{\odot}$). See for example model B, for which excited quadrupole modes should be detectable in photometry (P $\sim 2.5$ days), though g modes are not predicted for $\ell=1$. Finally, intermediate mass models (from 5 -- 12~${\rm M}_{\odot}$) now present instabilities on the MS for 5 to 10~${\rm M}_{\odot}$. These modes have quite large frequencies -- in regards of their g-mode behavior -- (small periods reaching the few hours) due to their mixed mode behavior. Here again, while models G and J are characterized by the excitation of a dense spectrum of g modes, these are hardly expected to be detected with photometry while the situation is more favorable for models H, I and K.
These results show that with the increasing quality of the photometric datasets offered by the space missions, it should become more and more possible to detect intermediate-degree g modes in some MS massive stars.
Some regions of the sHR diagram remain however completely stable when considering $\ell=$ 1 to 20 modes: the post-MS of models with 3 -- 8~${\rm M}_{\odot}$, the region close to the ZAMS of 9 -- 70~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ models, and the much evolved models of 9 -- 70~${\rm M}_{\odot}$.
In particular, for this latter group, it is important to remark that numerous modes are found positive to an instability for models with $M > 20\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$ and with $\log T_{\rm eff} < 4.3$. The eigenfunctions of these modes are however sometimes ambiguous and more investigation needs to be performed in order to classify the types of modes encountered (including strange modes\footnote{For reference, the commonly used lower boundary for the appearance of strange modes ($L/M\sim$10$^4$, in solar units) is indicated with an horizontal line in Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_lgtab_parameters}.}) and to identify the excitation mechanisms. Therefore, although we have computed the instabilities until $\log T_{\rm eff}=4.0$ and found excited modes in that region, we have decided to restrain the instability domains to the modes excited by the $\kappa$-mechanism due to the iron opacity bump only. Note that the spectra of the excited modes encountered in these models were usually less dense than for the earlier evolution (various modes were found in all the frequency range, but less concentrated in a given domain of frequency).
Last, we remark that the frequency spectrum for lower masses reaches lower-degree modes for decreasing masses at the same evolutionary state (see models J, H to K), and that no modes with $\ell>$1 are predicted for 3~${\rm M}_{\odot}$. We discuss the global behavior of the high-degree modes when the stars evolve from the MS to the post-MS in the next section.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{eigenfunctions_deltaT_work_worked-crop.pdf}
\caption{Perturbed temperature (top panel) and work integral (bottom panel) for three modes selected in model G: one excited mode (see the positive work integral at the surface on the bottom panel) with $\omega=1.26$ and $\ell=10$ (blue solid line) and two stable quadrupole modes with $\omega=1.27$ (dot-dashed green line) and $\omega=0.29$ (dotted orange line).}
\label{fig_ef}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Properties of high-degree modes}\label{sub_global_l}
A global look at modal diagrams presented in Figs.~\ref{fig_models_AI} and \ref{fig_models_JK} allows us to characterize the behavior of the high-degree pulsations with the stellar evolution for different initial mass. For $M\,\gtrsim 9\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$, no pulsation are found close to the ZAMS. Modes with $\ell=1$\,--\,10 and high frequencies (i.e., having a p-mode behavior) are the first to appear at some point during the MS -- the earlier the more massive the star --. Then, as the stars evolve towards lower $T_{\rm eff}$ in the sHR diagram (i.e. looking from model A to C for higher masses and from model D to F for 15~${\rm M}_{\odot}$), a large group of modes with lower frequencies (g-mode behavior) appears with a large range of degree $\ell$, and the number of excited p modes diminishes (often for all degrees at the same time). As a general trend, the degree $\ell$ of g modes decreases along the evolution, even reaching $\ell=1$ in the post-MS region. Last, the red part of the sHR diagram is characterized by other types of modes which are not taken into account here as already mentioned in Sect.~\ref{sub_bi_l_larger1}.
Concerning lower masses (models G to I), the ZAMS is characterized by SPB type modes with high degrees (modes with $\ell$ up to 20 are excited, see model G and H). The degree of the mode, along with the frequency range of the excited modes are then decreasing over the MS evolution.
We note that stars with masses between $\sim$7\,--\,9~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ predicted to pulsate with g modes only present modes of degrees $\ell$ larger than 3.
Finally, models J, H and K, selected at a given state of evolution ($X_c\sim$ 0.3, Fig.~\ref{fig_models_JK}), all present SPB type g modes. At the same evolutionary stage, the largest mass models present high-degree excited modes with periods of the order of hours (model J and H present excited modes with $\ell$ up to 20). By decreasing the mass of the models (from J to K), we found modes excited with a decreasing $\ell$, and the frequency range of instability reaches the usual long periods of the SPB stars observed in photometry, of the order of days (model I). The post-MS phase of evolution is then characterized by pure stable models.
While high-frequency modes appear and disappear similarly altogether during the evolution, we note 2 general trends concerning the modes with the lowest frequencies (`g modes') for increasing $\ell$:
\begin{itemize}
\item the range of unstable g modes is moving towards higher frequencies;
\item the blue boundary of the instability domain of g modes is shifted towards warmer $T_{\rm eff}$, overlapping the instability of $\beta$ Cephei stars.
\end{itemize}
These 2 trends can be explained with the following reasoning, based on the 2 conditions needed for an efficient $\kappa$-mechanism.
On the one hand, in order to have an efficient $\kappa$-mechanism, the amplitudes of the g modes have to be large enough in the opacity bump compared to the g cavity where the radiative damping plays an important role. Therefore, since the amplitudes of the eigenfunctions for g modes are essentially a function of the ratio $\omega^2/(\ell(\ell+1))$ (in the asymptotic limit, a fixed $\omega^2/(\ell(\ell+1))$ corresponds to a given radial order), the condition on the amplitudes implies therefore a given range for the $\omega^2/(\ell(\ell+1))$ ratio.
On the other hand, an efficient $\kappa$-mechanism also requires that the transition zone (the region in the star where the pulsation period is of the same order as the thermal relaxation time)
coincides with the region of the opacity bump. This is the case for a given range of frequencies, independently of the degree $\ell$ of the mode.
These two conditions generate therefore 2 constraints, one depending on the degree of the mode and the other not. The intersection between these constraints defines the group of unstable g modes in the modal diagrams.
To illustrate this effect, we selected 3 modes in model G:
\begin{itemize}
\item (1) a mode with a large degree ($\ell=10$) with $f=5.67$ c/d (dimensionless frequency $\omega = 1.26$) which has been selected among the group of unstable modes,
\item (2) a stable mode with a low degree ($\ell=2$), and with a lower frequency ($f$=1.29 c/d and $\omega = 0.29$), which has been selected to fit the same $\omega^2/(\ell(\ell+1))$ ratio as mode (1), and
\item (3) a stable quadrupole mode with the same frequency as mode (1) ($f$=5.70 c/d and $\omega = 1.27$).
\end{itemize}
Fig.~\ref{fig_ef} shows the eigenfunction of the perturbed temperature (top panel) and the work integral (bottom panel) for these 3 modes (the blue solid line stands for mode (1), the dotted orange line for the stable mode (2) and mode (3) is represented by the dot-dashed green line).
From Fig.~\ref{fig_ef}, we find that mode (1) presents large amplitude in the superficial layers and a positive work at the surface: it is excited. However, for a lower-degree mode with the same frequency (as it is the case for mode (3)), the eigenfunction takes low values in the superficial layers due to the larger evanescent zone \citep{Dupret2008}, and because of the
boundary condition: $\delta P/P = ( l(l+1)/\omega^2 - 4 - \omega^2) \,\,\delta r/R$ \citep{Buta1979}. As a result, the mode stays stable.
Moreover, for a given radial order (i.e. for a fixed $\omega^2/(\ell(\ell+1))$, see modes (1) and (2)), the eigenfunctions of the perturbed temperature present large amplitudes in the superficial layers, and, especially, in the region of the opacity bump due to the iron elements, favoring an efficient $\kappa$-mechanism. However, unlike mode (1), mode (2) is found stable. Indeed, its frequency being lower, the transition region corresponding to mode (2) is situated deeper into the star. As a result, it is located outside the opacity bump of iron (characterized by a fixed $\log T$), preventing the excitation of the associated mode.
In short, the layout of the unstable low-frequency modes in the modal diagrams depends on 2 conditions controlling the efficiency of the $\kappa$-mechanism, i.e. the constraint on the amplitudes of the modes depending on $\ell$, and the constraint on the location of the transition region, which depends on the frequency itself only: a larger $\ell$ corresponds therefore to bluer instability domains and to excited modes of higher frequencies.
Before confronting our theoretical predictions to spectroscopic observations in the next section, we remark that the computations performed here are based on a given set of input physics (described in Sect.~\ref{sec_computations}) which affects the exact boundary of the instability domains in the sHR diagram. We will refer to this in more details in the context of macroturbulence in Sect.~\ref{sec_macro}.
\section{Link with observations: macroturbulent broadening}\label{sec_macro}
The most commonly considered scenario to explain the existence of a non-rotational line-broadening mechanism -- traditionally quoted as macroturbulent broadening -- shaping the line profiles of O stars and B~Supergiants claims that this broadening is a signature of the collective effect of stellar oscillations \citep{Luc76, Aer09}.
While there are some empirical hints supporting this hypothesis \citep{Sim10, Sim16, Aer14}, the exact physical mechanism driving the type of instabilities required to produce the observed line profiles is still under debate. One obvious possibility refers to heat-driven modes produced by a $\kappa$-mechanism. However, other options such as stochastically excited oscillations driven by turbulent pressure fluctuations initiated either in sub-surface convective zone \citep{Gra15} or by the interface between the convective core and the radiative envelope \citep{Rog13,Aer15} have been also recently proposed as potential hypotheses. Actually, as commented by \cite{Sim16}, different excitation mechanisms could be contributing, at the same time and to some degree, to the global broadening of the line profiles depending on the mass and the evolutionary stage of the star.
In this section we connect the observations gathered in the framework of the IACOB project \citep{Sim15b} to investigate the physical origin of the so-called macroturbulent broadening in the O and B star domain with our predictions for instability domains of high-degree modes driven by the $\kappa$-mechanism. This is a continuation of the work started in \cite{Sim16}, where we compared the empirical information extracted from a sample of high-resolution single-snapshot spectra of $\approx$~430 Galactic O and B stars to the predictions for the dipole instability domains presented in this paper.
We found an important number of stars in the upper part of the sHR diagram having a dominant contribution of the macroturbulent broadening, but located outside the g-mode instability domains. Furthermore, the O stars and B~Sgs located inside the instability domains populate different regions in the diagram characterized by different type of excited modes. However, a quite homogeneous distribution of profile types (in terms of global shape and relative contribution between the macroturbulent and the rotational broadening) is found for all these stars, despite the expected different effect on the line profiles due to the specific combination of excited modes. All together, these results could be interpreted as a strong empirical challenge to macroturbulent broadening in O stars and B~Sgs being a spectroscopic signature of only non-radial modes excited by the $\kappa$-mechanism. However, as commented in \cite{Sim16}, the situation may improve when including the predictions for high-degree modes or when modifying the input parameters in the stellar model computations, such as the opacities and the metal mixture. These two possibilities are discussed in detail in the next sections.
\subsection{High-degree modes vs. macroturbulent broadening}\label{sec_macro_shr}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{shrl1-20_kappameca_2colors_blackcontour_worked-crop.pdf}
\caption{
Location in the sHR diagram of the observational dataset presented in \cite{Sim16}: red points stand for the stars presenting an important (or dominant) macroturbulent broadening contribution and green points correspond to stars for which either rotational broadening dominates or both $v$\,sin\,$i$ and $v_ {\rm mac}$ are below 25 km/s \citep[see][for further details]{Sim16}. The size of the points is linearly scaled with $v_ {\rm mac}$, ranging from 10 to 130 km/s. Instability domain predictions (as described in Sects.~\ref{sub_bi_l_equal1} and \ref{sub_bi_l_larger1}) for $1\le\ell\le 20$ are colored in blue and red.
}
\label{fig_inst_lgtab_parameters_stars}
\end{figure}
Hereafter, we work under the hypothesis that the bare minimum requirement to end up in a macroturbulent-type profile produced by pulsation modes is a dense frequency spectrum of excited modes \citep[e.g.][]{Aer09}. In the context of the $\kappa$-mechanism, such spectrum can be achieved by the presence of high-order g modes -- since they are usually excited in an abundant spectrum -- or even by combining the collective effect of a group of modes with a large range of $\ell$ degrees.
Assuming this requirement, we can determine the best models resulting in such a situation combining the information presented in Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_lgtab_parameters} (instability domains) and Figs.~\ref{fig_models_AI} and \ref{fig_models_JK} (modal diagrams).
Basically, stars with pulsational properties similar to those of models E -- I plus B and C are good candidates to produce an important broadening of the line profiles (unlike models A and D).
The former corresponds to regions in Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_lgtab_parameters} colored in red and purple (low-frequency modes) while the latter refers to regions colored in blue (high-frequency modes).
The region where the existence of an important contribution of the macroturbulent broadening could be explained in terms of high-degree heat-driven modes is, therefore, more extended than when only dipole modes are considered.
Given the complexity of the interpretation of the results from the pulsational analysis in the coolest post-MS region of the most massive models, we have completely excluded any representation of the instabilities found in that region (see Sect.~\ref{fig_inst_lgtab_parameters}). However, although some excited high-degree modes are found in this region, the associated frequency spectrum is sparse.
Having this in mind, we compare in Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_lgtab_parameters_stars} the empirical distribution of the line-broadening properties of the sample of $\approx$~260 Galactic O and B stars\footnote{From the original sample of $\approx$~430 stars, we exclude the stars for which it was not possible to obtain reliable measurements of the amount of macroturbulent broadening \citep[see notes in][]{Sim16}.} considered by \cite{Sim16} and our instability domain predictions for heat-driven modes with 1 $<\ell\leq$ 20.
The sample is divided into 2 main groups depending on their global line-broadening characteristics, and the size of the symbols is scaled to $v_ {\rm mac}$, the amount of macroturbulent broadening.
The colors used for the instability domains have the same meaning as in Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_lgtab_parameters}.
As commented in \cite{Sim16}, most of the stars with a remarkable contribution of the macroturbulent broadening (red points) are concentrated in the uppermost part of the sHR diagram and the largest values of $v_ {\rm mac}$ are measured for the late-O/early-B Sgs ($\log \mathscr{L}/\mathscr{L}_{\odot}\approx 4.0$, and $\log T_{\rm eff}\approx$ 4.55\,--\,4.45).
Many of these stars are located in regions where heat-driven modes could potentially explain the observed line profiles. This refers, in particular, to those targets with $M\,\gtrsim 10\, {\rm M}_{\odot}$ falling inside the instability domain colored in red (corresponding to high-order g modes with a relatively dense global frequency spectrum).
While the situation is improved when including the full range of mode degrees up to $\ell=$ 20 compared to the case of only considering dipole modes, some problems remain. Indeed, there are still two well populated regions in Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_lgtab_parameters_stars} where stars are clearly located outside the instability domains (even taking individual uncertainties into account) but have line profiles dominated by macroturbulent broadening:
\begin{itemize}
\item the first one refers to the late-B supergiants. We note however that instabilities were found in that region, although they are not directly related to the $\kappa$-mechanism due to the iron opacity bump (see Sect.~\ref{sub_bi_l_larger1}). As a matter of fact, the $\epsilon$-mechanism could play an important role in post-MS models to excite some high-order g modes which can be very well trapped inside the H-burning shell \citep{Scu86,Mor12}. Furthermore, in addition to these modes excited by the $\epsilon$-mechanism, adiabatic and non-adiabatic strange modes are also expected for all masses larger than $\approx 30\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$ (above the dotted line in Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_lgtab_parameters_stars}), but do not usually lead to a dense frequency spectrum.
\item the second one refers to the O stars close to the ZAMS with masses $\approx 15$ -- 40~${\rm M}_{\odot}$. This latter point could be used at first glance as a strong argument to dismiss the possibility that heat-driven modes are the main source of macroturbulent broadening in the O star and B supergiant domain. However, before reaching any firm conclusion in this direction, we must explore the effect of considering different assumptions made for the input parameters of the computations on the predicted boundaries of the instability domains.
\end{itemize}
Finally, we note that there is one region where almost no macroturbulent broadening is found though it is located inside the theoretical instability domain: the low-mass MS stars lying in the SPB instability domain. For this latter group of stars, it is important to notice that, from the observational sample of $\approx$~430 stars presented in \cite{Sim16}, we discarded, in the representation of Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_lgtab_parameters_stars}, stars for which it was only possible to derive a maximum limit on the macroturbulence parameter. When taking these stars into account, we find that most of them are located at the beginning of the MS of 6 -- 9~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ models (where the theoretical computations predict a sparse spectrum of low-order p and g modes), while rather few stars in the theoretical range 4 -- 6~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ were observed (where high-order g modes are expected).
From these results, it appears that a crucial point for the investigation of the origin of macroturbulence broadening in line profiles resides in the presence (or absence) of
12 -- 40~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ ZAMS stars with the required pulsational properties. Therefore, we focus in the next section on the efforts needed to excite modes at the beginning of the MS.
\subsection{Bringing instability domains towards the ZAMS}\label{sec_zams}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{shrl1_ISseb_p_blackcontour_worked-crop.pdf}
\caption{Blue boundary of the instability domains for dipole modes. The blue area limited by dotted line represents the instability domains already presented (GN93, $Z=0.015$) while green and purple lines stand for the blue boundaries of the instability domains for models computed with the AGSS09 mixture and different metallicities and opacity tables (OPAL and OP, respectively). Green and red points have the same meaning as in Fig.~\ref{fig_inst_lgtab_parameters_stars} and their sizes are proportional to the macroturbulence velocity.
}
\label{fig_cles}
\end{figure}
As just concluded, any scenario aiming at producing a macroturbulent-type profile in 12 -- 40~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ stars must be efficient in their early evolution.
As illustrated in the literature, the use of a different set of input parameters (e.g. overshooting parameter, opacities, metal mixture, metallicity) or even evolutionary codes may alter the results of our computations \citep[see, e.g.,][for recent illustrations of these effects]{Miglio2007a, Miglio2007b, Pamyatnykh2007,Zdravkov2008, Mar13, Cas14, Mor16}.
The question is thus the following: how can we widen the instability strip towards the ZAMS?
While the overshooting parameter will be of no help to stretch the blue boundary, the metallicity, the detailed chemical mixture (e.g. \citeauthor[][]{Asplund2009} \citeyear[][]{Asplund2009}, hereafter AGSS09 vs. \citeauthor[][]{Grevesse1993} \citeyear[][]{Grevesse1993}, hereafter GN93) and opacities are obviously playing a major role in the efficiency of the $\kappa$-mechanism \citep{Miglio2007a,Pamyatnykh2007,Mor16}.
The computations presented in this paper were performed with the GN93 metal mixture and adopting a metallicity of 0.015, in agreement with AGSS09. The choice of this combination was motivated by the fact that the AGSS09 solar mixture was not yet implemented in the ATON evolutionary code.
In order to investigate the effect of the use of a different metal mixture (AGSS09 vs. GN93), metallicity (0.015 vs. 0.020) and opacities (OP vs. OPAL) we started the computation of new models in the 7 to 40~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ range combining the
CLES evolution code from Li\`ege \citep[][for which both opacity tables and both metal mixtures are implemented]{Scu08b} and the non-adiabatic code MAD.
The models computed with OP opacities are limited to masses up to 25~${\rm M}_{\odot}$ due to the narrower temperature and density range in the OP tables.
Except for the three set of parameters indicated above, the rest of input physics were fixed to the ones used for our ATON models. While the presentation of these new (still on going) computations will be subject of a more extensive study in the future, we focus here for illustrative purposes on the predictions for the blue boundary of the p-mode ($\omega$=1--25), $\ell$=1 instability domain.
Figure~\ref{fig_cles} summarizes the results of these new computations. The instability domain derived with the ATON models (discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec_instabilitystrips}) is represented by the area colored in blue, while the blue boundaries obtained with CLES+MAD under various assumptions are indicated with the different lines. This figure illustrates how critical is the selection of the three input parameters mentioned above on reaching a definitive conclusion about the heat-driven mode scenario. First, the comparison between the ATON and CLES computations with $Z=0.015$ and OPAL allows to illustrate the effect of the metal mixture. Although no modes are found close enough to the ZAMS yet, the AGSS09 boundary is clearly shifted towards higher $T_{\rm eff}$ (compared to the GN93 one), and the associated instability strip now gathers some more O stars presenting a dominant macroturbulent broadening contribution. This result is encouraging and brings us one step further. Indeed, the situation improves even more (for a fixed metallicity) when considering the OP opacities (as already pointed out by \citealt{Miglio2007a} and \citealt{Pamyatnykh2007}, the combination AGSS09+OP favors the excitation through the $\kappa$-mechanism due to the iron opacity bump much more than the combination GN93+OPAL). Last, the effect of metallicity is clear: the larger the metallicity the broader the instability domain.
These effects (increasing metallicity and opacity) both broaden the instability region in our calculations and thus help both supporting the pulsational hypothesis as the origin of the macroturbulent broadening. However these results must be taken with caution.
First, given the most recent value of metallicity ($Z=0.014$) derived from the spectroscopic analysis of a sample of $\approx$~30 early B-type stars in the solar vicinity by \citet[][$Z$=0.014]{Nie12}, the higher metallicity ($Z=0.02$) favoring a wider instability domain may not be representative of massive stars.
Secondly, concerning the opacities, we also consider of interest mentioning the recent studies of \citet{Salmon2012} and \citet{TurckChieze2013}, who suggested the need to reassess opacity computations, in particular for nickel, that showed to affect importantly the $\kappa$-mechanism instability predictions in massive stars \citep[see also][who revealed a larger mean Rosseland opacity in their OPAS computations of 11\% -- compared to OPAL and OP -- around $\log T\simeq 6.2$ in solar modeling]{Mon15}.
Moreover, the recent work of \citet{Wal15} has shown that the newly developed OPLIB opacity tables from Los Alamos National Laboratory induce an even higher Rosseland mean opacity coefficient at the maximum of the iron opacity bump (see Figs.~1 and 3 of their paper).
Lastly, \citet[][]{Bailey2015} found a large disagreement between the experimental measurement of iron opacity and theoretical computations, for conditions close to that of the base of the solar convective zone. Based on this, \citet{Mor16} showed that a 75\% increase in Fe and Ni monochromatic opacities from OP tables extends the $\beta$ Cephei domain to the ZAMS, in agreement with our results without any metal enhancement presented in Fig. \ref{fig_cles}.
As a result, while the metallicity cannot play a major role in widening the instability strip since the value fixed in the computations already correspond to the commonly accepted metallicity value for massive stars, the computations of the opacities constitute therefore the crucial point to help widen the instability domains towards the ZAMS.
Concluding, our investigation on the instability domains associated with high-degree modes, in combination with the results presented in Fig.~\ref{fig_cles} and all the studies on the opacity quoted above show that the heat-driven mode scenario to explain macroturbulent broadening in O and B stars may not be in a situation as bad as when only considering the dipole modes. Of particular importance is the fact that certain assumptions on the opacities can widen the instability domains towards the ZAMS, allowing some of the O stars with macroturbulent broadening dominated profiles to lie inside.
However, there are still some clues which make us suspect that the heat-driven pulsation modes due to the $\kappa$-mechanism in the iron bump cannot explain alone the distribution of line-broadening properties of the line profiles in massive stars
First, in view of panels A and D in Fig. \ref{fig_models_AI}, even assuming the opacities resulting from the most favorable conditions, it appears that a dense spectrum of pulsation modes is very difficult to be produced at the beginning of the MS. Second, even if we assume that models similar to those labeled with B and E could be found close enough to the ZAMS, we would need to explain why there is a non-negligible number of narrow line (i.e. with a negligible macroturbulent broadening contribution) MS stars with masses in the range $\approx$~9 -- 20~${\rm M}_{\odot}$.
We briefly discuss in the next section some additional hypotheses to attempt to explain the origin of the non-rotational extra-broadening in OB stars.
\subsection{Which additional driving scenario?}\label{sec_sources}
In addition to the spectroscopic signature of the macroturbulent-type profile, direct observations also indicate the presence of pulsations in stars outside or close to the blue instability boundary for masses between 15 -- 40~${\rm M}_{\odot}$. Indeed, the presence of line-profile variations has been demonstrated to be a common feature among O-type stars, even close to the ZAMS \citep[e.g.][]{Ful96}. For some of them it has been possible to link this variability with pulsations \citep[e.g.][]{Blomme2011,Briquet2011,Mahy2011}. Moreover,
there is increasing observational \citep{Degroote2010} and theoretical evidence \citep{Belkacem2010,Samadi2010} for the presence of stochastic oscillations. Furthermore, strange modes \citep[e.g.][]{Noe08,Gla09,Saio2009}, oscillatory convective modes \citep{Saio2011}, and pulsation modes due to the $\epsilon$-mechanism \citep{Scu86}, have been suggested to be the explanation of photometric observations \citep{Aer10,Mor12}. All these mechanisms may help producing a macroturbulent-type profile, though they usually produce a scarce spectrum of unstable modes. While several other scenarios have been suggested for the stellar oscillation origin, the most viable to this date is the stochastically driven waves induced by the turbulent pressure fluctuations in the interface between the convective core and the envelope \citep{Aer15} or in the sub-surface convective zone \citep{Gra15}.
In particular, \citet{Aer15} demonstrated with CoRoT space photometry the observational evidence for the occurrence of convectively driven internal gravity waves in young massive O-type stars giving rise to a macroturbulent-type line profile. \citet{Gra15} have computed and mapped the turbulent pressure associated to sub-surface convection zones in massive MS and post-MS models. The authors presented a good correlation between $P^{\rm max}_{\rm turb}/P$ and $v_ {\rm mac}$.
As indicated by \citet{Sim16}, the interplay between the turbulent pressure fluctuation hypothesis and the heat-driven modes due to the $\kappa$-mechanism scenario seem like a promising explanation to the origin of macroturbulent broadening in the upper part of the sHR diagram.
\section{Summary and concluding remarks}\label{sec_conclusions}
In this paper we investigate the pulsation modes driven by the $\kappa$-mechanism in the iron opacity bump in massive stars.
One of the goals of this paper is to provide new predictions for the instability domains of non-radial modes driven by the $\kappa$-mechanism in the opacity bump of iron. The originality of our results comes from the use of a large domain of $\ell$ degrees for a large range of masses between 3 and 70~${\rm M}_{\odot}$.
Altough these modes are not visible with photometric detections, we think our results will be a valuable tool for constraining the new high-quality spectroscopic observations in massive OB stars, as e.g. the observational material gathered by the IACOB project. In particular, we provide a global overview of the frequency ranges and characteristics of the modes to expect on the main sequence and the post-main sequence of these massive models.
On the main-sequence, a few high-frequency modes are found unstable in our theoretical models with periods around $8$ hours. These periods increase during the evolution from the main sequence to the post-main sequence, but the frequency spectrum is always characterized by a small number of degree $\ell$ modes, with $\ell$ never larger than 10. On the post-main sequence (and even on the main-sequence for the smallest masses), low-frequency modes are excited in a much more abundant spectrum. These modes have periods ranging between a couple of hours to a dozen of days. We find that the presence of the low-frequency modes in the evolved models which do not present any intermediate convective zone (appearing for models $\ge 12\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$) is due to the sharp feature already present in the Brunt-V\"{a}is\"{a}l\"{a} frequency in models of 9~${\rm M}_{\odot}$, in agreement with \citet{Das13}.
We discuss the appearance of these low-frequency unstable modes by considering the constraints on the efficiency of the $\kappa$-mechanism. Actually, we find that for increasing $\ell$, the range of unstable low-frequency modes moves towards higher frequencies. Furthemore, by increasing the degree of the modes, the blue boundary of the instability domains for the low-frequency modes is shifted towards the zero age main sequence, even overlapping the high-frequency instability domain ($\beta$ Cephei instability strip).
In addition to the usual spectroscopic observations, the emergence in the last few years of the investigation of the so-called macroturbulent broadening has provided a new way, less expensive in terms of observational time, to study stellar oscillations. While the strongest hypothesis for the origin of this macroturbulent-type profile is to relate it to stellar oscillations \citep[e.g.][]{Sim16}, several mechanisms and types of waves/modes driving the macroturbulence have been suggested.
In this paper we show that pulsation modes driven by the $\kappa$-mechanism in the opacity bump of iron cannot explain alone the distribution of line-broadening properties of the line profiles in the whole OB star domain, and hence they might not be the dominant agent producing the so-called macroturbulent broadening in O stars and B Supergiants.
Indeed, although we consider numerous spectra of modes combining different $\ell$ degrees, the location of the instability domains for this kind of spectra do not entirely coincide with the location of the high $v_ {\rm mac}$ stars.
We investigate how the physics of the models have to be adapted in order to provide such an excitation in the beginning of the main sequence, as we think it is the key point for constraining the origin of the mechanism broadening the line profiles. While the major outcome would be achieved considering new computations of the opacities, it is still difficult to obtain such an abundant spectrum close to the zero age main sequence. Indeed, for a reasonable metallicity in massive stars ($Z\sim 0.015$), models close to the beginning of the main sequence are found unstable when considering the OP opacities, although the frequency spectrum of these models is scarce.
Another additional mechanism should therefore trigger the broadening of the line profiles and it must be efficient in the early evolution of the star, close to the beginning of the main sequence \citep[such as the scenarios of][]{Gra15,Aer15}.
Already foreseen by \citet{Sim16}, we agree therefore with the idea that the line broadening must be due to a combination of different sources depending on the regions in the HR diagram.
We propose several directions for future investigations: (a) the possibility of extending the instability boundaries for stars with $M \ge 12\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$ towards the zero age main sequence with a reasonable enhancement of opacities (especially nickel) though the calculations computed until here have shown that few modes are excited in these regions,
(b) the study of other driving mechanisms for stellar oscillations not accounted for in the present computations, as e.g. theoretical simulations to confirm that the turbulent pressure fluctuations investigated by \citet[][]{Gra15} do indeed end up in a macroturbulent profile: in particular, if an excitation mechanism such as pressure fluctuations (which in 1-D models correspond to a radial velocity pattern) can give rise to macroturbulent velocity distributions as used here with a strong tangential component and (c) the extension of the type of comparison between observations and models presented in this paper but including information about line-profile variability as extracted from adequate time-resolved spectroscopic observations \citep[see, e.g., first results in this direction in][]{Sim16}.
\begin{acknowledgements}
This work has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness (MINECO) under the grants AYA2010-21697-C05-04, AYA2012-39364-C02-01,
and Severo Ochoa SEV-2011-0187, and by the Research Council of KU\,Leuven under grant GOA/2013/012. We thanks C. Aerts, P. Degroote, J. Montalban, E. Moravveji, J. Puls and J. Telting for interesting and fruitful discussions related to the work.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let a set of point correspondences $(x_i,y_i)\in \RR^2 \times \RR^2$ ($i=1,\ldots,m$) be given.
Consider the following three statements:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(A)]
$(x_i,y_i)$
are the images of $m$ points in $\R^3$ in two uncalibrated cameras.
\item[(B)]
$(x_i,y_i)$
are the images of $m$ points in $\PP^3$ in two uncalibrated cameras.
\item[(C)]
There exists
a fundamental matrix $F$ such that the $(x_i,y_i)$ satisfy the epipolar constraints.
\end{enumerate}
A in-depth study of (C) can be found in \cite{epipolarPaper_v2}.
The goal of this note is to understand the connection among these three statements.
In the following we summarize our contribution. All the results are proved using just linear algebra.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
A standard result in two-view geometry \cite[\S 9.2]{hartley-zisserman-2003} states that
(A) implies (C).
In \cite{hartley-zisserman-2003} this result was proved by classical projective geometry and drawing pictures. We offer a modern, more rigorous, and linear algebraic proof; see Theorem \ref{thm:fromSceneToEpipolar}.
\item
It is clear that (A) implies (B). We will show (A) and (B) are indeed equivalent; see Theorem \ref{thm:equivReconstruction}.
The proof is based on constructing an appropriate projective transformation.
\item
We show that (C) implies (A) after making an additional assumption about the point pairs $(x_i,y_i)$.
Indeed, if (C) holds, one can construct a pair of uncalibrated cameras $P_1,P_2$ associated to $F$.
If we assume that $x_i$ is an epipole of $P_1$ if and only if $y_i$ is an epipole of $P_2$, then (A) holds.
This assumption is also necessary for (A) to hold. As a result, we know (A) holds if and only if (C) and this assumption hold. This is the main theorem of this note; see Theorem \ref{thm:equivalence}.
\end{enumerate}
In Section \ref{s2} we introduce the notation and definitions that will be used.
In Section \ref{s3} we discuss projective reconstruction using finite, infinite, coincident and non-coincident cameras.
Finally we provide a proof of the main theorem using linear algebra, in Section \ref{s4}.
\section{Notation and definitions} \label{s2}
To begin with, we introduce the notation and definitions that will be used in this note; see
\cite{hartley-zisserman-2003}.
Denote the $n$-dimensional real projective space by $\PP^n$. For any $x,y\in \PP^n$, we say $x\sim y$ if there exists $\lambda\in \RR\setminus\{0\}$ such that $x=\lambda y$.
The set of $m\times n$ matrices with entries in $\RR$ is denoted by $\RR^{m \times n}$, and by
$\PP^{m\times n}$ if the matrices are only up to scale.
For $v \in \RR^3$,
$$
[v]_\times \,\,:= \,\,
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -v_3 & v_2\\
v_3 & 0 & -v_1\\
-v_2 & v_1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
$$
is a skew-symmetric matrix whose rank is two unless $v=0$. Also, $[v]_\times w = v \times w$, where $\times$ denotes the vector cross product.
For any $x\in \RR^n$ the symbol $\wh{x}$ denotes $(x,1)^\top$ in $ \PP^n$.
A point in $\PP^n$ is called {\em finite} if it can be identified with $(x,1)^\top$ for some $x\in \RR^n$.
A {\em (projective) camera} can be modeled by a matrix $P \in \PP^{3 \times 4}$ with $\rank(P)=3$. Partitioning a camera as $P=\begin{pmatrix} A & b \end{pmatrix}$ where $A \in
\RR^{3 \times 3}$, we say that $P$ is a {\em finite camera} if $A$ is
nonsingular. The camera center of $P$ is $(-A^{-1}b,1)^\top$ if $P$ is finite; and $(w,0)^\top$ otherwise, where $w$ lies in the kernel of $A$.
Two cameras $P_1,P_2$ with camera centers $c_1,c_2$ are {\em coincident} if $c_1 \sim c_2$.
A tuple $(P_1,P_2,\{w_i\}_{i=1}^m)$ is called a {\em (projective) reconstruction} of $\{(x_i,y_i)\}_{i=1}^m\subseteq \RR^2 \times \RR^2$ if
$P_1$ and $P_2$ are projective cameras, $w_i\in \PP^3$ and
$$
P_1 w_i \sim \wh{x}_i, \ P_2 w_i \sim \wh{y}_i \ \text{ for all }i = 1, \ldots,m.
$$
If in addition, $P_1,P_2$ are finite cameras and $w_i$ are finite points for all $i$, then $(P_1,P_2,\{w_i\})$ is called a {\em finite (projective) reconstruction}.
A real $3\times 3$ matrix $F$ is a {\em fundamental matrix} associated to $\{(x_i,y_i)\}$ if $F$ has rank two and
the following {\em epipolar constraints} hold:
\begin{equation*}
\wh{y}_i^\top F \wh{x}_i = 0 \ \text{ for any }i.
\end{equation*}
\section{Projective reconstruction} \label{s3}
\label{sec:PR}
Given point correspondences $\{ (x_i, y_i) \in \RR^2 \times \RR^2, \,\,i=1,\ldots,m \}$, the {\em projective reconstruction problem} is to decide if
there is a projective reconstruction of these point pairs, and the {\em finite projective reconstruction problem} is to determine if the pairs admit a
finite projective reconstruction. We first show that these two problems, as well as two others that naturally interpolate between them,
are all equivalent.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:equivReconstruction}
Let $\{ (x_i,y_i) \in \RR^2 \times \RR^2, \,\,i = 1,\ldots,m \}$ be given.
Then the following statements are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{P3Scene3}
There are cameras $P_1,P_2$ and points
$w_i \in \PP^3, \,\,i = 1, \ldots, m$, such that $(P_1,P_2,\{w_i\})$ is a reconstruction of
$\{(x_i,y_i)\}$.
\item \label{finiteCam3}
There are {\sc finite} cameras $P_1,P_2$ and points
$w_i \in \PP^3, \,\, i=1,\ldots,m$, such that $(P_1,P_2,\{w_i\})$ is a reconstruction of
$\{(x_i,y_i)\}$.
\item \label{finiteScene3}
There are {\sc finite} cameras $P_1,P_2$ and {\sc finite} points
$w_i \in \PP^3, \,\,i=1,\ldots,m$, such that $(P_1,P_2,\{w_i\})$ is a reconstruction of
$\{(x_i,y_i)\}$.
\item \label{3dScene3}
There is a {\sc finite} camera $P_2$ and {\sc finite} points
$w_i \in \PP^3, \,\,i=1,\ldots,m$, such that $(P_1,P_2,\{w_i\})$ is a reconstruction of
$\{(x_i,y_i)\}$, with the first camera $P_1 :=\begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ where $I$ is the $3 \times 3$ identity matrix.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
If $P$ is a camera matrix, there is a nonsingular matrix $H \in \RR^{4 \times 4}$ such that $PH^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix}$. For instance, take $H$ to be the nonsingular $4 \times 4$ matrix obtained by adding an appropriately chosen additional row to $P$.
In order to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:equivReconstruction}, we will first need the following simple fact
that for any finite collection of nonzero points in $\RR^n$, there is always a hyperplane through the origin that avoids all of them.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:avoidence}
Given $v_1,\ldots,v_m\in \RR^n \setminus\{0\}$, there exists $a\in \RR^n$ such that
$a^\top v_i \neq 0$ for all $i$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $S:= \{v_1,\ldots,v_m\}$. We want to show that there exists $a\in \RR^n$ such that
$a^\perp \cap S = \emptyset$.
Suppose to the contrary, for any $a\in \RR^n$ one has $a^\perp \cap S \neq \emptyset$.
Then $a\in v_i^\perp$ for some $i$. Thus $\RR^n = v_1^\perp \cup \cdots \cup v_m^\perp$ which implies that $\RR^n = v_i^\perp$ for some $i$, and hence,
this $v_i=0$. This contradicts our assumption.
\end{proof}
We now come to the key ingredient in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:equivReconstruction} which allows us to always
replace a projective reconstruction with a finite projective reconstruction whenever the first camera is of the form $\begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:infToFin} Given point pairs $ \{ (x_i,y_i)
\in \RR^2\times \RR^2, \,\,i = 1,\ldots,m \}$, suppose we have cameras $P_1 = \begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ and $P_2 = \begin{pmatrix} A & b \end{pmatrix}$, a set $\sigma\subseteq \{1,\ldots,m\}$, and points $v_i\in \RR^3$, $i = 1,\ldots,m$ such that:
\begin{center}
$\begin{array} {lllcl}\label{eq:P1Inf}
\forall \,\,i \in \sigma, & \,\,\,\, v_i \neq 0, & \,\,\,\,P_1 \begin{pmatrix} v_i \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sim \wh{x}_i & \textup{ and } &
P_2 \begin{pmatrix} v_i \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sim \wh{y}_i; \\
&&&\\
\forall \,\,i \not \in \sigma, & & \,\,\,\,P_1 \wh{v}_i \sim \wh{x}_i & \textup{ and } & P_2 \wh{v}_i \sim \wh{y}_i.
\end{array}$
\end{center}
Then there exists a finite camera $P_2'$ and points $v_i' \in \RR^3$, $i=1,\ldots,m$ such that
$(P_1,P_2', \{\wh{v}_i'\})$ is a finite reconstruction of $\{(x_i,y_i)\}$ .
In addition, if $b\neq 0$, then $P_1$ and $P_2'$ are non-coincident cameras.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let the camera centers of $P_1$ and $P_2$ be represented by $c_1 = \wh{0}$ and $c_2$ respectively. Since $c_1,c_2$, $(v_i^\top, 0)^\top, \,\,i \in \sigma $ and $ \wh{v}_i, \,\, i\notin \sigma $ are all nonzero points in $\RR^4$, by Lemma \ref{lem:avoidence} there is a vector $a\in \RR^3$ and a scalar $\alpha \in \RR$ such that
\begin{align} \label{eq:avoidAll}
(a^\top \,\,\, \alpha) \,c_i \neq 0, \,\,i=1,2, \,\,\,\,
(a^\top \,\,\, \alpha) \,\begin{pmatrix} v_i \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \neq 0 \,\,(i \in \sigma), \,\,\,
(a^\top \,\,\, \alpha) \, \wh{v}_i\neq 0 \,\,(i\notin \sigma).
\end{align}
Since $(a^\top \,\,\alpha) \,c_1 \neq 0$, we have that $\alpha \neq 0$. So by scaling, we may assume that $\alpha=1$ in \eqref{eq:avoidAll}.
Consider the invertible matrix $\dis H := \begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \\ a^\top & 1\end{pmatrix}$.
Then $H^{-1} := \begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \\ -a^\top & 1\end{pmatrix}$, and $P_1 H^{-1} = P_1$ and $P_2 H^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} A - ba^\top & b\end{pmatrix}$. Furthermore,
$$H c_2 = \begin{pmatrix} \ast \\
\begin{pmatrix} a^\top & 1 \end{pmatrix} c_2\end{pmatrix}, \,\,\,
H\begin{pmatrix} v_i \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix} v_i \\ \begin{pmatrix} a^\top &1 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} v_i \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \end{pmatrix}, \,\,\,H \wh{v}_i =
\begin{pmatrix} v_i \\ \begin{pmatrix} a^\top &1 \end{pmatrix} \wh{v}_i \end{pmatrix} $$
which are all finite by \eqref{eq:avoidAll}.
In particular, $P_2 H^{-1}$ is a finite camera as its center $Hc_2$ is finite.
The proof is completed by taking $P_2' = P_2 H^{-1}$,
$\wh{v}_i' \sim H \begin{pmatrix} v_i \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $ ($i\in \sigma$) and
$\wh{v}_i' \sim H \wh{v}_i $ ($i\notin \sigma$).
If we further assume $b\neq 0$, then $P_1$ and $P_2$ are non-coincident cameras. Hence $P_1 = P_1 H^{-1}$ and $P_2' = P_2 H^{-1}$ are also non-coincident.
\end{proof}
\noindent{\em Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:equivReconstruction}}:
Clearly, \eqref{3dScene3} $\Rightarrow$ \eqref{finiteScene3} $\Rightarrow$ \eqref{finiteCam3} $\Rightarrow$ \eqref{P3Scene3}.
For \eqref{P3Scene3} $\Rightarrow$ \eqref{3dScene3}, let $H$ be a homography so that
$P_1' := P_1 H^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ and let
$P_2' := P_2 H^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} A& b\end{pmatrix}$.
Then
$(P_1', P_2', \{H w_i\})$ is a reconstruction of $\{(x_i,y_i)\}$. We can now use
Lemma \ref{lem:infToFin} to turn this into a finite reconstruction where the first camera is still $\begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix}$. Therefore, we conclude that all four statements in the theorem are equivalent. \hfill $\Box$
We now prove that the equivalences in Theorem~\ref{thm:equivReconstruction} also hold if we further require that the cameras are non-coincident (coincident) in each statement.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:non-coincident PR = non-coincident FPR}
The four statements in Theorem~\ref{thm:equivReconstruction} are equivalent if we replace ``cameras $P_1,P_2$'' in each statement with ``non-coincident cameras $P_1, P_2$''.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} As before, we only need to show that \eqref{P3Scene3} $\Rightarrow$ \eqref{3dScene3}. Let $P_1' = P_1 H^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ and $P_2' = P_2 H^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} A& b\end{pmatrix}$ as in the proof of this direction in Theorem~\ref{thm:equivReconstruction}.
If $P_1$ and $P_2$ are non-coincident in \eqref{P3Scene3}, then $P_1'$ and $P_2'$ are also non-coincident. If $A$ is nonsingular then $b\neq 0$.
If $A$ is singular, then $b\neq 0$ because rank$(P_2') = 3$. Now using the last part of Lemma \ref{lem:infToFin}, we can turn the reconstruction $(P_1', P_2', \{H w_i\})$ into a finite reconstruction with non-coincident cameras with the first camera equal to $\begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix}$. This is the statement in \eqref{3dScene3}.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:coincident PR = coincident FPR}
The four statements in Theorem~\ref{thm:equivReconstruction} are equivalent if we replace ``cameras $P_1,P_2$'' in each statement with ``coincident cameras $P_1, P_2$''.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Again, we only need to prove that \eqref{P3Scene3} $\Rightarrow$ \eqref{3dScene3}. If $P_1, P_2$ are coincident cameras in
\eqref{P3Scene3}, then $P_1' = P_1 H^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ and
$P_2' = P_2 H^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} A& b\end{pmatrix}$ are also coincident. Therefore, $\wh{0}$ is their common center and hence $b=0$. This implies that $A$ is
nonsingular since otherwise $\rank(P_2') < 3$.
Now consider the points $w_i'$ obtained by setting the last coordinate of each $w_i$ from the reconstruction in \eqref{P3Scene3} to $1$. Then $(P_1', P_2', \{w_i'\})$ is a finite reconstruction of $\{(x_i,y_i)\}$.
\end{proof}
By the above results we can always obtain a finite projective reconstruction whenever a projective reconstruction exists. Also, if the projective reconstruction was with non-coincident (coincident) cameras there is also a finite reconstruction with non-coincident (coincident) cameras. Further, in each case the first camera can be assumed to be $\begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix}$. This understanding will be useful in the next section.
We end this section by discussing the geometry of the point pairs for which a projective reconstruction with coincident cameras exists.
\begin{definition} \label{def:projectively equivalent}
{\rm
Given $(x_i,y_i)\in \RR^2\times \RR^2$, $i = 1,\ldots,m$,
we say that $\{x_i\}$ is
{\em projectively equivalent} to $\{y_i\}$
if there is a nonsingular matrix
$H\in \RR^{3\times 3}$
such that
$H\wh{x}_i \sim \wh{y}_i$ for all $1\leq i \leq m$.
}
\end{definition}
The following result captures the close relationship between projectively equivalent point sets and projective reconstruction with coincident cameras.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:upToNonsingular}
Let $(x_i,y_i) \in \RR^2 \times \RR^2$, $i = 1,\ldots,m$ be given.
Then there exists a finite reconstruction $(P_1=\begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix},P_2,\{\wh{w}_i\}_{i=1}^m)$
of $\{(x_i,y_i)\}$ where $P_1$ and $P_2$ are coincident cameras if and only if
$\{x_i\}$ is projectively equivalent to $\{y_i\}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $P_2 = \begin{pmatrix} A & b \end{pmatrix}$.
If $P_1$ and $P_2$ are coincident, then their common camera center is $\wh{0}$ which is finite.
Hence $P_2$ is a finite camera and
$b=0$. Unwinding $P_1 \wh{w}_i \sim \wh{x}_i$ and $P_2 \wh{w}_i \sim \wh{y}_i$ we obtain
$A\wh{x}_i \sim \wh{y}_i$ for all $i=1,\ldots,m$.
For the converse, suppose there exists a nonsingular matrix $H\in \RR^{3\times 3}$ such that
$H\wh{x}_i \sim \wh{y}_i$ for all $i=1,\ldots,m$. Then setting $P_1 := \begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ and
$P_2 := \begin{pmatrix} H & 0 \end{pmatrix}$, and using the notation
$\wh{\wh{a}}$ for $(\wh{a}^\top,1)^\top$ where $a \in \RR^2$, we see that
$(P_1,P_2,\{\wh{\wh{x}}_i\}_{i=1}^{m} )$ is a projective reconstruction of $\{(x_i,y_i)\}$ with two coincident cameras.
\end{proof}
\section{Main theorem} \label{s4}
We now come to the more general situation of reconstruction. In this case, there is a distinguished fundamental matrix associated to the point pairs coming from the cameras in the reconstruction.
We remark that the some results in this section are formally or informally stated in \cite{hartley-zisserman-2003}, but we prove them using linear algebra instead of classical projective geometry.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:fromSceneToEpipolar}
Let $(x_i,y_i) \in \RR^2 \times \RR^2$, $i = 1,\ldots,m$ be given.
Consider two finite cameras
$P_1 :=\begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ and $P_2:= \begin{pmatrix} A & b \end{pmatrix}$.
Suppose that
there exist $w_i \in \RR^3$ ($1\leq i \leq m$) such that
$(P_1,P_2,\{\wh{w}_i\})$ is a reconstruction of $\{(x_i,y_i)\}$.
Then there is a fundamental matrix associated to $\{(x_i,y_i)\}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $P_1$ and $P_2$ are non-coincident cameras. Since $A$ is nonsingular one has $b\neq 0$.
Define $F := [b]_\times A$. Since $b \neq 0$, $\rank([b]_\times) = 2$ and $\rank(F)=2$. For a fixed $i$, the relations
$P_1 \wh{w}_i\sim \wh{x}_i$ and $P_2 \wh{w}_i \sim \wh{y}_i$ imply that
$\lambda_i A \wh{x}_i + b = \mu_i \wh{y}_i$
for some $\lambda_i \neq 0$, $\mu_i \neq 0$.
Hence, $F$ satisfies the epipolar constraints involving $x_i$ and $y_i$:
\begin{align*}
\wh{y}_i^\top F \wh{x}_i
& \sim ( \lambda_i (A\wh{x}_i)^\top + b^\top) [b]_\times A \wh{x}_i
\sim (A\wh{x}_i)^\top[b]_\times A \wh{x}_i = ( A \wh{x}_i)^\top (b \times A \wh{x}_i) = 0.
\end{align*}
If $P_1$ and $P_2$ are coincident, then there is a nonsingular matrix $H$ such that $Hx_i \sim y_i$ for all $1\leq i \leq m$, by
Theorem \ref{thm:upToNonsingular}. Let $t$ be any nonzero vector in $\R^3$. It follows that for any $i = 1, \ldots,m$,
$$
y_i^\top [t]_\times H x_i = x_i^\top [t]_\times y_i = 0.
$$
Thus $[t]_\times H$ is a fundamental matrix associated to $\{(x_i,y_i)\}$.
\end{proof}
We now introduce a regularity condition on $\{ (x_i, y_i) \}_{i=1}^{m}$ that is necessary for the existence of a projective reconstruction with non-coincident cameras. We will see that when the point pairs $(x_i, y_i)$ are regular,
a reconstruction with non-coincident cameras exists if and only if a fundamental matrix exists.
\begin{definition} \label{def:irregular}
Let $A\in \RR^{3\times 3}$ and $b\in \RR^3$.
We say that $(x,y)\in \RR^2\times \RR^2$ is $(A,b)$-{\em irregular} if one of the following mutually exclusive
conditions hold:
\begin{align} \label{eq:irregularEquiv}
([b]_\times A\wh{x} = 0\text{ and }\wh{y}^\top [b]_\times \neq 0) \,\,\,\textup{ or } \,\,\,
([b]_\times A\wh{x} \neq 0 \text{ and } \wh{y}^\top [b]_\times = 0).
\end{align}
Say $(x,y)$ is $(A,b)$-{\em regular} if it is not $(A,b)$-irregular.
\end{definition}
If $(x,y)$ is an $(A,b)$-irregular pair then $\wh{y}^\top [b]_\times A \wh{x} = 0$. This implies that if
$P_1 = \begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ and $P_2 = \begin{pmatrix} A & b \end{pmatrix}$ are non-coincident finite cameras then $(x,y)$ satisfies the epipolar constraint $\wh{y}^\top F \wh{x} = 0$ (where $F = [b]_\times A$) whether or not there is a reconstruction $w \in \PP^3$ of $(x,y)$. In fact, more is true.
Since $P_2 = \begin{pmatrix} A & b \end{pmatrix}$ is non-coincident with $P_1$, one has $b \neq 0$. Since the fundamental matrix $F:= [b]_\times A$ has rank two, both the left and right kernel of $F$ are one-dimensional.
Let $e_1,e_2\in \RR^3\setminus\{0\}$ be a basis vector of the
right and left kernel of $F$ respectively.
Then $e_1$ is called an {\em epipole} of $P_1$ while $e_2$ is called an epipole of $P_2$.
It is known that $P_1 c_2 \sim e_1$ and $P_2 c_1 \sim e_2$, where $c_1 = \wh{0}$ and $c_2 = (-A^{-1}b^\top, 1)^\top$
are the camera centres of $P_1$ and $P_2$ respectively. This implies we can take $e_1 := A^{-1}b$ and $e_2 := b$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\def\svgwidth{250pt}
\input{epipole.pdf_tex}
\caption{The tuple $(P_1,P_2,\wh{w})$ reconstructs $(x,y)$.}
\label{fig:epipole}
\end{figure}
Suppose $(x,y)$ is $(A,b)$-irregular. Then as we saw earlier,
$\wh{y}^\top F \wh{x} = 0$ holds. If $[b]_\times A \wh{x} = 0$ and $\wh{y}^\top [b]_\times \neq 0$
then $\wh{x}$ is an epipole of $P_1$
but $\wh{y}$ is not an epipole of $P_2$.
If $[b]_\times A\wh{x} \neq 0 \text{ and } \wh{y}^\top [b]_\times = 0$ holds
then $\wh{x}$ is not an epipole of $P_1$ but $\wh{y}$ is an epipole of $P_2$.
On the other hand, we see from Figure \ref{fig:epipole} that if $(P_1,P_2,\wh{w})$ is a reconstruction of $(x,y)$ for some $w\in \RR^3$, and
if $\wh{x}$ is the epipole of $P_1$, then $\wh{y}$ has to the epipole of $P_2$ (the epipoles of the two cameras lie on the line connecting the centers of the two cameras.)
This means if $(x,y)$ is $(A,b)$-irregular, then there is no finite reconstruction for $(x,y)$ using $P_1,P_2$, even though the epipolar
constraint is trivially satisfied. This proves the following lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:regularity necessary for FPR}
Suppose that $P_1 = \begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ and $P_2 = \begin{pmatrix} A & b \end{pmatrix}$ are two non-coincident finite cameras. Then, if $(x,y)$ is $(A,b)$-irregular,
then
there is no $w \in \RR^3$ such that $(P_1,P_2, \wh{w} )$ is a reconstruction of $(x,y)$.
\end{lemma}
Notice that Lemma \ref{lem:regularity necessary for FPR} can also be verified using a simple algebraic computation, without using the notion of an epipole and the help of Figure \ref{fig:epipole}.
The following two lemmas will be used to prove the main theorem of this section.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:regular implies reconstruction}
Suppose that $P_1 = \begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ and $P_2 = \begin{pmatrix} A & b \end{pmatrix}$ are two non-coincident finite cameras. Then, if $(x,y)$ is $(A,b)$-regular and $\wh{y}^\top [b]_\times A \wh{x}=0$,
then there exists $w \in \PP^3$ such that $(P_1,P_2, w)$ is a reconstruction of $(x,y)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The assumptions about $P_1$ and $P_2$, and the equation $\wh{y}^\top [b]_\times A \wh{x}=0$ imply $\wh{y},b,A\wh{x}$ are
nonzero linearly dependent vectors in $\RR^3$.
Thus there are scalars $\gamma,\beta,\alpha\in \RR$, not all zero, such that
\begin{align} \label{eq:linComb}
\gamma A\wh{x} = \beta \wh{y} - \alpha b.
\end{align}
For a scalar $\delta$, define $w_\delta := \begin{pmatrix} \wh{x} \\ \delta \end{pmatrix} $. Then we obtain
$$
P_1 w_\delta = \wh{x}, \ \text{ and }
P_2 w_\delta = A\wh{x} + \delta b.
$$
There are three cases to consider.
Case 1: $\gamma = 0$.
Then $\wh{y}\sim b$. If $A\wh{x} = 0$, then $P_2 w_\alpha = \beta \wh{y} \sim \wh{y}$ so $(P_1,P_2,w_\alpha)$ is a reconstruction of $(x,y)$. If $A\wh{x}\neq 0$, then $\wh{y} \sim A\wh{x}$ by the regularity of $(x,y)$.
Thus $P_2 w_0 = A\wh{x} \sim \wh{y}$ so
$(P_1,P_2,w_0)$ is a reconstruction of $(x,y)$.
Case 2: $\gamma \neq 0$ and $\beta = 0$.
In this case \eqref{eq:linComb} gives $A\wh{x} = - \alpha b$ after scaling. If $\alpha = 0$ then $A\wh{x} = 0$ and $\wh{y}\sim b$ by the regularity of $(x,y)$. Thus $P_2 w_1 = b \sim \wh{y}$ which means $(P_1,P_2,w_1)$ is a reconstruction of $(x,y)$.
If $\alpha \neq 0$ then $A\wh{x}\neq 0$ and $A\wh{x} \sim b$. By the regularity of $(x,y)$, one has
$\wh{y} \sim A\wh{x}$. Thus $(P_1,P_2,w_0)$ is a reconstruction of $(x,y)$.
Case 3: $\gamma \neq 0$ and $\beta \neq 0$.
\eqref{eq:linComb} implies $A\wh{x} = \beta \wh{y} - \alpha b$ after scaling.
Hence $P_2 w_\alpha = A\wh{x} + \alpha b = \beta \wh{y} \sim \wh{y}$ which concludes that
$(P_1,P_2,w_\alpha)$ is a reconstruction of $(x,y)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:rank3}
Let $F$ be a fundamental matrix and let $e_2 \in {\rm ker}(F^\top) \setminus\{0\}$.
Define $P := \begin{pmatrix} [e_2]_\times F & e_2 \end{pmatrix}$.
Then $P$ has rank three.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof can be found in \cite[page 256]{hartley-zisserman-2003}, but we rewrite it here for the self-containedness of this note.
Since $e_2\in{\rm ker}(F^\top) \setminus\{0\}$, we have $\rank([e_2]_\times F)=2$. It implies that the column space of $[e_2]_\times F$ is a plane in $\R^3$. Since $e_2$ is a nonzero vector orthogonal to any vector in this plane, we know $\rank(P)=3$.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to prove the main theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:equivalence}
Let $(x_i,y_i) \in \RR^2 \times \RR^2$, $i = 1,\ldots,m$ be given.
Then the following statements are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{3dScene}
There exists a finite reconstruction of $\{(x_i,y_i)\}$
where one of the cameras is $\begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ and the two cameras are non-coincident.
\item \label{image}
There is a fundamental matrix $F$ associated to $\{(x_i,y_i)\}$
such that $(x_i,y_i)$ is $([e_2]_\times F, e_2)$-regular for all $i$, where
$e_2 \in {\rm ker}(F^\top ) \setminus\{0\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First we show \eqref{image} $\Rightarrow$ \eqref{3dScene}.
Let the matrix $F$ stated in \eqref{image} be given.
Notice that $\begin{pmatrix} [e_2]_\times F & e_2 \end{pmatrix}$ is a camera matrix by
Lemma \ref{lem:rank3}. Then,
take $a\in \RR^3$ so that $A:= [e_2]_\times F- e_2 a^\top$ is nonsingular and
$P_1 := \begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ and $P_2 := \begin{pmatrix} A & e_2 \end{pmatrix}$ are non-coincident finite cameras; see the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:infToFin} for how $a$ is chosen.
As $[e_2]_\times A = - e_2^\top e_2 F$, one has $y_i^\top [e_2]_\times A x_i = 0$ for all $i$.
Then \eqref{3dScene} holds by Theorem \ref{thm:equivReconstruction} and
Lemma \ref{lem:regular implies reconstruction}.
Next we show the converse. Assume \eqref{3dScene} holds.
Then there is a finite camera $P_2$ so that $P_1 :=\begin{pmatrix} I & 0 \end{pmatrix}$, $P_2$ are non-coincident cameras, and
there are $w_i \in \RR^3$ ($1\leq i \leq m$) such that
$(P_1,P_2,\{\wh{w}_i\})$ is a reconstruction of $\{(x_i,y_i)\}$ .
We let $P_2 := \begin{pmatrix} A & b \end{pmatrix}$ where $A\in \RR^{3\times 3}$ is nonsingular and $b\in \RR^3\setminus\{0\}$.
Consider the fundamental matrix $F:= [b]_\times A$.
By Theorem \ref{thm:fromSceneToEpipolar} and Lemma \ref{lem:regularity necessary for FPR},
the epipolar constraints are satisfied and each $(x_i,y_i)$ is $(A,b)$-regular.
Since $F^\top = -A^\top [b]_\times$, we have $b\in {\rm ker}(F^\top)\setminus\{0\}$.
Moreover, as $[b]_\times F = -b^\top b A$, we know each $(x_i,y_i)$ is $([b]_\times F, b)$-regular.
Thus the statement \eqref{image} follows.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Experiments on ultracold atomic gases in optical lattices have opened the opportunity to simulate condensed-matter models in a well-controlled setup~\cite{Lewenstein-07,Bloch-08,ReichelVuletic11}, and also to probe the non-equilibrium dynamics of such strongly correlated quantum systems~\cite{Kinoshita-06,Hofferberth-07,Gring-12,Trotzky-12,Cheneau-12,Langen-13}. These systems are isolated from their environment to the extent that we can consider them closed, and they allow for dynamic control of the system parameters, enabling investigation of dynamics induced by quantum quenches~\cite{CalabreseCardy06,CalabreseCardy07}, ie, the time evolution following a sudden change in one of the system parameters. This triggered a considerable interest in theoretically addressing the non-equilibrium behaviour of various condensed-matter models as a consequence of sudden quenches, see References~\cite{Polkovnikov-11,Eisert-15,GogolinEisert16} for a review. \change{A natural extension of this setting are finite-time quenches, ie, the study of the dynamics during and after the change of the system parameters over a finite time interval $\tau$. Obviously the two extreme limits to this problem are the sudden quench and the adiabatically slow change of parameters, but the huge regime between these limits and the generic time dependence of the parameters open many possibilities for new features in the non-equilibrium dynamics. The main aim of the present manuscript is the study of this dynamics in the prototypical transverse-field Ising chain. So far finite-time quenches have been investigated mostly in bosonic as well as fermionic Hubbard models~\cite{MoeckelKehrein10,Bernier-12,Sandri-12} and one-dimensional Luttinger liquids~\cite{Dora-11,DziarmagaTylutki11,PerfettoStefanucci11,Pollmann-13,Bernier-14,Sachdeva-14,CS16,Porta-16}.}
In this work, we focus on finite-time quenches in the transverse field Ising (TFI) model. The Ising model has been realised experimentally in an ultracold gas of bosonic atoms in a linear potential~\cite{Simon-11}, and its behaviour following sudden quenches across the critical point has been observed~\cite{Meinert-13}. Theoretically, going back to the 70s~\cite{Barouch-70,BarouchMcCoy71,BarouchMcCoy71-2} sudden quenches have been studied extensively in this system. In particular, the order parameter and spin correlation functions~\cite{Calabrese-11,Calabrese-12jsm1} as well as the generalised Gibbs ensemble~\cite{Rigol-07,Calabrese-12jsm2,FagottiEssler13} describing the late time stationary state have been investigated in detail. For example, as a consequence of the Lieb--Robinson bounds~\cite{LiebRobinson72,Bravyi-06} the spin correlation functions show a clear light-cone effect~\cite{CalabreseCardy06}. In our results, those behaviours are reproduced and generalised to take into account the finite-quench duration and non-sudden protocol. We note that in the context of the Kibble--Zurek mechanism some attention has been given to linear ramps through the quantum phase transition in the TFI model~\cite{Dziarmaga05,CherngLevitov06,Kolodrubetz-12}. Furthermore, the behaviour of the order parameter in the late-time limit after linear ramps in the ferromagnetic phase has been investigated~\cite{Maraga-14}.
This paper is organised as follows: In section~\ref{sec:TFI} we set the notation and review the diagonalisation of the TFI chain. In section~\ref{sec:quench} we discuss the setup of a finite-time quantum quench and derive expressions for the time evolution of the correlation functions in the TFI chain without addressing the specifics of the quench protocol. We also construct the generalised Gibbs ensemble describing the stationary state at late times after the quench, again without addressing specific quench protocols. In section~\ref{sec:results protocols} we discuss specific quench protocols: linear, exponential, cosine and sine, cubic and quartic quenches, as well as piecewise differentiable versions thereof. \change{Hereby the protocols are chosen to cover different features of the time dependence like non-differentiable kinks. This allows us to identify properties of the non-equilibrium dynamics that are universal, ie, independent of these details.} We derive the equations governing the time-dependent Bogoliubov coefficients for each of the protocols and calculate their exact solutions for the linear and exponential quenches. In section~\ref{sec:results observables} we analyse the behaviour of the total energy, transverse magnetisation, transverse and longitudinal spin correlation functions, and the Loschmidt echo during and after the quench. In section~\ref{sec:SL} we briefly discuss the scaling limit of our results. Finally, in section~\ref{sec:curved} we re-interpret our results in the context of time-dependently curved spacetimes~\cite{NeuenhahnMarquardt15} before concluding with an outlook in section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Transverse field Ising (TFI) chain}
\label{sec:TFI}
The Hamiltonian of the $N$-site TFI chain is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TFIM}
H = -J\sum_{i=1}^{N} \left( \sigma^x_i \sigma^x_{i+1} + g \sigma^z_i \right),
\end{equation}
where $\sigma^a$, $a=x,y,z$, are the Pauli matrices, $J>0$ sets the energy scale and periodic boundary conditions $\sigma^a_{N+1}=\sigma^a_1$ are imposed. The dimensionless parameter $g$ describes the coupling to an external, transverse magnetic field. In the thermodynamic limit, the TFI chain at zero temperature is a prototype system which exhibits a quantum phase transition~\cite{Sachdev99}. The transition occurs between the ferromagnetic (ordered) phase for $g<1$ and the paramagnetic (disordered) phase for $g>1$, with the critical point being $g_\mathrm{c}=1$.
The Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:TFIM} can be exactly diagonalised by transforming to a spinless representation~\cite{Lieb-61,Pfeuty70,Calabrese-12jsm1}. First, using the spin raising and lowering operators $\sigma^{\pm}_i = \frac{1}{2}\left( \sigma^x_i \pm \rmi \sigma^y_i\right)$ it is recast into
\begin{equation}
H=-J\sum_{i=1}^N \left( \sigma^+_{i} + \sigma^-_{i}\right)\left( \sigma^+_{i+1} + \sigma^-_{i+1}\right) - Jg\sum_{i=1}^N \left( 1- 2 \sigma^+_{i} \sigma^-_{i}\right).
\end{equation}
We can then transform the spin operators to fermions by means of a Jordan--Wigner transformation
\begin{equation}
c_i = \mathrm{exp}\bigg( \rmi \pi \sum_{j<i} \sigma^+_j \sigma^-_j \bigg) \sigma^-_i,\quad c_i^{\dagger}= \sigma^+_i \mathrm{exp}\bigg( \rmi \pi \sum_{j<i} \sigma^+_j \sigma^-_j \bigg),
\label{eq:Jordan-Wigner}
\end{equation}
where $c_i $ and $c_i^{\dagger}$ are spinless fermionic creation and annihilation operators at lattice site $i$. The Hamiltonian in terms of the Jordan--Wigner fermions obtains a block-diagonal structure $H=H_{\mathrm{e}} \oplus H_{\mathrm{o}}$, where
\begin{equation}
H_{\mathrm{e/o}} = -J\sum_{i=1}^{N} \big( c_i^{\dagger} -c_i^{\phantom{\dagger}} \big)\big( c_{i+1}^{\dagger} +c_{i+1}^{\phantom{\dagger}} \big) - Jg \sum_{i=1}^{N} \big( 1- 2 c_i^{\dagger} c_i^{\phantom{\dagger}} \big).
\end{equation}
The reduced Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{e/o}}$ acts only on the subspace of the Fock space with even/odd number of fermions. In the sector with an even fermion number, the so-called Neveu--Schwarz (NS) sector, the fact that $\mathrm{exp}(\rmi \pi \sum_{i=1}^{N}c_i^{\dagger} c_i^{\phantom{\dagger}})=1$ implies that the fermions have to satisfy antiperiodic boundary conditions $c_{N+1}=-c_1$. Similarly, in the sector with odd fermion number, usually referred to as Ramond (R) sector, the relation $\mathrm{exp}(\rmi \pi \sum_{i=1}^{N}c_i^{\dagger} c_i^{\phantom{\dagger}})=-1$ implies periodic boundary conditions $c_{N+1}=c_1$.
We perform a discrete Fourier transformation to momentum space as ${c_k = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_{i=1}^{N} c_i^{\phantom{\dagger}} \rme^{\rmi k i}}$, where we have set the lattice spacing to unity. The Hamiltonian becomes
\begin{equation}
H_{\mathrm{e/o}} = - JgN + 2J \sum_{k} (g-\cos{k}) c_k^{\dagger} c_k^{\phantom{\dagger}} - \rmi J \sum_k \sin{k} \big( c_{-k}^{\dagger} c_k^{\dagger} + c_{-k}^{\phantom{\dagger}} c_k^{\phantom{\dagger}} \big),
\end{equation}
where the sum over momenta $k$ implies the sum over $n = -\frac{N}{2}, \dots, \frac{N}{2}-1$, and the momenta are quantised as $k_n^{\mathrm{NS}} = \frac{2 \pi}{N} (n+\frac{1}{2})$ in the even and $k_n^{\mathrm{R}}=\frac{2\pi n}{N}$ in the odd sector.
In the even sector, the Hamiltonian can finally be diagonalised by applying the Bogoliubov transformation
\begin{equation}
\eta_k^{\phantom{\dagger}} = u_k^{\phantom{\dagger}} c_k^{\phantom{\dagger}} - \rmi v_k^{\phantom{\dagger}} c_{-k}^{\dagger},\quad \eta_k^{\dagger} = u_k^{\phantom{\dagger}} c_k^{\dagger} + \rmi v_k^{\phantom{\dagger}} c_{-k}^{\phantom{\dagger}}.
\label{eq:Bogoliubov transformation}
\end{equation}
We choose the transformation such that the Bogoliubov coefficients $u_k$ and $v_k$ are real. From the requirement that the Bogoliubov operators satisfy the usual fermionic anticommutation relations, we obtain $u_k^2+v_k^2=1$ as well as $u_k=u_{-k}$ and $v_k=-v_{-k}$. We can therefore parametrise the Bogoliubov coefficients as $u_k= \cos{\frac{\theta_k}{2}}$ and $v_k= \sin{\frac{\theta_k}{2}}$. The requirement in the new representation is that the off-diagonal terms of the Hamiltonian vanish, which yields the condition
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:theta}
\rme^{\rmi \theta_k}=\frac{g-\rme^{\rmi k}}{\sqrt{1+g^2-2g\cos{k}}}.
\end{equation}
The Hamiltonian is then diagonalised as $H_\mathrm{e} = \sum_k \varepsilon_k \left( \eta_k^{\dagger} \eta_k^{\phantom{\dagger}} - \frac{1}{2}\right)$, where the single particle dispersion relation is $\varepsilon_k=2J\sqrt{1+g^2-2g\cos{k}}$. The excitation gap is thus given by $\Delta=\varepsilon_{k=0}=2J|1-g|$.
In the odd sector, the diagonalisation proceeds similarly using the Bogoliubov transformation \eqref{eq:Bogoliubov transformation}. Additional care has to be taken for the momenta $k_0=0$ and $k_{-N/2}=-\pi$, which do not have partners with $-k$. The resulting Hamiltonian is $H_\mathrm{o} = \sum_{k \neq 0} \varepsilon_k \left( \eta_k^{\dagger} \eta_k^{\phantom{\dagger}} - \frac{1}{2}\right)-2J(1-g)\left( \eta_0 ^{\dagger} \eta_0 ^{\phantom{\dagger}} - \frac{1}{2}\right)$.
\section{Finite-time quantum quenches}
\label{sec:quench}
\subsection{General quench protocols}
In the setup we consider, the system is initially prepared in the ground state of the Hamiltonian $H(g_{\rmi})$, which is the vacuum state for the Bogoliubov fermions $\eta_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}$ and $\eta_k^{\dagger}$. Starting at $t=0$ the coupling to the transverse field is continuously changed over a finite quench time $\tau$ until it reaches its final value $g_{\mathrm{f}}$. Following the quench, ie, for times $t>\tau$, the system evolves according to the Hamiltonian $H(g_{\mathrm{f}})$. In other words, we consider the time-dependent system
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TFIMtime}
H(t) = -J\sum_{i=1}^{N} \left( \sigma^x_i \sigma^x_{i+1} + g(t) \sigma^z_i \right),
\end{equation}
with the continuous function $g(t)$ taking the limiting values
\begin{equation}
g(t<0)=g_\mathrm{i},\quad g(t>\tau)=g_\mathrm{f}.
\end{equation}
Some examples of protocols $g(t)$ are shown in figure~\ref{fig:protocols and gap change rate}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.4\linewidth]{figure1a.pdf}
\quad
\includegraphics[width=.4\linewidth]{figure1b.pdf}
\caption{Left: Sketch of different quench protocols for $g_{\rmi}=0$ to $g_{\mathrm{f}}=\frac{2}{3}$. Right: Corresponding change rate of the gaps.}
\label{fig:protocols and gap change rate}
\end{figure}
We are interested in the dynamical behaviour of physical observables, ie, in calculating the expectation values of time-evolved operators taken with respect to the initial ground state. Unlike in the sudden-quench case where the pre- and post-quench Bogoliubov fermions are directly related~\cite{Sengupta-04}, for general protocols one has different instantaneous Bogoliubov fermions and Bogoliubov coefficients at each time, which is not practical. Instead, we assume the following ansatz for the time evolution of the Jordan--Wigner fermions~\cite{Dziarmaga05}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:time dependent JW}
c_k (t) = u_k(t) \eta_k + \rmi v_k(t) \eta_{-k}^{\dagger},
\end{equation}
ie, we keep the Bogoliubov fermions $\eta_k$ which diagonalise the initial Hamiltonian and cast the temporal dependence into the functions $u_k(t)$ and $v_k(t)$. Making use of the Heisenberg equations of motion for the operators $c_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}(t)$ and $c_k^{\dagger}(t)$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
\rmi \frac{\rmd}{\rmd t}\pmatrix{u_k(t) \cr v^{\ast}_{-k}(t)} = \pmatrix{A_k(t) & B_k\cr B_k & -A_k(t)} \pmatrix{u_k(t) \cr v^{\ast}_{-k}(t)},
\label{eq:uvDGL}
\end{equation}
with $A_k(t)=2J\big[g(t)-\cos{k}\big]$, $B_k=2J \sin{k}$, and the asterisk $\ast$ denoting complex conjugation. According to \eqref{eq:Bogoliubov transformation} the initial conditions read
\begin{equation}
u_k(t=0)=\cos\frac{\theta_k^\mathrm{i}}{2},\quad v_k(t=0)=\sin\frac{\theta_k^\mathrm{i}}{2},
\end{equation}
with the angle $\theta_k^\mathrm{i}$ defined by \eqref{eq:theta} with the initial value $g=g_\mathrm{i}$. The equations \eqref{eq:uvDGL} can also be decoupled as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:during quench u and v}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} y_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}(t) + \left(A_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}(t)^2+B_k^2 \pm \rmi \frac{\partial}{\partial t} A_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}(t)\right)y_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}(t) = 0,
\end{equation}
where the upper and lower sign refers to the equation for $y_k^{\phantom{\ast}}(t)=u_{k}^{\phantom{\ast}}(t)$ and $y_k^{\phantom{\ast}}(t)=v_{-k}^{\ast}(t)$ respectively. During the quench, the solutions to these equations depend on the precise form of $g(t)$ and in some cases allow for explicit analytic solutions. We will address several of these protocols in section \ref{sec:results protocols}.
After the quench, the equations for the Bogoliubov coefficients simplify to
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} y_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}(t) + \omega_k^2\, y_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}(t) = 0,
\end{equation}
with the solution
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:post-quench u and v}
y_k(t) = \mathrm{c}_3^y \rme^{\rmi \omega_k t} + \mathrm{c}_4^y \rme^{-\rmi \omega_k t},\quad \omega_k = \sqrt{A_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}(\tau)^2+B_k^2}=\varepsilon_k(g_{\mathrm{f}}),
\end{equation}
where we have defined the single-mode energies $\omega_k$ after the quench. The constants $c_3^y$ and $c_4^y$ are determined by the continuity of the solutions at $t=\tau$ with the results
\begin{eqnarray}
c_3^u = \frac{\rme^{-\rmi \omega_k \tau}}{2 \omega_k} \left[ \Big(\omega_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}-A_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}(\tau)\Big) u_k^{\phantom{\ast}}(\tau) - B_k^{\phantom{\dagger}} v_{-k}^{\ast}(\tau)\right],\\
\label{eq: u post-quench constants}
c_4^u = \frac{\rme^{\rmi \omega_k \tau}}{2 \omega_k} \left[ \Big(\omega_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}+A_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}(\tau)\Big) u_k^{\phantom{\ast}}(\tau) + B_k^{\phantom{\dagger}} v_{-k}^{\ast}(\tau)\right],
\end{eqnarray}
for $u_k(t)$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq: v post-quench constants}
c_3^v = \frac{\rme^{-\rmi \omega_k \tau}}{2 \omega_k} \left[ \Big(\omega_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}+A_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}(\tau)\Big) v_{-k}^{\ast}(\tau) - B_k^{\phantom{\dagger}} u_k^{\phantom{\ast}}(\tau)\right], \\
c_4^v = \frac{\rme^{\rmi \omega_k \tau}}{2 \omega_k} \left[ \Big(\omega_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}-A_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}(\tau)\Big) v_{-k}^{\ast}(\tau) + B_k^{\phantom{\dagger}} u_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}(\tau)\right],
\end{eqnarray}
for $v_{-k}^{\ast}(t)$. We stress that these constants depend on the momenta $k$ and the quench duration $\tau$, but we use the shorthand notation $c_n^y=c_{n,k}^y(\tau)$ for brevity.
\subsection{Transverse magnetisation and correlation functions}
In order to probe the system, we aim at calculating local observables during and after a time-dependent quench. The observables we have in mind are the transverse magnetisation and two-point functions in the transverse and longitudinal direction. Here we briefly sketch how to express these observables in terms of the time-dependent Bogoliubov coefficients $u_k(t)$ and $v_k(t)$.
Firstly, we write the correlators in terms of Jordan--Wigner fermions in \eqref{eq:Jordan-Wigner} and define auxiliary operators $a_i^{\phantom{\dagger}}=c_i^{\dagger}+c_i^{\phantom{\dagger}}$ and $b_i^{\phantom{\dagger}}=c_i^{\dagger} - c_i^{\phantom{\dagger}}$ to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
M^z & = & \braket{ \sigma^z_i} = \braket{b_i a_i}, \\
\rho^z_n & = & \braket{\sigma^z_i\sigma^z_{i+n}} = \braket{a_ib_ia_{i+n}b_{i+n}}, \\
\rho^x_n & = & \braket{\sigma^x_i\sigma^x_{i+n}} = \braket{b_ia_{i+1}b_{i+1} \dots a_{i+n-1}b_{i+n-1}a_{i+n}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here we have used $1-2c_i^{\dagger} c_i^{\phantom{\dagger}}=a_i b_i=-b_i a_i$ and suppressed the time dependence of the operators for concise notation. Furthermore, due to translational invariance the observables do not depend on the lattice site. Secondly, we define the contractions, vacuum expectation values of pairs of operators, as $S_{ij}=\braket{b_ib_j}$, $Q_{ij}=\braket{a_ia_j}$ and $G_{ij}=\braket{b_ia_j}=-\braket{a_jb_i}$. The transverse magnetisation is then simply given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:M^z}
M^z=-G_{ii}.
\end{equation}
Employing the Wick theorem, we can express the two-point functions in terms sums of products of all possible contractions. This can be conveniently written in the form of Pfaffians~\cite{BarouchMcCoy71}
\begin{equation}
\fl \label{eq:rho^z}
\rho^z_n =
\left. \matrix{
\big| S_{i,i+n} & G_{i,i} & G_{i,i+n} \cr
& G_{i+n,i} & G_{i+n,i+n} \cr
& & Q_{i,i+n}} \right|,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\fl\label{eq:rho^x}
\rho^x_n =
\left. \setlength\arraycolsep{4pt}
\begin{array}{cccccccc}
\big| S_{i,i+1} & S_{i,i+2} & \dots & S_{i,i+n-1} & G_{i,i+1} & G_{i,i+2} & \dots & G_{i,i+n} \cr
& S_{i+1,i+2} & \dots & S_{i+1,i+n-1} & G_{i+1,i+1} & G_{i+1,i+2} & \dots & G_{i+1,i+n} \cr
& & & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \cr
& & & S_{i+n-2,i+n-1} & G_{i+n-2,i+1} & G_{i+n-2,i+2} & \dots & G_{i+n-2,i+n} \cr
& & & & G_{i+n-1,i+1} & G_{i+n-1,i+2} & \dots & G_{i+n-1,i+n} \cr
& & & & & Q_{i+1,i+2} & \dots & Q_{i+1,i+n} \cr
& & & & & & & \vdots \cr
& & & & & & & Q_{i+n-1,i+n} \cr
\end{array} \right|.
\end{equation}
In this triangular notation, Pfaffians can be viewed as generalised determinants which can be expanded along ``rows'' and ``columns'' in terms of minor Pfaffians~\cite{AmicoOsterloh04}. They can also be evaluated from the corresponding antisymmetric matrices $A$ as ${\mathrm{Pf}(A)}^2=\det{A}$. Here the matrix $A$ has vanishing elements on the main diagonal, its upper triangular part is the Pfaffian as written in \eqref{eq:rho^z} and \eqref{eq:rho^x}, and the lower triangular part is the negative transpose of the Pfaffian in question. Thirdly, we introduce auxiliary quadratic correlators $\alpha_{ij}$ and $\beta_{ij}$, and express their time-dependence in terms of Bogoliubov coefficients by using \eqref{eq:time dependent JW}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:auxiliary correlators alpha}
\alpha_{ij}(t) = \braket{c_i^{\phantom{\dagger}}(t) c_j^{\dagger}(t)} = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \rmd k \, \rme^{-\rmi k(i-j)} |u_k(t)|^2, \\
\label{eq:auxiliary correlators beta}
\beta_{ij}(t) = \braket{c_i^{\phantom{\dagger}}(t) c_j^{\phantom{\dagger}}(t)} = \frac{\rmi}{2 \pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \rmd k \, \rme^{-\rmi k(i-j)} u_k(t) v_{-k}(t).
\end{eqnarray}
Using these functions, the various contractions become
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{ij}(t) = 2 \rmi \, \mathrm{Im}(\beta_{ij}(t)) - \delta_{ij}, \\
Q_{ij}(t) = 2 \rmi \, \mathrm{Im}(\beta_{ij}(t)) + \delta_{ij}, \\
G_{ij}(t) = 2 \, \mathrm{Re}(\beta_{ij}(t)) - 2 \alpha_{ij}(t) + \delta_{ij}.
\end{eqnarray}
These functions are the entries of \eqref{eq:M^z}--\eqref{eq:rho^x}, which give the general expressions for the time dependence of the correlation functions. An additional simplification is the fact that we may use translational invariance of the system to write $S_{ij}=S(j-i)$, $Q_{ij}=Q(j-i)$ and $G_{ij}=G(j-i)$. It is then evident that the corresponding matrices in \eqref{eq:rho^z} and \eqref{eq:rho^x} are block-Toeplitz matrices, with entries on each descending diagonal in a block identical, which reduces the computational effort.
The behaviour of these functions depends on the form and duration of the quench and will be discussed in subsequent sections. Some general features will be treated analytically.
\subsection{Generalised Gibbs ensemble}
It is by now well established that at very late times after a sudden quench a stationary state is formed which is well described by a generalised Gibbs ensemble (GGE)~\cite{Rigol-07,BarthelSchollwoeck08,Calabrese-12jsm2,FagottiEssler13,VidmarRigol16}. This ensemble contains the infinitely many integrals of motion in the TFI chain and thus retains more information about the initial state than just its energy. Considering finite-time quenches, a similar situation appears where the role of the initial state is taken by the time-evolved state at $t=\tau$. More precisely, since the time evolution for times $t>\tau$ is governed by the time-independent Hamiltonian $H(\tau)=H(g_\mathrm{f})$, we can construct the GGE
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\mathrm{GGE}} = \frac{1}{Z}\,\mathrm{exp}\left(-\sum_k \lambda_k n_k^{\mathrm{f}} \right),
\end{equation}
where $n_k^{\mathrm{f}} = {\eta_k^{\mathrm{f}}}^{\dagger} {\eta_k^{\mathrm{f}}}$ are the post-quench mode occupations with ${\eta^{\mathrm{f}}_k}^{\dagger}$ and $\eta^{\mathrm{f}}_k$ being the Bogoliubov fermions which diagonalise $H(g_{\mathrm{f}})$. We note in passing that the mode occupations are non-local in space, but that they are related to local integrals of motion via a linear transformation~\cite{FagottiEssler13} and can thus be used in the construction of the GGE. The Lagrange multipliers $\lambda_k$ are fixed by
\begin{equation}
\braket{{\eta_k^{\mathrm{f}}}^{\dagger} {\eta_k^{\mathrm{f}}}} = \Tr\left(\rho_{\mathrm{GGE}}\,{\eta_k^{\mathrm{f}}}^{\dagger} {\eta_k^{\mathrm{f}}}\right)
\end{equation}
and $Z=\Tr\big[\mathrm{exp}(-\sum_k \lambda_k n_k^\mathrm{f})\big]$ is the normalisation. Explicitly, by first reverting to Jordan--Wigner fermions and then to the initial Bogoliubov fermions $\eta_k$, we find
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:post-quench occupation number}
\eqalign{ \braket{{\eta_k^{\mathrm{f}}}^{\dagger} (\tau) \eta_k^{\mathrm{f}}(\tau)} = & (u_k^{\mathrm{f}})^2 |v_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}(\tau)|^2 + (v_{k}^{\mathrm{f}})^2 |u_{k}^{\phantom{\dagger}}(\tau)|^2 \cr & + u_k^{\mathrm{f}} v_{-k}^{\mathrm{f}} \left( u_{-k}^{\phantom{\dagger}}(\tau) v_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}(\tau) + u_{-k}^{\ast} (\tau) v_k^{\ast}(\tau)\right),}
\end{equation}
where $u_k^{\mathrm{f}}$ and $v_k^{\mathrm{f}}$ are the Bogoliubov coefficients corresponding to Bogoliubov fermions $\eta_k^{\mathrm{f}}$ as defined in \eqref{eq:Bogoliubov transformation}. This allows us to fix the Lagrange multipliers by equating \eqref{eq:post-quench occupation number} with
\begin{equation}
\Tr\left(\rho_{\mathrm{GGE}}\,{\eta_k^{\mathrm{f}}}^{\dagger} \eta_k^{\mathrm{f}} \right) = \frac{1}{1+\rme^{\lambda_k}}.
\end{equation}
We see that the Lagrange multipliers, and consequently the expectation values in the stationary state, depend on the duration $\tau$ and form $g(t)$ of the quench through the Bogoliubov coefficients $u_k^{\phantom{\ast}}(\tau)$ and $v_{-k}^{\ast}(\tau)$.
To show the validity of the GGE, we prove the equivalence of the stationary values and the GGE values of the quadratic correlators introduced in \eqref{eq:auxiliary correlators alpha} and \eqref{eq:auxiliary correlators beta}. Putting \eqref{eq:post-quench u and v} into \eqref{eq:auxiliary correlators alpha} and \eqref{eq:auxiliary correlators beta}, and taking the long-time average, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:alpha GGE}
\fl \eqalign{\alpha_{ij}^{\mathrm{s}} = \frac{1}{4 \pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \rmd k \, \rme^{-\rmi k(i-j)} & \left[ 1+\cos^2{\theta_k^{\mathrm{f}}}\left(|u_k^{\phantom{\ast}}(\tau)|^2 - |v_{-k}^{\phantom{\ast}}(\tau)|^2\right) \right. \cr & \left. -\cos{\theta_k^{\mathrm{f}}}\sin{\theta_k^{\mathrm{f}}}\left(u_k^{\phantom{\ast}}(\tau) v_{-k}^{\phantom{\ast}}(\tau)+u_k^{\ast}(\tau) v_{-k}^{\ast}(\tau)\right) \right],} \\
\label{eq:beta GGE}
\fl \eqalign{\beta_{ij}^{\mathrm{s}} = \frac{\rmi}{4 \pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \rmd k \, \rme^{-\rmi k(i-j)} & \left[ \sin^2{\theta_k^{\mathrm{f}}}\left(u_k^{\phantom{\ast}}(\tau) v_{-k}^{\phantom{\ast}}(\tau)+u_k^{\ast}(\tau) v_{-k}^{\ast}(\tau)\right) \right. \cr & \left. - \cos{\theta_k^{\mathrm{f}}}\sin{\theta_k^{\mathrm{f}}}\left( |u_k^{\phantom{\ast}}(\tau)|^2 - |v_{-k}^{\phantom{\ast}}(\tau)|^2\right) \right].}
\end{eqnarray}
The same result is obtained for the GGE expectation values $\alpha_{ij}^{\mathrm{GGE}}=\Tr\left(\rho_{\mathrm{GGE}}c_ic_j^\dagger\right)$ and $\beta_{ij}^{\mathrm{GGE}}=\Tr\left(\rho_{\mathrm{GGE}}c_ic_j\right)$.
\section{Results for different quench protocols}
\label{sec:results protocols}
In this section we collect some results for the explicit quench protocols sketched in figure~\ref{fig:protocols and gap change rate}, namely the linear, exponential, cosine, sine and polynomial quenches. We also define some piecewise differentiable protocols, which are later used as a check of principles but not extensively studied.
\subsection{Linear quench}
We start with the simplest finite-time quench protocol, which is the linear quench of the form (see the blue line in figure~\ref{fig:protocols and gap change rate})
\begin{equation}
g(t)=g_{\rmi} + v_g t,
\end{equation}
where $v_g=(g_{\mathrm{f}}-g_{\rmi})/\tau$ is the rate of change in the transverse field. For the linear quench the differential equations in \eqref{eq:during quench u and v} become
\begin{equation}
\partial_t^2 y_k(t) + \left[at^2+b_k t+c_k\right] y_k(t) = 0,
\end{equation}
with $a=4v_g^2$, $b_k=8 v_g(g_{\rmi}-\cos{k})$, $c_k=4(1+g_{\rmi}^2-2g_{\rmi}\cos{k})\pm2\rmi v_g$, and the upper and lower signs refering to the equations for $y_k(t)=u_{k}^{\phantom{\ast}}(t)$ and $y_k(t)=v_{-k}^{\ast}(t)$ respectively. This equation can be cast into the form of a Weber differential equation~\cite{AbramowitzStegun65} whose solutions in terms of parabolic cylinder functions are
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Bogoliubov coefficients linear}
y_k(t)=c_1^y D_{\nu_k}(\tilde{t}(t)) + c_2^y D_{-\nu_k-1}(\rmi \tilde{t}(t)),
\end{equation}
where $\nu_k=(-4\rmi a c_k^{\phantom{2}} + \rmi b_k^2 - 4a^{3/2})/(8a^{3/2})$ and $\tilde{t}(t) = \rme^{\rmi \pi/4}(2^{1/2} a^{1/4} t + 2^{-1/2} a^{-3/4} b_k)$. The constants $c_1^y$ and $c_2^y$ are set by the initial conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
u_k(t)|_{t=0}&=&u_k^{\rmi},\\
v_{-k}^\ast (t)|_{t=0}&=&v_{-k}^{\rmi},\\
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} u_k(t) |_{t=0} &=& -\rmi A_k(0) u_k^\rmi -\rmi B_k v_{-k}^\rmi,\\
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} t} v_{-k}^\ast(t) |_{t=0} &=& - \rmi B_k u_k^\rmi + \rmi A_k(0) v_{-k}^\rmi;
\end{eqnarray}
explicitly we find
\begin{eqnarray}
c^u_1 &= &
\frac{-D_{-\nu -1}\left(\rmi d_2\right) \left\{ u_{k}^\rmi \left[2 A_k(0)+\rmi d_1 d_2\right]+2 v_{-k}^\rmi B_k \right\}+2 d_1 u_k^\rmi D_{-\nu }\left(\rmi d_2\right)}{2 d_1 \left\{ D_{-\nu }\left(\rmi d_2\right) D_{\nu }\left(d_2\right)+\rmi D_{-\nu -1}\left(\rmi d_2\right) \left[D_{\nu +1}\left(d_2\right)-d_2 D_{\nu }\left(d_2\right)\right]\right\}},\nonumber\\
c^u_2 &=&
\frac{D_{\nu }\left(d_2\right) \left\{ u_k^\rmi \left[2 A_k(0)-\rmi d_1 d_2\right]+2 v_{-k}^\rmi B_k \right\}+2 \rmi d_1 u_k^\rmi D_{\nu+1}\left(d_2\right)}{2 d_1 \left\{ D_{-\nu }\left(\rmi d_2\right) D_{\nu }\left(d_2\right)+\rmi D_{-\nu -1}\left(\rmi d_2\right) \left[D_{\nu +1}\left(d_2\right)-d_2 D_{\nu }\left(d_2\right)\right]\right\}},
\end{eqnarray}
for $u_{k}^{\phantom{\ast}}(t)$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
c^v_1 &= &
\frac{D_{-\nu -1}(\rmi d_2) \left\{ v_{-k}^\rmi \left[ 2A_k(0)-\rmi d_1 d_2\right] -2 u_k^\rmi B_k\right\}
+2 d_1 v_{-k}^\rmi D_{-\nu }(\rmi d_2)}{2 d_1 \left\{ D_{-\nu }(\rmi d_2) D_{\nu }(d_2)- \rmi D_{-\nu -1}(\mathrm{i} d_2) \left[d_2 D_{\nu }(d_2)-D_{\nu +1}(d_2) \right] \right\}},\nonumber\\
c^v_2 &=&
\frac{D_{\nu } \left(d_2\right) \left\{v_{-k}^\rmi \left[-2 A_k(0)-\rmi d_1 d_2\right]+2 u_k^\rmi B_k\right\}+2 \rmi d_1 v_{-k}^\rmi D_{\nu+1}\left(d_2\right)}{2 d_1\left\{ D_{-\nu }\left(\rmi d_2\right) D_{\nu }\left(d_2\right)- \rmi D_{-\nu -1}\left(\rmi d_2\right)\left[d_2 D_{\nu }\left(d_2\right)-D_{\nu +1}\left(d_2\right)\right]\right\}},
\end{eqnarray}
for $v_{-k}^{\ast}(t)$. In both cases, for brevity, we use $\tilde{t}(t) = d_1 t + d_2$ with $d_1=\rme^{\rmi \pi/4} 2^{1/2} a^{1/4} $ and $d_2=\rme^{\rmi \pi/4} 2^{-1/2} a^{-3/4} b_k$, and we have suppressed the subindex $k$ in $\nu_k$ as well as $d_2$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.4\textwidth]{figure2.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of the mode occupations $n_k^\mathrm{f}$ after different finite-time quenches with the sudden-quench result $n_k^\mathrm{s}$. We observe that $n_k^\mathrm{f}\to n_k^\mathrm{s}$ for $\tau\to 0$ irrespective of the quench protocol.}
\label{fig:figure1}
\end{figure}
In order to investigate the limit of sudden quenches we calculated the post-quench mode occupation $n_k^\mathrm{f}$ given in \eqref{eq:post-quench occupation number} after a linear quench and compared it to the post-quench mode occupation after a sudden quench $n_k^{\mathrm{s}}$. The latter is given by~\cite{Sengupta-04} $n_k^{\mathrm{s}}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1-\cos(\theta_k^{\mathrm{f}}-\theta_k^{\rmi})\right]$. As is shown in \fref{fig:figure1} the difference between the two vanishes as the quench duration is decreased, ie, $\lim_{\tau\to 0}n_k^\mathrm{f}=n_k^\mathrm{s}$. As can be seen from the figure, this is true for the exponential, cosine and sine protocols as well.
\subsection{Exponential quench}
Another quench protocol which allows for an explicit analytical solution is the exponential quench of the form
\begin{equation}
g(t)=g_{\rmi}-1+\mathrm{exp}\left(\ln{(|g_{\mathrm{f}}-g_{\rmi}+1|)}\frac{t}{\tau}\right),
\end{equation}
which is shown as green line in figure~\ref{fig:protocols and gap change rate}. The differential equations in \eqref{eq:during quench u and v} in this case become
\begin{equation}
\partial^2_t y_k(t) + \left[a_k+b_k\rme^{f t}+c\rme^{2 f t}\right] y_k(t) = 0,
\end{equation}
where $a_k=4\left[g_{\rmi}^2+2(1+\cos{k})(1-g_{\rmi})\right]$, $b_k=8\left[g_{\rmi}-1-\cos{k}\pm\rmi (4\tau)^{-1}\ln|g_{\mathrm{f}}-g_{\rmi}+1|\right]$, $c=4$ and $f=\tau^{-1}\ln |g_{\mathrm{f}}-g_{\rmi}+1|$. The upper and lower signs in $b_k$ refer to the equation for $y_k(t)=u_{k}^{\phantom{\ast}}(t)$ and $y_k(t)=v_{-k}^{\ast}(t)$ respectively. This equation can be solved using a substitution $y_k(t)=w_k(t)z_k(t)$, where $w_k(t)$ is chosen such that the equation for $z_k(t)$ reduces to an associated Laguerre equation~\cite{AbramowitzStegun65}. The full solution is
\begin{equation}
y_k(t)=\rme^{\rmi \sqrt{a_k}t} \rme^{\rmi \frac{\sqrt{c}}{f}(1-\rme^{ft})} \left[ c_1^y U(-\lambda_k,1+\nu_k,\tilde{t}(t))+c_2^y L^{\nu_k}_{\lambda_k}(\tilde{t}(t)) \right]
\end{equation}
where $U(-\lambda,1+\nu,\tilde{t})$ denotes a confluent hypergeometric function of the second kind and $L^{\nu}_{\lambda}(\tilde{t})$ is a generalised Laguerre polynomial. Here $\lambda_k=-\rmi \sqrt{a_k}/f-\rmi b_k /(2 f \sqrt{c})-1/2$, $\nu_k=2\rmi \sqrt{a_k}/f$ and $\tilde{t}(t) = d_1 \rme^{f t}$ with $d_1=2 \rmi \sqrt{c}/f$. The constants $c_1^y$ and $c_2^y$ are set by the initial conditions with the explicit results given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\fl \eqalign{c_1^u = \frac{\left[ \rmi \left(-A_k(0)-\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{c} \right) L_{\lambda }^{\nu }(d_1)+d_1 f L_{\lambda -1}^{\nu+1}(d_1)\right]u_k^\rmi -\rmi B_k L_{\lambda }^{\nu }(d_1) v_{-k}^\rmi }{d_1 f \left[ U(-\lambda ,\nu +1,d_1) L_{\lambda -1}^{\nu +1}(d_1)+ \lambda U(1-\lambda,\nu +2,d_1) L_{\lambda }^{\nu }(d_1)\right]}},\\
\fl \eqalign{c_2^u = &\frac{\left[\rmi \left(A_k(0)+\sqrt{a}-\sqrt{c}\right) U(-\lambda,\nu+1,d_1)+d_1 f \lambda U(1-\lambda,\nu +2,d_1)\right]u_k^\rmi }{d_1 f \left[ U(-\lambda ,\nu +1,d_1) L_{\lambda -1}^{\nu +1}(d_1)+ \lambda U(1-\lambda ,\nu +2,d_1) L_{\lambda }^{\nu }(d_1)\right]} \\
& +\frac{\rmi B_k U(-\lambda ,\nu +1,d_1) v_{-k}^\rmi}{d_1 f \left[ U(-\lambda ,\nu +1,d_1) L_{\lambda -1}^{\nu +1}(d_1)+ \lambda U(1-\lambda ,\nu +2,d_1) L_{\lambda }^{\nu }(d_1)\right]},}\nonumber\\
\fl \eqalign{c_1^v = \frac{\left[\rmi \left( A_k(0)-\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{c}\right) L_{\lambda }^{\nu }(d_1)+d_1 f L_{\lambda -1}^{\nu +1}(d_1)\right]v_{-k}^\rmi -\rmi B_k L_{\lambda }^{\nu }(d_1)u_k^\rmi}{d_1 f \left[U(-\lambda ,\nu +1,d_1) L_{\lambda -1}^{\nu +1}(d_1)+\lambda U(1-\lambda ,\nu +2,d_1) L_{\lambda }^{\nu }(d_1)\right]}},\\
\fl \eqalign{c_2^v = & \frac{\left[\rmi \left(-A_k(0) +\sqrt{a}-\sqrt{c}\right) U(-\lambda ,\nu +1,d_1)+d_1 f \lambda U(1-\lambda ,\nu +2,d_1)\right]v_{-k}^\rmi }{d_1 f \left[U(-\lambda ,\nu +1,d_1) L_{\lambda -1}^{\nu +1}(d_1)+\lambda U(1-\lambda ,\nu+2,d_1)L_{\lambda }^{\nu }(d_1)\right]} \\
&+\frac{\rmi B_k U(-\lambda ,\nu +1,d_1) u_k^\rmi}{d_1 f \left[U(-\lambda ,\nu +1,d_1) L_{\lambda -1}^{\nu +1}(d_1)+\lambda U(1-\lambda ,\nu+2,d_1) L_{\lambda }^{\nu }(d_1)\right]}.}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
We stress that we have suppressed the subindex $k$ of $\nu_k$ and $\lambda_k$ for clarity.
As in the case of a linear quench, we have compared the post-quench mode occupations $n_k^\mathrm{f}$ with the sudden-quench result (see \fref{fig:figure1}). We find very similar behaviour to the linear quench even for moderate quench durations.
\subsection{Cosine and sine quench}
The cosine quench is defined as a half period of a negative cosine
\begin{equation}
g(t)=\frac{g_{\rmi}+g_{\mathrm{f}}}{2}+\frac{g_{\rmi}-g_{\mathrm{f}}}{2}\,\cos\frac{\pi t}{\tau}.
\end{equation}
Unlike the two protocols discussed above, this protocol is differentiable for all times. Unfortunately, the differential equations \eqref{eq:during quench u and v} in this case have no analytic solution, so we have to resort to a numerical treatment.
Similarly, the sine quench is defined as a quarter period of a sine
\begin{equation}
g(t)=g_{\rmi}+(g_{\mathrm{f}}-g_{\rmi})\,\sin\frac{\pi t}{2\tau}.
\end{equation}
In this protocol the transverse field initially changes faster than in the others, but slows down close to $t=\tau$. It is differentiable everywhere except at $t=0$. Again, the differential equations \eqref{eq:during quench u and v} have no analytic solution and we study this case numerically.
The comparison of the obtained post-quench mode occupations for the cosine and sine protocols with the sudden-quench result are again shown in \fref{fig:figure1}.
\subsection{Polynomial quenches}
The cubic quench is defined as
\begin{equation}
g=g_\rmi-3 (g_\rmi-g_\mathrm{f}) \left(\frac{t}{\tau}\right)^2+2(g_\rmi-g_\mathrm{f})\left(\frac{t}{\tau}\right)^3,
\end{equation}
and the quartic quench is
\begin{equation}
g=g_\rmi-2 (g_\rmi-g_\mathrm{f}) \left(\frac{t}{\tau}\right)^2+(g_\rmi-g_\mathrm{f})\left(\frac{t}{\tau}\right)^4.
\end{equation}
Both protocols are differentiable everywhere, ie, they feature no kinks. The differential equations \eqref{eq:during quench u and v} have no analytic solution in these cases.
\subsection{Piecewise quenches with a kink}
Finally we introduce a quench protocol composed of two cosine functions stitched together at $t=\frac{\tau}{2}$ so that the protocol is continuous, but the derivative is not. The protocol is defined as
\begin{equation}
g(t)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
\frac{g_\mathrm{f}+(1-\sqrt{2})g_\rmi}{2-\sqrt{2}} -\frac{g_\mathrm{f}-g_\rmi}{2-\sqrt{2}} \cos{\frac{\pi t}{2\tau}}, & 0 \le t \leq \frac{\tau}{2}, \\ [1ex]
\frac{3 g_\mathrm{f}+g_\rmi}{4} +\frac{g_\mathrm{f}-gi_\rmi}{4} \cos{\frac{2\pi t}{\tau}}, & \frac{\tau}{2} < t \leq \tau.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
Similarly, we define a protocol consisting of two linear functions with different slopes. We do this by stitching them at $t=\frac{\tau}{2}$, leading to a discontinuous derivative:
\begin{equation}
g(t)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
g_\rmi+\frac{4}{3\tau}(g_\mathrm{f}-g_\rmi)t, & 0 \le t \leq \frac{\tau}{2}, \\ [1ex]
\frac{1}{3}(2g_\rmi + g_\mathrm{f})+\frac{2}{3\tau}(g_\mathrm{f}-g_\rmi)t,& \frac{\tau}{2} < t \leq \tau.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\section{Results for observables}
\label{sec:results observables}
\subsection{Total energy}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.45\linewidth]{figure3a.pdf}
\quad
\includegraphics[width=.45\linewidth]{figure3b.pdf}
\caption{Left: Total energy per site $E_\mathrm{tot}(t)$ during a quench from $g_{\rmi}=0$ to $g_{\mathrm{f}}=\frac{2}{3}$ over $\tau J=1$ for different quench protocols. Inset: Quenches from $g_{\rmi}=0$ to $g_{\mathrm{f}}=\frac{2}{3}$ and varying durations show the approach of $E(\tau)$ to the ground-state energy of the final Hamiltonian $E_{\mathrm{gs}}^{\mathrm{f}}$. Right: Mode occupation $n_k^\mathrm{f}$ of the final Hamiltonian at $t=\tau$ for quenches between phases (upper panel) and inside a phase (lower panel).}
\label{fig:total energy}
\end{figure}
The simplest observable in the system is the total energy per site, $E_{\mathrm{tot}}=\frac{1}{N}\braket{H(t)}$. Following the quench, the total energy is constant due to the unitary time evolution. During the quench, however, it depends on the quench protocol as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: energy}
\eqalign{
E_{\mathrm{tot}} =
\frac{J}{2 \pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \rmd k \, & \bigg[ 2\Big(g(t)-\cos{k}\Big) |v_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}(t)|^2 \Bigg.
\cr & \Bigg. + \sin{k} \left(u_{k}^{\phantom{\dagger}}(t) v_k^{\phantom{\dagger}}(t)+u_{k}^{\ast}(t)v_{k}^{\ast}(t)\right) -g(t) \bigg].}
\end{equation}
Clearly the total energy in the system depends on the quench details, as shown in \ref{fig:total energy}, while it becomes independent of these details in the sudden and adiabatic limits as is well expected. We find that the total energy after the quench $E_{\mathrm{tot}}(\tau)$ approaches the adiabatic value $E_{\mathrm{gs}}^{\mathrm{f}}$ as a power-law, with the exponent depending on the quench details. For quenches within either the ferromagnetic or paramagnetic phase we notice two types of behaviour depending on whether the protocol has any kinks, ie, non-differentiable points: Quenches which feature kinks, ie, the linear, exponential, sine, piecewise linear and piecewise cosine quenches all approach the adiabatic value as $E_\mathrm{tot}(\tau)-E_\mathrm{gs}^\mathrm{f} \propto \tau^{-2}$. Strikingly, quenches such as cosine, cubic and quartic, which feature no kinks, display a much faster approach, ie, $E_\mathrm{tot}(\tau)-E_\mathrm{gs}^\mathrm{f} \propto \tau^{-4}$. The inset to figure~\ref{fig:total energy} demonstrates the different approaches to $E_\mathrm{gs}^\mathrm{f}$ for several protocols. In contrast, for quenches across the critical point we find $E_\mathrm{tot}(\tau)-E_\mathrm{gs}^\mathrm{f} \propto \tau^{-1/2}$ irrespective of the details of the protocol.
\change{The different adiabatic behaviour for quenches between different parts of the phase diagram may be related to differences in the behaviour of the mode occupations at $k=0$ as illustrated in figure~\ref{fig:total energy}. For quenches across the critical point (upper panel) the mode occupation at $k=0$ is finite, while, in contrast, for quenches within a phase one finds $n_{k=0}^\mathrm{f}=0$. However, we observe no obvious difference between quench protocols with and without kinks.} We note that the cosine and sine quench have a higher mode occupation, especially of the high-energy modes, and consequently a higher total energy after the quench as compared to the linear and exponential quenches as visible in the left panel.
Furthermore, at $t=\tau$ the total energy will be smooth for the cosine and sine quenches since the transverse field $g(t)$ is differentiable, while $E_\mathrm{tot}$ possesses kinks for the linear and exponential quenches originating from the kinks in $g(t)$.
\subsection{Transverse magnetisation}
Next, let us now look into the behaviour of the transverse magnetisation. We can compare the magnetisation during the quench to the equilibrium ground-state magnetisation corresponding to the instantaneous value of the coupling $g(t)$, as shown in \fref{fig:Mz during quench}. If the quench duration is small compared to the inverse of the energy scales of the system, the quench is fast. In this case, the magnetisation is significantly offset from the equilibrium value for the corresponding $g(t)$. This is because the system cannot follow the change by reaching the ground state of the instantaneous Hamiltonians $H(t)$. On the other hand, as the quench slows down, the system starts its relaxation during the quench, as demonstrated by the oscillatory behaviour of the magnetisation. However, in both cases there is a noticeable lag in the reaction at the very beginning of the quench. This behaviour remains qualitatively the same for different quench protocols, although there are quantitative differences, as can be seen in \fref{fig:Mz during quench}. These differences can be understood by comparing the behaviours to the gap change rates $|\dot{\Delta}|$ shown in \fref{fig:protocols and gap change rate}. The sine quench has the highest gap change rate initially, which means that the system experiences this quench as the most violent, as demonstrated by the large amplitude of oscillations of the magnetisation from its equilibrium value. On the other hand, the cosine quench has the slowest initial gap change rate and the magnetisation in this case is much closer to the equilibrium value.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.4\linewidth]{figure4a.pdf}
\quad
\includegraphics[width=.42\linewidth]{figure4b.pdf}
\caption{Transverse magnetisation during the quench for various quench durations (left) and protocols (right). Left: Linear quench from $g_{\rmi}=0$ to $g_{\mathrm{f}}=\frac{2}{3}$. Full line is the equilibrium value of transverse magnetisation for a given $g(t)$. Right: Deviation of the magnetisation in linear, cosine, sine and exponential quenches from the equilibrium magnetisation for the corresponding $g(t)$.}
\label{fig:Mz during quench}
\end{figure}
Following the quench, the magnetisation approaches a steady value. This stationary part of the magnetisation is given by $M^z_{\mathrm{s}}=\lim_{t\to\infty} M^z(t)$ with the result
\begin{equation}
\eqalign{M^z_{\mathrm{s}} = \frac{1}{\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \rmd k & \left[ \cos^2{\theta_k^{\mathrm{f}}} \Big(|v_k^{\phantom{\ast}}(\tau)|^2 - |u_{k}^{\phantom{\ast}}(\tau)|^2\Big) \right. \cr &\left. -\cos{\theta_k^{\mathrm{f}}}\sin{\theta_k^{\mathrm{f}}}\Big(u_k^{\phantom{\ast}} (\tau)v_{k}^{\phantom{\ast}}(\tau)+u_k^{\ast}(\tau) v_{k}^{\ast}(\tau)\Big) \right],}
\end{equation}
which coincides with the GGE value. The dependence of the stationary value on the duration of the quench $\tau$ and quench protocol $g(t)$ is shown in \fref{fig:Mz stationary values}. In the left panel we notice that for quenches within the ferromagnetic regime an oscillatory behaviour in $\tau$ exists which is most pronounced for the linear and exponential quench protocol and may be linked to the existence of a kink in $g(t)$ at $t=\tau$. We notice similar oscillatory behaviour in the sine and piecewise quenches. In the inset we see the large-$\tau$ behaviour of the stationary magnetisation which is similar to the large-$\tau$ behaviour of the total energy. The deviation from the adiabatic value for quenches with a kink behaves as $|M_\mathrm{s}^z-M_\mathrm{a}^z|\propto \tau^{-2}$. In contrast, there is a $|M_\mathrm{s}^z-M_\mathrm{a}^z|\propto \tau^{-4}$ behaviour in quenches without such kinks. The same type of approaches are observed for quenches within the paramagnetic regime. On the other hand, for quenches through the phase transition, no oscillations are observed and the approach to the adiabatic limit is much slower, ie, $|M_\mathrm{s}^z-M_\mathrm{a}^z|\propto \tau^{-1/2}$ (right panel).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.45\linewidth]{figure5a.pdf}
\quad
\includegraphics[width=.45\linewidth]{figure5b.pdf}
\caption{Stationary part of the transverse magnetisation as a function of the quench duration for several quench protocols. The dashed black and full grey lines show the adiabatic and sudden values respectively. The insets show large $\tau$ behaviour, where the adiabatic value is defined by $M_\mathrm{a}^z=\lim_{\tau\to\infty}M_\mathrm{s}^z$.}
\label{fig:Mz stationary values}
\end{figure}
The relaxation to the stationary value is described by the time-dependent part of the magnetisation ($t>\tau$)
\begin{equation}
M^z_{\mathrm{r}}(t)=M^z(t)-M^z_\mathrm{s}=-\frac{2}{\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \, \rmd k\,\mathrm{Re} \left[ f(k) \rme^{2\rmi \omega_k t} \right],
\end{equation}
where we recall that $\omega_k=\varepsilon_k(g_\mathrm{f})$ defines the single-mode energies after the quench and we have defined
\begin{equation}
\eqalign{f(k) =\frac{1}{4} \rme^{-2\rmi\omega_k\tau} & \left[ \sin^2{\theta_k^{\mathrm{f}}} \Big(|v_k^{\phantom{\ast}}(\tau)|^2 - |u_{k}^{\phantom{\ast}}(\tau)|^2\Big) \right. \cr & \left. + (\cos{\theta_k^{\mathrm{f}}}-1)\sin{\theta_k^{\mathrm{f}}}\Big(u_k^{\phantom{\ast}} (\tau)v_{k}^{\phantom{\ast}}(\tau)+u_k^{\ast}(\tau) v_{k}^{\ast}(\tau)\Big) \right].}
\end{equation}
Using a stationary phase approximation we can evaluate the late-time behaviour of this integral to be
\begin{equation}
\fl M^z_{\mathrm{r}} (t) = - \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \sum_{k_0} |\Phi''(k_0)|^{-3/2} \mathrm{Re} \left[ f''(k_0) \mathrm{exp} \left( \rmi \Phi(k_0) t + \rmi\,\mathrm{Sgn} (\Phi''(k_0)) \frac{3\pi}{4} \right) \right] t^{-3/2},
\end{equation}
where $\Phi(k)=2\omega_k = 4 J \sqrt{1+g_{\mathrm{f}}^2-2g_{\mathrm{f}} \cos{k}}$ and the stationary points are $k_0=-\pi,0,\pi$ respectively. \Fref{fig:Mz relaxation} shows the relaxation of the magnetisation. As in the case of a sudden quench~\cite{Barouch-70,FiorettoMussardo10} the relaxation follows a $t^{-3/2}$ law. Superimposed on the decay are oscillations with frequencies $2\omega_0$ and $2\omega_{\pi}$ originating from the stationary points of the phase. The quench protocol and the duration of quench implicitly enter the expression of the prefactor of $t^{-3/2}$ via the Bogoliubov coefficients in $f(k)$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figure6.pdf}
\caption{Approach to the stationary value of the transverse magnetisation following a linear quench. The full grey line is the stationary phase approximation result, the dashed line is $t^{-3/2}$ with a constant prefactor, and the blue dots show the numerical evaluation for certain times. The inset shows the spectral analysis of the oscillations demonstrating peaks at frequencies $2\omega_0$ and $2\omega_{\pi}$ indicated by the vertical lines.}
\label{fig:Mz relaxation}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Transverse two-point function}
The two-point function in the transverse direction is given by the Pfaffian \eqref{eq:rho^z} which can be evaluated from a $4\times4$ matrix. The elements of this matrix are $\alpha_{ij}$ and $\beta_{ij}$, the quadratic correlators introduced in \eqref{eq:auxiliary correlators alpha} and \eqref{eq:auxiliary correlators beta} respectively. At late times we evaluate the behaviour of these correlators using a stationary phase approximation with the result
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:alpha SPA}
\alpha_{i,i+n}(t) = \alpha^{\mathrm{s}}_{i,i+n} + F_n^1(t) t^{-3/2},\quad \beta_{i,i+n}(t) = \beta^{\mathrm{s}}_{i,i+n} + F_n^2(t) t^{-3/2}.
\end{equation}
The stationary parts of the functions are given in \eqref{eq:alpha GGE} and \eqref{eq:beta GGE}, they are found to be negligibly small in comparison to the amplitudes of the time-dependent parts. The prefactors $F_n^1(t)$ and $F_n^2(t)$ are sums of oscillatory terms at $k_0=-\pi,0,\pi$, with constant amplitudes and frequencies $2\omega_{k_0}$. Based on this, the connected two-point function in the transverse direction behaves as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{\mathrm{C},n}^z(t) &=&\langle\sigma_i^z(t)\sigma_{i+n}^z(t)\rangle-\langle\sigma_i^z(t)\rangle^2\\
&=&4 \left(|\beta_{i,i+n}(t)|^2-|\alpha_{i,i+n}(t)|^2\right) = \rho_{\mathrm{s},n}^z + G_n^1(t) t^{-3/2} + G_n^2(t) t^{-3}.\label{eq:connected rhoz}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $\alpha^{\mathrm{s}}_{ij}$ and $\beta^{\mathrm{s}}_{ij}$ are negligibly small, the first two terms in \eqref{eq:connected rhoz} are suppressed, and the observed late-time behaviour is a $t^{-3}$ decay. The prefactor $G_n^2(t)$ is a sum of oscillatory terms with constant amplitudes and frequencies $2(\omega_0+\omega_{\pi})$, $2(\omega_0-\omega_{\pi})$, $4\omega_0$ and $4\omega_{\pi}$. This is shown in \fref{fig:rhoz relaxation}. The power-law decay is independent of the quench details, ie, the quench protocol or whether the initial and final values of the quench parameter are in the paramagnetic or the ferromagnetic phase.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{figure7.pdf}
\caption{Connected two-point correlation function in the transverse direction for a linear quench. The full line is the stationary phase approximation result, the dashed line is the $t^{-3}$ envelope. The time scale at which correlations set in is indicated by $t_\mathrm{F}$. Inset: Spectral analysis of the oscillations demonstrating a pronounced peak at $2(\omega_0+\omega_{\pi})$ and washed out peaks at the frequencies $2(\omega_0-\omega_{\pi})$, $4\omega_0$, $4\omega_{\pi}$ respectively.}
\label{fig:rhoz relaxation}
\end{figure}
The connected two-point function is exponentially small in the spatial separation $n$ up to the Fermi time $t_\mathrm{F}$ when it exhibits the onset of correlations. At later times it shows an algebraic decay $\propto t^{-3}$ with oscillations as shown in \fref{fig:rhoz relaxation}. The appearance of the time $t_\mathrm{F}$ corresponds to the physical picture of quasiparticles spreading through the system after sudden quantum quenches as originally put forward by Calabrese and Cardy~\cite{CalabreseCardy06,CalabreseCardy07}. The picture adapted to the case of finite-time quenches is as follows~\cite{Bernier-14,CS16}: during the quench, $0\le t\le \tau$, pairs of quasiparticles with momenta $-k$ and $k$ are created. The quasiparticles originating from closely separated points are entangled and propagate through the system semi-classically with the instantaneous velocity $v_k(t)$, which is the propagation velocity of the elementary excitations $v_k(t)=\rmd \varepsilon_k[g(t)]/\rmd k$ for a given transverse field $g(t)$. A consequence of this is the light-cone effect---entangled quasiparticles arriving at the same time at points separated by $n$ induce correlations between local observables at these points. This can be seen in \fref{fig:rhoz relaxation}, where the connected transverse correlation function does not change significantly until $t_\mathrm{F} J \simeq nJ/2v_{\mathrm{max}}=15$. In this \change{rough} estimate, we use that the velocity of the fastest mode after the quench is $v_{\mathrm{max}}(t)=2 J\,\mathrm{min}[1,g(t)]$. As stated before, following the onset, the correlations algebraically decay to time-independent values.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figure8.pdf}
\caption{Left: Density plot of the two-point correlation function in the transverse direction following a linear quench. Points of onset are extracted from the first variation with an absolute value not smaller than 1\% of the global maximum, lines are linear fits on those points. In white we also indicate the horizon in the sudden-quench case. Right: Density plots of the two-point correlation function in the transverse direction during and after several quench protocols with the same initial and final parameters as on the left. Lines are square root fits on onset points.}
\label{fig:rhoz light cone}
\end{figure}
The main effects of the finite quench time on the light-cone effect are shown in \fref{fig:rhoz light cone}. Firstly, the quasiparticles are not only created at $t=0$, but over the entire quench duration $\tau$. Secondly, during the quench, the particles with momentum $k$ propagate with the instantaneous velocity $v_k(t)$, leading to a bending~\cite{Bernier-14,CS16} of the light cone for times $t\le \tau$ clearly visible the plots. Together, these two effects result in a delay of the light cone as compared to the sudden case. A simple estimate for this delay can be obtained by considering the fastest mode created at $t=0$, which will have propagated at $t=\tau$ to $x_\mathrm{est}=\int_0^{\tau} \mathrm{d}t \, v_\mathrm{max}(t)$. On the other hand, in the sudden case the horizon will be at the position $x_\mathrm{sq}=v_{\mathrm{max}}(\tau)\tau$, implying for the delay $\Delta x\approx x_\mathrm{sq}-x_\mathrm{est}$, which is consistent with the results shown in \fref{fig:rhoz light cone}.
\subsection{Longitudinal two-point function}
The two-point function in the longitudinal direction can be evaluated from the Pfaffian \eqref{eq:rho^x}. The corresponding antisymmetric matrix is of dimension $2n \times 2n$, where $n$ is the separation of the spins we are considering. The elements of the matrix are $\alpha_{ij}$ and $\beta_{ij}$ from equations \eqref{eq:auxiliary correlators alpha} and \eqref{eq:auxiliary correlators beta}.
We consider the longitudinal two-point function in the disordered phase only, which equals the connected correlation function because the expectation value of the order parameter vanishes. We analyse its behaviour by using the results of the stationary phase approximation given in \eqref{eq:alpha SPA}. Based on this, the connected two-point function in the longitudinal direction and for a quench within the paramagnetic phase behaves as
\begin{equation}
\rho_{n}^x(t) = \rho_{\mathrm{s},n}^x + F_n(t) t^{-3/2},
\end{equation}
in leading order. We note that the power-law decay $\propto t^{-3/2}$ is identical to the sudden-quench case~\cite{Calabrese-12jsm1}. The prefactor $F_n(t)$ is a sum of oscillatory terms, and $\rho_{\mathrm{s},n}^x$ is exponentially small in the separation $n$, as can be seen in \fref{fig:rhox}. Similar to the transverse two-point function discussed in the previous section there is a clear light-cone effect with a bending of the horizon during the quench.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.45\linewidth]{figure9a.pdf}
\quad
\includegraphics[width=.45\linewidth]{figure9b.pdf}
\caption{Left: Two-point correlation function in the longitudinal direction following a linear quench. The full line is the stationary phase approximation result, the dashed line its $t^{-3/2}$ envelope. Right: Stationary value of the two-point function for varying spin separations. The full line is an exponential fit to the data.}
\label{fig:rhox}
\end{figure}
Finally we note that the longitudinal two-point function and order parameter have been investigated in the late-time limit after linear ramps within the ferromagnetic phase by Maraga~\emph{et al.}~\cite{Maraga-14}. In particular, they showed that the stationary longitudinal two-point function decays exponentially in the separation $n$, ie, $\rho_{\mathrm{s},n}^x\propto e^{-n/\xi}$, with the correlation length $\xi$ being finite even for arbitrarily small quench rates $v_g=(g_\mathrm{f}-g_\rmi)/\tau$, implying the absence of order $\lim_{n\to\infty}\rho_{\mathrm{s},n}^x=0$ after linear ramps. The decay towards this stationary state was not investigated in detail, but in analogy to the sudden-quench case~\cite{Calabrese-12jsm1} we expect the stationary value to be approached as $\propto t^{-3}$.
\subsection{Loschmidt echo}
It was observed previously~\cite{Heyl-13} that the time evolution of the Loschmidt amplitude after sudden quenches will show non-analytic behaviour provided the quench connected different equilibrium phases. Due to the formal similarity of this behaviour and equilibrium phase transitions this was dubbed dynamical phase transition. Subsequently various aspects of these dynamical phase transitions have been investigated \change{theoretically in various models~\cite{KS13,Kriel-14,Heyl14,Canovi-14,VajnaDora15,SchmittKehrein15,HuangBalatsky16},} in particular revealing important differences to the usual equilibrium phase transitions~\cite{VajnaDora14,AndraschkoSirker14}. \change{The experimental observation of a dynamical phase transition in the time evolution of a fermionic quantum gas has been recently reported in Ref.~\cite{Flaeschner-16}.}
In the present work we investigate the signature of the dynamical phase transition following finite-time quenches in the TFI chain. More precisely, we consider the return amplitude between the time evolved state $\ket{\Psi(t)}=U(t)\ket{\Psi_0}$ and the initial state $\ket{\Psi_0}=\ket{\Psi(t=0)}$, ie,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:defG}
G(t)=\langle\Psi_0|\Psi(t)\rangle=\langle\Psi_0|U(t)|\Psi_0\rangle.
\end{equation}
The expectation is that the corresponding rate function $l(t)=-\frac{1}{N}\ln|G(t)|^2$ will show non-analytic behaviour at specific times $t_n^\star$ provided the finite-time quench crossed the quantum phase transition at $g=1$. We note in passing that the Loschmidt echo after finite-time quenches has been considered previously by Sharma et al.~\cite{Sharma-16}. However, this work considered solely the evolution after the quench, ie, the amplitude $\langle\Psi(\tau)|\Psi(t>\tau)\rangle$, and the finite-time quench appears as a way to prepare the ``initial state" $\ket{\Psi(\tau)}$. We stress that, in contrast, we consider the full time evolution both during and after the quench.
To compute the return amplitude \eqref{eq:defG}, we start by noting that the Hamiltonian has the form $H(t)=\sum_{k>0}H_k(t)$ with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:H_k}
H_k(t)=A_k(t) \big( c_k^{\dagger} c_k^{\phantom{\dagger}} + c_{-k}^{\dagger} c_{-k}^{\phantom{\dagger}}\big) -\rmi B_k \big( c_{-k}^{\dagger} c_k^{\dagger} + c_{-k}^{\phantom{\dagger}} c_k^{\phantom{\dagger}} \big),
\end{equation}
ie, the individual Hamiltonians $H_k(t)$ couple only pairs of modes $-k$ and $k$. The time-evolution operator thus also decomposes as $U(t)=\prod_{k>0}U_k(t)$. Next, we revert to the pre-quench operators $\eta_k$ to write the single-mode Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:H_k} in terms of the operators
\begin{equation}
K_k^+=\eta_k^{\dagger} \eta_{-k}^{\dagger},\quad K_k^-=\eta_k^{\phantom{\dagger}} \eta_{-k}^{\phantom{\dagger}}, \quad K_k^0=\frac{1}{2} \big( \eta_k^{\dagger} \eta_k^{\phantom{\dagger}} - \eta_{-k}^{\phantom{\dagger}} \eta_{-k}^{\dagger} \big),
\end{equation}
which satisfy the SU(1,1) algebra $[K_k^-,K_p^+]=2\delta_{kp}K_k^0$, $[K_k^0,K_p^\pm]=\pm\delta_{kp}K_k^\pm$. Now we can make the following ansatz for the time-evolution operator~\cite{Perelomov86,Dora-13}
\begin{equation}
U_k(t) = \mathrm{exp}\Big[\rmi \varphi_k^{\phantom{}}(t)\Big] \mathrm{exp}\Big[a_k^+(t) K_k^+\Big] \mathrm{exp}\Big[a_k^0(t) K_k^0\Big] \mathrm{exp}\Big[a_k^-(t) K_k^-\Big].
\end{equation}
From $\rmi \partial_t U_k(t)=H_k(t) U_k(t)$ we then obtain differential equations for the coefficients $\varphi_k(t)$, $a_k^+(t)$, $a_k^0(t)$ and $a_k^-(t)$ which we solve with the initial conditions $\varphi_k(0)=a_k^+(0)=a_k^0(0)=a_k^-(0)=0$. With this result the return amplitude becomes
\begin{equation}
\fl\label{eq:LE}
G(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[ -\frac{\rmi N}{2\pi} \int_{0}^{\pi} \mathrm{d}k \int_{0}^{t} \mathrm{d}t' \, A_k(t') \right] \mathrm{exp}\left[ \frac{N}{2\pi} \int_{0}^{\pi} \mathrm{d}k \, \ln{\left(u_k^{\rmi} u_k^{\ast}(t) +v_k^{\rmi} v_k(t)\right)} \right].
\end{equation}
The corresponding rate function is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rate function}
l(t)=-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^\pi\mathrm{d} k\,\ln\Big|u_k^\rmi u_k^{\ast}(t) +v_k^{\rmi} v_k(t)\Big|,
\end{equation}
which we plot in figure \ref{fig:loschmidt echo} during and after quenches across the critical point with different quench durations and protocols. The rate function clearly features non-analyticities at times $t_n^{\star}(\tau)$. We note that the superscript $\star$ denotes the critical times rather than complex conjugation, which we denote by the superscript $\ast$ throughout the paper. In contrast, we did not observe such non-analyticities for quenches within a phase.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.45\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure10a.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\quad
\begin{minipage}{0.45\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure10b.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Left: Rate function of the return probability following linear quenches of different durations. Vertical lines are the times $t_n^{\star}(\tau)$. The full line is the rate function for the sudden quench~\cite{Silva08,Heyl-13}. Right: Rate function following quenches of various protocols. Inset: Dependence of the offset $\Delta t^{\star}(\tau)$ on the quench duration and protocol. Full lines are guides to the eye.}
\label{fig:loschmidt echo}
\end{figure}
We observe that a short quench reproduces the sudden-quench result~\cite{Silva08,Heyl-13}, whereas for longer quenches there is an offset in the characteristic times. This can be further investigated by considering the return amplitude \eqref{eq:LE} after the quench $t>\tau$ using the post-quench solutions from \eqref{eq:post-quench u and v} for $u_k(t)$ and $v_k(t)$. In this case the corresponding rate function becomes
\begin{equation}
l(t)=-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^\pi\mathrm{d} k\,\ln\Big|u_k^{\rmi}c_4^{u*}-v_k^{\rmi}c_4^{v*}+(u_k^{\rmi}c_3^{u*}-v_k^{\rmi}c_3^{v*})e^{-2\mathrm{i}\omega_k t}\Big|,
\label{eq:lpostquench}
\end{equation}
where $u_k^\rmi$ and $v_k^\rmi$ are the Bogoliubov coefficients of the initial Hamiltonian and $c_{3/4}^{u/v}$ are the momentum- and quench duration-dependent functions given in equations \eqref{eq: v post-quench constants}--\eqref{eq: u post-quench constants}. When considering the analytic continuation $t\to-\mathrm{i} z$ of \eqref{eq:lpostquench}, the argument of the logarithm will vanish at lines in the complex plane parametrised by the momentum $k$ and explicitly located at
\begin{equation}
\change{z_m(k)}=\frac{1}{2 \omega_k} \left( \ln{\frac{u_k^{\rmi}{c_3^u}^{\ast}-v_k^{\rmi}{c_3^v}^{\ast}}{u_k^{\rmi}{c_4^u}^{\ast}-v_k^{\rmi}{c_4^v}^{\ast}}}+\rmi \pi (2\change{m}+1) \right),
\label{eq:LElines}
\end{equation}
with $m$ being an integer. The lines \eqref{eq:LElines} will cut the real time axis provided there exists a momentum $k^\star$ with $\mathrm{Re}\,z_m(k^\star)=0$. The corresponding critical times at which the rate function $l(t)$ will show non-analytic behaviour are given by $t_m^\star=-\mathrm{i}\,\mathrm{Im}\,z_m(k^\star)$ with the explicit result
\begin{equation}
t_m^\star(\tau)=\Delta t^\star(\tau)+t^\star\left(m+\frac{1}{2}\right),\quad m=0,1,2,\ldots,
\label{eq:tstar}
\end{equation}
where the periodicity is given by $t^\star= \pi/\omega_{k^\star}$ and the offset reads
\begin{equation}
\Delta t^\star(\tau) = \frac{1}{2\omega_k}\arg\frac{u_k^{\rmi}c_3^{u*}-v_k^{\rmi}c_3^{v*}}{u_k^{\rmi}c_4^{u*}-v_k^{\rmi}c_4^{v*}}\Bigg|_{k=k^\star}.
\end{equation}
We note that $\Delta t^\star(\tau)$ depends on $\tau$ via the coefficients $c_{3/4}^{u/v}$. We also stress that the result \eqref{eq:tstar} is only valid for critical times after the quench $t^\star_m>\tau$. A comparison with the explicit numerical evaluation of the rate function defined via \eqref{eq:LE} is plotted in figure~\ref{fig:loschmidt echo}; it shows excellent agreement. In particular, the non-analyticities occur periodically and are shifted relative to each other. The latter finding originates from the the fact that the critical mode $k^\star$, obtained from \change{$\mathrm{Re}\,z_m(k^\star)=0$,} depends implicitly on the quench protocol. We also note that the condition $\mathrm{Re}\,z_m(k^\star)=0$ cannot be satisfied for quenches within the same phase, while for quenches across the critical point such a mode exists.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.45\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure11a.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\quad
\begin{minipage}{0.45\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figure11b}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Left: Rate function of the return probability following linear quenches of different durations. We stress that the first critical time $t_1^\star$ occurs during quench, ie, $t_1^\star<\tau$. \change{On the time axis we indicate the quench durations $\tau_i$ as well as the times $t_i^\mathrm{c}$ at which the critical point $g_\mathrm{c}=1$ is crossed.} Right: Scaling of the critical momenta defined via $\mathrm{Re}\,z_n(k^\star)=0$ and $n_{\tilde{k}}=1/2$ for a linear quench. The behaviour is consistent with $k^\star,\tilde{k}\propto\tau^{-1/2}$.}
\label{fig:loschmidt echo 2}
\end{figure}
The analysis above is restricted to $t>\tau$, but for relatively short quenches it captures all critical times $t^\star_m$, since they all occur after the quench. However, for slower quenches kinks in the rate function occur during the quench. We plot several such situations in which $t_1^\star<\tau$ in figure~\ref{fig:loschmidt echo 2}. In this case, the analysis of the rate function in \eqref{eq:rate function} would require the use of solutions of the differential equations with time-dependent coefficients in \eqref{eq:during quench u and v}, which are not always explicitly known.
Finally we compare the critical mode $k^\star$ obtained from \change{$\mathrm{Re}\,z_m(k^\star)=0$} with the mode $\tilde{k}$ defined by $n_{\tilde{k}}=1/2$, ie, corresponding to infinite temperatures. For dynamical phase transitions after sudden quenches it was found that these two modes are identical~\cite{Heyl-13}. In contrast, for the finite-time quenches we considered here this is not the case, ie, in general we find $k^\star\neq\tilde{k}$. Nevertheless, as shown in figure~\ref{fig:loschmidt echo 2} the scaling behaviour of these two critical momenta is consistent with $k^\star,\tilde{k}\propto\tau^{-1/2}$ as expected in the Kibble--Zurek scaling limit~\cite{Chandran-12,Kolodrubetz-12}.
\section{Scaling limit}
\label{sec:SL}
As is well known, the vicinity of the quantum phase transition at $g=1$ can be described by the scaling limit~\cite{ItzyksonDrouffe89vol1,GogolinNersesyanTsvelik98}
\begin{equation}
J\to\infty,\quad g\to 1,\quad a_0\to 0,
\label{scalingI}
\end{equation}
where $a_0$ denotes the lattice spacing, while keeping fixed both the gap $\Delta$ and the velocity $v$ defined by
\begin{equation}
2J|1-g|=\Delta,\quad 2Ja_0=v.
\label{scalingII}
\end{equation}
The Hamiltonian in the scaling limit reads
\begin{equation}
H =\int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{\mathrm{d} x}{2\pi}\left[ \frac{\mathrm{i} v}{2}
(\psi\partial_x\psi-{\bar\psi}\partial_x\bar\psi) -
\mathrm{i} \Delta{\bar\psi}\psi\right],
\label{eq:Hscaling}
\end{equation}
where $\psi$ and $\bar{\psi}$ are right- and left-moving components of a Majorana fermion possessing the relativistic dispersion relation $\varepsilon(k)=\sqrt{\Delta^2+(vk)^2}$. Thus we see that the finite-time quenches considered in this article will lead to a time-dependent fermion mass~\cite{Das-16} $\Delta(t)=2J|1-g(t)|$. We expect our results to directly carry over to the field theory \eqref{eq:Hscaling}, eg, the post-quench relaxation of the transverse magnetisation should follow $M_\mathrm{r}^z(t)\propto t^{-3/2}$ as is observed after sudden quenches~\cite{FiorettoMussardo10,SE12}.
\section{Quantum field on curved spacetime}
\label{sec:curved}
Recently Neuenhahn and Marquardt~\cite{NeuenhahnMarquardt15} put forward the idea of using one-dimensional bosonic condensates with time-dependent Hamiltonians in order to simulate a 1+1-dimensional expanding universe. In the following we argue that a similar construction can be performed for the Ising field theory \eqref{eq:Hscaling}. We start from the corresponding action in Minkowski space
\begin{equation}
S_\mathrm{IFT}=\frac{1}{2}\int\mathrm{d} t\,\mathrm{d} x\,\Bigl[\mathrm{i} v\,\bar{\Psi}\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu\Psi+\mathrm{i}\Delta(t)\bar{\Psi}\gamma_3\Psi\Bigr],
\end{equation}
where we introduced the two-spinor $\Psi$ and two-dimensional gamma matrices in the Weyl representation via
\begin{equation}
\Psi=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi\\\bar{\psi}\end{array}\right),\; \bar{\Psi}=\Psi^\dagger\gamma^0=\bigl(\bar{\psi},\psi\bigr),\;\gamma^0=\sigma^x,\;\gamma^1=\mathrm{i}\sigma^y,\;\gamma_3=\sigma^z,
\end{equation}
and set $\partial_0=\partial_t$ and $\partial_1=\partial_x$.
On the other hand, the action of a Dirac field with mass $m$ in curved spacetime in 1+1-dimensions is given by~\cite{MukhanovWinitzki07,ParkerToms09}
\begin{equation}
S_g=\frac{1}{2}\int\mathrm{d}^2x \sqrt{-g} \Bigl[\mathrm{i} v\,\bar{\Psi}\gamma^ae_a^\mu\nabla_\mu\Psi+\mathrm{i} m\bar{\Psi}\gamma_3\Psi\Bigr],
\end{equation}
where $g$ is the determinant of the metric tensor, $e_a^\mu$ is the corresponding zweibein and $\nabla_\mu$ denotes the covariant derivative. Specifically we consider the spatially flat Friedmann--Robertson--Walker metric
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{d}s^2=\mathrm{d}t^2-R^2(t)\mathrm{d}x^2,
\end{equation}
which describes a homogeneous, spatially expanding spacetime. With conformal time $\mathrm{d}\eta=\mathrm{d}t/R(t)$ the metric becomes
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{d}s^2=R^2(\eta) \left(\mathrm{d}\eta^2-\mathrm{d}x^2\right)=R^2(\eta)\eta_{\mu\nu}\mathrm{d}x^\mu\mathrm{d}x^\nu=g_{\mu\nu}\mathrm{d} x^\mu\mathrm{d} x^\nu,
\end{equation}
where $\eta_{\mu\nu}=\mathrm{diag}(1,-1)$ is the Minkowski metric. Using this, the zweibein defined via $\eta_{ab}=e_a^\mu e_b^\nu g_{\mu\nu}$ is found to be $e_a^\mu=R^{-1}\delta_a^\mu$ with the inverse $e^a_\mu=R\delta^a_\mu$. The covariant derivative is given by
\begin{equation}
\nabla_\mu=\partial_\mu+\frac{1}{8}\omega_\mu^{ab}\bigl[\gamma_a,\gamma_b\bigr]=\partial_\mu-\frac{\partial_\eta R}{2R}\delta_\mu^1\gamma_3,
\end{equation}
where we have evaluated the spin connection $\omega_\mu^{ab}=\eta^{bc}\omega_{\mu\phantom{a}c}^{\phantom{\mu}a}$ defined using the Christoffel symbols $\Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu}$ as $\omega_{\mu\phantom{a}b}^{\phantom{\mu}a}=-e_b^\nu(\partial_\mu e^a_\nu-\Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu}e^a_\lambda)$. Thus with $-g=R^4$ we find
\begin{equation}
S_g=\frac{1}{2}\int\mathrm{d}\eta\mathrm{d} x\,R\left[\mathrm{i} v\,\bar{\Psi}\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu\Psi+\mathrm{i} \bar{\Psi}\left(mR\gamma_3+\frac{v\partial_\eta R}{2R}\gamma^0\right)\Psi\right].
\end{equation}
Finally, rescaling the fields according to $\chi=\sqrt{R}\Psi$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
S_g=\frac{1}{2}\int\mathrm{d}\eta\,\mathrm{d} x\,\Bigl[\mathrm{i} v\,\bar{\chi}\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu\chi+\mathrm{i} mR(\eta)\bar{\chi}\gamma_3\chi\Bigr],
\end{equation}
thus establishing the relation $\Delta(t)=mR(\eta(t))$ between the time-dependent gap and the scaling factor in the Friedmann--Robertson--Walker metric. Hence we conclude that the spreading of correlations during the finite-time quench can be interpreted as propagation of particles in an expanding space time. This result is very similar to the relation obtained in the bosonic case~\cite{NeuenhahnMarquardt15}.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In conclusion, we have investigated finite-time quantum quenches in the transverse-field Ising chain, ie, continuous changes in the transverse field over a finite time $\tau$. We discussed the general treatment of such time-dependent quenches in the TFI model and applied this framework to several quench protocols. \change{The precise forms of these protocols were chosen to cover different features like kinks in the time dependence. Specifically we} derived exact expressions for the time evolution of the system in the case of a linear and an exponential protocol, and for several others we obtained numerical solutions. Furthermore, we constructed the GGE for the post-quench dynamics using the mode occupations of the eigenmodes of the final Hamiltonian.
Using these results, we analysed the behaviour of several observables during and after the quench. Namely, we investigated the behaviour of the total energy, transverse magnetisation, transverse and longitudinal spin correlation functions and the Loschmidt echo. We confirmed that the stationary values to which the observables relax correspond to the GGE expectation values, as was of course expected. The approaches to the stationary values are oscillatory power laws, details of which can be extracted from a stationary-phase approximation. Furthermore, we checked that the stationary values reproduce the corresponding results for sudden quenches in the short-$\tau$ limit as well as the adiabatic expectation values in the long-$\tau$ limit. As a function of the quench time $\tau$ the approach to the adiabatic values was shown to follow different power laws, depending on whether the quench is within a phase, or if it is done across the critical point.
In the time evolution of the two-point functions we observed the light-cone effect known from sudden quenches. In comparison to the sudden case, however, there is an offset in the horizon after the quench as well as a non-linear regime during the quench. These effects can be ascribed to the production of quasiparticles during the quench as well as to the fact that their instantaneous velocities depend on the quench protocol.
Furthermore, we investigated the behaviour of Loschmidt echo and found signatures of dynamical phase transitions when quenching across the critical point, as was observed previously in sudden quenches. We analysed the rate function of the return amplitude and observed smooth behaviour when quenching within a phase, and periodic non-analyticities when quenching across the critical point. The latter are delayed as compared to the sudden-quench case. We found exact analytical expressions for the post-quench times at which these non-analyticities occur, characterising their periodicity and the delay. In addition, we showed numerically that the non-analyticities can occur during the quench as well, provided the quench duration is sufficiently long.
Finally, we looked into the scaling limit of the theory in which the transverse-field quench corresponds to a quench in the mass of the Majorana fermions. We showed that, alternatively, we can describe the quenching procedure by a field theory with constant parameters put on a curved expanding spacetime, as was proposed previously for a bosonic field theory.
In the future it would be interesting to study the behaviour of other models during and after finite-time quenches. As such investigations presumably have to be based on numerical simulations, the results presented here may serve as an ideal starting point. From our perspective, a natural model to begin with would be the axial next-nearest-neighbour Ising chain, which, in the language of Jordan--Wigner fermions, would correspond to an interacting, non-quadratic theory. While universal results like the scaling behaviour close to the phase transition are expected to be identical to the TFI chain, the non-universal details of the time evolution may reveal interesting interaction effects and their interplay with the energy scale set by the finite quench time.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank Piotr Chudzinski, Maurizio Fagotti, Nava Gaddam, Markus Heyl, Dante Kennes and especially Michael Kolodrubetz for useful comments and discussions. This work is part of the D-ITP consortium, a program of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) that is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW). This work was supported by the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM), which is part of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), under 14PR3168.
\section*{References}
\providecommand{\newblock}{}
|
\section{Introduction}
For the time being, we still do not have solid knowledge on dark matter (DM). One of the preferable DM candidates is the weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs), with WIMP masses of GeV-TeV scale. The recent DM direct detection experiments \cite{Angloher:2015ewa,Agnese:2015nto,Akerib:2015rjg,Aprile:2015uzo,Tan:2016zwf} set stringent constraints on the cross section of DM-target nucleus scattering for GeV-TeV scale DM, and the upper bound of the detection cross section will be reduced to the neutrino limit in next decade(s). On one aspect, the existence of DM is convinced by the astronomical observation, while on another aspect, the DM particles have not been detected by all the sophisticated experiments. One may ask if our conjecture on the potential mass range of DM is astray, which results in DM evading the present DM direct detections, namely, can the DM particles are much less massive to be in a sub-GeV range, e.g. in MeV (see Refs. \cite{Fayet:1980rr,Boehm:2002yz,Boehm:2003bt,Hooper:2003sh,Boehm:2003hm,Fayet:2004bw,Serpico:2004nm,Fayet:2006sp} for some earlier work). In this scenario, the interactions of the light DM particles just render the nucleus small recoil energies, which are not observable in available experiments for DM direct detections. In this work, we focus on the MeV scale light DM.
The issue concerning DM refers two aspects, one is the identities of DM, i.e what is (are) DM, and another aspect is how DM particles interact among themselves and with SM particles.
It is generally believed, the interactions related to the DM sector must be a new type (new types) beyond the standard model (BSM). In this work, to answer the first question, we do not priori assume
its identity, but let experimental data determine; to the second question, we look for a new BSM interaction which may offer an interpretation for the present observation.
The recent $^8$Be experiment has revealed at 6.8$\sigma$ an anomalous transition between an excited state $^8$Be$^\ast$ and the ground state $^8$Be \cite{Krasznahorkay:2015iga}. The authors \cite{Krasznahorkay:2015iga,Feng:2016jff} argued that this anomaly may be due to the unknown nuclear reactions, but a more preferable possibility is that it is caused by emitting a vectorial boson $X$ during $^8Be^* \rightarrow ^8Be+ X$, which instantly decays into $e^+ e^-$ pair. The new boson $X$ may be the mediator that we look forward to between DM and SM particle interactions, and this probable is investigated in this paper. A fitted value of $X$ mass is $16.70 \pm 0.35 (stat)\pm 0.5 (sys)$ MeV \cite{Krasznahorkay:2015iga}, and in this work we adopt the central mass $m_X^{} \simeq 16.7$ MeV in calculations. The interactions of the vector boson $X$ with quarks and leptons via a scheme of BSM has been argued in the literatures \cite{Feng:2016jff,Gu:2016ege,Feng:2016ysn}. In this work, the vector boson $X$ discussed in Ref. \cite{Feng:2016jff} is of our concern.
For the scattering between possible scalar, vectorial, fermionic DM and target nucleus, the spin-independent interaction induced by exchanging the vector boson $X$ is dominant (see e.g. Ref. \cite{Freytsis:2010ne}). The vector boson $X$ couples to electron and u,d quarks, and $X$ may also couples to the second and/or the third generation SM charged leptons and up type/down type quarks with equal couplings to the same type fermions (see, e.g. Ref. \cite{Gu:2016ege} for more discussions). For the thermally freeze-out DM with such couplings, the DM mass as low as 0.5 GeV has been excluded by the CRESST-II experiment \cite{Angloher:2015ewa}. Thus, the $X$-mediated sub-GeV DM needs more attention.
Here we focus on MeV scale DM. The energy released by DM annihilation can modify the cosmic microwave background (CMB), and the recent CMB measurement by the Planck satellite \cite{Ade:2015xua} sets a stringent bound on the s-wave annihilation of MeV-scale DM \cite{Ade:2015xua,Slatyer:2015jla}. For MeV DM with vector form interaction induced by $X$, the annihilation of fermionic DM pair is s-wave dominant, so is inconsistent with the CMB observation. Thus, the possibility of DM being fermions is disfavored. By contrast, p-wave annihilations of scalar and/or vector DM candidates at freeze out are tolerant by the CMB result. Thus, we concentrate on the case of scalar and vector DM, then the corresponding model parameter space will be derived.
For DM mass in the range of a few MeV/teens MeV, the big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) and the effective number of relativistic neutrino $N_{eff}$ at recombination may be altered by the energy release from dark sector annihilations. Thus corresponding observation results will be taken into account to set a lower bound on DM mass.
As recoils of target nucleus are small, the scattering between DM and nucleus is not sensitive for DM in MeV region, thus the direct detection for DM would turn to the DM-electron scattering which might be employed for the light DM hunting, and the issue was investigated in Refs. \cite{Bernabei:2007gr,Dedes:2009bk,Kopp:2009et}. In this work the search for DM via its scattering with electron will be discussed for our concerned model.
This work is organized as follows. After this introduction, we present the concrete forms of interactions between SM and DM with new boson $X$ exchanged, and estimate the DM p-wave annihilation rate. Next we take into account the constraints by the BBN and CMB to set the mass range of DM, and numerically evaluate the DM-$X$ coupling for the DM mass range of concern. Then we analyze the detection possibility of the MeV DM via the DM-electron scattering. The last section is devoted to a brief conclusion and discussion.
\section{Interactions between SM and DM}
Based on the model where the new vector boson $X$ mediates interaction between the SM particles and scalar/vectorial DM, we will analyze the relevant issues. The couplings of $X$ with SM particles has been discussed in Ref. \cite{Feng:2016jff}. The effective $X$-DM coupling can be set in terms of the DM annihilation cross section at DM thermally freeze out.
\subsection{The couplings}
We suppose that $X$ mediates a BSM interaction where the new charge in $DM-X$ interaction is $e_D^{}$. The SM fermions are of equipped with also a new charge to couple to $X$ which is parameterized as $e \varepsilon_f$ (in unit of $e$), and $\varepsilon_f$ is relevant to the concerned fermion flavor. Let us first formulate the scattering amplitude between scalar DM and SM particles caused by the new interaction where $X$ stands as the mediator. The new effective interaction is in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal {L}^i_S &=& - e_D^{} X_{\mu}J^{\mu}_{DM} + e_D^2 X_{\mu} X^{\mu} \phi^\ast \phi - e \varepsilon_f X_{\mu}J^{\mu}_{SM} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\phi$ is the scalar DM field. $J^{\mu}_{DM}$, $J^{\mu}_{SM}$ are the currents of scalar DM, SM fermions, respectively, with
\begin{eqnarray}
J^{\mu}_{DM} &=& i [ \phi^\ast ( \partial^{\mu} \phi ) - (\partial^{\mu} \phi^\ast ) \phi ] \,, \quad \rm scalar \, DM \,, \\
J^{\mu}_{SM} &=& \Sigma_f \bar{f} \gamma^{\mu} f \,, \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \, \rm SM \, fermions\, .
\end{eqnarray}
To explain the $^8$Be anomalous transition, the $\varepsilon_f$ of the first generation fermion is derived and its value was presented in Ref. \cite{Feng:2016jff} as
\begin{eqnarray} \label{sm-coupling}
&&\varepsilon_u \approx \pm 3.7 \times 10^{-3} \,, \quad \varepsilon_d \approx \mp 7.4 \times 10^{-3} \,, \nonumber \\
&&2 \times 10^{-4} \lesssim |\varepsilon_e| \lesssim 1.4 \times 10^{-3} \,, \, \, |\varepsilon_{\nu} \varepsilon_e| \lesssim 7 \times 10^{-5} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, if the vector boson $X$ couples to the muon with $|\varepsilon_\mu| \approx |\varepsilon_e|$, the discrepancy between theory and experiment in muon $g-2$ can be moderated \cite{Feng:2016jff}.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{v-vertex-3-4.eps} \vspace*{-1ex}
\caption{The vertexes of $V V^\ast X$, $V V^\ast X X$.}\label{v-vertex}
\end{figure}
For the vectorial DM field $V$, the $V - X$ vertices are shown in Fig. \ref{v-vertex}. The $V V^\ast X$ vertex is $- i e_D^{} [g^{\mu \nu}(k_2 - k_1)^\sigma + $ $g^{\nu \sigma}(k_3 - k_2)^\mu + g^{\sigma \mu}(k_1 - k_3)^\nu ]$, and the $V V^\ast X X$ vertex is $ i e_D^{2} (g^{\mu \rho} g^{\nu \sigma} + $ $g^{\mu \sigma} g^{\nu \rho} - 2 g^{\mu \nu} g^{\rho \sigma} ) $. The couplings of $X$ in SM sector are the same as that of the scalar DM case.
\subsection{DM annihilations}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=3.6in]{s-3-4.eps} \vspace*{-1ex}
\caption{The annihilation $ \phi \phi^\ast \rightarrow X X$. The case of $ V V^\ast \rightarrow X X$ is similar.}\label{s-v-2}
\end{figure}
For scalar (vectorial) DM, the annihilation $ \phi \phi^\ast \rightarrow X \rightarrow f \bar{f}$ ($ V V^\ast \rightarrow X \to f \bar{f}$) is a p-wave process. When the scalar (vectorial) DM mass $m_\phi$ ($m_V$) is above the $X$ boson mass $m_X^{}$, the annihilation $ \phi \phi^\ast \rightarrow X X$ ($ V V^\ast \rightarrow X X$) portal is open, as shown in Fig. \ref{s-v-2}. However the analysis of Refs. \cite{Ade:2015xua,Slatyer:2015jla} indicate that the CMB measurement sets a stringent constraint on the MeV scale DM s-wave annihilation. For DM annihilation channels $e^+ e^-$ and $4 e$, the upper bounds from CMB on the s-wave annihilations of these two channels are as follows: e.g., for DM with the mass of 5 MeV, the cross sections are about below $ 2.7 \times 10^{-30}$, $ 4.3 \times 10^{-30}$ (cm$^3 / s$) for $e^+ e^-$, $4 e$, respectively; for DM with the mass of 500 MeV, the cross sections are about below $ 4.2 \times 10^{-28}$, $ 3.5 \times 10^{-28}$ (cm$^3 / s$) for $e^+ e^-$, $4 e$, respectively. For MeV scale DM, these constraints are much below the required thermally freeze-out annihilation cross section, and some tunings are needed if the DM s-wave annihilation exists. Thus for thermally freeze-out DM, to avoid the s-wave annihilation in the process $ \phi \phi^\ast \rightarrow X X$ ($ V V^\ast \rightarrow X X$), the constraint of $m_\phi$ ($m_V$) $ < m_X^{}$ is mandatory, i.e. the corresponding annihilation is kinematically closed. In addition, as indicated by the $^8$Be anomaly transition, the $X$ boson predominantly decays into $e^+ e^-$, and this implies that it cannot directly decay into DM, otherwise its decay procedure would be dominated by $X \to \phi \phi^\ast $ ($ V V^\ast $). Thus we must demand another constraint $m_\phi$ ($m_V$) $ > m_X^{}/2$. Therefore, a mass range of DM is $m_X^{}/2 < $ $m_\phi$ ($m_V$) $ < m_X^{}$, and the p-wave annihilation was overwhelming at DM freeze out.
\subsubsection{Scalar DM}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=3in]{s-v-ann.eps} \vspace*{-1ex}
\caption{The annihilations of $ \phi \phi^\ast \rightarrow f \bar f$ (left) and $ V V^\ast \rightarrow f \bar f$ (right).} \label{s-v-dm-ann}
\end{figure}
Let us first consider the scalar DM. In the mass range $m_X^{}/2 < $ $m_\phi$ $ < m_X^{}$, the s-channel annihilation $\phi \phi^\ast \rightarrow X\to f \bar{f}$ is overwhelming at DM freeze out, as shown in Fig. \ref{s-v-dm-ann} ($a$). In one initial DM particle rest frame, the scalar DM annihilation cross section can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{ann} v_r = \frac{1}{2} \frac{e_D^2 e^2 \varepsilon_f^2}{( s - 2 m_\phi^2)}\frac{\beta_f }{8 \pi} \frac{(s-4m_\phi^2)[s - (s-4m_f^2)/3]}{(s-m_X^2)^2 + m_X^2 \Gamma_X^2}\, , \label{s-dm-ann}
\end{eqnarray}
where $v_r $ is the relative velocity of the two DM particles. The factor $\frac{1}{2}$ is due to the required $\phi \phi^\ast $ pair in annihilations, and $s $ is the total invariant squared mass. $\Gamma_X$ is the decay width of $X$, and $m_f$ is the mass of the final fermions. The phase space factor $\beta_f$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_f = \sqrt{1- \frac{4 m_f^2}{s} } \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Parameterizing Eq. (\ref{s-dm-ann}) in forms of
\begin{equation}\label{para}
\sigma_{ann} v_r =a + b v_r^2 + \mathcal {O} (v_r^4),
\end{equation}
with $s = 4 m_\phi^2 + m_\phi^2 v_r^2 + \mathcal {O} (v_r^4)$, we can obtain the result
\begin{eqnarray}
a = 0 \, , \quad b = \frac{e_D^2 e^2 \varepsilon_f^2 \beta_f }{8 \pi} \frac{ [m_\phi^2 - (m_\phi^2 -m_f^2)/3]}{(4 m_\phi^2 - m_X^2)^2 + m_X^2 \Gamma_X^2}\, .
\end{eqnarray}
With this parameterization, the thermally averaged annihilation cross section at temperature $T$ is \cite{Srednicki:1988ce,Gondolo:1990dk} $\langle \sigma_{ann} v_r \rangle \approx 6 b / x $,
with $x = m_\phi / T$. At DM thermally freeze-out temperature $T_f$, the parameter $x_f = m_\phi / T_f$ is \cite{Kolb:1990vq,Griest:1990kh}
\begin{eqnarray}
x_f \simeq \ln 0.038 c (c+2) \frac{g m_\phi m_{\rm {Pl}} 6 b / x_f }{\sqrt{g_\ast x_f}}\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $c$ is a parameter of $O(1)$, and we take $c = 1/2$ for numerical computations. $g$ is the degrees of freedom of DM, and $m_{\rm {Pl}} = 1.22 \times 10^{19}$ GeV is the Planck mass. $g_\ast$ is the total effective relativistic degrees of freedom at the temperature $T_f$, and we will adopt the data given by Ref. \cite{Drees:2015exa}. The relic density of DM is \cite{Kolb:1990vq,Griest:1990kh}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega_{DM} h^2 \simeq \frac{1.07 \times 10^{9} x_f}{\sqrt{g_\ast} m_{\rm {Pl }} (GeV) (3 b / x_f) } \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $h$ is the Hubble parameter (in units of 100 km/(s$\cdot$Mpc)).
\subsubsection{Vectorial DM}
Now consider the vectorial DM. In the mass range $m_X^{}/2 < $ $m_V$ $ < m_X^{}$, the annihilation $V V^\ast \rightarrow f \bar{f}$ is overwhelming at DM freeze out, as shown in Fig. \ref{s-v-dm-ann} ($b$). In one initial particle rest frame, the vectorial DM annihilation cross section is
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{ann} v_r = \frac{1}{2} \frac{e_D^2 e^2 \varepsilon_f^2}{( s - 2 m_V^2)}\frac{\beta_f }{144 \pi} \frac{(s-4m_V^2)(s+2m_f^2)}{(s-m_X^2)^2 + m_X^2 \Gamma_X^2}[4 + \frac{7 s}{m_V^2} + \frac{ s^2}{6 m_V^4}]\, . \label{v-dm-ann}
\end{eqnarray}
Again parameterizing Eq. (\ref{v-dm-ann}) in forms of $\sigma_{ann} v_r =$ $a + b v_r^2 + \mathcal {O} (v_r^4)$, with $s = 4 m_V^2 + m_V^2 v_r^2 + \mathcal {O} (v_r^4)$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
a = 0 \, , \quad b = \frac{e_D^2 e^2 \varepsilon_f^2 }{108 \pi} \frac{13 \beta_f (2 m_V^2 + m_f^2)}{(4 m_V^2 - m_X^2)^2 + m_X^2 \Gamma_X^2}\, .
\end{eqnarray}
The thermally averaged annihilation cross, the relic density of vectorial DM are similar to that we derived for scalar DM, replacing by corresponding input parameters.
\section{Analysis on $X$-DM coupling}
The energy released from thermal MeV DM annihilation in the early universe can alter the BBN result and the effective number of relativistic neutrino $N_{eff}$. Even though the effects are not violent, it still can be employed to constrain the lower bound of DM mass. After the DM mass range being set, we will calculate the $X$-DM coupling by means of the DM thermally freeze-out annihilation cross section.
\subsection{DM mass with constraints of $N_{eff}$}
In the case of $m_X^{}/2 < $ $m_\phi$ ($m_V$) $ < m_X^{}$, the main annihilation product of DM is $e^+ e^-$. The DM annihilation might heat the electron-photon plasma before freeze out in the early universe. If this happens at the time that the neutrino decoupled from the hot bath, the ratio of the neutrino temperature relative to the photon temperature will be lowered, which causes a reduction of the number of the effective neutrino degrees of freedom \cite{Kolb:1986nf,Serpico:2004nm}. The abundances of light elements stemmed from the primordial nucleosynthesis and the CMB power spectra at the recombination epoch would also be affected. For electron neutrinos, a typical decoupling temperature is $T_d \sim$ 2.3 MeV \cite{Enqvist:1991gx}. The value $x_f$ of the thermally freeze-out DM is $x_f \sim$ 20. Thus, for the DM of concern, the freeze out of DM is supposed to be after neutrino decoupling, so the effects of DM annihilation need to be taken into account. For the new boson $X$, the decay width is
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_X \simeq \frac{e^2 \varepsilon_e^2 (m_X^2 + 2 m_e^2)}{12 \pi m_X^{}} \sqrt{1- \frac{4 m_e^2}{m_X^2}}.
\end{eqnarray}
With the mass $m_X^{} \gg T_d$ and $X$'s lifetime much less than 1 second, the contribution from $X$'s entropy to the BBN is negligible.
Here we focus on the constraints from the primordial abundances of light elements $^4$He and deuterium, denoted by $Y_p$ and $y_{DP}^{}$, respectively. The abundance values of $^4$He and deuterium are related to the baryon density $\omega_b \equiv \Omega_b h^2$ and the effective number of relativistic neutrinos $N_{eff}$ (or, in the form of the difference of $\Delta N_{eff} \equiv N_{eff} - 3.046$, where $N_{eff} =$ 3.046 is the standard cosmological prediction value \cite{Dolgov:2002wy,Mangano:2005cc}). The abundances predicted by the BBN are parameterized as $Y_p$ ($\omega_b$, $\Delta N_{eff}$), $y_{DP}^{}$ ($\omega_b$, $\Delta N_{eff}$), and the corresponding Taylor expansion forms can be obtained with the PArthENoPE code \cite{Pisanti:2007hk}. If the value $\omega_b = 0.02226^{+0.00040}_{-0.00039}$ is adopted with the bounds of $Planck$ TT+lowP+BAO \cite{Ade:2015xua}, the value of $N_{eff}$ is also determined by the constraints of $^4$He and deuterium abundances. The range of $N_{eff}$ can be derived with the $Planck$ data, and that is \cite{Ade:2015xua}
\begin{eqnarray}
N_{eff} = \bigg \{ \begin{array}{cc}
3.14^{+0.44}_{-0.43}\, \, \, & \rm{He}+\emph{Planck} \, \rm{TT+lowP+BAO} \,, \\
3.01^{+0.38}_{-0.37}\, \, \, & \rm{D }+\emph{Planck} \, \rm{TT+lowP+BAO} \,, \label{He-D}
\end{array}
\end{eqnarray}
where the helium, deuterium abundances given by Aver et al. \cite{Aver:2013wba}, Cooke et al. \cite{Cooke:2013cba} are taken. The updated $Planck$-only constraint on $N_{eff}$ is \cite{Ade:2015xua}
\begin{eqnarray}
N_{eff} = 3.15 {\pm0.23}\, \, \, & Planck \, \rm{TT+lowP+BAO} \,. \label{Planck-only}
\end{eqnarray}
Considering Eqs. (\ref{He-D}), (\ref{Planck-only}), an lower bound $N_{eff} \gtrsim 2.9$ is taken in calculations.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=2.8in]{neff-value.eps} \vspace*{-1ex}
\caption{The effective number $ N_{eff}$ as a function of $m_{DM} / T_d$. The solid, dashed curves are the scalar, vectorial DM of concern, respectively. The dotted curve is for the lower bound $N_{eff} = 2.9$.} \label{neff-v}
\end{figure}
In the case that DM mainly couples to electron-photon plasma and DM particles freeze out later than the neutrino decoupling, the effective number $N_{eff}$ can be written as \cite{Ho:2012ug,Ho:2012br}
\begin{eqnarray}
N_{eff} = 3.046 \, [ \frac{I(0)}{I(T_d)}]^{\frac{4}{3}} \, \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $I(T_\gamma)$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
I(T_\gamma) &=& \frac{1}{T_\gamma^4} (\rho_{e^+ e^-} + \rho_{\gamma} + \rho_{DM}^{} + p_{e^+ e^-} + p_{\gamma} + p_{DM}^{})\, \, \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{11}{45} \pi^2 + \frac{g}{2 \pi^2} \int^\infty_{y = 0} d y \frac{y^2}{e^{\, \xi} \pm 1} (\xi + \frac{y^2}{3 \xi}) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi = \sqrt{y^2 + (m_{DM}/{T_{\gamma}})^2} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Here $T_\gamma$ is the photon temperature, and the integration variable is $y = p_{DM}/T_\gamma$. The plus/minus sign is for fermionic/bosonic DM particles, respectively. For bosonic DM of concern, the parameter values of the degrees of freedom $g_B^{} =$ 2, $g_B^{} =$ 6, the mass $m_{DM} =$ $m_\phi$, $m_V$ are corresponding to the scalar, vectorial DM, respectively. The effective number $N_{eff}$ as a function of $m_{DM} / T_d$ is shown in Fig. \ref{neff-v}. Taking the lower bound $N_{eff} \gtrsim 2.9$, we can obtain that $m_{DM} / T_d \gtrsim$ 5.2, 6.8 for scalar, vectorial DM, respectively. As the neutrino decoupling is not a sudden process (for more details, see e.g. Refs. \cite{Enqvist:1991gx,Dolgov:2002wy,Mangano:2005cc,Hannestad:2001iy}), here we take $T_d \gtrsim$ 2 MeV as a lower bound. Thus, the mass range of DM is derived,
\begin{eqnarray}
\bigg \{ \begin{array}{cc}
10.4 \lesssim m_{\phi} \lesssim 16.7 ~~ \rm(MeV) \, & \rm scalar \, DM \,, \\
13.6 \lesssim m_{V} \lesssim 16.7 ~~ \rm(MeV) \, & \rm vectorial \, DM \,.
\end{array}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Numerical result for the $X$-DM coupling}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{b-s-v.eps} \vspace*{-1ex}
\caption{The parameter $b$ as a function of DM mass. The solid, dashed curves are the scalar, vectorial DM of concern, respectively.} \label{b-value}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=2.8in]{coupling.eps} \vspace*{-1ex}
\caption{The values of $e_D^2 \varepsilon_e^2$ as a function of DM mass. The solid, dashed curves are the scalar, vectorial DM, respectively.} \label{num-coupling}
\end{figure}
As the DM mass range being set, we turn to investigate the $X$-DM coupling. The DM relic density is $0.1197 \pm 0.0042$ \cite{Ade:2015xua}. According to the DM thermally averaged annihilation cross section $\langle \sigma_{ann} v_r \rangle \approx 6 b / x_f $ at $T_f$, the numerical results of $b$ are shown in Fig. \ref{b-value}, with the solid, dashed curves corresponding to the scalar, vectorial DM, respectively. After the values of $b$ defined in Eq. (\ref{para}) is obtained, and then the $X$-DM coupling couplings is also determined. The numerical results of $e_D^2 \varepsilon_e^2$ are depicted in Fig. \ref{num-coupling}. Considering the value of $\varepsilon_e$ given by Eq. (\ref{sm-coupling}), we can obtain
$e_D^2 / 4 \pi <$ 1, and thus the $X$-DM coupling is sufficiently small that the perturbation may apply.
\section{DM-electron scattering}
Now let us turn to investigate the possibility of detecting the light DM of MeV scale by the earth detector.
For the light DM particles, since the recoil of the target nucleus is too small to be substantially observed, one may not detect arrival of DM via the scattering between the MeV DM and target nucleus. Instead, the DM-electron scattering can be employed for the MeV DM hunting. The DM-electron scattering has been investigated in Refs. \cite{Bernabei:2007gr,Dedes:2009bk,Kopp:2009et}. The target atomic electron is in a bound state, and the typical momentum transfer $q$ is of order $\alpha m_e$
as a few eV, which may cause excitation/ionization of the electron in inelastic scattering processes. In this work, we study the signals of individual electrons induced by DM-electron scattering. Here, we take the form of the DM-electron scattering cross section as given by Ref. \cite{Essig:2011nj}, and for scalar DM, that is
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\sigma}_e &=& \frac{\mu_{\phi e}^2}{16 \pi m_{\phi}^2 m_{e}^2} \overline{|\mathcal{M}_{\phi e} (q)|^2}\big|_{q^2 = \alpha^2 m_e^2} \times |F_{DM}(q)|^2\, \\ \nonumber
&\simeq& \frac{4 \alpha e_D^2 \varepsilon_e^2 \mu_{\phi e}^2}{m_X^4} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\mu_{\phi e}$ being the $\phi$-electron reduced mass, and $F_{DM}(q) \simeq 1$ for $m_X^{} \gg \alpha m_e$.
For vectorial DM, the DM-electron scattering cross section is
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\sigma}_e &=& \frac{\mu_{V e}^2}{16 \pi m_{V}^2 m_{e}^2} \overline{|\mathcal{M}_{V e} (q)|^2}\big|_{q^2 = \alpha^2 m_e^2} \times |F_{DM}(q)|^2\, \\ \nonumber
&\simeq& \frac{4 \alpha e_D^2 \varepsilon_e^2 \mu_{V e}^2}{m_X^4} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\mu_{V e}^{}$ being the $V$-electron reduced mass.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=3.2in]{dm-e-cs.eps} \vspace*{-1ex}
\caption{The DM-electron scattering cross section $\bar{\sigma}_e$ as a function of DM mass with the parameter $F_{DM}(q) = 1$. The upper solid, upper dashed curves are the scalar, vectorial DM, respectively. The dot-dashed curve is the excluded bound set by the XENON10 data \cite{Essig:2012yx}. The lower solid, lower dashed curves are the 95\% confidence level exclusion reach of single electron detections set by the 1 kg$\cdot$year exposure of Ar, Xe \cite{Essig:2011nj}, respectively. The upper, lower square curves are the 95\% confidence level exclusion reach of single electron detections set by the 1 kg$\cdot$year exposure of Ge, Si \cite{Essig:2015cda}, respectively.} \label{dm-ele-cs}
\end{figure}
As the value of $e_D^2 \varepsilon_e^2$ is fixed, the DM-electron scattering cross section $\bar{\sigma}_e$ can be obtained. The numerical result of $\bar{\sigma}_e$ is shown in Fig. \ref{dm-ele-cs}, where it is noted that the scattering cross section is independent of the momentum transfer ($F_{DM}(q) = 1$). The upper solid, upper dashed curves are for the scalar, vectorial DM, respectively, and the dot-dashed curve is the excluded bound set by the XENON10 data \cite{Essig:2012yx}. It can be seen that, considering the constraint of XENON10, there exists parameter spaces for scalar, vectorial DM to satisfy the constraints.
Now we give a brief discussion about the background in the DM-electron scattering. One irreducible background is from the neutrino-electron scattering, which sets the ultimate limit to the sub-GeV DM direct detections. Fortunately, the DM annual modulation effect from the motion of the earth can be employed to reduce the neutrino background \cite{Drukier:1986tm,Essig:2011nj,Lee:2015qva}. The teens MeV DM of concern could be probed via the inelastic processes of DM-electron scatterings, e.g. the individual electron signals by the future noble gas and semiconductor targets. For Ar, Xe \cite{Essig:2011nj} and Ge, Si \cite{Essig:2015cda} with 1 kg$\cdot$year exposure, the exclusion reach at 95\% confidence level via single electron detections are also shown in Fig. \ref{dm-ele-cs}. Further explorations of DM-electron scatterings are needed, both in theory and experiment.
\section{Conclusion and discussion}
The MeV scalar and vectorial DM has been studied in this work, with the new boson $X$ indicated by the $^8$Be anomalous transition being the mediator. Considering the constraints of the DM direct detection and CMB observation, we find that for the case of $m_X^{}/2 < $ $m_\phi$ ($m_V$) $ < m_X^{}$, the p-wave dominant annihilation of DM at freeze out does not conflict with the observed data so far. The primordial abundances of light elements and the effective number of relativistic neutrino $N_{eff}$ at recombination are sensitive to the DM with the mass of a few MeV to teens MeV, thus the corresponding observed results have been employed to set a lower bound on the DM mass. Taking the combined lower bounds $N_{eff} \gtrsim 2.9$ and the neutrino decoupling temperature $T_d \gtrsim$ 2 MeV, we derive a mass range of DM: $10.4 \lesssim m_{\phi} \lesssim 16.7 $ MeV for scalar DM, and $13.6 \lesssim m_{V} \lesssim 16.7$ MeV for vectorial DM.
For the teens MeV scalar, vectorial DM of concern, the numerical result of the DM-$X$ coupling is derived in terms of the DM thermally averaged annihilation cross section. Once this coupling is set, the strength of the interaction between DM and SM particles is determined.
The DM-electron scattering is employed for the teens MeV DM hunting. We investigate on the signal of the individual electrons in DM-electron scattering, and the scattering cross section $\bar{\sigma}_e$ is calculated for the DM mass range of concern. We find that, considering the constraint of XENON10, there are still parameter spaces left for the teens MeV scalar, vectorial DM to be observed. Beside the individual electrons, signals of individual photons, individual ions, and heat/phonons can also be employed to explore the MeV DM-electron scattering (see. e.g. Ref. \cite{Essig:2011nj,Derenzo:2016fse} for more), even though the ion signal is probably too weak for detection. The teens MeV DM of concern could be probed by the future noble gas and semiconductor targets via the DM-electron scattering. In fact, the wave function of electron in the bound state for a certain target material needs to be considered to guarantee the prediction power. It is noted that the detection possibilities and efficiency of DM are target dependent.
As discussed in Ref. \cite{Chen:2016dhm}, the new boson $X$ may be detectable at the $e^+ e^-$ collider, such as BESIII and BaBar. The new boson $X$ may also give an interpretation about the NuTeV anomaly \cite{Liang:2016ffe}. For the teens MeV scalar, vectorial DM of concern, further investigation both in theory and experiment aspects are needed. We look forward to the exploration of the $X$-portal DM in the future.
\acknowledgments \vspace*{-3ex} This work was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Contract No. 11505144, 11375128 and 11135009, and the Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of the Southwest University of Science and Technology under Contract No. 15zx7102.
|
\section{Introduction}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.5in, keepaspectratio=true]{system_overview}
\caption{Category-aware photo filter recommendation system. We propose category-aware aesthetic learning by utilizing our new collected pairwise labeled image dataset (FACD) for filter recommendation. Given an image, we generate a set of filtered images by applying different filter types. We then feed them into the system which learns image aesthetic using pairwise comparison (offline) and computes aesthetic responses for each filtered image. Finally, the system ranks filters by the aesthetic scores and the top-ranked filter is recommended.}
\end{figure}
\IEEEPARstart{W}{ith} the growth of social media population, people share and upload millions of photos per day.\footnote{https://www.instagram.com/press/} In addition to photo sharing, social media also provides photo filtering tools (e.g., Instagram, Flickr, Facebook) for users to enhance contrast, increase saturation, or change color tone for their photos \cite{bakhshi2015we, isola2011makes}. With the predefined filters (visual effects), users can spend less effort on stylizing or enhancing photos and achieve professional quality without image processing knowledge. Meanwhile, as reported in \cite{bakhshi2015we}, filtered photos will have higher chances of receiving views (+21\%) and comments (+45\%). Statistically, more than half of uploaded photos are filtered on Instagram\footnote{http://www.animhut.com/freebies/infographic/love-instagram-filter/}, a popular social media known for its image sharing functionality. Hence, manipulating images with filters becomes an essential function for photo sharing applications. In order to attract more users, social media has developed several types of filters. For example, Instagram provides more than twenty filters and frequently updates new one. Originally, the system is designed to allow users to select the best filter with a few clicks. However, they do not realize that users select favorite filters by comparisons.
Due to the size restriction of portable device's display unit, users can only compare less than five filters at a time. They have to iteratively discard worst one until remaining filters can be compared at the same time. With the increasing number of filters, filter selection becomes a complex and time-consuming task. Hence, the need for efficient selection or recommendation of image filters is emerging. In December 2014, Instagram allows users to manage the order of filters based on their preference. However, we observe that users choose different filters based on image content (Sec. IV-C). It becomes a challenging problem to dynamically recommend image filters for users. To tackle the challenge, we aim to provide a filter recommendation system as shown in Fig. 1. The filtered images are sorted by their aesthetic scores learned from our collected pairwise labeled images with aesthetic judgment.
In quality learning field, Image Quality Assessment (IQA) has been studied for several years \cite{nriqa12, cbqa}. IQA focuses on classifying photos into two groups, high quality and low quality groups. The traditional approaches of IQA usually rely on the knowledge of photography (e.g., rule of thirds) and handcrafted features (e.g., color or SIFT) \cite{datta06, luo08, ke06}. More recently, machine learning is gradually becoming the main method for feature extraction and replacing handcrafted features. In \cite{dong2015photo, cnnnriqa}, deep learning is further introduced to the image quality problem. Photos are fed into Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) models to learn features and classify images. In spite of the general CNN structure, the learned features embed aesthetic information and improve classification accuracy.
Previous studies treat IQA as a regression problem that predicts images into different quality scores and further separates them into two classes. However, there is no clear boundary between high quality and low quality photos. It is a difficult task to distinguish images near the border even for humans. Therefore, an innovative perspective is proposed in \cite{quality14}. Chen \textsl{et al.} mention that image quality is the preference among images rather than an absolute aesthetic value of an image. That is, image aesthetic should not be quantified and mapped to the quality scores. The quality of an image is based on the comparison with another one. Thus, the regression problem can be transferred to the ranking problem which is solved by learning a pairwise ranking model \cite{yan2014learning}. However, these previous studies only use handcrafted features and conduct feature extraction and model learning separately. By using CNN, we can learn the model and features simultaneously. In addition, it is much simpler to select the better image between a pair than to pick out the best one among a pack of photos for humans.
Motivated by \cite{quality14, yan2014learning}, we propose our first-ever filter recommendation system based on pairwise aesthetic comparison in this paper. However, there is no existing and suitable dataset for this work. For pairwise aesthetic comparison with filtered images, we create a new dataset, Filter Aesthetic Comparison Dataset (FACD), generated from Aesthetic Visual Analysis (AVA) dataset \cite{ava12} which is widely used for image quality learning. The created FACD contains images with various filters and reliable image pairs with aesthetic judgment. Hence, we utilize the collected dataset and devise a novel pairwise aesthetic learning method for filtered images.
As mentioned in \cite{cbqa}, the professional photographers apply various techniques on different subjects. We have similar observations on the user preference of filtered photos for different image categories (e.g., flora, portrait) based on our pilot study. Hence, we further propose to integrate category (style) information with pairwise aesthetic comparison for multi-task learning. Therefore, for each image, we can obtain aesthetic responses and category information from the learned category-aware aesthetic model. For photo filter recommendation, we calculate aesthetic scores for different filtered photos and generate a filter aesthetic ranking for each unfiltered photo as shown in Fig. 1. The experiment results show that our method improves the recommendation on image aesthetic and outperforms other traditional methods designed for image quality prediction.
To sum up, the primary contributions in this paper include:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Introducing a pairwise comparison method for filter recommendation based on convolutional neural networks.
\item Utilizing the automatically predicted image category to improve the performance of filter ranking.
\item Creating a new dataset, Filter Aesthetic Comparison Dataset (FACD), for pairwise aesthetic ranking. It contains 28,160 filtered images and 42,240 image pairs with user preference.\footnote{Available at http://wtwilsonsun.github.io/FACD/}
\end{enumerate}
In the next section, the related works of this paper are remarked. Then, we will introduce the collection of our dataset, FACD. After that, the network structure and methods are described in Sec. IV. Finally, we demonstrate experiment results and conclude the proposed method in Sec. V and VI.
\section{Related Work}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7in, keepaspectratio=true]{aesthetic_diversity00}
\caption{User preference in pilot study. Each color depicts the preferred ratio of each filter to a specific user. It shows that user preference is diverse even though users have similar backgrounds. }
\end{figure*}
To provide photo filter recommendation with aesthetic learning, we first introduce the traditional image quality assessment (IQA). IQA can be separated into two parts in the past. One attempts to design algorithms based on photographic knowledge. For example, rule of thirds \cite{datta06, luo08} and simplicity \cite{ke06} are well-known techniques for image composition. Both of them concentrate on the subject in a photo. However, it is impossible to list all photographic skills exhaustively and implement them. Therefore, the other method for IQA is based on more general handcrafted features. Basic features including color \cite{datta06, ke06} and edge \cite{ke06} are commonly used. As the success of generic features in object detection and image classification, Marchesotti \textsl{et al.} \cite{marchesotti11} use SIFT, Bag-of-Visual-Words (BoVW), and Fish Vector for image quality classification. The handcrafted features are also used for view recommendation in \cite{su2012preference}. A manually designed feature, nature scene statistics (NSS), is also used by Mittal \textsl{et al.} \cite{nriqa12}.
Moreover, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) has been applied on IQA problem recently. AlexNet \cite{imagenet12}, a breakthrough in computer vision using CNN, greatly outperformed the state-of-the-art methods which used handcrafted features before 2012. In these years, many variations of network structures have been presented, such as GoogLeNet \cite{googlenet15}, VGG \cite{vgg14} and Network-In-Network \cite{lin2013network}. These models achieve great performance in ILSVRC, which focuses on image classification, object recognition and localization. However, the purpose of image aesthetic learning is very different from object detection. The difference between them leads to the performance gap for a model applied on distinct domains. To deal with this problem, specific models should be designed for aesthetic learning. In \cite{rapid14, lu2015rating}, Lu \textsl{et al.} also notice that general architectures are not suitable for image quality classification which depends on both local and global information. They conduct experiments on network architectures by adjusting the number of layers. Eventually, they construct a CNN RAPID net \cite{rapid14} with four convolutional layers followed by three fully-connected layers for aesthetic learning specially. This structure is leveraged for advanced methods in this paper.
In \cite{quality14}, Chen \textsl{et al.} propose a ranking strategy for image quality assessment. They first extract handcrafted features for input images, and then train a rankSVM to learn a ranking function for image comparison. However, this method is separated into two stages, feature extraction and model learning. Inspired by \cite{quality14}, we extend the traditional aesthetic classification issue to the pairwise comparison problem using CNN which extracts features and learns the model simultaneously. General studies \cite{cnnnriqa, dong2015photo} focus on single-column quality classification, but the double-column network is needed for pairwise input. In \cite{chopra2005learning}, Siamese Network, which is widely used for similarity learning and face retrieval, provides an example of a double-column network. It embeds metric learning in CNN by contrastive loss, a distance function for relevant and irrelevant pairs. Therefore, the activations of hidden layers are used as representations for recognition and retrieval. Further, \cite{deeprank14, hoffer2015deep} even extend the double-column architecture to the triplet network which learns features from both positive and negative samples. However, the contrastive loss and triplet loss do not fit the objective of pairwise aesthetic comparison in this work. To learn preference from image pairs, we formulate a novel loss function that compares aesthetic responses and construct the double-column model for pairwise input.
In addition, multi-task learning is also adopted in object detection and facial landmark detection in \cite{girshick2015fast, ren2015faster, zhang2014facial}. The output of last fully-connected layer is regarded as the representation and is directed to multiple loss layers with distinct objective functions. The performance of main task can be further improved by the related minor tasks. This strategy also avoids the complex design and long training period of sequential training process as all tasks are learned at the same time. In this work, we assume that the filter preference is related to image category (content). As a result, we introduce multi-task learning to our method for aesthetic learning and category classification.
\section{Filter Aesthetic Comparison Dataset (FACD)}
Since there is no dataset designed for filter aesthetic ranking, we create our own dataset and evaluate the proposed method on it. In this section, we first describe the generation of filtered images. Then the pilot study for filter preference investigation and the online crowdsourcing for pairwise filter annotations are introduced.
\subsection{Filtered Image Collection}
First, we collect a set of unfiltered images, also called reference images in this paper, from an existing dataset. The reference images are obtained from AVA dataset \cite{ava12}, a large-scale dataset for visual aesthetic analysis, which contains over 250,000 photos for aesthetic study. The photos are divided into more than 60 categories with semantic labels in the AVA dataset. We sample our reference images from the top 8 most popular categories which are equivalent to the ones used in \cite{cbqa, ava12}. The categories include \textit{animal, flora, landscape, architecture, food and drink, portrait, cityscape, and still life}. For each category, we randomly pick 160 photos. Therefore, we totally collect 1,280 unfiltered images in 8 categories from the AVA dataset. Next, we define the filter types for the production of filtered images. Because the filter types on social media are time-varying, we choose 22 filters\footnote{1977, Amaro, Apollp, Brannan, Earlybird, Gotham, Hefe, Hudson, Inkwell, Lofi, LordKevin, Mayfair, Nashville, Poprocket, Rise, Sierra, Sutro, Toaster, Valencia, Walden, Willow, and XProII.} provided by both GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) toolkit\footnote{https://www.gimp.org/} and Instagram to simulate the real situation of filter selection on social media. All of the filters are applied on each reference image and then the dataset has 28,160 filtered images in total.
\subsection{Pilot Study on Filter Preference Investigation}
With these filtered images, we first investigate the user preference on filtered images. Hence, we conduct a pilot study on a small group of participants. All of them have similar backgrounds: master students, aged 22-26, and also Instagram users. Since it is complicated and time-consuming for users to select the best filtered images from 22 filters, our pilot study is designed as a pairwise comparison problem motivated by \cite{quality14}. For this study, each of them is given a pair of filtered images (e.g., the top two images in Fig. 3) and is asked to select the better image each time. Fig. 2 shows the distribution of filter preference on distinct participants. Each user is depicted in one color and the histogram represents the selected ratio of each filter. The figure demonstrates that filter preference among the participants is diverse in spite of their similar backgrounds. That is, the filter selection is greatly subjective and would not be influenced by the user background. Therefore, we can choose anyone to generate the comparison label without considering his/her background or experience. Based on the pilot study, it motivates us to conduct a comprehensive analysis of user preference on different filters and image categories. Hence, we attempt to collect a large number of filtered image pairs with aesthetic judgment. Thus, we design a more rigid aesthetic judgment and annotation in the next section.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.7in, keepaspectratio=true]{MTurkLablling}
\caption{The interface for crowdsourcing annotation on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Each question provides a pair of filtered images and four options. Participants are asked to vote for the preferred photo based on their aesthetic judgment.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Pairwise Image Comparison on Amazon Mechanical Turk}
To effectively obtain enormous amount of filter preference, we establish aesthetic annotation on filtered images via crowdsourcing approaches. In \cite{crowdsourcing14}, Redi \textsl{et al.} study the performance of both paid subjects and volunteers for image aesthetic rating. The results show that the volunteer crowd is more reliable but leaves more incomplete tasks than the paid one. Compared with the rating problem in \cite{crowdsourcing14}, pairwise quality ranking is a simpler task so we assume that the manual annotation only contains a small portion of noisy or incorrect labels. Meanwhile, it is also infeasible to obtain complete order of filter preference for each reference image because it is time-consuming to decide a suitable ranking. Hence, we approximate the ideal ranking order based on the following criteria. First, the number of occurrence for each filtered image should be balanced in the sampled pairs. Meanwhile, all desired image pairs should be labeled as complete as possible. Therefore, we appeal to paid participants for image aesthetic comparison on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) \cite{mason2012conducting}.
For each reference image, it has 22 corresponding filtered images so there are ${22 \choose 2}$ combinations at most. However, annotating all pairs on AMT is still an expensive and time-consuming task. Thus, we only generate 33 pairs for a reference image from its corresponding filtered image set and make sure that each filtered image appears in three pairs.\footnote{Note that we assume filter preference is transitive. That is to say, if we know that $\mathit{filter}_A > \mathit{filter}_B$ and $\mathit{filter}_B > \mathit{filter}_C$, we will assume $\mathit{filter}_A > \mathit{filter}_C$. Hence, we can reduce the annotation number of filter pairs and utilize the preference ranking scores (Sec. V-A) to decide ground truth filters for each image in our experiments.} The annotation task is demonstrated in Fig. 3. Our designed task which is also called a ``HIT" (Human Intelligence Task) contains 10 questions of pairwise comparison. Each question consists of two filtered images with four options, including left, right, equal, and error for image display problem. Users need to select one option as the answer for a question according to his/her aesthetic reception. For each pair, the selected (preferred) image is viewed as a positive image, whereas unselected one is viewed as a negative image.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7in, keepaspectratio=true]{network_structure}
\caption{System overview of the proposed category-aware aesthetic representation learning on filtered images. The training model contains aesthetic comparison and category classification. The top two networks are designed for learning the aesthetic responses and quality comparison by leveraging user preference on filtered images (aesthetic comparison). The bottom one is used for category classification. As discussed in Sec. IV-C, the category information (e.g., food, landscape) will affect the user preference on selecting proper filters. Hence, we integrate the category representation into the aesthetic responses to learn category-aware aesthetic representations. Note that the three network columns share parameters so that the order of images in a pair is arbitrary. }
\end{figure*}
To ensure the credibility of the user annotation, we adopt three methods to avoid unreliable labels: 1) check answer completeness, 2) check label consistency, and 3) check verification. For the first method, we guarantee that all questions in a HIT are completely answered since all filtered images are fairly sampled for three times in pairs. Moreover, ambiguous answers are meaningless to the comparison problem in our dataset. Thus, a task would be rejected if a worker selects more than one ``Equal" option in a single HIT. Second, we place a duplicated question in each HIT to filter out the users with inconsistent decisions. The duplicated question is the same as one of the other nine pairs in a HIT, except we interchange the order of the two filtered images (e.g., reverse the top two images in Fig. 3). To maintain the annotation consistency, users with distinct labels between the original pair and the duplicated one are regarded as doubtful participants, and we will ask other users redo these tasks. Last, we provide a mathematical question in the end of a HIT to avoid robotic answers. A HIT without correct mathematical answer is also rejected. Similarly, new users will annotate rejected tasks again until all pairs are annotated.
Finally, the whole FACD contains 1,280 reference images collected from eight categories, 28,160 filtered images created from 22 filters, and 42,240 filtered image pairs with aesthetic comparison labels. It also contains the comparison scores and classes (qualities) for each filtered image. The generation of scores and classes will be described in Sec. V-A.
\section{Category-Aware Aesthetic Representation Learning}
To analyze user preference on filtered images, we propose category-aware aesthetic representation learning by utilizing our collected FACD. Fig. 4 shows the system overview of the proposed method. We attempt to learn aesthetic responses between a pair of images using CNN models that embeds aesthetic information in the hidden layers. Since the structure of CNN varies from task to task, a proper structure should be selected for aesthetic learning in this work. Furthermore, the objectives of typical loss functions are different from the target of pairwise comparison. Hence, we formulate a customized loss function to deal with the comparison problem. To improve the result of filter recommendation, we further combine the basic double-column model with an image category classification task. In this section, we first describe the network structure we use in this paper. Next, the concept and formulation of the loss function are shown in detail. Finally, the multi-task learning integrating pairwise comparison and category classification will be introduced in the end.
\subsection{CNN Structures}
As reported in recent works \cite{imagenet12, googlenet15, rapid14}, deep learning is vary promising in various research areas because it can learn feature representations and model parameters simultaneously. Hence, we devise our learning method based on deep learning, and investigate the effect on different CNN structures. AlexNet \cite{imagenet12} has been widely referenced in different domains. Based on the large-scale image classification dataset, AlexNet is frequently used for fine-tuning and regarded as the simplest design for CNN-related works. Thus we also take AlexNet as a reference model for the baseline. However, it is designed for object detection and classification originally. There is no specific structural design for aesthetic in AlexNet. In order to compare with AlexNet, the non-specific model for aesthetic learning, we also introduce another CNN structure that is designed for image quality classification.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Network details. The networks are constructed based on AlexNet\cite{imagenet12} (left) and RAPID net \cite{rapid14} (right). The difference is that the last fully-connected layer for classification is removed and the dimension of the last fully-connected layer is reduced to 128 which represents the aesthetic responses of an image. }
\begin{tabular}{cc|cc} \hline
Layer & Kernel Size & Layer & Kernel Size\\ \hline
conv1 & 11$\times$11$\times$96 & conv1 & 11$\times$11$\times$64 \\ \hline
pool1 & 3$\times$3 & pool1 & 3$\times$3\\ \hline
conv2 & 5$\times$5$\times$256 & conv2 & 5$\times$5$\times$64 \\ \hline
pool2 & 3$\times$3 & pool2 & 3$\times$3 \\ \hline
conv3 & 3$\times$3$\times$384 & conv3 & 3$\times$3$\times$64 \\ \hline
conv4 & 3$\times$3$\times$384 & conv4 & 3$\times$3$\times$64 \\ \hline
conv5 & 3$\times$3$\times$256 & - & - \\ \hline
pool5 & 3$\times$3 & - & - \\ \hline
fc1 & 4096 & fc1 & 128 \\ \hline
fc2 & 128 & - & - \\ \hline\end{tabular}
\end{table}
In \cite{rapid14}, Lu \textsl{et al.} conduct several experiments on CNN structures for aesthetic categorization. They experiment on different combinations of layers and then propose an aesthetic-oriented model. Their proposed network, named RAPID net in this paper, is composed of four convolutional layers and three fully-connected layers. Particularly, they apply a pooling layer and a normalization layer on the first two convolutional layers. In comparison with AlexNet, the depth is shallower and the number of kernel is fewer in RAPID net. Since image quality considers more details and local regions than the global view, the shallower model learns more detailed information for aesthetic. The fully-connected layers in RAPID net also have fewer neurons than AlexNet. Each dimension in fully-connected layer represents certain aesthetic responses, whereas it learns object patterns in AlexNet. Thus, the feature dimension is reduced from 4,096 to 256 or 128 for aesthetic learning.
To compare the performance of distinct networks, we take both AlexNet and RAPID net as reference models and adjust the details to fit our purpose. The network details are shown in Table I. In our model, we remove the last fully-connected layer which is designed for image classification, and reduce the output dimension of the last layer to 128 for learning more specific aesthetic responses. In addition, we only retain two and one fully-connected layers for AlexNet and RAPID net respectively. The reduction of fully-connected layer leads to less parameters and avoids overfitting as well.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6.7in, keepaspectratio=true]{compare}
\caption{(a) The distribution of filter preference in different categories. The chart illustrates the selected ratio of each filter in flora and portrait categories. It shows that the filter selection is sensitive to the image category. The examples on the right are images of flora and portrait, respectively. We apply three filter types (b) XProII, (c) Earlybird, and (d) Inkwell. The examples reveal that the image attractiveness varies with image category even if the same filter is used. }
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Aesthetic Response Learning by Pairwise Comparison}
Inspired by \cite{quality14}, we take aesthetic learning as a pairwise ranking problem between images rather than classic quality classification. To support the input of image pairs, we extend the single-column network to double-column one like the architecture in \cite{rapid14}. Each of the networks in Table I is duplicated and combined with the reproduction in parallel (i.e., Network Column 1 and 2 in Fig. 4). The parameters of these network columns are shared between the same layers as typical multi-column approaches. Since CNN model can embed aesthetic information in the learned representation automatically, the representation can be regarded as the vector of aesthetic responses. Hence, images with higher aesthetic responses indicate they are more visually appealing. We can rank images by the intensity of this representation. To achieve this objective, we propose aesthetic response learning by pairwise comparison (PairComp), and attempt to maximize the difference in aesthetic responses ($||f||^2$) between filtered image pairs. The proposed formulation is defined as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:paircomp}
\textcolor{black}{Max \sum_{i=1}^N D(s_i) = Max \sum_{i=1}^N (||f_{i,p}||^2-||f_{i,n}||^2),}
\end{equation}
where $f_{i,p}$ and $f_{i,n}$ denote the aesthetic representations of positive (p) and negative (n) images in the \textit{i}-th sample pair ($s_{i}$) respectively. As shown in Fig. 4, based on the given user preference, the above formulation learns to maximize responses of positive images $f_{i,p}$ and minimize the intensity of negative images $f_{i,n}$ simultaneously. As the positive images have greater aesthetic responses, the difference would be larger. To integrate with general CNN frameworks, we can use negative $D(s_{i})$ as the loss function (i.e., $Min \sum_{i=1}^N -D(s_i)$). By minimizing the loss, the model learns to produce larger aesthetic responses for the better photo (preferred filter). Furthermore, rather than calculating the difference in learned feature representations ($f$) between filtered images (i.e., $||f_{i,p}-f_{i,n}||^2$), we propose to measure their aesthetic responses (i.e., $||f_{i,p}||^2-||f_{i,n}||^2$). Hence, it enforces those preferred filters will have higher aesthetic scores, and we can directly utilize the learned aesthetic scores ($||f||^2$) to rank and decide the user preference without pairwise comparison.
\subsection{Category-Aware Filter Preference Learning}
In addition to the pairwise preference of filtered images in our collected FACD, the reference images collected from AVA dataset also consist of the category information for each image. We observe that not only filter types (e.g., XProII, Amaro) but also image categories (e.g., flora, landscape) affect user preference on filtered images. To illustrate the influence of image category, we show the distribution of filter preference for portrait and flora categories in Fig. 5 (a). The chart confirms the assumption that the preference of filters depends on the image category. In Fig. 5 (b)-(d), we also show some filtered results on flora (the first row) and portrait (the bottom row) images. For flora, the focus is always on the colorful subjects. If the visual effects of filters are designed to enhance contract or lighting (e.g., XProII), those flora images can be highlighted (preferred by users) as the example in Fig. 5 (b). On the other hand, users prefer portrait photos with filters that offer more warm color for skin tone in the photo (e.g., Earlybird). Compared with Fig. 5 (c), Fig. 5 (b) making the skin fuscous is less attractive to users. Though colorful images are more likely preferred, some colorless photos are attractive due to special effects. For instance, Inkwell filter (Fig. 5 (d)), which converts the colorful image into black and white, supplies vintage view to portrait photos but loses the main focus in flora images.
To take image category into account for filter recommendation, we utilize this external information for multi-task learning. In addition to the double-column model, we construct an additional network for image categorization. The complete network design that contains aesthetic learning and category classification is shown in Fig. 4. As mentioned in the previous section, the three network columns have the same structure and share all parameters. The top two networks are fed with image pairs and learn pairwise aesthetic responses. The remaining network (Network Column 3 in Fig. 4) for category learning takes the reference (unfiltered) image from each filtered pair and the corresponding category label as input in training. After the input images are forwarded to the networks, the aesthetic representation is concatenated with the category representation. We further apply a fully-connected layer on the concatenated features to generate fused features. Hence, the fused features containing both aesthetic and category information are used for aesthetic comparison. In the last layer of aesthetic comparison, the pairwise loss is calculated using the labels gathered on AMT as described in Sec. IV-B. Hence, the loss function for category-aware filter preference learning (PairComp+Cate) is defined as
\begin{equation}
\textcolor{black}{Min \sum_{i=1}^N [-D(s_i) + SoftmaxLoss(u_i)],}
\end{equation}
where SoftmaxLoss() measures the classification error for the given unfiltered image ($u_i$) and the first term calculates the difference in aesthetic responses between filters as mentioned in Eq. (\ref{eq:paircomp}). In backpropagation, the gradient of the fused features is passed to the previous layers. The weights are updated for both aesthetic learning task and category classification task.\footnote{In this work, we are to investigate the effect of aesthetic responses under CNN structures so we mainly focus on utilizing additional information (i.e., category information and pairwise aesthetic comparison) for better filter recommendation. Therefore, we do not integrate our proposed method with other possible loss functions (e.g., \cite{Weston10}) for aesthetic learning.} It makes the model revise parameters and improve the performance of filter ranking. The improvement of utilizing category prediction will be demonstrated in Sec. V-B.
\section{Experiments}
We evaluate the proposed method on our dataset, FACD. In this section, we first describe how we generate the ground truth from FACD and leverage the dataset for both training and testing. The process design for both training and testing phases is also introduced. Next, we show the experiment results of the proposed methods. The results of different network structures and distinct methods are compared in detail. Then, we illustrate examples and discuss our observation.
\subsection{Setting}
\subsubsection{Dataset}
In our created Filter Aesthetic Comparison Dataset (FACD, Sec. III), there are totally 42,240 image pairs with human labels generated from 1,280 reference images. We first separate the dataset into two parts for training and testing (7:1). The 1,280 reference images are divided into 1,120 and 160. The 1,120 unfiltered images and their corresponding filtered image pairs comprise the training set. That is, there are 36,960 image pairs used as training data. The remaining images and pairs are used for testing and ground truth generation. To evaluate the performance of filter recommendation on the created FACD, we attempt to generate a ranking list for each unfiltered (reference) image. Since there are only pairwise comparison labels in FACD, we have to define the ground truth of ranking results based on these pairwise labels. In Sec. III-C, we ensure that each filtered image appears in three comparison pairs. For each pair, we give a positive score (+1) for the preferred (selected) image, otherwise a negative score (-1). Note that if users select `equal' in the annotation process, both images will be assigned zero score. Hence, each image receives a score which represents its quality ranging from -3 to +3 since it appears in different pairs for three times. We take the filtered images rated +3 (i.e., beat all compared filters) as ground truth for each reference image. As there may be more than one image with +3 scores, the average number of ground truth is more than one. In our dataset, each reference image has 3.7 filtered images as ground truth in average.\footnote{As demonstrated in our pilot study in Sec. III-B and Fig. 2, we find that user preference on image filters is diverse. Different users would prefer different types of filters for the same images. Therefore, for each image, the preferred (ideal) filters might contain multiple choices. Hence, the averaged 3.7 ground truth filters would still be a reasonable number for evaluation.}
\subsubsection{Training}
For aesthetic comparison, image pairs are directly fed into the double-column CNN model with labels (user preference) in the training phase. The input images are resized to 256$\times$256 in advance. In each iteration, images of the input batch are randomly cropped into 227$\times$227 and 224$\times$224 for AlexNet and RAPID net separately according to the original design in \cite{imagenet12, rapid14}. Data augmentation is also adopted by reflecting images horizontally. To further improve the ranking result as proposed in Sec. IV-C, the corresponding reference image of the training pair is also fed into the network for category classification at the same time. We conduct experiments on Caffe \cite{jia2014caffe}, a widely used framework for deep learning, for both training and testing.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Testing accuracy of filter recommendation. ``PairComp" denotes the implementation of pairwise comparison loss (Sec. IV-B) and ``+Cate" means training with category classification (Sec. IV-C). The last two rows indicate that our method outperforms the traditional CNN model (AlexNet) and the aesthetic-oriented model (RAPID net). We can achieve better results than the model designed for object detection. More details are described in Sec. V-B. }
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c} \hline
Model & Top-1 & Top-3 & Top-5\\ \hline
Random Guess & 16.80\% & - & - \\ \hline
AlexNet\cite{imagenet12} & 33.13\% & 70.63\% & 88.75\% \\ \hline
RAPID net\cite{rapid14} & 37.50\% & 72.50\% & 86.25\% \\ \hline\hline
PairComp+SPP2 & 36.88\% & 66.88\% & 79.38\% \\ (AlexNet) & & & \\\hline
PairComp+SPP3 & 38.13\% & 69.38\% & 83.13\% \\ (AlexNet) & & & \\\hline
PairComp & 38.75\% & 78.13\% & 88.75\% \\
(AlexNet) & & & \\ \hline
PairComp & 41.25\% & 78.13\% & 88.13\% \\
(RAPID net) & & & \\ \hline\hline
PairComp+Cate & 41.25\% & {\bfseries 80.00}\% & 89.18\% \\
(AlexNet) & & & \\ \hline
PairComp+Cate & {\bfseries 41.88\%} & 79.50\% & {\bfseries 90.00\%} \\
(RAPID net) & & & \\ \hline\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Testing}
The aesthetic representation is extracted from the last fully-connected layer (i.e., 128-d in our experiments) for filter recommendation. As all the networks are shared parameters, we only utilize the model (single network) to extract aesthetic representations for all filtered images (e.g., 22 filters). Meanwhile, it is unnecessary to go through the comparison loss layer in testing phase, and the input only takes a single filtered image rather than a pair. Even for the multi-task model, only an unfiltered image is needed additionally for fused features. Then the ranking result is generated by sorting the Euclidean norm (i.e., aesthetic scores = $||f||^2$) of the representations. It is more efficient than traditional pairwise ranking which compares all combinations of pairs. Based on our defined ground truth in the previous section, we can evaluate the success rate (accuracy) of the filter recommendation system. Hence, if the ground truth filters appear in the top \textit{K} results, the ranking results are regarded as correct answers. In the experiments, we set K to be 1, 3, and 5 because users can only see less than five filters simultaneously on their smart devices. This setting is meaningful to the recommendation system since it guarantees that at least one correct filter appears in the first page of the filter selection interface.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7in, keepaspectratio=true]{results}
\caption{Examples of top-3 recommended filters on the proposed category-aware aesthetic learning model (PairComp+Cate [RAPID net]). Each column presents an unfiltered image and its corresponding filter recommendation. The categories of the examples (from left to right) include (a) architecture, (b) still life, (c) portrait, (d) flora, and (e) food \& drink. The images with green bounding boxes are correct predictions (preferred/ideal filters). The figure shows that the filter preference depends on the image content and the characteristic of image category, and our model also learns some of the properties automatically. More explanation is discussed in Sec. V-C.}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Results}
We propose two methods for aesthetic learning in Sec. IV-B and IV-C. To evaluate the improvement of each method, we utilize different network structures and compute top-1, top-3, and top-5 accuracy for each case. Table II shows the overall comparison on different structures. The models denoted as ``PairComp" use the pairwise comparison loss (Sec. IV-B) in the training phase and the ones named ``+Cate" are integrated with category classification (Sec. IV-C).
\subsubsection{Baselines}
The first 3 rows of Table II are the results of baselines, including random guess and single-column CNNs. The result of random guess (16.8\%) comes from averaged 3.7 ground truth divided by 22 filter types. The basic CNNs are constructed from Table I and learn binary classification for image quality as in \cite{rapid14, lu2015rating, dong2015photo}. They only classify images into high quality or low quality directly. To generate the ranking prediction, we take the probability of high quality as the aesthetic score of a filtered image. Then the ranking is obtained by sorting the scores. It is obvious that the aesthetic-specific model (RAPID net) outperforms the typical CNN architecture (AlexNet) designed for object classification. It means that RAPID net can embed more aesthetic information in the representation.
\subsubsection{Models using Pairwise Comparison (PairComp)}
The following four rows of Table II demonstrate the accuracy of pairwise models combined with the aesthetic comparison loss. As Lu \textsl{et al.} \cite{lu2015deep} suggested that the details of an image also impact the aesthetic classification, we also conduct our experiments on the original images (i.e., without resizing). To deal with varying image sizes in our dataset, we insert the spatial pyramid pooling (SPP) layer \cite{spp15} with different number of levels between the pooling layer and the fully-connected layer on AlexNet (i.e., between pool5 and fc1 in Table I). In Table II, the number after the term ``SPP'' means the levels of the SPP layer. However, the SPP layer is designed for image classification and may not be suitable for the pairwise comparison problem of image quality. It only outperforms the basic single-column model on top-1 accuracy but even lowers the performance in the other two cases. Though the SPP layer fails to improve the prediction for filter ranking, other results still shows that our proposed pairwise comparison loss layer supports aesthetic response learning. The accuracy of both PairComp (AlexNet) and PairComp (RAPID net) obtains about 4-5\% improvement. The results verify the proposed aesthetic-specific structure can learn features with more quality information than general CNN structures (e.g., AlexNet).
\subsubsection{Models using Pairwise Comparison and Category Classification (PairComp+Cate)}
At the bottom of Table II, the results of pairwise aesthetic ranking with category are presented. Even though the improvement of integrating image category is less than the pairwise comparison, it still increases the accuracy about 1-3\%. We believe that a category-specific structure for the third network column can classify the image category more accurate and then improve the ranking results. With both pairwise comparison and category classification, the top-1 accuracy of both AlexNet and RAPID net exceeds 40\%. Besides, the top-3 and top-5 accuracy are close to 80\% and 90\% respectively. It indicates that the recommendation system can provide a suitable filter for an input image to a user on the display with limited size (e.g., 5 filters).
Meanwhile, we observe that users usually prefer and focus on few filters although there are lots of different filter types. Based on the statistics and analysis from Marketo, it shows that only top few filters have higher usage (e.g., 10\% for Earlybird, 8\% for XProII, and 5\% for Valencia).\footnote{http://blog.marketo.com/2013/03/what-your-instagram-filter-says-about-you-infographic.html} Therefore, user preferred filters are prone to show up in the top-5 results, and the improvement is small. As the number of filters increases, we believe that the proposed category-aware aesthetic learning can achieve better accuracy in top-5 accuracy. If we can obtain the full rank of 22 filtered images, we can learn a better model for the filter recommendation. However, it is time-consuming to collect all possible ranking for the evaluation. In this work, we attempt to leverage a small number of labeled filter pairs for aesthetic learning.
\subsection{Observation and Discussion on Filters and Categories}
We also visualize some filter recommendation results on our proposed PairComp+Cate (RAPID net) in Fig. 6. It shows the testing (unfiltered) images along with their corresponding top-3 recommended filters. The images with green borders represent the correct predictions (ideal filters) of the given images. We find that filter preference of \emph{architecture} and \emph{still life} depends on the texture of subjects. For instance, materials like tile, glass and metal are more sensitive to light reflection on their surface. Besides, the examples support the observation mentioned in Sec. IV-C. The colorful images, such as flora photos in the fourth column of Fig. 6, become more elegant by enhancing contrast or lighting to emphasize the subjects. The flora images with Hefe filter show the improvement of stronger contrast. This principle can be applied on \textit{food and drink} as well. The more colorful food images seems tastier to humans. On the contrary, flora with XProII filter makes it difficult to distinguish the main object.
The images of portrait in the third column of Fig. 6 also illustrate their dependency on color tone and brightness. Because of the skin color of human being, a warmer tone (e.g., Earlybird filter) can yield more vitality to the images of portrait. By contrast, cool tone in these kinds of images brings about negative feeling to viewers. Besides, lighting is another factor impacting the preference especially for portrait photos. The impact of brightness reflects on skin appearance mainly. In the figure, the correct prediction (Earlybird) of portrait is brighter than others obviously and the skin seems shinier and smoother. In addition, we think the portrait image with Gotham filter is also visually appealing; however, the preference is still subjective and sensitive to the sampled pairs (i.e., better than 3 filtered images).
In addition to the image examples, we also compare the filter distribution between our prediction and the ground truth as shown in Fig. 7. The red bars depict the preference of filters in the ground truth. We find that some filter types are more attractive to users specifically, such as Hefe, Mayfair, and Gotham. With further survey of these filters, both of Hefe and Mayfair enhance the contrast of color and Gotham transfers images to warm color. This meets the explanation of Fig. 6 so that these filters are more generally applied on images. Besides, the blue bars illustrate the filter distribution of our prediction. Despite of the imbalance of user preference, the CNN model still learns aesthetic information by the proposed method. The distribution of predicted (recommended) filters is similar to the user preference in the ground truth, except Gotham. XProII also provides warm color and high contrast effects like Gotham. Therefore, images in Gotham may be incorrectly classified into XProII. From Fig. 7, we find that high contrast filters are easier to be selected correctly. It means that XProII is recommended because of its high contrast rather than warm color in most cases. It indicates that our model is more sensitive to contrast than to warm color. How to deal with the filters with great difference between ground truth and prediction is a direction for further study in the future.
For comparing with traditional approaches, in \cite{rapid14}, Lu~\textsl{et~al.} compare the performance of handcrafted features, such as Fisher Vector (FV), and the CNN models on the AVA dataset.\footnote{Besides the non-CNN approach on AVA dataset, Guo and Wang \cite{Guo13} demonstrate that filtered images will affect handcrafted features (e.g., SIFT) and degrade the recognition accuracy. Therefore, in this work, we assume CNN-based approaches (e.g., RAPID net) are strong baseline for comparison, and focus on exploring different CNN structures with category information and pairwise aesthetic comparison for filter recommendation.} The results show that even a simple single-column CNN can beat the performance of FV by almost 5\%. Besides, in many other fields, CNN is widely used and outperforms traditional methods. For these reasons, we focus on exploring different CNN structures rather than comparing the performance between non-CNN and CNN-based methods.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in, keepaspectratio=true]{distribution_gt_predict}
\caption{Filter preference distribution across image categories. The chart demonstrates that the distributions of the ground truth and our prediction are similar. Both of them concentrate on certain filters which are commonly selected (e.g., Mayfair, Hefe, XProII). The difference is discussed in Sec. V-C.}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we present a novel approach that learns aesthetic representations for filter recommendation. Different from traditional image quality studies, the proposed method learns aesthetic responses from pairwise comparison. This idea is achieved by designing a multi-column CNN with a specific loss function. The involvement of image category also improves the performance of filter ranking by multi-task learning. Besides, we introduce a publicly available dataset, Filter Aesthetic Comparison Dataset (FACD), with crowdsourcing labels for pairwise filter comparison. It provides more than 40K filtered image pairs with user preference. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that integrates pairwise filter ranking and CNN architectures for image aesthetic response learning. We believe that the newly created FACD and the ideas/observation in this paper can help further research works on image aesthetic analysis. In the future, applying specific structures for different objectives or even integrating additional image information may promote the performance of aesthetic ranking. Meanwhile, the ranking order may be more informative than pairwise comparison; hence, it is also essential to utilize those pair information and design suitable loss functions for aesthetic ranking. Therefore, we will further explore possible ranking methods under CNN structures and compare with traditional approaches.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work was supported in part by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under Grant MOST 104-2622-8-002-002 and MOST 105-2218-E-002-032, and in part by MediaTek Inc. and grants from NVIDIA and the NVIDIA DGX-1 AI Supercomputer.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
\begin{definition}
Let $\Gamma$ be a formula which defines a class of forcing posets (e.g. ccc, proper etc) and $\phi$ be a formula (in the language of set theory). We say that $\phi$ is \textbf{$\Gamma$-necessary} (over $V$) if $\phi$ is true in $V^{\mathbb{P}}$ for any $\mathbb{P}$ such that $\Gamma(\mathbb{P})$ holds (informally, we just write $\mathbb{P}\in \Gamma$). We say that $\phi$ is \textbf{forcibly $\Gamma$-necessary} if there is some $\mathbb{P}\in \Gamma$ such that $\phi$ is $\Gamma$-necessary over $V^{\mathbb{P}}$, i.e. $V^\mathbb{P} \vDash ``\phi$ is $\Gamma$-necessary".
\end{definition}
The following definition comes from \cite{hamkins2000simple}.
\begin{definition}
Let $\kappa$ be an infinite cardinal and $\Gamma$ define a class of forcing posets. The principle $\rm{MP}(\kappa,\Gamma)$ states that: for any $A\subseteq \kappa$ and any formula $\phi(v)$, if there is a $\mathbb{P}\in \Gamma$ such that $\phi(A)$ is $\Gamma$-necessary over $V^{\mathbb{P}}$, then $\phi(A)$ holds in $V$. The principle $\rm{NMP}$$(\kappa,\Gamma)$ states that $\rm{MP}(\kappa,\Gamma)$ holds in $V^\mathbb{P}$ for all $\mathbb{P}\in \Gamma$.
\end{definition}
$\rm{MP}$$(\kappa,\Gamma)$ and $\rm{NMP}$$(\kappa,\Gamma)$ are generally axiom schemata and one can formulate them in $\sf{ZFC}$. See \cite{hamkins2000simple} for a more detailed discussion.
Clearly, $\rm{NMP}(\kappa,\Gamma)$ implies $\rm{MP}(\kappa,\Gamma)$; also, if $\kappa<\lambda$, then MP$(\lambda,\Gamma)$ implies MP$(\kappa,\Gamma)$. On the other hand, it's not clear if there is any relationship at all between $\rm{MP}(\kappa,\Gamma_1)$ ($\rm{NMP}(\kappa,\Gamma_1)$, respectively) and $\rm{MP}(\kappa,\Gamma_2)$ ($\rm{NMP}(\kappa,\Gamma_2)$, respectively) even if $\Gamma_1 \subseteq \Gamma_2$.\footnote{Here, we identify the formulas $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$ with the classes of forcings they define. $\Gamma_1\subseteq \Gamma_2$ means $\forall x (\Gamma_1(x) \Rightarrow \Gamma_2(x))$. We will make this identification throughout the paper.}
Woodin (unpublished) has shown that if $\Gamma$ defines the class of all forcing posets, the principle $\rm{NMP}(\omega,\Gamma)$ is consistent relative to ``$\sf{AD}_\mathbb{R}+\Theta $ is regular". Hamkins and Woodin (cf. \cite{hamkins2005necessary}) have shown that if $\Gamma$ is the class of ccc forcings, then $\rm{NMP}(\omega,\Gamma)$ is equiconsistent with ``$\sf{ZFC} + $ there is a weakly compact cardinal." For $\Gamma$ being the class of proper, or semi-proper, or stationary set preserving forcings, we believe it's open whether $\rm{NMP}(\omega,\Gamma)$ is consistent.
As remarked in \cite[page 22]{hamkins2000simple}, for any sufficiently rich $\Gamma$ and any $\kappa > \omega$, the principle $\rm{NMP}$$(\kappa,\Gamma)$ in general will be false (see, for example, Corollary \ref{boldfaceNMPfails}). However, $\rm{MP}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ may still hold for some $\Gamma$.
In this paper, we explore the consistency strength of various maximality principles (as defined above) for several important classes of forcing posets, and their relations with various well-known forcing axioms such as The Martin Maximum ($\sf{MM}$), Woodin's $(*)$ axiom, and bounded forcing axioms.
\begin{definition}
\begin{enumerate}
\item A cardinal $\lambda$ is \textbf{reflecting} if $V_\lambda \prec V$.\footnote{This type of cardinals can be formalized in $\sf{ZFC}$ just by enriching the language with a parameter $\lambda$ for the relevant cardinal and expressing the elementarity of $V_\lambda$ with $V$ by means of infintely many formulae in parameter $\lambda$.}
\item A cardinal $\kappa$ is \textbf{hyper-huge} if whenever $\lambda>\kappa$, there is an elementary embedding $j:V\rightarrow M$ such that crt$(j)=\kappa$, $j(\kappa)>\lambda$, and $M^{j(\lambda)}\subset M$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\cite{hamkins2000simple} shows that MP$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ has very low consistency strength for $\Gamma$ defining the class of $\sigma$-closed, proper, or semi-proper forcings; in particular, \cite{hamkins2000simple} shows that these principles are consistent relative to $V=L$. On the other hand, if $\Gamma$ defines the class of stationary set preserving forcings, Theorem \ref{BMM} shows MP$(\omega,\Gamma)$ implies that $0^\sharp$ exists and more. If $\Gamma$ is the class of stationary set preserving forcings, $\rm{MP}$$(\omega,\Gamma)$ and $\rm{MP}$$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ may be very strong; but $\rm{MP}$$(0,\Gamma)$, on the other hand, is consistent relative to $\sf{ZFC}$ (by \cite{hamkins2000simple}).
The following theorem deals with NMP for the class of $\sigma$-closed forcings.
\begin{theorem}\label{FromReflectingCard}
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item Suppose $\Gamma$ defines the class of $\sigma$-closed forcings. Then $\rm{NMP}(\omega,\Gamma)$ is consistent relative to $\sf{ZFC}$.
\item Suppose $\Gamma$ defines the class of $\sigma$-closed forcings. Suppose there is a hyper-huge cardinal. Then $\rm{NMP}$$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ fails.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
We do not know if NMP$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ is consistent, where $\Gamma$ defines the class of $\sigma$-closed forcings.
\end{remark}
\begin{comment}
Suppose $\kappa$ is supercompact and $\lambda>\kappa$ is a reflecting cardinal. Suppose $f:\kappa\rightarrow V_\kappa$ is a Laver function such that for every $x\in V_\lambda$, the following hold: \begin{enumerate}
\item there is an elementary embedding $j:V\rightarrow M$ witnessing $\kappa$ is $\lambda$-supercompact such that $j(f)(\kappa) = x$;
\item letting $j,M$ be as above, then $\lambda$ is reflecting in $M$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{comment}
The next theorem gives an upper bound consistency strength for MP$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$, where $\Gamma$ defines the class of stationary set preserving forcings.
\begin{theorem}
\label{FromSupercompact}
Let $\Gamma$ define the class of stationary set preserving forcing posets. Suppose there is a proper class of strongly compact cardinals and an inaccessible cardinal which is reflecting. Then in some generic extension of $V$, $\rm{MP}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ holds.
\end{theorem}
The proofs of Theorems \ref{FromReflectingCard} and \ref{FromSupercompact} form the content of Section \ref{UpperBounds}.
\begin{definition}\label{StratifiedMP}
Let $\Gamma$ define a class of forcing posets, $\kappa$ is a cardinal. For each $n\leq \omega$, $\rm{MP}$$_{\Sigma_n}(\kappa,\Gamma)$ is the restriction of $\rm{MP}$$(\kappa,\Gamma)$ to $\Sigma_n$ formulas. More precisely, $\rm{MP}$$_{\Sigma_n}(\kappa,\Gamma)$ is the statement: suppose $\phi(v)$ is a $\Sigma_n$ formula (in the language of set theory), $A\subseteq \kappa$, and $\mathbb{P}\in\Gamma$ is such that $\phi(A)$ is $\Gamma$-necessary over $V^{\mathbb{P}}$, then $\phi(A)$ is true.
We define $\rm{MP}$$_{\Pi_n}(\kappa,\Gamma)$, $\rm{NMP}$$_{\Sigma_n}(\kappa,\Gamma)$, $\rm{NMP}$$_{\Pi_n}(\kappa,\Gamma)$ etc. similarly.
\end{definition}
The following two theorems establish some connections between the forcing axioms $\sf{MM}^{++}$, $\rm{MP} (\omega, \Gamma)$ and $\rm{MP} (\omega_1, \Gamma)$ where $\Gamma$ is the class of stationary set preserving forcings.
\begin{theorem}\label{MM++vsMP}
Let $\Gamma$ define the class of all stationary set preserving forcings.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose that $\sf{MM}^{++}$ holds and that there are proper class many Woodin cardinals. Then $\rm{MP}$$_{\Pi_2}(\omega_1, \Gamma)$ holds.
\item ``$\sf{MM}^{++}$ + there are proper class many Woodin cardinals" does not imply $\rm{MP}$$(\omega_1, \Gamma)$.
\item $\sf{MM}^{++}$ does not imply $\rm{MP}$$_{\Pi_2}(\omega_1, \Gamma)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{NothingImpliesAnything}
Let $\Gamma$ define the class of stationary set preserving forcing posets.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\rm{MP}$$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ does not imply $\sf{MM}^{++}$.
\item $\rm{MP}$$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ implies $\sf{BMM}$ and $\sf{BMM}$ does not imply $\rm{MP}$$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$.
\item $\rm{MP}$$(\omega,\Gamma)$ does not imply $\rm{MP}$$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ and $\rm{MP}$$(0,\Gamma)$ does not imply $\rm{MP}$$(\omega,\Gamma)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
We now discuss the connection between $\text{MP}(\omega_1, \Gamma)$ and Woodin's Axiom (*), where $\Gamma$ is the class of stationary set preserving forcings.
\begin{theorem}\label{MM++vsStar}
Let $\Gamma$ define the class of stationary set preserving forcings.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Woodin's Axiom (*) does not imply $\rm{MP}$$(\omega_1, \Gamma)$.
\item $\rm{MP}$$(\omega_1, \Gamma)$ does not imply Woodin's Axiom (*).
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{comment}
\begin{theorem}
\label{FromMM}
Suppose $\Gamma$ defines the class of stationary set preserving forcing posets. Suppose $\sf{MM}^{++}$ holds and there is a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Then $\rm{lMP}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$. In fact, $\rm{MP}_{\Sigma_2}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ holds.
\end{theorem}
\end{comment}
\begin{definition}
\label{BoundedForcingAxioms}
Let $\Gamma$ define a class of forcing posets and $\kappa$ be an uncountable cardinal. $\sf{FA}_\kappa(\Gamma)$ is the following statement: for any $\mathbb{P}\in \Gamma$, let $\langle D_\alpha \ | \ \alpha<\omega_1 \rangle$ be a sequence of maximal antichains of r.o.$(\mathbb{P})$\footnote{r.o.$(\mathbb{P})$ is the completion of $\mathbb{P}$ and is a complete Boolean algebra.} such that for each $\alpha<\omega_1$, $|D_\alpha| \leq \kappa$, then there is a filter $G\subseteq$ r.o.$(\mathbb{P})$ such that $G\cap D_\alpha\neq \emptyset$ for all $\alpha<\omega_1$. \end{definition}
\begin{remark}
If $\kappa=\aleph_1$, then by \cite{Bagaria2000}, $\sf{FA}_\kappa(\Gamma)$ is equivalent to the statement: for any $\mathbb{P}\in \Gamma$,
\begin{center}
$(H_{\omega_2},\in) \prec_{\Sigma_1} (H_{\omega_2}^{V^\mathbb{P}},\in)$.
\end{center}
\end{remark}
The following gives a characterization of bounded forcing axioms of the form $\sf{FA}_{\aleph_1}(\Gamma)$ in terms of maximality principles for $\Sigma_1$ statements.
\begin{theorem}\label{MPvsFA}
Let $\Gamma$ define a class of complete Boolean algebras. Then $\sf{FA}_{\aleph_1}(\Gamma)$ is equivalent to $\rm{MP}$$_{\Sigma_1}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$.
\end{theorem}
From Theorem \ref{MPvsFA}, we get the following.
\begin{corollary}
\label{boldfaceNMPfails}
Suppose $\Gamma$ defines the class of proper forcings, semi-proper forcings, or stationary set preserving posets. Then $\rm{NMP}$$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ is false.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $\Gamma$ define the class of proper forcings (the proof is the same for the other classes). By standard results (cf. \cite{moore2005set}), $\sf{FA}$$_{\aleph_1}(\Gamma)$ (commonly known as $\sf{BPFA}$) implies $\sf{CH}$ fails. Let $\mathbb{P}$ be the ($\sigma$-closed, hence proper) forcing that adds a Cohen subset of $\omega_1$. Then in $V^{\mathbb{P}}$, $\sf{CH}$ holds and NMP$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ holds. In particular, by Theorem \ref{MPvsFA}, $\sf{FA}_{\aleph_1}(\Gamma)$ holds in $V^\mathbb{P}$. But then $\sf{CH}$ fails in $V^\mathbb{P}$. Contradiction.
\end{proof}
We remark that if $\kappa\geq \omega_2$ then $\rm{MP}(\kappa,\Gamma)$ may fail. For instance, let $\Gamma$ define the class of proper forcings and $\kappa=\aleph_2 = 2^{\aleph_0}$ (by Theorem \ref{MPvsFA} and \cite{moore2005set}). Let $A\subseteq \kappa$ code the reals and consider the statement $\phi(A) \equiv$ ``there is a real $x\notin A$". Obviously, if $\mathbb{P}$ is the Cohen forcing that adds a Cohen real, then $\phi(A)$ can be made $\Gamma$-necessary over $V^\mathbb{P}$ but cannot be true in $V$ by the definition of $A$.
In Section \ref{Relationships}, we prove Theorems \ref{MM++vsMP}, \ref{NothingImpliesAnything}, \ref{MM++vsStar}, and \ref{MPvsFA}.
The following theorem suggests that when $\Gamma$ defines the class of stationary set preserving posets, the principles $\rm{MP}(\omega,\Gamma)$ and $\rm{MP}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ may have considerable consistency strength.
\begin{theorem}
\label{BMM}
If $\Gamma$ is the class of stationary set preserving forcings, then $\rm{MP}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ implies $2^{\aleph_0}= 2^{\aleph_1}=\aleph_2$ and for all $X$, $X^\sharp$ exists. In fact, the second clause follows from $\rm{MP}(\omega,\Gamma)$. Furthermore, $\sf{MM}(c)$ does not imply $\rm{MP}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$.
\end{theorem}
When combined with other mild assumptions, $\rm{MP}(\kappa,\Gamma)$ can have significant lower-bound consistency strength for various classes of forcings $\Gamma$. For instance, we have the following.
\begin{theorem}
\label{gettingPD}
Suppose $\Gamma$ defines the class of $\sigma$-closed, proper forcing posets, semi-proper forcing posets, or stationary set preserving forcing posets. Suppose $\rm{MP}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ holds and there is a precipitous ideal on $\omega_1$. Then Projective Determinacy $(\sf{PD})$ holds.
\end{theorem}
The proofs of Theorems \ref{BMM} and \ref{gettingPD} will be given in Section \ref{Lowerbounds}. In Section \ref{OpenProblems}, we list some related open problems and questions.
There have been several recent results on generic absoluteness closely related to this work. The reader can see, for instance, \cite{MR3194674}, \cite{MR3377357}, and \cite{MR3486170}.
\textbf{Acknowledgement.} The paper was written during the second author's visit to Kobe University, where the first author was a postdoctoral researcher in May 2014 and completed during the first author's visit to UC Irvine, where the second author is a Visiting Assistant Professor, in August 2016. The first author would like to thank Toshimichi Usuba for many comments and discussions on this topic. He is also grateful for JSPS for support through the grants with JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 14J02269 and 15K17586. The second author would like to thank the NSF for its generous support through grant DMS-1565808. Finally, we would like to thank the anonymous referee for several helpful comments regarding the content of the paper.
\section{UPPER-BOUND CONSISTENCY STRENGTH}\label{UpperBounds}
In this section, we prove Theorems \ref{FromReflectingCard} and \ref{FromSupercompact}. We start with the proof of Theorem \ref{FromReflectingCard}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{FromReflectingCard}]
\begin{comment}
We prove part (1) first. Suppose $\Gamma$ is the class of proper forcings. Suppose $\delta$ is inaccessible and reflecting. We define a countable support iteration $\mathbb{P} = \langle \mathbb{P}_\alpha, \dot{\mathbb{Q}}_\beta \ | \ \alpha\leq \delta \wedge \beta < \delta \rangle$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item for every $\alpha<\delta$, $\mathbb{P}_\alpha \in V_\delta$, and
\item for every $\alpha < \delta$, $\mathbb{P}_\alpha \Vdash \dot{\mathbb{Q}}_\alpha$ is proper.
\end{enumerate}
Let $\langle \varphi_\alpha \ | \ \alpha<\delta\rangle$ enumerate (with unbounded repetition) all $\varphi$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\varphi$ is a sentence in the forcing language of $\mathbb{P}_\beta$ for some $\beta<\delta$, and
\item $\varphi$ contains some parameter $\dot{a}$ where $\dot{a}\in V_\delta$ is a $\mathbb{P}_\beta$-name for an element of $H_{\omega_2}$, and
\end{enumerate}
Finally, we require that
\begin{enumerate}\setcounter{enumi}{2}
\item if $\varphi_\alpha$ is forcibly $\Gamma$-necessary over $V_\delta^{\mathbb{P}_\alpha}$ then $\dot{\mathbb{Q}}_\alpha\in V_\delta$ is a $\mathbb{P}_\alpha$-name such that $\varphi_\alpha$ is $\Gamma$-necessary over $V_{\delta}^{\mathbb{P}_\alpha\ast \dot{\mathbb{Q}}_\alpha}$.
\end{enumerate}
We claim that $V^{\mathbb{P}} \vDash \rm{MP}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$. Let $G\subseteq \mathbb{P}$ be $V$-generic. First note that in $V[G]$, $\omega_1 = \omega_1^V$ and $\delta = \omega_2$. The first clause holds because $\mathbb{P}$ is proper. The second clause holds because first of all, since $\delta$ is inaccessible, $\mathbb{P}$ is $\delta$-cc, and furthermore, every $a\in V_\delta$ is collapsed to have cardinality $\leq \omega_1$ by some $\mathbb{P}_\alpha$ since the statement ``$a\in H_{\omega_2}$" is $\Gamma$-necessary over $V^{\mathbb{P}_\alpha}$ for some $\alpha$.
Now every sentence $\phi$ in the forcing language of $\mathbb{P}$ with parameter a name $\dot{a}$ for a subset of $\omega_1$ such that $\dot{a}\in V_\delta$ must be some $\varphi_\alpha$ and $\dot{a}$ a $\mathbb{P}_\alpha$-name. For each $\alpha<\delta$, writing $\mathbb{P}$ as $\mathbb{P}_\alpha \ast \dot{\mathbb{Q}}$, then $V^{\mathbb{P}_\alpha}\vDash \dot{\mathbb{Q}}$ is proper. Suppose then $\varphi_\alpha$ is forcibly $\Gamma$-necessary over $V[G]$, then $\varphi_\alpha$ is forcibly $\Gamma$-necessary over $V[G\restriction \alpha]$. Since $\delta$ is still reflecting in $V[G\restriction \alpha]$, by the choice of $\dot{\mathbb{Q}}_\alpha$ in 3., $\varphi_\alpha$ is $\Gamma$-necessary over $V_\delta[G\restriction (\alpha+1)]$ and hence $\varphi_\alpha$ is $\Gamma$-necessary over $V[G\restriction(\alpha+1)]$. This gives $V[G]\vDash \varphi_\alpha$ as claimed.
The same proof works for $\Gamma$ being the class of $\sigma$-closed forcings. If $\Gamma$ is the class of semi-proper forcings, we replace the iteration above by a revised countable support iteration.
\end{comment}
We now prove (1). We let $\mathbb{P} = \langle \mathbb{P}_\alpha, \mathbb{Q}_\beta\ | \ \alpha\leq 2^\omega \wedge \beta<2^\omega \rangle$ be a countable support iteration of $\sigma$-closed forcings defined as follows. Since $\sigma$-closed forcings don't add reals, we let $\langle (\phi_\alpha,x_\alpha) \ | \ \alpha < 2^\omega\rangle$ enumerate (with unbounded repetition) all pairs $(\phi,x)$, where
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $x\in \mathbb{R}$, and
\item $\phi$ is a sentence in the forcing language of $\mathbb{P}$ with parameter $x$.
\end{enumerate}
By induction, for each $\alpha<2^\omega$, if $(\varphi_\alpha,x_\alpha)$ is such that $\varphi_\alpha(x_\alpha)$ is forcibly $\Gamma$-necessary over $V^{\mathbb{P}_\alpha}$ then we choose $\dot{\mathbb{Q}}_\alpha$ so that $\phi_\alpha(x_\alpha)$ is $\Gamma$-necessary over $V^{\mathbb{P}_\alpha\ast \dot{\mathbb{Q}}_\alpha}$. Note that $\mathbb{P}$ is $\sigma$-closed, and hence $\mathbb{R}^V = \mathbb{R}^{V^{\mathbb{P}}}$.
We claim that $V^\mathbb{P}\vDash \rm{NMP}(\omega,\Gamma)$. So let $G\subseteq \mathbb{P}$ be $V$-generic. Let $\alpha<(2^\omega)^V$ and $\mathbb{Q}\in V[G]$ be such that $\varphi_\alpha(x_\alpha)$ is forcibly $\Gamma$-necessary over $V[G]^{\mathbb{Q}}$. We want to show that $V[G]^{\mathbb{Q}} \vDash \varphi_\alpha(x_\alpha)$. By the assumption, $\varphi_\alpha(x_\alpha)$ is $\Gamma$-forcibly necessary over $V[G\restriction \alpha]$. By construction, $\varphi_\alpha(x_\alpha)$ is $\Gamma$-necessary over $V[G\restriction(\alpha+1)]$, which in turns implies $\varphi_\alpha(x_\alpha)$ holds $V[G]^{\mathbb{Q}}$ as desired.
Part (2) essentially follows from Usuba \cite{Usuba}. In \cite{Usuba}, assuming in $V$ that there is a hyper-huge cardinal, it is shown that the generic mantle $g\mathbb{M}$ is the mantle $\mathbb{M}$ (hence, $\mathbb{M}$ is generically invariant) and that $\mathbb{M}$ is a ground of $V$.\footnote{Recall the mantle $\mathbb{M}$ is the intersection of all grounds of $V$. The generic mantle $g\mathbb{M}$ is the intersection of all grounds of all set generic extensions of $V$.}
\begin{claim}
NMP$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ ($\Gamma$ is the class of $\sigma$-closed forcings) implies that for a proper class of $\alpha$, $\alpha^+ > (\alpha^+)^{g\mathbb{M}}$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
The argument is as follows. Fix an $\alpha\geq \omega_1^V$, $\alpha^\omega\subseteq \alpha$, and let $\kappa=(\alpha^+)^{g\mathbb{M}}$. Suppose for contradiction that $\kappa=\alpha^+$. Let $\mathbb{P}= Coll(\omega_1,\alpha)$, so $\mathbb{P}\in\Gamma$. Let $G\subseteq \mathbb{P}$ be $V$-generic. In $V[G]$, $\kappa=(\alpha^+)^{g\mathbb{M}} = \alpha^+$; this is because by our choice of $\alpha$, $\mathbb{P}$ is $\alpha^+$-cc. Let $A\subset \omega_1$ code $\alpha$ and $\mathbb{Q} = Coll(\omega_1,\kappa)$ and $H\subseteq \mathbb{Q}$ be $V[G]$-generic. Note that $\mathbb{P} * \mathbb{Q}\in\Gamma$ and the statement ``$(\alpha^+)^{g\mathbb{M}}<\omega_2$" is of the form $\phi(A)$ and is $\Gamma$-necessary over $V[G][H]$. By NMP$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$, $\phi(A)$ is true in $V[G]$. This is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
The conclusion of the claim contradicts the fact that $\mathbb{M}$ is a ground of $V$. This is because $V$ is a set-generic extension of $\mathbb{M} = g\mathbb{M}$; and hence there is a cardinal $\beta$ such that for all $\alpha\geq \beta$, $(\alpha^+)^{g\mathbb{M}} = \alpha^+$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
In fact, Usuba \cite{Usuba} has shown that letting $\Gamma$ be the class of all forcing posets, if NMP$(\omega,\Gamma)$ holds, then there cannot exist a hyper-huge cardinal. Therefore, Woodin's model of NMP$(\omega,\Gamma)$ cannot accommodate hyper-huge cardinals. The proof of Theorem \ref{FromReflectingCard} is based on Usuba's work in \cite{Usuba} and one can use it to reproduce Usuba's aforementioned result.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{FromSupercompact}]
Let $\Gamma$ define the class of all stationary set preserving forcings and $\delta$ be an inaccessible cardinal which is reflecting. Note that $\delta$ is a limit of strongly compact cardinals because there are proper class many strongly compact cardinals and $\delta$ is reflecting. We shall show that there is a semi-proper poset $\mathbb{P}$ of size $\delta$ such that $\text{MP}(\omega_1, \Gamma)$ holds in $V^{\mathbb{P}}$.
We will construct a revised countable support forcing iteration $(\mathbb{P}_{\alpha} , \dot{\mathbb{Q}}_{\alpha} \mid \alpha \le \delta )$ of semi-proper forcings and a sequence $(x_{\alpha} \in \mathcal{P}(\omega_1)^{V^{\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}}} \mid \alpha < \delta)$ with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item each $\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$ is in $V_{\delta}$,
\item any subset of $\omega_1$ in $V^{\mathbb{P}_{\delta}}$ is of the form $x_{\alpha}$ for some $\alpha < \delta$,
\item for any $\alpha < \delta$, in $V^{\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}}$, $\dot{\mathbb{Q}}_{\alpha}$ is of the form $\text{Coll}(\omega_1 , < \kappa) * \mathbb{Q}$ where $\kappa$ is a strongly compact cardinal less than $\delta$, and
\item for any formula $\phi$ and any $\alpha < \delta$, if $\phi [x_{\alpha}]$ is $\Gamma$-necessary in $V^{\mathbb{P}_{\alpha} * \text{Coll}(\omega_1 , < \kappa) * \mathbb{Q}'}$ for some stationary set preserving poset $\mathbb{Q}'$ in $V^{\mathbb{P}_{\alpha} * \text{Coll}(\omega_1 , < \kappa)}$ where $\dot{\mathbb{Q}}_{\alpha} = \text{Coll}(\omega_1 , < \kappa) * \mathbb{Q}$ for some $\mathbb{Q}$, then $\phi [x_{\alpha}]$ is $\Gamma$-necessary in $V^{\mathbb{P}_{\alpha + 1}}$.
\end{enumerate}
The item 2. can be organized by a standard book-keeping argument. For item 4., we use the assumption that $\delta$ is reflecting so that the poset $\mathbb{Q}$ like a $\mathbb{Q}'$ in the item 4. can be taken in $V_{\delta}^{V^{\mathbb{P}_{\alpha} * \text{Coll}(\omega_1 , < \kappa)}}$ and that one can set $\dot{\mathbb{Q}}_{\alpha} = \text{Coll}(\omega_1, < \kappa) * \mathbb{Q}$ in $V^{\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}}$. Note that the poset $\mathbb{Q}$ is also semi-proper in $V^{\mathbb{P}_{\alpha} * \text{Coll}(\omega_1 , < \kappa)}$ because $\kappa$ is strongly compact in $V^{\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}}$ and so every stationary set preserving forcing is semi-proper in $V^{\mathbb{P}_{\alpha} * \text{Coll}(\omega_1 , < \kappa)}$ by the result of Shelah in \cite[Chapter~XIII, Section~1]{Shelah}.
Let $\mathbb{P} = \mathbb{P}_{\delta}$. We now argue that $\text{MP}(\omega_1, \Gamma)$ holds in $V^{\mathbb{P}}$. Let $\phi$ be a fomula and $x$ be a subset of $\omega_1$ in $V^{\mathbb{P}}$ such that $\phi [x]$ is $\Gamma$-necessary in $V^{\mathbb{P} * \mathbb{Q}}$ for some stationary set preserving $\mathbb{Q}$ in $V^{\mathbb{P}}$. We will show that $\phi [x]$ holds in $V^{\mathbb{P}}$. By the item 2. above, there is an $\alpha < \delta$ such that $x = x_{\alpha}$ in $V^{\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}}$. Since $\mathbb{P} / \mathbb{P}_{\alpha}$ is semi-proper in $V^{\mathbb{P}_{\alpha}}$, $(\mathbb{P} / \mathbb{P}_{\alpha}) * \mathbb{Q}$ forces that $\phi [x_{\alpha}]$ is $\Gamma$-necessary. So by the item 4., $\phi [x_{\alpha}]$ is $\Gamma$-necessary in $V^{\mathbb{P}_{\alpha +1}}$. Since $\mathbb{P}/\mathbb{P}_{\alpha +1}$ is stationary set preserving in $V^{\mathbb{P}_{\alpha +1}}$, $\phi [x]$ holds in $V^{\mathbb{P}}$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The proof above can be modified to show that the axioms $\sf{MM}^{++}$, MP$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ may be jointly consistent. Assuming even stronger large cardinal properties, a variation of the construction above and \cite[Theorem 3.10]{iterated_resurrection} imply that $\sf{MM}^{++}$, MP$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$, and the iteration resurrection axioms RA$_{\sf{ON}}(\sf{SSP})$ (cf. \cite{iterated_resurrection}) may all be jointly consistent.
\end{remark}
\begin{comment}
\begin{proof}
$(2)\Rightarrow (1):$ Fix $i,T$ as in the statement of $(2)$. Let $H\subseteq \mathbb{B}$ be $V$-generic and let $j: V\rightarrow M \subseteq V[H]$ be the associated generic embedding. By the property of $T$ and the fact that $M^{<\delta}\subseteq M$ in $V[H]$, it's easy to see that $\mathbb{B}$ is stationary set preserving, in particular, $\mathbb{B}$ preserves $\omega_1^V$. Let $\theta = |\mathbb{P}|^+$. Let $G = i^{-1}[H]$. Since $i$ is a complete embedding, $G$ is $V$-generic for $\mathbb{P}$ and let $K\subseteq \mathbb{B}\slash i[\mathbb{P}]$ be such that $G\ast K = H$. Then since $M^{<\delta}\subseteq M$ in $V[H]$, $j[G], j[H_\theta] \in M$ and
\begin{center}
$M \vDash j[H_\theta] \prec j(H_\theta) \wedge j[G]$ is $j[H_\theta]$-generic for $j(\mathbb{P})$.
\end{center}
Furthermore, for any $j(\mathbb{P})$-name $\dot{S}$ for a stationary subset of $\omega^V_1$, $j^{-1}(\dot{S})_G$ is stationary in $V[G]$ and since
\begin{center}
$V[G] \vDash ``\mathbb{B}\slash i[\mathbb{P}]$ is stationary set preserving",
\end{center}
$j^{-1}(\dot{S})_G$ remains stationary in $V[G\ast K] = V[H]$. This easily implies that $T_{\mathbb{P}}$ is stationary and in fact in $H$. This proves $\sf{MM}^{++}$.
\\
\noindent $(1)\Rightarrow (2):$ Assume $\sf{MM}^{++}$ and let $\mathbb{P}$ be stationary set preserving. Let $\delta$ be Woodin such that $\mathbb{P}\in V_\delta$. It suffices to show that there is a complete embedding $i:\mathbb{P}\rightarrow \mathbb{B} =_{\rm{def}} \rm{r.o.}$$(\mathbb{P}_{<\delta}\restriction T_\mathbb{P})$ satisfying the conclusion of $(2)$. Let $\theta = |\mathbb{P}|^+$ and let $\dot{S}\in H_\theta$ be a $\mathbb{P}$-name for a stationary set of $\omega_1$. Let $H\subseteq \mathbb{B}$ be $V$-generic and let $j:V\rightarrow M \subseteq V[H]$ be the associated embedding. By the property of $T_\mathbb{P}$, $M^{<\delta}\subseteq M$ in $V[H]$, and Los theorem, there is a $(j[H_\theta],j(\mathbb{P}))$-correct filter $G$ in $V[H]$. This means, letting $g = j^{-1}[G]$, then $(\dot{S})_g$ is stationary in $V[H]$.
We have argued that for any $\mathbb{P}$-name $\dot{S}$ for a stationary set of $\omega_1$, there is a $\mathbb{B}$-generic filter $H$ such that letting $G,g$ be as above for $H$, $\dot{S}_g$ is stationary in $V[H]$. This among other things, implies the existence of a complete embedding $i:\mathbb{P}\rightarrow \mathbb{B}$ by \cite[Lemma 2.1]{viale2011martin}. It remains to see that
\begin{center}
$\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}} \mathbb{B}\slash i[\mathbb{P}]$ is stationary set preserving.
\end{center}
Suppose not. Then there is a $\mathbb{P}$-name $\dot{S}\in H_\theta$ for a stationary subset of $\omega_1$ and a condition $p\in \mathbb{B}$ such that for any $\mathbb{B}$-generic $H\subseteq \mathbb{B}$ containing $p$, letting $G,g$ be defined as above for $H$,
\begin{center}
$V[H] \vDash \dot{S}_g$ is not stationary.
\end{center}
This contradicts the argument above. This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{FromMM}]
Let $\mathbb{P}$ be stationary set preserving, $A\subseteq \omega_1$, and $\phi(A)$ be the statement ``$V_\gamma \vDash \psi[A]$, where $\gamma$ is the least inaccessible cardinal". Suppose $\phi(A)$ is $\Gamma$-necessary over $V^{\mathbb{P}}$. We want to show $V_\gamma \vDash \psi[A]$, where $\gamma$ is the least inaccessible cardinal in $V$. Let $\delta$ be a Woodin cardinal such that $\mathbb{P}\in V_\delta$. By Lemma \ref{MM++equivalence}, there is a condition $T\in\mathbb{P}_{<\delta}$ and a complete embedding $i:\mathbb{P}\rightarrow \mathbb{B}=\textrm{r.o.}(\mathbb{P}_{<\delta}\restriction T)$ such that
\begin{center}
$\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}} \mathbb{B}\slash i[\mathbb{P}]$ is stationary set preserving.
\end{center}
Let $G\ast H\subseteq \mathbb{P}\ast \mathbb{B}\slash i[\mathbb{P}]$ be $V$-generic and $j:V\rightarrow M\subseteq V[G\ast H]$ be the induced generic embedding. We may choose $T$ so that crt$(j)=\omega_2^V$; furthermore, $\delta$ is a limit of fixed points of $j$. Also in $V[G\ast H]$, $M^{<\delta}\subseteq M$.
Since $\phi(A)$ is $\Gamma$-necessary over $V^{\mathbb{P}}$, $V[G\ast H]\vDash \phi[A]$. Let $\xi$ be the least inaccessible cardinal in $V[G\ast H]$. Then $V[G\ast H]_\xi \vDash \psi[A]$. By the property of $j$ and the agreement between $M$ and $V[G\ast H]$, $\xi$ is also the least inaccessible cardinal of $M$ and furthermore, $V^M_\xi = V[G\ast H]_\xi$. Hence $M \vDash \phi[A]$. Since $A\subseteq \omega^V_1$, $j(A) = A$. This implies $V\vDash \phi[A]$. This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\section{RELATIONSHIP WITH FORCING AXIOMS}\label{Relationships}
In this section, we will prove Theorems \ref{MPvsFA}, \ref{NothingImpliesAnything},\ref{MM++vsMP}, and \ref{MM++vsStar}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{MPvsFA}]
Assume $\rm{MP}$$_{\Sigma_1}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ and let $\mathbb{P}\in \Gamma$. We show that
\begin{center}
$(H_{\omega_2},\in)\prec_{\Sigma_1}(H_{\omega_2}^{V^\mathbb{P}},\in)$.
\end{center}
Suppose $y\in H_{\omega_2}$, $\psi(v_0,v_1)$ is a $\Sigma_0$ formula. Clearly, if $(H_{\omega_2},\in)\vDash \exists x \psi[x,y]$, then $(H_{\omega_2}^{V^\mathbb{P}},\in)\vDash \exists x \psi[x,y]$. So suppose $(H_{\omega_2}^{V^\mathbb{P}},\in)\vDash \exists x \psi[x,y]$. Then for any $\mathbb{Q}\in \Gamma^{V^\mathbb{P}}$, we have
\begin{center}
$(H_{\omega_2}^{V^{\mathbb{P}\ast \mathbb{Q}}},\in)\vDash \exists x \psi[x,y]$.
\end{center}
This means the $\Sigma_1$ statement ``$\exists x \psi[x,y]$" is $\Gamma$-necessary over $V^\mathbb{P}$ so it holds in $V$ by MP$_{\Sigma_1}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$. We easily get in $V$, $(H_{\omega_2},\in)\vDash \exists x \psi[x,y]$.
Conversely, suppose $\sf{FA}_{\aleph_1}(\Gamma)$ holds. Let $\phi(v)$ be $\Sigma_1$ and $A\subseteq \omega_1$ be such that there is some $\mathbb{P}\in\Gamma$ such that $\phi(A)$ is $\Gamma$-necessary over $V^{\mathbb{P}}$. In particular, $\phi(A)$ is true in $V^{\mathbb{P}}$. Working in $V^{\mathbb{P}}$, by reflection, there is some $\kappa$ such that $(H_\kappa,\in)\vDash \phi(A)$. Let $M$ be the transitive collapse of the Skolem hull of $A$ in $(H_\kappa,\in)$ (we may fix a well-ordering of $H_\kappa$ and define our Skolem functions relative to this well-ordering). Since $|M|=\aleph_1$, $M$ is transitive, and $\phi$ is $\Sigma_1$, $(H^{V^\mathbb{P}}_{\omega_2},\in)\vDash \phi(A)$. By $\sf{FA}_{\aleph_1}(\Gamma)$, in $V$, $(H_{\omega_2},\in)\vDash \phi(A)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{NothingImpliesAnything}]
\indent (1) We start with a model $M$ of $\rm{MP}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$. Working in $M$, let $\mathbb{P}$ be the $< \omega_2$-strategically closed forcing that adds a $\square_{\omega_1}$-sequence (cf. \cite[Example 6.6]{cummings2010iterated}). Since $\mathbb{P}$ does not add new $\omega_1$-sequences of ordinals, it's easy to see that $M^\mathbb{P}\vDash \rm{MP}$$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$. On the other hand, the existence of a $\square_{\omega_1}$ sequence implies $\sf{MM}^{++}$ fails in $M^\mathbb{P}$.
\indent (2) The first clause follows from Theorem \ref{MPvsFA}. We prove the second clause as follows. By \cite[Theorem 10.99]{Woodin}, whenever $M\vDash \sf{AD}^+$ and $M$ is closed under ${\mathcal{M}}_1^\sharp$, that is for any $a\in M$, ${\mathcal{M}}_1^\sharp(a)\in M$ (and is fully iterable in $M$), then for any $G\subseteq \mathbb{P}_{\rm{max}}$ generic over $M$, $M[G] \vDash \sf{BMM}$. Fix such an $M$ (we may assume $M\vDash \sf{AD}^+ + \neg \sf{AD}_{\mathbb{R}}$) and let
\begin{center}
$N = L^{{\mathcal{M}}_1^\sharp}({\wp }(\mathbb{R})^M)$.\footnote{Let $F$ be the operator $x\mapsto {\mathcal{M}}_1^\sharp(x)$. As usual, we put $J_0({\wp }(\mathbb{R})^M) = tr. cl. ({\wp }(\mathbb{R})^M)$. We take union at limit steps and $J^{{\mathcal{M}}_1^\sharp}_{\alpha+1}({\wp }(\mathbb{R})^M) = F(J^{{\mathcal{M}}_1^\sharp}_\alpha({\wp }(\mathbb{R})^M))$. See \cite{CMI} for more details on the fine structure and the exact stratification of this kind of hierarchies.}
\end{center}
It is well-known that the ${\mathcal{M}}_1^\sharp$ operator relativizes well, that is for any $a,b$, if $a\in L(b)$ then ${\mathcal{M}}_1^\sharp(a)\in L({\mathcal{M}}_1^\sharp(b))$. It follows that $N$ is closed under ${\mathcal{M}}_1^\sharp$. By the definition of $N$, $N$ is not closed under ${\mathcal{M}}_2^\sharp$.
Now let $G\subseteq \mathbb{P}_{\rm{max}}$ be $N$-generic. Then by \cite[Theorem 10.99]{Woodin}, $N[G]\vDash \sf{ZFC} + \sf{BMM}$. By \cite[Theorem 4.49]{Woodin}, in $N[G]$, the ideal NS$_{\omega_1}$ is saturated. Furthermore, since $N$ is not closed under ${\mathcal{M}}_2^\sharp$, $N[G]$ isn't either.
We claim that MP$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ cannot hold in $N[G]$. Suppose not. Then by the proof of Theorem \ref{gettingPD}, $N[G]$ is closed under ${\mathcal{M}}_n^\sharp$ for all $n$. This contradicts the fact that $N[G]$ is not closed under ${\mathcal{M}}_2^\sharp$.
\indent (3) The second clause follows from the fact that MP$(0,\Gamma)$ is consistent relative to $\sf{ZFC}$ and MP$(\omega,\Gamma)$ implies $0^\sharp$ exists (cf. Theorem \ref{BMM}).
For the first clause, start with a model $M$ of MP$(\omega,\Gamma)$. In $M$, let $\mathbb{P}$ be the poset that adds a Cohen subset of $\omega_1$ (conditions in $\mathbb{P}$ are countable functions from $\omega_1$ into $2$ ordered by end-extensions). Since $\mathbb{P}$ does not add new countable sequences of elements of $M$, we get that $M^\mathbb{P}\vDash \rm{MP}(\omega,\Gamma)$. Furthermore, $M^\mathbb{P}\vDash 2^{\aleph_0}=\aleph_1$, so by Theorem \ref{BMM}, MP$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ must fail in $M^\mathbb{P}$.
\end{proof}
The proof of Theorem \ref{MM++vsMP} uses a characterization of $\sf{MM}^{++}$ from \cite{viale2011martin}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{MM++equivalence}
Suppose there are class many Woodin cardinals. Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item $\sf{MM}^{++}$.
\item For every Woodin cardinal $\delta$ and every stationary set preserving forcing $\mathbb{P}\in V_\delta$, there is a complete embedding $i:\mathbb{P}\rightarrow \mathbb{B}=_{\rm{def}}\rm{r.o.}$$(\mathbb{P}_{<\delta}\restriction T)$\footnote{$\mathbb{P}_{<\delta}\restriction T$ is just $\mathbb{P}_{<\delta}$ restricted to conditions below $T$, where $\mathbb{P}_{<\delta}$ is the full stationary tower at $\delta$. Also, the notion of complete embedding is defined as in \cite{viale2011martin}.} for some stationary set $T\in V_\delta$ such that
\begin{center}
$T\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}_{<\delta}} \rm{crt}(\dot{j}) > \omega_1^V \wedge |\dot{\mathbb{P}}| = \omega_1 \ $\footnote{$\dot{j}$ is a canonical $\mathbb{P}_{<\delta}$-name for the generic embedding induced by a $\mathbb{P}_{<\delta}$-generic.}
\end{center}
and
\begin{center}
$\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}} \mathbb{B}\slash i[\mathbb{P}]$ is stationary set preserving.
\end{center}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{MM++vsMP}]
For the item 1., we prove MP$_{\Pi_2}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ holds. Let $\phi$ be a $\Pi_2$ formula, $x$ be a subset of $\omega_1$, and $\mathbb{P}$ be a staionary set preserving forcing such that in $V^{\mathbb{P}}$, $\phi [x]$ is necessary with respect to further stationary set preserving forcings. We will show that $\phi [x]$ holds in $V$.
Suppose not. Then $\phi [x]$ fails in $V$ and there exists some inaccessible $\gamma$ such that $\phi [x]$ fails also in $V_{\gamma}$. Let $\delta $ be a Woodin cardinal such that $\text{rank}(\mathbb{P}), \gamma < \delta$. By the characterization of $\text{MM}^{++}$ under the presence of proper class many Woodin cardinals by Viale~\cite{viale2011martin} (cf. Lemma \ref{MM++equivalence}), there exists a $\mathbb{P}_{<\delta}$-generic $H$ over $V$ and $\mathbb{P}$-generic $G$ over $V$ in $V[H]$ such that $\mathbb{P}_{<\delta}/G$ is a stationary set preserving forcing in $V[G]$. Since $\phi [x]$ is necessary with respect to further stationary set preserving forcings in $V^{\mathbb{P}}$, in particular $\phi [x]$ holds in $V[H]$.
We will derive a contradiction by showing that $\phi [x] $ actually {\it fails} in $V[H]$. Since $H$ is a $P_{<\delta}$-generic over $V$, there is a generic embedding $j \colon V \to M \subseteq V[H]$ associated to $H$ such that the critical point of $j$ is $\omega_2^V$, $j (\delta) = \delta$, and $V_{\delta}^M = V_{\delta}^{V[H]}$. Since $\phi [x]$ fails in $V_{\gamma}$ and $\gamma$ is inaccessible in $V$, by elementarity of $j$, $\phi [x]$ fails also in $V_{j(\gamma)}^M$ and $j(\gamma)$ is inaccessible in $M$. Since $\gamma < \delta$ and $j(\delta) = \delta$, $j(\gamma) < \delta$. Also since $V_{\delta}^M = V_{\delta}^{V[H]}$, $\phi [x]$ fails in $V_{j(\gamma)}^{V[H]}$ and $j(\gamma)$ is inaccessible in $V[H]$. Since $j(\gamma)$ is inaccessible in $V[H]$, $\Sigma_2$ statements are upward absolute from $V_{j(\gamma)}^{V[H]}$ to $V[H]$. In particular, the negation of $\phi [x]$ holds in $V[H]$ and so $\phi [x]$ fails in $V[H]$. Contradiction! This finishes the proof of the item 1..
For the item 2., assume that there are proper class many Woodin cardinals and a supercompact cardinal. By the arguments for Theorem~66 in \cite{MR3304634}, there is a class forcing extension where $V = \text{gHOD}$ holds and there are proper class many Woodoin cardinals and a supercompact cardinal\footnote{gHOD is the intersection of HODs of all set generic extensions of $V$, which is generically invariant, i.e. $\text{gHOD}^V = \text{gHOD}^{V^{\mathbb{P}}}$ for any set forcing poset $\mathbb{P}$.}. Let $\kappa$ be the least supercompact cardinal in this class forcing extension. Over this class forcing extension, we further force $\text{MM}^{++}$ using the supercompactness of $\kappa$. Let us call this further forcing extension as $W$.
We shall show that $\text{MP}(\omega_1, \Gamma)$ {\it fails} in $W$. In $W$, $\kappa$ is equal to $\omega_2$ while $\kappa$ is the least supercompact in gHOD of $W$. Consider the statement \lq\lq the least supercompact cardinal in gHOD is less than $\omega_2$". This statement is easily seen to be necessary after collpsing $\omega_2$ in $W$ by a stationary set preserving forcing over $W$. However, this statement is false in $W$ since $\kappa = \omega_2^W$ is the least supercompact in gHOD. So $\text{MP}(\omega_1, \Gamma)$ fails in $W$, as desired. This finishes the proof of the item 2..
For the item 3., we assume that there are a supercompact cardinal $\kappa$ and boundedly many (but at least one) inaccessibles above $\kappa$. We force $\text{MM}^{++}$ using the supercompact $\kappa$. Let us call this forcing extension $W$ and we shall show that $\text{MP}(\omega_1, \Gamma)$ {\it fails} in $W$. In $W$, there are boundedly many (but at least one) inaccessibles. So there will be no inaacessible after collapsing a sufficiently big cardinal using a stationary set preserving forcing in $W$. Therefore, the $\Pi_2$ statement \lq\lq There is no inaccessible cardinal" is necessary in a stationary set preserving forcing extension of $W$. However, this statement is {\it false} in $W$ because there is at least one inaccesible in $W$. Therefore, $\text{MP}(\omega_1, \Gamma)$ for $\Pi_2$ statements is false in $W$, as desired. This finises the proof of the item 3..
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{MM++vsStar}]
The item 1. follows from the fact that Woodin's Axiom (*) holds in the model $N[G]$ in the proof of Theorem~\ref{NothingImpliesAnything} because $N[G]$ is a $\mathbb{P}_{\text{max}}$ forcing extenion of a model of $\sf{AD}^+$ while $\text{MP}(\omega_1, \Gamma)$ fails in $N[G]$ as discussed in the proof of Theorem~\ref{NothingImpliesAnything}.
The item 2. can be verified by looking at the construction of a model in Thoerem~7.1 in \cite{MR2474445} where $\sf{MM}$ holds while Woodin's Axiom (*) fails . Larson actually showed that there is a lightface definable wellordering of $H_{\omega_2}$ over $H_{\omega_2}$ which implies the failure of Woodin's Axiom (*) by the homogenity of $\mathbb{P}_{\text{max}}$ forcing. Starting with a model of set theory where there are proper class many strongly compact cardinals and an inaccessible cardinal which is also reflecting, one can modify the construction of Larson's model in such a way that there is a lightface definable wellordering of $H_{\omega_2}$ over $H_{\omega_2}$ whereas $\text{MP}(\omega_1, \Gamma)$ (instead of $\sf{MM}$) holds by the same argument as the one for Theorem~\ref{FromSupercompact}.
\end{proof}
\section{LOWER-BOUND CONSISTENCY STRENGTH}\label{Lowerbounds}
In this section, we prove Theorems \ref{BMM} and \ref{gettingPD}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{BMM}]
By Theorem \ref{MPvsFA}, $\rm{MP}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ implies $\sf{BMM}$. By \cite{todorcevic2002generic}, $\sf{BMM}$ implies
\begin{center}
$2^{\aleph_0}=2^{\aleph_1}=\aleph_2$.
\end{center}
By \cite{schindler2004semi}, $\sf{BMM}$ implies ``for all $X$, $X^\sharp$ exists". This gives the first clause.
In fact, the proof of \cite{schindler2004semi} gives that MP$(\omega,\Gamma)$ implies for all $X$, $X^\sharp$ exists. We sketch the argument here. Suppose MP$(\omega,\Gamma)$ holds but for some $X$, $X^\sharp$ does not exist. By \cite{CodingIntoK}, there is a stationary-set preserving set forcing extension $V[g]$ of $V$ in which there is some $a\subseteq \omega$ such that $X\in H_{\omega_2}=L_{\omega_2}[a]$ (the argument uses the non-existence of $X^\sharp$ to construct such an $a$). In $V[g]$, the following statement holds:
\begin{center}
$\exists a\exists M (a\in M\cap \mathbb{R} \wedge |M|=\omega_1 \wedge \omega_1\in M \wedge M \textrm{ is transitive } \wedge M\vDash``\sf{ZFC}$$^- + a \textrm{ codes a reshaped subset of }\omega_1$".\footnote{See \cite[Definition 3.2]{schindler2004semi} for the definition of reshaped subsets.}
\end{center}
The above is a $\Sigma_1$-statement $\Gamma$-necessary over $V[g]$, hence by MP$(\omega,\Gamma)$, it is true in $V$. Hence there are $a, M\in V$ satisfying the above statement. Then $a$ really does code a reshaped subset of $\omega_1$ in $V$ by the absoluteness of the coding. By \cite[Lemma 3.3]{schindler2004semi}, there is a stationary set preserving extension $V[h]$ in which there is $b\subseteq \omega$ coding a reshaped subset of $\omega_1$ and $f_b <^* f_a$ \footnote{The function $f_a$ is defined relative to $a$ as in \cite[Definition 3.2]{schindler2004semi}; similarly for $f_b$. $f_b<^* f_a$ if there is a club $C\subseteq \omega_1$ such that for all $\alpha\in C$, $f_b(\alpha) < f_a(\alpha)$.}. In $V[h]$, the following $\Sigma_1$ statement $\phi(a)$ is true:
\begin{center}
$\exists b\exists M (b\in M\cap \mathbb{R} \wedge |M|=\omega_1 \wedge \omega_1\in M \wedge M \textrm{ is transitive } \wedge M\vDash``\sf{ZFC}$$^- + b \textrm{ codes a reshaped subset of }\omega_1 + f_b <^* f_a$".
\end{center}
We get that $\phi(a)$ is $\Gamma$-necessary over $V[h]$ and hence by MP$(\omega,\Gamma)$, in $V$, there is a real $b$ that codes a reshaped subset of $\omega_1$ and $f_b <^* f_a$. Repeat the above argument ad infinitum, we get that $<^*$ is ill-founded, which is absurd. This completes the proof of the second clause.
For the last clause, let $M$ be a model of ``$V = L(\wp(\mathbb{R})) + \textsf{AD}_\mathbb{R} + \Theta$ is regular." Let $G\subseteq \mathbb{P}_{\rm{max}}^M$ be $M$-generic and $H\subseteq \textrm{Coll}(\Theta,\wp(\mathbb{R}))^{M[G]}$ be $M[G]$-generic. Then $M[G][H] \vDash ``\textsf{ZFC} + \sf{MM(c)}$$ + V = L[X]$ for some $X\subseteq \omega_3"$. Fix such an $X$. If $M[G][H]=L[X] \vDash \rm{MP}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$, then $L[X] \vDash ``X^\sharp$ exists". Contradiction. Hence $\sf{MM(c)}$ does not imply $\rm{MP}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$.
\end{proof}
Now we prove Theorem \ref{gettingPD}. We need the following fact, whose proof follows from \cite[Theorem 0.3]{claverie2012woodin}.
\begin{theorem}\label{weakCovering}
Suppose $\mathcal{I}$ is a precipitous ideal on $\kappa$. Suppose for some $n$, $V$ is closed under the ${\mathcal{M}}_n^\sharp$-operator (if $n=0$, we write ${\mathcal{M}}_0^\sharp(x)$ for $x^\sharp$). Suppose there is no inner model with $n+1$ Woodin cardinals. Then the core model $K$ exists and $\kappa^+ = (\kappa^+)^K$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{gettingPD}]
Let $\mathcal{I}$ be a precipitous ideal on $\omega_1$. By induction on $n$, we prove:
\begin{enumerate}[$(1)_n$]
\item $H_{\omega_1}$ is closed under ${\mathcal{M}}_n^\sharp$.
\item $H_{\omega_2}$ is closed under ${\mathcal{M}}_n^\sharp$.
\item $V$ is closed under ${\mathcal{M}}_n^\sharp$.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent \underline{The base case:} Assume $n=0$. If $x\in H_{\omega_1}$ then ${\mathcal{M}}_0^\sharp(x)$ exists by the fact that there is a precipitous ideal on $\omega_1$. So $(1)_0$ holds. To see $(2)_0$, it suffices to show that for every $A\subseteq \omega_1$, ${\mathcal{M}}_0^\sharp(A)$ exists. Let $G$ be $V$-generic for the forcing $\wp(\omega_1)\slash \mathcal{I}$. Let $i: V\rightarrow M \subseteq V[G]$ be the generic embedding induced by $G$. Then in $M$, $A\in H_{\omega_1}$, so $M\vDash {\mathcal{M}}_0^\sharp(A)$ exists. So $A$ does exist (in $V[G]$ and in $V$) since $M$ contains all the ordinals.
Now we verify $(3)_0$. Suppose not. Let $\nu > \omega_2$ be such that there is some $A\in H_\nu$ such that ${\mathcal{M}}_0^\sharp(A)$ doesn't exist. Let $\mathbb{P} = \rm{Coll}(\omega_1,A)$. Note that $\mathbb{P}\in \Gamma$. Then the statement ``there is some $A\in H_{\omega_2}$ such that ${\mathcal{M}}_0^\sharp(A)$ doesn't exist" is $\Gamma$-necessary over $V^\mathbb{P}$, hence true in $V$. But this is a contradiction to $(2)_0$.
\\
\noindent \underline{The successor step:} Suppose $(3)_n$ holds for some $n$. We show $(1)_{n+1}-(3)_{n+1}$. At this point, we have the following analogue of \cite[Lemma 7.5]{claverie2012woodin}, the proof of which is exactly that of \cite[Lemma 7.5]{claverie2012woodin}. As a matter of notation, for a mouse ${\mathcal{P} }$ over some $x$, we write ${\mathcal{P} } \leq {\mathcal{M}}_{n}^\sharp$ if either ${\mathcal{P} }$ is $n$-small or ${\mathcal{P} } = {\mathcal{M}}_n^\sharp(x)$.
All the following lemmas make use of our assumptions: MP$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ and $\mathcal{I}$ is a precipitous ideal on $\omega_1$. We will not state them in the lemmas' statements.
\begin{lemma}
\label{absoluteness}
Suppose $(3)_n$ holds. Let $G\subseteq \wp(\omega_1)\slash \mathcal{I}$ be $V$-generic. Let $i:V\rightarrow M\subseteq V[G]$ be the generic embedding induced by $G$. Let $x\in M$ be a set of ordinals. Suppose ${\mathcal{P} }\in M$ be such that ${\mathcal{M}}\vDash ``{\mathcal{P} }$ is a mouse such that ${\mathcal{P} }\leq {\mathcal{M}}_n^\sharp$". Then $V[G] \vDash {\mathcal{P} }$ is a mouse.
\end{lemma}
We should mention that one of the uses of Lemma \ref{absoluteness} is in proving Theorem \ref{weakCovering}. The point is that the proof of Theorem \ref{weakCovering} requires that $j(K)$ is iterable in $V[G]$ and Lemma \ref{absoluteness} guarantees this. We now show $(1)_{n+1}$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Mn+1sharpForReals}
Assume $(3)_n$ holds. Let $x\in \mathbb{R}$. Then ${\mathcal{M}}_{n+1}^\sharp(x)$ exists.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For notational simplicity, suppose $x=\emptyset$. Suppose ${\mathcal{M}}_{n+1}^\sharp$ doesn't exist. Then $K^c$ does not have a Woodin cardinal, $(n+1)$-small, and is fully iterable via the ${\mathcal{ Q}}$-structure guided strategy (the ${\mathcal{ Q}}$-structures are given by the ${\mathcal{M}}_n^\sharp$ operator, which is defined on all of $V$ by $(3)_n$). This means $K$ exists and is fully iterable.
Let $i,G,M$ be as in Lemma \ref{absoluteness}. Let $\kappa=\omega_1^V$. By Theorem \ref{weakCovering}, $(\kappa^+)^K = \kappa^+$. Let $A\subseteq \kappa$ code $K||\kappa$ in $V$. Let $\mathbb{P} = \textrm{Coll}(\omega_1,\omega_2)$. Let $H\subseteq \mathbb{P}$ be $V$-generic. So $K^V = K^{V[G]}$ and
\begin{center}
$(\kappa^+)^K=\omega_2^V < (\kappa^+)^{V[G]} = \omega_2^{V[G]}$.
\end{center}
By local definability of $K$, the displayed statement can be expressed in $V[G]$ by a formula $\phi(A)$. In fact, $\phi(A)$ is $\Gamma$-necessary over $V^\mathbb{P}$ and hence is true in $V$. This contradicts the fact that $(\kappa^+)^K = \omega_2^V$.
\end{proof}
Now we show $(2)_{n+1}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{Mn+1sharpForHomega2}
Suppose $(3)_n$ and $(1)_{n+1}$ holds. Then $(2)_{n+1}$ holds.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $A\subseteq \omega_1$. Let $i,G,M$ be as in Lemma \ref{absoluteness}. $A\in M$ and $A\in H_{\omega_1}^M$. By elementarily, $(1)_{n+1}$ holds in $M$ and hence ${\mathcal{M}}_{n+1}^\sharp(A)$ exists in $M$. Since $(3)_n$ holds, Lemma \ref{absoluteness} implies $({\mathcal{M}}_{n+1}^\sharp(A))^M = ({\mathcal{M}}_{n+1}^\sharp(A))^{V[G]}$. This is because ${\mathcal{M}}_{n+1}^\sharp(A)$ is iterable by the ${\mathcal{ Q}}$-structure guided strategy and these ${\mathcal{ Q}}$-structures are mice $\leq {\mathcal{M}}_n^\sharp$.
Write ${\mathcal{P} }$ for $({\mathcal{M}}_{n+1}^\sharp(A))^M$. Let $H\subseteq \textrm{Coll}(\omega, \omega_3^V)$ be $V[G]$ generic. Then ${\mathcal{P} }$ is in fact fully iterable in $V[G][H]$ via a the following strategy $\Sigma$: $\Sigma({\mathcal{T}}) = $ the unique $b$ such that ${\mathcal{ Q}}(b,{\mathcal{T}})$ exists and ${\mathcal{ Q}}(b,{\mathcal{T}})\unlhd {\mathcal{M}}_{n}^\sharp(\mathcal{M}({\mathcal{T}}))$ (this uses the basic fact that $V$ is closed under ${\mathcal{M}}_n^\sharp$ implies $V[G]$ is closed under ${\mathcal{M}}_n^\sharp$ for any generic extension $V[G]$ of $V$).
It's clear that there is a $J\subseteq \textrm{Coll}(\omega,\omega_3^V)$ be $V$-generic such that $V[J]=V[G][H]$. By homogeneity, ${\mathcal{P} }\in V$ and is iterable in $V$ by $\Sigma$ (i.e. $\Sigma\cap V \in V$). This proves the lemma.
\end{proof}
Finally, we verify $(3)_{n+1}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{Mn+1sharpArbitrary}
Suppose $(3)_n$ and $(2)_{n+1}$ hold. Then $(3)_{n+1}$ holds.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose there is some $\nu>\omega_2$ and some set of ordinals $A\in H_{\nu}$ such that ${\mathcal{M}}_{n+1}^\sharp(A)$ doesn't exist. Let $\mathbb{P} = \textrm{Coll}(\omega_1,A)$. Again, $\mathbb{P}\in\Gamma$. Let $G\subseteq \mathbb{P}$ be $V$-generic. By arguments above, the statement ``there is some $A\in H_{\omega_2}$ such that ${\mathcal{M}}_{n+1}^\sharp(A)$ doesn't exist" is $\Gamma$-necessary over $V^\mathbb{P}$ and hence is true in $V$. This contradicts our assumption.
\end{proof}
This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
A careful examination of the proof of the theorem shows that one does not need all of MP$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$. One simply need MP$(0,\Gamma)$.
\end{remark}
\section{OPEN PROBLEMS AND QUESTIONS}\label{OpenProblems}
In this section, we list some questions and open problems related to results proved above.
\begin{question}
Is $\rm{NMP}$$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ consistent where $\Gamma$ is the class of $\sigma$-closed forcings?
\end{question}
We believe the question can be answered positively in light of Woodin's (unpublished) proof that NMP is consistent.
\begin{question}
What is the exact consistency strength of MP$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ and of MP$(\omega,\Gamma)$ for $\Gamma$ being the class of stationary-set preserving forcings?
\end{question}
We conjecture the following in light of Theorem \ref{gettingPD}.
\begin{conjecture}
Assume the hypothesis of Theorem \ref{gettingPD}. Then there is a model of $\omega$ Woodin cardinals.
\end{conjecture}
In \cite{SchindlerMMStar}, the author defines the axiom $\sf{MM}^{*,++}$ which implies both $\sf{MM}^{++}$ and Woodin's axiom (*). It is natural to ask whether $\sf{MM}^{*,++}$ implies MP$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ for $\Gamma$ being the class of stationary-set preserving forcings.
\begin{question}
Let $\Gamma$ be the class of stationary-set preserving forcings. Does $\sf{MM}^{*,++}$ imply $\rm{MP}$$(\omega_1,\Gamma)$?
\end{question}
Let $\Gamma$ be as in Theorem \ref{MM++vsMP}. The formula produced in Theorem \ref{MM++vsMP}(2) is more complicated than $\Sigma_2$. By Theorem \ref{MM++vsMP}(1), MP$_{\Pi_2}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ follows from $\sf{MM}$$^{++} + $ there is a proper class of Woodin cardinals.
\begin{question}
Let $\Gamma$ be as in Theorem \ref{MM++vsMP}. Assume $\sf{MM}$$^{++} + $ there is a proper class of Woodin cardinals. Must \rm{MP}$_{\Sigma_2}(\omega_1,\Gamma)$ hold?
\end{question}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\small
|
\section{Introduction}
Information-theoretic concepts are often developed under the assumption that the underlying physical systems are described by finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. It is, however, of fundamental interest to understand which finite-dimensional concepts generalize to physical systems modeled by von Neumann algebras, e.g.\ certain quantum field theories. Moreover, the translation of finite-dimensional arguments to a more abstract theory often requires new proof ideas or at least a streamlining of the original arguments---thereby leading us to a better understanding of the finite-dimensional special case as well.
In this work we explore a generalization to the setup of von Neumann algebras of a family of divergences, the sandwiched R\'enyi divergences~\cite{lennert13,wilde13} (see also~\cite[Sec.~3.3]{jaksic10}), which have found operational meaning and applications in quantum information theory (see, e.g.,~\cite{wilde13,mosonyiogawa13,mosonyi14-2,tomamichelww14,mybook}). A connection between sandwiched R\'enyi divergences and weighted non-commutative $L_p$-spaces has been exploited already in the defining works~\cite{mytutorial12,lennert13,wilde13} and by Beigi~\cite{beigi13} for finite-dimensional systems. In generalizing sandwiched R\'enyi divergences to the algebraic setting it is thus immediate to look for a connection between those and non-commutative $L_p$ spaces defined on von Neumann algebras. This is of course complicated by the fact that when dealing with von Neumann algebras the existence of a trace is not guaranteed and states are not represented by density operators. Nevertheless, quite some progress has been achieved in the recent decades on defining and studying non-commutative $L_p$ spaces defined with respect to von Neumann algebras (see, e.g.,~\cite{pisier03} for an overview). The most well-known such theory are Haagerup's non-commutative $L_p$-spaces~\cite{haagerup79}, as well as their weighted versions (see, e.g.,~\cite{haagerup10}). These are based on suitably extending the algebra such that a trace becomes available again. Another generalization of the commutative theory to von Neumann algebras was given by Araki and Masuda~\cite{araki82}, who define $p$-norms on state vectors (corresponding to purifications in the finite-dimensional case) in the underlying Hilbert space $\mathscr{H}$, not directly on the state space.
We find that the latter offers a natural generalization of the sandwiched R\'enyi divergences with parameter $\alpha = \frac{p}{2}$, and we hereafter call this generalization Araki-Masuda divergences. Extending their work, we show various properties of this divergence, including a data-processing inequality and monotonicity in $\alpha$. We will also discuss their relation with other divergences such as Umegaki's~\cite{umegaki62} relative entropy (which was generalized to von Neumann algebras by Araki~\cite{araki76}) and Petz' generalization of R\'enyi divergences~\cite{petz85,petz86} (see also~\cite{ohya93} for an overview). Finally, we conjecture that the Araki-Masuda divergences characterize the strong converse exponent of binary hypothesis testing on von Neumann algebras, complementing recent work by Jak\u{s}i\'c \emph{et al.}~\cite{jaksic10}. We hope that our work will lead to further generalizations of information theoretic results to von Neumann algebras such as in~\cite{furrer11}.
Shortly after our manuscript first appeared online, Jen\u{c}ov\'a~\cite{jencova16} proposed another extension of the sandwiched R\'enyi entropies to von Neumann algebras, using instead Kosaki's definition of non-commutative $L_p$-spaces~\cite{Kosaki_1984}. These are in turn based on the already mentioned Haagerup non-commutative $L_p$-spaces, and defined with respect to the state space of the von Neumann algebra in question and not for elements of the underlying Hilbert space. This basic difference implies that the two approaches are complementary to each other, and hence it depends on the exact problem studied which approach is more suitable. For example, Jen\u{c}ov\'a was able to prove the data-processing inequality for positive maps (and not only for completely positive maps as in our setting). However, since Jen\u{c}ov\'a's approach is restricted to the state space, her definition was restricted to values of $\alpha$ larger than one while our approach gives rise to a natural definition for all $\alpha\geq\frac{1}{2}$. In fact, in a follow-up paper Jen\u{c}ov\'a was able to show that her definition is equivalent to our definition for $\alpha>1$ and also obtained an expression for values $\alpha\in\left(\frac{1}{2},1\right)$ in her setting~\cite{jencova17}. From a broader perspective, Jen\u{c}ov\'a's approach is mathematically appealing as it is based on a well established theory. In contrast, Araki and Masuda's definition that we use is less well studied, but offers the advantage that it is defined directly in terms of objects from modular theory. In certain physical applications, such as algebraic quantum field theory, these objects have very explicit expressions (i.e.~as given by the Bisognano-Wichmann theorem~\cite{Bisognano_1975}) and may thus be more suitable for calculations.
\subsubsection*{Outline} This paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:algebraic} we introduce our notation and discuss a few algebraic concepts that we need in the following. In Section~\ref{sec:spaces} we slightly generalize the definition of Araki and Masuda's weighted non-commutative vector valued $L_p$-spaces and discuss some properties. In particular, we prove a Riesz-Thorin theorem for Araki-Masuda $L_p$-spaces. In Section~\ref{sec:divergences} we define the Araki-Masuda divergences, which correspond to an algebraic generalization of the sandwiched R\'enyi divergences. We then discuss various properties and show in particular an Araki-Lieb-Thirring inequality for states on von Neumann algebras. We conclude with Section~\ref{sec:strong_converse} where we discuss our conjecture for an operational interpretation.
\section{Algebraic setup}\label{sec:algebraic}
\subsection{Notation}
We tried to optimize our notation so that the manuscript is most accessible to the quantum information community, thereby sometimes disregarding established conventions in operator theory. We also comment, in framed boxes, on how to translate certain concepts into the language of finite-dimensional quantum theory (sometimes we comment on the commutative case as well).
In these notes, $\mathscr{M}$ denotes a $W^*$-algebra, $(\cdot)^{\dag}$ is its involution, and $1 \in \mathscr{M}$ its multiplicative identity. An element $x \in \mathscr{M}$ is called positive if $x = a^{\dag} a$ for some $a \in \mathscr{M}$, and the cone of positive elements of $\mathscr{M}$ is denoted by $\mathscr{M}_+$.
We denote by $\mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$ the space of normal positive linear functionals on $\mathscr{M}$, i.e.\ elements of the predual of $\mathscr{M}$ that map $\mathscr{M}_+$ onto the positive real axis. The subset $\mathscr{S}(\mathscr{M}) := \{ \rho \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M}) : \rho(1) = 1 \}$ contains normal states.
For two functionals $\rho, \sigma \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$ we write $\rho \ll \sigma$ and say that $\rho$ is supported on (the support of) $\sigma$ if and only if $\sigma(x) = 0 \implies \rho(x) = 0$ for all $x \in \mathscr{M}$. Strictly stronger, we say that $\rho$ is dominated by $\sigma$ and write $\rho \lll \sigma$ if and only if there exists a positive constant $C$ such that $\rho(x) \leq C \sigma(x)$ for all $x \in \mathscr{M}_+$.
Moreover, let $\pi : \mathscr{M} \to \mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H})$ be a normal $*$-representation of $\mathscr{M}$ as bounded operators acting on a Hilbert space $\mathscr{H}$ such that $\pi(\mathscr{M}) \subset \mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H})$ forms a von Neumann algebra. (We only consider normal $*$-representations in this work.) The Hilbert space $\mathscr{H}$ has an inner product, $\langle \cdot | \cdot \rangle$, which is taken to be anti-linear in the first variable. We say that a vector $\vec{\omega} \in \mathscr{H}$ implements a functional $\omega \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$ if and only if $\omega(a) = \langle \vec{\omega} | \pi(a) \vec{\omega} \rangle$ for all $a \in \mathscr{M}$. We will consistently use the same Greek letter to denote functionals and vectors that are related in this way, i.e.\ every vector implicitly defines a corresponding functional with the same symbol.
For any $\sigma \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$ we define its support projector $P_{\sigma} \in \mathscr{M}$ as the minimal projector satisfying $\sigma(P_{\sigma}) = 1$. We define the set $\mathscr{H}_{\sigma}^{*} := \{ \vec{\rho} \in \mathscr{H} : \rho \lll \sigma \}$ and its closure, the subspace $\mathscr{H}_{\sigma}$, which contains all vectors $\vec{\rho}$ implementing functionals with $\rho \ll \sigma$.
The Gelfand-Naimark-Segal (GNS) construction provides a $*$-representation $\pi_{\sigma} : \mathscr{M} \to \mathscr{B}(\mathscr{G}_{\sigma})$ as well as an implementation $\vec{\sigma} \in \mathscr{G}_{\sigma}$ of $\sigma$ that is faithful in $\mathscr{G}_{\sigma}$. Moreover, we may embed $\mathscr{G}_{\sigma}$ as $\mathscr{H}_{\sigma}$ into $\mathscr{H}$ if the latter space allows for an implementation of $\sigma$. In this case we have $\pi_{\sigma}(x) = \pi(P_{\sigma} x P_{\sigma})$.
\begin{finite}
We will often draw on intuition from the finite-dimensional case. Let $\mathscr{M}_n$ denote the algebra of $n \times n$ matrices, which we conveniently represent as acting on the first tensor factor of a Hilbert space $\mathbb{C}^n \otimes \mathbb{C}^n$, i.e.\ $\pi(x) = x \otimes 1_n$. The trace ${\rm Tr}$ is implemented by a vector $\vec{\tau} = \sum_{i=1}^n \vec{e}_{i} \otimes \vec{e}_{i}$ for some orthonormal basis $\{ e_{i} \}_{i=1}^n$ of $\mathbb{C}^n$. We denote the transpose with regards to this basis by $(\cdot)^{\scriptscriptstyle T}$ so that $(x \otimes 1_n) \vec{\tau} = (1_n \otimes x^{\scriptscriptstyle T}) \vec{\tau}$. For any $\omega \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M}_n)$ we define first the positive element $D_{\omega} \in \mathscr{M}_n$ via the relation $\omega(x) = {\rm Tr}\, D_{\omega} x $ and then a vector $\vec{\omega} = (D_{\omega}^{\nicefrac12} \otimes 1) \vec{\tau}$ implementing $\omega$. The vector $\vec{\omega}$ is commonly called the (standard) purification of the density matrix $D_{\omega}$ when $\omega$ is a state.
The commutant in this case comprises all matrices acting on the second tensor space.
\end{finite}
\subsection{Spatial derivative and relative modular operator}
Let $\sigma \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$ and let $\pi$ be any *-representation of $\mathscr{M}$ into $\mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H})$. The GNS construction further provides a *-representation $\pi_{\sigma}$ into $\mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H}_{\sigma})$ and a vector $\vec{\sigma} \in \mathscr{H}_{\sigma}$ implementing $\sigma$. Following~\cite[Ch.~4]{ohya93}, for every $\vec{\rho} \in\mathscr{H}_{\sigma}^*$, we define the map $R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho}) : \mathscr{H}_{\sigma} \to \mathscr{H}$~by
\begin{align}\label{eq:defR}
R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho}) : \pi_{\sigma}(a)\vec{\sigma} \mapsto \pi(a) \vec{\rho}, \quad a \in \mathscr{M} \,.
\end{align}
Note that this does not overly specify the map since $\pi_{\sigma}(a)\vec{\sigma} = 0$ implies $\pi(a) \vec{\rho} = 0$ for any $a \in \mathscr{M}$ when $\rho \lll \sigma$.
This map is bounded, i.e.\ there exists a constant $C$ such that for all $a \in \mathscr{M}$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:itsbounded}
\| R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho}) \pi_{\sigma}(a) \vec{\sigma} \|^2 = \| \pi(a) \vec{\rho} \|^2 = \rho(a^{\dag} a) \leq C\, \sigma(a^{\dag} a) = C \| \pi_{\sigma}(a) \vec{\sigma} \|^2 \,,
\end{align}
where the norm is the one induced by the scalar product on $\mathscr{H}$.
Furthermore, it is easy to verify that $\pi(b) R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho}) = R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho}) \pi_{\sigma}(b)$ for any $b \in \mathscr{M}$, and from this we can conclude that the operator $R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho}) R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho})^{\dag}$ lies in the commutant of $\mathscr{M}$ in $\mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H})$.\footnote{The commutant $\mathscr{M}^\prime$ of a von Neumann algebra $\mathscr{M} \subset \mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H})$ is itself a von Neumann algebra and is given by all elements in $\mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H})$ which commute with $\mathscr{M}$, $\mathscr{M}^\prime = \{X \in \mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H})\,:\, [X,Y] = 0 \;\forall\,Y \in \mathscr{M} \}$.} If there exists an element $\vec{\sigma} \in \mathscr{H}$ which implements $\sigma$, it follows that the map $R^\sigma(\vec{\sigma})$ is a partial isometry.
For every $\vec{\omega} \in \mathscr{H}$, the functional $\vec{\rho} \mapsto \langle \vec{\omega} | R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho}) R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho})^{\dag} \vec{\omega} \rangle$ constitutes a quadratic form to which we associate a positive self-adjoint operator $\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^\frac{1}{2}$ on $\mathscr{H}$. That is, the spatial derivative is defined on its domain $\mathcal{D}\big(\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^\frac{1}{2}\big) = \mathscr{H}_{\sigma}^*$ as
\begin{align}
\langle \vec{\rho} | \spat{\omega}{\sigma} \vec{\rho} \rangle = \Scp{\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^\frac{1}{2} \vec{\rho}}{\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^\frac{1}{2} \vec{\rho}} = \langle \vec{\omega} | R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho}) R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho})^{\dag} \vec{\omega} \rangle, \quad \vec{\rho} \in \mathscr{H}_{\sigma}^* \,,
\end{align}
and thus it is also defined on $\mathscr{H}_{\sigma}$ (since $\mathscr{H}_{\sigma}^*$ is dense therein). If $\sigma$ is faithful and $\mathscr{H} = \mathscr{H}_{\sigma}$ this is called the relative modular operator and its domain is dense in $\mathscr{H}$. Functions of the spatial derivative are defined via the functional calculus on its domain. In particular, the operator $\spat{\omega}{\sigma}$ is defined as the square of $\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^\frac{1}{2}$. We note however, that the domain of powers of $\spat{\omega}{\sigma}$ may be different than the one of $\spat{\omega}{\sigma}$. An example are solely imaginary powers, as the operator $\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{it}$ is an isometry for $t \in \Rl$ and hence its domain is the whole space $\mathscr{H}$.
\begin{finite}
If $\rho \ll \sigma$ then the operator $R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho})$ is embedded into $\mathbb{C}^n \otimes \mathbb{C}^n$ as $1 \otimes \big( D_{\rho}^{\nicefrac12} \big)^{\scriptscriptstyle T} \big( D_{\sigma}^{-\nicefrac12} \big)^{\scriptscriptstyle T}$, where the inverse is taken on the support of $D_{\sigma}$ in case $\sigma$ is not faithful. The spatial derivative is represented as $\spat{\omega}{\sigma} = D_{\omega} \otimes \big(D_{\sigma}^{-1}\big)^{\scriptscriptstyle T}$. If $\sigma$ is faithful this is the relative modular operator.
\end{finite}
\begin{finite}
Let us also consider the commutative case. Let $(X,\Sigma)$ be a measurable space and let $\rho$ be a probability measure and $\sigma$ be a positive measure on the $\sigma$-algebra $\Sigma$. Assume that both are absolutely continuous with respect to another positive measure $\tau$ (we can take, e.g., $\tau = \rho + \sigma$). Then $\rho$, $\sigma$ are naturally regarded as positive functionals on the commutative von Neumann algebra $\mathscr{M} = L^\infty(X,\Sigma,\tau)$, the almost-everywhere bounded functions. Performing the GNS construction with respect to $\tau$ gives rise to the Hilbert space $L^2(X,\Sigma,\tau)$ on which $L^\infty(X,\Sigma,\tau)$ acts by point-wise multiplication. The Radon-Nikodyn derivatives $\frac{d\rho}{d\tau}$ and $\frac{d\sigma}{d\tau}$ of $\rho$ and $\sigma$ with respect to $\tau$ are positive elements in $L^1(X,\Sigma,\tau)$, and hence their square roots are elements of $L^2(X,\Sigma,\tau)$ which we denote with $\vec{\rho}$ and $\vec{\sigma}$. Considering the action of the map $R^\sigma(\vec{\rho})$ in~\eqref{eq:defR} we see that
\begin{align}\label{eq:classical1}
R^\sigma(\vec{\rho}) = \vec{\rho}\,\vec{\sigma}^{-1} = \left(\frac{d\rho}{d\tau}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\,\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\tau}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\,,
\end{align}
the inverse being defined on the support of $\sigma$ and put to $0$ otherwise. Correspondingly, we find for the spatial derivative $\spat{\omega}{\sigma}$ for $\vec{\omega} \in L^2(X,\Sigma,\tau)$ the form
\begin{align}\label{eq:classical2}
\spat{\omega}{\sigma} = \vec{\omega}^2 \, \vec{\sigma}^{-2}\,,
\end{align}
where again powers of elements in $L^2(X,\Sigma,\tau)$ are defined by the point-wise multiplication of functions.
\end{finite}
Our arguments are mostly based on complex interpolation theory applied to products of spatial derivatives. In particular, the monotonicity in $\alpha$, our extension of Araki-Lieb-Thirring inequality to von Neumann algebras as well as our version of the Riesz-Thorin theorem are applications of the following Lemma. Its proof is deferred to Appendix~\ref{app:thelemma}. We define the complex strip $S_1 = \{z \in \C\,:\,0\leq \Re(z) \leq 1\}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:main_interpolation}
Let $\mathscr{H}$, $\mathscr{K}$ be two Hilbert spaces, $\mathscr{M} \subset \mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H})$, $\mathscr{N} \subset \mathscr{B}(\mathscr{K})$ two von Neumann algebras and $V :\mathscr{H} \to \mathscr{K}$ a bounded mapping. Consider two affine holomorphic functions $g(z) = g_1 z + g_0$, $h(z) = h_1 z + h_0$, with $g_0,g_1,h_0,h_1 \in \Rl$ and vectors $\vec{\varphi}, \vec{\rho} \in \mathscr{H}$, $\vec{\omega} \in \mathscr{K}$ and $\sigma \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$, $\tau \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{N})$ such that for $x \in \{0,1\}$ the statement $\vec{\varphi} \in \mathcal{D}(\spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{g(x)})$ holds. If the vector-valued function
\begin{align}
f: S_1 \to \mathscr{K},\quad z \mapsto \spat{\omega}{\tau}^{h(z)}\,V\,\spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{g(z)}\vec{\varphi}
\end{align}
satisfies $C_x := \sup_{t \in \mathbb{R}} \norm{f(x+it)} < \infty$ for $x \in \{0,1\}$ (i.e.\ it is uniformly bounded on the boundaries of $S_1$), then $f(z)$ is holomorphic in the interior of $S_1$ and satisfies
\begin{align}
\norm{f(\theta)} \leq C_0^{1-\theta}\,C_1^{\theta}\,, \qquad \textrm{for $0 \leq \theta \leq 1$.}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\section{Non-commutative Araki-Masuda $L_p$-norms}\label{sec:spaces}
\subsection{Definition}
We first recall the definition of weighted non-commutative vector valued $L_p$-spaces due to Araki and Masuda~\cite{araki82} and extend it to the case of a non-faithful reference state $\sigma$ by means of the spatial derivative.
\begin{definition}\label{def:pnorms}
Let $\sigma \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$ and let $\pi$ be a $*$-representation of $\mathscr{M}$ in $\mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H})$. We define the following norms on elements of $\mathscr{H}$.
For $2\leq p \leq \infty$ we define $\sigma$-weighted $p$-norm of $\vec{\rho} \in \mathscr{H}$ by
\begin{align}\label{eq:pnorm1}
\| \vec{\rho}\| _{p,\sigma}\ := \sup_{\vec{\omega} \in \mathscr{H},\,\|\vec{\omega}\|=1} \left\|\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac12 -\frac{1}{p}} \vec{\rho} \right\|
\end{align}
if $\rho \ll \sigma$ (which may be infinite) and $+\infty$ otherwise.
For $1\leq p < 2$ we define
\begin{align}\label{eq:pnorm2}
\|\vec{\rho}\|_{p,\sigma}\ := \inf_{\vec{\omega} \in \mathscr{H},\,\|\vec{\omega}\|=1,\, \omega^\prime \gg \rho^\prime} \left\|\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac12-\frac{1}{p}} \vec{\rho} \right\| \,,
\end{align}
where $\omega^\prime(a'):=\langle \vec{\omega} | a' \vec{\omega} \rangle$ for all $a'\in \pi(\mathscr{M})'$.
\end{definition}
For a fixed, faithful $\sigma \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$ these quantities constitute norms on $\mathscr{G}_{\sigma}$ as shown in~\cite[Thm.~1]{araki82}. Generally, for $1 \leq p < 2$ the quantity is only a semi-norm.
We have $\|\vec{\rho}\|_{2,\sigma} \leq \|\vec{\rho}\|$ with equality when $\rho \ll \sigma$.
For $p > 2$ the norms are finite when $\rho \lll \sigma$ but they can be infinite in general, even when $\rho \ll \sigma$.
Moreover, we note that since the support projection of the spatial derivative $\spat{\omega}{\sigma}$ is contained in the support of $\pi(P_\sigma)$, we have that $\| \vec{\rho}\| _{p,\sigma} = \| \pi(P_{\sigma}) \vec{\rho}\| _{p,\sigma}$ for $1\leq p \leq \infty$. Hence in estimating these norms we can safely assume that we are working on the Hilbert space $\mathscr{H}_\sigma$, since elements in its complement are projected out.
\begin{finite}
Let us take a closer look at these expressions in our standard representation.
We find
\begin{align}\label{eq:thisoneworks}
\Big\|\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac{1-2}{2p}} \vec{\rho} \Big\|^2
= \bigg\| D_{\omega}^{\frac12-\frac{1}{p}} D_{\rho}^{\frac12} \otimes \Big(D_{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{p} - \frac12}\Big)^{\scriptscriptstyle T} \vec{\tau} \bigg\|^2
= {\rm Tr}\, D_{\omega}^{1-\frac{2}{p}} D_{\rho}^{\frac12} D_{\sigma}^{\frac{2}{p} - 1} D_{\rho}^{\frac12} ,
\end{align}
which has been studied in~\cite[Def.~5]{lennert13}. Taking the supremum or infimum over $\omega$, respectively, leads to well-known $\sigma$-weighted norms,
\begin{align}\label{eq:weightednorm}
\| \vec{\rho} \| _{p,\sigma}\ = \Big\| D_\sigma^{\frac{1}{p} - \frac12} D_\rho^{\frac12} \Big\|_p
= \Bigg( {\rm Tr} \Big( D_\rho^{\frac12} D_\sigma^{\frac{2}{p} -1} D_\rho^{\frac12} \Big)^{\frac{P}{2}} \Bigg)^{\frac{1}{p}} = \Bigg( {\rm Tr} \Big( D_\sigma^{\frac{1}{p} - \frac12} D_\rho D_\sigma^{\frac{1}{p} - \frac12} \Big)^{\frac{P}{2}} \Bigg)^{\frac{1}{p}} \,,
\end{align}
where $\| \cdot \|_p$ denotes the Schatten norm of order $p$ (see also~\cite{audenaert13,bertawilde14} for related discussions). While we can determine the optimizer in the finite-dimensional case, this is not so easily done algebraically. However the variational formula around the expression~\eqref{eq:thisoneworks} generalizes to the algebraic setting as seen in~\eqref{eq:pnorm1} and~\eqref{eq:pnorm2}, if interpreted as a norm on vectors, i.e.\ as a norm on the square root of the density matrix $D_\rho^{\frac12}$ instead of $D_\rho$ itself.
\end{finite}
\begin{finite}
In the commutative case, the optimization can be performed without any problems following~\eqref{eq:classical1} and~\eqref{eq:classical2} and we arrive at the following expressions
\begin{align}
\norm{\rho}_{p,\sigma} = \left(\int_X \tau(\mathrm{d}x) \left(\frac{d\rho}{d\tau}(x)\right)^{\frac{p}{2}}\,\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\tau}(x)\right)^{1-\frac{p}{2}}\right)^{\frac{2}{p}}\,,
\end{align}
where we assumed that $\rho \ll \sigma$ if $p\geq 2$.
\end{finite}
The following lemma shows that this definition in fact is independent of the choice of $*$-representation. In particular, we can interpret Definition~\ref{def:pnorms} as a norm on positive normal functionals on the $W^*$-algebra instead of a norm on the vectors implementing these functionals.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:repindep}
Let $\rho, \sigma \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$, and let $\pi: \mathscr{M} \to \mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H})$ and $\widetilde{\pi}: \mathscr{M} \to \mathscr{B}(\widetilde{\mathscr{H}})$ be two $*$-representations with vectors $\vec{\rho} \in \mathscr{H}$ and $\tilde{\vec{\rho}} \in \widetilde{\mathscr{H}}$ both implementing $\rho$. Then, we have $\|\vec{\rho}\|_{p,\sigma} = \|\tilde{\vec{\rho}}\|_{p,\sigma}$ for all $1 \leq p \leq \infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The fact that both $*$-representations allow for a vector implementing $\rho$ means that the mapping $V: \mathscr{H} \to \widetilde{\mathscr{H}}$ defined by
\begin{align}
V: V \pi(a) \vec{\rho} \mapsto \widetilde{\pi}(a) \tilde{\vec{\rho}}, \quad a \in \mathscr{M} \,,
\end{align}
is an isometry satisfying $V\pi(x) = \widetilde{\pi}(x)V$. From~\eqref{eq:defR} follows that $R^{\sigma}(\tilde{\vec{\rho}} ) = R^{\sigma}(V \vec{\rho} ) = V R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho} )$ and hence we find
$V^{\dag} \spatn{\tilde{\vec{\omega}}}{\sigma} V = \spatn{V^{\dag}\!\tilde{\vec{\omega}}}{\sigma}$
for any $\tilde{\vec{\omega}} \in \widetilde{\mathscr{H}}$. For $p \geq 2$ we have
\begin{align}
\big\| \spatn{\tilde{\vec{\omega}}}{\sigma}^{\frac12-\frac{1}{p}} \tilde{\vec{\rho}} \big\|^2
&= \big\langle \vec{\rho} \big| V^{\dag} \spatn{\tilde{\vec{\omega}}}{\sigma}^{1-\frac{2}{p}} V \vec{\rho} \big\rangle \\
&\leq \bigg\langle \vec{\rho} \bigg| \left( V^{\dag} \spatn{\tilde{\vec{\omega}}}{\sigma} V \right)^{1-\frac{2}{p}} \vec{\rho} \bigg\rangle =\big\| \spatn{V^{\dag}\!\tilde{\vec{\omega}}}{\sigma}^{\frac12-\frac{1}{p}} \vec{\rho} \big\|^2 \,,
\end{align}
where the sole inequality follows from Jensen's inequality~\cite{hansen03} (see Appendix~\ref{app:hansen} for an extension to unbounded operators in our specific setting) and the operator concavity of $t \mapsto t^{r}$ for $r \in [0,1]$. Taking the suprema over $\tilde{\vec{\omega}}$ yields the inequality $\|\tilde{\vec{\rho}}\|_{p,\sigma} \leq \|\vec{\rho}\|_{p,\sigma}$ and equality follows because $\vec{\rho}$ and $\tilde{\vec{\rho}}$ are interchangeable in the above argument. For $1 \leq p < 2$ a similar argument using the operator convexity of $t \mapsto t^r$ for $r \in [-1, 0)$ yields the desired result.
\end{proof}
This allows us to introduce the notation $\| \rho \|_{p,\sigma}$ for any $\rho \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$, which refers to the norm of an arbitrary implementation of $\rho$. If $\rho \ll \sigma$ the GNS space $\mathscr{H}_{\sigma}$ allows for implementations of both $\rho$ and $\sigma$ and is thus a natural choice.
\begin{finite}
In the finite-dimensional case Lemma~\ref{lem:repindep} simply reaffirms our freedom to choose a purification. Consider a pure state $\rho$ and the trivial $*$-representation $\widetilde{\pi}: x \mapsto x$ of $\mathscr{M}_n$ into itself where $\rho$ is implemented by the vector satisfying $\tilde{\vec{\rho}} \tilde{\vec{\rho}}^{\dag} = D_{\rho}$. In this representation we have $R^{\sigma}(\tilde{\vec{\rho}})R^{\sigma}(\tilde{\vec{\rho}})^{\dag} = 1_n\, \rho(D_{\sigma}^{-1})$ and $\spatn{\tilde{\vec{\omega}}}{\sigma} = D_{\sigma}^{-1} \omega(1_n)$. The optimization turns trivial in this case and the norm evaluates to
\begin{align}
\| \rho \|_{p,\sigma} = \| \tilde{\vec{\rho}} \|_{p,\sigma} = \Big\| D_{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{p} - \frac12} \tilde{\vec{\rho}} \Big\| = \rho\Big( D_{\sigma}^{\frac{2}{p} - 1} \Big)^{\frac12},
\end{align}
which is in agreement with the expression for $\|\vec{\rho}\|_{p,\sigma}$ in~\eqref{eq:weightednorm} specialized for pure states.
\end{finite}
\subsection{Norm duality}
Araki and Masuda~\cite[Thm.~1]{araki82} show that, for any $\sigma \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$ and two H\"older conjugates $p, q \geq 1$ with $p^{-1} + q^{-1} = 1$, the corresponding $L_p$- and $L_q$-norms are dual on $\mathscr{G}_{\sigma}$, namely
\begin{align}\label{eq:norm_duality}
\| \vec{\rho}\| _{p,\sigma} = \sup \{ |\!\langle \vec{\rho} | \vec{\omega} \rangle\!| : \vec{\omega} \in \mathscr{G}_{\sigma},\ \| \vec{\omega} \|_{q,\sigma} \leq 1 \}\,.
\end{align}
This constitutes a H\"older inequality for the inner product:
\begin{align}\label{eq:hoelder}
|\!\langle \vec{\rho} | \vec{\omega} \rangle\!| \leq
\|\vec{\rho}\| _{p,\sigma} \, \| \vec{\omega} \|_{q,\sigma} \,.
\end{align}
These norm duality statements continues to hold on $\mathscr{H}_\sigma$, with very minor changes to the original proof.
\subsection{Norm interpolation and convexity}
Building on Araki and Masuda's techniques, we derive the following inequality relating the $L_p$-norm of $\rho \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$ for different values of $p$ (recall that the norm only depends on the state, not on the exact vector implementing the state).
\begin{proposition}\label{lem:simpleinterpolate}
Let $\rho, \sigma \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$ and either $p_0, p_1 \geq 2$ or $1 \leq p_0, p_1\leq 2$ be given. Then, we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:simpleinterpolate}
\|{\rho}\|_{p_\theta,\sigma} \leq \|{\rho}\|_{p_0,\sigma}^{1-\theta} \|{\rho}\|_{p_1,\sigma}^{\theta}\,, \qquad \textnormal{for} \quad \frac{1}{p_\theta} = \frac{1-\theta}{p_0} + \frac{\theta}{p_1} \,.
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We use the natural implementation $\vec{\rho}$ of $\rho$ in $\mathscr{H}_\rho$. If the right hand-side is infinite the claim holds trivially and hence we assume that $\|{\rho}\|_{p_0,\sigma}<\infty$ as well as $\|{\rho}\|_{p_1,\sigma}<\infty$. Furthermore, we assume without loss of generality that $p_1\geq p_0$.
Let us first consider the case $p_0, p_1 \geq 2$. The strategy is to apply Lemma~\ref{lem:main_interpolation} with the trivial choice $h(z) = 0$ (which reduces the first spatial derivative to a projector which we can safely ignore) and $V$ the identity map on $\mathscr{H}$. Hence we set
\begin{align}
f(z) = \spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{g(z)}\vec{\rho}
\end{align}
for $\omega\in\mathscr{H}_\rho$ with $g(z)=\frac{1}{2}-\big(\frac{z}{p_1}+\frac{1-z}{p_0}\big)$. We confirm that $\vec{\rho}$ is in the domain of the operator $\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{g(x)}$ for $x \in \{0,1\}$ by assumption, and estimate
\begin{align}
\norm{f(x+it)} = \left\|\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{it\left(\frac{1}{p_1}-\frac{1}{p_0}\right)}\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_x}}\vec{\rho}\right\|\leq\left\|\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_x}}\vec{\rho}\right\|\,,
\end{align}
since the imaginary power of $\spat{\omega}{\sigma}$ is a partial isometry. We find
\begin{align}
\norm{\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_\theta}}\vec{\rho}} = \norm{f(\theta)} \leq \left\|\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_0}}\vec{\rho}\right\|^{1-\theta}\left\|\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p_1}}\vec{\rho}\right\|^\theta\,.
\end{align}
Taking the suprema over $\vec{\omega}\in\mathscr{H}_\rho$ with $\|\vec{\omega}\|=1$ we arrive at the assertion.
For $1 \leq p_0,p_1 \leq 2$ we simply use the norm duality in~\eqref{eq:norm_duality} (note that we can assume $\rho \in \mathscr{H}_\sigma$) to establish
\begin{align}
\| \vec{\rho} \|_{p_{\theta},\sigma} &= \sup \big\{ |\!\langle \vec{\rho} | \vec{\omega} \rangle\!| : \vec{\omega} \in \mathscr{H}_{\rho},\ \| \vec{\omega} \|_{q_{\theta},\sigma} \leq 1 \big\} \\
&\leq \sup \big\{ |\!\langle \vec{\rho} | \vec{\omega} \rangle\!|^{1-\theta} |\!\langle \vec{\rho} | \vec{\omega} \rangle\!|^{\theta} : \vec{\omega} \in \mathscr{H}_{\rho},\ \|\vec{\omega}\|_{q_0,\sigma}^{1-\theta} \|\vec{\omega}\|_{q_1,\sigma}^{\theta} \leq 1 \big\} \\
&\leq \sup \big\{ \|\vec{\rho}\|_{p_0,\sigma}^{1-\theta} \|\vec{\omega}\|_{q_0,\sigma}^{1-\theta} \|\vec{\rho}\|_{p_1,\sigma}^{\theta} \|\vec{\omega}\|_{q_1,\sigma}^{\theta} : \vec{\omega} \in \mathscr{H}_{\rho},\ \|\vec{\omega}\|_{q_0,\sigma}^{1-\theta} \|\vec{\omega}\|_{q_1,\sigma}^{\theta} \leq 1 \big\} \\
&= \|\vec{\rho}\|_{p_0,\sigma}^{1-\theta} \|\vec{\rho}\|_{p_1,\sigma}^{\theta} \,.
\end{align}
Alternatively the statement can also be shown by a variation of the above argument using interpolation theory.
\end{proof}
The following simple corollary is noteworthy and turns the previous result into a convexity statement.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:convex}
The map $p \mapsto \log \|\rho\|_{p,\sigma}^p$ is convex on $[1,2]$ and $[2,\infty)$ for any $\rho,\sigma \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Taking the logarithm of~\eqref{eq:simpleinterpolate} and multiplying with $p_{\theta}$, we find
\begin{align}
\log \|\rho\|_{p_{\theta},\sigma}^{p_{\theta}} \leq \frac{p_\theta}{p_0}(1-\theta) \log \|\rho\|_{p_{0},\sigma}^{p_{0}} + \frac{p_\theta}{p_1}\theta \log \|\rho\|_{p_1,\sigma}^{p_{1}} \,.
\end{align}
It remains to verify that $\frac{p_\theta}{p_0}(1-\theta) + \frac{p_\theta}{p_1}\theta = 1$ and $\frac{p_\theta}{p_0}(1-\theta) p_0 + \frac{p_\theta}{p_1}\theta p_1 = p_{\theta}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Interpolation theory of linear operators}
Here we give a version of the Riesz-Thorin theorem for Araki-Masuda $L_p$-spaces.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:riesz-thorin}
Let $\mathscr{M} \subset \mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H})$ and $\mathscr{N} \subset \mathscr{B}(\mathscr{K})$ be two von Neumann algebras, and $\sigma \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$, $\tau \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{N})$ two positive functionals. For $T:\mathscr{H}\to\mathscr{K}$ bounded we have
\begin{align}
\|T\|_{p_\theta,\sigma\to q_\theta,\tau}\leq\|T\|^{1-\theta}_{p_0,\sigma\to q_0,\tau}\,\|T\|^\theta_{p_1,\sigma\to q_1,\tau}\,, \ \textrm{ where }\ \|T\|_{p,\sigma\to q,\tau}:=\sup_{\vec{\rho}\in\mathscr{H}}\frac{\|T\vec{\rho}\|_{q,\tau}}{\|\vec{\rho}\|_{p,\sigma}}
\end{align}
for $\frac{1}{p_\theta}=\frac{1-\theta}{p_0}+\frac{\theta}{p_1}$ with $p_0,p_1\geq2$ as well as $\frac{1}{q_\theta}=\frac{1-\theta}{q_0}+\frac{\theta}{q_1}$ with $q_0,q_1\geq2$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{finite}
For finite-dimensional systems, a similar statement has been proven by Beigi~\cite[Thm.~4]{beigi13} for $\sigma$-weighted norms. We note, however, that while Beigi's result is formulated for the density operators, the Araki-Masuda $L_p$-spaces are Banach spaces for the square roots of the density operators, or equivalently, they define $L_p$-norms on the purifying vectors.
\end{finite}
\begin{proof}
If the right hand-side is infinite the claim holds trivially and hence we assume in the following that it is finite. Our strategy is to prove the upper bound
\begin{align}
\|\spat{\chi}{\tau}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{q_\theta}}T\vec{\rho}\| \leq \|T\|^{1-\theta}_{p_0,\sigma\to q_0,\tau}\,\|T\|^\theta_{p_1,\sigma\to q_1,\tau}\,,
\end{align}
for dense set of vectors $\rho$ with definite $L_p$-norm $\norm{\vec{\rho}}_{p_\theta,\sigma} \leq 1$ and an arbitrary $\vec{\chi} \in \mathscr{K}$ with $\norm{\vec{\chi}}\leq 1$. The assertion would then follow by taking the supremum over such $\vec{\rho}$ and $\vec{\chi}$. Hence we first invoke Lemma~\ref{lem:representation_Lp} and choose $\vec{\rho}$ to be of the form
\begin{align}\label{eq:subst}
\vec{\rho} = u\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{p_\theta}}\vec{\sigma}\,,
\end{align}
for $\vec{\omega}\in\mathscr{H}$ with $\|\vec{\omega}\|=1$ and $u\in\mathscr{M}^\prime \subset \mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H})$ with $\|u\|\leq1$. We aim to apply Lemma~\ref{lem:main_interpolation} and hence set
\begin{align}
f(z) = \spat{\chi}{\tau}^{\frac{1}{2}-\left(\frac{z}{q_1}+\frac{1-z}{q_0}\right)}T u\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac{z}{p_1}+\frac{1-z}{p_0}}\vec{\sigma}\,,
\end{align}
which corresponds to the choice $g(z)=\frac{z}{p_1}+\frac{1-z}{p_0}$, and $h(z)=\frac{1}{2}-\left(\frac{z}{q_1}+\frac{1-z}{q_0}\right)$. Applying Lemma~\ref{lem:representation_Lp} gives
\begin{align}\label{eq:bound_from_rep_Lpspaces}
\left\|u\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{p_x}+it\left(\frac{1}{p_1}-\frac{1}{p_0}\right)}\right\|_{p_x,\sigma} \leq \|\vec{\omega}\|^{\frac{2}{p_x}}=1
\end{align}
which implies $\vec{\sigma} \in \mathcal{D}(\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{g(x)})$ for $x\in \{0,1\}$. Moreover, we estimate
\begin{align}
\norm{f(x+it)} &\leq \left\|\spat{\chi}{\tau}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{q_x}}T u \spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{p_x}+it\left(\frac{1}{p_1}-\frac{1}{p_0}\right)}\vec{\sigma}\right\|\\
&\leq\left\|T u \spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{p_x}+it\left(\frac{1}{p_1}-\frac{1}{p_0}\right)}\right\|_{q_x,\tau}\\
&\leq \left\|T\right\|_{p_x,\sigma\to q_x,\tau}\left\|u \spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{p_x}+it\left(\frac{1}{p_1}-\frac{1}{p_0}\right)}\right\|_{p_x,\sigma}\\
&\leq \left\|T\right\|_{p_x,\sigma\to q_x,\tau} ,
\end{align}
where we used in the first step that the imaginary power of $\spat{\chi}{\tau}$ is a partial isometry, in the second and third step the definitions of the norms $\norm{.}_{q_x,\tau}$ and $\left\|T\right\|_{p_x,\sigma\to q_x,\tau}$, respectively, and the estimate from~\eqref{eq:bound_from_rep_Lpspaces} in the last step. The requirements of Lemma~\ref{lem:main_interpolation} are satisfied and we get the estimate
\begin{align}
\left\|\spat{\chi}{\tau}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{q_\theta}}Tu\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{p_\theta}}\vec{\sigma}\right\| = \norm{f(\theta)} \leq \|T\|^{1-\theta}_{p_0,\sigma\to q_0,\tau}\,\|T\|^\theta_{p_1,\sigma\to q_1,\tau}\,,
\end{align}
from which the assertion follows by substituting~\eqref{eq:subst}.
\end{proof}
\section{Non-Commutative R\'enyi divergence}\label{sec:divergences}
\subsection{Definition}
We will use the non-commutative $L_p$-norms to define new relative entropic functionals on states of $\mathscr{M}$, which turn out to be an algebraic generalization of the sandwiched R\'enyi divergences~\cite{lennert13,wilde13} (see also~\cite[Sec.~3.3]{jaksic10}).
\begin{definition}
Let $\sigma \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$, $\rho \in \mathscr{S}(\mathscr{M})$ and $\alpha \in [\frac12,1) \cup (1, \infty)$. Then we define the \emph{Araki-Masuda divergence} of order $\alpha$ as
\begin{align}
D_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma) := \frac{1}{\alpha-1} \log Q_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma), \quad
Q_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma) := \| \rho \|_{2\alpha,\sigma}^{2\alpha} \,.
\end{align}
The quantity $D_{\infty}(\rho\|\sigma)$ is defined as the corresponding limit.
\end{definition}
Recall that Lemma~\ref{lem:repindep} establishes that we are free to chose any $*$-representation on $\vec{\rho}$ implementing $\rho$.
\begin{finite}
With~\eqref{eq:weightednorm} it is easily seen that in the finite-dimensional case the Araki-Masuda divergences correspond to the sandwiched R\'enyi divergences:
\begin{align}
D_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma)=\frac{1}{\alpha-1} \log{\rm Tr} \Big( D_\sigma^{\frac{1-\alpha}{2\alpha}} D_\rho D_\sigma^{\frac{1-\alpha}{2\alpha}} \Big)^\alpha\,.
\end{align}
\end{finite}
As a first property of this divergence we show that it is continuous and monotone as a function of $\alpha$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:alpha_mono}
Let $\sigma \in\mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$, $\rho \in \mathscr{S}(\mathscr{M})$. The function $\alpha \mapsto D_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma)$ is continuous and monotonically increasing on $[\frac12, 1) \cup (1,\infty]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For ease of notation we define $\phi(t) := \log Q_{1+t}(\rho\|\sigma)$.
Corollary~\ref{cor:convex} implies that $\phi(t)$ is convex on $[-\frac12, 0]$ and $[0,\infty)$, and thus continuous in these intervals' interiors. This implies continuity of $\alpha \mapsto D_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma) = \frac{1}{\alpha-1}\phi(\alpha-1)$ on $[\frac12, 1) \cup (1,\infty]$.
Moreover, we find that $\phi(0) = 0$ since $\| \rho \|_{2,\sigma} = 1$ for any state $\rho \in \mathscr{S}(\mathscr{M})$. A standard argument reveals that $\frac{1}{t}\phi(t)$ is monotonically increasing for any convex function $\phi(t)$ with $\phi(0) = 0$. More precisely, for $-\frac12 \leq \alpha < \beta < 0$, we have
\begin{align}
\phi(\beta) \leq \frac{\beta}{\alpha} \phi(\alpha) + \left( 1 - \frac{\beta}{\alpha} \right) \phi(0) = \frac{\beta}{\alpha} \phi(\alpha) \,,
\end{align}
which yields $\frac{1}{\beta} \phi(\beta) \geq \frac{1}{\alpha}\phi(\alpha)$, and analogous reasoning applies for $0 < \alpha < \beta$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Some limiting cases}
The extrema $\alpha = \frac12$ and $\alpha = \infty$ correspond to well-known quantities.
The limit $\alpha \to 1$ is more delicate and will be covered in the next sub-section.
\begin{lemma}
Let $\rho \in \mathscr{S}(\mathscr{M})$, $\sigma \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$. We have $D_{\frac12}(\rho\|\sigma) = -\log F(\rho,\sigma)$ where
\begin{align}\label{eq:fidelity}
F(\rho,\sigma)
:=& \sup \big\{ |\langle \vec{\rho} | U \vec{\sigma} \rangle|^2 : U\!: \mathscr{H}_{\sigma} \to \mathscr{H}_{\rho} \textnormal{ with }
\|U\| \leq 1, \\
\nonumber &\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad U \pi_{\sigma}(x) = \pi_{\rho}(x) U\ \textnormal{ for all } x \in \mathscr{M} \big\}
\end{align}
denotes Uhlmann's fidelity~\cite{Uhlmann76} in the form of Alberti~\cite{alberti83}, and
\begin{align}\label{eq:dinfty}
D_{\infty}(\rho\|\sigma) &= \log \inf \{ C > 0 : \rho(x) \leq C \sigma(x) \textnormal{ for all } x \in \mathscr{M}_+ \} \,,
\end{align}
which has also been studied in quantum information~\cite{datta08,jain02}.
\end{lemma}
These relations have essentially already been established in~\cite{araki82}, although in our setup we prefer to drop the assumption that $\sigma$ is faithful.
\begin{proof}
To show the identity~\eqref{eq:dinfty}, first note that for any $C$ such that $\rho(x) \leq C\, \sigma(x)$ for all $x \in \mathscr{M}_+$, we have
\begin{align}
\| \vec{\rho} \|_{\infty,\sigma}^2 &= \sup_{\vec{\omega} \in \mathscr{H},\atop \|\vec{\omega}\|=1} \| \spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac12} \vec{\rho} \|^2
= \sup_{\vec{\omega} \in \mathscr{H},\atop \|\vec{\omega}\|=1} \big\langle \vec{\omega} \big| R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho}) R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho})^{\dag} \vec{\omega} \big\rangle
= \| R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho}) \|^2 \,,
\end{align}
where the latter norm is induced by the vector norms on $\mathscr{H}$ and $\mathscr{H}_{\sigma}$.
Hence the inequality $\| \vec{\rho} \|_{\infty,\sigma}^2 \leq C$ follows from~\eqref{eq:itsbounded} and holds for all such $C$. On the other hand, for every $x \in \mathscr{M}_+$, we have
\begin{align}
\rho(x) &= \langle \vec{\rho} | \pi(x) \vec{\rho} \rangle
= \big\langle R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho}) \vec{\sigma} \big| \pi(x) R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho}) \vec{\sigma} \big\rangle \\
&= \big\langle \pi_{\sigma}(x)^{\frac12} \vec{\sigma} \big| R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho})^{\dag} R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho}) \pi_{\sigma}(x)^{\frac12} \vec{\sigma} \rangle \leq \big\| R^{\sigma}(\vec{\rho}) \big\|^2 \sigma(x) ,
\end{align}
which implies the other direction.
For the identity~\eqref{eq:fidelity}, we note that we have by $L_p$-space duality, \eqref{eq:norm_duality} that
\begin{align}
\norm{\vec{\rho}}_{1,\sigma} = \sup\{|\Scp{\vec{\rho}}{\vec{\psi}}|\,:\,\norm{\vec{\psi}}_{\infty,\sigma} \leq 1\}\,.
\end{align}
Using now the $p=\infty$ case just considered, we see that $\vec{\psi} \in \mathscr{H}_\rho$ implies $\norm{R^\sigma(\vec{\psi})}\leq 1$. By definition, we have $R^\sigma(\vec{\psi})\pi_\sigma(x) = \pi_\rho(x) R^\sigma(\vec{\psi})$ for $x \in \mathscr{M}$ and hence the relation $\norm{\vec{\rho}}_{1,\sigma}\leq\sqrt{F(\rho,\sigma)}$ follows since
\begin{align}
\Scp{\vec{\rho}}{\vec{\psi}} = \Scp{\vec{\rho}}{R^\sigma(\vec{\psi})\vec{\sigma}}\,.
\end{align}
In order to prove `$\geq$' note that for any $\vec{\omega} \in \mathscr{H}_{\rho}$, we have
\begin{align}
|\langle \vec{\rho} | U \vec{\sigma} \rangle| = \big|\big\langle \spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{-\frac12} \vec{\rho} \big| \spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac12} U \vec{\sigma} \big\rangle\big| \leq \big\| \spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{-\frac12} \vec{\rho}\big\| \, \big\| \spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac12} U \vec{\sigma} \big\|
\end{align}
by the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. The second norm simplifies to
\begin{align}
\big\| \spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac12} U \vec{\sigma} \big\| = \big\langle \vec{\omega} \big| R^{\sigma}(U\vec{\sigma}) R^{\sigma}(U \vec{\sigma})^{\dag} \vec{\omega} \big\rangle =
\omega( U U^{\dag} ) \leq 1 \,,
\end{align}
which yields $|\langle \vec{\rho} | U \vec{\sigma} \rangle| \leq \| \spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{-\frac12} \vec{\rho}\|$.
Since this holds for all such $U$ and all $\vec{\omega} \in \mathscr{H}_{\rho}$ we are done.
\end{proof}
Evidently $D_{\infty}(\rho\|\sigma)$ is finite if and only if $\rho \lll \sigma$. By monotonicity it follows that all $D_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma)$ are finite if $\rho \lll \sigma$.
\subsection{Comparison with Umegaki's and Petz' divergences}
The first entropic functional that was generalized to the operator algebraic setting (again in a work of Araki~\cite{araki76}) was the relative entropy as defined by Umegaki~\cite{umegaki62}. It is also useful to contrast the definition via Araki-Masuda $L_p$-spaces with a generalization of R\'enyi divergence proposed by Petz~\cite{petz85} (see also~\cite[Chap.~7]{ohya93}).
The following definitions are in terms of an implementing vector $\vec{\rho} \in \mathscr{H}$ of a state $\rho \in \mathscr{S}(\mathscr{M})$ on a von Neumann algebra $\mathscr{M} \subset \mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H})$; however, the quantities are independent of the specific choice of $*$-representation~\cite[p.~80]{ohya93}. In the following we thus choose the GNS Hilbert space~$\mathscr{G}_{\rho}$.
\begin{definition}
Let $\sigma \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$ and $\rho \in \mathscr{S}(\mathscr{M})$. Umegaki's relative entropy is defined as~\cite{araki76},
\begin{align}
D(\rho\|\sigma):=\langle\vec{\rho}|\log\spat{\rho}{\sigma}\vec{\rho}\rangle\,, \qquad \textrm{with } \vec{\rho} \in \mathscr{G}_{\rho} \textrm{ implementing } \rho,
\end{align}
if $\rho \ll \sigma$ (which may be infinite) and $+\infty$ otherwise. Moreover, for $\alpha \in (0,1)$ we define~\cite{petz85},
\begin{align}\label{eq:petzdef}
\widebar{Q}_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma):=\langle \vec{\rho} | \spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{\alpha -1} \vec{\rho} \rangle\,, \qquad \textrm{with } \vec{\rho} \in \mathscr{G}_{\rho} \textrm{ implementing } \rho \,.
\end{align}
For $\alpha \in (1,2)$ we use the definition in~\eqref{eq:petzdef} when $\rho \ll \sigma$ (which may be infinite) and set $\widebar{Q}_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma) = +\infty$ otherwise.
Finally, Petz' R\'enyi divergences are given by
\begin{align}
\widebar{D}_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma) := \frac{1}{\alpha-1} \log \widebar{Q}_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma)\,.
\end{align}
\end{definition}
\begin{finite}
In the finite-dimensional case Umegaki's relative entropy~\cite{umegaki62} is given as
\begin{align}
D(\rho\|\sigma)={\rm Tr}\, D_\rho(\log D_\rho-\log D_\sigma)\, ,
\end{align}
and the Petz divergences~\cite{petz86} can be written as
\begin{align}
\widebar{D}_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma)=\frac{1}{\alpha-1} \log{\rm Tr} \Big(D_\rho^\alpha D_\sigma^{1-\alpha}\Big)\,.
\end{align}
\end{finite}
We collect some useful properties of Petz' version of R\'enyi divergences into the following proposition. Their proof is standard and deferred to Appendix~\ref{app:misc_lemmas}.
\begin{proposition}\label{pr:petzprop}
Let $\sigma \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$ and $\rho \in \mathscr{S}(\mathscr{M})$. Then, we have:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The function $\alpha \mapsto \widebar{D}_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma)$ is monotonically increasing on $[0, 2]$.
\item If $\rho \lll \sigma$ then $\widebar{D}_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma)$ is finite for all $\alpha \in [0, 2]$.
\item We have $\lim_{\alpha \nearrow 1} \widebar{D}_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma) = D(\rho\|\sigma)$.
Moreover, if $\widebar{D}_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma)$ is finite for any $\alpha \in (1,2)$, we also have
\begin{align}
\lim_{\alpha \searrow 1} \widebar{D}_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma) = D(\rho\|\sigma) \,.
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\subsubsection{An algebraic Araki-Lieb-Thirring inequality}
The existence of two different divergences generalizing the commutative case obviously begs the question on their relation to each other. In finite dimensions, an ordering is implied by the Araki-Lieb-Thirring (ALT)~\cite{lieb76,araki90} inequality.
\begin{finite}
In the finite-dimensional case the ALT inequality~\cite{lieb76,araki90} for density matrices implies that
\begin{align}
\| \rho \|_{p,\sigma}^p
= {\rm Tr} \Big( D_\rho^{\frac12} D_\sigma^{\frac{2}{p} - 1} D_\rho^{\frac12} \Big)^{\frac{P}{2}}
\leq {\rm Tr}\, D_{\rho}^{\frac{p}{2}} D_{\sigma}^{1- \frac{p}{2}} = \| \spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{\frac{p}{4}} \vec{\sigma} \|^2, \qquad \textnormal{for} \quad p \geq 2 \,.
\end{align}
The inequality holds in the opposite direction for $1 \leq p \leq 2$.
\end{finite}
This motivates the following extension of the ALT inequality to the setting of $W^*$-algebras and non-commutative vector valued $L_p$-spaces. We note that Kosaki already established a version of the ALT inequality for von Neumann algebras~\cite{kosaki92}, albeit only for those possessing a semifinite trace. In contrast, our ALT inequality holds for any von Neumann algebra and is formulated in terms of positive functionals.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:alt}
Let $\mathscr{M}$ be a $W^*$-algebra. For $\rho \in \mathscr{S}(\mathscr{M})$ and $\sigma \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$ we have that
\begin{align}
D_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma) \leq \widebar{D}_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma)\,.
\end{align}
In fact, if $\mathscr{M} \subset \mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H})$ is a von Neumann algebra such that $\mathscr{H}$ supports implementations $\vec{\rho}, \vec{\sigma} \in \mathscr{H}$ of $\rho$ and $\sigma$, respectively, then we have for $p \geq 2$ that
\begin{align}
\| \vec{\rho} \|_{p,\sigma}^p \leq \| \spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{\frac{p}{4}} \vec{\sigma} \|^2\,.
\end{align}
The inequality holds in the opposite direction for $1 \leq p \leq 2$.
\end{theorem}
We prove the second statement for $p \geq 2$ and postpone the case $1 \leq p \leq 2$ to Appendix~\ref{app:misc_lemmas}, due to its more complicated nature. The first statement follows from the independence of the $L_p$-norm concerning the vector representative of the state (Lemma~\ref{lem:repindep}) as well as from the fact that $\vec{\rho} = \spat{\rho}{\sigma}^\frac{1}{2}\vec{\sigma}$ if there exists an element $\vec{\sigma} \in \mathscr{H}$ implementing $\sigma$.
\begin{proof}
If the right hand-side is infinite the claim holds trivially and hence we assume that $\| \spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{\frac{p}{4}} \vec{\sigma} \|^2<\infty$, from which it follows that $\vec{\sigma}\in \mathcal{D}\big(\spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{\frac{p}{4}}\big)$. We will prove
\begin{align}\label{eq:more_general}
\big\| \spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{p}} \vec{\rho} \big\| \leq \big\| \spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{\frac{p}{4}} \vec{\sigma} \big\|^{\frac{2}{p}}\,,
\end{align}
for $\vec{\omega}\in\mathscr{H}$ with $\|\vec{\omega} \| = 1$, from which the assertion follows by taking the supremum over all such vectors. Our strategy is again based on Lemma~\ref{lem:main_interpolation} applied to the function
\begin{align}
f(z) = \spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{h(z)}\spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{g(z)}\vec{\sigma}
\end{align}
with $g(z)=\frac{zp}{4}$, and $h(z)=\frac{1-z}{2}$. It follows by assumption that $\vec{\sigma}\in \mathcal{D}\big(\spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{g(x)}\big)$ for $x \in \{0,1\}$. Moreover, we can estimate
\begin{align}
\norm{f(x+it)} = \left\|\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{h(x+it)}\spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{g(x+it)}\vec{\sigma}\right\|
\leq\left\|\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac{1-x}{2}}\spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{\frac{(x+it)p}{4}}\vec{\sigma}\right\|\,,
\end{align}
again using that the imaginary power of a spatial derivative is a partial isometry. For $x=0$ we find
\begin{align}
\left\|\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{2}}\spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{\frac{itp}{4}}\vec{\sigma}\right\|&\leq\left\|\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{itp}{4}}\spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{\frac{itp}{4}}\vec{\sigma}\right\|=\left\|\spat{\rho}{\omega}^{\frac{itp}{4}}\vec{\omega}\right\|\leq 1\,,
\end{align}
where we used Lemma~\ref{lem:modular_identity} in the second step as well as $\|\vec{\omega}\|=1$ in the third step. For $x=1$ we get
\begin{align}
\norm{f(1+it)} \leq \left\|P_\sigma\spat{\rho}\sigma^{\frac{(1+it)p}{4}}\vec{\sigma}\right\|&\leq\left\|\spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{\frac{p}{4}}\vec{\sigma}\right\|\,.
\end{align}
The requirements of Lemma~\ref{lem:main_interpolation} are satisfied and we get
\begin{align}
\left\|\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac{1-\theta}{2}}\spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{\frac{\theta p}{4}}\vec{\sigma}\rangle\right| = \norm{f(\theta)} \leq \left\|\spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{\frac{p}{4}}\vec{\sigma}\right\|^\theta\,,
\end{align}
for $0\leq\theta\leq1$. Choosing $\theta=\frac{2}{p}$, using that $\spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{\frac{1}{2}}\vec{\sigma}=\vec{\rho}$, and taking the suprema over all $\omega \in \mathscr{H}_{\rho}$ with $\|\vec{\omega} \| = 1$ implies the claim~\eqref{eq:more_general}.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Umegaki's relative entropy as the limit $\alpha \to 1$}
We find that the Araki-Masuda divergence always converges to Umegaki's relative entropy when $\alpha$ approaches $1$ from below and that if $\rho\lll\sigma$ the function $\alpha \to D_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma)$ can be continuously extended to the whole range $\alpha \in \big[\frac12,\infty\big]$.
\begin{theorem}
Let $\mathscr{M}$ be a $W^*$-algebra, $\sigma \in \mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$ and $\rho \in \mathscr{S}(\mathscr{M})$. Then, we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:limit1}
\lim_{\alpha\nearrow 1}D_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma) = D(\rho\|\sigma)\,.
\end{align}
If furthermore $\rho\lll\sigma$ then we also have
\begin{align}\label{eq:limit2}
\lim_{\alpha \searrow 1}D_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma)=D(\rho\|\sigma)\,.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
Given the above theorem, it makes sense to define the Araki-Masuda divergence of order one as the limit $D_1(\rho\|\sigma) :=\lim_{\alpha\nearrow 1}D_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma)$.
\begin{proof}
We start with the limit from below in~\eqref{eq:limit1} and first show the direction `$\geq$'. We may assume that $D_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma)<\infty$ for $\alpha\in[\frac12,1)$ as otherwise the statement is trivial.
We estimate
\begin{align}
D_1(\rho\|\sigma)&=\lim_{\alpha \nearrow 1}\frac{1}{\alpha-1}\log\inf_{\vec{\omega} \in \mathscr{H},\,\|\vec{\omega}\|=1}\left\|\spat{\omega}{\sigma}^{\frac12-\frac{1}{2\alpha}} \vec{\rho}\right\|^{2\alpha}\label{eq:geq1}\\
&\geq\lim_{\alpha \nearrow 1}\frac{\alpha}{\alpha-1}\log\langle\vec{\rho}|\spat{\rho}{\sigma}^{1-\frac{1}{\alpha}}\vec{\rho}\rangle\\
&=\lim_{\alpha \nearrow 1}\frac{\alpha}{\alpha-1}\log\int_0^{\infty}t^{1-\frac{1}{\alpha}}\langle\vec{\rho}|P(\mathrm{d}t)\vec{\rho}\rangle\,,
\end{align}
with the measure $P(\mathrm{d}t)$ from the spectral decomposition of $\spat{\rho}{\sigma}$. For $\beta:=1-\frac{1}{\alpha}$ and $\mu(\mathrm{d}t):=\langle\vec{\rho}|P(\mathrm{d}t)\vec{\rho}\rangle$ we calculate with de L'Hospital's rule and the dominated convergence theorem that the left limit evaluates to
\begin{align}\label{eq:beta_limit}
\lim_{\beta\nearrow 0}\frac{\log\left(\int_0^{\infty}t^\beta\mu(\mathrm{d}t)\right)}{\beta} =
\lim_{\beta\nearrow 0}\ \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\beta} \int_0^{\infty} t^\beta \mu(\mathrm{d}t) =
\int_0^{\infty}\log(t)\mu(\mathrm{d}t)\,,
\end{align}
from which it follows that
\begin{align}\label{eq:geq2}
D_1(\rho\|\sigma)\geq\langle\vec{\rho}|\log\spat{\rho}{\sigma}\vec{\rho}\rangle=D(\rho\|\sigma)\,.
\end{align}
To show the direction `$\leq$' of~\eqref{eq:limit1} we invoke the ALT inequality in Theorem~\ref{thm:alt} which states that
$D_\alpha(\rho\|\sigma)\leq\widebar{D}_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma)$.
The claim then follows from Proposition~\ref{pr:petzprop}, which establishes that
$\lim_{\alpha\nearrow 1}\widebar{D}_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma)=D(\rho\|\sigma)$.
Let us now proceed to the limit from above in~\eqref{eq:limit2}.
The direction `$\geq$' follows analogously to~\eqref{eq:geq1}--\eqref{eq:geq2}, where by assumption we have that $D_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma)$ is finite for all $\alpha > 1$ and calculate the limit $\beta \searrow 0$.
To get the direction `$\leq$' we again invoke the ALT inequality in Theorem~\ref{thm:alt} and are left to show
$\lim_{\alpha \searrow 1}\widebar{D}_{\alpha}(\rho\|\sigma)=D(\rho\|\sigma)$ which follows from Proposition~\ref{pr:petzprop}, assertions (3), the requirements of which are satisfied by our assumption $\rho \lll \sigma$, c.f. assertion (2) of Proposition~\ref{pr:petzprop}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The data-processing inequality}
We consider two $W^*$-algebras $\mathscr{M}$, $\mathscr{N}$ and completely positive and unital maps $\mathscr{E}:\mathscr{N}\to\mathscr{M}$. Moreover, we assume that these maps are normal, that is, they have a pre-dual $\mathscr{E}_*$ mapping the set of normal functionals on $\mathscr{M}$ into the set of normal functionals on $\mathscr{N}$. We call $\mathscr{E}$ a quantum channel from $\mathscr{N}$ to $\mathscr{M}$. Assuming $\mathscr{M} \subset \mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H})$ for some Hilbert space $\mathscr{H}$, there exists by Stinespring's theorem~\cite{stinespring54} a Hilbert space $\mathscr{K}$, a $*$-representation $\pi$ of $\mathscr{N}$ on $\mathscr{K}$, and an isometry $T:\mathscr{H}\to\mathscr{K}$ such that $\mathscr{E}(a)=T^{\dagger} \pi(a) T$ for all $a\in\mathscr{N}$. We call the triple $\big(\mathscr{K},\pi,T\big)$ a Stinespring dilation of $\mathscr{E}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:data_processing}
Let $\mathscr{M}$, $\mathscr{N}$ be two $W^*$-algebras, $\rho\in\mathscr{S}(\mathscr{M})$, $\sigma\in\mathscr{P}(\mathscr{M})$, and $\mathscr{E} : \mathscr{N} \to \mathscr{M}$ be a quantum channel from $\mathscr{N}$ to $\mathscr{M}$. Then, we have
\begin{align}
D_\alpha(\rho\|\sigma)\geq D_\alpha(\mathscr{E}_*(\rho)\|\mathscr{E}_*(\sigma))\quad\text{for all $\alpha\in \Big[\frac{1}{2},1\Big )\cup(1,\infty]$.}
\end{align}
In fact, assuming $\mathscr{M} \subset \mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H})$, for any Stinespring dilation $\big(\mathscr{K},\pi,T\big)$ of $\mathscr{E}$ we have for $p\geq 2$ that
\begin{align}\label{eq:dpi-vectors}
\left\|T\vec{\rho}\right\|_{p,\mathscr{E}_*(\sigma)}\leq\|\vec{\rho}\|_{p,\sigma}\quad\text{for all $\rho\in\mathscr{H}$.}
\end{align}
The inequality holds in the opposite direction for $1\leq p\leq 2$.
\end{theorem}
The first assertion of Theorem~\ref{thm:data_processing} follows immediately from the second by noting that $T\vec{\rho}$ is an implementing vector of $\mathscr{E}_*(\rho)$ for all $\rho\in\mathscr{S}(\mathscr{M})$ with $\vec{\rho}$ implementing~$\rho$. In the limit $\alpha\to1$ we get Umegaki's relative entropy and the data-processing inequality holds as well~\cite{lieb73,uhlmann77}. The case $\alpha=\frac{1}{2}$ corresponds to the data-processing inequality of the fidelity and is due to Alberti~\cite{alberti83}.
\begin{finite}
In the finite-dimensional case Beigi~\cite{beigi13} used a similar argument to prove the data-processing inequality from Riesz-Thorin for $\alpha > 1$. Data-processing in the complete range $\alpha \in [\frac12,1) \cup (1, \infty)$ was shown by Frank and Lieb~\cite{frank13}.
Recently it was noticed that Beigi's proof continues to hold for (not necessarily completely) positive unital maps~\cite{hermes15} (recall that we state our results for maps defined in the Heisenberg picture). While our proof also works for $\alpha \in \big[\frac12,1\big)$, we rely on the Stinespring dilation in our setup and are thus restricted to completely positive unital maps.
\end{finite}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:data_processing}]
First note that the claim in~\eqref{eq:dpi-vectors} can be equivalently formulated as
\begin{align}
\|T\|_{p,\sigma\to p,\mathcal{E}_*(\sigma)} &\leq 1 \quad \textrm{for $p \geq 2$} \,.
\end{align}
In the limiting case $p\to\infty$ this statement follows trivially from the expression~\eqref{eq:dinfty} for $\| \cdot \|_{\infty,\sigma}$ and the positivity property of the quantum channel. The case $p=2$ follows (with equality) from $\|\cdot\|_{2,\sigma}=\|\cdot\|$ and the fact that $T$ is an isometry. The general case for $p\geq2$ follows by applying Theorem~\ref{thm:riesz-thorin} with the parameter choices $p_0=q_0=\infty$, $p_1=q_1=2$, $\theta=\frac{2}{p}$, $\sigma=\sigma$, and $\tau=\mathscr{E}_*(\sigma)$, yielding
\begin{align}
\|T\|_{p,\sigma\to p,\tau}\leq\|T\|^{1-\frac{2}{p}}_{\infty,\sigma\to \infty,\mathscr{E}_*(\sigma)}\,\|T\|_{2,\sigma\to 2,\mathscr{E}_*(\sigma)}^{\frac{2}{p}} \leq 1 \,.
\end{align}
For the case $1\leq p\leq2$, we simply use the norm duality in~\eqref{eq:norm_duality} to establish
\begin{align}
\|\vec{\rho}\|_{p,\sigma}=\sup\left\{\left|\langle\vec{\psi}\middle|\vec{\rho}\rangle\right|\,:\,\|\vec{\psi}\|_{q,\sigma}\leq1\right\}&=\sup\left\{\left|\langle T\vec{\psi}\middle|T\vec{\rho}\rangle\right|\,:\,\|\vec{\psi}\|_{q,\sigma}\leq1\right\}\\
&\leq\left\|T\vec{\psi}\right\|_{q,\mathscr{N}_*(\sigma)}\left\|T\vec{\rho}\right\|_{p,\mathscr{N}_*(\sigma)}\\
&\leq\left\|T\vec{\rho}\right\|_{p,\mathscr{N}_*(\sigma)}\,,
\end{align}
for $\frac{1}{q}+\frac{1}{p}=1$, and where we used $T^{\dagger}T=1$ (since $T$ is an isometry) as well as the statement of the lemma for $p\geq2$.
\end{proof}
\section{Application to hypothesis testing}\label{sec:strong_converse}
We have used Araki-Masuda weighted non-commutative vector valued $L_p$-spaces to define an algebraic generalization of the sandwiched R\'enyi divergences. We have shown various properties of these divergences, including a data-processing inequality and monotonicity in the parameter $\alpha = \frac{p}{2}$. We have also shown that the Araki-Masuda divergences are lower bounds on an earlier non-commutative generalization of R\'enyi divergence by Petz in the range $\alpha \in [0, 2]$. The latter quantities attain operational meaning in binary hypothesis testing on von Neumann algebras, as shown by Jak\u{s}i\'c \emph{et al.}~\cite{jaksic10}. Our work elicits the question whether the Araki-Masuda divergences characterize the strong converse exponent in binary hypothesis testing on von Neumann algebras. Mosonyi and Ogawa~\cite{mosonyiogawa13} showed that this is the case in the finite-dimensional setting.
Let us recapitulate the notation and setup in~\cite{jaksic10} and the result in~\cite{mosonyiogawa13}
for the case of binary hypothesis testing between identical product states. (We refer the reader to these papers for a more comprehensive discussion.) Let $\mathscr{M} \subset \mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H})$ be a von Neumann algebra and let $\rho, \tau \in \mathscr{S}(\mathscr{M})$ be represented by vectors $\vec{\rho}, \vec{\tau} \in \mathscr{H}$. A (hypothesis) test $T$ is a positive contraction in $\mathscr{M}$, i.e.\ $\{T, 1 - T \} \subset \mathscr{M}_+$.
For any test $T$, we define the errors of the first and second kind as $\rho(1 - T)$ and $\tau(T)$, respectively. We use the von Neumann tensor product~\cite[Ch.~4]{takesakibook1}, denoted $\mathscr{M} \,\widebar{\otimes}\, \mathscr{M}$, to define a sequence of von Neumann algebras $\mathscr{M}_n = \mathscr{M}^{\widebar{\otimes}n} \subset \mathscr{B}(\mathscr{H}^{\otimes n})$, and two sequences of states in $\rho_n, \tau_n \in \mathscr{S}(\mathscr{M}_n)$ determined by their implementing vectors $\vec{\rho}_n = \vec{\rho}^{\otimes n}$ and $\vec{\tau}_n = \vec{\tau}^{\otimes n}$ in $\mathscr{H}^{\otimes n}$.
Now let us consider a sequence of tests $\{ T_n \}$ such that the error of the second kind satisfies $\tau_n(T_n) \leq \exp(-n r)$ for some $r > D(\rho\|\tau)$. The strong converse to Stein's lemma (see, e.g.~\cite{jaksic10}) tells us that in this case the error of the first kind, $\rho_n(1 - T_n)$, converges to $1$ as $n \to \infty$. In fact, in the finite-dimensional case~\cite{ogawa00} it is known that this convergence is exponential in $n$.
Let us thus define the optimal strong converse exponent as
\begin{align}
B_e^{*}(r) := \inf_{ \{ T_n \} } \left\{ \limsup_{n \to \infty} -\frac{1}{n} \log \rho_n(T_n) \big) \,\middle|\, \liminf_{n \to \infty} -\frac{1}{n} \log \tau_n(T_n) \geq r \right\}
\end{align}
Mosoyniy and Ogawa~\cite{mosonyiogawa13}, again in the finite-dimensional case, show that
\begin{align}
B_e^{*}(r) = \sup_{\alpha > 1} \frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha} \left( r - D_{\alpha}(\rho\|\tau) \right),
\end{align}
yielding an operational interpretation of the sandwiched R\'enyi divergence for $\alpha \geq 1$. We conjecture that this relation also holds in the general algebraic case with the sandwiched R\'enyi divergence replaced by the Araki-Masuda divergence.
To support our conjecture we derive a bound in one direction. Following the footsteps of~\cite{mosonyiogawa13}, it is easy to show using the multiplicativity of $L_p$-norms under tensor products\footnote{This property essentially follows from the characterization of vectors with definite $L_p$-norm in Lemma~\ref{lem:representation_Lp}.} and the data-processing inequality (Theorem~\ref{thm:data_processing}) that
\begin{align}
D_{\alpha}(\rho\|\tau) &= \frac{1}{n} D_{\alpha}(\rho_n\|\tau_n) \label{eq:strong1} \\
&\geq \frac{1}{n} D_{\alpha} \left( \left( \begin{matrix} \rho_n(T_n) & 0 \\ 0 & \rho_n(1 - T_n) \end{matrix} \right) \,\middle\|\, \left( \begin{matrix} \tau_n(T_n) & 0 \\ 0 & \tau_n(1 - T_n) \end{matrix} \right)\right) \label{eq:strong2} \\
&\geq \frac{1}{n(\alpha - 1)} \log \rho_n(T_n)^{\alpha} \tau_n(T_n)^{1-\alpha} ,
\end{align}
for any test $T_n$ and any $\alpha > 1$. This implies after some manipulations that
\begin{align}
B_e^{*}(r) \geq \sup_{\alpha > 1} \frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha} \left( r - D_{\alpha}(\rho\|\tau) \right)\,.
\end{align}
Since this derivation holds for all R\'enyi divergences that satisfy additivity~\eqref{eq:strong1} and data-processing~\eqref{eq:strong2}, our conjecture would also imply that the Araki-Masuda divergences are minimal amongst all generalizations of R\'enyi divergences satisfying these two properties.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Anna Jen\u{c}ov\'a for pointing out a mistake in Eq.~\eqref{eq:pnorm2} in a previous version of this manuscript~\cite{jencova17}. MB and MT thank the Department of Physics at Ghent University, and MB and VBS thank the School of Physics at University of Sydney for their hospitality while part of this work was done.
VBS is supported by the EU through the ERC Qute. MT is funded by an ARC Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DECRA) fellowship and acknowledges support from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Engineered Quantum Systems (EQUS).
|
\subsection{\label{sec:compl_searches}Mass plane correlations of searches for squarks and gluinos}
This subsection discusses the distinct regions of sensitivity correlated with each analysis considered. Importantly, the identified regions in the two-dimensional planes are independent of the prior distribution of points.
\subsubsection{Searches with a lepton veto}
First, we investigate the excluded points where each of the 2--6 jets, Multi-b, 7--10 jets, and Monojet searches are most sensitive, in that order. These analyses all veto on leptons, and exhibit the most unambiguous correlations in the mass planes of the gluino, squark and LSP (Figures~\ref{fig:bySearch_summary} and~\ref{fig:bySearch_Sqk_LSP}). Generally, these analyses select events with transverse momentum imbalance of magnitude $E_\mathrm{T}^{\rm miss}$, varying jet multiplicity, together with discriminants dependent on mass scale or flavour. For full details, refer to the ATLAS references in Table~\ref{tab:listSearches}.
\paragraph{2--6 jets}
Figure~\ref{fig:bySearch_Gl_LSP} reveals the extensive distribution in the gluino--LSP plane where the 2--6 jets is the most sensitive analysis (blue points). The 2--6 jets search uses the effective mass discriminant, with varying degrees of minimum jet multiplicity to target models where a squark or gluino directly decays to the LSP. Meanwhile, the larger jet multiplicity regions target scenarios where a chargino mediates the decay of the gluino to the LSP.
This analysis has almost exclusive sensitivity to points with gluino $\tilde{g}$ masses below 1~TeV, where its mass splittings with the LSP in the range $25 \lesssim m(\tilde{g}) - m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) \lesssim 500$~GeV. Larger mass splitting scenarios for sub-TeV mass gluinos are excluded by Run~1 searches (hatched grey mass regions). For regions with gluinos above 1~TeV with large gluino--LSP mass splittings, we find the 2--6 jets has reduced sensitivity compared with other analyses, especially for LSP masses $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) \lesssim 500$~GeV. For gluino masses $m(\tilde{g}) \gtrsim 2$~TeV, we expect reduced sensitivity to gluinos, but points in this region are correlated with excluded points involving low mass squarks. This is confirmed by comparing with the gluino--squark plane (Figure~\ref{fig:bySearch_Gl_Sqk}). Indeed, the 2--6 jets search is also predominantly the most sensitive analysis for light squarks in regions not far beyond Run~1 sensitivity. High mass gluinos in such scenarios can nevertheless contribute to production cross-sections of the squarks as a mediator via $t$-channel diagrams.
The gluino--squark plane (Figure~\ref{fig:bySearch_Gl_Sqk}) also reveals a vertical strip with a lower density of points around gluino mass between about 1~TeV and 1.2~TeV. This corresponds to a region where a lower fraction of models is excluded per mass interval (see also Figures~\ref{fig:gsqk_fracExcl} and \ref{fig:2D_prior_Gl_Sqk} in~\ref{sec:method}). This reduced sensitivity, and lack of any other dedicated analysis probing this region, is due to gluino--LSP mass being moderately small (between around 25 and 200~GeV). Such scenarios are challenging for traditional `missing energy plus jets' searches, but represent the greatest potential for high luminosity where novel techniques are being developed to target such regions~\cite{Jackson:2016mfb}.
Further interpretations for the 2--6 jets analysis apply in the squark--LSP plane (Figure~\ref{fig:bySearch_Sqk_LSP}). The search has sensitivity to a wide variety of squark mass scenarios, gradually reducing above $m(\tilde{q})\sim 1$~TeV. The strip of blue points for $m\left(\tilde{q}\right)\gtrsim 1.5$~TeV and $600 \lesssim m\left(\tilde{\chi}^0_1\right)\lesssim 900$~GeV where we would expect reduced squark sensitivity are correlated with low mass gluinos. These points largely have sub-TeV gluinos, an interpretation, again confirmed in the gluino--squark plane (Figure~\ref{fig:bySearch_Gl_Sqk}).
\paragraph{Multi-b}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{./img/mass_distro_analyses/1D_mass_unique_atlas_multi_b_jets}
\caption{Distribution of sparticle masses for the excluded points where the Multi-b analysis is most sensitive. The lines correspond to the chargino $\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ (blue solid), lightest sbottom $\tilde{b}_1$ (magenta short-dashed), lightest stop $\tilde{t}_1$ (green dotted), lightest squark $\tilde{q}$ (red dot-dashed) and gluino $\tilde{g}$ (light-blue long-dashed).
}
\label{fig:multib_mass_distro}
\end{figure}
Where the Multi-b analysis has most sensitivity (red points) is localised to regions complementary to the 2--6 jets analysis. In the gluino--LSP plane (Figure~\ref{fig:bySearch_Gl_LSP}), the region is enclosed by gluino masses of $1.2 \lesssim m(\tilde{g}) \lesssim 1.7$~TeV and LSP masses of $100 \lesssim m\left(\tilde{\chi}^0_1\right)\lesssim 500$~GeV. This sensitivity also extends to smaller gluino--LSP mass splittings, though to a lesser extent.
The distinctiveness of this region of sensitivity remains in the gluino--squark plane (Figure~\ref{fig:bySearch_Gl_Sqk}). Here, points where the Multi-b analysis is most sensitive are highly correlated with squark masses above 1.5~TeV, largely untouched by other analyses, being strikingly separated from 2--6 jets and to some extent the 7--10 jets analysis. Figure~\ref{fig:bySearch_Sqk_LSP} also confirms such correlations of the Multi-b in the squark--LSP plane and again sensitivity to squarks above 1.5~TeV is largely from gluino rather than squark production.
These correlations arise from the Multi-b search targeting $\tilde{g}\to b\bar{b}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ and $\tilde{g}\to t\bar{t} \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ models with heavy gluino production decaying via off-shell stops $\tilde{t}$ and sbottoms $\tilde{b}$. This analysis selects events with large $E_\mathrm{T}^{\rm miss}$ and at least three jets originating from bottom quarks. A subset of the signal regions selects loosely on boosted top quarks decaying from gluinos, including events enriched with lepton presence.
Figure~\ref{fig:multib_mass_distro} takes the points where the Multi-b is most sensitive and illuminates the mass distributions of various pertinent sparticles. The light flavour squarks $\tilde{q}$ are centred around 2~TeV with gluinos around 1.4~TeV, where Figure~\ref{fig:bySearch_Gl_Sqk} indicates that squarks are predominantly heavier than gluinos. This fact suppresses gluino decays to light flavour quarks, which proceed via the three body $\tilde{g} \to q \bar{q} \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ process. By contrast, the mass distribution of sbottoms $\tilde{b}_1$ peaks around 800~GeV in Figure~\ref{fig:multib_mass_distro} and have a preference to be lighter than the gluinos, allowing on-shell $\tilde{g}\to \tilde{b}b$ decays to be favoured. Indeed, this demonstrates favourable sensitivity to the on-shell counterpart of the simplified models considered for optimisation by ATLAS. Meanwhile, the distribution of stop masses is relatively uniform for $m(\tilde{t}_1)\gtrsim 900$~GeV. The requirement of three or more jets originating from bottom quarks therefore favours such scenarios. We furthermore note that out of the models excluded where the Multi-b is most sensitive, 56\% models have a Higgsinos-like LSP while 22\% are wino-like, which have light charginos consistent with the corresponding mass distribution in Figure~\ref{fig:multib_mass_distro}. This preference of the Multi-b analysis for Higgsino-like LSP models can be understood by the higher Yukawa couplings to heavy flavour quarks, which also enhance decays of the gluino to bottom and/or top quarks.
From the region in Figure~\ref{fig:bySearch_summary} where the density of red points is greatest, we show a representative point with model number 148229034 (Figure~\ref{fig:Multi_b_model}). This contains an LSP with a bino--Higgsino mixture at a mass of 175~GeV, a relatively low mass 1.2~TeV gluino and a 1.3~TeV sbottom enabling $\tilde{g} \to b \bar{b} \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ branching ratios to be preferred.
\paragraph{7--10 jets}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{./img/mass_spec/zoom_br/Multi_b_Gl}
\caption{\label{fig:Multi_b_model}Model 148229034 (Multi-b).}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{./img/mass_spec/zoom_br/7_10J_lowGl}
\caption{\label{fig:7_10_jets_model}Model 227558023 (7--10 jets).}
\end{subfigure}
\\[0.8cm]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{./img/mass_spec/zoom_br/1lepton_Sqk}
\caption{\label{fig:1_lepton_model}Model 13382371 (1-lepton).}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{./img/mass_spec/zoom_br/SS3L_Sqk}
\caption{\label{fig:SS3L_light_Sqk}Model 11733067 (SS/3L).}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Representative mass spectra produced using \texttt{PySLHA}~\cite{Buckley:2013jua} with model number in the captions for excluded points where the corresponding analysis in parentheses had greatest sensitivity. These show the most relevant low-mass sparticles and their decays; for the full mass spectra, see Figure~\ref{fig:full_mass_spec} in~\ref{sec:spec_plots}. The grey arrows show the branching ratios between two sparticles and proportional to its brightness. The model displayed for the 7--10 jets analysis is the one with the lightest gluino with an LSP mass below 100~GeV, while for the SS/3L search, we selected the model with the lightest squark. For the Multi-b analysis, displayed is a model selected from the region in figures~\ref{fig:bySearch_summary} where the density of red points is greatest. The model for the 1-lepton search is chosen based on one that is representative from the mass distributions in Figure~\ref{fig:1D_masses_1lepton}.
}
\label{fig:mass_spec}
\end{figure*}
The concentration of magenta triangles in Figure~\ref{fig:bySearch_summary} illustrates that the 7--10 jets search is the most sensitive analysis for models having light LSPs with large mass splitting from the gluino. Most of these LSPs have masses below 100~GeV, which are bino-like as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:mass_plane_features}, and undergo early universe annihilation through a $Z^0$ or a $h^0$ boson in so-called `funnel' regions. Since this annihilation mechanism requires Higgsino or wino admixtures to proceed, such scenarios typically have light charginos $\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ and next-to-lightest neutralinos $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$, with relatively small mass splittings between one other.
These types of decays are consistent with the simplified models containing long decay chains that this analysis optimises for. The observed missing transverse energy $E_\mathrm{T}^{\rm miss}$ therefore tends to be smaller than that required by the 2--6 jets or Multi-b searches. Indeed no explicit requirement on $E_\mathrm{T}^{\rm miss}$ is made by the search (instead the main discriminant is a ratio $E_\mathrm{T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{\sum p_\mathrm{T}^{\rm jet}}$ involving the missing energy and scalar sum of transverse jet momentum). The 7--10 jet search also has a looser requirement on jets originating from bottom quarks compared with the Multi-b analysis. Together, this allows the 7--10 jets analysis to maintain a unique coverage of models. In the gluino--squark plane (Figure~\ref{fig:bySearch_Gl_Sqk}), the 7--10 jets points occupy a similar space as Multi-b, but the longer cascade chains mean the gluino mass reach is lower. The remainder of the spectrum can be relatively decoupled. Figure~\ref{fig:7_10_jets_model} displays model number 227558023, which is representative of the models where the 7--10 jets analysis is most sensitive, where we selected the one with lowest gluino mass which had an LSP below 100~GeV.
\paragraph{Monojet}
The dedicated Monojet analysis selects events with an energetic jet from initial-state radiation recoiling off a system of large missing transverse momentum and up to three additional jets. In terms of SUSY models, this is optimised for scenarios where the mass of the squark is almost equal to that of the LSP, so-called `compressed scenarios'.
In Figures~\ref{fig:bySearch_Gl_LSP} and~\ref{fig:bySearch_Sqk_LSP}, the excluded points (cyan rings) where this analysis is most sensitive involve very small mass splittings between the coloured sparticle and LSP. Though there is significant overlap in regions of sensitivity for the Monojet and 2--6 jets analyses, the former is exclusively the most sensitive analysis involve squark--LSP splittings below 30~GeV. We note that the 2--6 jets search includes a similar signal region but requiring a minimum of two jets called `2jm'. The different jet multiplicity requirements ensure the dedicated Monojet maintains a unique sensitivity to the smallest squark--LSP mass splittings, again demonstrating the complementarity of searches. We find a small number (fewer than 10) of scenarios involving small mass splittings between the lightest 3rd generation squark and the LSP in the models for which the Monojet is most sensitive.
\subsubsection{\label{sec:leptonic_searches}Searches selecting one or more leptons}
Both the 1-lepton and SS/3L searches also target production gluinos and squarks, but require one or more leptons in selected events. In Figures~\ref{fig:bySearch_summary} and \ref{fig:bySearch_Sqk_LSP} involving the gluino, squark and LSP masses, the correlations between where the 1-lepton (orange plus) or SS/3L (green cross) analyses were most sensitive are less obvious. There points tend to cluster below squark masses of $m(\tilde{q})\lesssim 1.5$~TeV, while few points are present for gluino masses $m(\tilde{g})\lesssim 1.2$~TeV where other analyses dominate. Further investigation reveals other correlations driven by the light flavour slepton and gaugino masses not apparent in these figures, which we discuss in what follows. We also identify scenarios where these searches had most sensitivity, which are beyond what ATLAS optimised for.
\paragraph{1-lepton}
Figure~\ref{fig:1D_masses_1lepton} shows the distribution of masses for various sparticles from the excluded points where the 1-lepton analysis had the lowest CLs value. The 1-lepton analysis requires events with exactly 1 electron or muon with various minimum jet multiplicities and large $E_\mathrm{T}^{\rm miss}$. Though the analysis was optimised for gluino production, there is also a prevalence of light squarks, whose distribution peaks around $m(\tilde{q})\sim 1$~TeV. The distributions of the chargino and to a less extent next-to-lightest neutralino $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$ are skewed towards low masses, peaking around 300~GeV, with a tail that extends above 1~TeV. The tendancy for the next-to-lightest neutralino and chargino to be light is characteristic of Higgsino content in the LSP, or a bino-like LSP with wino-like pair near in mass to the LSP.
The mass distribution also reveals a preponderance of light sleptons, peaking around $m(\tilde{\ell})\sim 600$~GeV. We find these typically reside between the coloured sparticle and the chargino--LSP states. To demonstrate this interpretation, we define the splitting parameter
\begin{align}
x \equiv \frac{m\big(\tilde{\ell}\big)-m\left(\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1\right)}{m\left(\tilde{q}\right)- m\left(\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1\right)}\,,\label{eq:mass_splitting}
\end{align}
where $m\big(\tilde{\ell}\big)$ and $m\left(\tilde{q}\right)$ are respectively the masses of the lightest slepton and squark among the first or second generations. The red dashed line in Figure~\ref{fig:1D_mass_splitting_chrg_slep_sqk} then shows the distribution in $x$ of models where 1-lepton was most sensitive in $x$, and indeed the majority of models in the histogram have $0<x<1$.
The 1-lepton analysis interprets in a simplified model with a gluino--chargino--LSP decay chain and optimises for various mass splittings between these three sparticles. This is noteworthy given we find the 1-lepton search is most sensitive to richer mass spectra, with squarks and intermediate sleptons feature prominently. Given the mass distributions in Figure~\ref{fig:1D_masses_1lepton}, we display model number 13382371 (Figure~\ref{fig:1_lepton_model}) as a representative point to illustrate the wider sensitivity of the 1-lepton analysis. This point features a 727 GeV squark that can cascade to a slepton doublet and a 173~GeV Higgsino-like LSP. We also note that all the signal regions were involved in the exclusion of these models, indicating sensitivity to a wide variety of splittings. This addresses the question of over-optimisation raised in the Introduction (Section~\ref{sec:intro}). Despite optimising robustly for the gluino--chargino--LSP model, this analysis was sensitive to wider classes of models.
\paragraph{SS/3L}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{./img/mass_distro_analyses/1D_mass_unique_atlas_1L_jets}
\caption{\label{fig:1D_masses_1lepton} 1-lepton analysis.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{./img/mass_distro_analyses/1D_mass_unique_atlas_SS_3L}
\caption{\label{fig:1D_masses_SS3L}SS/3L analysis.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Distribution of sparticle masses for the excluded points where the 1-lepton (left) and SS/3L (right) analyses are most sensitive. Presented sparticles are the chargino $\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ (blue solid), next-to-lighest neutralino $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$ (grey short-dashed), lightest slepton $\tilde{\ell}$ (orange dotted), lightest squark $\tilde{q}$ (red dot-dashed) and gluino $\tilde{g}$ (light-blue long-dashed).
}
\label{fig:1D_mass_distro}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{./img/mass_distro_analyses/1D_mass_splitting_unique_atlas_1L_jets}
\caption{\label{fig:1D_mass_splitting_chrg_slep_sqk}Distribution of mass splitting for the chargino--slepton--squark $\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1$--$\tilde{\ell}$--$\tilde{q}$ system, parametrised by $x$ as defined in Eq.~\ref{eq:mass_splitting}. These are presented for the excluded points where the 1-lepton (dashed red) and SS/3L (solid blue) analyses are most sensitive.}
\end{figure}
Though there are similarities with the 1-lepton analysis, many salient differences appear for points where the SS/3L search is the most sensitive analysis. This search selects events with at least two leptons, and if there are exactly two, they are required to have the same electric charge.
One prominent difference is that points where the SS/3L is most sensitive again have almost exclusively wino-like LSPs, and so a nearly mass-degenerate chargino. This is consistent with the mass distributions of these models in Figure~\ref{fig:1D_masses_SS3L}: compared with the 1-lepton case (Figure~\ref{fig:1D_masses_1lepton}), the SS/3L has a smaller tail of high chargino mass while the next-to-lightest neutralino $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$ distribution is no longer skewed to lower masses. We note that a future Run~2 version of the `Disappearing Track' analysis~\cite{Aad:2013yna}, not considered in this work, could be sensitive to these models, since the small chargino-LSP mass splitting in such models ensures that the chargino is typically long-lived on collider time scales.
For these points, the gluinos are all relatively heavy and not strongly correlated with a particular mass scale, being fairly uniformly distributed for $m(\tilde{g}) \gtrsim 1.5$~TeV, in contrast to the 1-lepton discussion. This implicates that the SS/3L is not the most sensitive analysis to light gluinos, where other analyses such as the 2--6 jets are most sensitive. By contrast, squarks retain a peaked distribution centred around 1~TeV.
Figure~\ref{fig:1D_mass_splitting_chrg_slep_sqk} demonstrates, in a similar way to the 1-lepton analysis, that the slepton mass is almost always between the chargino and the lightest squark. We find a negligible number of models (a single entry) has $x>1$, corresponding to a slepton mass being above that of the lightest squark. Thus, we find that points where the SS/3L has best sensitivity are strongly correlated with one common feature: a squark--slepton--chargino--LSP $\tilde{q}$--$\tilde{\ell}$--$\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1$--$\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ ordered mass spectrum. The squark can undergo a three-body decay to a quark, lepton and a slepton $\tilde{q} \to q \ell \tilde{\ell}$ if the intermediate neutralino is off-shell $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_2) > m(\tilde{q})$. This hierarchical structure is displayed in model number 11733067 (Figure~\ref{fig:SS3L_light_Sqk}). Among the models where SS/3L is most sensitive, this has the lightest squark mass at 436~GeV.
Moreover, we find one signal region `SR0b3j' was used to exclude 98\% of these models where the analysis was most sensitive. This suggests other analyses had better sensitivity to models targeted by the other three signal regions, for example the Multi-b analysis is particularly sensitive to $\tilde{g} \to t\bar{t} \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ scenarios. The `SR0b3j' signal region requires at least three leptons and was optimised to capture a $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\chi}^0_2$--$\tilde{\ell}$--$\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ decay chain, distinct from the $\tilde{q}$--$\tilde{\ell}$--$\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1$--$\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ scenario we just identified.
Taken together, we draw two noteworthy conclusions from our findings for the SS/3L search. First, this analysis is the most sensitive analysis for a different scenario we identified in the pMSSM than all the simplified models those used for analysis optimisaton. Second, the exclusivity of signal region used to exclude this scenario indicates that the SS/3L lacked competitive sensitivity to points in the pMSSM corresponding to the simplified models considered.
\section{\label{sec:conclusion}Conclusion}
In this work, we interpreted six published 13~TeV (3.2~fb$^{-1}$) ATLAS SUSY searches for gluinos and light flavour squarks in a 19-parameter pMSSM. The purpose of this study was to analyse previously unexamined correlations between the most sensitive analyses with distinct regions of pMSSM parameter space. Our study addressed various shortcomings in the literature, presented under three questions in the Introduction (Section~\ref{sec:intro}), which we now summarise.
Firstly, we examined these correlations in collider parameter spaces, providing substantially richer information than overlap matrices used in the literature. For the two-dimensional projections into gluino, LSP and squark masses, the separation in regions probed by the 2--6 jets and Multi-b analyses were particularly distinct. The Multi-b was the most sensitive analysis for models with larger gluino--LSP mass splittings, where the 2--6 jets search began to lose sensitivity. The regions identified are independent of the priors in the pMSSM points. Further, while the Monojet and 2--6 jets share substantial overlapping sensitivity, the tighter jet requirements of the former is needed for the scenarios where the coloured sparticle and LSP are near mass-degenerate.
Secondly, we identified classes of models beyond those ATLAS used for optimisation. Arguably the most striking realisation of this was the SS/3L search. Despite optimising to four distinct simplified models, we found one signal region to be most sensitive to a different scenario in the pMSSM not considered by the ATLAS search. It involved a light flavour squark cascading to a slepton and wino-like LSP with a nearly mass-degenerate chargino, which could be used by the experimental collaborations to refine future searches. Meanwhile, though the 1-lepton search optimised for a single simplified model, we showed it was sensitive to scenarios that included squark production, as well as intermediate sleptons and gauginos.
Finally, while ATLAS performed an explicit DM interpretation for their Monojet search, our study manifested the prominent role other searches for coloured sparticles have when the dark sector is beyond non-minimal regimes as in the pMSSM. Bino-like LSPs may rely on coloured coannihilators to be consistent with the observed relic abundance, which are probed by the 2--6 jets and Monojet analyses being sensitive to small squark--LSP and gluino--LSP mass splittings. Light flavour squarks enhance LSP--nucleon scattering cross-sections, and squark lower mass bounds can still be below 500~GeV in the pMSSM. In addition, the SS/3L analysis had preferential sensitivity to wino-like LSP scenarios, which are particularly challenging for direct detection experiments.
Using our findings to design novel search strategies or interpretations was beyond the scope of this work and is deferred to future studies. It would also be of interest to perform similar assessments for the third generation squark and electroweak sectors including long-lived sparticles, interpret searches based on simplified models of DM, as well as develop surveys for non-minimal SUSY scenarios. Previously unprobed regions of the pMSSM will be explored further as LHC luminosity continues to rise.
\section{\label{sec:darkmatter}Probing the dark sector with strong SUSY searches}
In the pMSSM, the relic abundance of dark matter is predominantly shaped by the gaugino and Higgsino content of the LSP. The ATLAS Monojet search makes an explicit DM interpretation in a simplified model, but the complexity of the pMSSM dark sector necessitates other collider searches to provide decisive sensitivity. Complementing electroweak SUSY searches~\cite{Aaboud:2016wna}, this section sets out to demonstrate that 13~TeV ATLAS searches for coloured sparticles can indirectly probe different dark matter scenarios in the pMSSM. Subsection~\ref{sec:13TeV_on_dm} ascribes DM interpretations to each of the 13~TeV searches and manifests their sensitivity to distinct regions of DM parameter space. We also consider the impact of recent direct detection results from the PandaX-II/LUX experiments~\cite{Tan:2016zwf,lux-si-2016} on gluino and squark masses in Subsection~\ref{sec:dd_xs_on_Gl_Sqk}. Present constraints from indirect detection experiments searching for LSP annihilation signals in galactic halos are expected to have little sensitivity on the pMSSM space considered\footnote{Such indirect detection constraints were examined in Ref.~\cite{Cahill-Rowley:2014boa}, which finds that current constraints from Fermi-LAT are not expected to constrain the pMSSM space. Nevertheless, it was found that the future Cerenkov Telescope Array (CTA)~\cite{Doro:2012xx} is projected to have sensitivity to high mass LSPs scenarios not accessible to direct detection and collider searches.}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.70\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/byAnalysis_summary/dm/relic_density_byAnalyses_mass_after13TeV}
\caption{\label{fig:rel_dens_byAnalyses}Relic density.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.70\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/byAnalysis_summary/dm/si_xs_byAnalyses_mass_after13TeV}
\caption{\label{fig:si_xs_byAnalyses}Spin independent cross-section.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Most sensitive analysis used to constrain each of the 28.5k points excluded at 95\% confidence level by the six 13 TeV searches displayed in Table~\ref{tab:listSearches}. A marker is styled according to the analysis with the lowest CLs value, as described in Figure~\ref{fig:bySearch_summary}. This is projected into the planes of LSP mass $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ against relic density (Figure~\ref{fig:rel_dens_byAnalyses}) and spin-independent LSP--nucleon cross-section $\sigma^{\rm SI}_{N\textrm{-}\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ (Figure~\ref{fig:si_xs_byAnalyses}). The grey line overlayed on Figure~\ref{fig:rel_dens_byAnalyses} indicates the observed relic density $\Omega_{\rm CDM}^{\rm Planck}h^2$ measured by Planck~\cite{Ade:2015xua}. In Figure~\ref{fig:si_xs_byAnalyses}, the cross-section is scaled by the ratio $R= \Omega_{\chi_1^0}h^2/\Omega_{\rm CDM}^{\rm Planck}h^2$ of the neutralino relic density $\Omega_{\chi_1^0}h^2$ to that observed $\Omega_{\rm CDM}^{\rm Planck}h^2$. Overlayed on Figure~\ref{fig:si_xs_byAnalyses} are upper limits at 90\% confidence level on the cross-section observed by the LUX 2016~\cite{lux-si-2016} (solid light blue) results, together with the projected limit from 1000 days of data taking by the LZ experiment~\cite{Akerib:2015cja} (dashed green). The central value of the limit from LUX 2016 is twice as strong as that recently reported by PandaX-II~\cite{Tan:2016zwf}.
}
\label{fig:dd_si_frac_excl_byAnalyses}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/dm_after_run2/relic_density_mass_after13TeV-1}
\caption{\label{fig:reldens_post_13TeV}Relic density.
}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/dm_after_run2/si_xs_mass_after13TeV-1}
\caption{\label{fig:si_xs_post_13TeV}Spin independent cross-section.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Model points surviving the constraints from the six 13~TeV ATLAS searches considered in Ref.~\cite{Barr:2016inz}, projected into relic density (Figure~\ref{fig:reldens_post_13TeV}) and spin independent LSP-nucleon cross-section (Figure~\ref{fig:si_xs_post_13TeV}) vs LSP mass $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$. The points are coloured by the composition of the neutralino LSP being dominantly bino (blue), Higgsino (red) or wino (orange) as defined in Table~\ref{tab:LSPtype}.
}
\label{fig:LSPtype}
\end{figure}
\subsection{\label{sec:13TeV_on_dm}Impact of 13~TeV constraints on dark matter observables}
\subsubsection{\label{sec:relic_dens}Relic density}
Figure~\ref{fig:rel_dens_byAnalyses} shows each of the the 28.5k points excluded by the six 13~TeV SUSY searches considered, styled and coloured according to the analysis that had the lowest CLs value, projected into the plane of LSP mass vs relic density. Again, the strong correlations in this plane with the six searches are unambiguous. To facilitate interpretation, we discuss the most salient underlying processes that shape several features in this projection:
\begin{itemize}
\item The LSP relic abundance $\Omega_{\chi^0_1}h^2$ is set by early universe thermal freeze-out, the hallmark of the weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) paradigm. We do not require the neutralino to be the sole constituent of dark matter, as other well-motivated candidates such as axions can contribute~\cite{Bertone:2004pz}, making the points considered more general than Ref.~\cite{Kowalska:2016ent}. Thus the Planck measurement of the cold dark matter (CDM) abundance~\cite{Aad:2015baa} only serves as an upper bound.
\item The composition of the LSP strongly influences the early universe annihilation mechanism of the LSP and the resulting cosmological relic density. Figure~\ref{fig:reldens_post_13TeV} illustrates the relic density against the mass of the LSP that survived the constraints from six 13~TeV analyses, coloured by the dominant composition to the LSP, as defined in Table~\ref{tab:LSPtype}. Notably, the Higgsino- and wino-like LSP models are concentrated along a straight diagonal line in the plot. This is because the thermally averaged cross-section $\langle \sigma v\rangle \propto m^{-2}_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$~\cite{Jungman:1995df}, and the relic density $\Omega_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}h^2$ is therefore nearly proportional to the LSP mass squared. Mass splittings between the LSP and coannihilating chargino are typically a few GeV ($\sim 100$s~MeV) for Higgsino- (wino-) like LSPs. There are also no Higgsino- or wino-like LSPs below around 100~GeV. This is because such models have near-degenerate charginos to the LSP, which are excluded by LEP lower bounds.
\item By contrast, bino-like LSP models have suppressed early-universe thermally-averaged annihilation cross-sections\footnote{Pure binos do not couple to any gauge or Higgs bosons. This is seen from the couplings $g_{Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ ($g_{h\tilde{\chi}_1\tilde{\chi}_1}$) of the neutralino to the $Z^0$ and (Higgs) bosons are given at tree-level by~\cite{Djouadi:2001kba}
\begin{align}
g_{Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0\tilde{\chi}_1^0} &= \frac{g_2}{2\cos_W}\left(\left|N_{13}\right|^2 - \left|N_{14}\right|^2\right),\\
g_{h\tilde{\chi}_1^0\tilde{\chi}_1^0} &= g_2\cos\alpha\left(N_{11} - N_{12}\tan\theta_W \right)\left(N_{13}\tan\alpha + N_{14}\right).\label{eq:higgsLSPcoupling}
\end{align}
Here we have the neutralino mixing matrix elements $N_{ij}$ defined in Table~\ref{tab:LSPtype}, the SU(2) gauge coupling $g_2$, Weinberg angle $\theta_W$ and the Higgs mixing parameter $\alpha$. Pure binos have $N_{12} = N_{13} = N_{14} = 0$.
}, leading to larger relic abundance, as generally seen in Figure~\ref{fig:reldens_post_13TeV}. Therefore to satisfy the Planck bound, bino-like LSPs must either have non-negligible mixing with winos and/or Higgsinos, or there must be a near-degenerate next-to-LSP to act as a coannihilator. In Ref.~\cite{Aad:2015baa}, the natures of the coannihilators were displayed in the planes involving relic density. No distinction was made between light flavour squarks and gluinos, yet they have different phenomenological roles as coannihilators. We therefore elucidate this in Figure~\ref{fig:coloured_coannih}, differentiating between coannihilators being gluinos (light orange), light flavour squarks (dark blue) and 3rd generation squarks (green). We observe that light gluino coannihilators are more stringently excluded, with few points $m(\tilde{g}) \lesssim 800$~GeV than for squarks due to powerful Run~1 constraints.
\item Focusing now on electroweak particles (`Other', light grey), for LSP masses $m\left(\tilde{\chi}^0_1\right) \lesssim 250$~GeV, the coannihilation mechanism is predominantly via uncoloured sparticles due to stringent LHC constraints on squarks and gluinos. The two peaks centred around $m\left(\tilde{\chi}^0_1\right) \approx 45$ and 63~GeV involve resonant annihilation through a $Z^0$ or Higgs boson. Meanwhile, for $90 \lesssim m\left(\tilde{\chi}^0_1\right) \lesssim 250$~GeV, the coannihilators are predominantly slepton or gauginos, which are bounded from below by the LEP limit.
\end{itemize}
Returning to the discussion of points excluded by individual analyses in the relic density plane (Figure~\ref{fig:rel_dens_byAnalyses}), the strong SUSY searches considered are sensitive to models with a wide variety of $\Omega_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} h^2$. As previously discussed in Section~\ref{sec:compl_searches}, the 7--10 jets search is particularly sensitive to models with $m\left(\tilde{\chi}^0_1\right) \lesssim 100$~GeV, where bino-like LSPs are associated with the $Z^0$ and $h^0$ funnel region. Meanwhile, the SS/3L analysis is most sensitive to wino-like LSPs models while the Multi-b analysis had preferential sensitivity to Higgsino-like LSP scenarios, as indicated by the clustering of green crosses and red dots along the wino and Higgsino respective diagonal bands (compare with Figure~\ref{fig:reldens_post_13TeV}).
The 1-lepton analysis has sensitivity away from the Higgsino and wino diagonal bands, for LSP masses below about 300~GeV, where slepton and gaugino coannihilators are prevalent. The extensive presence of blue dots and cyan rings away from these bands shows respectively that the 2--6 jets and Monojet searches are particularly sensitive to gluinos and squarks that have small mass splitting with the bino-like LSP. Crucially, these impact scenarios where such coloured sparticles are the coannihilators (compare with Figure~\ref{fig:coloured_coannih}) and therefore indirectly probe LSP masses higher than those currently accessible by direct electroweakino searches at the LHC. Nevertheless, the 2--6 jets analysis also has sensitivity covering Higgsino and wino-like LSP points, with clusters along the Higgsino and wino bands.
\subsubsection{\label{sec:direct_detection}Direct detection}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/dm_coann/coannih_relic_density_mass_before13TeV-1}
\caption{\label{fig:coann_reldens}Relic density.
}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/dm_coann/coannih_si_xs_mass_before13TeV-1}
\caption{\label{fig:coann_si_xs}Spin independent cross-section.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The strongly interacting coannihilators of points with a bino-like LSP surviving Run~1 constraints, projected into relic density (left) and spin independent LSP-nucleon cross-section (right) vs LSP mass $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$. The points are coloured according to dominant coannihilator for the LSP: gluino (light orange), light flavour squarks (dark blue), 3rd generation squarks (green) and `Other' refers to (co)annihilation mechanisms involving the electroweak sector.
}
\label{fig:coloured_coannih}
\end{figure}
The neutralino LSP contributes to the local dark matter density and can induce nuclei recoils in direct detection experiments. Figure~\ref{fig:si_xs_byAnalyses} illustrates the points excluded by the most sensitive of the six ATLAS searches, allowing us to compare with direct detection sensitivity for each analysis. This projects into the plane defined by the spin-independent\footnote{It is found in Ref.~\cite{Aad:2015baa} that recent upper limits on spin-dependent cross-sections lack sensitivity to this set of pMSSM points, although future sensitivity can provide complementary probes to spin-independent limits~\cite{Cahill-Rowley:2014boa}.} cross-section $\sigma^{\rm SI}_{N\textrm{-}\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ of the LSP interacting with a Xenon nucleus, normalised per nucleon, and LSP mass. Again we discuss several features, with reference to other projections where appropriate, to aid interpretation:
\begin{itemize}
\item Direct detection experiments typically interpret results assuming the LSP fully saturates the cold dark matter (CDM) relic abundance measured by Planck. As the LSP in the pMSSM need not be the sole constituent of dark matter, we rescale the direct detection interaction cross-sections $\sigma^{\rm SI}_{N\textrm{-}\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ by a factor
\begin{align}
R \equiv \Omega_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}h^2/\Omega_{\rm CDM}^{\rm Planck}h^2.\label{eq:Rfactor}
\end{align}
This accounts for the reduction in direct detection sensitivity due to a lower local density of neutralino LSPs.
\item Recently, the PandaX-II~\cite{Tan:2016zwf} and LUX~\cite{lux-si-2016} collaborations presented results that extend sensitivity for WIMP masses \mbox{$m\left(\tilde{\chi}^0_1\right) \gtrsim 20$~GeV} by a factor of 2 and 4 respectively beyond the LUX 2015 result~\cite{Akerib:2015rjg}. As a guide to the sensitivity of direct detection, the observed limits from LUX 2016~\cite{lux-si-2016} and the projected sensitivity of LZ~\cite{Akerib:2015cja} are overlayed in Figure~\ref{fig:si_xs_byAnalyses}.
\item In defining the permitted pMSSM points, ATLAS conservatively increased by a factor of four the upper limit on the spin-independent cross-section $R\cdot\sigma^{\rm SI}_{N\textrm{-}\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ from LUX 2013~\cite{Akerib:2013tjd} to account for uncertainties in nuclear form factors~\cite{Aad:2015baa}, before rejecting points in the pre-selection. This pre-selection constraint carves out the points at the highest $R\cdot \sigma^{\rm SI}_{N\textrm{-}\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ cross-sections around $10^{-44}$~cm$^2$.
\item Figure~\ref{fig:si_xs_post_13TeV} reveals points that survived constraints from the six 13~TeV searches considered in this study, in the plane of spin-independent cross-section against LSP mass. The points are coloured according to the whether the dominant contribution to the LSP is the bino, Higgsino, or wino. The composition of the LSP has a significant effect on $R\cdot \sigma^{\rm SI}_{N\textrm{-}\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$. This is due both to the couplings of the LSP to nucleons and the relic density suppression (Eq.~\ref{eq:Rfactor} and Figure~\ref{fig:reldens_post_13TeV}). Notably, most wino-like LSPs have suppressed direct detection cross-sections given the small coupling to the Higgs boson.
\end{itemize}
Returning to the discussion of the regions of sensitivity from the ATLAS searches (Figure~\ref{fig:si_xs_byAnalyses}), points above the blue solid line are independently excluded by both LUX 2016 and the 13~TeV ATLAS searches considered. In this context, collider searches are free from astrophysical uncertainties, and therefore provide powerful cross-checks should either approach report tentative signals. On the other hand, the cosmological lifetime of the $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ dark matter candidate can only be verified by non-collider means. For LSP masses $m\left(\tilde{\chi}^0_1\right)\gtrsim 1$~TeV, the number of models excluded by the ATLAS searches decreases rapidly. There remain many points surviving in this regime (Figure~\ref{fig:si_xs_post_13TeV}), and those with the high $R\cdot \sigma^{\rm SI}_{N\textrm{-}\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ are within direct detection sensitivity.
The 2--6 jets analysis (blue points) is sensitive to a large class of models, particularly those with gluino or squark coannihilators. As this difference has important phenomenological consequences, we display the strong sector coannihilators in Figure~\ref{fig:coann_si_xs} for bino-like LSPs of points that survived Run~1 constraints. In this projection, it is evident that coannihilation points involving light flavour squarks have enhanced cross-section $R\cdot \sigma^{\rm SI}_{N\textrm{-}\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ compared with gluinos. This is due to the $s$-channel diagram involving the quarks and LSP scattering via an intermediate squark, a point we will elaborate further in Section~\ref{sec:dd_xs_on_Gl_Sqk}. Thus, the 2--6 jets and Monojet analyses share sensitivity to many squark coannihilator scenarios with LUX 2016.
As discussed in previous sections, the 7--10 jets is most sensitive to light mass LSPs with significant bino content. Many of the points excluded by this search are below the current LUX 2016 sensitivity. Meanwhile, the Multi-b analysis tends to favour scenarios Higgsino-like LSP scenarios where squark masses are above 2~TeV. There is particular sensitivity to a region centred around cross-section from 10$^{-46}$~cm$^{2}$ to 10$^{-49}$~cm$^{2}$ and LSP mass of 300 to 700~GeV (Figure~\ref{fig:si_xs_byAnalyses}). Many Higgsino-like LSP models inhabit this region and are beginning to be probed by LUX 2016, but the majority of points where the Multi-b analysis is most sensitive are below the LUX limit.
Notably, ATLAS strong SUSY searches are sensitive to scenarios with direct detection cross-section $R\cdot \sigma^{\rm SI}_{N\textrm{-}\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ well below even the projected sensitivity of LZ based on 1000 days of data taking~\cite{Akerib:2015cja}. The SS/3L reach into this regime is especially prominent, being most sensitive to wino-like LSP models with highly suppressed cross-sections $R\cdot \sigma^{\rm SI}_{N\textrm{-}\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$. Many gluino coannihilator scenarios occupy this region (Figure~\ref{fig:coann_si_xs}) and are dominantly probed by the 2--6 jets analysis. The projected LZ sensitivity is within an order of magnitude of the irreducible neutrino background `floor', which is a challenging regime for Xenon-target direct detection experiments.
Concluding this subsection, we demonstrated the important complementarity of strong SUSY searches for probing models beyond both Monojet-like collider interpretations and the reach of direct detection experiments. This enables colliders to indirectly constrain bino-like LSPs with coloured coannihilators, in addition to Higgsino LSP scenarios for example before electroweak SUSY searches gain direct sensitivity. This motivates construction of simplified DM models based on such interpretations, but is beyond the scope of this work.
\subsection{\label{sec:dd_xs_on_Gl_Sqk}Impact of direct detection constraints on squarks and gluinos}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/dd-si-frac-excl/fracExcl_LUX_2016_Gluino_chi_10_rgb}
\caption{\label{fig:LUX_on_Gl_LSP}Gluino vs LSP.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/dd-si-frac-excl/fracExcl_LUX_2016_Sqk_chi_10_rgb}
\caption{\label{fig:LUX_on_Sqk_LSP}Lightest squark vs LSP.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Fraction of models excluded by the observed 90\% confidence limit on the spin-independent LSP-nucleon cross-section from the LUX 2016 result~\cite{Akerib:2015rjg}, projected into the mass plane of the gluino (left) and lightest squark (right) vs LSP. Here, $m(\tilde{q})$ is the lightest squark of the first or second generations. The colour scale for each mass bin indicates the number of models excluded by LUX 2016~\cite{lux-si-2016} $N_\textrm{LUX 2016}^{\rm Excluded}$ normalised to the number of models that survived ATLAS Run~1 constraints $N_\textrm{ATLAS Run 1}^{\rm Survived}$ such that no 13~TeV analyses are considered. Black bins denote 100\% exclusion. Hatched grey bins indicate all the points are excluded by Run~1 ATLAS searches. Points with long-lived gluinos, squarks and sleptons are not considered in these figures. The overlayed grey solid lines correspond to the direct decay simplified models for gluino (Figure~\ref{fig:LUX_on_Gl_LSP}) and squarks (\ref{fig:LUX_on_Sqk_LSP}) from the 2--6 jets search~\cite{Aaboud:2016zdn}.
}
\label{fig:dd_si_frac_excl_Sqk_LSP}
\end{figure*}
Finally, turning the question around, we explore the impact of LUX 2016 constraint on the parameter space of squarks and gluinos relevant to LHC searches. Considering the set of points that survived ATLAS Run~1 constraints~\cite{Aad:2015baa}, we deem any point with scaled cross-section $R \cdot \sigma^{\rm SI}_{N\textrm{-}\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ above the 90\% confidence level upper limit observed by LUX 2016 to be excluded. We take the observed central value of the upper limit as reported by LUX 2016~\cite{lux-si-2016}, without rescaling to account for the nuclear form factor uncertainties\footnote{Had we weakened this constraint by a factor of four~\cite{Aad:2015baa}, the key qualitative features in the discussion are unaffected; only the numerical fraction of models excluded is reduced to 18.0\%.} (as was done in Ref.~\cite{Aad:2015baa}). The upper limit derived by LUX 2016 excludes 30.3\% of such pMSSM points constraints (with long-lived gluinos, squarks and sleptons removed). Figure~\ref{fig:si_xs_post_13TeV} shows that LUX is particularly sensitive to pMSSM points with bino-like LSP, due in part to the relic density suppression of Higgsino and wino-like models.
Figure~\ref{fig:LUX_on_Gl_LSP} projects the fractional exclusion\footnote{Although $N_\textrm{LUX 2016}^\textrm{Excluded} / N_\textrm{ATLAS Run 1}^\textrm{Survived}$ is prior-dependent, we will momentarily discuss this, while the forthcoming comparison of gluino and squark coannihilation regions has minimal prior dependence.} by LUX 2016 into the gluino vs LSP plane. There is a band of modest exclusion for LSP masses $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\lesssim 250$~GeV, which is relatively uncorrelated with gluino masses. This apparent enhancement of sensitivity is partly an artefact due to the systematic oversampling of coannihilators for bino-like LSPs in Ref.~\cite{Aad:2015baa}. This region is rich in gaugino and slepton coannihilators due to their weak LHC constraints compared with strongly interacting sparticles. Due to smaller annihilation cross-sections of this electroweak process in the early universe, the relic abundance $\Omega_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}h^2$ for a given bino-like LSP mass is larger. These models are thus not scaled down as far by the $R=\Omega_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}h^2/\Omega_{\rm CDM}^{\rm Planck}h^2$ factor.
A prominent feature of the points excluded by LUX appears when projecting into the squark vs LSP plane (Figure~\ref{fig:LUX_on_Sqk_LSP}). The diagonal region where the mass splitting between the LSP and squark is small\ $m(\tilde{q}) - m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) \lesssim 50$~GeV shows a distinctly higher exclusion fraction; this was absent in the gluino vs LSP plane. Furthermore, mass bins with higher exclusion fraction are correlated with lower squark masses. This is particular salient along the diagonal, where points are predominantly squark coannihilators. The band of modest exclusion fraction for LSPs with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\lesssim 250$~GeV remains, as with the gluino vs LSP plane.
Such contrasting features between gluinos and squarks highlight the importance of the $s$-channel squark exchange diagram in direct detection
\begin{align}
\tilde{\chi}^0_1 + q \to \tilde{q} \to \tilde{\chi}^0_1 + q.
\end{align}
Here, a squark $\tilde{q}$ mediates the LSP $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ scattering off light flavour quarks $q$ inside the nucleons. Resonant scattering occurs when the LSP and squarks are nearly mass degenerate, enhancing the sensitivity of LUX along the squark--LSP diagonal of Figure~\ref{fig:LUX_on_Sqk_LSP}. Thus, direct detection experiments are particularly sensitive to bino-like LSP scenarios with a squark coannihilator. The cross-section $\sigma^{\rm SI}_{N\textrm{-}\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ decreases with heavier squarks due to the \mbox{$\sim 1/\left(m_{\tilde{q}}^2 - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}^2\right)$} suppression in the propagator.
These observations are consistent with the LSP--nucleon cross-section vs LSP mass plane with coannihilation mechanism identified (Figure~\ref{fig:coann_si_xs}). Squarks of the first or second generation (dark blue) have particularly enhanced direct detection cross-sections. The points with gluino coannihilators (light orange) feature $R\cdot \sigma^{\rm SI}_{N\textrm{-}\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ primarily below $10^{-46}$~cm$^2$ and will only begin to be probed at the direct detection frontier by future experiments such as LZ. We also note that coannihilation points involving third generation squarks (light blue) also tend to have suppressed direct detection cross-sections compared with squarks, due to the negligible 3rd generation content in nucleons.
Taken together, this highlights the important implications of LHC searches for squarks in the context of direct detection experiments, especially when the squark--LSP mass splitting is small. Yet these squark coannhilation scenarios are challenging for colliders, where direct detection experiments can provide a complementary probe.
\section{\label{sec:detailed}Complementarity between early 13 TeV searches}
For the six 13~TeV (3.2~fb$^{-1}$) ATLAS searches considered in Table~\ref{tab:listSearches}, we present the regions of sensitivity between these analyses. In~\ref{sec:summary_excl_spart}, we present results using existing practices in the literature, based on fractions of models excluded (marginalised distributions) and overlap matrices. This section addresses various shortcomings of these approaches as discussed in the Introduction. Subsection~\ref{sec:most_sensitive} defines and quantifies the `most sensitive analysis' used to exclude the points in our interpretation. Following this, Subsection~\ref{sec:mass_plane_features} projects this information into 2-dimensional subspaces of the pMSSM involving gluinos, squarks and the LSP, and discusses prior features in these planes. Finally, we examine the complementary sensitivity of each analysis to distinct regions of pMSSM parameter space in Subsection~\ref{sec:compl_searches}, partitioning our discussion between analyses that veto events with leptons with those that select on them.
Henceforth in this paper, `squark' $\tilde{q}$ refers to only the lightest superpartner of the left- or right-handed quark of the first or second generations $\tilde{q}\in\{\tilde{u}, \tilde{d}, \tilde{c}, \tilde{s}\}_{L,R}$. Similarly, `slepton' $\tilde{\ell}$ refers to the lightest superpartner of the left- or right-handed lepton of the first or second generation
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\ell} \in \{\tilde{e}_L, \tilde{\nu}_{e L}, \tilde{\mu}_L, \tilde{\nu}_{\mu L},\tilde{e}_R, \tilde{\mu}_R\}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{\label{sec:most_sensitive}Most sensitive analyses used for exclusion}
\begin{table*}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
Analysis & Reference & $N_\textrm{Lowest CLs}/N^\textrm{Excluded}_\textrm{13 TeV 3.2 fb$^{-1}$}$ & $N^\textrm{Excluded}_\textrm{13 TeV 3.2 fb$^{-1}$}/N^\textrm{Survived}_\textrm{ATLAS Run 1}$ & $N^\textrm{Excluded Uniquely}_\textrm{13 TeV 3.2 fb$^{-1}$}/N^\textrm{Survived}_\textrm{ATLAS Run 1}$ \\
\midrule
2--6 jets & \cite{Aaboud:2016zdn} & 72\% & 12.6\% & 11\% \\
7--10 jets & \cite{Aad:2016jxj} & 0.3\% & 0.6\% & 0.02\% \\
1-lepton & \cite{Aad:2016qqk} & 1.5\% & 1.0\% & 0.2\% \\
Multi-b & \cite{Aad:2016eki} & 23\% & 4.2\% & 3.5\% \\
SS/3L & \cite{Aad:2016tuk} & 2.7\% & 0.5\% & 0.4\% \\
Monojet & \cite{Aaboud:2016tnv} & 1.1\% & 3.3\% & 0.01\% \\
\midrule
All analyses& -- & 100\% & 15.7\% & 15.1\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:listSearches} List of the ATLAS 13~TeV (3.2~fb$^{-1}$) analyses used to constrain the 181.8k model points that survived Run~1. The column $N_\textrm{Lowest CLs}/N^\textrm{Excluded}_\textrm{13 TeV 3.2 fb$^{-1}$}$ denotes the fraction of the 28.5k excluded models for which the indicated analysis was the most sensitive, i.e. had the lowest CLs value $N_\textrm{Lowest CLs}$ as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:most_sensitive}; these figures may not sum to 100\% due to rounding. The column $N^\textrm{Excluded}_\textrm{13 TeV 3.2 fb$^{-1}$}/$N$^\textrm{Survived}_\textrm{ATLAS Run 1}$ is the `fractional exclusion' displaying the total percentage of points excluded by each of the analyses $N^\textrm{Excluded}_\textrm{13 TeV 3.2 fb$^{-1}$}$ out of the points that survived ATLAS Run 1 $N^\textrm{Survived}_\textrm{ATLAS Run 1}$. The right-most column quantifies the subset of points that are excluded uniquely by the corresponding analysis and not by any of the other five considered $N^\textrm{Excluded Uniquely}_\textrm{13 TeV 3.2 fb$^{-1}$}$. For all these figures, care must be taken with interpretation as they are prior dependent. Models with long-lived gluinos, squarks and sleptons are not considered.}
\end{table*}
In this study, a point is deemed excluded at 95\% confidence level if at least one analysis returned a CLs value less than 0.05, using the CLs prescription~\cite{Read:2002hq}. Of the 181.8k points that survived Run~1~\cite{Aad:2015baa}, a total of $N^\textrm{Excluded}_\textrm{13 TeV 3.2 fb$^{-1}$} = 28.5{\rm k}$ were excluded by our interpretation of the six 13~TeV analyses. We take the analysis with the smallest CLs value as the `most sensitive analysis' used to exclude the point. In Table~\ref{tab:listSearches}, we normalise the number of points satisfying this for each analysis $N_\textrm{Lowest CLs}$ to the total excluded $N^\textrm{Excluded}_\textrm{13 TeV 3.2 fb$^{-1}$}$. For example, the Multi-b search was the analysis with the lowest CLs value for 23\% of the 28.5k excluded points. Indeed, almost 95\% of the excluded points have either the 2--6 jets or Multi-b searches being the most sensitive. However, care must be taken when interpreting these fractions, as they are prior dependent and correlated with non-LHC constraints. The fractions indicate the relative number of points in forthcoming figures.
Less than 4\% of the excluded points have two or more analyses associated with the same smallest CLs value. In such cases, the `most sensitive analysis' is randomly chosen from this subset of analyses with smallest CLs value to minimise systematic selection bias. In the vast majority of these situations, this is done because the analyses share a CLs value of $0.0$.
Also displayed in Table~\ref{tab:listSearches} is the total number of excluded points by each analysis $N^\textrm{Excluded}_\textrm{13 TeV 3.2 fb$^{-1}$}$ out of those that survived Run 1 $N^\textrm{Survived}_\textrm{ATLAS Run 1}$. The relative overlap between analyses is quantified in Table~\ref{tab:overlap} in \ref{sec:summary_excl_spart}. Importantly in Table~\ref{tab:listSearches}, all analyses retain non-zero percentages in the total fraction of points uniquely excluded by each analysis and none of the other five $N^\textrm{Excluded Uniquely}_\textrm{13 TeV 3.2 fb$^{-1}$}$. This emphasises the importance of maintaining a broad programme of searches. While most of the searches optimise for gluino production, and some have dedicated signal regions for squarks, each search maintains unique sensitivity to particular classes of signatures within the MSSM, featuring distinct final states and kinematic regimes.
\subsection{\label{sec:mass_plane_features}Features in mass plane projections}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.70\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/byAnalysis_summary/fracExcl_byAnalyses_Gluino_chi_10_rgb}
\caption{\label{fig:bySearch_Gl_LSP}Gluino--LSP.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.70\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/byAnalysis_summary/fracExcl_byAnalyses_Gluino_Sqk_rgb}
\caption{\label{fig:bySearch_Gl_Sqk}Gluino--Squark.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Most sensitive analysis for each of the 28.5k points excluded at 95\% confidence level by the six 13 TeV searches displayed in Table~\ref{tab:listSearches}. The exclusion information is from Ref.~\cite{Barr:2016inz}. These are projected into the mass planes described in the captions. Here $m(\tilde{q})$ denotes the lightest squark of the first or second generations. The markers are styled according to the analysis with the lowest CLs value: 7--10 jets (magenta triangle), 1-lepton (orange plus), SS/3L (green cross), Monojet (cyan ring), 2--6 jets (blue filled square), and Multi-b (red filled circle). Due to their large numbers, the markers for the 2--6 jets and Multi-b analyses are reduced in size for clarity. The hatched grey regions indicate the mass bins where all model points were completely excluded by Run~1 searches considered in Ref.~\cite{Aad:2015baa}. Models with long-lived gluinos, squarks or sleptons are removed from these figures.
}
\label{fig:bySearch_summary}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{./img/byAnalysis_summary/fracExcl_byAnalyses_Sqk_chi_10_rgb}
\caption{\label{fig:bySearch_Sqk_LSP}Same plot as Figure~\ref{fig:bySearch_Gl_LSP} but projected into the squark--LSP plane. Here $m(\tilde{q})$ denotes the lightest squark of the first or second generations.
}
\end{figure*}
The distinct regions of sensitivity for each of the six searches become unambiguous when we project into various two-dimensional subspaces of the pMSSM. Figures~\ref{fig:bySearch_summary} and \ref{fig:bySearch_Sqk_LSP} display each excluded point styled and coloured according to the analysis that returned the lowest CLs value, projected into the mass planes of gluino vs LSP, gluino vs squark and squark vs LSP respectively. Due to their large numbers, the 2--6 jets and Multi-b analyses are allocated smaller markers to improve clarity of other points.
Before discussing the sensitivity of each analysis in turn (Section~\ref{sec:compl_searches}), we note that the two-dimensional \textit{distributions} (but not the \textit{regions} to be discussed in Sections~\ref{sec:compl_searches} and \ref{sec:13TeV_on_dm}) of excluded points do depend on the flat prior and importance sampling ATLAS used to scan the parameter space~\cite{Aad:2015baa}, in addition to non-LHC constraints. This is especially apparent in the mass planes involving the LSP (Figures~\ref{fig:bySearch_Gl_LSP} and~\ref{fig:bySearch_Sqk_LSP}), and we comment on several features common to these figures to aid interpretation:
\begin{itemize}
\item Within around 100~GeV of the grey hatched regions where 100\% of models in the mass bins were excluded by Run~1 ATLAS searches, very few points are present. The number of models close to this boundary is often less than ten\footnote{The prior distributions for these plots are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:2Dprior_distro} of the Appendix.}. Typically, such points marginally survived Run~1 constraints and many have since been excluded by the six 13~TeV searches.
\item There is a visible break in points at $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0) \sim 100$~GeV. Below this mass, there are few models with Higgsino- or wino-like LSP as these generally have a near-degenerate chargino, which are excluded by LEP direct searches. For the definition of the three LSP classifications, see Table~\ref{tab:LSPtype} in~\ref{sec:ATLAS_pMSSM19}.
\item The points below $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0) \sim 100$~GeV are therefore predominantly bino-like LSP models. These LSPs are close to half the mass of the $Z^0$ or Higgs boson $h^0$ so they can undergo resonant annihilation in the early universe in so-called `funnel regions' to satisfy relic abundance constraints.
\item A large density of points is visible along the diagonals where the mass splitting between the LSP and the gluino or squark become small ($\lesssim 50$~GeV). The enhanced density of points in this coannihilation region has physical origin: bino-like LSPs tend to oversaturate the observed relic abundance~\cite{ArkaniHamed:2006mb} unless there is a near mass-degenerate sparticle, such as a squark or gluino, to act as an early universe coannihilator. This effect is made more apparent by using importance sampling to ensure the number of bino-like LSP models is of the same order as those of Higgsino- and wino-like LSP; see Ref.~\cite{Aad:2015baa} for details.
\end{itemize}
\section{\label{sec:intro}Introduction}
The ATLAS and CMS collaborations pursue a rich
programme of supersymmetry (SUSY) searches,
but statistically significant signals remain absent~\cite{Aaboud:2016zdn,Aad:2016jxj,Aad:2016qqk,Aad:2016eki,Aad:2016tuk,Aaboud:2016tnv,Aaboud:2016dgf,Aaboud:2016lwz,Aaboud:2016uth,Aaboud:2016nwl,Khachatryan:2016xvy,Khachatryan:2016kdk,Khachatryan:2016kod,Khachatryan:2016uwr,Aad:2014wea,Aad:2013yna,Aad:2015iea,Aad:2015pfx,Aad:2015eda,Khachatryan:2015wza,Khachatryan:2015vra}.
While conventional theoretical expectations for
weak scale SUSY are challenged~\cite{Cassel:2009ps,Papucci:2011wy,Baer:2012up,Arvanitaki:2012ps,Arvanitaki:2013yja,Evans:2013jna,Hardy:2013ywa,Baer:2014ica,Dimopoulos:2014aua},
this equally motivates assessment of present experimental search strategies.
Simplified models introduce a small number of kinematically accessible
superpartner particles (sparticles), which are typically used to design,
optimise and interpret collider searches~\cite{Alwall:2008ag,Alwall:2008va,Alves:2011sq,Alves:2011wf}.
A broader framework for assessing the robustness of such strategies is the phenomenological minimal supersymmetric extension to the Standard Model (pMSSM)~\cite{Hall:1990ac,Berger:2008cq,CahillRowley:2012cb,CahillRowley:2012kx,Cahill-Rowley:2014twa,AbdusSalam:2009qd,Allanach:2011ej,Sekmen:2011cz,Strege:2014ija,deVries:2015hva}, which also facilitates dark matter (DM) interpretations~\cite{Arbey:2012na,Boehm:2013gst,Fowlie:2013oua,Cahill-Rowley:2014boa,Roszkowski:2014iqa,Bertone:2015tza,Catalan:2015cna,Aaboud:2016wna}. Notably, the ATLAS collaboration examined the sensitivity of 22 Run~1 analyses within the context of a 19-parameter pMSSM~\cite{Aad:2015baa}, while CMS undertook a similar survey using different assumptions~\cite{Khachatryan:2016nvf}.
This paper extends the ATLAS pMSSM study~\cite{Aad:2015baa} using fast detector simulation to include combined constraints from six early 13~TeV searches, and we make this exclusion information available online~\cite{Barr:2016inz}. Instead of preliminary results with more data, we opt to use published results based on 3.2~fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity, which sets the scope of our study to gluinos and light flavour squarks.
Our analysis reveals previously unexamined correlations in the pMSSM space that are already sufficiently elaborate to merit detailed evaluation of search strategies. These results are also of interest to the CMS collaboration and direct dark matter detection experiments. We organise our discussion around the following questions that address various shortcomings in the literature:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*)]
\item \textit{How distinct are the regions of parameter space being probed by individual analyses?} Interpretations using the pMSSM often present combined constraints from multiple searches as fractions of models excluded~\cite{Cahill-Rowley:2014twa,Cahill-Rowley:2014boa,Aad:2015baa,Kowalska:2016ent,Khachatryan:2016nvf}. Overlap matrices were recently used in the literature~\cite{Aad:2015baa,Barr:2016inz} to quantify the complementarity of these searches, namely the fractional exclusion of the same subset of points by two analyses. However, this marginalisation not only obscures which analyses had greatest sensitivity to different pMSSM subspaces, but also depends on the prior distribution from the parameter scan and non-LHC constraints.
\item \textit{To what extent are analyses over-optimising to a set of simplified models, which may preclude sensitivity to a wider class of scenarios?} The pMSSM offers a greater variety of decay chains, such as those with suppressed branching fractions and placing those with more intermediate sparticles on-shell, which alter kinematics. How well these simplified model oriented searches are capturing the wider classes of signatures remains relatively unexplored.
\item \textit{What neutralino DM scenarios can be probed competitively by 13~TeV collider searches for coloured sparticles?} Simplified dark matter models are stimulating the collider frontier for DM searches~\cite{Abdallah:2014hon,Abdallah:2015ter,Abercrombie:2015wmb,Boveia:2016mrp,Bauer:2016gys,Aad:2015dva,Aaboud:2016uro,Aaboud:2016qgg,Khachatryan:2014rra,Khachatryan:2016reg,Khachatryan:2016mdm}. ATLAS uses these to perform an explicit DM interpretation for the Monojet search~\cite{Aaboud:2016tnv}. However, its sensitivity is greatly altered in richer dark sectors of the pMSSM, shaped by the composition of the neutralino $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ lightest SUSY particle (LSP)~\cite{Ellis:1983ew,Bertone:2004pz,Jungman:1995df,Feng:2000zu,Baer:2004qq} being dominantly bino, Higgsino or wino (defined in Table~\ref{tab:LSPtype} of~\ref{sec:ATLAS_pMSSM19}). Furthermore, studies of neutralino DM often combine exclusions of multiple analyses~\cite{Cahill-Rowley:2014boa,Aad:2015baa} or only focus on the electroweakino sector~\cite{Martin:2014qra,Bramante:2015una,Barducci:2015ffa,Aaboud:2016wna}, omitting potentially important coannihilation roles of other sparticles.
\end{enumerate}
Section~\ref{sec:detailed} addresses question (a) by directly correlating the most sensitive of the six analyses considered with the masses of the gluino, LSP and lightest squark. We examine the individual searches that provide sensitivity to distinct regions within these mass plane projections. The regions identified are both prior-independent and reveal significantly richer information than the overlap matrices previously used in literature.
Subsection~\ref{sec:leptonic_searches} addresses question (b) by considering the analyses that select leptonic events as a case study. We examine to what extent the simplified models used by the 1-lepton analysis~\cite{Aad:2016qqk} and the same-sign or 3-lepton (SS/3L) search~\cite{Aad:2016tuk} map onto pMSSM points, and identify scenarios beyond those considered for analysis optimisation.
Section~\ref{sec:darkmatter} addresses question (c) by ascribing DM interpretations to each 13~TeV search considered, allowing for comparisons to the Monojet search. Striking correlations are exhibited, and we discuss how distinct decay cascades are influenced by the bino, Higgsino or wino content of the LSP, while coloured sparticles may act as early universe coannihilators~\cite{Edsjo:1997bg}. Further, we identify the collider parameter space affected by recent limits from Xenon-target direct detection experiments~\cite{Tan:2016zwf,lux-si-2016}.
Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} summarises the conclusions of this work.
The pMSSM points we investigate were produced for the ATLAS study~\cite{Aad:2015baa}. The 19 parameters of the R-parity conserving MSSM, where all flavour and CP violation resides in the CKM matrix, were scanned with flat priors with sparticle mass scales capped at 4~TeV~\cite{Aad:2015baa}. However, the distinct regions of sensitivity we identify in our results are independent of sampling prior. Constraints were imposed from LEP searches~\cite{lep2:susy}, precision electroweak measurements~\cite{ALEPH:2005ab,Baak:2012kk,Aoyama:2012wk,Hagiwara:2011af,Nyffeler:2009tw,Czarnecki:2002nt,Bennett:2004pv,Bennett:2006fi,RevModPhys.80.633,Roberts:2010cj}, heavy flavour physics~\cite{Amhis:2012bh,DeBruyn:2012wk,CMS:2014xfa,Aubert:2009wt,Hara:2010dk,Adachi:2012mm,Lees:2012ju,Charles:2004jd}, DM direct detection~\cite{Akerib:2013tjd,Behnke:2012ys,Aprile:2013doa} and the Planck relic density~\cite{Ade:2015xua} upper bound\footnote{A recent independent study~\cite{Kowalska:2016ent} considered ATLAS constraints with up to 14.8~fb$^{-1}$, but on the subset of points whose neutralino relic abundance was within 10\% of Planck. We instead take the Planck measurement as an upper bound, allowing for non-SUSY contributions to DM.}. Further details of the theoretical assumptions and experimental constraints used by ATLAS~\cite{Aad:2015baa} may be found in~\ref{sec:ATLAS_pMSSM19}. We consider the 181.8k points that survive Run~1 constraints from Ref.~\cite{Aad:2015baa}, after having removed models with long-lived ($c\tau > 1$~mm as defined in Ref.~\cite{Aad:2015baa}) gluinos, squarks and sleptons as these require dedicated Monte-Carlo simulation. The methodology we employed to interpret the six 13 TeV searches using fast detector simulation is detailed in \ref{sec:13TeV_method}.
\subsection{\label{sec:lumi}Prospects for 30 and 300~fb$^{-1}$}
This section performs a simple estimate to characterise the effect of increasing luminosity on the sensitivity of models.
We consider the subset of pMSSM points that have total strong production cross-section greater than 5~fb.
From these, those which are not excluded by 3.2~fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity
had their expected yields scaled to higher luminosity, assuming a flat systematic uncertainty of 5\%.
We identify points that are not excluded by our interpretation of the six 13~TeV 3.2~fb$^{-1}$
points, and in addition remain below sensitivity for higher luminosity.
These points therefore would require novel techniques to bring into sensitivity,
whose sensitivity is effectively `immune' to increased luminosity.
\subsection{\label{sec:vali_cutflows}Cutflows}
Cutflows were provided in the supplementary material for each analysis considered in this work. First, we performed a cutflow validation against this material to ensure our implementations of each search in \textsc{MadAnalysis5} are selecting the correct kinematic space of events. We generated the simplified model signals to validate selections in all signal regions
used by ATLAS. This is done using the same Monte Carlo setup as all the pMSSM points simulated in this study (Subection~\ref{sec:13TeV_method}).
Tables~\ref{tab:cuflow_26J} to \ref{tab:cutflow_MonoJ} compares the public signal acceptances `ATLAS' after each selection criterion `Cut' with ours `MA5 Recast'. The variables used to label each cut in the cutflow tables are shown for completeness; please see the references in Table~\ref{tab:listSearches} for full definitions. Overall, we achieved better than 30\% agreement in the final yields for all signal regions `SR' of each analysis. This is reasonable given we used a different version of Pythia for showering compared with ATLAS, together with the same object isolation, overlap removal, reconstruction and $b$-tagging efficiencies in the \textsc{Delphes} detector simulation for all six analyses (to reduce disk usage to a manageable level).
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\toprule
& &\multicolumn{2}{l}{Acceptance [\%]} \\
SR & Cut & ATLAS & MA5 Recast \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{2jl} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 200$ GeV & 90.2 & 91.4 \\
& 2 jet multiplicity & 90.2 & 91.4 \\
& $\Delta \phi(E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, {\rm jet})_\textrm{min}$ & 55.0 & 56.1 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j2}>200$ GeV & 54.3 & 54.9 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}}>15$ GeV$^{1/2}$ & 29.2 & 28.7 \\
& $m_{\rm eff}>1200$ GeV & 29.1 & 28.7 \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{2jm} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 200$, $p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 300$ GeV & 89.8 & 90.6 \\
& 2 jet multiplicity & 89.8 & 90.6 \\
& $\Delta \phi(E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, {\rm jet})_\textrm{min}$ & 72.2 & 73.0 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j2}>50$ GeV & 72.2 & 73.0 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}}>15$ GeV$^{1/2}$ & 34.8 & 34.6 \\
& $m_{\rm eff}>1600$ GeV & 34.3 & 33.7 \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{2jt} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 200$ GeV & 90.2 & 91.4 \\
& 2 jet multiplicity & 90.2 & 91.4 \\
& $\Delta \phi(E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, {\rm jet})_\textrm{min}$ & 55.0 & 56.1 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j2} > 200$ GeV & 54.3 & 54.9 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}}>20$ GeV$^{1/2}$ & 16.7 & 16.2 \\
& $m_{\rm eff} > 2000$ GeV & 16.0 & 14.8 \\
\midrule
\multirow{9}{*}{4jt} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 200$ GeV & 90.2 & 91.4 \\
& 4 jet multiplicity & 85.7 & 86.6 \\
& $\Delta \phi(E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, {\rm jet})_\textrm{min}$ & 59.7 & 60.1 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j2}>100$ GeV & 59.7 & 60.1 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j4}>100$ GeV & 52.3 & 51.6 \\
& Aplanarity $> 0.04$ & 35.6 & 35.9 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/m_{\rm eff}>0.2$ & 25.2 & 26.4 \\
& $m_{\rm eff}>2200$ GeV & 21.4 & 20.4 \\
\midrule
\multirow{9}{*}{5j} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 200$ GeV & 90.2 & 91.4 \\
& 5 jet multiplicity & 64.3 & 67.3 \\
& $\Delta \phi(E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, {\rm jet})_\textrm{min}$ & 43.6 & 45.3 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j2}>100$ GeV & 43.6 & 45.3 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j4}>100$ GeV & 40.2 & 41.4 \\
& Aplanarity $> 0.04$ & 28.6 & 30.1 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/m_{\rm eff}>0.25$ & 14.0 & 15.1 \\
& $m_{\rm eff}>1600$ GeV & 13.9 & 14.8 \\
\midrule
\multirow{9}{*}{6jm} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 200$ GeV & 90.2 & 91.4 \\
& 6 jet multiplicity & 36.8 & 42.3 \\
& $\Delta \phi(E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, {\rm jet})_\textrm{min}$ & 23.7 & 27.3 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j2}>100$ GeV & 23.7 & 27.3 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j4}>100$ GeV & 22.6 & 26.0 \\
& Aplanarity $>0.04$ & 16.9 & 20.0 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/m_{\rm eff}>0.25$ & 7.6 & 8.9 \\
& $m_{\rm eff}>1600$ GeV & 7.5 & 8.8 \\
\midrule
\multirow{9}{*}{6jt} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 200$ GeV & 90.2 & 91.4 \\
& 6 jet multiplicity & 36.8 & 42.3 \\
& $\Delta \phi(E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, {\rm jet})_\textrm{min}$ & 23.7 & 27.3 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j2}>100$ GeV & 23.7 & 27.3 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j4}>100$ GeV & 22.6 & 26.0 \\
& Aplanarity $>0.04$ & 16.9 & 20.0 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/m_{\rm eff}>0.2$ & 10.6 & 13.0 \\
& $m_{\rm eff}>2000$ GeV & 9.9 & 11.9 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cutflow comparison for 2--6 jets analysis using gluino direct decay $\left(m(\tilde{g}), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (1600, 0)$ GeV signal.}
\label{tab:cuflow_26J}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{l}{Acceptance [\%]} \\
Cut & ATLAS & MA5 Recast \\
\midrule
Initial & 100 & 100 \\
Preselection & 99.9 & -- \\
Event cleaning & 99.0 & -- \\
MET cleaning & 95.8 & -- \\
Lepton veto & 47.8 & 48.8 \\
\midrule\midrule
6j50 & 42.4 & 44.1 \\
trigger & 42.4 & -- \\
\midrule
8j50 & 25.0 & 25.7 \\
$E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}} > 4$ GeV$^{1/2}$ & 17.9 & 18.5 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 0$ & 17.9 & 18.5 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 1$ & 17.3 & 17.9 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 2$ & 14.2 & 15.5 \\
\midrule
9j50 & 16.5 & 16.6 \\
$E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}} > 4$ GeV$^{1/2}$ & 11.3 & 11.6 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 0$ & 11.3 & 11.6 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 1$ & 11.0 & 11.3 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 2$ & 9.3 & 10.1 \\
\midrule
10j50 & 9.1 & 9.3 \\
$E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}} > 4$ GeV$^{1/2}$ & 6.0 & 6.2 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 0$ & 6.0 & 6.2 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 1$ & 5.8 & 6.1 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 2$ & 5.1 & 5.5 \\
\midrule\midrule
5j80 & 40.5 & 43.5 \\
trigger & 40.5 & -- \\
\midrule
7j80 & 19.7 & 18.7 \\
$E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}} > 4$ GeV$^{1/2}$ & 13.6 & 13.2 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 0$ & 13.6 & 13.2 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 1$ & 13.2 & 12.8 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 2$ & 10.8 & 11.1 \\
\midrule
8j80 & 10.3 & 9.7 \\
$E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}} > 4$ GeV$^{1/2}$ & 6.8 & 6.6 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 0$ & 6.8 & 6.6 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 1$ & 6.7 & 6.4 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 2$ & 5.5 & 5.8 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cutflow comparison for 7--10 jets analysis using pMSSM slice signal. Signal regions are defined by the jet multiplicities and b-tagging requirements.}
\label{tab:cutflow_710J}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Acceptance [\%]} \\
SR & Cuts & ATLAS & MA5 Recast \\
\midrule\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Gluino 1-step $\left(m(\tilde{g}), m(\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (1385, 705, 25)$ GeV} \\
\midrule
\multirow{8}{*}{Preselect} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& Cleaning cuts & 88.5 & -- \\
& 1 base lepton & 30.8 & 29.8 \\
& 1 signal lepton & 25.1 & 26.5 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet} \geq 3$ & 25.1 & 26.5 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 100$ GeV & 24.6 & 25.5 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}$ trigger & 24.4 & -- \\
& $p_{\rm T}^\ell > 35 $ GeV & 23.3 & 25.5 \\
\midrule
\multirow{8}{*}{5j} & $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 250$ GeV & 19.2 & 20.6 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet} \geq 5$ & 18.2 & 19.7 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 225$ GeV & 18.2 & 19.4 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j5} > 50$ GeV & 16.0 & 16.9 \\
& Aplanarity $>0.04$ & 12.7 & 13.0 \\
& $m_{\rm T} > 275$ GeV & 8.5 & 8.5 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/m_{\rm eff} > 0.1$ & 8.3 & 8.4 \\
& $m_{\rm eff} > 1800$ GeV & 7.6 & 7.2 \\
\midrule
\multirow{8}{*}{6j} & $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 250$ GeV & 19.2 & 20.6 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet} \geq 6$ & 15.1 & 17.5 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 125$ GeV & 15.1 & 17.5 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j6} > 30$ GeV & 15.1 & 16.5 \\
& Aplanarity $>0.04$ & 12.0 & 12.8 \\
& $m_{\rm T} > 225 $ GeV & 9.0 & 9.2 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/m_{\rm eff} > 0.2$ & 5.3 & 5.5 \\
& $m_{\rm eff} > 1000$ GeV & 5.3 & 5.5 \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{4j low-x} & $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 200$ GeV & 21.6 & 22.5 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet} \geq 4$ & 21.4 & 22.4 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 325$ GeV & 19.4 & 19.1 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j4} > 150$ GeV & 10.5 & 10.3 \\
& Aplanarity $ >0.04$ & 8.9 & 8.4 \\
& $m_{\rm T} > 125 $ GeV & 7.7 & 6.9 \\
& $m_{\rm eff} > 2000$ GeV & 6.3 & 5.9 \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{4j high-x} & $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 200$ GeV & 21.6 & 22.5 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet} \geq 4$ & 21.4 & 22.4 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 325$ GeV & 19.4 & 19.1 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j4} > 30$ GeV & 19.4 & 19.1 \\
& $m_{\rm T} > 425$ GeV & -- & 7.6 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/m_{\rm eff} > 0.3 $ & 1.5 & 1.5 \\
& $m_{\rm eff} > 1800 $ GeV & 1.4 & 1.3 \\
\midrule\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Gluino 1-step $\left(m(\tilde{g}), m(\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (1000, 110, 60)$ GeV} \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{Preselect} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& Cleaning cuts & 85.9 & -- \\
& 1 base lepton & 36.2 & -- \\
& 1 signal lepton & 30.3 & 35.1 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet} \geq 2$ & 30.3 & 26.5 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^\ell < 35 $ GeV & 9.9 & 9.4 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 200$ GeV & 6.8 & 6.5 \\
\midrule
\multirow{5}{*}{2j} & $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 530$ GeV & 0.8 & 0.9 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet} \geq 2$ & 0.8 & 0.9 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 180$ GeV & 0.8 & 0.9 \\
& $m_{\rm T} > 100$ GeV & 0.2 & 0.2 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/m_{\rm eff} > 0.3$ & 0.0 & 0.03 \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{5j} & $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 375$ GeV & 2.5 & 2.6 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet} \geq 5$ & 2.3 & 2.6 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 200$ GeV & 2.3 & 2.4 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j2} > 200$ GeV & 2.1 & 2.4 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j3} > 200$ GeV & 1.4 & 2.1 \\
& Aplanarity $> 0.02$ & 1.3 & 1.4 \\
& $H_{\rm T} > 1100$ GeV & 1.2 & 1.3 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cutflow comparison for 1 lepton analysis.}
\label{tab:cutflow_1L}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Acceptance [\%]} \\
SR & Cut & ATLAS & MA5 Recast \\
\midrule\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Gtt $\left(m(\tilde{g}), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (1700, 200)$ GeV} \\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{Preselect} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& Trigger & 92.1 & -- \\
& Cleaning & 90.7 & -- \\
& $N_\textrm{jets} \geq 4$ & 90.7 & 94.5 \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jets} \geq 3$ & 68.2 & 70.3 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 200$ GeV & 63.5 & 63.9 \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{Gtt-0L} & Lepton veto & 35.2 & 34.7 \\
& $\Delta \phi^{4j}_{\rm min}$ & 26.3 & 26.1 \\
& $N_\textrm{jets} \geq 8$ & 22.0 & 22.5 \\
& $m_\textrm{T, min}^\textrm{b-jets} > 80$ GeV & 19.8 & 20.2 \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{Gtt-0L-A} & $m_{\rm eff}^{\rm incl} > 1700$ GeV & 18.5 & 18.7 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 400 $ GeV & 15.4 & 15.4 \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jets} \geq 3$ & 15.4 & 15.4 \\
& $N_\textrm{top} \geq 1$ & 15.2 & 14.4 \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{Gtt-0L-B} & $m_{\rm eff}^{\rm incl} > 1250$ GeV & 19.7 & 20.0 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 350 $ GeV & 17.2 & 17.3 \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jets} \geq 4$ & 11.1 & 11.4 \\
& $N_\textrm{top} \geq 1$ & 10.9 & 10.9 \\
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{Gtt-0L-C} & $m_{\rm eff}^{\rm incl} > 1250$ GeV & 19.7 & 20.0 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 350 $ GeV & 17.2 & 17.3 \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jets} \geq 4$ & 11.1 & 11.4 \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{Gtt-1L} & 1 signal lepton & 28.3 & 29.2 \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jets} \geq 6$ & 26.5 & 27.7 \\
& $m_\textrm{T, min}^\textrm{b-jets} > 80$ GeV & 17.1 & 17.8 \\
& $m_{\rm T} > $ 150 GeV & 14.2 & 14.7 \\
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{Gtt-1L-A} & $m_{\rm eff}^{\rm incl} > 1100$ GeV & 14.2 & 14.7 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 200$ GeV & 14.2 & 14.7 \\
& $N_\textrm{top} \geq 1$ & 13.5 & 13.6 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Gtt-1L-B} & $m_{\rm eff}^{\rm incl} > 1100$ GeV & 14.2 & 14.7 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 300$ GeV & 13.3 & 13.8 \\
\midrule\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Gbb $\left(m(\tilde{g}), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (1700, 200)$ GeV} \\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{Preselect} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& Trigger & 96.0 & -- \\
& Cleaning & 94.7 & -- \\
& $N_\textrm{jets} \geq 4$ & 92.1 & 92.2 \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jets} \geq 3$ & 58.9 & 60.4 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 200$ GeV & 55.6 & 55.6 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Gbb-0L} & Lepton veto & 55.0 & 55.6 \\
& $\Delta \phi^{4j}_{\rm min}$ & 39.5 & 40.6 \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{Gbb-0L-A} & $m_{\rm eff}^{4j} > 1600$ GeV & 36.6 & 36.3 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 350$ GeV & 33.0 & 32.5 \\
& $N_\textrm{jets}^{p_{\rm T} > 90} \geq 4$ & 29.4 & 29.1 \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jets}^{p_{\rm T} > 90} \geq 3$ & 25.5 & 24.9 \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{Gbb-0L-B} & $m_{\rm eff}^{4j} > 1400$ GeV & 38.5 & 38.8 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 450$ GeV & 30.2 & 30.1 \\
& $N_\textrm{jets}^{p_{\rm T} > 90} \geq 4$ & 26.7 & 26.6 \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jets}^{p_{\rm T} > 90} \geq 3$ & 23.1 & 22.7 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Gbb-0L-C} & $m_{\rm eff}^{4j} > 1400$ GeV & 38.5 & 38.8 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 300$ GeV & 28.1 & 27.6 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cutflow comparison for Multi-b analysis.}
\label{tab:cutflow_Multib}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Acceptance [\%]} \\
SR & Cut & ATLAS & MA5 Recast \\
\midrule\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Gluino slepton $\left(m(\tilde{g}), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (1300, 500)$ GeV} \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{SR0b3j} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $N_{\ell}\geq3$ & 9.7 & 10.1 \\
& Trigger & 9.7 & -- \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jet}=0$ & 7.9 & 8.6 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet}\geq3$& 7.4 & 8.1 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 200$ GeV & 5.1 & 5.9 \\
& $m_{\rm eff} > 550$ GeV & 5.1 & 5.9 \\
\midrule\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Gluino 2-step $\left(m(\tilde{g}), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (1100, 400)$ GeV} \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{SR0b5j} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $N_{\ell}^{\rm SS}\geq2$ & 3.6 & 3.9 \\
& Trigger & 3.4 & -- \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jet}=0$& 2.2 & 2.5 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet}\geq5$& 1.5 & 2.0 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 125$ GeV & 1.3 & 1.6 \\
& $m_{\rm eff} > 650$ GeV & 1.3 & 1.6 \\
\midrule\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Sbottom 1-step $\left(m(\tilde{b}_1), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (600, 50)$ GeV} \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{SR1b} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $N_{\ell}^{\rm SS}\geq2$ & 4.6 & 4.68 \\
& Trigger & 4.1 & -- \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jet}\geq1$ & 3.6 & 3.92 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet}\geq4$ & 2.0 & 2.31 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 150$ GeV & 1.3 & 1.44 \\
& $m_{\rm eff} > 550$ GeV & 1.3 & 1.44 \\
\midrule\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Gtt $\left(m(\tilde{g}), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (1200, 700)$ GeV} \\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{SR3b} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $N_{\ell}^{\rm SS}\geq2$ & 3.4 & 3.6 \\
& Trigger & 3.1 & -- \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jet}\geq3$ & 1.5 & 1.8 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 125$ GeV & 1.2 & 1.4 \\
& $m_{\rm eff} > 650$ GeV & 1.2 & 1.4 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cutflow comparison for SS/3L analysis.}
\label{tab:cutflow_SS3L}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Acceptance [\%]} \\
SR & Cut & ATLAS & MA5 Recast \\
\midrule
\multirow{9}{*}{Preselect} & Initial events & 100 & 100 \\
& Trigger & 83.7 & -- \\
& Cleaning cut & 83.0 & -- \\
& Lepton veto & 83.0 & 100 \\
& $N_{\rm jets} \leq 4$ & 77.3 & 93.8 \\
& $\Delta \phi(E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, {\rm jet}) > 0.4$ & 73.5 & 88.4 \\
& Jet quality & 70.1 & -- \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 250$ GeV & 22.7 & 18.8 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 250$ & 21.1 & 16.7 \\
\midrule
EM1 & $250 < E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} < 300$ GeV & 3.0 & 2.4 \\
EM2 & $300 < E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} < 350$ GeV & 3.4 & 2.5 \\
EM3 & $350 < E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} < 400$ GeV & 3.1 & 2.6 \\
EM4 & $400 < E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} < 500$ GeV & 4.4 & 4.0 \\
EM5 & $500 < E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} < 600$ GeV & 2.8 & 2.4 \\
EM6 & $600 < E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} < 700$ GeV & 1.8 & 1.2 \\
IM7 & $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 700$ GeV & 2.6 & 1.5 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cutflow comparison for Monojet analysis using the squark direct decay model using the $\left(m(\tilde{q}), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (650, 645)$ GeV signal.}
\label{tab:cutflow_MonoJ}
\end{table}
\section{\label{sec:method}Theoretical framework and experimental constraints}
This Appendix reviews the underlying assumptions and constraints applied to the set of pMSSM points used in this study. The points were produced by ATLAS in collaboration with external expertise~\cite{Berger:2008cq,CahillRowley:2012cb,CahillRowley:2012kx,Cahill-Rowley:2014twa}, which we review in~\ref{sec:ATLAS_pMSSM19}; for full details, see Ref.~\cite{Aad:2015baa}. In~\ref{sec:13TeV_method}, we give an overview of the method used
to obtain exclusion information from interpreting six early 13~TeV ATLAS searches and summarise the results in~\ref{sec:summary_excl_spart}. Finally,~\ref{sec:prior_distro} displays the prior distributions after Run~1 constraints, before any 13~TeV results are imposed.
\subsection{\label{sec:ATLAS_pMSSM19}Review of the ATLAS pMSSM19}
Starting with the MSSM, minimal flavour violation was imposed and CP violation was restricted to the CKM phase in the quark sector. The neutralino was required to be the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) and R-parity is exactly conserved. Table~\ref{tab:LSPtype} displays the three categories of LSP type by their dominant composition, as defined in Ref.~\cite{Aad:2015baa}. Due to their different resulting phenomenology, ATLAS employed importance sampling~\cite{Aad:2015baa} to ensure approximately equal proportions of each LSP type are selected.
The 19 resulting parameters were scanned with flat priors, taking an upper limit on mass scales to be 4~TeV. The resulting model points were subjected to the following non-LHC constraints. LEP lower mass bounds~\cite{lep2:susy} were imposed together with precision measurements from the electroweak isospin splitting parameter $\Delta \rho$~\cite{Baak:2012kk}, $g-2$ of the muon~\cite{Aoyama:2012wk,Hagiwara:2011af,Nyffeler:2009tw,Czarnecki:2002nt,Bennett:2004pv,Bennett:2006fi,RevModPhys.80.633,Roberts:2010cj}, $Z^0$ invisible width~\cite{ALEPH:2005ab}, branching fractions of heavy flavour states~\cite{Amhis:2012bh,DeBruyn:2012wk,CMS:2014xfa,Aubert:2009wt,Hara:2010dk,Adachi:2012mm,Lees:2012ju,Charles:2004jd} and Higgs boson mass~\cite{Aad:2012tfa} at the time of pMSSM points generation were applied~\cite{Aad:2015baa}. Dark matter constraints were subsequently considered. To account for uncertainties in nuclear form factors, ATLAS quadrupled the upper limit on the spin-independent cross-section for LSP--nucleon interaction from LUX 2013~\cite{Akerib:2013tjd} before applying this to the points. Similar constraints for the spin-dependent cross-section of LSP--proton interactions were applied from COUPP~\cite{Behnke:2012ys}, and XENON100~\cite{Aprile:2013doa} for the LSP--neutron cross-section. The LSP was not assumed to be the sole constituent of dark matter so only an upper limit was set for the LSP relic abundance $\Omega_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}h^2$, taken as $\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2 = 0.1208$, which is the central value plus twice the reported uncertainty from the Planck measurement~\cite{Ade:2015xua}.
The 310.3k pMSSM points surviving all non-LHC constraints underwent evaluation against 22 relevant Run~1 ATLAS searches for supersymmetry using 7 and/or 8~TeV data using full ATLAS software and reconstruction; for full details, see Ref.~\cite{Aad:2015baa}. A total of 40.9\% of points were excluded at 95\% confidence level. The top row of Table~\ref{tab:generatedfrac} quantifies the number of models that survive Run~1 ATLAS constraints by LSP type.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
LSP type & Definition \\
\midrule
`Bino-like' $\tilde{B}$ & $N_{11}^2 > \textrm{max}\left(N_{12}^2, N_{13}^2 + N_{14}^2\right)$ \\
`Wino-like' $\tilde{W}$ & $N_{12}^2 > \textrm{max}\left(N_{11}^2, N_{13}^2 + N_{14}^2\right)$ \\
`Higgsino-like' $\tilde{H}$ & $\left(N_{13}^2 + N_{14}^2\right) > \textrm{max}\left(N_{11}^2, N_{12}^2 \right)$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:LSPtype} Definition of neutralino $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ LSP categories from Ref.~\cite{Aad:2015baa}. In the neutralino mixing parameter $N_{ij}$, the first index denotes the neutralino mass eigenstate $\tilde{\chi}^0_i$ while the second indicates its dominant composition in the order $\left(\tilde{B}, \tilde{W}, \tilde{H}_1, \tilde{H}_2\right)$.}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
Models & Bino & Wino & Higgsino \\
\midrule
Viable after ATLAS Run~1 & 61.6k & 43.8k & 78.4k\\
Without long-lived & 59.9k & 43.6k & 78.3k \\
Without LL, with $\sigma_{\rm tot} \geq 5$~fb &
48.7k & 29.7k & 52.8k \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{tab:generatedfrac} Viable model points before Run~2 constraints. These are classified by the dominant contribution to the LSP being bino, wino or Higgsino. Long-lived (LL) gluinos, squarks and sleptons with $c\tau > 1$~mm require dedicated Monte-Carlo simulation and are omitted from this study. Event simulation was performed on non-LL models with total strong sparticle production cross-section $\sigma_{\rm tot} \geq 5$~fb. }
\end{table}
\subsection{\label{sec:13TeV_method}Interpretation of early 13~TeV searches}
We now summarise the methodology of Ref.~\cite{Barr:2016inz} to apply the combined constraints of six published 13~TeV ATLAS searches considered to the 183.8k pMSSM points that survived Run~1. Long-lived squarks, gluinos and sleptons ($c\tau > 1$~mm as defined in Ref.~\cite{Aad:2015baa}) make up 1.9k of these points. These require dedicated Monte-Carlo simulation and are removed from consideration of 13~TeV sensitivity. Of the remaining 181.8k points, 71.4\% have total inclusive production cross-section of any two coloured sparticles $\sigma_{\rm tot}$ greater than 5~fb at leading order.
This is enumerated in the bottom row of Table~\ref{tab:generatedfrac} and underwent particle event generation to be described. The remaining 28.6\% was deemed not to have sensitivity with 3.2~fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity and therefore not excluded.
We used \textsc{MadGraph5}~2.3.3~\cite{Alwall:2011uj,Alwall:2014hca} for particle event generation involving any two coloured sparticles from two protons, interfaced with \textsc{Pythia} 6.428~\cite{Sjostrand:2006za} for hadronisation and showering, using the \textsc{CTEQ6L}~parton distribution functions~\cite{Pumplin:2002vw}. Up to one additional parton in the matrix element and the MLM prescription~\cite{Mangano:2006rw} was used to match jets, setting the \textsc{MadGraph} minimum parton $k_T$ parameter to 100~GeV and \textsc{Pythia} jet measure cutoff at 120~GeV, in accord with Ref.~\cite{Aad:2015baa}. The \textsc{Delphes}~3.3.2~\cite{deFavereau:2013fsa} fast detector simulator was employed with \textsc{Fastjet} 3.1.3~\cite{Cacciari:2008gp, Cacciari:2011ma}, using the anti-$k_T$ clustering algorithm with cone parameter $R = 0.4$, to parametrise the performance of the ATLAS detector.
Table~\ref{tab:listSearches} lists the six Run~2 analyses, whose event selection were implemented in the \textsc{MadAnalysis5}~1.3~\cite{Conte:2012fm,Conte:2014zja} recasting framework. We adapted codes from the Public Analysis Database~\cite{Dumont:2014tja,MArun1ATLAS:2-6jets,MArun1ATLAS:7+jets} where available, and write our own otherwise. The \textsc{RecastingTools} package was used for limit setting using the CLs prescription~\cite{Read:2002hq}, where a point is deemed excluded if the CLs value is below 0.05. To validate our code, we ensured at least one benchmark point had cutflows agreeing to better than 30\% and the observed simplified model limits were reproduced to within the uncertainties published by ATLAS (see~\ref{sec:validation} for further details).
\subsection{\label{sec:summary_excl_spart}Summary of sparticle masses excluded by early 13~TeV searches}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/fracExcl/fracExcl_Gluino_chi_10_rgb}
\caption{Gluino--LSP plane.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/fracExcl/fracExcl_Sqk_chi_10_rgb}
\caption{Squark--LSP plane.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/fracExcl/fracExcl_Gluino_Sqk_rgb}
\caption{\label{fig:gsqk_fracExcl}Gluino--squark plane.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\label{fig:mass_plane_Gl_Sqk_chi10}Fraction of model points excluded by the combined constraints from the six early 13~TeV searches considered in Table~\ref{tab:listSearches}, out of the points that survived Run~1 constraints. In each mass bin, the colour scale denotes the fraction of points excluded at 95\% confidence level normalised to the number of points satisfying `Without long-lived' in Table~\ref{tab:generatedfrac}, where black indicates 100\% exclusion. This is projected into the mass planes of the gluino--LSP $\tilde{g}$-$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ (upper left) and squark--LSP $\tilde{q}$-$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ (upper right). Here, $m(\tilde{q})$ is the mass of the lightest squark among the first two generations. White regions correspond to no models being produced by ATLAS due to prior non-LHC constraints. Hatched grey regions indicate bins where all points were excluded by Run~1 in Ref.~\cite{Aad:2015baa}. Overlayed grey solid lines are the simplified model limits from the 13~TeV 2--6 jets search~\cite{Aaboud:2016zdn} for gluinos $\tilde{g} \to qq\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ (upper left) and squarks $\tilde{q} \to q\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ (upper right). In the latter case, all eight squarks are of the first two generations and assumed to be mass-degenerate. For the gluino--squark plane (lower), the overlayed grey dashed line is taken from the `gluino--squark--LSP simplified pMSSM' scenario from the 8 TeV 2--6 jets search~\cite{Aad:2014wea}.
}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{./img/sparticle_mass_summary_rgb}
\caption{Fraction of models excluded out of those that survived Run~1 searches by the combined constraints from six 13~TeV analyses listed in Table~\ref{tab:listSearches} for different sparticle masses. The exclusion information is from Ref.\cite{Barr:2016inz}. The colour scale indicates the fraction of models excluded, normalised to the number satisfying `Without long-lived' in Table~\ref{tab:generatedfrac}. Black regions denote that all points were excluded in the mass bins of 50~GeV size. Here, $\tilde{q}$ ($\tilde{l}$) is the lightest squark (slepton) of either the first or second generations. The hatched grey regions indicate all models in the mass bins were excluded by Run~1 ATLAS searches from Ref.~\cite{Aad:2015baa}. Models with long-lived gluinos, squarks or sleptons are removed from these figures.
}
\label{fig:sparticle_summary}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[]
\centering
\resizebox{0.60\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\toprule
& 2--6 jets & 7--10 jets & 1-lepton & Multi-b & SS/3L & Monojet \\
\midrule
2--6 jets & 100\% & 3\% & 5\% & 13\% & 0\% & 10\% \\
7--10 jets & 76\% & 100\% & 59\% & 91\% & 4\% & 6\% \\
1-lepton & 65\% & 34\% & 100\% & 55\% & 8\% & 7\% \\
Multi-b & 39\% & 12\% & 13\% & 100\% & 1\% & 1\% \\
SS/3L & 10\% & 5\% & 17\% & 6\% & 100\% & 3\% \\
Monojet & 99\% & 3\% & 6\% & 5\% & 1\% & 100\% \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{\label{tab:overlap} Exclusion overlap: percentage of models excluded by a Run~2 analysis on each row that is also excluded by another in the columns. 100\% is reserved for complete overlap of models excluded.
}
\end{table*}
Overall, out of 181.8k pMSSM points considered for 13~TeV (3.2~fb$^{-1}$) sensitivity, 15.7\% were excluded by the combined constraints. Figure~\ref{fig:mass_plane_Gl_Sqk_chi10} displays the fraction of the 181.8k points surviving Run 1 that are excluded by the six early 13~TeV searches. These are projected into the 2-dimensional planes in the masses of the gluino $\tilde{g}$, LSP $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ and lightest squark of the first or second generation $\tilde{q}$. Moreover, figure~\ref{fig:sparticle_summary} summarises the fraction of models excluded by various the masses of several other sparticles.
For gluinos $\tilde{g}$, the high fractions (above 60\%) of models excluded involve masses below 1~TeV, and to a lesser extent around 1.4~TeV, is unambiguous. Reduced sensitivity around 1.1~TeV is due primarily to mass splittings between the gluino and LSP being less than 200~GeV (Figure~\ref{fig:sparticle_summary}). This corresponds to a localised region of high exclusion around 1.4~TeV gluino and 1.8~TeV squark masses the gluino--squark plane (Figure~\ref{fig:mass_plane_Gl_Sqk_chi10}). Overall, good corroboration with the simplified models is observed.
The lightest squark $\tilde{q}$ of the first two generations shows a smaller but noticeable extension of sensitivity beyond Run~1 with 3.2~fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity.
This is due to the less advantageous scaling of cross-sections between 8 and 13~TeV compared with gluino production from LHC parton distribution functions. In the squark--LSP plane (Figure~\ref{fig:mass_plane_Gl_Sqk_chi10}), the simplified model limit assumes all eight squarks are of the first two generations are mass-degenerate and therefore over-constrains squark scenarios in the pMSSM.
Figure~\ref{fig:sparticle_summary} separates the masses of the squarks by the chirality of the partner quark. As the left-handed squarks $\tilde{d}_L, \tilde{u}_L$ form an SU(2) doublet, their mass splittings are typically negligible compared to those of the right-handed squarks $\tilde{d}_R, \tilde{u}_R$. In accord with Ref.~\cite{Aad:2015baa}, right-handed down-type squarks are least constrained of the four light flavour squarks. Analyses targeting third generation squarks were not considered and so there is little impact on the lightest sbottom $\tilde{b}_1$ and stop $\tilde{t}_1$ masses.
Also shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sparticle_summary} are uncoloured sparticles, which can participate as intermediate states in cascade decays of the gluino or squark(s). However, it is seen that the sensitivity of the analyses considered in Table~\ref{tab:listSearches} have little to no correlation with these sleptons or electroweakinos. The lower mass bounds on charged electroweak sparticles are due to LEP searches. Here, slepton $\tilde{\ell}$ refers to the lightest superpartner of the left- or right-handed charged lepton of the first or second generation.
Table~\ref{tab:overlap} shows the overlap matrix between the six searches we considered. This quantifies the fraction of points excluded by one analysis are also excluded by another. For example, of the points excluded by the 7--10 jets search, 76\% of them were also excluded by the 2--6 jets analysis. Overall, the sensitivity is complementary, with no analysis completely excluding the points probed by another search.
\subsection{\label{sec:prior_distro}Distributions prior to 13~TeV interpretation}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/priors/prior13TeV_Gluino_chi_10_rgb}
\caption{Gluino-LSP plane.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/priors/prior13TeV_Sqk_chi_10_rgb}
\caption{Squark-LSP plane.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/priors/prior13TeV_Gluino_Sqk_rgb}
\caption{\label{fig:2D_prior_Gl_Sqk}Gluino-squark plane.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\label{fig:2Dprior_distro}Number of models that survived Run~1 ATLAS constraints, before applying our Run~2 analyses. White regions indicate no models. This is projected into the gluino-LSP (upper-left), squark-LSP (upper-right), and gluino-squark (lower) mass planes. Here $m(\tilde{q})$ is the mass of the lightest left- or right- handed squark of either the first or second generations. The colour scale has a maximum of 1000 models per bin, indicated by black. Hatched grey regions indicate mass bins where 100\% of the points are excluded by Run~1 searches in Ref.~\cite{Aad:2015baa}. Models with long-lived gluinos, squarks or sleptons are removed from these figures.
}
\end{figure*}
When interpreting the results of this work, especially Figures~\ref{fig:mass_plane_Gl_Sqk_chi10}, it is instructive to examine the distribution of the 181.8k points that survived Run 1 constraints, before any 13~TeV constraints are applied. Figure \ref{fig:2Dprior_distro} displays these prior distributions projected into the three mass planes involving the gluino, squarks and LSP. Along the diagonal where the gluino or squark are similar in mass to the LSP, there is a larger abundance of models. These are primarily models with bino-like LSP, which require the LSP to coannihilate with a near-degenerate gluino to prevent oversaturation of the observed relic abundance. Their density were enhanced from the importance sampling used by ATLAS in the pre-selection of the pMSSM points~\cite{Aad:2015baa}.
Furthermore, the region below 100~GeV with substantially fewer models are also mainly bino-like LSP models. These correspond to where the LSP relic density is reduced by resonance annihilation through a $Z^0$ or $h^0$ boson through the so-called `funnel' mechanism. Models with Higgsino- or Wino-like LSPs typically have near-degenerate charginos which are constrained by LEP bounds, hence reducing the concentration of models in this region. These projections also show very few (less than 10) models in the mass bins coloured green close to the region where 100\% of models were excluded in Run~1.
\section{\label{sec:spec_plots}Full mass spectra}
Figure~\ref{fig:full_mass_spec} displays the full mass spectra of the model points corresponding to those in Figure~\ref{fig:mass_spec} of Section~\ref{sec:compl_searches}.
\clearpage
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{./img/mass_spec/Multi_b_Gl}
\caption{\label{fig:full_Multi_b_model}Model 148229034 (Multi-b).}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{./img/mass_spec/7_10J_lowGl}
\caption{\label{fig:full_7_10_jets_model}Model 227558023 (7--10 jets).}
\end{subfigure}
\\[0.8cm]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{./img/mass_spec/1lepton_Sqk}
\caption{\label{fig:full_1_lepton_model}Model 13382371 (1-lepton).}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{./img/mass_spec/SS3L_Sqk}
\caption{\label{fig:full_SS3L_light_Sqk}Model 11733067 (SS/3L).}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The same model points as those in figure~\ref{fig:mass_spec} with full mass spectra displayed but without branching ratios for clarity.
}
\label{fig:full_mass_spec}
\end{figure*}
\section{\label{sec:validation} Details of analysis validation}
This appendix details the validation of the analyses we implemented in this work. The purpose of the validation was the check our implementation of event selection in \textsc{MadAnalysis}. We display the cutflows (signal acceptance after each event selection)
for our implementation compared with those published in the supplementary material of each ATLAS analysis. We also present a simplified model limit comparison for each of the six analysis.
To generate signal samples for validation, we used the same simulation setup as all the pMSSM points simulated in this study (outlined in Subection~\ref{sec:13TeV_method}). The main differences here are that we generate signals with up to 2 extra partons in the matrix element and the jet matching scale was set to one quarter of the produced sparticle mass, in accord with ATLAS. The event yields were normalised to the NLO squark or gluino cross sections from the LHC SUSY Cross Section Working Group~\cite{Borschensky:2014cia}.
In summary, the agreement is sufficient for the scope of this study.
\subsection{\label{sec:vali_cutflows}Cutflow comparison}
For the cutflow comparison, we generated signal samples at a benchmark point presented by ATLAS in the public supplementary material of each analysis. The comparison ensures our implementations of each search in \textsc{MadAnalysis} are selecting the correct kinematic spaces in all signal regions. Tables~\ref{tab:cuflow_26J} to \ref{tab:cutflow_MonoJ} compare the cumulative percentage signal acceptances found by the collaboration `ATLAS' after each selection criterion `Cut' with ours `MA5 Recast'. In these tables, the model nomenclature and variables labelling each cut follows those of the ATLAS supplementary material for ease of comparison; see the references in Table~\ref{tab:listSearches} for full details.
We achieved better than 30\% agreement in the final yields for the signal regions `SR' in each analysis. This is reasonable given the systematic uncertainties introduced by using a different version of \textsc{Pythia} for showering compared with ATLAS, together with application of the same object isolation, overlap removal, reconstruction and $b$-tagging efficiencies in the \textsc{Delphes} detector simulation for all six analyses (to reduce disk usage to a manageable level).
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\toprule
& &\multicolumn{2}{l}{Acceptance [\%]} \\
SR & Cut & ATLAS & MA5 Recast \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{2jl} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 200$ GeV & 90.2 & 91.4 \\
& 2 jet multiplicity & 90.2 & 91.4 \\
& $\Delta \phi(E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, {\rm jet})_\textrm{min}$ & 55.0 & 56.1 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j2}>200$ GeV & 54.3 & 54.9 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}}>15$ GeV$^{1/2}$ & 29.2 & 28.7 \\
& $m_{\rm eff}>1200$ GeV & 29.1 & 28.7 \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{2jm} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 200$, $p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 300$ GeV & 89.8 & 90.6 \\
& 2 jet multiplicity & 89.8 & 90.6 \\
& $\Delta \phi(E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, {\rm jet})_\textrm{min}$ & 72.2 & 73.0 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j2}>50$ GeV & 72.2 & 73.0 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}}>15$ GeV$^{1/2}$ & 34.8 & 34.6 \\
& $m_{\rm eff}>1600$ GeV & 34.3 & 33.7 \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{2jt} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 200$ GeV & 90.2 & 91.4 \\
& 2 jet multiplicity & 90.2 & 91.4 \\
& $\Delta \phi(E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, {\rm jet})_\textrm{min}$ & 55.0 & 56.1 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j2} > 200$ GeV & 54.3 & 54.9 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}}>20$ GeV$^{1/2}$ & 16.7 & 16.2 \\
& $m_{\rm eff} > 2000$ GeV & 16.0 & 14.8 \\
\midrule
\multirow{9}{*}{4jt} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 200$ GeV & 90.2 & 91.4 \\
& 4 jet multiplicity & 85.7 & 86.6 \\
& $\Delta \phi(E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, {\rm jet})_\textrm{min}$ & 59.7 & 60.1 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j2}>100$ GeV & 59.7 & 60.1 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j4}>100$ GeV & 52.3 & 51.6 \\
& Aplanarity $> 0.04$ & 35.6 & 35.9 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/m_{\rm eff}>0.2$ & 25.2 & 26.4 \\
& $m_{\rm eff}>2200$ GeV & 21.4 & 20.4 \\
\midrule
\multirow{9}{*}{5j} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 200$ GeV & 90.2 & 91.4 \\
& 5 jet multiplicity & 64.3 & 67.3 \\
& $\Delta \phi(E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, {\rm jet})_\textrm{min}$ & 43.6 & 45.3 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j2}>100$ GeV & 43.6 & 45.3 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j4}>100$ GeV & 40.2 & 41.4 \\
& Aplanarity $> 0.04$ & 28.6 & 30.1 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/m_{\rm eff}>0.25$ & 14.0 & 15.1 \\
& $m_{\rm eff}>1600$ GeV & 13.9 & 14.8 \\
\midrule
\multirow{9}{*}{6jm} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 200$ GeV & 90.2 & 91.4 \\
& 6 jet multiplicity & 36.8 & 42.3 \\
& $\Delta \phi(E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, {\rm jet})_\textrm{min}$ & 23.7 & 27.3 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j2}>100$ GeV & 23.7 & 27.3 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j4}>100$ GeV & 22.6 & 26.0 \\
& Aplanarity $>0.04$ & 16.9 & 20.0 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/m_{\rm eff}>0.25$ & 7.6 & 8.9 \\
& $m_{\rm eff}>1600$ GeV & 7.5 & 8.8 \\
\midrule
\multirow{9}{*}{6jt} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 200$ GeV & 90.2 & 91.4 \\
& 6 jet multiplicity & 36.8 & 42.3 \\
& $\Delta \phi(E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, {\rm jet})_\textrm{min}$ & 23.7 & 27.3 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j2}>100$ GeV & 23.7 & 27.3 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j4}>100$ GeV & 22.6 & 26.0 \\
& Aplanarity $>0.04$ & 16.9 & 20.0 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/m_{\rm eff}>0.2$ & 10.6 & 13.0 \\
& $m_{\rm eff}>2000$ GeV & 9.9 & 11.9 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cutflow comparison for 2--6 jets analysis using gluino direct decay $\left(m(\tilde{g}), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (1600, 0)$ GeV signal.}
\label{tab:cuflow_26J}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{l}{Acceptance [\%]} \\
Cut & ATLAS & MA5 Recast \\
\midrule
Initial & 100 & 100 \\
Preselection & 99.9 & -- \\
Event cleaning & 99.0 & -- \\
MET cleaning & 95.8 & -- \\
Lepton veto & 47.8 & 48.8 \\
\midrule\midrule
6j50 & 42.4 & 44.1 \\
Trigger & 42.4 & -- \\
\midrule
8j50 & 25.0 & 25.7 \\
$E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}} > 4$ GeV$^{1/2}$ & 17.9 & 18.5 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 0$ & 17.9 & 18.5 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 1$ & 17.3 & 17.9 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 2$ & 14.2 & 15.5 \\
\midrule
9j50 & 16.5 & 16.6 \\
$E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}} > 4$ GeV$^{1/2}$ & 11.3 & 11.6 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 0$ & 11.3 & 11.6 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 1$ & 11.0 & 11.3 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 2$ & 9.3 & 10.1 \\
\midrule
10j50 & 9.1 & 9.3 \\
$E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}} > 4$ GeV$^{1/2}$ & 6.0 & 6.2 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 0$ & 6.0 & 6.2 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 1$ & 5.8 & 6.1 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 2$ & 5.1 & 5.5 \\
\midrule\midrule
5j80 & 40.5 & 43.5 \\
Trigger & 40.5 & -- \\
\midrule
7j80 & 19.7 & 18.7 \\
$E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}} > 4$ GeV$^{1/2}$ & 13.6 & 13.2 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 0$ & 13.6 & 13.2 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 1$ & 13.2 & 12.8 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 2$ & 10.8 & 11.1 \\
\midrule
8j80 & 10.3 & 9.7 \\
$E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/\sqrt{H_{\rm T}} > 4$ GeV$^{1/2}$ & 6.8 & 6.6 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 0$ & 6.8 & 6.6 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 1$ & 6.7 & 6.4 \\
$N_\textrm{b-jet} \geq 2$ & 5.5 & 5.8 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cutflow comparison for 7--10 jets analysis using pMSSM slice signal with gluino and lightest chargino masses given by $\left(m(\tilde{g}), m(\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1)\right) = (1300, 200)$ GeV. Signal regions are defined by the jet multiplicities and b-tagging requirements.}
\label{tab:cutflow_710J}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Acceptance [\%]} \\
SR & Cuts & ATLAS & MA5 Recast \\
\midrule\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Gluino 1-step $\left(m(\tilde{g}), m(\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (1385, 705, 25)$ GeV} \\
\midrule
\multirow{8}{*}{Preselect} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& Cleaning cuts & 88.5 & -- \\
& 1 base lepton & 30.8 & 29.8 \\
& 1 signal lepton & 25.1 & 26.5 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet} \geq 3$ & 25.1 & 26.5 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 100$ GeV & 24.6 & 25.5 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}$ trigger & 24.4 & -- \\
& $p_{\rm T}^\ell > 35 $ GeV & 23.3 & 25.5 \\
\midrule
\multirow{8}{*}{5j} & $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 250$ GeV & 19.2 & 20.6 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet} \geq 5$ & 18.2 & 19.7 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 225$ GeV & 18.2 & 19.4 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j5} > 50$ GeV & 16.0 & 16.9 \\
& Aplanarity $>0.04$ & 12.7 & 13.0 \\
& $m_{\rm T} > 275$ GeV & 8.5 & 8.5 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/m_{\rm eff} > 0.1$ & 8.3 & 8.4 \\
& $m_{\rm eff} > 1800$ GeV & 7.6 & 7.2 \\
\midrule
\multirow{8}{*}{6j} & $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 250$ GeV & 19.2 & 20.6 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet} \geq 6$ & 15.1 & 17.5 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 125$ GeV & 15.1 & 17.5 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j6} > 30$ GeV & 15.1 & 16.5 \\
& Aplanarity $>0.04$ & 12.0 & 12.8 \\
& $m_{\rm T} > 225 $ GeV & 9.0 & 9.2 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/m_{\rm eff} > 0.2$ & 5.3 & 5.5 \\
& $m_{\rm eff} > 1000$ GeV & 5.3 & 5.5 \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{4j low-x} & $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 200$ GeV & 21.6 & 22.5 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet} \geq 4$ & 21.4 & 22.4 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 325$ GeV & 19.4 & 19.1 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j4} > 150$ GeV & 10.5 & 10.3 \\
& Aplanarity $ >0.04$ & 8.9 & 8.4 \\
& $m_{\rm T} > 125 $ GeV & 7.7 & 6.9 \\
& $m_{\rm eff} > 2000$ GeV & 6.3 & 5.9 \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{4j high-x} & $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 200$ GeV & 21.6 & 22.5 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet} \geq 4$ & 21.4 & 22.4 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 325$ GeV & 19.4 & 19.1 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j4} > 30$ GeV & 19.4 & 19.1 \\
& $m_{\rm T} > 425$ GeV & -- & 7.6 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/m_{\rm eff} > 0.3 $ & 1.5 & 1.5 \\
& $m_{\rm eff} > 1800 $ GeV & 1.4 & 1.3 \\
\midrule\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Gluino 1-step $\left(m(\tilde{g}), m(\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (1000, 110, 60)$ GeV} \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{Preselect} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& Cleaning cuts & 85.9 & -- \\
& 1 base lepton & 36.2 & -- \\
& 1 signal lepton & 30.3 & 35.1 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet} \geq 2$ & 30.3 & 26.5 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^\ell < 35 $ GeV & 9.9 & 9.4 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 200$ GeV & 6.8 & 6.5 \\
\midrule
\multirow{5}{*}{2j} & $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 530$ GeV & 0.8 & 0.9 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet} \geq 2$ & 0.8 & 0.9 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 180$ GeV & 0.8 & 0.9 \\
& $m_{\rm T} > 100$ GeV & 0.2 & 0.2 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}/m_{\rm eff} > 0.3$ & 0.0 & 0.03 \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{5j} & $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 375$ GeV & 2.5 & 2.6 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet} \geq 5$ & 2.3 & 2.6 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 200$ GeV & 2.3 & 2.4 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j2} > 200$ GeV & 2.1 & 2.4 \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j3} > 200$ GeV & 1.4 & 2.1 \\
& Aplanarity $> 0.02$ & 1.3 & 1.4 \\
& $H_{\rm T} > 1100$ GeV & 1.2 & 1.3 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cutflow comparison for 1-lepton analysis.}
\label{tab:cutflow_1L}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Acceptance [\%]} \\
SR & Cut & ATLAS & MA5 Recast \\
\midrule\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Gtt $\left(m(\tilde{g}), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (1700, 200)$ GeV} \\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{Preselect} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& Trigger & 92.1 & -- \\
& Cleaning & 90.7 & -- \\
& $N_\textrm{jets} \geq 4$ & 90.7 & 94.5 \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jets} \geq 3$ & 68.2 & 70.3 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 200$ GeV & 63.5 & 63.9 \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{Gtt-0L} & Lepton veto & 35.2 & 34.7 \\
& $\Delta \phi^{4j}_{\rm min}$ & 26.3 & 26.1 \\
& $N_\textrm{jets} \geq 8$ & 22.0 & 22.5 \\
& $m_\textrm{T, min}^\textrm{b-jets} > 80$ GeV & 19.8 & 20.2 \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{Gtt-0L-A} & $m_{\rm eff}^{\rm incl} > 1700$ GeV & 18.5 & 18.7 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 400 $ GeV & 15.4 & 15.4 \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jets} \geq 3$ & 15.4 & 15.4 \\
& $N_\textrm{top} \geq 1$ & 15.2 & 14.4 \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{Gtt-0L-B} & $m_{\rm eff}^{\rm incl} > 1250$ GeV & 19.7 & 20.0 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 350 $ GeV & 17.2 & 17.3 \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jets} \geq 4$ & 11.1 & 11.4 \\
& $N_\textrm{top} \geq 1$ & 10.9 & 10.9 \\
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{Gtt-0L-C} & $m_{\rm eff}^{\rm incl} > 1250$ GeV & 19.7 & 20.0 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 350 $ GeV & 17.2 & 17.3 \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jets} \geq 4$ & 11.1 & 11.4 \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{Gtt-1L} & 1 signal lepton & 28.3 & 29.2 \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jets} \geq 6$ & 26.5 & 27.7 \\
& $m_\textrm{T, min}^\textrm{b-jets} > 80$ GeV & 17.1 & 17.8 \\
& $m_{\rm T} > $ 150 GeV & 14.2 & 14.7 \\
\midrule
\multirow{3}{*}{Gtt-1L-A} & $m_{\rm eff}^{\rm incl} > 1100$ GeV & 14.2 & 14.7 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 200$ GeV & 14.2 & 14.7 \\
& $N_\textrm{top} \geq 1$ & 13.5 & 13.6 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Gtt-1L-B} & $m_{\rm eff}^{\rm incl} > 1100$ GeV & 14.2 & 14.7 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 300$ GeV & 13.3 & 13.8 \\
\midrule\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Gbb $\left(m(\tilde{g}), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (1700, 200)$ GeV} \\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{Preselect} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& Trigger & 96.0 & -- \\
& Cleaning & 94.7 & -- \\
& $N_\textrm{jets} \geq 4$ & 92.1 & 92.2 \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jets} \geq 3$ & 58.9 & 60.4 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 200$ GeV & 55.6 & 55.6 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Gbb-0L} & Lepton veto & 55.0 & 55.6 \\
& $\Delta \phi^{4j}_{\rm min}$ & 39.5 & 40.6 \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{Gbb-0L-A} & $m_{\rm eff}^{4j} > 1600$ GeV & 36.6 & 36.3 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 350$ GeV & 33.0 & 32.5 \\
& $N_\textrm{jets}^{p_{\rm T} > 90} \geq 4$ & 29.4 & 29.1 \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jets}^{p_{\rm T} > 90} \geq 3$ & 25.5 & 24.9 \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{Gbb-0L-B} & $m_{\rm eff}^{4j} > 1400$ GeV & 38.5 & 38.8 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 450$ GeV & 30.2 & 30.1 \\
& $N_\textrm{jets}^{p_{\rm T} > 90} \geq 4$ & 26.7 & 26.6 \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jets}^{p_{\rm T} > 90} \geq 3$ & 23.1 & 22.7 \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{Gbb-0L-C} & $m_{\rm eff}^{4j} > 1400$ GeV & 38.5 & 38.8 \\
& $E_\textrm{T}^{\rm miss} > 300$ GeV & 28.1 & 27.6 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cutflow comparison for Multi-b analysis.}
\label{tab:cutflow_Multib}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Acceptance [\%]} \\
SR & Cut & ATLAS & MA5 Recast \\
\midrule\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Gluino slepton $\left(m(\tilde{g}), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (1300, 500)$ GeV} \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{SR0b3j} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $N_{\ell}\geq3$ & 9.7 & 10.1 \\
& Trigger & 9.7 & -- \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jet}=0$ & 7.9 & 8.6 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet}\geq3$& 7.4 & 8.1 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 200$ GeV & 5.1 & 5.9 \\
& $m_{\rm eff} > 550$ GeV & 5.1 & 5.9 \\
\midrule\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Gluino 2-step $\left(m(\tilde{g}), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (1100, 400)$ GeV} \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{SR0b5j} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $N_{\ell}^{\rm SS}\geq2$ & 3.6 & 3.9 \\
& Trigger & 3.4 & -- \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jet}=0$& 2.2 & 2.5 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet}\geq5$& 1.5 & 2.0 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 125$ GeV & 1.3 & 1.6 \\
& $m_{\rm eff} > 650$ GeV & 1.3 & 1.6 \\
\midrule\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Sbottom 1-step $\left(m(\tilde{b}_1), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (600, 50)$ GeV} \\
\midrule
\multirow{7}{*}{SR1b} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $N_{\ell}^{\rm SS}\geq2$ & 4.6 & 4.68 \\
& Trigger & 4.1 & -- \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jet}\geq1$ & 3.6 & 3.92 \\
& $N_\textrm{jet}\geq4$ & 2.0 & 2.31 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 150$ GeV & 1.3 & 1.44 \\
& $m_{\rm eff} > 550$ GeV & 1.3 & 1.44 \\
\midrule\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Gtt $\left(m(\tilde{g}), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (1200, 700)$ GeV} \\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{SR3b} & Initial & 100 & 100 \\
& $N_{\ell}^{\rm SS}\geq2$ & 3.4 & 3.6 \\
& Trigger & 3.1 & -- \\
& $N_\textrm{b-jet}\geq3$ & 1.5 & 1.8 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 125$ GeV & 1.2 & 1.4 \\
& $m_{\rm eff} > 650$ GeV & 1.2 & 1.4 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cutflow comparison for SS/3L analysis.}
\label{tab:cutflow_SS3L}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Acceptance [\%]} \\
SR & Cut & ATLAS & MA5 Recast \\
\midrule
\multirow{9}{*}{Preselect} & Initial events & 100 & 100 \\
& Trigger & 83.7 & -- \\
& Cleaning cut & 83.0 & -- \\
& Lepton veto & 83.0 & 100 \\
& $N_{\rm jets} \leq 4$ & 77.3 & 93.8 \\
& $\Delta \phi(E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}, {\rm jet}) > 0.4$ & 73.5 & 88.4 \\
& Jet quality & 70.1 & -- \\
& $p_{\rm T}^{j1} > 250$ GeV & 22.7 & 18.8 \\
& $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 250$ & 21.1 & 16.7 \\
\midrule
EM1 & $250 < E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} < 300$ GeV & 3.0 & 2.4 \\
EM2 & $300 < E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} < 350$ GeV & 3.4 & 2.5 \\
EM3 & $350 < E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} < 400$ GeV & 3.1 & 2.6 \\
EM4 & $400 < E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} < 500$ GeV & 4.4 & 4.0 \\
EM5 & $500 < E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} < 600$ GeV & 2.8 & 2.4 \\
EM6 & $600 < E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} < 700$ GeV & 1.8 & 1.2 \\
IM7 & $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss} > 700$ GeV & 2.6 & 1.5 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cutflow comparison for Monojet analysis using the squark direct decay model using the $\left(m(\tilde{q}), m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)\right) = (650, 645)$ GeV signal.}
\label{tab:cutflow_MonoJ}
\end{table}
\subsection{\label{sec:vali_simpMods}Simplified model limits}
Figure~\ref{fig:vali_simpMods} shows comparisons of exclusion limits published by ATLAS (solid lines) with our own excluded points (orange squares) using one of the simplified model scenarios considered in each analysis. We varied the appropriate masses in each model SLHA card and generated signal samples for each point. The \textsc{RecastingTools} routine in \textsc{MadAnalysis} was used to set 95\% confidence level limits.
Small discrepancies arose between our \textsc{MadAnalysis} implementation and those of ATLAS due to various sources of systematic uncertainty in our simulation setup, such as different \textsc{Pythia} versions and fast detector simulation setup. Nonetheless, the general corroboration in the shape of our \textsc{MadAnalysis} exclusions across the simplified model parameter spaces, together with overall cutflow agreement, gives confidence that the event selections were implemented correctly.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/validation/2_6_jets_Gl_direct_95excl}
\caption{2--6 jets analysis, $\tilde{g}\rightarrow qq\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ direct decay model.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/validation/7_10_jets_pmssm_slice_95excl}
\caption{7--10 jets analysis, pMSSM slice model.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/validation/1L_Gl_varX_95excl}
\caption{1 lepton analysis, $\tilde{g}\rightarrow qqW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ model, fixed $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 60$ GeV.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/validation/multi_b_Gtt_95excl}
\caption{Multi-b analysis, $\tilde{g}\rightarrow tt\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ model.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/validation/SS3L_Gl_slepton_95excl}
\caption{SS/3L analysis, $\tilde{g}\rightarrow qq(\ell\ell/\nu\nu)\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ model.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/validation/monojet_squark_95excl}
\caption{Monojet analysis, $\tilde{q}\rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ model.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\label{fig:vali_simpMods}
Comparison of representative simplified model limits reproduced by our \textsc{MadAnalysis} implementation and those published by ATLAS for each analysis considered (Table~\ref{tab:listSearches}). The red solid line is the 95\% confidence level limit observed by ATLAS with the dashed lines either side indicating the reported one standard deviation theoretical uncertainties. Orange squares indicate points generated by us excluded at 95\% confidence level `MA5 excluded', while blue circles are those not excluded `MA5 viable'. The models follow the nomenclature used by ATLAS for ease of comparison; see the references in Table~\ref{tab:listSearches} for full details.
}
\end{figure*}
|
\section{Introduction}
Distributed convex optimization has found numerous applications in resource allocation \cite{xiao2006optimal}, robotics \cite{bullo2009distributed}, machine learning \cite{boyd2011distributed} etc. Several works have appeared in distributed convex optimization domain over the past decade \cite{nesterov2012efficiency,liu2015asynchronous,agarwal2011distributed,Singh2014,Nedic2007,nedic2011asynchronous,Nedi2015,zhang2014asynchronous,huang2015differentially,rabbat2004distributed,zhu2012distributed,gade16distoptclientserver,sra2012optimization}. Recently, a few papers \cite{bianchi2013convergence,di2016next,sun2016distributed} have dealt with distributed non-convex optimization \footnote{For a thorough treatment of prior literature, readers are directed to papers cited here and references therein.}. The classical distributed optimization problem involves finding a state vector $x^*$ in a feasible set $\mathcal{X}$ such that $x^* \in {\text{argmin }}_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \sum_{i=1}^S f_i(x)$, assuming each individual objective function $f_i(x)$ being convex and its gradients being bounded.
In this report we prove that the convexity assumption on individual objective functions can be relaxed as long as the sum is still a convex function and individual function gradients are Lipschitz continuous. Formally, we can find $x^*$ using a distributed protocol (Algorithm~\ref{Algo:IterDistOptNCFun}) such that, $$x^* \in \underset{x \in \mathcal{X}}{\text{argmin }} f(x) \triangleq \sum_{i=1}^S f_i(x),$$ where the individual functions $f_i(x)$ may be non-convex, however $f(x)$ is convex. We designate this partitioning setting ($f_i(x)$ being non-convex while $f(x)$ being convex) as convex sum of non-convex functions.
\subsection{Motivating Example - Privacy Enhancing Distributed Optimization} \label{Sec:Motivation}
Let us review a simple distributed optimization problem to demonstrate how privacy requirements motivate this work. We consider $S = 3$ agents each endowed with a private, convex function $f_i(x)$, where agents intend to minimize the convex function $f(x) = \sum_{i = 1}^S f(x)$, while having access to only their own private objective function. This is a standard distributed convex optimization problem that has been extensively studied over the past decade. Figure~\ref{Fig:F-1} denotes the communication topology of the agents. Distributed algorithms (e.g. Algorithm~\ref{Algo:IterDistOptNCFun}, \cite{ram2010distributed}) solve this problem by sharing states and performing local gradient descent updates (assuming some underlying connectivity among agents). Now consider a scenario where agents wish to introduce privacy in the optimization protocol.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\linewidth]{im0}
\caption{Standard distributed optimization problem: $f_i(x)$ are private, convex functions, $\|\nabla f_i(x)\| \leq L_i$ and we intend to minimize $f(x) = \sum_{i = 1}^S f(x)$ over some constraint set $\mathcal{X}$.}
\label{Fig:F-1}
\end{figure}
Let every agent partition its objective function into additive components. That is, $f_1(x) = f_{1,2}(x) + f_{1,3}(x)$, $f_2(x) = f_{2,1}(x) + f_{2,3}(x)$ and $f_3(x) = f_{3,1}(x) + f_{3,2}(x)$ where the components may or may not be convex (see Figure~\ref{Fig:F-2}). The protocol is now modified so that in the gradient descent step (Eq.~\ref{Eq:ProjGradALG2}), agents use different component gradients instead of using $f_i(x)$. For example, when Agent 2 needs to perform gradient descent step and share states with Agent 1 and 3, Agent 2 uses $\nabla f_{2,1}(x)$ for descent update and sends state to Agent 1; and uses $\nabla f_{2,3}(x)$ for descent and sends states to Agent 3. Similarly, Agent 3 sends state to Agent 1 after performing gradient descent using $\nabla f_{3,1}(x)$ and uses $\nabla f_{3,2}(x)$ for descent before sending updates to Agent 2. Application of different gradients allows the transmitted states (sent to different agents) to be different. Agents can hide the information about their individual (and private) objective functions $f_i(x)$. This improves privacy while still allowing all agents to learn the correct model (reach optimum).
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{im1}
\caption{Individual functions are partitioned into possibly non-convex components for privacy.}
\label{Fig:F-2}
\end{subfigure} \hfill
\begin{subfigure}{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.95\linewidth]{im2}
\caption{Distributed optimization of convex sum of non-convex functions.}
\label{Fig:F-3}
\end{subfigure}%
\caption{A Motivation Example: Privacy Enhancing Distributed Optimization}
\label{Fig:MotExample}
\end{figure}
We now view each component function as being associated to a virtual agent, with any agent being represented by two virtual agents in our example ($S = 6$). The links between virtual agents must be a subset of the links between the corresponding real agents. By choosing an appropriate set of links
between the virtual agents, we can ensure that the network of virtual agents is strongly connected, provided that the original network is strongly connected. Figures~\ref{Fig:F-2} and \ref{Fig:F-3} present an example.This is motivated by the desire to improve privacy. The topology in Figure~\ref{Fig:F-2} should enhance privacy in the sense that a single real agent (on its own) will
not learn the cost function of other agents.
Note, that the individual components (in our example) are not necessarily convex; and we intend to minimize their sum, $$f(x) = f_{1,2}(x) + f_{1,3}(x) + f_{2,1}(x) + f_{2,3}(x) + f_{3,1}(x) + f_{3,2}(x).$$ This new problem fits exactly in the structure defined in Section~\ref{Sec:Problem}. As long as the original network in Figure~\ref{Fig:F-2} is strongly connected, we can ensure that the new network in Figure~\ref{Fig:F-3} also stays strongly connected. The doubly stochastic, transition matrix $B_k$ can be defined as,
\begin{align}
B_k =
\begin{bmatrix}
(1-2\kappa)& 0& \kappa& 0 & 0 & \kappa\\
0 & (1-2\kappa) & \kappa& 0 & 0 & \kappa\\
0 & \kappa& (1-2\kappa) & 0 & \kappa& 0 \\
0 & \kappa& 0 & (1-2\kappa) & \kappa& 0 \\
\kappa& 0 & 0 & \kappa& (1-2\kappa) & 0 \\
\kappa& 0 & 0 & \kappa& 0 & (1-2\kappa) \\
\end{bmatrix}. && \ldots \kappa\geq 0
\end{align}
None of the agents sees information from all virtual agents (part of any specific agent). Thus, agents can protect their private objective function yet solve the distributed optimization problem correctly. In the report we provide theoretical analysis and convergence proofs for distributed optimization algorithm in \cite{ram2010distributed} to optimize convex sum of non-convex functions $f(x)$, under any arbitrary time varying connected topology. We also present in Section~\ref{Sec:Privacy}, a different privacy enhancing scheme based on secure multi-party aggregation strategy proposed in \cite{abbe2012privacy}. We discuss the application of analysis developed in this report for proving correctness and characterizing convergence of this new scheme.
\subsection{Notation}
The number of agents is denoted by $S$. Upper case alphabets ($I, J, K$ etc.) are used to index agents. We use the symbol ``$\sim$" to denote communication link and information sharing between agents. As an example, $I \sim G$ denotes that agents $I$ and $G$ have a communication link between them, and conversely $I \cancel{\sim} J$ denotes that agents $I$ and $J$ can not share information (cannot communicate) with each other. The neighborhood set of agent $J$ is denoted by $\mathcal{N}_J$. The dimension of the problem (number of parameters in the decision vector) is denoted by $D$.
Iterations number is denoted by $k$. The decision vector (also referred to as iterate from now on) stored in agent $I$ at time (iteration) $k$ is denoted by $x^I_{k}$, where the superscript denotes the agent-id, the subscript denotes the time index. $x^J_{k}[p]$ ($p = 1, 2, \ldots, D$) denotes the $p^{th}$ dimension in decision vector $x^J_{i,k}$. The average of iterates at time instant $k$ is denoted by $\bar{x}_{k}$.
\begin{equation}
\bar{x}_{k} = \frac{1}{S} \sum_{J=1}^S x^J_{k}. \label{Eq:deltaDef}
\end{equation}
We denote the disagreement of an iterate ($x^J_{k}$) with the iterate average ($\bar{x}_{k}$) by $\delta^J_{k}$.
\begin{equation}
\delta^J_{k} = x^J_{k} - \bar{x}_{k}. \label{Eq:deltaDef2}
\end{equation}
\noindent We use $\tilde{.}$ to denote a vector that is stacked by its coordinates. As an example, consider three vectors in $\mathbb{R}^3$ given by ${a_1} = [a_x, \ a_y, \ a_z]^T$, ${a_2} = [b_x, \ b_y, \ b_z]^T$, ${a_3} = [c_x, \ c_y, \ c_z]^T$. Let us represent ${a} = [{a_1}, \ {a_2}, \ {a_3}]^T$, then $\tilde{{a}} = [a_x, \ b_x, \ c_x, \ a_y, \ b_y, \ c_y, \ a_z, \ b_z, \ c_z]^T$. Similarly we can write stacked model parameter vector as,
\begin{equation}
\tilde{x}_{0,k} = [x^1_{0,k}[1], x^2_{0,k}[1], \ldots, x^S_{0,k}[1], x^1_{0,k}[2], x^2_{0,k}[2], \ldots, x^S_{0,k}[2], \ldots, x^1_{0,k}[D], \ldots, x^S_{0,k}[D]]^T. \label{Eq:TildeVecDef}
\end{equation}
We use $g_h(x^J_{k})$ to denote the gradient of function $f_h(x)$ evaluated at $x^J_{k}$. Let, $L_h$ be the bound on gradient (see Assumption~\ref{Asmp:SubBound}) and $N_h$ be the Lipschitz constant (see Assumption~\ref{Asmp:GradLip}), for all $h = 1, 2, \ldots, S$. We define constants $\SB{L} = \sum_{h=1}^S L_h$ and $\SB{N} = \sum_{h=1}^S N_h$ to be used later in the analysis. $\|.\|$ denotes standard Euclidean norm for vectors, and matrix 2-norm for matrices ($\|A\| = \sqrt{\lambda_{\max}(A^\dagger A)} = \sigma_{\max}(A)$, where $A^\dagger$ denotes conjugate transpose of matrix A, and $\lambda, \ \sigma$ are eigenvalues and singular values respectively).
Throughout this report, we will use the following definitions and notation regarding the optimal solution ($x^*$), the set of all optima ($\mathcal{X}^*$) and the function value at optima ($f^*$),
$$ f^* = \inf_{x \in \mathcal{X}} f(x), \qquad \mathcal{X}^* = \{x \in \mathcal{X} | f(x) = f^*\}, \qquad dist(x, \mathcal{X}^*) = \inf_{x^* \in \mathcal{X}^*} \|x - x^*\|.$$
\noindent The optimal function value, at the solution of the optimization problem or the minimizing state vector is denoted by $x^*$, is denoted by $f^*$.
\subsection{Organization}
Problem formulation, assumptions and framework is presetned in Section~\ref{Sec:Problem}. Consensus and Projected Gradient based algorithm (similar to ~\cite{nedic2009distributed,ram2010distributed}) is summarized in Section~\ref{Sec:Algorithm}. Convergence analysis, and correctness proofs are presented in Section~\ref{Sec:ConvAnalysis}. Discussion on applications of this framework to privacy is presented in Section~\ref{Sec:Privacy}.
\section{Problem Formulation and Algorithm} \label{Sec:Problem}
Let us consider $S$ agents, each of whom has access to a private, possibly non-convex function $f_i(x)$. We intend to solve the following optimization problem in a distributed manner,
$$\text{Find} \; x^* \in \underset{x \in \mathcal{X}}{\text{argmin}} \; f(x), $$
where $f(x) = \sum_{i=1}^S f_i(x)$ is a convex function. The agents communicate with their neighbors and share parameter state estimates. This communication graph is assumed to be bidirectional and connected (see Assumption~\ref{Asmp:DeltaConn}).
We enforce the following assumption on the functions $f_i(x)$ and on the decision set, $\mathcal{X}$.
\begin{assumption} [Objective Functions] \label{Asmp:Function}
The objective functions $f_i : \mathbb{R}^D \rightarrow \mathbb{R}, \; \forall \; i = 1, 2,{ }\ldots, S$ may or may not be convex functions of model parameter vector $x$. However, the sum of individual objective functions is convex, i.e., $f(x) := \sum_{i=1}^S f_i(x)$ is convex.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption} [Decision Set]
The feasible parameter vector set, $\mathcal{X}$, is a non-empty, closed, convex, and compact subset of $\mathbb{R}^D$. \label{Asmp:Set}
\end{assumption}
\noindent We make a boundedness assumption on the gradient of function $f_i(x)$ in Assumption~\ref{Asmp:SubBound}. And make an additional assumption on the gradients $g_h$ of functions $f_h$.
\begin{assumption} [Gradient Boundedness] \label{Asmp:SubBound}
Let $g_i(x)$ denote the gradient of the function $f_i(x)$. There exist scalars $L_1, L_2, \ldots, L_S $ such that, $\| g_i(x) \| \leq L_i; \; \forall \; i = 1, 2, \cdots, S \; \text{and} \; \forall x \in \mathcal{X}$.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}[Gradient Lipschitzness]
\label{Asmp:GradLip}
Each function gradient ($g_h(x)$) is assumed to be Lipschitz continuous i.e. there exist scalars $N_h > 0$ such that, $\|g_h(x) - g_h(y) \| \leq N_h \| x -y\|$ for all $x \neq y$ ($x,y \in \mathcal{X}$) and for all $h = 1, 2, \ldots, S$.
\end{assumption}
Agents are connected in an arbitrary time-varying topology, albeit under the assumption that agents form a connected component, Assumption~\ref{Asmp:DeltaConn}.
\begin{assumption} [Connectedness]
\label{Asmp:DeltaConn}
At every iteration, $k$, there exists a path between any two agents. (Agents form a connected component.)
\end{assumption}
For the purpose of this report we will assume without explicitly stating that all communication links are synchronous and loss less. All agents are assumed to operate perfectly and do not experience any faults.
\subsection{Algorithm} \label{Sec:Algorithm}
We consider iterative algorithm for distributed convex optimization presented in \cite{ram2010distributed}. We show that the existing algorithm can optimize convex sum of non-convex functions. The first step in the algorithm is to fuse information from the neighbors and build an estimate of average of the parameter vector. A doubly stochastic matrices $B_k$, with the property that any entry $B_k[I,J]$ is greater than zero if and only if $I$ and $J$ can communicate with each other, is used for information fusion. Also, we assume that all non-zero entries are lower bounded by $\eta$, i.e. if $B_k[I,J] > 0$ then $B_k[I,J] \geq \eta$ for some constant $\eta>0$. If $\mathcal{N}_J$ denotes the set of agents that can send information to agent $J$, then we can write the fusion step as,
\begin{align}
v^J_{k} = \sum_{I \in \mathcal{N}_J} B_k[J,I] x^I_{k}.
\label{Eq:InfFusALG1}
\end{align}
The information aggregation step is followed by projected gradient descent step. The descent step is formally written as,
\begin{align}
x^J_{k+1} = \mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{X}}\left[v^J_{k} - \alpha_k g_J(v^J_{k}) \right]. \label{Eq:ProjGradALG2}
\end{align}
Projected gradient descent is a well known iterative gradient based method that guarantees convergence to optimum under reducing learning rate ($\alpha_k$) \cite{bertsekas1976goldstein}. We assume that the monotonically non-increasing
learning rate/step-size possesses the following properties,
\begin{align}
\alpha_k > 0, \ \forall k \geq 0; \quad \alpha_{k+1} \leq \alpha_k, \ \forall k \geq 0; \quad \sum_{k=0}^\infty \alpha_k = \infty; \ \text{and} \quad \sum_{k=0}^\infty \alpha_k^2 < \infty. \label{Eq:LearnStepCond}
\end{align}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Distributed Algorithm for Optimization of Convex sum of Non-Convex functions}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State Input: $x^J_k$, $\alpha_k$, NSteps \Comment{NSteps - Termination Criteria}
\State Result: $x^* = \underset{x \in \mathcal{X}}{\text{argmin}} \sum_{i=1}^{S} f_i(x) $
\For {k = 1 to NSteps}
\For {J = 1 to S}
\State $v^J_{k} = \sum_{I \in \mathcal{N}_J} B_k[J,I] x^I_{k}$ \Comment{Information Fusion}
\State $x^J_{k+1} = \mathcal{P}_\mathcal{X} \left[ v^J_{k} - \alpha_k g_J(v^J_{k})\right]$ \Comment{Projected Gradient Descent}
\EndFor
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\label{Algo:IterDistOptNCFun}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Convergence Analysis} \label{Sec:ConvAnalysis}
We state two important results that will be useful in convergence analysis, the first being on convergence of non-negative almost supermartingales by Robbins and Siegmund (Theorem 1, \cite{robbins1985convergence}) followed by Lemma 3.1 (b) by Ram \textit{et.al.}, \cite{ram2010distributed}.
\begin{lemma} \label{Lem:RobSiegConv}
Let ($\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathcal{P}$) be a probability space and let $\mathcal{F}_0 \subset \mathcal{F}_1 \subset \ldots$ be a sequence of sub $\sigma-$fields of $\mathcal{F}$. Let $u_k, v_k$ and $w_k$, $k = 0, 1, 2, \ldots$ be non-negative $\mathcal{F}_k-$ measurable random variables and let \{$\gamma_k$\} be a deterministic sequence. Assume that $\sum_{k=0}^\infty \gamma_k < \infty$, and $\sum_{k=0}^\infty w_k < \infty$ and $$E[u_{k+1}|\mathcal{F}_k] \leq (1+\gamma_k) u_k -v_k + w_k$$ holds with probability 1. Then, the sequence \{$u_k$\} converges to a non-negative random variable and $\sum_{k=0}^\infty v_k < \infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma} \label{Lem:Ram}
Let $\{\zeta_k\}$ be a non-negative sequence scalar sequence. If $\sum_{k=0}^\infty \zeta_k < \infty$ and $0 < \beta < 1$, then $\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left( \sum_{j=0}^k \beta^{k-j} \zeta_j \right) < \infty$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent The well known non-expansive property (cf. \cite{bertsekas2003convex}) of Euclidean projection onto a non-empty, closed, convex set $\mathcal{X}$, is represented by the following inequality, $\forall \; x, y \in \mathbb{R}^D$,
\begin{align}
\| \mathcal{P}_\mathcal{X}[x] - \mathcal{P}_\mathcal{X}[y] \| \leq \|x - y\|. \label{Eq:EUCPROJINEQUAL}
\end{align}
We now present the relationship of server iterates between two consensus steps (at time instants
$k$ and $k+1$) in the following Lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{Lem:IterateConvRelation}
Under Assumptions~\ref{Asmp:Function}, \ref{Asmp:Set}, \ref{Asmp:SubBound}, \ref{Asmp:GradLip} and \ref{Asmp:DeltaConn}, the sequence of iterates generated by agents $x^J_k$ using Algorithm~\ref{Algo:IterDistOptNCFun}, satisfies for all $y \in \mathcal{X}$,
\begin{align}
\sum_{J=1}^S \|x^J_{k+1} - y\|^2 &\leq \left(1 + 2\alpha_k \SB{N} \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| \right)\sum_{J=1}^S \|x^J_k - y\|^2 - 2 \alpha_k \left(f(\bar{x}_k) - f(y) \right) \nonumber \\
& + 2 \alpha_k \left(\SB{L} + S\SB{N}\right) \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| + \alpha_k^2 \sum_{J=1}^S L_J^2.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Every iteration in the algorithm involves two steps, a) information fusion using consensus step and b) projected gradient descent on local (possibly non-convex) objective function.
\noindent The fused state ($v^J_k$) is obtained from the neighbor states using Eq.~\ref{Eq:InfFusALG1},
\begin{align}
v^J_{k} = \sum_{I \in \mathcal{N}_J} B_{k}[J,I] x^I_{k}.
\end{align}
\noindent The fused state is further updated based on projected gradient descent given by Eq.~\ref{Eq:ProjGradALG2},
\begin{align}
x^J_{k+1} = \mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{X}}\left[v^J_{k} - \alpha_k g_J(v^J_{k}) \right]. \label{Eq:ProjGrad}
\end{align}
\noindent Using the non-expansive property of the projection operator used in Eq.~\ref{Eq:ProjGrad}, for all $y \in \mathcal{X}$ ($\mathcal{X}$ is a non-empty, closed convex set) gives us,
\begin{align}
\|x^J_{k+1} - y\|^2 &= \|\mathcal{P}_{\mathcal{X}}\left[v^J_{k} - \alpha_k g_J(v^J_{k}) \right] - y\|^2 && \ldots \mathcal{P}_\mathcal{X}[y] = y \nonumber \\
& \leq \|v^J_{k} - \alpha_k g_J(v^J_{k}) - y\|^2 \nonumber \\
& \leq \|v^J_k - y\|^2 + \alpha_k^2 \|g_J(v^J_k)\|^2 - 2 \alpha_k (g_J(v^J_k))^T (v^J_k - y) \label{Eq:PGRelation1}
\end{align}
\noindent Adding the inequalities in Eq.~\ref{Eq:PGRelation1} for all agents $J = 1, 2, \ldots, S$ we get the following inequality,
\begin{align}
\sum_{J=1}^S \|x^J_{k+1} - y\|^2 \leq \sum_{J=1}^S \|v^J_k - y\|^2 + \alpha_k^2 \sum_{J=1}^S \|g_J(v^J_k)\|^2 - 2 \alpha_k \sum_{J=1}^S (g_J(v^J_k))^T (v^J_k - y)
\end{align}
\noindent We further use bounds on gradients (Assumption~\ref{Asmp:SubBound}), $\|g_J(x)\| \leq L_J$ for all $J = 1, 2, \ldots, S$ and get,
\begin{align}
\sum_{J=1}^S \|x^J_{k+1} - y\|^2 \leq \sum_{J=1}^S \|v^J_k - y\|^2 + \alpha_k^2 \sum_{J=1}^S L_J^2 - 2 \alpha_k \sum_{J=1}^S (g_J(v^J_k))^T (v^J_k - y) \label{Eq:IterateRelation1}
\end{align}
Now, we use consensus relationship used in information fusion. We start by stacking the state vector for all agents component wise. We use $\tilde{.}$ to denote a vector that is stacked by its coordinates (see Eq.~\ref{Eq:TildeVecDef} for definition). And, $\tilde{y}$ denotes $J$ copies of $y$ vector stacked coordinate wise. We know that in D-dimension the consensus step can be rewritten using Kronecker product of D-dimension identity matrix ($I_D$) and the doubly stochastic weight matrix ($B_k$) \cite{fax2004information}.
\begin{align}
\tilde{v}_{k} &= (I_D \otimes B_k) \tilde{x}_{k} && \ldots \text{Consensus Step} \label{Eq:E5}\\
\tilde{v}_{k} - \tilde{y} &= (I_D \otimes B_k) (\tilde{x}_{k} - \tilde{y}) && \ldots \text{Eq.\eqref{Eq:E5} and } (I_D \otimes B_k)\tilde{y} = \tilde{y}
\end{align}
\noindent We now compare norms of both sides (2-norm),
\begin{align}
\|\tilde{v}_{k} - \tilde{y}\|_2^2 &= \|(I_D \otimes B_k) (\tilde{x}_{k} - \tilde{y})\|_2^2 && \ldots \text{Norms of equal vectors are equal} \\
&\leq \|(I_D \otimes B_k)\|_2^2 \|(\tilde{x}_{k} - \tilde{y})\|_2^2 && \ldots \text{$\|Ax\|_2 \leq \|A\|_2 \|x\|_2$}
\end{align}
\noindent We use the following property of eigenvalues of Kronecker product of matrices. If $A$ ($m$ eigenvalues given by $\lambda_i$, with $i = 1, 2, \ldots, m$) and $B$ ($n$ eigenvalues given by $\mu_j$, with $j = 1, 2, \ldots, n$) are two matrices then the eigenvalues of the Kronecker product $A \otimes B$ are given by $\lambda_i \mu_j$ for all $i$ and $j$ ($mn$ eigenvalues). Hence, the eigenvalues of $I_D \otimes B_k$ are essentially $D$ copies of eigenvalues of $B_k$. Since $B_k$ is a doubly stochastic matrix, its eigenvalues are upper bounded by 1. Clearly, $\|(I_D \otimes B_k)\|_2^2 = \lambda_{\max}((I_D \otimes B_k)^\dagger(I_D \otimes B_k)) \leq 1$. This follows from the fact that $(I_D \otimes B_k)^\dagger(I_D \otimes B_k)$ is a doubly stochastic matrix since product of two doubly stochastic matrices is also doubly stochastic.
\begin{align}
\|\tilde{v}_{k} - \tilde{y}\|_2^2 &\leq \|(\tilde{x}_{k} - \tilde{y})\|_2^2.
\end{align}
\noindent Furthermore, the square of the norm of a stacked vector is equal to sum of the square of the norms of all agents.
\begin{align}
\sum_{J=1}^S \|v^J_{k} - y\|^2 = \|\tilde{v}_{k} - \tilde{y}\|_2^2 \leq \|(\tilde{x}_{k} - \tilde{y})\|_2^2 = \sum_{J=1}^S \|x^J_{k} - y\|^2 \label{Eq:E6}
\end{align}
\noindent Merging the inequalities established above in Eq.~\ref{Eq:IterateRelation1} and Eq.~\ref{Eq:E6} we get,
\begin{align}
\sum_{J=1}^S \|x^J_{k+1} - y\|^2 \leq \sum_{J=1}^S \|x^J_k - y\|^2 + \alpha_k^2 \sum_{J=1}^S L_J^2 \underbrace{- 2 \alpha_k \sum_{J=1}^S (g_J(v^J_k))^T (v^J_k - y)}_{\Lambda}. \label{Eq:IterateRelation2}
\end{align}
\noindent Typically, at this step one would use convexity of $f_J(x)$ to simplify the term $\Lambda$ in Eq.~\ref{Eq:IterateRelation2}. However, since $f_J(x)$ may be non-convex, and hence we need to follow a few more steps before we arrive at the iterate lemma.
We further consider the fused state iterates $v^J_k$, the average $\bar{v}_k$ and the deviation of iterate from the average, $\delta^J_k = v^J_k - \bar{v}_k$. We further use gradient Lipschiztness (Assumption~\ref{Asmp:GradLip}) to arrive at the following relation,
\begin{align}
g_J(v^J_k) = g_J(\bar{v}_k) + &l^J_k, \text{ where } \|l^J_k\| \leq N_J \|v^J_k - \bar{v}_k\| = N_J \|\delta^J_k\|. \label{Eq:UnrollGradient1} \\
\max_{J} \|l^J_k\| &= \max_{J} \{ N_J \|\delta^J_k\| \} \leq \SB{N} \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| \label{Eq:UnrollGradient2Bound}
\end{align}
We use the above expressions in Eq.~\ref{Eq:IterateRelation2} to further bound the term $\Lambda$.
\begin{align}
\Lambda &= - 2 \alpha_k \sum_{J=1}^S \left[ (g_J(v^J_k))^T (v^J_k - y) \right] = 2 \alpha_k \sum_{J=1}^S \left[ (g_J(v^J_k))^T (y - v^J_k) \right] \nonumber \\
&= 2 \alpha_k \sum_{J=1}^S \left[ (g_J(\bar{v}_k) + l^J_k)^T (y - \bar{v}_k - \delta^J_k) \right] && \ldots v^J_k = \bar{v}_k + \delta^J_k \nonumber \\
&= 2 \alpha_k \left[\underbrace{\sum_{J=1}^S g_J(\bar{v}_k)^T (y - \bar{v}_k)}_{T_1} + \underbrace{\sum_{J=1}^S g_J(\bar{v}_k)^T(-\delta^J_k)}_{T_2} + \underbrace{\sum_{J=1}^S (l^J_k)^T (y - v^J_k)}_{T_3}\right] \label{Eq:LambdaE1}
\end{align}
\noindent Individual terms in Eq.~\ref{Eq:LambdaE1} can be bound in the following way,
\begin{align}
T_1 &= \sum_{J=1}^S g_J(\bar{v}_k)^T (y - \bar{v}_k) = (\sum_{J=1}^S g_J(\bar{v}_k))^T(y - \bar{v}_k) && \ldots \text{$(y - \bar{v}_k)$ is independent of $J$} \nonumber \\
&= g(\bar{v}_k)^T(y-\bar{v}_k) \leq f(y) - f(\bar{v}_k) && \ldots \text{$f(x)$ is convex} \\
T_2 &= \sum_{J=1}^S g_J(\bar{v}_k)^T(-\delta^J_k) \leq \sum_{J=1}^S \|g_J(\bar{v}_k)^T\| \|(-\delta^J_k)\| \nonumber \\
&\leq \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| \sum_{J=1}^S L_J \leq \SB{L} \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| && \ldots \text{$\|g_J(x)\|\leq L_J$ and $\SB{L} = \sum_{J=1}^S L_J$} \\
T_3 &= \sum_{J=1}^S (l^J_k)^T (y - v^J_k) \leq \max_J \|l^J_k\| \sum_{J=1}^S \|v^J_k - y\| \nonumber \\
&\leq \SB{N} \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| \sum_{J=1}^S \|v^J_k - y\| && \ldots \text{Eqs.~\ref{Eq:UnrollGradient1}, \ref{Eq:UnrollGradient2Bound} and $\SB{N} = \sum_{J=1}^S N_J$}
\end{align}
\noindent We can further use the property $2 \|a\| \leq 1 + \|a\|^2$ to bound term $T_3$.
\begin{align}
T_3 &\leq \SB{N} \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| \sum_{J=1}^S \|v^J_k - y\| \leq \SB{N} \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| \left[ \sum_{J=1}^S \left( 1+ \|v^J_k - y\|^2\right) \right] \nonumber \\
& \leq \SB{N} \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| \left[S + \sum_{J=1}^S \|v^J_k - y\|^2 \right] \leq \SB{N} \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| \left[S + \sum_{J=1}^S \|x^J_k - y\|^2 \right] && \ldots \text{Eq.~\ref{Eq:E6}}
\end{align}
\noindent We can use the bounds on $T_1, T_2$ and $T_3$ to get a bound on $\Lambda$.
\begin{align}
\Lambda \leq 2 \alpha_k \left( -\left(f(\bar{v}_k) - f(y) \right) + \SB{L} \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| + \SB{N} \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| \left[S + \sum_{J=1}^S \|x^J_k - y\|^2 \right] \right)
\end{align}
\noindent Note that we can replaced, $f(\bar{v}_k)$ with $f(\bar{x}_k)$. This follows from the fact that doubly stochastic matrices preserve iterate averages, i.e. $\bar{v}_k = \bar{x}_k$ (cf. \cite{nedic2009distributed}).
\noindent The iterate update relation hence becomes,
\begin{align}\noindent
\sum_{J=1}^S \|x^J_{k+1} - y\|^2 &\leq \left(1 + 2\alpha_k \SB{N} \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| \right)\sum_{J=1}^S \|x^J_k - y\|^2 - 2 \alpha_k \left(f(\bar{x}_k) - f(y) \right) \nonumber \\
& + 2 \alpha_k \left(\SB{L} + S\SB{N}\right) \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| + \alpha_k^2 \sum_{J=1}^S L_J^2.
\end{align}
$\hfill \blacksquare$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{Lem:deltaJbound}
Let iterates be generated by Algorithm~\ref{Algo:IterDistOptNCFun}, while Assumptions~\ref{Asmp:Function}, \ref{Asmp:Set}, \ref{Asmp:SubBound}, \ref{Asmp:GradLip}, and \ref{Asmp:DeltaConn} hold, then there exists constant $\nu<1$, such that the following bound on the maximum (over $J$) disagreement between iterate at agent $J$ and the average iterate given by $\delta^J_k$ (Eqs.~\ref{Eq:deltaDef} and \ref{Eq:deltaDef2}) holds,
$$\max_J\{\|\delta^J_{k+1}\|\} \leq \frac{S-1}{S} \left(\nu^{k+1} \max_{P,Q} \left( \|x^P_{0,0} - x^Q_{0,0}\| \right) + \SB{L} \sum_{i = 1}^k \left( \alpha_i \nu^{k-i} \right) \right).$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We use Kronecker product to write consensus step as shown in Eq.~\ref{Eq:E5}. This step is equivalent to the following form of representing the consensus step,
\begin{equation}
v^I_{k} = \sum_{J=1}^S B_k [I,J] x^J_{k} \label{Eq:InfoFused1}
\end{equation}
where $v^I_{k}$ and $x^J_{k}$ represent the fused parameter vector at agent $I$ and parameter vector at agent $J$ at time step $\{k\}$ while $B_k [I,J]$ is a scalar representing the $I^{th}$ row and $J^{th}$ column entries of matrix $B_k$. We know from Eq.~\ref{Eq:InfoFused1} that the difference between fused parameter vector at agent $I$ and $J$ can be written as,
\begin{equation}
v^J_k - v^I_k = \sum_{L=1}^S \left(B_k[J,L] - B_k[I,L]\right) x^L_k.
\label{Eq:ROWSTOC}
\end{equation}
Since, $B_k$ is doubly stochastic, clearly the coefficients of states in Eq.~\ref{Eq:ROWSTOC} add up to zero (i.e. $\sum_{J=1}^S \left( B_k[J,L] - B_k[I,L] \right) = 0$). Collecting all positive coefficients and negative coefficients and rearranging we get the following equation,
\begin{align}
v^J_{k+1} - v^I_{k+1} = \sum_{P,Q} \eta_{P,Q} (x^P_{k} - x^Q_{k}), \qquad \ldots \forall \; I, G
\label{Eq:REARRANG}
\end{align}
where, $\eta_{P,Q} \geq 0$ is the weight associated to servers $P$ and $Q$ and $\eta_{P,Q} \geq 0$. Note that all coefficients $\eta_{P,Q}$ refer to some $J, I$ pair at time $k$. For simplicity in notation we will ignore $I, J$ and $k$ without any loss of generality or correctness.
\begin{assumption} \label{Asmp:Scrambling}
We assume the transition matrix $B_k$ to be a scrambling matrix. \cite{seneta2006non}
\end{assumption}
We have from Assumption~\ref{Asmp:Scrambling}, any two rows of $B_k$ matrix have a non-zero column entry. And since any entry of the matrix is less than 1, the difference is also strictly less than 1. Hence, $\sum \eta_{PQ} < 1$. By taking norm on both sides of Eq.~\ref{Eq:REARRANG}, recalling Assumption~\ref{Asmp:Scrambling} and using triangle inequality we get, for all $I,J$,
\begin{equation}
\|v^J_{k} - x^I_{k}\| \leq \left( \sum \eta_{P,Q} \right) \max_{P,Q} \|x^P_{k} - x^Q_{k}\|.
\end{equation}
Since the above inequality is valid for all $I, G$, we can rewrite the above relation as,
\begin{align}
\max_{I, J} \|v^J_{k} - v^I_{k}\| \leq \max_{P,Q}\left( \sum \eta_{P,Q} \right) \max_{P,Q} \|x^P_{k} - x^Q_{k}\|. \label{Eq:LAB1}
\end{align}
Note that, $\max_{P,Q} \left( \sum \eta_{P,Q} \right)$ is dependent only on the topology at time $k$ (i.e. the doubly stochastic weight matrix given by $B_k$). Due to the countable nature of possible topologies for $S$ agents, we can define a new quantity $\nu = \max_k \{ \max_{P,Q} \{ \sum \eta_{P,Q} \} \}$ \footnote{Note that $\eta_{P,Q}$ is dependent on $I, J$ pair and $k$.}. By definition, $\max_{P,Q} \{ \sum \eta_{P,Q} \} \leq \nu, \; \forall \; k \geq 0$ and since $\max_{P,Q} \{ \sum \eta_{P,Q} \} < 1 \; \forall \; k \geq 0$, we have $\nu < 1$.
We can write the difference between parameter vectors at agent $I$ and $J$ as,
\begin{align}
x^J_{k+1} - x^I_{k+1} = \mathcal{P}_\mathcal{X} \left[ v^J_k - \alpha_k g_J(v^J_k) \right] - \mathcal{P}_\mathcal{X} \left[ v^I_k - \alpha_k g_I(v^I_k) \right] && \ldots \text{Eq.~\ref{Eq:ProjGradALG2}}
\end{align}
and, further obtain inequality bound using non-expansive property of the projection operator ($\mathcal{X}$ is a non-empty, closed-convex set),
\begin{align}
\|x^J_{k+1} - x^I_{k+1}\|^2 &\leq \| v^J_k - \alpha_k g_J(v^J_k) - v^I_k + \alpha_k g_I(v^I_k) \|^2 \nonumber \\
&\leq \|v^J_k - v^I_k\|^2 + \alpha_k^2 \|g_J(v^J_k) - g^I(v^I_k)\|^2 + 2 \alpha_k \|v^J_k - v^I_k\| \|g^J(x^J_k) - g^I(x^I_k)\| \nonumber \\
&\leq \|v^J_k - v^I_k\|^2 + \alpha_k^2 (L_J + L_I)^2 + 2 \alpha_k (L_J+L_I) \|v^J_k - v^I_k\| \nonumber \\
&\leq (\|v^J_k - v^I_k\| + \alpha_k (L_J + L_I))^2 \leq (\|v^J_k - v^I_k\| + \alpha_k \SB{L})^2 \nonumber \\
\|x^J_{k+1} - x^I_{k+1}\| &\leq \|v^J_k - v^I_k\| + \alpha_k \SB{L} \label{Eq:DeltaJBound1}
\end{align}
Now we perform maximization on both sides of Eq.~\ref{Eq:DeltaJBound1} to get,
\begin{align}
\max_{I,J} \|x^J_{k+1} - x^I_{k+1}\| \leq \max_{I,J} \|v^J_k - v^I_k\| + \alpha_k \SB{L},
\end{align}
and further use the bound in Eq.~\ref{Eq:LAB1},
\begin{align}
\max_{I,J} \|x^J_{k+1} - x^I_{k+1}\| \leq \nu \max_{P,Q} \|x^P_{k} - x^Q_{k}\| + \alpha_k \SB{L}.
\end{align}
\noindent Now we perform an unrolling operation, and relate the maximum agent disagreement to the initial disagreement between agents (at step $0$).
\begin{align}
\max_{I , J} \|x^J_{k+1} - x^I_{k+1}\| &\leq \left( \nu \max_{P,Q} \left( \|x^P_{k} - x^Q_{k}\| \right) + \alpha_k \SB{L} \right) \nonumber \\
&\leq \left( \nu \left( \nu \max_{P,Q} \left( \|x^P_{k-1} - x^Q_{k-1}\| \right) + \alpha_{k-1} \SB{L} \right) + \alpha_k \SB{L} \right) \nonumber \\
&\leq \qquad \ldots \nonumber \\
&\leq \left(\nu^{k+1} \max_{P,Q} \left( \|x^P_{0} - x^Q_{0}\| \right) + \SB{L} \sum_{i = 1}^k \left( \alpha_i \nu^{k-i} \right) \right) \label{Eq:ASYMPCONVPARVEC}
\end{align}
\noindent We start with the definition of $\delta^J_{k+1}$ (see Eq.~\ref{Eq:deltaDef2}) and consider the maximum over all agents,
\begin{align}
\max_J\{\|\delta^J_{k+1}\|\} &= \max_J\{ \|x^J_{k+1} - \bar{x}_{k+1}\| \} = \max_J\{ \|x^J_{k+1} - \frac{1}{S} \sum_{I=1}^S x^I_{k+1}\| \} \nonumber \\
&= \max_J\{ \|\frac{1}{S} \sum_{I \neq J}^S (x^J_{{k+1}} - x^I_{{k+1}})\| \} \leq \frac{S-1}{S} \max_{I,J} \|x^J_{{k+1}} - x^I_{{k+1}}\|. \label{Eq:ScramRes1}
\end{align}
Together with Eq.~\ref{Eq:ASYMPCONVPARVEC}, we arrive at the desired expression from the statement of lemma,
\begin{align}
\max_J\{\|\delta^J_{k+1}\|\} \leq \frac{S-1}{S} \left(\nu^{k+1} \max_{P,Q} \left( \|x^P_{0} - x^Q_{0}\| \right) + \SB{L} \sum_{i = 1}^k \left( \alpha_i \nu^{k-i} \right) \right) \label{Eq:MAXDJBOUND}
\end{align} $\hfill \blacksquare $
\end{proof}
Note that we can do away with Assumption~\ref{Asmp:Scrambling}, and prove similar bound on the maximum disagreement between agent iterates and its average for any connected graph. For simplicity, we assume that the transition matrix is scrambling.
\begin{claim} [Consensus] \label{Cl:Consensus}
The agent parameter vectors achieve consensus asymptotically. $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \max_{I,J} \|x^J_{k+1} - x^I_{k+1}\| = 0.$$
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
We know from Eq.~\ref{Eq:ASYMPCONVPARVEC} that the maximum disagreement between any two agents ($I$ and $J$) at time $k$ is given by,
\begin{align}
\max_{I,J} \|x^J_{k+1} - x^I_{k+1}\| \leq \left( \nu^{k+1} \max_{P,Q} \left( \|x^P_{0} - x^Q_{0}\| \right) + \SB{L} \sum_{i = 1}^k \left( \alpha_i \nu^{k-i} \right) \right). \label{Eq:SerConTemp1}
\end{align}
The first term on the right hand side of above expression tends to zero as $k \rightarrow \infty$, since $\nu < 1$ and $\nu^{k+1} \rightarrow 0$ as $k \rightarrow 0$.
Let us consider $\epsilon_0 > 0$, and define $0 < \epsilon < \epsilon_0 \frac{1 - \nu}{2\SB{L}\nu}$. Since, $\epsilon_0 > 0$ and $\nu < 1$ we know that such an $\epsilon$ exists. We now show that the second term in Eq.~\ref{Eq:SerConTemp1}, decreases to zero too. Since $\alpha_k$ is non-increasing sequence, $\exists \ K = K(\epsilon) \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\alpha_i < \epsilon$ for all $i \geq K$. Hence we can rewrite the second term for $k > K$ as,
$$ \SB{L} \sum_{i = 1}^k \left( \alpha_i \nu^{k-i} \right) = \SB{L} \left[\underbrace{\left( \alpha_0 \nu^k + \alpha_1 \nu^k-1 + \ldots + \alpha_{K-1} \nu^{k-K+1}\right)}_{A} + \underbrace{ \left(\alpha_{K} \nu^{k-K} + \ldots + \alpha_k \nu^0 \right)}_{B}\right]$$
\noindent We can bound the individual terms A and B by using the monotonically non-increasing property of $\alpha_i$ and sum of a geometric series.
\begin{align}
A &= \alpha_0 \nu^k + \alpha_1 \nu^{k-1} + \ldots + \alpha_{K-1} \nu^{k-K+1} \nonumber \\
&\leq \alpha_0 (\nu^k + \nu^{k-1} + \ldots + \nu^{k-K+1}) && \ldots \alpha_1 \geq \alpha_i \; \forall \ i \geq 1 \nonumber \\
&\leq \alpha_0 \nu^{k-K+1} \left(\frac{1 - \nu^{K}}{1-\nu} \right) \leq \frac{\alpha_0 \nu^{k-K+1}}{1-\nu} && \ldots \nu < 1 \implies 1 - \nu^{K} < 1, \; \forall \ k > K\label{Eq:ABOUNDS1}\\
B &= \alpha_K \nu^{k-K} + \ldots + \alpha_k \nu^0 \nonumber \\
& < \epsilon \nu \left( \frac{1-\nu^{k-K+1}}{1-\nu}\right) \leq \frac{\epsilon \nu}{1-\nu} && \ldots \alpha_i < \epsilon, \; \forall i \geq K \text{ and } \nu < 1 \label{Eq:BBOUNDS1}
\end{align}
\noindent Since the right side of inequality in Eq.~\ref{Eq:ABOUNDS1} is monotonically decreasing in $k$ ($\nu < 1$) with limit $0$ as $k \rightarrow \infty$. Hence $\exists K_{0_1} > K$ such that $\nu^{k-K+1} < \epsilon$, $\forall \; k \geq K_{0_1}$ and hence $A < \frac{\epsilon_0}{2 \SB{L}}$. Substituting the upper bound for $\epsilon$ in right side of inequality in Eq.~\ref{Eq:BBOUNDS1}, we get $\exists K_{0_2} > K$ such that $B < \frac{\epsilon_0}{2 \SB{L}}$, $\forall \; k \geq K_0$.
Using the bounds obtained above (on $A$ and $B$), we conclude, $\forall \; \epsilon_0 > 0$, $\exists \; K_0 = \max \{K_{0_1}, K_{0_2}\}$ such that $\SB{L} \sum_{i=0}^k \left( \alpha_i \nu^{k-i} \right) < \epsilon_0$, $\forall \; k > K_0$. Clearly (from the $\epsilon-\delta$ definition of limit), $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \SB{L} \sum_{i=0}^k \left( \alpha_i \nu^{k-i} \right) = 0$. This limit together with the limit of first term on the right side of Eq.~\ref{Eq:SerConTemp1} being zero, implies, $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \max_{I,J} \|x^J_{k+1} - x^I_{k+1}\| = 0$. Thus we have asymptotic consensus of the agent parameter vectors.
$\hfill \blacksquare$
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} \label{Th:ConvMain}
Let Assumptions~\ref{Asmp:Function}, \ref{Asmp:Set}, \ref{Asmp:SubBound}, \ref{Asmp:GradLip} and \ref{Asmp:DeltaConn} hold with $\mathcal{X}^*$ being a nonempty bounded set. Also assume a diminishing step size rule presented in Eq.~\ref{Eq:LearnStepCond}. Then, for a sequence of iterates $\{x^J_{k}\}$ generated by an distributed optimization algorithm (Algorithm~\ref{Algo:IterDistOptNCFun}) the iterate average ($\bar{x}_k$) converge to an optimum in $\mathcal{X}^*$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We intend to prove convergence using deterministic version of Lemma~\ref{Lem:RobSiegConv}. We begin by using the relation between iterates given in Lemma~\ref{Lem:IterateConvRelation} with $y = x^* \in \mathcal{X}^*$,
\begin{align}
\sum_{J=1}^S \|x^J_{k+1} - x^*\|^2 &\leq \left(1 + \underbrace{2\alpha_k \SB{N} \max_J \|\delta^J_k\|}_{\gamma_k} \right)\sum_{J=1}^S \|x^J_k - x^*\|^2 - 2 \alpha_k \left(f(\bar{x}_k) - f(x^*) \right) \nonumber \\
& + \underbrace{2 \alpha_k \left(\SB{L} + S\SB{N}\right) \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| + \alpha_k^2 \sum_{J=1}^S L_J^2}_{w_k}. \label{Eq:PROOF0}
\end{align}
We check if the above inequality satisfies the conditions in Lemma~\ref{Lem:RobSiegConv} viz. $\sum_{k=0}^\infty \gamma_k < \infty$ and $\sum_{k=0}^\infty w_k < \infty$. $\gamma_k$ and $w_k$ are defined as shown in Eq.~\ref{Eq:PROOF0}.
We first show that $\sum_{k = 0}^\infty \alpha_k \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| < \infty$.
\begin{align}
\sum_{k = 0}^\infty & \alpha_k \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| \leq \frac{S-1}{S} \sum_{k = 0}^\infty \alpha_k \left( \nu^{k+1} \max_{P,Q} \left( \|x^P_{0} - x^Q_{0}\| \right) + \SB{L} \sum_{i = 1}^k \left( \alpha_i \nu^{k-i} \right) \right) && \ldots \text{Eq.~\ref{Eq:MAXDJBOUND}} \nonumber \\
&\leq \frac{S-1}{S} \left( \sum_{k = 0}^\infty \alpha_k \nu^{k+1} \max_{P,Q} \left( \|x^P_{0} - x^Q_{0}\| \right) + \sum_{k = 0}^\infty \SB{L} \alpha_k \sum_{i = 1}^k \left( \alpha_i \nu^{k-i} \right) \right) \nonumber \\
&\leq \frac{S-1}{S} \left( \max_{P,Q} \left( \|x^P_{0} - x^Q_{0}\| \right) \sum_{k = 0}^\infty \alpha_k \nu^{k+1} + \sum_{k = 0}^\infty \SB{L} \sum_{i = 1}^k \left( \alpha_i^2 \nu^{k-i} \right) \right) && \ldots \alpha_k \leq \alpha_i, \forall i \leq k \nonumber \\
&\leq \frac{S-1}{S} \left( \max_{P,Q} \left( \|x^P_{0} - x^Q_{0}\| \right) \sum_{k = 0}^\infty \alpha_k \nu^{k+1} + \SB{L} \sum_{k = 0}^\infty \sum_{i = 1}^k \left( \alpha_i^2 \nu^{k-i} \right) \right). \label{Eq:PROOF1}
\end{align}
In the above expression, we can show that the first term is convergent by using the ratio test. We observe that, $$ \limsup_{k \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\alpha_{k+1} \nu^{k+2}}{\alpha_{k} \nu^{k+1}} = \limsup_{k \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\alpha_{k+1} \nu}{\alpha_k} < 1 \implies \sum_{k=0}^\infty \alpha_k \nu^k < \infty,$$
since, $\alpha_{k+1} \leq \alpha_k$ and $\nu < 1$. Arriving at the second term involves using the non-increasing property of $\alpha_i$, i.e. $\alpha_k \leq \alpha_i \forall i \leq k $. Now, we use Lemma~\ref{Lem:Ram}, with $\zeta_j = \alpha_j^2$ (where $\sum_{k=0}^ \infty \zeta_k < \infty$) and show that the second term in the above expression is finite, i.e. $(S-1)/S \SB{L} \sum_{k = 0}^\infty \sum_{i = 1}^k \left( \alpha_i^2 \nu^{k-i} \right) < \infty$. Together using finiteness of both parts on the right side of Eq.~\ref{Eq:PROOF1} we have proved,
\begin{align}
\sum_{k = 0}^\infty \alpha_k \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| < \infty
\label{Eq:PROOF2}
\end{align}
We now begin to prove the finiteness of sum of $\gamma_k$ sequence, $\sum_{k=0}^\infty \gamma_k < \infty$.
\begin{align}
\sum_{k=0}^\infty \gamma_k &= 2 \SB{N} \sum_{k=0}^\infty \left(\alpha_k \max_J\|\delta^J_k\| \right) < \infty.
\end{align}
We can similarly prove $\sum_{k=0}^\infty w_k < \infty$.
\begin{align}
\sum_{k=0}^\infty w_k = 2 (\SB{L}+S\SB{N}) \sum_{k=0}^\infty \alpha_k \max_J \|\delta^J_k\| + (\sum_{J=1}^S L_J^2)\sum_{k=0}^\infty \alpha_k^2 < \infty
\end{align}
The first term above is finite as proved in Eq.~\ref{Eq:PROOF2} and the second term is finite due due to the assumption on learning rate (Eq.~\ref{Eq:LearnStepCond}).
We can now use the deterministic version of Lemma~\ref{Lem:RobSiegConv} to show the convergence of iterate average to the optimum. We know from proof above that $\sum_{k=0}^\infty \gamma_k < \infty$ and $\sum_{k=0}^\infty w_k < \infty$. As a consequence of Lemma~\ref{Lem:RobSiegConv}, we get that the sequence $\eta_k^2$ converges to some point and $\sum_{k=0}^\infty 2 \frac{\alpha_k M}{S} (f(\bar{x}_{k}) - f(x^*)) < \infty$.
We use $\sum_{k=0}^\infty 2 \frac{\alpha_k M}{S} (f(\bar{x}_{k}) - f(x^*)) < \infty$ to show the convergence of the iterate-average to the optimum. Since we know $\sum_{k=0}^\infty \alpha_k = \infty$, it follows directly that $\lim \inf_{k \rightarrow \infty} f(\bar{x}_{k}) = f(x^*)$. And due to the continuity of $f(x)$, we know that the sequence of iterate average must enter the optimal set $\mathcal{X}^*$ (i.e. $\bar{x}_{k} \in \mathcal{X}^*$). Since $\mathcal{X}^*$ is bounded (compactness in $\mathbb{R}^D$), we know that there exists a iterate-average subsequence $\bar{x}_{k_l} \subseteq \bar{x}_k$ that converges to some $x^* \in \mathcal{X}^*$.
We know from Claim~\ref{Cl:Consensus} that the agents agree to a parameter vector asymptotically (i.e. $x^J_{k} \rightarrow x^I_{k}, \ \forall I \neq J$ as $k \rightarrow \infty$). Hence, all agents agree to the iterate average. This along with the convergence of iterate-average to the optimal solution gives us that all agents converge to the optimal set $\mathcal{X}^*$ (i.e. $x^J_{k} \in \mathcal{X}^*, \ \forall J, \text{ as } k \rightarrow \infty$). $\hfill \blacksquare$
\end{proof}
\subsection{Extension} \label{Sec:Extensions}
A graph is called $Q$-connected, if agents form a connected component at least once every $Q$ iterations. We can relax the requirement on connectedness and easily make similar claims for a $Q$ connected graph (instead of Assumption~\ref{Asmp:DeltaConn}). Using the analysis technique developed above (also see \cite{gade16distoptclientserver}) and the analysis in \cite{ram2010distributed}, it is straightforward to show that Algorithm~\ref{Algo:IterDistOptNCFun} can optimize convex sum of non-convex functions as posed in Section~\ref{Sec:Problem} for $Q$-connected topology.
\section{Discussion}
In this report we show that distributed optimization algorithms (Algorithm~\ref{Algo:IterDistOptNCFun}) can correctly optimize a convex function with non-convex partitions. The analysis technique developed above easily allows for other extensions as mentioned above in Section~\ref{Sec:Extensions}.
\subsection{Privacy} \label{Sec:Privacy}
Privacy has emerged to become one of the most important and challenging aspect of machine learning and distributed optimization. We propose two methods that can enhance privacy in distributed optimization. Both methods can be easily shown to perform distributed optimization correctly using results and analysis techniques proposed in this report.
\subsubsection*{Function Partitioning}
The first approach to introduce privacy in distributed optimization is by constructing fictitious partitions of the individual objective function ($f_i(x)$). Further, these partitions are used in gradient descent step and several different state updates are created by an agent. Now these dissimilar states are shared with different neighbors. We show in Section~\ref{Sec:Motivation} that this strategy can be easily analyzed and proved to work correctly by using the analysis developed in this work. We hypothesize that selecting (and/or constructing) these function partitions dynamically can be a very successful strategy of introducing privacy in distributed optimization. Details about the strategy and privacy analysis for this strategy will be explored in a future technical report.
\subsubsection*{Random Function Sharing}
We propose an alternate privacy enhancing strategy inspired from secure multi-party aggregation algorithm in \cite{abbe2012privacy}. In this strategy, every agent $I$ sends a randomly generated deterministic function $R_{I,J}(x)$ to neighboring agents $J$. These transmissions are assumed to be secure. Hence, any agent $I_0$ has access to all randomly generated deterministic functions that it has transmitted ($R_{I_0,K}(x)$, for some $K$) and those that it has received ($R_{P,I_0}(x)$, for some $P$). The distributed optimization problem retains its structure with $f_i(x)$ being replaced by $\hat{f}_i(x)$,
$$\hat{f}_i(x) \triangleq f_i(x) + \sum_{P \ : \ i \in\mathcal{N}_P} R_{P,i}(x) - \sum_{K \in \mathcal{N}_i} R_{i,K}(x).$$
Note, since the randomly generated functions may not necessarily be convex, our new individual objective functions need not be convex.
It is not hard to see that the sum of all new individual functions ($\hat{f}_i(x)$) is equal to the sum of all old individual functions ($f_i(x)$). This follows from the fact that the randomly generated functions cancel out during aggregation of individual objective functions.
$$\sum_{i=1}^S \hat{f}_i(x) = \sum_{i=1}^S \left( f_i(x) + \sum_{P \ : \ i \in\mathcal{N}_P} R_{P,i}(x) - \sum_{K \in \mathcal{N}_i} R_{i,K}(x) \right) = \sum_{i=1}^S {f}_i(x)$$
Directly applying convergence results from this report, we can state that the distributed protocol in Algorithm~\ref{Algo:IterDistOptNCFun} with new individual objective function will solve the original problem (minimizing $f(x) = \sum_{i=1}^S f_i(x)$). Details about the strategy and privacy analysis for this strategy will be explored in a future technical report.
|
\section{Introduction}
It is widely accepted that the death of massive stars should trigger
core-collapse supernovae \citep[CCSNe;][]{Bethe90,Janka12} that can be
classified as types IIP, IIL, IIn, IIb, Ib and Ic \citep{Filippenko97}. In
the last two decades, some SNe Ic having broader P-Cygni profiles and
absorption troughs than normal SNe Ic were confirmed and nominated as
\textquotedblleft broad-lined SNe" \citep[SNe Ic-BL;][]{Woosley06}.
Some SNe Ic-BL are associated with gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) or X-ray flashes
\citep[XRFs;][]{Woosley06,Cano16}. The association of LGRBs with SNe Ic-BL
provides a unique channel to study the central engine of GRBs. Before the
discovery of SNe Ic-BL, the majority of conventional SNe has a kinetic
energy of $\sim 10^{51}\unit{erg}$, which is generally attributed to
neutrino energy deposition \citep{Woosley02,Janka12}. The huge amount of
kinetic energy of SNe Ic-BL, $\sim 10^{52}\unit{erg}$, poses an immediate
challenge to this canonical SN picture.
One way to generate such a tremendous kinetic energy is to assume that the
explosion remnant is a rapidly rotating magnetar
\citep{Wheeler00,Thompson04,Wang16b}, whose rotational energy is converted
as the kinetic energy of SNe Ic-BL. Indeed, it is found that the kinetic
energies of SNe Ic-BL associated with LGRBs are clustered at $10^{52}\unit
erg}$ with an upper limit of $\sim 2\times 10^{52}\unit{erg}$
\citep{Mazzali14}, namely the maximum rotational energy of magnetars. This
is a strong clue that GRB-SNe are powered by millisecond magnetars. In
addition, the light curve of SN 2011kl associated with the ultra-long GRB
111209A suggests the existence of magnetar because $^{56}$Ni is inadequate
to reproduce the observational data \citep{Greiner15}.
Light curve modeling of SNe Ic-BL indicates the synthesis of $^{56}$Ni as
massive as $M_{\mathrm{Ni}}=0.2-0.5M_{\odot }$, where $M_{\odot }$ is the
solar mass. However, theoretical studies found that it is very difficult to
synthesize $0.2M_{\odot }$ of $^{56}$Ni by a millisecond magnetar with
parameters given in the literature \citep{Nishimura15,Suwa15}. This conflict
is a big concern to accept the hypothesis that SNe Ic-BL are powered by
magnetars.
In arriving at the conclusion that SNe Ic-BL must have synthesized as
massive as $0.2-0.5M_{\odot }$ of $^{56}$Ni when modeling the SN light
curves, one usually assumes that the SN thermal energy comes exclusively
from the thermalization of the gamma-rays from the decay of $^{56}$Ni and
^{56}$Co. This assumption is correct if the thermalization of the (assumed)
magnetar spin-down power can be neglected compared to the energy deposition
from the decay of $^{56}$Ni and $^{56}$Co, as in the case of ordinary SNe Ic.
In the magnetar model for optical transients, it is well known that the
contribution of magnetar to the SN thermal emission dominates over other
(possible) energy sources in the case of superluminous SNe
\citep[SLSNe;][]{Kasen10,Woosley10,Chatzopoulos12,Chatzopoulos13,
Inserra13,Nicholl14,Metzger15,WangLiu16,WangWang15,Dai16,Kashiyama16}. Even
for luminous SNe, whose luminosities lie between normal SNe and SLSNe, the
contribution from magnetar dominates during the early times after SN
explosion \citep{WangWang2015b}.
SNe Ic-BL, though very energetic in aspects of their kinetic energy, are
much less luminous than SLSNe and luminous SNe and are comparable to or
slightly luminous than normal SNe Ic. Just for this reason it is believed
that the luminosities of SNe Ic-BL are the result of $^{56}$Ni heating. At
first glance this view seems correct because it is suggested that the
spin-down timescales of the magnetar powering the SNe Ic-BL are very short
so that the rotational energy of the magnetar is exhausted in accelerating
the SN ejecta and little is left to heat the SN \citep{Wang16b}. SLSNe
instead are so luminous because the spin-down timescales of the magnetars
are much longer so that a significant fraction of their rotational energy is
utilized to heat the SNe \citep{Wang16b}.
In view of the moderate luminosity of SNe Ic-BL and the fact that the
rotational energy of the magnetars cannot completely deposit as the kinetic
energy of the ejecta, we suspect that the magnetars could contribute to the
luminosity of SNe Ic-BL significantly and hence reduce the needed $^{56}$Ni.
If this is the case, the conflict of high mass $^{56}$Ni in modeling the SN
light curves and the low yield of $^{56}$Ni produced by the magnetar-driven
shock \citep{Nishimura15,Suwa15} can be solved. This is the motivation for
the work presented here. To this end we present our model in Section \re
{sec:model} and then apply it to two carefully selected SNe Ic-BL \ in
Section \ref{sec:results}. Implications of our findings are discussed in
Section \ref{sec:dis}.
\section{The Dynamic Model}
\label{sec:model}
To determine the fraction of the rotational energy of the magnetar that
deposits as the thermal energy of the SN, we need a model to deal with the
acceleration and heating of the SN ejecta by the magnetar spin-down power in
a self-consistent way. The kinetic energy of the SN is given by
\citep{Arnett82
\begin{equation}
E_{\mathrm{SN}}=\frac{3}{10}M_{\mathrm{ej}}v_{\mathrm{sc}}^{2},
\end{equation
where $M_{\mathrm{ej}}$ is the ejecta mass, the scale velocity $v_{\mathrm{s
}}$ evolves according to \citep{Wang16b
\begin{equation}
v_{\mathrm{sc}}=\left[ \left( \frac{5}{3}\right) \frac{2\left( E_{\mathrm{SN
,0}+E_{K,\mathrm{inp}}\right) }{M_{\mathrm{ej}}}\right] ^{1/2}.
\label{eq:v_t-evolution}
\end{equation
Here $E_{\mathrm{SN},0}$ is the initial kinetic energy of the SN and the
magnetar's kinetic energy input $E_{K,\mathrm{inp}}$ is given by the energy
conservation conditio
\begin{equation}
\frac{dE_{K,\mathrm{inp}}}{dt}=L_{K}-L, \label{eq:E_K_evolve}
\end{equation
where $L$ is the SN luminosity. In Equations $\left( \ref{eq:v_t-evolution
\right) $ and $\left( \ref{eq:E_K_evolve}\right) $ we neglect internal
energy because its effect is to change the effective mass of the ejecta,
which is negligibly small compared to the ejecta mass. The kinetic energy
input rate from the magnetar, $L_{K}$, is given b
\begin{equation}
L_{K}=L_{\mathrm{mag}}\left( t\right) \left( 1-e^{-\tau _{\gamma ,\mathrm{ma
}}}\right) , \label{eq:K_input_rate_mag}
\end{equation
where
\begin{equation}
L_{\mathrm{mag}}\left( t\right) =\frac{E_{\mathrm{sd}}}{\tau _{\mathrm{sd
}\left( 1+t/\tau _{\mathrm{sd}}\right) ^{2}}
\end{equation
is the spin-down power of the magnetar. Here $\tau _{\mathrm{sd}}=2.3\unit
days}R_{\ast ,6}^{-6}B_{p,14}^{-2}P_{0,-3}^{2}$ is the spin-down timescale
of the magnetar, $E_{\mathrm{sd}}=L_{\mathrm{sd},0}\tau _{\mathrm{sd}}$, $L_
\mathrm{sd},0}=10^{47}\unit{erg}\unit{s}^{-1}P_{0,-3}^{-4}B_{p,14}^{2}R_
\ast ,6}^{6}$ is the spin-down luminosity of the magnetar. Here the
convention $Q=10^{n}Q_{n}$ is adopted in the c.g.s. units. $R_{\ast }$,
P_{0}$, $B_{p}$ are the radius, initial rotational period, magnetic dipole
field of the magnetar, respectively. $\tau _{\gamma ,\mathrm{mag}}$ is the
optical depth of the ejecta to gamma-rays emitted by the spinning down
magnetar. The factor $\left( 1-e^{-\tau _{\gamma ,\mathrm{mag}}}\right) $ in
Equation $\left( \ref{eq:K_input_rate_mag}\right) $ is to take account for
the hard photon leakage from magnetar (\citealt{WangWang15}, see also
\citealt{Chen15}). Because the energy spectra of radioactive decay photons
and magnetar spin-down photons are different, two $\kappa _{\gamma }$'s,
namely the opacity to magnetar spin-down photons $\kappa _{\gamma ,\mathrm
mag}}$ and to radioactive decay photons $\kappa _{\gamma ,\mathrm{decay}}$
are used here. In this paper therefore three opacities are used, i.e. the
opacity to visible photons $\kappa $, the opacities to the $\gamma $-ray
photons from magnetars and radioactive decay photons, $\kappa _{\gamma
\mathrm{mag}}$ and $\kappa _{\gamma ,\mathrm{decay}}$, respectively. The
introduction of above equations is the key to determining the fraction of
the rotational energy of the magnetar that deposits as the thermal energy of
the SN.
The SN luminosity is given by \citep{Arnett82
\begin{equation}
L=\frac{E_{\mathrm{th}}\left( 0\right) }{\tau _{0}}\phi \left( t\right) ,
\label{eq:SN-L-no-recede}
\end{equation
where $E_{\mathrm{th}}\left( 0\right) $ is the initial thermal energy of the
SN, $\phi \left( t\right) $ evolves according t
\begin{equation}
\dot{\phi}=\frac{R\left( t\right) }{R\left( 0\right) }\left[ \frac{L_
\mathrm{inp}}\left( t\right) }{E_{\mathrm{th}}\left( 0\right) }-\frac{\phi }
\tau _{0}}\right] . \label{eq:SN-phi-dot-no-recede}
\end{equation
The diffusion timescale $\tau _{0}$ i
\begin{equation}
\tau _{0}=\frac{\kappa M_{\mathrm{ej}}}{\beta cR\left( 0\right) },
\label{eq:diffusion-time}
\end{equation
where $\beta \simeq 13.8$, and $R\left( t\right) $ is the SN radius at time
t$. The energy input $L_{\mathrm{inp}}\left( t\right) $ includes two
sources, i.e. $^{56}$Ni (plus $^{56}$Co) decay energy and magnetar spin-down
power
\begin{equation}
L_{\mathrm{inp}}\left( t\right) =L_{\mathrm{mag}}\left( t\right) \left(
1-e^{-\tau _{\gamma ,\mathrm{mag}}}\right) +L_{\mathrm{Ni}}\left( t\right)
\left( 1-e^{-\tau _{\gamma ,\mathrm{decay}}}\right)
\end{equation
wit
\begin{equation}
L_{\mathrm{Ni}}\left( t\right) =M_{\mathrm{Ni}}\left[ \left( \epsilon _
\mathrm{Ni}}-\epsilon _{\mathrm{Co}}\right) e^{-t/\tau _{\mathrm{Ni
}}+\epsilon _{\mathrm{Co}}e^{-t/\tau _{\mathrm{Co}}}\right] ,
\end{equation
where $\epsilon _{\mathrm{Ni}}=3.9\times 10^{10}\unit{erg}\unit{g}^{-1}\unit
s}^{-1}$, $\epsilon _{\mathrm{Co}}=6.78\times 10^{9}\unit{erg}\unit{g}^{-1
\unit{s}^{-1}$, $\tau _{\mathrm{Ni}}$ and $\tau _{\mathrm{Co}}$ are the
lifetime of $^{56}$Ni and $^{56}$Co, respectively. In deriving Equations
\left( \ref{eq:SN-L-no-recede}\right) $ and $\left( \re
{eq:SN-phi-dot-no-recede}\right) $ we assume that the injected energy is
trapped as internal energy.\footnote
This is an approximation because the injected energy should be divided into
internal energy of random motion and kinetic energy of directed motion. To
accurately determine how much fraction of the injected energy goes into
internal energy, one should carry out more elaborated calculation to take
account of the scattering of photons by electrons. Numerical simulations
indicate that a strong shock deposits its energy equally into directed
kinetic energy and random internal energy. Here we just assume that the
equations derived since the first formulation of the Arnett model is
reasonably correct so that we can utilize their result.}
In this model, the scale velocity $v_{\mathrm{sc}}$ is not a constant so
that Equation $\left( \ref{eq:SN-phi-dot-no-recede}\right) $ cannot be
expressed as an integration equation, as in the usual Arnett model. What we
can expect from Equation $\left( \ref{eq:E_K_evolve}\right) $ is the rapid
acceleration of the ejecta during early times when $L_{K}>L$. To efficiently
convert the rotational energy of the magnetar into SN kinetic energy, the
magnetar must deposit its rotational energy when the ejecta is very compact
so that its optical depth is essentially infinite. This condition can be
fulfilled only if the spin-down timescale is very short. On the other hand,
to make a bright SN, e.g. an SLSN, the magnetar must retain its rotational
energy for a much long time before the SN ejecta expand to a very large
distance. In this case, the ejecta gain little kinetic energy.
\section{Sample selection and Results}
\label{sec:results}
In this work we would like to avoid the SNe that show clear aspheric
expansion because the above analytic model assumes a homologous and
spherical expansion. In line with this criterion, we exclude GRB-SNe in this
work because any SN associated with a GRB is accompanied by a relativistic
jet and is therefore aspheric. Some SNe Ic-BL not associated with GRBs are
also aspheric because a non-negligible fraction of their ejecta is moving at
relativistic speed, e.g. SN 2009bb \citep{Pignata11} and SN 2012ap
\citep{Milisavljevic15}.
With the above criterion borne in mind, we searched the literature and found
that there are currently about ten SNe Ic-BL that are not associated with
GRBs and also do not show evidence for relativistic outflow.
As will be clear, assuming SNe Ic-BL are powered by magnetars, it is found
that the early-time light curves of SNe Ic-BL are mainly determined by the
parameters of magnetars, whereas the late-time light curves are determined
dominantly by the mass of $^{56}$Ni. To unambiguously evaluate the mass of
^{56}$Ni, we should select the SNe Ic-BL such that their observational data
extend at least to $>100\unit{days}$. By doing so we are sampling the decay
tail of $^{56}$Co because the lifetime of $^{56}$Co is $111.3\unit{days}$.
To accurately determine the parameters of the magnetars that powers the SNe
Ic-BL, there should be a good sampling in the observational data before the
maximum of the SN light curve.
With these two additional criteria we find we are left with two SNe Ic-BL,
namely SNe 1997ef \citep{Iwamoto00} and 2007ru \citep{Sahu09}. In the light
curve modeling of SNe Ic, the opacity $\kappa _{\gamma ,\mathrm{decay}}$ to
radioactive decay photons usually takes the value $\kappa _{\gamma ,\mathrm
decay}}\sim 0.025-0.027\unit{cm}^{2}\unit{g}^{-1}$
\citep[e.g.,][and
references therein]{WangWang2015b}. In Figures \ref{fig:1997ef} and \re
{fig:2007ru}, we show the light curves with $\kappa _{\gamma ,\mathrm{decay
}=0.027\unit{cm}^{2}\unit{g}^{-1}$, which evidently fail to reproduce the
light curves. One common feature of these two SNe is that their linear decay
phase is consistent with nearly full trapping of $^{56}$Co. Given this fact,
the $^{56}$Ni mass can be accurately determined by modeling the late-time
light curve of the SN because the contribution of magnetar at late times is
negligible for SNe Ic-BL \citep{Wang16b}. In the top panels of Figures \re
{fig:1997ef} and \ref{fig:2007ru} the solid lines are the synthesized light
curves assuming full trapping. The full trapping is not rare for SNe Ic
given that SN 2007bi also has a linear decay phase that is consistent with
full trapping \citep{Gal-Yam09}. This could indicate that these SNe have
some nontrivial density structure.
The ejecta mass $M_{\mathrm{ej}}$ can be determined by equating the light
curve rising time to the following effective diffusion timescale
\citep{Arnett82
\begin{equation}
\tau _{m}=\left( \frac{2\kappa M_{\mathrm{ej}}}{\beta cv_{\mathrm{ph}}
\right) ^{1/2}, \label{eq:tau_m-SN}
\end{equation
where $v_{\mathrm{ph}}\approx v_{\mathrm{sc}}$ is the photospheric velocity
of the SN. The optical opacity is fixed at $\kappa =0.1\unit{cm}^{2}\unit{g
^{-1}$ in this work. However, one should not equate $\tau _{m}$ with the
apparent rising time of SNe Ic-BL because their light curve cannot be
reproduced by pure $^{56}$Ni heating. Instead, one should isolate the $^{56}
Ni contribution from the apparent light curve, as demonstrated in Figures
\ref{fig:1997ef} and \ref{fig:2007ru} and equate $\tau _{m}$ to the rising
time of $^{56}$Ni contribution. One may be confused why we should
discriminate the rising times from $^{56}$Ni contribution and magnetar
contribution because Equations $\left( \ref{eq:SN-L-no-recede}\right) $ and
\left( \ref{eq:SN-phi-dot-no-recede}\right) $ do not care if the energy
input comes from the magnetar or the radioactive decay. Actually in deriving
Equation $\left( \ref{eq:tau_m-SN}\right) $ we implicitly assume that the
energy release timescale $\tau _{\mathrm{release}}$ is comparable to or
longer than the ejecta expansion timescale $\tau _{\exp }$, i.e. $\tau _
\mathrm{release}}\gtrsim \tau _{\exp }$. The reason that at time $\tau _{m}$
the luminosity reaches its peak is as follows. Physical intuition tells us
that the SN reaches peak luminosity when most of the available energy has
the right time to diffuse out of the SN and at the same time the SN expands
to a considerable distance so that its emitting surface is sufficiently
large. Then equating the diffusion timescale $\left( \ref{eq:diffusion-time
\right) $ to the expansion timescale $\tau _{\exp }=R\left( 0\right) /v_
\mathrm{sc}}$ immediately leads to the effective diffusion timescale $\left(
\ref{eq:tau_m-SN}\right) $.\footnote
More elaborated calculation gives the factor 2 in Equation $\left( \re
{eq:tau_m-SN}\right) $.} However, the condition $\tau _{\mathrm{release
}\gtrsim \tau _{\exp }$ is true for $^{56}$Ni decay, but not for magnetar
input, which has a release timescale $\tau _{\mathrm{sd}}\sim 10^{-3}\unit
days}$ for both SNe 1997ef and 2007ru. Because the magnetar releases its
energy in such a short time, the SN ejecta have no time to expand. As a
result, its peak luminosity occurs at the time when the magnetar release
most of its energy. In this aspect, the magnetar-powered SNe are more or
less similar to the explosive energy release found in some type II SNe where
the peak luminosity occurs at the time when the SNe explode \citep{Arnett80
. This analysis indicates that, depending on the relative relation of the
two timescales, $\tau _{\mathrm{release}}$ and $\tau _{\exp }$, the
magnetar-powered SN light curve could be similar to type I SNe or type II
SNe.
Given the ejecta mass, the kinetic energy of the SN can be evaluated. Here
we adopt the simple but quite plausible assumption that the kinetic energy
of the SN is exclusively injected by the rapidly spinning magnetar.
Consequently, the initial rotational period $P_{0}$ of the magnetar can be
determined. The magnetic dipole field of the magnetar, on the other hand,
could be determined by modeling the early-time light curve. In this way, the
four parameters in this model can all be tightly constrained.
\begin{figure}[tbph]
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth,angle=0]{1997ef.eps}
\caption{The light curve (top), the fraction of magnetar rotational energy
deposited as the kinetic energy of SN 1997ef (middle), and the internal
energy of the SN (bottom). In the top panel the solid line is the light
curve produced by taking account for the contribution from both magnetar and
$^{56}$Ni, while the dot-dashed line is the light curve by setting the mass
of $^{56}$Ni zero while other parameters are the same as that of the solid
line. The dot-dot-dashed line is the difference between solid line and the
dot-dashed line. The dark short-dashed line is the light curve with $\protec
\kappa _{\protect\gamma ,\mathrm{decay}}=0.027\unit{cm}^{2}\unit{g}^{-1}$.
Please note that the abscissa time scales in these panels are quite
different and the last panel is in logarithmic scale. The data points are
taken from \protect\cite{Iwamoto00}.}
\label{fig:1997ef}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbph]
\centering\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth,angle=0]{2007ru.eps}
\caption{The same as Figure \protect\ref{fig:1997ef} but for SN 2007ru. The
data points are taken from \protect\cite{Sahu09}.}
\label{fig:2007ru}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{fig:1997ef} and \ref{fig:2007ru} show the results of the
analytical model with best-fit parameters listed in Table \ref{tbl:para}. In
these fits, we adopt the widely used value $\kappa =0.1\unit{cm}^{2}\unit{g
^{-1}$ so that there are effectively four free parameters in this model.
From Figures \ref{fig:1997ef} and \ref{fig:2007ru} it is clear that the
contribution to the light curves from magnetars at late times is negligible.
\begin{table}[tbph]
\caption{Best-fit parameters for SNe 1997ef and 2007ru. In these fits, we
fix $\protect\kappa =0.1\unit{cm}^{2}\unit{g}^{-1}$.}
\label{tbl:para}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
SN & $M_{\mathrm{ej}}$ & $M_{\mathrm{Ni}}$ & $B_{p}$ & $P_{0}$ \\
\multicolumn{1}{l}{} & $\left( M_{\odot }\right) $ & $\left( M_{\odot
}\right) $ & $\left( 10^{16}\unit{G}\right) $ & $\left( \unit{ms}\right) $
\\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{l}{SN 1997ef} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$5.9$} & $0.056$ & $1.24$
& $2.25$ \\
\multicolumn{1}{l}{SN 2007ru} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{$4.43$} & $0.061$ & $0.62$
& $2.30$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular
\end{center}
\end{table}
Comparison of Figure \ref{fig:1997ef} with the $^{56}$Ni-powered light curve
\citep{Iwamoto00} immediately shows the superior fitting quality of the
light curve in Figure \ref{fig:1997ef}. It is worthy of mentioning that the
above analytical model, as a direct extension of the Arnett model
\citep{Arnett82}, is quite good at reproducing the light curve of a purely
^{56}$Ni-powered SN \citep{Arnett89}. When applying the pure $^{56}$Ni model
to SNe Ic-BL, the mass of $^{56}$Ni is determined by the peak luminosity of
the SN. But the $^{56}$Co tail modeling usually requires a much lower mass
of $^{56}$Ni. Hence an inconsistency appears. In other words, the poor
fitting quality of the pure $^{56}$Ni model is intrinsic for SNe Ic-BL.
Figures \ref{fig:1997ef} and \ref{fig:2007ru} indicate that the (assumed)
magnetars contribute dominantly to the early peaks of the light curves. This
is the key that the actually needed $^{56}$Ni, $M_{\mathrm{Ni}}\sim
0.06M_{\odot }$ for both SNe 1997ef and 2007ru, is much lower than a pure
^{56}$Ni model. It is also evident from these figures that the late-time
luminosities of these SNe dominantly come from the decay energy of $^{56}$Ni
and $^{56}$Co.
Table \ref{tbl:para} shows that the ejecta masses $M_{\mathrm{ej}}$ are
different from that given by the pure-$^{56}$Ni model, which favors the
ejecta masses $M_{\mathrm{ej}}=7.6M_{\odot }$ and $M_{\mathrm{ej
}=1.3M_{\odot }$ for SNe 1997ef \citep{Iwamoto00} and 2007ru \citep{Sahu09},
respectively. This difference is mainly because in this model the light
curve peak is not caused by $^{56}$Ni. It can be checked that the values
given in Table \ref{tbl:para} is consistent with Equation $\left( \re
{eq:tau_m-SN}\right) $ if we realize that $\tau _{m}$ should be set equal to
the rising time of $^{56}$Co contribution in Figures \ref{fig:1997ef} and
\ref{fig:2007ru}. In these figures the asymptotic expansion velocities are
set to $1.1\times 10^{4}\unit{km}\unit{s}^{-1}$ and $1.3\times 10^{4}\unit{k
}\unit{s}^{-1}$ for SNe 1997ef and 2007ru, respectively. It is curious that
the derived value $M_{\mathrm{ej}}=7.6M_{\odot }$ by \cite{Iwamoto00} for SN
1997ef is even larger than the value given in this work in spite of the fact
that the rising time in the pure-$^{56}$Ni model is shorter than the rising
time of $^{56}$Co contribution in Figure \ref{fig:1997ef}. We note that the
two models in \cite{Iwamoto00}, i.e. CO60 and CO100, are almost identical in
fitting the light curve of SN 1997ef, but give different values of ejecta
mass, $M_{\mathrm{ej}}=4.6M_{\odot }$ and $M_{\mathrm{ej}}=7.6M_{\odot }$,
respectively. One can check that $M_{\mathrm{ej}}=4.6M_{\odot }$ is
consistent with the light curve rising time if the optical opacity is taken
as $\kappa =0.1\unit{cm}^{2}\unit{g}^{-1}$. This may indicate the
uncertainty in the numerical modeling by \cite{Iwamoto00}.
The $^{56}$Ni yield determined in the pure-$^{56}$Ni model is $M_{\mathrm{Ni
}=0.15M_{\odot }$ and $M_{\mathrm{Ni}}=0.4M_{\odot }$ for these two SNe,
respectively. As we said, the yield $M_{\mathrm{Ni}}=0.4M_{\odot }$ is
hardly expected by the magnetar-driven shock $^{56}$Ni synthesis
\citep{Nishimura15,Suwa15}. In addition, what makes the pure-$^{56}$Ni model
for SN 2007ru more or less unrealistic is the derived ratio $M_{\mathrm{Ni
}/M_{\mathrm{ej}}\simeq 0.3$, in tension with the theoretical expectation,
which is predicted to be hardly larger than 0.2 \citep{Umeda08}.
In the middle panels of Figures \ref{fig:1997ef} and \ref{fig:2007ru} we
show the fraction of magnetar rotational energy deposited as the kinetic
energy of the SN ejecta. From these figures it is clear that most ($>99\%$)
of the rotational energy of the magnetars deposits as the kinetic energy of
the SN ejecta and only $<1\%$ of the rotational energy deposits to heat the
ejecta, which is in accord with the expectation \citep{Wang16b}.
To figure out why only $\sim 1\%$ of the rotational energy is enough to heat
the SNe Ic-BL to the observed luminosity, it is beneficial to compare the
rotational energy of the magnetar
\begin{equation}
E_{p}=2\times 10^{52}I_{45}P_{0,-3}^{-2}\unit{erg}
\end{equation
with the decay energy of $^{56}$Ni and $^{56}$C
\begin{equation}
E_{\mathrm{decay}}=1.88\times 10^{50}\frac{M_{\mathrm{Ni}}}{M_{\odot }}\unit
erg}.
\end{equation
Assuming that a fraction $\eta _{E}$ of the rotational energy of the
magnetar $E_{p}$ is converted to the thermal energy of the SN, then the
deposited thermal energy by the magnetar is equivalent to $^{56}$Ni of mas
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathrm{Ni}}=1.047I_{45}P_{0,-3}^{-2}\eta _{E,-2}M_{\odot },
\end{equation
where $\eta _{E}=0.01\eta _{E,-2}$. Because the needed masses of $^{56}$Ni
by the previous analysis are $0.2-0.5M_{\odot }$, it is evident that the
typical initial rotational period of the magnetars that powers the SNe Ic-BL
is $P_{0}\simeq 2\unit{ms}$, in agreement with the values given in Table \re
{tbl:para}.
The bottom panels of Figures \ref{fig:1997ef} and \ref{fig:2007ru} show the
evolution of the SN internal energy with initial value $10^{50}\unit{erg}$.
As expected, the SN internal energy increases only slightly despite the
tremendous energy injection rate $\gtrsim 10^{50}\unit{erg}\unit{s}^{-1}$
during the spin-down timescale $\sim 10^{-3}\unit{days}$. This is just why
the SNe Ic-BL powered by a rapidly spinning-down magnetar can gain the
formidable kinetic energy $\sim 10^{52}\unit{erg}$.
With the parameters in Table \ref{tbl:para}, it seems difficult to
understand how a magnetar with spin-down timescale as short as $\sim 10^{-3
\unit{days}$ can power an SN lasting for $\sim 20\unit{days}$. This can be
most easily understood by evaluating how much magnetar rotational energy is
left at the light curve peak time $t_{\mathrm{pk}}$. Because $t_{\mathrm{pk
}\gg T_{\mathrm{sd}}$, the energy left at time $t_{\mathrm{pk}}$ i
\begin{equation}
E=E_{0}\left( 1+\frac{t_{\mathrm{pk}}}{T_{\mathrm{sd}}}\right) ^{-1}\sim
10^{48}\unit{erg}E_{0,52}t_{\mathrm{pk},6}^{-1}T_{\mathrm{sd},2}.
\end{equation
This energy is just enough for most SNe Ic-BL with peak luminosity $\sim
10^{42}\unit{erg}\unit{s}^{-1}$ lasting for $\sim 10\unit{days}$.
In the analytical model \citep{Wang16b} it is expected that the magnetic
dipole field of the (assumed) magnetars that powers SNe Ic-BL is much
stronger than that powers SLSNe. This is evident from Table \ref{tbl:para}
that the best-fit magnetic dipole field of the magnetar is $B_{p}\sim 10^{16
\unit{G}$, whereas the magnetic field in the case of SLSNe is typically
B_{p}\sim 10^{14}\unit{G}$.
Finally, because of the high magnetic field strength $B_{p}\sim 10^{16}\unit
G}$ and the rapid spinning of the magnetar $P_{0}\simeq 2\unit{ms}$, the
^{56}$Ni with mass as low as $0.06M_{\odot }$ can be synthesized by the
magnetar model \citep{Suwa15}. It is clear from above analyses that a
self-consistent magnetar model for the SNe Ic-BL is established.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:dis}
Since their discovery, SNe Ic-BL pose an immediate challenge to the
classical SN light curve modeling because the later failed to simultaneously
reproduce the light curve around peak and the late-time linear decline. As a
plausible attempt, \cite{Maeda03} proposed a two-component model for SNe
Ic-BL in which the bright peak is produced by the fast-moving outer
component while the linear tail is attributed to the slower dense inner
component. Because the two-component model and the model presented here both
assume that the linear tail of the SNe Ic-BL light curve can be attributed
to $^{56}$Co decay, it would be beneficial to compare the $^{56}$Ni mass
inferred here with the inner component $^{56}$Ni mass inferred in the
two-component model. For SN 1997ef, \cite{Maeda03} gave the $^{56}$Ni mass
of the inner component $M_{\mathrm{Ni,inner}}=0.08M_{\odot }$, which is
close to our determination taking into account the different value of
\kappa $ adopted in these two works. We also note that for the
GRB-associated SN 1998bw, \cite{Maeda03} found $M_{\mathrm{Ni,inner
}=0.1M_{\odot }$, which is much smaller than the usually assumed value $M_
\mathrm{Ni}}\simeq 0.5M_{\odot }$. This justifies our finding that the
^{56} $Ni mass for the tail modeling is usually much smaller than the peak
modeling.
Our results have immediate stimulations for further research. First,
although here we have studied the SNe Ic-BL not associated with GRBs, the
main conclusion can be equally applied to GRB-SNe. It is usually believed
that the central engine of GRBs are black holes
\citep{Popham99,Narayan01,Kohri02,Liu07,Song16} or magnetars
\citep{Usov92,Dai98a,Dai98b,ZhangD08,ZhangD09,ZhangD10,Giacomazzo13,Giacomazzo15
. However, since it is currently infeasible to identify the GRB central
engine directly because of the cosmological distance scales of GRBs
\citep{Kumar15}, the researchers instead pursue indirect signatures of black
holes \citep{Geng13,Wu13,Yu15a} and magnetars
\citep{Dai06,Gao13a,WangLJ13,zhang13,Yu13,Metzger14,Wang15,Wang16a,Li16,Liu16}
that powers the energetic GRBs. Growing indirect observational evidence
suggests that magnetars could act as the central engine of both LGRBs and
SGRBs
\citep{Dai06,Rowlinson10,Rowlinson13,Dai12,WangLJ13,Wu14,Gao15,Greiner15}.
However, because of the high mass of $^{56}$Ni needed to heat the GRB-SNe,
magnetars are doubted as the candidate central engine of GRBs. With our
demonstration that this high mass of $^{56}$Ni is actually not the case,
such a concern is removed.\footnote
We note that \cite{CanoJohansson16} drew the conclusion that GRB-SNe are
powered by $^{56}$Ni decay under the assumption that the central engine of
GRB-SNe is a magnetar. In drawing this conclusion, \cite{CanoJohansson16}
assume that the mangetar's rotational energy is equally divided between GRB
afterglow and SN. This assumption is somewhat unjustified. At the least,
although the jet launching could be the result of the magnetar spin-down, it
seems more likely to be the result of accretion onto the magnetar
\citep{ZhangD08,ZhangD09,ZhangD10}. Furthermore, \cite{CanoJohansson16} do
not consider the origin of the kinetic energy of the GRB-SNe in their model.
If we accept the assumption that the huge amount of kinetic energy of the
GRB-SNe comes from the rotational energy of the magnetar, the initial
rotational period of the magnetar cannot be as long as given by \cit
{CanoJohansson16}. Finally, as we mentioned above, our conclusion that the
^{56}$Ni mass for the tail modeling is usually much smaller than the peak
modeling is consistent with the finding by \cite{Maeda03}.}
Second, it is still debated how the jet is launched by a rapidly rotating
magnetar. Comparison of SLSNe and SN Ic-BL may have some implications for
this open issue. Observation shows little evidence of jet associated with
SLSNe \citep{Leloudas15}, while some SNe Ic-BL are accompanied by GRB jets.
Even for those SNe Ic-BL not associated with GRBs, jets or aspheric
expansion are frequently observed. Because the initial rotational periods of
the magnetars that power SLSNe and SNe Ic-BL are similar, we hypothesize
that the magnetic field of the magnetar might be essential for the jet
launch given the fact that the magnetic field of magnetar that powers SNe
Ic-BL is much stronger than that powers SLSNe. This hypothesis relies on
future numerical simulations. We note, however, that \cite{Greiner15} found
the magnetic dipole field of the (assumed) magnetar powering
GRB111209A/SN2011kl to be only $\left( 6-9\right) \times 10^{14}\unit{G}$,
close to that powering SLSNe. This may indicate that strong magnetic field
is not a necessary condition for jet launch. Nevertheless, the contamination
by GRB afterglow and host galaxy background makes the GRB-SNe light curves
poorly sampled and parameter degeneracy could bias the fitting values, e.g.
the magnetic dipole field $B_{p}$ and the $^{56}$Ni masses.
Third, we find that the typical magnetic field of the (assumed) magnetars
that powers SNe Ic-BL is $10^{16}\unit{G}$, which is two orders of magnitude
stronger than the field of the magnetars that powers SLSNe, despite the fact
that they are both millisecond magnetars and are all formed during the core
collapse of massive progenitors. This implies that the magnetic
amplification mechanisms \citep{Mosta15} could be quite different. This
calls for more elaborated numerical simulations that take into account more
microphysical processes. The dipole field as strong as $10^{16}\unit{G}$ is
rare but achievable in theoretical aspects. It is expected that the collapse
of the iron core of the supernova progenitor first results in a
proto-neutron star (PNS). The differential rotation of PNS could amplify the
toroidal field to $\sim 10^{16}\unit{G}$ and above \citep{Wheeler00}.
Several magnetic field amplification mechanisms could operate, including the
linear amplification \citep{Dai06}, $\alpha $-$\Omega $ dynamo
\citep{Duncan92,Thompson93}, and magnetorotational instability
\citep{Balbus98}. The toroidal field could be amplified to $\sim 10^{17
\unit{G}$ before the buoyancy effect takes it to emerge from the neutron
star surface \citep{Kluzniak98,Dai06}. It is possible that the emerged
dipole field could be as strong as $\sim 10^{16}\unit{G}$.
In addition, because the \emph{bona fide} $^{56}$Ni yield is much lower than
previously thought, the kinetic energy-$^{56}$Ni mass relation
\citep{Mazzali13} should be substantially revised. By doing so some new
insights could be unveiled.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We thank the anonymous referee for his/her constructive comments. This work is supported
by the National Basic Research Program (\textquotedblleft 973" Program) of China under Grant
No. 2014CB845800 and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant
Nos. U1331202, 11573014, and 11322328). D.X. acknowledges the support of the
One-Hundred-Talent Program from the National Astronomical Observatories,
Chinese Academy of Sciences. X.F.W. was also partially supported by the
Youth Innovation Promotion Association (2011231), and the Strategic Priority
Research Program \textquotedblleft The Emergence of Cosmological
Structure\textquotedblright\ (grant No. XDB09000000) of the Chinese Academy
of Sciences.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Linearization techniques based on polynomial interpolation are becoming nowadays a standard way to solve numerically
nonlinear zerofinding problems for polynomials or more
generally for analytic functions \cite{AKT}. Since in many applications the interest is in the approximation of real zeros,
methods using Chebyshev--like expansions are usually employed. Alternatively, Lagrange interpolation at the roots of unity
can be considered. For a real function a straightforward modification of the classical approach \cite{Cor,law} yields a
structured companion pencil $\mathcal A(\lambda)=F-\lambda G$ where $F$ and $G$ are real $N\times N$ low rank corrections of unitary matrices.
The computation of the generalized eigenvalues of this pencil can be performed by means of the QZ algorithm \cite{WD}
suitably adjusted to work in
real arithmetic.
In this paper we propose a fast adaptation of the real QZ algorithm for computing the generalized eigenvalues of certain
$N\times N$ structured pencils using only $O(N)$ flops per iteration and $O(N)$ memory storage. Since in most cases it is reasonable to assume that the total number of iterations is a small multiple of $N$ (see e.g., \cite{W_eig}), we have a heuristic complexity estimate of $O(N^2)$ flops to compute all the eigenvalues.
The pencils $\mathcal A(\lambda)=F-\lambda G$,
$F, G\in \mathbb R^{N\times N}$,
we consider here satisfy two basic properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $F$ is upper Hessenberg and $G$ is upper triangular;
\item $F$ and $G$ are rank--one corrections of unitary matrices.
\end{enumerate}
We refer to such a pencil $\mathcal A(\lambda)$ as a companion--like pencil, since the class includes companion pencils as a special case.
Sometimes $\mathcal A(\lambda)$ is also denoted by $(F,G)\in \mathbb R^{N\times N}\times \mathbb R^{N\times N}$.
Let $(F_k,G_k)$, $k\geq 0$, $F_0=F, G_0=G$, be the sequence of matrix pairs (pencils)
generated by the real QZ algorithm starting from the companion--like pencil
$\mathcal A(\lambda)$. Single or double shifting is applied in the generic iteration $F_k\rightarrow F_{k+1}$ $G_k\rightarrow G_{k+1}$ in order to
carry out all the computations in real arithmetic. Whatever strategy is used, it is found that both $\mathcal A_k(\lambda)$ and
$\mathcal A_{k+1}(\lambda)$ are still companion--like pencils. As a consequence of this invariance we obtain that all the matrices involved in the
QZ iteration inherit a rank structure in their upper triangular parts. This makes it possible to represent $F_k, G_k$ and $F_{k+1}, G_{k+1}$ as data--sparse
matrices specified by a number of parameters (called generators) which is linear w.r.t. the size of the matrices. This general principle has been applied, for instance, in \cite{AMRVW} and \cite{last}.
In this paper we introduce a convenient set of generators
and design a structured variant of the real QZ
iteration which takes in input the generators of $F_k$ and $G_k$ together with the shift parameters and returns as output the generators of
$F_{k+1}$ and $G_{k+1}$. It is shown that the arithmetic cost for each iteration is $O(N)$ using linear memory storage. Numerical experiments
confirm the effectiveness and the robustness of the resulting eigensolver.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:2}
we set up the scene by introducing the matrix problem and its basic properties.
In Section \ref{sec:3} we define an appropriate set of generators for the matrices involved.
In Section \ref{sec:4} we design the fast adaptation of the QZ algorithm using these generators and exploiting
the resulting data--sparse representations. We focus here on double shifting, since the single shifted iteration
has been already devised in \cite{last}. A proof of the correctness of the algorithm is given in Appendix.
Finally, in Section \ref{sec:5} we show the results of numerical experiments, whereas conclusion and future work are presented in Section \ref{sec:6}.
\section{The Problem Statement}\label{sec:2}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Companion pencils and companion--like pencils expressed in the
Lagrange basis at the roots of unity are specific instances of the
following general class.
\begin{definition}\label{pn}
The matrix pair $(A,B)$, $A, B\in \mathbb R^{N\times N}$, belongs to the
class
$\mathcal P_N \subset \mathbb R^{N\times N} \times \mathbb R^{N\times N}$
of companion--like pencils
iff:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $A\in \mathbb R^{N\times N}$ is upper Hessenberg;
\item $B\in \mathbb R^{N\times N}$ is upper triangular;
\item There exist two vectors $\B z\in \mathbb R^N$ and $\B w\in \mathbb R^N$
and an orthogonal matrix $V\in \mathbb R^{N\times N}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{a}
A=V-\B z \B w^*;
\end{equation}
\item There exist two vectors $\B p\in\mathbb R^N$ and $\B q\in\mathbb R^N$ and
an orthogonal matrix $U\in \mathbb R^{N\times N}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{b}
B=U-\B p \B q^*.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
In order to characterize the individual properties of the matrices $A$ and $B$
we give some additional definitions.
\begin{definition}\label{bn}
We denote by ${\mathcal T}_{N}$ the class of upper triangular matrices
$B\in \mathbb R^{N\times N}$ that are rank-one perturbations of orthogonal
matrices, i.e., such that \eqref{b} holds for a suitable orthogonal matrix $U$
and vectors $\B p, \B q$.
\end{definition}
Since $B$ is upper triangular the strictly lower triangular part of the
orthogonal matrix $U$ in \eqref{b} coincides with the corresponding part of the
rank one matrix $\B p \B q^*$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{semop23}
U(i,j)= p(i) q^*(j),\quad 1\le j<i\le N,
\end{equation}
where $\{p(i)\}_{i=1,\ldots,N}$ and $\{q(j)\}_{j=1,\ldots,N}$ are the entries
of $\B p$ and $\B q$, respectively.
\begin{definition}\label{un}
We denote by ${\mathcal U}_{N}$ the class of orthogonal matrices
$U\in \mathbb R^{N\times N}$ that satisfy the condition \eqref{semop23}, i.e.,
for which there exist vectors $\B p, \B q$ such that
the matrix $B=U-\B p \B q^*$ is an upper triangular matrix.
\end{definition}
Observe that we have
\[
U\in {\mathcal U}_{N} \Rightarrow
{\rm rank}\, U(k+1\colon N,1\colon k)\le 1, \quad k=1,\dots,N-1.
\]
From the nullity theorem \cite{FM}, see also \cite[p.142]{EGH1}, it follows
that the same property also holds in the strictly upper triangular part,
namely,
\begin{equation}\label{setp26}
U\in {\mathcal U}_{N} \Rightarrow
{\rm rank}\, U(1\colon k, k+1 \colon N)\le 1, \quad k=1,\dots,N-1.
\end{equation}
\begin{definition}\label{hn}
We denote by ${\mathcal H}_{N}$ the class of upper Hessenberg matrices
$A\in \mathbb R^{N\times N}$ that are rank one perturbations of orthogonal
matrices, i.e., such that \eqref{a} holds for a suitable orthogonal matrix $V$
and vectors $\B z, \B w$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{qn}
We denote by ${\mathcal V}_{N}$ the class of orthogonal matrices
$V\in \mathbb R^{N\times N}$ for which there exist vectors $\B z,\B w$ such
that the matrix $A=V-\B z \B w^*$ is an upper Hessenberg matrix.
\end{definition}
We find that
\[
V\in {\mathcal V}_{N} \Rightarrow
{\rm rank}\, V(k+2\colon N,1\colon k)\le 1, \quad k=1,\dots,N-2.
\]
Again from the nullity theorem it follows that a similar property also
holds in the upper triangular part, namely,
\begin{equation}\label{setp27}
V\in {\mathcal V}_{N} \Rightarrow
{\rm rank}\, V(1\colon k, k \colon N)\le 2, \quad k=1,\dots,N.
\end{equation}
In this paper we consider the problem of efficiently computing the (generalized) eigenvalues of a
companion--like matrix pencil $ (A,B)\in \mathcal P_N$ by exploiting the rank and banded structures
of the matrix classes mentioned above.
The QZ algorithm is the customary method for solving generalized eigenvalue
problems numerically by means of unitary transformations
(see e.g. \cite{GVL} and \cite{WD}).
For the pair $(A,B)$ in Hessenberg/triangular form the implicit QZ step consists in the computation of
unitary matrices $Q$ and $Z$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{sten21}
A_1=Q^*AZ\;\mbox{is upper Hessenberg},\;
B_1=Q^*BZ\;\mbox{is upper triangular}
\end{equation}
and some initial conditions hold.
For the QZ iteration applied to a real matrix pair with double shifting the initial condition is
\begin{equation}\label{semer22d}
(Q^*p(A B^{-1}))(:,2:N)=0,
\end{equation}
where $p(z)=\alpha + \beta z +\gamma z^2 $ is the shift polynomial.
In this case one obtains the orthogonal Hessenberg matrices $Q$ and $Z$ in the
form
\begin{equation}\label{smap22d}
Q=\tilde Q_1\tilde Q_2\cdots\tilde Q_{N-2}\tilde Q_{N-1},\quad
Z=\tilde Z_1\tilde Z_2\cdots\tilde Z_{N-2}\tilde Z_{N-1},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{smip22d}
\begin{gathered}
\tilde Q_i=I_{i-1}\oplus Q_i\oplus I_{N-i-2},\;i=1,\dots,N-2,\quad
\tilde Q_{N-1}=I_{N-2}\oplus Q_{N-1},\\
\tilde Z_i=I_{i-1}\oplus Z_i\oplus I_{N-i-2},\;i=1,\dots,N-2,\quad
\tilde Z_{N-1}=I_{N-2}\oplus Z_{N-1}
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
and $Q_i,Z_i,\;i=1,\dots,N-2$ are $3\times3$ orthogonal matrices, $Q_{N-1},
Z_{N-1}$ are real Givens rotations.
Since the Hessenberg/triangular
form is preserved under the QZ iteration an easy computation then yields
\begin{equation}\label{qzss}
(A,B)\in \mathcal P_N, \ (A,B)\overset{{\rm QZ \ step}}
\rightarrow (A_1,B_1) \Rightarrow (A_1,B_1)\in \mathcal P_N.
\end{equation}
Indeed if $Q$ and $Z$ are unitary then from (\ref{a}) and (\ref{b}) it follows
that the matrices $A_1=Q^*AZ$ and $B_1=Q^*BZ$ satisfy the relations
$$
A_1=V_1-\B z_1\B w_1^*,\quad B_1=U_1-\B p_1\B q_1^*
$$
with the unitary matrices $V_1=Q^*VZ,\;U_1=Q^*UZ$ and the vectors
$\B z_1=Q^*z,\;\B w_1=Z^*w,\;\B p_1=Q^*p,\;\B q_1=Z^*q$. Moreover one can
choose the unitary matrices $Q$ and $Z$ such that the matrix $A_1$ is upper
Hessenberg and the matrix $B_1$ is upper triangular.
Thus, one can in principle think of designing a structured QZ iteration
that, given in input a condensed representation of the matrix pencil
$(A,B)\in \mathcal P_N$, returns as output a condensed representation of
$(A_1,B_1)\in \mathcal P_N$ generated by one step of the classical QZ algorithm
applied to $(A,B)$. In the next sections we first introduce an eligible
representation of a rank-structured matrix pencil $(A,B)\in \mathcal P_N$ and
then discuss the modification of this representation under the QZ process.
\section{Quasiseparable Representations}\label{sec:3}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section we exploit the properties of quasiseparable
representations of rank--structured matrices \cite{EGfirst},
\cite[Chapters 4,5]{EGH1}.
First we recall some general results and definitions. Subsequently,
we describe their adaptations
for the representation of the matrices involved in the structured QZ
iteration applied to an input
matrix pencil $(A,B)\in \mathcal P_N$.
A matrix $M=\{M_{ij}\}_{i,j=1}^N$ is {\em $(r^L,r^U)$-quasiseparable}, with
$r^L, r^U$ positive integers, if, using MATLAB\footnote{MATLAB is a registered
trademark of The Mathworks, Inc..} notation,
\begin{gather*}
\max_{1\leq k\leq N-1}{\rm rank}\,(M(k+1:N,1:k))\leq r^L,\\
\max_{1\leq k\leq N-1}{\rm rank}\,(M(1:k,k+1:N))\leq r^U.
\end{gather*}
Roughly speaking, this means that every submatrix extracted from the lower
triangular part of $M$ has rank at most $r^L$, and every submatrix extracted
from the upper triangular part of $M$ has rank at most $r^U$. Under this
hypothesis, $M$ can be represented using $\mathcal{O}(((r^L)^2+(r^U)^2) N)$ parameters.
In this section we present such a representation.
The quasiseparable representation of a rank--structured matrix consists of a
set of vectors and matrices used to generate its entries. For the sake of
notational simplicity and clarity, generating matrices and vectors are denoted by a
roman lower-case letter.
In this representation, the entries of $M$ take the form
\begin{equation}\label{qs1}
M_{ij}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
p(i)a_{ij}^{>}q(j),&1\le j<i\le N,\\
d(i),&1\le i=j\le N,\\
g(i)b_{ij}^{<}h(j),&1\le i<j\le N\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
where:
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] $p(2),\ldots,p(N)$ are row vectors of length $r^L$,
$q(1),\ldots,q(N-1)$ are column vectors of length $r^L$, and
$a(2),\ldots,a(N-1)$ are matrices of size $r^L\times r^L$; these are called
{\em lower quasiseparable generators} of order $r^L$;
\item[-] $d(1),\ldots,d(N)$ are numbers (the diagonal entries),
\item[-] $g(2),\ldots,g(N)$ are row vectors of length $r^U$,
$h(1),\ldots,h(N-1)$ are column vectors of length $r^U$, and
$b(2),\ldots,b(N-1)$ are matrices of size $r^U\times r^U$; these are called
{\em upper quasiseparable generators} of order $r^U$;
\item[-]
the matrices $a_{ij}^{>}$ and $b_{ij}^{<}$ are defined as
\[
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}a_{ij}^{>}=a(i-1)\cdots
a(j+1) \ {\rm for}\ i>j+1;\\ a_{j+1,j}^{>}=1
\end{array}\right.
\]
and
\[
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
b_{ij}^{<}=b(i+1)\cdots
b(j-1) \ {\rm for} \ j>i+1; \\
b_{i,i+1}^{<}=1.
\end{array}\right.
\]
\end{itemize}
From (\ref{setp26}) it follows that any matrix from the class
${\mathcal U}_{N}$ has upper quasiseparable generators with orders equal to one.
The quasiseparable representation can be generalized to the case where $M$ is
a block matrix, and to the case where the generators do not all have the same
size, provided that their product is well defined. Each block $M_{ij}$ of size
$m_i\times n_j$ is represented as in \eqref{qs1}, except that the sizes of the
generators now depend on $m_i$ and $n_j$, and possibly on the index of $a$ and
$b$. More precisely:
\begin{itemize}
\item[-]
$p(i), q(j), a(k)$ are matrices of sizes $m_i\times
r^L_{i-1},\;r^L_j\times n_j,\; r^L_k\times r^L_{k-1}$,
respectively;
\item[-]
$d(i)\;(i=1,\dots,N)$ are $m_i\times n_i$ matrices,
\item[-]
$g(i),h(j),b(k)$ are matrices of sizes
$m_i\times r^U_i,\;r^U_{j-1}\times n_j,\; r^U_{k-1}\times r^U_k$,
respectively.
\end{itemize}
The numbers $r^L_k,r^U_k\;(k=1,\dots,N-1)$ are called the {\it orders}
of these generators.
It is worth noting that lower and upper quasiseparable generators of a matrix
are not uniquely defined. A set of generators with minimal orders can be
determined according to the ranks of maximal submatrices located in the lower
and upper triangular parts of the matrix.
One advantage of the block representation for the purposes of the present paper
consists in the fact that $N\times N$ upper Hessenberg matrices can be treated
as $(N+1)\times (N+1)$ block upper triangular ones by choosing block sizes as
\begin{equation}\label{aprmn18s}
m_1=\dots=m_N=1,\;m_{N+1}=0,\quad
n_1=0,\;n_2=\dots=n_{N+1}=1.
\end{equation}
Such a treatment allows also to consider quasiseparable representations which
include the main diagonals of matrices. Assume that $C$ is an $N\times N$
scalar
matrix with the entries in the upper triangular part represented in the form
\begin{equation}\label{appr18}
C(i,j)=g(i)b^<_{i-1,j}h(j),\quad 1\le i\le j\le N
\end{equation}
with matrices $g(i),h(i)\;(i=1,\dots,N),\;b(k)\;(k=1,\dots,N-1)$ of sizes
$1\times r_i,r_i\times1,r_k\times r_{k+1}$. The elements $g(i),h(i)\;
(i=1,\dots,N),\;b(k)\;(k=1,\dots,N-1)$ are called {\it upper triangular
generators} of the matrix $C$ with orders $r_k\;(k=1,\dots,N)$.
From (\ref{setp27}) it follows that any matrix from the class
${\mathcal V}_{N}$ has upper triangular generators
with orders not greater than two.
If we treat a matrix $C$ as a block one with entries if sizes (\ref{aprmn18s})
we conclude
that the elements $g(i)\;(i=1,\dots,N),\;h(j-1)\;(j=2,\dots,N+1),\;b(k-1)\;
(k=2,\dots,N)$ are upper quasiseparable generators of $C$.
Matrix operations involving zero-dimensional arrays (empty matrices) are
defined according to the rules used in MATLAB and described in \cite{deBoor}.
In particular, the product of
a $m\times 0$ matrix by a $0\times m$ matrix is a $m\times m$ matrix with all
entries equal to 0.
Empty matrices may be used in assignment statements as a convenient way to add
and/or delete rows or columns of matrices.
\subsection{{\bf Representations of matrix pairs from the class
${\mathcal P}_{N}$}}\label{psec}
Let $(A,B)$ be a matrix pair from the class ${\mathcal P}_{N}$.
The corresponding matrix $A$ from the class ${\mathcal H}_{N}$ is completely
defined by the following parameters:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the subdiagonal entries $\sigma^A_k\;(k=1,\dots,N-1)$ of the matrix $A$;
\item the upper triangular generators $g_V(i),h_V(i)\;(i=1,\dots,N),\;
b_V(k)\;(k=1,\dots,N-1)$ of the corresponding unitary matrix $V$ from the class
${\mathcal V}_N$;
\item the vectors of perturbation $\B z={\rm col}(z(i))_{i=1}^N,\;
\B w={\rm col}(w(i))_{i=1}^N$.
\end{enumerate}
From \eqref{setp27} it follows that
the matrix $V\in \mathcal V_N$ has upper triangular generators with orders
not greater than two.
The corresponding matrix $B$ from the class ${\mathcal T}_{N}$ is completely
defined by the following parameters:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the diagonal entries $d_B(k)\;(k=1,\dots,N)$ of the matrix $B$;
\item the upper quasiseparable generators $g_U(i)\;(i=1,\dots,N-1),\;
h_U(j)\;(j=2,\dots,N)$,
$b_U(k)\;(k=2,\dots,N-1)$ of the corresponding unitary
matrix $U$ from the class ${\mathcal U}_N$;
\item the vectors of perturbation $\B p={\rm col}(p(i))_{i=1}^N,\;
\B q={\rm col}(q(i))_{i=1}^N$.
\end{enumerate}
From \eqref{setp26} it follows that
the matrix $U\in \mathcal U_N$ has upper quasiseparable generators with orders
equal one.
All the given parameters define completely the matrix pair $(A,B)$ from the
class $\mathcal P_N$. Updating of these parameters while keeping the minimal
orders of generators is a task of the fast QZ iteration described in the next section.
\section{A fast implicit double shifted QZ iteration via generators}\label{sec:4}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section we present our fast adaptation of the double--shifted QZ algorithm for a
matrix pair $(A,B)\in \mathcal P_N$. The algorithm takes in input a quasiseparable representation of the
matrices $A$ and $B$ together with the coefficients of the real quadratic shift polynomial and it returns as output a
possibly not minimal quasiseparable representation of the matrices $(A_1,B_1)\in \mathcal P_N$ such that
\eqref{qzss} holds. The algorithm computes the unitary matrices $Q_i$ and $Z_i$ defined in
\eqref{smip22d}. It basically splits into the following four stages:
\begin{enumerate}
\item a {\bf preparative phase} where $Q_1$ is found so as to satisfy the shifting condition;
\item the {\bf chasing the bulge} step where the unitary matrices $Q_2, \ldots, Q_{N-2}$ and
$Z_1, \ldots, Z_{N-3}$ are determined in such a way to perform the Hessenberg/triangular reduction procedure;
\item a {\bf closing} phase where the last three transformations $Q_{N-1}$, $Z_{N-2}$ and $Z_{N-1}$ are carried out;
\item the final stage of {\bf recovering the generators} of the updated pair.
\end{enumerate}
For the sake of brevity the stage 2 and 3 are grouped together by using empty and zero quantities when needed.
The correctness of the algorithm is proved in the Appendix.
Some technical details concerning shifting strategies and shifting
techniques are discussed in the section on numerical experiments. Compression of generators
yielding minimal representations can be achieved by using the methods devised in
\cite{last}. The incorporation of these compression schemes does not alter the complexity of the main algorithm
shown below.
\vspace{10pt}
\centerline{{\bf ALGORITHM}: Implicit QZ iteration for companion--like pencils with double shift}
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\bf INPUT}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the subdiagonal entries
$\sigma^A_k\;(k=1,\dots$,$N-1)$ of the matrix $A$;
\item the upper triangular generators
$g_V(i),h_V(i)\;(i=1,\dots,N),\;b_V(k)\;(k=1,\dots,N-1)$ with orders
$r_k^V\;(k=1,\dots,N)$ of the matrix $V$;
\item the diagonal entries $d_B(k)\;
(k=1,\dots,N)$ of the matrix $B$;
\item the upper quasiseparable generators
$g_U(i)\;(i=1,\dots,N-1),\;h_U(j)\;(j=2,\dots,N),\;b_U(k)\;
(k=2,\dots,N-1)$ with orders $r^U_k\;(k=1,\dots,N-1)$ of the matrix $U$;
\item the perturbation vectors
$\B z={\rm col}(z(i))_{i=1}^N$, $\B w={\rm col}(w(i))_{i=1}^N$,
$\B p={\rm col}(p(i))_{i=1}^N$, $\B q={\rm col}(q(i))_{i=1}^N$;
\item the coefficients of the shift polynomial $p(z)=\alpha + \beta z +\gamma z^2 \in \mathbb R[z]$;
\end{enumerate}
\item {\bf OUTPUT}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the subdiagonal entries
$\sigma^{A_1}_k\;(k=1,\dots,N-1)$ of the matrix $A_1$;
\item upper triangular generators
$g^{(1)}_V(i),h^{(1)}_V(i)\;(i=1,\dots,N),\;b^{(1)}_V(k)\;(k=1,\dots,N-1)$
of the matrix $V_1$;
\item the diagonal entries $d^{(1)}_B(k)\;(k=1,\dots,N)$ of the matrix $B_1$;
\item upper quasiseparable
generators $g^{(1)}_U(i)\;(i=1,\dots,N-1),\;h^{(1)}_U(j)\;(j=2,\dots,N),\;
b^{(1)}_U(k)\;(k=2,\dots,N-1)$ of the matrix $U_1$;
\item perturbation vectors
$\B z_1={\rm col}(z^{(1)}(i))_{i=1}^N,\;\B w_1={\rm col}(w^{(1)}(i))_{i=1}^N,\;
\B p_1={\rm col}(p^{(1)}(i))_{i=1}^N,\;\B q_1={\rm col}(q^{(1)}(i))_{i=1}^N$;
\end{enumerate}
\item{\bf COMPUTATION}:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Preparative Phase}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Compute $\B s=(p(A B^{-1})\B e_1)(1\colon 3)$
and determine the $3\times3$ orthogonal matrix $Q_1$ from the condition
\begin{equation}\label{fe218}
Q_1^*\B s=
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\times&0&0\end{array}\right)^*.
\end{equation}
\item Compute
\begin{equation}\label{parq18d}
\left(\begin{array}{c}\tilde g_V(3)\\\beta^V_3\end{array}\right)=
Q_1^*
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}g_V(1)h_V(1)&g_V(1)b_V(1)h_V(2)&g_V(1)b_V(1)b_V(2)\\
\sigma^V_1&g_V(2)h_V(2)&g_V(2)b_V(2)\\z(3)w(1)&\sigma_2^V&g_V(3)\end{array}\right)
\end{equation}
and determine the matrices $f^V_3,\phi^V_3$ of sizes $2\times2,2\times r^V_3$ from
the partition
\begin{equation}\label{pra182d}
\beta^V_3=\left[\begin{array}{cc}f^V_3&\phi^V_3\end{array}\right].
\end{equation}
\item Compute
\begin{equation}\label{feura21}
\left(\begin{array}{c}z^{(1)}(1)\\\chi_3\end{array}\right)=
Q_1^* \left(\begin{array}{c} z(1)\\z(2)\\z(3)\end{array}\right),
\quad
\gamma_2=\left(\begin{array}{c} w(1)\\w(2)\end{array}\right)
\end{equation}
with the number $z^{(1)}$ and two-dimensional columns $\chi_3,\gamma_2$.
Compute
\begin{equation}\label{janj11f}
f^A_3=f^V_3-\chi_3\gamma_2^*,\quad \varphi_3^A=\phi^V_3.
\end{equation}
\item Set
\begin{equation}\label{oct141d}
c_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}p(1)\\p(2)\end{array}\right),\quad
\theta_1=q(1),\;\theta_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}q(1)\\q(2)\end{array}\right).
\end{equation}
Compute
\begin{equation}\label{lyutf22d}
d_U(1)=d_B(1)+p(1)q(1),\quad d_U(2)=d_B(2)+p(2)q(2)
\end{equation}
and set
\begin{equation}\label{octo14.1d}
f^U_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}d_U(1)&g_U(1)h_U(2)\\p(2)q(1)&d_U(2)\end{array}\right),\;
\phi^U_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}g_U(1)b_U(2)\{\gamma}_U(2)\end{array}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{liufm12}
\varepsilon=g_U(1)h_U(2)-p(1)q(2),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{oct14.1d}
f^B_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}d_B(1)&\varepsilon\\0&d_B(2)\end{array}\right),\;
\varphi^B_2=\phi^U_2.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\item {\bf Chasing the Bulge} For $k=1,\dots,N-1$ perform the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\em (Apply $Q_k$ and determine $Z_k$).} Compute the two-dimensional column $\varepsilon_{k+1}^B$ via
\begin{equation}\label{jll8od}
\varepsilon^B_{k+1}=\varphi^B_{k+1}h_U(k+2)-c_{k+1}q(k+2),
\end{equation}
and the $3\times3$ matrix $\Phi_k$ by the formula
\begin{equation}\label{lmay2ujod}
\Phi_k=Q_k^*\left(\begin{array}{cc}f^B_{k+1}&\varepsilon^B_{k+1}\\0&d_B(k+2)\end{array}\right).
\end{equation}
Determine the $3\times3$ orthogonal matrix $Z_k$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{imay2ujod}
\Phi_k(2:3,:)Z_k=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0&\times&\times\\0&0&\times\end{array}\right).
\end{equation}
\item {\em (Determine $Q_{k+1}$).} Compute the column
\begin{equation}\label{ep}
\epsilon^A_{k+2}=\varphi_{k+2}^Ah_V(k+2)-\chi_{k+2}w(k+2)
\end{equation}
and the $3\times3$ matrix $\Omega_k$ by the formula
\begin{equation}\label{aprl18d}
\Omega_k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}f^A_{k+2}&\epsilon^A_{k+2}\\0&\sigma^A_{k+2}\end{array}\right)Z_k.
\end{equation}
Determine the $3\times3$ orthogonal matrix $Q_{k+1}$ and the number
$(\sigma^A_k)^{(1)}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{aprle18d}
Q^*_{k+1}\Omega_k(:,1)=\left(\begin{array}{c}(\sigma^A_k)^{(1)}\\0\\0\end{array}\right).
\end{equation}
\item {\em (Update generators for $U$ and $B$).} Compute
\begin{equation}\label{na}
d_U(k+2)=d_B(k+2)+p(k+2)q(k+2),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{liufre20d}
\begin{gathered}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}\tilde d_U(k+2)&\tilde g_U(k+2)\\\times&\beta^U_{k+2}\end{array}\right)
=Q_k^* \ \tilde U_k \ \left(\begin{array}{cc}Z_k&0\\0&I_{r^U_{k+2}}\end{array}\right)
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where
\[
\tilde U_k=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}f^U_{k+1}&\phi^U_{k+1}h_U(k+2)&\phi^U_{k+1}b_U(k+2)\\
p(k+2)\theta^*_{k+1}&d_U(k+2)&g_U(k+2)\end{array}\right)
\]
and determine the matrices $f^U_{k+2},\phi^U_{k+2}$ of
sizes $2\times2,2\times r^U_{k+2}$ from the partition
\begin{equation}\label{fevra20d}
{\beta}^U_{k+2}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}f^U_{k+2}&\phi^U_{k+2}\end{array}\right].
\end{equation}
Compute
\begin{equation}\label{liufg20d}
\begin{gathered}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}\tilde h_U(k+2)&\tilde b_U(k+2)\end{array}\right)=\\
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}I_2&0&0\\0&h_U(k+2)&b_U(k+2)\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}Z_k&0\\0&I_{r^U_{k+2}}\end{array}\right).
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
Compute
\begin{equation}\label{feura21d}
\begin{gathered}
\left(\begin{array}{c}p^{(1)}(k)\\c_{k+2}\end{array}\right)=
Q^*_k\left(\begin{array}{c}c_{k+1}\\p(k+2)\end{array}\right) \\
\left(\begin{array}{c}q^{(1)}(k)\\\theta_{k+2}\end{array}\right)=
Z^*_k\left(\begin{array}{c}\theta_{k+1}\\q(k+2)\end{array}\right)
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
with the numbers $p^{(1)}(k),q^{(1)}(k)$ and two-dimensional columns
$c_{k+2},\theta_{k+2}$.
Compute
\begin{equation}\label{fegre21d}
f^B_{k+2}=f^U_{k+2}-c_{k+2}\theta^*_{k+2},\quad\varphi^B_{k+2}=\phi^U_{k+2}.
\end{equation}
\item {\em (Update generators for $V$ and $A$).} Compute
\begin{equation}\label{jll8o}
\sigma^V_{k+2}=\sigma^A_{k+2}+z(k+3)w(k+2),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{leap18d}
\begin{gathered}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}\tilde d_V(k+3)&\tilde g_V(k+3)\\\times&\beta^V_{k+3}\end{array}\right)=\\
Q^*_{k+1} \ \tilde V_{k+2} \
\left(\begin{array}{cc}Z_k&0\\0&I_{r^V_{k+3}}\end{array}\right),
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where
\[
\tilde V_{k+2}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}f^V_{k+2}&\phi^V_{k+2}h_V(k+2)&\phi^V_{k+2}b_V(k+2)\\
z(k+3)\gamma^*_{k+1}&\sigma^V_{k+2}&g_V(k+3)\end{array}\right).
\]
Determine the matrices $f^V_{k+3},\phi^V_{k+3}$ of sizes
$2\times2,2\times r^V_{k+3}$ from the partition
\begin{equation}\label{pra18d}
\beta^V_{k+3}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}f^V_{k+3}&\phi^V_{k+3}\end{array}\right].
\end{equation}
Compute
\begin{equation}\label{mmay3hbd}
\begin{gathered}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}\tilde h_V(k+3)&\tilde b_V(k+3)\end{array}\right)=\\
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}I_2&0&0\\0&h_V(k+2)&b_V(k+2)\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}Z_k&0\\0&I_{r^V_{k+3}}\end{array}\right),
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{oct14qqd}
\begin{gathered}
\left(\begin{array}{c}z^{(1)}(k+1)\\\chi_{k+3}\end{array}\right)=
Q_{k+1}^*\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi_{k+2}\\z(k+3)\end{array}\right) \\
\left(\begin{array}{c}w^{(1)}(k)\\\gamma_{k+2}\end{array}\right)=
Z_k^*\left(\begin{array}{c}\gamma_{k+1}\\w(k+2)\end{array}\right)
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
with the numbers $z^{(1)}(k+1),w^{(1)}(k)$ and two-dimensional columns
$\chi_{k+3},\gamma_{k+2}$.
Compute
\begin{equation}\label{janj1f}
f^A_{k+3}=f^V_{k+3}-\chi_{k+3}\gamma_{k+2}^*,\quad
\varphi_{k+3}^A=\phi^V_{k+3}.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\item {\bf Recovering of generators}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Set
\begin{gather*}
g_V^{(1)}(i-2)=\tilde g_V(i),\;i=3,\dots,N+2,\\
h_V^{(1)}(j-3)=\tilde h_V(j),\;j=4,\dots,N+3,\\
b_V^{(1)}(k-3)=\tilde b_V(k),\;j=4,\dots,N+2.
\end{gather*}
\item Set
\begin{gather*}
g_U^{(1)}(i-2)=\tilde g_U(i),\;i=3,\dots,N+1,\\
h_U^{(1)}(j-2)=\tilde h_U(j),\;j=4,\dots,N+2,\\
b_U^{(1)}(k-2)=\tilde b_U(k),\;k=3,\dots,N+1,\\
d_U^{(1)}(k-2)=\tilde d_U(k),\;k=3,\dots,N+2.
\end{gather*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
{\bf END}
\begin{remark}\label{compre}
The complete algorithm incorporates the compression technique
introduced in \cite{last} to further process the generators returned by the algorithm by computing final upper
quasiseparable generators
$g^{(1)}_U(i)\;(i=1,\dots,N-1)),\;h^{(1)}_U(j)\;(j=2,\dots,N),\;b^{(1)}_U(k)\;
(k=2,\dots,N-1)$ with orders not greater than one of the matrix $U_1$ and, moreover,
upper triangular generators
$g^{(1)}_V(i),h^{(1)}_V(i)$
$(i=1,\dots,N),\;b^{(1)}_V(k)$ $(k=1,\dots,N-1)$ with
orders not greater than two of the matrix $V_1$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{complexity}
It can be interesting to compare the complexity and timings of the above algorithm versus the single-shift version presented in \cite{last}. Roughly speaking, each iteration of double-shift Fast QZ requires about twice as many floating-point operations as single-shift Fast QZ; however, the double-shift version works in real arithmetic, whereas the single-shift algorithm requires complex operations. So we can expect a double-shift iteration to be $\mu/2$ times faster than a single-shift one, where $\mu$ is the speedup factor of real vs. complex arithmetic. A na\"ive operation count suggests that a complex addition requires two real flops and a complex multiplication requires six real flop
. This yields on average $\mu\approx 4$, although in practice $\mu$ is more difficult to quantify; here, for practical purposes, we have used the experimental estimate given below.
For the computation of all eigenvalues, the double-shift algorithm is about $\rho\mu/2$ times faster than the single-shift version, where $\rho$ is the ratio between the number of iterations needed to approximate a single eigenvalue with double shift and the number of iterations per eigenvalue with single shift. In practice, $\rho$ is often close to $2$, because each double-shift iteration approximates two eigenvalues instead of a single one, so the total number of iterations will be cut by one half.
Experiments done on the same machine and configuration used for the Fortran tests in Section \ref{sec:5} gave the following results:
\begin{itemize}
\item
After testing on a large number of scalar $ax+y$ operations, the parameter $\mu$ was estimated at about $2$. We used scalar operations for consistency with the structure of the algorithm. It should be pointed out, however, that experimental estimates of $\mu$ may depend on the machine and on the way the operations are computed, because the weight of increased storage and bandwidth may become prominent. (The same experiment run on matrix-vector operations gives $\mu\approx 4$ as predicted by the operation count).
\item
For random polynomials we found $\rho\approx 2$, whereas in the case of cyclotomic polynomials the double-shift algorithm converged faster and $\rho$ was closer to $3$.
\item
Comparison on total running time showed double-shift QZ to be about twice as fast as the single-shift version in the case of random polynomials, and about three times as fast for cyclotomic polynomials, which is consistent with the discussion above.
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}
In the next section we report the results of numerical experiments to illustrate the performance of the algorithm.
\section{Numerical Results}\label{sec:5}
The fast QZ algorithm for eigenvalue computation of structured pencils described in the previous section
has been implemented in MATLAB and in Fortran 90.\footnote{Both implementations are available for download at\\ {\tt http://www.unilim.fr/pages\_perso/paola.boito/software.html}.} The program deals with real companion--like pencils by applying the QZ method
with single or double shift and it returns as output the list of real or complex conjugate paired approximations of the eigenvalues.
The design of a practical algorithm needs to account for various possible shifting strategies and deflation techniques.
Deflation is an important concept in the practical implementation of the QR/QZ iteration. Deflation amounts
to setting a small subdiagonal element of the Hessenberg matrix $A$ to zero.
This is called deflation because it splits the Hessenberg/triangular matrix pair into two smaller
subproblems which may be independently refined further. We say that $a_{k+1,k}$ is negligible if
\[
|a_{k+1,k}|\leq {\tt u}(|a_{k+1,k+1}|+|a_{k,k}|),
\]
and then we set $a_{k+1,k}=0$ and split the computation into two smaller eigenproblems.
Here {\tt u} denotes the machine precision. Another kind of deflation can happen
in the matrix $B$ and it is related to the occurrence of infinite eigenvalues. If $b_{k,k}$ is numerically zero then
there exists at least an infinite eigenvalue and this can be deflated by moving up the zero entry to the top left corner of $B$.
The criterion used in our implementation to check the nullity of $b_{k,k}$ is
\[
|b_{k,k}|\leq {\tt u}\parallel B\parallel.
\]
Eligible shift polynomials are generally determined from the (generalized) eigenvalues of the trailing principal submatrices of $A$ and $B$
We first compute the generalized eigenvalues $(\alpha_1, \beta_1)$ and $(\alpha_2, \beta_2)$
of the matrix pair $(A(n-1\colon n, n-1\colon n), B(n-1\colon n, n-1\colon n))$. If they correspond with a pair of
complex conjugate numbers then we
set
\[
p(z)=(\beta_2 z -\alpha_2) (\beta_2 z -\alpha_2).
\]
Otherwise we perform a linear shift, that is, $p(z)=\beta z-\alpha$, where the eigenvalue
$\sigma=\alpha/\beta$ is the closest to the value $a_{N,N}/b_{N,N}$.
Our resulting algorithm has been tested on several numerical examples. We begin with some classical polynomials that are meant to test the algorithm for speed and for backward stability. With the exception of Example \ref{ex:polynorm}, all polynomials are normalized so as to have 2-norm equal to 1: in practice, the algorithm is always applied to $p/\|p\|_2$. Absolute forward and backward errors for a polynomial $p(x)=\sum_{j=0}^N p_jx^j=p_N\prod_{k=1}^N(x-\alpha_k)$ are defined as
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\rm forward\, error}=\max_{k=1,\ldots ,N}|\alpha_k-\tilde{\alpha}_k|,\\
{\rm backward\, error}=\max_{j=0,\ldots ,N}|p_j-\tilde{p}_j|,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\{\tilde{\alpha}_k\}_{k=1,\ldots,N}$ are the computed roots, and $\{\tilde{p}_j\}_{j=0,\ldots,N}$ are the polynomial coefficients reconstructed from the computed roots, working in high precision. The polynomial $\tilde{p}(x)=\sum_{j=0}^N \tilde{p}_jx^j$ is also normalized so that $\|\tilde{p}\|_2=1$ prior to backward error computation.
Examples \ref{example:fortran_random} and \ref{example:fortran_cyclo} use the Fortran implementation of Fast QZ, compiled with GNU Fortran compiler and running under Linux Ubuntu 14.04 on a laptop equipped with an Inter i5-2430M processor and 3.8 GB memory.
All the other tests are based on the MATLAB version of the code and were run on a Mac Book Pro equipped with MATLAB R2016a.
\begin{example}\label{example:fortran_random}
{\em Fortran implementation applied to random polynomials.} Polynomial coefficients are random real numbers uniformly chosen in $[-1,1]$. Here $N$ denotes the degree. Table \ref{tab:1random} shows forward absolute errors w.r.t. the roots computed by LAPACK, as well as the average number of iterations per eigenvalue and the running times, in seconds, for LAPACK and Fast QZ. All the results are averages over 10 runs for each degree.
In this example, Fast QZ is faster than LAPACK for polynomials of degree larger than $250$. (Of course, the results of timing comparisons may vary slightly depending on the machine and architecture). The quadratic growth of the running time for our algorithm is shown in Figure \ref{figure_random}.
\end{example}
\begin{table}
\caption{Timings and errors for the Fortran implementation of Fast QZ applied to random polynomials.}\label{tab:1random}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$N$ & abs. forward error & average n. it.&Fast QZ time&LAPACK time\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$50$&$1.34$e$-14$&$1.82$&$1.19$e$-2$&$8.80$e$-3$\\
$100$&$1.09$e$-14$&$1.67$&$2.73$e$-2$&$9.70$e$-3$\\
$200$&$1.87$e$-14$&$1.59$&$8.84$e$-2$&$6.26$e$-2$\\
$300$&$3.03$e$-14$&$1.50$&$1.76$e$-1$&$1.97$e$-1$\\
$400$&$1.88$e$-13$&$1.46$&$3.12$e$-1$&$4.71$e$-1$\\
$500$&$8.08$e$-14$&$1.42$&$4.72$e$-1$&$1.18$\\
$600$&$4.73$e$-13$&$1.45$&$7.03$e$-1$&$2.32$\\
$700$&$2.19$e$-13$&$1.41$&$9.54$e$-1$&$4.04$\\
$800$&$1.46$e$-13$&$1.39$&$1.22$&$5.15$\\
$900$&$1.04$e$-13$&$1.37$&$1.50$&$9.00$\\
$1000$&$1.57$e$-13$&$1.39$&$1.90$&$13.06$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{random_figure2}
\caption{This is a log-log plot of running times vs. polynomial degree $N$ for Example \ref{example:fortran_random}. Here we have chosen $N$ as powers of $2$, from $N=2^6=64$ to $N=2^{15}=32768$. The linear fit has equation $y=1.93x-5.50$, which is consistent with the $\mathcal{O}(N^2)$ complexity of Fast QZ.}
\label{figure_random}
\end{figure}
\begin{example}\label{example:fortran_cyclo}
{\em Fortran implementation applied to cyclotomic polynomials.} The polynomials used in this example take the form $p(x)=x^N-1$. In this case we know the exact roots, which can be computed using the Fortran function {\tt cos} and {\tt sin}. We can therefore compute errors for Fast QZ and for Lapack, both with respect to the ``exact'' roots: FastQZ turns out to be as accurate as LAPACK. Table \ref{tab:1cyclo} shows forward absolute errors, as well as the average number of iterations per eigenvalue and running times (in seconds).
Figure \ref{figure_cyclo} shows a logarithmic plot of the running times for Fast QZ, together with a linear fit.
\end{example}
\begin{table}
\caption{Timings and absolute forward errors for the Fortran implementation of Fast QZ applied to cyclotomic polynomials. Errors are computed w.r.t. ``exact'' roots.}\label{tab:1cyclo}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$N$ & err. Fast QZ & err. LAPACK & average n. it.&Fast QZ time&LAPACK time\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$100$&$4.65$e$-15$&$3.11$e$-15$&$1.38$&$3.00$e$-2$&$9.00$e$-3$\\
$200$&$5.31$e$-15$&$8.67$e$-15$&$1.25$&$7.90$e$-2$&$5.20$e$-2$\\
$300$&$6.76$e$-15$&$1.37$e$-14$&$1.19$&$1.52$e$-1$&$1.67$e$-1$\\
$400$&$1.05$e$-14$&$1.74$e$-14$&$1.16$&$2.82$e$-1$&$3.97$e$-1$\\
$500$&$9.49$e$-15$&$2.28$e$-14$&$1.14$&$4.03$e$-1$&$1.03$\\
$600$&$1.46$e$-14$&$2.85$e$-14$&$1.12$&$5.79$e$-1$&$2.01$\\
$700$&$1.51$e$-14$&$3.19$e$-14$&$1.12$&$7.85$e$-1$&$3.40$\\
$800$&$1.53$e$-14$&$3.90$e$-14$&$1.10$&$9.73$e$-1$&$5.39$\\
$900$&$1.93$e$-14$&$3.95$e$-14$&$1.10$&$1.24$&$8.00$\\
$1000$&$1.69$e$-14$&$4.84$e$-14$&$1.10$&$1.53$&$11.18$\\
$1500$&$3.00$e$-14$&$7.37$e$-14$&$1.09$&$3.35$&$41.47$\\
$2000$&$2.45$e$-14$&$1.02$e$-13$&$1.08$&$5.80$&$107.97$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure_cyclo2}
\caption{Log-log plot of running times vs. polynomial degree for Example \ref{example:fortran_cyclo}. The linear fit has equation $y=1.93x-5.58$.}
\label{figure_cyclo}
\end{figure}
\begin{example}
In this example we use a classical set of test polynomials taken from \cite{TT} . The polynomials are all of degree 20:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the Wilkinson polynomial, i.e., $P(x)=\prod_{k=1}^{20}(x-k)$,
\item
the polynomial with roots uniformly spaced in [-1.9, 1.9],
\item
$P(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{20}x^k/k!$,
\item
the Bernoulli polynomial of degree 20,
\item
$P(x)=1+x+x^2+\ldots+x^{20}$,
\item
the polynomial with roots $2^{-10}, 2^{-9},\ldots ,2^9$,
\item
the Chebyshev polynomial of degree 20.
\end{enumerate}
Table \ref{tab:2} shows absolute forward and backward errors for our fast QZ and for classical QZ applied to the companion pencil. For the purpose of computing forward errors we have taken as $\{\alpha_k \}_{k=1,\ldots,N}$ either the exact roots, if known, or numerical roots computed with high accuracy.
Forward errors may vary, consistently with the conditioning of the problem. However, backward errors are always of the order of the machine epsilon, which points to a backward stable behavior in practice.
\end{example}
\begin{table}
\caption{Forward and backward errors for a set of ill-conditioned polynomials. Note that the MATLAB implementation of classical QZ sometimes finds infinite roots, which prevent computation of the backward error. This behavior is denoted by the entry Inf.}
\label{tab:2}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$P(x)$ & f. err. (fast QZ) & f. err. (classical QZ) & b. err. (fast QZ) & b. err. (classical QZ)\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
1&$28.73$&Inf&$6.52$e$-16$&Inf\\
2&$5.91$e$-13$&$8.07$e$-13$&$8.07$e$-16$&$1.11$e$-15$\\
3&$5.70$&Inf&$2.22$e$-16$&Inf\\
4&$3.76$e$-10$&$1.83$e$-12$&$1.72$e$-15$&$1.20$e$-15$\\
5&$3.06$e$-15$&$1.09$e$-15$&$4.52$e$-15$&$1.58$e$-15$\\
6&$1.09$e$-2$&$2.30$e$-3$&$2.28$e$-15$&$3.05$e$-15$\\
7&$5.47$e$-11$&$1.68$e$-11$&$1.08$e$-15$&$1.91$e$-15$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{example}\label{example:JT}
We apply here our structured algorithm to some polynomials taken from the test suite proposed by Jenkins and Traub in \cite{JT}.
The polynomials are:
\begin{itemize}
\item[] $p_1(x)=((x-a)(x-1)(x+a))$, with $a= 10^{-8}$, $10^{-15}$, $10^8$, $10^{15}$,
\item[] $p_3(x)=\prod_{j=1}^r(x-10^{-j})$, with $r=10$, $20$,
\item[] $p_4(x)=(x-0.1)^3(x-0.5)(x-0.6)(x-0.7)$,
\item[] $p_7=(x-0.001)(x-0.01)(x-0.1)(x-0.1+ai)(x-0.1-ai)(x-1)(x-10)$, with $a=10^{-10}$,
\item[] $p_{10}(x)=(x-a)(x-1)(x-a^{-1})$, with $a=10^3$, $10^6$, $10^9$,
\item[] $p_{11}(x)=\prod_{j=1-m}^{m-1}(x-e^{\frac{ij\pi}{2m}})\prod_{j=m}^{3m}0.9e^{\frac{ij\pi}{2m}}$, with $m=15$.
\end{itemize}
In particular, the polynomial $p_1(x)$ is meant to test whether large or
small zeros may pose a difficulty, the polynomial $p_3(x)$ can be used to test for underflow, the polynomials $p_4(x)$ and $p_7(x)$ test for multiple or nearly multiple roots, whereas $p_{10}(x)$ and $p_{11}(x)$ test for deflation stability. Table \ref{tab:2.5} shows absolute forward and backward errors, computed as in the previous example, for Fast QZ and classical QZ. Note that larger values of $r$ for $p_3(x)$ tend to slow down convergence, so for $r=20$ we needed to increase the allowed number of iterations per eigenvalue (before an exceptional shift is applied).
When QZ is tested on the polynomial $p_1(x)$ with large values of $a$, normalization of the coefficients inevitably leads to a numerically zero leading coefficient and therefore to infinite eigenvalues. In this case, both fast and classical QZ retrieve the root $1$ with accuracy up to machine precision. Of course one may also try using the non-normalized polynomials, in which case Fast QZ finds roots $\{1, 1, -1\}$ and classical QZ finds roots $\{1, 0, 0\}$, up to machine precision.
\end{example}
\begin{table}
\caption{Forward and backward errors for polynomials taken from Jenkins and Traub's test suite; see Example \ref{example:JT}.}
\label{tab:2.5}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$P(x)$ & f. err. (fast QZ) & f. err. (class. QZ) & b. err. (fast QZ) & b. err. (class. QZ)\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$p_1(x)$, $a=1$e$-8$&$1.52$e$-8$&$1.00$e$-8$&$2.22$e$-16$&$1.11$e$-16$\\
$p_1(x)$, $a=1$e$-15$&$1.64$e$-8$&$8.08$e$-16$&$1.90$e$-16$&$1.11$e$-16$\\
$p_3(x)$, $r=10$&$8.76$e$-6$&$1.00$e$-6$&$8.60$e$-16$&$3.61$e$-16$\\
$p_3(x)$, $r=15$&$1.25$e$-6$&$1.37$e$-6$&$6.80$e$-16$&$9.10$e$-16$\\
$p_3(x)$, $r=20$&$1.99$e$-4$&$9.90$e$-7$&$3.14$e$-15$&$8.07$e$-16$\\
$p_4(x)$ & $9.088$e$-6$&$4.26$e$-6$&$6.66$e$-16$&$3.33$e$-16$\\
$p_7(x)$, $a=1$e$-10$&$1.91$e$-5$&$6.47$e$-6$&$2.77$e$-16$&$1.11$e$-16$\\
$p_{10}(x)$, $a=1$e$+3$&$2.71$e$-16$&$0$&$1.91$e$-16$&$0$\\
$p_{10}(x)$, $a=1$e$+6$&$1.16$e$-16$&$8.25$e$-18$&$8.20$e$-17$&$5.83$e$-18$\\
$p_{10}(x)$, $a=1$e$+9$&$1.81$e$-16$&$0$&$1.28$e$-16$&$1.11$e$-16$\\
$p_{11}(x)$, $m=15$&$1.11$e$-14$&$9.87$e$-15$&$3.45$e$-14$&$1.80$e$-14$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{example}\label{example:jumping}
{\em The jumping polynomial.} This is a polynomial of degree 20 where the coefficients are heavily unbalanced and QZ applied to the companion pencil tends to work better than computing the eigenvalues of the companion matrix (see also \cite{last}). The polynomial is defined as $p(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{20} p_kx^k$, where $p_k=10^{6(-1)^{(k+1)} -3}$ for $k=0,\ldots,20$. Table \ref{tab:3} shows that Fast QZ is just as accurate as classical QZ, and more accurate than the MATLAB command {\tt roots}.
\end{example}
\begin{table}
\caption{Forward and backward errors for several methods applied to a polynomial with highly unbalanced coefficients (Example \ref{example:jumping}).}
\label{tab:3}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
method & forward error & backward error \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
fast QZ&$2.78$e$-15$&$4.94$e$-15$\\
classical QZ&$1.49$e$-15$&$3.22$e$-15$\\
balanced QR&$2.46$e$-9$&$5.86$e$-9$\\
unbalanced QR&$1.68$e$-15$&$2.72$e$-15$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{example}\label{ex:polynorm}
In order to test the behavior of backward error for non-normalized polynomials (that is, for unbalanced pencils), we consider polynomials of degree $50$ with random coefficients and 2-norms ranging from $1$ to $10^{14}$. For each polynomial $p$ we apply QZ (structured or unstructured) without normalization to compute its roots. Then we form a polynomial $\tilde{p}$ from the computed roots, working in high precision, and define the 2-norm absolute backward error as
$$
{\rm backward\, error_2}=\min_{\alpha\in\mathbb{R}}\|p-\alpha\tilde{p}\|_2.
$$
In practice, the value of $\alpha$ that minimizes the backward error is computed as $\alpha=\left(\sum_{i=0}^N p_i\tilde{p}_i\right) /\sum_{i=0}^N\tilde{p}_i^2$.
Figure \ref{fig:polynorm} shows that in this example the backward error grows proportionally to $\|p\|_2^2$ and its behavior when using Fast QZ is very similar to the case of classical QZ (that is, the Matlab function {\tt eig}). See also the analysis in \cite{AMRVW}.
\end{example}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figure_polynorm}
\caption{Absolute backward error vs. polynomial norm for Example \ref{ex:polynorm}. The black line is a linear fit for the backward error of Fast QZ. Its equation is $y=1.94x-14.4$, which suggests that the absolute backward error grows proportionally to $\|p\|_2^2$.}
\label{fig:polynorm}
\end{figure}
Our algorithm has been tested on several numerical examples resulting from the linearization of nonlinear eigenvalue problems by using
Lagrange type interpolation schemes. In particular, if $f\ \Omega\subseteq \mathbb R \ \rightarrow \ \mathbb R$ is analytic then
increasingly accurate approximations
of its zeros can be found by rootfinding methods applied to certain polynomial approximations of $f$.
The unique polynomial of degree less than $n$ interpolating the function $f(z)$ at the $N-$th roots
of unity $z_k=e^{\displaystyle{2\pi(k-1)/N}}$, $1\leq k\leq N$, can be expressed as
\[
p(z)=(z^N-1)\sum_{j=1}^n\frac{w_j f_j}{z-z_j},
\]
where
\[
f_j=f(z_j), \quad w_j=\Big( \prod_{k=1,k\neq j}(z_j-z_k)\Big)^{-1}= z_j/N, \quad 1\leq j\leq N.
\]
In \cite{Cor} it was shown that the roots of $p(z)$ are the finite eigenvalues of the matrix pencil $F-z G$,
$F,G\in \mathbb C^{(N+1)\times (N+1)}$, given by
\begin{equation}\label{f1}
F=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & -f_1/\xi_1& \ldots & -f_N/\xi_N\\
w_1 \xi_1& z_1 \\
\vdots & & \ddots\\
w_N\xi_N & & &z_N
\end{array}\right], \quad
G=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0 \\
& 1 \\
& & \ddots\\
& & & 1
\end{array}\right],
\end{equation}
where $\xi_1, \ldots, \xi_N$ are nonzero real numbers used for balancing purposes.
Observe that since the size of the matrices is $N+1$ we obtain at least two spurious infinite eigenvalues.
By a suitable congruence transformation $F\rightarrow F_1=Q F Q^*$ and
$G\rightarrow G_1=Q G Q^*$ with $Q$ orthogonal, we generate an equivalent real matrix pair $(F_1, G_1)$ where
$G_1=G$ and $F_1$ is arrowhead with $2\times 2$ orthogonal diagonal blocks. Then the usual Hessenberg/triangular reduction procedure
can be applied by returning a final real matrix pair $(\tilde A,\tilde B)$. One infinite
eigenvalue can immediately be deflated by simply performing a permutation between the first and the second rows of $\tilde A$ and $\tilde B$ by
returning a final matrix pair $(A,B)$ belonging to the class $\mathcal P_{N}$. It can be shown that if
$\xi_i=\xi$ for all $i$ then this latter matrix pair is the companion pencil associated with the interpolating polynomial expressed in the power basis.
Otherwise, if $\xi_i$ are not constant then $A$ is generally a dense Hessenberg matrix which can be represented as a rank one
modification of an orthogonal matrix.
In the following examples we test the application of Fast QZ to the barycentric Lagrange interpolation on the roots of unity in order to find zeros of functions or solve eigenvalue problems. We point out here some implementation details:
\begin{itemize}
\item Scaling. The first row and column of the matrix $F$ can be scaled independently without modifying $G$. We consistently normalize them so that $\|F(1,:)\|_2=$\\$\|F(:,1)\|_2=1$, which makes the pencil more balanced.
\item Deflation of infinite eigenvalues. Spurious infinite eigenvalues can be eliminated by applying repeatedly the permutation trick outlined above for the pencil $(\tilde{A},\tilde{B})$. This leaves us, of course, with the problem of choosing a suitable deflation criterion. In practice, we perform this form of deflation when $|\tilde{A}(1,1)|<\varepsilon\sqrt{N}$, where $\varepsilon$ is the machine epsilon.
\item Reduction of the arrowhead pencil to Hessenberg/triangular form: this can be done in a fast (e.g., $O(N^2)$) way via Givens rotations that exploit structure, see e.g. \cite{Law_thesis}, Section 2.2.2.
\end{itemize}
\begin{example}\label{ex:AKT1}
This example is discussed in \cite{AKT}. Consider the function $f(z)=\sin(z-0.3)\log(1.2-z)$. We seek the zeros of $f$ in the unit disk; the exact zeros are $0.2$ and $0.3$. Table \ref{tab:AKT1} shows the computed approximations of these zeros for several values of $N$ (number of interpolation points). The results are consistent with findings in \cite{AKT}, where $50$ interpolation points yielded an accuracy of 4 digits.
\end{example}
\begin{table}
\caption{Approximations of the zeros of $f(z)=\sin(z-0.3)\log(1.2-z)$. Here $N$ is the number of interpolation points. See Example \ref{ex:AKT1}.}
\label{tab:AKT1}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|l|l}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$N$ & approx. of $0.2$ & approx. of $0.3$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$20$&$0.2153$ &$0.2841$\\
$30$&$0.2014$ &$0.2986$\\
$40$&$0.20016$&$0.29983$\\
$50$&$0.200021$&$0.299978$\\
$60$&$0.2000028$&$0.2999970$\\
$100$&$0.2000000011$&$0.2999999988$\\
$200$&$0.199999999999894$&$0.300000000000120$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{example}\label{ex:matrixeig}
This is also an example from \cite{AKT}. Define the matrix
$$
A=\left(\begin{array}{rrrr}
3.2&1.5&0.5&-0.5\\
-1.6&0.0&-0.4&0.6\\
-2.1&-2.2&0.2&-0.1\\
20.7&9.3&3.9&-3.4\\
\end{array}\right).
$$
We want to compute its eigenvalues by approximating the zeros of the polynomial $p(\lambda)=\det({A}-\lambda I)$. The exact eigenvalues are $0.2$, $0.3$, $1.5$ and $-2$.
Interpolation plus Fast QZ using $6$ nodes yields all the correct eigenvalues up to machine precision.
One may also apply a similar approach to the computation of the eigenvalues in the unit circle for a larger matrix. See Figures \ref{fig:randmatrix120} and \ref{fig:randmatrix60} for tests on two $100\times 100$ matrices with random entries (uniformly chosen in [-1,1]). \end{example}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{rand100}
\caption{Eigenvalues of a $100\times 100$ random matrix; see Example \ref{ex:matrixeig}. The blue circles are the eigenvalues computed via interpolation, the red crosses are the eigenvalues computed by {\tt eig}. Here 120 interpolation nodes were used.}
\label{fig:randmatrix120}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{rand100-60}
\caption{Eigenvalues of a $100\times 100$ random matrix; see Example \ref{ex:matrixeig}. The blue circles are the eigenvalues computed via interpolation, the red crosses are the eigenvalues computed by {\tt eig}. Here 60 interpolation nodes were used.}
\label{fig:randmatrix60}
\end{figure}
\begin{example}\label{ex:nlevp}
We consider some nonlinear eigenvalue problems taken from \cite{NLEVP}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\tt mobile\_manipulator}: this $5\times 5$ quadratic matrix polynomial is close to being nonregular;
\item {\tt gen\_tpal2}: a real T-palindromic quadratic matrix polynomial of size $16\times 16$ whose eigenvalues lie on the unit circle;
\item {\tt closed\_loop}: the eigenvalues of this $2\times 2$ parameterized quadratic polynomial lie inside the unit disc for a suitable choice of the parameter;
\item {\tt relative\_pose\_5pt}: a $10\times 10$ cubic matrix polynomial which comes from the five point relative pose problem in computer vision. See Figure \ref{fig:pose5pt} for a plot of the eigenvalues.
\end{enumerate}
Table \ref{tab:nlevp} shows the distance, in $\infty$-norm, between the eigenvalues computed via interpolation followed by Fast QZ and the eigenvalues computed via {\tt polyeig}.
\end{example}
\begin{table}
\caption{Distance between the eigenvalues computed by interpolation+Fast QZ and {\tt polyeig}, for some problems taken from the NLEVP suite (Example \ref{ex:nlevp}). Here $N$ is the number of interpolation points. The error for the fourth problem is computed on all the eigenvalues (fourth line) and on the eigenvalues in the unit disk (fifth line, error marked by an asterisk.)}
\label{tab:nlevp}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
problem & error & $N$ \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
{\tt mobile\_manipulator}&$2.53$e$-15$ &$20$\\
{\tt gen\_tpal2}&$1.61$e$-9$ &$50$\\
{\tt closed\_loop}&$1.22$e$-15$&$10$\\
{\tt relative\_pose\_5pt}&$2.81$e$-10$&$40$\\
{\tt relative\_pose\_5pt}&$8.99$e$-15^{(*)}$&$40$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pose5pt}
\caption{Eigenvalues of the matrix polynomial {\tt relative\_pose\_5pt}; see Example \ref{ex:nlevp}. The blue circles are the eigenvalues computed via interpolation, the red crosses are the eiganvalues computed by {\tt polyeig}.}
\label{fig:pose5pt}
\end{figure}
\begin{example}\label{ex:random}
Random matrix polynomials: we use matrix polynomials with random coefficients (given by the Matlab function {\tt rand}). Table \ref{tab:random} shows errors with respect to {\tt polyeig} for several values of the degree and of the size of the polynomial.
\end{example}
\begin{table}
\caption{Distance between the eigenvalues computed by interpolation+Fast QZ and {\tt polyeig}, for random matrix polynomials of different degrees and sizes (Example \ref{ex:random}). The error is computed on the eigenvalues contained in the disk of center $0$ and radius $2$.}
\label{tab:random}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
degree & size & error \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$10$&$5$ &$1.12$e$-11$\\
$10$&$10$ &$1.11$e$-9$\\
$10$&$20$ &$2.93$e$-5$\\
$15$&$5$ &$6.98$e$-9$\\
$15$&$10$ &$5.15$e$-9$\\
$15$&$20$ &$3.24$e$-4$\\
$20$&$5$ &$2.13$e$-10$\\
$20$&$10$ &$4.50$e$-9$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{example}\label{ex:lambert}
We consider here a nonlinear, non polynomial example: the Lambert equation
\begin{equation}
w^6\exp(w^6)=0.1.\label{lambert}
\end{equation}
This equation has two real solutions
$$
w=\pm W(0,0.1)\approx \pm 0.671006
$$
and complex solutions of the form
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& w=\pm\left(W(\nu,x)\right)^{1/6},\\
&& w=\pm(-1)^{1/3}\left(W(\nu,x)\right)^{1/6},\\
&& w=\pm(-1)^{2/3}\left(W(\nu,x)\right)^{1/6},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $W(\nu, x)$, with $\nu\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $x\in\mathbb{C}$, denotes the $\nu$-th branch of the product-log function (Lambert function) applied to $x$.
Such solutions can be computed in Matlab using the {\tt lambertw} function: in the following we will consider them as the ``exact'' solutions. We want to test the behavior of the ``interpolation+QZ'' approach in this case. Experiments suggest the following remarks:
\begin{itemize}
\item
As expected, interpolation only ``catches'' roots inside the unit disk: see Figure \ref{fig2}. Since the roots of \eqref{lambert} are mostly outside the unit disk, we introduce a scaled version of the equation:
\begin{equation}
\alpha^6 w^6\exp(\alpha^6 w^6)=0.1,\label{lambert_scaled}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha\geq 1$ is a scaling parameter. The drawback is that, as $\alpha$ grows, the matrix pencil becomes more unbalanced.
\item
A large number of interpolation nodes is needed (considerably larger than the number of approximated roots).
\end{itemize}
See Figure \ref{fig1} for an example.
Tables \ref{alpha1}, \ref{alpha15} and \ref{alpha17} show the accuracy of the approximation for several values of $\alpha$ and of the number of nodes. Here by ``distance'' we denote the distance in $\infty$-norm between the roots of \eqref{lambert_scaled} inside the unit disk and their approximations computed via interpolation followed by structured or unstructured QZ.
\end{example}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{lambert2}
\caption{This is a plot of the roots of \eqref{lambert} in the complex plane. Red crosses denote the ``exact'' roots computed by {\tt lambertw} with $\nu$ up to $5$. Blue circles are the roots computed via interpolation+QZ with 60 nodes. Note that only the 6 roots inside the unit circle (plotted in black for reference) are correctly approximated.}\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{lambert1}
\caption{This is a plot of the roots of \eqref{lambert_scaled} in the complex plane, with $\alpha=1.7$, so that $54$ roots are inside the unit circle (plotted in black for reference). Red crosses denote the ``exact'' roots computed by {\tt lambertw} with $\nu$ up to $5$. Blue circles are the roots computed via interpolation+QZ. Here we have taken 446 interpolation nodes. }\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Example \ref{ex:lambert}: we take $\alpha=1$ and there are $6$ roots inside the unit circle. The number of nodes is denoted by $N$, taken as $N=6k+1$ for some $k\in\mathbb{N}$, for symmetry. The accuracy in the approximation of the roots is the same for structured and unstructured QZ. An accuracy of about $10^{-15}$ is reached using 103 nodes.}\label{alpha1}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$N$&distance\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$7$&$1.88$e$-1$\\
$19$&$2.53$e$-2$\\
$31$&$1.18$e$-3$\\
$43$&$2.80$e$-5$\\
$55$&$3.88$e$-7$\\
$67$&$3.52$e$-9$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Example \ref{ex:lambert}: we take $\alpha=1.5$ and there are $18$ roots inside the unit circle.}\label{alpha15}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|ll|}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$N$&distance (unstructured)&distance (structured)\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$181$&$1.67$e$-1$&$1.67$e$-1$\\
$217$&$7.50$e$-4$&$7.50$e$-4$\\
$253$&$4.36$e$-7$&$4.36$e$-7$\\
$289$&$7.06$e$-10$&$1.40$e$-9$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Example \ref{ex:lambert}: we take $\alpha=1.6$ and there are $30$ roots inside the unit circle.}\label{alpha16}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|ll|}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$N$&distance (unstructured)&distance (structured)\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$301$&$1.62$e$-3$&$1.62$e$-3$\\
$361$&$9.73$e$-8$&$6.03$e$-7$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Example \ref{ex:lambert}: we take $\alpha=1.7$ and there are $54$ roots inside the unit circle.}\label{alpha17}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|ll|}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$N$&distance (unstructured)&distance (structured)\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$379$&$2.11$e$-1$&$2.11$e$-1$\\
$433$&$4.59$e$-4$&$1.34$e$-3$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{example}\label{ex:mele}
This example comes from the discretization of a nonlinear eigenvalue problem governing the eigenvibrations of a string with an elastically attached mass: see e.g., \cite{NLEVP}, \cite{effenberger} and \cite{solovev}. The original problem is given by
$$
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
-u''(x)=\lambda u(x)\\
u(0)=0\\
u'(1)+k\frac{\lambda}{\lambda-k/m}u(1)=0\end{array}\right.
$$
where the parameters $k$ and $m$ correspond to the elastic constant and to the mass, respectively. We are interested in computing the two smallest real eigenvalues $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$.
The discretization is applied on a uniform grid with nodes $x_i=i/n, i=0,\dots,n$ and step $h=1/n$, yielding a nonlinear matrix eigenvalue problem of the form $K(\lambda)v=0$ with
$$
K(\lambda) = A-\lambda B+k\frac{\lambda}{\lambda-k/m}C,
$$
where
$$
A=\frac{1}{h}\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
2 &1&\\
-1&\ddots&\ddots&\\
&\ddots&&2&-1\\
&&&-1&1
\end{array}\right),\quad
B=\frac{h}{6}\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
4 &1&\\
1&\ddots&\ddots&\\
&\ddots&&4&1\\
&&&1&2
\end{array}\right),\quad
C=e_ne_n^T
$$
and $e_n=[0,\ldots,0,1]^T$. Here we choose $k=2$ and $m=1$. In this case the eigenvalues are known to be $\lambda_1\approx 0.572224720810327$ and $\lambda_2\approx 6.02588212472795$. Interpolation of $\det(K(\lambda))/\det(K(\lambda))'$ on the unit circle followed by FastQZ allows us to approximate $\lambda_1$, see Table \ref{table:mele}. The same technique applied after a suitable translation of $\lambda$ (here $\lambda\rightarrow\lambda-6$) gives approximations for $\lambda_2$.
Note that, since $K(\lambda)$ is a rational function, we should make sure that its pole $\tilde{\lambda}=k/m$ does not lie in the unit disk, otherwise interpolation might not be able to detect the eigenvalues. Experiments with $k=0.01$ and $m=1$, for instance, showed that the first eigenvalue (in this case $\lambda_1\approx 9.90067\cdot 10^{-3}$) could not be computed via interpolation.
\end{example}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Example \ref{ex:mele}: the table shows the absolute errors on $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ for several values of $n$ (the number of nodes on the discretization grid). The number of interpolation nodes is taken as $N=100$. The distance between the approximations computed by structured and unstructured QZ is always of the order of the machine epsilon.}\label{table:mele}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|ll|}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$n$&error on $\lambda_1$&error on $\lambda_2$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$100$&$5.19$e$-3$&$8.48$e$-2$\\
$500$&$1.04$e$-3$&$1.72$e$-2$\\
$1000$&$5.23$e$-4$&$8.61$e$-3$\\
$5000$&$1.05$e$-4$&$1.72$e$-3$\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:6}
In this paper we have developed and tested a fast structured version of the double-shift QZ eigenvalue method tailored to a particular class of real matrix pencils. This class includes companion pencils, as well as pencils arising from barycentric Lagrange interpolation. Numerical tests confirm the expected complexity gains with respect to the classical method and show that our fast algorithm behaves as backward stable in practice, while retaining an accuracy comparable to the nonstructured method.
We also propose an application to
nonlinear eigenvalue problems using interpolation techniques. While preliminary experiments look promising, this approach deserves further investigation, which will be the subject of further work.
\vspace{10pt}
{\bf Acknowledgements:} Thanks to Thomas Mach for useful suggestions concerning the Fortran implementation of Givens transformations.
|
\section{#1}}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\newtheorem{prop}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{cor}{Corollary}
\newtheorem{rem}{Remark}
\newtheorem{lem}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}
\renewcommand {\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\newcommand {\beq}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand {\eeq}{\end{equation}}
\newcommand {\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand {\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand {\beqs}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
\newcommand {\eeqs}{\end{eqnarray*}}
\newcommand {\bds}{\begin{displaymath}}
\newcommand {\eds}{\end{displaymath}}
\newcommand {\n}{\nonumber\\}
\newcommand {\nn}{\nonumber}
\newcommand {\sfrac}[2]{{\textstyle \frac{#1}{#2}}}
\newcommand{\noindent}{\noindent}
\newcommand {\eqn}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand {\eq}[1]{eq.(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand {\eqs}[1]{eqs.(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand {\Eq}[1]{Eq.(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand {\Eqs}[1]{Eqs.(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand {\Label}[1]{\label{#1}}
\newcommand {\eqdef}{\stackrel{\rm def}{=}}
\newcommand{\normalsize}{\normalsize}
\newcommand {\bebb}{ |
\section{Introduction}
Given a graph $G$ and an integer $k$, the \textsc{Dominating Set}
problem is to determine the existence of a subset $D\subseteq V(G)$ of
size at most $k$ such that every vertex $u\in V(G)$ is
\emph{dominated} by $D$, that is, if $u$ does not belong to $D$, then
it must have a neighbour in $D$. The \textsc{Dominating Set} problem,
parameterized by the size of the solution $k$, plays a central role in
parameterized complexity theory, it is arguably one of the most
important examples of a W[$2$]-complete problem, and hence considered
intractable from the point of view of parameterized complexity on general
graphs. A problem is fixed-parameter tractable on a class~$\mathcal{C}$ of
graphs parameterized by the solution size~$k$, if there is an
algorithm deciding whether a graph $G\in \mathcal{C}$ admits a solution of
size $k$ in time $f(k)\cdot \abs{V(G)}^c$, for some computable function
$f$ and constant $c$.
A particularly fruitful line of research in parameterized complexity
theory and algorithmic graph structure theory is the study of hard
computational problems on restricted classes of inputs. This research
is based on the observation that many problems such as
\textsc{Dominating Set}, which are considered intractable in general,
can be solved efficiently on classes of graphs such as graphs of
bounded treewidth, planar graphs, or more generally, graph classes
excluding a fixed minor.
An important goal of this line of research is to identify the most
general classes of graphs on which a wide range of algorithmic
problems can be solved efficiently. In this context, classes of
graphs excluding a fixed minor have been studied intensively. More
recently, even more general classes of graphs such as those excluding
a fixed topological minor have received increased attention.
A powerful method in parameterized complexity theory is to compute a
problem kernel in a polynomial time pre-computation step, that is, to
reduce the input instance to a sub-instance of size bounded in the
parameter only (independently of the input graph size). The first
important result of this type for the \textsc{Dominating Set}
problem by Alber et al.~\cite{alber2004polynomial} showed that there
exists a kernel of linear size for the problem on planar
graphs. Linear kernels were later found for bounded genus
graphs~\cite{bodlaender2009meta}, apex-minor-free
graphs~\cite{fomin2010bidimensionality}, $H$-minor-free
graphs~\cite{fomin2012linear}, and $H$-topological-minor-free
graphs~\cite{FominLST13}.
The algorithmic results on these graph classes are in one way or
another based on topological arguments which can be derived from
structure theorems for the corresponding class. Most notable structure theorems in this
context are Robertson and Seymour's structure theorem for
$H$-minor-free graphs~\cite{robertson2003graph} or its extension to
$H$-topological-minor-free graphs by Grohe and
Marx~\cite{grohe2015structure}. A complete shift in
paradigm was initiated by Ne\v{s}et\v{r}il and Ossona de Mendez with
their ground-breaking work on bounded
expansion~\cite{nevsetvril2008grad,nevsetvril2008gradb} and nowhere
dense classes of
graphs~\cite{nevsetvril2010first,nevsetvril2011nowhere}. On these
classes, which properly extend the aforementioned classes defined by
excluded (topological) minors, many topological
arguments are replaced by much more general density based arguments.
\smallskip
Formally, a graph $H$ with $V(H)=\{v_1,\ldots, v_n\}$ is a
\emph{minor} of a graph $G$, written $H\preccurlyeq G$, if there are
pairwise vertex disjoint connected subgraphs $H_1,\ldots, H_n$ of~$G$
such that whenever $\{v_i,v_j\}\in E(H)$, then there are $u_i\in V(H_i)$
and $u_j\in (H_j)$ with $\{u_i,u_j\}\in E(G)$. We call
$(H_1,\ldots, H_n)$ a {\em{minor model}} of~$H$ in~$G$. The graph $H$
is a {\em{depth-$r$ minor}} of $G$, denoted $H\preccurlyeq_rG$, if there is
a minor model $(H_1,\ldots,H_n)$ of~$H$ in $G$ such that each $H_i$
has radius at most $r$. We denote the complete graph on~$t$ vertices
by $K_t$ and the complete bipartite graph with parts of size $s$ and $t$
by $K_{s,t}$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:nwd}
A class $\mathcal{C}$ of graphs is \emph{nowhere dense} if there is a
function $f\colon\mathbb{N}\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ such that $K_{f(r)}\not\preccurlyeq_r G$ for
all $r\in \mathbb{N}$ and all $G\in \mathcal{C}$.
\end{definition}
It turned out that nowhere dense classes have many equivalent and
seemingly unrelated characterisations making it an extremely robust
and natural concept~\cite{NesetrilOdM12}.
Algorithmically, a characterisation of nowhere dense classes in terms
of \emph{uniform quasi-wideness}, a concept emerging from finite model
theory~\cite{dawar2010homomorphism}, has proved to be extremely
useful. A set $B\subseteq V(G)$ is $r$-independent in a graph $G$ if
any two distinct vertices of $B$ have distance greater than $r$ in $G$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:uqw}
A class $\mathcal{C}$ of graphs is \emph{uniformly quasi-wide} if there are
functions $N:\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ and $s:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ such
that for all $r,m\in \mathbb{N}$ and all subsets $A\subseteq V(G)$ for
$G\in \mathcal{C}$ of size $\abs{A}\geq N(r,m)$ there is a set
$S\subseteq V(G)$ of size $\abs{S}\leq s(r)$ and a set $B\subseteq A$ of
size $\abs{B}\geq m$ which is $r$-independent in $G-S$.
The functions $N$ and
$s$ are called the \emph{margin} of the class~$\mathcal{C}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}[Ne\v{s}et\v{r}il and Ossona de Mendez \cite{nevsetvril2010first}]
A class $\mathcal{C}$ of graphs is nowhere dense if, and only if, it is uniformly
quasi-wide.
\end{theorem}
The first fixed-parameter algorithms for the \textsc{dominating set} problem
on nowhere dense classes of graphs appeared in~\cite{DawarK09}. As observed
in~\cite{DawarK09}, uniform quasi-wideness can be made algorithmic in the sense
that the sets $S$ and $B$ can be computed in polynomial time. This can be used
to define bounded search tree algorithms for problems such as \textsc{Dominating
Set} parameterized by the solution size $k$ as follows. As long as the set $A$
of non-dominated vertices is large enough we are guaranteed to find a
$2$-independent subset $B$ of $A$ of size $k+1$ in $G$ once we removed a constant
size set $S$ of vertices from $G$. As no two elements of $B$ can be dominated by
a single element in $G-S$, it follows that the dominating set must contain an
element of the constant size set $S$. Trying every subset of $S$ as a part of
the dominating set and iterating this procedure until the number of
non-dominated vertices is bounded by a function of the parameter yields a
natural reduction. On the resulting structure one obtains the answer by
brute force. With a little more effort this technique can be used to
establish fixed-parameter algorithms for many other problems,
see~\cite{DawarK09} for details.
A much more general result was achieved in~\cite{grohe2014deciding}. Grohe et
al.\@ proved a very general algorithmic meta-theorem stating that first-order
model-checking is fixed parameter tractable on nowhere dense classes of graphs
(with the size of the formula as the parameter). This implies that a very
broad and natural class of algorithmic problems is fixed-parameter tractable on
nowhere dense classes of graphs. Again this proof uses uniform
quasi-wideness in its construction.
More recently nowhere dense classes of graphs have also been
studied in the context of kernelisation.
In~\cite{drange2016kernelization}, it was shown that
\textsc{Dominating Set} and \textsc{Distance-$r$ Dominating Set} admit a linear
kernel on bounded expansion classes and that \textsc{Dominating Set}
admits an almost linear kernel on nowhere dense classes of graphs. A
\emph{distance-$r$ dominating set} is a set $D\subseteq V(G)$ such
that every vertex $u\in V(G)$ has distance at most $r$ to a vertex
from $D$. However, the techniques used
in~\cite{drange2016kernelization} are not strong enough to show that
also the \textsc{Distance-$r$ Dominating Set} problem admits a polynomial
kernel on nowhere dense classes of graphs. It was shown, however, that
for every class $\mathcal{C}$ of graphs which is closed under taking
subgraphs, if $\mathcal{C}$ admits a kernel for the \textsc{Distance-$r$ Dominating
Set} problem
for every value of $r\in \mathbb{N}$, then $\mathcal{C}$ must be nowhere dense (under
the assumption $\text{W[$2$]}\neq\text{FPT}$). These results were
complemented by lower bounds for the closely related \textsc{Connected
Dominating Set} problem, where we are looking for a dominating set
$D$ which additionally must be connected. It was shown that there
exists a class of bounded expansion which is closed under taking
subgraphs that does not admit a polynomial kernel for
\textsc{Connected Dominating Set} (unless
$\text{NP}\subseteq \text{coNP/poly}$).
\paragraph{Our contributions.} From an algorithmic perspective, the
main problem with the characterisation of nowhere dense classes by
uniform quasi-wideness is that the functions $N$ and $s$ used in the
definition of the class are established by iterated Ramsey arguments
(see \cite{nevsetvril2010first,NesetrilOdM12}). Therefore, the
function $N$ grows extremely fast and depends non-elementarily on the
size of the excluded cliques in the definition of nowhere
denseness. It follows that fixed-parameter algorithms using uniform
quasi-wideness, such as the algorithms in \cite{DawarK09} mentioned
above, have astronomical parameter dependence making them infeasible
in practice even for very small parameter values.
Our first main result is to improve the bounds on
uniform quasi-wideness dramatically. In fact, we can show that a class~$\mathcal{C}$ is
uniformly quasi-wide with margin $N \mathop{:} \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N}\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ if, and only
if, for every $r\in \mathbb{N}$ there is a polynomial $p_r(x)$ such that $\mathcal{C}$ is
uniformly quasi-wide with margin $N'(r,m)\leq p_r(m)$. This is a direct
corollary of the following theorem, which we prove in~\sref{Section}{sec:uqw}.
\newcounter{main_thm}
\setcounter{main_thm}{\value{theorem}}
\newcounter{main_thm_section}
\setcounter{main_thm_section}{\value{section}}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:uqw}
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a nowhere dense class of graphs. For every $r\in \mathbb{N}$
there exists a polynomial~$p_r(x)$ and a constant $s(r)$ such that
for all $m\in \mathbb{N}$ and all sets $A\subseteq V(G)$ of size at least
$p_r(m)$ for $G\in\mathcal{C}$, there is a set $S\subseteq V(G)$ of size at
most $s(r)$ such that there is a set $B\subseteq A$ of size at
least~$m$ which is $r$-independent in $G-S$.
Furthermore, if $K_c\not\preccurlyeq_rG$ for all $G\in \mathcal{C}$, then
$s(r)\leq c$ and there is an algorithm, that given
$G\in \mathcal{C}$, $\epsilon>0$, $r\in \mathbb{N}$ and $A\subseteq V(G)$ of size at least
$p_r(m)$, computes a set $S$ of size at most $s(r)$ and an
$r$-independent set $B\subseteq A$ in $G-S$ of size at least $m$ in
time $\mathcal{O}(r\cdot c\cdot |A|^{c+1}\cdot n^{1+\epsilon})$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary}
A class $\mathcal{C}$ of graphs is uniformly quasi-wide with margins
$N \mathop{:} \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N}\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ and $s:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$
if, and only if, it is uniformly
quasi-wide with a polynomial margin
$N'(r,m)\leq p_r(m)$ and a
margin $s'(r)\leq c$ for a
polynomial~$p_r(x)$ and a constant $c$
depending on $r$ and $\mathcal{C}$ only.
\end{corollary}
Compare this result to a result of a similar flavour by Demaine and
Hajiaghayi~\cite{demaine2004equivalence}, stating that a minor closed
class $\mathcal{C}$ of graphs has bounded local treewidth if, and only if,
$\mathcal{C}$ has linearly bounded local treewidth.
\bigskip The polynomial bounds on the margin of uniformly quasi-wide
classes, and hence nowhere dense classes, give us a new tool to prove
polynomial kernels. As our second main algorithmic result, proved
in~\sref{Section}{sec:kernel}, we take a step towards solving an open problem
stated in \cite{drange2016kernelization}, to find an (almost) linear kernel for
the \textsc{Distance-$r$ Dominating Set} problem on nowhere dense
classes of graphs.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:poly-kernel}
For every fixed value $r\in \mathbb{N}$, there is a polynomial kernel for the
\textsc{Distance-$r$ Dominating Set} problem on every nowhere dense class of
graphs.
\end{theorem}
We remark that in \cite{drange2015kernelization} it was already shown that for
classes $\mathcal{C}$ that are closed under taking subgraphs, if $\mathcal{C}$ admits a kernel
for the \textsc{Distance-$r$ Dominating Set} problem for every $r\in \mathbb{N}$,
then~$\mathcal{C}$ must be nowhere dense (under the standard assumption that FPT $\neq$
W[2]). Hence, under this assumption, the theorem implies that a class $\mathcal{C}$
which is closed under taking subgraphs admits a kernel for the
\textsc{Distance-$r$ Dominating Set} problem for every $r\in\mathbb{N}$ if, and only if,
it admits a polynomial kernel for every $r\in\mathbb{N}$.
\bigskip As another consequence of~\autoref{thm:uqw} we can
dramatically improve the parameter dependence of many fixed-parameter
algorithms on nowhere dense classes such as the algorithms developed
in~\cite{DawarK09}. We demonstrate this by considering the
\textsc{Connected Dominating Set} problem. See~\sref{Section}{sec:single} for a
proof of the following theorem.
\newcounter{fpt_thm}
\setcounter{fpt_thm}{\value{theorem}}
\newcounter{fpt_thm_section}
\setcounter{fpt_thm_section}{\value{section}}
\begin{theorem}
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a nowhere dense class of graphs. Then there is a
polynomial $p(x)$ and an algorithm running in time
$2^{p(k)}\cdot n^{1+\epsilon}$ which, given an $n$-vertex graph $G$,
$\epsilon>0$ and a
number~$k$ as input, decides whether $G$ contains a connected
dominating set of size~$k$.
\end{theorem}
We prove our results using tools from a branch of model theory known
as \emph{stability theory}. Stability was introduced by Shelah as a
notion of well-behaved first-order logic theories. In a recent paper,
Malliaris and Shelah \cite{malliaris2014regularity} used the model
theoretic tools to study classes of \emph{stable graphs}. Stable
classes of graphs are much more general than nowhere dense classes of
graphs, but the two concepts coincide on classes of graphs closed
under taking subgraphs~\cite{adler2014interpreting}. The focus of \cite{malliaris2014regularity} is
on proving very strong regularity lemmas for stable graphs. For
obtaining these lemmas they prove a very nice technical lemma,
\autoref{thm:extract_indiscernibles} below, on the existence of long
$\Delta$-indiscernible sequences in stable graphs, where $\Delta$ is a
finite set of first-order formulas. We are going to use
$\Delta$-indiscernible sequences to extract large $r$-independent sets
for properly defined formula sets~$\Delta$.
See~\sref{Section}{sec:prelims} for the definition of $\Delta$-indiscernible
sequences. One of the technical tools we develop in this paper is to
make this lemma of \cite{malliaris2014regularity} algorithmic so that
we can apply it in our algorithms.
We believe that stable classes will be very interesting for future
algorithmic research and may be a good candidate for a generalisation
of nowhere dense classes with good algorithmic properties towards
classes of graphs which are no longer closed under taking subgraphs
(but e.g.\@ are only closed under taking induced subgraphs). Our
technical results here may therefore be of independent interest as a
first step towards understanding the algorithmic context of stable
classes of graphs.
\section{Stability and Indiscernibles}
\label{sec:prelims}
\paragraph{Graphs.} We use standard graph theoretical notation
and refer to~\cite{diestel2012graph} for reference. Let $G$ be an
undirected graph. We write $N(v)$ for the set of neighbours of a
vertex $v\in V(G)$ and $v$ itself and $N_r(v)$ for the set of vertices at distance at
most~$r$ from~$v$, again including $v$. A set $W\subseteq V(G)$ is called
\emph{$r$-independent} in $G$, if all distinct $u,v\in W$ have
distance greater than $r$ in $G$.
\paragraph{Ladder index, branching index and VC-dimension.}
Let $G$ be a directed graph. The \emph{ladder index} of~$G$ is the
largest number $k$ such that there are
$v_1,\ldots, v_k,w_1,\ldots, w_k\in V(G)$ with
\[(v_i, w_j)\in E(G)\;\Leftrightarrow\; i\leq j.\]
If $\tau$ is a word over an alphabet $\Sigma$ and
$a\in \Sigma$, then $\tau\cdot a$ denotes the concatenation of~$\tau$
and $a$. The \emph{branching index} of $G$ is the largest number
$\ell$ such that there are vertices
$u_{\sigma_1},\ldots, u_{\sigma_{2^\ell}}\in V(G)$, indexed by the
words over the alphabet $\{0,1\}$ of length exactly $\ell$, and
vertices $v_{\tau_1},\ldots, v_{\tau_{2^\ell-1}}$, indexed by the
words over $\{0,1\}$ of length strictly smaller than $\ell$, such that
if $\tau_j\cdot a$ is a (not necessarily proper) prefix of~$\sigma_i$, then
$(u_{\sigma_i},v_{\tau_j})\in E(G)$ if, and only if, $a=1$. The vertices
$u_{\sigma_1},\ldots, u_{\sigma_{2^\ell}}\in V(G)$ are called the
\emph{leaves} of the tree, the vertices $v_{\tau_1},\ldots, v_{\tau_{2^\ell-1}}$
are its \emph{inner nodes}. Note that we describe edges only between inner
nodes and leaves. Intuitively, a leaf $u$ is connected to its predecessors~$v$ such
that $u$ is a \emph{right successor} of $v$ and not to its predecessors such that
it is a \emph{left
successor}, while we make no assumptions on edges between different
branches. We call the graph
induced by vertices $u_{\sigma_1},\ldots, u_{\sigma_{2^\ell}}$ and
$v_{\tau_1},\ldots, v_{\tau_{2^\ell-1}}$ a \emph{branching witness} for~$G$ of
index~$\ell$.
\bigskip
The ladder index and branching index of $G$ are closely related, as
shown by the next lemma.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{hodges1993model}, Lemma 6.7.9, p.\
313]\label{lem:branching}
Let $G$ be a directed graph. If $G$ has branching index~$k$,
then~$G$ has ladder index smaller than $2^{k+1}$. If $G$ has
ladder index $k$, then $G$ has branching index smaller than
$2^{k+2}-2$.
\end{lemma}
We come to the definition of VC-dimension. Let $A$ be a set and let
$\mathcal{F}\subseteq \mathcal{P} ow(A)$ be a family of subsets of $A$. For a set
$X\subseteq A$ let
\[X\cap \mathcal{F}\coloneqq\{X\cap F : F\in \mathcal{F}\}.\]
The set $X$ is \emph{shattered by $\mathcal{F}$} if
\[X\cap \mathcal{F}=\mathcal{P} ow(X).\]
The \emph{Vapnik-Chervonenkis-dimension}, short \emph{VC-dimension},
of $\mathcal{F}$ is the maximum size of a set $X$ that is shattered by
$\mathcal{F}$. Note that if $X$ is shattered by $\mathcal{F}$, then also every
subset of $X$ is shattered by~$\mathcal{F}$.
The following theorem was first proved by Vapnik and
Chervonenkis~\cite{vapnik2015uniform}, and rediscovered by
Sauer~\cite{sauer1972density} and
Shelah~\cite{shelah1972combinatorial}. It is often called the
Sauer-Shelah-Lemma in the literature.
\begin{theorem}[Sauer-Shelah-Lemma]\label{thm:sauer_shelah}
If $\abs{A}\leq m$ and $\mathcal{F} \subseteq \mathcal{P} ow(A)$ has VC-dimension $d$,
then
\[\abs{\mathcal{F}}\leq \sum_{i=0}^{d}\binom{m}{i}.\]
\end{theorem}
The VC-dimension of an undirected graph $G$ is the VC-dimension of the
family of sets \[\mathcal{F}=\{N(v) : v\in V(G)\}.\]
\paragraph{First-order logic.}
For extensive background on first-order logic, we refer the reader
to~\cite{hodges1993model}. For our purpose, it suffices to define
first-order logic over the vocabulary of graphs (with constant symbols
from a given parameter set).
Let $A$ be a set. We call $L\hspace{0.3mm}(\hspace{-0.2mm}A\hspace{0.2mm})\coloneqq\{E\hspace{0.3mm}\}\cup A$ the \emph{vocabulary}
of graphs with parameters from $A$. \emph{First-order formulas} over $L\hspace{0.3mm}(\hspace{-0.2mm}A\hspace{0.2mm})$ are
formed from atomic formulas~$x=y$ and $E(x,y)$, where $x,y$ are variables (we
assume that we have an infinite supply of variables) or elements of $A$ treated
as constant symbols, by the usual Boolean
connectives~$\neg$~(negation),~$\wedge$ (conjunction), and~$\vee$ (disjunction)
and existential and universal quantification~$\exists x,\forall x$,
respectively. The free variables of a formula are those not in the scope of a
quantifier, and we write~$\phi(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ to indicate that the free
variables of the formula~$\phi$ are among $x_1,\ldots,x_k$.
To define the semantics, we inductively define a satisfaction
relation~$\models$. Let $G$ be a graph and $A\subseteq V(G)$. For an
$L\hspace{0.3mm}(\hspace{-0.2mm}A\hspace{0.2mm})$-formula~$\phi(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$, and
$v_1,\ldots,v_k\in V(G)$, $G\models\phi(v_1,\ldots,v_k)$
means that~$G$ satisfies~$\phi$ if the free variables~$x_1,\ldots,x_k$
are interpreted by~$v_1,\ldots,v_k$ and the parameters $a\in A$
(formally treated as constant symbols) used in the formula are
interpreted by the corresponding element of $A$ in $G$, respectively. If
$\phi(x_1,x_2)=E(x_1,x_2)$ is atomic, then $G\models\phi(v_1,v_2)$
if~$(v_1,v_2)\in E(G)$. The meaning of the equality symbol, the
Boolean connectives, and the quantifiers is as expected. For a
formula $\phi(x_1,\ldots, x_k, y_1,\ldots, y_\ell)$ and
$v_1,\ldots, v_\ell\in V(G)$ (treated as a sequence of parameters), we
write $\phi(x_1,\ldots, x_k, v_1,\ldots, v_\ell)$ for the formula with
free variables $x_1,\ldots, x_k$ where each occurrence of the variable
$y_i$ in $\phi$ is replaced by the constant symbol $v_i$.
Let $\Delta$ be a set of formulas, let $G$ be a graph and let
$A\subseteq V(G)$. Let $v\in V(G)$. The \emph{$\Delta$-type of
vertex~$v$ in $G$ over the parameters $A$} is the set
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{tp}_\Delta(G, A, v) & \coloneqq \{ \phi(x_1,v_1,\ldots, v_k) :
\phi(x_1,y_1,\ldots, y_k)\in \Delta,
v_1,\ldots, v_k\in A,
G\models\phi(v,v_1,\ldots, v_k)\}
\\
& \hspace{1pt}\ \cup \{ \neg \phi(x_1,v_1,\ldots, v_k) : \phi(x_1,y_1,\ldots, y_k)\in
\Delta, v_1,\ldots, v_k\in A, G\not\models\phi(v,v_1,\ldots, v_k)\}.
\end{align*}
The set of \emph{$\Delta$-types realised} in $G$ over $A$ is the set
$S_\Delta(G,A) \coloneqq \{ \mathrm{tp}_\Delta(G, A, v) \mathop{:} v\in V(G) \}$.
\begin{example}\label{ex:types}
Let $\Delta^r$ be the set consisting of the single formula
$\phi_r(x_1,y_1)$, stating that the elements~$x_1$ and $y_1$ have
distance at most $r$ in a graph $G$. Let $G$ be a graph and let
$A\subseteq V(G)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For $v\in V(G)$, we can identify
$\mathrm{tp}_{\Delta^r}(G,A,v)$ with $N_r(v)\cap A$, in the sense
that $a\in N_r(v)\cap A$ if, and only if, the formula
$\phi_r(x_1, a)\in \mathrm{tp}_{\Delta^r}(G,A,v)$.
\item If $G$ is an arbitrary graph, then we can have
$\abs{S_{\Delta^1}(G,A)}=2^{\abs{A}}$. If $G$ has VC-dimension~$k$, then
$\abs{S_{\Delta^1}(G,A)}\leq \abs{A}^k$ according to the
Sauer-Shelah-Lemma. If $G$ comes from a nowhere dense class of
graphs and $\epsilon>0$, then we
have $\abs{S_{\Delta^1}(G,A)}\leq \abs{A}^{1+\epsilon}$ for all sufficiently
large~$A$, see Lemma 4.15
of~\cite{gajarsky2013kernelizationarxiv}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
Using tools from stability theory, a much more general result can be
established (\autoref{thm:shelah1} below).
\paragraph{First-order interpretations and stability.}
Let $\phi(x_1,\ldots, x_k)$ with $k\geq 2$ be a first-order formula
and let $G$ be a graph. For every \emph{ordered partition}
$(x_{i_1},\ldots, x_{i_\ell}), (x_{i_{\ell+1}},\ldots, x_{i_k})$ of
the variables $x_1,\ldots, x_k$ we define a directed graph
$G_{\phi((x_{i_1},\ldots, x_{i_\ell}), (x_{i_{\ell+1}},\ldots,
x_{i_k}))}$
which has as its vertices the \mbox{$\ell$-tuples} $(v_1,\ldots, v_\ell)$
and $k-\ell$-tuples $(v_{\ell+1},\ldots, v_k)$ of
vertices of $G$ and all arcs
$((v_1,\ldots, v_\ell), (v_{\ell+1},\ldots, v_k))$ such that
$G\models\phi(v_{i_1},\ldots, v_{i_k})$. If the variable partition is
of relevance, we will always denote the formula as
$\phi((x_{i_1},\ldots, x_{i_\ell}), (x_{i_{\ell+1}},\ldots,
x_{i_k}))$.
\begin{example}
Let $\phi_r(x_1,x_2)$ be the formula from~\sref{Example}{ex:types} (where we
renamed the variables to match the above definition of
interpretations). Then $G_{\phi_r(x_1,x_2)}$ has the same vertex set as~$G$
and any two vertices are joined by an edge in $G_{\phi_r(x_1,x_2)}$
if, and only if, their distance is at most~$r$ in~$G$.
\end{example}
A formula
$\phi((x_{i_1},\ldots, x_{i_\ell}), (x_{i_{\ell+1}},\ldots, x_{i_k}))$
with a partition of its free variables is \emph{stable on a class
$\mathcal{C}$} of graphs, if there is an integer $s$ such that for every
graph $G\in \mathcal{C}$ the graph
$G_{\phi((x_{i_1},\ldots, x_{i_\ell}), (x_{i_{\ell+1}},\ldots,
x_{i_k}))}$
has ladder index at most $s$. A class $\mathcal{C}$ of graphs is
\emph{stable} if every formula with every partition of its free
variables is stable on $\mathcal{C}$.
As proved by Adler and Adler in \cite{adler2014interpreting} (based on work
of Podewski and Ziegler~\cite{podewski1978stable}), stable
classes properly extend the concept of nowhere dense classes.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{adler2014interpreting}]\label{thm:ndstable}
Every nowhere dense class of graphs $\mathcal{C}$ is stable, that is, for
every formula
$\phi((x_{i_1},\ldots, x_{i_\ell}), (x_{i_{\ell+1}},\ldots,
x_{i_k}))$
with every partition of its free variables there is an integer $s$
such that for every graph $G\in \mathcal{C}$ the graph
$G_{\phi((x_{i_1},\ldots, x_{i_\ell}), (x_{i_{\ell+1}},\ldots,
x_{i_k}))}$ has ladder index at most $s$.
\end{theorem}
Note that the converse is not true, as, e.g., the class of complete
graphs is stable but not nowhere dense. In particular, stable classes
are possibly not closed under taking subgraphs. We remark that
in~\cite{malliaris2014regularity} a stable class of graphs is defined as
a class $\mathcal{C}$ such that the ladder index of every graph $G\in \mathcal{C}$
is bounded by a constant $s$ depending only on $\mathcal{C}$ (that is,
\cite{malliaris2014regularity} does not demand closure under
interpretations).
The following theorem is easily proved using the Sauer-Shelah Lemma.
\begin{theorem}[see \cite{shelah1990classification}, Theorem II.4.10(4) and
II.4.11(4), p.74]\label{thm:shelah1}
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a stable class of graphs and let $\Delta$ be a finite
set of first-order formulas. There exists an integer $s$ such that for
all $G\in \mathcal{C}$ and all $A\subseteq V(G)$ with $\abs{A}\geq 2$ it holds
that $\abs{S_\Delta(G,A)}\leq \abs{A}^s$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary}\label{crl:neighbourhoodcomplexity}
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a nowhere dense class of graphs and let $r$ be a
positive integer. There is an integer~$s$ such that for all
$G\in \mathcal{C}$ and all $A\subseteq V(G)$ it holds that
\[\abs{\{N_r(v)\cap A : v\in V(G)\}}\leq \abs{A}^s.\]
\end{corollary}
\paragraph{Indiscernible sequences.}
Let $G$ be a graph and let $\Delta$ be a set of formulas. A sequence
$(v_1,\ldots, v_\ell)$ of vertices of $G$ is
\emph{$\Delta$-indiscernible} if for every formula
$\phi(x_1,\ldots, x_k)\in \Delta$ with $k$ free variables and any two
increasing sequences
$1\leq i_1<\ldots <i_k\leq \ell, 1\leq j_1< \ldots< j_k\leq \ell$ of
integers, it holds that
\[G\models\phi(v_{i_1},\ldots, v_{i_k})\Leftrightarrow G\models\phi(v_{j_1},
\ldots, v_{j_k}).\]
The following theorem forms the basis of our construction. The proof
follows immediately from Theorem 3.5, Item (2) of
\cite{malliaris2014regularity} and parallels that proof,
however, we provide a proof of the theorem because we will
provide a precise analysis for the nowhere dense case in \sref{Section}{sec:uqw}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:extract_indiscernibles}
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a stable class of graphs and let $\Delta$ be a finite
set of first-order formulas. There is a polynomial $p(x)$ such that
for all $G\in \mathcal{C}$, every positive integer $m$ and every sequence
$(v_1,\ldots, v_\ell)$ of vertices of $G$ of length $\ell=p(m)$, there
exists a sub-sequence $(v_{i_1},\ldots, v_{i_m})$ of
$(v_1,\ldots, v_\ell)$ of length $m$ which is
$\Delta$-indiscernible, $1\leq i_1<\ldots <i_m\leq \ell$.
Furthermore, there is an algorithm running in time
$\mathcal{O}(\abs{\Delta}\cdot k \cdot \ell^{k+1}
\cdot n^{q})$, where $k$ is the maximal number of
free variables and $q$ is
the maximal quantifier-rank of a formula of $\Delta$,
that given an $n$-vertex graph $G\in \mathcal{C}$ and a sequence
$(v_1,\ldots, v_\ell)\subseteq V(G)$, computes a
$\Delta$-indiscernible sub-sequence of $(v_1,\ldots, v_\ell)$
of length at least $m$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $G\in \mathcal{C}$ and let $(v_1,\ldots, v_\ell)$ be a sequence of
vertices of $G$. We prove that for every formula
$\phi(x_1,\ldots, x_k)\in \Delta$ there is a
$\{\phi\}$-indiscernible subsequence of length at least $f^k(\ell)$,
where $f(\ell)=\abs{\frac{\ell}{t}}^{\frac{1}{tr+t+1}}-k$ for
constants $r,t$ depending only on $\phi$ and $\mathcal{C}$. The claim of
the theorem then follows by iteratively extracting
$\{\phi\}$-indiscernible sequences for all $\phi\in \Delta$ and
combining the polynomials accordingly.
\medskip Let $\phi(x_1,\ldots, x_k)\in \Delta$. Let $G\in \mathcal{C}$ and let
$(v_1,\ldots, v_\ell)$ be a sequence of vertices of~$G$. Let
$A\coloneqq\{v_1,\ldots, v_\ell\}$. As $\mathcal{C}$ is stable, according
to \autoref{thm:shelah1}, there is an integer $r$ such that
$\abs{S_{\{\phi\}}(G,A)}\leq \abs{A}^r$. Here, we consider the sets
$S_{\{\phi((x_i), (x_1,\ldots, x_{i-1},x_{i+1},\ldots, x_k))\}}(G,A)$ for
every partition $\phi((x_i), (x_1,\ldots, x_{i-1},x_{i+1},\ldots, x_k))$ of
the free variables of $\phi$ and we choose $r$ such that it works for every
such partition of the variables.
\medskip We prove by induction on $0\leq m\leq k$ that there exists
a sub-sequence $\bar{u}_m$ of $(v_1,\ldots, v_\ell)$
with
\begin{enumerate
\item $\abs{\bar{u}_m}\ge f^m(\ell)$ and
\item \label{item:cond-b}for all sub-sequences
$\bar a = a_1,\ldots,a_k$ and $\bar b = b_1,\ldots,b_k$ of
$\bar{u}_m$, if $a_i=b_i$ for all $i\in\{1,\ldots,k-m\}$, then
\[G\models \phi(\bar a) \Leftrightarrow G\models \phi(\bar b)\,.\]
\end{enumerate}
Note that the elements of a sub-sequence of a sequence preserve their respective order.
\bigskip For $m=0$ there is nothing to show, we can take
$\bar{u}_0 =(v_1,\ldots, v_\ell)$ of length $f^0(\ell)=\ell$.
For $m+1$ assume that $\bar{u}_m=(v_1,\ldots, v_{\ell(m)})$ is
constructed as required. We define
\[\phi^m = \phi((x_{k-m}), (x_1,\ldots, x_{k-m-1}, v_{\ell(m)-m+1},\ldots,v_{\ell(m)})),\]
that is, we fix the interpretation of the last $m$ free variables
as the last $m$ elements of the sequence~$\bar{u}_m$.
\medskip We construct a tree $T$ whose vertices are elements from
$\bar{u}_m$, except for the root, which we label~$\emptyset$.
We attach $v_1$ as a child of the root $\emptyset$.
In the following, by a \emph{maximal} element $z$ in the tree $T$
satisfying some condition we always mean an element of $T$
satisfying this condition which is as far away from the root as
possible in the sense that in the subtree of $T$ rooted at $z$ no other
element satisfies this condition.
By induction,
assume that for some $j < \ell(m)$ all $v_i$ with $i<j$ are
inserted in the tree and we want to insert $v_j$. For a vertex
$v$ of the tree let $P(v)$ be the path from the root to $v$
excluding~$v$ and for a child $v$ of the root
let $P(v)$ be the empty path. Let
$w$ be a maximal vertex that realises the
same $\{\phi^m\}$-type over $P(w)$ as $v_j$ (that is, no successor
$z$ of $w$ realises the same $\{\phi^m\}$-type over $P(z)$ as $v_j$), or
$w = \emptyset$ if no such vertex exists. We insert $v_j$ as a new child
of $w$.
We call the resulting tree~$T$ a \emph{type tree.} For
two vertices $v$ and $w$ we write $v <_T w$ if $v \in P(w)$. The
tree constructed in this way satisfies three properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item if $v = v_i <_T w = v_j$, then $i<j$, that is, paths in the type tree respect
the order of $\bar{u}_m$,
\item if $v <_T w$, then $v$ and $w$ have
the same $\{\phi^m\}$-types over $P(v)$, and
\item if $v\neq w$ and neither $v <_T w$ nor $w <_T v$, then $v$
and $w$ realise different $\{\phi^m\}$-types over
$P(v)\cap P(w)$ and they realise the same $\{\phi^m\}$-type
over $P(z)$, where $z$ is the maximal element of $P(v)\cap P(w)$.
\end{itemize}
We show that there exists a sufficiently long branch of $T$ that can be used as
$\bar{u}_{m+1}$.
Let $\bar a = a_1,\ldots,a_k$ and
$\bar b = b_1,\ldots,b_k$ be sub-sequences of $\bar{u}_m$ such
that, first, $a_i=b_i$ for all $i\in\{1,\ldots,k-m-1\}$, and,
second, both $\bar{a}$ and $\bar{b}$ are subsequences of a path
$P(w)$ in $T$ for some $w$. If $a_{k-m} = b_{k-m}$,
\condref{item:cond-b} is proven for $\bar{u}_{m+1}$, so we can
assume without loss of
generality that $a_{k-m}<_T b_{k-m}$. For all sequences $\bar d_1$
and $\bar d_2$ we abbreviate
$G \models \phi(\bar d_1)\Leftrightarrow G\models \phi(\bar d_2)$
by $\phi(\bar d_1)\equiv_G \phi(\bar d_2)$. Then
\[\phi(a_1,\ldots,a_{k-m-1},a_{k-m}, \ldots,a_k) \equiv_G
\phi(a_1,\ldots,a_{k-m-1},a_{k-m}, v_{\ell(m)-m+1},\ldots,v_{\ell(m)})\]
by the induction hypothesis, as the arguments coincide on the
first $k-m$ arguments. As
$a_{k-m}$ and $b_{k-m}$ realise the same $\phi^m$-type over
$P(a_{k-m})$, we obtain
\[ \phi(a_1,\ldots,a_{k-m-1},a_{k-m},v_{\ell(m)-m+1},\ldots,v_{\ell(m)})
\equiv_G
\phi(a_1,\ldots,a_{k-m-1},b_{k-m},v_{\ell(m)-m+1},\ldots,v_{\ell(m)})
\]
and, using the induction hypothesis again and the condition that
$a_i=b_i$ for $i\le k-m-1$,
\[
\phi(a_1,\ldots,a_{k-m-1},b_{k-m},v_{\ell(m)-m+1},\ldots,v_{\ell(m)})
\equiv_G
\phi(a_1,\ldots,a_{k-m-1},b_{k-m},b_{k-m+1},\ldots,b_k)\,.
\]
This proves \condref{item:cond-b}. It remains to show that the tree
has a sufficiently long branch. For this, we want to show that $T$ does not
have a too big complete binary subtree.
Consider the graph
$G_B=G_{\phi((x_{k-m}),(x_1,\ldots, x_{k-m-1},v_{\ell(m)-m+1},\ldots,
v_{\ell(m)}))}$
consisting of vertices represented by single vertices of $G$ (first type)
and those represented by $k-1$-tuples (second type).
As by assumption $\mathcal{C}$ is stable,
according to \autoref{thm:ndstable}, the graph $G_B$ as
an interpretation of $G$ has
ladder index at most $s$ for some constant~$s$, and hence according
to \sref{Lemma}{lem:branching}, its branching index is bounded by
$t\coloneqq 2^{s+2}-2$. Let $S$ be a complete binary subtree of $T$.
We show that we can construct a branching witness for $G_B$ with
the same leaves as $S$ (note that the vertices of first type are actual
vertices of $G$). This implies that
$S$ can have depth at most $t$.
By construction of $S$, all distinct leaves $v,w$ of $S$ have a
different $\{\phi^m\}$-type over $P(v)\cap P(w)$ while they
have the same type over $P(z)$, where $z$ is the maximal element
of $P(v)\cap P(w)$. In particular, there is a tuple
$(a_1,\ldots, a_{k-m-1})\in P(z)$ such that
$G\models\phi(a_1,\ldots, a_{k-m-1}, u, v_{\ell(m)-m+1},\ldots,
v_{\ell(m)})$ for all right successors $v$ of $z$, and such that
$G\not\models\phi(a_1,\ldots, a_{k-m-1}, w, v_{\ell(m)-m+1},\ldots,
v_{\ell(m)})$ for all left successors $w$ of $z$.
Observe that all inner vertices of the so constructed branching
witness are distinct as no other tuple contains the element $a_{k-m-1}$
at position $k-m$. Hence we constructed a branching witness of index $t$
as claimed.
We now assign to every vertex $v$ in the tree $T$ its \emph{binary rank},
that is, the maximal height of a full binary tree that is a
sub-graph of the sub-tree rooted at $v$ (compare to the
\emph{stability rank} of sets of formulas in~\cite{shelah1990classification}) The
\emph{depth} of a vertex $v$ in $T$ is $\abs{P(v)}$.
Let $N^s_\ell$ be the set of vertices of the type tree $T$ with
rank $s$ and depth $\ell$. For $\ell>0$ let
$X^s_\ell\subseteq N^s_\ell$ be the set vertices from $N^s_\ell$
whose direct predecessor has rank $s$ and let
$Y^s_\ell\subseteq N^s_\ell$ be the set vertices from $N^s_\ell$
whose direct predecessors have rank $s+1$ (we may assume that we have maximal branching,
hence all successors have rank $s$ or $s+1$).
Then $N^s_\ell \subseteq X^s_\ell \cup Y^s_\ell$.
Define
\[n^s_\ell = \abs{N^s_\ell}, \qquad x^s_\ell = \abs{X^s_\ell}
\text{\qquad and } \qquad y^s_\ell = \abs{Y^s_\ell}\,.\]
A vertex $v$ of depth $d$ can have at most $(d+m+1)^r$ direct
successors (recall that for every set $A$ we have
$\abs{S_{\{\phi\}}(G,A)}\leq \abs{A}^r$). This is because every two such
successors have different $\phi^m$-types over $P(v)\cup\{v\}$, so
there are $\abs{P(v)}+1$ predecessors and, additionally, $m$
parameters that are fixed in the formula~$\phi^m$.
The following inequalities hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $x^s_{\ell+1} \le n^s_\ell$, because the direct predecessor $w$ of any vertex in
$X_\ell^s$ has at most one direct successor
of rank $s$ (otherwise $w$ had rank $s+1$),\label{item:a}
\item
$y^s_{\ell+1} \le n^{s+1}_\ell\cdot (\ell+m+1)^r$,\label{item:b}
\item
$n^s_{\ell+1} \le n^s_\ell + n^{s+1}_\ell\cdot
(\ell+m+1)^r$,\label{item:c}
\item $n^s_0 = 0$ for $1\le s<t$,\label{item:d}
\item $n^t_\ell \le 1$ where $t$ is the rank of the
root. \label{item:e}
\end{enumerate}
As the next step we show by induction on $s$ that
$n^{t-s}_{\ell+1} \le (\ell+m+1)^{s(r+1)}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item For $s=1$ we show the statement by induction on $\ell$. For
$\ell=0$ first (\ref{item:c}) and then (\ref{item:d}) and
(\ref{item:e}) give us
\[n^{t-1}_1 \le n^{t-1}_0 + n^t_0(\ell+m+1)^r \le
(\ell+m+1)^r\,.\]
For $\ell+1$ using first (\ref{item:c}) and then the induction
hypothesis (for $\ell$) and (\ref{item:e}) we obtain
\[
n^{t-1}_{\ell+1} \le n^{t-1}_\ell + n^t_\ell (\ell+m+1)^r \le
(\ell + m)^{r+1} + (\ell+m + 1)^r \le (\ell + m +1)^{r+1}\,.
\]
\item For $s+1$ the proof is again by induction on $\ell$. For
$\ell=0$,
\[\ n^{t-(s+1)}_1 \le n^{t-(s+1)}_0 + n^{t-s}_0(\ell + m + 1)^r
\le (\ell+m+1)^r\]
and for $s+1$ as above and using the induction hypothesis for
$s$,
\begin{align*}
n^{t-(s+1)}_{\ell+1} \le n^{t-(s+1)}_\ell + n^{t-s}_\ell(\ell
+ m + 1)^r& \le (\ell+m)^{(s+1)(r+1)} + (l+m)^{s(r+1)}(\ell+m+1)^r \\&\le
(\ell+m+1)^{(s+1)(r+1)}\,.
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
The total number $n_{\ell+1}$ of vertices of depth $\ell+1$ is
then
\[ n_{\ell+1} \le \sum_{s\le t} n^{t-s}_{\ell+1} \le \sum_{s\le t}
(\ell+m+1)^{s(r+1)} \le t(\ell+m+1)^{t(r+1)}\,.\]
Now the number of vertices in a tree of depth at most $d$
(including the root at depth~$0$) is
\[ N = 1 + \sum_{\ell < d} n_{\ell+1} \le 1 +
\sum_{\ell<d}t(\ell+m+1)^{t(r+1)} < t(d+m+1)^{t(r+1)+1},\]
and thus $d> \left(\frac N{t}\right)^{tr+t+1}-m-1$, so if
$\abs{\bar{u}_m}>t(d+m+1)^{t(r+1)+1}$, then there is a branch of
length at least $\left(\frac N{t}\right)^{tr+t+1}-m$. Replacing
$m$ with $k$ we obtain a slightly worse bound that, however, does
not depend on the induction step.
In $k$ steps we extract a sequence $\bar{u}$ of length at least
$f^{(k)}(\ell(m))$, where
$f(\ell) = \left(\frac \ell{t}\right)^{tr+t+1}-k$.
\bigskip It remains to analyse the running time of the
constructive procedure described above. It suffices to
show that the sequence constructed in the inductive step of the above
proof can be
computed in polynomial time. First, the type tree $T$ is
computed. We construct $T$ inductively as in the proof. While
adding new vertices to the tree, we keep track of their height in
the tree and we keep track of the longest branch. Thus after
computing~$T$, we just output the longest branch as $\bar{u}_{m+1}$.
For every vertex $v\in \bar{u}_i$, we
search through the type tree to find the maximal element with the
same $\{\phi^m\}$-type to decide where to insert $v$. Here, we have
to compare $v$ to less than $\ell$ elements.
To check the $\{\phi^m\}$-type we perform a standard model-checking
algorithm to verify whether $G\models \phi(\bar a, v, \bar
v)$.
Here $\bar a$ is an $m$-tuple of vertices on the path from the root to the
current leaf (of length less than $\ell$)
and~$\bar v$ are the parameters from $\phi^m$.
Note that $m\le k$ and the parameters in the formulas of
$\phi^m$ are fixed for each $m$. Hence, the check whether
$G\models \phi(\bar a, v, \bar v)$ can be carried out in time
$\mathcal{O}(n^q)$ and it takes time at most
$\mathcal{O}(\ell^k\cdot n^q)$ to iterate through all
$m$-tuples~$\bar a$. Note that for model-checking a
formula with $q$ quantifiers
in time $\mathcal{O}(n^q)$ we assume that
adjacency of two vertices can be tested in constant time, which
is possible when the graph is stored by an adjacency matrix.
Summing up, we need $\mathcal{O}(\abs{\Delta}\cdot k \cdot\ell\cdot \ell^k
\cdot n^{q})=\mathcal{O}(\abs{\Delta}\cdot k \cdot \ell^{k+1}
\cdot n^{q})$ steps to
compute the final $\Delta$-indiscernible sequence.
\end{proof}
As a consequence we obtain the following corollary, which
in particular applies to nowhere dense classes of graphs.
\begin{corollary}\label{crl:extract_indiscernible_nd}
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a stable class of graphs and let~$\Delta$ be an arbitrary finite set of
formulas. Then there is a polynomial $p(x)$ such that for every
positive integer~$m$ and every sequence $(v_1,\ldots, v_\ell)$ of
vertices of $G\in \mathcal{C}$ of length $\ell=p(m)$, there is a
subsequence of length at least $m$ which is $\Delta$-indiscernible.
\end{corollary}
\section{Improved Bounds on Uniform Quasi-Wideness}
\label{sec:uqw}
We can now show our first main theorem (Theorem~\ref{thm:uqw}), stating that a class is
uniformly quasi-wide with margin $N:\mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N}\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ if, and
only if, for every $r\in \mathbb{N}$ there is a polynomial margin
$N'(r,m)$. For convenience, we repeat the statement of the theorem
here.
\newcounter{tmp_c}
\setcounter{tmp_c}{\value{theorem}}
\setcounter{theorem}{\value{main_thm}}
\newcounter{tmp_c_section}
\setcounter{tmp_c_section}{\value{section}}
\setcounter{section}{\value{main_thm_section}}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:uqw}
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a nowhere dense class of graphs. For every $r\in \mathbb{N}$
there exists a polynomial $p_r(x)$ and a constant $s(r)$ such that
for all $m\in \mathbb{N}$ and all sets $A\subseteq V(G)$ of size at least
$p_r(m)$ for $G\in\mathcal{C}$, there is a set $S\subseteq V(G)$ of size at
most $s(r)$ such that there is a set $B\subseteq A$ of size at
least~$m$ which is $r$-independent in $G-S$.
Furthermore, if $K_c\not\preccurlyeq_rG$ for all $G\in \mathcal{C}$, then
$s(r)\leq c$ and there is an algorithm that given
$G\in \mathcal{C}$, $\epsilon>0$, $r\in \mathbb{N}$ and $A\subseteq V(G)$ of size at least
$p_r(m)$, computes a set $S$ of size at most $s(r)$ and an
$r$-independent set $B\subseteq A$ in $G-S$ of size at least $m$ in
time $\mathcal{O}(r\cdot c\cdot |A|^{c+1}\cdot n^{1+\epsilon})$.
\end{theorem}
\setcounter{theorem}{\value{tmp_c}}
\setcounter{section}{\value{tmp_c_section}}
The proof of the theorem is based on the extraction of a large
$\Delta$-indiscernible sequence from the set $A$ for a certain set
$\Delta$ of formulas. Let $k\in \mathbb{N}$ and for $1\leq i\leq k$ let
\smallskip
\[\phi_i(x_1,\ldots, x_k)\coloneqq\exists y\big(\bigwedge_{1\leq j\leq
i}E(y,x_j) \wedge \bigwedge_{i<j\leq k}\neg E(y,x_j)\big)\] and let
\[\psi_i(x_1,\ldots, x_k)\coloneqq\exists y\big(\bigwedge_{i< j\leq
k}E(y,x_i) \wedge \bigwedge_{1\leq j\leq i}\neg E(y,x_j)\big).\]
Let
\[\Delta_k\coloneqq\{E(x_1,x_2)\}\cup \{\phi_i, \psi_i : 1\leq i\leq k\}.\]
\bigskip Note that the formula $E(x_1,x_2)$ in $\Delta_k$ guarantees
that the vertices of every $\Delta_k$-indiscernible sequence of
vertices of a graph $G$ either form an independent set or a clique in
$G$.
The crucial property we are going to use is stated as Claim 3.2 in
\cite{malliaris2014regularity}. Recall the definition of the
ladder-index from \sref{Section}{sec:prelims}.
\begin{lemma}[Claim 3.2 of \cite{malliaris2014regularity}]\label{lem:smalldegree}
Let $k\in \mathbb{N}$ and let $G$ be a graph with ladder-index less
than~$k$. If $n\geq 4k$ and $(v_1,\ldots, v_n)$ is a
$\Delta_k$-indiscernible sequence in $G$ and $w\in V(G)$, then
either
\[\abs{N(w)\cap \{v_1,\ldots, v_n\}}<2k\text{ or }\abs{\{v_1,\ldots,
v_n\}\setminus N(w)}<2k.\]
\end{lemma}
For nowhere dense classes we can derive even stronger properties of
$\Delta_k$-indiscernible sequences. We need one more lemma.
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 4.15 of \cite{gajarsky2013kernelizationarxiv}]\label{lem:diversity}
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a nowhere dense class of graphs. For every
$\epsilon>0$ there is an integer $n_0$ such that if
$A\subseteq V(G)$ for $G\in \mathcal{C}$ with $\abs{A}\geq n_0$,
then \[\abs{\{N(v)\cap A : v\in V(G)\}}\leq \abs{A}^{1+\epsilon}.\]
\end{lemma}
Note that if $K_k\not\preccurlyeq_1G$, then $G$ does not contain an
$k$-ladder and excludes the complete bipartite graph
$K_{k,k}$ as a subgraph.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:realisedtypes}
Let $G$ be a graph with $K_k\not\preccurlyeq_1 G$. There exists an integer
$n_1=n_1(k)$ such that if $(v_1,\ldots v_n)$ is a
$\Delta_k$-indiscernible sequence of length $n\geq n_1$, then every
vertex $v\in V(G)$ is either connected to at most one vertex of
$\{v_1,\ldots, v_n\}$ or to all of them.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As $K_k\not\preccurlyeq_1G$, in particular, $G$ has ladder-index less than
$k$ and excludes $K_{k,k}$ as a subgraph. If $n\geq 4k$,
according to \sref{Lemma}{lem:smalldegree}, every vertex $w\in V(G)$
satisfies $\abs{N(w)\cap \{v_1,\ldots, v_n\}}<2k$ or
$\abs{\{v_1,\ldots, v_n\}\setminus N(w)}<2k$. We first show that there
are only a few vertices $w$ which satisfy
$\abs{\{v_1,\ldots, v_n\}\setminus N(w)}<2k$. We will refer to these
vertices as high degree vertices in the rest of the proof.
Assume there are at least $k$ high degree vertices. Fix a set $A$ of
exactly $k$ of these vertices. Take
as $B$ the set $(\bigcap_{w\in A}N(w))\cap \{v_1,\ldots, v_n\}$.
This set has order at least $n-2k^2$. By definition of
$\Delta_k$-indiscernibility, the vertices $v_1,\ldots, v_n$ either
form an independent set or a clique in $G$. If $n\geq k$, they form
an independent set by assumption. Hence
$A\cap B= \emptyset$ and if $n\geq 2k^2+k$, we
find a complete bipartite graph $K_{k,k}$ as a subgraph of $G$, contradicting our
assumption.
\smallskip Assume towards a contradiction that there is a vertex $v\in V(G)$ which is connected
to exactly $s$ vertices among $\{v_1,\ldots, v_n\}$,
$2\leq s\leq n-1$. Then for some $i$, $2\leq i\leq k-1$, there is
an increasing tuple $(v_{i_1},\ldots, v_{i_k})$ for
$1\leq i_1<\ldots <i_k\leq n$ such that
$G\models\phi_i( v_{i_1},\ldots, v_{i_k})$ or
$G\models\psi_i(v_{i_1},\ldots, v_{i_k})$: if $s\leq 2k$, we can
choose $i=2$, pick $2$ neighbours of $v$ among $v_1,\ldots,v_n$ and $k-2$ non-neighbours
which are either all smaller or all larger than the two neighbours
and define $(v_{i_1},\ldots, v_{i_k})$ accordingly. Similarly, if
$s>n-2k$ we can choose $i=k-1$ and pick one non-neighbour of $v$ and
$k-1$ neighbours to define $(v_{i_1},\ldots, v_{i_k})$.
Consider first the case that there is a tuple $(v_{i_1},\ldots, v_{i_k})$ such
that $G\models\phi_2(v_{i_1},\ldots, v_{i_k})$ (the case that
$G\models \psi_2(v_{i_1},\ldots, v_{i_k})$ is completely analogous). By
definition of $\Delta_k$-indiscernibility, every increasing
$k$-tuple $(v_{j_1},\ldots, v_{j_k})$ satisfies $\phi_2$, that is,
there is an element $w\in V(G)$ such that $w$ is adjacent to
$v_{j_1}$ and $v_{j_2}$ and not to $v_{j_3},\ldots, v_{j_k}$. There
are ${n \choose k}$ increasing $k$-tuples of elements of
$(v_1,\ldots, v_n)$.
Every vertex $z$ with $a \coloneqq \abs{\{v_1,\ldots, v_n\}\setminus N(z)}<2k$
can take the role of this vertex $w$ for at most
${n-a \choose 2}\cdot {a\choose k-2}$ tuples. Choose $2$ vertices
among the $n-a$ neighbours of $w$ and $k-2$ vertices among its $a$
non-neighbours among $\{v_1,\ldots, v_n\}\setminus N(z)$. We have
at most $k$ of these high degree vertices as shown above. Hence at
most $k\cdot {n-1 \choose 2}\cdot {2k-1\choose k-2}\in \mathcal{O}(n^2)$
tuples satisfy $\phi_2$ because of high degree vertices.
Every vertex $z$ with $a\coloneqq\abs{\{v_1,\ldots, v_n\}\cap N(z)}<2k$ can
play the role of $w$ for at most
${a \choose 2}\cdot {n-a \choose k-2} \leq {2k-1\choose 2}{n-2
\choose k-2}\in \mathcal{O}(n^{k-2})$
tuples. Denote by $x$ the number of small degree vertices.
\vspace{1mm}
\noindent Then it
must hold that
\[k\cdot {n-1 \choose s}\cdot {2k-1\choose k-s} + x\cdot
{2k-1\choose s}{n-2 \choose k-s}\geq {n\choose k},\]
from which we conclude that $x\geq c\cdot n^2$ for some fixed
constant $0<c<1$ and all $n>n_1$ for sufficiently large $n_1$ (choose
$\epsilon=1/2$ and $n_1$ large enough such that we can
apply \sref{Lemma}{lem:diversity}).
Without loss of generality we may assume that all small degree
vertices induce distinct neighbourhoods on~$A$ (realising one
neighbourhood twice does not help to realise more types). Now, for
sufficiently large $n$ we have a contradiction
to \sref{Lemma}{lem:diversity}.
The proof for the case that there is a tuple
$(v_{i_1},\ldots, v_{i_k})$ such that
$G\models\phi_{k-1}(v_{i_1},\ldots, v_{i_k})$ is similar. Here, the
high degree vertices can cover at most
$k\cdot {n-1 \choose k-1}\cdot (2k-1)\in \mathcal{O}(n^{k-1})$ many tuples,
while every low degree vertex can cover at most
${2k-1\choose k-1}\cdot (n-k-1)\in \mathcal{O}(n)$ many tuples.
\end{proof}
We are ready to prove the main theorem.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \autoref{thm:uqw}]
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a nowhere dense class of graphs such that \mbox{$K_{f(i)}\not\preccurlyeq_i
G$} for all~$i$ and all $G\in \mathcal{C}$. Let $G\in \mathcal{C}$ and let
$A\subseteq V(G)$. According to \sref{Corollary}{crl:extract_indiscernible_nd}, we can
extract from $A$ a large $\Delta_{f(1)}$-indiscernible sequence $B_1$. This
requires $A$ to be only polynomially larger than~$B_1$ according to the
corollary.
\pagebreak
We construct a sequence of graphs $G_1 = G, G_2, \ldots$ and sequences
$B_1,B_2,\ldots$, $\tilde{B}_1, \tilde{B}_2, \ldots$ and $S_1,S_2,\ldots$ of
vertices of $G_i$ where $B_i \subseteq V(G)$, $\tilde{B}_i\subseteq V(G_i)$ and
$S_i\subseteq V(G)\cap V(G_i)$ such that for all $i$
\begin{enumerate}
\item $B_i$ is $2i$-independent in $G-Z_i$ where
$Z_i \coloneqq \bigcup_{j= 1}^{i} S_j$,\label{prop1}
\item $\abs{S_i} < f(i)$,
\item $G_{i+1} \preccurlyeq_i G$ and
\item $\tilde{B}_i = \{G[N_i^{G-Z_i}(v)] \mid v\in B_i\}$ (recall
that the vertices of $G_i$ as a minor of $G$ are subgraphs of $G$).
\end{enumerate}
As $K_{f(1)}\not\preccurlyeq_1G_1$, we can apply \sref{Lemma}{lem:realisedtypes} and
conclude that if $B_1$ is sufficiently large, then every vertex
$v\in V(G_1)$ is either connected to at most one vertex of
$B_1$ or to all vertices of~$B_1$. Just as in the proof
of \sref{Lemma}{lem:realisedtypes}, we show that there are less than $f(1)$
vertices which are adjacent to all vertices of $B_1$. We define $S_1$ as the
set of all those (less than $f(1)$) high degree vertices: $S_1 = \{v\in V(G)
\mid N B_1\subseteq N(v)\}$.
Note that $B_1\cap S_1=\emptyset$ if $\abs{B_1}\geq f(1)$, as in this case, as
above, the vertices of $B_1$ form an independent set. Hence every
vertex $v\in V(G_1-S_1)$ is connected to at most one vertex of $B_1$, in other
words, $B_1$ is a $2$-independent set in $G_1-S_1$. We hence
established all of the above properties for $i=1$.
Let the sequences $G_1, G_2, \ldots, G_i$, $B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_i$ and
$S_1,S_2,\ldots,S_i$ be defined for some fixed~$i$. By
\sref{Assumption}{prop1}, $B_i$ is $2i$-independent in
$G-Z_i$, hence we can contract the disjoint
$i$-neighbourhoods of the vertices of $B_i$. Let
$\tilde{B}_i = \{G[N_i^{G-Z_i}(v)] \mid v\in B_i\}$ and let $H$ be the graph resulting from
the contraction (i.e.\@ $\tilde{B}_i\subseteq V(H)$). Let $\tilde{B}_i' \subseteq \tilde{B}_i$ be a
large independent set in~$H$. We can obtain it by finding a large
$\{E(x_1,x_2)\}$-indiscernible subsequence of $\tilde{B}_i$ in $H$ (by
\autoref{thm:extract_indiscernibles}). Let
$B_i'\subseteq B_i$ be the set of vertices of $G$ such that
$\tilde{B}_i' = \{G[N_i^{G-Z_i}(v)] \mid v\in B_i'\}$, i.e.\@ the vertices of $B_i'$ are the
centres of $\tilde{B}_i'$. Define the graph $G_i'$ to be the
depth-$i$ minor of~$G$ obtained by contracting the disjoint $i$-neighbourhoods
of vertices in $B_i'$. Let $C$ be a $\Delta_{f(i+1)}$-indiscernible
subsequence of $\tilde{B}_i'$ in $G_i'$. Define $S_{i+1}$ as in case $i=1$, i.e.\@ as
the set of vertices $v$ with $C\subseteq N(v)$. Note that we constructed $G_i'$
and did not work with $H$ because otherwise the vertices of $S_{i+1}$ could
have been contracted vertices. Those vertices are subgraphs of $G$ and can
be arbitrarily large. Hence we would possibly delete much more than
$\abs{S_{i+1}}$ vertices.
Define $B_{i+1}\subseteq B_i'$ as the set
of vertices with $C = \{G[N_i^{G-Z_i}(v)] \mid v\in
B_{i+1}\}$. If $C$ is large enough (just as in the case $i=1$), $C$ is
$2$-independent in $G_i'-Z_{i+1}$, so $B_{i+1}$ is
$2(i+1)$-independent in $G-Z_{i+1}$.
For $i=r$ we are left with a set of size $m$ if we started with a set of
size $p_r(m)$ with $p_r(x)$ chosen appropriately, tracing back the
construction. The vertices $Z_i$ we delete during the construction are connected
with all (contracted) vertices $\tilde{B}_i$. Note that the vertices of $Z_r$
we delete are connected to vertices at
distance at most $r-1$ to the vertices of $B_r$.
We can hence merge the vertices $z$ of~$Z_r$ with the first $|Z_r|$
branch sets $\tilde{B}_{r}$ (each vertex $z$ with one distinct branch
set) to build a complete depth-$r$ minor of order $|Z_r|$.
Hence we can take $s(r) \coloneqq f(r)$, as this bounds the size of
a largest complete depth-$r$ minor by assumption.
We now show how to compute the sets $B_i, \tilde{B}_i$ and $Z_i$. In iteration
$i$ we want to compute a $\Delta_{f(i)}$-indiscernible sequence as in the
proof of \autoref{thm:extract_indiscernibles}. We remark that usually a graph
$G$ from a nowhere dense class will be stored rather as a list of adjacency
lists than as an adjacency matrix. As, for every $\epsilon>0$, $G$ is $c$-degenerate for some
$c\in \mathcal{O}(n^\epsilon)$, we can store the adjacency relation in a more
efficient way. Let $L$ be a linear order such that for each $v\in V(G)$ we
have $\abs{\{ w\in N(v) \mid w <_L v \}} \le c$, i.e.\@ every vertex has at
most $c$ smaller neighbours. Now for every vertex we store the set of its
smaller neighbours. Then we can
implement an adjacency test in time $\mathcal{O}(n^\epsilon)$ for any fixed
$\epsilon>0$. Model-checking for the formulas of $\Delta_i$ with one
quantifier is then possible in time $\mathcal{O}(n^{1+\epsilon})$, and not in time
$\mathcal{O}(n)$ as in the proof of
\autoref{thm:extract_indiscernibles}. Furthermore, we have to perform the
first $r$ levels of breadth-first searches around the elements of $A$ to keep
track of the sets $\bar{B}_i$. Note that the $i$-neighbourhoods of these
elements are disjoint when the searches are taken one step further (after
deleting the set $S_i$). Hence, every edge appears at most once in all
searches, and the searches can be carried out in time
$\mathcal{O}(n^{1+\epsilon})$. Here we use again that a sufficiently large graph from
a nowhere dense class of graphs has at most $n^{1+\epsilon}$ edges for any
fixed $\epsilon>0$.
\end{proof}
\section{A Polynomial Kernel for \textsc{Distance-$r$ Dominating Set}}
\label{sec:kernel}
We now show how to obtain a polynomial kernel for the \textsc{Distance-$r$
Dominating Set} problem. Recall that a \emph{kernel} for the
\textsc{Distance-$r$ Dominating Set} problem parameterized by the solution size
is a polynomial time algorithm, which on input $G$ and $k$ computes another
graph~$H$ and a new parameter $k'$ which is bounded by a function of $k$
(independent of $\abs{V(G)}$), such that~$G$ contains a distance-$r$ dominating set of size
at most $k$ if, and only if, $H$ contains a distance-$r$ dominating set of size at most
$k'$. If $\abs{V(H)}$ is bounded by a polynomial in $k$, then the kernel is
called a \emph{polynomial kernel}.
The idea is to kernelise the instance in two phases.
In the first phase we reduce the number of \emph{dominatees}, that is,
the number of those vertices whose domination is essential. More precisely,
for an integer $k$,
a set $Z\subseteq V(G)$ is called an \emph{$r$-domination core for parameter $k$}
if every set
$X\subseteq V(G)$ of size at most $k$ which $r$-dominates $Z$ also
$r$-dominates $V(G)$. In the second phase we reduce the number of \emph{dominators},
that is, the number of vertices that shall be used to dominate other vertices.
For the first phase, we argue just as Dawar and Kreutzer in
Lemma~11 of~\cite{DawarK09}, to obtain an $r$-domination core in $G$. The key
idea of the lemma is to find a large $2r$-independent set $A$ after deleting at most
$s$ vertices, such that at least two elements of $A$ behave alike with respect to
every small dominating set.
Fix a nowhere dense class $\mathcal{C}$ of graphs and let $N(m,r)=p_r(m)$ for the
polynomial $p_r(x)$ and $s(r)$ characterising $\mathcal{C}$ as uniformly quasi-wide
according to \autoref{thm:uqw}. Fix positive integers~$r$ and $k$ and let
$s\coloneqq s(2r)$. Let $c$ be the minimum integer such that
$K_c\not\preccurlyeq_{2r}G$ for
all $G\in \mathcal{C}$.
The proof of the following lemma is the same as in~\cite{DawarK09}, we
just use better bounds from \autoref{thm:uqw}.
\begin{lemma}[see \cite{DawarK09}, Lemma 11]
For $r\geq 0$ let $p_r$ be the polynomial defined in~\autoref{thm:uqw}.
There is an algorithm
that, given an
$n$-vertex graph $G\in\mathcal{C}$, $\epsilon>0$, $k>0$ and $Z\subseteq V(G)$ with
$\abs{Z}>p_{2r}\bigl((k+2)(2r+1)^s\bigr)\eqqcolon \ell$ runs in time $\mathcal{O}(s\cdot \ell^{c+1}\cdot
r\cdot c\cdot n^{1+\epsilon})$, and
returns a vertex $w\in Z$ such that for any set $X\subseteq V(G)$
with $\abs{X}\leq k$,
\[X \text{ $r$-dominates $Z$ if, and only if, $X$ $r$-dominates
$Z\setminus \{w\}$}.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix a set $A\subseteq Z$ of size exactly $\ell$. By \autoref{thm:uqw}
we can find in time $\mathcal{O}(r\cdot c\cdot \ell^{c+1}\cdot n^{1+\epsilon})$
sets $B\subseteq A$ and $S\subseteq V(G)$ such that $|S|\leq s$ and
$|B|\geq (k+2)(2r+1)^s$ such that $B$ is $2r$-independent in $G-S$.
Enumerate $S=\{t_1,\ldots, t_s\}$ and, for each $v\in B$, compute
the distance vector $d_v=(d_1,\ldots, d_s)$, where $d_i=\mathrm{dist}(v,t_i)$
if this distance is at most $2r$ and $d_i=\infty$, otherwise. For this, we
have to compute $s$ breadth-first searches which takes time
$\mathcal{O}(s\cdot n^{1+\epsilon})$. Note that there are at most $(2r+1)^s$
distinct distance vectors. Since $\ell\geq (k+2)((2r+1)^s$, there are
at least $k+2$ elements $b_1,\ldots, b_{k+2}\in B$ which have
the same distance vector. Now we choose $w\coloneqq b_1$ and show that
for any set $X \subseteq V(G)$ with
$|X| \leq k$, $X$ $r$-dominates $Z$ if, and only if, $X$ $r$-dominates $Z
\setminus \{b_1\}$.
The direction from left to right is obvious. Now, suppose $X$ $r$-dominates
$Z \setminus \{b_1\}$. Consider, the sets $B_i \coloneqq N_r^{G-S}(b_i)$ for $i \in
[2,\ldots,k+2]$. These sets are, by construction, mutually disjoint. Since there
are $k+1$ of these sets, at least one of them, say $B_j$, does not contain any
element of $X$. However, since $b_j \in Z\setminus \{b_1\}$ there is a path
of length at most $r$ from some element $x$ in $X$ to $b_j$. This path must,
therefore, go through an element of $S$. Since $b_1$ and $b_j$ have
the same distance vector, we conclude that there is also a path of length at most $r$ from $x$ to $b_1$
and therefore $X$ $d$-dominates $Z$.
For the complexity bounds, note that all the distance vectors can be computed
in time $\mathcal{O}(|S|\cdot |A| \cdot |G|) = \mathcal{O}(s\cdot p_{2r}\bigl((k+2)(2r+1)^s\bigr) \cdot n)$
(recall that $G$ is degenerated). Adding this to the
$\mathcal{O}(r\cdot c\cdot \ell^{c+1}\cdot n^{1+\epsilon})$ time to find $S$ and $A$ gives us the
required bound.
\end{proof}
We now proceed as follows. We let $Z=V(G)$ and apply the above procedure to
remove an irrelevant element from the $r$-domination core $Z$ until $\abs{Z}\leq p_{2r}\bigl((k+2)(2r+1)^s\bigr)$.
\begin{corollary}\label{crl:domcore}
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a nowhere dense class of graphs and let $k,r\in \mathbb{N}$. There is
an algorithm running in time $\mathcal{O}(n^{2+\epsilon})$ that given an
$n$-vertex graph $G\in\mathcal{C}$ and $\epsilon>0$, computes an
$r$-domination core for parameter
$k$ of $G$ of polynomial size.
\end{corollary}
We now reduce the number of \emph{dominators},
that is, the number of vertices that shall be used to dominate other vertices.
For this, observe that only vertices at distance at most $r$ to a vertex from
the $r$-domination core are relevant. Furthermore, if there are two vertices
$u,v\in V(G)$ with $N_r(u)\cap Z=N_r(v)\cap Z$, it suffices to keep one
of $u$ and $v$ as a representative.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:representatives}
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a nowhere dense class of graphs and let $r\in \mathbb{N}$.
There is an algorithm running in time $\mathcal{O}(n^{1+\epsilon}\cdot |Z|^{1+\epsilon})$, that given an
$n$-vertex graph $G\in \mathcal{C}$, $\epsilon>0$ and $Z\subseteq V(G)$ computes a minimum size
set $Y\subseteq V(G)$ such that for all $u\in V(G)$ there is $v\in Y$ with
$N_r(u)\cap Z = N_r(v)\cap Z$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, each element $v\in V(G)$ learns the set $N_r(v)\cap Z$. For this,
we perform $|Z|$ breadth-first searches of depth $r$ starting
at the elements of $Z$. Whenever a breadth-first search around
$z\in Z$ encounters the element $v$, it registers the element $z$
in a list of $v$. For any $\epsilon>0$, this takes time
$\mathcal{O}(|Z|\cdot n^{1+\epsilon})$ on a graph from a nowhere dense class.
Now, every element $v\in V(G)$ orders its list containing the elements
of $N_r(v)\cap Z$ in an increasing order. We assume here, that every
vertex is identified by a number between $1$ and~$n$. This takes
time $\mathcal{O}(n\cdot |Z|\cdot \log |Z|)$. For two elements $v,w\in V(G)$, we can
now decide whether $N_r(v)\cap Z=N_r(w)\cap Z$ in time $\mathcal{O}(|Z|)$
by comparing the ordered lists representing their neighbourhood
intersections.
We now order the vertices of $V(G)$ according to their neighbourhood
intersections in time $\mathcal{O}(n\cdot \log n\cdot |Z|)$. We remove
duplicates from the sorted list in time $\mathcal{O}(n\cdot |Z|)$ to output
the set~$Y$.
Note that $\log n\leq n^\epsilon$ for all fixed $\epsilon>0$ and
sufficiently large $n$. By rescaling $\epsilon$, we get a total running
time of $\mathcal{O}(n^{1+\epsilon}\cdot |Z|^{1+\epsilon})$.
\end{proof}
According to \sref{Corollary}{crl:neighbourhoodcomplexity}, the set
$Y$ we compute in \sref{Lemma}{lem:representatives} has size at most $\abs{Z}^s$
for some integer $s$ depending only on $r$ and $\mathcal{C}$.
Let $Z$ be a domination core of $G$, let $Y\subseteq V(G)$
be a minimum size set such that for all $u\in V(G)$ there is $v\in Y$
with $N_r(u)\cap Z=N_r(v)\cap Z$. We construct a graph $H$ whose
vertex set is the union of $Z$ and $Y$. For every $v\in Y$, compute $N_r(v)\cap
Z$ and add the vertices and edges of a shortest path
(of length at most $r$) between $v$ and
each $z\in N_r(v)\cap Z$ to $H$, such that
$N_r^G(v)\cap Z= N_r^H(v)\cap Z$. As $\abs{N_r^G(v)\cap Z}$ is
bounded by $\abs{Z}$, we conclude that
$\abs{V(H)}\leq r\cdot \abs{Z}^{s+1}$. We now add two new vertices
$v,v'$ to $H$
and connect $v$ to every vertex except to the vertices
of~$Z$ by a path of length $r$ and to $v'$ by
a path of length $r$. It is easy to see (compare to Lemma 2.16
of~\cite{drange2015kernelization}) that there exists a set $D$ of size
$k$ which $r$-dominates~$Z$ if, and only if, $H$ admits an distance-$r$ dominating
set of size $k+1$. Hence, the size of $H$ is polynomially bounded by $k$ and
$H$ can be computed in polynomial time by combining the above lemmas.
This proves the main theorem of this section.
\begin{theorem}
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a nowhere dense class of graphs. For every $r\in\mathbb{N}$ there is a
polynomial~$p(x)$, a constant $c$ and an algorithm running in time
$\mathcal{O}(p(k)^c\cdot n^{2+\epsilon})$ which, given a graph $G\in \mathcal{C}$, $\epsilon>0$
and $k\in \mathbb{N}$ computes a
kernel for the \textsc{Distance-$r$ Dominating Set} problem of size $p(k)$ on $G\in \mathcal{C}$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Single Exponential Parameterized Algorithms on Nowhere Dense Classes}
\label{sec:single}
In \cite{DawarK09}, the authors show how the concept of
uniform quasi-wideness can be used to design parameterized
algorithms for dominating set problems on nowhere dense classes of
graphs. However, the dependence on the parameter in the algorithms in \cite{DawarK09}
is enormous, usually manifold exponential.
In this section we combine the tools developed in the previous
section with the general technique for obtaining parameterized
algorithms in
\cite{DawarK09} to design parameterized algorithms for several graph
problems on
nowhere dense classes with only a single exponential dependence on the
parameter value.
We demonstrate the idea by showing that the \textsc{Connected
Dominating Set} problem can be solved in time $2^{p(k)}\cdot n^c$ for a
fixed constant $c$ and a polynomial $p(x)$. This example is
particularly interesting as it was shown in
\cite{drange2016kernelization} that the problem is unlikely to have a
polynomial kernel on nowhere dense classes. Hence a single exponential
parameter dependence cannot be obtained from a polynomial
kernelization algorithm.
\setcounter{theorem}{\value{fpt_thm}}
\setcounter{section}{\value{fpt_thm_section}}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:single}
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a nowhere dense class of graphs. Then there is a
polynomial $p(x)$, and an
algorithm running in time $\mathcal{O}(2^{p(k)}\cdot n^{1+\epsilon})$ which, given an $n$-vertex
graph $G$, $\epsilon>0$ and a number~$k$ as input, decides whether $G$ contains a
connected dominating set of size $k$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For $i\geq 1$ let $d_i$ be the minimum size of a clique that cannot be obtained as
depth-$i$ minor in any member $H\in \mathcal{C}$. Let $s$ and $N$ be
a margin of the class $\mathcal{C}$. By \autoref{thm:uqw}, we can
choose $s(r)$ such that $s(r)\le d_{r}$ and $N(r, m) \le
m^{c(r)}$ for some function $c(r)$ depending only on~$r$.
Let $G$ and $k$ be given. Let $s \coloneqq
s(1) = d_1$ and let $K \coloneqq N(1, k+1) = (k+1)^{c(1)}$.
During the algorithm we will maintain sets $W_i$ and $X_i$ of
vertices such that $\abs{X_i} = i$ and $W_i$ is the set of vertices in
$G$ not dominated by any member of $X_i$.
We initialise $W_0 \coloneqq V(G)$ and $X_0 \coloneqq \emptyset$.
Now, after $i$ steps, suppose that $W_i, X_i$ have been defined.
If $\abs{W_i}\geq K$, then we use \autoref{thm:uqw} to compute a set
$S$ of size $\abs{S}\leq s$ and a set $A\subseteq W$ of size $k+1$ such
that $A$ is $2$-independent in $G-S$. As $A$ is $2$-independent, no
vertex in $G-S$ can dominate two members of $A$. Hence, if there is
a connected dominating set in $G$ using the vertices in $X_i$, then
this set will need to include an element of $S$. We now branch over
the $s$ possible choices of an element in $S$ and for each such
$v\in S$ call the algorithm recursively with sets $X_{i+1} \coloneqq
X_i\cup \{ v\}$ and $W_{i+1} \coloneqq W_i\setminus N[v]$, where $N[v]$
denotes the closed neighbourhood of $v$, i.e.~$N[v] \coloneqq N(v) \cup \{v\}$.
If $i=k$, the recursion stops. If $W\neq \emptyset$, then we can return
``no'' as there cannot be any connected dominating set of size at most $k$
using the vertices in $X_i$. If $W_i = \emptyset$, then we found a solution if,
and only if, $X_i$ is connected.
Otherwise we have $i<k$ and the recursion stops because $\abs{W_i}< K$.
We now have a set $X_i$ of
$\abs{X_i} = i < k$ vertices for our dominating set and still need to
dominate $W_i$. Furthermore, we still need to connect the dominating set.
We suppose that $\ell\le k-i$ vertices $y_1,\ldots,y_\ell$ are used to dominate
$W_i$ and at most $k-i-\ell$ further vertices to connect the dominating set $X_i\cup\{y_1,\ldots,y_\ell\}$. For
every $y_j$ we guess a set $Y_j$ that is dominated by $y_j$ and such that the sets
$Y_j$ build a partition of $W_i$. We do not forbid that a vertex $y_j$ also
dominates some vertices in a $Y_{j'}$ for $j\neq j'$. Here the $Y_j$'s are guessed
and the $y_j$'s are then computed. In other words,
for any partition of $W_i$ into $l\leq k-i$ non-empty sets $Y_1, \dots Y_l$ we
do the following. First, for each $Y_j$ we compute the set $D_j$ of vertices
$v\in V(G)$ such that $Y_j \subseteq N[v]$. If for some $j$ there is no such
vertex, then we discard this partition. So suppose $Y_1, \dots, Y_l$ is a
partition such that $D_1, \dots, D_l$ are all non-empty. Then we can define a
dominating set of $G$ by adding one element $w_j$ of each $D_j$ to the set
$X_i$. By construction, every vertex $v\in V(G)\setminus W_i$ is dominated by
a member of $X_i$ and every $v\in W_i$ is dominated by the vertex $w_j$ chosen
for the partition $Y_j$ containing $v$.
Hence, all that remains is to show that we can choose the $w_1,
\dots, w_l$ so that $X_i \cup \{ w_1, \dots, w_l\}$ can be turned
into a connected set by adding at most $k-(i+l)$ extra vertices.
We solve this problem by using the Dreyfus-Wagner algorithm
\cite{DreyfusW72} for
solving Steiner trees. The Dreyfus-Wagner algorithm computes a
minimum Steiner tree for a set of at most $T$ terminals in
$\mathcal{O}(3^Tn + 2^Tn^2 + n^2 \log n + nm)$ time, where $m$ is the
number of edges of the input graph on $n$ vertices.
Now, suppose we are given the set $X_i$ of size $i$, the partition $Y_1, \dots, Y_l$ of $W_i$
into disjoint sets, for $l\leq k-i$ and the sets $D_1, \dots,
D_l$. For all $1\leq j \leq l$ we add a fresh vertex $t_j$ to the
graph~$G$ and add a path $P(t_j, v)$ of length $3$ between $t_j$
and every member $v$ of
$D_j$ (so that the paths $P(t_j, v)$ and $P(t_{j'}, v')$ are
internally vertex disjoint if $\{t_j, v\}\neq \{t_{j'}, v'\}$).
Let $G'$ be the augmented graph. We now call the
Dreyfus-Wagner algorithm on $G'$ with terminal set $X_i \cup \{
t_1, \dots, t_l\}$. Let $T$ be the resulting Steiner tree. Then $T$
needs to contain at least one vertex of every set $D_j$, as this is
the only way to connect the terminal $t_j$ to the rest of the
graph. Hence, any Steiner tree~$T$ is a connected dominating set of
$G'$.
Note that in any minimum size Steiner tree for this terminal
set, every $t_j$ is connected by exactly one path $P(t_j, v)$ to a
vertex $v\in D_j$. To see this, recall that every $w\in Y_j$ has
every vertex in $D_j$ as its neighbour. The only reason why a
minimum Steiner tree might contain two paths $P(t_j, v)$ and $P(t_j, v')$
for distinct $v, v'\in D_j$ is that this is needed to connect $v$
and $v'$. But then, the path $P(t_j, v')$ can be replaced by adding
any member of $Y_j$ instead. As $P(t_j, v')$ has two internal
vertices, this would decrease the size of the Steiner tree.
In particular this implies that every vertex $t_j$ is a leaf of a
minimum size Steiner tree.
We can now turn $T$ into a connected dominating set for
$G$ as
follows. We simply delete for each~$t_j$ the vertex $t_j$ and all
internal vertices of the (unique) path $P(t_j, v)$ connecting $t_j$
to a member of $D_j$. By the argument above, the resulting tree $T'$ is still
connected and forms a connected dominating set of $G$. Conversely,
any minimum size connected dominating set for~$G$ containing $X_i$
and also at least one vertex of each $D_j$ can be extended to a
minimum size Steiner tree in $G'$ with the terminal set as above. It
follows that if for any partition $Y_1, \dots, Y_t$ we obtain a
Steiner tree as above of size at most $k$, then we can return this
tree as a connected dominating set, and otherwise can conclude that
there is no connected dominating set of size at most $k$ using the
vertices in $X_i$ and the partition $Y_1,\ldots,Y_\ell$.
Hence, the whole search tree yields a correct decision procedure for the
connected dominating set problem. The running time is bounded by the size of
the search tree and the time the algorithm takes at each leaf of the search
tree. Note that the branching of the search tree is bounded by $s = d_1$ and
the depth by $k$. Hence, in total we have at most $s^{k+1}-1$ nodes. At every
leaf we have to consider every possible partition of the set $W_i$ of size at
most $K = (k+1)^{c(1)}$ into at most $k$ disjoint sets. For each partition we
call the Dreyfus-Wagner algorithm whose running time is dominated by
$\mathcal{O}(3^k \abs{W_i}^2)$. Hence, the total running time of the algorithm is
bounded by $2^{p(k)}\cdot n^{1+\epsilon}$ for a polynomial $p$.
\end{proof}
The proof method used in the previous theorem can be used to
establish single exponential parameterized algorithms for other
problems on nowhere dense classes of graphs. Hence, while the general
proof technique is the same, we can dramatically improve the running
time of our algorithms from a multiple exponential parameter
dependence to single exponential.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
After Hubble discovery of the cosmic expansion, people needed to make black hole models which are embedded in the expanding Friedmann-Lema\^{i}tre-Robertson Walker background. The 1933 McVittie solution \cite{McVittie:1933zz} was the first attempt to model the point mass black hole in the cosmological background. The question arises to whether the effects of the cosmological expansion on gravitating local systems, such as the solar or galaxy system, accompanying
the expansion of the universe. The McVittie black hole is
embedded in a general FLRW background, so that the region between the black hole horizon and the cosmological horizon is evolving. Even though this model was comprehensively studied in different aspects of black hole \cite{Nolan:1999kk,Kaloper:2010ec,Lake:2011ni}, the McVittie metric cannot describe a black hole
evolving in an FLRW universe. The collection
of known exact solutions with respect to the point-mass modeling were investigated in \cite{Point mass-CBH}.\\
The main criticism for some these metrics is that they manufacture the geometry and attribute it to the black hole models. For example, if one replaces the constant mass in the Schwarzschild metric, $m$, with a specific function of $m(t,r)$, the energy condition might be violated. With this action, matter on the right-hand side of the Einstein equation will be restricted, and the black hole horizon and singularity change their position and properties generally. The standard way to derive a metric is to know its matter field and its symmetry. Along this way Lema\^{i}tre-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) model was introduced which describe the perfect fluid collapse in the spherically symmetric space time \cite{LTB}. Apart from its dynamical nature, the FLRW is a special case of this metric and can be modeled as a background. Since the geometry is not static, the need for a local definition
of black holes and their boundaries (horizons) have led to concepts such as an isolated horizon \cite{Ashtekar:2000sz}, Ashtekar and Krishnan’s dynamical horizon \cite{Ashtekar:2002ag}, and Booth and Fairhurst’s slowly evolving horizon \cite{Booth:2003ji}. Inspired by these LTB metric properties, the cosmological black hole (CBH) can be built \cite{Firouzjaee-2010,Firouzjaee-penn,Moradi-2015} that its singularity and horizon is formed during the collapse. \\
In many respects, a CBH shows different properties relative to the stationary black holes. The first evident difference is that in the CBH has one more horizon except black hole horizons (event and apparent horizon) which called the cosmological horizon \cite{Gibbons:1977mu,book-faraoni,Helou:2016xyu}, and the causal structure of the black hole will be different from stationary one. Second, the mass definition of the black hole will need to be extended to the quasi-local masses \cite{Firouzjaee:2010ia} rather than like a ADM mass. Even though the Hawking radiation from the stationary black hole is revised for CBH case \cite{radiation-CBH}.
The first CBH application is in the primordial black hole modeling \cite{PBH-CBH}. These black holes form when the FLRW background density perturbations exceed some threshold values in the radiation dominated era. One can use McVittie CBH to model the cosmological defect in the inflationary phase \cite{McVittie-inflation}. The second CBH application is to model the structure in the matter dominated era \cite{CBH-structure formation} where these models were used to investigate the dark energy, virialization, rotation curve and week-lensing, etc. \\
In this paper, in section II we infer the point mass CBH form a big class of CBH which can be used for the cosmological structure. Section III, consider the validity of the point mass approximation for astrophysical black holes. IV, V and VI is devoted to make a point mass CBH in presence of mass, mass-charge and mass-angular momentum. Then, in Section VI we study these black holes mass, horizon, redshift structures and geodesics properties. The conclusion and discussions are given in Section VIII.
\section{From dynamical black holes to the point mass black holes}
The main feature of a dynamical black hole in astrophysics is its matter flux which helps the black hole formation and its growth. It was shown \cite{Firouzjaee:2010ia,Moradi-2015} that the black hole apparent horizon growth is proportional to the matter flux which falls to it and eventually tends to the black hole event horizon when all matter flux is absorbed by black hole.
Here we are interested in the case that the black hole evolves slowly due to the matter flux. First we introduce the dynamical horizon properties \cite{Ashtekar:2002ag} which is a general case slowly evolving horizon \cite{Booth:2003ji} and then we consider the slowly evolving limitation. Geometry of the dynamical horizon $H$ is expressed by the unit
normal to $H$ by $\hat{\tau^a}$; $g_{ab}\hat{\tau^a}\hat{\tau^b}=-1$. The unit space-like vector orthogonal to $S$ (a point on apparent horizon which has 2-sphere topology) and tangent to $H$ is
represented by $\hat{r^a}$. The rescaling freedom
in the choice of null normals will be fixed via $l^a=\hat{\tau^a}+\hat{r^a}$ and
$n^a=\hat{\tau^a}-\hat{r^a}$. We introduce the area radius $R$, a
function which is constant on each $S$ and satisfies $a_S = 4\pi
R^2$. Now, the 3-volume $d^3V$ on $H$ can
be decomposed as $d^3V = |\partial R|^{-1}dR d^2V$ where $\partial$
denotes the gradient on $H$. Hence, as we will see, our
calculations will simplify if we choose $N_R = |\partial R|$ which is amplitude of normal vector of the $R=const$ surface.
We define the flux of energy associated with $\xi_{(R)}^a = N_R \ell^a$ across $\Delta H$ as:
\begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{F}^{(R)}_{\rm matter} := \int_{\Delta H}
T_{ab}\hat{\tau^a}\xi_{(R)}^b d^3V=\nonumber\\
\frac{1}{G}(M(r_2)-M(r_1)).
\end{eqnarray}
In the spherically symmetric case $M(r)$ is the Misner-Sharp mass \cite{Firouzjaee:2010ia}.
With calculating this quantity on the apparent horizon
\begin{equation}
\frac{dM}{dt}|_{AH}=(M'\frac{dr}{dt}+\dot{M}).
\end{equation}
Here $\dot{}$ and $'$ are partial differentials relative to $t$ and $r$ respectively. Take a collapsing ideal fluid within a compact spherically symmetric
spacetime region described by the following metric in the comoving
coordinates $(t,r,\theta,\varphi)$:
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=-e^{2\nu(t,r)}dt^{2}+e^{2\psi(t,r)}dr^{2}+R(t,r)^{2}d\Omega^{2}.
\end{equation}
Assuming the stress-energy tensor for the perfect fluid in the
form
\begin{eqnarray}
T^{t}_{t}=-\rho(t,r),~~T^{r}_{r}=p_{r}(t,r),~~\nonumber\\ T^{\theta}_{\theta}=
T^{\varphi}_{\varphi}=p_{\theta}(t,r)=w \rho(t,r),
\end{eqnarray}
with the weak energy condition
\begin{equation}
\rho\geq0~~\rho+p_{r}\geq0~~\rho+p_{\theta}\geq0,
\end{equation}
where $w$ describes the equation of state which is a barotropic equation of state between energy density, $\rho$, and pressure, $p$.
Einstein equations give,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{gltbe2}
\rho=\frac{2M'}{R^{2}R'}~,~~p_{r}=-\frac{2\dot{M}}{R^{2}\dot{R}},
\end{eqnarray}
where $M$, Misner-Sharp mass, is defined by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{gltbe3} e^{-2\psi}(R')^{2}-e^{-2\nu}(\dot{R})^{2}=1-\frac{2M}{R}. \end{eqnarray}
If a collapsing metric is build by this metric, one can show that the apparent horizon will form at $R=2M$ surface \cite{Firouzjaee-penn}. We can define the matter flux into the apparent horizon matter flux relative to fluid 4-velocity
\begin{equation}
\label{flux}
D_t M= \frac{1}{e^\nu}\frac{dM}{dt}|_{AH}=\frac{1}{e^\nu}(M'\frac{dr}{dt}+\dot{M}).
\end{equation}
Using the Einstein equation \cite{Firouzjaee-penn,Helou:2016xyu} we get
\begin{equation}
D_t M=4\pi R_{H}^2 (-U)\frac{\rho+p}{1-8\pi R_{H}^2 \rho}
\end{equation}
where $U=\dfrac{\dot{R}}{e^\nu}$ and the $R_H$ the areal radius on the apparent horizon. At first glance, we can see that the matter (flux) on the apparent becomes zero when density becomes zero on the apparent horizon. We define this quantity which characterize the slowly evolving horizon \cite{Booth:2003ji} when
\begin{equation}
\epsilon^2=\alpha \theta_n^2R_{H}^2 \ll 1,
\end{equation}
where $ \theta_n $ is the ingoing null geodesics expansion and alpha is a constant. This quantity in the spherically symmetric space time becomes \cite{Firouzjaee-penn}
\begin{equation} \label{epsilon}
\epsilon^2= 4\pi R_{H}^2 \frac{(1+w)\rho}{1-4\pi R_{H}^2 (1-w)\rho}
\end{equation}
To have an slowly evolving black hole with mass $M=2R_H$ the energy density for this black hole, $\rho$, must be small. In the special case the $\epsilon = \rho=0$ we get the isolated horizon \cite{Ashtekar:2000sz} which the matter flux is zero. \\
\textit{Proposition:} If a dynamical black hole evolves and finally its horizon becomes isolated, the space time geometry around the black hole horizon becomes Schwarzschild metric with the same Misner-Sharp mass.\\
If the horizon becomes isolated i.e. $\epsilon =0$ then from Eq. (\ref{epsilon}) the energy density becomes zero, $\rho=p=0$. Hence we have underdensity (vacuum) around the black hole horizon. On the other hand from uniqueness theorem we know that the vacuum solutions of the Einstein equation around a spherically symmetric mass distribution have Schwarzschild form
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-(1-\frac{2C}{R})dt^2 + (1-\frac{2C}{R})^{-1}dR^2+R^2 d\Omega^2.
\end{equation}
Using the fact the $M=2R_H$ is the apparent horizon for Schwartzchild metric (as boundary condition), we get $C=M$. Therefore, in the isolated horizon case the space time geometry around horizon becomes Schwarzschild with the Misner-Sharp mass, $C=M=\frac{R_H}{2}$.\\
Located in the cosmological background, the CBH collapsing part separates from the expanding part and the density between them decreases. This underdense region is usually called void in the cosmology. As a result, the matter flux can not exist forever and after sometime it decreases \cite{Firouzjaee:2010ia,Moradi-2015}. In this case as inferred above taking the black hole as a point mass is a good model.\\
\section{What is the dynamical phase of the Sgr A$^*$ and M87}
To know how the point mass approximation is correct for the real astrophysical black hole, let us study the dynamical growth of the two famous black holes Sgr A$^*$ and M87.
Sgr A$^*$ is a supermassive black hole in our galaxy's center. From the radio source of the galactic center, the Sgr A$^*$ mass is estimated $ M \sim 10^{6} M_{\odot} $. From the the X-ray and infrared emission of the
Galactic center \cite{sgr}, one provides an upper limit on the Sgr A$^*$ black hole mass accretion rate as
$ \dot{M}< 10^{-5} M_{\odot} yr^{-1} $. For an astrophysical event such as lensing for light the typical lenght (time) scale is about $kpc\sim 10^{19} m$ which is equivalent to $10^3 yr$ for passing light of this length \cite{Ghez:2008ms}. The black hole mass growth for this time scale is $\delta M < 10^{-2} M_{\odot}$. Since the black hole mass is proportional to its radius the change of the black hole horizon becomes
\begin{equation}
\frac{\delta R_H}{R_H}= \frac{\delta M }{M} < 10^{-8}.
\end{equation}
As a result, in practice the black hole remains static relative to the astrophysical time scale and we can make the point mass approximation in many cases for the black holes physics study as the astrophysical text book do \cite{bh-book}.\\
Another supermassive black hole is M87 in cluster Virgo fifty million light-years away which is the most massive black holes known and has been the subject of several stellar and gas-dynamical mass measurements. This suppermassive black hole mass is
$ M \sim 10^{9} M_{\odot}$ and the mass accretion rate of this black hole is approximated by $ \dot{M}< 10^{-4} M_{\odot} yr^{-1} $ \cite{m87}. The typical distance of the Virgo cluster from us is about $10^{22} m$ which is equivalent to $10^6 yr$ for coming light. At this time scale the black hole mass growth will be $\delta M < 10^{2} M_{\odot}$ and equivalently the the black hole horizon growth becomes
\begin{equation}
\frac{\delta R_H}{R_H}= \frac{\delta M }{M} < 10^{-7}.
\end{equation}
Similar to the Sgr A$^*$, in practice this black hole remains static relative to the astrophysical time scale \cite{Owen:2000vi} and we can make the point mass approximation in many cases for the black hole's physics study.\\
\section{Point mass CBH }
In the last section we inferred that since the matter and matter flux around the black hole decrease and the black hole mass is bigger than the total matter around it, the point mass black hole can be a good model for CBH. On the other side, the cosmological constant is the best model to describe the cosmic acceleration which we called it dark energy in the matter sector. The de Sitter metric is the Einstein equation solution with the cosmological constant. Our analysis based on two paradigm: first, the dark energy is the main cosmological matter (about 70 \%) and all other matter (dark matter and baryonic matter) located in the matter flux which have fallen in the black hole; second at last time of evolution the matter flux becomes zero \cite{Firouzjaee-2010,Moradi-2015,Firouzjaee-penn} and we get a point mass black hole. In this case, it is sufficient to find the point mass black hole in the cosmological de Sitter background. \\
One way to make a cosmological black hole is to add the FLRW scale factor as a conformal coefficient for the point mass black hole metric. Sultana and Dyer \cite{sultana} have introduced a metric which FLRW scale factor is a conformal coefficient of the Schwarzschild metric. However that metric violate the energy condition and does not describe the ordinary matter. To do similar analysis with the de Sitter line element \cite{Culetu} consider the de Sitter metric
\begin{equation}
\label{bb1}
ds^{2} = -d \tau ^{2} + e^{2 \sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}} \tau} (dr^{2} + r^{2}d \Omega^{2} ).
\end{equation}
By the coordinate transformation $ t = \sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}} e^{-\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}} \tau} $, the metric (\ref{bb1}) will be transformed into conformally flat form
\begin{equation}
ds^{2} = \frac{\Lambda}{3t^{2}}[-dt^{2} + dr^{2} +r^{2} d \Omega ^{2} ].
\end{equation}
If we embed a black hole in this space time and write the conformal Schwarzschild metric, we will have
\begin{equation}
ds^{2} = \frac{\Lambda}{3t^{2}}[-(1-\frac{2m}{r})dt^{2} +\frac{1}{(1-\frac{2m}{r})} dr^{2} + r^{2}d \Omega ^{2} ].
\end{equation}
By calculating the Einstein tensor for this line element we see that the strong energy condition is violated, so this metric is not proper for our study and instead we consider the general form of Schwarzschild de Sitter metric.\\
One may think that the Schwarzschild-de Sitter is a good metric for the CBH, but Schwarzschild-de Sitter has been written in the static coordinate. Consequently it is needed find the Schwarzschild-de Sitter metric in the cosmological coordinate to present the point mass CBH.
Since the standard cosmological metrics are written in the synchronous coordinate, we first have to transform the Schwarzschild-de Sitter to the synchronous coordinates.
We know that the Schwarzschild-de Sitter metric is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{a1}
ds^{2} = - \Phi dt^{2} + \Phi ^{-1} dR^{2} + R^{2} d \Omega ^{2},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{s-d}
\Phi = 1- \frac{\Lambda}{3} R^{2} - \frac{2M}{R}.
\end{equation}
By these coordinate transformations
\cite{podolski}
\begin{equation}
\label{a2}
\begin{split}
& d \tau = dt - \frac{\sqrt{1 - \Phi}}{\Phi}dR,
\\& dr = -dt + \frac{1}{\Phi \sqrt{1- \Phi}} dR,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
metric (\ref{a1}) will be
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
ds^{2} = -d \tau ^{2} + (\frac{2M}{R} + \frac{\Lambda}{3}R^{2} )dr^{2} + R^{2}d\Omega^{2}.
\end{equation}
To find $R$ as a function of $r$ and $ \tau $ we can use
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
\int d \tau + d r = \int \frac{dR}{\sqrt{1-\Phi}} .
\end{equation}
Therefore, we can write
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
\tau + r = \int \frac{dR}{\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}R^{2} + \frac{2M}{R}}} = \frac{2}{\sqrt{3 \Lambda}} \ln( \Lambda R^{\frac{3}{2}} + \sqrt{6M \Lambda + \Lambda^{2}R^{3}}).
\end{equation}
Hence, we can write $R$
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
R= \frac{e^{ - \sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3} } (r + \tau) } (e^{\sqrt{3 \Lambda} (r+ \tau ) } -6\Lambda M)^{\frac{2}{3}} }{2^{\frac{2}{3}} \Lambda^{\frac{2}{3}}}.
\end{equation}
In the limit where the black hole mass tend to zero, the metric
$\displaystyle{\lim_{M \to 0} ds^{2} }$ will be
\begin{equation}
\label{a20}
\begin{split}
ds^{2}
= -d \tau^{2} + \frac{e^{2 \sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}} \tau} }{(2 \Lambda)^{\frac{4}{3}}} [\frac{\Lambda}{3} e^{2 \sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3} }r } d r^{2} + e^{2 \sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3} }r } d \Omega ^{2} ].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
By redefining $ S = \frac{e^{2 \sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3} }r } }{(2\Lambda)^{2/3}} $ we get
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
ds^{2} = -d \tau^{2} + e^{2 \sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}} \tau} [ d S^{2} + S^{2} d \Omega ^{2} ],
\end{equation}
which is de Sitter metric.\\
With calculating the Ricci scalar, we can see that the singularity is located at $ r + \tau = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3 \Lambda}} \ln(6 \Lambda M) $ that is equivalently $r= 0$.\\
The Penrose-Carter diagram of these black holes can be seen in the \cite{Gibbons:1977mu}.
These black holes properties will be discussed in Section VI.\\
\section{Charged Black hole}
It is usually assumed that the charged black hole can not appear during the gravitational collapse. But a highly magnetized plasma accretes onto the black hole, the charge to mass
ratio can be big in some case. In particular, in the merging of a binary system of neutron stars, it is expected at
the final steps of a gravitational collapse to a charged black hole \cite{ccbh}.
If we add charge to a point mass we get the Reissner Nordstrom solution. If we solve the Einstein equation with cosmological constant and a point mass with charge we get the de Sitter-Reissner Nordstrom solution. Here we use Carter's spherically symmetric three parameter (M,$ \Lambda $,Q) solution to Einstein's equations where Q is the electric charge of black hole \cite{carter}. The metric in static coordinates is
\begin{equation}
\label{a3}
ds^{2} = -\Phi dt^{2} + \Phi^{-1} dR^{2} + R^{2} d \Omega^{2} ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
\Phi = 1- \frac{\Lambda}{3} R^{2} - \frac{2M}{R} +\frac{Q^{2}}{R^{2}}.
\end{equation}
By coordinate transformations given by (\ref{a2}), the metric (\ref{a3}) will be
\begin{equation}
\label{a31}
ds^{2} = - d \tau ^{2} + ( \frac{\Lambda}{3} R^{2} + \frac{2M}{R} - \frac{Q^{2}}{R^{2}} ) dr^{2} + R^{2}d \Omega^{2}.
\end{equation}
We can write
\begin{equation}
\label{a40}
\tau + r = \int \frac{dR}{\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}R^{2} + \frac{2M}{R} -\frac{Q^{2}}{R^{2}} }} .
\end{equation}
If we define $ G(R) = \int \frac{dR}{\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}R^{2} + \frac{2M}{R} -\frac{Q^{2}}{R^{2}} }} $
then $ R = G^{-1}(\tau + r) $. We can calculate the inverse function numerically, as if we draw the function$r+ \tau = G(R)$ and change the variables $(R,G(R))$ to $(G(R),R)$ and then use numerical methods to find the equation of drawn line.
Because of existence of three free parameters $ \Lambda $ , $ Q $ and $ M $, this integral requires tedious calculations (if an analytical solution exists), and even after finding the integral, it would be much harder to find the inverse function $ R $, which will give the solution. Hence, we need to suppose some simplifying assumptions. At large '$ R $' where
$ \frac{\Lambda}{3}R^{2} \gg \frac{2M}{R} $ and $ \frac{\Lambda}{3}R^{2} \gg \frac{Q^{2}}{R^{2}} $ or equivalently $ R \gg Max( \sqrt[3]{\frac{6M}{\Lambda}} , \sqrt[4]{\frac{3Q^{2}}{\Lambda}}) $
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{}
\tau + r & = \int \frac{dR}{\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}*R^{2} + \frac{2M}{R} -\frac{Q^{2}}{R^{2}} }}
\simeq \sqrt{ \frac {3}{\Lambda} } \int R^{-1}[1- \frac{3M}{\Lambda R^{3}} + \frac{3Q^{2}}{2 \Lambda R^{4}} ] dR \\ & = \sqrt{ \frac {3}{\Lambda} } (\ln (R) + \frac{M}{\Lambda R^{3} } - \frac{3 Q^{2} }{8 \Lambda R^{4}} ).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
As a result
\begin{equation}
\label{a30}
R = \exp^{ x_{i}}.
\end{equation}
Where $ x_{i} $ represents the roots of equation
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
8(r+ \tau) - \sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda}}(\frac{8 \Lambda x e^{4x} + 8M e^{x} - 3Q^{2} }{\Lambda e^{4x}}) =0
\end{equation}
For $\displaystyle{\lim_{Q,M \to 0} ds^{2} }$, according to (\ref{a30}), $ R= \exp^{\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}}(r + \tau ) } $ and the line element (\ref{a31}) will be (\ref{a20}) and it represents de Sitter metric.\\
It might be interesting to consider the case $M=0$ (Q $\neq 0$)
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
\int \frac{dR}{\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3} R^{2} - \frac{Q^{2}}{R^{2}}}} = \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{\frac{ \Lambda}{3}}} \ln (\Lambda R^{2} + \sqrt{\Lambda^{2}R^{4} - 3 \Lambda Q^{2}} ) .
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
R =\frac{e^{-\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}}(r + \tau)} \sqrt{e^{4 \sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}} (r + \tau)} + 3 \Lambda Q^{2}} }{\sqrt{2 \Lambda}}
\end{equation}
The singularities are located at $ R=0 $ and $ R = \sqrt[4]{\frac{3Q^{2}}{\Lambda} } $.
For the region $ \frac{Q^{2}}{2M} \ll R \ll \sqrt[3]{\frac{6M}{\Lambda}} $ ( if $ \sqrt[3]{\Lambda} Q^{2} \ll M $ ), the equation(\ref{a40}) will be
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
\begin{split}
r+\tau = & \int \frac{dR}{\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}R^{2} + \frac{2M}{R} - \frac{Q^{2}}{R^{2}}}}
= \int \frac{\sqrt{R}}{\sqrt{2M}} [1 - \frac{Q^{2}}{2MR} + \frac{\Lambda}{6M}R^{3} ]^{- \frac{1}{2}}dR \\ & \simeq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2M}} ( \frac{2}{3}R^{\frac{3}{2}} + \frac{Q^{2}}{2M}R^{\frac{1}{2}} - \frac{\Lambda}{54M}R^{\frac{9}{2}} )
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and we will have $ R = x_{i} $, where $ x_{i} $ are the roots of this equation
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
-5832M(r+ \tau)^{2} + 729 M^{2}Q^{2} x + 1944MQ^{2}x^{2} + 1296 x^{3} - 54\Lambda M^{2}Q^{2} x^{5} - 72 \Lambda M x^{6} + \Lambda ^{2} M^{2} x^{9} = 0
\end{equation}
The Penrose-Carter diagram of these black holes can be seen in the \cite{Belhaj:2009ii}.
\\
\section{Kerr- de Sitter Black hole}
In this section we want to describe the point mass CBH with the angular momentum. In Boyer-Lindquist like coordinates employed by Carter, the Kerr-de Sitter line element will be \cite{carter}:
\begin{equation}
\label{a7}
\begin{split}
ds^{2} = & (R^{2} +a^{2}cos^{2} \Theta )[ \frac{dR^{2}}{\Delta_{R}} + \frac{d \Theta ^{2} }{1 + \frac{\Lambda}{3} a^{2} cos^{2} \Theta } ] + sin^{2} \Theta \frac{ (1 +\frac{\Lambda}{3}a^{2}cos^{2} \Theta ) }{R^{2} + a^{2} cos^{2} \Theta}[\frac{adt - (R^{2}+a^{2})d \varphi }{1 + \frac{\Lambda}{3} a^{2}}]^{2} \\ & - \frac{\Delta_{R} }{(R^{2} +a^{2}cos^{2} \Theta )} [\frac{dt - a sin^{2} \Theta d \varphi }{1 + \frac{\Lambda}{3} a^{2}}]^{2},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where 'a' is Kerr parameter and
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
\Delta_{R} = (R^{2} + a^{2} ) (1 - \frac{\Lambda}{3} R^{2}) - 2MR.
\end{equation}
The Kerr-de sitter metric is rather complicated , so finding a coordinate in which metric becomes in the form of $ ds^{2} = \Phi dt^{2} - \Phi ^{-1} dR^{2} - R^{2} d \Omega ^{2}$ is elusive. In this way, to simplify metric, we first take $ \Theta = 0 $ polar cut of the metric and due to axisymmetry $ \varphi $ can be set to equal any value from 0 to $2 \pi$. With these assumptions the metric (\ref{a7}) will be
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
ds^{2} = \frac{R^{2} + a^{2} }{\Delta_{R} }dR^{2} - \frac{\Delta_{R} }{R^{2} +a^{2}} [\frac{dt}{1 + \frac{\Lambda}{3}a^{2}} ]^{2}.
\end{equation}
If we suppose $dt^{'} = \frac{dt}{1 + \frac{\Lambda}{3}a^{2}} $ we will have
\begin{equation}
\label{ax}
ds^{2} = \frac{R^{2} + a^{2} }{\Delta_{R} }dR^{2} - \frac{\Delta_{R} }{R^{2} +a^{2}} (dt^{'})^{2}.
\end{equation}
Similar to the last section if we use coordinate transformations (\ref{a2}) the line element (\ref{ax}) will be
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
ds^{2} = -d \tau^{2} + ( \frac{\Lambda}{3}R^{2} + \frac{2MR}{R^{2}+a^{2}} )dr^{2} ,
\end{equation}
Where
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
\int d \tau + d r = \int \frac{dR}{\sqrt{1-\Phi}} ,
\end{equation}
And
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
\Phi = \frac{\Delta_{R} }{R^{2} +a^{2}} .
\end{equation}
We can write
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
\tau + r = \int \frac{dR}{\sqrt{1- \frac{\Delta_{R} }{R^{2} +a^{2}} }} = \int \frac{dR} {\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}R^{2} + \frac{2MR}{R^{2}+a^{2}} }} .
\end{equation}
Since this integral calculation is complex, we will consider two simple cases $ R \ll a $ and $ R \gg a $. \\
For $ R \ll a $ we will have
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
\tau + r
\simeq \int \frac{dR}{\sqrt{\frac{ \Lambda}{3}R^{2} + \frac{2MR}{a^{2}} } }
\end{equation}
Hence we get
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
\tau + r = \sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda}} ln (\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}}R + \frac{M}{a^{2}} \sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda}} + \sqrt{-( \frac{M}{a^{2}} \sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda}} ) ^{2} +( \sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}}R + \frac{M}{a^{2}} \sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda}} )^{2} }).
\end{equation}
To find '$ R $' we must find the inverse form of above function, so it will be
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
R= \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2 \Lambda} ( exp( \sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}} (r+ \tau) ) - 2 \frac{M}{a^{2}} \sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda}} + ( \frac{M}{a^{2}} \sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda}} ) ^{2} exp(- \sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{3}}(r+ \tau)) ).
\end{equation}
For $ R \gg a$ and $R \gg M $ we will have
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
\begin{split}
\tau + r = & \int \frac{dR}{\sqrt{\frac{ \Lambda}{3}R^{2} + \frac{2MR}{R^{2}+a^{2}} }}
\simeq \int \frac{ (1+\frac{a^{2}}{2 R^{2} }) dR }{\sqrt{\frac{ \Lambda}{3}R^{2} + \frac{2M}{R} } }
\\ & = \sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda}} [ ln(R) + \frac{M}{\Lambda R^{3}} ] + \frac{a^{2}}{2}\sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda}} [ - \frac{1}{2R^{2}} + \frac{3M}{ 5 \Lambda R^{5}}],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since $ R \gg a$ and $R \gg M $, if we neglect $ \frac{1}{R^{5}} $ term, then we will have $R = e^{x_{i}} $, where $x_{i}$ are the roots of equation
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
-4 \sqrt{3} \Lambda^{\frac{3}{2}} (r + \tau )e^{3x} + 12 \Lambda x e^{3x} - 3 \Lambda a^{2} e^{x} +12M =0
\end{equation}
If we only suppose $ R \gg a$ (not $ R \gg M $) we will have
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
\begin{split}
\tau + r = & \int \frac{dR}{\sqrt{\frac{ \Lambda}{3}R^{2} + \frac{2Mr}{R^{2}+a^{2}} }}
\simeq \int \frac{ (1+\frac{a^{2}}{2 R^{2} }) dR }{\sqrt{\frac{ \Lambda}{3}R^{2} + \frac{2M}{R} } }
\end{split}.
\end{equation}
Hence if we define
\begin{align}
\label{ }
& G(R)= \tau + r = \sqrt{\frac{4}{3 \Lambda}} arcsinh( \sqrt{\frac{3 \Lambda}{8 M}} \frac{2}{3} R^{\frac{3}{2}} ) + \\ \nonumber
&\frac{1}{4 a^{2}}(\frac{3}{2})^{-\frac{2}{3}} \frac{-3 (\frac{ - \Lambda ( \frac{4}{9} R^{3})}{M})^{\frac{5}{6}} (8M + 3 \Lambda ( \frac{4}{9} R^{3})) + 2 *3^{\frac{1}{6}} \Lambda ( \frac{4}{9} R^{3}) \sqrt{8 + \frac{3 \Lambda ( \frac{4}{9} R^{3})}{M}} Beta[ -\frac{3 \Lambda \frac{4}{9} R^{3}}{M},\frac{5}{6} , \frac{1}{2} ] }{ 2M ( \frac{4}{9} R^{3})^{\frac{1}{6}} (\frac{ - \Lambda ( \frac{4}{9} R^{3})}{M})^{\frac{5}{6}} \sqrt{(8M + 3 \Lambda ( \frac{4}{9} R^{3}))} },
\end{align}
where $Beta[x,a,b]$ is incomplete beta function. Then we get
\begin{equation}
\label{ }
R = G^{-1}(r+\tau ).
\end{equation}
Therefore, we present point mass CBH with angular momentum with finding the $G$ function.
\\
The Penrose-Carter diagram of these black holes can be seen in the \cite{kerrdesitter}.
\\
\section{Cosmological black holes properties}
From the last sections discussion a question arises as to whether we can see the trace of the cosmological constant (which play the cosmological acceleration role) in the observation. To make an estimate consider the Schwarzschild-de Sitter metric in the stationary coordinate (\ref{s-d}). Since the $R$ value is invariant due to the transformation to the cosmological coordinate, we can compare the two terms $ \frac{\Lambda}{3}R^{2}$ from cosmological constant and $\frac{2M}{R}$ from the black hole. In cosmology the value $ \frac{\Lambda}{3}=H_0^2$ where the $H_0= 67.74 \pm 0.46 km/s / Mpc = 2.195 \pm 0.015 10^{-18} s^{-1}$ is the Hubble constant at the present time. For a black hole with the sun mass $m_\odot$ at scale $ R \gtrsim 10^{18} m \simeq 100 pc $ the cosmological constant term cannot be negligible. In this scale some phenomena of black hole like lensing \cite{mojahed} and Cosmic Microwave Background distortion from primordial black hole are important and we have to use the cosmological constant model to describe them. In this part we investigate what happen for black hole mass, boundary and redshift structure if someone take the cosmological coordinate.
\\
\subsection{Misner-Sharp mass}
The spherically symmetric metric can be written
\begin{equation}
\label{normal-metric}
ds^2=\gamma_{ab}dx^a dx^b+R^2 d\Omega^2.
\end{equation}
where $a,b: (t,r)$. In this form the Misner-Sharp mass which is defined for the spherically symmetric space time \cite{Firouzjaee:2010ia}
becomes
\begin{equation}
M_{ms}=\frac{R}{2}(1-\gamma^{ab}\partial_a R \partial_b R)
\end{equation}
Since $\gamma^{ab}\partial_a R \partial_b R$ is invariant under the coordinate transformation $(t,r) \rightarrow (t',r')$ the Misner-Sharp mass is also invariant under these transformation.\\
Since the coordinate transformation from the stationary Schwarzschild-de Sitter coordinate to the cosmological coordinate has only the $(t,r)$ part, as a result, spherically symmetric cosmological black holes the Misner-Sharp will be the same Schwarzschild charge de Sitter mass:
\begin{equation}
M_{ms}=\frac{R}{2}(1-\gamma^{ab}\partial_a R \partial_b R)=m+\dfrac{\Lambda}{6}R^2-\dfrac{Q}{2R}.
\end{equation}
\\
One can also calculate the matter flux for above cosmological black hole in the spherically symmetric case. It can be shown from equation (\ref{flux}) that the matter flux is zero for these CBHs. This verifies that these CBH are point mass CBHs.
\\
\subsection{Redshift}
If an emitter sends a light ray to an observer with null vector
$k^{\mu}$, the relative light redshift of the emitted ($e$) frequency, ($w$), that is calculated by
observer ($o$) with 4-velocity $u^{\mu}$ is,
\begin{equation}
1+z=\frac{w_e}{w_o}=\frac{(k_\mu u^\mu)_e}{(k_\mu u^\mu)_o},
\end{equation}
where the light null geodesic $k^{\mu}$ is affinary parameterized.
It can be shown that the affinnary null geodesics equation
\begin{equation}
k^{\nu}k^{\mu}_{;\nu}=0
\end{equation}
will not change from coordinate transformation (because this relation is a covariant tensorial relation). As a result, the affine parameterized equation will remain the same. Hence, it results that the redshift properties of a spacetime for an observer will not change due to the coordinate transformation.\\
Consequently, the infinite redshift surface for the above CBHs will be the same infinite redshift surface in the stationary coordinate.\\
\subsection{Black hole boundary}
The event horizon is usually used to define the black hole boundary in textbooks. Since the event horizon definition is a global quantity and we have to know all information about the spacetime evolution finally, we need to define a quasi-local quantity which can be applied for real dynamical black hole in numerical relativity. To solve this problem people use the isolated on dynamical horizon (which are a type of the apparent horizon) to define the black hole boundary in a dynamical case \cite{Ashtekar:2002ag,Firouzjaee-penn,Booth:2003ji}.\\
\textbf{Black hole boundary definition}: A smooth, three-dimensional, space-like sub-manifold (possibly with boundary) $H $ of space-time is said to be a trapping horizon if it can be foliated by a family of closed 2-manifolds such that on each leaf $S$ the expansion $\theta_{(\ell)}$ of one null normal $\ell^\mu$ vanishes; and the expansion $\theta_{(n)}<0$ of the other null normal $n^\mu$ is negative. This surface separates the trapped surface, $\theta_{(n)}, \theta_{(\ell)}<0$, from untrapped one $\theta_{(n)}<0,~ \theta_{(\ell)}>0$. Similarly, one can define the cosmological horizon as a three-dimensional surface where the expansion $\theta_{(n)}$ of one null normal $n^\mu$ vanishes and $\theta_{(\ell)}>0$ on both sides of this surface.\\
In the spherically symmetric space time the black hole boundary is located on the apparent horizon $\theta_{(\ell)}=0$. In terms of normal metric components it becomes $\gamma^{ab}\partial_a R \partial_b R=0$.\\
Since $\gamma^{ab}\partial_a R \partial_b R$ is invariant under the coordinate transformation $(t,r) \rightarrow (t',r')$ the black hole boundary or apparent horizon is invariant under these transformation.\\
A spacetime with a point mass CBHs have two horizons. The first is cosmological horizon and the second horizon is black hole horizon (event or apparent horizon). For the point mass CBH \cite{Gibbons:1977mu} there are also two black hole and cosmological horizon. Since the coordinate transformation do not change the horizons location, it is sufficient to find roots of $ \Phi$ in the Schwarzschild-de Sitter spacetime. Note that the infinite redshift surface is the same black hole horizon surface in the stationary coordinate. Hence, the infinite redshift surface will be the same black hole apparent horizon for these CBHs. It can easily be shown that the expansion of outgoing null geodesics is proportional to $\Phi $, which $\Phi =0 $ determines the position of horizons. We can depict the roots of $ \Phi = 1- \frac{\Lambda}{3}R^{2} - \frac{2m}{R} $ for $ \Lambda = 10^{-52}m^{-2} $ as a function of $x=\frac{m}{m_{\odot}} $ where $m_{\odot}$ is the sun mass. There are three real roots for $\Phi=0 $ if $ \Lambda m^{2} \leqslant \frac{1}{9} $ \cite{Guven}, where one of them is negative, so we consider $R_{C} = \frac{2}{\sqrt{\Lambda}} \cos(\frac{\cos^{-1}(-3 \sqrt{\Lambda}m)}{3})$ and $R_{H} = \frac{2}{\sqrt{\Lambda}} \cos(\frac{\cos^{-1}(-3 \sqrt{\Lambda}m)}{3} + \frac{4 \pi}{3}) $ which are cosmological and black hole event horizons respectively.
Two cosmological and black hole horizons are depicted in Fig.(\ref{fig:10}) and Fig.(\ref{fig:11}).
\begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.4 \columnwidth]{r1.pdf} \caption{de Sitter event horizon as a function of mass. Dash line represents de Sitter event horizon for $m=0$.} \label{fig:10}
\end{figure}
It can be seen that using standard value of dark energy, the astrophysical black hole with mass $m < 10^{10} m_\odot$ can not change the cosmological horizon place. On the other side, the standard value of cosmological constant does not change the black hole horizon place significantly.\\
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.4 \columnwidth]{r3.pdf}
\caption{Black hole event horizon as a function of mass. Dash line represents black hole event horizon for $\Lambda=0$.}\label{fig:11}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Circular orbits for CBHs}
In cosmology and astrophysics, many events and physics such as microlensing, dark matter rotation curve, missing satellite, stars velocity dispersion and etc. Emerge from the studying of object orbits where most of them are simplified by circular orbits \cite{desitter-geo}. In this part, we study the possibility of the circular orbits around the CBHs (without charge and angular momentum). \\
Circular orbits are characterized by a constant radius. In a stationary coordinate like Schwarzschild de Sitter coordinate there is well defined coordinate $R$ which is the areal coordinate, but in the cosmological coordinate we have two comoving and areal radius. Since the angular distance is proportional to the areal radius we choose the areal radius as a circular orbits radius. As a consequence of time and radius coordinate transformation from stationary Schwarzschild-de Sitter to the CBH cosmological coordinate, the areal coordinate will not changes. As a result, the circular coordinate in both frames are the same, but are labeled by different coordinates. The detail of the orbits effective potential can be seen in the Appendix A.\\
\section{Conclusion}
Real black holes in the universe, called the cosmological black holes, are located in the expanding accelerating background. These black holes are generically dynamical and they are sourced by baryons and dark matter. It's been shown that the background expansion leads to voids. These voids are formed between the black hole and the expanding background and prevent the black hole's matter flux from increasing. After this phase of the black hole evolution, the black holes can be approximated as a point mass. In this case, the black hole mass is much greater than the matter flux around it. In this paper, we argue that most of the dynamical cosmological black holes can be modeled by point mass cosmological black holes finally. The point mass cosmological background is modeled by the de Sitter space-time. We find the Schwarzschild-de Sitter metric in the cosmological coordinate and infer that this metric is the best candidate for the point mass CBH. This metric locally describes a point mass black hole and at large distance reduces to the cosmological de Sitter space-time. We also find the point mass black holes solution with charge and angular momentum. We show that the mass, horizons and redshift structure of these black holes will not change due to the coordinate transformation from stationary coordinate to the cosmological coordinate. From studying the effective potential for different geodesics cases it has been shown that the stable circular orbits can be exist similar to the stationary case.
\\
Future work \cite{Fagihi} will concentrate on studying the astrophysical and cosmological observables of these black holes and compare them with stationary ones.
\\
{\bf Acknowledgments:}
\\
We would like to thank Alireza Allahyari for useful
comments.
\\
|
\section{Introduction}
Consider the surplus process $\{U_u(t), t\ge0\}$ of an insurance company modeled by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{model}
U_u(t) = u + ct -\sum_{i=1}^{N(t)}X_i +\sigma B(t),\ \ \ t\geq 0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $u\geq 0$ is the initial reserve, $c>0$ is the rate of premium income, $\{N(t), t\geq 0\}$ is a Poisson claim-counting process with parameter $\lambda>0$, $\{X_i, i\ge1\}$ is a sequence of independent and identically distributed (iid) positive random variables
with common survival function $\overline{P}(x)$ and density function $p(x)$, representing the
amounts of the successive claims,
$\{B(t), t\geq 0\}$ is a standard Brownian motion and $\sigma>0$ is a constant representing the diffusion volatility parameter.
In addition, we assume that $\{N(t), t\ge0\}$, $\{B(t), t\ge0\}$ and $\{X_i, i\ge 1\}$ are mutually independent, and further suppose that the positive net profit condition $c >\lambda \E{X_1}$ holds. In the literature the risk model \eqref{model} is refereed to as the (diffusion) perturbed classical risk model.
Since the introduction of the perturbed classical risk model in the seminal contributions \citet{Geber70} and \citet{DufGer1991}, the study of it has become popular in risk theory; see, e.g.,
\citet{ZhangWang03}, \citet{Li06} and
\citet{Tsai10}. We refer to \citet{AsmAlb2010} for a nice review on this model and its generalizations.
Define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ruin}
T_u=\inf\{t\ge0: U_u(t)<0\} \ \ (\text{with}\ \inf\{\emptyset\}=\infty)
\end{equation}
to be the time to ruin of the risk model (\ref{model}) with initial reserve $u\ge0$. Then $N(T_u)$ is the number of claims until ruin (including the claim which causes ruin).
In this paper, we are interested in the calculation of the joint density of $N(T_u)$ and $T_u$ defined by
$$
\omega_u(n,t)=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\psi_u(n,t),\ \ \ n\in \mathbb{N}_0:=\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\},\ t>0
$$
with
$$\psi_u(n,t)=\pk{N(T_u)=n, T_u\leq t}, \ \ \ n\in\mathbb{N}_0,\ t>0.$$
A nice formula for $\omega_u(n,t)$ in the classical risk model without perturbation (i.e., $\sigma=0$) has been discussed in \citet{Dick12}. For other related results we refer to \citet{Eg02}, \citet{BorDick2008}, \citet{LanShiWil11}, \citet{Lee11}, \citet{FroPitPol12}, \citet{ZhaoZha13}, \citet{Cheung13}, \citet{LiHJ13}, \citet{LanShi14} and \citet{LiLuJin15}. It is noted that in most of the aforementioned papers results are obtained based on an application of the known Lagrange's Expansion Theorem.
For instance, in the framework of \citet{Dick12} (see Eq. (3) therein) the derivation of $\omega_0(n,t)$ relies heavily on an adequate form of the inverse Laplace transform of the function $\exp(-\eta_\delta x), \delta, x>0,$ with respect to $\delta$ (which was found by Lagrange's Expansion Theorem). Here $\eta_\delta$ is the unique positive solution of the Lundberg fundamental
equation
$$
cs -(\lambda+\delta)+ \lambda r \hat{p}(s)=0
$$
with $r\in(0,1]$, $\delta>0$ and $\hat{p}$ the Laplace transform of $p$. We note in passing that the above Lundberg fundamental equation was derived in \citet{LanShiWil11} by introducing the following quantity
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:phi}
\phi_{r,\delta}(u)=\E{r^{N(T_u)} e^{-\delta T_u}I_{(T_u<\infty)}}
\end{eqnarray}
with $I_{(\cdot)}$ the indicator function.
However, it seems that the approach of \citet{Dick12} does not work well anymore for the perturbed risk model \eqref{model}. One reason is that now $\omega_0(n,t)=0$ for all $n\in \Nset$ by properties of Brownian motion. In this paper, we shall adopt a different approach.
Similarly to the unperturbed case, the following generalized Lundberg fundamental equation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:rho}
f(s)=\frac{\sigma^2}{2} s^2+cs -(\lambda+\delta)+ \lambda r \hat{p}(s)=0
\end{eqnarray}
shall play an important role.
\cee{
In fact, the generalized Lundberg fundamental equation was introduced to ensure that, for such $s$ satisfying $f(s)=0$,
$$\{r^{N(t)}e^{ s U_u(t)-\delta t }, {t\geq 0}\}= \{ e^{ s U_u(t)-\delta t +\sum_{i=1}^{N(t)} \ln r }, {t\geq 0}\}$$
is a martingale with respect to the natural filtration $\{\mathcal{F}_t^{U_0}, t\geq 0\}$ generated by $\{U_0(t),t\ge0\}$.
Since, for any fixed $s>0$, $\{s U_u(t)-\delta t +\sum_{i=1}^{N(t)} \ln r , t\ge 0\}$ is a spectrally negative L\'{e}vy process, the above martingale property is equivalent to that
$$
\E{e^{ s U_u(t)-\delta t +\sum_{i=1}^{N(t)} \ln r } \big| U_u(0)=u}= e^{su},\ \ \forall t\ge0,
$$
which is valid if and only if $f(s)=0$.
Note that similar argumentations can also be found in \citet{LanShi14}.
Furthermore, since
$$
f(0)<0, \ \ \lim_{s\rightarrow\infty}f(s)=\infty, \ \ f'(s)=\sigma^2s+c+\lambda r\hat{p}'(s)\geq \sigma^2s+c-\lambda r\E{X_1}\geq \sigma^2s>0,\ \forall s>0,
$$
we conclude that the generalized Lundberg fundamental equation $f(s)=0$ has a unique positive solution, denoted by $\rho_\delta$. As a result
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:MarU}
\{ e^{\widehat{U}_u(t) }, {t\geq 0}\}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\widehat{U}_u(t):=\rho_\delta U_u(t)-\delta t +\sum_{i=1}^{N(t)} \ln r, t\ge0$, is a martingale.
}
{\it Outline of this paper:}
In \neprop{Properho} we derive an adequate expansion for the key function $\exp(-\rho_\delta x)$
by using a probabilistic approach instead of resorting to Lagrange's Expansion Theorem.
With the aid of this expansion and the duality of the risk process $\{U_u(t),t\ge0\}$, we derive (in \netheo{Thm1}) explicit formulas for the joint density $\omega_u(n,t)$ for any $u>0$. In comparison to the classical analytic approach (as in \citet{Dick12}) by utilizing Laplace transforms,
our probabilistic approach yields much neater formulas.
The proofs of all the results are relegated to Section 3.
\section{ Results}
Before giving the principle result of this contribution we shall present some preliminary results, among which \neprop{Properho} shall play a crucial role.
We begin with some further notation. For any fixed $x> u$ we define
$$
\tau_u^x=\inf\{t\ge0: U_u(t)=x\}
$$
to be the first hitting time to level $x$ of the risk process $\{U_u(t),t\ge0\}$. Further,
define, for any $t>0,x\in\Rset$
\begin{eqnarray}
&&g_t(0,x) = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi Dt}}e^{-(\lambda t+\frac{(x-ct)^2}{4Dt})}\nonumber\\
&& g_t(n,x) = e^{-\lambda t}\frac{(\lambda t)^n}{n!}\int_{0}^\infty\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi Dt}}e^{-\frac{(z+x-ct)^2}{4Dt}}p^{n*}(z)dz,\ \ n\in \Nset,\label{eq:ggt}
\end{eqnarray}
where $D=\sigma^2/2$ and $p^{n*}$, $n\in \Nset$ denotes the $n$-fold convolution of $p$ with itself. It can be shown that $g_t(n,x)$ is the joint density of $N(t)$ and $U_u(t)-u$, \cee{which is independent of the ruin problem considered in the paper.}
\def \rho_\delta{\rho_\delta}
\begin{sat} \label{Properho}
Let $\rho_\delta$ be the unique positive solution of the generalized Lundberg fundamental equation \eqref{eq:rho}. Then, for any $x> 0$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:exprho}
e^{-\rho_\delta x}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty r^n \int_0^\infty e^{-\delta s} \frac{x}{s}g_s(n,x)ds.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{sat}
\begin{remark}
{\it The last result was first derived in \citet{LanShi14} by using an analytic approach. In comparison to the approach therein, our probabilistic approach results in a much shorter proof.
}
\end{remark}
As an application of \neprop{Properho} we obtain the following result concerning the joint density of the first hitting time
and the number of claims until this hitting time. This result is important for the derivation of \neprop{PropHH} given below.
\begin{sat} \label{Prophit}
Let $\tau_u^x$ be the first hitting time to a level $x(>u)$ of the risk process $\{U_u(t),t\ge0\}$. Then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:hitx}
\pk{ N(\tau_u^x)=n,\tau_u^x\in[t,t+dt]}=\frac{x-u}{t}g_t(n, x-u) dt, \ \ \ n\in \Nset_0,\ t>0.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{sat}
In order to proceed with the joint density $\omega_u(n,t)$ for any $u>0$, we introduce a quantity $ H(n,t,u,x)$, $n\in \Nset_0, t, u, x>0$ as follows (recall $T_u$ is the time to ruin given in \eqref{eq:ruin})
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:H1}
H(n,t,u,x)dx=\pk{N(t)=n,t<T_u,U_u(t)\in[x,x+dx]}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that, for any fixed $u>0$,
$H(n,t,u,x), n\in \mathbb{N}_0, x>0$ can be interpreted as the joint density of $N(t)$ and $U_u(t)$, with $t$ some fixed time before ruin occurs.
As it will be seen from our principle result below (\netheo{Thm1}) $H(n,t,u,x)$ is a crucial quantity for the joint density $\omega_u(n,t)$. We present below an explicit expression for it.
\begin{sat} \label{PropHH}
Let $ H(n,t,u,x)$, $n\in \mathbb{N}_0, t, u, x>0$ be defined above. Then
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:HH}
H(n,t,u,x)=g_t(n,x-u)-\sum_{l=0}^n\int_{0}^t\frac{x}{s} g_s(l,x)g_{t-s}(n-l,-u)ds
\end{eqnarray}
holds for any $n\in \mathbb{N}_0, t, u, x>0$.
\end{sat}
Now we are ready to present our principle result concerning the joint density $\omega_u(n,t)$ of $N(T_u)$ and $T_u$ for any $u>0$. It is known that ruin of the perturbed classical risk model \eqref{model} is caused either by a claim or by oscillation; see, e.g., \citet{DufGer1991}. In the following denote by $\omega_u^s(n,t), n\in\mathbb{N}_0, t>0$ the joint density when the ruin is caused by a claim, and by $\omega_u^d(n,t), n\in \mathbb{N}_0, t>0$ the joint density when the ruin is caused by oscillation. That is,
$$
\omega_u^s(n,t)=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\psi_u^s(n,t),\ \ \omega_u^d(n,t)=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\psi_u^d(n,t), \ n\in\mathbb{N}_0,\ t>0
$$
with
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\psi_u^s(n,t)=\pk{N(T_u)=n, T_u\leq t, U_u(T_u)<0},\\
&& \psi_u^d(n,t)=\pk{N(T_u)=n, T_u\leq t, U_u(T_u)=0}, \ n\in\mathbb{N}_0,\ t>0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Clearly, for any $u>0$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:omegaa}
\omega_u(n,t)=\omega_u^s(n,t)+\omega_u^d(n,t),\ \ n \in \mathbb{N}_0, t>0.
\end{eqnarray}
Our main result below presents explicit expressions for $\omega_u^s(n,t)$ and $\omega_u^d(n,t)$, $n \in \mathbb{N}_0, t>0,$ and thus in view of the above formula yields an explicit expression for the joint density $\omega_u(n,t)$, $n \in \mathbb{N}_0, t>0$.
\begin{thm}\label{Thm1}
Let $\omega_u^s(n,t)$ and $\omega_u^d(n,t)$, $n\in \mathbb{N}_0, t>0$ be the joint densities of $N(T_u)$ and $T_u$ defined above. Then, for any $u>0$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\omega_u^s(0,t)=0,\ \ \ \omega_u^d(0,t)=\frac{u}{2\sqrt{\pi Dt^3}}e^{-(\lambda t+\frac{(u+ct)^2}{4Dt})}, \ \ \ t>0
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\omega_u^s(n,t)=\lambda\int_0^\infty H(n-1,t,u,x)\overline{P}(x)dx, \ \ \ n\in \Nset, t>0,\\
&&\omega_u^d(n,t)=\lambda\int_0^t\int_0^\infty\int_0^y H(n-1,t-s,u,y)\frac{y-z}{2\sqrt{\pi Ds^3}}e^{-(\lambda s+\frac{(y-z+cs)^2}{4Ds})}p(z)dzdyds, \ \ \ n\in \Nset, t>0,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $H(n,t,u,x), n\in \mathbb{N}_0, t, u, x>0$ is given in \neprop{PropHH}.
\end{thm}
\COM{
\begin{remark}\label{rem2}
{\it The formulas given in \neprop{PropHH} and \netheo{Thm1} are nice from mathematical point of view, and may be quit useful for simulation purpose. A drawback of them is that closed-form expressions (with reduced number of integrals) can not be easily obtained in general.
}
\end{remark}
}
\section{Proofs}
In this section we present all the proofs of the results.
\proofprop{Properho} For any fixed $r\in(0,1]$ define an auxiliary process $\{\widetilde{U}_u(t), t\ge0\}$ from \eqref{model} as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:widUU}
\widetilde{U}_u(t)= u + ct -\sum_{i=1}^{N(t)}\widetilde{X}_i +\sigma B(t),\ \ \ t\geq 0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\{\widetilde{X}_i,i\ge1\}$ is a sequence of iid generalized positive random variables such that $\widetilde{X}_1$ has density $\widetilde{p}(x)=r p(x), x>0$ and $\pk{\widetilde{X}_1=\infty}=1-r$. It is worth remarking at this point that the theorems and corollaries in Chapter VII in \citet{Bertoin96} still hold for spectrally negative L\'{e}vy processes when the domain of the corresponding L\'{e}vy measure is generalized from $(-\infty,0)$ to $(-\infty,0)\cup\{-\infty\}$. Therefore, by denoting
$$
\widetilde{\tau}_u^x=\inf\{t\ge0: \widetilde{U}_u(t)=x\},\ \ x>u,
$$
we have from Corollary 3 in Chapter VII in \citet{Bertoin96} that the measures $t\pk{\widetilde{\tau}_u^x\in[t,t+dt]}dx$ and $(x-u)\pk{\widetilde{U}_u(t)\in[x,x+dx]}dt$ coincide on $[0,\infty)\times[0,\infty)$. This implies that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:widtau}
\pk{\widetilde{\tau}_u^x\in[t,t+dt]}=\frac{x-u}{t}\widetilde{g}_t(r,x-u)dt,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
\widetilde{g}_t(r,x)&=&\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\pk{\widetilde{U}_u(t)\le x+u}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi Dt}}e^{-(\lambda t+\frac{(x-ct)^2}{4Dt})}\\
&& \ + \sum_{n=1}^\infty e^{-\lambda t}\frac{(\lambda t)^n}{n!}\int_{0}^\infty\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi Dt}}e^{-\frac{(z+x-ct)^2}{4Dt}}(rp)^{n*}(z)dz\\
&&=\sum_{n=0}^\infty r^n g_t(n,x),\ \ x>0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover, using similar arguments as in Theorem 1 in Chapter VII in \citet{Bertoin96} we obtain that, for any $\delta>0$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:martau}
\E{e^{-\delta \widetilde{\tau}_u^x}}=\E{e^{-\delta \widetilde{\tau}_u^x}I_{(\widetilde{\tau}_u^x<\infty)}}=e^{-\rho_\delta(x-u)},\ \ \ x>u.
\end{eqnarray}
Consequently, we conclude from \eqref{eq:widtau}--\eqref{eq:martau} that
\begin{eqnarray*}
e^{-\rho_\delta (x-u)}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty r^n \int_0^\infty e^{-\delta t} \frac{(x-u)}{t}g_t(n,x-u)dt,\ \ \ x>u,
\end{eqnarray*}
implying \eqref{eq:exprho}. This completes the proof. \hfill $\Box$
\proofprop{Prophit}
Recalling \eqref{eq:MarU}, we have that, for any fixed $r\in(0,1], \delta>0$,
$$\{e^{\widehat{U}_u(t)}, {t\ge 0}\}$$
is a martingale.
Since $\tau_u^x$ is a stopping time with respect to the filtration $\{\mathcal{F}_t^{U_0}, t\geq 0\}$ and
$$
e^{\widehat{U}_u(t \wedge \tau_u^x)}\le e^{\rho_\delta x }<\infty,\ \ \forall t\ge0,
$$
we have from the optional sampling theorem that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\E{e^{-\delta \tau_u^x} r^{N(\tau_u^x)} e^{\rho_\delta x}}=\E{e^{\widehat{U}_u(\tau_u^x)}\lvert \widehat{U}_u(0)=\rho_\delta u}=e^{\rho_\delta u}
\end{eqnarray*}
which means
\begin{eqnarray*}
\E{e^{-\delta \tau_u^x} r^{N(\tau_u^x)}}= e^{-\rho_\delta (x-u)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Consequently, the claim follows by inserting \eqref{eq:exprho} into the last formula. The proof is complete. \hfill $\Box$
\proofprop{PropHH} We introduce the following quantity:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:H2}
H^*(n,t,u,x)dx=\pk{N^*(t)=n,t<\tau^{x+u}_{*u},U_u^*(t)\in[x,x+dx]},\ \ n\in \mathbb{N}_0, t,u,x>0,
\end{eqnarray}
where, for the fixed $t>0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
U^*_u(s)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}u+U_u(t)-U_u((t-s)-),&0\leq s< t,\\
U_u(s),&s\geq t,
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray*}
$\tau_{*u}^{x+u}$ is defined as
$$
\tau_{*u}^{ x+u}=\inf\{s\ge0: U_u^*(s)=u+x\}, x>0,
$$
and $N^*(t)$ is the number of jumps of the process $\{U_u^*(s),s\ge0\}$ until time $t$. See Figure 1 for the sample paths of $U_u(s)$ and $U_u^*(s)$ when $\sigma=0$.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{0mm}
\includegraphics[width=120mm, height=50mm]{UU.pdf}
\caption{Sample paths of $U_u(s)$ and $U_u^*(s)$ when $\sigma=0$}
\end{figure}
It is noted that the construction of $\{U_u^*(s),s\ge0\}$ from $\{U_u(s),s\ge0\}$ is measure-preserved; see, e.g., \citet{GerShi97} and \citet{GerShi1998}. Therefore, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\pk{N(t)=n,t<T_u,U_u(t)\in[x,x+dx]}= \pk{N^*(t)=n,t<\tau^{x+u}_{*u},U_u^*(t)\in[x,x+dx]},
\end{eqnarray*}
which means that \begin{eqnarray*}\label{eq:HHH}
H(n,t,u,x)= H^*(n,t,u,x),\ \ n\in \mathbb{N}_0, t,u, x>0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Furthermore, since $\{U^*_u(s), s\geq 0\}$ is also a L\'evy process and $U^*_u(t)=U_u(t)$, by Theorem 7.10 in \cite{Sato99}
we have the process $\{U_u^*(s), s\ge 0\}$ has the same probability law as the process $\{U_u(s), s\ge 0\}$. Thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
H(n,t,u,x)dx&=& H^*(n,t,u,x)dx\\
&=&\pk{N(t)=n,t<\tau^{x+u}_u, U_u(t)\in[x,x+dx]}\\
&=&\pk{N(t)=n, U_u(t)\in[x,x+dx]}- \pk{N(t)=n,t\ge\tau_u^{x+u},U_u(t)\in[x,x+dx]}.
\end{eqnarray*}
By the homogeneity and strong Markov property of $\{U_u(s),s\ge0\}$ we conclude that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\pk{N(t)=n,t\ge\tau_u^{x+u},U_u(t)\in[x,x+dx]}\\
&&= \sum_{l=0}^n \E{I_{\left(N(\tau_u^{x+u})=l, \tau_u^{x+u}\le t\right)} \pk{N(t)-N(\tau_u^{x+u})=n-l, U_{u}(t)\in[x,x+dx]\big\lvert \mathcal{F}^{U_0}_{\tau_u^{x+u}}}}\\
&&= \sum_{l=0}^n \int_0^t \pk{N(s)=l, \tau_0^{x}\in[s,s+ds]} \pk{N(t-s)=n-l, U_0(t-s)\in[-u,-u+dx]}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Consequently, the claim follows from \eqref{eq:ggt} and \eqref{eq:hitx}. This completes the proof. \hfill $\Box$
\prooftheo{Thm1} It follows easily that $\omega_u^s(0,t)=0$. Further, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\omega_u^d(0,t)dt&=&\pk{N(t)=0, \inf_{s\in[0,t)}(u+cs+\sigma B(s))>0, \inf_{s\in[t,t+dt]}(u+cs+\sigma B(s))\le 0}\\
&=&\frac{u}{2\sqrt{\pi Dt^3}}e^{-(\lambda t+\frac{(u+ct)^2}{4Dt})} dt,
\end{eqnarray*}
where we used the formula for the density of hitting time of a drifted Brownian motion, see, e.g., \cee{Remark 8.3 in Chapter 2 in} \cite{KarShr88}.
Next we consider $\omega_u^s(n,t), n\in\Nset, t\ge0$. It is noted that $\omega_u^s(n,t)dt$ can be seen as the probability that there are $n-1$ claims until a pre-ruin time $t$ and $U_u(t)\in[x,x+dx]$ and there is a claim (which causes ruin) in $[t, t+dt]$. Thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\omega_u^s(n,t)dt&=&\int_0^\infty\int_0^\infty H(n-1,t,u,x)(\lambda dt) p(x+y)dydx\\
&=&\lambda\int_0^\infty H(n-1,t,u,x) \overline{P}(x )dxdt.
\end{eqnarray*}
Similarly, $\omega_u^d(n,t)dt$ can be seen as the probability that there are $n-1$ claims until some pre-last claim occurring time $s$ and there is a claim (which does not cause ruin) in $[s, s+ds]$ and further ruin occurs in $[t,t+dt]$ by oscillation. Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\omega_u^d(n,t)dt = \int_0^\infty \int_0^y\int_0^t H(n-1,s,u,y)\lambda\ ds\ p(z)\ dz \frac{y-z}{2\sqrt{\pi D(t-s)^3}}e^{-(\lambda (t-s)+\frac{(y-z+c(t-s))^2}{4D(t-s)})}\ dy,
\end{eqnarray*}
and thus the proof is complete. \hfill $\Box$
\bigskip
{\bf Acknowledgements}: We are thankful to the associate editor and two referees for several suggestions which significantly improved our manuscript. All the authors kindly acknowledge partial support by the RARE -318984 (an FP7 Marie Curie IRSES Fellowship) and Swiss National Science Foundation Project 200021-140633/1. C. Zhang also acknowledges partial support by the National Science Foundation of China 11371020.
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{Introduction}
The main objective of heavy-ion collision experiments is to study the properties of the Quark Gluon Plasma \cite{Bass:1998vz}. Anisotropic flow, that characterises the momentum anisotropy of the final state particles, probes the properties of the system created in heavy-ion interactions, such as the equation of state and the ratio of shear viscosity to entropy density ($\eta/s$). This momentum anisotropy stems from the initial spatial anisotropy of the collision, reflected in its geometry, and by the initial density profile of nucleons participating in the collision which is different from one event to the other \cite{Alver:2008zza}.
Anisotropic flow is characterized by a Fourier expansion of the azimuthal distribution of particle production relative to the symmetry plane \cite{Voloshin:1994mz}, according to:
\begin{equation}
dN/d(\varphi-\Psi_{n}) \approx 1+\sum_{n} 2v_{n}\cos[n(\varphi - \Psi_n)],
\label{particledistribution}
\end{equation}
where $\varphi$ is the azimuthal angle of particles, $\Psi_{n}$ the azimuthal angle of the nth-order symmetry plane and $v_{n}$ are the flow coefficients, with $v_{2}$, $v_{3}$ and $v_{4}$
the elliptic, triangular and quadrangular flow, respectively. In this contribution, the results are reported for $v_{2}(p_{\mathrm{T}})$, $v_{3}(p_{\mathrm{T}})$ and $v_{4}(p_{\mathrm{T}})$ of identified charged pions, charged kaons and (anti-) protons in Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 2.76$ TeV measured with the ALICE detector.
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\section{Analysis details}
\label{Analysis}
The data sample used for this analysis was recorded by ALICE during the 2011 Pb--Pb run at the LHC. Minimum-bias Pb--Pb events were triggered by the coincidence of signals from two forward detectors (V0A and V0C) positioned at both sides of the interaction point. In addition, an online selection based on the same V0 detectors was used to increase the number of central (i.e. 0--10$\%$ centrality range) and semi--central (i.e. 10--50$\%$ centrality range) events. \\
Events with a reconstructed primary vertex, whose position on the beam axis is within $\pm$10 cm from the nominal interaction point, were considered in this analysis. The data were grouped according to fractions of the hadronic cross section. The two centrality ranges presented in this article correspond to the 1\% most central (i.e.~smallest impact parameter) Pb--Pb collisions ($\sim$2.2 million) and the 20--30$\%$ interval (i.e.~semi-central with large impact parameter) with 1.5 million events. \\
The charged particle reconstruction was done with the Inner Tracking System (ITS) and the Time Projection Chamber (TPC). The charged particle momenta were measured by the ITS and the TPC with a full azimuthal coverage in the pseudo-rapidity range $|\eta| < 0.9$. Charged pions and kaons as well as (anti-)protons were identified by combining the signals from the TPC and Time Of Flight (TOF) detectors similarly to the procedure followed in \cite{Abelev:2014pua}. In this analysis, pions and protons are identified with a purity of $>90\%$ in a transverse momentum range of $0.3<p_{\mathrm{T}}<6$ GeV/$c$ and kaons with a purity of $>85\%$ in $0.3<p_{\mathrm{T}}<4$ GeV/$c$. For more information about the ALICE detector and its performance see \cite{Abelev:2014ffa}.\\
The flow harmonics were measured with the scalar product method introduced in \cite{Sergei}. A pseudo-rapidity gap of $|\Delta\eta|> 0$ was applied between the identified pions, kaons and (anti-)protons selected from one side of the TPC and the charged reference particles selected from the other side of the TPC. Due to this small pseudorapidity gap applied, correlations not related to the common symmetry plane, known as non-flow, contribute to the measured $v_n^{\textrm{AA}}$ values. In this analysis, the contribution from non-flow was estimated using the HIJING event generator and is denoted as $\delta^{\mathrm{MC}}$ \cite{Sergei}. The maximum magnitude of this correction is around 0.017 for $v_2$, 0.008 for $v_3$ and 0.006 for $v_4$ in intermediate $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ region ($p_{\mathrm{T}}>3$ GeV/$c$). The reported values in this article are denoted as, $v_n^{AA-MC}$, and were extracted according to:
\begin{equation}
v_{\textrm{n}}^{\textrm{AA-MC}} = v_{\textrm{n}}^{\textrm{AA}} - \delta^{\textrm{MC}}
\label{estimated_corrected_vn}
\end{equation}
More details about the applied non-flow subtraction can be found in \cite{Sergei}.
\vspace{-0.35cm}
\section{Results}
\label{Results}
Fig. \ref{vnEvolution} presents the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ differential $v_{2}^{\mathrm{AA-MC}}$, $v_{3}^{\mathrm{AA-MC}}$ and $v_{4}^{\mathrm{AA-MC}}$ for charged pions and kaons and the combination of protons and anti-protons, in the left, middle and right plot, respectively, for the 1$\%$ most central Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76$ TeV (upper row). The bottom row of Fig. 1 presents the same picture that develops for the 20--30$\%$ centrality range. Note that the $v_{2}$ values for this centrality range were calculated with the scalar product method with $|\Delta\eta|>0.9$ and without MC subtraction can be found in \cite{Abelev:2014pua}. \\
For the most central Pb--Pb collisions one expects the influence of the collision geometry to the development of $v_{n}$ to be reduced as compared to the contribution of the initial density fluctuations. It is seen that for charged pions around 0.8 GeV/$c$, $v_{3}$ gets equal to $v_{2}$ and becomes the dominant harmonic beyond this value. Furthermore, at around 2 GeV/$c$, $v_{4}$ becomes equal to $v_{2}$. For higher transverse momentum values, $v_{4}$ becomes gradually larger than $v_{2}$ reaching similar magnitude as $v_{3}$ at around 3.5 GeV/$c$. However, for the 20--30$\%$ centrality class where the collision geometry is expected to become the primary contributor to the development of $v_n$, it is seen that $v_2$ is the dominant harmonic throughout the entire measured momentum range. Furthermore, both $v_3$ and $v_4$ seem to have similar magnitudes and $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ evolution as the one observed for the most central Pb--Pb events, indicating a smaller influence of the collision geometry in their development than $v_2$.\\
For kaons and protons, one observes a similar trend in the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$-evolution of $v_2$, $v_3$ and $v_4$ as the one of charged pions. However, the flow harmonics exhibit a crossing that takes place at different $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ values than the ones for pions. For kaons, the $v_2$ and $v_3$ crossing happens at higher $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ ($\sim$1 GeV/$c$) compared to pions while for protons it happens at an even higher $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ value ($\sim$1.5 GeV/$c$). Similarly, the $v_2$ and $v_4$ crossing happens further in $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for kaons ($\sim$2.4 GeV/$c$) and protons ($\sim$2.7 GeV/$c$) as compared to pions. The $v_4$ for kaons reaches similar magnitude as $v_{3}$ at around 3.5 GeV/$c$ and this takes place at around 4 GeV/$c$ for protons. The dependence of the crossing between different flow harmonics on the particle mass can be attributed to the interplay of not only elliptic but also triangular and quadrangular flow with radial flow. Consequently, the range where a given harmonic becomes dominant is shifted to higher $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ values with increasing particle mass.\\
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{pionEvol01.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{kaonEvol01.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{protonEvol01.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{pionEvol2030.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{kaonEvol2030.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{protonEvol2030.pdf}
\caption{The evolution of $v_2$, $v_3$ and $v_4$ with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ (left), $\mathrm{K}^{\pm}$ (middle) and $\mathrm{p}+\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ (right) for the 0--1$\%$ (top row) and 20--30$\%$ (bottom row) centrality ranges.}\label{vnEvolution}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{massordering} presents the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ differential $v_{2}^{\mathrm{AA-MC}}$ (left), $v_{3}^{\mathrm{AA-MC}}$ (middle) and $v_{4}^{\mathrm{AA-MC}}$ (right) for $\pi^{\pm}$, $\mathrm{K}^{\pm}$ and $\mathrm{p}+\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ at the 0--1$\%$ (upper row) and $v_{2}^{\mathrm{AA}}$ extracted from \cite{Abelev:2014pua} (left) $v_{3}^{\mathrm{AA-MC}}$ (middle) and $v_{4}^{\mathrm{AA-MC}}$ (right) for the same particle species at the 20--30$\%$ (lower row) centrality ranges. This figure illustrates how $v_{2}(p_{\mathrm{T}})$, $v_{3}(p_{\mathrm{T}})$ and $v_{4}(p_{\mathrm{T}})$ develop for different particle species in the same centrality range. A clear mass ordering is seen in the low $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ region (for $p_{\mathrm{T}}<3$ GeV/$c$) for $v_{2}(p_{\mathrm{T}})$, $v_{3}(p_{\mathrm{T}})$ and $v_{4}(p_{\mathrm{T}})$, which rises from the interplay between the anisotropic flow harmonics and radial flow \cite{Huovinen:2001cy,Teaney:2000cw,Voloshin:1996nv,Shen:2011eg}. Radial flow creates a depletion in the particle spectrum at low $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ values, which increases with increasing particle mass and transverse velocity. When this effect is embedded in an environment where azimuthal anisotropy develops, it leads to heavier particles having smaller $v_{n}$ value compared to lighter ones at a given value of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ \cite{Huovinen:2001cy,Teaney:2000cw,Voloshin:1996nv,Shen:2011eg}. \\
Furthermore, the $v_{n}(p_{\mathrm{T}})$ values show a crossing between pions, kaons and protons, that, depending on the centrality and the order of the flow harmonic, takes place at different $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ values. It is seen that the crossing between e.g. $\pi^{\pm}$ and $\mathrm{p}+\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ happens at lower $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for mid-peripheral than for the most-central collisions. For the 0--1$\%$ centrality range, the crossing point moves to higher $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ values for $v_2$, since the common velocity field, which exhibits a significant centrality dependence \cite{Abelev:2013vea}, affects heavy particles more. The current study shows that this occurs not only in the case of elliptic flow but also for higher flow harmonics (i.e. triangular and quadrangular flow). For higher values of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ ( $p_{\mathrm{T}}>3$ GeV/$c$), particles tend to group according to their type, i.e. mesons and baryons, however this grouping holds at best approximately, similarly to what was observed in \cite{Abelev:2014pua}.\\
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{MassOrdering01V2.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{MassOrdering01V3.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{MassOrdering01V4.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{MassOrdering2030V2.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{MassOrdering2030V3.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.325\textwidth]{MassOrdering2030V4.pdf}
\caption{The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $v_2$ (left) , $v_3$ (middle) and $v_4$ (right) for $\pi^{\pm}$, $\mathrm{K}^{\pm}$ and $\mathrm{p}+\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ for the 0--1$\%$ (top row) and 20--30$\%$ (bottom row) centrality ranges.}\label{massordering}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-1cm}
\section{Summary}
\label{Summary}
The first measurement of $v_{2}^{\mathrm{AA-MC}}(p_{\mathrm{T}})$, $v_{3}^{\mathrm{AA-MC}}(p_{\mathrm{T}})$ and $v_{4}^{\mathrm{AA-MC}}(p_{\mathrm{T}})$ for $\pi^{\pm}$, $\mathrm{K}^{\pm}$ and $\mathrm{p}+\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ for the 0--1$\%$ and 20--30$\%$ centrality ranges of Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 2.76$ TeV were reported in this contribution. The second, third and fourth Fourier coefficient were calculated with the Scalar Product method, using a pseudo-rapidity gap of $|\Delta\eta| > 0$ between the identified hadron under study and each of the reference flow particles and applying a subtraction for non-flow contributions based on HIJING.\\
The higher flow harmonics (i.e. $v_3$ and $v_4$) become gradually larger than $v_2$ at around 1 ($v_3$) and 2.5 GeV/$c$ ($v_4$) in $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for pions for the 1$\%$ most central Pb--Pb collisions. For heavier particles, the crossing points shift to higher $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ values due to the interplay between radial and azimuthal flow. A distinct mass ordering was found for both centralities in the low transverse momentum region i.e. for $p_{\mathrm{T}} < 3$ GeV/$c$, which again is attributed to a result of the interplay between the azimuthal anisotropy and radial flow. Finally, for $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 3$ GeV/$c$ the $v_{n}(p_{\mathrm{T}})$ for all harmonics tend to group according to their particle type at an approximate level.\\
\vspace{-0.75cm}
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
|
\section{Introduction}
The problem of optimal search for a stationary hidden object $H$ (a
\textit{Hider}) on a network with given arc lengths goes back to the early
work of \cite{Isaacs} and \cite{Gal79}. In the traditional version, the
Searcher proceeds continuously and at unit speed from a known starting point
$O$ on the network $Q$ until reaching $H$ at some time $T$. The aim is find a randomized search that minimizes this time $T$,
the {\em search time}, in the worst case. An equivalent approach, which we prefer to adopt, is to study a zero-sum game with payoff $T$ between a minimizing Searcher and a maximizing Hider.
Mixed strategies are required by both players. This article adopts an
alternative search paradigm recently introduced by the authors in Alpern and
Lidbetter (2013) as ``expanding search'', because the regions $S\left(
t\right) $ that have been searched by time $t$ ``expand'' continuously over
time. This models the actual searches that are often carried out to search
for missing persons, escaped convicts, terrorists or lost airplanes.
More formally, the sets $S\left( t\right)$, which form a pure strategy for
the searcher, start with $S\left( 0\right) =O$ and expand at unit rate of
total arc length $\lambda$, so that $\lambda \left( S\left( t\right)
\right) =t$. The search plan finishes at time $\mu =\lambda \left( Q\right) $
(thus $\mu $ is the total length of the network) because no backtracking is
required, unlike the case for pathwise search. The actual search of course
finishes at the capture time $T$, when the search region
$S\left( T\right)$ first contains $H$. As with pathwise search, this produces a zero-sum game
with payoff $T$, which we call the {\em expanding search game}. We
concentrate on expanding searches that have a simpler structure, namely,
they consist of a sequence of arcs $a_{i},~i=1,\ldots ,k$, which cover $Q$
and where the back of each arc $a_{i}$ lies in one of the earlier arcs.
(The direction of each arc is not prescribed in $Q$, which is an undirected
network, but simply denotes the chosen direction of search.) In our earlier
paper, it was explained how the notion of expanding search is also
applicable to non-search problems such as mining in which the cost of moving
excavation equipment through already mined trails is negligible compared to
the cost of moving the equipment by excavating new areas. Minimizing the
cost of reaching (finding) a randomly chosen piece of unmined coal is
equivalent to minimizing the mean time that kilograms of coal are mined and
ready for sale.
\subsection{Main Results}
The expanding search game on a network was introduced in \cite{AL13}, but that paper was primarily concerned with the Bayesian
problem of minimizing the expected capture time using expanding search
against a {\em known} hider distribution. The game theoretic version only
considered two special types of networks: trees and 2-arc-connected
networks. Here we consider general networks.
An important graph theoretic tool that we will use is the so called {\em
bridge-block decomposition}. The arcs of a network $Q$ can be partitioned
into {\em bridges} (arcs whose removal disconnects the network) and
{\em blocks} (the connected components of what remains after the bridges
are removed). When the blocks are each shrunk to a point, the bridges form a
tree $Q^t$. We use the parameter $r$ to denote the fraction of the total length of $Q$ that is taken up by bridges, so that when $r=0$, the network is $2$-arc-connected and when $r=1$ the network is a tree. We call $r$ the {\em bridge ratio}.
We present two new classes of mixed search strategies. In
Section \ref{sec:approx} we present the {\em block-optimal search strategy}, denoted
\beta$, which is optimal when there are no bridges. We show in Theorem~\ref{thm:approx} that for any network, $T( \beta ) \leq (
( 1+\sqrt{2}) /2) V(Q)$, where the value
V\left( Q\right) $ is the minimax search time. Note that $( 1+\sqrt{2}) /2\simeq 1.2$. We also show that
for a network with bridge ratio $r$, the expected search time $T\left( \beta \right) $ of
the block-optimal strategy satisfies the inequality $T(\beta) \le (1+r)V(Q)$, so that it performs well for ``block-like'' networks.
In Section~\ref{sec:treelike} we present
the {\em bridge-optimal search strategy}, denoted $\gamma$, which is
optimal when there are no blocks (so $Q$ is a tree), and is based on
depth-first pure searches. Theorem~\ref{thm:gamma} shows that for any network $Q$ we have
T\left( \gamma \right) \leq \left( 2/\left( 1+r^{2}\right) \right) V\left(
Q\right)$. This estimate is useful when $r$ is
close to 1, so that $Q$ is ``tree-like''.
Section~\ref{sec:defs} gives a formal definition of the expanding search game. Section~\ref{sec:Bayesian}
presents results needed later on the optimal expanding search against a
{\em known} hider distribution and begins an analysis of the {\em
circle-with-spike network}. Section~\ref{sec:exp-game} reviews earlier results from \cite{AL13} on the expanding search game when the network is a tree
or 2-arc-connected. Section~\ref{subsec:circle-spike-game} completes the analysis of the {\em
circle-with-spike network }which we began in Section~\ref{sec:Bayesian}. Sections~\ref{sec:approx} and~\ref{sec:treelike}
give our main results which we have already discussed. Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} contains our
conclusions and suggestions for future work.
\subsection{Related Literature on Network Search Games}
The use of pathwise search to minimize the time to find a hidden object on a
network was first proposed by \cite{Isaacs}. Subsequently \cite{Gal79}
analyzed such games on general networks and gave a complete solution for
trees. For trees and Eulerian networks the so-called Random Chinese Postman
Tour (RCPT), consisting of an equiprobable mixture of a minimal length
(Chinese Postman) tour and its time-reversed tour, is an optimal mixed
strategy. \cite{RP93} identified a larger class (including
trees) of networks where the RCPT is optimal. \cite{Gal00} then showed that
the largest class of networks where RCPT is optimal are the weakly Eulerian
networks. The difficult (and non-weakly Eulerian) network consisting of two
nodes (one the start node) connected by an odd number of equal length arcs
was solved by \cite{Pavlovic}.
In addition to generalizing the classes of networks which could be solved,
other variations on the basic model have been proposed. An algorithmic
approach to the problem was given by \cite{Anderson}. Search
games on {\em windy} networks, where the times to traverse arcs from
either direction need not be the same, were introduced by \cite{Alpern2010} and
further studied by \cite{AL14}. The assumption that the game
ends not when the hider is found, but when he is brought back to the start
node, is studied in \cite{Alpern11a}. The case of expanding search with multiple hiders was solved
in some cases by \cite{Lid13a}. Search games on lattices were studied by \cite{Zoroa}. The possibility that the Searcher might have to choose between two or more speeds of search was considered by \cite{AL15}.
The case where simply reaching the hidden object is not enough to find it is
considered by \cite{BK15}, who posit a cost for searching,
in addition to traveling. Surveys of search games on networks can be found
in \cite{Garnaev}, \cite{Gal05}, \cite{Alpern11b}, \cite{Lid13b} and \cite{Hohzaki}. Network search is also related to patrolling a network to guard against an attack, as in \cite{AMP} and \cite{Lin}, for example.
The expanding search paradigm, as introduced by the authors in \cite{AL13}, has already received considerable attention in the literature. \cite{Shechter} adopt the expanding search paradigm in the constrained version of their discrete search model. \cite{Fokkink} generalize the concept of expanding search for a Hider located on one of the nodes of a tree by introducing a search model with a submodular cost function. Expanding search has provoked interest in several other areas: the search for beacons from lost airplanes in \cite{Eckman}, evolutionary game theory in \cite{Kolokoltsov} and \cite{Liu}, contract scheduling in \cite{Angelopoulos} and predator search for prey in \cite{Morice}.
\section{Formal Definition of Expanding Search}
\label{sec:defs}
We start by repeating the formal definition of expanding search of a network given in
\cite{AL13}. Suppose $Q$ is a network with distinguished starting node $O$, which we call the {\em root}. Each arc
$a$ has a given length $\lambda\left( a\right)$, and moreover we write
$\lambda(A)$ for the measure (total length) of any subset $A$ of $Q$, with the
total measure of $Q$ denoted $\mu=\lambda\left( Q\right) $. An expanding
search of $Q,O$ is a nested family of connected subsets of $Q$ that starts
from $O$ and increases in measure at unit speed until filling the whole of
$Q$. More formally, we use the definition from
\cite{AL13}:
\begin{definition}
An \emph{expanding search} $S$ on a network $Q$ with root $O$ is a nested family of connected closed sets $S(t)$ for $0 \le t \le \mu$, which satisfy
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $S(0)=\{O\}$ and $S(\mu)=Q$,
\item[(ii)] $S(t')\subset S(t) $ for $t'<t$, and
\item[(iii)] $\lambda(S(t))=t$ for all $t$.
\end{enumerate}
We denote the set of all expanding searches of $Q$ by $\mathcal{S}=\mathcal{S}(Q)$.
\end{definition}
The first condition says that the search starts at the root and is exhaustive,
the second condition says that the sets are nested and the third says that
they increase at a unit rate.
This is the most general definition of an expanding search, but in practice we
will mostly be concerned with a class of expanding searches called
\emph{pointwise expanding searches}. A pointwise expanding search can be
thought of as a sequence of unit speed paths, each one of them beginning at a
point that has already been discovered. More formally:
\begin{definition}
A \emph{pointwise expanding search} of a rooted network $Q,O$ is a piecewise continuous function $P:[0,\mu]\to Q$ made up of a sequence $P_1,\ldots,P_k$ of
unit speed paths $P_{i}:[t_{i-1},t_{i}]\rightarrow Q$ with $ 0=t_0<t_1<\ldots<t_k=\mu$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $P_{1}(t_{0})=O$,
\item[(ii)] $\cup _{i=1}^k P_{i}([t_{i-1},t_{i}])=Q$, and
\item[(iii)] $P_j(t_{j-1}) \in \cup _{i=1}^{j-1} P_{i}([t_{i-1},t_{i}])$ for all $j=2,\ldots,k$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Note that any such sequence $\{P_i\}$ induces an expanding search $S$ where $S(t)=P([0,t])$. The first condition says that the first path starts at the root, the second
condition says the paths are an exhaustive search of $Q$ and the third says
that each path starts from a point already covered by a previous path. Not all expanding searches are not pointwise expanding searches, in particular
any expanding search that moves along more than one arc at the same time. However, in
\cite{AL13} the authors showed that the set of pointwise expanding searches is
dense in $\mathcal{S}$, so that every expanding search can be approximated to
an arbitrary degree of accuracy by a pointwise search. We will therefore use
this definition of expanding search for the rest of the paper, and will use
the terms ``expanding search'' and ``pointwise search'' interchangeably.
An important concept we will use is that of \emph{search density}, which
occurs in much previous research in search games. Suppose a Hider is located
on a network $Q$ according to some fixed probability distribution $\nu$. Then
the \emph{search density}, or simply \emph{density} $\rho=\rho\left(
A\right) $ of a subset $A \subset Q$ is given by $\rho\left( A\right)
=\nu\left( A\right) /\lambda\left( A\right) $. When disjoint regions can be
searched in either order, it is better to search the region of highest density
first, as shown by the following simple lemma. The proof of a more general version of the lemma can be found in \cite{AL14}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{searchdensity} Suppose the Hider is located on a rooted network $Q$ according to some given distribution $\nu$ and let $A$ and $B$ be connected regions of $Q$ that meet at
a single point $x$. Let $S_{AB}$ and $S_{BA}$ be two expanding searches of
Q $ which are the same except that, on reaching $x$, the search $S_{AB}$ follows the
sequence $AB$ while $S_{BA}$ follows $BA$. Then if $\rho(A) \ge \rho(B)$,
\[
T(S_{AB},\nu) \le T(S_{BA},\nu).
\]
If $A$ and $B$ have the same search density, then the regions $A$ and $B$ can be searched in either order.
\end{lemma}
\section{Searching Networks with a Known Hider Distribution}
\label{sec:Bayesian}
Before discussing the expanding search {\em game}, we give some simple results on
searching for a Hider located on a network according to a {\em known} probability
distribution. These results will be useful in our later analysis.
For a given network $Q$ with root $O$, suppose the Hider is located at some
point $H$ on the network. For a given expanding search $P$ we will write
$T(P,H)$ to denote the first time that $H$ is \textquotedblleft
discovered\textquotedblright\ by $P$. That is, $T(P,H)=\min\{t\geq0:P(t)=H\}$.
This was shown to be well defined in
\cite{AL13}. We call $T(P,H)$ the \emph{search time}. If the Hider is located
on $Q$ according to some probability distribution $\nu$, we denote the
\emph{expected} search time of a search $P$ by $T(P,\nu)$ (or later, in the expanding search game, by $T\left(
p,\nu\right) $ if the Searcher is adopting a mixed search strategy $p$).
For a given Hider distribution $\nu$ we are interested in the problem of
finding the expanding search that minimizes the expected search time. We call such a search {\em optimal}. In
\cite{AL13} the authors showed that for a rooted tree with a Hider located on
it according to a known distribution, the optimal search begins with the
rooted subtree of maximum density (assuming it exists). More formally the
theorem is:
\begin{thm}[Theorem 14 of
\cite{AL13}]
\label{old theorem}Let the Hider $H$ be hidden according to a known
distribution $\nu $ on a rooted tree $Q$ and suppose there is a unique
rooted subtree $A$ of maximum density. Then there is an optimal expanding
search $S$ which begins by searching $A$. That is, $S\left( \lambda \left(
A\right) \right) =A$.
\end{thm}
When the Hider distribution $\nu$ is concentrated on the nodes of $Q$, this
theorem gives a simple algorithm for computing an optimal expanding search of
$Q$. The theorem is also true when $\nu$ is a continuous distribution.
We will later use a result that says if $A$ is a component of $Q$ on which the
Hider is hidden uniformly, and $A$ is connected to $Q$ at only one point, then
there is an optimal search that searches the whole of $A$ at once. (Formally,
when we say the Hider is hidden uniformly on $A$, we mean that given he is on
$A$, the probability he is located within some measurable subset $X$ of $A$ is
proportional to the measure of $X$.)
\begin{lemma}
\label{uniform}Suppose $Q$ is composed of two subnetworks $A$ and $B$ which
meet at a single point. Suppose a Hider is located on $Q$ according to some
distribution which is uniform on $A$. Then there is an optimal expanding
search that searches $A$ without interruption.
\end{lemma}
\proof{Proof.} Any expanding search of $Q$ must search $A$ in a finite number
of (closed) disjoint time intervals. Let $P$ be an optimal expanding search of
$Q$ that searches $A$ in a minimal number $m$ of disjoint time intervals. If
$m=1$ then the lemma is true, so suppose $m \ge2$ and we will derive a contradiction.
Let $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ be the subsets of $A$ searched in the first two
disjoint time intervals that $A$ is searched, and let $C$ be the subset of $B$
that is searched between $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$. Note that since $A$ and $B$ meet
at a single point, it is possible to search $C$ at any point in time after $P$
starts searching $A$. By Lemma \ref{searchdensity}, the search density of $C$
is no more than that of $A_{1}$, otherwise the expected search time could be
reduced by searching $C$ before $A_{1}$. By a similar argument, the search
density of $A_{2}$ is no more than that of $C$. In other words,
\[
\rho(A_{1}) \ge\rho(C) \ge\rho(A_{2}).
\]
But since the Hider is hidden uniformly on $A$, the search density of $A_{1}$
and $A_{2}$ are the same so both of the inequalities above hold with equality.
Hence, by Lemma \ref{searchdensity}, the search $P^{\prime}$ that is the same
as $P$ except that $A_{2}$ and $C$ are searched the other way around is also
optimal. But $P^{\prime}$ searches $A$ in $m-1$ disjoint time intervals, a
contradiction.
\endproof
Every expanding search $P$ leads to a \emph{search tree} $Q_{P}$
obtained from $Q$ by cutting it at certain points $x\in Q$ whose
removal leaves a tree. Roughly speaking, these points $x$ are those which are
reached from more than one direction by the search $P$. If a search $P$ is
optimal, it has to be optimal for the corresponding distribution on the tree
$Q_{P},$ so $P$ can be found by applying Theorem~\ref{old theorem} to all such trees.
Consider the circle-with-spike network $Q^{CS}$ drawn in Figure
\ref{fig:circle-spike}. It consists of a circle of length $2$, to which a unit
length line segment is attached at a clockwise distance $1+\alpha$ from the
root $O,$ $0\leq\alpha<1$. Consider Hider distributions $\nu_{p}$ having atoms
of weight $\nu_{p}\left( B\right) =1-p$ at leaf node $B$ and a uniform
distribution of total weight $p$ on the clockwise arc from $O$ to $A$. For
fixed $\alpha$ and $p$, we determine the optimal expanding search. Every
expanding search produces a subtree of $Q^{CS},$ so our method is first to
determine these subtrees and then to find the optimal search corresponding to
that subtree using Theorem \ref{old theorem}.
\begin{figure}[th]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{circlespike}
\end{center}
\caption{The circle-with-spike network $Q^{CS}$.
\label{fig:circle-spike
\end{figure}
Since the Hider distribution on the two arcs of the circle is uniform, by
Lemma \ref{uniform}, we need only consider making cuts at the nodes.
Hence there are only two trees we need consider, determined by the initial arc
of the search. For the search beginning by going clockwise, $P_{+}$, the tree
obtained by disconnecting the counterclockwise arc at $O$ is optimally
searched by going to $B$ after reaching $A$, as the Hider is certain to be
there if not already found. So we have
\[
T\left( P_{+},\nu_{p}\right) =p\left( \frac{1+\alpha}{2}\right) +\left(
1-p\right) \left( 2+\alpha\right) .
\]
For the search that begins by going counterclockwise, $P_{-},$ the tree is
obtained by disconnecting the clockwise arc from $O$ (or equivalently,
disconnecting it from $A$). If this arc has higher density than the one going
to $B$, it would have been better to use $P_{+}$, so we may assume that going
to $B$ has higher density, and that
\[
T\left( P_{-},\nu_{p}\right) =p\left( 2-\alpha+\frac{1+\alpha}{2}\right)
+\left( 1-p\right) \left( 2-\alpha\right) .
\]
Equating these times, we see that the search $P_{+}$ is better for $p<2\alpha/\left(
\alpha+2\right)$, the search $P_{-}$ is better for $p>2\alpha/\left( \alpha+2\right)
$ and they give the same times for $\bar{p}=2\alpha/\left( \alpha+2\right)
.$ So in particular the least search time against $\nu_{\bar{p}}$ is
\[
\min_{P} T\left(P, \nu_{\bar{p}}\right) =T\left( P_{+},\nu_{\bar{p}}\right)
=\frac{\alpha+4}{\alpha+2}.
\]
This analysis proves only that $\nu_{\bar{p}}$ is the hardest Hider
distribution to find within the family $\nu_{p},$ but later in Section
\ref{subsec:circle-spike-game} when we consider a game theoretic analysis, we
will establish that in fact it is the hardest Hider distribution to search,
without any restrictions. We note that if $\alpha\leq2/3$ then putting the
uniform distribution over the long arc onto its center does not reduce its
minimum search time. However if this is done when $\alpha> 2/3$, the Searcher
can replace the strategy that begins on the long arc by one which goes to its
center and then traces out the short arc from the root, saving some time as
this gets to $A$ faster.
\section{Previous Results on the Expanding Search Game}
\label{sec:exp-game}
We now assume that the Hider distribution $\nu$ is not known to the Searcher.
In this case we consider the problem of finding the mixed Searcher strategy
(probability measure over expanding searches) which minimizes the expected
search time in the worst case. An equivalent problem, which we prefer to
adopt, is the zero-sum Expanding Search Game $\Gamma\left( Q\right) $. Here
the maximizing Hider picks a location $H$ in $Q$, the minimizing Searcher
picks an expanding search $P$ and the payoff is the search
(capture) time $T\left( P,H\right) $. The analogous game, $\Gamma^{p}(Q)$
where the Searcher picks a unit speed path on $Q$ has been well studied, and
we call this model of search \emph{pathwise search}, denoting the value of the
analogous \emph{pathwise search game} by $V^{p}(Q)$. We note that $V\leq
V^{p}$.
In
\cite{AL13}, the authors showed that for any network $Q$ the expanding search
game has a value, $V=V(Q)$, and they solved the game in the cases that $Q$ is
a tree and that $Q$ is $2$-arc-connected (that is $Q$ cannot be disconnected
by the removal of fewer than $2$ arcs). In general the Searcher is not
restricted to using a pointwise search, but in fact in the solutions for these
classes of networks the Searcher always randomizes between pointwise searches.
We first present the solution of the game for trees. In this case, the Hider's optimal distribution is
concentrated on the leaf nodes of the network, since all others points are
dominated. We will only consider binary trees (that is trees with maximum degree at most
3), since any tree can be transformed into a binary tree by adding arcs of
arbitrarily small length. For a branch node $x$ of a rooted tree, $Q,O$ with
outward arcs $a$ and $b$, we denote the branches starting with $a$ and $b$ by
$Q_{a}$ and $Q_{b}$, respectively, and their union by $Q_{x}$. We also denote
the length of $Q_{a}$ and $Q_{b}$ by $\mu_{a}$ and $\mu
_{b}$, and write $\mu_{x}=\mu_{a}+\mu_{b}$ for the length of $Q_{x} = Q_{a} \cup Q_{b}$.
\begin{definition}
\label{EBD}
Let $Q,O$ be a rooted, variable speed tree. Let the \emph{Equal Branch Density} (\emph{EBD}) distribution, $e$ be the unique probability distribution on the leaf nodes $\mathcal{L}(Q)$ of $Q$ such that at any branch node $x$ of $Q$, all the branches rooted at $x$ have the same search density.
\end{definition}
For a branch node $x$ we denote the EBD distribution on the subnetwork $Q_{x}$
by $e_{x}$ and similarly, for an outward arc $a$ of $x$ we denote the EBD
distribution on $Q_{a}$ by $e_{a}$.
In order to describe the optimal Searcher strategy we need to define a quantity $D(Q)$, which is the average distance from the root of $Q$ to its leaf nodes, weighted with respect to the EBD distribution.
\begin{definition}
For a rooted tree, $Q,O$, the quantity $D=D(Q)$ is defined by
\[
D(Q) = \sum_{i \in \mathcal{L}(Q)}e(i)d(O,i),
\]
where $d(O,i)$ is the length of the path from $O$ to $i$ in $Q$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
We define the \emph{biased depth-first strategy} for the Searcher as the mix of depth-first searches such that at any given branch node $x$ with branches $Q_a$ and $Q_b$, on encountering $x$ for the first time, the Searcher searches the whole of $Q_a$ first with probability $p(a)$ given by
\[
p(a) = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2\mu_x}(D(Q_a)-D(Q_b)).
\]
\end{definition}
In
\cite{AL14}, the authors prove that the solution of the expanding search game on a tree is as follows.
\begin{thm}[Theorems 18 and 19 of
\cite{AL13}]
\label{treegame}
The value $V$ of the expanding search game played on a rooted tree $Q,O$ is given by
\[
V=\frac{1}{2}(\mu+D).
\]
The EBD distribution is optimal for the Hider and the biased depth-first strategy is optimal for the Searcher.
\end{thm}
We also state the solution of the expanding search game for 2-arc-connected
networks. We first define a \emph{reversible expanding search} as an expanding
search whose time-reverse is also an expanding search. Not all expanding
searches are reversible, but it was shown in
\cite{AL13} that a network admits a reversible expanding search if and
only if it is 2-arc-connected. This gives rise to the following theorem from
the same paper.
\begin{thm}[Theorem 20 and Corollary 22 of
\cite{AL13}]
\label{thm:2arcconnected}
A rooted tree $Q,O$ is 2-arc-connected if and only if it admits a reversible expanding search. If $Q$ is 2-arc-connected, then the value $V$ of the expanding search game is $\mu/2$. An equiprobable choice of some reversible expanding search and its reverse is optimal for the Searcher; the uniform distribution is optimal for the Hider.
\end{thm}
\section{Search Game on Circle-with-Spike Network}
\label{subsec:circle-spike-game}
We continue our analysis of expanding search games by considering the
circle-with-spike networks $Q^{CS}$ of Section \ref{sec:Bayesian}. The
analysis given there of the Hider distributions $v_{\bar{p}}$ shows that
$V=V\left( Q^{CS}\right) \geq\left( \alpha+4\right) /\left(
\alpha+2\right) $. We now give a mixed Searcher strategy which shows that
equality holds.
The Searcher can find the Hider in time at most $\left( 4+\alpha\right)
/\left( 2+\alpha\right) $ by using the mixed strategy $\sigma_{\alpha}$ of
choosing searches $(P_{1},P_{2},P_{3})$ with probabilities $\left( \frac
{1}{2},\frac{1}{2(2+\alpha)},\frac{1+\alpha}{2(2+\alpha)}\right) $, where the
$P_{i}$ are given as follows: $P_{1}$ travels anticlockwise along the circle
to $A$, then goes to $B$, and finally traverses the remaining arc from $A$ to
$O$; $P_{2}$ is the same as $S_{1}$, but traverses the last arc from $O$ to
$A$; $P_{3}$ travels clockwise along around the circle to $A$, then goes to
$B$, and finally traverses the remaining arc from $A$ to $O$. Note that hiding
anywhere in the arc $AB$ is dominated by hiding at $B$ and that against
$\sigma_{\alpha}$ hiding on the short circular arc is dominated by $B.$
If the Hider is a clockwise distance $x<1+\alpha$ from $O$,\ the expected
search time i
\[
\frac{1}{2}\left( (2-\alpha)+(1+\alpha-x)\right) +\frac{1}{2(2+\alpha
)}(2-\alpha+x)+\frac{1+\alpha}{2(2+\alpha)}\left( x\right) =\frac{4+\alpha
}{2+\alpha}\text{.}
\]
If the Hider at at $B,$ the expected search time i
\[
\left( \frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2(2+\alpha)}\right) \left( 2-\alpha\right)
+\left( \frac{1+\alpha}{2(2+\alpha)}\right) \left( 2+\alpha\right)
=\frac{4+\alpha}{2+\alpha}.
\]
So we have shown the following. \
\begin{thm}
For the circle-with-spike networks $Q^{CS}$ the value of the expanding
search game is given by $V=\left( 4+\alpha \right) /\left( 2+\alpha \right)
. $ The optimal Hider strategy is $\nu _{\bar{p}},$ $\bar{p}=2\alpha /\left(
\alpha +2\right) ;$ the optimal Searcher strategy is $\sigma _{\alpha }.$
\end{thm}
It is useful to compare this result with the solution of the pathwise search
game on the same network $Q^{CS}$. These networks are weakly Eulerian. Roughly
this means they consist of disjoint Eulerian networks which when shrunk to a
point leave a tree. (In particular here such a shrinkage leads to the tree
$AB,$ with the circle shrunk to root $A$.) The work of
\cite{RP93} - because these networks are also weakly cyclic - and
\cite{Gal00} show that the pathwise search value is $V^{p}=\bar{\mu}/2=2$, where
$\bar{\mu}$ denotes the shortest tour time, which here is the length of the
circle plus twice the length of the spike. This is the same as the expanding
search value when $\alpha=0,$ that is, when the point $A$ is antidpodal to the
root. Otherwise, the expanding search value is strictly smaller. In pathwise
search, the Hider optimally hides uniformly over the circle regardless of the
location of the root on the circle.
For weakly Eulerian networks, the pathwise search value $V^{p}$ is independent
of the location of the root. This is no longer true for such networks in
expanding search. In this example, where the location of the root depends on
the parameter $\alpha$, we have shown that the value $V_{\alpha}=\left(
4+\alpha\right) /\left( 2+\alpha\right) $ is also dependent on $\alpha$.
\section{The Block-Optimal Search Strategy}
\label{sec:approx}
In
\cite{AL13}, optimal expanding search strategies were found for networks which
are 2-arc-connected or trees. In the present paper optimal expanding search
strategies have also been found for the circle-with-spike networks. Since optimal
strategies for searching other networks are not known, it is of use to find a
class of strategies which can be calculated for any rooted network, and are
``approximately optimal''. We define a version of approximate optimality for the Searcher
which is multiplicative in nature. We say that a family $s_{Q}$ of mixed expanding search strategies for rooted
networks $Q$ is {\em $\alpha$-factor optimal} if for every $Q$, we hav
\[
T(s_{Q},H) \leq\alpha V(Q)\text{, for all }H\in Q,
\]
where $\alpha\ge1$ is a constant independent of $Q$. Writing $T(s_{Q})$ for
the maximum value $T(s_{Q},H)$ takes over all $H$, we can equivalently write
that the family $s_{Q}$ is $\alpha$-factor optimal if $T(s_{Q}) \le\alpha
V(Q)$. The closer $\alpha$ is to $1$, the better the approximation given by
the search family $s_{Q}$. In the language of approximation algorithms, the
notion of an $\alpha$-factor optimal strategy is akin to the notion of an
$\alpha$-approximate algorithm for computing the value of the game.
In this section we present such a family of search strategies, called
\emph{bridge-optimal strategies} $\beta=\beta_{Q}$, which are $1.2
-factor optimal. The name comes from the fact that these strategies use the
well-known ``bridge-block'' decomposition of an arbitrary network, as defined in Subsection~\ref{sec:bridge-block}. The
multiplicative constant $\alpha$ is actually $\left( 1+\sqrt{2}\right) /2$
which is approximately equal to $1.207$.
It turns out that the range of factor constants $\alpha$ that we need to
consider goes from $1$ to $2$. To see that a constant of $\alpha=2$ is of no
value consider any class $s_{Q}$ of expanding search strategies. The
definition of an expanding search shows that for any point $H\in Q$ we have
$T(s_{Q},H) \leq\mu$, the total length of $Q$. Since the uniform hiding
strategy ensures an expected search time of at least $\mu/2$, we know that
$V(Q) \geq\mu/2$. Consequently, for any family $s_Q$, we have
\[
T(s_{Q},H) \leq\mu\leq2(\mu/2) \leq2V(Q) \text{, for all }H\in Q,
\]
and thus \emph{any} expanding search family $s_{Q}$ is $2$-factor optimal.
\subsection{The Bridge-Block Decomposition}
\label{sec:bridge-block}
Let $Q$ be a connected network. An arc of $Q$ is called a \emph{bridge} if
removing it (but not its end nodes) disconnects the graph, or equivalently,
if it is not contained in any cycle. The components of $Q$
after removing its bridges are called the \emph{blocks}. Note that the blocks are $2$-arc-connected. We denote the set of
bridge-points (points in bridges) of $Q$ by $Q_{1}$ and the set of
block-points (points in blocks) by $Q_{2}$. The connected network $Q^t$
obtained from $Q$ by shrinking each block to a point (node) is a tree whose
arcs are identical to the arcs of $Q_1$. We call $Q^t$ the \emph{bridge
tree} of $Q$. The nodes of $Q^t$ are of two types: the \emph{new nodes}
correspond to the blocks of $Q$ and the \emph{original nodes} correspond to
nodes of $Q$ which are incident only to bridges in $Q$.
These concepts are illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:bridge-block}. The network
$\bar{Q}$ on the left has four bridges: $a,b,c,d$. It has a single block made
up of arcs $x,y,z,w$. Its bridge tree $\bar{Q}^t$ consists of the 4 arcs
$a,b,c,d$. It has a new node $N$ which corresponds to the block of $\bar{Q}$.
\begin{figure}[th]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{bridge-block}
\end{center}
\caption{A network $\bar{Q}$ (left) and its bridge tree $\bar{Q}^{t
}$.
\label{fig:bridge-block
\end{figure}
For any point $H$ in
$Q$, its height $\pi(H)$ is
defined as the distance from the root to its corresponding point in $Q^
$, so that all points in a given block have the same height. The notion of height is illustrated in Table~\ref{tab:Qbar} and Figure~\ref{fig:bridge-block tree}, where we assign lengths to the arcs of $\bar{Q}$.
We also define the {\em bridge ratio} $r=r(Q)$ of a network $Q$ as the fraction of the total length of $Q$ that consists of bridges. So, writing $\mu_1$ for the total length of all the bridges in $Q$, the bridge ratio is given by $r=\mu_1/\mu$.
\subsection{Definition of the Block-Optimal Search Strategy $\beta$}
We now define the block-optimal search strategy $\beta$ as an equiprobable mixture of two
expanding searches we call $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$. The second one, $S_{2}$, will
be a sort of reverse path of $S_{1}$ so we concentrate on describing $S_{1}$.
The specification of $S_{1}$ will not depend on arc lengths, so we leave that
until later. To specify $S_{1}$ we fix on each of its blocks a particular
reversible expanding search (as defined in Section~\ref{sec:exp-game}). For example, on the pictured network
$\bar{Q}$ we orient each arc to the right and denote a traversal to the left
with a prime. So one reversible expanding search of its block is given by
$x,y^{\prime},w^{\prime},z^{\prime}$ with reverse path $z,w,y,x^{\prime}$
(reverse order and direction). The fact that every block has a reversible
expanding search follows from Theorem \ref{thm:2arcconnected}. The expanding
search $S_{1}$ follows the first of these two reversible expanding searches ($x,y^{\prime},w^{\prime
},z^{\prime}) $ on each block. However when reaching a cut-node such as $F$ or
$G$ which leads out of the block, it exhaustively searches that component of
the network before returning to node on which it left. When reaching a node of
$Q $ which is not in a block (in $\bar{Q}$ the only such node is the start
node $O$) $S_{1}$ can leave via any arc; the reverse ordering will be chosen
by $S_{2}.$
We describe the construction of $S_{1}$ for the pictured network $\bar{Q}.$ We
begin by fixing a reversible expanding search at its only block:
($x,y^{\prime},w^{\prime},z^{\prime})$. Now we start at $O$ and can choose
either of the arcs $a$ or $d.$ We choose $d$ (this will mean that $S_{2}$
begins with $a$). We arrive at node $E$ which is in the block so we travel
according to our fixed reversible path until we reach a node which leaves the
block. So we must continue with $d,x$ which arrives at the node $F.$ Here we
leave the block by choosing $d,x,b.$ Since the component of $Q-F$ is now
exhaustively searched we continue searching the block from $F,$ continuing
$d,x,b,y^{\prime},w^{\prime}$ which brings us to another node, $G,$ which
leads out of the block. Here we continue $d,x,b,y^{\prime}w^{\prime
},c,z^{\prime}.$ Now we have exhaustively searched the part of $\bar{Q}$
stemming from the arc $d.$ We now follow the same procedure on the part of
$\bar{Q}$ stemming from $a,$ which in this case is just $a,$ leading to the
construction
\[
S_{1}=d,x,b,y^{\prime},w^{\prime},c,z^{\prime},a.
\]
To construct $S_{2}$ we follow the reverse expanding search on each block,
here $z,w,y,x^{\prime}.$ We also take the opposite ordering on the non-new
branch nodes of the bridge tree, that is, we start with $a$ rather than $d.$
So we start with $a,d.$ Now we follow the reverse expanding search on the
block, beginning with $a,d,z.$ Then we search the entire portion of the
network that begins with arc $c,$ which in this case is just $c$ itself,
obtaining $a,d,z,c.$ We continue searching the block with $a,d,z,c,w.$ Since
$b$ came before $y$ (actually $y^{\prime}$) in $S_{1}$, we continue in the
opposite order in $S_{2},$ with $a,d,z,c,w,y,b$ and then finish with
$x^{\prime},$ obtaining the expanding search
\[
S_{2}=a,d,z,c,w,y,b,x^{\prime}.
\]
We now explore the performance of $\beta=\left( 1/2\right) S_{1}+\left(
1/2\right) S_{2}$ against undominated hider strategies. A hider strategy $H$
is undominated if it lies on an arc of a block or on one of the leaf nodes in
the bridge tree. Node that arcs in blocks are traversed in opposite directions
by $S_{1}$ and $S_{2},$ so it does not matter where the Hider is situated in
such an arc. We take the lengths of $a,d,x,y,b$ as $2$; $c$ as 3; $z$ and $w$
as $1$. So $\mu=15$. Table \ref{tab:Qbar} gives the times take for $S_{1}$ and
$S_{2}$ to reach a Hider placed at one of the leaf nodes $A,B,C$ or at the
center of $x,y,w,z$. \begin{table}[tbh]
\caption{Search times for the network $\bar{Q}$.
\label{tab:Qbar}
\begin{center
\begin{tabular}
[c]{|l|l|l|l|l|l|}\hline
& $T(S_{1},H)$ & $T(S_{2},H)$ & sum & height, $\pi(H)$ & $\mu+ \pi(H) = 15 +
\pi(H)$\\\hline
$A$ & 15 & 2 & 17 & 2 & 17\\\hline
$B$ & 6 & 13 & 19 & 4 & 19\\\hline
$C$ & 12 & 8 & 20 & 5 & 20\\\hline
$x$ & 2.5 & 14.5 & 17 & 2 & 17\\\hline
$y$ & 7 & 10 & 17 & 2 & 17\\\hline
$z$ & 12.5 & 4.5 & 17 & 2 & 17\\\hline
$w$ & 8.5 & 8.5 & 17 & 2 & 17\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
There is an easier way to calculate the expected time (the column labeled
\textquotedblleft sum\textquotedblright\ divided by 2) for the block-optimal strategy
$\beta$ to reach a point in $\bar{Q}$ corresponding to any node of the bridge
tree $\bar{Q}^t.$ To understand this method, consider the bridge tree as
drawn in Figure~\ref{fig:bridge-block tree} with arc lengths of bridges
indicated. \begin{figure}[th]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{bridge-block-tree}
\end{center}
\caption{The bridge tree $\bar{Q}^t$ with arc lengths.
\label{fig:bridge-block tree
\end{figure}Note that the only hiding locations that are best responses to
$\beta$ correspond to leaf nodes or new (block) nodes of $Q^t$ (for
$\bar{Q}^t$ all nodes other than $O$ are of one of these types). Suppose
for example, that the Hider chooses $H=C.$ Then certainly the whole lengths of
arcs $d$ and $c$ must be covered before reaching $H$, so the expected search
time is at least $5$. Note that every other point will be reached before $H$
by exactly one of the pure searches $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$. Since these
\textquotedblleft other points\textquotedblright\ have total length
$\mu-5=15-5=10$, the expected search time is $5+\left( 1/2\right) 10=10$, as
given in our table as $20/2=sum/2.$ This argument is quite general for any
network $Q$. Suppose the Hider hides at a leaf node or on a non-bridge arc
$a$, breaking it into arcs $a^{\prime}$ and $a^{\prime\prime}$ when $H$ is
considered a node. Then as in the above argument, the bridge arcs which
connect $A$ to $O$ in $Q^t$ have total length $\pi\left( H\right) $
and must definitely be traversed by $\beta$ before it finds $H.$ All other
arcs are traversed either once by $S_{1}$ or once by $S_{2}$ (so on average
1/2 by $\beta)$ so the expected time for $\beta$ to $H$ is given by
\begin{align*}
T(\beta,H) & =\pi(H)+(1/2)(\mu-\pi(H))\\
& =\frac{\mu+\pi(H)}{2},\text{ for }H\in Q_{2}\text{ or }H\text{ a leaf
node.
\end{align*}
Note that for other hider places $H$ the search time may be smaller, so we
have
\[
T(\beta,H)\leq\frac{\mu+\pi(H)}{2},\text{ for all }H\in Q.
\]
Consequently taking $\pi=\pi(Q)=\max_{H\in Q}\pi(H)$ to be the \emph{height}
of $Q$, we hav
\begin{equation}
T(\beta)=\frac{\mu+\pi}{2}.\label{eq:max-time
\end{equation}
Note that there must be a leaf node $H$ of $Q_{1}$ such that $\pi(H)=\pi$.
\subsection{Performance of $\beta$}
We now show that the block-optimal strategy $\beta$ is $1.2$-factor optimal. To do this, we first find a lower bound on $V(Q)$. This is turn is accomplished by finding the value of the game on certain networks $Q'$ and $Q''$ which are easier to search than $Q$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:pruning}
For any rooted network $Q$, the value $V(Q)$ of the game satisfies
\[
V(Q) \ge \frac{1}{2 \mu}(\mu^2 + \pi^2).
\]
\end{lemma}
\proof{Proof.}
We start by defining a new network $Q^{\prime}$ whose value is
no greater than the value of $Q$. The network $Q^{\prime}$ is obtained by
first identifying all the nodes in each block of $Q$, so that each block
is now a set of loops that meet at a single node. We then remove those loops
and reattach them at the root $O$. So $Q^{\prime}$ consists of the bridge tree $Q^t$, with some extra loops meeting at $O$. This network $Q'$ is depicted on the left of Figure~\ref{fig:pruning} for the network $Q=\bar{Q}$ of Figure~\ref{fig:bridge-block}. The value
$V(Q^{\prime})$ is lower than $V(Q)$ since any Searcher strategy that can be
used on $Q$ can also be used on $Q^{\prime}$.
We then define another new network $Q^{\prime\prime}$ whose value is, again,
no greater than the value of $Q^{\prime}$. Let $H^{*}$ be a leaf node of
$Q_{1}$ at distance $\pi$ from $O$. The network $Q^{\prime\prime}$ is obtained
from $Q^{\prime}$ by ``pruning'' the path $P$ from $O$ to $H^{*}$: all
subtrees rooted on this path are removed and reattached at $O$, so that in
$Q^{\prime\prime}$ all the vertices on $P$ except $O$ and the leaf nodes have degree
$2$. The network $Q''$ is depicted on the right of Figure~\ref{fig:pruning}. It is clear that the value $V(Q^{\prime\prime})$ is no greater than
$V(Q^{\prime})$, since any Searcher strategy on $Q^{\prime}$ can also be
executed on $Q^{\prime\prime}$.
\begin{figure}[th]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{pruning}
\end{center}
\caption{The networks $Q'$ (left) and $Q''$ (right) depicted for the network $Q=\bar{Q}$ of Figure~\ref{fig:bridge-block}.}
\label{fig:pruning}
\end{figure}
We now derive a lower bound on $V(Q^{\prime\prime})$ (and therefore on $V(Q)$)
by giving an explicit Hider mixed strategy $h$ on $Q^{\prime\prime}$ and
calculating its minimum expected search time against any Searcher strategy.
The Hider strategy $h$ hides at $H^{\ast}$ with probability $\pi/\mu$ and
hides uniformly on the rest of $Q''$. This means that the search density of the
path $P$ from $O$ to $H^{\ast}$ is the same as the search density of the rest
of the network. By Lemma~\ref{uniform}, the two regions $P$ and $Q-P$ must be searched one
after the other, and the fact the densities are equal means it does not matter
which way around they are searched. So let $S$ be the search that first visits
$H^{\ast}$ then searches the rest of the network (it does not matter how). The
expected search time is
\begin{align*}
T(S,h) & =\frac{\pi}{\mu}(\pi)+\left( 1-\frac{\pi}{\mu}\right) \left(
\pi+\frac{\mu-\pi}{2}\right) \\
& =\frac{1}{2\mu}\left( \mu^{2}+\pi^{2}\right) .
\end{align*}
\endproof
By comparing Equation~(\ref{eq:max-time}) with Lemma~\ref{lem:pruning}, we can estimate the efficiency of the strategy $\beta$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:approx}
Let $Q$ be a rooted network with height $\pi$ and total length $\mu$. The maximum expected search time $T(\beta)$ of the block-optimal strategy $\beta$ on $Q$ satisfies
\begin{align}
T(\beta) & \leq (1+r) V(Q). \label{eq:beta-approx-r}
\end{align}
Moreover, $\beta$ is $(1+\sqrt{2})/2$-factor optimal for any network.
\end{thm}
\proof{Proof.}
It follows from Equation~(\ref{eq:max-time}) and Lemma~\ref{lem:pruning} that
\begin{align}
\frac{T(\beta)}{V(Q)} & \leq\frac{\frac{1}{2}(\mu+\pi)}{\frac{1}{2\mu
(\mu^{2}+\pi^{2})} =\frac{1+\pi/\mu}{1+(\pi/\mu)^{2}}. \label{eq:lowerbound1}
\end{align}
Note that the definition of the height $\pi$ ensures that it cannot exceed the total length of the bridges, so $\pi \le \mu_1$ and hence
\[
\frac{\pi}{\mu} \le \frac{\mu_1}{\mu} \equiv r.
\]
Thus (\ref{eq:beta-approx-r}) follows from~(\ref{eq:lowerbound1}).
To show that $\beta$ is $(1+\sqrt{2})/2$-factor optimal, it is easy to check that the right-hand side of~(\ref{eq:lowerbound1}) is maximized when $\pi/\mu=\sqrt{2}-1$, and so we get
\[
\frac{T(s)}{V(Q)}\leq\frac{\sqrt{2}}{1+(\sqrt{2}-1)^{2}}=(1+\sqrt
{2})/2.
\]
\endproof
The constant $(1+\sqrt{2})/2$ is the best possible in general. For example,
suppose $Q$ is the star network consisting of one arc of length $1$ and $n$
arcs length $\sqrt{2}/n$. Then $\mu=1+\sqrt{2}$ and $\pi=1$ so by
(\ref{eq:max-time}), we have $T(\beta)=(2+\sqrt{2})/2$. But by Theorem
\ref{treegame}, the value $V(Q)$ can be calculated to be
\[
V(Q)=\frac{1}{2}(\mu+D)=\frac{2+\sqrt{2}+1/n}{1+\sqrt{2}}\rightarrow
\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{1+\sqrt{2}}\mbox{ as }n\rightarrow\infty.
\]
Hence the ratio between $T(\beta)$ and $V(Q)$ can be arbitrarily close to
$(1+\sqrt{2})/2$.
Using~(\ref{eq:lowerbound1}), we can say a bit more precisely how well the block-optimal strategy $\beta$ performs for specific networks. For the circle-with-spike network $Q^{CS}$, the height is $\pi=1$, so $\pi/\mu=1/3$ and by~(\ref{eq:lowerbound1}), we have $T(\beta) \le 1.2 V(Q^{CS})$. The ratio of the height to the total measure of the network $\bar{Q}$ of Figure~\ref{fig:bridge-block} is also $\pi/\mu=5/15=1/3$, so we also have $T(\beta) \le 1.2 V(\bar{Q})$.
The inequality~(\ref{eq:beta-approx-r}) makes it clear that the less $Q$ is taken up with bridges, the better $\beta$ performs. In particular, it is optimal if $Q$ contains no bridges, and is therefore $2$-arc-connected. This is also obvious from the definition of $\beta$, by Theorem~\ref{thm:2arcconnected}.
\section{The Bridge-Optimal Search Strategy}
\label{sec:treelike}
In Section~\ref{sec:approx}, we found that the block-optimal strategy $\beta$ approximates the optimal search strategy within a factor of 1.2 and performs particularly well on ``block-like'' networks. In this section we will give an alternative search strategy, $\gamma$ that performs well in the case that the network mostly consists of bridges with a small proportion of the length taken up by blocks, so that the network is ``tree-like''. We call $\gamma$ the {\em bridge-optimal strategy}.
The strategy $\gamma$ is simply an adaptation of the biased depth-first strategy, described in Section~\ref{sec:exp-game}, which is optimal for tree networks. The strategy $\gamma$ follows the biased depth-first strategy on the set of bridge-points $Q_1$, as if using the optimal strategy on the bridge tree $Q^t$ of $Q$; and whenever the Searcher encounters a block in $Q_2$ for the first time, she performs an arbitrary search of the whole of it. Since the biased depth-first strategy is optimal for $Q^t$, for any point $x$ of $Q$ that lies on a bridge, the strategy $\gamma$ ensures an expected search time $T(\gamma, x)$ of
\begin{align}
T(\gamma, x) \le \mu_2 + V(Q^t) = \mu_2 + \frac{1}{2}(\mu_1 + D(Q^t)), \label{eq:gamma}
\end{align}
by Theorem~\ref{treegame}. To see that inequality~(\ref{eq:gamma}) also holds for any point $x$ that lies in a block of $Q$, we add a leaf arc of infinitesimal length incident to some point on the block. Clearly point $x$ is reached at an earlier time that the leaf arc, so since~(\ref{eq:gamma}) holds for points on the leaf arc it must also hold for points in the block.
\subsection{Performance of $\gamma$}
Our main result of this section is on the performance of the search strategy $\gamma$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:gamma}
Let $Q$ be a rooted network with bridge-ratio $r$. The maximum expected search time $T(\gamma)$ of the bridge-optimal strategy $\gamma$ on $Q$ satisfies
\[
T(\gamma) \le \left( \frac{2}{1+r^2} \right) V(Q).
\]
That is, the bridge-optimal strategy $\gamma$ is $2/(1+r^2)$-factor optimal.
\end{thm}
In order to prove the theorem, we need to give a lower bound on $V(Q)$ that is tight in the case that $Q$ is a tree. We will do that by describing a general Hider distribution (probability measure) on $Q$. We note that the lower bound on $V$ obtained in this subsection applies
as well to pathwise search games, as $V\leq V^{P}$, so the results obtained
here are stronger, although sometimes the same proofs work.
We can improve on the uniform Hider distribution by placing all the uniform
measure on a bridge at its forward end (away from the root). In
fact we can do better than this. Moving upwards in $Q_1$ (starting
at arcs at the root), we successively remove the uniform measure on each such
arc $a$ and suitably increase the total mass of the uniform measure on the subtree of $Q_1$
following $a$ so that the total measure of $Q_1$ does not change. In
particular, when $a$ is a leaf arc of $Q_1$, we place its measure on the
corresponding leaf node. We call the resulting distribution the \emph{pushed
uniform distribution} and denote it by $u^{\ast}$. The measure on $Q_1$ is thus repeatedly pushed away from the root until it is all on the leaf nodes. Note that $u^{\ast}$ agrees
with the uniform distribution $u$ on the blocks of $Q$ and the rest is concentrated on the
leaf nodes of $Q_1$.
For example on any circle-with-spike network $Q_{\alpha}^{CS},$ $u^{\ast
}\left( B\right) =1/3$, $u^{\ast}$ is uniform on its circle, and it is zero
on the open arc $AB$. Note that if $Q$ is already a tree, then $u^{\ast}$ is
the EBD distribution. Figure~\ref{fig:decomp} depicts a network all of whose arcs have unit length and whose
2-arc-connected components are copies of the three-arc network, given by two nodes joined by three unit length arcs. The network has 19 unit
length arcs, so each has a uniform measure of density $1/19$ under the uniform
measure $u$. The five three-arc networks keep this measure under $u^{\ast}$.
The measure $1/19$ on $a$ is split between $b$ and $c$, and eventually the
nodes at the forward ends of $b$ and $c$ each get measure $1/19+1/28=3/28$.
The measure $1/19$ on $d$ gets transferred to the forward end of $d$. Thus the
three leaf nodes of $Q^t$ get measure $3/28,$ $3/28,$ and $2/28$ which is
exactly $\mu_{1}/\mu=4/19$ times the EBD measure on $Q_1$. In general,
$u^{\ast}\left( i\right) =\left( \mu(Q_1)/\mu\right) \cdot e\left(
i\right) ,$ where $e$ is the EBD measure on $Q^t$, for any leaf node $i$ of
$Q_1$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{decomp}
\caption{Decomposition of a particular network.}\label{fig:decomp}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}
\label{moduniformtheorm}For any network $Q$, let $\mu_{1}=\mu (Q_1)$. Then
\begin{equation}
V\geq \frac{\mu +\left( \mu _{1}/\mu \right) ~D(Q^t) }{2
. \label{moduniformestimate}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\proof{Proof.} The Hider can ensure at least this expected capture time by
adopting the pushed uniform distribution $u^{\ast}$. Suppose we increase the
strategy space for the Searcher so that he can move freely within any given block and can thus search $Q_1$ as if it were
the tree $Q^t$. This is equivalent to changing the search space to the network
$\tilde{Q}$ consisting of the tree ${Q}^t$ and an additional
leaf arc $e$ at the root of length $\mu_2$. The network $\tilde{Q}$ corresponding to the network of Figure
\ref{fig:decomp} is shown in Figure \ref{fig:Qtilde}.
\begin{figure}[th]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Qtilde}
\end{center}
\caption{The network $\tilde{Q}$.
\label{fig:Qtilde
\end{figure}
Note that any search $S$ of $Q$ induces a search $\tilde{S}$ of $\tilde{Q}$. At
time $t$, $\tilde{S}\left( t\right) $ will include a distance $\lambda\left(
S\left( t\right) \cap a\right) $ along $a$, the amount of
$a$ that has been searched, as well as the identical portions of $a,b,c$
and $d.$ Considering $u^{\ast}$ as a distribution on $\tilde{Q}$ (which is
uniform on $a$ and EBD on $Q^t,$ we see that the subtrees
$a$ and $Q^t$ both have the maximum density of $1/\mu$. By
Lemma \ref{uniform} there is an optimal search that searches $a$ all at once, and by Lemma \ref{searchdensity}, $Q^t$ and
$a$ can be searched in either order, so assume $a$ is
searched first and then $Q^t$ is searched optimally. If the Hider is
located on $a$ the expected search time is half its length, $\mu_2/2$. So the expected search time is
\begin{align*}
& \frac{\mu_2}{\mu}\left( \frac{\mu_2}{2}\right) +\frac{\mu_1}{\mu
}\left( \mu_2+V\left( Q^t\right) \right) \\
& =\frac{\mu_2}{\mu}\left( \frac{\mu_2}{2}\right) +\frac{\mu_1}{\mu
}\left( \mu_2+\frac{\mu_1+D\left( Q^t\right) }{2}\right)
\text{ (by Theorem \ref{treegame})}\\
& =\frac{\mu+\left( \mu_1/\mu\right) ~D\left( Q^t\right) }{2}.
\end{align*}
\endproof
To illustrate the construction in the proof of Lemma~\ref{moduniformtheorm}, we consider again the example of Figure~\ref{fig:Qtilde}, we have $\mu=19,\mu
_{1}=4$, and
\[
D(Q^t) =3/8\cdot2+3/8\cdot2+2/28\cdot1=14/8,
\]
so the value satisfies
\[
V\left( Q\right) \geq\left( 19+\left( 4/19\right) \left( 14/8\right) \right) /2=184/19 = 9.6842.
\]
We note that we have equality in (\ref{moduniformestimate}) when $Q$ is a tree
($\mu_{1}=\mu$) or if $Q$ is $2$-arc-connected ($\mu_{1}=0$), by Theorem~\ref{treegame} and Theorem~\ref{thm:2arcconnected}.
We can now prove Theorem~\ref{thm:gamma}.
\proof{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:gamma}.}
Combining the lower bound in~(\ref{moduniformestimate}) with our estimate~(\ref{eq:gamma}) for the expected search time of the search strategy $\gamma$, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{T(\gamma)}{V} &\le \frac{2\mu_2+(\mu_1+D(Q^t))}{\mu+(\mu_1/\mu)D(Q^t)} \\
&= \frac{(2-r)\mu+D(Q^t)}{\mu+rD(Q^t)} \mbox{ (where $r=\mu_1/\mu$)}\\
&\le \frac{(2-r)\mu+r\mu}{\mu+r^2\mu} \mbox{ (since $D \le \mu_1$)}\\
&=\frac{2}{1+r^2}.
\end{align*}
\endproof
We have proved that the strategy $\gamma$ is $2/(1+r^2)$-factor optimal. This factor is decreasing in $r$: when $r=1$ (so that $Q$ is a tree), then $\gamma$ is optimal; when $r=0$ (so $Q$ is $2$-arc-connected), then $T(\gamma)=2V$ and $\gamma$ performs very badly.
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In many or even most searches that are carried out to find missing persons,
lost airplanes or unexploded mines from earlier conflicts, the rate at which
the searched area can expand is restricted by available resources. In such
situations the ``expanding search'' model recently introduced by the authors
in \cite{AL13} can be applied. This model seeks the
randomized strategy for expanding the search region which minimizes the
expected time to find the ``target'' in the worst case, when the search region
has a network structure. Optimal strategies in this context were previously
known only for networks that are trees or are $2$-arc-connected. This paper
extends the classes of solvable networks to include the new class of
``circle-with-spike'' networks. However our main contribution is to give two
general classes of strategies which can be applied to {\em any} network
and have expected times to find the target that are within 20\% of the
optimal time. One class of strategies, which was introduced and analyzed in
Section~\ref{sec:approx}, is the block-optimal strategy $\beta $, which is optimal when the
network has no bridge (when the bridge-ratio $r$ is equal to $0$). This
strategy is also close to optimal when the ``height'' $\pi $ of the network is
close to $1$ (when one of the bridges is much longer than all the others
combined). The other class of strategies, introduced in Section~\ref{sec:treelike}, is called the bridge-optimal strategy
$\gamma$, and is optimal when when the search network is a tree. It is close to
optimal when the bridge-ratio $r$ of the network is close to $1$.
The paper enables the organizer of an expanding search effort to base his
search strategy simply on the bridge-ratio $r$ of the network to be
searched. This is the ratio $r=\mu _{1}/\mu $ of the total length of the
bridges of the network to the total length of all its arcs. Roughly
speaking, when $r$ is small the searcher can get closest to the optimal
expected search time by adopting the block-optimal strategy $\beta $ and
when $r$ is large (above 80\%) by adopting the bridge-optimal strategy
\gamma$.
\subsection{Factor-approximate estimates in terms of the bridge-ratio $r$}
It is useful to combine the estimates on the value $V=V(Q)$
obtained by the block-optimal strategy~$\beta $ and the bridge-optimal
strategy~$\gamma$ in terms of the bridge ratio $r=\mu _{1}/\mu $ of the
network $Q$. Although we still get the factor $\left( 1+\sqrt{2}\right) /2$
for {\em all} networks, we can get better estimates for values of the
bridge ratio $r$ near $0$ or $1$, that is for block-like or bridge-like
networks. (Of course even better estimates can be obtained if we make the
more difficult calculation of the height $\pi$ of the network.)
First note that, as explained in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:approx}, $\pi/\mu \leq r$. Since the function $f(r)=(1+r)/(1+r^2)$ is increasing on the interval $\left[ 0,\sqrt{2}-1\right] \simeq \left[ 0,0.414\,21\right] $ with a maximum on $[0,1]$
of $(1+\sqrt{2})/2\simeq 1.2071$
obtained at $r=\sqrt{2}-1$, it follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
f\left( \frac{\pi }{\mu }\right) &\leq &f\left( r\right) \text{ for }r\in
\left[ 0,\sqrt{2}-1\right] \text{ and} \\
f\left( \frac{\pi }{\mu }\right) &\leq &\left( 1+\sqrt{2}\right) /2\text{
for all }r\in \left[ 0,1\right] .
\end{eqnarray*
By Theorem~\ref{thm:approx}, we know that by adopting the block-optimal strategy $\beta $
the Searcher ensures that the ratio of actual expected time to optimal
expected time is bounded by
\[
\frac{T}{V}=\frac{T\left( \beta \right) }{V}\leq f\left( \frac{\pi }{\mu
\right) .
\
Similarly from Theorem~\ref{thm:gamma}, we know that by adopting the bridge-optimal
strategy $\gamma $ the Searcher ensures that
\[
\frac{T}{V}=\frac{T\left( \gamma \right) }{V}\leq \frac{2}{1+r^{2}}.
\
Observe that $g(r)=2/(1+r^{2})$ is decreasing in $r
$ and is equal to $(1+\sqrt{2})/2\simeq 1.207$ for $r=\sqrt{\frac{3-\sqrt{2}}{1+\sqrt{2}}}\simeq 0.81047$.
So it follows that by taking strategy $\alpha $ to be the better of the
block-optimal and bridge-optimal strategies $\beta $ and $\gamma ,$ we can
ensure tha
\[
\frac{T\left( \alpha \right) }{V}\leq \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
f\left( r\right) =\frac{1+r}{1+r^{2}} & \text{ for} & 0\leq r\leq \sqrt{2
-1\simeq 0.414\,21, \\
f\left( \sqrt{2}-1\right) =\frac{1+\sqrt{2}}{2}\simeq 1.\,\allowbreak 207\,1
& \text{for} & \sqrt{2}-1\leq r\leq \sqrt{\frac{3-\sqrt{2}}{1+\sqrt{2}}
\simeq 0.810\,4, \\
g\left( r\right) =\frac{2}{1+r^{2}} & \text{for} & \sqrt{\frac{3-\sqrt{2}}{1
\sqrt{2}}}\leq r\leq 1
\end{array
\right.
\
The first two estimates are obtained by adopting $\alpha =\beta $ and the
last one by adopting $\alpha =\gamma .$ The upper bounds on $T/V,$ as a
function of the bridge ratio $r,$ are shown in Figure 5.
\begin{figure}[th]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{graph}
\end{center}
\caption{$T/V$ bounded above by thick line, as a function of the bridge ratio $r$.
\label{fig:graph
\end{figure}
We can see from Figure~\ref{fig:graph} that by
adopting one of only the two expanding search strategies $\beta $ and
\gamma $ introduced in this paper, a searcher with an expanding search to
plan on a known network can be sure of getting within $20\%$ of the optimal
expected time when the network has a bridge-ratio $r$ within $0.41\leq r\leq
0.81$ and can be even closer to optimal for $r$ outside that interval. By
considering the height $\pi $ of the network, he might be able to ensure
being even closer to optimal, but the calculation of $r$ is very easy. It is
worth noting that prior to this paper there were no known general strategies
for expanding search on arbitrary networks.
\subsection{Conclusions}
From the results of this paper, it seems that there two directions for
further investigations in the study of expanding search on networks. One is
to identify more classes of networks where optimal strategies can be found.
The other direction is to see if some strategy classes can be found which
reduce the factor-approximate constant of $1.2071$ for the ratio of $T/V.$
Another aspect of real-life search that might be added to the analysis is a
``give-up'' option, that is, when should the search be stopped. This is
particularly relevant to the Bayesian problem where there is an {\em a priori}
distribution for the target, as in the search for the Malaysian Airlines
plane.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
Steve Alpern wishes to acknowledge support from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research [Grant FA9550-14-1-0049].
|
\section{Introduction}
This is the fourth paper in a series of five where we try to constrain the
flattening of dark matter haloes from observations of the thickness and
velocity dispersion of the \textsc{Hi} layer in edge-on late-type dwarf galaxies.
For this analysis we need to correct for the influence of the stellar disks
on the dynamics of the gas and therefore we provide in this paper fits
to the light distribution in the stellar disks of our sample galaxies.
Edge-on galaxies offer a unique perspective on the distribution of stars and
dust in galaxies. A major advantage of the edge-on view is the ability to
resolve the vertical distribution of both the stars and the dust, and this is
exactly the reason that in this series of papers we study edge-ons.
A well-known feature of edge-on spiral galaxies are truncations at the
outer edge of their stellar discs, as discovered in edge-on galaxies back in
1979 \citep{vdk79}.
Subsequent authors have confirmed the presence of truncations, such as the
study of 34 edge-on galaxies by \citet{Kregel2002}, who found that at least
20 of these galaxies ($\sim\!60\%$ of the sample) have truncations.
Not all galaxies are truncated. Some even appear to have an upturn in
their radial profiles \citep{Erwin2008A}, although \citet{kf11} noted
that many of these, e.g. NGC\,3310, show signs of merging or other
distortions in the outer parts. Some galaxies extend out to many
scalelengths, such as NGC\'300 \citep{Joss2005}. In this
series op papers we do not concern
ourselves with the outer features, as we model the \textsc{Hi} only in the inner
parts in order to set limits of the three-dimensional shape of dark matter
halos. In Paper V we determine out to which radius we feel our data justify
fitting for the shape of the dark matter halos; the actual radii
adopted for analysis vary from less than 1 out to typically 4 or 5
scalelengths, so we do not go out into these areas of extended stellar disks
or upturns. Also, if any of our systems would have a truncation, our analysis
is restricted to the areas within that truncation.
A major drawback to the edge-on perspective is the more complex
geometry, which implies that each position $x$ along the major
axis is a superposition of light emitted at a range of radii $R$.
Various authors have therefore set out to disentangle edge-on
galaxies and extract their radial structure.
One approach to this is to deproject the edge-on image using
the inverse Abel transform \citep{Binney1987A}.
This method was first applied by \citet{Florido2001A,Florido2006A}
in a study of the mid-plane of edge-on
galaxies in the near infrared.
\citet{Pohlen2007} extended the method to study both the
radial and vertical distribution of eleven edge-on galaxies.
UGC\,7321 was studied in this way by \citet{OBrien2010D}.
Dust can seriously hamper this type of deprojection, as
there is no simple way to incorporate its complex interplay of
scattering, absorption and emission, in the inverse Abel transform.
An alternative strategy for deriving the radial properties
of the galaxy is to model the entire galaxy including the dust.
By using appropriate fitting algorithms, the model can be
tweaked in various ways until it matches the observations.
Various authors applied this method to edge-on galaxies,
such as \citet{Xilouris1999} and \citet{Bianchi2007}.
\textsc{FitSKIRT} was developed by \citet{Geyter2013A} as
an automatic fitting extension for the \textsc{SKIRT} 3D-continuum
Monte-Carlo radiative transfer code
\citep{Baes2001A,Baes2001B,Baes2003A,Baes2011A}.
\textsc{FitSKIRT} makes use of the \textsc{GAlib} genetic
algorithm to fit a parameterised model of a galaxy \citep{galib}.
In the so-called oligochromatic mode, the code can fit multiple
bands simultaneously.
This mode was used by \citet{deLooze2012B} to model edge-on
galaxy NGC\,4565 from the UV to the mid-infrared
in a self-consistent manner.
This method has been applied by \citet{deGeyter2014} to a set
of twelve edge-on galaxies selected from the CALIFA survey.
In the previous paper (number III in thsi series),
we have modelled the \textsc{Hi} structure and
kinematics of eight edge-on dwarf galaxies, as part of our project
to model their dark matter halo by inferring its properties from
the baryonic content.
In the current paper, we continue this project by modelling the
stellar and dust components of these eight edge-on galaxies.
We have collected a large set of observations, which we present in
Section \ref{sec:stellardata}.
The models and strategy by which we fit the data are presented in
Section \ref{section:stellardatafitting}.
The fits to the data using \textsc{FitSKIRT} are presented in
Section \ref{sec:stellarresults}, after which we discuss the
results in Section \ref{sec:stellardiscussion} and conclude
the paper in Section \ref{sec:stellarconclusions}.
\section{Data}\label{sec:stellardata}
\textsc{FitSKIRT} can model observations ranging from the UV to the infrared.
The more bands are available to it, the better the models can be constrained.
In this papers, we continue the analysis of the eight edge-on
galaxies from the previous papers in this series.
See Table 2 in Paper I for an overview of the sample.
In order to get the largest dataset, a wide range of archives,
both online and off-line, has been explored.
For most galaxies, a large set of archived observations were found.
Unfortunately, the signal-to-noise ratio in many of these (survey)
observations was insufficient, as the low surface brightness nature
of most of these galaxies necessitated longer exposure times than were used.
In total, we use data from ten telescopes in nine bands, giving a
minimum of three bands per galaxy, and a maximum of nine.
A full overview of the observations that we used is shown in Table
\ref{tbl:stellarobservations} in the online Appendix.
\subsection{Data Reduction}
\textsc{FitSKIRT} does not require the data to be calibrated, so we
skipped that step in the reduction.
As our observations come from a wide range of telescopes, each required its
own, appropriate treatment.
\begin{description}
\item[ {\bf 2.3m ANU Advanced Technology Telescope} ] \hfill \\
The 2.3m ANU Advanced Technology Telescope
with the CASPIR near-IR camera,
located at Siding Spring observatory in Australia,
was used to observe several of the galaxies in the Kn- and H-bands.
The data were archived on tape and was originally
intended for use in \citet{OBrien2010D}.
The CASPIR instrument has dedicated software for reducing
the data, which suffered from code-rot and did not work correctly any more.
With support from Peter McGrergor at the Research School of
Astronomy \& Astrophysics in Canberra, Australia, along with
the manual and source code for CASPIR, we managed to reconstruct
the required workflow and re-implement this in \textsc{Python}.
During an observing run, various types of observations are being made:
bias, dark, flat, sky and object.
First, we create the combined bias and this from all other types of frames.
CASPIR has a non-linear response and it was thus required to linearise the
flat, dark sky and object frames.
The dark currents were then removed from the sky, object and flat frames,
after which the sky and object frames were flat-fielded.
The sky in the near infrared is bright and varies rapidly.
The main observations were therefore taken as one short object frame
followed by a sky frame.
The sky frames before and after each object frame were used to subtract
the sky from a particular object frame.
The field-of-view of CASPIR only covers a fraction of a galaxy,
so a dithering pattern was used to cover the entire galaxy.
The information on the exact dithering pattern was unavailable and
we thus resorted to manually calibrating the coordinate system
of each frame, using \textsc{iraf}.
Each galaxy consisted of more than 50 object frames.
Afterwards we use the \textsc{Montage} tool-kit\footnote{Available at
montage.ipac.caltech.edu/.} to automatically create a montage of all
these frames.
This process automatically performs background rectification between
the various frames.
\item[ {\bf 3.9m Anglo-Australian Telescope} ] \hfill \\
The IRIS2 instrument on the 3.9m Anglo-Australian Telescope,
located at Siding Spring observatory in Australia, was used for
various Ks- and H-band observations.
Observations were available on tape and were originally intended for
use in \citet{OBrien2010D}.
In contrast to the 2.3m ANU Advanced Technology Telescope observations,
the field-of-view is much larger and covers the entire galaxy and the
surrounding patch of sky.
The IRIS2 instrument has custom software, which automatically runs
through the entire workflow and returns the reduced science-ready frame.
\item[ {\bf ANU 40-inch Telescope} ] \hfill \\
The Australian National University (ANU) 40-inch telescope,
located at Siding Spring Observatory in Australia, was used
to observe several of our galaxies, as intended for use in
\citet{OBrien2010D}.
The data was archived on tapes.
The traditional \textsc{IRAF} workflow of bias and flat-fielding
removal was performed to reduce the data.
\item[ {\bf CTIO 0.9-meter Telescope} ] \hfill \\
The R-band image for ESO115-G021 was taken using the
0.9-meter Telescope located at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American
Observatory (CTIO) in Chili.
The observation was taken as part of the Spitzer Local Volume
Legacy project and was provided science-ready online at the
NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED)\footnote{Available at
ned.ipac.caltech.edu/.}.
\item[ {\bf Danish 1.54-meter Telescope} ] \hfill \\
The Danish 1.54-m Telescope is located at the
European Southern Observatory (ESO) La Silla site in Chili.
The R-band image for ESO\,274-G001 was previously published by
\citet{Rossa2003A} and was available science-ready online via NED.
\item[ {\bf ESO\,1-meter Schmidt Telescope} ] \hfill \\
The ESO-LV survey \citet{Lauberts1988A} digitised 606 blue and 606
red ESO\,photographic survey plates.
The data was available science-ready through NED.
\item[ {\bf ESO\, La Silla Schmidt telescope} ] \hfill \\
The ESO\,red-band survey has been digitised using the MAMA microdensitometer
and provided as science-ready data and available through a
virtual-observatory (VO) interface. These images were
originally part of the ESO(B) Atlas, taken with the
ESO\,1-m Schmidt telescope at La Silla, Chile \citep{Lauberts1982}.
\item[ {\bf Palomar 48-inch Schmidt Telescope} ] \hfill \\
The 48-inch Schmidt telescope at Palomar Observatory
in the United States was used to create the Palomar Sky Survey (POSS).
This survey was later digitised into the Digitized Sky Survey (DSS).
The data was provided science-ready through a virtual-observatory interface.
\item[ {\bf Spitzer Space Telescope IRAC} ] \hfill \\
The Spitzer Space Telescope archive had
$3.6\,\mu$m observations of all our galaxies and for
several also $4.5\,\mu$m observations.
The observations were taken for a range of projects
\citep{Dale2009A, Sorce2012A, Engelbracht2008A, Sheth2010A, Radburn-Smith2011A, MacLachlan2011A}.
The Spitzer Heritage Archive\footnote{Available at
sha.ipac.caltech.edu/applications/Spitzer/SHA.}
provided direct online access to the science-ready frames.
\item[ {\bf UK 48-inch Schmidt Telescope} ] \hfill \\
The UK 48-inch Schmidt, located at Siding Spring in
Australia, was used in an all-sky survey.
This was digitised into the DSS and was available
science-ready through a virtual-observatory interface.
\end{description}
\subsection{Astrometric Calibration}
The astrometric solution associated with the various observations would
often be in disagreement between bands, causing galaxies to be offset
slightly between bands.
We therefore used the \textsc{solve-field} program, which is part of the
astrometry.net project, to fit a new astrometric calibration to all the
observations.
The telescopes and cameras used in this study are of a large variety
and consequnetly not a single limiting magnitudes in the bands can be
given for our sample. In general, our photometry does not go as deep as the
\citet{Comeron2011B} study of edge-on galaxies, but our interest is in the
brighter levels in order to constrain the light distribrutions for our
modelling.
\subsection{Masking}
To avoid flux contamination, it was required to mask all fore- and
background objects.
For each galaxy, the band with the most prominent stars was selected.
We used the \textsc{ds9} display tool to draw regions on each object,
after which a custom \textsc{Python} program set the pixels in these
regions to a value of zero.
Pixels with a value of zero are ignored by \textsc{FitSKIRT}, and we
thus do not need to interpolate over them.
We also used this program to draw a polygon around each galaxy, beyond
which the image was masked.
In most cases there was only little masking required.
The galaxies closer to the galactic plane, however,
required far more extensive masking, with the total
amount of masks drawn for ESO\,274-G001 well beyond a thousand.
The region masks were copied to the other bands using \textsc{ds9}.
The files were then inspected and additional masking applied where required.
\subsection{Normalization}
To avoid overly long computations, all images were rotated to align
their major axis with the horizontal image axis, and then shrunk
down to a width of $\sim700$ pixels.
We subtract the average background from the image.
The image was then divided by the total flux, such that the sum
of the image became one.
This last step is required by \textsc{FitSKIRT}, as it prevents
a particularly bright band from dominating the fitting result.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig1a.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig1b.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig1c.jpg}}
\caption[IC\,2531 - stellar fit]{Stellar decompositions for IC\,2531. Each band consists of three panels. Top panels show the observation. Middle panels show the best-fit models. The lower panels show the difference maps. Colour scaling is equal between the three panels. The scale of the images is in arcsec.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig2a.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig2b.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig2c.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig2d.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig2e.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig2f.jpg}}
\caption[IC\,5052 - stellar fit (left) (1/2)]{Stellar decompositions for the left side of IC\,5052 (1/2). Each band consists of three panels. Top panels show the observation. Middle panels show the best-fit models. The lower panels show the difference maps. Colour scaling is equal between the three panels. The scale of the images is in arcsec.}\label{fig:stellar-IC5052_left1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig3a.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig3b.jpg}}
\caption[IC\,5052 - stellar fit (left) (2/2)]{Stellar decompositions for the left side of IC\,5052 (2/2). Each band consists of three panels. Top panels show the observation. Middle panels show the best-fit models. The lower panels show the difference maps. Colour scaling is equal between the three panels. The scale of the images is in arcsec.}\label{fig:stellar-IC5052_left2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig4a.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig4b.jpg}}
\caption[IC\,5052 - stellar fit (right) (1/2)]{Stellar decompositions for the right side of IC\,5052 (1/2). Each band consists of three panels. Top panels show the observation. Middle panels show the best-fit models. The lower panels show the difference maps. Colour scaling is equal between the three panels. The scale of the images is in arcsec.}\label{fig:stellar-IC5052_right1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig5a.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig5b.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig5c.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig5d.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig5e.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig5f.jpg}}
\caption[IC\,5052 - stellar fit (right) (2/2)]{Stellar decompositions for the right side of IC\,5052 (2/2). Each band consists of three panels. Top panels always show the observation. Middle panels show the best-fit models. The lower panels show the difference maps. Colour scaling is equal between the three panels. The scale of the images is in arcsec.}\label{fig:stellar-IC5052_right2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig6a.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig6b.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig6c.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig6d.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig6e.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig6f.jpg}}
\caption[IC\,5249 - stellar fit (1/2)]{Stellar decompositions for IC\,5249 (1/2). Each band consists of three panels. Top panels always show the observation. Middle panels show the best-fit models. The lower panels show the difference maps. Colour scaling is equal between the three panels. The scale of the images is in arcsec.}\label{fig:stellar-IC5249a}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig7a.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig7b.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig7c.jpg}}
\caption[IC\,5249 - stellar fit]{Stellar decompositions for IC\,5249 (2/2). Each band consists of three panels. Top panels always show the observation. Middle panels show the best-fit models. The lower panels show the difference maps. Colour scaling is equal between the three panels. The scale of the images is in arcsec.}\label{fig:stellar-IC5249b}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig8a.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig8b.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig8c.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig8d.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig8e.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig8f.jpg}}
\caption[ESO\,115-G021 - stellar fit]{Stellar decompositions for ESO\,115-G021. Each band consists of three panels. Top panels always show the observation. Middle panels show the best-fit models. The lower panels show the difference maps. Colour scaling is equal between the three panels. The scale of the images is in arcsec.}\label{fig:stellar-ESO115-G021}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig9f.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig9f.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig9f.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig9f.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig9f.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig9f.jpg}}
\caption[ESO\,138-G014 - stellar fit]{Stellar decompositions for ESO\,138-G014. Each band consists of three panels. Top panels always show the observation. Middle panels show the best-fit models. The lower panels show the difference maps. Colour scaling is equal between the three panels. The scale of the images is in arcsec.}\label{fig:stellar-ESO138-G014}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig10a.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig10b.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig10c.jpg}}
\caption[ESO\,146-G014 - stellar fit]{Stellar decompositions for ESO\,146-G014. Each band consists of three panels. Top panels always show the observation. Middle panels show the best-fit models. The lower panels show the difference maps. Colour scaling is equal between the three panels. The scale of the images is in arcsec.}\label{fig:stellar-ESO146-G014}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig11d.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig11d.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig11d.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig11d.jpg}}
\caption[ESO\,274-G001 - stellar fit]{Stellar decompositions for ESO\,274-G001. Each band consists of three panels. Top panels always show the observation. Middle panels show the best-fit models. The lower panels show the difference maps. Colour scaling is equal between the three panels. The scale of the images is in arcsec.}\label{fig:stellar-ESO274-G001}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig12a.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig12b.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig12c.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig12d.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.48\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig12e.jpg}}
\caption[UGC\,7321 - stellar fit]{Stellar decompositions for UGC\,7321. Each band consists of three panels. Top panels always show the observation. Middle panels show the best-fit models. The lower panels show the difference maps. Colour scaling is equal between the three panels. The scale of the images is in arcsec.}\label{fig:stellar-UGC7321}
\end{figure*}
\section{Data Fitting}\label{section:stellardatafitting}
The data will be modelled using \textsc{FitSKIRT} with the following
components \citep{Geyter2013A}.
The disc of each galaxy is modelled as a double-exponential disc.
No truncation was included in the model, as this is currently not
supported by \textsc{FitSKIRT}.
Truncations are known to occur near the onset of the \textsc{Hi} warp
\citep{vanderKruit2007A} and this region is not of interested
for our goal of measuring the mid-plane hydrostatics (see also
Section 2 of Paper III).
Developing a truncated model was discussed, but considering the
quality of the data, the current research questions and the
computational cost associated with additional free parameters,
we have decided not to develop such an option.
The disc thus follows the luminosity distribution
\begin{equation}
j(R,z) = \frac{L_{\textrm{d},*}}{4 \pi h^2_{R,*} h_{z,*}} \exp{\left(-\frac{R}{h_{R,*}}\right)}\exp{\left(-\frac{|z|}{h_{z,*}}\right)}\,\,,\label{eqn:stellardistribution}
\end{equation}
with $L_{\textrm{d},*}$ the total disc luminosity, $h_{R,*}$ and $h_{z,*}$ the disc
scale length and scale height, and $R$ and $z$ as the radial and vertical
coordinates.
The assumption of a double-exponential model in our fits is a
simplification of reality. It is well-known that better fits are possible;
\citet{vdkruit88} proposed a sech-function as a compromise between the
isothermal sech${^2}$ distribution of \citet{vdks1981}, which ignores the
real situation that there are most likely age groups of stars with different
velocity dispersions, and the mathematically convenient, but unphysical
exponential. We believe our fits are sufficiently satisfactory that any further
sophistication is not necessary, also in view of the fact that at low $z$,
where the exponential and the sech deviate most, dust extinction would need to
be fitted more realistically then the crude way we apply here,
namely also with a double exponential. Also the
scaleheight of the stars may very well change with galactocentric distance,
as found by \citet{RichReyn} and \citet{NJ2002}. Again our fits work very well
with a constant scaleheight, and we therefore believe these are adequate for
our purposes. We return to this issue in section 5.2.
Our galaxies are close to edge-on and already \citet{vdks1981} showed
that small variation in invclination away from perfectly edge-on do not affect
the determined scale height. Nevertheless, we leave the inclination in as a
parameter (see below).
A bulge was also included, which follows the luminosity density
\citep{Geyter2013A}
\begin{eqnarray}
j(R,z) &=& \frac{L_{\textrm{b},*}}{q R_\textrm{e}^3} S_\textrm{n} \left(\frac{m}{R_\textrm{e}}\right)\,\,,\\
m &=& \sqrt{R^2+\frac{z^2}{q^2}}\,\,,\label{eqn:bulgedistribution}
\end{eqnarray}
with the total bulge luminosity $L_{\textrm{b},*}$, the effective
radius $R_e$, the S\'ersic function
$$
S_\textrm{n} = I_e\exp -C \left[ \left( {R \over R_e } \right)^{1/n} - 1 \right]
$$
(with the proper normalization) and the flattening
of the bulge $q$. In general our photometry is not deep enough to look
for thick disks and what we fit as bulges may very well be the brighter
parts of suchgcomponents.
The dust is also modelled as a double-exponential disc
\begin{equation}
\rho_\textrm{d}(R,z) = \frac{M_\textrm{d}}{2 \pi h^2_{R,d} h_{z,d}} \exp{\left(-\frac{R}{h_{R,d}}\right)}\exp{\left(-\frac{|z|}{h_{z,d}}\right)}\,\,,
\end{equation}
with the dust density $\rho$, the total dust mass $M_\textrm{d}$,
and the dust scale length and scale height $h_\textrm{R,d}$ and $h_\textrm{z,d}$.
The galaxies in our sample are late-type dwarfs and we do not
expect them to have a lot of dust.
We include dust in the results for completeness, but stress that
we are skeptical about the exact quantities returned by the fitting.
The inclination can vary between $86^\circ$ and $90^\circ$ to get
the best fit. However, with the absence of dust bands in most
of our galaxies, we cannot confirm the exact inclination.
Including the inclination $i$ and the exact central position,
the model has a total of 11 global free parameters, plus two
additional free parameters per band (the disc luminosity
$L_{\textrm{d},*}$ and bulge-to-disc ratio $B/D$).
\textsc{FitSKIRT} fits the data using the \textsc{GaLib}
genetic algorithm \citep{galib}.
We use a population of 200 individuals and evolve the model
for 100 iterations.
We run five fits for each galaxy.
The Millipede Cluster of the University of Groningen was used
to perform all fits. A fit typically takes 30 hours.
Due to the random path that the light follows in the model, no two
instances of the model will be the same. As such, both the
observation and the model contain Poisson distributed noise.
The objective function to measure the error is therefore
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi^2 &=& \sum_j^{N_\textrm{pix}}{\frac{\left(I_{\textrm{mod},j} - I_{\textrm{obj},j}\right)^2 }{\sigma^2}}\,\,,\\
&=& \sum_j^{N_\textrm{pix}}{\frac{\left(I_{\textrm{mod},j} - I_{\textrm{obj},j}\right)^2 }{|I_{\textrm{obj},j}| + I_{\textrm{mod},j}}}\,\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The lowest $\chi^2$ value is adopted as the true value. The error in each
parameter is taken as the standard deviation from the five runs.
\section{Results}\label{sec:stellarresults}
The results for each galaxy are shown in Table \ref{tbl:stellar-main1}.
The quality of the individual fits can be seen in Table
\ref{tbl:stellar-main2} in the online Appendix.
When available, we also list the published integrated
magnitude $L_{\textrm{band,*}}$.
Where needed, these have been corrected for Galactic
foreground extinction using the \citet{reddeningA}
re-calibration of the \citet{reddeningB} infrared-based
dust map, as calculated in NED.
Before the disc luminosity $L_{\textrm{d},*}$ produced in \textsc{FitSKIRT} can
be used for further analysis, it first needs to be calibrated.
This can be done by multiplying it with $10^{15} L_{\textrm{band,*}}$, where
$L_{\textrm {band,*}}$ is the integrated luminosity, expressed in W/m$^2$, as
measured without dust absorption.
\subsection{IC\,2531}
Galaxy IC\,2531 is the only Sb galaxy in our sample, and has the highest
maximum circular velocity at $v_\textrm{max}=260.5$\,km/s
(Table \ref{tbl:stellar-main1}).
This is nearly twice the maximum circular velocity of the other galaxies
in our sample.
The central brightness component has not been reproduced correctly.
This bulge is most likely peanut-shaped or boxy, which requires a
different bulge model than adopted here \citep{Jarvis1986A,deSouza1987A}.
The scale length is $h_{\textrm{R},*}=5077\pm262$\,pc and the scale height
$h_{\textrm{z},*}=613\pm46$\,pc.
\citet{Kregel2002} report a much longer $h_{\textrm{R},*}=12511\pm2643$\,pc
and $h_{\textrm{z},*}=658.5\pm65.8$\,pc.
The galaxy features a very prominent dust lane, which Kregels I-band model
does not treat for and so their scale length might be overestimated.
\citet{Xilouris1999} has also performed a fit to the galaxy that did
include a treatment for the dust.
They report a K-band scale length of $h_{\textrm{R},*}=5.04\pm0.1$\,kpc
and a scale height of $0.45\pm0.02$\,kpc.
The dust is found to have a (K-band) scale length of
$h_{\textrm{R},d}=8.00\pm0.3$\,kpc and a scale height of
$h_{\textrm{z},d}=0.22\pm0.03$\,kpc, which is similar to the
$h_{\textrm{R},d}=7.0\pm2.2$\,kpc and $h_{\textrm{z},d}=0.3\pm0.1$\,kpc reported here.
\subsection{IC\,5052}
Galaxy IC\,5052 has proven hard to model, as the galaxy showed clear
asymmetries.
We therefore opted to model both sides of the galaxy separately
(Figures \ref{fig:stellar-IC5052_left1}, \ref{fig:stellar-IC5052_left2},
\ref{fig:stellar-IC5052_right1} and \ref{fig:stellar-IC5052_right2}).
This forced us to fix the centre of the galaxy, which has clearly hampered
the results.
From an inspection of the images, we conclude that the left side better
represents the galaxy, although the fit is far from perfect.
The scale length for the left side $h_{\textrm{R},*}$ is $857\pm68$\,pc and
the scale height $h_{\textrm{z},*}$ is $124\pm80$\,pc, which makes this the
galaxy with the shortest scale length in our sample.
\citet{Comeron2011B} has also modelled this galaxy using a double disc
approach, and report a thick disc scale length of 470-530\,pc and a thin
disc scale length of 140-170\,pc.
They note that the galaxy can also be modelled successfully with a single disc.
Overall, we find that the galaxy is very clumpy in its light distribution,
which cannot be fit properly by the models. Our fitted scalelength
differs considerably between the two sides, and both are much larger than the
determined value of \citet{Comeron2011B}. Our result should be treated
with much cuation. This galaxy proven to be too
difficult to model for our purposes and it has been deleted from our
sample in Paper V, where we do the final analysis.
\subsection{IC\,5249}
The overall quality of the fit is very good.
The scale length is $h_{\textrm{R},*}=6828\pm340$\,pc, while the scale height
is $h_{\textrm{z},*}=242\pm20$\,pc.
Similar results have also been found in previous studies.
\citet{Carignan1983} analysed the galaxy in the B-band and distinguished
two components wityh scale lengths 18\,kpc and 2.5\,kpc.
\citet{Wainscoat1986} confirmed these results using H, I and K-band data.
The galaxy was also analysed by \citet{Byun1992} in the B, R and I
\citep{vanderKruit2001A}.
\citet{Abe1999} discovered a very sharp truncation at two scale lengths.
We do not find any indication of a second disc component as
\citet{Carignan1983}, although their second component might
well have been the bulge we find here. This galaxy is an example of a so-called superthin galaxy. \citet{vanderKruit2001A}, who found a scale lenght of about 7 kpc attributed this to the relatively long scale length combined with the low (face-on) surface brightness.
\subsection{ESO\,115-G021}
A large amount of masking was required for ESO\,115-G021 (Figure
\ref{fig:stellar-ESO115-G021}).
The dwarf galaxy has been modelled successfully, although it is still clumpy.
The stellar disc scale length $h_{\textrm{R},*}$ is only $1108\pm280$ pc,
while the scale height $h_{\textrm{z},*}$ is only $149$ parsec.
The galaxy is very faint and emits only $5.0\times10^7$L$_\odot$ in the R-band.
In comparison to the neutral hydrogen mass, the $M_\textrm{HI}/L_\textrm{R}$
is 12.5, the highest in our sample.
\subsection{ESO\,138-G014}
ESO\,138-G014 also required extensive masking (Figure
\ref{fig:stellar-ESO138-G014}).
Despite this, the overall fit is good.
With $h_{\textrm{R},*}=2288\pm59$\,pc and $h_{\textrm{z},*}=217\pm10$\,pc,
the stellar disc is twice as long as ESO\,115-G021 and slightly thicker.
\citet{Kregel2002} previously modelled this galaxy without dust and
reported a larger disc with $h_{\textrm{R},*}=3779$\,pc and
$h_{\textrm{z},*}=382\pm10$\,pc.
\subsection{ESO\,146-G014}
ESO\,146-G014 is a known low-surface brightness galaxy and
is extremely metal poor \citep{Roennback1995,Morales2011A}.
The galaxy is a slow rotator $v_\textrm{max}=84.1$\,km/s and
is very patchy in nature, as can be seen in Figure
\ref{fig:stellar-ESO146-G014}.
Because of this, the fit is far from perfect.
As can be seen in all three bands, the galaxy has a
very bright central region, but also has a bright
spot 50'' east of the centre.
The galaxy is also asymmetric, as can be seen most clearly in the V-band image.
\subsection{ESO\,274-G001}
Galaxy ESO\,274-G001 is very close to the Galactic plane, with a Galactic
latitude of only $9.3^\circ$.
The four bands therefore required an exceptional amount of masking (Figure
\ref{fig:stellar-ESO274-G001}), but the fit was still successful.
The galaxy has a stellar disc scale length $h_{\textrm{R},*}$ of $1270\pm59$\,pc
and a scale height $h_{\textrm{z},*}$ of $161\pm2$\,pc, which is very similar to
ESO\,115-G021.
The overall appearance is different from that galaxy, as ESO\,274-G001 has a
far more flattened bulge.
Similar to the ESO\,115-G021 and ESO\,146-G014, the galaxy is a slow rotator,
with a maximum circular velocity of $v_\textrm{max}=103.9$\,km/s.
Moreover, similar to those two galaxies, ESO\,274-G001 is patchy in nature.
The galaxy has the highest luminosity compared to its optically thin HI mass:
$M_\textrm{HI} / L_\textrm{R}=0.8$
\subsection{UGC\,7321}
UGC\,7321 has been modelled using five bands (Figure \ref{fig:stellar-UGC7321}),
the results of which have the lowest combined $\chi^2$ error in this sample.
The scale length has been measured at $h_{\textrm{R},*}=2498\pm349$\,pc and the
scale height at $h_{\textrm{z},*}=187\pm80$\,pc.
This is in agreement with \citet{OBrien2010D}, who applied the deprojection
method and reported $h_{\textrm{d},*}=2650$\,pc and $h_{\textrm{z},*}=245$\,pc.
The scale-height was reported as 140-150\,pc by \citet{Matthews1999A}, who
did not discern a bulge. We emphasize that our fitted bulge may also
correspond to the brighter parts of a thick disk,
\citet{OBrien2010D} performed a rotation-curve decomposition on the galaxy
and found a mass to light $M_*/L_{r'}$ upper limit of 1.05.
This implies a recent burst of star formation in the galaxy, which matches
the detection of a significant fraction of young stars in the disc
\citep{Matthews1999A}.
\cite{OBrien2010D} also performed a fit to the vertical hydrostatics
of the disc and found a good fit at $M_*/L_R$ of 0.2.
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:stellardiscussion}
\subsection{Quality of the Fits}
What can we conclude about the overall quality of the fits?
Comparing to the available literature, we see that IC\,2531, IC\,5249
and UGC\,7321 are in agreement with the results by others.
The slower rotating galaxies, e.g. ESO\,115-G021, ESO\,146-G014 and
ESO\,274-G001 all have a clumpy nature, which makes fitting harder.
For IC\,5052 and ESO\,138-G014, the parameters reported by other authors
are different. As we noted before, IC\,5052 gave us problems to model,
so our results could well be wrong.
ESO\,138-G014 also required extensive masking.
It is a low surface brightness galaxy, but the fit we have performed
still looks acceptable (see Figure \ref{fig:stellar-ESO138-G014}).
As such, we feel that the derived stellar disc scale lengths and scale
heights are reasonably accurate, with the possible exception of IC\,5052.
A similar endeavor as the work done in this paper has been previously
undertaken by \citet{deGeyter2014}, who set out to model edge-on galaxies
in the Calar Alto Legacy Integral Field Area
Survey (CALIFA), which showed a clear dust band.
In total they settled on a sample of 12 --mostly early-type-- galaxies for
which they performed an oligochromatic fit to the $g'$, $r'$, $i'$ and $z'$ bands.
While their data is of higher quality, their results are very similar to
ours, and they ``conclude that in general most galaxies
are modelled accurately, especially when keeping in mind that the
FitSKIRT models only consist of three basic components and they
were determined by an automated procedure over a large parameters
space without strong initial boundary conditions'' \citep{deGeyter2014}.
\begin{table*}
\resizebox{0.98\textwidth}{!}{
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l|cc|ccc|cc|cc|c}
~ &{Stellar } &{Stellar } &{Dust } &{Dust } &{Dust} &{Bulge } &{Bulge } &~& S\'ersic \\
{Name} &{ scale length} &{scale height} &{scale length } &{ scale height} &{mass} &{ Radius } &{ flattening} &{ Inclination}~&{Index} & QOF\\
~ &[pc] &[pc] &[pc] & [pc] &[$10^7$ M$_\odot$] &{ [pc]} & & $^\circ$ & ~ \\\hline\hline
IC\,2531 & $5077\pm262$ & $613\pm46$ & $6997\pm2213$ & $311\pm109$ & $4\pm1.3$ & $5451\pm1775$ & $0.78\pm0.22$ & $88.7\pm0.8$ & $5.6\pm1.0$ & G\\
IC\,5052 (left) & $857\pm68$ & $124\pm80$ & $1500\pm3655$ & $600\pm15$ & $0.5\pm0.44$ & $1600\pm518$ & $0.25\pm0.02$ & $86.0\pm1.7$ & $0.5\pm0.2$ & M \\
IC\,5052 (right) & $1617\pm129$ & $781\pm299$ & $6664\pm2042$ & $523\pm96$ & $0.01\pm0.5$ & $2149\pm45$ & $0.16\pm0.05$ & $87.7\pm1.0$ & $0.5\pm0.0$ & B \\
IC\,5249 & $6828\pm340$ & $242\pm20$ & $4380\pm677$ & $372\pm67$ & $0.88\pm0.2$ & $4602\pm183$ & $0.22\pm0.01$ & $88.8\pm0.9$ & $2.9\pm0.2$ & G \\
ESO\,115-G021 & $1108\pm280$ & $149\pm101$ & $10515\pm2057$ & $432\pm69$ & $2.4\pm0.47$ & $3810\pm1159$ & $0.35\pm0.06$ & $86.0\pm0.7$ & $2.6\pm0.7$ & G\\
ESO\,138-G014 & $2288\pm59$ & $217\pm10$ & $3074\pm508$ & $509\pm34$ & $1.5\pm0.23$ & $5843\pm611$ & $0.18\pm0.01$ & $86.8\pm0.3$ & $3.7\pm0.3$ & G\\
ESO\,146-G014 & $5356\pm1384$ & $1000\pm422$ & $7115\pm1063$ & $525\pm58$ & $2.3\pm0.47$ & $3264\pm1356$ & $0.09\pm0.10$ & $86.0\pm0.0$ & $0.9\pm0.3$ & G \\
ESO\,274-G001 & $1270\pm59$ & $161\pm2$ & $11374\pm373$ & $472\pm33$ & $2.9\pm0.69$ & $4880\pm551$ & $0.06\pm0.02$ & $86.8\pm0.2$ & $0.6\pm0.1$ & G\\
UGC\,7321 & $2498\pm349$ & $187\pm80$ & $8568\pm1956$ & $600\pm139$ & $6.2\pm1.1$ & $2532\pm1013$ & $0.10\pm0.02$ & $90.0\pm1.1$ & $1.9\pm0.7$ & G \\\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption[Global properties of the stellar fits]{The global properties of the stellar fits per galaxy. QOF is the quality of the fit: Good, Moderate or Bad.}\label{tbl:stellar-main1}
\end{table*}
\subsection{On the $z$-distribution}
A key assumption in our model is the use of a double-exponential disk (see Equation 1).
This choice was made as a basis for the hydrostatic equilibrium calculations in Paper V.
Other functional forms for the vertical distribution were available, but were rejected as the quality of the observations does not allow us to distinguish accurately enough between the various forms.
To demonstrate this, we have present the vertical distribution of UGC\,7321 along a slice of the galaxy in Figure 13.
UGC\,7321 was one of our most succesful fits, and as such the profiles between the model and the observation match sufficiently well.
But even in this slice, there is difference in the quality of the fit.
The Wise2 fit has been very well reproduced.
Yet the R-band profile has been reproduced considerably less well, showing excess light futher above and beyond the plane.
The fits are influenced by the fact that the program tries to compensate for the local structures and contaminations (e.g. stray light due to field stars).
More accurate and less contaminated observations are required to accurately test which functional form of the vertical distribution works best.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\resizebox{0.32\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig13a.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.32\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig13b.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.32\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig13c.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.32\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig13d.jpg}}
\resizebox{0.32\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{Petersetal-IVfig13e.jpg}}
\caption{Profile of a vertical slice of UGC\,7321. The profile was taken at a distance of 28.4$^{\prime\prime}$ from the center of the galaxy. Solid lines represent the observation. Dashed lines the simulated galaxy. Zeropoint is uncalibrated.}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Discs and Bulges}
Let us now compare the global properties of the stellar discs.
Focusing on the seven good fits, the average stellar disc scale length in
our sample is $h_{R,*}=3.49\pm2.24$\,kpc, while the average scale height of
the stellar disc is $h_{z,*}=0.37\pm0.32$\,kpc.
As a comparison \citet{deGeyter2014} report $4.23\pm1.23$\,kpc and
$0.51\pm0.27$\,kpc for their 12 edge-on sample.
They also calculate the mean values for the 34 edge-on galaxies in
\citet{kkg02}, reporting $4.73\pm2.57$\,kpc and scale height of
$0.57\pm0.25$\,kpc.
That sample consists of Sa, Sb and Sc type galaxies, while ours
consists of mostly of Sd type galaxies (Table 2 of Paper I of this series).
IC\,5249 appears to be a unique galaxy in terms of scale length
to scale height ratio.
If we remove it from the sample, the averages becomes even more distinct with
$h_{R,*}=2.93\pm1.85$\,kpc and $h_{z,*}=0.38\pm0.28$\,kpc.
It is typically not expected that the scale lengths for disc galaxies depend
on Hubble morphological types between Sa and Sc \citep{dj96b, Graham2001A}.
However, for Scd and Sd galaxies, it was demonstrated using face-on galaxies
that the scale length tends to be significantly shorter \citep{Fathi2010} and
our results are within expectations, although the range we find is large,
the mean is still less than the values we just quoted for Sa to Sc galaxies.
If we now focus on the scale length over scale height ratio, we find an
average of $h_{R,*}/h_{z,*}=11.6\pm7.76$.
IC\,5249 has the by far highest value at 28.2, which makes it a `super
thin' disc.
Removing this one galaxy, the average ratio becomes $h_{R,*}/h_{z,*}=8.81\pm2.78$.
A very similar value of $h_{R,*}/h_{z,*}=8.26\pm3.44$ was reported by
\citet{deGeyter2014} for their own sample, and a value of
$h_{R,*}/h_{z,*}=8.21\pm2.36$ for the \citet{kkg02} sample.
We conclude that our measurements are, with the
possible exception of IC\,5249, in good agreement with their samples.
Looking at the bulges, we find a typical bulge effective radius of
$R_e=4.34\pm1.19$\,kpc.
This is longer than reported by \citet{deGeyter2014}, who reports
the value of $R_e=2.31\pm1.59$\,kpc.
This was already large compared to the 1000 galaxies sample of
\citet{Gadotti2009}, who reported $R_e=0.84\pm0.36$\,kpc.
It was argued by \citet{deGeyter2014} that this difference is
due to the lack of dust attenuation correction in \citet{Gadotti2009},
and due to the lack of a treatment of bars in their own work.
The \citet{Gadotti2009} sample does not contain many Sd galaxies; there
might be different averages that apply for an Sd sample.
However, given our results from the previous section, we argue that it is
more likely that our bulges are not fitted very reliably.
The average S\'ersic index we find is $2.6\pm1.7$, which is consistent with
the $2.37\pm1.35$ reported by \citet{deGeyter2014}. As we
poinbted out above, there is a real
possibility that our bulge components really are the brighter parts of a thick
disk.
\subsection{Dust}
Most of the galaxies in our sample are slow rotators.
The Sd type galaxies have a maximum circular rotation of
$v_\textrm{max}=131.9$\,km/s.
Only IC\,2531 has a much higher rotation of $v_\textrm{max}=260.5$\,km/s
(Table 4 of Paper I).
\citet{Dalcanton2004} found that for galaxies rotating slower than a
circular velocity of $v_\textrm{max}\!\sim\!120$\,km/s, no dust lane forms.
Instead, the dust settles in more clumpy structure.
Inspecting the images of the galaxies, we can confirm this distinction as
well in our own sample, although it is hard to distinguish for the discs
just above 120\,km/s.
The average dust scale length and scale height are $h_{R,d}=4.34\pm1.19$\,kpc
and $h_{z,d}=0.46\pm0.01$\,kpc, while the ratio between the two is on average
$h_{R,d}/h_{z,d}=10.1\pm4.4$.
A typical dust scale length and height of $h_{R,d}=6.03\pm2.92$ and
$h_{z,d}=0.23\pm0.10$ was reported by \citet{deGeyter2014}.
For the scale height similar values of $h_{z,d}=0.23\pm0.08$\,kpc and
$h_{z,d}=0.25\pm0.11$ were reported by \citet{Xilouris1999} and
\citet{Bianchi2007}.
Our galaxies thus typically have a thicker dust layer than the
samples of these authors.
\citet{Dalcanton2004} argued that for discs rotating slower than
a circular velocity of $v_\textrm{max}\!\sim\!120$\,km/s the dust
would follow a thicker distribution than the faster rotating sample.
Indeed, most of our galaxies are below or near a circular velocity
of 120\,km/s.
Taking the three galaxies with circular velocities above 130\,km/s,
we have an average scale length to scale height ratio of
$h_{R,d}/h_{z,d}=13.8\pm3.3$, compared to $h_{R,d}/h_{z,d}=7.4\pm2.7$
for the other four.
The sample of \citet{deGeyter2014} has a mean ratio of $h_{R,d}/h_{z,d}=26.2$,
which is much closer to our fast rotating galaxy at $h_{R,d}/h_{z,d}=17.5$.
However, UGC\,7321 with a maximum circular velocity of
$v_\textrm{max}=128$\,km/s has a very different ratio of $h_{R,d}/h_{z,d}=4.2$.
This galaxy also has the most dust mass of the sample,
with $6.2\times10^7$\,M$_\odot$, compared to the average of
$2.8\pm1.82\times10^7$\,M$_\odot$ for the entire sample.
There is no distinction in terms of dust mass to be made
between the slow and quick rotators.
The dust scale length to stellar scale length ratio is on
average $h_{R,d}/h_{R,*}=1.88\pm1.37$ in our sample.
This is compatible to the $h_{R,d}/h_{R,*}=1.73\pm0.83$ reported
by \citet{deGeyter2014}.
\citet{Xilouris1999} reports $h_{R,d}/h_{R,*}=1.36\pm0.17$ and
\citet{Bianchi2007} finds $h_{R,d}/h_{R,*}=1.53\pm0.55$, both values
are compatible with ours.
The dust scale height to stellar scale height ratio we report is
$h_{z,d}/h_{z,*}=1.99\pm1.15$.
Although compatible, this is much higher than the value of
$h_{z,d}/h_{z,*}=0.55\pm0.22$ reported by \citet{deGeyter2014}, the
$h_{z,d}/h_{z,*}=0.58\pm0.13$ reported by \citet{Xilouris1999} and the
$h_{z,d}/h_{z,*}=0.52\pm0.49$ reported by \citet{Bianchi2007}.
We thus find that the dust to stellar scale length ratio of our
late-type galaxies sample is compatible to more early-type samples;
the dust to stellar scale height ratio is far higher.
The dust in our slow rotating galaxies sample forms into a much thicker
disc, as predicted by \citet{Dalcanton2004}.
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:stellarconclusions}
In this paper, we have attempted to fit the bulge and disc of eight edge-on
dwarf galaxies using \textsc{FitSKIRT} automatically.
The quality of our fit varies, mostly due to limited quality of the available
data and the intrinsic low luminosity of these galaxies.
Despite this, we have successfully recovered the stellar discs in seven out
of eight of the galaxies in our sample.
The results for the bulges are less reliable, which is most likely
due to a lack of an accurate description for bars in the code.
We have also successfully measured the dust distribution in these seven
galaxies.
The average dust scale length to stellar scale length is compatible with
other samples, but our dust scale height to stellar scale height ratio is
far higher than in typical other samples.
The HI mass to light ratio $M_\textsc{Hi} /L_R$ varies drastically between the
various galaxies.
It is only 0.2 in ESO\,274-G001, yet 12.5 in ESO\,115-G021.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
SPCP is grateful to the Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, USA, the
Research School for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University,
Canberra, Australia, and the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, La Laguna,
Tenerife, Spain, for hospitality and support during short and extended
working visits in the course of his PhD thesis research. He thanks
Roelof de Jong and Ron Allen for help and support during an earlier
period as visiting student at Johns Hopkins University and
the Physics and Astronomy Department, Krieger School of Arts and Sciences
for this appointment.
PCK thanks the directors of these same institutions and his local hosts
Ron Allen, Ken Freeman and Johan Knapen for hospitality and support
during many work visits over the years, of which most were
directly or indirectly related to the research presented in this series op
papers.
Work visits by SPCP and PCK have been supported by an annual grant
from the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences of
the University of Groningen to PCK accompanying of his distinguished Jacobus
C. Kapteyn professorhip and by the Leids Kerkhoven-Bosscha Fonds. PCK's work
visits were also supported by an annual grant from the Area of Exact
Sciences of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) in
compensation for his membership of its Board.
|
\section{Yang-Mills theory}
\noindent {\bf Lie (super)groups.}
In our approach the Green-Schwarz superstring action can be obtained from Yang-Mills theory in
four dimensions with a supergroups as structure group (cf.~\cite{11, 12, 13}).
However, here we mainly restrict ourselves to deriving the bosonic part of superstring actions,
similarly as in~\cite{1,2,3}. This will make the discussion simpler and clearer.
Green-Schwarz actions for various target spaces and the corresponding Lie supergroups will be briefly discussed in Section~4.
For the Yang-Mills structure group we consider a Lie group $G$ with a closed subgroup $H$. Then, for the
Lie algebras ${\mathfrak g} =\,$Lie$\,G$ and ${\mathfrak h} =\,$Lie$\,H$ we have\footnote{
This splitting will be used later in defining a boundary condition for gauge connections.}
\begin{equation}\label{1}
{\mathfrak g}={\mathfrak h}\oplus{\mathfrak m}\ ,
\end{equation}
where ${\mathfrak m}$ is the orthogonal complement of ${\mathfrak h}$ in ${\mathfrak g}$ with respect to a metric $\<\;,\,\>$ on ${\mathfrak g}$.
For matrix (super)algebras, $\<X,Y\>=\textrm{(S)}\textrm{tr}(XY)$ is the ordinary trace or supertrace.
For additive groups like $\mathbb R^k$, it denotes the ordinary metric on vector spaces.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Gauge fields.} We consider Yang-Mills theory on a direct product manifold
\begin{equation}
M^4=\Sigma_2\times T_p^2 \qquad\textrm{with coordinates}\quad
(x^\mu )=(x^a, x^i) \quad\textrm{for}\quad a=1,2 \quad\textrm{and}\quad i=3,4\ ,
\end{equation}
where
$\Sigma_2$ is a two-dimensional Lorentzian manifold with a metric tensor $g^{}_{\Sigma_2}=(g_{ab})$, and
$T^2_p=T^2\setminus\{p\}$ is a two-dimensional torus with a point $p$ removed (the puncture) and a
metric $g^{}_{T^2}=(g_{ij})$. We will just write $T^2$ (omitting the puncture) since we do not consider
other tori in this paper. Then the metric tensor on $M^4$ reads $(g_{\mu\nu})= (g_{ab}, g_{ij} )$ with
$\mu,\nu = 1,\ldots,4$. Fixing momentarily the size of~$T^2$, det$(g_{ij})=1$, the metric $g^{}_{T^2}$
still depends on the complex shape parameter~$\tau$. For simplicity we choose the square torus $\tau=\textrm{i}$,
i.e.~we identify $x^i\sim x^i+1$ for both homology circles.
We consider a topologically trivial bundle over $M^4$ (the principal $G$-bundle $P$ and an associated vector bundle
$E\to M^4$) with a gauge potential ${\cal A} ={\cal A}_{\mu}\textrm{d} x^\mu$ (a connection) taking values in ${\mathfrak g}$.
The ${\mathfrak g}$-valued gauge field (the curvature) reads
\begin{equation}\label{2}
{\cal F} =\sfrac12{\cal F}_{\mu\nu}\textrm{d} x^\mu \wedge \textrm{d} x^\nu\quad\textrm{with}\quad {\cal F}_{\mu\nu} =\partial_\mu{\cal A}_\nu -
\partial_\nu{\cal A}_\mu
+ [{\cal A}_\mu , {\cal A}_\nu]\ .
\end{equation}
On $M^4=\Sigma_2\times T^2$ we have the obvious splitting
\begin{equation}\label{3}
\textrm{d} s^2 = g_{\mu\nu}\textrm{d} x^\mu \textrm{d} x^\nu = g_{ab}\textrm{d} x^a \textrm{d} x^b + g_{ij}\textrm{d} x^i \textrm{d} x^j\ ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{4}
{\cal A} ={\cal A}_{\mu}\textrm{d} x^\mu={\cal A}^{}_{\Sigma_2} + {\cal A}^{}_{T^2}= {\cal A}_{a}\textrm{d} x^a+{\cal A}_{i}\textrm{d} x^i\ ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{5}
{\cal F} =\sfrac12{\cal F}_{ab}\textrm{d} x^a \wedge \textrm{d} x^b + {\cal F}_{ai}\textrm{d} x^a \wedge \textrm{d} x^i
+\sfrac12{\cal F}_{ij}\textrm{d} x^i \wedge \textrm{d} x^j\ .
\end{equation}
We note that there are mixed components ${\cal F}_{ai}$ in (\ref{5}).
Let us now deform the metric (\ref{3}) and introduce
\begin{equation}\label{6}
\textrm{d} s^2_\varepsilon = g_{\mu\nu}^\varepsilon\,\textrm{d} x^\mu \textrm{d} x^\nu = g_{ab}\textrm{d} x^a \textrm{d} x^b + \varepsilon^2 g_{ij}\textrm{d} x^i \textrm{d} x^j
\qquad\textrm{hence}\quad g^\varepsilon_{ab}= g_{ab} \quad\textrm{and}\quad g^\varepsilon_{ij}= \varepsilon^2 g_{ij}\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon\in [0, \infty )$ is a dimensionless real parameter. Then $\det (g_{\mu\nu}^\varepsilon )=\varepsilon^4\det (g_{ab})$ and
\begin{equation}\label{7}
{\cal F}^{ab}_\varepsilon = g_\varepsilon^{ac}g_\varepsilon^{bd}{\cal F}_{cd}= {\cal F}^{ab}\ ,\quad {\cal F}^{ai}_\varepsilon = g_\varepsilon^{ac}g_\varepsilon^{ij}{\cal F}_{cj}=
\varepsilon^{-2}{\cal F}^{ai}\ ,\quad
{\cal F}^{ij}_\varepsilon = g_\varepsilon^{ik}g_\varepsilon^{jl}{\cal F}_{kl}=\varepsilon^{-4}{\cal F}^{ij}\ ,
\end{equation}
where the indices in ${\cal F}^{\mu\nu}$ are raised by the nondeformed metric tensor~$g^{\mu\nu}$.
One can introduce on $T^2$ adapted coordinates $y^i=\varepsilon x^i$ for which $y^i\sim y^i+\varepsilon$.
In other words, the deformation reintroduces the size modulus of $T^2$:
for $\varepsilon^2\to 0$ the torus shrinks to a point.\footnote{
It is usually assumed that ${\cal A}_\mu$ and ${\cal F}_{\mu\nu}$ smoothly depend on $\varepsilon^2$
with a well-defined limit for $\varepsilon^2\to 0$.}
This limit is equivalent to the low-energy limit of gauge theory on $\Sigma_2\times T^2$~\cite{8}.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Yang-Mills action.} For the deformed metric (\ref{6}) the Yang-Mills action functional is
\begin{equation}\label{8}
S_\varepsilon=\int_{M^4} \textrm{d}^4x\,\sqrt{|\det g^{}_{\Sigma_2}|}\,\left\{\varepsilon^2\langle{\cal F}_{ab}, {\cal F}^{ab}\rangle
+ 2\langle{\cal F}_{ai}, {\cal F}^{ai}\rangle + \varepsilon^{-2}\langle{\cal F}_{ij}, {\cal F}^{ij}\rangle\right\}\ .
\end{equation}
For $\varepsilon^2=1$ one has the standard Yang-Mills Lagrangian on $M^4=\Sigma_2\times T^2$ with the nondeformed metric
(\ref{3}), and for $\varepsilon^2\to 0$ it reduces to a stringy sigma-model action on $\Sigma_2$ as we will see in a moment.
We play with the metric on $T^2$, but the metric on $\Sigma_2$ can be dynamical,
i.e.~the Yang-Mills model is coupled to (two-dimensional) gravity.
Therefore, one can add to the Lagrangian in (\ref{8}) the term
\begin{equation}\label{9}
\sqrt{|\det g^{}_{M^4_{\varepsilon}}|}\,R^{}_{M^4_{\varepsilon}}\=\varepsilon^2\sqrt{|\det g^{}_{\Sigma_2}|}\,R^{}_{\Sigma_2}\ ,
\end{equation}
where $R^{}_{M^4_{\varepsilon}}$ and $R^{}_{\Sigma_2}$ are the scalar curvatures of $M^4$ and of $\Sigma_2$, respectively,
with the metric (\ref{6}).
The term (\ref{9}) does not contribute to the equations of motion since integration of (\ref{9}) over $M^4$ gives
a topological invariant of ${\Sigma_2}$. This is not so if we couple (\ref{9}) with the dilaton field $\Phi$, but anyway the term
(\ref{9}) vanishes in the limit $\varepsilon^2\to 0$ which we consider. For this reason we do not add (\ref{9}) to the Yang-Mills
Lagrangian in (\ref{8}).
The Yang-Mills equations following from (\ref{8}) are
\begin{equation}\label{10}
\varepsilon^2 D_a{\cal F}^{ab} + D_i{\cal F}^{ib} \=0\ ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{11}
D_a{\cal F}^{aj} + \varepsilon^{-2} D_i{\cal F}^{ij} \=0\ ,
\end{equation}
where $D_a, D_i$ are Yang-Mills covariant derivatives on the curved background $M^4=\Sigma_2\times T^2$.
The Euler-Lagrange equations for $g^{}_{\Sigma_2}$ yield the constraint equations
\begin{equation}\label{12}
T_{ab}^{\varepsilon}\ \equiv\ \varepsilon^2\bigl(g^{cd}\langle{\cal F}_{ac},{\cal F}_{bd}\rangle{-}
\sfrac14 g_{ab}\langle{\cal F}_{cd},{\cal F}^{cd}\rangle\bigr){+}g^{ij} \langle{\cal F}_{ai},{\cal F}_{bj}\rangle{-}\sfrac12
g_{ab}\langle{\cal F}_{ci},{\cal F}^{ci}\rangle{-}\sfrac14 \varepsilon^{-2}g_{ab}\langle{\cal F}_{ij},{\cal F}^{ij}\rangle\=0
\end{equation}
for the Yang-Mills energy-momentum tensor $T_{\mu\nu}^{\varepsilon}$, i.e.~its components along $\Sigma_2$ are vanishing.
Its other components, $T_{ij}^{\varepsilon}$ or $T_{aj}^{\varepsilon}$, are not constrained.
Note that we might employ the invariance under diffeomorphisms on $\Sigma_2$ to locally fix its metric,
e.g., to a flat metric in the conformal gauge. Nevertheless, (\ref{12}) must be added as an external constraint.
\section{Low-energy effective action}
\noindent {\bf Adiabatic limit.} As usual in the adiabatic approach (see e.g.~\cite{16,17}), we assume that
the connection ${\cal A}$ for small $\varepsilon^2$ can be expanded in a Taylor series in $\varepsilon^2$, i.e.
${\cal A} ={\cal A}^0+\varepsilon^2{\cal A}^1 + O(\varepsilon^4)$. In particular, ${\cal A}^{}_{T^2} ={\cal A}^0_{T^2}
+\varepsilon^2{\cal A}^1_{T^2} + O(\varepsilon^4)$ and therefore
\begin{equation}\label{3.1}
{\cal F}_{ij}\={\cal F}_{ij}^0 +\varepsilon^2(D^0_i{\cal A}^1_j-D^0_j{\cal A}^1_i) + O(\varepsilon^4)\ ,
\end{equation}
where $D^0_i=\partial_i +[{\cal A}^0_i, \cdot ]$ and ${\cal F}_{ij}^0=[D^0_i,D^0_j]$. From (\ref{8}) one sees that the term
$\varepsilon^{-2}\langle{\cal F}_{ij}^0,{\cal F}^{0\,ij}\rangle$ in the Yang-Mills action diverges when $\varepsilon^2\to 0$. To
avoid this one should impose the condition
\begin{equation}\label{3.2}
{\cal F}_{ij}^0=0
\end{equation}
on the components of the Yang-Mills field along $T^2$. We denote by ${\cal M}^{}_{T^2}$ the moduli space of solutions
(flat connections) to the equations (\ref{3.2}) on $T^2$ with a puncture at $p$. It is known (see e.g.~\cite{17,18}) that
terms of order $\varepsilon^{2k}$ in ${\cal A}^{}_{T^2}$ for $k\ge 1$ are orthogonal to ${\cal M}^{}_{T^2}$ and
yield some massive modes in the effective theory on $\Sigma_2$. A consideration of these modes goes beyond the scope of
this paper. In the limit $\varepsilon^2\to 0$ we keep only ${\cal A}^0$ and ${\cal F}^0$ (zero-mode moduli approximation),
and from now on we omit the index ``0'' in connection ${\cal A}^0$ and the curvature ${\cal F}^0$.
In the adiabatic approximation (when $\varepsilon^2\to 0$), the Yang-Mills action (\ref{8}) becomes
\begin{equation}\label{3.3}
S_0\ =\int_{M^4} \textrm{d}^4x\,\sqrt{|\det g^{}_{\Sigma_2}|}\,\langle{\cal F}_{ai},{\cal F}^{ai}\rangle\ .
\end{equation}
As equations of motion one gets
\begin{equation}\label{3.4}
D_i{\cal F}^{ib}\ \equiv\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\det g^{}_{\Sigma_2}|}}\,\partial_i\left(\sqrt{|\det g^{}_{\Sigma_2}|}\,g^{ab}g^{ij}{\cal F}_{aj}\right)
+ [{\cal A}_i , {\cal F}^{ib}]\=0\ ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{3.5}
D_a{\cal F}^{aj}\ \equiv\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\det g^{}_{\Sigma_2}|}}\,\partial_a\left(\sqrt{|\det g^{}_{\Sigma_2}|}\,g^{ab}g^{ij}{\cal F}_{ib}\right)
+ [{\cal A}_a , {\cal F}^{aj}]\=0\ .
\end{equation}
The constraint equations (\ref{12}) in the limit $\varepsilon^2\to 0$ have the form
\begin{equation}\label{3.6}
T^0_{ab}\ \equiv\ g^{ij} \langle{\cal F}_{ai},{\cal F}_{bj}\rangle -\sfrac12
g_{ab}\langle{\cal F}_{ci},{\cal F}^{ci}\rangle \=0\ .
\end{equation}
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Flat connection on $T^2$.} It is well known that on smooth tori $T^2$
(compact, without punctures) there are no irreducible flat connections ${\cal A}^{}_{T^2}\in {\mathfrak g}$~\cite{19}.
There exist only reducible flat connections which are constant and take values in the Cartan subalgebra
of ${\mathfrak g}$ (see e.g.~\cite{8}). This so-called ``abelianization" theorem is widely used in the literature
on Yang-Mills confinement on $\mathbb R^3\times S^1$ and $\mathbb R^2\times T^2$. However, this theorem
is not valid on Riemann surfaces with punctures or fixed points (see e.g.~\cite{20,21,22}). In particular, on
tori $T^2$ with a puncture one can find irreducible flat connections on $G$-bundles over $T^2$~\cite{21}, and
the same is true for higher genus (see e.g.~\cite{21,22}).\footnote{Irreducible flat connections on complex
vector bundles over smooth Riemann surfaces define {\it stable} holomorphic bundles. For vector bundles over Riemann
surfaces with punctures, stability is replaced with Seshadri's notion of parabolic stability~\cite{20,21}.}
Flat connections, i.e.~solutions of (\ref{3.2}), on a torus $T^2$ with a puncture can be described as
follows~\cite{21}.
The puncture $p\in T^2$ can be considered as infinity similar to the north pole on the two-sphere $S^2$,
and one can introduce cylindrical coordinates $(\varrho, \theta)$ on a small disk centered at $p$ via
$x^3=\exp(-\varrho)\cos\theta$ and $x^4=\exp(-\varrho)\sin\theta$.
The group of gauge transformations is defined as the Banach Lie group
\begin{equation}\label{3.7}
{\cal G}^{}_{T^2}\= \bigl\{ \,\textrm{smooth maps}\,g: \ T^2\to G\,\bigr\}\ ,
\end{equation}
whose topology is described in~\cite{21,22}.
On the flat connections ${\cal A}^{}_{T^2}$ we impose the boundary condition
\begin{equation}\label{3.8}
{\cal A}^{}_{T^2}={\cal A}_\varrho\textrm{d}\varrho + {\cal A}_\theta\textrm{d}\theta\quad\to\quad
{\cal A}_p=a\,\textrm{d}\theta\quad\quad\textrm{for}\quad \varrho\to\infty\ .
\end{equation}
Here $a$ is either an arbitrary element of ${\mathfrak m}$ for the decomposition ${\mathfrak g}={\mathfrak h}\oplus{\mathfrak m}$ introduced in (\ref{1}),
or $a=g_p h_0 g_p^{-1}$, where $h_0\in{\mathfrak h}$ is fixed and $g_p\in G/H$ is arbitrary.
Then ${\cal A}_p$ is parametrized by $g_0=\exp(2\pi a)\in G/H$ for $a\in{\mathfrak m}$ or $g_p\in G/H$,
where the case $H=\{\mathrm{Id}\}$ is included.
If we denote by ${\cal N}$ the space of all such flat connections then their moduli space is
\begin{equation}\label{3.9}
{\cal M} \= {\cal N}/ {\cal G}^{}_{T^2}\= G/H \ .
\end{equation}
In other words, the gauge group (\ref{3.7}) forms the fibres over points in ${\cal M}$ for the bundle
\begin{equation}\label{3.11}
\begin{CD}
\pi :\quad {\cal N} @>{{\cal G}^{}_{T^2}}>> {\cal M} = G/H\ .
\end{CD}
\end{equation}
Note that, if $G/H$ is a adjoint orbit, e.g.~the K\"ahler coset space
\begin{equation}\label{3.11a}
G/H = \mbox{U}(N)/ \mbox{U}(N_1)\times ...\times \mbox{U}(N_k) \quad\textrm{with}\quad N_1+...+N_k=N \ ,
\end{equation}
then ${\cal M}$ is the moduli space of irreducible flat connections on vector bundles with parabolic structure
(see~\cite{20, 21} for more details).
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Moduli space. } We endow our moduli space ${\cal M}$ of flat connections on a punctured $T^2$ with
local coordinates~$(\phi^\alpha)$, with $\alpha=1,\ldots,\textrm{dim}({\cal M})$. In the adiabatic
approach, the moduli approximation assumes that $\phi^\alpha$ depend on $x^a\in \Sigma_2$~[14,4--10]
In this way, the moduli of flat connections on $T^2$ define a map
\begin{equation}\label{3.12}
\phi :\quad \Sigma_2\ {\to}\ {\cal M} \qquad\textrm{via}\quad (x^a)\mapsto \{\phi^\alpha (x^a)\}
\qquad\textrm{so that}\quad {\cal A}^{}_{T^2} ={\cal A}^{}_{T^2} (\phi^\alpha (x^a), x^i)\ .
\end{equation}
Now our space ${\cal N}$ of solutions to (\ref{3.2}) depends on $x\in\Sigma_2$ as well as on elements $g$ of the gauge group
${\cal G}^{}_{T^2}$. In fact, for any fixed $x\in \Sigma_2$ and ${\cal G}^{}_{x}={\cal G}^{}_{T^2}(x^a)$,
the gauge group ${\cal G}$ of the full theory on $M^4=\Sigma_2\times T^2$ coincides with ${\cal G}^{}_{T^2}$.
Said differently, for any fixed $x\in \Sigma_2$ we have a copy of the moduli space ${\cal M}_x={\cal N}_x/ {\cal G}_x \cong G/H$
of flat connections on $T^2$.
The maps (\ref{3.12}) are not arbitrary -- they are constrained by the equations (\ref{3.4})-(\ref{3.6}). Since
${\cal A}^{}_{T^2}$ is a flat connection on $T^2$ for {\it any\/} point in $\Sigma_2$, the derivatives $\mbox{$\partial$}_a{\cal A}_i$ have to satisfy
the linearized (around ${\cal A}_i$) flatness equations (\ref{3.2}). In other words, $\mbox{$\partial$}_a{\cal A}_i$ belong to the
tangent space $T^{}_{{\cal A}}{\cal N}$ of the solution space ${\cal N}$. Using the projection (\ref{3.11}),
one can orthogonally decompose $\mbox{$\partial$}_a{\cal A}_i$ into two parts,
\begin{equation}\label{3.13}
T^{}_{\cal A} {\cal N}\= \pi^*T^{}_{\cal A} {\cal M}\oplus T^{}_{\cal A} {\cal G} \qquad\Rightarrow
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{3.14}
\frac{\mbox{$\partial$}{\cal A}_i}{\mbox{$\partial$}\phi^\alpha}=\xi_{\alpha i} + D_i\epsilon_\alpha \qquad\Leftrightarrow\qquad
\mbox{$\partial$}_a{\cal A}_i =\frac{\mbox{$\partial$}\phi^\alpha}{\mbox{$\partial$} x^a}
\frac{\mbox{$\partial$}{\cal A}_i}{\mbox{$\partial$}\phi^\alpha}= (\mbox{$\partial$}_a \phi^\alpha)\xi_{\alpha i} + D_i\epsilon_a\ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{3.15}
\textrm{d} x^i D_i\epsilon_\alpha \in T^{}_{{\cal A}} {\cal G} \qquad\textrm{and}\qquad
\epsilon_a : =(\mbox{$\partial$}_a\phi^\alpha)\epsilon_\alpha \ ,
\end{equation}
i.e.~$\epsilon_\alpha$ are ${\mathfrak g}$-valued gauge parameters from the viewpoint of gauge theory on $T^2$,
and $\xi_{\alpha}=\xi_{\alpha i}\textrm{d} x^i \in T^{}_{\cal A} {\cal M}$ can be identified with vector fields on ${\cal M} =G/H$.
Thus, $\xi_{\alpha}$ correspond to generators from the subspace ${\mathfrak m}$ in the Lie-algebra decomposition
${\mathfrak g} ={\mathfrak h} \oplus {\mathfrak m}$.
The fields $\epsilon_a$ are determined by the gauge-fixing conditions
\begin{equation}\label{3.16}
g^{ij} D_i\xi^{}_{\alpha j}=0\qquad\Rightarrow\qquad g^{ij} D_iD_j\epsilon_a=g^{ij} D_i \mbox{$\partial$}_a{\cal A}_j \ .
\end{equation}
Note that, due to (\ref{3.2}), one can solve the first equation,
\begin{equation}
2\varepsilon^{ij}D_iD_j = \varepsilon^{ij}{\cal F}_{ij}=0 \qquad\Rightarrow\qquad \xi_{\alpha j}=\varepsilon_{j}^k D_k\xi_\alpha\ ,
\end{equation}
with $\varepsilon_{j}^k := g^{kl}\varepsilon_{lj}$ and $\varepsilon^{ij}= g^{ik} \varepsilon^{j}_k$.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Effective action. }
Recall that ${\cal A}_i$ obey (\ref{3.2}) and have the moduli space ${\cal M} =G/H$,
which parametrizes the boundary values of the connection at the puncture $p\in T^2$.
The case $H=\{\mathrm{Id}\}$ of a group manifold ${\cal M} = G$ is included.
On the other hand, the components ${\cal A}_a$ are yet free.
It is natural to identify them with $\epsilon_a$~\cite{9,15},\footnote{
In fact, $\epsilon_\alpha\textrm{d}\phi^\alpha$ in (\ref{3.14}) is a connection on a $G$-bundle over ${\cal M}$,
and $\epsilon_a\textrm{d} x^a$ from (\ref{3.15}) is the pull-back of the connection $\epsilon_\alpha\textrm{d}\phi^\alpha$ from the $G$-bundle over
${\cal M}$ to the $G$-bundle over $\Sigma_2$~\cite{9}. Therefore, ${\cal A}_a\textrm{d} x^a$ and $\epsilon_a\textrm{d} x^a$ are connections on the
same bundle over $\Sigma_2$, and it is natural to identify them.}
\begin{equation}\label{3.17}
{\cal A}_a=\epsilon_a \qquad\Rightarrow\qquad
{\cal F}_{ai}\=\mbox{$\partial$}_a{\cal A}_i - D_i{\cal A}_a \= (\mbox{$\partial$}_a\phi^{\alpha})\xi_{\alpha i}\ \in T^{}_{\cal A} {\cal M}\ .
\end{equation}
Substituting (\ref{3.17}) into (\ref{3.4}), we see that (\ref{3.4}) is resolved due to (\ref{3.16}).
Plugging (\ref{3.17}) into the action (\ref{3.3}), we get the effective sigma-model action
\begin{equation}\label{3.18}
S_0\ =\int_{\Sigma_2} \textrm{d} x^1 \textrm{d} x^2\,\sqrt{|\det g^{}_{\Sigma_2}|}\, g^{ab}\,\mbox{$\partial$}_a\phi^\alpha\,\mbox{$\partial$}_b\phi^\beta\,G_{\alpha\beta}\ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{3.19}
G_{\alpha\beta}(\phi,\tau )\ = \int_{T^2} \textrm{d} x^3 \textrm{d} x^4\, g^{ij}\,\langle\xi_{\alpha i},\xi_{\beta j}\rangle
\end{equation}
is a metric on the moduli space ${\cal M}$, and the argument~$\tau$ reminds us of a dependence on the shape of~$T^2$.
One can also show that the equations (\ref{3.5}) are equivalent to the
Euler-Lagrange equations for $\phi^\alpha$ following from (\ref{3.18}) (cf.~\cite{11}). Finally, substituting (\ref{3.17}) into (\ref{3.6}),
we arrive at
\begin{equation}\label{3.20}
\bigl( \delta_a^c\delta_b^d-\sfrac12g_{ab}g^{cd}\bigr)\,\mbox{$\partial$}_c\phi^\alpha\,\mbox{$\partial$}_d\phi^\beta\,G_{\alpha\beta} \= 0\ ,
\end{equation}
which can also be obtained from (\ref{3.18}) by varying the metric $g^{}_{\Sigma_2}$.
These are the Virasoro-type constraint equations.
\section{Examples}
\noindent
Here we briefly discuss examples of $d=10$ manifolds considered in the string literature.
The list is not complete and serves only illustrative purposes. Superstring theories in all these backgrounds can be
obtained from Yang-Mills theory via the adiabatic limit $\varepsilon^2\to 0$ as discussed in the previous section.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf AdS$_4\times{\mathbb C} P^3$. } The background
\begin{equation}\label{4.1}
G/H\=\mbox{AdS}_4\times{\mathbb C} P^3 \= \frac{\mbox{SO(3,2)}}{\mbox{SO(3,1)}}\times\frac{\mbox{SU(4)}}{\mbox{U(3)}}
\end{equation}
is considered in the context of the AdS$_4/$CFT$_3$ correspondence relating the IIA string in the coset (\ref{4.1})
with ${\cal N}{=}\,6$ super-Chern-Simons theory in three dimensions.
Here ${\mathbb C} P^3$ is the standard complex projective space fibered over $S^4$ with ${\mathbb C} P^1$-fibres,
\begin{equation}\label{4.2}
\begin{CD}
{\mathbb C} P^3 @>{{\mathbb C} P^1}>> S^4\ .
\end{CD}
\end{equation}
It has an integrable almost complex structure ${\cal J}_+$ defining (1,0)-forms $\omega^a$ on ${\mathbb C} P^3$ ($a=1,2,3$) via
${\cal J}_+\omega^a=\textrm{i}\omega^a$.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf AdS$_4\times{\mathbb C} P^3_{qK}$.} The background (\ref{4.1}) is not suitable for the consideration of heterotic
strings since the K\"ahler space ${\mathbb C} P^3$ has a U(3) holonomy. The situation is changed if one switches from the
integrable almost complex structure ${\cal J}_+$ on ${\mathbb C} P^3$ to a non-integrable one ${\cal J}_-$, which defines a
quasi-K\"ahler space ${\mathbb C} P^3_{qK}$ isomorphic to ${\mathbb C} P^3$ as a smooth manifold.
The (1,0)-forms $\Theta^a$ with respect to ${\cal J}_-$, obeying ${\cal J}_-\Theta^a=\textrm{i} \Theta^a$,
relate to the previous ones as follows~\cite{24},
\begin{equation}\label{4.4}
\Theta^1=\omega^{\bar 1}\ ,\quad\Theta^2=\omega^{\bar 2}\quad\textrm{and}\quad \Theta^3=\omega^3\ .
\end{equation}
The manifold ${\mathbb C} P^3_{qK}$, defined by ${\cal J}_-$ and the (1,0)-forms (\ref{4.4}), has the structure group
U(2)$\,\subset\,$SU(3), and its almost complex structure ${\cal J}_-$ is non-integrable due to torsion~\cite{24}.
Let $\Lambda$ be the radius of $S^4$ and $R$ be the radius of ${\mathbb C} P^1$ from (\ref{4.2}).
For $\Lambda^2=2R^2$ the space ${\mathbb C} P^3_{qK}$ is nearly K\"ahler and the torsion is totally antisymmetric.
Since the latter may then be identified with the $H$-field flux, such manifolds appear in heterotic string
compactifications with fluxes (see e.g.~\cite{25,26,27} and references therein).
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Resolved conifold.}
The resolved conifold ${\cal O} (-1)\oplus{\cal O} (-1)\to {\mathbb C} P^1$ can be obtained in our approach
by considering a moduli space of flat connections on the punctured $T^2$ of the form
\begin{equation}\label{4.10}
G/H \= \mathbb R^{3,1}\times \frac{\mbox{SU}(5)}{\mbox{U}(4)} \= \mathbb R^{3,1}\times {\mathbb C} P^4
\end{equation}
and restricting to the non-singular {\it quintic threefold\/} in $ {\mathbb C} P^4$
(the zeros of a homogeneous quintic polynomial in the homogeneous $ {\mathbb C} P^4$ coordinates)~\cite{28}.
The same trick can be employed in the approach of Shifman and Yung,
since $ {\mathbb C} P^N$ spaces are the standard moduli spaces of non-Abelian vortices (see reviews~\cite{4}-\cite{7}).
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Space $T^*S^3$}. One can always view the cotangent bundle $T^*K$ of a Lie group $K$ as a Lie group.
To this end, one performs a left trivialization (admitted by the parallelizability of $K$) and endows the resulting
trivial bundle $K\times (\textrm{Lie} K)^*$ with the semi-direct product $K\ltimes (\textrm{Lie} K)^*$ by using the coadjoint action of $K$ on
the space $(\textrm{Lie} K)^*$ dual to $\textrm{Lie} K$. In the case of $K=\;$SU(2) we can identify $su(2)^*$ with $su(2)$ and consider the
six-dimensional real group manifold SU(2)$\ltimes su(2)$, which is diffeomorphic to the deformed conifold $T^*S^3$.
Choosing a proper metric tensor $G_{\alpha\beta}$ on this space, one can obtain string theory on
$\mathbb R^{3,1}\times T^*S^3$ as the low-energy limit of Yang-Mills theory.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Flat $d=10$ superspace}.
For obtaining the Green-Schwarz superstring action (of type I, IIA or IIB) one should employ
supergroups $\tilde G$ instead of Lie groups $G$ which can be embedded in $\tilde G$ as bosonic subgroups,
$G\subset\tilde G$, and the infrared limit of the corresponding supergroup gauge theories.
This was demonstrated for superstrings in~\cite{11,13} and for supermembranes in~\cite{12}. Those papers
treated the moduli space of flat connections on the circle $S^1$ or on the disk $H^2$ with proper boundary conditions.
Here instead we use the moduli space of super-Lie-algebra valued flat connections on the punctured $T^2$.
This moduli space is a finite-dimensional supercoset space
\begin{equation}\label{4.11}
\tilde{\cal M} =\tilde G/H\ ,
\end{equation}
and the analysis is simpler than in~\cite{13} where moduli spaces were loop supercosets.
However, the derivation of the low-energy limit is so similar that we will not repeat it here
and describe only the final results.
So, for superstrings moving in Minkowski space $\mathbb R^{9,1}$, one should extend the bosonic Lie group of translation $G=\mathbb R^{9,1}$ to the supergroup (cf.~\cite{29})
\begin{equation}\label{4.12}
\tilde G \=\frac{N{=}2\,\mbox{SUSY}}{\mbox{SO}(9,1)}\ ,
\end{equation}
which is a subgroup of the $N{=}2$ super Poincar\'e group in ten dimensions generated by translations and $N{=}2$
supersymmetry transformations. Coordinates on $\tilde G$ are $(X^\Delta) = (X^\alpha, \theta^{Ap})$, where $X^\alpha$ with $\alpha =0,\ldots,9$
parametrize $\mathbb R^{9,1}$ and $\theta^{Ap}$ with $A=1,\ldots,32$ and $p=1,2$ are the components of two Mayorana-Weyl spinors $\theta^p$.
By considering Yang-Mills theory on $M^4=\Sigma_2\times T^2$ with $\tilde G$ as the gauge group and taking the
adiabatic $\varepsilon^2\to 0$ limit in (\ref{8}), we get a string moving in the moduli space $\tilde G$ of flat connections on
the punctured $T^2$. Its action functional reads
\begin{equation}\label{4.13}
S_0\ =\int_{\Sigma_2} \textrm{d} x^1 \textrm{d} x^2\,\sqrt{|\det g^{}_{\Sigma_2}|}\,g^{ab}\,\eta_{\alpha\beta}\,\Pi^\alpha_a\,\Pi^\beta_b\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\eta =(\eta_{\alpha\beta})$ is the Minkowski metric on $\mathbb R^{9,1}$, and
\begin{equation}\label{4.14}
\Pi^\Delta_a=(\Pi^\alpha_a\ ,\ \Pi^{Ap}_a) \quad\quad\textrm{with}\quad
\Pi^\alpha_a=\mbox{$\partial$}_aX^\alpha-\textrm{i}\delta_{pq}\bar\theta^p\gamma^\alpha\mbox{$\partial$}_a\theta^q \quad\textrm{and}\quad \Pi^{Ap}_a=\mbox{$\partial$}_a\theta^{Ap}
\end{equation}
are the components of one-forms $\Pi^\Delta= \textrm{d} x^a\Pi^\Delta_a$ on $\Sigma_2$ pulled back from one-forms $\textrm{d} X^\alpha$
and $\textrm{d}\theta^{Ap}$ on $\tilde G$. Finally, $\gamma^\alpha$ are $\gamma$-matrices in $\mathbb R^{9,1}$ and $\bar\theta^p:=(\theta^p)^\top C$,
where $C$ is the charge conjugation matrix.
The action (\ref{4.13}) is not yet the full Green-Schwarz action, which needs an additional Wess-Zumino-type term~\cite{30}.
This term may also be obtained from supergroup gauge theory, by extending $\Sigma_2$ and $T^2$ to a Lorentzian 3-manifold
$\Sigma_3$ with boundary $\mbox{$\partial$}\Sigma_3=\Sigma_2$ (as in~\cite{29}) and to a Riemannian 3-manifold $B^3$ with boundary $\mbox{$\partial$} B^3 = T^2$
(as in~\cite{13} for $H^2$). Then on $M^6=\Sigma_3\times B^3$ one can formulate the topological Yang-Mills term
\begin{equation}\label{4.15}
S_{W\! Z}\ =\int^{}_{\Sigma_3\times B^3} f_{\Gamma\Delta\Lambda}\
\hat{\cal F}^\Gamma\wedge\hat{\cal F}^\Delta\wedge\hat{\cal F}^\Lambda
\end{equation}
for a $\textrm{Lie}\tilde G$-valued gauge field $\hat{\cal F}$ on $M^6$,
where the structure constants $f_{\Gamma \Delta \Lambda}$ are given in~\cite{29}.
By the same calculations as in~\cite{13} one finds that in
the low-energy limit $\varepsilon^2\to 0$ the action (\ref{4.15}) reduces to a Wess-Zumino-type action functional~\cite{29,30} which
should be added to (\ref{4.13}) with a proper coefficient. Also, similarly to~\cite{13} one can show that the Kalb-Ramond
$B$-field appears from the topological term $\eta_{\alpha\beta} {\cal F}^{\alpha}{\wedge}{\cal F}^{\beta}$,
whose integral in the adiabatic limit $\varepsilon^2\to0$ becomes
\begin{equation}\label{4.15a}
\int_{M^4}^{} \textrm{d}^4x\, \varepsilon^{ab} \varepsilon^{ij}\langle{\cal F}_{ai},{\cal F}_{bj}\rangle \=
\int_{\Sigma_2} \textrm{d} x^1\textrm{d} x^2 \, \varepsilon^{cd}\, B_{\alpha\beta}\, \mbox{$\partial$}_c X^\alpha \mbox{$\partial$}_d X^\beta\ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{4.15b}
B_{\alpha\beta}\ = \int^{}_{T^2} \textrm{d} x^3\textrm{d} x^4 \,\varepsilon^{ij}\langle\xi_{\alpha i},\xi_{\beta j}\rangle
\end{equation}
are components of a two-form $\mathbb{B}=(B_{\alpha\beta})$ on the moduli space (\ref{4.12}).
\medskip
\noindent {\bf AdS$_5\times S^5$.} The coset space
\begin{equation}\label{4.16}
G/H \= \mbox{AdS}_5\times S^5 \= \frac{\mbox{SO}(4,2)}{\mbox{SO}(4,1)} \times \frac{\mbox{SO}(6)}{\mbox{SO}(5)}
\end{equation}
is important in the AdS$_5$/CFT$_4$ correspondence between type IIB strings on this coset space and
${\cal N}{=}\,4$ super-Yang-Mills theory on the boundary $\mathbb R^{3,1}$ of AdS$_5$. The group
$G=\mbox{SO}(4,2)\times\mbox{SO}(6)$ can be
embedded into the supergroup $\tilde G=\;$PSU(2,2$|$4), and the supercoset $\tilde G/H$ with
$H=\mbox{SO}(4,1)\times\mbox{SO}(5)$
is used for describing the superstring action~\cite{31}.
Considering gauge theory with the supergroup $\tilde G=\,$PSU(2,2$|$4)
on $M^4=\Sigma_2\times T^2$, we get in the $\varepsilon^2\to 0$ limit the moduli space $\tilde G/H$ of flat connections on $T^2$
as the string target space. Both (\ref{4.13}) and (\ref{4.15}) will apply
with a proper choice of $G_{\alpha\beta}$ and $f_{\Gamma \Delta \Lambda}$
on $G/H$ and ${\tilde G}/H$, because in this limit the non-vanishing
components of ${\cal F}$ (and $\hat{\cal F}$) are proportional to the pull-back
\begin{equation}\label{4.17}
L^\Delta =(\textrm{d} X^M)L^\Delta_M \quad\to\quad\Pi^\Delta = (\textrm{d} x^a)\Pi^\Delta_a
\qquad\textrm{where}\quad \Pi^\Delta_a=(\mbox{$\partial$}_a X^M)L^\Delta_M\ ,
\end{equation}
and the index $\Delta$ runs over the coset parts of the generators of $psu(2,2|4)$~\cite{31}. The explicit form
of the superstring action (both kinetic and WZ terms) in terms of $\Pi^\Delta_a$ can be found in~\cite{31}.
Similarly one can derive the full type IIA string action on AdS$_4\times{\mathbb C} P^3$ by considering supergroup gauge theory
on $\Sigma_2\times T^2$ with $\tilde G=\;$OSp(2,2$|$6) and $H=\;$SO(3,1)$\times$U(3).
Note that in (\ref{4.13}) one will have the metric $G_{\alpha\beta}$ on the coset $G/H$ instead of $\eta_{\alpha\beta}$.
\section{Conclusions}
\noindent
We have shown that the Yang-Mills action on the product of a two-dimensional Lorentzian manifold $\Sigma_2$
and a singly-punctured two-torus $T^2_p$, augmented by a topological term, flows to the Green-Schwarz
superstring action on the worldsheet~$\Sigma_2$ in the infrared limit, when $T^2_p$ shrinks to a point.
Upon choosing a supergroup $\tilde G$ as the gauge group and picking a closed subgroup~$H\subset\tilde G$,
the string target space becomes the supercoset $\tilde G/H$ as the moduli space of flat Yang-Mills connections on~$T^2_p$.
We mainly focused on the bosonic part of the superstring action because we want to emphasize the fundamental possibility
of receiving superstring sigma models in an infrared limit of corresponding suitable Yang-Mills theories.
A lot of backgrounds, including PSU(2,2$|$4)/SO(4,1)$\times$SO(5) and OSp(2,2$|$6)/SO(3,1)$\times$U(3),
may appear as moduli spaces of flat connections on $T^2_p$.
Various other backgrounds can be obtained by generalizing the $T^2_p$ factor to a Riemann surface~$\tilde\Sigma_2$
with punctures or boundaries, whose moduli space of flat connections will depend on the geometry and boundary conditions.
In the infrared limit of gauge theory on $\Sigma_2\times \tilde\Sigma_2$, this moduli space becomes the target space
of a string sigma model on~$\Sigma_2$, promising a fresh perspective on the string vacuum landscape.
Clearly, the relation between Yang-Mills and string theories deserve further study.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgements}
\noindent
This work was partially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft grant LE 838/13.
This article is based upon work from COST Action MP1405 QSPACE,
supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology).
\newpage
|
\part{Preliminaries}
\section{Introduction}
We consider the following equation:
\begin{equation}
u_{t}=u_{xx}+g(t,x,u,u_{x}), \label{r:main}
\end{equation
where $g$ satisfies the usual conditions guaranteeing local existence of solutions, given as (A1-3) below. In particular, we assume that $g$ is periodic in $t,x$, and consider solutions on the entire real line, without the assumption of decay to $0$ at infinity (the {\it extended, time-periodic case}). For the sake of completeness, we also cover less general cases of $g$ not depending on $t$ (the {\it autonomous case}), and for $x \in \mathbb{S}^1$ (the {\it bounded case}). A more precise setting is given below. For brevity, we frequently denote the considered cases with letters E or B (for extended vs. bounded), and P or A (time-periodic vs. autonomous).
We first briefly recall here results on geometric and topological dynamics of (\ref{r:main}). The asymptotics of (\ref{r:main}) on the bounded domain with separated boundary conditions has been studied in detail (see \cite{Joly10,Polacik:02} and references therein) and is reasonably well-understood. In particular, under assumptions (A1-3), for any global, uniformly bounded orbit, the $\omega$-limit set contains a single orbit (equilibria in the autonomous or a periodic orbit in the periodic case) (\cite{Polacik:02}, Theorem 4.2 and references therein). With periodic boundary conditions, i.e. in our setting in the B/A case and assuming (A1-3), Fiedler and Mallet-Paret \cite{Fiedler89} have shown that the $\omega$-limit set of any global, bounded solution projects to a plane, and then has the structure in accordance to the Poincar\'{e}-Bendixson theorem. That means that it consists of a single periodic orbit, or of equilibria and connecting (homoclinic and heteroclinic) orbits. Tere\v{s}\v{c}\'{a}k \cite{Terescak:94} has shown that in the B/P case, assuming (A1-3), the $\omega$-limit set of any global, bounded orbit also projects injectively and continuously into $\mathbb{R}^2$. The structure of the $\omega$-limit set can then be much more complex, as shown by Fiedler and Sandstede \cite{Fiedler:92,Sandstede:91}.
The structure of the attractor of (\ref{r:main}) on the bounded domain with separated or periodic boundary conditions in the autonomous case is as follows: the attractor is then generically Morse-Smale, and can in many cases be classified by the graph structure of the equilibria and their connections (\cite{Fiedler:12,Fiedler:14,Joly10,Polacik:02} and references therein). Similar questions in the B/P case, and the extended case seem to be currently beyond reach. When assuming decay to $0$ at infinity, the dynamics in some cases (for example for $g$ not depending on $x,u_x$ \cite{Feireisl:00}) is similar to the dynamics on the bounded domain with separated boundary conditions, i.e. uniformly bounded orbits then converge to a single periodic solution. If there is no decay to zero at infinity, the attractor seems to be typically infinite dimensional (assuming sufficiently weak topology so that uniformly locally bounded orbits are relatively compact, see Section \ref{s:prelim}), and the asymptotics can be very complex even in the "extended gradient case" (see \cite{Polacik:15} and references therein, also Subsection \ref{ss:AllenCahn}).
While the ergodic theory of PDE's has received much less attention than the topological and geometrical perspective, it is a current area of research which is both physically and mathematically relevant to the dynamics of (\ref{r:main}).
Relevant and related recent ergodic-theoretical results include for example an extension of the notion of SRB measures to PDE's by Blumenthal and Young \cite{Blumenthal:15}, and results on almost-everywhere global existence of solutions with respect to a 'natural' measure e.g. by Nahmod, Pavlovi\'{c} and Staffilani for the Navier-Stokes equation \cite{Nahmod:12}, building on an approach of Bourgain \cite{Bourgain:96}. Specifically with regards to the equation (\ref{r:main}), Gallay and the author have shown that if the equation has in addition a formally gradient structure, then the invariant measures are supported on the set of equilibria \cite{Gallay:01, Slijepcevic:99, Slijepcevic00}. Zelik \cite{Zelik:03} has in the same case deduced that the topological entropy is thus 0.
In this paper we show that contrary to potentially very complex topological and geometric structure of the attractor, from the point of view of ergodic theory the dynamics of (\ref{r:main}) is in all the considered cases relatively simple. Specifically, we investigate the structure of the set of invariant (Borel probability) measures of (\ref{r:main}) on the phase space. In particular, we analyse the union of supports of all the invariant measures, a set which is a subset of the global attractor which we propose to call {\it ergodic attractor}. In all the considered cases, we show that the ergodic attractor projects one-to-one to $\mathbb{R}^2$ (subject to a technical restriction of finite average density of zeroes in the extended case, which we believe to be generically true and likely redundant), and that in many cases it is one-dimensional.
The dynamical relevance (and physical interpretation) of this is as follows: in the bounded case, the ergodic attractor contains all {\it $\omega$-limit sets on average} of all relatively compact orbits (Subsection \ref{ss:ergbounded}). The $\omega$-limit set on average has been proposed in the context of partial differential equations in \cite{Gallay:01}, and contains accumulation points of a relatively compact orbit for non-zero density of times. We argue that physically only these orbits are "observable" (Lemma \ref{l:observability}), thus the description of the ergodic attractor reasonably completely describes "observable" dynamics. In particular, the ergodic attractor contains any "chaos" if present \cite{Slijepcevic13a}. In the extended case, the ergodic attractor consists of "space-time observable" orbits (Subsection \ref{ss:ergextended}); contains the space-time chaos as constructed in \cite{Mielke09,Turaev10} if present \cite{Slijepcevic13a}; and frequently describes asymptotics of $\mu$-a.e. $u$ with respect to any Borel probability measure on the phase space invariant with respect to the spatial shift (see results for Burgers like equation below; also Subsections \ref{ss:extended} and \ref{ss:further}).
An example of an application of our results is a generalization of the results by Sinai \cite{Sinai:91} for the viscous, periodically forced Burgers equation:
\begin{equation}
u_t =u_{xx} - u\: u_x + \hat{g}(x,t), \label{r:burgers}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{g}$ is sufficiently smooth, periodic in $x$ and $t$, and such that for all $ t \in \mathbb{R}$, $\int_0^1 \hat{g}(x,t)dx = 0$. Sinai showed the following (extended to quasi-periodic forcing in \cite{Sinai:98}, higher dimensions on bounded domain and stochastic forcing in \cite{Sinai:96}, and to inviscid limit on bounded domain and stochastic forcing in \cite{E:00}):
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] Firstly, it was established that there is a unique solution of (\ref{r:burgers}) periodic in $x$ and $t$, denoted by $v^0(t)$, such that for any initial condition $u \in H^{2\alpha}(\mathbb{S}^1)$, $\int_0^1 u(x)dx=0$, we have that $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty}|u(x,t)-v^0(x,t)|=0$ (a pointwise convergence) (a special case of \cite{Sinai:91}, Theorem 1).
\item[(ii)] Secondly, such asymptotics is shown to hold also on the extended domain {\it for a.e. initial condition with respect to some probability measure} on the phase space, as long as the probability measure satisfies certain conditions (see Section \ref{burgers} for details).
\item[(iii)] Thirdly, each probability measure from (ii) converges in weak$^*$ topology with respect to the induced semiflow on the space of measures to the Dirac measure concentrated on $v^0$.
\end{itemize}
The main technique in \cite{E:00, Sinai:91,Sinai:96,Sinai:98} is the Cole-Hopf transformation, and the integral representation of the transformed solutions. As already noted in \cite[p347]{Sinai:96}, the key property of (\ref{r:burgers}) is that $\int_0^1 u(x)dx$ is the invariant. We show here that such invariance (the condition (B3) below) in essence suffices to establish (i) and versions of (ii) and (iii). We assume in addition only certain weak dissipativity conditions (B1-2) ensuring global existence and boundedness of solutions. We do not use here the Cole-Hopf transformation. Instead, our main technique is an extension of the zero-number techniques to measures (see the next subsection).
Finally, we argue that the techniques developed here also extend to the equation (\ref{r:main}) with an additional random force term such as for example considered in \cite{E:00,Sinai:98}, and also to discrete-space continuous-time, or discrete-space discrete-time 1d monotone systems without and with random force, as further discussed in Section \ref{s:open}. In particular, we hope that the main technique of the paper: the zero-function as a Lyapunov function with respect to evolution of measures induced by the dynamical system, can be useful in characterizing uniqueness of invariant measures, thus questions related to existence of physical and SRB measures in the deterministic case, and phase transitions in the random case of these models.
\section{Setting and statements of results}
\subsection{Setting and assumptions}
\label{ss:general}
We first specify the function spaces on which we consider (\ref{r:main}). In the bounded case, we consider $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}:=H^{2\alpha}(\mathbb{S}^1)$, where $\mathcal{X}:=L^2(\mathbb{S}^1)$, and $3/4 < \alpha < 1$ is such that $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$ is continuously embedded in $C^1(\mathbb{S}^1)$. In the {\it extended} case, the domain is the entire $\mathbb{R}$ without assuming decay to zero at infinity. The phase space is then the fractional uniformly local space $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}:=H^{2\alpha}_{\text{ul}}(\mathbb{R})$, where $\mathcal{X}^2_{\text{ul}}(\mathbb{R})$,
$\alpha$ is as above (see Appendix \ref{s:fractional} for key facts on uniformly local spaces), and then $H^{2\alpha}_{\text{ul}}(\mathbb{R})$ is continuously embedded in $C^1(\mathbb{R})$.
The bounded case may be considered as an invariant subset of the extended case, as $H^{2\alpha}(\mathbb{S}^1)$ embeds naturally in $H^{2\alpha}_{\text{ul}}(\mathbb{R})$ as the invariant set of spatially periodic solutions. We denote by $S : \mathcal{X}^{\alpha} \rightarrow \mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$ the spatial shift $Su(x)=u(x-1)$ (identity in the bounded case).
The standing assumptions on the nonlinearity $g:(t,x,u,\xi) \mapsto g(t,x,u,\xi)$ are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(A1)] $g$ is continuous in all the variables.
\item[(A2)] $g$ is locally H\"{o}lder continuous in $t$ and locally Lipschitz continuous in $(u,\xi)$.
\item[(A3)] $g$ is $1$-periodic in $x$ and $t$.
\end{itemize}
It is well-known that (A1-3) suffice for local existence of solutions in bounded and extended case to hold (Section \ref{s:prelim}). In addition, in the first part of the paper, we also assume:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(A4)] There exists a set $\mathcal{B}$, closed and bounded in $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$-norm, $S$-invariant in the extended case, such that if $u_0\in \mathcal{B}$, $t_0 \in \mathbb{R}$, and the solution of (\ref{r:main}), $u(t_0)=u_0$ exists on $(t_0,t_1)$, then for all $t \in (t_0,t_1)$ we have that $u(t)\in \mathcal{B}$.
\end{itemize}
As recalled in Section \ref{s:prelim}, conditions (A1-4) suffice for global existence and uniqueness of solutions of (\ref{r:main}) to hold. Furthermore, in the autonomous case (\ref{r:main}) generates a continuous semiflow on $\mathcal{B}$ denoted by $T(t)$, $t \geq 0$. In the periodic case, the time-one map $T:\mathcal{B} \rightarrow \mathcal{B}$ is continuous. Because of (A3) we have that $S$ and $T(t)$, resp. $T$ commute; and $S$ is continuous.
\begin{remark}
Sufficient conditions in various contexts for (A4) to hold are given in \cite{Lunardi:95}, Section 7 (see also \cite{Polacik:02} and references therein). These results also apply in the extended case, in the view of the comments in the Appendix \ref{s:fractional}.
\end{remark}
The notion of {\it invariance} throughout the paper will depend on the considered case: unless otherwise specified, an {\it invariant set} will be any set invariant with respect to all the actions in the Table \ref{t:table}:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lcc}
\text{Actions:} & \text{Autonomous (A)} & \text{Time-periodic (P)} \\
\text{Bounded (B)} & T(t), t\geq 0; & T \\
\text{Extended (E)} & T(t), \: t\geq 0 ;\: S & T;S\text{.
\end{array}
\label{t:table}
\end{equation
We always consider $\omega$-limit sets with respect to the semiflow $T(t)$, $t\geq 0$ in the autonomous case, and for the sequence of maps $T^n$, $n \in \mathbb{N}$ in the time-periodic case.
In the extended case, we will equip $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$ with a coarser topology, to ensure that all the orbits bounded in $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$ are relatively compact, so that we can consider asymptotics and invariant measures (see Section \ref{s:prelim} and Appendix \ref{s:fractional} for the choice of topology and a discussion). We define an {\it invariant measure} to be a Borel probability measure on $\mathcal{B}$, invariant with respect to all the actions in Table \ref{t:table}.
\subsection{Statements of the results: ergodic Poincar\'{e}-Bendixson theorems}
Denote by $\mathcal{E}$ the ergodic attractor, i.e. the union of supports of all the invariant measures. As $\mathcal{E}$ depends on the choice of $\mathcal{B}$ in (A4), we may occasionally write $\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{B})$; the argument $\mathcal{B}$ will be omitted when the chosen $\mathcal{B}$ is clear from the context. The main result in the bounded case is that the set $\mathcal{E}$ is not too large, i.e. that it is at most two dimensional:
\begin{thm} \label{t:main1} {\bf Ergodic Poincar\'{e}-Bendixson Theorem.}
Assume (A1-4) holds in the bounded case. Then $\mathcal{E}$ projects continuously and one-to-one to $\mathbb{R}^2$, with the projection $\pi : \mathcal{E} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$ given with
\begin{equation}
\pi(u_0)=(u_0(0), (u_0)_x(0)). \label{d:pi}
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
In the B/A case, this already follows from Fiedler and Mallet-Paret Poincar\'{e}-Bendixson theorem \cite{Fiedler89} (see Subsection \ref{ss:BDC} for further comments). In the B/P case, it seems new, and is complementary to the results of Tere\v{s}\v{c}ak \cite{Terescak:94}.
To establish an analogous result in the extended case, we require a technical condition of non-degeneracy of $\mathcal{E}$, by which we mean that the average density of zeroes on $\mathcal{E}$ is bounded. It is rigorously given in Definition \ref{d:nondegenerate}; we note here that it suffices that for any two $u_0,v_0 \in \mathcal{E}$,
\begin{equation}
\liminf_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{2n}\sum_{k=-n}^{n-1} z(S^ku_0,S^kv_0)< \infty, \label{d:density}
\end{equation}
where $z(u_0,v_0)$ is the number of zeroes of $u_0(x)-v_0(x)$ for $x\in [0,1)$ (a precise definition is given by (\ref{d:ZFD}) and (\ref{d:zfd})).
\begin{thm} \label{t:main1b} {\bf Extended Ergodic Poincar\'{e}-Bendixson Theorem.}
Assume (A1-4) holds in the extended case, and assume that $\mathcal{E}$ is non-degenerate. Then $\mathcal{E}$ projects continuously and one-to-one to $\mathbb{R}^2$, with the projection $\pi : \mathcal{E} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$ given with (\ref{d:pi})
\end{thm}
\begin{remark} Non-degeneracy of $\mathcal{E}$ is expected to hold generically, and possibly always. This follows from the results of Angenent and Chen \cite{Angenent:88,Chen:98}: as $\mathcal{E}$ consists of the entire solutions (Lemma \ref{l:properties}), we have that for any two $u_0,v_0 \in \mathcal{E}$, $z(u_0,v_0)$ is finite. We characterize non-degeneracy in Subsection \ref{ss:characterize} and give further sufficient conditions for it to hold in Subsection \ref{ss:nondeg}. For example, we show in Example \ref{e:nondeg} that non-degeneracy of $\mathcal{E}$ holds for non-linearities $g=-\partial V(x,u)/\partial u$, with $V\in C^2(\mathbb{R}^2)$ and bounded from below.
\end{remark}
We now outline the concept of the proof of Theorems \ref{t:main1} and \ref{t:main1b}. The main tool is the zero number lifted to the space of measures. The zero-number has been established as a tool to study dynamics of (\ref{r:main}) mainly due to Matano's work \cite{Matano:82} (see \cite{Polacik:02} and references therein for an overview). We say that a zero $u_0(x)-v_0(x)=0$ is multiple, if $(u_0)_x(x)-(v_0)_x(x)=0$. (We also say that $u_0$ and $v_0$ intersect transversally at $x$ if it is a simple, and non-transversally if it is a multiple zero.) In the bounded case, if $\mu_0$ is a Borel probability measure on $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$, we define the zero function of $\mu_0$ as
\begin{equation}
Z(\mu_0)=\int_{\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}}z(u_0,v_0)d\mu_0(u_0)d\mu_0(v_0). \label{d:zero}
\end{equation}
We will show that $Z$ on the space of Borel probability measures on $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$ has analogous properties to the zero-function $z$ on $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$ (\cite{Fiedler89,Polacik:02} and references therein): for any $t > 0$, $Z(\mu(t))$ is essentially finite\footnote{We can always adjust the "weights" in the ergodic decomposition to make it finite, see Lemma \ref{l:4_2}.} (where $\mu(t)$ is the evolution of $\mu(0)=\mu_0$ induced by (\ref{r:main}) on the space of measures); it is non-increasing; and if there is a multiple zero of $u_0-v_0$ for some $u_0,v_0$ in the support of $\mu(t)$, then $Z(\mu(t))$ is strictly decreasing at $t$ in the following sense: for all $\delta >0$, $Z(\mu(t+\delta))< Z(\mu(t-\delta))$.
Importantly, the same technique applies also in the extended case, if we consider {\it $S$-invariant measures}. First, we note that there are many $S$-invariant measures on $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$ which are not supported only on periodic functions: e.g. consider the Bernoulli measure on the space of bi-infinite sequences of $0,1$, and associate to each sequence a function $u$ by combining two arbitrary smooth profiles $u^0,u^1:[0,1] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, $u^0(0)=u^0(1)=u^1(0)=u^1(1)$, as in Example \ref{e:nondeg}.
We again define the zero function as in (\ref{d:zero}), i.e. by considering only zeroes in $[0,1)$ (thus $Z(\mu_0)$ is typically finite). As the measure is $S$-invariant, it is the same as considering only zeroes in any $[y,y+1)$, $y \in \mathbb{R}$. The $Z(\mu_0)$ can be interpreted, and indeed for ergodic\footnote{This holds if $\mu_0 \times \mu_0$ is $S \times S$-ergodic; see Subsection \ref{ss:characterize}.} $\mu_0$ is the same for $\mu_0$-a.e. $u_0,v_0$ as the {\it average density of zeroes}
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{2n}\sum_{k=-n}^{n-1} z(S^ku_0,S^kv_0)< \infty,
\end{equation*}
(this follows from the Birkhoff ergodic theorem and measurability of $z$ established in Lemma \ref{l:3_1}). Now, $Z(\mu(t))$ is non-increasing in $t$, as the flux of zeroes through $x=0$ and $x=1$ by the $S$-invariance of the measure cancels out. Finally, it may be somewhat counter-intuitive that a single multiple zero for some $x \in [0,1)$ causes the entire density of zeroes on the infinite line to decrease. The rationale for this is that by the local structure of zeroes (Lemma \ref{l:local}), a multiple zero of $u(t)-v(t)$ persists in an open neighbourhood $U \times V$ of $(u(t),v(t))$ for some $\tilde{t}$ close to $t$. By Poincar\'{e} recurrence, if $u_0,v_0$ are in the support of a $S$-invariant measure, one can find a positive measure subset of $W \subset U \times V$ for which a positive density of $S \times S$-translates visit $W$, thus a single multiple zero implies existence of a set of positive measure with a positive density of multiple zeroes along the real line for times close to $t$. We make this ad-hoc argument rigorous by using standard ergodic-theoretical tools, combined with the well-established local and global structure of zeroes \cite{Angenent:88,Chen:98}.
Considering $S$-invariant measures and the ergodic attractor in the extended case is related to analysing asymptotics for $\mu_0$-a.e. initial condition with respect to any $S$-invariant measure $\mu_0$. This approach was already taken by Sinai \cite{Sinai:91} in his study of the forced viscous Burgers equation, as we discuss in Section \ref{s:burgers}. We establish in Proposition \ref{p:transversal} an example of a general result in this direction used later: for $S$-invariant $\mu_0$ and $\mu_0$-a.e. $u_0$, $\omega(u_0)$ consists of orbits which do not intersect non-transversally a given $S,T$-invariant solution $v_0$ (i.e. a spatially and temporally periodic orbit).
\subsection{Statements of the results: Burgers-like equations and uniqueness of invariant measures}\label{ss:unique}
The second part of the paper focuses on establishing sufficient conditions for uniqueness of an invariant measure and implications, or equivalently on proving the generalized versions of results of Sinai \cite{Sinai:96}, (i)-(iii), mentioned in the introduction, and established in Corollaries \ref{c:bounded}, \ref{c:asymptotics} and \ref{c:weak*} below. The main tools in the proof are Theorem \ref{t:main1} and the zero function on the space of probability measures.
We say that an equation is Burgers-like, if the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(B1)] {\it Sub-quadratic growth of non-linearity in $u_x$:} There exists an $\varepsilon >0$ and a continuous function $c : \mathbb{R}^+ \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ such that
\begin{align*}
&|f(t,x,u,\xi)| \leq c(\rho)\left(1+|\xi|^{2 - \varepsilon} \right) \\
& \hspace{5ex} (\rho > 0, \: (t,x,u,\xi) \in [0,1]\times [0,1] \times [-\rho,\rho] \times \mathbb{R} ).
\end{align*}
\item[(B2)] {\it Weak dissipation:} There exists an upper semi-continuous function $l : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ such that: if $u_0 \in H^{2 \alpha}(\mathbb{S}^1)$, $\int_0^1 u_0(x)dx = y$ and $||u_0-y||_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{S}^1)} \leq l(y)$; and if the solution of (\ref{r:main}), $u(t_0)=u_0$ exists on $(t_0,t_1)$ for some $t_1 >t_0$, then for every $t \in [t_0,t_1)$ we have $||u(t)-y||_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{S}^1)} \leq l(y)$. Furthermore, the function $l$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\lim_{y \rightarrow \infty}(y-l(y))=+\infty, \quad \quad \lim_{y \rightarrow -\infty}(y+l(y))=-\infty. \label{r:B2}
\end{equation}
\item[(B3)] {\it Invariance:} For every $u_0 \in H^{2 \alpha}(\mathbb{S}^1)$, if the solution of (\ref{r:main}), $u(t_0)=u_0$ exists on $(t_0,t_1)$ for some $t_1 >t_0$, then for every $t \in [t_0,t_1)$, we have that $\int_0^1 u(x,t)dx = \int_0^1 u(x,t_0)dx$.
\end{itemize}
Recall the ordering on $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$: we write $u_0 \leq v_0$ if $u_0(x)\leq v_0(x)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{S}^1$, resp. $x \in \mathbb{R}$; $u_0 \ll v_0$ if $u_0(x) < v_0(x)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{S}^1$, resp. $x \in \mathbb{R}$; and $u_0 < v_0$ if $u_0 \leq v_0$ but $u_0 \neq v_0$. A family in $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$ is strongly totally ordered, if for all $u_0,v_0$ in the family, we have either $u_0 = v_0$ or $u_0 \ll v_0$.
We state results only for the more general time-periodic case; modifications for the autonomous case are straightforward and commented on throughout the paper.
\begin{thm} \label{t:main2} Assume (A1-3) and (B1-3) in the time-periodic case.
(i) There exists a set ${\mathcal{V}}=\lbrace v^y_0, \: y \in \mathbb{R} \rbrace$, $v^y_0 \in H^{2 \alpha}(\mathbb{S}^1)$, satisfying that $y \mapsto v^y_0$ is continuous as a map $\mathbb{R} \rightarrow H^{2 \alpha}(\mathbb{S}^1)$, strictly increasing, and such that for all $y \in \mathbb{R}$, $v^y_0$ is $T$-invariant and $\int_0^1 v^y_0(x)dx=y$. Furthermore, it is a unique family with these properties.
(ii) In the bounded case, and in the extended case if $\mathcal{E}$ is non-degenerate, we have that $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{V}$.
(iii) In the bounded case, for all $y \in \mathbb{R}$ there is a unique invariant measure on $\mathcal{B}_y:=\lbrace u_0 \in \mathcal{X}^{\alpha}, \int_0^1 u_0(x)dx=y\rbrace$, concentrated on a single $v^y_0\in \mathcal{B}_y$.
\end{thm}
\begin{remark}
Note that in the time-periodic case, if $u_0$ is $T$-invariant, the solution $u(t)$ of (\ref{r:main}), $u(0)=u_0$ is not necessarily constant. It is $1$-periodic, i.e. has the same temporal periodicity as the nonlinearity.
\end{remark}
We can now recover the conclusion (i) by Sinai on asymptotics of the Burgers equation in the bounded case, by applying general techniques of the order-preserving dynamics (in particular the Nonorderedness principle valid in the bounded case due to Hirsch \cite{Hirsch:88}; see also \cite{Polacik:02}, Section 3):
\begin{corollary} \label{c:bounded}
Assume (A1-3) and (B1-3) in the B/P case. Then for each $u_0 \in \mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$, $\omega(u_0)=\lbrace v^{y_0}_0\rbrace$, where $y_0=\int_0^1 u_0(x)dx$ and $v^y_0$ is as in Theorem \ref{t:main2}, (i).
\end{corollary}
Let $\mathcal{V}$ be as in Theorem \ref{t:main2}, (i). To establish conclusions in the extended case, we again require a technical condition of finite density of zeroes:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(N1)] Assume in the extended case that $\mu_0$ is a $S$-invariant Borel probability measure on $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$, supported on a set bounded in $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$, such that for every $v_0 \in \mathcal{V}$, and $\mu_0$-a.e. $u_0$, (\ref{d:density}) holds.
\end{itemize}
We give examples of many non-trivial measures satisfying (N1) without any a-priori knowledge of $\mathcal{V}$ in Remark \ref{e:nondeg}.
We denote by $\mathcal{H}$ the family (possibly empty) of all {\it spatially heteroclinic solutions} associated to $\mathcal{V}$, i.e. such that for $h_0 \in \mathcal{H}$, the solution of (\ref{r:main}), $h(0)=h_0$ exists for all $t \in \mathbb{R}$, such that $h_0$ intersect each $v^y_0 \in \mathcal{V}$ at most once, transversally, and such that for some $y_1 \neq y_2$, and for all $t \in \mathbb{R}$, $\lim_{x \rightarrow -\infty}|h_0(x)-v^{y_1}(x)|=0$, $\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}|h_0(x)-v^{y_2}(x)|=0$. Note that by continuity of solutions with respect to initial conditions, we then have for all $t \in \mathbb{R}$:
\begin{equation}
\lim_{x \rightarrow -\infty}|h(x,t)-v^{y_1}(x,t)|=0, \hspace{5ex} \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}|h(x,t)-v^{y_2}(x,t)|=0.
\end{equation}
We will establish the following:
\begin{corollary} \label{c:asymptotics}
Assume (A1-3), (B1-3) in the E/P case, and let $\mu_0$ satisfy (N1).
(i) For $\mu_0$-a.e. $u_0$, we have that $\omega(u_0)\subset \mathcal{V} \cup \mathcal{H}$.
(ii) $\omega$-limit set of evolution of $\mu_0$ in the weak$^*$-topology consists of measures supported on $\mathcal{V}$.
\end{corollary}
To fully recover Sinai's conclusions (ii), (iii) in the extended case, we also require an additional control of the "oscillations" around the quantity conserved in the bounded case:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(N2)] Assume in the extended case that $\mu_0$ is a $S$-invariant Borel-probability measure on $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$. Let $y_0 = \int \int_0^1u_0(x) \, dx \, d\mu_0(u_0)$, and assume that there exists $C>0$ and that for $\mu_0$-a.e. $u_0$, and all $t \geq 0$, $x \in \mathbb{R}$,
$$
\left| \int_0^x u(z,t)dz - x\, y_0 \right| \leq C,
$$
where $u(t)$ is a solution of $(\ref{r:main})$, $u(0)=u_0$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{corollary} \label{c:weak*}
Assume (A1-3), (B1-3) in the E/P case, and let $\mu_0$ satisfy (N1), (N2). Then:
(ii) For $\mu_0$-a.e. $u_0$, we have $\omega(u_0)=\lbrace v^{y_0} \rbrace$.
(ii) The $\omega$-limit set of $\mu_0$ is $\delta_{v^{y_0}}$, i.e. the Dirac measure concentrated on $v^{y_0} \in \mathcal{V}$.
\end{corollary}
In Sections \ref{s:burgers} and \ref{s:short} we will give more general conditions (C1) and (C2) which can replace (B2-3) and (N2) respectively. For example, we will show that existence of a 1-dimensional, ordered family $\mathcal{V}$ as in Theorem \ref{t:main2},(i) suffices instead of the invariance property (B3). In Section \ref{burgers} we will see that the Burgers equation and a generalized form of it satisfy (A1-3), (B1-3); and that (N2), and in a certain sense (N1), were also originally assumed by Sinai \cite{Sinai:91}, thus our results are indeed a generalization of the aforementioned results for the Burgers equation.
\subsection{The structure of the paper} The paper is structured as follows: in Section \ref{s:prelim} we give the required background on existence of solutions of (\ref{r:main}), the choice of topologies (some of the technical definitions and remarks are moved to Appendix \ref{s:fractional}) and notation. We then in Sections \ref{s:zeros} and \ref{s:balance} recall the key properties of the zero number as the key tool, introduce the balance law of zeroes, and other key properties of the zero flux and the zero dissipation. We complete the second part of the paper by proving ergodic Poincar\'{e}-Bendixon theorems in Sections \ref{s:bounded} and \ref{s:extended}. In Sections \ref{s:notrans}-\ref{s:short} we prove results for Burgers-like equations in four logical steps divided into sections. In the fourth part of the paper, we show that the results apply to a family of generalized Burgers equation, then apply our theorems to other general and specific examples, and finally list some open problems. In Appendix \ref{s:fractional} we comment on function spaces in the extended case, and in Appendix \ref{s:ergodic} give interpretations of the ergodic attractor.
\begin{remark}
All the results also hold for the equations $u_{t}=\varepsilon u_{xx}+g(t,x,u,u_{x})$, $\varepsilon >0$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Theorems \ref{t:main1} and \ref{t:main1b} were already announced in \cite{Slijepcevic13b}, with derived further implications to the topological entropy of (\ref{r:main}) in all four cases considered here. All the results in \cite{Slijepcevic13b} in the extended case hold under an additional assumption of non-degeneracy of $\mathcal{E}$.
\end{remark}
\section{The function spaces and notation} \label{s:prelim}
In the autonomous case, (\ref{r:main}) with the assumptions (A1-4) generates a continuous semiflow on $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$, $3/4 < \alpha < 1$ (see e.g. \cite{Henry,Lunardi:95,Polacik:02} in the bounded case, and \cite{Gallay:01} in the extended case), denoted by $T(t)$, $t \geq 0$. In the extended case, we consider dynamics with respect to the continuous time-one map $T : \mathcal{X}^{\alpha} \rightarrow \mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$. We use the graph norm on $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$, $0 < \alpha < 1$:
$$
||u||_{\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}}:= ||A_1^{\alpha}u||_{\mathcal{X}},
$$
where $Au=-u_{xx}$ is the linear operator on $\mathcal{X}$ with the domain $D(A)=H^2(\mathbb{S}^1)$, resp. $D(A)=H^2_{\text{ul}}(\mathbb{R})$, with $A_1 = A + I$, and $A_1^{\alpha}$ is the standard fractional power (see \cite[Section 1.4]{Henry} and also Appendix \ref{s:fractional} for the extended case).
Let $\mathcal{B}$ be as in (A4). In the extended case, we need to equip $\mathcal{B}$ with a coarser topology to ensure compactness of invariant sets (see e.g. \cite{Gallay:01,Gallay:12} for a detailed discussion). We choose the topology of locally uniform convergence; however many choices induce equivalent topology on closed, bounded invariant sets (see Lemma \ref{l:topology} and the related discussion in Appendix \ref{s:fractional}). The semiflow $T(t)$, resp. the map $T$ are continuous also in the coarser topology.
Fix throughout the paper a (small) $\delta_0< 0$. Let $\tilde{ \mathcal{B}}$ be the closure of the set of all $u_0 \in \mathcal{B}$ for which the solution of (\ref{r:main}), $u(0)=u_0$ exists backwards in time on $\mathcal{B}$ for $t \in (\delta_0,0)$ (not necessarily uniquely). Then $\tilde{ \mathcal{B}}$ is invariant and compact. In the bounded case, this follows from the compact embedding of $X^{\gamma}$ in $X^{\alpha}$ and the variation of constants formula. Similarly this can be established in the extended case (see Lemma \ref{l:topology}, also \cite{Gallay:01} for further discussion). As all the trajectories are eventually in $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$, it suffices to consider the dynamics and invariant measures on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$.
Whenever required for clarity, we denote elements of $\mathcal{B}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ with indices as $u_0,v_0,$... and by $u(t),v(t),...$ the solutions of (\ref{r:main}) with the initial conditions $u_0,v_0,$... respectively. Let $\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{B})$ be the set of all the invariant Borel probability measures on $\mathcal{B}$ (invariant with respect to actions in Table \ref{t:table}). Analogously we denote the measures on $\mathcal{B}$ with indices as $\mu_0,\nu_0$,..., and by $\mu(t),\nu(t)$,... their evolution, i.e. pushed $\mu(0)=\mu_0$ with respect to the time-$t$ map generated by (\ref{r:main}).
The proofs require considering dynamics of two replicas of (\ref{r:main}), i.e. a dynamical system on $\tilde{\mathcal{X}}^2$. We use $\hat{.}$ to denote certain functions on $\tilde{\mathcal{X}}^2$, e.g. $\hat{S}=S \times S$, $\hat{T}=T \times T$.
We frequently use the fact that (\ref{r:main}) is strongly monotone, i.e. that if $u(t_0) < v(t_0)$, then for all $t \geq t_0$ for which both solutions exist, $u(t) \gg v(t)$.
Assuming (A1-4), the equation (\ref{r:main}) considered on $\mathcal{B}$ admits an attractor $\mathcal{A}$ (\cite{Raugel:02}, Section 2.3), which is unique, compact, and characterized as the set of all $u_0 \in \mathcal{B}$ such that the solution of (\ref{r:main}), $u(0)=u_0$ exists for all $t \in \mathbb{R}$. The attractor $\mathcal{A}$ depends on the choice of $\mathcal{B}$, thus we write $\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{B})$ when the choice of a set $\mathcal{B}$ satisfying (A4) is not clear from the context.
Finally, we note the properties essential for considerations involving the zero number.
\begin{lemma} \label{l:c1} Fix $t_0 \in \mathbb{R}$.
(i) For any $t >t_0$, $x,y \in \mathbb{R}$, $x < y$, the mapping $\mathcal{\tilde{B}} \mapsto C^1([x,y])$ defined with $u(t_0) \mapsto u(.,t)|_{[x,y]}$ is continuous.
(ii) For any $t > s > t_0$, $x \in \mathbb{R}$, the mapping $\mathcal{\tilde{B}} \mapsto C^1([s,t])$ defined with $u(t_0) \mapsto u(x,.)|_{[s,t]}$ is continuous.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The claim (i), as well as continuity of $u(t_0) \mapsto u(x,.)|_{[s,t]}$ as $\tilde{\mathcal{B}} \rightarrow C^0([s,t])$, follows from continuous embedding of $H^{2\alpha}(\mathbb{S}^1)$ in $C^1(\mathbb{S})$, respectively $H^{2\alpha}_{\text{loc}}(\mathbb{R})$ in $C^1_{\text{loc}}(\mathbb{R})$, continuous dependence on initial conditions in $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$, and continuity of $t \mapsto u(t)$ in $\tilde{B}$ for the latter claim. To complete (ii), it suffices to show continuity of $u(t_0) \mapsto u_t(x,.)$ as $\tilde{\mathcal{B}} \rightarrow C^0([s,t])$. This follows from e.g. \cite{Henry}, Theorem 3.5.3, with the choice of the spaces as in the proof of local existence of solutions (in the extended case, we in addition apply continuous dependence on initial conditions in $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$).
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Note that we do not assume strong dissipativity conditions on $g$, such as e.g. (G1-3) in \cite{Polacik:02}, as they would not cover the Burgers-like equations considered in the second part of the paper.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
For an argument alternative to Lemma \ref{l:c1} enabling applying zero-number techniques for even less smooth $g$ than those satisfying (A1-3), refer to \cite{Polacik:15}, Section 2.
\end{remark}
\part{Ergodic Poincar\'e-Bendixson theorems}
\section{Preliminaries on the set of zeroes} \label{s:zeros}
In this section we consider properties of the set of zeroes of $u(t)-v(t)$, where $u,v$ are two solutions of (\ref{r:main}) on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$. In addition to the zero function $Z_w$ associated to the curve $w(t)=u(t)-v(t)$, we introduce the notions of the flux of zeroes $F_w$ and the dissipation of zeroes $D_w$, analogous to the notions of energy flux and energy dissipation considered e.g. in \cite{Gallay:01, Gallay:12}. The main results of the section are the balance law for the flux of zeroes (\ref{r:balance}), and sufficient conditions for continuity of $Z_w, F_w, D_w$. The proofs rely on the well-known local and global structure of the set of zeroes, which we recall first.
In this section we assume (A1-4) and fix $u_0,v_0 \in \tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ for which the solutions $u(t),v(t)$ of (\ref{r:main}), $u(0)=u_0$, resp. $v(0)=v_0$ exist on $(\delta_0,\infty)$, where $\delta_0 <0 $ is as in Section \ref{s:prelim}. Denote by $w_0=u_0-v_0$ and $w(t)=u(t)-v(t)$, $t \in (\delta_0,\infty)$. Let $N_w$ be the set of zeroes (or the nodal set), and $S_w$ the set of multiple (or singular) zeroes associated to $w \neq 0$, defined with
\begin{align*}
N_w & := \lbrace (x,t) \in \mathbb{R} \times (\delta_0,\infty) \: : \: w(x,t) = 0 \rbrace, \\
S_w & := \lbrace (x,t) \in \mathbb{R} \times (\delta_0,\infty) \: : \: w(x,t) = w_x(x,t) = 0 \rbrace.
\end{align*}
For $u=v$, i.e. $w=0$, we set $S_w=N_w=\emptyset$.
The following local and global structure of zeroes is well-known, proved by Chen \cite{Chen:98} (for earlier, less complete description by Angenent and Chen and Pol\'{a}\v{c}ik see \cite{Angenent:88,Chen:96}):
\begin{lemma} \label{l:local}
{\bf Local structure of zeroes.} If $(x_0,t_0) \in N_w$, then there is a neighbourhood $Q = [x_0-\varepsilon, x_0+\varepsilon] \times [t_0 - \delta, t_0 + \delta]$, $\varepsilon, \delta >0$ of $(x_0,t_0)$ such that the following properties hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] If $(x_0,t_0) \notin S_w$, then $Q \cap N_w$ equals a single curve $\lbrace (\gamma(t),t): t \in [t_0 - \delta, t_0 + \delta] \rbrace$, where $\gamma: [t_0 - \delta, t_0 + \delta] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is of class $C^1$ and $\gamma(t_0)=x_0$.
\item[(b)] If $(x_0,t_0) \in S_w$, then there is an integer $m \geq 2$ (the degree of the zero) such that the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(b1)] For even $m$, there exist $m$ curves $\gamma_1,...,\gamma_m : [t_0 - \delta, t_0) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ of class $C^1$, such that
\begin{equation}
\gamma_1(t) < \gamma_2(t) < ... < \gamma_m(t) \hspace{5ex} \text{for all } t \in [t_0 - \delta, t_0), \label{r:small}
\end{equation}
such that $\lim_{t \rightarrow t_0^-}\gamma_k(t) = x_0$, $k=1,...,m$ and such that $Q \cap N_w$ equals union of $\lbrace (\gamma_j(t),t): t \in [t_0 - \delta, t_0 ) \rbrace$, $j=1,...,m$, and $\lbrace (x_0,t_0) \rbrace$.
\item[(b2)] For odd $m$, there exist $m$ curves $\gamma_1,...,\gamma_{(m-1)/2},\gamma_{(m+3)/2},..., \gamma_m : [t_0 - \delta, t_0) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, $\gamma_{(m+1)/2} : [t_0 - \delta, t_0+\delta ] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ of class $C^1$, satisfying (\ref{r:small}), such that $\lim_{t \rightarrow t_0^-}\gamma_j(t) = x_0$, $j=1,...,(m-1)/2,(m+3)/2,...,m$, such that $\gamma_{(m+1)/2}(t_0)=x_0$, and such that $Q \cap N_w$ equals union of $\lbrace (\gamma_j(t),t): t \in [t_0 - \delta, t_0 ) \rbrace$, $j=1,...,(m-1)/2,(m+3)/2,...,m$ and $\lbrace (\gamma_{(m+1)/2)}(t),t): t \in [t_0 - \delta, t_0 + \delta ] \rbrace$.
\end{itemize}
In both cases, $\lbrace (x_0,t_0) \rbrace$ is equal to $Q \cap S_w $.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
From this we can deduce the following global structure of the set of zeroes.
\begin{lemma} \label{l:global} {\bf Global structure of zeroes.}
There exist an at most countable family of curves $\gamma_i : (\delta_0,d_i) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ of class $C^1$ associated to $w$, $d_i \in (\delta_0,\infty]$, $i \in {\mathcal I}_w$, ${\mathcal I}_w$ a finite set or $\mathbb{N}$, satisfying the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] The sets $\lbrace (\gamma_i(t),t), \: t \in (\delta_0,d_i) \rbrace$, $i \in \mathcal{I}$, are disjoint.
\item[(ii)] $S_w = \cup_{i \in \mathcal {I}_w, d_i< \infty} \lbrace (\lim_{t \rightarrow d_i^-} \gamma_i(t),d_i) \rbrace$.
\item[(iii)] $N_w = \cup_{i \in \mathcal {I}_w} \lbrace (\gamma_i(t),t), \: t \in (\delta_0,d_i) \rbrace \cup S_w$.
\item[(iv)] For each compact $Q \subset \mathbb{R}^2$, there exists at most finitely many $i \in \mathcal{I}$ such that $\lbrace (\gamma_i(t),t), t \in (\delta_0,d_i) \rbrace $ intersects $Q$. Specifically, there are at most finitely many multiple zeroes in $Q$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
For the proof, see the proof of Lemma 2.3 in \cite{Feireisl:00}, taking into account adjustments of the statement fitting our purposes (see Remark \ref{rm:fix} below).
For simplicity of notation, we drop the dependency on $w$ in the notation of curves of zeroes $\gamma$. For $i \in \mathcal{I}_w$ such that $d_i < \infty$, denote by $x_i = \lim_{t \rightarrow d_i^-}\gamma_i(t)$, and then $S_w = \lbrace (x_i,d_i), d_i < \infty, \: i \in \mathcal{I}_w \rbrace$. For $d_i < \infty$, let $\overline{\gamma}_i : (-\infty, d_i] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be the unique continuous extension of $\gamma_i$ (i.e. such that $\overline{\gamma}_i(d_i)=x_i$), and for $d_i=\infty$ let $\overline{\gamma}_i=\gamma_i$.
We define the number of zeroes $Z_w$ in $[x,y) \times \lbrace t \rbrace$, the flux $F_w$ of zeroes through $\lbrace x \rbrace \times [s,t)$, and the dissipation $D_w$ of zeroes in $[x,y)\times (s,t]$, defined for $\delta_0< s < t$, $x< y$, $s,t,x,y \in \mathbb{R}$, associated to $w \neq 0$, as follows. Let $Q \subset \mathbb{R} \times (\delta_0,\infty)$ be any compact set containing $[x, y] \times [s,t]$, and let $\mathcal{I}_w(Q)$ be the set of all $i \in \mathcal{I}_w$ such that $\lbrace (t,\gamma_i(t)), t \in ((\delta_0,d_i))\rbrace$ intersects $Q$. Now we define
\begin{align} \label{d:ZFD}
\begin{split}
Z_w(x,y,s)& = \left| i \in \mathcal{I}_w(Q), \, d_i>s, \, \gamma_i(s) \geq y \right| - \left| i \in \mathcal{I}_w(Q), d_i>s,\, \gamma_i(s) \geq x \right|,
\\
F_w(x,s,t) & = \left| i \in \mathcal{I}_w(Q), \, d_i>s, \, \overline{\gamma}_i(\min(t,d_i)) \geq x \right| - \left| i \in \mathcal{I}_w(Q), \, d_i>s,\, \gamma_i(s) \geq x \right|, \\
D_w(x,y,s,t) & = \left| i \in \mathcal{I}_w(Q), \, (x_i,d_i) \in [x,y) \times (s,t] \right|,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $|.|$ denotes the cardinal number of a set, always finite by Lemma \ref{l:global}, (iv). Also it is easy to verify that the definition above does not depend on the choice of $Q$.
For $w=0$, we set $Z_w=F_w=D_w=0$ independently of the arguments. Note that the function $D_w$ counts multiple zeroes in $[x,y) \times [s,t)$ with their multiplicity ($m$ times for even, $m-1$ times for odd $m$).
\begin{remark} \label{rm:fix}
For technical reasons, our definition of the curves of zeroes $\gamma_i$ slightly differs from e.g. \cite{Feireisl:00,Fiedler89}, as the even, multiple zeroes are not in the union of images $(t,\gamma_i(t))$. Also the zero function $Z_w$, does not "count" even, multiple zeroes. This simplifies definitions of the flux and dissipation of zeroes, as the images of $\gamma_i$ are disjoint. Note that all the multiple zeroes are properly "counted" by the dissipation function $D_w$.
\end{remark}
We now obtain the following balance law:
\begin{lemma} \label{l:3_2}
{\bf The balance law for the flux of zeroes.} Let $x,y,s,t \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $0 \leq s < t$. Then
\begin{align}
Z_w(x,y,t)-Z_w(x,y,s) = F_w(y,s,t)-F_w(x,s,t) - D_w(x,y,s,t). \label{r:balance}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} If $w=0$, the claim is trivial. For $w \neq 0$, let $Q$ be as in (\ref{d:ZFD}).
First note that
\begin{align*}
\left| i \in \mathcal{I}_w(Q), \, d_i>s, \, \overline{\gamma}_i(\min(t,d_i)) \geq x \right| & =
\left| i \in \mathcal{I}_w(Q), \, d_i>t, \, \gamma_i(t) \geq x \right| \\ & \hspace{3ex} + \left| i \in \mathcal{I}_w(Q), \, (x_i,d_i) \in [x,\infty) \times (s,t] \right|.
\end{align*}
It suffices now to insert that and the definition (\ref{d:ZFD}) in the left, resp. right-hand side of (\ref{r:balance}) to verify it.
\end{proof}
We now establish certain continuity properties of $Z_w, F_w, S_w$. In the following lemma, $\tilde{u}$, $\tilde{v}$ denote solutions of (\ref{r:main}), $\tilde{u}(0)=\tilde{u}_0$, resp. $\tilde{v}(0)=\tilde{v}_0$.
\begin{lemma} \label{l:continuity}
{\bf Continuity of zero functions.} Let $x,y,s,t \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $0 \leq s < t$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] If all zeroes in $[x,y)\times \lbrace t \rbrace $ are regular, and there are no zeroes in $\lbrace (x,t),(y,t) \rbrace$, then there is an open neighbourhood $\mathcal{U}$ of $(u_0,v_0)$ in $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$ such that for all $\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0 \in \mathcal{U}$, $\tilde{w}=\tilde{u}-\tilde{v}$, we have $Z_w(x,y,t)=Z_{\tilde{w}}(x,y,t)$.
\item[(ii)] If all zeroes in $\lbrace x \rbrace \times [s,t)$ are regular, and there are no zeroes in $\lbrace (x,s),(x,t) \rbrace$, then there is an open neighbourhood $\mathcal{U}$ of $(u_0,v_0)$ in $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$ such that for all $\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0 \in \mathcal{U}$, $\tilde{w}=\tilde{u}-\tilde{v}$, $F_w(x,s,t)=F_{\tilde{w}}(x,s,t)$.
\item[(iii)] Assume all the zeroes in $\partial Q$, where $Q = [x,y] \times [s,t]$, are regular. Then there is an open neighbourhood $\mathcal{U}$ of $(u_0,v_0)$ in $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$ such that for all $\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0 \in \mathcal{U}$, $\tilde{w}=\tilde{u}-\tilde{v}$, $D_w(x,y,s,t)=D_{\tilde{w}}(x,y,s,t)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Throughout the proof, we implicitly use Lemma \ref{l:c1} several times.
By embedding of $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$ in $C^1(\mathbb{R})$ and continuous dependence on initial conditions of (\ref{r:main}), we can find an open neighbourhood of $\mathcal{U}$ of $(u_0,v_0)$ such that for each $(\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0) \in \mathcal{U}$, for $\tilde{w}=\tilde{u}-\tilde{v}$ the assumptions on zeroes in (i) hold for $\tilde{w}$. Now $Z_{\tilde{w}}$ can be expressed with $Z_{\tilde{w}}(x,y,t)=|\tilde{w}(.,t)^{-1}(0)\cap (x,y)|$, and all the zeroes of $\tilde{w}$ in $(x,y) \times \lbrace t \rbrace$ are regular, i.e. whenever $\tilde{w}(z,t)=0$, $z \in (x,y)$, we have $w_x(z,t)\neq 0$. It suffices now to cover $(x,y)$ with finitely many sufficiently small open intervals and apply the implicit function theorem to $z \rightarrow w(z,t)$ on the open intervals containing a zero of $w$ to deduce (i).
To prove (ii), consider an open neighbourhood $\mathcal{U}_1$ of $(u_0,v_0)$, such that for some $\delta_1>0$ small enough, $(\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0) \in \mathcal{U}_1$, for $\tilde{w}=\tilde{u}-\tilde{v}$ we have
\begin{equation} \label{r:allzero}
Z_{\tilde{w}}(x-\delta_1,x,s)=0, \hspace{3ex} Z_{\tilde{w}}(x-\delta_1,x,t)=0, \hspace{3ex} D_{\tilde{w}}(x-\delta_1,x,s,t)=0
\end{equation}
(such an $\mathcal{U}_1$ exists by the assumptions on zeroes in (ii)). Now for all $0<\delta\leq \delta_1$, by the definition of $Z_w,D_w$, the assumptions on zeroes in (ii) hold also for $(x-\delta)$ instead of $x$. We claim that we can find $0 < \delta_2 \leq \delta_1$ such that, in addition, for all the zeroes in $\lbrace x-\delta_2 \rbrace \times [s,t)$ expressed as $(\tau,\gamma_i(\tau))$, $\gamma_i(\tau)=x-\delta_2$, $s \leq \tau < t$, we have that $(\gamma_i)_x(\tau)\neq 0$. We deduce that by applying the Morse-Sard Lemma to every $C^1$ function $\gamma_i$ to establish that the set of critical values $x \in \mathbb{R}$, i.e. $x$ for which $\gamma_i(\tau)=x$ and $(\gamma_i)_x(\tau)= 0$ for some $\tau \in [s,t]$, has the Lebesgue measure 0. As there are at most countably many curves of zeroes $\gamma_i$, $i \in \mathcal{I}_w$, this completes the proof of existence of such $\delta_2$.
It is easy to verify that now
\begin{align}
F_w(x-\delta_2,s,t) & = \sum_{\tau \in (s,t), w(x-\delta_2,\tau) = 0} - \operatorname{sgn} (w_t(x-\delta_2,\tau)), \label{f:alternative}
\end{align}
as $\operatorname{sgn} (\gamma_i)_x(\tau)=-\operatorname{sgn} w_t(\gamma_i(\tau),\tau)$ whenever $(\gamma_i)_x(\tau)\neq 0$. We now find an open neighbourhood $\mathcal{U} \subset \mathcal{U}_1$ of $(u_0,v_0)$ such that for each $(\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0)\in \mathcal{U}$, $\tilde{w}=\tilde{u}-\tilde{v}$, for all the zeroes of $\tilde{w}$ in $\lbrace x-\delta_2 \rbrace \times (s,t)$, we have that $\tilde{w}_t(x-\delta_2,\tau) \neq 0$. Applying the implicit function theorem analogously as when proving (i), but now for the function $\tau \mapsto w(x-\delta_2,\tau)$, $\tau \in [s,t]$, we deduce that $F_{\tilde{w}}(x-\delta_2,s,t)$ is constant on $\mathcal{U}$. By (\ref{r:allzero}), the balance law (\ref{r:balance}) and the construction of $\mathcal{U}_1$ we see that $F_{\tilde{w}}(x,s,t)=F_{\tilde{w}}(x-\delta_2,s,t)$ on $\mathcal{U}$, which completes (ii).
To show (iii), note first that for any $\delta_1,\delta_2,\varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2 >0$ small enough, we have
$$
D_w(x,y,s,t)=D_w(x+\delta_1,y-\delta_1,s+\varepsilon_1,t-\varepsilon_1)=D_w(x-\delta_2,y+\delta_2,s-\varepsilon_2,t+\varepsilon_2)
$$
(this follows from the finiteness of the number of multiple zeroes in any compact $Q$ and the assumptions on zeroes in (iii)). In addition, by the local structure of zeroes we can choose $\delta_1,\delta_2,\varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2 >0$ such that there are no zeroes in the "corners" $\lbrace x+\delta_1,y-\delta_1 \rbrace \times \lbrace s+\varepsilon_1,t-\varepsilon_1 \rbrace$ and $\lbrace x-\delta_2,y+\delta_2 \rbrace \times \lbrace s-\varepsilon_2,t+\varepsilon_2 \rbrace$. Now applying twice the balance law (\ref{r:balance}) and (i), (ii) (i.e. on $[ x+\delta_1,y-\delta_1] \times [s+\varepsilon_1,t-\varepsilon_1 ]$ and $[ x-\delta_2,y+\delta_2] \times [s-\varepsilon_2,t+\varepsilon_2]$), we can find a neighbourhood $\mathcal{U}$ of $(u_0,v_0)$ such that
$$
D_w(x,y,s,t)=D_{\tilde{w}}(x+\delta_1,y-\delta_1,s+\varepsilon_1,t-\varepsilon_1)=D_{\tilde{w}}(x-\delta_2,y+\delta_2,s-\varepsilon_2,t+\varepsilon_2)
$$
for $(\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0) \in \mathcal{U}$, $\tilde{w}=\tilde{u}-\tilde{v}$. To establish $D_{\tilde{w}}(x,y,s,t)=D_w(x,y,s,t)$ on $\mathcal{U}$, it suffices to note that by the definition of $D_w$,
$$
D_{\tilde{w}}(x+\delta_1,y-\delta_1,s+\varepsilon_1,t-\varepsilon_1) \leq D_{\tilde{w}}(x,y,s,t) \leq D_{\tilde{w}}(x-\delta_2,y+\delta_2,s-\varepsilon_2,t+\varepsilon_2).
$$
\end{proof}
\section{Properties of the zero, zero flux and zero dissipation functions} \label{s:balance}
We consider here the zero, zero flux and zero dissipation functions $z,f,d : \tilde{\mathcal{B}} \times \tilde{\mathcal{B}} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, defined as
\begin{equation}
z(u_0,v_0)=Z_w(0,1,0), \hspace{5ex} f(u_0,v_0)=F_w(0,0,1), \hspace{5ex} d(u_0,v_0)=D_w(0,1,0,1), \label{d:zfd}
\end{equation}
where $w(t)=u(t)-v(t)$ and $u(t),v(t)$ are solutions of (\ref{r:main}) with the initial conditions $u(0)=u_0$, $v(0)=v_0$. In this section we first reformulate the balance law (\ref{r:balance}) in terms of $z,f,d$, then show that the property $d(u_0,v_0)>0$ persists in a certain sense for small perturbations in $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$, and finally that $z,f,d$ are Borel-measurable.
\begin{remark} The zero function $z$ in the literature depends on one argument $w_0=u_0-v_0$. The flux and dissipation functions $f,d$, however, depend on both $u_0$, $v_0$ (and their evolution), so we adopt the same convention to $z$.
\end{remark}
Note that the values of $z,f,d$ are always integers, and that $z,d \geq 0$.
Let $\hat{S},\hat{T}:\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2 \rightarrow \tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$, $\hat{S}(u_0,v_0)=(Su_0,Sv_0)$, $\hat{T}(u_0,v_0)=(Tu_0,Tv_0)$. By inserting $x=0$, $y=1$, $s=0$, $t=1$, the balance law of zeroes (\ref{r:balance}) can now be written as
\begin{equation}
z \circ \hat{T} - z = f \circ \hat{S} - f - d. \label{r:bez!}
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma} \label{l:3_3}
If $u_0,v_0 \in \tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ are such that $d(u_0,v_0)>0$, then there exists an open neighbourhood $\mathcal{U}$ of $(u_0,v_0)$ in $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$ such that for each $(\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0) \in \mathcal{U}$, we have
\begin{equation}
(\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0)+d(\hat{S}^{-1}(\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0))+d(\hat{T}(\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0))+d(\hat{S}^{-1}\hat{T}(\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0)) \geq 1.
\label{r:disseq}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} We denote below by $w=u-v, \tilde{w}=\tilde{u}-\tilde{v}$ the solution of (\ref{r:main}) with the initial conditions $u_0,v_0,\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0$ at $t=0$ respectively.
By finiteness of the number zeroes in a compact set, we can find $0 < \delta, \varepsilon <1$ small enough such that for $Q=[-\delta,1-\delta] \times [\varepsilon,1+\varepsilon]$, there are no multiple zeroes in $\partial Q$, and such that $D_w(-\delta,1-\delta,\varepsilon,1+\varepsilon)=D_w(0,1,0,1)=d(u_0,v_0)$. Now we apply
Lemma \ref{l:continuity}, (iii), and find an open neighbourhood $\mathcal{U}$ of $(u_0,v_0)$ such that for each $(\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0) \in \mathcal{U}$, $\tilde{w}=\tilde{u}_0-\tilde{v}_0$, we have
$D_w(-\delta,1-\delta,\varepsilon,1+\varepsilon)=D_{\tilde{w}}(-\delta,1-\delta,\varepsilon,1+\varepsilon)$.
Finally it suffices to note that
\begin{align*}
d(\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0)+d(\hat{S}^{-1}(\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0))+d(\hat{T}(\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0))+d(\hat{S}^{-1}\hat{T}(\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0)) & =D_{\tilde{w}}(-1,1,0,2) \\ & \geq D_{\tilde{w}}(-\delta,1-\delta,\varepsilon,1+\varepsilon) \\ & =d(u_0,v_0) \geq 1.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{l:3_1}
The functions $z,d,f : \tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ are Borel-measurable.
\end{lemma}
In order to prove it, we need the following:
\begin{lemma} \label{l:53little}
Assume $u_0,v_0 \in \tilde{\mathcal{B}}$, let $u,v$ be the solutions of (\ref{r:main}) with the initial conditions $u_0,v_0$ at $t=0$, and let $w=u-v$. Then there exists $n_0(w)$ so that for all $n \geq n_0$, $x_n:=-1/\sqrt{n}$, $y_n:=1-1/\sqrt{n}$ and $t_n:=1/n$,
(i) all the zeroes of $w$ in $[x_n,y_n) \times \lbrace t_n \rbrace$ are regular, there are no zeroes in $\lbrace (x_n,t_n),(y_n,t_n) \rbrace$, and
(ii) $z(w)=Z_w(x_n,y_n,t_n)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Firstly, by finiteness of the number of multiple zeroes in a compact set, there are no multiple zeroes in $[x_n,y_n)\times \lbrace t_n \rbrace$ for $n$ large enough. Now if $(0,0)$ and $(1,0)$ are not zeroes, (i) holds for $n$ large enough by continuity of $w$. If $(0,0)$ and $(1,0)$ are even, multiple zeroes, then (i) holds for $n$ large enough by the local structure of zeroes Lemma \ref{l:local}.
Assume $(0,0)$ is a regular or odd multiple zero, by the local structure of zeroes it lies on a $C^1$ curve of zeroes $\gamma_i$, $\gamma_i(0)=0$, with a domain containing an open neighbourhood of $0$.
Now by the local structure of zeroes $(x_n,t_n)$ can be a zero for $n$ large enough only if $x_n=\gamma_i(t_n)$. However, by the choice of $t_n,x_n$, this is impossible for $n$ large enough, as $|(\gamma_i)_t(0)|$ would have to be $+\infty$ which contradicts it being $C^1$. Analogously $(y_n,t_n)$ can not be a zero for $n$ large enough, thus (i) holds.
Consier $Q, \mathcal{I}_w(Q)$ as in \ref{d:ZFD}. Analogously as above we deduce that for $n$ large enough,
\begin{align*}
|i \in \mathcal{I}_w(Q), \, d_i > 0, \gamma_i(0) \geq 0| & = |i \in \mathcal{I}_w(Q), \, d_i > t_n, \gamma_i(t_n) \geq x_n|, \\
|i \in \mathcal{I}_w(Q), \, d_i > 0, \gamma_i(0) \geq 1| & = |i \in \mathcal{I}_w(Q), \, d_i > t_n, \gamma_i(t_n) \geq y_n|,
\end{align*}
which by definition gives (ii).
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{l:3_1}]
Denote by $\mathcal{U}_{n,k} \subset \tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$ the set of all $(u_0,v_0)$ for which the following holds: let $w=u-v$, $u,v$ solutions of (\ref{r:main}) with the initial conditions $u_0,v_0$ at $t=0$ respectively, and let $t_n,x_n,y_n$ be as in Lemma \ref{l:53little}. Let $\mathcal{U}_{n,k}$ be the set of all $(u_0,v_0) \in \tilde{ \mathcal{B}}^2$ for which the statement in Lemma \ref{l:53little}, (i) holds, and for which $Z_w(x_n,y_n,t_n)=k$. We claim that $\mathcal{U}_{n,k}$ is open in $\tilde{ \mathcal{B}}^2$. Indeed, this follows from the continuous dependence of solutions of (\ref{r:main}) on initial conditions, from the local structure of zeroes and from Lemma \ref{l:continuity}, (i). Now, by Lemma \ref{l:53little},
$$
\lbrace (u_0,v_0)\in \tilde{ \mathcal{B}}^2, \: z(u_0,v_0)=k \rbrace = \bigcup_{m=1}^{\infty} \bigcap_{n=m}^{\infty}\mathcal{U}_{n,k},
$$
thus $z$ is measurable. The proof of measurability of $f$ is analogous. Measurability
of $d$ follows from (\ref{r:bez!}).
\end{proof}
\section{The proof of Theorem \ref{t:main1} (the bounded case)} \label{s:bounded}
In this section we consider only the bounded case, and show the following:
\begin{proposition} \label{p:diszero1}
For any $(u_0,v_0) \in \mathcal{E}^2$, we have that $d(u_0,v_0)=0$.
\end{proposition}
From this we will directly deduce Theorem \ref{t:main1} at the end of the section. We prove Proposition \ref{p:diszero1} in the time-periodic case only; the autonomous case is analogous (by taking the semiflow $T(t)$ instead of the map $T$). As discussed in the introduction, we define the zero function $\hat{Z}$ of two Borel probability measures on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ as
$$
\hat{Z}(\mu_1,\mu_2):=\int_{\tilde{B}^2}z(u_0,v_0)d\mu_1(u_0)\mu_2(v_0),
$$
which is well-defined by non-negativity and Borel measurability of $z$.
\begin{remark} \label{rr:61}
Analogously we can define $\hat{Z}$ for any Borel probability measure $\nu$ on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$ with $\hat{Z}(\nu_0)=\int_{\tilde{B}^2}z\, d\nu_0$. We slightly abuse the notation and write interchangeably $\hat{Z}(\mu_1 \times \mu_2)$ and $\hat{Z}(\mu_1,\mu_2)$.
\end{remark}
We can now write (\ref{d:zero}) as $Z(\mu_0)=\hat{Z}(\mu_0,\mu_0)$. The proposition \ref{p:diszero1} will follow from an analogous consideration as in the proof of Fiedler and Mallet-Paret Poincar\'{e}-Bendixson theorem \cite{Fiedler89}: we will see that the function $Z$ is non-increasing, and strictly decreasing if $d(u_0,v_0)>0$ for some $u_0,v_0$ in the support of a measure.
The technicality we need to resolve first is the possibility that $Z(\mu_0)=\infty$. It is not difficult to do it in the bounded case by using the ergodic decomposition of measures in $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$. We first show in Lemma \ref{l:4_1} that if $\mu_0 \times \mu_0$ is $\hat{T}$-ergodic, then $\hat{Z}$ is finite. In general, in Lemma \ref{l:4_2} that we show that can always modify "weights" in the ergodic decomposition to make $\hat{Z}$ finite.
Proposition \ref{p:diszero1} will then follow from integrating the balance law of zeroes (\ref{r:bez!}), which by $S$-periodicity in the bounded case reduces to
\begin{equation}
z\circ\hat{T}-z=-d. \label{r:bezun}
\end{equation}
\begin{lemma} \label{l:4_1}
Let $\nu_0$ be a Borel-probability measure on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$. If $\nu_0$ is $\hat{T}$-ergodic, then $\hat{Z}(\nu_0) < \infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By ergodicity, any $\hat{T}$-invariant set has $\nu_0$ measure $0$ or $1$. The balance law (\ref{r:bezun}) implies that $z \circ \hat{T} \leq z$ thus the sets $\mathcal{B}_n=\lbrace (u_0,v_0) \in \tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2, \: z(u_0,v_0) \leq n \rbrace$, $n \geq 0$ an integer, are $\hat{T}$-invariant. By finiteness of $z$, $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2 = \cup_{n=0}^{\infty} \mathcal{B}_n$. As $\nu(\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2)=1$, by continuity of probability we have that there exists $n_0 \geq 0$ such that $\mu(\mathcal{B}_{n_0})=1$, thus $\hat{Z}(\nu_0) \leq n_0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{l:4_2}
Assume $\nu_0$ is $\hat{T}$-invariant and $(u_0,v_0) \in \supp\nu_0$. Then there exists a $\hat{T}$-invariant $\tilde{\nu}_0$ such that $\hat{Z}(\tilde{\nu}_0) < \infty$ and $(u_0,v_0) \in \supp\tilde{\nu}_0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First we find a sequence of $\hat{T}$-ergodic measures $\nu_k$ such that $(u_0,v_0)$ is in the closure of $\cup_{k=1}^{\infty}\supp\nu_k$. We do it e.g. by choosing any $\hat{T}$-ergodic measure $\nu_k$ such that the $\nu_k(\mathcal{B}_k)>0$, where $\mathcal{B}_k$ is the $1/k$-ball around $(u_0,v_0)$. Such a measure $\nu_k$ must exist by the ergodic decomposition theorem \cite{Walters}. Let
$$
\tilde{\nu}_0 = \kappa \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{\max \lbrace \hat{Z}(\nu_k), 2^k\rbrace } \nu_k,
$$
where $\kappa$ is uniquely chosen so that $\tilde{\nu}_0$ is a probability measure. Indeed, $1 \leq \kappa < \infty$, as by Lemma \ref{l:4_1}, the sum of the factors is
$$0 < \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} 1/\max \lbrace \hat{Z}(\nu_k), 2^k\rbrace \leq 1.$$
Also by construction, $\hat{Z}(\tilde{\nu}_0) \leq \kappa < \infty$. We see that $(u_0,v_0) \in \supp\tilde{\nu}_0$ by choosing any $w_k \in \mathcal{B}_k \cap \supp \nu_k \subset \supp \nu_k \subset \supp\tilde{\nu}_0$. Then $w_k$ converges to $(u_0,v_0)$, so $(u_0,v_0)$ must be in $\supp\tilde{\nu}_0$ as the support of a measure is always closed.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{p:diszero1}] Assume $(u_0,v_0) \in \mathcal{E}^2$, i.e. that $u_0 \in \supp\mu_1$, $v_0 \in \supp\mu_2$ for some $T$-invariant $\mu_1$, $\mu_2$. Let $\nu_0 = \mu_1 \times \mu_2$, and let $\tilde{\nu}_0$ be a $\hat{T}$-invariant measure constructed in Lemma \ref{l:4_2}. We can iterate (\ref{r:bezun}) with respect to $\hat{T}$ and sum with (\ref{r:bezun}) to obtain
$$
z \circ \hat{T}^2 - z = - d - d \circ \hat{T}.
$$
Integrating it with respect to $\tilde{\nu}_0$ and using $\hat{T}$-invariance of $\tilde{\nu}_0$ and integrability of $\hat{Z}$ (and thus integrability of $\hat{Z}\circ \hat{T}$, $\hat{Z}\circ \hat{T}^2$), we see that
\begin{equation}
\int_{\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2} d \: d\tilde{\nu}_0 + \int_{\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2} d \circ \hat{T} \: d\tilde{\nu}_0 = 0. \label{r:contra}
\end{equation}
Now, assume that $d(u_0,v_0) >0$. We now find an open neighbourhood $\mathcal{U}$ of $(u_0,v_0)$ such that (\ref{r:disseq}) holds. Then by $S$-invariance of all $u_0 \in \mathcal{B}$ in the bounded case, we have that for all $(\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0) \in \mathcal{U}$, $d(\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0)+ d \circ \hat{T} (\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0) \geq 1$. As $(u_0,v_0)$ is in the support of $\tilde{\nu}_0$, we have that $\tilde{\nu}_0(\mathcal{U})\geq \varepsilon $ for some $\varepsilon > 0$. Now as always $d \geq 0$, we have
$$
\int_{\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2} d \: d\tilde{\nu}_0 + \int_{\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2} d \circ \hat{T}\: d\tilde{\nu}_0 \geq \varepsilon,
$$
which contradicts (\ref{r:contra}).
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{t:main1}]
Let $(u_0(0),(u_0)_x(0))=(v_0(0),(v_0)_x(0))$ for some $u_0,v_0 \in\mathcal{E}$. By $T$-invariance of $\mathcal{E}$ and as $\mathcal{E}$ consists of entire solutions (see Lemma \ref{l:properties},(iii)), we have $(T^{-1}u_0,T^{-1}v_0)\in \mathcal{E}$, and by definition of $d$, we have $d(T^{-1}u_0,T^{-1}v_0)\geq 1$. This is by Proposition \ref{p:diszero1} impossible.
\end{proof}
\section{The proof of Theorem \ref{t:main1b} (the extended case)} \label{s:extended}
In this section, we consider only the E/P case (the E/A case is analogous). Intuitively, the proof is expected to be analogous to the proof of Theorem \ref{t:main1}: we assume that $d(u_0,v_0)> 0$ for some $u_0,v_0$ in the support of a $S,T$-invariant measure $\mu_0$. We then integrate the balance law (\ref{r:bez!}) with respect to $\mu_0 \times \mu_0$ and intuitively deduce that $d=0$, $\mu_0 \times \mu_0$-a.e.. This, however, would contradict $d(u_0,v_0)> 0$ and Lemma \ref{l:3_3}.
The main technical difficulty in this approach, however, is possible non-integrability of the zero and flux functions $z,f$. To address it in the extended case, we apply abstract ergodic-theoretical tools for two commuting transformations, in this case $\hat{S},\hat{T}$ on $\mathcal{B}^2$.
In the first sub-section we deal with possible non-integrability of $f$ in the case of integrable $z$, and prove a balance law of zeroes on average, i.e. that the flux in (\ref{r:bez!}) cancels out when (\ref{r:bez!}) is integrated with respect to a $\hat{S}$-invariant measure. In the second subsection we deal with possible non-integrability of $z$. Analogously, we consider properties of the average density of zeroes defined as
$$
\hat{\zeta}(u_0,v_0) = \liminf_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{2n} \sum_{k=-n}^{n-1}z(S^ku_0,S^kv_0)
$$
By the Birkhoff ergodic theorem, for any $\hat{S}$-invariant measure $\nu_0$ on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$, for $\nu_0$-a.e. $(u_0,v_0)$, the $\liminf$ in the definition of $\hat{\zeta}$ can be replaced with $\lim$, though we can not exclude the possibility that the value of $\hat{\zeta}$ is $+\infty$. We then characterize the case of $\hat{\zeta}$ being $\nu_0$-a.e. finite. We use these tools to complete the proof of Theorem \ref{t:main1b} analogously as in the bounded case, by assuming in addition the non-degeneracy condition, i.e. that the average density of zeroes is finite.
\subsection{The balance law of zeroes on average} \label{ss:balaverage}
The main tool in this section is evolution of probability measures on $\tilde{ \mathcal{B}}$ with respect to (\ref{r:main}), and more generally evolution of measures on $\tilde{ \mathcal{B}}^2$ with respect to two replicas of (\ref{r:main}) in the following sense. Assume $\nu_0$ is a Borel probability measure on $\tilde{ \mathcal{B}}^2$. Then we denote by $\nu(t)$ the Borel probability measure on $\tilde{ \mathcal{B}}^2$, defined as $\nu_0$ pushed by product of two time-$t$ maps. If $\nu_0$ is $\hat{S}$-invariant, so is $\nu(t)$. We can define $\hat{Z}(\nu(t))$ as in Remark \ref{rr:61}.
We prove the following, using the aforementioned notation:
\begin{proposition} {\bf The balance law of zeroes on average.} \label{p:avbal}
Assume $\nu_0$ is a $\hat{S}$-invariant measure on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$, such that $\hat{Z}(\nu_0)< \infty$. Then
\begin{equation}
\hat{Z}(\nu(0))=\hat{Z}(\nu(1)) + \int_{\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2} d \: d\nu(0). \label{r:avbal}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
The proposition will follow from a general ergodic theoretical argument below, which is required to deduce that the flux $f$ in (\ref{r:bez!}) cancels out when integrated with respect to a $\hat{S}$-invariant measure, even in the case when $f$ is not integrable.
\begin{lemma} \label{l:ergodic}
Assume $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\nu)$ is a probability space, that $\hat{\sigma}: \Omega \rightarrow \Omega$ is measurable, and that $\nu$ is $\hat{\sigma}$-invariant. Assume that $\varphi, \zeta : \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ are measurable, and that $\zeta$ is $\nu$-integrable. Furthermore, assume that $\nu$-a.e.,
\begin{equation}
\varphi \circ \hat{\sigma} -\varphi \geq - \zeta . \label{r:assume}
\end{equation}
Then $(\varphi \circ \hat{\sigma} -\varphi )$ is $\nu$-integrable and $\int_{\Omega}(\varphi \circ \hat{\sigma} -\varphi )d\nu= 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $\mathcal{U}_m$ be the set of all $u \in \Omega$ such that $\varphi(\hat{\sigma}^n(u)) \leq m$ for infinitely many $n \in \mathbb{N}$. Then it is easy to see that $\mathcal{U}_m$ is $\hat{\sigma}$-invariant, and by the Poincar\'{e} recurrence theorem applied to sets $\lbrace u: \: \varphi(u) \leq m \rbrace$, that
\begin{equation}
\nu \lbrace \bigcup_{m=1}^{\infty} \mathcal{U}_m \rbrace = 1. \label{r:cup}
\end{equation}
Consider functions
\begin{align*}
u \mapsto & h(u): = \varphi(\hat{\sigma}(u)) - \varphi(u) + \zeta(u), \\
u \mapsto & h_m(u) : = \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{U}_m}(u)\lbrace \varphi(\hat{\sigma}(u)) - \varphi(u) + \zeta(u) \rbrace \wedge m,
\end{align*}
where $\bf{1}_{\mathcal{U}_m}$ is the characteristic function and $\wedge$ the minimum. By the assumptions, $h \geq 0$, thus $h_m \geq 0$, and by construction and (\ref{r:cup}), $h_m$ is an increasing sequence of functions converging $\nu$-a.e. to $h$.
We will first show that $\mathbb{E}[h_m] \leq \mathbb{E}[\zeta]$, where $\mathbb{E}[.]$ denotes the expectation, i.e. the Lebesgue integral with respect to $\nu$. Let $\mathcal{S}$ be the $\sigma$-algebra of $\hat{\sigma}$-invariant sets. It suffices to show that for all $m \geq 0$,
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}[h_m|\mathcal{S}] \leq \mathbb{E}[\zeta|\mathcal{S}], \quad \nu-a.e., \label{r:ae}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{E}[.|\mathcal{S}]$ denotes the conditional expectation \cite{Durrett:05}. As $0 \leq h_m \leq m$, $h_m$ is integrable, thus by the Birkhoff ergodic theorem, we have that $\nu$-a.e.,
\begin{equation}
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}h_m \circ \hat{\sigma}^k = \mathbb{E}[h_m|\mathcal{S}]. \label{r:birkhoff}
\end{equation}
Without loss of generality $\nu(\mathcal{U}_m) > 0$ (otherwise $h_m=0$ $\nu$-a.e.). Choose $u \in \mathcal{U}_m$, and one of infinitely $n_j$ such that $\varphi(\hat{\sigma}^{n_j}(u))\leq m$. Then it is easy to see that
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{n_j}\sum_{k=0}^{n_j-1}h_m(\hat{\sigma}^k(u)) & \leq \frac{1}{n_j}\sum_{k=0}^{n_j-1}h(\hat{\sigma}(u)) = \frac{1}{n_j}(\varphi(\hat{\sigma}^{n_j}(u))-\varphi(u)) + \frac{1}{n_j}\sum_{k=0}^{n_j-1}\zeta (\hat{\sigma}^k(u)) \notag \\
& \leq \frac{1}{n_j}(m-\varphi(u)) + \frac{1}{n_j}\sum_{k=0}^{n_j-1}\zeta (\hat{\sigma}^k(u)). \label{r:birkhoff2}
\end{align}
Now by the Birkhoff ergodic theorem applied to $\zeta$, we see that the right-hand side of (\ref{r:birkhoff2}) converges to $\mathbb{E}[\zeta|\mathcal{S}]$ as $n_j \rightarrow \infty$. Combined with (\ref{r:birkhoff}), we deduce that for $\nu$-a.e. $u \in \mathcal{U}_m$, we have that $\mathbb{E}[h_m|\mathcal{S}] \leq \mathbb{E}[\zeta|\mathcal{S}]$. As for $u \in \mathcal{U}^c_m$, $h_m(u) = 0$ and $\mathcal{U}^c_m$ is $\hat{\sigma}$-invariant, we conclude that (\ref{r:ae}) holds also for $\nu$-a.e. $u \in \mathcal{U}^c_m$.
Now, by the definition of the conditional expectation, (\ref{r:ae}) implies that for all $m \in \mathbb{N}$, $\mathbb{E}[h_m] \leq \mathbb{E}[\zeta]$, thus by the Lebesgue monotone convergence theorem, $h$ is integrable and $\mathbb{E}[h] \leq \mathbb{E}[\zeta]$. As we can now apply the Birkhoff ergodic theorem also to $h$, we repeat the argument as in (\ref{r:birkhoff}) and (\ref{r:birkhoff2}) applied to $h$ instead of $h_m$ to conclude that $\mathbb{E}[h] = \mathbb{E}[\zeta]$. As now $h-\zeta$ is integrable and $\mathbb{E}[h-\zeta]=0$, the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{p:avbal}]
We insert in Lemma \ref{l:ergodic} the following: $\Omega=\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$ with the Borel $\sigma$-algebra, $\hat{\sigma} = \hat{S}$, $\varphi=f$, $\zeta = z$ and $\nu=\nu_0$. By (\ref{r:bez!}), we have
$$ f \circ \hat{S}- f = z \circ \hat{T} - z + d \geq -z,$$
thus the assumptions of Lemma \ref{l:ergodic} hold. We now have that $( f \circ \hat{S} - f)$ is $\nu_0$-integrable and
$$
\int_{\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2} \left( f\circ \hat{S} - f \right) d\nu_0 = 0.
$$
Inserting it into (\ref{r:bez!}) integrated with respect to $\nu_0$, we obtain (\ref{r:avbal}).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Density of zeroes and non-degeneracy of invariant measures} \label{ss:characterize} We now prove several properties of the density of zeroes. We first establish that the density of zeroes is a.e. non-decreasing, and then define and characterize non-degeneracy of invariant measures.
\begin{lemma} \label{l:nondecreasing}
Assume $\nu_0$ is a $\hat{S}$-invariant measure on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$. Then for $\nu_0$-a.e. $(u_0,v_0)$,
\begin{equation}
\hat{\zeta}(Tu_0,Tv_0)\leq \hat{\zeta}(u_0,v_0). \label{r:nondecreasing}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to prove that (\ref{r:nondecreasing}) holds a.e. with respect to every $\hat{S}$-ergodic measure $\nu_0$, as the claim then follows by the ergodic decomposition theorem. This follows from the Birkhoff ergodic theorem and (\ref{r:avbal}) if $\hat{Z}(\nu_0) < \infty$, and trivially if $\hat{Z}(\nu_0) = \infty$, as then $\hat{\zeta}(u_0,v_0) = \infty$ $\nu_0$-a.e.
\end{proof}
\begin{defn} \label{d:nondegenerate} We say that a $\hat{S}$-invariant measure $\nu_0$ on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$ is non-degenerate, if for $\nu$-a.e. $(u_0,v_0)$, $\hat{\zeta}(u_0,v_0)<\infty$.
We say that a pair $(\mu_1,\mu_2)$ of $S$-invariant measures on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ is non-degenerate, if $\mu_1 \times \mu_2$ is non-degenerate. A $S$-invariant measure $ \mu_0$ on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ is non-degenerate, if the pair $(\mu_0,\mu_0)$ is non-degenerate. A family of $S$-invariant measures $\mathcal{N}$ on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ is non-degenerate, if every $\mu_0 \in \mathcal{N}$ is non-degenerate. The ergodic attractor $\mathcal{E}$ is non-degenerate, if $\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{B})$ is non-degenerate.
\end{defn}
We note that we do not know of any examples of degenerate measures on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$. We discuss it further in Section \ref{s:open}.
In the following lemma, we use the ergodic decomposition of a measure with respect to two commuting transformations. We say that a measure is ergodic with respect to two commuting transformations $\hat{S},\hat{T}$, if any $\hat{S},\hat{T}$-invariant measurable set has measure $0$ or $1$. We can decompose a $\hat{S},\hat{T}$-invariant measure on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$ into $\hat{S},\hat{T}$-ergodic measures, with the standard decomposition formula \cite{Walters}, Section 6.2, as the Choquet theorem applies. We will require the following generalization of Lemma \ref{l:4_1} to the extended case.
\begin{lemma} \label{l:nondeg} Let $\nu_0$ be a $\hat{S}$-invariant measure on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$.
(i) $\nu_0$ is non-degenerate if and only if for a.e. measure $\nu_1$ in its ergodic decomposition into $\hat{S}$-ergodic measures, $\hat{Z}(\nu_1)< \infty$.
(ii) Assume $\nu_0$ is $\hat{S},\hat{T}$-invariant. Then $\nu_0$ is non-degenerate if and only if for a.e. measure $\nu_1$ in its ergodic decomposition into $\hat{S},\hat{T}$-ergodic measures, $\hat{Z}(\nu_1)< \infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume $\nu_0$ is non-degenerate, and take any measure $\nu_1$ from its $\hat{S}$-ergodic decomposition such that $\hat{\zeta}< \infty$ $\nu_1$-a.e. (this holds for a.e. measure in the ergodic decomposition.) As for each $n$, the set $\lbrace (u_0,v_0), \: \hat{\zeta}(u_0,v_0) \leq n \rbrace$ is $\hat{S}$-invariant, it has $\nu_0$-measure $0$ or $1$, thus we can find $n_1$ large enough such that $\nu_1(\hat{\zeta} \leq n_0 )=1$, so $\hat{Z}(\nu_1)\leq n_0$. The other implication in (i) follows from the ergodic decomposition theorem.
To show (ii), it suffices to note that by Lemma \ref{l:nondecreasing}, for every $\hat{S},\hat{T}$-ergodic measure $\nu_0$, the sets $\lbrace (u,v), \: \hat{\zeta}(u_0,v_0) \leq n \rbrace$ are $\nu_0$-a.e. $\hat{S},\hat{T}$-invariant. The rest of the proof is analogous to the case (i).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{t:main1b}} We prove the following slightly generalized version of Theorem \ref{t:main1b}:
\begin{proposition} \label{p:final} Assume $\mathcal{M}_0(\mathcal{B})$ is a non-degenerate family of $S,T$-invariant measures, closed for finite or countable convex combinations, and let $\mathcal{E}_0 = \cup_{\mu \in \mathcal{M}_0(\mathcal{B})}\supp \mu$. Then for any $(u_0,v_0) \in \mathcal{E}_0 $, we have that $d(u_0,v_0)=0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Let $u_0 \in \supp \mu_1$, $v_0 \in \supp \mu_2$, and let $\nu_0 = \frac{1}{4}(\mu_1+\mu_2)^2$. Then $\nu_0$ is a $\hat{S},\hat{T}$-invariant measure on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^2$, by assumptions non-degenerate. Analogously as in Lemma \ref{l:4_2}, by applying Lemma \ref{l:nondeg}, we can construct a $\hat{S},\hat{T}$-invariant $\tilde{\nu}_0$ such that $\hat{Z}(\tilde{\nu}_0) < \infty$, and such that $(u_0,v_0) \in \supp \tilde{\nu}_0$. As $\tilde{\nu}$ is $\hat{S},\hat{T}$-invariant, (\ref{r:avbal}) implies that $d=0$, $\tilde{\nu}$-a.e. The rest of the argument is analogous to the proof of Proposition \ref{p:diszero1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{t:main1b}] It is analogous to the proof of Theorem \ref{t:main1},
by applying Proposition \ref{p:final} instead of Proposition \ref{p:diszero1} to $\mathcal{M}_0(\mathcal{B})$ instead of $\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{B})$.
\end{proof}
\part{Uniqueness of invariant measures}
\section{Non-transversal intersections of an equilibrium in the extended case} \label{s:notrans}
Prior to discussing uniqueness of an invariant measure, we demonstrate here a universal property of non-transversality of intersections of $\omega$-limit sets almost-everywhere and a $S,T$-equilibrium (i.e. a spatially and temporally periodic solution). We consider only the E/P case in this section, assume (A1-4), and let $\mathcal{B}$, $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ and $\delta_0$ be as in Section \ref{s:prelim}. We fix throughout the section a $v_0 \in \mathcal{B}$ such that $v_0 = S(v_0)=T(v_0)$ (thus $v_0 \in \tilde{\mathcal{B}}$).
Recall that the pair $(\mu_0,\delta_{v_0})$ is non-degenerate, if for $\mu_0$-a.e. $u_0$, (\ref{d:nondegenerate}) holds, i.e. the density of zeroes of $u_0-v_0$ is finite. We do not know any example of an $S$-invariant $\mu_0$ supported on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ and a $S,T$-invariant $v_0$ such that $(\mu_0,\delta_{v_0})$ is degenerate.
Throughout the section, $u(t),v(t),z(t)$ denote solutions of (\ref{r:main}) with initial conditions $u_0,v_0,z_0$ at $t=0$.
\begin{proposition} \label{p:transversal}
Assume that $\mu_0$ is an $S$-invariant measure on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ such that $(\mu_0,\delta_{v_0})$ is non-degenerate. Then for $\mu_0$-a.e. $u_0$, $\omega(u_0)$ consists of $z_0$ such that $z(t)-v(t)$ can not have a multiple zero for any $(x,t) \in \mathbb{R}^2$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} First note that it suffices to prove the claim for $S$-ergodic $\mu_0$, as by the assumption and Lemma \ref{l:nondeg}, every measure $\nu_0$ in the $\hat{S}$-ergodic decomposition of $\mu_0 \times \delta_{v_0}$ is non-degenerate, and a.e. measures in the $\hat{S}$-ergodic decomposition of $\mu_0 \times \delta_{v_0}$ are of the form $\mu_1 \times \delta_{v_0}$, $\mu_1$ $S$-ergodic. Thus assume $\mu_0$ is $S$-ergodic, so by the non-degeneracy assumption and Lemma \ref{l:nondeg} we have $\hat{Z}(\mu_0 \times \delta_{v_0}) < \infty$.
We will first show that there exists an open set $\mathcal{U} \subset \tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ satisfying
\begin{subequations} \label{r:U2}
\begin{gather}
\left\lbrace u_0 \in \tilde{\mathcal{B}}, \: d(u_0,v_0)\geq 1 \right\rbrace \subset \mathcal{U}, \label{r:U2a} \\ \mathcal{U} \subset \left\lbrace u_0\in \tilde{\mathcal{B}}, \: d(u_0,v_0) + d(S^{-1}u_0,v_0)+d(Tu_0,v_0)+d(S^{-1}Tu_0,v_0)\geq 1 \right\rbrace.
\label{r:U2b}
\end{gather}
\end{subequations}
Then we show that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_0 \left( T^{-k} \left( \mathcal{U} \right) \right) < \infty, \label{r:borelcantelli}
\end{equation}
and finally we complete the proof by an application of the first Borel-Cantelli lemma \cite{Durrett:05}.
To prove the first claim, for any $z_0$ such that $d(z_0,v_0) \geq 1$ we can by an application of Lemma \ref{l:3_3} find an open neighbourhood $\tilde{\mathcal{U}}(z_0) \subset \tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ such that for each $\tilde{u}_0 \in \tilde{\mathcal{U}}(z_0)$, and for $\tilde{v}_0=v_0$, (\ref{r:disseq}) holds, thus as $v_0=Tv_0=S^{-1}v_0$,
\begin{equation}
d(\tilde{u}_0,v_0)+d(S^{-1}\tilde{u}_0,v_0)+d(T\tilde{u}_0,v_0)+d(S^{-1}T\tilde{u}_0,v_0)\geq 1. \label{r:geq1}
\end{equation}
The set $\mathcal{U}=\cup_{z_0 \in \tilde{\mathcal{B}},d(z_0,v_0)\geq 1} \tilde{\mathcal{U}}(z_0)$ now satisfies (\ref{r:U2}).
Let $\nu(t)$ be the evolution of the measure $\mu_0 \times \delta_{v_0}$ as defined at the beginning of the subsection \ref{ss:balaverage}. Then for integers $k \geq 0$, $\nu(k)=\mu(k) \times \delta_{v_0}$ by $S,T$-invariance of $v_0$, where $\mu(t)$ is the evolution of $\mu_0$. Now applying the balance law on average \ref{r:avbal} to $\nu(k)$, we see that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \int_{\tilde{\mathcal{B}}} d(T^k(u_0),v_0) d\mu_0(u_0)
= \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \int_{\tilde{\mathcal{B}}} d \: d\nu(k) \leq \hat{Z}(\nu(0)) =
\hat{Z}(\mu_0 \times \delta_{v_0}) < \infty. \label{r:borel1}
\end{equation}
By (\ref{r:U2b}) we obtain
\begin{align} \mu_0(T^{-k}(\mathcal{U})) & = \mu_0( u_0 \in \mathcal{B}, \, T^k(u_0)\in \mathcal{U}) \notag\\
& \leq \int_{\tilde{\mathcal{B}}} \left( d\left( T^ku_0,v_0 \right) + d\left( S^{-1}T^ku_0,v_0 \right)+d\left( T^{k+1}u_0,v_0 \right)+d\left(S^{-1}T^{k+1}u_0,v_0 \right) \right) d\mu_0(u_0) \notag \\
& =2 \int_{\tilde{\mathcal{B}}} \left( d\left(T^ku_0,v_0 \right) + d\left(T^{k+1}u_0,v_0\right) \right) d\mu_0(u_0), \label{r:borel2}
\end{align}
where in the last row we applied the $S$-invariance of $\mu_0$. Inserting (\ref{r:borel2}) into (\ref{r:borel1}) we obtain (\ref{r:borelcantelli}). By the first Borel-Cantelli lemma \cite[(6.1)]{Durrett:05}, the set of $u_0 \in \tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ such that $T^k(u_0)\in \mathcal{U}$ for infinitely many $k \in \mathbb{N}$ has $\mu_0$-measure $0$, thus by openness of $\mathcal{U}$, $\mu_0 \left( \left\lbrace u_0\in \tilde{\mathcal{B}}, \: \omega(u_0)\cap \mathcal{U}=\emptyset \right\rbrace \right) = 1$. Because of (\ref{r:U2a}), we obtain
$$
\mu_0 \left( \left\lbrace u_0\in \tilde{\mathcal{B}}, \: \forall z_0 \in \omega(u_0), \: \forall k \in \mathbb{Z}, \, d(z(k),v(k))=0 \right\rbrace \right) = 1
$$
(where $v(k)=v_0$ by $T$-invariance of $v_0$). Finally, as $\mu_0$ is $S$-invariant, we get
$$
\mu_0 \left( \left\lbrace u_0\in \tilde{\mathcal{B}}, \: \forall z_0 \in \omega(u_0), \: \forall k,m \in \mathbb{Z}, \, d(S^mz(k),S^mv(k))=0 \right\rbrace \right) = 1
$$
(where $S^mv(k)=v_0$ by $S,T$-invariance of $v_0$), which we needed to prove by the definition of $d$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{e:nondeg} One can construct many non-trivial measures $\mu_0$ such that $(\mu_0,\delta_{v_0})$ is non-degenerate for any $S,T$-invariant $v_0$, without any a-priori information on $v_0$. For example, this can be done by embedding measures by combining profiles of a finite family of $S$-invariant (i.e. spatially periodic) functions in $\tilde{ \mathcal{B}}$, as $z(u_0,v_0) < \infty$ for any $u_0,v_0 \in \tilde{\mathcal{B}}$. Such $\mu_0$ then also satisfies (N1) without any a-priori knowledge of $\mathcal{V}$.
\end{remark}
\section{Existence of a 1d family of equilibria} \label{s:burgers}
We now prove the second step in the proof of the results listed in Subsection \ref{ss:unique}: existence of a 1d family of equilibria as specified in Theorem \ref{t:main2}, (i). More specifically, let $1 > \alpha > 1 - \varepsilon / 2$, where $\varepsilon$ is as in (B1). We will construct a 1d family satisfying the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(C1)] (i) There exists a set ${\mathcal{V}}=\lbrace v^y_0, \: y \in \mathbb{R}$, $v^y_0 \in H^{2 \alpha}(\mathbb{S}^1)$ satisfying that $y \mapsto v^y_0$ is continuous as a map $\mathbb{R} \rightarrow H^{2 \alpha}(\mathbb{S}^1)$, strictly increasing, and such that for all $y \in \mathbb{R}$, $v^y_0$ is $T$-invariant and $\int_0^1 v^y_0(x)dx=y$.
\vspace{1ex}
\noindent (ii) The functions
\begin{align*}
y \mapsto \underline{v}(y) & := \min \left\lbrace v^y(x,t), \: (x,t) \in \mathbb{S}^1 \times [0,1] \right\rbrace, \\
y \mapsto \overline{v}(y) & := \max \left\lbrace v^y(x,t), \: (x,t) \in \mathbb{S}^1 \times [0,1] \right\rbrace
\end{align*}
are onto $\mathbb{R}$.
\vspace{1ex}
\noindent (iii) Such a set $\mathcal{V}$ is unique.
\end{itemize}
We prove the following, by an application of the Schauder fixed point theorem:
\begin{proposition} \label{l:C1}
If (A1-3) and (B1-3) hold, then (C1) holds.
\end{proposition}
We first prove uniqueness in a separate lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{l:unique} If (A1-3) holds, then a set $\mathcal{V}$ satisfying (C1) (i),(ii) is unique.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume the contrary, and find two such families $v^y_0$,$w^y_0$. Then it is easy to see that there must exist two $y_1,y_2$ such that $d(v^{y_1}_0,w^{y_2}_0) \geq 1$, for example by choosing any $y_1$ such that $v^{y_1}_0 \neq w^{y_1}_0$ and setting $y_2$ to be the minimal $y$ such that $w^y_0 \geq v^{y_1}_0$. Clearly $\mathcal{B}$ consisting of orbits $v^{y_1}(t),w^{y_2}(t)$ satisfies (A4), and the measures $\delta_1$, $\delta_2$ concentrated on $v^{y_1}_0,w^{y_2}_0$ are $S,T$-invariant. This and $d(v^{y_1}_0,w^{y_2}_0) \geq 1$ contradicts Theorem \ref{t:main1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{l:C1}] Throughout the proof, we consider the dynamics of (\ref{r:main}) in the bounded case $\mathcal{X}=L^2(\mathbb{S}^1)$ only, and assume (A1-3), (B1-3). Fix $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and a function $c : [\alpha,1) \rightarrow (n,\infty)$ to be chosen later, and consider the family $\mathcal{V}_{n,c}$ of continuous functions $w_0 : [-n,n] \rightarrow \mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$, $ y \mapsto w^y_0$, satisfying the following properties for all $y,z \in [-n,n]$:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
& \int_0^1 w^y_0(x)dx =y, \label{r:schA} \\
& \left|\left|w^y_0-y \right|\right|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{S}^1)} \leq l(y), \label{r:schB} \\
& y \leq z \Rightarrow w^y_0 \leq w^z_0, \label{r:schC} \\
& \left|\left|w^y_0 \right|\right|_{\mathcal{X}^{\gamma}} \leq c(\gamma)\quad \text{for all } \gamma \in [\alpha,1), \label{r:schD}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $l(y)$ is as in (B2). Clearly $\mathcal{V}_{n,c}$ is convex. We need to also show that it is compact in $C([-n,n],\mathcal{X}^{\alpha})$ and non-empty.
First note that by (\ref{r:schA}) and (\ref{r:schC}), for $y < z$ we have that $||w^z_0-w^y_0||_{L^1(\mathbb{S}^1)} = z - y$, thus
\begin{equation}
||w^z_0-w^y_0||_{L^2(\mathbb{S}^1)} \leq c_{\infty}^{1/2} (z - y)^{1/2}. \label{r:l2}
\end{equation}
Fix a $\gamma$, $\alpha < \gamma < 1$. By the interpolation formula \cite{Henry}, p27, we have $||u||_{\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}} \leq c_1 ||u||_{\mathcal{X}^{\gamma}}^{\alpha/\gamma} ||u||_{\mathcal{X}}^{1-\alpha/\gamma}$ for some fixed constant $c_1 > 0$, thus by (\ref{r:schD}) and (\ref{r:l2}),
\begin{align*}
||w^z_0-w^y_0||_{\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}} \leq 2^{\alpha/\gamma} c_1 c_{\infty}^{1/2-\alpha/(2\gamma)} c(\gamma)^{\alpha/\gamma} |z-y|^{1/2-\alpha/(2\gamma)}.
\end{align*}
We see that $\mathcal{V}_{n,c}$ is equicontinuous, thus by the Arzel\`{a}-Ascoli theorem, its closure is compact.
To show that $\mathcal{V}_{n,c}$ is compact, it remains to show that it is closed in $C([-n,n],\mathcal{X}^{\alpha})$. The only remaining non-trivial claim is that it is closed with respect to (\ref{r:schD}) for $\alpha < \gamma < 1$. It suffices to show that if for some $y \in [-n,n]$, a sequence $w_n^y$ satisfying (\ref{r:schD}) converges in $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$ to $z^y_0 \in \mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$, that then $z^y_0 \in \mathcal{X}^{\gamma}$ and $||z^y_0||_{\mathcal{X}^{\gamma}} \leq c(\gamma)$. By taking some $\gamma' > \gamma$, by compact embedding of $\mathcal{X}^{\gamma'}$ in $\mathcal{X}^{\gamma}$ we deduce that the family $w_n^y$, $n \in \mathbb{N}$ is relatively compact in $\mathcal{X}^{\gamma}$. As its every convergent subsequence in $\mathcal{X}^{\gamma}$ converges also in $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$, it must converge to $z^y_0$, thus $z^y_0 \in \mathcal{X}^{\gamma}$, $w_n^y$ converges to $z^y_0$ in $\mathcal{X}^{\gamma}$ and (\ref{r:schD}) holds in the limit.
We now show that for each $n \in \mathbb{N}$, there exists a function $c$ as in (\ref{r:schD}) such that $\mathcal{V}_{n,c}$ is non-empty, and such that the function $\tau : \mathcal{V}_{n,c} \rightarrow \mathcal{V}_{n,c}$ given with $(\tau(w_0))^y = T(w^y_0)$ is well defined, i.e. that $\tau(w_0) \in \mathcal{V}_{n,c}$. The properties (\ref{r:schA}) and (\ref{r:schB}) are preserved by (B2), (B3) respectively; and (\ref{r:schC}) by the order-preserving property of (\ref{r:main}). To show $\tau$-invariance of (\ref{r:schD}), consider $c_\infty : = \max_{y \in [-n,n]}(|y|+l(y))$ (which exists by the upper semi-continuity of $l$). Then by (B1), (B2) and \cite[Proposition 7.2.2]{Lunardi:95}, the solution $w^y(t)$ of (\ref{r:main}), $w^y(0)=w^y_0$ exists for all $t \geq 0$ as long as $w^y_0$ satisfies (\ref{r:schB}), and for all $t \geq 0$, we have that $||w^y(t)||_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})} \leq c_{\infty}$. Furthermore, by \cite[Lemma 7.0.3 and Proposition 7.2.2]{Lunardi:95}, we can find $c(\alpha)> n$ large enough, such that if $||w^y_0||_{\mathcal{X}^\alpha} \leq c(\alpha)$, then $||T(w^y_0)||_{\mathcal{X}^\alpha} \leq c(\alpha)$. Finally, we obtain the required $c(\gamma) > n$ for each $\alpha < \gamma < 1$ by integrating the variation of constants formula over $t \in [0,1]$ while applying (B1) and a-priori bounds on the solution in $\mathcal{X}^\alpha$ for $t \in [0,1]$ obtained in \cite[Proposition 7.2.2]{Lunardi:95}, Clearly now for $w^y_0 \equiv y$ we have that $w_0 \in \mathcal{V}_{n,c}$, thus $\mathcal{V}_{n,c}$ is non-empty. Finally, by the continuous dependence on initial conditions, $\tau(w)$ is continuous $\tau : \mathcal{V}_{n,c} \rightarrow \mathcal{V}_{n,c}$ is continuous.
Now we can apply the Schauder fixed point theorem to find a fixed point of $\tau$, which was required. We can extend $w^y$ to the entire $y \in \mathbb{R}$ by choosing an increasing sequence of $n_k \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $n_k > \max_{y \in [-n_{k-1},n_{k-1}]}(|y|+l(y))$, and proving that $\lbrace w^y, \: y \in [-n_j,n_j] \rbrace$ is then independent of $n_k$, $k > j$, analogously as in the proof of Lemma \ref{l:unique}. This completes (C1),(i). We obtain (C2),(ii) from (\ref{r:B2}) and the construction.
\end{proof}
\section{A 1d family of equilibria as an ergodic attractor and asymptotics} \label{s:unique}
We now complete the proofs of the main results of Subsection \ref{ss:unique}, which follow from Proposition \ref{l:C1} and Proposition \ref{p:C1} below. We actually show that the condition (C1) from the previous section suffices instead of (B2-3). Let $\alpha > 1 - \varepsilon / 2$, where $\varepsilon$ is as in (B1).
\begin{proposition} \label{p:C1}
If we assume (A1-3), (B1) and (C1), then the claims in Theorem \ref{c:bounded} and Corollaries \ref{c:bounded} and \ref{c:asymptotics} hold.
\end{proposition}
We prove it in a series of Lemmas, with standing assumptions (A1-3), (B1) and (C1). We first establish that $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$ can be decomposed into an increasing union of sets on which (A4) holds, and then deduce the required claims.
\begin{lemma} \label{l:unbound}
Assume $u_0 \in \mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$ in either bounded or extended case, such that $||u_0||_{\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}} \leq c_0$. Then there exists a constant $c_1 > 0$ (depending on $c_0$, non-linearity $g$ and family $\mathcal{V}$), such that for all $t_0 \in \mathbb{R}$, the solution $u(t)$ of (\ref{r:main}), $u(t_0)=u_0$, exists for all $t \geq t_0$ and $||u(t)||_{\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}} \leq c_1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By (C1),(ii), we can find $y_1 < y_2$ such that $\overline{v}(y_1) \leq u \leq \underline{v}(y_2)$. By the maximum principle, if the solution of (\ref{r:main}) exists on the interval $[t_0,t_1)$, then for each $t \in [t_0,t_1)$, we have that $\underline{v}(y_1) \leq u(t) \leq \overline{v}(y_2)$, thus $u(t)$ is uniformly bounded in the $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{S}^1)$, resp. $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ norm in the B, resp. E case. This and (C1) imply the claim by the standard argument, e.g. \cite[Proposition 7.2.2]{Lunardi:95} (alternatively, see \cite{Polacik:02}, Section 2). This in the view of the comments in the Appendix \ref{s:fractional} also holds in the extended case.
\end{proof}
Let $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_k$ be the set of all $u_0 \in \tilde{ \mathcal{B}}$ such that for all $t \geq 0$, $||u(t)||_{\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}} \leq k$, where $u(t)$ is the solution of (\ref{r:main}), $u(0)=u_0$. Then by Lemma \ref{l:unbound}, $\tilde{ \mathcal{B}}=\cup_{k=1}^{\infty} \tilde{\mathcal{B}}_k$, and by the discussion in Section \ref{s:prelim}, $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_k$ is compact and invariant. In this section we write $\mathcal{E}=\cup_{k=1}^{\infty} \mathcal{E}(\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_k)$.
\begin{lemma} \label{l:ii} In the bounded case, and in the extended case if $\mathcal{E}$ is non-degenerate, we have that $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{V}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Consider first the bounded case. Fix $k \in \mathbb{N}$, and consider
$$
\tilde{\mathcal{B}} := \tilde{\mathcal{B}}_k \cup \lbrace v^y_0, \: y \in [y^-,y^+] \rbrace,
$$
$\tilde{\mathcal{B}} \subset H^{2\alpha}(\mathbb{S}^1)$, where $y^- <y^+$ were chosen so that for all $u_0 \in \tilde{\mathcal{B}}_k$, $v^{y^-}_0 < u_0 < v^{y^+}_0$. This is possible, as by definition, $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_k$ is uniformly bounded in $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$, and because of (C1),(ii).
Clearly $\left\lbrace v^y_0, y\in [y^-,y^+] \right\rbrace \subseteq \mathcal{E}(\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_k)$, as the Dirac measure $\delta_{v^y_0}$ is $T$-invariant. Assume $\mu_0$ is any $T$-invariant measure on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$, and let $u_0 \in \supp \mu$. Let $y_1 < y_2$ be chosen so that $y_1 = \max \lbrace y \in \mathbb{R}, v^y_0 \leq u_0 \rbrace$, and $y_2 = \min \lbrace y \in \mathbb{R}, u_0 \leq v^y_0 \rbrace$ (such minimum and maximum exist by the compactness of the domain $\mathbb{S}^1$). If $y_1 \neq y_2$, we easily see that both $u_0-v^{y_1}_0$ and $u_0-v^{y_2}_0$ have a multiple zero, which is impossible by Proposition \ref{p:diszero1}.The only possibility is $u_0=v^{y_1}_0=v^{y_2}_0$, thus $u_0 \in \mathcal{V}$.
Consider now the extended case with the non-degeneracy assumption, with $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ as above, thus now $\tilde{\mathcal{B}} \subset H^{2\alpha}_{\text{ul}}(\mathbb{R})$. Again we see that $\lbrace v^y_0, y\in [y^-,y^+] \rbrace \subseteq \mathcal{E}(\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_k)$, as the Dirac measure $\delta_{v^y_0}$ is $S,T$-invariant. Let $\mu_0$ be any $S,T$-invariant measure on $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$, and let $u_0 \in \supp \mu_0$. Now suppose that $u_0$ intersects some $v^{y_0}_0$ twice at $x_1 < x_2$. Find $y_1 < y_2$ so that
\begin{align*}
y_1 & = \max \left\lbrace y \in \mathbb{R}, \, v^y_0(x) \leq u_0(x), \, x\in [x_1,x_2] \right\rbrace, \\ y_2 & = \min \left\lbrace y \in \mathbb{R}, \, u_0(x) \leq v^y_0(x), \, x\in [x_1,x_2] \right\rbrace
\end{align*}
(such minimum and maximum exist by compactness of $[x_1,x_2]$). Thus by Proposition \ref{p:final}, we deduce analogously as in the bounded case that the only possibility is $u_0|_{[x_1,x_2]}=v^{y_1}_0|_{[x_1,x_2]}=v^{y_2}_0|_{[x_1,x_2]}$, thus by the local structure of zeroes, $u_0=v^{y_1}_0=u^{y_2}_0$, i.e. $u_0\in \mathcal{E}$. We conclude that $u_0$ can intersect every $v_0 \in \mathcal{V}$ at most once, transversally, so it is easy to see that the only alternative to $u_0 \in \mathcal{V}$ is $u_0 \in \mathcal{H}$, $\mathcal{H}$ the set of spatially heteroclinic solutions defined in the Introduction. By definition, no $h_0 \in \mathcal{H}$ is $S$-recurrent, thus by the Poincar\'{e} recurrence theorem, $\mu_0(\mathcal{H})=0$, thus $\mu_0(\mathcal{V})=1$. As $\mathcal{V}$ is a closed set, $\mu_0$ must be supported on $\mathcal{V}$, which eliminates the possibility $u_0 \in \mathcal{H}$ and concludes the proof also in the extended case.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{l:bbounded}
For each $u_0 \in \mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$ in the bounded case, there exists $y_0 \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $\omega(u_0)=\lbrace v^{y_0}_0 \rbrace$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As $\bar{\omega}(u_0)$ is by Lemma \ref{l:onaverage} in the Appendix A non-empty, by Lemma \ref{l:subset} and Lemma \ref{l:ii}, there exists some $y_0 \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $v^{y_0}_0 \in \mathcal{E} \cap \bar{\omega}(u_0)$, thus $v^{y_0}_0 \in \omega(u_0)$. Now by (C1), for each $\delta > 0$ there exists a sufficiently large $k_0 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $v^{y_0-\delta}_0 \leq T^{k_0}(u_0) \leq v^{y_0+\delta}_0$. As all $v^y_0$ are $T$-invariant, by the maximum principle we have that for all $k \geq k_0$, $v^{y_0-\delta}_0 \leq T^k(u_0) \leq v^{y_0+\delta}_0$, thus $\omega(u_0)$ contains only $v^{y_0}_0$.
\end{proof}
Denote below by $z(t)$ the solution of (\ref{r:main}), $z(0)=z_0$.
\begin{lemma} \label{l:transversal}
Assume in the extended case that $\mu_0$ satisfies (N1). Then there exists a set $\mathcal{U}$ of full measure such that for $u_0 \in \mathcal{U}$ and for any $z_0 \in \omega(u_0)$, $z(t)-v^y(t)$ can not have a multiple zero for any $y,x,t \in \mathbb{R}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{p:transversal}, for a given $y \in \mathbb{R}$, there exists a set of full measure $\mathcal{U}_y$ such that if $u_0 \in \mathcal{U}_y$ and $z_0 \in \omega(u_0)$, $z(t)-v^y(t)$ can not have a multiple zero for any $x,t \in \mathbb{R}$. Now the set $\mathcal{U}=\cap_{y \in \mathbb{Q}} \mathcal{U}_y$ also satisfies $\mu(\mathcal{U})=1$. Assume there is $u_0 \in \mathcal{U}$ such that for some $z_0 \in \omega(u)$ and some $y_0 \in \mathbb{R}$, $z(t)-v^{y_0}(t)$ have a multiple zero for some $t,x \in \mathbb{R}$. However, by an analogous argument as in Lemma \ref{l:3_3}, we can find $\delta > 0$ such that for each $y \in (y_0-\delta,y_0+\delta)$, there exists $\tilde{t}$ in a neighbourhood of $t$ such that $z_0(\tilde{t})-v^y(\tilde{t})$ has a multiple zero, which is impossible for rational $y$, thus a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{l:asymptotics}
Assume in the extended case that $\mu_0$ satisfies (N1). For $\mu_0$-a.e. $u_0$, we have that $\omega(u_0)\subset \mathcal{V} \cup \mathcal{H}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
To show (i), we show analogously as in the proof of Lemma \ref{l:ii} in the extended case, by applying Lemma \ref{l:transversal}, that there exists a set of full measure $\mathcal{U}$ so that for any $u_0 \in \mathcal{U}$ and any $z_0 \in \omega(u)$, $z-v^y_0$ can not have a multiple zero for any $y \in \mathbb{R}$. Analogously as in the same proof, we obtain $\omega(u_0) \subset \mathcal{V} \cup \mathcal{H}$ (the possibility that $z_0 \in \mathcal{H}$ can not be a-priori eliminated).
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{l:weak*}
Assume in the extended case that $\mu_0$ satisfies (N1). Then $\omega$-limit set of $\mu_0$ in the weak$^*$-topology consists of measures supported on $\mathcal{V}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is a standard ergodic theoretical fact that if $\nu_0 \in \omega(\mu_0)$ ($\omega$-limit set with respect to the weak$^*$ topology of iterations of $\mu_0$ induced by $T$), then $\supp \nu_0 \subset \cup_{u_0 \in \supp \mu_0} \omega(u_0)$ \cite{Walters}, thus $\nu_0$ is by Lemma \ref{l:asymptotics} supported on $\mathcal{V} \cup \mathcal{H}$. It is easy to see that $\nu_0$ must be $S$-invariant, thus as no $h \in \mathcal{H}$ is $S$-recurrent, by the Poincar\'{e} recurrence theorem, $\nu_0(\mathcal{H})=0$. Now $\nu_0(\mathcal{V})=1$, and as $\mathcal{V}$ is closed, $\supp \nu_0 \subset \mathcal{V}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{p:C1}]
Theorem \ref{t:main2}, (i) is a restated Lemma \ref{l:C1}; (ii) is Lemma \ref{l:ii}, and (iii) can easily be deduced from (ii), as then $\mathcal{B}_y \cap \mathcal{E}=\lbrace v^y_0 \rbrace$. Corollary \ref{c:bounded} follows directly from Lemma \ref{l:bbounded}, where we obtain the required $y_0$ directly from (B3). Corollary \ref{c:asymptotics} follows from Lemmas \ref{l:asymptotics} and \ref{l:weak*}.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Corollary \ref{c:weak*}} \label{s:short}
We now give a more general condition which suffices instead of (N2) to establish Corollary \ref{c:weak*}.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(C2)] Assume in the extended case that $\mu_0$ is a $S$-invariant Borel-probability measure with $y_0 = \int \int_0^1u_0(x) \, dx \, d\mu_0(u_0)$, such that for $\mu_0$-a.e. $u_0$, and for each $w_0 \in \omega(u_0)$,
$$
\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{x}\int_0^x w_0(z)dz = \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{x}\int_{-x}^0 w_0(z)dz=y_0.
$$
\end{itemize}
We now have, while assuming (A1-3), (B1-3) and (N1) in the E/P case:
\begin{lemma} \label{l:last}
(i) (N2) implies (C2),
(ii) (C2) implies Corollary \ref{c:weak*}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(i) is straightforward. It is also easy to check that (C2) eliminates all the possibilities in Corollary \ref{c:asymptotics} except those remaining in Corollary \ref{c:weak*}.
\end{proof}
\part{Examples and open problems}
\section{The generalized Burgers equation} \label{burgers}
We show here that our results apply to the family of nonlinearities generalizing the nonlinearity in (\ref{r:burgers}):
\begin{equation*}
g(t,x,u,u_x)=-h(u)u_x+\hat{g}(t,x),
\end{equation*}
where $h,\hat{g}$ are continuous, $\hat{g}$ is locally H\"{o}lder continuous in $t$ and $1$-periodic in $x$, $t$, such that for all $t \in \mathbb{R}$, $\int_0^1 \hat{g}(t,x)dx = 0$; and $h$ is locally Lipschitz continuous.
It suffices to show that all our assumptions hold:
\begin{proposition} \label{l:burgershigh}
The equation (\ref{r:main}) with the nonlinearity $g$ as above satisfies (A1-3) and (B1-3).
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} It is straightforward to check (A1-3). To show (B1-3), it suffices to consider (\ref{r:main}) in the bounded case, for $u \in \mathcal{X}^{\alpha}=H^{2 \alpha}(\mathbb{S}^1)$. First note that for any continuous $\hat{h} : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, by considering $H(y)=\int_0^1 \hat{h}(z)dz$, thus $dH(u)/dx=\hat{h}(u)u_x$, we get
\begin{equation}
\int_0^1 \hat{h}(u)u_x dx = 0. \label{r:partint}
\end{equation}
Now (B1) is self-evident, and (B3) follows easily by differentiating $\int_0^1 u(x)dx$ with respect to $t$ and using (\ref{r:partint}) with $\hat{h}=h$ and partial integration. To show (B2), let $c_0 = \max_{x,t \in [0,1]}|\hat{g}(x,t)|$, fix $y \in \mathbb{R}$ and choose $u \in \mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$ such that $\int_0^1u(x)dx=y$. Let $t_0 \in \mathbb{R}$, and assume the solution of (\ref{r:main}), $u(t_0)=u$ exists on $[t_0,t_1)$. We differentiate for an integer $p \geq 1$:
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{dt}\frac{1}{2p}\int_0^1 (u(x)-y)^{2p}dx & = \int_0^1 (u(x)-y)^{2p-1}u_{xx} dx - \int_0^1 (u(x)-y)^{2p-1}h(u)u_x dx \notag \\ & \hspace{4ex} + \int_0^1 (u(x)-y)^{2p-1}\hat{g}(t,x)dx \notag \\
& = - (2p-1)\int_0^1 (u(x)-y)^{2p-2}u_x^2(x)dx + \int_0^1 (u(x)-y)^{2p-1}\hat{g}(t,x)dx, \label{r:burg1}
\end{align}
where in the second row we partially integrated the first term and used that $u(x)$ is 1-periodic, and also (\ref{r:partint}) with $\hat{h}(u)=(u-y)^{2p-1}h(u)$ applied to the second term.
As $w(x):=(u(x)-y)^p$, $w \in C^1(\mathbb{S}^1)$ has a zero for some $x \in \mathbb{S}^1$, we can apply the $L^2$-Poincar\'{e} inequality to $w$ to obtain
\begin{equation}
\int_0^1 (u(x)-y)^{2p}dx \leq \frac{p^2}{\pi^2}\int_0^1 (u(x)-y)^{2p-2}u_x^2(x)dx. \label{r:burg2}
\end{equation}
By the weighted Young's inequality applied to the integrand in the last term in (\ref{r:burg1}), we get
\begin{equation}
(u(x)-y)^{2p-1}\hat{g}(t,x) \leq \frac{(2p-1)\pi}{2 p^2}(u(x)-y)^{2p} + \frac{1}{2\pi} c_0^{2p}. \label{r:burg3}
\end{equation}
Inserting (\ref{r:burg2}) and (\ref{r:burg3}) into (\ref{r:burg1}), we now have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{dt}\frac{1}{2p}\int_0^1 (u(x)-y)^{2p}dx \leq - \frac{(2p-1)\pi}{2 p^2}\int_0^1 (u(x)-y)^{2p}dx + \frac{1}{2\pi} c_0^{2p},
\end{equation*}
thus by the Gronwall inequality, the following implication holds:
\begin{equation}
||u(t_0)-y||_{L^{2p}(\mathbb{S}^1)} \leq c_{2p} \Rightarrow ||u(t)-y||_{L^{2p}(\mathbb{S}^1)} \leq c_{2p}, \: t \in [t_0,t_1),
\end{equation}
where $$c_{2p}=\left( \frac{p^2 }{(2p-1)\pi^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2p}}c_0.$$
Now if $||u(t_0)-y ||_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{S}^1)} \leq c_0$, we have that for all integer $p \geq 2\pi^2$ and all $t \in [t_0,t_1)$, $||u(t)-y||_{L^{2p}(\mathbb{S}^1)} \leq c_{2p}$. As $\lim_{p \rightarrow \infty}c_{2p}=c_0$, we conclude that for all $t \in [t_0,t_1)$, $||u(t)-y||_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{S}^1)} \leq c_0$, thus (C1) holds with $d(y):=c_0$, where (C1),(ii) follows from (\ref{r:B2}).
\end{proof}
\begin{example} \label{e:burgN2} We now consider the Burgers equation (\ref{r:burgers}) and show that any measure $\mu_0$ satisfying Sinai's assumptions \cite{Sinai:91} satisfies in particular (N2), and relate assumptions from \cite{Sinai:91} to our setting.
Consider the Cole-Hopf substitution $u=-2\varphi_x/\varphi$, $\varphi(x)=\exp\left( -\frac{1}{2}\int_0^xu(y)dy \right)$, as in \cite{Sinai:91,Sinai:96,Sinai:98}, and get for $\varphi$ the linear equation
\begin{equation}
\varphi_t = \varphi_{xx} - \frac{1}{2}\hat{g}(x,t)\varphi. \label{r:lin}
\end{equation}
Let $\varphi^y_0$ be the transformed family $v^y_0$, $y \in \mathbb{R}$, as in (C1), which exists by Lemmas \ref{l:C1} and \ref{l:burgershigh}. By definition, $\varphi^0_0$ is non-negative, continuous and $1$-periodic in $x,t$, thus $\varphi^0(t)$ is uniformly bounded in $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$. Assume now $\nu_0$ is a $S$-invariant measure supported on a family of sufficiently smooth functions $f_0$, such that for some $0 < c_1 < c_2$, for $\nu_0$-a.e. $f_0$ we have that $c_1 \leq f_0 \leq c_2$. Then we can find $0 < c_3 < 1$ such that $c_3 \varphi^0_0 \leq f_0 \leq \frac{1}{c_3}\varphi^0_0$, thus by the maximum principle and linearity of (\ref{r:lin}), $f(t)$ is bounded uniformly in $t$ in $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$. It is easy to check that then the measure $\mu_0$ which is the push of $\nu_0$ with respect to the Cole-Hopf substitution satisfies (N2) with $y_0=0$.
The assumptions of Sinai in \cite{Sinai:91} on the probability measure can be understood as analogous to ours, as his Assumption 2 (the spatial invariance of expectation) is somewhat weaker form of $S$-invariance, his Assumption 1 when combined with the maximum principle as above implies (N2), and the Assumption 3 seems to be related to the finiteness of density of zeroes in (N1), yet to be understood.
\end{example}
\section{Further examples} \label{s:examples}
\subsection{The B/A case} \label{ss:BDC} In the B/A case, $\mathcal{E}$ is equal to the closure of the set of equilibria and periodic orbits in $\mathcal{B}$. This follows from the Poincar\'{e}-Bendixson theorem \cite{Fiedler89} and Lemma \ref{l:subset}, as by \cite[Theorem 1]{Fiedler89}, the only recurrent orbits in the B/A case are equilibria and periodic orbits.
Theorem \ref{t:main1} in the B/A case can be deduced from results in \cite{Fiedler89}, Theorems 1, 2 and Lemma 3.3.
\vspace{2ex}
\subsection{Embedded vector fields in the B/P case} \label{ss:embed} Consider planar vector fields constructed by Fiedler and Sandstede \cite{Fiedler:92}, embedded in the B/P case of (\ref{r:main}). Then the union of supports of invariant measures of these vector fields are mapped into a subset of $\mathcal{E}$. This complements well Theorem \ref{t:main1}, in the sense that $\mathcal{E}$ can have arbitrary complexity of a 2d vector field. In particular, one can embed in $\mathcal{E}$ invariant measures with positive metric entropy with respect to $T$.
\subsection{Extended gradient systems} \label{ss:extended} Consider $g = - \partial V(x,u)/\partial u$, with a $C^2$ $V$, $1$-periodic in $x$, bounded from below, in the extended case. Then $g$ satisfies (A1-3), and is an example of an {\it extended gradient system}, introduced in \cite{Gallay:01}. Under an additional assumption that for any $u(0) \in H^{2\alpha}_{\text{ul}}(\mathbb{R})$, $3/4 < \alpha < 1$, the solution exists for all $t\geq 0$ and is uniformly bounded in $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}:=H^{2\alpha}_{\text{ul}}(\mathbb{R})$ (see \cite{Gallay:01},\cite{Gallay:12} for further details), we can establish the following:
\begin{thm} \label{t:extgard}
(i) The ergodic attractor consists of equilibria, i.e. it is given with $\mathcal{E}=\lbrace u \in H^2_{\text{ul}}(\mathbb{R}), u_{xx}=\partial V(x,u)/\partial u \rbrace$, and $\pi : \mathcal{E} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$ given with (\ref{d:pi}) is one-to-one.
(ii) For all $u \in H^{2\alpha}_{\text{ul}}(\mathbb{R})$, $3/4 < \alpha \leq 1$, we have that $\bar{\omega}(u) \subset \mathcal{E}$.
(iii) Given any $S$-invariant measure $\mu$ on $H^{2\alpha}_{\text{ul}}(\mathbb{R})$, for $\mu$-a.e. $u \in H^{2\alpha}_{\text{ul}}(\mathbb{R})$, we have that $\omega(u) \subset \mathcal{E}$.
(iv) Given any $S$-invariant measure $\mu$ on $H^{2\alpha}_{\text{ul}}(\mathbb{R})$, its $\omega$-limit set in the weak$^*$ topology of the induced semiflow on the space of measures consists of measures supported on $\mathcal{E}$.
\end{thm}
The claims (i),(iii),(iv) were proved in \cite{Slijepcevic:99,Slijepcevic00} (the fact that $\pi$ is one-to-one follows from uniqueness of the solutions of the ordinary differential equation in the description of $\mathcal{E}$), and (ii) was shown in \cite{Gallay:01}, \cite{Gallay:12}.
Theorem \ref{t:extgard}, (i) is an example of a family for which Theorem \ref{t:main1b} holds without a non-degeneracy restriction; (ii) strengthens in this particular case the properties of the ergodic attractor in the extended case from Subsection \ref{ss:ergextended}; and (iii), (iv) give an example of another family of nonlinearities $g$ for which the claims in Corollaries \ref{c:asymptotics} and \ref{c:weak*} hold. The main tool in the proof of (i),(iii),(iv) is the following Lyapunov function on the space of $S$-invariant measures on $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}$:
$$
L(\mu)=\int_{\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}} \int_0^1 \left( \frac{u_x^2(x)}{2}+\frac{\partial V(x,u)}{\partial u} \right) dx \: d\mu(u),
$$
which plays an analogous role to the zero function in this paper.
\subsection{The Allen-Cahn equation} \label{ss:AllenCahn} We give an example why (N2) is required to obtain sharper conclusions (ii) in the claims of Corollaries \ref{c:asymptotics} and \ref{c:weak*}. Even though it does not strictly belong to the class of Burgers-like equations, we believe it is illustrative.
\begin{example} Consider the nonlinearity as in Subsection \ref{ss:extended}, with $V=\frac{1}{4}u^4 -\frac{1}{2}u^2$, thus $g = u - u^3$. As done in \cite{Polacik:15}, the phase-plane analysis of the family of equilibria and Theorem \ref{t:extgard} show that $\mathcal{E}$ consists of the following equilibria: $u^-\equiv -1$, $u^+ \equiv 1$, a two families of spatially heteroclinic functions $h^+_y$, $h^-_y$, such that $\lim_{x \rightarrow -\infty}h^-_y(x)=\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}h^+_y(x)=1$, $\lim_{x \rightarrow -\infty}h^+_y(x)=\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}h^-_y(x)=-1$, characterized by $h^+_y(y)=h^-_y(y)=0$, and further spatially periodic functions with various periods and values in $(-1,1)$.
Similarly as in \cite{Polacik:15}, consider a smooth profile $v^0 : [-n,n] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, $-1 < v^0 \leq 0$, $v^0(-n)=v^0(n)=0$, such that $\frac{1}{2n}\int_{-n}^n v^0(x)dx\leq -1 + \delta$ for $\delta > 0$ small enough, let $v^1 = - v^0$, and embed the Bernoulli measure as in Example \ref{e:nondeg} such that to each sequence $(\omega_k)_{k \in \mathbb{Z}}$ we associate a function $u$ by combining profiles $v^{\omega(k)}$ to obtain a $S^{2n}$-invariant measure. We easily obtain a $S$-invariant measure $\mu$ by taking $2n$ copies of its translates. Pol\'{a}\v{c}i{k} \cite{Polacik:15} has shown that there exists $u \in \supp \mu$ such that $\omega(u)$ contains orbits not in $\mathcal{E}$. However, one can show by applying Theorem \ref{t:extgard}, (iii) and techniques from \cite{Polacik:15}, that for $n$ large enough and $\delta>0$ small enough, for $\mu$-a.e. $u$, $\omega(u) = \lbrace u^+,u^-,h^+_y, y \in \mathbb{R}, h^-_y, y \in \mathbb{R} \rbrace$, thus spatially heteroclinic functions in $\omega$-limit sets in the sense of Corollary \ref{c:asymptotics},(i) can not be avoided in general. We also obtain that for $\mu$-a.e. $u$, $\bar{\omega}(u)=\lbrace u^+, u^- \rbrace$, and that the $\omega$-limit set of $\mu$ in the weak$^*$-topology consists of a single measure $\frac{1}{2}\delta_{u^-}+\frac{1}{2}\delta_{u^+}$. This shows that the $\omega$-limit measure in the sense of Corollary \ref{c:weak*} is not necessarily supported on a single function.
\end{example}
\section{Open problems} \label{s:open}
\subsection{Non-degeneracy of measures} \label{ss:nondeg} we propose two approaches to further characterize and possibly remove the non-degeneracy restrictions to the results in the extended case. First, the following general ergodic-theoretical conjecture (a generalization of Proposition \ref{l:ergodic}) would imply Theorem \ref{t:main1b} without a non-degeneracy restriction:
\begin{conjecture} \label{con:one}
Assume $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\nu)$ is a probability space, and that $\hat{\sigma}, \hat{\tau}: \Omega \rightarrow \Omega$ are commuting, measurable, $\nu$-invariant maps. Assume that $\varphi, \zeta, \delta : \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ are measurable, that $\zeta, \delta \geq 0$ and that $\nu$-a.e.,
\begin{equation}
\varphi \circ \hat{\sigma} -\varphi + \zeta \circ \hat{\tau} - \zeta \geq \delta .
\end{equation}
Then $\delta = 0$, $\nu$-a.e..
\end{conjecture}
\begin{problem}[1]
Prove, or disprove Conjecture \ref{con:one}.
\end{problem}
An alternative approach is to characterize non-linearities $g$ and invariant sets for which all the $S$-invariant measures are non-degenerate. Let $\pi_1 : C(\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow C ([0,1])$, $\pi_1(u)=u|_{[0,1]}$, let $3/4 < \alpha < \gamma <1$ and let $\mathcal{Y}:=H^{2\gamma}_{\text{ul}} (\mathbb{R}) \cap \hat{T}(0,-\delta_0)H^{2\alpha}_{\text{ul}} (\mathbb{R})$ for some $\delta_0 >0$. For example, we have the following:
\begin{lemma} \label{l:sufficient} Assume $\mu_1$, $\mu_2$ are $S$-invariant measures supported on a subset of $\mathcal{Y}$ bounded in $H^{2\gamma}_{\text{ul}} (\mathbb{R})$, such that
\begin{equation}
\sup \frac{||\pi_1(u)-\pi_1(v)||_{H^{2\gamma} ([0,1])}}{||\pi_1(u)-\pi_1(v)||_{H^{2\alpha} ([0,1])}} < \infty, \label{r:sufficient}
\end{equation}
where supremum goes over $u \in \supp \mu_1, v \in \supp \mu_2, u \neq v$. Then we have that for any such $u,v$, $\hat{\zeta}(u,v) < \infty$. Furthermore, $\mu_1 \times \mu_2$ is non-degenerate.
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark} \label{rr:sufficient}
For example, this holds if $\mu_1$, $\mu_2$ are supported on disjoint sets in $\mathcal{Y}$, bounded in $H^{2\gamma}_{\text{ul}} (\mathbb{R})$; or alternatively if they are supported on finite sets in $\mathcal{Y}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
By assumptions, the set
$$
\mathcal{C}:= \left\lbrace \frac{\pi_1(u)-\pi_1(v)}{||\pi_1(u)-\pi_1(v)||_{H^{2\alpha} ([0,1])}}, \: u \in \supp \mu_1, v \in \supp \mu_2, u \neq v \right\rbrace.
$$
is compact in ${H^{2\alpha} ([0,1])}$. By the local structure of zeroes and the fact that for all $w=u-v$, the solution exists backward in time on the interval $(-\delta_0,0]$, we can find an open, and by compactness finite cover $\mathcal{U}_j$ of $\mathcal{C}$, $j=1,...,m$, such that $z(w)$ is uniformly bounded for $w \in \mathcal{U}_j$. This and $S$-invariance of $\mu$ implies a finite uniform bound on $z(S^nu,S^nv)$, for $u \in \supp \mu_1$, $v \in \supp \mu_2$, $n \in \mathbb{Z}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{example} \label{e:itisok}
The ergodic attractor for nonlinearities from subsection (\ref{ss:extended}) is non-degenerate. Indeed, consider a $S,T(t)$-invariant measure $\mu$ supported on a set $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ bounded in $H^{2\gamma}_{\text{ul}}(\mathbb{R})$, thus bounded in $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ by a constant $c_1 > 0$, and let $u,v \in \supp \mu$. By Theorem \ref{t:extgard}, (i), $u_{xx}=\partial V(x,u)/\partial u$, $v_{xx}=\partial V(x,v)/\partial v$, thus by the Mean Value Theorem,
\begin{align*}
||(\pi_1(u)-\pi_1(v))_{xx}||_{L^1([0,1])} \leq \max_{ x \in [0,1], |\xi| \leq c_1 }\left| \frac{\partial^2 V(x,\xi)}{\partial \xi^2} \right| ||\pi_1(u)-\pi_1(v)||_{L^1([0,1])}.
\end{align*}
We can now deduce (\ref{r:sufficient}) by applying the standard interpolation and embedding estimates.
\end{example}
Now it would suffice to answer the following:
\begin{problem}[2]
Characterize nonlinearities $g$ such that for any $z = z(0) \in H^{2\alpha}_{\text{ul}} (\mathbb{R})$, there exists $t > 0$ and an invariant set $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$, bounded in $H^{2\gamma}_{\text{ul}} (\mathbb{R})$, such that any $u,v \in \tilde{\mathcal{B}}$, $u \neq v$, satisfy (\ref{r:sufficient}), and such that $z(t) \in \tilde{\mathcal{B}}$.
\end{problem}
\begin{problem}[3]
Characterize nonlinearities $g$ such that the attractor $\mathcal{A}$ (i.e. the set of the entire solutions) in the extended case consists of $u,v$, $u\neq v$ satisfying (\ref{r:sufficient}).
\end{problem}
\subsection{Further extended gradient systems} \label{ss:further}
As noted by Zelenyak \cite{Zelenyak:97}, and extended by Matano, Fiedler, Pol\'{a}\v{c}ik, Rocha and others (\cite{Fiedler:12}, \cite{Polacik:02} and references therein), there is a number of examples of nonlinearities $g$ with a Lyapunov function on the bounded domain (with periodic or other boundary conditions). The discussion in Subsection \ref{ss:extended} thus naturally leads to the following:
\begin{problem}[4] Prove (or disprove) that for all nonlinearities $g$ for which there exists a Lyapunov function in the bounded case (i.e. with periodic boundary conditions), the conclusions (i)-(iv) of Theorem \ref{t:extgard} hold.
\end{problem}
For example, one can show that it holds for the cases considered in \cite{Fiedler:12}.
\subsection{Related problems}
We believe the application of the zero function on the space of measures could be applied to other classes of dynamical systems, and systems with a random force:
\begin{problem}[5]
Extend results for the Burgers like equations to the quasi-periodic force case considered in \cite{Sinai:98}.
\end{problem}
\begin{problem}[6] {\it Work in progress.}
Extend results for the Burgers like equations to the random force case considered in \cite{E:00, Sinai:96}, by using the fact that for the difference of two weak solutions $u(t)$, $v(t)$ with the same random force, the random force cancels out and the difference is smooth enough to apply the zero function method.
\end{problem}
\begin{problem}[7]
Investigate whether the results for the equations $$u_t = \varepsilon u_{xx} + g(t,x,u,u_x),$$ $g$ a Burgers like nonlinearity, extend to the entropy solutions in the inviscid limit $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$, as considered in \cite{E:00}, by e.g. using in addition the zero function techniques for perturbations of parabolic differential equations developed by Pol\'{a}\v{c}ik and Tere\v{s}\v{c}ak \cite{Terescak:94}, or another method.
\end{problem}
\begin{problem}[8]
Consider all the problems in this paper and apply zero-function techniques on the space of measures for analogous 1d, order-preserving discrete-space, continuous-time problems without and with a random force (the Frenkel-Kontorova models, \cite{Baesens:05,Slijepcevic13a} and references therein), or order-preserving discrete-space, discrete-time models (monotone coupled map lattices and probabilistic cellular automata, \cite{Coutinho:05,Toom:90} and references therein).
\end{problem}
This program has already been initiated in the case of the Frenkel-Kontorova models \cite{Slijepcevic13b,Slijepcevic15}.
\part{Appendices}
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper, all graphs are considered to be finite and simple unless stated otherwise. A \emph{decomposition} of a graph $G$ consists of edge-disjoint subgraphs whose union is $G$. The \emph{arboricity} $\Upsilon(G)$ of a graph $G$ is the minimum number $k$ such that $G$ can be decomposed into $k$ forests. An obvious necessary condition for a graph to have arboricity at most $k$ is that $|E(H)|\le k(|V(H)|-1)$ for every subgraph $H$ of $G$. In 1964, Nash-Williams~\cite{NashWilliams} proved that this condition is also sufficient. Given Nash-Williams' result it is clear that arboricity is closely linked to the \emph{maximum average degree} of a graph, that is the maximum of the average degree of all subgraphs.
A natural question is to wonder what conditions are necessary to demand more structure from the forests in the partition. To date, there have been two prominent variants of arboricity that address this question. The first variant, introduced by Harary~\cite{Harary} in 1970 is \emph{linear arboricity}, denoted $\Upsilon_\ell (G)$, wherein the graph is decomposed into linear forests, where a \emph{linear forest} is the disjoint union of paths. Clearly, the linear arboricity is intimately connected to the maximum degree of a graph as $\Delta(G)/2 \le \Upsilon_\ell (G) \le \Delta(G)+1$. The \emph{linear arboricity conjecture} posed in~\cite{LAConj} states that $\Upsilon_\ell (G) \le \frac{\Delta(G)+1}{2}$. Using probabilistic methods, Alon~\cite{Alon} showed that $\Upsilon_\ell (G) = \Delta(G)/2 + O(\Delta(G) \log\log \Delta(G) / \log \Delta(G))$.
The second variant is \emph{star arboricity}, denoted $\Upsilon_s(G)$, wherein the graph is decomposed into star forests, where a \emph{star forest} is the disjoint union of stars. Clearly, the star arboricity is at most twice the arboricity since every forest can be decomposed into two star forests. However, this is best possible due to a construction of Alon et al.~\cite{Star92}. Nevertheless for certain interesting graph classes the star arboricity can be lower. For example, Algor and Alon~\cite{Star1} showed that $\Upsilon_s(G) \le d/2 + O(d^{2/3}\log^{1/3} d)$ for $d$-regular graphs. Hakimi et al.~\cite{Star2} showed that $\Upsilon_s(G)$ is at most the acyclic chromatic number of $G$. In 1979, Borodin~\cite{Borodin} showed that planar graphs have acyclic chromatic at most 5 and thus star arboricity at most 5, which is best possible as shown by Algor and Alon~\cite{Star1}.
Yet both of these definitions seem unsatisfactory given the above results, linear arboricity for its relationship to the maximum degree and star arboricity for its lack of general improvement over the trivial bound. Therefore, we are motivated to find a new form of additional structure which could avoid these problems. However, requiring the components of the forest to have bounded size is infeasible given that a star has arboricity one. Thus, we introduce the following definition.
\begin{definition}
The \emph{diameter-$d$ arboricity} $\Upsilon_d(G)$ of a graph $G$ is the minimum number $k$ such that the edges of $G$ can be partitioned into $k$ forests each of whose components have diameter at most $d$. The \emph{bounded diameter arboricity} $\Upsilon_{bd}(\mcal{G})$ of a class of graphs $\mcal{G}$ is the minimum number $k$ for which there exists a natural number $d$ such that every $G\in \mcal{G}$ has diameter-$d$ arboricity at most $k$.
\end{definition}
While we are interested in what diameters can be obtained, we are in general more interested in which graphs have any bound on the diameter. Such a notion though only makes sense when referring to graph classes, e.g. planar graphs or graphs of arboricity at most $k$. To that end let $\mathcal{A}_k$ denote the class of graphs with arboricity at most $k$. Clearly $\Upsilon_{bd}(\mcal{A}_k) \le \Upsilon_2(\mcal{A}_k) \le 2k$ since every forest can be partitioned into two star forests. Similarly $\Upsilon_{bd}(\mathcal{A}_k)$ is strictly greater than $k$. To see this note that a graph which is the union of $k$ spanning trees if decomposed into $k$ forests must necessarily be decomposed into $k$ spanning trees. Since there exists graphs of arbitrarily large diameter which are the union of $k$ spanning trees it follows that every such decomposition has a forest with a component of large diameter. But is it possible that by allowing a few more forests we can in fact obtain components of bounded diameter? We make the following very strong conjecture.
\begin{conjecture}\label{PlusOneConj}
The class of graphs with arboricity at most $k$ has bounded diameter arboricity $k+1$, i.e. $\Upsilon_{bd}(\mathcal{A}_k) = k+1$.
\end{conjecture}
Our first main result is that we have verified this conjecture for $k=2$ and $k=3$.
\begin{thm}\label{23}
$\Upsilon_{bd}(\mathcal{A}_2) = 3$ and $\Upsilon_{bd}(\mathcal{A}_3) = 4$.
\end{thm}
This result can be used to improve the general upper bound $\Upsilon_{bd}(\mathcal{A}_k) \le 2k$.
\begin{corollary}\label{FourThirds}
$\Upsilon_{bd}(\mathcal{A}_k) \le \lceil \frac{4}{3} k \rceil$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{23} there exists a natural number $d$ such that every graph $G$ with $\Upsilon (G) \leq 3$ satisfies $\Upsilon_d (G)\leq \Upsilon (G)+1$. If $\Upsilon (G)=k$, then $G$ can be written as the union of $\ell = \lceil \frac{k}{3}\rceil$ graphs $G_1,\ldots ,G_\ell$ with $\Upsilon (G_i)= 3$ for $i\in \{1,\ldots ,\ell -1\}$ and $\Upsilon (G_\ell ) = k-3(\ell -1)$.
Now
$$\Upsilon_d (G) \leq \Upsilon_d (G_1) + \ldots + \Upsilon_d (G_\ell ) \leq 4(\ell -1) + k - 3(\ell -1) +1 = \left\lceil \frac{4k}{3}\right\rceil$$
and thus $\Upsilon_{bd}(\mathcal{A}_k) \le \lceil \frac{4}{3} k \rceil$.
\end{proof}
To prove Theorem~\ref{23}, we in fact prove the following stronger theorem, which we prove in Section 2.
\begin{thm}\label{TreeStar}
If $G$ is the union of a forest and a star forest, then $\Upsilon_{18}(G)\leq 2$.
\end{thm}
\begin{corollary}\label{2}
If $\Upsilon(G)\le 2$, then $\Upsilon_{18}(G)\le 3$. If $\Upsilon(G)\le 3$, then $\Upsilon_{18}(G)\le 4$. In particular, Conjecture~\ref{PlusOneConj} holds for $k=2$ and $k=3$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
If $G$ is the union of two forests $F_1$ and $F_2$, then we decompose the edges of $F_2$ into two star forests $S_1$ and $S_2$ and apply Theorem~\ref{TreeStar} to the union of $F_1$ and $S_1$.
If $G$ is the union of three forests $F_1$, $F_2$ and $F_3$, then we decompose the edges of $F_3$ into two star forests $S_1$ and $S_2$. We apply Theorem~\ref{TreeStar} to the union of $F_1$ and $S_1$, and separately to the union of $F_2$ and $S_2$.
\end{proof}
In Section 3 we investigate the bounded diameter arboricity for planar graphs of a certain girth and show the existence of $\varepsilon$-thin spanning trees in highly edge-connected planar graphs.
\section{Forest plus Star Forest}
In this section we show that every simple graph $G$ which is the union of a forest and a star forest can be decomposed into two forests in which every tree has diameter at most 18. Note that our proof also works if we allow $G$ to be infinite.
An \textit{out tree} is a rooted tree in which every edge is oriented away from the root.
An \textit{out star forest} is a directed forest in which every component is a star and the edges of every star are oriented from the center to the leaves. If a star has size 1, then we arbitrarily choose one of the two vertices as the center and orient the edge away from it.
\begin{definition}\label{def-outing}
An \emph{outing} $G=(S,T)$ is the union of an out star forest $S$ and an out tree $T$. We let $C(S)$ denote the set of centers of the star forest $S$ and $L(S)$ denote the set of leaves of $S$.
\end{definition}
Given an outing $G$, our goal is to construct a 2-edge-coloring of $G$ such that there are no monochromatic cycles and no long monochromatic paths. Notice that in an outing every vertex has indegree at most 2. The first important property of the coloring we construct is that every vertex has indegree at most 1 in each color. In such a coloring every monochromatic cycle is directed and every monochromatic path is the union of at most two directed paths which we call \emph{dipaths} for brevity.
Ideally we would like to start with an edge-coloring of $S$ in which every star is monochromatic and extend this coloring to all edges of $G$. Unfortunately, this additional constraint is too strong: If a monochromatic star has $d$ leaves which form a path in $T$, then coloring the edges of this path with the alternate color is necessary to avoid monochromatic triangles. Doing so would create a long monochromatic path in $T$. To avoid this problem, we allow some star edges to have a different color. For technical reasons, we encode the coloring of the stars in a 2-coloring of the vertices of $G$. The color of the center vertex is the color assigned to the star, while the color of a leaf shows how the edge is colored.
Note that vertex-colorings in this section are not necessarily proper.
\begin{definition}\label{def-rebellious}
Let $c$ be a vertex $2$-coloring of an outing $G=(S,T)$. We say that an edge $\overrightarrow{uv} \in E(S)$ is \emph{rebellious} if $c(u)\ne c(v)$. We also call $v\in V(G)$ \emph{rebellious} if it is the head of a rebellious edge.
\end{definition}
We are mainly concerned with colorings where the rebellious vertices behave nicely with respect to $T$ in the following sense.
\begin{definition}\label{def-tame}
Let $c$ be a vertex $2$-coloring of an outing $G=(S,T)$. We say that $c$ is \emph{tame} if for every edge $\overrightarrow{uv}\in E(T)$ where $v$ is rebellious, we have $c(u)\ne c(v)$ and $u$ is not rebellious.
\end{definition}
In particular, it follows that if the 2-coloring is tame then two rebellious vertices are never joined by an edge in $T$. Notice that in a tame 2-coloring it is possible that all edges of a star are rebellious.
Given a 2-vertex-coloring of an outing $G=(S,T)$, we now define a 2-edge-coloring of $G$ as follows.
\begin{definition}\label{def-ext}
Let $c:V(G)\rightarrow\{1,2\}$ be a vertex $2$-coloring of an outing $G=(S,T)$. The \emph{extension} of $c$, denoted by Ext($c$), is the $2$-edge-coloring $c':E(G)\rightarrow\{1,2\}$ where:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For all edges $\overrightarrow{uv}\in E(S)$, we have $c'(\overrightarrow{uv}) = c(v)$.
\item For all edges $\overrightarrow{uv}\in E(T)$, we have
\[
c'(\overrightarrow{uv}) =
\begin{cases}
c(v) & \text{ if } v\in C(S),\, c(u)=c(v) \text{ and } u \text{ is not rebellious,}\\
3-c(v) & \text{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Notice that in the Ext($c$)-coloring of $G$, every vertex $v\in V(G)$ has indegree at most 1 in each color. This implies that each monochromatic cycle is directed and each monochromatic path is the union of two directed paths.
\begin{definition}\label{def-center}
The \emph{center graph} $\text{Center}(G)$ of an outing $G=(S,T)$ is a directed graph whose vertex set is $C(S)$ and for every $u, v\in C(S)$ with $u\ne v$, there is an edge $\overrightarrow{uv}$ if $\overrightarrow{uv}\in E(T)$ or if there exists a vertex $w\in L(S)$ such that $\overrightarrow{uw}\in E(S)$ and $\overrightarrow{wv}\in E(T)$.
\end{definition}
Each vertex in $\text{Center}(G)$ has indegree at most 1. In particular, each cycle in $\text{Center}(G)$ is directed and each connected component contains at most one cycle.
Given a coloring of the vertices of $G$, this also corresponds to a coloring of Center($G$) in a natural way.
\begin{definition}\label{def-res}
Let $c$ be a vertex $2$-coloring of an outing $G$.
The \emph{center restriction} of $c$, denoted by Res($c$), is the vertex 2-coloring of Center($G$) defined by coloring each vertex $v\in V(\text{Center}(G))$ with color $c(v)$.
\end{definition}
Our first lemma characterizes monochromatic paths in Ext($c$) where the two endvertices of the path are in $C(S)$ and its interior vertices are in $L(S)$. Note that we phrase the lemma only for monochromatic paths in color 1, but the analogous statement holds also for paths in color 2.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-path}
Let $c:V(G)\rightarrow\{1,2\}$ be a tame vertex 2-coloring of an outing $G=(S,T)$. Let $P=v_0v_1\ldots v_k$ be a dipath in $G$ whose edges are colored 1 in Ext($c$). Suppose $v_0,v_k\in C(S)$ and $c(v_i)\in L(S)$ for $i\in \{1,\ldots ,k-1\}$.
If $c(v_0)=c(v_k)$, then $k\leq 2$ and $\overrightarrow{v_0v_k}\in E(\text{Center}(G))$.
If $c(v_0)\neq c(v_k)$, then $k\leq 3$ and $c(v_0)=1$, $c(v_k)=2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First note that $\overrightarrow{v_{i}v_{i+1}}\in E(T)$ for $i\in\{1,\ldots ,k-1\}$ since $v_i\in L(S)$ for all such $i$. Now let us suppose $c(v_0)=c(v_k)$ and $k\geq 3$. Since $\overrightarrow{v_{k-2}v_{k-1}}\in E(T)$ and $v_{k-1}\in L(S)$, it follows from the definition of Ext($c$) that the color of $\overrightarrow{v_{k-2}v_{k-1}}$ in Ext($c$) (which is 1) equals $3-c(v_{k-1})$ and hence $c(v_{k-1})=2$.
If $c(v_k)=1$, then the edge $\overrightarrow{v_{k-1}v_k}$ would be colored 2 by the definition of Ext($c$), a contradiction. Thus $c(v_k)=2$ and $v_{k-1}$ is rebellious. Since $c$ is tame, we have $c(v_{k-2})=1$ and $v_{k-2}$ is not rebellious.
By the definition of Ext($c$), it follows that $\overrightarrow{v_{k-3}v_{k-2}}\in E(S)$. Thus, $v_{k-3}\in C(S)$ and $k=3$. Since $c(v_0)=c(v_k)=2$ and $c(v_1)=1$, we have that $v_1$ is rebellious, a contradiction since $v_{k-2}$ is not rebellious.
Notice that $c(v_0)=c(v_k)$ and $k\leq 2$ implies $\overrightarrow{v_0v_k}\in E(\text{Center}(G))$ unless $k=2$ and $\overrightarrow{v_0v_1}, \overrightarrow{v_1v_2}\in E(T)$. As before, this case implies $c(v_1)=2$, $c(v_2)=2$ and $v_1$ is not rebellious. Since $c$ is tame, it follows that $c(v_0)=1$, contradicting $c(v_0)=c(v_2)$.
Next suppose $c(v_0)=2$ and $c(v_k)=1$. By the definition of Ext($c$), we have $c(v_{k-1})=1$ and $v_{k-1}$ is not rebellious. It follows that $k\geq 2$. Once again, it follows that $\overrightarrow{v_{k-2}v_{k-1}}\in E(S)$. Thus, $v_{k-2}\in C(S)$ and $k=2$. Now $c(v_0)=2$ and $c(v_1)=1$, so $v_1$ is rebellious, a contradiction.
Finally, suppose $c(v_0)=1$, $c(v_k)=2$ and $k>3$. Since the edges $\overrightarrow{v_{k-3}v_{k-2}}$ and $\overrightarrow{v_{k-2}v_{k-1}}$ are in $E(T)$ and colored 1, we have $c(v_{k-2})=c(v_{k-1})=2$. Now $v_{k-1}$ is not rebellious since $c$ is tame, so the edge $\overrightarrow{v_{k-1}v_k}$ received color 2 in Ext($c$), a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Let $c$ be a vertex-coloring (resp. edge-coloring) of a directed graph $G$. We say that $c$ is \textit{acyclic} if there exists no directed cycle in $G$ in which all vertices (resp. edges) have the same color. We want to find a vertex 2-coloring $c$ of $G$ such that Ext($c$) is acyclic. The next lemma shows that this goal is achieved whenever $c$ is tame and the restriction of $c$ is acyclic.
\begin{lemma}~\label{lemma-acyclic}
Let $c:V(G)\rightarrow\{1,2\}$ be a tame vertex 2-coloring of an outing $G=(S,T)$. If Res($c$) is acyclic, then also Ext($c$) is acyclic.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose not. Let $C$ be a monochromatic cycle in Ext($c$), say in color 1.
We set $C_C=V(C)\cap C(S)$ and $C_L=V(C)\cap L(S)$. Notice that both $C_C$ and $C_L$ are non-empty since $C$ must contain an edge of $S$ as $T$ is a tree. Let $v_0\in C_C$ and label the remaining vertices in $C_C$ by $v_1,\ldots ,v_n$ as they appear in $C$ starting from $v_0$.
First let us suppose that not all vertices in $C_C$ are colored the same.
Then there exists an $i\in\{0,\ldots n\}$ such that $c(v_i)=2$ and $c(v_{i+1})=1$ (indices are considered modulo $n+1$). Now the directed path from $v_i$ to $v_{i+1}$ on $C$ contradicts Lemma~\ref{lemma-path}.
We may thus assume that all vertices in $C_C$ received the same color. By Lemma~\ref{lemma-path}, the paths between $v_i$ and $v_{i+1}$ on $C$ correspond to edges in Center($G$). Thus, the vertices $v_0,\ldots ,v_n$ correspond to a monochromatic cycle in Center($G$), contradicting that Res($c$) is acyclic.
\end{proof}
Now we give an upper bound for the length of a monochromatic dipath in Ext($c$).
\begin{lemma}\label{MaxLength}
Let $c:V(G)\rightarrow\{1,2\}$ be a tame vertex 2-coloring of an outing $G=(S,T)$ for which Res($c$) is acyclic. Let $d_T$ be the length of a longest vertex-monochromatic dipath in $T$ whose vertices are all in $L(S)$. For $i\in\{1,2\}$, let $d_i$ be the length of a longest monochromatic dipath in Center($G$) whose vertices are colored $i$ in Res($c$). If $P$ is a monochromatic dipath in the Ext($c$)-coloring of $G$, then the length of $P$ is at most
$d_T+2(d_1+d_2)+6\,.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lemma-acyclic}, we know that Ext($c$) is acyclic. We may assume that the edges of $P$ are all colored 1.
Let $v_0,v_1\ldots, v_n$ denote the vertices in $V(P)\cap C(S)$, labelled in the order they appear on $P$.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma-path} there exists no $i\in \{0,\ldots ,n-1\}$ with $c(v_{i})=2$ and $c(v_{i+1})=1$. Thus, there exists $k\in\{0,\ldots ,n+1\}$ such that $c(v_i)=1$ if and only if $i<k$. Notice that by Lemma~\ref{lemma-path}, the vertices $v_0v_1\ldots v_{k-1}$ correspond to a monochromatic path of color 1 and length $k-1$ in Center($G$), while the vertices $v_kv_{k+1}\ldots v_{n}$ correspond to a monochromatic path of color 2 and length $n-k$. By definition of $d_1$ and $d_2$ we have $k-1\leq d_1$ and $n-k\leq d_2$.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma-path}, there are at most 3 edges on $P$ between $v_{k-1}$ and $v_k$, and at most 2 edges between $v_{i-1}$ and $v_i$ for every $i\in\{1,\ldots ,n\}\setminus\{k\}$. Thus, the number of edges on $P$ between $v_0$ and $v_n$ is at most $2(k-1) + 3 + 2(n-k) \leq 2(d_1+d_2)+3$.
Let $w_0, \ldots ,w_{n'}$ denote the vertices encountered on $P$ after $v_n$. Then $w_i\in L(S)$ for $i\in \{0,\ldots ,n'\}$ and $\overrightarrow{w_iw_{i+1}}\in E(T)$ for $i\in \{0,\ldots ,n'-1\}$. Since the edges of $P$ are all colored 1, we have $c(w_i)=2$ for $i\in \{1,\ldots ,n'\}$. Thus $n'-1\leq d_T$, and there are at most $d_T+2$ edges on $P$ after $v_n$.
Suppose there are at least 3 edges on $P$ before $v_0$, say $\overrightarrow{u_0u_1}$, $\overrightarrow{u_1u_2}$, and $\overrightarrow{u_2v_0}$. Then all these three edges must be in $T$ and $c(u_1)=c(u_2)=2$. Thus, $u_2$ is not rebellious, and no matter what the the color of $v_0$ is, the edge $\overrightarrow{u_2v_0}$ is colored 2 in Ext($c$), a contradiction. Suppose there are two edges $\overrightarrow{u_1u_2}$ and $\overrightarrow{u_2v_0}$ before $v_0$. Then $c(u_2)=2$ and since the edge $\overrightarrow{u_2v_0}$ is colored 1, it follows that $c(v_0)=2$. In this case there are at most $2d_2$ edges between $v_0$ and $v_n$, so the length of $P$ is at most $2+2d_2+d_T+2<d_T+2(d_1+d_2)+6$. Finally, suppose there is at most one edge preceding $v_0$ in $P$. Then the length of $P$ is at most $1+2(d_1+d_2)+3 + d_T+2= d_T+2(d_1+d_2)+6$.
\end{proof}
Finally, all that is left to show is that there exists a vertex 2-coloring of $G$ satisfying the conditions of Lemma~\ref{MaxLength}.
\begin{lemma}\label{ExTame}
Let $G=(S,T)$ be an outing. There exists a tame vertex 2-coloring $c$ of $G$ such that
color class 1 of Res($c$) forms an independent set in Center($G$),
color class 2 of Res($c$) induces no directed path of length 2 in Center($G$), and
there is no vertex-monochromatic dipath of length 2 in $T$ whose vertices are all in $L(S)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We start by coloring the vertices in $C(S)$. If a component of Center($G$) is bipartite, then we choose a proper 2-coloring of its vertices. If a component is not bipartite, then it contains precisely one cycle and this cycle has odd length. In this case we delete an edge $uv$ of that cycle and properly 2-color the resulting tree so that $c(u)=2$. Now the two color classes of Res($c$) are as desired.
We now extend this coloring to the vertices in $L(S)$. If the root of $T$ is in $L(S)$, color it arbitrarily. Let $v$ be a vertex at distance $i$ from the root in $T$ and suppose all vertices at distance $i-1$ from the root are already colored. Let $u$ be the parent of $v$ in $T$ and let $w$ be such that $\overrightarrow{wv} \in E(S)$. We set $c(v)=3-c(u)$ unless $u$ is rebellious and $c(u)=c(w)$, in which case we set $c(v)=c(u)$. Notice that if $c(v)=c(u)$, then $v$ is not rebellious. Thus if $c(v)\neq c(u)$ and $v$ is rebellious, then $c(u)=c(w)$; in which case $u$ is not rebellious given how we set the color of $v$. This implies that the resulting coloring $c$ is tame. Furthermore, if $\overrightarrow{uv}$ is an edge with $u,v\in L(S)$ and $c(u)=c(v)$, then $u$ is rebellious while $v$ is not rebellious. It follows immediately that there are no vertex-monochromatic dipaths of length 2 in $T$ whose vertices are in $L(S)$.
\end{proof}
Now Theorem~\ref{TreeStar} follows easily.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{TreeStar}]
Let $G$ be the union of a forest and a star forest. Now let $G'=(S,T)$ be an outing such that the underlying undirected graph of $G'$ contains $G$ as a subgraph.
Let $c$ be a tame vertex 2-coloring of $G'$ as given by Lemma~\ref{ExTame}. Let $H'$ be a monochromatic connected subgraph of $G'$ and let $H$ be the underlying undirected graph of $H'$.
Suppose $H$ contains a cycle $C$. Since the indegree of every vertex in $H'$ is at most one, the cycle $C$ is directed in $H'$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma-acyclic}, there are no monochromatic directed cycles in Ext($c$), a contradiction. So we may assume that $H$ is a tree.
By Lemma~\ref{MaxLength}, the length of a monochromatic dipath in Ext($c$) is at most $1+2\cdot (0+1)+6=9$. Thus, every dipath in $H'$ has length at most 9. Since the indegree of every vertex in $H'$ is at most one, every path in $H$ is the union of at most two dipaths in $H'$. Thus, the diameter of $H$ is at most 18. Hence, $c$ induces a 2-edge-coloring of $G$ in which every connected monochromatic subgraph is a tree with diameter at most 18.
\end{proof}
\section{Planar graphs and $\varepsilon$-thin spanning trees}
All graphs in this section are finite and planar. We denote the dual of a planar graph $G$ by $G^*$.
Given a graph $G$ and a set of vertices $A\subseteq V(G)$, we denote by $\sigma _G(A)$ the set of edges of the form $\{ab \in E(G):a\in A,b\notin A\}$. We call $\sigma_G(A)$ the \emph{boundary} of $A$ in $G$.
\begin{definition}
Let $\varepsilon$ be a real number with $0<\varepsilon <1$. We say a spanning subgraph $H$ of a graph $G$ is \textit{$\varepsilon$-thin} if for every $A\subseteq V(G)$ we have $|\sigma_H(A)| \leq \varepsilon |\sigma_G (A)|$.
\end{definition}
Of particular interest is the existence of $\varepsilon$-thin spanning trees. Goddyn~\cite{Goddyn} conjectured that for every $\varepsilon$ with $0<\varepsilon <1$ there exists a number $f(\varepsilon )$ such that every $f(\varepsilon )$-edge-connected graph contains an $\varepsilon$-thin spanning tree. This would imply the $(2+\varepsilon )$-flow conjecture by Goddyn and Seymour, which was recently proved by Thomassen~\cite{Thomassen}.
Thomassen observed that there exists no real number $\varepsilon$ with $0<\varepsilon < 1$ such that every 4-edge-connected planar graph contains an $\varepsilon$-thin spanning tree (personal communication). Here we give a short proof inspired by his argument.
\begin{theorem}
For every real number $\varepsilon$ with $0<\varepsilon < 1$ there exists a planar 4-edge-connected graph with no $\varepsilon$-thin spanning tree.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We fix $\varepsilon$ and set $k>\max \{\lceil \frac{3}{1-\varepsilon}\rceil ,1000\}$. Let $G$ be the cartesian product of a path of length $4k$ and a cycle of length $4k$. The graph $G$ is planar but not 4-edge-connected since there exist $8k$ vertices of degree 3 which lie on two faces each containing $4k$ vertices of degree 3. We add new vertices inside these faces and join each new vertex to 4 vertices of degree 3 so that the resulting graph is planar, 4-regular and 4-edge-connected. Moreover, it is easy to see that the resulting graph $G'$ has the property that every sufficiently large set of vertices has a large neighborhood. We leave the verification of the following statement to the reader: For every $A\subseteq V(G')$ with $k^2\leq |A|\leq |V(G')|-k^2$, we have $|\sigma_{G'}(A)|\geq k$.
Suppose for a contradiction that $G'$ has an $\varepsilon$-thin spanning tree $T$. Since $T$ is $\varepsilon$-thin, the graph $G'-E(T)$ is connected. Let $T'$ be a spanning tree of $G'-E(T)$. Since $G'$ is 4-regular, we have $|E(G'-E(T)-E(T'))|=2n-2(n-1)=2$. Let $e$ be an edge of $T'$ such that $T'-e$ has two connected components $A$ and $B$ each having size at least $k^2$ (such an edge exists since the maximum degree of $T'$ is 4). Thus, $|\sigma_{G'}(A)|\geq k$, but only one of the edges in $\sigma_{G'}(A)$ is contained in $T'$. Since there exist only two edges in $G'$ outside of $T$ and $T'$, the proportion of $\sigma_{G'}(A)$ contained in $T$ is at least
$$\frac{|\sigma_{G'}(A)|-3}{|\sigma_{G'}(A)|} \geq \frac{k-3}{k} = 1- \frac{3}{k} > \varepsilon \,,$$
contradicting $T$ being $\varepsilon$-thin.
\end{proof}
The following lemma shows that bounded diameter arboricity of planar graphs is related to the existence of $\varepsilon$-thin spanning trees.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-dual}
If $G$ is a planar graph with $\Upsilon_d(G)= 2$, then $G^*$ contains two edge-disjoint $\frac{d}{d+1}$-thin spanning trees.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\Upsilon_d(G)= 2$, we can edge-color $G$, say in colors 1 and 2, so that there are no monochromatic cycles and every monochromatic path has length at most $d$. By the usual bijection $E(G)\rightarrow E(G^*)$, this gives a 2-edge-coloring of $G^*$. Consider a set $A\subseteq V(G^*)$. The edges in $\sigma_{G^*}(A)$ correspond to an edge-disjoint union of cycles in $G$. Consider one such cycle $C$ in the union. Since there are no monochromatic cycles in $G$, both colors appear in $C$. Moreover, since every path of length at least $d+1$ contains an edge in color 1, at least $\frac{1}{d+1}|E(C)|$ edges of $C$ are colored 1. Thus, at most $\frac{d}{d+1}|\sigma_{G^*}(A)|$ edges of $\sigma_{G^*}(A)$ are colored 2. Since $\sigma_{G^*}(A)$ also contains at least $\frac{1}{d+1}|\sigma_{G^*}(A)|$ edges in color 2, the subgraph colored 2 is both spanning and $\frac{d}{d+1}$-thin. The same holds for the subgraph in color 1. Since subgraphs of $\varepsilon$-thin graphs are again $\varepsilon$-thin, we can choose one spanning tree of $G^*$ in each color to finish the proof.
\end{proof}
We should note that planar graphs of various girths have received much attention for star arboricity (their arboricity is at most 3 for all planar graphs, and at most 2 for triangle-free planar graphs by Euler's formula). Thus we wondered what the bounded diameter arboricity of planar graphs of various girths was. Upon studying the problem, we began to conjecture that planar graphs have bounded diameter arboricity at most 4; similarly, we conjectured that planar triangle-free graphs have bounded diameter arboricity at most 3. Indeed, this is what led us to Conjecture~\ref{PlusOneConj}. Theorem~\ref{TreeStar} has allowed us to prove these conjectures. To see that the bounded diameter arboricity of these classes is greater than the usual arboricity, we use the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-lowerbound}
Let $\mathcal{G}\subseteq \mathcal{A}_k$ be a family of graphs and $c$ a natural number. If there exists a sequence of graphs $G_1,G_2,\ldots $ in $\mathcal{G}$ such that the diameter of $G_i$ is at least $i$ and $|E(G_i)|\geq k|V(G_i)|-c$ for all $i$, then $\Upsilon_{bd}(\mathcal{G}) \geq k+1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $\Upsilon_{bd}(\mathcal{G}) \leq k$, then there exists a natural number $d$ such that $\Upsilon_{d}(G)\leq k$ for all $G\in \mathcal{G}$. Consider the graph
$H=G_{cd+1}$. Let $\mathcal{F}=\{F_1,\ldots ,F_k\}$ be a decomposition of $H$ into $k$ forests in which each tree has diameter at most $d$. For $i\in \{1,\ldots ,k\}$, let $\mathcal{T}_i$ denote the connected components of $F_i$ (if a vertex of $H$ is not contained in $F_i$ then we include it in $\mathcal{T}_i$ as an isolated vertex). Now $\mathcal{T} = \bigcup_{i=1}^k \mathcal{T}_i$ is a collection of trees decomposing $H$, each having diameter at most $d$.
Notice that
$$k|V(H)|-c \leq |E(H)|= \sum_{i=1}^k |E(F_i)| = \sum_{i=1}^k |V(H)|-|\mathcal{T}_i| \leq k|V(H)| - |\mathcal{T}|\,,$$
so $|\mathcal{T}|\leq c$. Since the diameter of $H$ is at least $cd+1$, there exists a path $P$ of length at least $cd+1$ in $H$ such that $P$ is a shortest path between its endpoints. Since $P$ contains $cd+1$ edges and every edge is contained in a tree of $\mathcal{T}$, there exists a tree $T$ in $\mathcal{T}$ containing at least $d+1$ edges of $P$. However, since $P$ is a shortest path, this implies that the diameter of $T$ is greater than $d$, contradicting our choice of $\mathcal{F}$.
\end{proof}
For planar graphs of higher girth, we were led to conjecture that planar graphs of girth at least 5 have bounded diameter arboricity at most 2. We were only able to prove this for girth at least 6 and only then by using the result of Kim et al.~\cite{NDT2} that a planar graph of girth at least 6 can be decomposed into a forest and a matching.
\begin{thm}\label{thm-planar}
If we let $\P_g$ denote the class of planar graphs of girth at least $g$, then
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Upsilon_{bd}(\P_3) = 4$,
\item $\Upsilon_{bd}(\P_4) = 3$,
\item $\Upsilon_{bd}(\P_g) = 2$ for all $g\ge 6$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Euler's formula $\Upsilon(\P_3)=3$ and hence by Theorem~\ref{23}, $\Upsilon_{bd}(\P_3)\le 4$. Since there exist planar triangulations of arbitrary diameter (and hence $|E(G)|=3|V(G)|-6$), it follows from Lemma~\ref{lemma-lowerbound} that $\Upsilon_{bd}(\P_3) = 4$. Similarly by Euler's formula $\Upsilon(\P_4)=2$. By Theorem~\ref{23}, $\Upsilon(\P_4)\le 3$. Since there exist triangle-free planar graphs of arbitrary diameter with $|E(G)|=2|V(G)|-4$, it follows from Lemma~\ref{lemma-lowerbound} that $\Upsilon(\P_4)=3$.
For $g\ge 5$, clearly $\Upsilon_{bd}(\P_g)\ge 2$. By Kim et al.~\cite{NDT2}, every planar graph of girth at least six can be decomposed into a forest and a matching. Thus by Theorem~\ref{TreeStar}, every planar graph of girth at least six can be decomposed into two forests whose components have diameter at most 18. Hence $\Upsilon_{bd}(\P_6)=2$ and $\Upsilon_{bd}(\P_g)=2$ for all $g\ge 6$.
\end{proof}
Notice that Lemma~\ref{lemma-dual} still holds when $G^*$ has multiple edges. Thus we have the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}
Every 6-edge-connected planar (multi)graph contains two edge-disjoint $\frac{18}{19}$-thin spanning trees.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $G$ be a $6$-edge-connected planar (multi)graph. As $G$ is $6$-edge-connected, it follows that the dual $G^*$ of $G$ is a simple planar graph of girth at least six. As in Theorem~\ref{thm-planar}, we find that $\Upsilon_{18}(G^*)=2$. By Lemma~\ref{lemma-dual}, $(G^*)^*=G$ contains two edge-disjoint $\frac{18}{19}$-thin spanning trees.
\end{proof}
\section{Open problems}
As we have seen, bounded diameter arboricity differs from star arboricity for the class of planar graphs (5 instead of 4). The only missing case in Theorem~\ref{thm-planar} is $g=5$. Clearly, $2 \leq \Upsilon_{bd}(\P_5) \leq \Upsilon_{bd}(\P_4) = 3$. We conjecture that the following holds.
\begin{conjecture}
$\Upsilon_{bd}(\P_5)=2$.
\end{conjecture}
This conjecture would be implied by Theorem~\ref{TreeStar} if the answer to the following question is affirmative.
\begin{question}
Is every planar graph of girth 5 the union of a forest and a star forest?
\end{question}
As before, a positive answer to this question would also imply that every 5-edge-connected planar graph contains two disjoint $\frac{18}{19}$-thin spanning trees. It is not even known whether there exists an $\varepsilon$ such that every 5-edge-connected planar graph contains an $\varepsilon$-thin spanning tree.
For the general problem, Theorem~\ref{TreeStar} suggests a strategy for proving Conjecture~\ref{PlusOneConj}. We conjecture the following generalization of Theorem~\ref{TreeStar} holds.
\begin{conjecture}\label{TreeBush}
For all natural numbers $d\ge 1$, there exists a natural number $f(d)$ such that the following holds: If $G$ is the union of a forest and a second forest whose components have diameter at most $d$, then $G$ can be partitioned into two forests each of whose components have diameter at most $f(d)$.
\end{conjecture}
Thus our main result confirms this conjecture when $d\le 2$ with $f(2)\le 18$.
One may also wonder if there is a stronger variant of Conjecture~\ref{PlusOneConj}. This could be possible if we allow the arboricity to be fractional. The \emph{fractional arboricity} $\Upsilon_f(G)$ is defined as $\max_{H\subseteq G} \frac{|E(H)|}{|V(H)|-1}$. Note that $\lceil \Upsilon_f(G) \rceil = \Upsilon(G)$ by Nash-Williams' result. A major open question is whether the structure of the forests can be restricted when the fractional arboricity is strictly smaller (asymptotically) than the arboricity. In particular, Montassier et al.~\cite{NDT} formulated the Nine Dragon Tree Conjecture as follows.
\begin{conjecture}[Nine Dragon Tree Conjecture]\label{NDT}
Let $G$ be a graph and $k,d$ natural numbers with $k,d\geq 1$. If $\Upsilon_f(G)\le k + \frac{d}{k+d+1}$, then $G$ can be decomposed into $k+1$ forests at least one of which has maximum degree $d$.
\end{conjecture}
They proved Conjecture~\ref{NDT} for $k=1$ and $d\le 2$. Kim et al.~\cite{NDT2} proved the conjecture for $k=1$ and $d\le 6$. The \emph{Strong Nine Dragon Tree Conjecture} states that for such graphs at least one of the forests in the decomposition has components of size at most $d$ (and hence diameter at most $d$ as well). In light of Conjecture~\ref{TreeBush} and the Strong Nine Dragon Tree Conjecture, we also make the following strong conjecture.
\begin{conjecture}\label{FracBush}
For every natural number $k$ and real number $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists $d(k,\epsilon)$ such that the following holds: if $\Upsilon_f(G) \le k-\epsilon$ for a graph $G$, then $\Upsilon_{d(k,\epsilon)}(G)\le k$.
\end{conjecture}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:int}
Given $n \ge 1$ non-zero complex numbers $z_1, \ldots, z_n \in \C^*$, we say that they are \textit{multiplicatively dependent} if there exists a non-zero integer vector $(k_1,\dots,k_n) \in \Z^n$ for which
\begin{equation} \label{eq:MultDep}
z_1^{k_1}\cdots z_n^{k_n}=1.
\end{equation}
Otherwise (if there is no such non-zero integer vector $(k_1,\dots,k_n)$), we say that the numbers $z_1,\dots,z_n$ are \textit{multiplicatively independent}.
Consequently, a vector in $\C^n$ is called \textit{multiplicatively dependent} (resp. \textit{independent}) if its coordinates are all non-zero and are multiplicatively dependent (resp. independent). To avoid confusion, the vectors with zero coordinates, like $(0,1)$, are not considered to be multiplicatively dependent (although, by convention, $0^0 1^1=1$)
or independent.
In~\cite{PSSS1}, several asymptotic formulas for the number of multiplicatively dependent vectors of algebraic numbers of fixed degree (or lying in a fixed number field) and bounded height have been obtained. In an ongoing project \cite{SSS2}, the authors continue to study multiplicatively dependent vectors from the viewpoint of their density and sparsity.
By contrast, in this paper aside from the multiplicative dependence and independence of a given set of algebraic numbers we also want to investigate the multiplicative dependence and independence of their translations. More generally, the authors in \cite{OSS} study multiplicative dependence of values of rational functions in some special cases.
We remark that a method on deciding the multiplicative independence of complex numbers in a finitely generated field has been
proposed by Richardson \cite{Richardson}.
In Section~\ref{sec:ind} (Theorem~\ref{thm:mult ind1}), we prove a result which implies that given pairwise distinct algebraic numbers $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n, n\ge 2$, for each sufficiently large integer $t$,
the algebraic numbers $\alpha_1+t, \ldots, \alpha_n+t$ are multiplicatively independent.
This is in fact a special case of \cite[Theorem 1']{BMZ}. A weaker version of this statement given in \cite[Lemma 2.1]{Dubickas} was used
in \cite{Dubickas} and so it is an additional motivation for
Theorem~\ref{thm:mult ind1}.
In particular, by Theorem~\ref{thm:mult ind1}, for an integer vector $(a_1,\ldots,a_n)$ whose coordinates are pairwise distinct, there are only finitely many integers $t$ for which the numbers $a_1+t,\ldots, a_n+t$ are multiplicatively dependent.
So, a natural question is to estimate the number of such integers $t$ corresponding to a given integer vector.
In this paper, we investigate in detail the case of dimension $n=2$ by presenting some explicit formulas, upper bounds and several conjectures. See Theorems~\ref{thm:size2}, \ref{thm:size23}, \ref{thm:upper} and \ref{thm:uniform}.
For example, we conjecture that for any pair of distinct integers $(a,b) \in \Z^2$, the number of such integer translations $t$ is at most 13,
which is in fact related to two special forms of Pillai's equation.
The pair $(a,b)=(1,31)$ is an example which has exactly $13$ integer translations leading to multiplicatively dependent vectors (see Section~\ref{sec:set}).
\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:pre}
For the convenience of the reader, we recall some basic concepts and results in this section, which are used later on.
For any algebraic number $\alpha$ of degree $\deg \alpha =m\ge 1$, let
$$
f(x)=a_mx^m+\cdots+a_1x+a_0
$$
be the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$ over the integers $\Z$, where $a_m>0$. Suppose that $f$ is factored as
$$
f(x)=a_m(x-\alpha_1)\cdots (x-\alpha_m)
$$
over the complex numbers $\mathbb{C}$.
The \textit{height} of $\alpha$, also known as the \textit{absolute Weil height} of $\alpha$ and denoted by $\wH(\alpha)$, is defined by
\begin{equation*}
\wH(\alpha)=\big(a_m\prod_{i=1}^{m}\max\{1,|\alpha_i|\}\big)^{1/m}.
\end{equation*}
Besides, we define the \textit{house} of $\alpha$ to be the maximum of the modulus of its conjugates:
$$
\overline{|\alpha|} = \max \{ |\alpha_1|, \ldots, |\alpha_m| \};
$$
see \cite[Section 3.4]{Waldschmidt2000}. Clearly, if $|a_0/a_m|\ge 1$ we have
$$
\wH(\alpha) \le a_m^{1/m} \overline{|\alpha|}.
$$
In particular, for any algebraic integer $\alpha \ne 0$ we have $\wH(\alpha) \le \overline{|\alpha|}$.
The next result shows that if algebraic numbers $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n$ are multiplicatively dependent, then one can find a relation as in \eqref{eq:MultDep}, where the exponents $k_i$, $i=1,\dots,n$, are not too large;
see for example~\cite[Theorem 3]{Loxton} or \cite[Theorem~1]{Poorten}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:exponent}
Let $n\geq 2$, and let $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n$ be multiplicatively dependent non-zero algebraic numbers of height at most $H \ge 2$
and contained in a number field $K$ of degree $D$ over the rational numbers $\Q$. Then, there are $k_1,\ldots,k_n \in \Z$, not all zero, and a positive number $c_1$ which depends only on $n$,
such that
\begin{equation}\label{mkoi}
\alpha^{k_1}_1\cdots\alpha^{k_n}_n=1
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:exp1}
\max_{1\leq i\leq n}|k_i| \le c_1D^n(\log (D+1))^{3(n-1)}(\log H)^{n-1}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, if $K$ is totally real, then there are integers $k_1,\ldots, k_n$, not all zero, as in \eqref{mkoi} and a positive number $c_2$ which depends only on $n$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:exp2}
\max_{1\leq i\leq n}|k_i| \le c_2(\log H)^{n-1}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $w(K)$ be the number of roots of unity in $K$.
Note that for Euler's totient function $\varphi$ we have $\varphi(m)\gg m/\log\log m$ for any $m\ge 3$.
Since $\varphi(w(K)) \le D$, we obtain $w(K)\ll D\log\log (3D)$.
Then, using \cite[Theorem 3 (A)]{Loxton} we can get \eqref{eq:exp1}.
In the same fashion, \eqref{eq:exp2} follows directly from \cite[Theorem 3 (B)]{Loxton}.
\end{proof}
The following statement is Mih{\u a}ilescu's theorem (previously known as Catalan's conjecture) \cite{Mih},
which roughly says that $(2^3,3^2)$ is the only case of two consecutive powers of natural integers.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{Mih}] \label{lem:Catalan}
The equation
$$
b^y - a^x = 1
$$
with unknowns
$b\ge 1, y \ge 2, a \ge 1, x \ge2$
has only one integer solution $(a,b,x,y)=(2,3,3,2)$.
\end{lemma}
We also need the following classical result due to Siegel \cite{Siegel}.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{Siegel}] \label{lem:Siegel}
Let $f(x)$ be a polynomial in $\Z[x]$. If $f$ has at least three simple roots, then the equation $y^2=f(x)$ has only
finitely many integer solutions $(x,y)$.
\end{lemma}
\section{Multiplicative independence} \label{sec:ind}
In the following theorem, we confirm the multiplicative independence among the translations of algebraic numbers.
Actually, we can do more than it was claimed at the beginning.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:mult ind1}
Let $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n$ be pairwise distinct algebraic numbers, and let
$d=[\Q(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n):\Q]$. Then, there is a positive constant $C=C(n,\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_n)$
such that for any algebraic integer $t$ of degree at most $\overline{|t|}^{1/(nd+1)}$ and with $\overline{|t|}\ge C$,
the following $n$ algebraic numbers $\alpha_1+t, \ldots, \alpha_n+t$ are multiplicatively independent.
\end{theorem}
We remark that the exponent $1/(nd+1)$ for $\overline{|t|}$ here is not optimal and is chosen for the sake of simplicity.
\begin{proof}
The result is trivial for $n=1$. Assume that $n \ge 2$.
Without loss of generality, we can further assume that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:hou}
|t| = \overline{|t|}.
\end{equation}
Indeed, if $|t| \ne \overline{|t|}$, then there is a Galois isomorphism $\sigma$ of the Galois closure of $\Q(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n,t)$ over $\Q$ such that $|\sigma(t)| = \overline{|t|}$.
Then, it suffices to verify the multiplicative independence of the algebraic numbers $\sigma(\alpha_1)+\sigma(t), \ldots, \sigma(\alpha_n)+\sigma(t)$.
Take $|t|$ large enough. Then, we can assume that
$\alpha_i+t \ne 0$ and, moreover,
$$
\big| |1+\alpha_i/t| - 1 \big| < \varepsilon, \quad i=1,2,\ldots, n,
$$
for a sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$.
For a complex number $z$, let $\arg(z) \in (-\pi, \pi]$ be the principal argument of $z$.
Note that for $\varepsilon \le 1/2$ and each $i=1,2,\ldots, n$, we have
$$
|\sin(\arg(1 + \alpha_i / t))| =\frac{|\sin(\arg (\alpha_i/t))|\cdot |\alpha_i/t|}
{ |1+\alpha_i/t|} \le 2 |\alpha_i| / |t|.
$$
Thus, using the fact that $|x| \le 2|\sin x| $ for any $x
\in [-\pi/2,\pi/2]$,
we can further assume that the principal arguments satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{vienas}
|\arg(1 + \alpha_i / t)| \le 4|\alpha_i|/|t|, \quad i=1,2,\ldots, n.
\end{equation}
Besides, by the basic properties of the Weil height (see, e. g.,
\cite{Waldschmidt2000}) and \eqref{eq:hou}, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Halt}
\wH(\alpha_i+t) \le 2\wH(t)\wH(\alpha_i) \le 2|t|\wH(\alpha_i), \quad i=1,2,\ldots, n.
\end{equation}
Here, $\wH(t) \le |t|$, since $t$ is an algebraic integer and $|t| = \overline{|t|}$, by \eqref{eq:hou}.
For a contradiction, assume that $\alpha_1+t, \ldots, \alpha_n+t$ are multiplicatively dependent,
that is, there is a non-zero vector $(k_1,\ldots,k_n) \in \Z^n$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mult t1}
(\alpha_1+t)^{k_1} \cdots (\alpha_n+t)^{k_n} = 1.
\end{equation}
Set $$D=[\Q(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n,t):\Q].$$
Then, by the degree assumption on $t$, we find that
$$D \leq [\Q(t):\Q]d \leq d|t|^{1/(nd+1)}.$$
By Lemma~\ref{lem:exponent} (see \eqref{eq:exp1}) and \eqref{eq:Halt}, we can further assume that the nonzero integers in \eqref{eq:mult t1} can be chosen such that
\begin{equation}\label{antrokas}
\max_{1\leq i\leq n}|k_i| \le c_3 |t|^{n/(nd+1)} (\log |t|)^{4(n-1)},
\end{equation}
where $c_3$ depends only on $n,\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n$.
(Note that $d$ also depends on $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n$.)
Observe first that if in \eqref{eq:mult t1} we have $S=\sum_{i=1}^{n} k_i \ne 0$, then, since each $|\alpha_i + t|$ is close to $|t|$, the absolute value of the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:mult t1}
is either very large (if $S>0$) or very small
(if $S<0$)
provided that $|t|$ is large enough, which contradicts with \eqref{eq:mult t1}.
Indeed, by \eqref{eq:mult t1}, we obtain
$$
|t|^S = \prod_{i=1}^{n} |1+\alpha_i/t|^{-k_i}.
$$
Suppose that $S \ne 0$. Replacing $(k_1,\ldots,k_n)$ by $(-k_1,\ldots,-k_n)$ if necessary, we can assume that $S>0$, and hence $S\ge 1$.
Then, using $|t| \le |t|^S$ we deduce that
$$
|t| \le \prod_{i=1}^{n} (1+ |\alpha_i|/|t|)^{|k_i|} \le \exp \Big(\frac{1}{|t|}\sum_{i=1}^{n}|k_i||\alpha_i|\Big).
$$
By taking logarithms of both sides and using
\eqref{antrokas}, we get the inequality
$$|t|\log |t| \le c_4 |t|^{n/(nd+1)} (\log |t|)^{4(n-1)}$$
for some constant $c_4$ depending only on $n,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n$.
However, this inequality cannot hold for $|t|$ large enough, because $n/(nd+1)<1$.
Thus, we must have $S= 0$.
Now, by \eqref{eq:mult t1} combined with $\sum_{i=1}^{n} k_i = 0$, it follows that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mult t2}
(1+\alpha_1/t)^{k_1} \cdots (1+\alpha_n/t)^{k_n} = 1.
\end{equation}
With our assumptions, by \eqref{vienas}, we further deduce that
$$
\sum_{i=1}^{n} |k_i \arg(1+\alpha_i/t)| \le \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{4|k_i \alpha_i|}{|t|},
$$
which, by \eqref{antrokas}, is clearly less than $\pi$ when $|t|$ is large enough.
So, by taking logarithms of both sides of \eqref{eq:mult t2}, we obtain
$$
\sum_{i=1}^{n} k_i \log (1+ \alpha_i/t) = 0,
$$
where ``$\log$" means the principal branch of the complex logarithm.
Then, using the Taylor expansion we deduce that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Taylor}
\frac{1}{t} \sum_{i=1}^{n} k_i \alpha_i - \frac{1}{2t^2} \sum_{i=1}^{n} k_i \alpha_i^2 + \frac{1}{3t^3} \sum_{i=1}^{n} k_i \alpha_i^3 - \cdots = 0.
\end{equation}
Multiplying both sides of \eqref{eq:Taylor} by $t$ and using the bound \eqref{antrokas}, we get
\begin{equation} \label{eq:sum1}
\big|\sum_{i=1}^{n} k_i \alpha_i \big| \le c_5 |t|^{(n-nd-1)/(nd+1)} (\log |t|)^{4(n-1)},
\end{equation}
where $c_5$ is a constant depending only on $n$ and $\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_n$.
Assume that $\sum_{i=1}^{n} k_i \alpha_i \ne 0$. Then, by Liouville's inequality (see \cite[Proposition 3.14]{Waldschmidt2000}) and the upper bound \eqref{antrokas}, one can easily get that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:sum2}
\big| \sum_{i=1}^{n} k_i \alpha_i \big| \ge c_6(|t|^{n/(nd+1)} (\log |t|)^{4(n-1)})^{1-d},
\end{equation}
where $c_6$ is a constant depending only on $n$ and $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n$.
Clearly, in view of $nd-n+1>n(d-1)$ the two estimates \eqref{eq:sum1} and \eqref{eq:sum2} lead to a contradiction provided that $|t|$ is large enough.
Hence, we must have
$$
\sum_{i=1}^{n} k_i \alpha_i = 0.
$$
Applying the same argument to \eqref{eq:Taylor}, step by step, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\sum_{i=1}^{n} k_i \alpha_i ^2= 0,
\quad \sum_{i=1}^{n} k_i \alpha_i^3 = 0,
\quad \ldots,
\quad \sum_{i=1}^{n} k_i \alpha_i^n = 0.
\end{align*}
This is a system of $n$ linear equations with unknowns $k_1,\ldots, k_n$. Notice that its coefficient matrix is the Vandermonde matrix
with non-zero determinant, since $\alpha_i \ne \alpha_j$ for $1\le i \ne j \le n$.
So, we must have
$$
k_1 = \ldots = k_n =0,
$$
which contradicts to the assumption that $(k_1,\ldots, k_n)$ is a
non-zero vector.
This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
Following the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:mult ind1} and using the inequality \eqref{eq:exp2} of Lemma~\ref{lem:exponent} (instead of \eqref{eq:exp1}) which yields $$\max_{1\leq i\leq n}|k_i| \le c_7(\log |t|)^{n-1}$$ instead of \eqref{antrokas},
we obtain the following:
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:mult ind2}
Given $n \geq 2$ pairwise distinct totally real algebraic numbers $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n$, there is a positive constant $C=C(n,\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_n)$
such that for any totally real algebraic integer $t$ with $\overline{|t|}\ge C$,
the following $n$ algebraic numbers $\alpha_1+t, \ldots, \alpha_n+t$ are multiplicatively independent.
\end{theorem}
Theorem~\ref{thm:mult ind1} implies the following corollary.
(It also follows from \cite[Theorem 1']{BMZ},
by considering the line parameterized by $x-\alpha_1,\ldots,x-\alpha_n$ as $x$ varies.)
\begin{corollary}
Given a positive integer $m$ and $n \geq 2$ pairwise distinct algebraic numbers $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n$, there is a positive constant $C=C(m,n,\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_n)$
such that for any algebraic integer $t$ of degree at most
$m$ and with $\overline{|t|}\ge C$,
the following $n$ algebraic numbers $\alpha_1+t, \ldots, \alpha_n+t$ are multiplicatively independent.
\end{corollary}
In particular, we have:
\begin{corollary}\label{darkart}
Given $n$ pairwise distinct algebraic num\-bers $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n$, there are only finitely many integers $t \in \Z$ for which the translated numbers
$\alpha_1+t, \ldots, \alpha_n+t$ are multiplicatively dependent.
\end{corollary}
On the other hand, for a fixed integer $t\in \Z$, there are infinitely many vectors $(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n) \in \Z^n$ such that
$(\alpha_1+t,\ldots,\alpha_n+t)$ is multiplicatively independent. For example, we can choose $\alpha_i=p_i-t$ for each $i$,
where $p_1,\ldots,p_n$ are pairwise distinct rational primes.
\section{Sets of multiplicatively dependent vectors} \label{sec:set}
\subsection{General setting}
In this section, we focus our attention on vectors in $\Z^2$ which are multiplicatively dependent.
This turns out to be related to Pillai's equation, which is a quite typical kind of Diophantine equation and has been extensively studied; see, for example, \cite{Bennett,Bugeaud,Scott}.
Starting from an integer vector $(a_1,\ldots, a_n) \in \Z^n$, we can get a set of multiplicatively dependent vectors
in $\Z^n$ by adding $t \in \Z$ to each coordinate of the given vector.
Corollary~\ref{darkart} implies that the set of such $t \in \Z$ is finite when the coordinates of the given vector are pairwise distinct, namely, $a_i \ne a_j$ for $i \ne j$.
Now, a natural question is to estimate the size of the set of possible $t \in \Z$ for which the vector $(a_1+t,\dots,a_n+t)$ is multiplicatively dependent (and thus contains no zero coordinates by definition).
In this paper, we only consider the simplest case $n=2$.
Given a vector $(a,b) \in \Z^2$ with $a \ne b$, note that either $(1,b-a+1)$ or $(-1,b-a-1)$ is multiplicatively dependent obtained from $(a,b)$ by translation as above, because $b-a+1$ and $b-a-1$ cannot be zero at the same time.
So, the set of all possible $t \in \Z$ only depends on the difference $b-a$, which is also called the \textit{difference} of the set.
For an integer $d\in \Z$, we denote by $\cM(d)$ the set of multiplicatively dependent vectors in $(a,b) \in \Z^2$, $ab \ne 0$, with difference $d=b-a$.
Corollary~\ref{darkart} implies that each set $\cM(d), d\ne 0$, is a finite set.
Let us put
$$
M(d) = | \cM(d) |, \qquad d\in \Z,
$$
where $|\cM(d)|$ is the cardinality of the set $\cM(d)$.
One interesting direction is to study the size of $M(d)$, and especially whether the following maximum
$$
\max_{d\ne 0} M(d)
$$
is finite.
(Clearly, the set $\cM(0)$ is infinite, because it consists of all pairs $(a,a)\in \Z^2, a\ne 0$.)
Note that for any multiplicatively dependent vector $(a,b) \in \Z^2$, we certainly have $(a,b) \in \cM(b-a)$.
So, the sets $\cM(d), d\in \Z$, form a disjoin union of all the multiplicatively dependent vectors in $\Z^2$.
Since there is a one-to-one correspondence between the vectors in $\cM(d)$ and those in $\cM(-d)$ by
the permutation of coordinates, we have
$$
M(d) = M(-d)
$$
for any $d \ne 0$. So, in the sequel we will always assume that $d \in \N$.
Before going further, let us emphasize the following useful fact about multiplicatively dependent vectors in $\Z^2$.
That is, if $(a,b)\in \Z^2$, $a \ne b$, is multiplicatively dependent, then there exists a positive integer $g$ and two non-negative integers $x,y$ such that $(a,b)=(\pm g^x, \pm g^y)$.
\subsection{Some explicit formulas} \label{sec:explicit}
We essentially relate $M(d)$ to counting integer solutions of two simple Pillai's equations in the lemma below.
Throughout, for any given integer $d \geq 1$ we say that an integer solution $(g,x,y)$ of the equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Pillai1}
g^y+g^x = d, \qquad g\ge 2 \quad \text{and} \quad y>x \ge 1
\end{equation}
is \textit{primitive}
if $g$ is not a perfect power. Let $N^{+}(d)$ be the number of primitive integer solutions of \eqref{eq:Pillai1}. Similarly, for any given integer $d \geq 1$ we say that an integer solution $(g,x,y)$ of the equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Pillai2}
g^y-g^x = d, \qquad g\ge 2 \quad \text{and} \quad y>x \ge 1
\end{equation}
is \textit{primitive}
if $g$ is not a perfect power. Let $N^{-}(d)$ be the number of primitive integer solutions of \eqref{eq:Pillai2}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:size}
For any integer $d \ge 3$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{countt}
M(d) = 2N^{+}(d)+2N^{-}(d) + 4+\delta(d),
\end{equation}
where $\delta(d)=1$ if $d$ is even, and $\delta(d)=0$ if $d$ is odd.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let
$$
S_0 = \{(-d-1,-1), (-d+1,1), (-1,d-1),(1,d+1)\},
$$
\begin{align*}
S_1 = \{(-g^x,g^y),(-g^y,g^x): \textrm{$(g,x,y)$ is a primitive solution of \eqref{eq:Pillai1}} \}
\end{align*}
and
$$
S_2 = \{(g^x,g^y),(-g^y,-g^x): \textrm{$(g,x,y)$ is a primitive solution of \eqref{eq:Pillai2}} \}.
$$
We claim that
\begin{equation}\label{countt1}
\cM(d) = S_0 \cup S_1 \cup S_2
\end{equation}
if $d$ is odd, and
\begin{equation}\label{countt2}
\cM(d) = \{(-d/2,d/2) \} \cup S_0 \cup S_1 \cup S_2
\end{equation}
if $d$ is even.
Evidently, $S_0 \subseteq \cM(d)$. Also, $(-d/2,d/2) \in \cM(d)$ if $d$ is even.
Let us count the vectors $(a,b) \in \cM(d) \setminus \big(S_0 \cup \{(-d/2,d/2)\}\big)$ with $ab<0$. Then,
$a<0<b$, so that such vectors $(a,b)$ have a form of $(-g^x,g^y)$ or $(-g^y,g^x)$ for some positive integer $g\ge 2$ and two non-negative integers $x \le y$.
If $d$ is even, then $(-d/2,d/2) \in \cM(d)$, which corresponds to the case $g^x=g^y=d/2$, so this solution is not in $S_1 \cup S_2$, and since $d \ge 3$, we have $(-d/2,d/2) \notin S_0$.
In case $x=0$, that is, $g^x=1$, we obtain two vectors
$(-d+1, 1), (-1,d-1) \in \cM(d)$, which are already in $S_0$.
Besides, if an integer vector $(g,x,y)$ with $g=a^r\ge 2$ and $y>x \ge 1$ satisfies $g^y+g^x=d$, where $a$ and $r$ are positive integers, then $(g,x,y)$ and $(a,rx,ry)$ are different integer solutions
of \eqref{eq:Pillai1}, but they produce the same vectors in $\cM(d)$: $(-g^x,g^y)$ and $(-g^y,g^x)$.
Thus, the sets $\{(-d/2,d/2)\} \cup S_0$ and $S_1$ are disjoint and, by the definition of $S_1$, we have
$|S_1|=2N^{+}(d)$.
It remains to count the vectors $(a,b)\in \cM(d)$ with $ab>0$. Clearly,
they have the form $(g^x,g^y)$ or $(-g^y,-g^x)$ for some positive integer $g\ge 2$ and two non-negative integers $x,y$ with $y>x\ge 0$.
If $x=0$, i. e., $g^x=1$, we get two vectors
$(-d-1, -1), (1,d+1) \in \cM(d)$ which belong to $S_0$.
Now, by the same argument as the above, we see that
the sets $\{(-d/2,d/2)\} \cup S_0$ and $S_2$ are disjoint and
$|S_2|=2N^{-}(d)$.
Finally, since the sets $S_1$ and $S_2$ are disjoint by their definitions
(and each of them is disjoint from the set $\{(-d/2,d/2)\} \cup S_0$),
we deduce \eqref{countt}, in view of
\eqref{countt1}, \eqref{countt2},
$|S_0|=4$, $|S_1|=2N^{+}(d)$
and $|S_2|=2N^{-}(d)$.
\end{proof}
Lemma \ref{lem:size} transfers our problem to estimates for the quantities $N^{+}(d)$ and $N^{-}(d)$.
Next, using the formulas \eqref{countt1} and \eqref{countt2} we give the explicit constructions for $\cM(d)$ as well as the explicit values for their sizes $M(d)$ in some special cases.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:size2}
We have
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm (i)}] $M(1)=2, M(2)=5$, and $M(2^r) = 7$ for any positive integer $r \ge 2$;
\item[{\rm (ii)}] $M(d)= 4$ for any odd integer $d\ge 3$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
It is straightforward to check that
$$
\cM(1) = \{ (-2,-1), (1,2)\},
$$
and
$$
\cM(2) = \{(-4,-2), (-3,-1), (-1,1), (1,3), (2,4) \}.
$$
Now, we consider the set $\cM(2^r)$, where $r \ge 2$.
We first look at the equation \eqref{eq:Pillai1} with $d=2^r$.
Notice that $g^x(g^{y-x}+1) = 2^r$.
Since $x \ge 1$ and $\gcd(g^x,g^{y-x}+1)=1$, the left-hand side $g^x(g^{y-x}+1)$ has at least two distinct prime factors.
So, there is no integer solution of the equation \eqref{eq:Pillai1}.
Consequently, $N^{+}(2^r)=0$.
Next, let us consider the equation \eqref{eq:Pillai2} with $d=2^r$.
This time, in view of $g^x(g^{y-x}-1) = 2^r$ and $x \ge 1$, we must have
$g^x=2^r$ and $g^{y-x}=2$. Hence,
$(g,x,y)=(2,r,r+1)$ is the only primitive integer solution of \eqref{eq:Pillai2}.
It follows that $N^{-}(2^r)=1$, which gives two vectors
$$
(-2^{r+1},-2^r), (2^r,2^{r+1}) \in \cM(2^r).
$$
So, by Lemma~\ref{lem:size}, it follows that $M(2^r)=2 \cdot 0 + 2\cdot 1+4+1=7$ for $r \ge 2$, as claimed.
This completes the proof of (i).
Now, let $d\ge 3$ be an odd integer.
Considering the equation \eqref{eq:Pillai1}, we first note that, since $x \ge 1$, it is impossible to have $g^y+g^x = d$ for $d$ odd, because $g^y+g^x$ is even.
Similarly, there is also no integer solution of the equation \eqref{eq:Pillai2} for $d$ odd.
Using $N^{+}(d)=N^{-}(d)=0$, by Lemma~\ref{lem:size}, we obtain $M(d)=4$, as claimed in (ii), and in fact
$$
\cM(d) = \{(-d-1,-1), (-d+1,1), (-1,d-1),(1,d+1)\}
$$
for each odd $d \geq 3$.
\end{proof}
To handle the case
when $d$ is the product of a power of 2 and a power of an odd prime, i. e.,
$d=2^r p^s$, where $p \ge 3$ is a prime and $r, s\ge 1$,
we shall
use Mih{\u a}ilescu's theorem, that is,
Lemma \ref{lem:Catalan}.
Recall that a prime number $p$ is said to be a \textit{Fermat prime} if $p=2^m+1$ for some positive integer $m$,
and consequently $m$ must be a power of $2$.
So far, the only known Fermat primes are $3, 5, 17, 257, 65537$.
Also, recall that a prime number $p$ is called a \textit{Mersenne prime} if $p=2^m-1$ for some positive integer $m$,
and in fact $m$ must be also a prime.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:size23}
Let $r$ and $s$ be two positive integers. For $1\le r \le 3$ we have
\begin{equation*}
M(2^r3^s) =
\begin{cases}
11 & \textrm{if } s=1, \\
9 & \textrm{if } s=2, \\
7 & \textrm{if } s \ge 3;
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
for $r\ge 4$, we have
\begin{equation*}
M(2^r3^s) =
\begin{cases}
9 & \textrm{if } s=1, \\
7 & \textrm{if } s=2, \\
5 & \textrm{if } s \ge 3.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Let $p \ge 5$ be a prime, and let $r, s$ be two positive integers. Then,
\begin{equation*}
M(2^rp^s)=
\begin{cases}
9 & \textrm{if $s=1$, and either $p=2^r+1$ or $p=2^r-1$}, \\
7 & \textrm{if $s\ge 2$, and either $p=2^r+1$ or $p=2^r-1$}, \\
7 & \textrm{if $s=1$, and either $p$ is a Fermat prime satisfying } \\
& \textrm{$p \ne 2^r+1$, or
$p$ is a Mersenne prime satisfying}\\
& \textrm{$p \ne 2^r -1$}, \\
5 & \textrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:size}, it suffices to count primitive integer solutions of the equations \eqref{eq:Pillai1} and \eqref{eq:Pillai2}.
Consider the equation \eqref{eq:Pillai1} with $d=2^r p^s$, where $p \ge 3$ is a prime.
Since $y>x \ge 1$, from $g^y+g^x = g^x(g^{y-x}+1) = 2^r p^s$,
we must have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:23+}
\textrm{either} \quad
\begin{cases}
g^x = 2^r \\
g^{y-x} + 1 = p^s
\end{cases}
\quad \textrm{or} \quad
\begin{cases}
g^x = p^s \\
g^{y-x} +1 = 2^r.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
In the first case, since $g$ is not a perfect power, we must have
$g=2$ and $x=r$.
The second equation $g^{y-x} + 1 = p^s$ becomes
\begin{equation} \label{eq:23_1}
2^{y-r} + 1 = p^s.
\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{lem:Catalan}, in \eqref{eq:23_1} we cannot have $s \ge 3$. Suppose
that in \eqref{eq:23_1} we have $s=2$.
Then, by Lemma \ref{lem:Catalan}, $p=3$ and $y=r+3$.
This gives the unique primitive solution $(g,x,y)=(2,r,r+3)$
of \eqref{eq:Pillai1}.
If in \eqref{eq:23_1} we have $s=1$ , then there is a unique primitive solution
of \eqref{eq:Pillai1} if and only if
$p$ is a Fermat prime. (Otherwise, \eqref{eq:Pillai1} has no primitive solutions.) Consequently, the contribution of the ``first case" into
the quantity
$N^{+}(2^r p^s)$ is one if $(p,s)=(3,2)$ or if $p$ is a Fermat prime and $s=1$, and zero otherwise.
In the second case of \eqref{eq:23+}, we must have $g=p$ and $x=s$.
The second equation $g^{y-x} + 1 = 2^r$ becomes
\begin{equation} \label{eq:23_2}
p^{y-s} + 1 = 2^r.
\end{equation}
Clearly, $r \ge 2$.
Note that we cannot have $y-s\ge 2$ in \eqref{eq:23_2}, by Lemma \ref{lem:Catalan}.
Hence, $y=s+1$. This yields $p=2^r-1$. Hence,
the contribution of the ``second case" of \eqref{eq:23_2} into the quantity
$N^{+}(2^r p^s)$
is one if and only if $p=2^r-1$, where $r \ge 2$, and zero otherwise.
Combining both these contributions we deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{durn1}
N^{+}(2^r p^s) =
\begin{cases}
2 & \textrm{if } p=3, r=2, s \in \{1,2\},\\
1 & \textrm{if } p=3, r \ne 2, s \in \{1,2\}, \\
1 & \textrm{if } p=3, r=2, s \ge 3, \\
1 & \textrm{if } p \ge 5 \>\> \textrm{is a Fermat prime and } s=1, \\
1 & \textrm{if } p =2^r-1 \>\> \textrm{and } r \ge 3, \\
0 & \textrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Now, let us investigate the equation \eqref{eq:Pillai2} with $d=2^r p^s$.
Since $y>x \ge 1$, by $g^y-g^x = g^x(g^{y-x}-1) = 2^r p^s$,
we must have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:23-}
\textrm{either} \quad
\begin{cases}
g^x = 2^r \\
g^{y-x} - 1 = p^s
\end{cases}
\quad \textrm{or} \quad
\begin{cases}
g^x = p^s \\
g^{y-x} - 1 = 2^r.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
In the first case of \eqref{eq:23-}, we obtain $(g,x)=(2,r)$, and
the second equation $g^{y-x} - 1 = p^s$ becomes
\begin{equation} \label{eq:23_3}
2^{y-r} - 1 = p^s.
\end{equation}
Clearly, we must have $y-r\ge 2$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:Catalan}, the equality in \eqref{eq:23_3} can not hold for $s \ge 2$.
For $s=1$ there is a unique integer solution of \eqref{eq:23_3}
if and only if $p$ is a Mersenne prime.
In the second case of \eqref{eq:23-}, we obtain $(g,x)=(p,s)$.
The second equation $g^{y-x} - 1 = 2^r$ becomes
$$
p^{y-s} - 1 = 2^r.
$$
For $r=1$ we obtain $p=3$ and $y=s+1$. For $r=3$, we must have
$p=3$ and $y=s+2$. Then, for $r \in \N \setminus \{1,3\}$, by Lemma~\ref{lem:Catalan}, we must
have $y=s+1$ and so $p$ is a Fermat prime of the form $p=2^r+1$.
Therefore, as above, combining both contributions into $N^{-}(2^rp^s)$ we derive that
\begin{equation}\label{durn2}
N^{-}(2^r p^s) =
\begin{cases}
2 & \textrm{if } p=3, s=1, r \in \{1,3\},\\
1 & \textrm{if } p=3, s=1, r \notin \{1,3\},\\
1 & \textrm{if } p=3, s \ge 2, r \in \{1,3\},\\
1 & \textrm{if } p \ge 7 \>\> \textrm{is a Mersenne prime and } s=1, \\
1 & \textrm{if } p =2^r+1 \>\> \textrm{and } r \ge 2, \\
0 & \textrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Finally, applying Lemma~\ref{lem:size} and combining
\eqref{durn1} with \eqref{durn2} first for $p=3$ and then for $p \geq 5$, we conclude the proof.
\end{proof}
Obviously, given an explicit value of $d$, following the arguments in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:size23}
we can compute the exact value of $M(d)$.
However, the argument can be quite complicated when $d$ has many distinct prime factors.
At the end of the paper we will present an algorithm which allows to calculate $M(d)$ for any given even integer $d \in \N$.
\subsection{Unconditional upper bound}
Note that in the above we have obtained the exact value of $M(d)$ when $d$ is either odd or has at most two distinct
prime factors.
Now, we present an unconditional upper bound for $M(d)$ when $d$ is even and has at least three distinct prime factors.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:upper}
Suppose that an even integer $d \in \N$ has $m\ge 3$ distinct
prime factors. Then,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:upper1}
M(d) \le 2^{m+1} + 1.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, if $d$ is square-free, then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:upper2}
M(d) \le
\begin{cases}
13 & \textrm{if $m=3$}, \\
2^{m+1} + 7 - 4m & \textrm{if $m\ge 4$.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We first define the subset of factors of $d$:
$$
\cD(d) = \{j:\, j\mid d, \gcd(j,d/j)=1,1<j<d\}.
$$
Since $d$ has $m$ distinct prime factors, where $m\ge 3$, we have
$$
|\cD(d)| = \binom{m}{1} + \binom{m}{2} + \cdots + \binom{m}{m-1} = 2^m - 2.
$$
From \eqref{eq:Pillai1}, since $1 \le x<y$ and $d=g^x(g^{y-x}+1)$, in view of $\gcd(g^x,g^{y-x}+1)=1$,
we obtain $g^x \in \cD(d)$. By the same argument, from
\eqref{eq:Pillai2} it follows that $g^x \in \cD(d)$.
However, since $d$ is not of the form $2^r \cdot 3$,
there are no positive integer $g \ge 2$ and non-negative integers $x,u,v$ for which
$$
d = g^x(g^u+1) = g^x(g^v-1).
$$
This means that $g^x$ counted as a primitive solution $(g,x,y)$ in $N^{+}(d)$ and $g^x$ similarly counted in $N^{-}(d)$ are distinct.
Thus, we obtain
$$
N^{+}(d) + N^{-}(d) \le |\cD(d)| = 2^m - 2.
$$
Therefore, applying Lemma~\ref{lem:size}, we deduce that
$$
M(d) = 2N^{+}(d) + 2N^{-}(d) + 5 \le 2^{m+1} + 1.
$$
This completes the proof of \eqref{eq:upper1}.
From the above discussion, we see that there is an injective map, say $\sigma$, from the primitive integer solutions of \eqref{eq:Pillai1} or \eqref{eq:Pillai2}
to the set $\cD(d)$ that sends $(g,x,y)$ to $g^x$.
To prove the second part in \eqref{eq:upper2}, we need to show that there are $m$ elements in $\cD(d)$ which are not in the image of $\sigma$ when $m \ge 4$.
Now, we assume that $d$ is square-free with the following prime factorization
$$
d = p_1p_2 \cdots p_m, \qquad p_1=2 < p_2 < \cdots < p_m.
$$
We first claim that the cases $g^x = d / p_i$, $1\le i \le m-1$, cannot happen neither in \eqref{eq:Pillai1} nor in \eqref{eq:Pillai2}.
Indeed, fix $p_i$, where $ i<m$. If the equation \eqref{eq:Pillai1} has an integer solution with $g^x = d/p_i$, then we must have $g=d/p_i$ and $x=1$. Thus,
by $d=g^y+g^x$ and by the choice of $p_i$, we obtain $y=1$, which contradicts to $y>x$.
Similarly, we can show that the equation \eqref{eq:Pillai2} has no integer solution $(g,x,y)$ for which $g^x = d/p_i$.
This proves the claim, and this claim actually shows that these $m-1$ elements ($d/p_i,i=1,2,\ldots,m-1$) in $\cD(d)$ are not
in the image of $\sigma$. Hence, we have
$$
M(d) \le 2(|\cD(d)| - (m-1)) +5 = 2^{m+1} +3 -2m.
$$
In particular, this implies the first part of \eqref{eq:upper2} when $m=3$.
To complete the proof, we only need to exclude $m-2$ more cases when $m\ge 4$.
For any $2\le i < m$, as the above, both equations \eqref{eq:Pillai1} and \eqref{eq:Pillai2} have no integer solution with $g^x = d/(p_1p_i)$,
where we need to use $m \ge 4$.
So, this shows that these $m-2$ elements ($d/(p_1p_i),i=2,3,\ldots,m-1$) in $\cD(d)$ are not in the image of $\sigma$.
This in fact completes the proof.
\end{proof}
We remark that the estimate \eqref{eq:upper2} is optimal in general.
For example, $M(30)=13$, which achieves the first upper bound in \eqref{eq:upper2}.
In fact, $\cM(30)$ consists of the following $13$ vectors:
\begin{align*}
& (-15,15), (-1,29), (-29,1), (1,31), (-31,-1), (-5,25), (-25,5),\\
& (-3,27), (-27,3), (2,32), (-32,-2), (6,36), (-36, -6).
\end{align*}
Here, except for the five vectors in the set $\{(-15,15)\} \cup S_0$, we have eight more vectors in view of
$$30=5^2+5=3^3+3=6^2-6=2^5-2,$$
so that $N^{+}(30)=N^{-}(30)=2$.
\subsection{Conditional upper bound}
Actually, under the \textit{ABC conjecture}, there is a uniform upper bound for $M(d)$ where $d \in \N$.
To show this, we need some preparations.
Recall that the $ABC$ conjecture asserts that for a given real $\varepsilon>0$ there exists a constant $K_\varepsilon$
depending only on $\varepsilon$ such that for any non-zero integers $A,B,C$ satisfying
$$
A+B=C
$$
and $\gcd(A,B)=1$ we have
$$
\max \{ |A|,|B|,|C|\} \le K_\varepsilon \big( \prod_{p \mid ABC}p \big)^{1+\varepsilon},
$$
where $p$ runs through all the (distinct) prime factors of $ABC$.
We first show an unconditional result, which is an analogue of \cite[Theorem 6.2]{Bugeaud}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:ab}
Assume that $x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2$ are fixed positive integers with $x_1>x_2,y_1>y_2,x_1>y_1, \gcd(x_1,x_2)=1$ and $\gcd(y_1,y_2)=1$.
Then, the equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ab1}
a^{x_1} + a^{x_2} = b^{y_1} + b^{y_2}
\end{equation}
has only finitely many positive integer solutions $(a,b)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that, since $x_1>y_1$ and $y_1>y_2 \ge 1$, we have $x_1> y_1 \ge 2$.
If $y_1\ge 3$, then, by \cite[Theorem 1]{Peter}, the equation
$$
a^{x_1} + a^{x_2} = b^{y_1} + b^{y_2}
$$
has only finitely many positive integer solutions $(a,b)$.
Next, let $y_1=2$. Then, $y_2=1$, and thus the equation \eqref{eq:ab1} becomes
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ab2}
a^{x_1} + a^{x_2} = b^2 +b
\end{equation}
with unknowns $a,b$.
If $x_1=2x_2$, then, since $\gcd(x_1,x_2)=1$, we must have $x_1=2$,
which contradicts with $x_1>y_1=2$. So, we can assume that $x_1 \ne 2x_2$.
Then, using \cite[Theorem 2]{Peter} and noticing $x_1 \ge 3$, we only need to consider the following cases:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:x1x2}
\textrm{$(x_1,x_2)=(3,1), (3,2), (4,1), (4,3), (6,2)$, and $(6,4)$}.
\end{equation}
In order to apply Lemma \ref{lem:Siegel}, we rewrite \eqref{eq:ab2} as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ab3}
4a^{x_1} + 4a^{x_2} + 1 = (2b+1)^2.
\end{equation}
For any case of $(x_1,x_2)$ listed in \eqref{eq:x1x2}, the left-hand side of \eqref{eq:ab3} is in fact a polynomial
in $a$. By
computing its discriminant, one can see that it is non-zero, so the polynomial $4a^{x_1} + 4a^{x_2} + 1$ has at least three simple roots. Thus, by Lemma \ref{lem:Siegel},
the equation \eqref{eq:ab3} has only finitely many integer solutions $(a,b)$. This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
The following lemma is a direct analogue of \cite[Theorem 6.1]{Bugeaud},
where the equation $a^{x_1} - a^{x_2} = b^{y_1} - b^{y_2}$
instead of \eqref{eq:ab4} have been considered.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:ABC}
Under the $ABC$ conjecture, the equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ab4}
a^{x_1} + a^{x_2} = b^{y_1} + b^{y_2}
\end{equation}
has only finitely many positive integer solutions $(a,b,x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2)$ with $a>1,b>1,x_1>x_2,y_1>y_2$ and $a^{x_1} \ne b^{y_1}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, applying the same arguments as those in Step 1 and Step 2 of the proof of \cite[Theorem 6.1]{Bugeaud}, we can prove that,
under the $ABC$ conjecture, both $x_1$ and $y_1$ are bounded from above.
Next, let us fix positive integers $x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2$, where $x_1>x_2, y_1>y_2$.
If $\gcd(x_1,x_2)>1$, then in \eqref{eq:ab4} we can replace $a$ by $a^{\gcd(x_1,x_2)}$.
So, without loss of generality, we can assume that $\gcd(x_1,x_2)=1$ and $\gcd(y_1,y_2)=1$.
If $x_1=y_1$, then by $a^{x_1} \ne b^{y_1}$ we have $a\ne b$, say $a>b$, and so
$$
a^{x_1} + a^{x_2} > a^{x_1} \ge (b+1)^{x_1} = (b+1)^{y_1} > b^{y_1} + b^{y_2},
$$
which implies that there is no such integer solution $(a,b)$.
Thus, we can further assume that $x_1 \ne y_1$, say, $x_1 > y_1$.
Then, by Lemma \ref{lem:ab}, the equation
\begin{equation*}
a^{x_1} + a^{x_2} = b^{y_1} + b^{y_2}
\end{equation*}
has only finitely many positive integer solutions $(a,b)$.
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
The next corollary follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:ABC} and \cite[Theorem 6.1]{Bugeaud}.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:N+-}
Under the $ABC$ conjecture, for each sufficiently large $d$ we have $N^{+}(d) \leq 1$ and $N^{-}(d) \leq 1$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:ABC}, under the $ABC$ conjecture, there are only finitely many positive integer solutions of \eqref{eq:ab4}.
So, excluding these solutions, for large enough $d$ there will be no solutions $(a,b,x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2)$ of the equation
$a^{x_1} + a^{x_2} = b^{y_1} + b^{y_2} = d$
with restrictions as in Lemma~\ref{lem:ABC}.
This yields $N^{+}(d) \le 1$ for $d$ large enough. Similar argument implies $N^{-}(d) \le 1$, by \cite[Theorem 6.1]{Bugeaud}.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to give a conditional uniform upper bound for $M(d)$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:uniform}
Under the $ABC$ conjecture, there is a positive integer $C_1$ such that for any integer $d \in \N$ we have $M(d)\le C_1$. Moreover, under the $ABC$ conjecture, we have
$M(d) \le 9$ for $d$ large enough.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Take any $d_1$ such that for $d \ge d_1$ the two inequalities in Corollary~\ref{cor:N+-} hold. Set $C_2=\max_{1 \le d < d_1} N^{+}(d)$ and $C_3=\max_{1 \le d < d_1} N^{-}(d)$. (Evidently, we have $C_2<\infty$ and $C_3<\infty$ by Theorems \ref{thm:size2}, \ref{thm:size23} and \ref{thm:upper}.) Therefore, Lemma~\ref{lem:size} implies that $$M(d) \le 2C_2+2C_3+5.$$
This proves the first assertion of the theorem with $C_1=2C_2+2C_3+5$.
For $d \ge d_1$ we have $M(d) \leq 2+2+5=9$, by Corollary~\ref{cor:N+-} and Lemma~\ref{lem:size}, which proves the second assertion of the theorem.
\end{proof}
In Conjecture \ref{conj:Md} below we predict that the integer $C_1$ in Theorem \ref{thm:uniform} can be chosen to be 13
according to the numerical data. Note that for $d$ large enough
the constant $9$ of Theorem~\ref{thm:uniform} would be best possible.
To see this, we can take $d= 3 \cdot 2^r$ with $r \ge 4$. With this choice, by Theorem \ref{thm:size23} we have $M(d)=9$ for each such $d$.
Also, we can take $d$ of the form
$n^2+n$, where $n \ge 2$. Then, for each such $d$ we have $N^{+}(d) \ge 1$. Indeed, this is true if $n$ is not a perfect power. If it is, say $n=g^m$, where $m \ge 2$ and $g \ge 2$ is not a perfect power, we still have $N^{+}(d) \ge 1$
in view of $d=g^{2m}+g^m$. By the same argument, the inequality $N^{-}(d) \ge 1$ holds, since $$d=n^2+n=(n+1)^2-(n+1).$$ Consequently, $M(d) \ge 9$ for each $d$ of the form $n^2+n$, $n \ge 2$.
\subsection{Numerical data and conjectures}
In this section, we want to design an algorithm for computing $M(d),d\in \N$, and perform the corresponding computations.
From Theorem~\ref{thm:size2} (ii), we only need to compute $M(d)$ for positive even integers $d$.
Based on Lemma~\ref{lem:size}, we design Algorithm~\ref{alg:Md} for this purpose.
As one can see, the algorithm is very simple, and essentially it is also an algorithm to solve the equations \eqref{eq:Pillai1} and \eqref{eq:Pillai2}.
Here, we use PARI/GP \cite{Pari} to implement this algorithm and make the corresponding computations.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Computing $M(d)$}
\label{alg:Md}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require positive even integer $d \ge 4$ (input).
\Ensure $M(d)$ (output).
\State Compute the prime factorization of $d$, say, $d=p_1^{r_1}p_2^{r_2} \cdots p_m^{r_m}$.
\State Set $A,B$ to be two zero vectors of size $2^m$.
\State Execute the subsequent three steps by running through all the factors $a$ of $d$ with $\gcd(a,d/a)=1$.
\State Given such a factor $a$ of $d$, say $a=p_1^{r_1}\cdots p_j^{r_j}$, compute $r=\gcd(r_1,\ldots,r_j)$ and $g=p_1^{r_1/r}\cdots p_j^{r_j/r}$.
\State Divide $d-a$ repeatedly by $g$ until the quotient is not greater than 1. Then, if the quotient is equal to 1, store $a$ in the vector $A$.
\State Divide $d+a$ repeatedly by $g$ until the quotient is not greater than 1. Then, if the quotient is equal to 1, store $a$ in the vector $B$.
\State Count the number of distinct non-zero entries in $A$, say $N_1$, and count the number of distinct non-zero entries in $B$, say $N_2$.
Return $M(d) = 2(N_1 + N_2) +5$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
When using Algorithm~\ref{alg:Md} to compute $M(d)$ for a large range of $d$, to speed up the computation and save the memory we can set $A,B$ to be two zero vectors of size 2 in Step 2 of Algorithm~\ref{alg:Md}, and then let the algorithm return the value of $d$ if the size 2 is not big enough.
Besides, in Step 3 of Algorithm~\ref{alg:Md} we use the binary representations of integers between 0 and $2^m-1$ to run over all such $2^m$ factors of $d$. For example, the factor corresponding to the binary number $0\ldots 011$ is $p_1^{r_1}p_2^{r_2}$.
In Table \ref{ta:Md}, the first row shows all the possible values of $M(d)$ for positive even integer $d\le 10^{10}$.
The second row gives the number of such integers $d\le 10^3$ whose $M(d)$ correspond to the values in the first
row. Other rows
have similar meaning.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Statistics of $M(d)$ for positive even integers $d$}
\label{ta:Md}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$M(d)$ & 5 & 7 & 9 & 11 & 13 \\ \hline
$d\le 10^3$ & 380 & 79 & 33 & 7 & 1 \\ \hline
$d\le 10^4$ & 4653 & 233 & 103 & 10 & 1 \\ \hline
$d\le 10^5$ & 49177 & 488 & 323 & 11 & 1 \\ \hline
$d\le 10^6$ & 498015 & 963 & 1010 & 11 & 1 \\ \hline
$d\le 10^7$ & 4994967 & 1846 & 3175 & 11 & 1 \\ \hline
$d\le 10^8$ & 49986562 & 3410 & 10015 & 12 & 1 \\ \hline
$d\le 10^9$ & 499961918 & 6427 & 31642 & 12 & 1 \\ \hline
$d\le 10^{10}$ & 4999887540 & 12425 & 100022 & 12 & 1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
In particular, we have $M(30)=13$, and $M(d)=11$ if $d$ is one of the following twelve integers:
$$
6, 12, 24, 132, 210, 240, 252, 6480, 8190, 9702, 78120, 24299970.
$$
In fact, these thirteen integers are of the form $n^2+n$ except for $d=24$ and $d=252$. For example,
$24299970 = 4929^2+ 4929$.
Moreover, we used Algorithm \ref{alg:Md} to test all the integers $d=n^2+n$, where $4930 \le n \le 10^8$, and found no examples with $M(d) > 9$.
Furthermore, from Table~\ref{ta:Md} and Theorem~\ref{thm:size2} we see that for any positive integer $d\le 10^{10}$ we have
$$
M(d) \le 13.
$$
From Table~\ref{ta:Md}, one can also observe the following interesting pheno\-me\-non.
Corresponding to the values $5, 7, 9$, the quotients of the numbers of such integers $d$ in two nearby rows
are very close to $10, 2, 3$, respectively.
Based on our computations, we pose two conjectures on the equations \eqref{eq:Pillai1} and \eqref{eq:Pillai2} as follows,
which are of independent interest.
\begin{conjecture} \label{conj:Pillai1}
For any given integer $d\ge 1$, we have $N^{+}(d) \le 2$.
\end{conjecture}
\begin{conjecture} \label{conj:Pillai2}
For any given integer $d\ge 1$, we have $N^{-}(d) \le 2$.
\end{conjecture}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{The values of $d\le 10^{10}$ with $N^{+}(d) = 2$}
\label{ta:N+}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$d$ & \textrm{Primitive integer solutions $(g,x,y)$ of \eqref{eq:Pillai1}} \\ \hline
$12$ & (2,2,3), (3,1,2) \\ \hline
$30$ & (3,1,3), (5,1,2) \\ \hline
$36$ & (2,2,5), (3,2,3) \\ \hline
$130$ & (2,1,7), (5,1,3) \\ \hline
$132$ & (2,2,7), (11,1,2) \\ \hline
$252$ & (3,2,5), (6,2,3) \\ \hline
$9702$ & (21,2,3), (98,1,2) \\ \hline
$65600$ & (2,6,16), (40,2,3) \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
From our computations, it follows that Conjectures \ref{conj:Pillai1} and \ref{conj:Pillai2} are true for
all positive integers $d\le 10^{10}$.
Moreover, it is likely that either $N^{+}(d) = 2$ or $N^{-}(d) = 2$ are very rare events. We collect the values of positive integers $d\le 10^{10}$ for which either $N^{+}(d) = 2$ or $N^{-}(d) = 2$, and the corresponding primitive integer solutions of the equations \eqref{eq:Pillai1} and \eqref{eq:Pillai2} in Tables \ref{ta:N+} and \ref{ta:N-}, respectively.
In particular, one can see that 30 is the unique positive integer in the range $[1,10^{10}]$ with $N^{+}(30) = 2$ and $N^{-}(30) = 2$.
We emphasize that, by Corollary \ref{cor:N+-}, under the $ABC$ conjecture the inequalities $N^{+}(d) \leq 1$ and $N^{-}(d) \leq 1$ hold for each sufficiently large $d$. The last example in Table~\ref{ta:N-} corresponds
to the solution
$(x,y)=(30,9859)$ on the hyperelliptic curve
$$y^2=4x^5-4x+1.$$ Inserting $y=2 \cdot 4930 -1$ and $x=30$ we get
$4930^2-4930=30^5-30$.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{The values of $d\le 10^{10}$ with $N^{-}(d) = 2$}
\label{ta:N-}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$d$ & \textrm{Primitive integer solutions $(g,x,y)$ of \eqref{eq:Pillai2}} \\ \hline
$6$ & (2,1,3), (3,1,2) \\ \hline
$24$ & (2,3,5), (3,1,3) \\ \hline
$30$ & (2,1,5), (6,1,2) \\ \hline
$120$ & (2,3,7), (5,1,3) \\ \hline
$210$ & (6,1,3), (15,1,2) \\ \hline
$240$ & (2,4,8), (3,1,5) \\ \hline
$2184$ & (3,1,7), (13,1,3) \\ \hline
$6480$ & (3,4,8), (6,4,5) \\ \hline
$8190$ & (2,1,13), (91,1,2) \\ \hline
$78120$ & (5,1,7), (280,1,2) \\ \hline
$24299970$ & (30,1,5), (4930,1,2) \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
From the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:uniform} we know that, under the $ABC$ conjecture,
there exists a positive integer $C_4=\max\{C_2,C_3\}$, which is independent of $d$, such that each of the equations in Conjectures \ref{conj:Pillai1} and \ref{conj:Pillai2} has at most $C_4$ primitive integer solutions.
Under Conjectures \ref{conj:Pillai1} and \ref{conj:Pillai2} and in view of \eqref{countt}, for any integer $d \in \N$ we have
$$
M(d) \le 13,
$$
which is also compatible with our numerical data.
So, in conclusion we suggest the following conjecture.
\begin{conjecture} \label{conj:Md}
For any $d \in \N$ we have
$M(d) \le 13.$
Moreover, $M(d)=13$ if and only if $d=30$.
\end{conjecture}
In fact, the second part of Conjecture \ref{conj:Md} asserts that 30 is the unique positive integer $d$ satisfying $N^{+}(d) = N^{-}(d) = 2$.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
The research of M.~S. was supported by the Macquarie University Research Fellowship.
The authors thank Dr. Alina Ostafe for corresponding the relevant reference \cite{BMZ}.
Finally, we are grateful to the referee who read the paper very carefully and pointed out several errors and inaccuracies.
|
\section{Arithmetic progressions in multiplicative groups.}
In this section we will prove Proposition 2.
\smallskip
First we note that the progression $a, a+b, \ldots, a+rb \in G$ is equivalent to that $a\in G$ and $1+a^{-1}b,\ldots, 1+ra^{-1}b\in G$. Hence we will analyze
\be\label{2.1}
\sum_{x\in\mathbb F_p} \mathbb I_G(1+x)\mathbb I_G(1+2x)\ldots \mathbb I_G(1+rx)\ee
Using the representation
\be\label{1.5}
\mathbb I_G=\frac{|G|}{p-1}\sum_{\chi\equiv 1 \;\rm{ on } \;G}\chi,\ee
we write
\be\label{2.2}
\mathbb I_G=\frac{|G|}{p-1}\bigg(\chi_0+\sum_{\substack{\chi\not=\chi_0\\\chi= 1 \;\rm{ on } \;G}}\chi\bigg).\ee
So we write \eqref{2.1} as
\be\label{1}\bigg(\frac{|G|}{p-1}\bigg)^r(p+\mathcal A),
\ee
where
\be\label{2.4}|\mathcal A|\le \bigg(\frac{p-1}{|G|}\bigg)^r\max \bigg|\sum_{x\in\mathbb F_p} \chi_1(1+x)\ldots \chi_r(1+rx)\bigg|
\ee
with $\max$ taken over all $r$-tuples $\chi_1,\ldots, \chi_r$ of multiplicative characters which are $1$ on $G$ and at least one of them non-trivial.
We now bound the sum in \eqref{2.4}. For the $r$-tuple $\chi_1,\ldots, \chi_r$ obtaining the max, let $I=\{s\in[1, r]: \;\chi_s\not=\chi_0\}$. Assume $\mathcal Y$ generates $\widehat{\mathbb F_p^*}$ and let $\chi=\mathcal Y^{|G|}$. Then $\chi_s=\chi^{j_s}$, where $j_s< \frac{p-1}{|G|}$. Hence
$$\sum_{x\in\mathbb F_p}\prod_{s\in I} \chi_s(1+sx)=\sum_{x\in\mathbb F_p}\mathcal Y(f(x))$$
with
$$f(x)=\prod_{s\in I} (1+sx)^{j_s|G|}.$$
Since $\mathcal Y$ is of order $p-1$ and $f(x)$ is not a $p-1$-power, Weil's theorem implies
\be\label{2.5}
\bigg|\sum_{x\in\mathbb F_p}\mathcal Y(f(x))\bigg|<|I|\sqrt p.\ee
Assume $|G|>c_rp^{1-\frac 1{2r}}$. It follows that \eqref{1} and hence \eqref{2.1} is bounded below by
\be\label{2.6}
\bigg(\frac{|G|}{p-1}\bigg)^rp-r\sqrt p > c_r \bigg(\frac{|G|}{p-1}\bigg)^rp.\ee
Therefore, $G$ contains at least $c_r\big(\frac{|G|}p\big)^r p |G|$ many non-trivial $r+1$-progressions.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Remark 1.1.} We note that if $G\subset \mathbb F_p^*$ is a random set, then the expected size of \eqref{2.1} would also be $\big(\frac{|G|}{p-1}\big)^rp$. So the above observation indicates a random behavior of sufficiently large multiplicative group in terms of $r$-progressions. (This point of view will be exploited further in the next section.)
\section{Progressions in large subsets of multiplicative groups.}
An interesting problem is the following.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\it How large can $G\subset \mathbb F_p^*$ be without containing an r-progression? }
\smallskip
In this section we will prove Theorem 1. We will use the Green-Tao extension of Szemer\'{e}di's theorem for large subsets of pseudo-random sets. (See Theorem 2.2 in \cite{H}.)
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Theorem GT.} {\it Let $\nu : \mathbb Z_N \to \mathbb R^+$ be a pseudo-random weight, and let $r\in \mathbb Z^+$. Then for any $\delta >0$, there is $c_r(\delta)>0$ satisfying the following property.
\noindent
For any $f: \mathbb Z_N\to \mathbb R$ such that
\be\label{3.2}0\le f(x)\le \nu(x), \forall x \;\; \text{ and } \;\; \mathbb E(f\,|\; \mathbb Z_N)\ge \delta,\ee
we have
\be\label{3.3}
\mathbb E(f(x)f(x+t)\ldots f(x+rt)\,|\; x, t\in \mathbb Z_N)\ge c_r(\delta)-o(1).\ee}
\noindent (Note that here the notation $\mathbb E$ refers to the normalized sum.)
\medskip
In order to apply this result, one will need to verify that under appropriate assumptions, $\mathbb I_G$ for $G\subset \mathbb F_p^*$, satisfies the required pseudo-randomness conditions.
We call that $\nu$ is a pseudo-random weight if $\nu$ satisfies the following two conditions.
\smallskip
\noindent (1). {\it Condition on linear forms.}
\noindent Let $m_0, t$ and $L\in \mathbb Z$ be constants depending on $r$ only. Let $m\le m_0$ be an integer and $\psi_1,\ldots, \psi_m:\mathbb Z_N^t\to\mathbb Z_N$ be functions of the form
\be\label{3.4}
\psi_i({\bf x})=b_i+\sum_{j=1}^t L_{i,j}x_j,\ee
where ${\bf x}=(x_1,\ldots, x_t)$, $b_i\in\mathbb Z$, $|L_{i,j}|\le L$ and the $m$ vectors $(L_{i,j})_{1\le j \le t} \in\mathbb Z^t$ are pairwisely non-collinear.
\noindent
Then
\be\label{3.5}
\mathbb E\big(\nu(\psi_1({\bf x}))\ldots \nu(\psi_m({\bf x})\big)|\;{\bf x}\in \mathbb Z_N^t)=1+o(1).\ee
\smallskip
\noindent (2). {\it Condition of correlations.}
\noindent Let $q_0\in\mathbb Z$ be a constant. Then there exists $\tau:\mathbb Z_N\to \mathbb R^+$ satisfying
\be\label{3.6}
\text{ for all }\;\ell\ge 1, \mathbb E(\tau^{\ell}(x)\,|\; x\in \mathbb Z_N)=O_{\ell}(1)\ee
such that for all $q\le q_0$ and $h_1, \ldots , h_q\in\mathbb Z_N$ (not necessarily distinct), we have
\be\label{3.7}
\mathbb E\big(\nu(x+h_1)\nu(x+h_2)\ldots\nu(x+h_q)\,|\;x\in \mathbb Z_N\big)\le\sum_{1\le i\le j\le q}\tau(h_i-h_j).\ee
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Remark 2.1.} As Y. Zhao pointed out that in his paper \cite{CFZ} with D. Conlon and J. Fox, they showed that in applying Theorem GT one only needs to verify the $m_0$-linear forms condition (with $m_0=r\,2^{r-1}$), and that the correlation condition is actually unnecessary.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Proof of Theorem 1.} In our application of Theorem GT, $\mathbb Z_N$ will be $\mathbb F_p$ with additive structure and $\nu=\frac{p-1}{|G|}\mathbb I_G$. We will verify the condition on linear forms above by using Weil's theorem.
\smallskip
\noindent Using the representation \eqref{2.2}, we have
\be\label{3.8}\begin{aligned}
\nu=\;&\;\frac {p-1}{|G|} \mathbb I_G\;=\; \frac {p-1}{|G|}\;\frac {|G|} {p-1}\sum_{\chi= 1 \;\rm{ on } \;G}\chi\\=\;&
\;\chi_0+\sum_{\substack{\chi\not=\;\chi_0\\\chi= 1 \;\rm{ on } \;G}}\chi.\end{aligned}\ee
In \eqref{3.5}, the trivial character $\chi_0$ contributes for $1$ and the additional contribution may be bounded as in \S 1 by
\be\label{3.9}
\bigg(\frac {p-1}{|G|}\bigg)^m p^{-t} \max\bigg|\sum_{{\bf x}\in\mathbb F_p^t}\chi_1(\psi_1({\bf x}))\ldots \chi_m(\psi_m({\bf x}))\bigg|
\ee
with $\max$ taken over all $m$-tuples $\chi_1,\ldots, \chi_m$, which are $1$ on $G$ and not all $\chi_0$. For the $m$-tuples $\chi_1,\ldots, \chi_m$ obtaining the max, let $I=\{s\in[1,m]:\chi_s\not=\chi_0\}$, hence $\chi_s=\mathcal Y^{j_s|G|}$, with $j_s< \frac{p-1}{|G|}$ for $s\in I$. We obtain
\be\label{3.10}
\sum_{{\bf x}\in\mathbb F_p^t}\chi_1(\psi_1({\bf x}))\ldots \chi_m(\psi_m({\bf x}))=\sum_{{\bf x}\in\mathbb F_p^t}\mathcal Y\big(\prod_{s\in I}\psi_s({\bf x})^{j_s|G|}\big)\ee
To introduce a new variable $z$, we perform a shift ${\bf x}\mapsto {\bf x} + z{\bf a}$, where ${\bf a}\in \{1,\ldots, m\}^t$ may be chosen such that
\be\label{3.11}
\sum_{j=1}^t L_{s,j}a_j\not= 0,\; \text{ for } s=1, \ldots, m.\ee
Recall that $|L_{s,j}|\le L$ and the m vectors $(L_{s,j})_{j=1,\ldots, t}\in\mathbb Z^t$ are pairwisely non-collinear. Hence we may choose ${\bf a}$ as above to fulfill \eqref{3.11} and moreover $\sum_{j=1}^t L_{s,j}a_j\not\equiv 0\pmod p$. We estimate \eqref{3.10} as
\be\label{3.12}
\frac 1p\sum_{{\bf x}\in\mathbb F_p^t}\bigg|\sum_{z=0}^{p-1}\mathcal Y(f_{\bf x} (z))\bigg|,\ee
where
\be\label{3.13}
f_{{\bf x}} (z)=\prod_{s\in I}\big(\big(\sum_jL_{s,j}a_j\big)z+\psi_s({\bf x})\big)^{j_s|G|}.\ee
Clearly, $f_{{\bf x}} (z)$ will not be a ($p-1$)-power of a polynomial, if the following expressions
\be\label{3.14}
\frac {\psi_s({\bf x})}{\sum_jL_{s,j}a_j}, \;\; s\in I\ee
are pairwisely distinct.
To estimate the double sum in \eqref{3.12}, we write $\sum_{{\bf x}\in\mathbb F_p^t}$ as $\sum^{(1)}+\sum^{(2)}$, where $\sum^{(1)}$ is over those ${\bf x}\in \mathbb F_p^t$ for which \eqref{3.14} are pairwisely distinct and $\sum^{(2)}$ over the other ${\bf x}$.
By Weil's theorem
\be\label{3.15}
\frac 1p\sum{}^{^{(1)}}\bigg|\sum_{z=0}^{p-1}\mathcal Y(f_{\bf x} (z))\bigg|\le |I|\; p^{t-1}\sqrt p.\ee
For $\sum^{(2)}$ we estimate trivially.
\be\label{3.16}\begin{aligned}&
\frac 1p\sum{}^{^{(2)}}\bigg|\sum_{z=0}^{p-1}\mathcal Y(f_{\bf x} (z))\bigg|\\\le\;\; &\sum_{\substack{s, s'\in I\\s\not= s'}}\bigg|\bigg\{{\bf x}\in \mathbb F_p^t:\frac {\psi_s({\bf x})}{\sum_jL_{s,j}a_j}=\frac {\psi_{s'}({\bf x})}{\sum_jL_{s',j}a_j}\bigg\}\bigg|\end{aligned}\ee
Since $(L_{s,j})_{1\le j\le t}$ and $(L_{s',j})_{1\le j\le t}$ are not collinear (and bounded), there is some $j_0$ such that
$$\frac{L_{s, j_0}}{\sum L_{s,j}a_j}\;-\;\frac{L_{s', j_0}}{\sum L_{s',j}a_j}\in\mathbb F_p^*\;.$$
This shows that \eqref{3.16} is bounded by $r^2p^{t-1}$. Therefore, we proved that \eqref{3.12} is bounded by $rp^{t-\frac 12}$, and \eqref{3.9} is bounded by
\be\label{3.18}
c_r \frac {(p-1)^m}{|G|^m \sqrt p},\ee
which is bounded by $p^{-\frac 14}$, assuming
\be\label{3.19} |G|> p^{1-\frac 1{4m_0}}.\quad\square\ee
\section{Construction of large multiplicative groups with no $r$-progressions.}
In this section we will prove Proposition 3. Our argument is very similar to the proof of Theorem 39 in \cite{BGKS}, where it is shown that there is a subset $\Delta\subset \mathcal P_T=\{p: p \text{ is a prime, and } p\le T\}$, $|\Delta |<\delta\frac T{\log T}$ with $\delta=\delta(r)\to 0$ as $r\to\infty$ and such that for any $p\in\mathcal P_T\setminus \Delta$ and any $t\in\mathbb Z$
\be\label{4.3}
\max \big({\rm ord}_p(t+1),\ldots, {\rm ord}_p(t+r)\big)>T^{\frac 12-\delta}.\ee
Obviously, \eqref{4.3} implies that
\be\label{4.4}
{\rm ord}_p \langle t+1,\ldots, t+r\rangle > T^{\frac 12-\delta},\ee
which is the only relevant property for us.
As in \S1, if $a, a+b, \ldots, a+rb\in G\subset\mathbb F_p^*,$ and $\, b\in F_p^*$, then $1+t, 1+2t, \ldots, 1+rt\in G, t\equiv a^{-1}b\pmod p$ and hence we obtain $t\in\mathbb Z, t\not\equiv 0\pmod p$
such that
$${\rm ord}_p\langle 1+t,\ldots,1+rt\rangle \le |G|.$$
Thus our purpose is to ensure that for all $t\not\equiv 0\pmod p$ such that
\be\label{4.5}
{\rm ord}_p\langle 1+t,\ldots,1+rt\rangle >p^{\frac 12-\delta},\ee with $p$ such that $p-1$ has a divisor $d$ in the interval $[p^{\frac 12-\eta}, p^{\frac 12-\delta}]$. Then the subgroup $G<\mathbb F_p^*$ of order $d$ will have no ($r+1$)-progression. Assuming \eqref{4.5} holds for all $p\in\mathcal P_T\setminus \Delta$ with $|\Delta|<\delta\frac T{\log T}$, it will then suffice (taking $\eta=c\delta$) to invoke
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Lemma 3.1.} {\it Let notations be as above. Then
\be\label{4.6}
\big|\big\{ p\in\mathcal P_T: p-1 \text{ has a prime divisor in the interval } [T^{\frac 12-\eta}, T^{\frac 12-\frac {\eta}2}]\big\}\big|> c\eta\frac T{\log T}.\ee}
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf Proof.} In Bombieri-Vinogradov theorem, taking
\be\label{4.7}
Q=T^{\frac 12}\big(\log T\big)^{-10}\ee
we have
\be\label{4.8}
\sum_{q\le Q}\bigg|\psi(T; q, 1)-\frac T{\phi(q)}\bigg|=O\big(T^{\frac 12} Q \big(\log T\big)^5\big)<cT\big(\log T\big)^{-5},\ee where $\phi(q)$ is the Euler's totient function and$$\psi(T; q, 1)=\sum_{\substack{n\leq T\\ n\equiv 1 \mod q}}\Lambda(n),$$
$\Lambda (n)$ being the von Mangoldt function.
Denote
$$\Omega=\bigg\{q\in \big[T^{\frac 12-\eta}, T^{\frac 12-\frac {\eta}2}\big]\cap \mathcal P:\psi(T; q, 1)<\frac T{2\phi(q)}\bigg\}.$$
Let $[2^k, 2^{k+1}]\subset [T^{\frac 12-\eta}, T^{\frac 12-\frac {\eta}2}]:=I$. From \eqref{4.8},
$$\big|\Omega \cap [2^k, 2^{k+1}]
\big|\;\frac T{2^{k+1}}< c\;T\big(\log T\big)^{-5},$$
hence
\be\label{4.9}
\big|\Omega \cap [2^k, 2^{k+1}]
\big|\;< c\frac {2^k}{\big(\log T\big)^5} <\frac 1{100}\big|\mathcal P\cap [2^k, 2^{k+1}]\big|.\ee
Clearly, \eqref{4.9} and the prime number theorem imply that
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{q\not\in\Omega\\q\in I\cap \mathcal P}}\,\frac 1q\; =\;\;&\;\sum_{(\frac 12-\eta)\log T<k<(\frac 12-\frac {\eta}2)\log T}\;\;\sum_{\substack{q\not\in\Omega\\q\in [2^k, 2^{k+1}]\cap \mathcal P}}\,\frac 1q\quad\qquad\\
<\;\;&\;\sum_{(\frac 12-\eta)\log T<k<(\frac 12-\frac {\eta}2)\log T}\;\frac 1{2^k}\;\; \big|\mathcal P\cap [2^k, 2^{k+1}]\big|\;<2\eta .\qquad\qquad\end{aligned}$$
Let $\sigma <2 \eta$ be a parameter (to be specified). From the preceding, there is a subset $S\subset I\cap \mathcal P$, $S\cap \Omega=\emptyset$, such that
\be\label{4.10}
\sigma<\sum_{q\in S}\frac 1q< 2\sigma,\ee
and since $S\cap\Omega=\emptyset$, we have for all $q\in S$
\be\label{4.11}
|A_q|\ge \frac T{2\big(\log T\big)q}, \;\;\text{where } A_q:=\{p<T: p\equiv 1\pmod q\}.\ee
From the inclusion/exclusion principle and the Brun-Titchmarsh theorem, the left hand side of \eqref{4.6} is at least
\be\label{3}\begin{aligned}
\bigg|\bigcup_{q\in S}A_q\bigg|\ge &\; \sum_{q\in S}|A_q|-\sum_{\substack{q_1, q_2\in S\\q_1\not= q_2}}|A_{q_1q_2}|\\
\ge &\; \frac T{2\log T}\sum_{q\in S}\frac 1q-\sum_{\substack{q_1, q_2\in S\\q_1\not= q_2}}\bigg\{\frac {2T}{\phi(q_1 q_2)\log \frac T{q_1q_2}}\;\bigg(1+O\bigg(\frac 1{\log\frac T{q_1q_2}}\bigg)\bigg)\bigg\}\end{aligned}\ee
Since $\phi(q_1q_2)=(q_1-1)(q_2-1),$ and $ q_1q_2\le T^{1-\eta}$ for $q_1\not= q_2$ in $S$, \eqref{3} is bounded below by
$$\begin{aligned} &\;\;\frac T{\log T}\;\bigg(\frac 12\sum_{q\in S} \frac 1q-\frac 3{\eta}\bigg(\sum_{q\in S}\frac 1q\bigg)^2\bigg)\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\\
=&\;\;\frac T{\log T}\;\bigg(\frac{\sigma}2-\frac 3{\eta}\sigma^2\bigg)\,>c\,\eta\frac T{\log T}\end{aligned}
$$
for some small $c>0$ and appropriate choice of $\sigma.\quad\square$
\medskip
Returning to the proof of Theorem 39 in \cite{BGKS}, a key ingredient is Lemma 17 (in \cite{BGKS}) depending on a result from \cite{ESS} on additive relations in multiplicative subgroups of $\mathbb C^*$. Keeping \eqref{4.5} in mind, the appropriate variant of Lemma 17 we will need is the following.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Lemma 3.2.} {\it Let $z\in \mathbb C^*$ and $r\in \mathbb Z_+$ be sufficiently large. Consider the set $\mathcal A=\{1+sz: 1\le s\le r\}\subset \mathbb C$. Then there is a multiplicative independent subset $\mathcal A_0\subset \mathcal A$ of size
\be\label{4.13}
|\mathcal A_0|>\,c\,\log r.\ee}
\medskip
The proof is the same as Lemma 17 in \cite{BGKS}. Note that one distinction is that we have to assume $z \not= 0$, which will also lead to a small modification in the proof of Theorem 39 in \cite{BGKS}, in order to establish \eqref{4.5}. Thus
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Lemma 3.3.} {\it There is a subset $\Delta\subset \mathcal P_T, \, |\Delta|= o\big(\frac T{\log T}\big)$ such that every $p\in \mathcal P_T \setminus \Delta$ has the following property.
\noindent If $t\in\mathbb Z, t\not\equiv 0\pmod p$, then
\be\label{4.15}
{\rm ord}_p\langle 1+t, \ldots, 1+rt\rangle >p^{\frac 12-\delta},\ee
where $\delta=\delta(r)$.}
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Proof.} The basic strategy is the same as that of Theorem 39 in \cite{BGKS}.
We fix an integer $r_0=[\log r]$, let \be\label{4.16}
\delta=\delta(r)=\frac{100}{r_0},\ee
and choose $u\in\mathbb Z_+$ such that
\be\label{4.17}
u^{r_0}=c T^{\frac 12-\delta} \;\text{ and }\;\; \frac 12T^{\frac 12-\delta}<u^{r_0}<2 T^{\frac 12-\delta} .\ee
Let $\mathcal E$ be the collection of all subsets $E\subset\{1,\ldots,r\}, |E|=r_0$.
Next, given any two subsets $E_1, E_2\subset\{1,\ldots r\},\, E_1\cap E_2=\emptyset, \; 0<|E_1|+|E_2|\le r_0$, and exponents $\tilde{u}=(u_s)_{s\in E_1\cup E_2}, 1\le u_s\le u$, we introduce the polynomial
\be\label{4.18}
F=F_{E_1, E_2,\tilde{u}}(x)=\prod_{s\in E_1}(1+sx)^{u_s}-\prod_{s\in E_2}(1+sx)^{u_s}\in\mathbb Z[x].\ee
Note that $x$ is always a factor of $F(x)$. Clearly $\deg F(x)\le r_0u$, ${\rm ht} F(x)\le r^{\,2r_0u}$, and there are at most $2^{r_0}\binom{r\;}{r_0}u^{r_0}$ such polynomials.
Denote by $\mathcal F\subset\mathbb Z[x]$ the collection of all irreducible factors $f(x)\in\mathbb Z[x]$ and $f(x)\not=x$ extracted from all polynomials of the form \eqref{4.18}. Hence
\be\label{4.19}
|\mathcal F|\le r_02^{r_0}\binom{r}{r_0}u^{r_0+1}.\ee
Next, if $f,g\in\mathcal F, f\not\sim g$, (i.e. $f$ and $g$ are not proportional) then the resultant of $f, g$ satisfies
\be\label{4.20}
{\rm Res}(f,g)\in \mathbb Z\setminus \{0\} \;\;\text{ and }\;\; |{\rm Res}(f, g)|<r^{2(r_0u)^2}.\ee
From \eqref{4.19}
\be\label{4.21}
B=\prod_{\substack{f,g\in \mathcal F\\f\not\sim g}}{\rm Res}(f,g)\;\in\mathbb Z\setminus\{0\}\ee
satisfies
\be\label{4.22}
|B|<r^{\;2r_0^4\;4^{r_0}\binom{r\;}{r_0}^2u^{2r_0+4}}<r^{\;r^{2r_
0}\;u^{2r_0+4}}.\ee
By \eqref{4.17} and \eqref{4.16}, for $T$ sufficiently large, we can bound the exponent in \eqref{4.22} as
$$r^{2r_0}\;u^{2r_0+4}<r^{2r_0}T^{1-2\delta+\frac 2{r_0}}<T^{1-\delta}=o\bigg(\frac T{\log T}\bigg).$$
Therefore, there is a set $\Delta\subset\mathcal P_T$ of primes $p\le T,$ with $ |\Delta|=o\big(\frac T{\log T}\big)$ such that $(p, B)=1$ for all $p\in \mathcal P_T\setminus\Delta$.
Now, take $p\in \mathcal P_T\setminus\Delta$ and suppose there exists some $t\in\mathbb Z, \; t\not\equiv 0\pmod p$ such that
$${\rm ord}_p\langle 1+t, \ldots, 1+rt\rangle <u^{r_0}.$$
Then, for all $E\in\mathcal E$, there are $E_1, E_2\subset E,\; E_1\cap E_2=\emptyset, \; |E_1|+|E_2|\ge 1$ and $\tilde{u}=(u_s)_{s\in E_1\cup E_2}$ such that $F_{E_1, E_2,\tilde{u}}(t)\equiv 0\pmod p$. Hence there is a factor $f_E(x)$ of $F_{E_1, E_2,\tilde{u}}(x)$ such that $f_E(t)\equiv 0\pmod p$. Since $t\not\equiv 0\pmod p$, $f_E(x)\not=x$. For all $E, F\in\mathcal E$, since $f_E(x), f_F(x)$ have common root $t\pmod p$
\be\label{4.23}
{\rm Res}(f_E, f_F)\equiv 0\pmod p.\ee
If $f_E\not= c f_F$, then ${\rm Res}(f_E, f_F)|B$, contradicting $(B, p)=1$. Thus $f_E=c f_F$ for all $E, F\in \mathcal E$ and hence have a common root $z\in\mathcal C^*$. But by Lemma 3.2, there is a set $E\in\mathcal E$ such that $\{1+sz:\, s\in E\}$ are multiplicatively independent, implying $F_{E_1, E_2,\tilde{u}}(z)\not=0, f_E(z)\not=0$, which is a contradiction. $\qquad\square$
\section{}
\bigskip
\noindent{\bf Ackonwledgement.} The author would like to thank Yufei Zhao for bringing her attention to \cite{CFZ}. The author would also like to thank the referees for careful reading, which improved an earlier version of the paper.
|
\section{Introduction}
It is well-known that fields
are {\bf equationally compact}, that is, if we have a system $E_i, i\in I$ of
equations over a
field $K$
$$\sum_{j} a_{ij} x_j=m_i$$
and for any finite subset of $I$ the equations $E_i$ can be solved
simultaneously, then all the equations can be solved simultaneously.
Now let $\G$ be a countable group acting on a set $X$ by permutations.
Let $\mbox{Fix}} \newcommand{\Aut}{\mbox{Aut}} \newcommand{\dist}{\mbox{dist}(s)$ be the fixed point set of $s\in\Gamma$.
Following Banaschewski \cite{Bana},
we
say that a $\G$-action is equationally compact, if we have a subset $S$ of $\G$
and for any finite subset $T$ of $S$, $\cap_{s\in T} \mbox{Fix}} \newcommand{\Aut}{\mbox{Aut}} \newcommand{\dist}{\mbox{dist}(s)$ is non-empty, then
$\cap_{s\in S} \mbox{Fix}} \newcommand{\Aut}{\mbox{Aut}} \newcommand{\dist}{\mbox{dist}(s)$ is non-empty.
A subgroup $H$ of $\G$ is equationally compact (or PIP, \cite{Prest})
if the left action on
$\G/H$ is equationally compact. The following proposition is quite straightforward
and is left for the reader.
\begin{propo} \label{propo1}
The subgroup $H\subset G$ is equationally compact if any of the following three conditions hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item $H$ is a finite extension of a normal subgroup (in particular, if $H$
is finite or normal).
\item The normalizator subgroup of $H$ has finite index in $G$.
\item $H$ is malnormal.
\end{itemize}
\end{propo}
\noindent
On the other hand, Banaschewski proved (\cite{Bana}, Proposition 6.) that
the free group of infinite generators has non-equationally compact subgroups.
\noindent
Let $\G$ be a countable group and $\{0,1\}^{\G}$ be the set of subsets of $\G$
with
the Tychonoff-topology. The set of all subgroups,
$S(\G)$ forms a closed, invariant (under the conjugate action) subspace
of $\{0,1\}^{\G}$. If $\G$ acts on a set $X$, then the set $\{\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}(x): x\in X\}=M(\G,X)$
is an invariant subspace of $S(\G)$. The following proposition is easy to
prove.
\begin{propo} \label{easy}
Let $\G$ act on the set $X$ and let $M(\G,X)\subset S(\G)$ be the corresponding
invariant subspace of $S(\G)$. Then, the action is equationally compact
if and only if for any subgroup $K$ in the closure of $M(\G,X)$, there exists
an element of $L\in M(\G,X)$ such that $K\subseteq L$.
Particularly, $H\subset \G$ is equationally compact if for any $K$ in
the orbit closure of $H$, there exists a conjugate of $H$, $L=gHg^{-1}$ such
that $K\subseteq L$.
\end{propo}
The first goal of the paper is to answer two queries of Prest and Rajani
\cite{Prest} concerning equational compactness by proving the following
two theorems.
\begin{theorem} \label{theorem1}
The only equationally compact subgroup of the finitary symmetric
group $S^0_\infty} \newcommand{\Ainf}{A^0_\infty$ on
$\mathbb{N}$ are the finite subgroups and the group of even permutations $A^0_\infty$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem} \label{theorem2}
There exists a countable group $\G$ acting on a set $X$, such that
the action is equationally compact, but for any $x\in X$, $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}(x)$ is
not an equationally compact subgroup of $\G$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent
Let $H$ be a subgroup of a countable group $\G$. Then one can consider
the Cantor-Bendixson rank of its orbit closure (\cite {Cornul}). In some
sense the Cantor-Bendixson rank measures the complexity of a subgroup, how
far they are from being normal.
Notice that the orbit closures of all the
subgroups described in Proposition \ref{propo1} are countable sets and their
Cantor-Bendixson ranks are finite.
One of the two main results of our paper is the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \label{theorem3}
Let $\G=\Z_2 * \Z_2 *\
Z_2$ be the free product of three cyclic groups.
Then, for any countable ordinal $\alpha$, there exists an equationally
compact subgroup $H$ of $\G$ such that orbit closure
of $H$ is countable and its Cantor-Bendixson rank is $\alpha+2$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent
Finally, we apply our techniques for the construction of weakly incomparable essentially free and ergodic generalized Bernoulli actions of
the group $\G_5=\Z_2 * \Z_2 * \Z_2 * \Z_2 * \Z_2$ (see Section \ref{weak}).
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem4}
There exist uncountable many equationally compact subgroups $\{H_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in I}$ of $\Gamma_5$ such that
the associated generalized Bernoulli actions $\G_5\curvearrowright ([0,1],\lambda)^{\Gamma_5/H_\alpha}$ are pairwise
weakly incomparable.
\end{theorem}
\section{Equationally compact subgroups of the finitary symmetric group}
Let $S^0_\infty} \newcommand{\Ainf}{A^0_\infty=\cup^\infty_{n=1} S_n$ be the finitary symmetric group on the natural numbers.
That is, the group of permutations fixing all but finitely many elements.
The goal of this section is to prove Theorem \ref{theorem1} by showing that
the list of equationally compact subgroups of $S^0_\infty} \newcommand{\Ainf}{A^0_\infty$
contains only the set of finite groups and the alternating subgroup of
even permutations $\Ainf$.
Before getting into the proof let us fix some notations. Let $S^0_{[\,l,\infty]}} \newcommand{\Ainfl}{A^0_{[\,l,\infty]}\subset S^0_\infty$ be the subgroup of elements
fixing the set $\{1,2,\dots,l-1\}$. Let $\Ainfl=S^0_{[\,l,\infty]}} \newcommand{\Ainfl}{A^0_{[\,l,\infty]}\cap A^0_\infty$. For a permutation $\gamma\in S^0_\infty$, we define
$s(\gamma)$ as the maximum of $k$'s for which $\gamma(k)\neq k.$
\begin{propo}
Let $H$ be an equationally compact subgroup of $S^0_\infty$. Then one of the following two conditions are satisfied.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists $l\geq 0$ such that $H\cap S^0_{[\,l,\infty]}} \newcommand{\Ainfl}{A^0_{[\,l,\infty]}=\{e\}$.
\item There exists $l\geq 0$ such that $\Ainfl\subset H$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{propo}
\proof
Let $H\subset S^0_\infty} \newcommand{\Ainf}{A^0_\infty$ be a subgroup such that neither of the two conditions above are satisfied.
Let $\kappa_1H\kappa^{-1}_1, \kappa_2H\kappa^{-1}_2,\dots$ be an enumeration of the conjugates of $H$. Inductively,
we will pick elements
$\{\gamma_n\}^\infty_{n=1}\subset S^0_\infty, \{\delta_n\}^\infty_{n=1}\subset S^0_\infty$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\{\delta_1,\delta_2,\dots,\delta_n\}\subset \gamma_n H \gamma_n^{-1}\,.$
\item $\delta_n\notin \kappa_n H \kappa_n^{-1}\,.$
\end{itemize}
\noindent
Hence the subgroup $H$ cannot be equationally compact.
Suppose that $\{\gamma_i\}^n_{i=1}, \{\delta_i\}^n_{i=1}$ has already been constructed and for any $1\leq i \leq n$
\begin{itemize}
\item $\{\delta_1,\delta_2,\dots,\delta_i\}\subset \gamma_i H \gamma_i^{-1}\,.$
\item $\delta_i\notin \kappa_i H \kappa_i^{-1}\,.$
\end{itemize}
\noindent
Let
$$l=\max(\max_{1\leq i \leq n} s(\gamma_i), \max_{1\leq i \leq n} s(\delta_i), \kappa_{n+1})+1\,.$$
\noindent
Since a conjugacy class always generates a normal subgroup, there exists a non-unit conjugacy class $C$ of $S^0_{[\,l,\infty]}} \newcommand{\Ainfl}{A^0_{[\,l,\infty]}$
such that $H\cap C$ is a proper subset of $C$.
Let $\delta_{n+1}\in C\backslash H, \rho_{n+1}\in H\cap C$.
Then, we have $\gamma\in S^0_{[\,l,\infty]}} \newcommand{\Ainfl}{A^0_{[\,l,\infty]}$ such that
$\gamma\rho_{n+1}\gamma^{-1}=\delta_{n+1}$. Let $\gamma_{n+1}=\gamma\gamma_n.$
By the definition of $l$, we have that $\gamma$ commutes with $\{\gamma_i\}^n_{i=1}, \{\delta_i\}^n_{i=1}$
and $\kappa_{n+1}$, hence
\begin{itemize}
\item $\delta_{n+1}\notin \kappa_{n+1}H\kappa_{n+1}^{-1}\,.$
\item $\delta_i\in \gamma_{n+1} H \gamma_{n+1}^{-1}$, whenever $1\leq i \leq n\,.$
\end{itemize}
\noindent
Therefore, $H$ is not equationally compact. \qed
\begin{lemma}
If $H$ is equationally compact and contains $\Ainfl$ for some $l>0$, then either $H=S^0_\infty} \newcommand{\Ainf}{A^0_\infty$ or $H=\Ainf$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
If $\Ainfl\subseteq H$, then for any $k\geq 1$ there
exists a conjugate of $H$, $\gamma H \gamma^{-1}$ such that the subgroup $A_k$ is contained in $\gamma H \gamma^{-1}$.
Hence, if $H$ is equationally compact, then it must contain the whole group $\Ainf=\cup^\infty_{k=1} A_k$.
Therefore, $H=S^0_\infty} \newcommand{\Ainf}{A^0_\infty$ or $H=\Ainf$. \qed
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent
The following proposition finishes to proof of Theorem \ref{theorem1}.
\begin{propo} If there exists $l\geq 1$ such that $H\cap S^0_{[\,l,\infty]}} \newcommand{\Ainfl}{A^0_{[\,l,\infty]}=\{e\}$, then $H$ is finite.
\end{propo}
\proof Suppose that $H$ is an infinite subgroup of $S^0_\infty} \newcommand{\Ainf}{A^0_\infty$.
\begin{lemma}
There exists an infinite subset $\{\gamma_n\}^\infty_{n=1}\subset H$ such that
for any $n\geq 1$, $\gamma_n(1)=1\,.$
\end{lemma}
\proof First, let us suppose that there exists $k\geq 1$ and an infinite subset $\{\delta_n\}^\infty_{n=1}\subset H$
such that $\delta_n(1)=k.$
Let $\gamma_n=\delta_n^{-1}\delta_1.$ Then for any $n\geq 1$, $\gamma_n(1)=1\,.$
If such $k$ does not exist, then we have an increasing sequence of positive integers $\{k_n\}^\infty_{n=1}$ and an
infinite subset $\{\gamma_n\}^\infty_{n=1}\subset H$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\gamma_n(1)=k_n.$
\item $k_n>s(\gamma_i)$, whenever $1\leq i \leq n-1.$
\end{itemize}
\noindent
Then for any $n\geq 1$ and $1\leq i \leq n-1$, $\gamma_n^{-1}\gamma_i\gamma_n(1)=1$, hence our lemma follows. \qed
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent
Now let $s$ be a positive integer and
$\{\delta_n\}^\infty_{n=1}\subset H$ be an infinite set of permutations such that $\delta_n(j)=j$ if $1\leq j\leq s$.
\begin{lemma}
There exists an infinite subset $\{\gamma_n\}^\infty_{n=1}\subset H$ such that
$\gamma_n(j)=j$, if $1\leq j\leq s+1\,.$
\end{lemma}
\proof
Again, if there exists $k\geq 1$ and an infinite subset $\{\rho_n\}^\infty_{n=1}\subset H$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\rho_n(j)=j,$ if $1\leq j \leq s$.
\item $\rho_n(s+1)=k.$
\end{itemize}
\noindent
then the set $\{\gamma_n=\rho^{-1}_i\rho_1\}^\infty_{n=1}$ will satisfy the condition of our lemma.
On the other hand, if such $k$ does not exist then we have an increasing sequence of positive integers
$\{k_n\}^\infty_{n=1}$ and an
infinite subset $\{\delta_n\}^\infty_{n=1}\subset H$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\delta_n(j)=j$, if $1\leq j \leq s$.
\item $\delta_n(s+1)=k_n\,.$
\item $ k_n\geq s(\delta_i)$ if $1\leq i \leq n-1$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent
Hence $\delta^{-1}_n\delta_i\delta_n(j)=j$, if $1\leq i \leq n$, $1\leq j \leq s+1 $.
Thus our lemma follows. \qed
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent
By induction, we can construct infinitely many elements $\{\gamma_n\}^\infty_{n=1}\subset H$ such that $\gamma_n\in S^0_{[\,l,\infty]}} \newcommand{\Ainfl}{A^0_{[\,l,\infty]}$,
in contradiction with the fact that $H\cap S^0_{[\,l,\infty]}} \newcommand{\Ainfl}{A^0_{[\,l,\infty]}=\{e\}\,.$ \qed
\section{Tree subgroups and equational compactness} \label{treesub}
Let $T$ be a tree of vertex degrees at most three with edges
properly colored by the letters $a$, $b$ and $c$, that is,
adjacent edges are colored differently. From now on
(until Section \ref{basiccon} all trees will be
considered to be properly $(a,b,c)$-edge-colored.
Trees are Schreier-graphs, the associated action of $\Gamma=\Z_2*\Z_2*\Z_2$
on the vertex set $V(T)$
is given the following way.
\begin{itemize}
\item If for $x\in V(T)$ there exists an edge $e(x,y)$ colored by $a$, then
$ax=y$.
\item If such edge does not exist, then $a(x)=x.$
\end{itemize}
\noindent
We define the action of the generators $b$ and $c$ in a similar fashion.
Let $w=p_n p_{n-1} p_{n-2}\dots p_1$, where $p_i=a,b$ or $c$ be a
reduced word, $x\in V(T)$. Then $w\in \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_T(x)$, if there exists
a closed walk $\{v_0, v_1,\dots, v_n\}$ in $T$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $v_0=v_n=x.$
\item $p_i(v_{i-1})=v_i\,.$
\end{itemize}
\noindent
If $x\in V(T)$, then $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_T(x)$ is called a {\bf tree subgroup} of $\Gamma$.
The orbit of $H=\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_T(x)$ in the space of
subgroups $S(\Gamma)$ is the set $\{\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}(y)\,\mid\, y\in V(T)\}.$
Now we describe the orbit closure of $H$.
First, let us recall the notion of convergence and limits for rooted trees.
A rooted tree $(T,\rho)$ is an $(a,b,c)$-edge-colored tree with
a distinguished vertex $\rho\in V(T)$. The distance of two rooted trees is
defined the following way.
$$d_\tau\left( (T_1,\rho_1), (T_2,\rho_2)\right)=2^{-k}$$
\noindent
if the balls $B_k(T_1,\rho_1)$ and $B_k(T_2,\rho_2)$ are isomorphic as
rooted, colored graphs, but $B_{k+1}(T_1,\rho_1)$ and $B_{k+1}(T_2,\rho_2)$
are not isomorphic. The space $\mathcal{R}}\newcommand{\cD}{\mathcal{D}\mathcal{T}} \newcommand{\cL}{\mathcal{L}$ of rooted trees is a totally
disconnected compact space
with respect to the metric $d_\tau$. We will denote by $\mathcal{T}} \newcommand{\cL}{\mathcal{L}$
the set of all $\{a,b,c\}$-trees up to isomorphism.
\begin{lemma}
The sequence $\{T_n,\rho_n\}^\infty_{n=1}$ converges to $\{T,\rho\}^\infty_{n=1}$
if and only if $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{T_n}(\rho_n)$ converges to $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_T(\rho)$ in the
space of subgroups $S(\Gamma)$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Let $\{T_n,\rho_n\}^\infty_{n=1}$ be a sequence of rooted trees
converging to $(T,\rho)$. Let $w\in \Gamma$ be a reduced word of length $k$.
By definition, if $n$ is large enough, then
$B_k(T_n,\rho_n)\cong B_k(T,\rho)$, hence $w(\rho)=\rho$ if and only if
$w(\rho_n)=\rho_n$ for large enough $n$. Therefore, $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{T}(\rho)$ is the
limit of the sequence $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{T_n}(\rho_n)$ in the space $S(\Gamma)$.
Conversely, let $H$ be the limit of the sequence
$\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{T_n}(\rho_n)$ in $S(\Gamma)$. Let $W_k$ be the finite set of
reduced words of length $k$ in $\Gamma$.
Then there exists an integer $N>0$ such that
if $N\leq n$, then an element $w\in W_n$ fixes $\rho_n$ if and only
if it fixes $\rho$.
Hence, the Schreier-graph $\mbox{Sch}(\Gamma/H)$ must be a tree and
$\{T_n,\rho_n\}^\infty_{n=1}$ converges to the rooted tree
$\mbox{Sch}(\Gamma/H, H)$ in the space of rooted trees $\mathcal{R}}\newcommand{\cD}{\mathcal{D}\mathcal{T}} \newcommand{\cL}{\mathcal{L}$. \,\, \qed
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent
Before getting further, let us recall the notion of a {\bf branch}.
If $T$ is a tree and $x\in V(T)$, then $y,z\in V(T)\backslash\{ x\}$ is called
branch equivalent if the shortest paths connecting $y$ to $x$ resp.
$z$ to $x$ have a joint edge. For a fixed $x$ Tte equivalence classes induce subtrees of
$T$ and they are called branches. For any edge $e$ adjacent to $x$ there
exists exactly one branch containing $e$. The vertex $x$ is called the root of the branch. Now let $T_3$ be the
infinite tree of vertex degrees $3$ with its unique $(a,b,c)$-edge coloring.
\noindent
A {\bf decorated tree} $T^M_3$ is constructed the following way.
Let $M\subseteq E(T_3)$ be a set of edges of $T_3$ colored by the letter $a$.
For each chosen edge $e(x,y)\in M$ we will have two extra vertices $x_e,y_e$
such that $x$ is connected to $x_e$ by an edge colored by $a$,
$x_e$ is connected to $y_e$ by an edge colored by $b$ and $y_e$ is
connected to $y$ by an edge colored by $a$ (and then we delete the original edge $e(x,y))$. It is easy to see that the
resulting tree $T^M_3$ is properly $(a,b,c)$-colored,
the ``old'' vertices have valency $3$ and the ``new'' vertices have
valency $2$. The following lemma is trivial.
\begin{lemma}
For any decorated tree we have an $(a,b,c,D)$-coloring of the $3$-tree
such that edges adjacent to an edge colored by $D$ can be colored
by either $b$ or $c$ (we call such edge-colorings {\bf good}). Conversely, if we have a good $(a,b,c,D)$-coloring
of the edges of the $3$-tree, then there is an associated decorated tree
$T^M_3$, where $M$ is the set of edges colored by $D$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent
It is easy to see that if
$\{(T_n,\rho_n)\}^\infty_{n=1}$ is a convergent sequence of good rooted
$(a,b,c,D)$-trees, then its limit $(T,\rho)$ is a good tree as well. Let $\mathcal{R}}\newcommand{\cD}{\mathcal{D} \mathcal{T}} \newcommand{\cL}{\mathcal{L}_D$ denotes the
compact space of rooted $(a,b,c,D)$-trees and $\mathcal{T}} \newcommand{\cL}{\mathcal{L}_D$ denote the set of all $(a,b,c,D)$-trees. For a good
$(a,b,c,D)$-tree $T$, $\phi(T)$ denotes the decorated $(a,b,c)$-colored tree associated to
$T$.
The following lemma is easy to prove.
\begin{lemma}\label{coloring} The sequence
$\{(T_n,\rho_n)\}^\infty_{n=1}$ is converging to $(T,\rho)$ in $\mathcal{R}}\newcommand{\cD}{\mathcal{D} \mathcal{T}} \newcommand{\cL}{\mathcal{L}_D$ if and only if
$\{(\phi(T_n),\rho_n)\}^\infty_{n=1}$ is converging to $(\phi(T),\rho)$ in $\mathcal{R}}\newcommand{\cD}{\mathcal{D} \mathcal{T}} \newcommand{\cL}{\mathcal{L}$\,.
\end{lemma}
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent
Now we define {\bf sequential dominance} that is a crucial notion of our paper.
Let $T$ and $S$ be good $(a,b,c,D)$-trees and $x\in V(T_3)$. We say that $S$ dominates $T$ via $x$ if there exists a
branch $\mathcal{B}$ in the underlying infinite tree $T_3$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item
$x$ is not in $\mathcal{B}$.
\item Outside the branch $\mathcal{B}$ the colorings of $S$ and $T$ are identical.
\item There is no $D$-colored edge in $E(T)\cap \mathcal{B}$.
\end{itemize}
\vskip 0.1in
\noindent
Now, suppose that $T$, $\{S_n\}^\infty_{n=1}$ are good $(a,b,c,D)$ trees, $x\in V(T)$ such that
$S_1$ dominates $T$ via $x$ and $S_n$ dominates $S_{n-1}$ via $x$ for any $n\geq 2$.
Then we have
$$E_D(T)\subset E_D(S_1)\subset E_D(S_2)\subset\dots\,$$
\noindent
where $E_D(T)$ is the set of $D$-colored edges in $T$. So we can consider the good $(a,b,c,D)$-tree $S$, where
$E_D(S)=\cup^\infty_{n=1} E_D(S_n)$. In this case, we say that $S$ sequentially dominates $T$ via $x$.
\begin{lemma}\label{workhorse}
Let $(R,x)$ and $(S,y)$ be good $(a,b,c,D)$-trees. Suppose that there exists a good $(a,b,c,D)$-tree $T$
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $S$ sequentially dominates $T$ via $y$.
\item $(R,x)$ and $(T,y)$ are isomorphic as rooted, colored trees.
\end{itemize}
\noindent
Then $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(R)}(x)\subset \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(S)}(y)\,.$ If the conditions of this lemma are satisfied then we say that the
rooted tree $(S,y)$ sequentially dominates $(R,x)$. Note that for simplicity we write $y$ instead of $\phi(y)$
since the vertex $y$ can be clearly identified in $\phi(S)$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
It is enough to show that $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(T)}(y)\subset \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(S_1)}(y)$.
Let $w$ be a reduced word that fixes $y$ in $\phi(T)$. Since all the vertex degrees of $\phi(T)$ in the branch $\mathcal{B}$
are $3$, any closed walk in $\pi(T)$ that goes through $y$ and has an edge in $\mathcal{B}$ must have a turning point. Hence,
the walk induced by $w$ does not have an edge in $\mathcal{B}$. Therefore, $w\in \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(S_1)}(y)\,.$
Inductively,
$$\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(T)}(y) \subset \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(S_1)}(y) \subset \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(S_2)}(y) \subset \cdots$$
\noindent
Since $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(S)}(y)=\cup^\infty_{n=1} \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(S_n)}(y)$, our lemma follows. \qed
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent
The following proposition is our main tool for constructing equationally compact subsgroups in $\Gamma$.
\begin{propo} \label{main}
Let $S$ be an $(a,b,c,D)$-tree. Let
$\{(T_\alpha,x_\alpha)\}_{\alpha\in I}$ be the set of all elements of the closure of the set $\{S,y\}_{y\in S}$ in $\mathcal{R}}\newcommand{\cD}{\mathcal{D} \mathcal{T}} \newcommand{\cL}{\mathcal{L}_D$.
Suppose that for any $\alpha\in I$, there exists $x_\alpha\in V(T_\alpha)$ and $y_\alpha \in V(S)$ such that $(S,y_\alpha)$
sequentially dominates $(T_\alpha,x_\alpha)$. Then for each $y\in V(S)$, $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(S)}(y)$ is an equationally compact
subgroup of $\Gamma$.
\end{propo}
\proof By Proposition \ref{easy}, we only need to prove
that if $\{(\phi(S),y_i)\}^\infty_{i=1}$ converges to $(Q,z)$ in $\mathcal{R}}\newcommand{\cD}{\mathcal{D} \mathcal{T}} \newcommand{\cL}{\mathcal{L}$, then
$\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_Q(z)\subset \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(S)}(y)$ for some $y\in V(S)$.
We can suppose that the vertices $\{y_i\}$ has degree $3$. Indeed, if the degrees (for large $i$) are $2$, then
we can substitute $y_i$ by an adjacent vertex $y'_i$ having vertex degree $3$. Then $\{(\phi(S),y'_i)\}^\infty_{i=1}$ will
converge to $(Q,z')$, where $z'$ is adjacent to $z$. Now, if $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_Q(z')\subset\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(S)}(y')$ for some
$y'\in V(S)$, then $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_Q(z)\subset \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(S)}(y)$ for some $y\in V(S)$.
By Lemma \ref{coloring}, if $\{(\phi(S),y_i)\}^\infty_{i=1}$ converges to $(Q,z)$ in $\mathcal{R}}\newcommand{\cD}{\mathcal{D} \mathcal{T}} \newcommand{\cL}{\mathcal{L}$, then
$\{(S,y_i)\}^\infty_{i=1}$ converges to $(T,z)$ in $\mathcal{R}}\newcommand{\cD}{\mathcal{D} \mathcal{T}} \newcommand{\cL}{\mathcal{L}_D$ and $\phi(T)=Q$.
By the condition of our proposition, there exists $z"\in V(T)$ such that the rooted tree $(T,z")$ is
sequentially dominated by $(S,y')$ for some $y'\in V(S)$.
Hence, by Proposition \ref{workhorse}, $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(T)}(z")\subset \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(S)}(y')$. That is,
$$\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_Q(z)=\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(T)}(z)\subset \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(S)}(y)\,\,\mbox{ for some}\,\, y\in V(S)\quad\qed$$
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent
The following example is intended to illustrate the use of Proposition \ref{main}.
We call a good $(a,b,c,D)$-tree $S$ {\bf sparse}, if for any $n\geq 1$, there exists only
finitely many pairs of edges $E_D(S)$ having distance at most $n$.
\begin{propo} \label{sparse}
Let $S$ be a sparse tree. Then for any vertex $y\in\phi(S)$, $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(S)}(y)$ is equationally compact.
\end{propo}
\proof Suppose that the sequence $\{(S,x_i)\}^{\infty}_{i=1}$ converges to $(T,x)$ in $\mathcal{R}}\newcommand{\cD}{\mathcal{D} \mathcal{T}} \newcommand{\cL}{\mathcal{L}_D$. Recall, that it means that for any
$r\geq 1$, the ball $B_r(T,x)$ is rooted-colored-isomorphic to $B_r(S,x_i)$ if $i$ is large enough. We have three cases.
\vskip 0.1in
\noindent
{\bf Case 1.}
The sequence $\{x_i\}^\infty_{i=1}$ is bounded. Then $(T,x)$ is isomorphic to $(S,y)$ for some vertex $y\in V(S)$.
\vskip 0.1in
\noindent
{\bf Case 2.}\, There exists $r\geq 1$ such that
$B_r(S,x_i)$ contains exactly one $D$-colored edge.
Then the limit tree $(T,x)$ has exactly one $D$-colored edge. Clearly, $(T,x)$ is sequentially dominated by $(S,y)$ for some $y\in S$.
\vskip 0.1in
\noindent
{\bf Case 3.}\, For all $r\geq 1$, the balls $B_r(S,x_i)$ does not contain $D$-colored edges if $i$ is large enough. Then $(T,x)$ has
no $D$-colored edges, so $(T,x)$ is sequentially dominated by $(S,y)$ for all $y\in V(S)$ and $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(T)}(x)=\{e\}$.
\vskip 0.1in
\noindent
Hence, the conditions of Proposition \ref{main} are satisfied. Therefore,
for any vertex $y\in\phi(S)$, $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(S)}(y)$ is equationally compact. \qed
\section{The proof of Theorem \ref{theorem3}}.
Before getting into the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem3} let us introduce some definitions to make the construction of good $(a,b,c,D)$-
trees easier.
A bi-infinite $(a,b)$-path is a graph on the vertex set $\{x_n\}_{n\in \Z}$ such that $x_n$ and $x_m$ is adjacent if and only if
$|n-m|=1$ and the edge $e(x_{2k},x_{2k+1})$ is colored by $a$, the edge $e(x_{2k},x_{2k-1})$ is colored by $b$.
An infinite $(c,b)$-path is a graph on the vertex set $\{y_n\}_{n\geq 0}$ such that $y_n$ and $y_m$ is adjacent if and only if
$|n-m|=1$ and the edge $e(y_{2k},y_{2k+1})$ is colored by $c$, the edge $e(y_{2k},y_{2k-1})$ is colored by $b$.
Now we build our $(a,b,c,D)$-tree. We start with the standard infinite $(a,b,c)$-colored tree $T_3$.
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent
{\bf Step 1.} We fix a bi-infinite
$(a,b)$-subpath in $T_3$ on the vertices $\{x_n\}_{n\in \Z}$.
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent
{\bf Step 2.} Let us consider the infinite $(c,b)$-path starting from $x_0$. The vertices of the path are $\{y^0_n\}^\infty_{n=0}$,
where $y^0_0=x_0$.
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent
{\bf Step 3.} Now for any $k>0$ we consider the infinite $(c,b)$-path starting from $x_{2^k}$. The vertices of this path are
$\{y^k_n\}^\infty_{n=0}$, where $y^k_0=x_{2^k}$.
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent
{\bf Step 4.} For any $i\geq 1$, we choose a subset $L_i$ of the positive integers. If $s\in L_i$, then we recolor the $a$-colored
edge adjacent to the vertex $y^i_{2^s}$ by the color $D$.
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent
{\bf Step 5.} We recolor the $a$-colored edges adjacent to the vertices $\{y^0_{2^k}\}^\infty_{k=1}$ by $D$.
\begin{propo} \label{ltree} For all choices of the family $\cL$ of the sets $\{L_i\}^\infty_{i=1}$ the resulting tree $S_\cL$ satisfies the conditions of Proposition \ref{main},
hence $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{\phi(S)}(z)$ is equationally compact if $z\in V(S)$.
\end{propo}
\proof
Again, suppose that the
sequence $\{(S,z_i)\}^\infty_{i=1}$ converges to $(T,q)$ in $\mathcal{R}}\newcommand{\cD}{\mathcal{D} \mathcal{T}} \newcommand{\cL}{\mathcal{L}_D$.
We need to show that $(T,q)$ is sequentially dominated by $(S,y)$ for some
$y\in V(S)$. The three possible cases described in Proposition \ref{sparse}
are already handled. The underlying limit trees are in these cases $S, \hat{T}_3$ and $T_3$, where
$\hat{T}_3$ is the tree with one single $D$-colored edge. Before considering the fourth case, let us define
a specific tree. Let $L\in \{0,1\}^{\mathbb{N}}$ be representing a subset of the positive integers.
Let $p=p_0,p_1,p_2,\dots$
be a $(c,b)$-path in $T_3$ starting from the vertex $p$. Then recolor by $D$
the $a$-colored edge adjacent to $p_i$, if $i=2^j$, where $j\in L$. The resulting
tree is denoted by $T_L$.
\vskip 0.1in
\noindent
{\bf Case 4.} For some $r\geq 1$, the balls $B_r(S,z_i)$ contains at least two $D$-colored edges provided
that $i$ is large enough.
\noindent
Hence, there exists some integer $d\geq 0$ such that $\dist_S(z_i,x_{n_i})=d$ for some increasing
sequence $\{n_i\}^\infty_{i=1}$, where $\dist_S$ is the shortest path distance in $S_{\cL}$. First,
let us suppose that $z_i=x_{n_i}$ that is $d=0$.
The following lemma is an easy consequence of the definition of rooted tree convergence.
\begin{lemma} \label{tihonoff}
The sequence $\{L_{n_i}\}^\infty_{i=1}\subset \{0,1\}^{\mathbb{N}}$ is convergent in the Tychonoff-topology of pointwise
convergence and $(T,q)\cong (T_L,p)$, where $L$ is the limit of $\{L_{n_i}\}^\infty_{i=1}$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent
By our construction, $(T_L,p)$ is sequentially contained in $(S,x_0)$. Now, if $d\neq 0$, then
$(T,x)\cong (T_L,p')$, where $p'$ is some vertex of $T_L$. Hence, $(T,x)$ is still sequentially
contained by $(S,x_0)$. This finishes the proof of Proposition \ref{ltree}. \qed
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent
Now we are ready to finish the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem3}.
Let $\cN=\{N_j\}^\infty_{j=1}\subset \{0,1\}^\mathbb{N}$ be a countable closed set with Cantor-Bendixson
rank $\alpha$. It is well-known that such set exists. Choose the sets $\{L_i\}^\infty_{i=1}$ in such a way
that each $L_i$ equals to some $N_j$ and for
each $j$ we have infinitely many $i$
so that $L_i$ equals to $N_j$. We denote by $\Cl(S_\cL)$ the closure of $\{S_\cL,y\}_{y\in S_\cL}$ in
$\mathcal{R}}\newcommand{\cD}{\mathcal{D} \mathcal{T}} \newcommand{\cL}{\mathcal{L}_D$.
The following proposition finishes the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem3}.
\begin{propo}
The Cantor-Bendixson rank of $\Cl(S_\cL)$ is $\alpha+2$ if $\alpha$ is an infinite ordinal and
$\alpha+3$ if $\alpha$ is a finite ordinal.
\end{propo}
\proof
As we have see in the proof of Proposition \ref{ltree}, $\Cl(S_\cL)$ is the union of the families
$\{(S_\cL,y)\}_{y\in S_\cL}$, $\cup^\infty_{j=1} \{(T_{N_j},z)\}_{z\in T_{N_j}}$, $\{(\hat{T}_3,x)\}_{x\in \hat{T}_3}$
and the element $(T_3,p)$. Let $\{M_k\}^\infty_{k=1}\subset \{0,1\}^\mathbb{N}$ and
$Q:=\cup^\infty_{k=1}\{(T_{M_k},z)\}_{z\in T_{M_k}}.$ Again, by Proposition \ref{ltree}, $\Cl(Q)$ is the
union of the families
$\cup_{L\in\overline {\cup^\infty_{k=1} M_k}} \{(T_{L},y)\}_{y\in T_L}, \{(\hat{T}_3,x)\}_{x\in \hat{T}_3}$ and the
element $(T_3,p)$. Hence, the isolated points of $\Cl(S_\cL)$ denoted by $\Cl_0(S_\cL)$ are exactly the
elements $\{(S_\cL,y)\}_{y\in \cL}$. The isolated points of $\Cl(S_\cL)\backslash \Cl_0(S_\cL)$ denoted by $\Cl_1(S_\cL)$
are $\cup_{N_j\in \cN_0} \{(T_{N_j},z)\}_{z\in T_{N_j}}$, where $\cN_0$ is the set of isolated points in $\cN$.
For an ordinal $\gamma$, define $\cN_\gamma$ to be the isolated points of
$\cN\backslash \cup_{\beta<\gamma} \cN_\beta$. Similarly,
define $\Cl_{\gamma}$ to be the isolated points of $\Cl(S_\cL)\backslash \cup_{\beta<\gamma}\Cl_\beta(S_\cL) $.
By transfinite induction, we can see that for finite ordinals $\beta$
$$\Cl_{\beta+1}(S_\cL)=\cup_{N_j\in\cN_\beta} \{(T_{N_j},z)\}_{z\in T_{N_j}}\,,$$
\noindent
and for infinite ordinals $\beta$
$$\Cl_{\beta}(S_\cL)=\cup_{N_j\in\cN_\beta} \{(T_{N_j},z)\}_{z\in T_{N_j}}\,.$$
Therefore by the definition of the set $\cN$, if $\alpha$ is a finite ordinal
$$\Cl(S_\cL)\backslash \Cl_{\alpha+1}(S_\cL)=\{(\hat{T}_3,x)\}_{x\in \hat{T}_3} \cup (T_3,p)\,,$$
\noindent
and if $\alpha$ is an infinite ordinal
$$\Cl(S_\cL)\backslash \Cl_{\alpha}(S_\cL)=\{(\hat{T}_3,x)\}_{x\in \hat{T}_3} \cup (T_3,p)\,.$$
Hence for a finite ordinal $\Cl_{\alpha+3}$ consists of one single element $(T_3,p)$.
For an infinite ordinal $\Cl_{\alpha+2}$ consists of one single element $(T_3,p)$. \qed
\section{Minimal systems}
The goal of this section is to prove Theorem \ref{theorem2}.
First, let us recall the notion of minimal subshifts of the Bernoulli shift space.
Let $\{a,b,c\}^\Z$ be the set of all $\{a,b,c\}$-valued functions $\sigma$ on the integers with
the natural $\Z$-action
$$t_n(\sigma)(a)=\sigma(a-n)\,.$$
\noindent
A minimal subshift is a closed, invariant subspace $\Sigma\subset \{a,b,c\}^\Z$ such that the orbit closure
of any $\sigma\in\Sigma$ is $\Sigma$ itself.
Let $w=(q_k,q_{k-1},\dots,q_1)\in \Gamma=\Z_2*\Z_2*\Z_2$ and $\sigma\in \{a,b,c\}^\Z$. We say that $n\in\Z$ {\it sees} $w$ if
$$\sigma(n-i)=q_i\quad\mbox{for any $1\leq i \leq k$.} $$
\noindent
It is easy to see (e.g. \cite{monod}) that the orbit closure of $\sigma$ is a minimal subshift if for any $w\in\Gamma$ that is seen by
some integer $n$, there exists $m_w>0$ such that the longest interval in $\Z$ without elements that see $w$ is shorter than $m_w$.
We call such a $\sigma$ a minimal sequence. A {\it good} minimal sequence is a minimal sequence that
does not contain the same letter consecutively. It is well-known that good minimal sequences exist for which
the associated subshift has the cardinality of the continuum.
Now, let us consider the line graph $L$ on $\Z$.
That is, $a,b\in \Z$ is connected if and only if $|a-b|=1$. Let $\sigma$ be a good minimal sequence.
Color the edge $(n,n+1)$ of $L$ by $\sigma(n)$.
Then we obtain the $\{a,b,c\}$-tree $L_\sigma$.
Let $\Sigma$ be the orbit closure of $\sigma$.
By Lemma \ref{coloring} and the definition of a good minimal sequence one can see immediately that if $\tau\in\Sigma$ and $n\in\Z$, then
$\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{L_\tau}(n)$ is in the orbit closure of $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{L_\sigma}(0)$ in the space of subgroups $S(\Gamma)$. Conversely, any element
of the orbit closure of $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{L_\sigma}(0)$ is in the form of $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{L_\tau}(n)$, for some $\tau$ and $n$.
That is,
$$\{\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{L_\tau}(n)\}_{\tau\in\Sigma, n\in\Z}$$
\noindent
is a minimal $\Gamma$-system in $S(\Gamma)$. These systems are called a uniformly recurrent subgroup (URS) in \cite{GW}
(we thank Mikl\'os Ab\'ert to call our attention to this paper). Since there are continuum many minimal subshifts
in $\{a,b,c\}^\Z$, in this way we obtain continuum many URS's in $S(\Gamma)$ (see Theorem 5.1 \cite{GW}).
Note that if $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma'$ represents the same URS, then either $\Sigma=\Sigma'$ or $\Sigma'=\Sigma^{-1}$, where
$\sigma^{-1}(n):=\sigma(-n)$, for any $\sigma\in\Sigma$. Clearly, an URS is an equationally compact set in $S(\Gamma)$, therefore
Theorem \ref{theorem2} follows from the lemma below.
\begin{lemma}
Let $\sigma,\tau$ be good elements of a minimal subshift $\Sigma$. Suppose that $\tau$ is neither a $\Z$-translate of $\sigma$ nor a
$\Z$-translate of $\sigma^{-1}$. Then for any $n\geq 1$, $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{L_\sigma}(0)\not\subset \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{L_\tau}(n)$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Let $n\geq 1$ and let $w=(q_k,q_{k-1},\dots,q_1)$ be the longest word such that
one of the following two conditions hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\sigma(-i)=\tau(n-i)$ for any $1\leq i \leq k$.
\item $\sigma(-i)=\tau(n+i)$ for any $1\leq i \leq k$.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent
Without a loss of generality we can suppose that the first condition holds, $\sigma(-k)=c$, $\sigma(-k-1)=a$, $\tau(n-k-1)=b$.
Then clearly, $w^{-1}bw\in \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{L_\sigma}(0)$. On the other hand, $w^{-1}bw\notin \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{L_\tau}(n)$. Indeed, $bw(n)=n-k-1$, hence
$w^{-1}bw(n)<n\,.$ \qed
\section{Weak equivalence of actions I. (the basic construction)}
\label{basiccon}
In this section we construct
a continuum of equationally compact subgroups of the group $\Gamma_5=\Z_2*\Z_2*\Z_2*\Z_2*\Z_2.$
Let $\{a,b,c,d,e\}$ be free generators of order two in $\Gamma_5$.
Let $T_5$ be the infinite tree of vertex degrees five properly edge-colored by the symbols
$\{a,b,c,d,e\}$.
We will consider good $\{a,b,c,d,e,D\}$-colorings of $T_5$ and the associated $\Gamma_5$-actions,
where a $D$-colored edge is modified exactly the same way as in Section \ref{treesub},
by adding two vertices $p_x,p_y$ such that the edges
$(x,p_x)$ and $(p_y,y)$ are colored by $a$ and the edge $(p_x,p_y)$ is colored by $b$.
So, in the associated $\{a,b,c,d,e\}$-tree the degrees of the new vertices are two, the
degrees of the old vertices are five.
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent
{\bf The master subtree R}. In order to build our master subtree $R$ in $T_5$ we need some
definitions.
A $(2^n,b,a)$-path in $T_5$ is a path
$(x_0,x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{2^n})$ such that all edges $(x_{2l},x_{2l+1})$ are colored by $b$ and all
edges $(x_{2l+1},x_{2l+2})$ are colored by $a$. Hence the path starts with a $b$-colored edge and ends
with an $a$-colored edge.
We define the $(2^n,c,a)$-paths similarly. They start with a $c$-colored edge and end with an $a$-colored edge.
Now, fix a vertex $p\in V(T_5)$. Pick the $(2,b,a)$-path and the $(2,c,a)$-path starting from $p$
to obtain two new endpoints. Then for each of the two endpoints pick the $(4,b,a)$-path and the $(4,c,a)$-path
starting from them to obtain four new endpoints. In the $n$-th step we see $2^{n-1}$-endpoints and for each
such endpoints $x$ we pick the $(2^n,b,a)$-path and the $(2^n,c,a)$-path starting from $x$ to obtain $2^n$ new endpoints.
Inductively, we build the infinite subtree $R$, as the union of all the chosen paths above.
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent
{\bf The codes}. A code $C$ is an infinite sequence $\{a_n\}^\infty_{n=1}$ such that if $n\geq 1$, then $a_i=b$ or $a_i=c$.
Using our master tree $R$, for each code $C$ we build a good $(a,b,c,d,e,D)$-tree $T_C$ and the associated $(a,b,c,d,e)$-tree
$S_C$. Note that $T_C$ will be recoloring of $T_5$ and not a recoloring of the master subtree $R$.
\vskip 0.1in
\noindent
{\bf Step 1.} We recolor by $D$ the last edge of the $(2,a_1,a)$-path starting from $p=p_C$ we denote by $x^C_1$ the endpoint of the
{\it other} $2$-path (a $(2,b,a)$-path or a $(2,c,a)$-path) starting from $p$.
\vskip 0.1in
\noindent
{\bf Step 2.} We recolor by $D$ the last edge of the $(4,a_2,a)$-path starting from $x^C_1$. Then we denote the endpoint of the other $4$-path by
$x^C_2$.
\vskip 0.1in
\noindent
{\bf Step n.} We recolor by $D$ the last edge of the $(2^n,a_n,a)$-path starting from $x^C_{n-1}$ and
denote by $x_n^C$ the endpoint of the
other $2^n$-path.
\vskip 0.1in
\noindent
Inductively, we construct the good $(a,b,c,d,e,D)$-tree $T_C$. \\ Since the associated $(a,b,c,d,e)$-tree $S_C$ is
sparse, by Proposition \ref{sparse}, $\Gamma_C:=\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{S_C}(p)$ is an equationally
compact subgroup of $\Gamma_5$. The following technical proposition is crucial for the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem4}.
\begin{propo}\label{hresz}
Let $C=(a_1,a_2,\dots)$ and $C'=(a'_1,a'_2,\dots)$ be different codes. Then there exists a finitely generated
non-amenable subgroup $H\subset \Gamma_C$ such
that no finite subset of $V(S_{C'})$ is invariant under the action of $H$.
\end{propo}
\proof
We prove our propostion using two lemmas.
\begin{lemma}
$$\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{S_C}(p_C)\not\subset \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{S_{C'}}(p_{C'})$$
\end{lemma}
\proof
Since $C\neq C'$, there exist $q\in V(S_C)$, $q'\in V(S_{C'})$ and $n\geq 1$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item The paths $(p_C,q)$ and $(p_{C'},q')$ are colored-isomorphic paths of length $n$.
\item The degree of $q$ is two and the degree of $q'$ is five.
\end{itemize}
\noindent
Let $w\in\Gamma_5$ be the word of length $n$ such that
$w(p_C)=q$ and $w(p_{C'})=q'$. Then $w^{-1}e w\in \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{S_C}(p_C)$ and $w^{-1}e w\notin \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{S_{C'}}(p_{C'}).$\,\,\,\qed
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent
Let $\gamma=a_1aeaa_1$, $\delta=\overline{a_1}a a_2 a a_2 a e a a_2 a a_2 a \overline{a_1}$, where
$\overline{a_1}=b$ if $a_1=c$ and $\overline{a_1}=c$ if $a_1=b$. Obviously, $\gamma,\delta\in \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{S_C}(p_C)$.
\begin{lemma}
Let $F$ be a finite subset of $V(S_{C'})$ containing at least one element that does not equal to $p_{C'}$. Then
$F$ is not invariant under the group generated by $\gamma$ and $\delta$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Suppose that $q\in F$ and $q$ is not a vertex of degree $2$ or a vertex from the master subtree $R$. Then
either the $a_1$-branch or the $a_2$-branch of $q$ contains only vertices of degree five. Hence,
either the set $\{(\gamma\delta)^n(q)\}^\infty_{n=1}$ or the set $\{(\delta\gamma)^n(q)\}^\infty_{n=1}$ is infinite.
So, we can suppose that all the elements of $F$ are either vertices of degree $2$ or they are from the master subtree.
Let $s$ be one of the furthest elements from $p_{C'}$ in $F$. Then either $\gamma(s)$ or $\delta(s)$ are further
from $p_{C'}$ than $s$. Hence $F$ cannot be invariant under the group generated by $\gamma$ and $\delta$.\,\,\,\qed
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent
Now, let $H\subset \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{S_C}(p_C)$ be generated by the set
$$\{ \gamma, \delta, a_1adaa_1, a_1aeaa_1, a_1afaa_1, \alpha\,\}\,,$$
\noindent
where $\alpha\in \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{S_C}(p_C)\backslash \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{S_{C'}}(p_{C'})\,.$ Then $H$ is finitely generated, non-amenable subgroup
of $\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{S_C}(p_C)$, without non-empty invariant subsets in $V(S_{C'})$. \,\,\,\qed
\vskip 0.2in
\noindent
Now we recall the notion of amenable actions \cite{Tsankov}. An action $\alpha:\Gamma \curvearrowright X$ of a countable group $\Gamma$
on a countable set $X$ is called {\bf amenable} if there exists a sequence of finite subsets in $X$, the so-called F{\o}lner sets
$\{F_n\}^\infty_{n=1}$ such that for any $g\in\Gamma$
$$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{|\alpha(g)(F_n)\cup F_n |}{| F_n|}=1\,.$$
\noindent
Suppose that $\Gamma$ is generated by the finite set $\{g_1,g_2,\dots,g_r\}$. Then the action $\alpha$ is non-amenable if and only if
there exists an $\epsilon>0$ such that for any finite set $F\subset X$
$$|\cup^r_{j=1} \alpha(g_j)(F)\cup F|\geq (1+\epsilon)|F|\,.$$
\noindent
The left action of a group $\Gamma$ on itself or on an overgroup of $\Gamma$ is amenable if and only if the group $\Gamma$ is amenable.
\begin{propo} \label{technical}
Let $C\neq C'$ be two codes and $H\subset \mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{S_C}(p_C)$ be the finitely generated non-amenable subgroup of $\Gamma_5$ as in
Proposition \ref{hresz}. then the restricted action of $H$ on the set $V(S_{C'})$ is non-amenable.
\end{propo}
\proof We start with a technical lemma.
\begin{lemma}
Let $\{G_n\}^\infty_{n=1}$ be a sequence of connected, induced, finite subgraphs in $V(S_{C'})$. Then
$$\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{|\cup^r_{j=1} \beta(h_j)(V(G_n))\cup V(G_n)|}{ |V(G_n)|}>1\,.$$
\noindent
Here, $\beta$ denotes the restricted action of $H$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
For any $n\geq 1$, we consider the finite induced subgraph $H_n\subset T_5$ constructed the
following way.
If $(p,q,r,s)$ is a path in $S_{C'}$ such that the degrees of $q$ and $p$ are two in $S_{C'}$ with respect to the standard generating
system $\{a,b,c,d,e\}$ (that is, this path was substituted for a $D$-colored edge) and the path is in $G_n$, then let $(p,s)\in E(H_n)$.
If only $(p,q)$ or $(r,s)$ is an edge of $G_n$, then $(p,s)\notin E(H_n)$. On the other hand, if
the degrees of $p$ and $q$ are five in $S_{C'}$, then $(p,q)\in H_n$ if and only if $(p,q)\in G_n$. So we substitute new paths with
a single edge and cut off hanging edges starting from new vertices. Hence, there is a bijection between
$V_5(G_n)$ and $V(H_n)$, where
$$V_5(G_n)=\{x\in V(G_n)\,\mid\, \deg_{S_{C'}}(x)=5\}\,.$$
\noindent
Since $S_{C'}$ is sparse (that is for any $n\geq 1$ there are only finitely many pairs of degree $2$ vertices of distance less than
$n$),\begin{equation} \label{e1}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{|\cup^r_{j=1} \alpha(h_j)(V(H_n))\cup V(H_n)|}{|\cup^r_{j=1} \beta(h_j)(V(G_n))
\cup V(G_n)|}=1\,,
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $\alpha$ denotes the left action of $H$ on the overgroup $\Gamma_5$. By the non-amenability of $\alpha$,
$$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{|\cup^r_{j=1} \alpha(h_j)(V(H_n))\cup V(H_n)|}{|V(H_n)|}>1\,,$$
hence by (\ref{e1}) our proposition follows. \qed
\begin{corol}
There exist $\delta>0$ and $C>0$ such that
for any finite, connected induced subgraph $L\subset G$ such that $|V(L)|\geq C$
$$|\cup^r_{j=1} \beta(h_j)(V(L))\cup V(L)|>(1+\delta) |V(L)|\,.$$ \end{corol}
\noindent
Now, we finish the proof of the proposition. Let $M\subset V(S_{C'})$ be a finite subset and $L_M$ be the subgraph induced by $M$.
Let $\{L_q\}^s_{q=1}$ be the connected components of $L_M$. By Proposition \ref{hresz} $V(L_j)$ is not invariant under
$H$, hence for any $1\leq q\leq s$
$$|\cup^r_{j=1} \beta(h_j)(V(L_q))\cup V(L_q)|\geq \frac{C+1}{C} |V(L_q)|\,,$$
provided that $|V(L_q)|\leq C$.
Hence we have the following inequality. For any $1\leq q \leq s$,
\begin{equation} \label{ucso}
|\cup^r_{j=1} \beta(h_j)(V(L_q))\backslash V(L_q)|\geq m |V(L_q)|\,,
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $m=\min(\frac{1}{C},\delta)$.
Observe that for any vertex $x\in L_M$, there exist at most $r$ values of $q$ such that
$$x\in \cup^r_{j=1} \beta(h_j)(V(L_q))\backslash V(L_q)\,,$$
hence by (\ref{ucso}), we have that
$$|\cup^r_{j=1} \beta(h_j)(V(L_M))\cup V(L_M)|\geq
(1+\frac{m}{r}) |V(L_M)|\,.\quad\qed$$
\section{Weak equivalence of actions II. (the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem4})} \label{weak}
The notion of weak equivalence was introduced by Kechris \cite{Kechris} and
since then it has been studied extensively. Let $\alpha:\Gamma \curvearrowright (M,\lambda),
\beta:\Gamma \curvearrowright (M,\lambda)$ be measure preserving actions of a countable group $\Gamma$ on a
standard probability space
$(M,\lambda)$. We say that $\alpha$ weakly contains $\beta$, $\alpha \succeq \beta$ if for any
finite measurable partition of $M$, $M=\cup^n_{i=1}B_i$, a finite subset $\{g_j\}^m_{j=1}\subset \Gamma$ and a constant $\epsilon>0$,
there exists a partition $M=\cup^n_{i=1}A_i$ such that for any $1\leq j \leq m$, $1\leq k,l \leq n$
$$\left| \lambda(\alpha(g_j)(A_k)\cap A_l)- \lambda(\beta(g_j)(B_k)\cap B_l) \right| \leq \epsilon\,.$$
\noindent
The actions $\alpha,\beta$ are {\bf weakly incomparable} if $\alpha \not\succeq \beta$ and $\beta \not\succeq \alpha$.
It was proved in \cite{Abert} that
for certain groups $\Gamma$ there exist uncountably many pairwise weakly incomparable free and ergodic probability measure
preserving (p.m.p.) actions of $\Gamma$.
We shall prove in Theorem \ref{theorem4} that for $\Gamma_5$ there exist uncountably many generalized shifts associated to
subgroups of $\Gamma_5$ that are pairwise weakly incomparable. We will use a result of Kechris and Tsankov [Theorem 1.2]\cite{Tsankov} in a crucial way.
Let $\alpha:\Gamma \curvearrowright (M,\lambda)$ be a p.m.p.action. A sequence of measurable subsets in $M$, $\{A_n\}^\infty_{n=1}$ are called
asymptotically invariant with respect to the action $\alpha$ if for any $g\in \Gamma$
$$\lim_{n\to \infty} \lambda\left(\alpha(g)(A_n)\backslash A_n\right)=0\,.$$
The action $\alpha$ is called {\bf strongly ergodic} if for any asymptotically invariant sequence $\{A_n\}^\infty_{n=1}$
$$\lim_{n\to \infty} \lambda(A_n)\lambda(M\backslash A_n)=0\,.$$
\noindent
Clearly, a strongly ergodic action of $\Gamma$ cannot weakly contain a non-ergodic action of $\Gamma$. Now, let
$\beta:\Gamma \curvearrowright X$ be an action of $\Gamma$ on a countable set by permutations.
The associated generalized Bernoulli action $\hat{\beta}$ is defined
on the product space $\prod_{x\in X} ([0,1],\nu)$, where $\nu$ is the Lebesgue measure. The action is defined by
$$\hat{\beta}(g)(F)(x)=F(\beta(g^{-1})(x))\,,$$
where $F\in [0,1]^X, g\in \Gamma$.
It is easy to see that $\hat{\beta}$ is essentially free if for any $e\neq g\in \Gamma$, there exist infinitely many $x\in X$
such that $\beta(g)(x)\neq x\,.$
According to the theorem of Kechris and Tsankov, the associated generalized Bernoulli action
$\hat{\beta}:\Gamma \curvearrowright \prod_{x\in X} ([0,1],\nu)$ is strongly ergodic if and only if the action $\beta$ is non-amenable.
Now we can finish the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem4}.
Let $\prod^\infty_{n=1} \{b,c\}$ be the set of all codes. For each code $C$ we constructed an $\{a,b,c,d,e\}$-colored tree $S_C$ and the
associated $\Gamma_5$-action $\alpha_C:\Gamma_5\curvearrowright V(S_C)$. Let $C\neq C'$ be two codes and $H\subset \Gamma_5$ be the subgroup of
$\mbox{Stab}}\newcommand{\Cl}{\mbox{Cl}_{S_C}(p_C)$ as in Proposition \ref{hresz}. Then the associated generalized Bernoulli action restricted to $H$,
$$\hat{\alpha}_C\mid_H: H \curvearrowright \prod_{v\in V(S_C)}([0,1],\nu)$$
\noindent
is clearly non-ergodic. On the other hand, by Proposition \ref{technical}
and the aforementioned theorem of Kechris and Tsankov,
$$\hat{\alpha}_{C'}\mid_H: H \curvearrowright \prod_{v\in V(S_{C'})}([0,1],\nu)$$
\noindent
is strongly ergodic, therefore $\hat{\alpha}_{C'}\not\succeq \hat{\alpha}_C$.
Hence Theorem \ref{theorem4} follows. \qed
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
\label{sec:introduction}
Most core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) are observed to have explosion energies around
$E_\mathrm{expl} \approx 10^{51} ~\mathrm{erg} \equiv 1 ~\mathrm{foe}$
(e.g., \citealt{Kasen2009,Drout2011}).
In recent years, several superluminous supernovae (SLSNe) have been observed (e.g., \citealt{Quimby2011,Quimby2013,GalYam2012,Prajs2017}).
Some of these are Type IIn SNe,
and their extreme luminosity is generally attributed to the collision of the ejecta with circumstellar material (e.g., \citealt{Ofek2007,Rest2011})
ejected in a pre-explosion outburst (PEO).
The physical mechanism and the relative rarity of PEOs are yet to be fully understood
(for recent ideas see \citealt{Quataert2012,Shiode2014,Mcley2014,SokerGilkis2017}).
The case of hydrogen-poor SLSNe (Type I SLSNe, or SLSNe-I) is more complicated,
with extreme examples such as
{SN 2010ay} \citep{Sanders2012}
and {ASASSN-15lh} \citep{Dong2016}.
A variety of proposed mechanisms includes interaction with pre-explosion ejecta from pulsational pair-instability \citep{Chatzopoulos2012},
injection of energy from a millisecond magnetar (e.g., \citealt{Kasen2010,Inserra2013,Kasen2016,Sukhbold2016}),
the transition of a neutron star (NS) into a quark star (quark novae; \citealt{Ouyed2015,Ouyed2016})
and energy deposition by bipolar jets \citep{Gilkis2016}.
A combination of circumstellar interaction and magnetar spin-down has been proposed as well \citep{Chatzopoulos2016},
and magnetar birth can also be accompanied by jets \citep{Soker2016}.
Long-duration gamma-ray bursts (LGRBs) are clearly associated with broad-lined Type Ic SNe
\citep{Galama1998,WoosleyBloom2006,Modjaz2008},
and indirectly connected to SLSNe-I through the properties of their host galaxies,
cluing into the operating mechanism of these transients.
The hosts of these types of transients are low-luminosity and low-metallicity galaxies with high star formation rates \citep{Lunnan2014},
although some differences are observed \citep{Leloudas2015,Angus2016}.
It is suggested that there is a common process leading to these separate phenomena.
\cite{Metzger2015}, for example, suggest that magnetars are the powering mechanism in both SLSNe-I and LGRBs (see also \citealt{Yu2017}).
Another possibility is that jets launched from an accretion disc around a compact object power these events \citep{Woosley1993,Milosavljevic2012,Dexter2013}.
The mechanisms mentioned above call for a rapid rotation of the progenitor star,
and it is important to understand how this can be accommodated by the evolution of massive stars (see review by \citealt{Langer2012}).
The rarity of SLSNe-I and LGRBs is compatible with the requirement for high rotation,
as stellar evolution models predict that massive stars will lose most of their angular momentum \citep{Meynet2000}.
Specific binary interactions
(e.g., \citealt{Izzardetal2004,Podsiadlowskietal2004,FryerHeger2005,Cantiello2007,Yoonetal2010,deMink2013})
or chemically homogeneous stellar evolution \citep{Yoon2005,Woosley2006,Martins2013,MandelanddeMink2016,Song2016}
are required to supply the high rotation needed for extreme explosion scenarios.
Recent three-dimensional hydrodynamic core-collapse simulations of rotating stars have yielded intriguing results.
\cite{Nakamura2014} and \cite{Takiwaki2016} showed a preferred explosion direction \textit{perpendicular} to the rotation axis.
\cite{Mosta2014} preformed three-dimensional magnetorotational simulations of core collapse,
finding a phenomenon of magnetically-inflated asymmetric lobes.
Other studies focused on the properties of gravitational waves expected from the collapse of a rotating star \citep{Ott2007,Kuroda2014}.
\cite{Iwakami2009} imposed rotation after core collapse,
and their findings suggest that rotation can affect the standing accretion-shock instability
(SASI; e.g., \citealt{BlondinMezzacappa2003, BlondinMezzacappa2007, Fernandez2010}).
To advance the understanding of the possible origin and mechanism of SLSNe-I,
atypical progenitor stars should be considered,
such as those with extremely rapid rotation rates, or very high mass.
In the present study I explore the properties of the post-collapse flow in a very massive rapidly rotating star.
Three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulation of the stellar collapse are performed,
including deleptonization and a neutrino leakage scheme for heating and cooling.
For comparison, a slowly rotating case is simulated as well.
In section \ref{sec:setup} I describe the numerical setup and method.
The flow structure of the collapse and implications for CCSNe are presented in section \ref{sec:results}.
I summarize in section \ref{sec:summary}.
\section{NUMERICAL SETUP}
\label{sec:setup}
\subsection{Progenitor modeling}
\label{subsec:mesa}
A stellar model constructed by
Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (\textsc{mesa} version 7624; \citealt{Paxton2011,Paxton2013,Paxton2015})
is used,
with an initial mass of $M_\mathrm{ZAMS}=54 M_\odot$ and metallicity of $Z=0.014$.
Due to stellar winds calculated here with the so-called `Dutch' scheme (e.g., \citealt{Nugis2000,Vink2001})
the final mass is $20.5M_\odot$.
The choice of an atypically high initial mass is motivated by the pursuit of models for rare highly-energetic events.
The study of rapidly rotating CCSN progenitor stars of lower masses is deferred to a future paper.
The initial rotation is $0.55$ of the breakup value,
which corresponds to a surface rotation velocity of $v_\mathrm{ZAMS}=360~\mathrm{km}~\mathrm{s}^{-1}$.
Magnetic braking by the Spruit-Tayler dynamo \citep{Spruit2002} is neglected,
effectively resulting in a high core rotation which might not be expected in a single-star model.
The pre-collapse core rotation is rather insensitive to the initial rotation rate,
and the decisive factor is the Spruit-Tayler dynamo (see Appendix \ref{app:corej}).
At this stage, the star is a Wolf-Rayet star,
with an effective surface temperature of $T=2.4 \times 10^5 K$,
photospheric radius of $R=0.55R_\odot$
and luminosity of $L=9 \times 10^5 L_\odot$.
A second stellar model is evolved with magnetic braking included.
The inclusion of magnetic braking
results in a core rotation lower by almost two orders of magnitude
(Fig. \ref{fig:omega}).
The stellar model which includes magnetic braking
has a pre-collapse total rotational kinetic energy of $E_\mathrm{rot,slow} = 2.07 \times 10^{46} ~\mathrm{erg}$.
For the case where magnetic braking was not included,
the total rotational kinetic energy is $E_\mathrm{rot,fast} = 1.58 \times 10^{50} ~\mathrm{erg}$.
The iron core of the fast rotator has a mass of $M_\mathrm{iron,fast} \approx 2 M_\odot$
(almost the same as with magnetic braking)
and rotational kinetic energy of $E_\mathrm{rot,iron,fast} = 1.07 \times 10^{50} ~\mathrm{erg}$ --
a significant fraction of the entire rotational energy of the stellar model.
The high initial rotation rate considerably affects the stellar evolution,
even while on the main sequence (MS),
compared with a modelled star of the same initial mass and composition but no rotation at all (this model is not presented here).
The differences between the two rotating models, differing by the process of magnetic braking,
are much less pronounced and start to appear only at late post-MS evolutionary stages.
The detailed composition of the stellar models is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:composition},
and the main parameters of the two models are summarized in Table \ref{tab:models}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics*[scale=0.53]{omegamodels.eps} \\
\caption{Comparing angular velocity of two stellar models with same initial conditions, just before core collapse,
where in one model magnetic braking is included and in the other it is neglected.
$r$ is the shell radius (distance from the centre of the star),
and $\Omega$ is assumed constant within each shell.}
\label{fig:omega}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics*[scale=0.53]{compo0.eps} \\
\includegraphics*[scale=0.53]{compo1.eps} \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Detailed composition for the stellar models just before core collapse
(when the maximal inward velocity reaches $v = 1000 ~\mathrm{km}~\mathrm{s}^{-1}$)
of a rotating $M_\mathrm{ZAMS}=54 M_\odot$ star with metallicity of $Z=0.014$,
with magnetic braking neglected (top), or included (bottom).
The stellar parameters at this stage are detailed in Table \ref{tab:models}.}
\label{fig:composition}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\caption{Properties of the stellar models just before core collapse.}
\label{tab:models}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\hline
Spruit dynamo & included & neglected\\[3pt]
\hline
Luminosity [$L_\odot$] & $9.3 \times 10^5$ & $9.1 \times 10^5$\\[3pt]
Effective surface temperature [$\mathrm{K}$] & $2.5 \times 10^5$ & $2.4 \times 10^5$\\[3pt]
Total mass [$M_\odot$] & $20.3$ & $20.5$\\[3pt]
Photosphere radius [$R_\odot$] & $0.5$ & $0.55$\\[3pt]
Iron core mass [$M_\odot$] & $2.01$ & $1.96$\\[3pt]
Iron core radius [$\mathrm{km}$] & $2187$ & $1858$\\[3pt]
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The stellar models are followed until a core of iron-group elements forms,
and then the core becomes unstable and starts to collapse.
The \textsc{mesa} evolution is terminated when the maximal infall velocity reaches $v = 1000 ~\mathrm{km}~\mathrm{s}^{-1}$.
At this stage the one-dimensional profile is mapped into the three-dimensional grid of a hydrodynamic simulation,
described in the next section.
\subsection{Hydrodynamic simulations}
\label{subsec:flash}
The non-relativistic hydrodynamic equations are solved with version 4.3 of the widely used code \textsc{flash} \citep{Fryxell2000},
employing a Cartesian grid for three-dimensional simulations.
Newtonian self-gravity is included employing the spherical multipole approximation of \cite{Couchetal2013} for solving Poisson's equation,
with a multipole cutoff of $l_\mathrm{max}=16$.
The equation of state of \cite{LattimerSwesty1991} is employed with incompressibility parameter of $K=220~\mathrm{MeV}$.
The density ($\rho$), temperature ($T$), electron fraction ($Y_\mathrm{e}$) and radial velocity ($v_r$)
of the one-dimensional \textsc{mesa} profile are mapped into the three-dimensional grid.
The small deformations of the one-dimensional shells due to rotation are neglected,
so that the initial profiles of $\rho$, $T$, and $Y_\mathrm{e}$ are spherically symmetric.
A non-radial velocity component is added according to the angular velocity (Fig. \ref{fig:omega}),
with a constant angular velocity for each radial location, $\Omega\left(r\right)$.
The added velocity component in the plane perpendicular to the rotation axis (the $xz$ plane)
is then
$v_{xz}=\sqrt{x^2+z^2}\Omega\left(r\right)$.
The three-dimensional simulation domain is a cube with edge length of $12000 ~\mathrm{km}$
centred around the star.
The mass enclosed in this domain is about $3 M_\odot$,
out of the total stellar mass of $20.5M_\odot$.
For studying the early time post-bounce flow dynamics this is sufficient.
With nine levels of adaptive mesh refinement the finest resolution of the grid is $1.95 ~\mathrm{km}$.
\subsection{Neutrino physics}
\label{subsec:neutrino}
Deleptonization of the core, approximate treatment of neutrino transport by a leakage scheme and heating by neutrinos
are treated according to the methods of \cite{OConnor2010}.
The usage in the \textsc{flash} code is the implementation described in \cite{CouchOConnor2014},
and here only the main aspects are repeated.
Up until bounce,
defined as the first time when the maximal density exceeds $2\times 10^{14} ~\mathrm{g}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$
and the maximal entropy per nucleon is above $3 k_\mathrm{B}$,
core deleptonization is according to a fit of the electron fraction as function of density from the 1D simulations of
\cite{Liebendorfer2005}.
As hypothesized by \cite{Liebendorfer2005},
the application of the scheme to cases of fast rotation (as in the present study)
should be a reasonable approximation,
although this should be checked in the future.
After core bounce,
further deleptonization is according to the leakage scheme.
The leakage scheme interpolates between
the optically thick and the optically thin regimes,
where in the former neutrinos `leak' out on a diffusion timescale,
and immediately in the latter.
Effective lepton and energy emission rates are obtained by interpolating between the diffusion rate and `free' emission rate.
The diffusion rates require a calculation of the local optical depth.
This is done on a spherical grid of radial rays,
where the computation of the optical depth by radial integration from infinity is simple,
and then interpolated back to the Cartesian grid of the hydrodynamic simulation.
The spherical grid has 37 polar divisions
(from $\theta=0$ to $\theta=\pi$, where $\theta$ is the angle relative to the rotation axis $y$)
and 75 azimuthal divisions
(from $\phi=0$ to $\phi=2\pi$, where $\phi$ is the angle from the $x$ axis in the $xz$ plane).
Each ray consists of 1000 radial zones.
The radial rays are uniformly spaced from $r=0.5 ~\mathrm{km}$
up to $r=150 ~\mathrm{km}$,
followed by a logarithmic distribution up to $r=3000 ~\mathrm{km}$ (where the stellar matter is virtually transparent to neutrinos).
Local neutrino heating
is according to equation (2) of \cite{CouchOConnor2014},
which depends on the local nucleon number density,
the mean squared energy of the neutrinos at the neutrinosphere,
and the neutrino flux integrated along a ray from the centre (including flux reduction by heating along the way).
This heating is then subtracted from the neutrino flux, affecting regions farther out along the radial ray.
The interactions taken into account in the portrayed scheme are the following.
For the free emission the included interactions are
electron and positron capture on protons and neutrons, respectively,
as well as thermal processes.
The opacity calculations include absorption of electron neutrinos on neutrons and electron antineutrinos on protons,
and elastic scattering of all flavors of neutrinos on protons and neutrons.
Finally, charged-current heating by absorption of electron neutrinos on neutrons and antineutrinos on protons is included.
These reactions are the most relevant, although processes of lesser importance such as neutrino-electron scattering can also have an influence (e.g., \citealt{Lentz2012}), such as reduction of the average neutrino energy and accordingly the opacity to neutrinos.
Further details of the emplyed neutrino physics can be found in \cite{OConnor2010}, \cite{Ott2013} and \cite{CouchOConnor2014}, and references therein.
\section{RESULTS}
\label{sec:results}
\subsection{Flow structure}
\label{subsec:structure}
The two simulations were run in \textsc{flash} for $600 ~\mathrm{ms}$,
corresponding to a final post-bounce time of $t_\mathrm{pb} = 384 ~\mathrm{ms}$ for the fast rotator model,
and $t_\mathrm{pb} = 323 ~\mathrm{ms}$ for the slow rotator.
The main features of interest found for the fast rotator model are not seen in the slow rotator,
and the slow rotator behaves in a qualitatively similar fashion to a non-rotating progenitor,
forming an approximately spherical stalled accretion shock for a time of $\ga 150 ~\mathrm{ms}$.
As there are extensive detailed studies of non-rotating core collapse with a more accurate description of neutrino physics and higher resolution
(e.g., \citealt{Lentz2015,Melson2015,Kuroda2016,Roberts2016} for recent works;
\citealt{Janka2012}, \citealt{Janka2016} and \citealt{Muller2016} for reviews),
this will not be the focus of this paper.
Fig. \ref{fig:flow} shows the properties of the flow structure at two times after core bounce
for the rapidly rotating model, $t_\mathrm{pb}=104~\mathrm{ms}$ and $t_\mathrm{pb}=224~\mathrm{ms}$.
A torus-like dense region is clearly seen surrounding the oblate proto-neutron star (PNS).
Above and below the PNS are high-entropy turbulent regions.
When the two `polar holes' (one at each side of the equatorial plane) in the torus are closed,
the shock waves produce high-entropy regions near the rotation axis.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics*[scale=0.22]{newt320rho.eps} &
\includegraphics*[scale=0.22]{t320entropy.eps} \\
\includegraphics*[scale=0.22]{newt440rho.eps} &
\includegraphics*[scale=0.22]{t440entropy.eps} \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Density (left) and entropy (right) colour maps in the $xy$ plane,
where $y$ is the axis of rotation.
The density colour coding runs from
$\rho=10^6 ~\mathrm{g}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ to $\rho=10^{14} ~\mathrm{g}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$.
Thick purple contours superimposed on the density colour maps indicate the neutrinosphere at the presented simulation times,
where the optical depth of electron neutrinos is $\tau_{\nu_\mathrm{e}}=2/3$.
Entropy is shown in units of $k_\mathrm{B}$ per nucleon.
The presented times are $t_\mathrm{pb}=104~\mathrm{ms}$ (top panels)
and $t_\mathrm{pb}=224~\mathrm{ms}$ (bottom panels).}
\label{fig:flow}
\end{figure*}
As the PNS is oblate, the neutrino emission is anisotropic, and the neutrinosphere is accordingly not spherical.
This introduces a difficulty with the employment of radial rays for the neutrino transport,
as the neutrinosphere morphology obviously implies that there should be significant non-radial neutrino propagation.
Future studies will have to address this with better treatment of the neutrino physics.
Fig. \ref{fig:radialvelocityspiral} shows the radial velocity in the equatorial plane of the star.
At the earlier time shown, a spiral pattern is seen,
and at the later time ripples of inward and outward radial velocity surround the central region.
These phenomena are strongly influenced by the self-gravity of the gas.
The ratio between the gravitational time, defined as $t_\mathrm{G}=\left(G\rho\right)^{-1/2}$,
to the dynamical time $t_\mathrm{dyn}=r/c_s$,
is very close to unity up to around $r\approx 150-200~\mathrm{km}$ near the equatorial plane.
This is the region in which the spiral pattern and ripples are seen.
Spiral patterns forming in the collapse of a rotating massive star have been reported also by \cite{Takiwaki2016},
and have been suggested to drive circular polarizations of gravitational waves emitted from CCSNe \citep{Hayama2016}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics*[scale=0.22]{t320velr.eps} \\
\includegraphics*[scale=0.22]{t440velr.eps} \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Radial velocity in the equatorial ($xz$) plane of the star at two times after core bounce,
$t_\mathrm{pb} = 104 ~\mathrm{ms}$ (top),
and $t_\mathrm{pb} = 224 ~\mathrm{ms}$ (bottom).
The colour coding runs from in-fall of $v_r=-9000~\mathrm{km}~\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ (blue)
to outflow of $v_r=9000~\mathrm{km}~\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ (red).
The effective PNS radius calculated from its volume is $r_\mathrm{eff,PNS}\approx 75 ~\mathrm{km}$,
but as the PNS is highly oblate,
the radius of its cross section in the $xz$ plane is $r_\mathrm{eq,PNS}\approx 100 ~\mathrm{km}$.
The equatorial Keplerian velocity at its surface is $r_\mathrm{Kep,PNS}\approx 47500 ~\mathrm{km}~\mathrm{s}^{-1}$.}
\label{fig:radialvelocityspiral}
\end{figure}
At the end of the simulation, the outer regions of the star still experiences ongoing collapse,
while an outgoing shock wave is propagating in the inner part.
Fig. \ref{fig:shock} shows the calculated shock radius evolution.
While an outgoing shock is seen for both models at the end of the simulation,
the diagnostic energy\footnote{`Diagnostic energy' is defined here as the sum of kinetic, internal and gravitational energy for regions where the energy sum and the radial velocity are both positive.}
is $E_\mathrm{diag}\simeq 0.9 ~\mathrm{foe}$ and $E_\mathrm{diag}\simeq 0.02 ~\mathrm{foe}$ for the rapidly- and slowly rotating progenitors, respectively.
The binding energy\footnote{The gravitational binding energy is computed as the absolute value of integrating $E_\mathrm{grav}+E_\mathrm{int}$ from $E_\mathrm{bind}=0$ at the surface, inwards.} of the outer shells is $E_\mathrm{bind}\approx 3 ~\mathrm{foe}$, somewhat higher than the diagnostic energy of the rapidly rotating model (although a longer simulation time is needed for a conclusive comparison), and significantly larger than the slowly rotating case (note that this is resolution sensitive; see Appendix \ref{app:res}).
This can be interpreted as a failure to explode the star, though not definitively.
Still,
key physical ingredients not taken into account in the simulation --
magnetic fields and their amplification --
might help bring about a successful CCSN.
I elaborate on the possible explosion and its attributes in the next sections.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics*[scale=0.53]{shockr.eps} \\
\caption{Shock radius calculated from the volume contained within the surface on which the entropy per nucleon is $6k_\mathrm{B}$,
as function of time after core bounce for the rapidly rotating progenitor (pluses) and for the slow rotator (circles).}
\label{fig:shock}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Implications for magnetic activity}
\label{subsec:magnetic}
The velocity perpendicular to the meridional plane and its derivative within this plane with respect to the direction perpendicular to the initial rotation axis
are presented in Fig. \ref{fig:shear1} for a time of $t_\mathrm{pb}=104~\mathrm{ms}$.
In Fig. \ref{fig:shear1} the meridional plane is taken to be the $xy$ plane,
such that the velocity presented is in the $z$ direction , $v_z$,
and the derivative shown is $\frac{\partial v_z}{\partial x}$.
This illustrates the strong shearing present in the turbulent flow.
The regions of highest shearing are in the high entropy regions above and below
the equatorial plane (Fig. \ref{fig:flow}).
The shearing reaches quantitative values of
$\frac{\partial v_z}{\partial x} \approx 2000 ~\mathrm{s}^{-1}$.
For comparison, the Keplerian velocity divided by the distance from the rotation axis
is of an order of magnitude lower.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics*[scale=0.22]{t320velz.eps} \\
\includegraphics*[scale=0.22]{t320shear.eps} \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textit{Top:} Velocity perpendicular to the $xy$ plane at $t_\mathrm{pb}=104~\mathrm{ms}$.
There is a general counterclockwise rotation --
blue hues represent material flow outwards from the paper,
and red hues represent an inward motion
(the $z$ axis points outwards from the paper).
\textit{Bottom:} Derivative in the $x$ direction of the velocity shown in the top panel,
i.e., $\frac{\partial v_z}{\partial x}$ in units of $s^{-1}$ and a scale given by the colour bar.}
\label{fig:shear1}
\end{figure}
\cite{Mosta2015} have shown that turbulent shearing around a rapidly rotating PNS
can facilitate fast growth of magnetic fields through
the magnetorotational instability (see also \citealt{Sawai2013}).
The amplified magnetic fields might then launch jets which can explode the star.
I suggest that the flow structure seen in the simulation of a rapidly rotating progenitor reported here is likewise favorable for a jet-driven explosion.
This will have to be confirmed by magnetohydrodynamic simulations,
which \cite{Mosta2015} show require extremely high resolution (see also \citealt{Masada2015,Rembiasz2016}).
It is important to note that the rapidly rotating model studied here is evolved without taking into account the effect of magnetic fields on the core rotation rate (see Appendix \ref{app:corej}).
This is inconsistent with the requirement of a seed magnetic field to be amplified for the generation of jet outflows.
The focus of this work, though, is the collapse dynamics of a rapidly rotating massive stellar core.
A fully self-consistent model
will have to allow for the formation of a rapidly rotating pre-collapse core in the presence of magnetic fields,
and will be explored in a future study.
Sufficiently rapid core rotation is expected for very low metallicity single stars (e.g., \citealt{Yoon2006})
or through binary interactions (e.g., \citealt{Cantiello2007}).
\subsection{PNS formation}
\label{subsec:natal}
The PNS is defined as the region in the simulation where the material density is above
$10^{11} ~\mathrm{g}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ (this definition is common in other works, e.g., \citealt{Nakamura2014}).
The total mass, momentum, angular momentum, and moment of inertia of the PNS are calculated after core bounce
for the simulation of a rapidly rotating progenitor, as well as for the slow rotator.
The derived linear velocity is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:kick},
and the total mass and effective radius are presented in Fig. \ref{fig:pns}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics*[scale=0.53]{newvpns.eps} \\
\caption{Average velocity of the PNS,
defined as the region where the density is $\rho > 10^{11} ~\mathrm{g}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$,
as function of time after core bounce for the rapidly rotating progenitor (pluses)
and for the slow rotator (circles).}
\label{fig:kick}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics*[scale=0.53]{newmpns.eps} \\
\includegraphics*[scale=0.53]{newRpns.eps} \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textit{Top:} Baryonic PNS mass as function of time after core bounce for the rapidly rotating progenitor (pluses)
and for the slow rotator (circles),
where the PNS is defined as the region where the density is $\rho > 10^{11} ~\mathrm{g}~\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$.
\textit{Bottom:} PNS effective radius ($\pi R_\mathrm{PNS}^3=0.75V_\mathrm{PNS}$, where $V_\mathrm{PNS}$ is the PNS volume).}
\label{fig:pns}
\end{figure}
The slow rotator acquires a very low velocity,
of $v \la 30 ~\mathrm{km}~\mathrm{s}^{-1}$.
For the rapidly rotating progenitor the picture is different.
The $x$ and $z$ components of the velocity (in the plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation)
of the fast rotator are highly variable,
fluctuating in a range of above $100 ~\mathrm{km}~\mathrm{s}^{-1}$.
At the end of the simulation, the PNS velocity in the $xz$ plane is $v_{xz} \approx 360 ~\mathrm{km}~\mathrm{s}^{-1}$.
The $y$ component of the velocity is somewhat less variable.
Although the fluctuations are large,
there is no monotonous growth in the linear velocity,
and it is difficult to deduce the final kick velocity without a full explosion simulation.
Still, due to their large amplitude, these fluctuations merit discussion.
At the end of the simulations,
the mass of the PNS for the slowly rotating case exceeds $M_\mathrm{PNS} \ga 2.4 M_\odot$,
and is still growing.
It is likely that BH formation is inevitable.
For the rapid rotator the final PNS mass in the simulation is $M_\mathrm{PNS} \approx 1.7 M_\odot$.
If the accretion is not stopped by an explosion,
the PNS will continue to grow in mass, and its kick velocity will decrease.
Eventually it will collapse into a BH with low or zero kick velocity.
If, however, a bipolar outflow drives a successful explosion
as suggested in section \ref{subsec:magnetic},
the PNS will retain its high velocity.
The final kick velocity of the remnant depends on the stage at which the explosion occurs,
as well as the efficiency of expelling material,
and in this manner the kick velocity depends on the mass of the ejecta \citep{Bray2016}.
An inefficient feedback will result in continued accretion and the formation of a BH,
although a higher energy SN might be the result \citep{Gilkis2016}.
Still, at some point accretion onto the PNS (or BH) will stop,
and a BH or NS with non-zero natal kick will emerge from the explosion.
Non-zero BH kicks are favoured by some recent studies (e.g., \citealt{Repetto2012}).
As seen in Fig. \ref{fig:kick}, the kick velocity components in the equatorial plane are larger than in the direction of the rotation axis.
The turbulent nature of the gas flow from which jets are conjectured to be driven might cause asymmetric mass ejection,
further enhancing the kick velocity with an additional component in the $y$ axis by the mechanism proposed by \cite{Janka2013}.
An analysis by \cite{Repetto2015}
suggests that at least some BHs form with relatively high natal kicks
(see also \citealt{Mandel2016}).
Fig. \ref{fig:rot} shows the derived spin period and rotational kinetic energy of the PNS.
The rotation period of the PNS for the rapidly rotating case is $P_\mathrm{PNS} \approx 10 ~\mathrm{ms}$
just after core bounce,
and decreases to $P_\mathrm{PNS} \approx 5 ~\mathrm{ms}$ by the end of the simulation.
The total rotational kinetic energy grows from $E_\mathrm{rot}\approx 5 \times 10^{51} ~\mathrm{erg}$
at very early times after bounce
to $E_\mathrm{rot}\approx 3 \times 10^{52} ~\mathrm{erg}$ near the end of the simulation.
This is more than the energy required by some magnetar-driven models for SLSNe (e.g., \citealt{Chen2016}).
The PNS in the present simulation is perhaps similar to an early stage in the formation of a millisecond magnetar
which can later spin down and supply additional energy to the SN.
The details of the spin evolution are important for the energy available from magnetar spin down,
and the initial asphericity of the PNS can produce gravitational waves (e.g., \citealt{Camelio2016,Moriya2016}).
Still, for a magnetar to be relevant a successful SN explosion must first take place,
otherwise the PNS will collapse into a BH early on.
This is in accordance to the proposal of \cite{Soker2016} that jets accompany the formation of a magnetar.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\includegraphics*[scale=0.53]{newErotpns.eps} \\
\includegraphics*[scale=0.53]{newPpns.eps} \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textit{Top:} Rotational kinetic energy of the PNS
as function of time after core bounce for the rapidly rotating progenitor (pluses)
and for the slow rotator (circles).
The energy of the slow rotator is multiplied by $10^3$ for the presentation.
\textit{Bottom:} PNS spin period, where for the purpose of presentation the slow rotator period is multiplied by $0.1$ .}
\label{fig:rot}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Neutron-rich disc}
\label{subsec:nucleos}
Fig. \ref{fig:yedisk} shows the thick neutron-rich disc that forms around the PNS,
where the electron to nucleon ratio, $Y_\mathrm{e}$, is relatively low.
This is due to the increased weak interactions in regions of higher density (Fig. \ref{fig:flow}).
In a thick disc-like structure with a height of several tens of kilometers,
containing a mass of approximately $0.3M_\odot$,
this ratio reaches values of $Y_\mathrm{e}<0.1$.
\cite{Kohri2005} have previously suggested that rapid neutron capture (\textit{r}-process)
nucleosynthesis might take place due to winds from a neutron-rich disc,
in the context of a wind-driven CCSN.
If a successful explosion follows the collapse described in the simulation,
as suggested in section \ref{subsec:magnetic},
\textit{r}-process elements will be ejected into the interstellar medium.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics*[scale=0.22]{t440Ye.eps} \\
\caption{Colour map of electron fraction ($Y_\mathrm{e}$) in the $xy$ plane
at a post-bounce time of $t_\mathrm{pb}=224~\mathrm{ms}$.
The colour coding runs from $Y_\mathrm{e}=0.05$ (dark)
to $Y_\mathrm{e}=0.45$ (light).}
\label{fig:yedisk}
\end{figure}
Many uncertainties still remain regarding the sites of \textit{r}-process nucleosynthesis \citep{Thielemann2011}.
This is in particular the case for the sites of strong \textit{r}-process nucleosynthesis, where elements of atomic weight $A \ge 130$ are formed.
According to \cite{Wehmeyer2015}, observed \textit{r}-process elements are compatible with a combined origin of
CCSNe from rapidly rotating progenitors (e.g., \citealt{Winteler2012,Nishimura2015,Nishimura2017})
and NS mergers (e.g., \citealt{Goriely2011,Hotokezaka2015,Wu2016}).
Further theoretical understanding will help in assessing the relative importance of these two types of events,
with the aid of observations such as the presence of heavy elements in stars of old dwarf galaxies \citep{Ji2016}.
\cite{Papish2015} further raised the possibility that the strong \textit{r}-process takes place in jets from a NS companion orbiting inside the core of a giant star.
The simulation results reported in the present study strengthen the possible role of rotationally dominated CCSNe in strong \textit{r}-process nucleosynthesis.
Simulations of the long-term post-collapse evolution for numerous stellar models together with detailed nucleosynthesis calculations are needed to ascertain the amount of ejected material, its composition, and the importance for Galactic chemical evolution.
The extensive study of this issue is deferred to a future dedicated paper.
\section{DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY}
\label{sec:summary}
I have presented a study of important non-axisymmetric features in the collapse of a rapidly rotating massive star,
using the hydrodynamic code \textsc{flash}.
I have used a rapidly rotating progenitor star evolved with \textsc{mesa} excluding magnetic braking.
This allowed for the straightforward comparison to a slowly rotating case just by incorporation of the Spruit dynamo.
The outstanding shortcomings of the present study are the approximate treatment of neutrino transport,
the simulation resolution, and the somewhat artificial approach of realizing a high pre-collapse rotation rate.
Future studies will address these issues, and consider
more realistic progenitors resulting from binary interactions.
Massive stars with high core rotation rates,
as in the progenitor model used in this study,
might be relatively rare as they need strong binary interaction to acquire their angular momentum.
The collapse and possible explosion of such stars can still be significant in explaining some observed phenomena.
A prolonged bipolar outflow, as suggested in section \ref{subsec:magnetic},
can function as the engine of extremely energetic SNe.
This agrees with the elongated morphology implied by recent observations \citep{Inserra2016}.
Asymmetric momentum distribution (section \ref{subsec:natal}) can give birth to BHs with significant natal kicks.
The neutron-rich disc discussed in section \ref{subsec:nucleos} can induce strong \textit{r}-process nucleosynthesis of heavy elements.
A rapidly rotating strongly magnetized PNS formed in a similar way to the presented simulation can be an early-stage millisecond magnetar,
which might later deposit a large amount of energy in the SN ejecta during its spin-down.
First, an explosion must take place.
For progenitors which are very tightly bound gravitationally,
an explosion is unlikely to be driven by the neutrino flux alone, whereas a jet-driven SN might be more promising.
Estimating the quantitative energy contributions of the jets and the magnetar requires further study,
yet it seems the energy available should suffice for SLSNe.
I suggest that Type I SLSNe result from flow dynamics qualitatively similar to the presented simulation,
and also contribute to the production of strong \textit{r}-process elements.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
I thank Noam Soker for his guidance and for fruitful discussions,
and an anonymous referee for providing constructive comments which helped improve the manuscript.
The software used in this work was developed in part by the DOE NNSA-ASC
and DOE Office of Science ASCR-supported Flash Center for Computational Science at the University of Chicago.
Simulations were run on the Israeli astrophysics I-CORE astric HPC.
The \textsc{yt} package \citep{Turk2011} was extensively used for analysis of the results.
The author is supported by the Blavatnik Family Foundation.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec: intro}
The conventional picture of
terrestrial planet formation begins
with the growth of 1--10~mm pebbles from 1~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ dust grains
\citep{chiang2010,birn2010,youdin2010,windmark2012,garaud2013,birn2016}.
Collisional and collective processes then convert pebbles into
km-sized or larger planetesimals \citep{youdin2005,johan2007,
youdin2011a,johan2015,simon2016}.
Various observations support the idea that planetesimals in protoplanetary
disks grow rapidly (within $\sim$ 1~Myr), including
(i) radiometric analyses of meteorites \citep{bizzarro2005,
kleine2009,schulz2009,dauphas2011a,dauphas2011b,sugiura2014},
(ii) comparisons of the mass distributions of solids in protostellar
disks and known exoplanet populations \citep{najita2014},
(iii) the trend in the abundance of HCN relative to H$_2$O as a
function of disk mass \citep{najita2013}, and
(iv) coherent structure in the young HL Tau disk, as observed by
ALMA \citep{alma2015,zhang2015}.
Once planetesimals form, they quickly ($10^4 - 10^5$~yr) merge
into much larger protoplanets \citep{weiden1974,weth1980}.
Over 1--100~Myr, a series of giant impacts among the protoplanets
then leads to several Earth-mass planets \citep{chambers1998,
chambers2001a,raymond2004,kb2006,lunine2011,raymond2014a}.
Throughout this period, theory predicts a disk-shaped cloud of
collisional debris
that produces an observable infrared (IR)
excess. These debris disks are expected to serve as signposts of
ongoing rocky planet formation \citep[e.g.,][]{kb2002b,
zuck2004,kb2004b,raymond2011,raymond2012,lein2015}.
If warm debris is a dependable beacon, it provides a simple way to
locate sites of ongoing terrestrial planet formation and to measure
the frequency with which rocky planetary systems form. Compared to
the challenges of identifying Earth-mass planets from direct imaging,
microlensing, radial velocity, and transit observations
\citep[e.g.,][]{gould2006,cum2008,mac2014,burke2015}, measuring the
magnitude of an IR excess is fairly straightforward and independent
of viewing geometry \citep[e.g.,][]{carp2009a,carp2009b,kenn2013a,
patel2014}. IR observations are often sufficient to establish the
temperature and location of the debris \citep[e.g.,][]{lisse2008,currie2011}.
Theoretical models then allow us to use this information to construct
a window into the planet formation process \citep[e.g.,][]{genda2015a,
kb2016a}.
Here, we examine the reliability of warm debris disks as tracers of
ongoing terrestrial planet formation. Current observations suggest
the frequency of warm debris disks around young solar-type stars
(\S\ref{sec: ddisk}) is much smaller than the frequency of Earth-mass
planets around older solar-type stars (\S\ref{sec: earths}). Analytical
calculations of dust emission during the final phases of planet assembly
indicate that all popular scenarios of rocky planet formation predict
detectable amounts of debris for stellar ages of 5--20~Myr (\S\ref{sec: debris}).
Thus, there is a clear discrepancy between theoretical predictions and
the observed frequencies of warm debris disks and Earth-mass planets.
In \S\ref{sec: disc}, we consider options for resolving this discrepancy.
After constraining uncertainties in the frequency of Earth-mass planets
(\S\ref{sec: disc-earth}), dust emission (\S\ref{sec: disc-dust}), and
theoretical predictions (\S\ref{sec: disc-quick}), we demonstrate that
if stars retain a residual gaseous disk with a surface density
$\gtrsim 10^{-5}$ of the minimum mass solar nebula (\S\ref{sec: disc-neat}),
gas drag and radiation pressure will rapidly remove small grains from
the terrestrial planet region.
This mechanism is plausible given current observational
limits on gaseous disks among 5--20~Myr old stars (\S\ref{sec: disc-resid}),
We conclude with a set of suggestions to
test the possibilities for reconciling theory and observations
(\S\ref{sec: disc-test}) and a brief summary (\S\ref{sec: summary}).
\section{WARM EXCESSES FROM DEBRIS DISKS ARE RARE}
\label{sec: ddisk}
Although opaque protoplanetary disks surround essentially all newly-formed
stars \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{kgw2008,will2011,andrews2015},
the infrared excess emission produced by the disk vanishes roughly
simultaneously at all wavelengths on a time scale of $\sim 3$\,Myr
\citep{haisch2001,kenn2009,mama2009,will2011,alex2014}. The ultraviolet
excess produced by accretion onto the central star declines on a similar
time scale \citep{hart1998,kenn2009,sicilia2010,ingleby2014}.
Among older, solar-type main sequence stars, roughly 20\% have optically thin
IR or mm emission from debris disks \citep[e.g.,][]{hillen2008,trill2008,eiroa2013}.
Typically, this emission is comparable to or less than the stellar flux at
8--25~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ and a factor of $\gtrsim$ 10 larger than the stellar flux at
longer wavelengths. To relate excesses to a fractional luminosity, we assume
the emission arises from a single-temperature, optically thin dust component
with temperature $T_d$ located at a distance $a$ from a star with luminosity
\ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi, mass \ifmmode {M_{\star}}\else $M_{\star}$\fi, radius \ifmmode {R_{\star}}\else $R_{\star}$\fi, and temperature \ifmmode {T_{\star}}\else $T_{\star}$\fi:
\begin{equation}
\left({T_d \over T_\star}\right)^4 \approx \left({R_\star\over 2 a}\right)^{2} ~ .
\end{equation}
The dust to star luminosity ratio is
\begin{equation}
{L_d\over L_\star} = \left({T_d \over T_\star}\right)^4 {A_d\over \pi \ifmmode {R_{\star}}\else $R_{\star}$\fi^2} ~ ,
\end{equation}
where $A_d$ is the total cross-sectional area of all solid particles. Assuming
the grains emit as blackbodies, we can relate $L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi$ to the flux ratio at
any wavelength:
\begin{equation}
{L_d \over L_\star} =
{\left( e^{h\nu/kT_d} -1\right) \over
\left(e^{h\nu/kT_\star} -1\right)}
\left({T_d \over T_\star}\right)^4
{F_d \over F_\star} ~ .
\label{eq: ldust}
\end{equation}
For $T_d \approx$ 280~K, \ifmmode {T_{\star}}\else $T_{\star}$\fi\ $\approx$ 5800~K, and
$F_d / F_\star \lesssim 1 $ at 12~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ (24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi),
$L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi \lesssim 10^{-3}$ ($10^{-4}$). Debris disks are a
factor $\gtrsim$ 100--1000 less luminous than the protoplanetary
disks surrounding T Tauri stars \citep[see also][]{wyatt2008,carp2009a}.
Fig.~\ref{fig: flux-ratio1} illustrates the variation of $F_d(a)/F_\star$
at 8--24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ for $L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi$ = $10^{-3}$ (violet curves) and $10^{-4}$
(orange curves). Adopting detection limits from
{\it Spitzer}\ \citep[8\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi, 16\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi, 24\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi;][]{carp2009a}
and {\it WISE}\ \citep[12\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi;][]{luhman2012b},
$F_d / F_\star \approx$ 0.03--0.25,
it is clear that detecting an excess at 8--12~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\
from dust at $\sim 1$\,AU requires
$L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi \gtrsim 3\times 10^{-4}$.
At longer wavelengths, it is possible to detect warm dust with a
substantially lower luminosity, $L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi \gtrsim 3\times 10^{-5}$
to $10^{-4}$.
Because ``cold'' dust ($T_d \lesssim$ 200~K)
from beyond the terrestrial planet region ($>$1--2\,AU)
can also contribute
to the observed 24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ emission, observations at
shorter wavelengths (e.g., 8--16~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi) or at longer wavelengths
(e.g., 70~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi) are required to constrain $T_d$ and $L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi$.
To put an observed $L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi$ in perspective, we derive the
required mass $M_d$ in solid particles. In standard models, the
solids have a power-law size distribution, $N(r) \propto r^{-q}$
where $r$ is the radius of a particle and $q \approx$ 3.5. Thus,
$M_d \approx (4/3) \rho A_d (\ifmmode r_{min}\else $r_{min}$\fi \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi)^{1/2}$, where $\rho$ is
the mass density, \ifmmode r_{min}\else $r_{min}$\fi\ is the radius of the smallest particle, and
\ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ is the mass of the largest particle \citep{wyatt2008}. For
material with \ifmmode r_{min}\else $r_{min}$\fi\ = 1~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi, \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ = 300~km, and
$L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi = 10^{-4}$ at $r$ = 1~AU,
$M_d \approx 3 \times 10^{25}$~g. Thus, an observable excess at
24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ requires roughly a third of a lunar mass of solid material
at 1~AU.
Over the past decade, various surveys suggest a very low frequency of
warm debris disks among solar-type stars \citep[e.g.,][and references
therein]{stauffer2005,silver2006,currie2007b,carp2009a,carp2009b,chen2011,
luhman2012b,kenn2013a,clout2014,matthews2014}.
To illustrate
current constraints on the incidence rate of
warm dust, we describe in detail several
studies using data from {\it Spitzer}\ and {\it WISE}.
The {\it Spitzer}\ {\it Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems} (FEPS) program
surveyed 314 solar-type stars at 3--70~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ \citep{meyer2006,carp2009a}.
The sample included stars in clusters and the field, with ages ranging from 3~Myr
to 3~Gyr. Within this group, only 5 have a measurable 16\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess.
All five stars also
have substantial excess emission at 8~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi, 24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi, and 60--100~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ and
prominent accretion signatures from hot gas close to the central star. Thus, all
are primordial disks, the gas-rich disks commonly observed in T~Tauri stars
\citep{silver2006,dahm2009,carp2009a}.
All of
the non-primordial disk excess sources have the modest dust luminosities,
$L_d/\ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi \lesssim 10^{-3}$, characteristic of debris disks.
However, few if any sources have obvious emission from warm dust
within 1\,AU of the star \citep{carp2009a}.
Excluding the primordial disks,
no source has an excess at $8~\micron$ ($16~\micron$) above 3\% (16\%)
of the stellar photosphere.
From $R_{24/8}$, the ratio of the 24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ to the 8~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ flux, 16\%
of all FEPS sources have robust detections of 24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ dust emission
$\gtrsim$ 10\% above the stellar photosphere. Among the 30 stars younger
than 10\,Myr, 3\%, 7\%, and 20\% of the non-primordial disk sources
have a detected $24~\micron$ excess at 50\%, 30\%, and 10\% above the
stellar photosphere.
Detailed fits of model spectral energy distributions for non-blackbody
grains to the {\it Spitzer} IRS spectra at 8--35\,$\mu$m for excess
sources of all ages yield average inferred dust temperatures
$T_d \approx 45$~K to 200~K with a median at 112~K.
Typical inner disk radii range from $a_{\rm in} \approx 2$--3~AU to 40~AU
with a median at 6~AU. Adopting a blackbody model for dust emission yields
similar median values for $T_d$ and $a_{\rm in},$ with somewhat larger ranges
($T_d \approx$ 50--280~K and $a_{\rm in} \approx$ 1--31~AU). Only a few
(between 1 and 3) 24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess sources have $T_d \gtrsim$ 200~K and
$a_{\rm in} \approx$ 1--2~AU, demonstrating that there is little
obvious evidence for warm dust in the terrestrial zones of FEPS targets.
The excess limits at wavelengths shortward of $24~\micron$ constrain the
fraction of the $24~\micron$ excess that could be produced by warm dust
(\S\ref{sec: debris}).
Although the FEPS study has a high sensitivity to IR excess as a fraction
of the stellar photosphere, it covers a wide range in stellar age and has a
relatively small ($\sim 30$) set of sources with ages ($\lesssim$ 10~Myr)
relevant to terrestrial planet assembly.
To complement these results, we examine the {\it Spitzer} and {\it WISE}
statistics for the well-studied Upper Scorpius association (Upper Sco).
Upper Sco, which is part of the nearby Sco-Cen association
\citep[Sco OB2;][]{preib2008},
allows an accurate census of dust emission at ages of 7--12~Myr
\citep{luhman2012b,pecaut2012,rizzuto2015}, when terrestrial planets
accumulate most of their final mass
\citep[e.g.,][]{dauphas2011a,raymond2014a,quintana2016}.
Analyses of {\it Spitzer}\ data alone indicate a very small
frequency of warm debris disks among solar-type stars in Upper Sco
\citep{carp2006,dahm2009,carp2009b,chen2011}. In a sample of
27 K-type pre-main sequence stars with masses of 0.8--1.3~\ifmmode {M_{\odot}}\else $M_{\odot}$\fi,
most of the excess sources (7/9) have IR colors consistent with
primordial disks \citep{carp2006,carp2009b}. Although two
additional stars have
24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excesses consistent with debris disks, both have cool dust
($T_d \lesssim$ 200~K). Within a much larger sample of 101 M-type stars
with masses smaller than 0.8~\ifmmode {M_{\odot}}\else $M_{\odot}$\fi, 9 (17) are debris (primordial) disks.
The lack of short wavelength excesses among stars with debris disks suggest
none of these have substantial amounts of warm dust.
To enlarge the sample of solar-type stars, \citet{luhman2012b} added
{\it WISE}\ data to previous {\it Spitzer}\ surveys. Among K0--M0 stars with masses
of 0.7--1.3~\ifmmode {M_{\odot}}\else $M_{\odot}$\fi, 28\% (17/60) have a 22--24\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess and 13\% (9/68)
have a 12\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess at levels $\gtrsim 25$\% of the stellar photosphere.
There is little evidence for warm debris.
All of the 12~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess sources are classified as
``full, transitional, or evolved disks''; none are debris disks. When
all detection statistics are considered \citep{luhman2012b},
fewer than 3\% of Upper Sco sources have a 12~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess from a debris
disk. Among the 22--24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess sources without 8~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ or
12~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excesses, eight are classified as ``debris or evolved transitional''
disks. For the two stars with large 22--24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excesses, the lack of
an accompanying 8~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ or 16~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess indicates that most of the
dust is cold. The maximum frequency of warm debris disks in this sample
is then 10\% (6/60).
Although there are no constraints on dust temperature for the other six stars,
if the FEPS results are a guide, most contain cold dust. Among FEPS sources
with 24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excesses that overlap in age with Upper Sco (5--20~Myr), roughly
80\% have cold dust \citep{carp2009a}. Adopting this scaling for Upper Sco,
only 1--2 of the six 22--24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess sources contain warm dust. Thus, a
more realistic estimate for the fraction of 10~Myr old stars with warm dust
is $\sim$ 2\%.
Many other studies also conclude that warm excesses from debris disks
around solar-type stars are extremely rare \citep[e.g.,][]{moor2009,
stauffer2010,beich2011,smith2011,zuck2011,ribas2012,urban2012,zuck2012,
jackson2012,kw2012,ballering2013,vican2014}. Although {\it IRAS}, {\it Spitzer}, and
{\it Herschel}\ data suggest 10\% to 30\% of solar-type main sequence stars
have IR excesses \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{lagrange2000,
eiroa2013,ballering2013}, nearly all sources have color temperatures
characteristic of cold dust ($T_d \ll$~300~K) at $a \gg 1$\,AU. In
addition to Upper Sco, {\it Spitzer}\ data for the young (15 Myr) clusters
$h$ and $\chi$ Per suggest a small excess fraction of 1\% to 2\% at
8~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ \citep{currie2007b,clout2014}. Analyses of {\it WISE}\ data for
stars in the solar neighborhood yield similarly small ($\lesssim$
1\%--2\%) fractions of sources with a 12~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess
\citep{kenn2013a,patel2014}.
\section{EARTH MASS PLANETS AT 0.25--1~AU ARE FAIRLY COMMON}
\label{sec: earths}
In contrast to the small fraction of stars with warm debris disks, rocky
planets within 1~AU appear to be fairly common companions to solar-type
stars \citep{youdin2011b,fang2012,batalha2013,foreman2014,silburt2015,winn2015}.
Although the false positive rate is uncertain, recent attempts to confirm
{\it Kepler} candidates with ground-based and other space-based observations
suggest false positive rates ranging from $\sim$ 10\% to 75\% for various
ranges of planet masses \citep[e.g.,][]{morton2011,santerne2012,fressin2013,
sliski2014,desert2015,colon2015,santerne2016,cough2016,mullally2016,morton2016}.
Here, we focus on a comprehensive analysis of {\it Kepler}\ data which
provides a detailed estimate for the occurrence rate of Earth-mass
planets inside 1~AU. This approach is conservative: the formation of
lower- and higher-mass rocky planets also produces observable amounts
of debris. Assuming false positive rates are small, these analyses
thus yield robust lower limits to the fraction of solar-type stars
that produce detectable debris at ages of 5--20~Myr. We return to
the false positive rate in \S5.
Using Q1-Q16 Kepler data, \citet{burke2015} estimate 0.77 planets
with radii of 0.7--2.5 \ifmmode {\rm R_{\oplus}}\else $\rm R_{\oplus}$\fi\ and orbital periods of 50--300 days
($\sim$ 0.25--0.9~AU) per GK dwarf star \citep[see also][and references
therein]{petig2013b, mullally2015,cough2016}.
Recent detailed analyses of transiting planets with radial velocity
measurements suggest most planets with radii smaller than
1.5--2~\ifmmode {\rm R_{\oplus}}\else $\rm R_{\oplus}$\fi\ have rocky compositions
\citep[e.g.,][]{weiss2014,marcy2014,buchave2014}.
Applying these results to their complete {\it Kepler}\ samples, \citet{burke2015}
derive a probability of 0.1 for an Earth-mass planet (0.8--1.2~\ifmmode {\rm R_{\oplus}}\else $\rm R_{\oplus}$\fi)
at 0.86--1.13 AU~and a probability of 0.075 for an Earth-mass planet
(0.8--1.2~\ifmmode {\rm R_{\oplus}}\else $\rm R_{\oplus}$\fi) at 0.61--0.8~AU. Taken at face value, these rates
predict a somewhat larger frequency of planets (per unit area) at 0.7~AU
than at 1~AU. Integrating over 0.6--1~AU, the probability is roughly 0.19
(assuming an intermediate rate for the missing region at 0.8--0.86~AU).
Although \citet{burke2015} do not quote a rate for Earth-mass planets
within 0.25--0.6~AU, plausible extrapolations of their rates yield a
probability of 0.22--0.25 (0.21--0.23) for an Earth mass planet
(0.8--1.2~\ifmmode {\rm R_{\oplus}}\else $\rm R_{\oplus}$\fi) within 0.25--1~AU (0.4--1~AU) of a solar-type star.
Unless the false positive rate for the {\it Kepler}\ sample of Earth-mass
planet candidates is much larger than 50\%, the roughly 20\% incidence
rate for rocky planets with radii of 0.8--1.2~\ifmmode {\rm R_{\oplus}}\else $\rm R_{\oplus}$\fi\ at 0.25--1~AU
is much larger than the $\lesssim$ 2--3\% rate of warm debris disks among
solar-type stars with ages of 5--30~Myr. The discrepancy between the
apparent formation rate of terrestrial planets and the detection rate
for terrestrial debris disks is probably much larger than suggested by
these estimates. We anticipate considerable debris from (i) the formation
of rocky planets smaller than 0.8~\ifmmode {\rm R_{\oplus}}\else $\rm R_{\oplus}$\fi\ and larger than
1.2~\ifmmode {\rm R_{\oplus}}\else $\rm R_{\oplus}$\fi\ at 0.25--1~AU and (ii) the formation of any rocky planet
at $\lesssim$ 0.25~AU and at 1--2~AU. If these formation channels yield
a substantial population of rocky planets, the detection rate for
debris disks is {\it at least a factor of ten} smaller than expected
from the incidence rates of rocky planets.
\section{DEBRIS GENERATION FROM PLANET FORMATION}
\label{sec: debris}
To assess the significance of the different detection rates
for warm debris disks and Earth-mass planets inside 2~AU, we
must estimate the amount and lifetime of debris produced by
terrestrial planet formation. To make this evaluation, we rely
on theoretical estimates from popular scenarios
that
produce
terrestrial planets on time scales consistent with the solar
system and observations of protoplanetary disks. These scenarios
are variants on models where continued agglomeration of small
rocky solids yields a stable planetary system
\citep[e.g.,][]{saf1969,weth1980}. Solids not incorporated into
planets provide material for excess emission from dust.
In the {\bf classical picture} developed to explain the Solar System
\citep[e.g.,][]{saf1969,lewis1972,weiden1974,weth1980}, the process
starts with a disk of small solids having just enough mass (the
Minimum Mass Solar Nebula, hereafter MMSN) to reproduce objects
in the Solar System. Collisional processes merge small solids into
km-sized or larger planetesimals, then Mars-mass protoplanets, and
finally Earth mass planets. During the `giant impact' phase when
Mars-mass protoplanets merge into Earths, the surface density of
the gaseous disk is probably $\lesssim$ 1\% of the initial surface
density; otherwise, gas drag circularizes the orbits of Mars-mass
objects and prevents giant impacts \citep[e.g.,][]{kominami2002}.
Throughout the accumulation and ``clean up'' phases, high velocity
collisions of leftover planetesimals, impacts of intermediate-sized
protoplanets, and giant impacts of massive protoplanets convert
15\% to 30\% of the initial mass in solids into debris
\citep{agnor1999,kb2004b,agnor2004,gold2004,raymond2011,genda2015a}.
In the {\bf pebble accretion scenario}, dynamical processes within the
gaseous disk concentrate cm-sized pebbles into large planetesimals with
radii of 100--1000~km \citep[e.g.,][]{youdin2005,johan2007,youdin2010,
johan2015,simon2016}. Continued accretion of pebbles and mergers of
planetesimals eventually produce a set of stable planets
\citep[e.g.,][]{johan2015,levison2015,chambers2016}. Current investigations
of pebble accretion ignore the loss of material and debris production
during mergers of large planetesimals. If fragmentation removes 5\% to
10\% of the initial mass \citep[e.g.,][]{johan2015}, neglecting this
process has a limited impact on the formation of large planets. However,
the mass lost through fragmentation is much larger than the sub-lunar
mass of solids required to produce a detectable 24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess (\S2).
In the {\bf in situ} planet formation scenario, \citet{hansen2012}
suggest that high concentrations of solids inside 1~AU are required
to explain various properties of the {\it Kepler}\ planet
population\footnote{\citet{volk2015} address aspects of this picture
in the context of the solar system.} \citep[see also][]{kuchner2004,
chiang2013,hansen2013,hansen2015}. Starting from an ensemble of
protoplanets with a solid surface density $\sim$ 10 times larger
than the MMSN, a series of giant impacts produces a stable system
of several planets in a few Myr \citep{hansen2013}. Because the
calculations start with assumed ensembles of fully formed protoplanets,
\citet{hansen2013} ignore the inefficiency of assembling solids into
protoplanets and the debris produced by high velocity collisions of
leftover planetesimals. As in recent explorations of pebble accretion,
the numerical simulations also ignore the loss of material (and
consequent debris production) in giant impacts.
For any of these scenarios, tidal torques can drive the radial migration
of protoplanets through the gaseous disk \citep[e.g.,][]{ward1997,
ida2000b,masset2003,obrien2006b,papa2007,ida2008a,bk2011b,
raymond2014b}. Planets may then form at large $a$ and migrate to
small $a$. Although typical migration models do not consider
collisional disruption of small solids inside 2~AU, large-scale
destruction seems likely. When Earth-mass and super-Earth-mass
planets migrate inside 2~AU, they excite pre-existing smaller solids
onto high $e$ orbits \citep[e.g.,][]{armitage2003,bk2011b,walsh2011,
kb2014a}.
Destructive collisions among these objects then produce copious
amounts of dust and a detectable 24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess
\citep[e.g.,][]{wyatt2008,jackson2012}.
\subsection{Modes of Dust Production}
\label{sec: debris-epochs}
To develop predictions for the magnitude of the IR excess produced
during rocky planet formation, we identify likely epochs of dust
production. In all of the scenarios discussed above, the growth of
pebbles and larger planetesimals with $r \approx$ 1~m to 1000~km
takes place in an opaque gaseous environment where debris mixes
with pre-existing small particles \citep[see][and references
therein]{dauphas2011a}. Because we cannot distinguish `primordial'
dust from debris, we ignore this phase of dust production.
As solids grow from planetesimals into protoplanets and then planets,
there are three modes of dust formation. Mergers of planetesimals into
protoplanets typically produce modest amounts of debris
\citep[e.g.,][]{weth1993,kl1999a,weiden1997b}. As protoplanets grow,
they stir the orbits of leftover planetesimals which never become
incorporated into a planet. Among the planetesimals, high velocity
collisions then begin to produce numerous smaller particles with sizes
ranging from 1~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ to tens of km \citep{green1978,weth1993,kb2004b,
weiden2010b,raymond2011}. This debris fuels a collisional cascade,
where solids are ground down into sub-micron-sized particles which
are ejected by radiation pressure. Eventually, giant impacts produce
larger and larger protoplanets. Debris from giant impacts adds to
the debris from collisions of leftover planetesimals and fuels the
collisional cascade \citep{jackson2012,genda2015a}.
In all three scenarios, the growth of protoplanets, collisions of
leftover planetesimals, and giant impacts generate debris. For
simplicity, we ignore the modest amount of debris generated from
the growth of protoplanets and derive separate estimates for dust
produced from destructive collisions of leftover planetesimals
(\S\ref{sec: debris-proto}) and from giant impacts
(\S\ref{sec: debris-impacts}).
\subsection{Debris from Collisions of Leftover Planetesimals}
\label{sec: debris-proto}
In classical planet formation theory, semi-analytical and numerical
calculations
of collisions among ensembles of rocky planetesimals within 2--3~AU
report debris production ranging from roughly 5\% to almost 50\% of
the initial mass in solid material \citep{green1978,weth1993,kb2004b,
lein2005,kb2005,chambers2008,weiden2010b,kb2016a}.
The typical mass in the debris is 10\% to 20\% of the initial mass.
Significant numbers of destructive collisions begin early, at $\sim$
0.01--0.1~Myr, and last until 10--100~Myr \citep[see also][and
references therein]{morbi2012,raymond2014a,quintana2016}.
In these calculations, the timing of debris production overlaps epochs
when we expect a significant decay in the surface density $\Sigma_g$ of
the gaseous disk \citep{hart1998,haisch2001,mama2009,will2011,alex2014}.
When $\Sigma_g$ is large, gas drag forces debris to spiral into the central
star. As $\Sigma_g$ declines, the system retains a larger and larger
fraction of the debris. For young stars with no gaseous disk at ages of
10--20~Myr, we conservatively estimate that 5\% to 10\% of the initial
mass in solids is converted into debris. The formation of an Earth-mass
planet thus generates 0.05-0.10~\ifmmode {\rm M_{\oplus}}\else $\rm M_{\oplus}$\fi\ in debris, which is 10--20 times
larger than the mass required to produce a detectable 24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess.
\subsection{Debris from Giant Impacts}
\label{sec: debris-impacts}
To predict debris production from giant impacts, we first consider a
simple analytical model. In this approach, we compare the collision
energy to the binding energy of a pair of protoplanets \citep[see
also][]{davis1985,housen1990,davis1990,housen1999}.
We assume conservatively that all collisions are head-on (impact
parameter $b$ = 0); more glancing collisions typically yield more
debris \citep[e.g.,][]{lein2012}. For two protoplanets with mass
$m$ and radius $r$, the center-of-mass collision energy is
$Q_c = v_{imp}^2/8$ \citep[e.g.,][]{weth1993,kcb2014,kb2016a},
where the impact velocity\footnote{In our approach, both protoplanets
have the same velocity relative to a circular orbit. Thus, the impact
velocity includes a contribution from each one.} is
\begin{equation}
v_{imp}^2 \approx v_{rel}^2 + v_{rel}^2 + v_{esc}^2 ~ .
\label{eq: v-imp}
\end{equation}
Here, $v_{rel}$ is the velocity of each protoplanet relative to a
circular orbit and $v_{esc}$ is the mutual escape velocity of the
pair at the moment of the collision,
$v_{esc} = \sqrt{2 G (m + m) / (r + r)} = \sqrt{2 G m / r}$.
The fraction of material ejected during a collision is
\begin{equation}
f_{ej} = 0.5 { Q_c \over \ifmmode Q_D^\star\else $Q_D^\star$\fi } ~ ,
\label{eq: f-ej}
\end{equation}
where \ifmmode Q_D^\star\else $Q_D^\star$\fi\ is the binding energy \citep[e.g.,][]{agnor1999,
benz1999,canup2001,lein2005,lein2009,genda2012,genda2015b}.
When $Q_c \approx \ifmmode Q_D^\star\else $Q_D^\star$\fi$, half the mass of the merged pair
is ejected to infinity.
Protoplanets typically have relative velocities of 25\% to 75\% of
the escape velocity of the largest protoplanets. We set
$v_{rel} \approx e v_K$, where $v_K$ is the velocity of a circular
orbit and $e$ is the eccentricity. When protoplanets have masses
ranging from a lunar mass to an Earth-mass, $e \approx$ 0.1--0.2
\citep[e.g.,][]{chambers2001a,raymond2004,raymond2005,kb2006,kokubo2006,
kokubo2010,chambers2013,quintana2016}.
For parameters appropriate for rocky objects at 1~AU (see
\S\ref{sec: app-ann}), collisions between equal-mass protoplanets
with $e \approx$ 0.05-0.2 eject roughly 10\% of the total mass
(Fig.~\ref{fig: f-ej}). Setting the relative velocity equal to 50\%
of the escape velocity of the protoplanet yields similar results.
Although the accretion history of an Earth-mass object is complicated
\citep[e.g.,][]{kb2006,kokubo2006,chambers2013}, final assembly
requires several collisions of sub-Earth mass objects. If each collision
loses roughly 10\% of the initial mass, the total amount of lost mass
exceeds 0.1~\ifmmode {\rm M_{\oplus}}\else $\rm M_{\oplus}$\fi. This mass is roughly an order of magnitude larger
than the mass required to produce a detectable debris disk (\S\ref{sec: ddisk}).
Detailed $n$-body\ and SPH calculations support this simple estimate
\citep[e.g.,][]{agnor2004,asphaug2006,raymond2011,genda2012,
stewart2012,jackson2012,chambers2013,genda2015a}. In SPH simulations,
dust production depends on $b$ and $v_{rel}$. Head-on collisions with
small $b$ and $v_{rel}$, yield little or no dust. When $v_{rel}$ is
large or the collision is oblique ($b \gtrsim$ 0.3--0.4), dust production
is substantial. Averaged over a complete $n$-body\ simulation of an ensemble
of growing protoplanets, protoplanet collisions disperse 10\% to 20\% of
the initial mass into small fragments. Thus, giant impacts involved in
the formation of a single Earth-mass planet yield at least
0.1--0.2~\ifmmode {\rm M_{\oplus}}\else $\rm M_{\oplus}$\fi\ in debris.
\subsection{Evolution of IR Excess from the Debris of Planet Formation}
\label{sec: debris-an}
To derive predicted detection rates for warm debris disks, we adopt an
initial disk mass $M_0$ and a model for the time evolution of the total
mass \ifmmode {M_d}\else $M_d$\fi\ and cross-sectional area \ifmmode A_d\else $A_d$\fi\ of the debris produced through
collisions of leftover planetesimals and giant impacts. In a real debris
disk, stochastic collisions add and remove debris; thus, \ifmmode {M_d}\else $M_d$\fi\ and
\ifmmode A_d\else $A_d$\fi\ decrease over the long term and increase and decrease on short
timescales \citep[e.g.,][]{grogan2001,kb2004b,weiden2010b,jackson2012,
genda2015a,kb2016a}. Instead of following this evolution in detail, we
consider an analytical model where \ifmmode A_d\else $A_d$\fi\ and \ifmmode {M_d}\else $M_d$\fi\ decline monotonically with
time (see \S\ref{sec: app-ann}). With this conservative assumption, we derive
a lower limit for the expected IR excess from the debris at any time $t$.
If the analytical model predicts much larger IR excesses than observed,
then more extensive numerical calculations of planet formation will also
yield much larger excesses than observed.
As outlined in the Appendix (\S\ref{sec: app-ann}), the long-term
evolution of the debris in the analytical model depends on the surface
density of solids, the size of the largest object, and the orbital
eccentricity of debris particles. The model assumes that collisions
among objects with radii smaller than \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ are completely destructive,
producing debris with particle sizes smaller than \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi. The cascade
of collisions maintains a power-law size distribution with
$N(r) \propto r^{-3.5}$ from the smallest size \ifmmode r_{min}\else $r_{min}$\fi\ up to \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi.
Radiation pressure ejects smaller particles. Protoplanets with radii
larger than \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ are ignored. With destructive collisions for all
particles smaller than $\ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi$ and ejection of material with
$r \lesssim \ifmmode r_{min}\else $r_{min}$\fi$, the mass in solids steadily declines with time.
To predict the time evolution of dust in the terrestrial zone,
we consider a disk with initial solid surface density
$\Sigma_s(a) = \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi \ifmmode \Sigma_0\else $\Sigma_0$\fi (a/a_0)^{-3/2}$, inner radius \ifmmode a_{in}\else $a_{in}$\fi\ $\approx$
0.1~AU, and outer radius \ifmmode a_{out}\else $a_{out}$\fi\ $\approx$ 1--2~AU. This inner radius
lies between the value adopted in some numerical calculations
\citep[0.05~AU, e.g.,][]{hansen2012,hansen2013} and the 0.25~AU inner
boundary for the \citet{burke2015} analysis of {\it Kepler}\ data. Our
results are insensitive to the exact value of \ifmmode a_{in}\else $a_{in}$\fi.
Disks with scale factor \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ = 1 and $\ifmmode \Sigma_0\else $\Sigma_0$\fi$ = 10~\ifmmode {\rm g~cm^{-2}}\else $\rm g~cm^{-2}$\fi\ at
$a_0 =$ 1~AU have the surface density of the MMSN. For
typical conditions in a disk with several protoplanets,
\ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ $\approx$ 100--1000~km and $e \approx$ 0.1
\citep{chambers2008,raymond2011,kb2016a}. If \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ and $e$
remain fixed throughout the evolution, the surface density
declines roughly linearly with time,
$\Sigma_s(t) \propto (1 + t/t_c)^{-1}$, where
$t_c \propto \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi P / \ifmmode \Sigma_0\else $\Sigma_0$\fi$ is the collision time and $P$
is the orbital period. The relative luminosity of the debris
disk is then an analytic function of the extent of the disk,
the initial mass, and time (\S\ref{sec: app-ann}).
At the start of the evolution, $L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi$ depends only on
\ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ and the radial extent of the disk (Appendix, eqs.~\ref{eq: linit1}--
\ref{eq: linit2}). The initial dust luminosity scales linearly
with \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ and with radial distance as $a^{-3/2}$. When \ifmmode a_{in}\else $a_{in}$\fi\ =
0.1~AU and \ifmmode a_{out}\else $a_{out}$\fi\ = 2~AU, systems with
$\ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ \gtrsim 2 \times 10^{-4}$ have dust luminosity larger than
the nominal detection limit, $L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi \gtrsim 10^{-4}$.
Once the evolution begins, the dust luminosity declines on the
local collision time. For a disk with $\Sigma_s \propto a^{-3/2}$,
$t_c \propto a^3$. Although most of the mass is in the outer disk
($M_d \propto a_{out}^{1/2}$), the material closest to the star
has the largest brightness per unit surface area. Solids close
to the star also have the shortest collision time. Thus, the dust
luminosity begins to decline on the collision time of the inner
disk, \ifmmode t_{in}\else $t_{in}$\fi. The luminosity declines by a factor of roughly two
on this time scale \citep[see also][]{kw2010}.
On time scales larger than \ifmmode t_{in}\else $t_{in}$\fi, collisions remove material
from larger and larger disk radii. At the outer edge of the disk,
the collision time is \ifmmode t_{out}\else $t_{out}$\fi. On time scales between \ifmmode t_{in}\else $t_{in}$\fi\ and
\ifmmode t_{out}\else $t_{out}$\fi, the dust luminosity declines rather slowly with time,
$L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi \propto t^{-n}$ with $n \approx$ 0.3--0.9. Once
the evolution time exceeds \ifmmode t_{out}\else $t_{out}$\fi, the decline in the dust luminosity
follows the decline of a narrow ring, $L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi \propto t^{-n}$
with $n$ = 1.
At late times, the dust luminosity of disks with different
\ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ converges \citep[e.g.,][]{wyatt2002,dom2003}. Although the
initial disk luminosity scales with \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi, disks with large
\ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ evolve more rapidly than disks with small \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi. This
convergent luminosity depends on \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi, \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi, and the extent of
the disk.
The lower panel of Fig.~\ref{fig: lum-ratio1} illustrates the evolution
of $L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi$ at 0.1--50~Myr for 0.1--1~AU debris disks with
\ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ = 300~km, $e$ = 0.1, and a range of \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi. Disks with \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ = 0.3
(30\% of the MMSN) evolve from $L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi \approx 10^{-1}$ at
$10^3$~yr to $L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi \approx 10^{-2}$ at 0.1~Myr to
$L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi \approx 10^{-3}$ at 3--4~Myr. These disks remain much
brighter than the nominal detection limit until stellar ages of
30--40~Myr. At early times ($t \lesssim$ 0.1~Myr), the dust
luminosity roughly scales with \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi; a disk with \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ = 0.003 has
a dust luminosity 100 times smaller than a disk with \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ = 0.3.
Because disks with smaller \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ have longer collision times,
they evolve more slowly. It takes a disk with \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ = 0.003
roughly 15--20~Myr to decline from $L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi \approx 10^{-3}$
to $L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi \approx 10^{-4}$.
The upper panel of Fig.~\ref{fig: lum-ratio1} shows that larger disks
are always brighter (eq.~\ref{eq: linit2} of the Appendix). With a
factor of 8 larger collision time at the outer edge, a disk extending
to 2~AU declines more slowly than a disk extending to 1~AU. For disks
with \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ = 0.3, the larger disk reaches the detection limit at 100~Myr
instead of 30--40~Myr. As \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ decreases, however, the differences in
evolution times become smaller. When \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ = 0.003, the 0.1--2~AU
disk reaches the detection threshold at 25~Myr instead of 15--20~Myr
for the 0.1--1~AU disk.
To derive predicted flux ratios for debris disks, we assume the solids
radiate as blackbodies in equilibrium with radiation from the central
star. For simplicity, \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi\ = 1~\ifmmode {L_{\odot}}\else $L_{\odot}$\fi\, \ifmmode {R_{\star}}\else $R_{\star}$\fi\ = 1~\ifmmode {R_{\odot}}\else $R_{\odot}$\fi, and
\ifmmode {T_{\star}}\else $T_{\star}$\fi\ = 5780~K at all times. The disk temperature is then
$T_d$ = 280~$(a /a_0)^{-1/2}$~K. With no analytic solution for
the flux ratio, we divide the disk into a series of annuli, assign a
temperature to each annulus, derive the time evolution of the
cross-sectional area and emitted flux in each annulus, and add up the
fluxes. In the Appendix, we show that numerical integrations of the
dust luminosity agree well with analytic results.
Fig.~\ref{fig: flux-ratio2} summarizes results for 0.1--2~AU disks with
\ifmmode r_{min}\else $r_{min}$\fi\ = 1~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi, \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ = 300~km and various \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi. At current sensitivity
limits, robust 8--12~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ detections of warm dust at 10~Myr require
massive debris disks with \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ $\gtrsim$ 0.3; detections at 8~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ are
strongly favored over those at 12~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi.
Warm dust is much easier to detect at 16--24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi.
{\it Spitzer}\ 16~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\
measurements of $\sim 10$~Myr old
stars can detect debris disks with \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ $\gtrsim$ 0.03.
The sensitivity at 24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ is fairly remarkable:
debris disks with \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ as low as 1\% of the MMSN are detectable.
We can use these results to interpret statistics for warm
debris from \S\ref{sec: ddisk}. Among stars younger than 10~Myr
in the FEPS sample, 3\%, 7\%, and 20\% of the non-primordial disks
have a detected $24~\micron$ excess above 50\%, 30\%, and 10\% of
the stellar photosphere. From Fig.~\ref{fig: flux-ratio2}, these
results allow us to conclude that $< 3$\% of FEPS sources younger
than 10 Myr have a warm excess consistent with $\ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi \gtrsim 0.1$.
The 3\% upper limit arises because cold dust beyond 2~AU could
produce some of the observed $24~\micron$ excess. Similarly,
fewer than 7\% of sources younger than 10 Myr have a warm excess
consistent with $\ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi \gtrsim 0.03$.
The FEPS $16~\micron$ excess statistics place a more stringent limit
on $\ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi$. Because no FEPS source at any age (between 3 Myr and 3 Gyr)
has a $16~\micron$ excess above 16\% of the stellar photosphere,
all sources younger than 10 Myr must have $\ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi \lesssim 0.05$.
Similarly, all sources younger than 5 Myr have $\ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi \lesssim 0.03$.
For a given \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi, reducing \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ reduces the predicted level of IR
excess. Fig.~\ref{fig: flux-ratio3} shows how the 24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess
varies with \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ for 0.1--2~AU debris disks with \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ = 0.1 and
\ifmmode r_{min}\else $r_{min}$\fi\ = 1~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi. In systems with identical initial masses, swarms
of particles with smaller \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ have larger initial \ifmmode A_d\else $A_d$\fi\ and smaller
collision times. Although swarms with \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ = 3--10~km initially have
larger 24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excesses than swarms with \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ = 1000~km, they also
evolve much more rapidly. By 6~Myr (12~Myr), debris disks with
\ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ = 3~km (10~km) reach the nominal detection limit. Disks with
\ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ = 100--1000~km take 40--100~Myr to reach this limit.
\subsection{Summary}
\label{sec: debris-summ}
Numerical calculations of planet formation suggest that the agglomeration
of Earth-mass planets in the terrestrial zone creates copious amounts of
debris. Current estimates suggest from 15\% to 30\% of the initial mass
is potentially available to produce the debris signature of rocky planet
formation. Debris production is probably independent of the mode --
classical, {\it in situ}, or pebble -- in which planets form. Unless
planetesimal formation mechanisms assemble Mars-mass oligarchs directly,
leaving behind 10\% of the initial mass in debris is inevitable
\citep[e.g.,][]{kb2016a}. By generating smaller planetesimals, current
formation paths appear to preclude this possibility \citep{johan2015,
simon2016}. All popular models for the formation of Earth-mass planets
include a giant impact phase which
also
generates significant amounts of
debris.
The debris is long-lived.
In standard models of planet formation, the debris has a typical
maximum size of 100--1000~km \citep[e.g.,][]{kb2016a}. If the
debris contains 15\% to 30\% of the initial mass required to assemble
an Earth-mass planet, then the IR excess from the debris is detectable
at 24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ for $\lesssim$ 100~Myr \citep[Fig.~\ref{fig: flux-ratio2};
see also][]{raymond2011,genda2015a}.
For stars with ages $\lesssim$ 10~Myr, it is challenging to
detect debris from terrestrial planet formation with current
sensitivity limits at 8--12~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi. For robust detections,
recent surveys require an initial solid mass $\gtrsim$ 30\% of
the MMSN at 8~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ and $\gtrsim$ 100\% of the MMSN at 12~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi.
If the formation of several Earth-mass planets converts 15\% to
30\% of the initial mass into debris, detection at 12~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ is
very unlikely: the debris simply is not luminous enough after 10~Myr.
At 8~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi, the predicted level of debris from the formation of a
single Earth-mass planet is somewhat smaller than the {\it Spitzer}\ limits.
If Earth-mass planets are as common as suggested by
{\it Kepler}\ \citep{burke2015}, the low frequency, $\lesssim$ 3\%
\citep[e.g.,][]{luhman2012b}, of warm dust revealed by
8~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ observations of solar-type stars in the Upper Sco
association is roughly consistent with theoretical predictions.
However, if we include the excesses produced by the formation
of more massive planets ($\gtrsim 1~\ifmmode {\rm M_{\oplus}}\else $\rm M_{\oplus}$\fi$), the expected
8~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess is larger than {\it Spitzer}\ sensitivity limits and
potentially in conflict with observations.
If our nominal picture of debris production is correct
(Fig.~\ref{fig: flux-ratio2}), current 16--24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ sensitivity
limits are low enough to detect {\it every} solar-type star
$\lesssim 10$\,Myr engaged in forming Earth-mass planets.
For 10~Myr old stars, current 16~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ data should detect
debris disks with initial masses of 5\% to 10\% of the MMSN;
however, the FEPS survey detected none of these systems.
Similarly, $< 3$\% of FEPS sources younger than 10 Myr have a
warm excess consistent with initial solid masses $\gtrsim 10$\%
of the MMSN.
Based on this analysis, there is a clear discrepancy between the
observed frequency of warm debris from terrestrial planet formation
($\lesssim$ 3\%, \S\ref{sec: ddisk})
and the incidence rate of Earth-mass planets derived from
{\it Kepler}\ ($\gtrsim$ 20\%, \S\ref{sec: earths}).
Based on Fig.~\ref{fig: flux-ratio2}, the observed frequency
of 16--24\,\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess sources and the inferred incidence
rate of Earth-mass planets imply that terrestrial planet
formation must leave behind a very small fraction of the initial
mass in debris-producing solids ($\lesssim 1$\% of MMSN).
\section{DISCUSSION}
\label{sec: disc}
The low rate of warm excess among solar-type stars of terrestrial
planet-forming age was previously noted in the early analysis of
FEPS {\it Spitzer}/IRAC results.
Because terrestrial planet formation should produce a detectable
warm excess \citep{kb2004b}, \citet{silver2006} interpreted their
non-detection of warm excesses as possible evidence that
(i) terrestrial planets form infrequently or
(ii) warm dust dissipates more quickly than expected
\citep[see also][]{carp2009a}.
At that time, the rarity of warm excesses was not particularly
remarkable because the incidence rate of terrestrial planets was
completely unknown. Our more recent understanding that
Earth-mass planets may be fairly common now highlights the
need to understand why warm excesses are rare.
In our analysis, the inferred discrepancy between
the fraction $f_d$ of young solar-type stars with
warm debris
and the fraction $f_p$ of mature solar-type
stars with Earth-mass planets ($f_d \lesssim 0.1 f_p$) relies on our
understanding of (i) recent {\it Kepler}\ planet detection statistics,
(ii) updated statistics for 8--24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ emission from disks around
young stars, and (iii) new developments in planet formation theory.
In this section, we consider each of these elements in turn to
identify possible ways to resolve the discrepancy between
$f_d$ and $f_p$.
We then consider physical
mechanisms that might reconcile the two frequencies and suggest paths
to test these ideas.
\subsection{Frequency of Earth-Mass Planets at 0.25--2~AU Around Solar-Type Stars}
\label{sec: disc-earth}
When the frequency of false-positives $f_{fp}$ among {\it Kepler}\ Earth-mass
planet candidates is large, we overestimate $f_p$. Current analyses
infer $f_{fp} \approx$ 10\% to 75\% \citep[e.g.,][]{morton2011,
santerne2012,fressin2013,sliski2014,desert2015,colon2015,santerne2016,
cough2016,morton2016}. Many studies focus on gas giant planet candidates;
however, \citet{desert2015} consider whether {\it Spitzer}\ observations confirm
transits for Earth-mass candidates with orbital periods $\lesssim$ 100~d.
For individual systems, they derive $f_{fp} \approx$ 1\% to 42\%; the
complete sample suggests a typical $f_{fp} \approx$ 10\%. Curiously,
additional observations confirm planets in several candidate systems
with large individual $f_{fp}$. Although larger samples are required to
understand the true f$_{fp}$ for Earth-mass planet candidates, these data
suggest $f_p$ is not overestimated by a factor of 10
\citep[see also][]{cough2016,morton2016}.
If multi-planet systems occur commonly and with a large range in orbital
inclination $\imath$, the true $f_p$ is smaller than our estimates.
Although transit surveys of such systems may detect only one of two or
more possible planets, detecting a transiting planet in the system is more
likely because a planet can be detected from multiple directions.
As a result, the fraction of stars with planets in the habitable zone
$f_p$ can be reduced while maintaining the same average number of
{\it Kepler}\ planets per star overall.
Although observations do not yet provide a robust estimate of the
frequency of multi-planet systems \citep[e.g.,][and references
therein]{tremaine2012,fabrycky2014,vaneylen2015,winn2015},
comparing results from radial velocity and transit surveys
provides useful constraints (S.\ Tremaine, private communication).
Transit surveys can detect multi-planet systems only when the
range of mutual inclinations is $\lesssim$ a few degrees; however,
radial velocity surveys are sensitive to systems with a much
broader range of mutual inclinations.
The frequency of multi-planet systems from recent {\it Kepler}\ catalogs
\citep[0.19--0.20;][]{fabrycky2014,mullally2015,cough2016} is 2/3 of
the frequency of $\sim$ 0.3 derived from radial velocity measurements
\citep{limbach2015}. The similarity between the two rates implies
that {\it Kepler}\ does not significantly underestimate the fraction of
multi-planet systems, i.e., mutual inclinations are small and
planetary systems are fairly flat.
While this argument applies to mutual inclinations of planets
of all masses, additional dynamical considerations can restrict
the mutual inclinations of systems of Earth-mass planets.
For
known multi-planet systems, the typical range in $\imath$ is small,
$\approx$ 1\ifmmode {^\circ}\else {$^\circ$}\fi--5\ifmmode {^\circ}\else {$^\circ$}\fi\ \citep{tremaine2012,fabrycky2014}. With
$e \approx$ 2--4 $\imath$ \citep{fabrycky2014}, $e \approx$ 0.035--0.20.
If this range in $e$ is typical of systems with Earth-mass planets,
theory provides a guide to estimate a possible error in $f_p$ at $a$
= 0.25--1~AU \citep[see also][]{tremaine2015}. From numerical
simulations, systems of several Earth-mass planets have
$e \approx$ 0.01--0.05 and $\imath \approx e/2$
\citep[e.g.,][]{chambers1998,bk2006,raymond2007a,morishima2008,
chambers2013}. These systems are dynamically unstable when the
distance between the apocenter of the inner orbit and the pericenter
of the outer orbit exceed 10 mutual Hill radii $R_H$, where
$R_H = (a_{in} + a_{out}) [(m_{in} + m_{out}) / 3~\ifmmode {M_{\star}}\else $M_{\star}$\fi]^{1/3}$ and
$a_{in}$ ($a_{out}$) is the semimajor axis of the inner (outer) planet
\citep{chambers1996,yoshi1999,fang2013,pu2015,petro2015}.
When all planets have $e$ = 0.03 ($e$ = 0.10), the maximum number of
stable Earth-mass planets within 0.4--1~AU is 7--8 (4--5). The maximum
reduction in $f_p$ is then a factor of 5--7.
The number of transiting planets in a multi-planet system depends on the
distribution of mutual inclinations \citep[e.g.,][]{tremaine2012,
fabrycky2014}. To make estimates for ensembles of closely packed Earth-mass
planets, we perform a simple Monte Carlo calculation. For adopted dispersions
in $e$ and $\imath$, $\sigma_e$ and $\sigma_\imath = \sigma_e/2$, our algorithm
establishes a set of Earth-mass planets with orbital separations of 10
mutual Hill radii and semimajor axes between 0.25~AU and 1~AU. After randomly
selecting one of these planets to have impact parameter $b \le$ 1, the code
chooses random deviates for $\imath$, infers impact parameters for the
remaining planets, and counts the number of planets with $|b| \le$ 1. For
Gaussian (Rayleigh) deviates with $\sigma_e \approx$ 0.035 and
$\sigma_\imath \approx$ 1\ifmmode {^\circ}\else {$^\circ$}\fi, closely packed systems have seven (six)
planets and four (three) transits per system. When $\sigma_e \approx$
0.175 and $\sigma_\imath \approx$ 5\ifmmode {^\circ}\else {$^\circ$}\fi, tightly packed systems have 3--4
(2--3) planets and one (one) transit per system. {\it Kepler}\ should detect
maximally packed Earth-mass planets on roughly circular orbits as
multi-planet systems, but should fail to identify multiple planets in
highly eccentric systems. Either way, these results suggest $f_p$ might be
overestimated by factors of 2--4. Factor of ten overestimates are unlikely.
Overall, this analysis suggests that overestimates in $f_p$
are unlikely to reduce the fraction of stars with planets in
the 0.25-1\,AU region ($\sim 20$\%) to the fraction of stars
with warm excesses ($<3$\%). Moreover, our estimates are
conservative. If there is a population of Earth-mass planets
with $a \approx$ 1--2~AU, then $f_p$ is larger than 20\%. If
the typical $\sigma_e$ of multi-planet systems is roughly
4$\sigma_\imath$ instead of our adopted 2$\sigma_\imath$
\citep{fabrycky2014}, then the maximum number of Earth-mass
planets in {\it Kepler}\ systems with a single transit is roughly
two. Thus, uncertainties in $f_p$ cannot reduce the discrepancy
between $f_p$ and $f_d$.
\subsection{Emission from Small Dust Grains}
\label{sec: disc-dust}
Alternatively, we may have overestimated the expected IR excess
produced by debris. To derive this excess (\S\ref{sec: debris}),
we assume grains with sizes $\gtrsim$ 1~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi. In any debris disk
model, the dust luminosity is sensitive to the size of the smallest
grains, $L_d \propto \ifmmode r_{min}\else $r_{min}$\fi^{-1/2}$. Grains with sizes smaller (larger)
than our nominal limit of 1~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ are more (less) luminous than
predicted. Although \ifmmode r_{min}\else $r_{min}$\fi\ is clearly a free parameter, observations
of comets in the solar system and warm debris around solar-type stars
suggest 1~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ is a reasonable lower limit to the grain size
\citep[e.g.,][]{lisse2006,lisse2007a,lisse2008,currie2011}. Thus,
increasing \ifmmode r_{min}\else $r_{min}$\fi\ seems an unlikely way to remove the discrepancy
between $f_d$ and $f_p$.
We also assume disks with power-law size distributions of small
particles. In a real collisional cascade, the equilibrium size
distribution has pronounced waves relative to our adopted
$N(r) \propto r^{-3.5}$ power law \citep{campo1994a,obrien2003,
wyatt2011,kb2016a}. Adopting an analytic model for the waves
which matches numerical simulations \citep{kb2016a} yields
IR excesses a factor of 2--3 larger than the predictions of the
basic analytical model outlined in the appendix. With this assumption,
it is possible to detect debris disks with 10\% to 30\% (8--12~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi),
1\% (16~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi), or 0.3\% (24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi) of the MMSN.
We also assume small grains radiate as perfect blackbodies. In a real
debris disk, small (1--10~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi) grains are probably hotter and radiate
less efficiently than perfect blackbodies \citep[e.g.,][]{bac1993,
dent2000,lisse2006}. If we adopt an extreme model where all grains
radiate inefficiently (e.g., with emissivity
$\epsilon \propto (\lambda / \lambda_0)^{-b}$, with
$\lambda_0$ = 1~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ and b $\approx$ 0.8--1),
the IR excess at 8--24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ is roughly 50\%
smaller than the blackbody prediction. At 8--12~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi, this prediction
has little impact on our ability to detect excesses around 10~Myr stars:
blackbody grains are already at or below the nominal detection limits
for {\it Spitzer}\ and {\it WISE}. At 16--24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi, systems with initial masses of
10\% (16~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi) or 1\% (24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi) of the MMSN still remain above the
detection threshold even with an extreme emission model.
Considering the uncertainties in \ifmmode r_{min}\else $r_{min}$\fi\ and the radiative
properties and size distribution of small particles, our
estimates for the IR excesses of warm debris disks seem
reasonable.
Allowing for changes in \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi\ from pre-main sequence stellar
evolution \citep[e.g.,][]{bar1998,siess2000,bressan2012,chen2014b,
bar2015} and corresponding variations in dust temperature also
has little impact on predicted IR excess emission at 8--24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi.
Thus, the discrepancy between $f_d$ and $f_p$ remains.
\subsection{Reconsidering Planet Formation Theory: Quick and Neat}
\label{sec: disc-quick}
If we accept the currently measured frequencies of Earth-mass planets
and warm debris disks, we must then devise a theory that assembles
Earth-mass planets with little detectable debris.
{\bf One way to achieve this goal is if planet formation is quick.}
If
Earth-mass planets orbiting solar-mass stars reach their final
masses during the T Tauri phase, debris ejected from giant impacts
or collisions of leftover planetesimals
would be
rapidly mixed with the optically thick
primordial dust left within the gaseous disk. Instead of producing a
distinctive `debris disk signature,' the debris simply contributes
to the already large IR excess of the primordial disk. As viscous
evolution and other processes remove the gas, the debris from
Earth-mass planet formation leaves with the gas.
In the classical theory, planet formation is not quick.
Although protoplanet formation might occur during the T Tauri phase
\citep[e.g.,][]{weth1993,weiden1997a,oht2002,kb2006,kokubo2006,
kokubo2010,kb2016a}, growth then stalls
\citep[e.g.,][]{weiden1997b,chambers2001a,kb2006,raymond2007a,
chambers2008,chambers2013,raymond2014a,genda2015a,quintana2016}.
Once the gaseous disk dissipates, giant impacts among Mars-mass
protoplanets then build Earth-mass planets \citep{kominami2004},
generating debris. The gaseous disk plays no further role in the
evolution of the debris.
Pebble accretion is not intrinsically quick
\citep[e.g.,][]{chambers2014,johan2015,levison2015}. Recent
studies suggest the rapid formation of 100--1000~km planetesimals
at $\lesssim$ 1~Myr. These planetesimals rapidly accrete leftover
pebbles. Because these models begin with initial masses comparable
to the MMSN, the giant impact phase begins well after the gaseous
disk has dissipated. Giant impacts then occur on time scales when
debris is easily detected.
The massive disks of solids proposed in the {\it in situ} theory
($\sim$ 10 times the MMSN)
enable rapid planet formation \citep{hansen2012,hansen2013,hansen2015}.
Formation times scale inversely with the mass of solids; thus,
protoplanets grow much faster than in the classical or pebble
accretion theories. Even in a primordial gaseous disk, the
large number of closely packed protoplanets generates a series
of giant impacts, leading to multiple Earth-mass planets in
a few Myr. The gas can then remove small particles produced
in giant impacts. However, the gas probably cannot remove any
leftover planetesimals or other 1--100~km particles generated
during the giant impact phase.
To produce a 24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess that is
$< 10$\% of the stellar
photosphere in a system where the initial mass in solids is
$\sim$ 10 times the MMSN, the giant impact phase must leave
behind less than
0.1-0.2\% of the initial mass in 100--1000~km objects
(including any leftover planetesimals). Otherwise,
the {\it in situ} theory makes too much debris at 10~Myr.
Thus, {\bf another way to satisfy the observational constraints is
if planet formation is intrinsically neat: Earth-mass planets
assemble with negligible dust emission.} As described above,
the classical, {\it in situ}, and pebble accretion scenarios are
not neat enough to match observational constraints. To isolate
the appropriate physical conditions for a `neat' scenario,
we rely on the analytical model outlined in the appendix
(\ref{sec: app-ann}) and published numerical simulations
\citep[e.g.,][]{kb2016a}. To match current sensitivity limits at
16~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ and 24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi, we must reduce dust production by at least a
factor of ten (i.e., reducing \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ from 15\%--30\% to $<3$\%;
Fig.~\ref{fig: flux-ratio2}). In all numerical simulations, dust
production depends on $v_{imp} / \ifmmode Q_D^\star\else $Q_D^\star$\fi$, where $v_{imp}$ is the
impact velocity and \ifmmode Q_D^\star\else $Q_D^\star$\fi\ is the binding energy. Simple
dynamics sets $v_{imp}$; changing it significantly is unlikely.
The binding energy is based on analytical and numerical simulations
using state-of-the-art equations of state. While increasing
\ifmmode Q_D^\star\else $Q_D^\star$\fi\ seems unlikely, it is worth exploring the required physics.
As a simple comparison, the gravitational binding energy per unit
mass of a uniform sphere exceeds the \ifmmode Q_D^\star\else $Q_D^\star$\fi\ for basalt only when
$r \gtrsim$ 10~\ifmmode {\rm R_{\oplus}}\else $\rm R_{\oplus}$\fi. Thus, the internal degrees of freedom of
protoplanets are important in setting \ifmmode Q_D^\star\else $Q_D^\star$\fi.
While it may be possible to modify these by
factors of 2--3, order of magnitude changes seem unlikely
\citep[see also][and references therein]{housen1999,hols2002}.
If dust production cannot be limited, the main alternative is to
reduce the lifetime of the debris. In this approach, a shorter
debris lifetime lessens the likelihood of detection. From
eqs.~\ref{eq: tc0} and \ref{eq: tc0n}, lowering \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ or increasing
$v_{imp} / \ifmmode Q_D^\star\else $Q_D^\star$\fi$ by a factor of ten shortens the lifetime of
the debris by a similar factor. Having already ruled out
factor-of-ten changes in $v_{imp} / \ifmmode Q_D^\star\else $Q_D^\star$\fi$, we consider the
impact of changing \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi.
In the analytical model, changing \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ modifies the detectability
of the debris in two ways. For a fixed mass in debris, the
cross-sectional area $A_d \propto \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi^{-1/2}$. Reducing
\ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ therefore increases the initial dust luminosity and
shortens the collision time.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig: flux-ratio3}, \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ must be quite
small to reduce the predicted warm excess to the level of the
24\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess displayed by the brightest 20\% of $\sim 10$\,Myr
old stars. If \ifmmode x_{m}\else $x_{m}$\fi\ = 0.1 and \ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ = 10 km, then at 10 Myr
$F_d/F_{\rm star} \sim 0.12$ at 24\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi.
Approximately 20\% of FEPS sources younger than 10 Myr have
an excess brighter than
$F_d/F_{\rm star} \sim 0.1$ at 24\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi, a fraction comparable
to the fraction of solar-type stars with Earth-like planets.
Although this solution seems attractive, it has several major
drawbacks. Numerical simulations of giant impacts already yield
24~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ fluxes much larger than observed \citep{genda2015a};
generating a smaller likelihood of detection at 10 Myr age
in exchange for a much larger initial
luminosity is probably a poor trade. For dust generated from
planetesimals, numerical simulations suggest that collisional
damping of small particles maintains large dust luminosities
far longer than suggested by the analytical model \citep{kb2016a}.
Increasing the population of small particles by lowering
\ifmmode r_{max}\else $r_{max}$\fi\ probably exacerbates this problem.
\subsection{Neat Planet Formation in a Remnant Gas Disk}
\label{sec: disc-neat}
If we cannot substantially alter the observed frequency of
terrestrial planets, models for the assembly of terrestrial
planets, or the amount of debris generated by terrestrial planets,
some process must remove small particles with $r \lesssim$
0.1--1~mm from the terrestrial zone. Possibilities include
interactions with the stellar radiation field, the stellar wind,
or a remnant gaseous disk. If one of these processes removes
small particles faster than the collisional cascade produces them,
the predicted IR emission from warm dust is reduced by the requisite
factor of $\sim$ 10,
eliminating the discrepancy between $f_d$ and $f_p$.
Compared to aerodynamic drag from a remnant gaseous disk, other
mechanisms probably have a limited role. Observations suggest
radiation pressure may remove particles smaller than 1~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi, but
larger particles are robustly detected \citep[e.g.,][and references
therein]{lisse2008,currie2011,matthews2014}.
For $L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi \gtrsim 10^{-7}$, Poynting-Robertson drag is
ineffective \citep{wyatt2008}. In the inner Solar System, stellar
wind drag is roughly 30\% as effective as Poynting-Robertson drag
in removing small particles \citep{gust1994}. Observations of the
youngest solar-type stars suggest mass loss rates $\lesssim$ 10
times the mass loss rate $\dot{M}_\odot$ of the current Sun
\citep[][and references therein]{wood2014}. Theoretical studies
predict mass loss rates up to 100 $\dot{M}_\odot$ \citep[e.g.,][]
{cohen2014,airapetian2016}. Both of these estimates fall well
below the 1000 $\dot{M}_\odot$ required for stellar wind drag to
remove small particles rapidly when $L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi \gtrsim 10^{-4}$.
Finally, the sputtering rate for small particles is too small
compared to the collision rate \citep{wurz2012}.
In some circumstances, photophoresis\footnote{The photophoresis
mechanism exploits the temperature gradient across an illuminated
grain embedded in a low pressure gas. Momentum exchange with the gas
results in the grain moving away from the radiation source.} drives
small particles radially outward through an optically thin gaseous
disk \citep[e.g.,][]{krauss2005,hermann2007,cuello2016}. When
photophoresis is effective, the time scale for radial drift is
comparable to (and sometimes shorter than) the time scale for
radial drift due to gas drag. However, the drift time is
sensitive to the ratio of the heat conductivity to the particle
asymmetry factor, which is uncertain \citep[e.g.,][]{vonborst2012}.
Here, we focus on the impact of gas drag, where the physical
properties of small particles are less important. Our goal is
to identify a range of $\Sigma_g$ for the gaseous disk that
allows giant impacts (0.1--1\% or less of the MMSN) and removes
0.1--1~mm and smaller particles on time scales shorter than the
collision time.
Within any gaseous disk, particles weakly bound to the gas rapidly
drift inward when their `stopping time' ($t_s = m v_d / F_d$,
where $v_d$ is the drift velocity and $F_d$ is the drag force)
is comparable to their orbital period $P$ \citep{ada1976,weiden1977a}.
At 1~AU, the shortest drift time is 50--100~yr (Fig.~\ref{fig: drag1}),
shorter than the
typical collision time of 1000~yr for 1~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ to 1~cm particles.
In an optically thin disk, radiation pressure drives small,
weakly coupled particles to large $a$ where the particles are
colder and have much smaller dust luminosities \citep{take2001}.
Effective radial drift thus eliminates particles that produce
an IR excess\footnote{In a dense gaseous disk, interactions with
the gas rapidly circularize the orbits of small particles
\citep[e.g.,][]{ada76,weiden1977a}. During a collisional cascade
in a low density disk, gravitational stirring by protoplanets
raises $e$ faster than gas drag lowers $e$ \citep[e.g,][]{kb2004b,
raymond2011,genda2015a}. Thus, we ignore this process.}.
To quantify radial drift at 1~AU in a low density gaseous disk, we
combine the approaches of \citet{weiden1977a} and \cite{take2001}.
As outlined in the Appendix (\S\ref{sec: app-gd}), we solve for
the radial and azimuthal velocity of particles relative to the gas
in a protostellar disk with standard relations for the surface
density, midplane temperature, vertical scale height, gas pressure,
thermal velocity, and other physical variables \citep[e.g.,][]{kh1987,
chiang1997,raf2004,chiang2010,youdin2013,armitage2013}.
Fig.~\ref{fig: drag1} illustrates the impact of a residual gas disk
on the radial drift velocity of particles as a function of size at
1 AU under MMSN-like conditions. For this example, a disk with the
surface density of the MMSN has $\Sigma_g$ = 2000~\ifmmode {\rm g~cm^{-2}}\else $\rm g~cm^{-2}$\fi, $T$ = 278~K,
and vertical scale height $H$ = 0.03~AU.
Filled circles indicate inward drift; open symbols indicate outward
drift. Other choices for these parameters -- e.g., $T$ = 150--300~K
and $H$ = 0.02--0.10 -- change the maximum drift velocity and the
particle size for this maximum drift by 25\% to 50\% but do not change
the overall trends.
When the disk has $\Sigma_g$ comparable to the MMSN (Fig.~\ref{fig: drag1},
black symbols), particles with $r \approx$ 50~cm have $\tau_s \approx$ 1
and the largest drift velocity. Inflection points in $\ifmmode v_{rad}\else $v_{rad}$\fi(r)$ occur
when particles enter different drag regimes (e.g., Epstein, Stokes,
quadratic). For particle sizes $r \approx$ 30--40~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi,
outward radiation pressure balances inward gas drag;
these particles do not drift. Smaller particles drift
outward\footnote{MMSN disks are probably optically thick. Small
particles in the optically thin upper layers drift outward, while
those in the optically thick midplane are unaffected.} with maximum
velocities slightly smaller than 0.1~\ifmmode {\rm cm~s^{-1}}\else ${\rm cm~s^{-1}}$\fi
As the surface density of the gaseous disk declines, smaller particles
drift more rapidly through the gas. Although the peak in \ifmmode v_{rad}\else $v_{rad}$\fi\ shifts
to smaller sizes, the maximum drift velocity is always roughly 8000~\ifmmode {\rm cm~s^{-1}}\else ${\rm cm~s^{-1}}$\fi.
The balance between radiation pressure and gas drag remains fixed
for 30--40~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ particles. However, in disks with lower $\Sigma_g$,
smaller particles have larger stopping times. With a weaker drag
force, radiation pressure drives these particles outward at larger
velocities. Once $\Sigma_g$ is roughly 0.001\% of the MMSN, the outward
drift velocities of $r \lesssim$ 30~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ particles surpass the
maximum inward drift velocities of 100~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ particles.
To judge the impact of radial drift on the collisional cascade, we compare
the drift time to the collisional time. For disks with surface densities
of 0.001\% of the MMSN, 1--10~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ and 100~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ particles at 1~AU drift
inward or outward on 50--75~yr time scales. In less (more) tenuous gas
disks, particle lifetimes are longer (shorter; Fig.~\ref{fig: drag1}).
For comparison, in a collisional cascade at 0.1--2~AU with
$L_d / \ifmmode {L_{\star}}\else $L_{\star}$\fi \approx 10^{-4}$, the collision time is roughly 1000~yr.
In disks with $\Sigma_g \approx$ 0.001\% of the MMSN, radial drift from
radiation pressure and gas drag
removes particles smaller than 100 \ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ in $< 100$ yr,
rapidly depleting the disk of the 1--100~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ particles that
comprise 90\% of the surface area. Gas drag also rapidly transports
larger (0.1--1~mm) particles towards the central star.
These two processes have a dramatic effect on debris production. In a
standard collisional cascade, mass flows at a roughly constant rate
from the largest particles to the smallest particles
\citep[e.g.,][]{wyatt2008,koba2010a,wyatt2011}. When the gas drags
0.1--1~mm particles inward, the equilibrium population of these
particles drops. Collisions among these objects are then less frequent,
depressing the flow of mass to smaller particles. In turn, a smaller mass
flow rate lowers the cross-sectional area of the swarm and weakens the
infrared excess.
When gas drag and radiation pressure effectively remove small particles
inside 2~AU, the IR excess drops dramatically. For disks with 0.001--0.01\%
of the MMSN, the dust luminosity drops by 2--4 orders of magnitude.
If this remnant disk extends close to the stellar photosphere, particles
with sizes $\gtrsim$ 1~mm either evaporate or fall onto the photosphere.
Thus, residual gas disks as dilute as 0.001\% of the MMSN can remove the
small solids ($<100\,\micron$) that make up 90\% of the cross-sectional
area of the debris, reducing the IR excess at 5--20~Myr to a level
consistent with the observational constraints. Less dilute gas disks
(0.01\% of the MMSN) can reduce the population of small grains $<100\,\micron$
indirectly, by removing the 1--10~mm solids that generate them through
collisions. More dilute gas disks are less efficient in removing solids
$> 10\,\micron$ and therefore less able to limit the IR excess.
We conclude that a residual gas disk in the range 0.001--1\% of the MMSN
that persists
for $\sim 10$\,Myr is dilute enough to allow giant impacts to assemble
terrestrial planets in classical planet formation, but dense enough to
minimize the observable IR excess produced by the resulting debris.
\subsection{Observational Constraints on Residual Gas Disks}
\label{sec: disc-resid}
Current observational constraints on the surface density of residual
circumstellar gas disks cannot exclude our
picture for reducing
IR excesses around 10~Myr old solar-type stars.
Constraints on the residual gas content of disks from {\it in situ}
diagnostics are model-dependent \citep{gorti2004} and not
highly restrictive in this context. For example, analyses
of {\it Spitzer} IRS emission line diagnostics for a sample
of FEPS targets with little evidence for warm debris disks
place a formal limit on the gas surface density
$\Sigma_g < 0.01$\% of MMSN beyond 1~AU \citep{pascucci2006}.
If this upper limit were to extend inside 1\,AU, the surface density
would be low enough to allow giant impacts
in the classical planet formation picture
\citep[e.g.,][]{kominami2002,kominami2004} and
large enough to allow the removal of small particles by gas drag.
Measuring stellar accretion is an alternate way to search for evidence
of a residual gas disk. While accretion indicates that residual gas
is present, it does not directly measure $\Sigma_g$.
To obtain a rough scaling between stellar accretion rate $\dot M_\star$
and $\Sigma_g$, we can consider the average accretion
rates of classical T Tauri stars at 1--10 Myr age.
Stellar accretion rates decrease from $\sim 10^{-8} M_{\odot}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$
at the age of Taurus-Auriga (few Myr) to $\sim 4\times 10^{-10}M_{\odot}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$
at 10 Myr \citep{sicilia2006}, i.e., only a factor of 25.
If the fractional decrement in $\dot M_\star$ indicates a
similar reduction in $\Sigma_g$, an accretion rate of
$\sim 4\times 10^{-10}M_{\odot}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ corresponds to a surface density
at 1\,AU of $4\rm \,g\,cm^{-2}$ if the initial state is an $\alpha$-disk
with a surface density of $100\rm \,g\,cm^{-2}$ at 1 AU \citep{hart1998}
or $80\rm \,g\,cm^{-2}$ if the initial state is the MMSN with a surface
density of $2000\rm \,g\,cm^{-2}$ at 1 AU \citep{weiden1977b}.
Non-accreting sources, with presumably lower $\Sigma_g$,
make up more than 90\% of young stars at 5--10 Myr age
\citep{fedele2010}.
Based on the $\dot M_\star$--$\Sigma$ scaling relation,
it appears that we need to probe very low accretion rates
$\sim 10^{-13}-10^{-12}M_{\odot}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ to reach $\Sigma_g \lesssim$
$ 10^{-5} - 10^{-4}$ of the MMSN and to exclude the possibility
that 5--10 Myr old disks contain enough residual gas to erase a
debris disk signature.
For approximately solar mass stars with ages of 5--10 Myr,
chromospheric emission limits our ability to measure stellar accretion rates
below $\sim 10^{-10}M_{\odot}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ using $U$-band excesses \citep{ingleby2011b} or
hydrogen emission line fluxes \citep{manara2013}. H$\alpha$ emission
line widths \citep{natta2004} and line profile analyses
\citep{muze1998a,muze1998b}
can probe lower accretion rates \citep[e.g.,][]{muze2000,manara2013}.
From the shape and velocity extent of the H$\alpha$ line profile \citep{white2003,
natta2004}, \citet{riv2015} derive a broad range of accretion rates for 11 sources
in the 8 Myr old $\eta$ Cha group. Six sources have
$\dot M_\star \gtrsim 10^{-10}M_{\odot}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ from at least one spectrum; the other five
sources have $\dot M_\star \approx 10^{-12} - 3\times 10^{-11}M_{\odot}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$. While it
may not be appropriate to apply the \citet{natta2004} relation derived for low mass
stars to a set of solar-type stars, these accretion rates are close to the rates
required for gas drag to eliminate the IR excesses of debris disks.
There are multiple prospects for detecting a dilute reservoir of gas in
solar-type stars. CO fundamental emission \citep[e.g.,][Doppmann, Najita,
\& Carr 2016]{najita2003,salyk2011}
and UV transitions of molecular hydrogen \citep[e.g.,][]{ingleby2011a}
probe molecular gas within an AU of young stars.
Among A-type stars with debris disks, several have neutral or ionized
gas close to the star \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{hobbs1985,
ferlet1987,welsh1998,redfield2007,montgomery2012,kiefer2014,cataldi2014}.
Evaporation of comets \citep{lagrange1987,beust1990} and vaporization
of colliding particles \citep[e.g.,][]{czech2007} might supply some of
this material \citep[see also][]{kral2016}.
\subsection{Testing the Possibilities}
\label{sec: disc-test}
In our analysis, we have considered four main options to resolve the
discrepancy between the frequencies of warm debris disks $f_d$ and
Earth-mass planets $f_p$ among solar-type stars. Despite clear gaps in
our understanding of the physics of terrestrial planet formation, there
is no obvious way to modify the theories to limit the detectability of
warm debris at 5--20~Myr. Uncertainties in our ability to relate IR
excesses to debris from rocky planet formation are unlikely to change
$f_d$. Although overestimating the observed frequency of Earth-mass
planets is a plausible cause for the difference between $f_d$ and $f_p$,
the `best' explanation is rapid drift of small particles in a residual
gaseous circumstellar disk.
Future observations and theoretical investigations can test all four
explanations. We outline several possibilities.
\begin{itemize}
\item Search for fainter warm excess signatures in large samples of young
solar-type stars. Current sensitivity limits are not much lower than
theoretical predictions. If warm excesses are simply a factor of 2--3
fainter than predicted, detecting these excesses with more sensitive
surveys \citep[e.g., using MIRI on JWST;][]{wright2003,wells2006,bouchet2015}
may be able to distinguish neat scenarios from quick scenarios.
For example, placing stricter limits on the level of 16~\ifmmode {\rm \,\mu {\rm m}}\else $\rm \,\mu {\rm m}$\fi\ excess
($\lesssim$ 10\% of the stellar photosphere)
would probe initial solid masses in debris of a few percent of MMSN
(Fig.~\ref{fig: flux-ratio2}).
\item In {\it Kepler}\ systems with apparent Earth-mass planets, better limits
on (i) the false-positive rate, (ii) the frequency of multiple planets,
and (iii) the distributions of $e$ and $\imath$ in systems with multiple
Earth-mass planets
would reduce the uncertainties in the fraction of stars that host
Earth-mass planets inside 1--2~AU.
Theoretical studies into the stability of systems with multiple
Earth-mass planets would place constraints on the ability of
these systems to `hide' from radial velocity and transit observations.
\item Hunt for planets around all young (5--20~Myr) solar-type stars.
Several recent studies identify massive planets orbiting several
pre-main sequence stars \citep[e.g.,][]{mann2016,gaidos2016,david2016,
donati2016,johns2016a,johns2016b}.
Identifying Earth-mass planets orbiting young stars would constrain the
timescale of terrestrial planet formation relative to the production of debris.
The K2 mission \citep{howell2014} might identify more short-period planets
within several nearby young stellar associations\footnote{Among the
candidates reported in recent analyses of the K2 data
\citep[e.g.,][]{foreman2015,vanderburg2016}, 205117205.01 matches the
position of an M2 pre-main sequence star in the Upper Sco association,
2MASS J16101473$-$1919095 \citep{luhman2012b}. IR data suggest
the star has a debris or evolved transitional disk. However, the transit
depth is very uncertain. Clarifying the existence and depth of transits
in this system would begin to place constraints on the frequency of planets
in the youngest stars.}. TESS \citep{ricker2015,sullivan2015} can search
for planets with a much larger range of orbital periods.
\item Search for evidence of tenuous residual gas disks,
at the $10^{-5}-10^{-2}$ of MMSN level, around young solar-type
stars. Direct detection of gas or robust measurement of very low mass
accretion rates tests the idea that radiation pressure and aerodynamic
drag remove the debris of terrestrial planet formation. In addition to
surveys with the NIRSPEC or MIRI spectroscopic instruments on JWST
\citep[e.g.,][]{wright2003,wells2006}, sensitive optical
\citep[e.g.,][]{xu2016} or radio (e.g., ALMA, VLA) observations might
reveal low mass gaseous disks in the terrestrial zones of 5--20~Myr old
solar-type stars.
\item Examine quick and neat modes of planet formation. Although our
current understanding appears to preclude these ideas, it is important
to quantify the ability of planet formation scenarios to assemble planets
quickly and neatly in the absence of a long-lived gaseous disk.
Future theoretical calculations of terrestrial planet formation should
include clear predictions of dust production for comparison with
observations \citep[e.g.,][]{raymond2011,genda2015a,kb2016a}.
\item Consider the late stages of protostellar disk evolution in more
detail. Current mechanisms for disk dispersal (e.g., photoevaporation
and viscous evolution) do not make firm predictions for the structure
of gaseous material on time scales of 10--100~Myr
\citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{gorti2015}. For example, including
the gas from the evaporation of comets or vaporization of colliding
planetesimals in photoevaporation models would help to constrain the
long-term evolution of debris and gas in the terrestrial zones of
young stars.
\end{itemize}
\section{SUMMARY}
\label{sec: summary}
In the past decade, detailed analyses of {\it Kepler}, {\it Spitzer}, and
{\it WISE}\ data have established estimates for the frequencies of
Earth-mass planets and warm dust in the terrestrial zones of
solar-type stars. Although rocky planets are fairly common, the
expected dusty `signature' of terrestrial planet formation among
5--20~Myr old stars is a rare phenomenon. Potential explanations
for the discrepancy include the possibility that
(i) terrestrial planets are much less common than believed,
(ii) planet formation is quicker and/or neater than predicted, and
(iii) some physical mechanism removes warm dust rapidly. Although
we cannot preclude some combination of the first two options,
gas drag and radiation pressure can efficiently eliminate warm
dust particles from the terrestrial zone when a residual gaseous
circumstellar disk has a surface density of $> 10^{-5}$ of the MMSN.
Current constraints on the gas surface density within 1~AU of 5--10~Myr
old solar-type stars are consistent with this limit. Thus, tenuous
reservoirs of gas may impact our ability to observe the debris
produced by rocky planet formation.
If they do, warm debris is not a reliable signpost of rocky planet formation.
Modifying planet formation theory to resolve the discrepancy is tenable
if planet formation is much more efficient than currently predicted by
theory and leaves behind little debris.
This scenario echoes the results of several previous studies
\citep[e.g.,][]{greaves2010b,najita2014} that attempt to reconcile the
inventory of solids bound up in known populations of exoplanets with
the solid masses of protoplanetary disks. Producing the known exoplanet
systems from the limited solid reservoirs in protoplanetary (Class I)
disks requires a planet formation efficiency of roughly 30\%.
If there is a substantial population of undiscovered planets or
if planet formation is a messy process that discards solids by
producing significant debris,
the required efficiency of planet formation rises.
In the scenarios we investigate, typically $\sim 80$\% (20\%)
of the initial solid mass ends up in rocky planets (debris).
To limit debris production, it is advantageous to start the
planet formation process with an initial mass in solids reasonably
close to the final mass in stable planets.
Without some process that removes small grains from the disk,
theoretical scenarios
that invoke much larger initial mass reservoirs
\citep[e.g.,][]{hansen2012,hansen2013,hansen2015,volk2015,levison2015}
should produce very large IR excesses which violate existing
constraints from observations of 5--20~Myr solar-type stars.
In this sense, collisional debris can place strong constraints
on planet formation scenarios.
As outlined in \S\ref{sec: debris}--\ref{sec: disc},
stringent tests require
(i) tighter observational constraints on warm dust and residual
disk gas during the expected epoch of terrestrial planet formation
and (ii) planet assembly simulations which include the effect of
gas drag in a residual gas disk.
\acknowledgements
We acknowledge a generous allotment of computer time on the NASA
`discover' cluster. We thank G. Herczeg for valuable discussions
of stellar accretion rates. Comments from and discussions with
S. Andrews, J. Carpenter, M. Geller, A. Glassgold, G. Kennedy,
N. Murray, I. Pascucci, D. Wilner, and an anonymous referee
improved our presentation. Portions of this project were
supported by the {\it NASA Outer Planets Program} through grant
NNX11AM37G. The work of JN was performed in part at the Aspen
Center for Physics, which is supported by National Science
Foundation grant PHY-1066293. JN also acknowledges the
stimulating research environment supported by NASA Agreement
No. NXX15AD94G to the {\it Earths in Other Solar Systems} program.
|
\section{Introduction}
In several recent papers (eg \cite{bk1,dean,howhi1,mewe1,mi1}) embedded minimal disks have been constructed that have the appearance of a {\em coil}. They contain a core curve along which the surface normal rotates in a controllable way. Increasing the rotational speed of the normal allows then to construct and study minimal limit foliations and their singular sets.
The classical example is the helicoid. Here, increasing the (constant) rotational speed is equivalent to scaling the surface.
The next complicated case of minimal M\"o{}bius strips with core curve a circle and a normal field that rotates with constant speed was studied by Mira (\cite{mi1}).
More recently, and Meeks and the second author (\cite{mewe1}) have generalized this construction to surfaces with core curve any given compact $C^1$ curve. Instrumental for this construction was the possibility to explicitly control the model case of a circular core curve. A surprising byproduct of this investigation was that the ``circular helicoids'' where not only defined near the core circle, but were in fact finite total curvature minimal surfaces.
Our approach to construct new explicit and global examples of minimal surfaces where the normal rotates arbitrarily fast about the core curve utilizes the Bj\"o{}rling formula.
This is an integral formula that produces a minimal surface for any given real analytic space curve $c$ and unit normal field $n$ along $c$. Our first problem is that the
integrals arising in this formula are rarely explicit. Using quaternions, we overcome this difficulty by constructing suitable curves in $\mbox{\bf SO}(3)$ that serve as frame fields. While this alone gives us a plethora of new examples, we face a second problem: We would like (to some extent) control the geometry of the constructed surfaces.
This is achieved in the second part of the paper, where we show that a large class of planar curves (containing many classical curves) admit lifts into Euclidean space that can be used as core curves for explicit minimal coils. For closed planar curves, the lifted curve will be periodic, and its translational period can be controlled by a parameter in the construction. We show that for a generic choice of the parameter, the surface is defined in the entire complex plane and regular everywhere.
In the last section we give many new examples. For instance, the method is powerful enough to create an explicit knotted minimal M\"o{}bius band of finite total curvature.
\section{Explicit Bj\"o{}rling surfaces}\label{sec:explicit}
We begin by reviewing the Bj\"o{}rling formula.
Let $c:I\subset\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^3$ be a real analytic curve, called the {\em core curve}, and let $n$ be a real analytic unit vector field along $c$ with $\langle c'(t),n(t)\rangle=0$ for every $t\in I$. By analyticity, the functions $c$ and $n$ have holomorphic extensions $c(z)$ and $n(z)$ to a simply-connected domain $\Omega$ with $I \subset\Omega$. Fix $t_0\in I$ and define
\begin{equation}\label{bj}
X(u,v)=X(z)=\operatorname{Re} \left(c(z)-i\int_{t_0}^z n(w)\wedge c'(w)\ dw \right),\quad\quad z=u+iv \ .
\end{equation}
We point out that the integral in \eqref{bj} is taken along an arbitrary path in $\Omega$ joining $t_0$ and $z$ and it does not depend on the chosen path because $\Omega$ is simply-connected. The surface $X(u,v)$ is the unique minimal surface such that the curve $c$ is the parameter curve $v=0$ and the unit normal field to the surface $X(u,v)$ coincides with $n$ along $c$ (\cite{dhkw}). We say that $X(u,v)$ is the Bj\"o{}rling surface with Bj\"o{}rling data $\{c,n\}$.
As the parametrization given by the Bj\"o{}rling formula is conformal, one can always find Weierstrass data $G$ and $dh$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:wei}
c' - i\cdot n\wedge c' =
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac12\left(\frac1G-G\right)\, dh \\
\frac{i}2\left(\frac1G+G\right)\, dh \\
dh\\
\end{pmatrix} \ .
\end{equation}
Here $G$ denotes the stereographic projection of the Gauss map and $dh$ the height differential as usual.
In terms of these Weierstrass data, the conformal factor of the Riemannian metric of $X(u,v)$ is given by \cite{ka5}
\[
|dX| = \frac12\left(|G| +\frac1{|G|}\right) |dh| \ .
\]
This will allow us to determine when our surfaces are regular.
In order to construct minimal surfaces with arbitrarily fast rotating normal, we would like to begin with a real analytic space curve $c$ and two unit normal fields $n_1(t)$, $n_2(t)$ such that $c'(t)$, $n_1(t)$ and $n_2(t)$ are an orthogonal basis of $\mathbb{R}^3$ for each $t$. Then we form a spinning normal relative to $n_1$ and $n_2$ by writing
\[
n(t) = \cos(\alpha(t))\cdot n_1(t) + \sin(\alpha(t) )\cdot n_2(t)
\]
for a suitable rotation angle function $\alpha(t)$, and use $c$ and $n$ as Bj\"o{}rling data.
Our construction of globally defined and explicit examples is based on the following idea. If we could choose $c$, $n_1$ and $n_2$ such that the matrix $(c'(t), n_1(t), n_2(t))$ is a curve in $\mbox{\bf SO}(3)$ with entries given as trigonometric polynomials, then the integral in the Bj\"o{}rling formula can be explicitly evaluated for any linear function $\alpha(t) = at+b$. Note that both the helicoid and the circular helicoid in \cite{mewe1} are of this form.
We can in fact do somewhat better than that, both relaxing the requirements on the matrix entries and on the matrix itself.
We begin by formalizing which functions we allow as coordinate functions.
\begin{definition}
We call a real valued function of a real variable $t$ {\em polyexp} if it is a linear combination of functions of the form $t^n e^{k t}$,
where $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $k\in\mathbb{C}$.
\end{definition}
Hence polynomials, exponentials, and trigonometric functions are all polyexp. Using integration by parts and induction, we obtain the following simple observation.
\begin{lemma}
The products, integrals and derivatives of polyexp functions are again polyexp.
\end{lemma}
In fact, based on the formulas that follow, we could allow any class of analytic functions that is closed under sums, products, derivatives, and integration. For instance, if one is not interested in the explicit nature of new examples but rather in their global features, one could allow all entire functions that are real valued on the real axis.
As a consequence of this definition, we obtain the following corollary, which is the basis for our construction.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:key}
Given polyexp vectors $e_1(t)$, $e_2(t)$, $e_3(t)\in \mathbb{R}^3$ and a nonvanishing polyexp function $\mu(t)$ such that $\frac 1{\mu} (e_1, e_2, e_3)\in \mbox{\bf SO}(3)$, we can explicitly find a curve $c(t)$ with $c'(t) = e_1(t)$. Then, the curve $c(t)$ and the rotating normal
\[
n(t) =\frac 1{\mu(t)} \left( \cos(at+b) e_2(t) + \sin(a t+b) e_3(t)\right)
\]
provide Bj\"o{}rling data that can be explicitly integrated. Moreover, the resulting Bj\"o{}rling surface is defined on the entire complex plane.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Note that in the Bj\"o{}rling formula, the integrand $c' \wedge n$ is polyexp because the factor $\mu$ cancels.
\end{proof}
\section{The Quaternion Method}
To apply the method from the previous section, we need to produce examples of polyexp curves in $\mathbb{R}\cdot \mbox{\bf SO}(3)$. Our first approach utilizes quaternions.
Let $\mathbb{H}$ denote the real algebra of quaternions that we write as usual as $q_1{\bf 1}+q_2{\bf i}+q_3{\bf j}+q_4{\bf k}$, where $\{{\bf 1},{\bf i}, {\bf j}, {\bf k}\}$ is the canonical basis of $\mathbb{H}$ and $(q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4)\in\mathbb{R}^4$.
For non-zero $q\in\mathbb{H}$, the linear map
\begin{align*}
\rho_q:\mathbb{H} & \rightarrow\mathbb{H} \\
\rho_q(v)&\mapsto qv \bar{q}
\end{align*}
acts on the imaginary quaternions as an element $\Phi(q)\in \mathbb{R}\cdot \mbox{\bf SO}(3)$. Explicitly,
\[
\Phi(q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4) =
\begin{pmatrix}
q_1^2+q_2^2-q_3^2-q_4^2 & 2 q_2 q_3-2 q_1 q_4 & 2 q_1 q_3+2 q_2 q_4 \\
2 q_1 q_4+2 q_2 q_3 & q_1^2-q_2^2+q_3^2-q_4^2 & 2 q_3 q_4-2 q_1 q_2 \\
2 q_2 q_4-2 q_1 q_3 & 2 q_1 q_2+2 q_3 q_4 & q_1^2-q_2^2-q_3^2+q_4^2 \\
\end{pmatrix} \ .
\]
As a consequence we have
\begin{lemma}
Let $q(t)$ be a polyexp curve in $\mathbb{R}^4$. Let $\mu(t) = |q(t)|^2$. Then both $\mu$ and $\Phi(q)$ are polyexp, and $\frac1\mu \Phi(q)\in\mbox{\bf SO}(3)$. In particular, Theorem \ref{thm:key} applies.
\end{lemma}
This lemma allows to find algebraically simple explicit Bj\"o{}rling surfaces with arbitrarily fast rotating normal. We conclude this section with examples.
\subsection{Circular Helicoids}\label{sec:circular}
For our first example, let $q(t)=(\cos(t/2),0,0,-\sin(t/2))$ be a great circle in $\mathbb{S}^3$. Let $Q(t) = \Phi(q(t))$.
Then
\[
Q(t)=
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos (t) & \sin (t) & 0 \\
-\sin (t) & \cos (t) & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{pmatrix}
\ .
\]
Integrating the first column gives the core curve
\[
c(t) = \begin{pmatrix}
\sin (t) \\
\cos (t) \\
0 \\ \end{pmatrix} \ ,
\]
a circle in the $xy$-plane.
The rotating normal is given as a linear combination of the second and third column as
\[
n(t) = \cos(at+b)
\begin{pmatrix}
\sin (t) \\
\cos (t) \\
0 \\
\end{pmatrix}
+
\sin(at+b)
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
0 \\
1 \\
\end{pmatrix} \ .
\]
We can assume that $b=0$ as other choices of $b$ will only rotate the surface about the $z$-axis, unless $a=0$, in which case the surface will be a plane or catenoid.
These are the Bj\"o{}rling data of the bent helicoids studied in \cite{mewe1}. Note that when $a\in \mathbb{Z}+\frac12$, the surface is non-orientable. The case of $a=\frac12$ is Meeks' minimal M\"o{}bius strip (\cite{me}).
See Figure \ref{fig:circle72} when $a=7/2$. In Figure \ref{fig:circle4} the choice is $a=2$.
The Weierstrass data of these surfaces are given by
\begin{align*}
G(z) &=(\sin (z)+i \cos (z)) \frac{\cos (a z) }{1-\sin (a z)}\\
dh &= i \cos(az) \, dz \ .
\end{align*}
After the substitution $w=e^{i z}$ this becomes
\begin{align*}
G(w) &=\frac1w \frac{w^a+i}{w^a-i} \\
dh &= \frac12\frac{w^{2a}+1}{w^{a+1}} \, dw \ .
\end{align*}
This shows that the surface is (for $a$ a positive integer) defined on $\mathbb{C}^*$, is regular, the Gauss map has degree $a+1$, and hence the surface has finite total curvature $-4\pi (a+1)$.
\def2.5in{2.7in}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Circle4.png}
\caption{$a=2$}
\label{fig:circle4}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Circle7.png}
\caption{$a=7/2$}
\label{fig:circle72}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Bj\"o{}rling surfaces with circular core.}
\label{fig:circle}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Torus Knots}
As a second simple example, we apply the quaternion method to torus knots in $\mathbb{R}^4$. Let
\[
q_0(t) = \cos(At){\bf 1}+\cos(Bt){\bf i}+ \sin(B t){\bf j}+ \sin(A t){\bf k} \ ,
\]
and define
\[
q(t) = \frac12 q_0(t)\cdot ({\bf 1}+{\bf i}+{\bf j}+{\bf k})
\]
in order to move $q_0$ away from a standard position and to eventually simplify the Weierstrass representation of the minimal surfaces we obtain. Then
\[
Q(t) = \begin{pmatrix}
\sin (2 B t)-\sin (2 A t) & 2 \sin ((A+B) t) & \cos (2 A t)+\cos (2 B t) \\
\cos (2 A t)-\cos (2 B t) & -2 \cos ((A+B) t) & \sin (2 A t)+\sin (2 B t) \\
2 \cos ((A-B) t) & 0 & 2 \sin ((A-B) t) \\
\end{pmatrix}
\]
Integrating the first column gives the space curve
\[
c(t) = \frac{1}{2}\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\cos (2 A t)}{A}-\frac{\cos (2 B t)}{B} \\
\frac{\sin (2 A t)}{A}-\frac{\sin (2 B t)}{B} \\
\frac{4 \sin ((A-B) t)}{A-B} \\
\end{pmatrix} \ .
\]
Observe that while the curve we begin with is a torus knot, the resulting space curve has no reason to be knotted.
The rotating normal is given as the normalized linear combination of the second and third column as
\[
n(t) = \cos(at+b)
\begin{pmatrix}
\sin ((A+B) t) \\
-\cos ((A+B) t) \\
0 \\
\end{pmatrix}
+\frac12
\sin(at+b)
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos (2 A t)+\cos (2 B t) \\
\sin (2 A t)+\sin (2 B t) \\
2 \sin ((A-B) t) \\
\end{pmatrix} \ .
\]
In the simplest case for $a=0$ and $b=0$ the resulting Bj\"o{}rling surfaces are generalized Enneper surfaces. For instance, for $A=-\frac12$ and $B=\frac32$, we obtain the standard Enneper surface as shown in Figure \ref{fig:enneper0}. The ``hole'' in the center will eventually close. If we rotate the normal by $90^\circ$ by letting $b=\pi/2$, we obtain the surface in Figure \ref{fig:enneper1} with two ends.
\def2.5in{2.7in}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Enneper0.png}
\caption{$b=0$}
\label{fig:enneper0}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Enneper1.png}
\caption{$b=\pi/2$}
\label{fig:enneper1}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Bj\"o{}rling surfaces related to Enneper's surface}
\label{fig:enneper}
\end{figure}
Increasing $a$ creates helicoidal surfaces along the core curve, as in Figure \ref{fig:enneper20} for $a=20$.
Enneper surfaces with $k$-fold dihedral symmetry can be obtained by using $A=-\frac12$ and $B=\frac12(2k-1)$. The planar Enneper surfaces with $k$-fold dihedral symmetry (\cite{ka5})
arise if we choose $A=+1/2$ and $B=\frac12(2k+1)$. Examples with 3-fold dihedral symmetry and no twist are shown in Figure \ref{fig:planarenneper}, and a version with the same core curve but faster rotating normal appears in Figure \ref{fig:PlanarEnneper50}.
\def2.5in{2.7in}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{PlanarEnneper0.png}
\caption{$b=0$}
\label{fig:planarenneper0}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{PlanarEnneper1.png}
\caption{$b=\pi/2$}
\label{fig:planarenneper1}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Bj\"o{}rling surfaces related to planar Enneper's surface}
\label{fig:planarenneper}
\end{figure}
For other (rational) choices of $A$ and $B$, the surfaces will be immersed with two ends, regular, and of finite total curvature. To see this, we compute from the unintegrated Bj\"o{}rling formula the Gauss map and height differential (using Equation \ref{eqn:wei}) in the coordinate $w$ given by $z=e^{i w}$.
\begin{align*}
G(w) &= -\frac{i w^{A+B} \left(e^{i b} w^{a+A}+e^{i b} w^{a+B}+w^A-w^B\right)}{e^{i b} w^{a+A}-e^{i b}
w^{a+B}+w^A+w^B}\\
dh &=\frac{i}{2} \frac{w^{2 B} \left(e^{i b} w^a-1\right)^2-w^{2 A} \left(e^{i
b} w^a+1\right)^2}
{e^{i b} w^{a+A+B+1} } \, dw \ .
\end{align*}
If $a=b=0$ this simplifies to
\begin{align*}
G(w) &= -i w^{A+B}\\
dh &=-2 i w^{A-B-1}\, dw \ .
\end{align*}
which are the Weierstrass data of the generalized Enneper surfaces (see \cite{ka5}), as claimed.
For $a>0$ a positive integer, we limit the regularity discussion to the standard Enneper case when $A=-\frac12$, $B=\frac32$ and $b=0$ in order to keep the formulas simple. Let
\begin{align*}
P(w) &=i w \left(w^{a+2}+w^a-w^2+1\right)\\
Q(w)&= w^{a+2}-w^a-w^2-1 \ . \\
\end{align*}
Then
\begin{align*}
G(w) &= \frac{P(w)}{Q(w)}\\
dh &=\frac1{2w^{a+4}}P(w)Q(w) \, dw \ .
\end{align*}
To see that the surface is regular in all of $\mathbb{C}^*$, we need to show that the conformal factor does not vanish and has no singularities. This is equivalent to $P$ and $Q$ having no common roots. Suppose that $w$ is a common root of $P$ and $Q$. Then also
$0=P(w)-i w Q(w) = 2i w(w^a+1)$. Thus $w=0$ or $w^a+1=0$. But $Q(0)=1$ and if $w^a=-1$, then $Q(w) = -2w^2$. This implies that in $\mathbb{C}^*$ the height differential has a zero if and only if the Gauss map has a zero or pole of matching order. This in turn implies that the surface is regular.
We also see that the Gauss map has degree $a+3$ when $a>0$. This degree drops to 1 if $a=0$ due to cancellations.
\def2.5in{2.7in}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Enneper20.png}
\caption{$A=-\frac12$, $B=\frac32$ and $a=20$}
\label{fig:enneper20}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{PlanarEnneper50.png}
\caption{$A=+\frac12$, $B=\frac72$ and $a=50$}
\label{fig:PlanarEnneper50}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Bj\"o{}rling surfaces based on Enneper core curves}
\label{fig:twistenneper}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Periodic Surfaces}\label{sec:snake}
So far, the core curves of the examples we have considered have been closed curves. This is in general not the case. As an example, we consider the entry curve $q(t)$ given as the quaternion product of two great circles of $\mathbb{S}^3$. Let
\begin{align*}
q_1(t) &=\cos(t/2){\bf j} + \sin(t/2){\bf k} \\
q_2(t) &=-\cos(t/2){\bf 1} + \sin(t/2) {\bf k}
\end{align*}
Then
\begin{align*}
q(t) &= q_1(t)\cdot q_2(t) \\
&= -\sin(t/2)^2 \, {\bf 1} +\frac12 \sin(t)\, {\bf i} - \cos(t/2)^2\, {\bf j} -\frac12 \sin(t) \, {\bf k}
\end{align*}
and
\[
Q(t)=
\begin{pmatrix}
-\cos (t) & -\sin (t) & 0 \\
-\cos (t) \sin (t) & \cos ^2(t) & \sin (t) \\
-\sin ^2(t) & \cos (t) \sin (t) & -\cos (t) \\
\end{pmatrix}
\]
so that the core curve becomes $c(t)=\left(-\sin (t),\frac12 \cos ^2(t),\frac{1}{4} \sin (2 t)-\frac{t}{2}\right)$ and the rotating normal is given by
\[
n(t) = \cos(at+b)
\begin{pmatrix}
-\sin ( t) \\
\cos^2 ( t) \\
\cos(t)\sin(t) \\
\end{pmatrix}
+
\sin(at+b)
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\
\sin(t) \\
-\cos(t) \\
\end{pmatrix} \ .
\]
Note that this curve is periodic in the $z$-direction and projects onto the $xy$ plane as a singular piece of the parabola $y=2(1-x^2)$. We will come back to this example from a different point of view in Section \ref{sec:lissajous}.
Using the coordinate $w$ on $\mathbb{C}^*$ with $z=e^{i w}$ we obtain as the Weierstrass representation of the surface divided by its translational symmetry
\begin{align*}
G(w) &= \frac{P(w)}{Q(w)}\\
dh &=\frac{e^{-i b}}{8w^{a+3}} \, dw
\end{align*}
with
\begin{align*}
P(w) &= e^{i b} \left(w^2+1\right) w^a-i (w+2) w+i\\
Q(w) &= e^{i b} ((w-2) w-1) w^a-i \left(w^2+1\right)
\end{align*}
In general, the degree of the Gauss map is $a+2$ except when $a=0$ and $b=\pi/2$ (see Figure \ref{fig:TransEnneper}), when the degree is 1. In this case, the Weierstrass representation simplifies to
\begin{align*}
G(w) &= \frac{w-1}{w+1}\\
dh &=\frac{i}{2w^3} (w^2-1) \, dw
\end{align*}
with an annular Scherk end at 0 and a higher order end at $\infty$.
In any case, the surfaces are regular everywhere in $\mathbb{C}^*$. This can for instance be seen by computing the resultant of $P(w)$ and $Q(w)$ as
\[
\operatorname{Res}(P,Q) = -8^{a+1}i^a e^{(a+2) i b}
\]
which never vanishes.
\def2.5in{2.8in}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{TransEnneper.png}
\caption{$a=0$, $b=\frac\pi2$}
\label{fig:TransEnneper}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{snake.png}
\caption{$a=5$, $b=0$}
\label{fig:snake}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Periodic Bj\"o{}rling surfaces based on the quaternion product of two great circles}
\label{fig:periodic}
\end{figure}
\section{Lifting Plane Curves}
The major drawback of the the quaternion method is that it gives little control over the geometry of the core curve. In the translation invariant examples that we created with the quaternion method we noticed that the core curve often had a simple projection onto the plane perpendicular to the translation. This suggested the question whether one could prescribe a planar curve $(x(t), y(t))$ and lift it to a space curve $c(t)=(x(t), y(t),z(t))$
such that $c'(t)$ is the first column of a matrix $Q(t)=\Phi(q(t))$ for a suitable curve $q(t)\in \mathbb{R}^4$. Of course all this should happen in the realm of polyexp functions.
To our delight, this is indeed possible. Moreover, the matrices $\Phi(q(t))$ we obtained this way turned out to be rather special elements of $\mathbb{R}\cdot \mbox{\bf SO}(3)$, namely $180^\circ$ rotations followed by scalings. While this does not achieve full generality, it allows for a very simple description and a highly effective method.
More precisely, we have:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:lift}
Given a planar polyexp curve $(x(t),y(t))$, there is family of explicit polyexp curves
\[
\Psi_\lambda(t) \in \mathbb{R}\cdot \mbox{\bf SO}(3)
\]
depending on a parameter $\lambda \in\mathbb{R}$,
such that the projection of the integral
$c(t)$ of the first column of $\Psi_\lambda(t) $ onto the $xy$-plane is the curve $(x(t),y(t))$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Recall that for a (column) vector $v\in \mathbb{R}^n$, the symmetric matrix
\[
R(v) = 2v\cdot v^t - v^t v I_n
\]
is the $180^\circ$ degree rotation about the line in the direction of $v$, followed by a scaling by $|v|^2$. Explicitly, in $\mathbb{R}^3$, for $v=(x,y,z)$,
\[
R(x,y,z) = \Phi(x{\bf i} + y {\bf j} + z {\bf k}) = \begin{pmatrix}
x^2-y^2-z^2 & 2 x y & 2 x z \\
2 x y & -x^2+y^2-z^2 & 2 y z \\
2 x z & 2 y z & -x^2-y^2+z^2 \\
\end{pmatrix}
\]
In particular, $R(x,y,z) \in \mathbb{R} \mbox{\bf SO}(3)$, and when $x$, $y$, and $z$ are polyexp in $t$, then so is $R(x,y,z)$. Note that this matrix is also symmetric, which implies that it represents a $180^\circ$ rotation followed by a scaling.
Now let a polyexp planar curve $(x(t), y(t))$ be given, and fix a constant $\lambda\in \mathbb{R}$. Define the polyexp curve
\[
\Psi_\lambda(t) = \frac1{2\lambda} R(x'(t), y'(t),\lambda) \ .
\]
Then $\Psi_\lambda(t)$ satisfies the assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:key} with
\[
\mu(t) = \frac1{2\lambda} \left( \lambda^2+x'(t)^2+y'(t)^2\right) \ ,
\]
and hence its columns can be used to find an explicit Bj\"o{}rling surface.
We intentionally choose the {\em third} column of $\Psi$ as $c'$, namely
\[
c'(t) =
\begin{pmatrix}
x'(t) \\
y'(t) \\
\frac1{2 \lambda }\left( \lambda ^2-x'(t)^2-y'(t)^2\right)\\
\end{pmatrix} \ .
\]
This is dictated by the desire to lift a curve in the $xy$-plane and to use symmetric matrices.
With the appropriate integration constants, the space curve $c$ then projects onto the $xy$-plane as the given curve $(x(t), y(t))$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
We note that for a {\em closed} planar curve $(x(t), y(t))$ defined on an interval $[t_0, t_1]$, the constructed lifts will in general not be closed but periodic with a translational period in the $z$-direction given by
\[
T = \frac12\lambda (t_1-t_0) - \frac1{2\lambda}\int_{t_0}^{t_1} x'(t)^2+y'(t)^2 \, dt \ .
\]
This shows, however, that for a suitable choice of $\lambda$, we can {\em always} obtain closed lifts.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:other}
One can carry out this construction also for non-constant $\lambda$ as long as the function $ \left( x'(t)^2+y'(t)^2\right)/\lambda(t)$ is polyexp. We will see an example in Section \ref{sec:lissajous}.
\end{remark}
In order to define a rotating normal along $c$, let
\begin{align*}
n_1(t) &= \frac1{2\lambda} \begin{pmatrix}
-\lambda^2+x'(t)^2-y'(t)^2\\
2{x'(t) y'(t)}\\
2\lambda x'(t) \\
\end{pmatrix}\\
n_2(t) &= \frac1{2\lambda} \
\begin{pmatrix}
2x'(t) y'(t)\\
-\lambda ^2-x'(t)^2+y'(t)^2 \\
2\lambda y'(t) \\\end{pmatrix}
\end{align*}
be the first two columns of $\Psi_\lambda(t)$. Then define for real parameters $a$ and $b$ the normal
\[
n(t) =\frac{2\lambda}{\lambda^2+x'(t)^2+y'(t)^2}\left(
\cos(at + b)
n_1(t)
+\sin(at+b)
n_2(t)
\right) \ .
\]
We use the pair $\{c,n\}$ as Bj\"o{}rling data. As both $c(t)$ and $n(t)$ are polyexp, the corresponding Bj\"o{}rling surface will be explicit.
We will show next that the surfaces constructed this way are almost always regular.
\begin{theorem}
Let $(x(t), y(t))$ be a polyexp plane curve, let $c(t)$ be the polyexp curve in $\mathbb{R}^3$ constructed in Theorem \ref{thm:lift}, and $n(t)$
the normal defined above. Assume that $\cos(at+b) x'(t) + \sin(at+b) y'(t)$ is {\em not} identical equal to 0; this will be true for all but at most one choice of real numbers $(a,b)$.
Then the Bj\"o{}rling surface given by these data is defined in the entire complex plane and regular for a generic choice of $\lambda$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We introduce the functions
\begin{align*}
P(w) &=\frac{i e^{-\frac{1}{2} i (a w+b)}}{\sqrt{2} \sqrt{\lambda }}
\left(x'(w)+i y'(w) +\lambda e^{i (a w+b)}\right) \\
Q(w) &= \frac{i e^{-\frac{1}{2} i (a w+b)}}{\sqrt{2} \sqrt{\lambda }}
\left(e^{i (a w+b)} \left(x'(w)-i y'(w)\right)-\lambda\right) \ ,
\end{align*}
in which we will express the Weierstrass data of the Bj\"o{}rling surface.
The unintegrated Bj\"o{}rling formula gives us the Weierstrass representation
\begin{align*}
c'(w) - i\cdot c'(w) \wedge n(w) &=
\begin{pmatrix}
x'(w) \\
y'(w) \\
\frac1{2 \lambda } \left(\lambda ^2-x'(w)^2-y'(w)^2\right)\\
\end{pmatrix}+\\
&\qquad
+ i\cos(aw+b)
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac1{\lambda }{x'(w) y'(w)} \\
-\frac1{2 \lambda }\left(\lambda ^2+x'(w)^2-y'(w)^2\right) \\
y'(w) \\
\end{pmatrix}
\\
&\qquad
+i \sin(aw+b)
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac1{2 \lambda } \left(\lambda ^2-x'(w)^2+y'(w)^2\right)\\
-\frac1{\lambda } {x'(w) y'(w)}\\
-x'(w) \\
\end{pmatrix}\\
\end{align*}
Solving Equation (\ref{eqn:wei}) for the Weierstrass data $G$ and $dh$ yields (after a tedious computation)
\begin{align*}
G(w) &= \frac{P(w)}{Q(w)} \\
dh &= P(w)Q(w) \, dw \ .\\
\end{align*}
Note that $P$ and $Q$ are entire functions. If they do not vanish simultaneously at a point $w$, then whenever $dh$ vanishes at $w$, $G$ must have a zero or pole of the same order at $w$, which implies that the surface is regular at $w$. So we need to show that for a generic choice of $\lambda$, $P$ and $Q$ do never vanish simultaneously.
Solving both equations $P(w)=0$ and $Q(w)=0$ for $\lambda$, we obtain
\[
\lambda = -e^{-i (a w+b)} \left(x'(w)+i y'(w)\right) = e^{i (a w+b)} \left(x'(w)-i y'(w)\right)
\]
By the identity theorem, the set of points $w$ where the second of these two equations is satisfied will either be a discrete subset of the complex plane, or the entire complex plane.
In the first case, we just avoid the discrete set of values where the two expressions agree. In the second case, we note that the second equation is equivalent to
\[
\cos(aw+b) x'(w) + \sin(aw+b) y'(w) = 0 \ ,
\]
which must now hold for all $w$, violating our assumption.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:singular}
We briefly discuss the condition on $a$ and $b$. In the case that $\cos(aw+b) x'(w) + \sin(aw+b) y'(w) = 0$ holds for all $w$, we necessarily have
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
x'(w)\\ y'(w)
\end{pmatrix} = r(w) \cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
-\sin(aw+b) \\ \cos(a w+b)
\end{pmatrix}
\]
for a polyexp function $r(w)$. In this case, we obtain $\lambda = -i \cdot r(w)$. This means that if we choose $w$ so that $\lambda = -i \cdot r(w)$ is real, the polynomials $P$ and $Q$ will have a common root at $w$ for the choice of $a$, $b$, and $\lambda$, and hence the minimal surface will be singular at $w$. In other words, for this choice of $a$ and $b$, for no choice of $\lambda$ the surface will be regular in the entire complex plane. In section \ref{sec:cycloids}, we will give an example for this behavior.
Similarly, in section \ref{sec:ellipse} we will give an example that where isolated choices of $\lambda$ lead to surfaces with singularities.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The formula for the Gauss map $G$ in the proof can also be used to determine the total curvature in case the plane curve is trigonometric.
\end{remark}
\section{Examples}
In this section, we will apply Theorem \ref{thm:lift} to some classical planar curves. Except for the first example, all the surfaces we obtain are new.
\subsection{Circles}\label{sec:circles}
The lifts of circles, parametrized by arc length, will either be circles or helices.
Let $x(t)=\cos(t)$ and $y(t)=\sin(t)$. Then,
\begin{align*}
\Psi_\lambda(t) &= \frac1{2\lambda} R(x'(t), y'(t),\lambda) \\
&=\frac1{2\lambda}
\begin{pmatrix}
-\lambda ^2-\cos(2t) & -\sin (2t) & -2 \lambda \sin (t) \\
- \sin (2t) & -\lambda ^2+\cos (2t) & 2 \lambda \cos (t) \\
-2 \lambda \sin (t) & 2 \lambda \cos (t) & \lambda ^2-1 \\
\end{pmatrix} \ .
\end{align*}
The integral of the third column gives the core curve
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
x(t)\\
y(t)\\
z(t)\\
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos (t) \\
\sin (t) \\
\frac{t \left(\lambda ^2-1\right)}{2 \lambda } \\
\end{pmatrix}
\]
which is a circle (if $|\lambda|=1$) or a helix. We have discussed the circular case in Section \ref{sec:circular}. Images of Bj\"o{}rling surfaces based on a helix are in Figure \ref{fig:helices}.
Using the first two columns, we can form and simplify the rotating normal
\[
n(t) =\frac1{1+\lambda^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
-\cos ((a-2) t+b) -\cos (a t+b) \lambda ^2 \\
\sin ((a-2) t+b)- \sin (a t+b)\lambda ^2 \\
2 \sin ((a-1) t+b) \lambda\\
\end{pmatrix} \ .
\]
The Bj\"o{}rling integral can easily and explicitly be evaluated, but the equations are not illuminating. More interesting are the Weierstrass data, which can be written after the substitution $w = -i \log(z)$ as
\begin{align*}
G(w) &= \frac{P(w)}{Q(w)} \\
dh & = -\frac{ie^{-i b}}{2\lambda w^{a+1}} P(w) Q(w)\, dz
\end{align*}
with
\begin{align*}
P(w) &= w-i e^{i b} \lambda w^a\\
Q(w) &=i \lambda -e^{i b} w^{a-1} \ .
\end{align*}
This shows that if $a$ is a positive integer, the Weierstrass data of the surface are defined on the punctured plane $\mathbb{C}^*$,
and the Gauss map has degree $a$. Furthermore, $P$ and $Q$ don't have a root in common, because otherwise $P-i\lambda w Q = w(\lambda^2+1)$ had a root at the same point $w$. This would mean that $w=0$, but $Q(0)\ne0$.
This implies that the surface is regular everywhere in $\mathbb{C}^*$.
In case when $a=0$ or $a=1$, the degree of the Gauss map is 1, and the surface is in the family of associated surfaces of the catenoid.
\def2.5in{2.7in}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{helix0.png}
\caption{$a=0$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{helix10.png}
\caption{$a=10$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Bj\"o{}rling surfaces based on a helix}
\label{fig:helices}
\end{figure}
These Bj\"o{}rling surfaces based on helices can also be easily obtained using the quaternion method,
starting with a (non-great) circle of $\mathbb{S}^3$.
With a free parameter $\sigma\in (0,\pi/2)$, let
\[
q(t) = \sin(\sigma) {\bf 1}+ \cos(\sigma)\cos(t){\bf j}+ \cos(\sigma)\sin(t){\bf k} \ .
\]
We obtain
\[
Q(t)=
\begin{pmatrix}
-\cos (2 \sigma ) & - \sin (t) \sin (2\sigma ) & \cos (t) \sin (2 \sigma ) \\
\sin (t) \sin (2 \sigma ) & \cos (2 t) \cos ^2(\sigma )+\sin ^2(\sigma ) & \cos ^2(\sigma ) \sin (2 t) \\
- \cos (t) \sin (2\sigma )& \cos ^2(\sigma ) \sin (2 t) & \sin ^2(\sigma )-\cos (2 t) \cos
^2(\sigma )
\end{pmatrix} \ ,
\]
and the core curve becomes the (horizontal) helix
\[
c(t)= -\left( \cos (2 \sigma ) t , \sin (2 \sigma ) \cos (t), \sin (2\sigma ) \sin (t) \right) \ .
\]
Using this curve together with the normal vector (assuming $b=0$ without loss of generality thanks to the screw motion invariance of helices)
\[
n(t) = \cos(at)
\begin{pmatrix}
-\sin (t) \sin (2\sigma ) \\
\cos (2 t) \cos ^2(\sigma )+\sin ^2(\sigma ) \\
\cos ^2(\sigma ) \sin (2 t) \\
\end{pmatrix}
+\sin(at)
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos (t) \sin (2 \sigma ) \\
\cos ^2(\sigma ) \sin (2 t) \\
\sin ^2(\sigma )-\cos (2 t) \cos ^2(\sigma ) \\
\end{pmatrix}
\]
we obtain the same Bj\"o{}rling surfaces as above, rotated by $90^\circ$.
\subsection{Ellipses}\label{sec:ellipse}
Creating an explicit Bj\"o{}rling surface with normal rotating along a planar ellipse leads to elliptical integrals. Our lifting method avoids this problem by slightly bending the ellipse into a spatial curve.
We illustrate this with the ellipse $x(t)=\cos( t)$ and $y(t)=3\sin( t)$. This will also serve as an example where a particular choice of $\lambda$ can lead to a minimal surface with singularities.
We compute the third coordinate as
\[
z(t) = \frac1{2\lambda} \left( (\lambda^2-5) t - 2\sin(2t) \right) \ .
\]
This curve closes when $\lambda=\sqrt{5}$. We use the curve $c(t)=(x(t), y(t), z(t))$ as core curve and chose the rotating normal with $a=2$ and $b=0$ so that it is given by
\[
n(t) = \frac1{\lambda ^2+4 \cos (2 t)+5}
\begin{pmatrix}
-\left(\lambda ^2+4\right) \cos (2 t)-\cos (4 t)-4 \\
\left(4-\lambda ^2\right) \sin (2 t)+\sin (4 t) \\
2 \lambda (2 \sin (t)+\sin (3 t)) \\
\end{pmatrix} \ .
\]
After changing the coordinate $z$ to $w$ using $w=e^{i z}$, the Weierstrass data of the resulting Bj\"o{}rling surface are given by
\begin{align*}
G(w) &= \frac{-1+w^2 (-2+i \lambda w)}{w \left(-i \lambda +w^3+2 w\right)} \\
dh & = \frac{\left(-i \lambda +w^3+2 w\right) \left(w^2 (\lambda w+2 i)+i\right)}{2 \lambda
w^4} \, dw
\end{align*}
This shows that the surface is defined and regular in $\mathbb{C}^*$ {\em unless} the numerator and denominator of $G$ have a common root. This happens when $|\lambda|=1$. In case $\lambda=1$, the common roots are at
$w=\frac{i}{2} \left(\sqrt{5}-1\right)$ and $w=-\frac{i}{2} \left(\sqrt{5}+1\right)$. In Figure \ref{fig:ellipse} we show the regular surface for $\lambda=\sqrt5$ (when the core curve is closed) on the left, and the singular periodic surface with $\lambda =1$ on the right.
\def2.5in{2.8in}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{ellipse2.png}
\caption{$\lambda=\sqrt5$}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{ellipse1.png}
\caption{$\lambda=1$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Bj\"o{}rling surfaces based on an ellipse}
\label{fig:ellipse}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Lissajous Curves}\label{sec:lissajous}
\def2.5in{1.5in}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Lissajous12.pdf}
\caption{$(1,2)$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{Lissajous32.pdf}
\caption{$(3,2)$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Two Lissajous curves}
\label{fig:Lissajous}
\end{figure}
As another class of trigonometric curves, we can consider the $(\xi,\eta)$-Lissajous curves given by
$x(t)=\cos(\xi t)$ and $y(t)=\sin(\eta t)$ with integer parameters $\xi$ and $\eta$. Their lifts have as $z$ coordinate
\[
z(t) =\frac1{8\lambda}
\left(-2 \left(\xi ^2+\eta ^2-2 \lambda ^2\right)t +\xi \sin (2 \xi t)-\eta \sin
(2 \beta t)
\right) \ .
\]
We can, as observed before, make this a closed curve by choosing $\lambda$ such that
\[
2\lambda^2=\xi^2+\eta^2 \ .
\]
By changing the value of $b$ in the rotating normal
\[
n(t) =\frac{2\lambda}{\lambda^2+x'(t)^2+y'(t)^2}\left(
\cos(at + b)
n_1(t)
+\sin(at+b)
n_2(t)
\right) \ ,
\]
one can uniformly rotate the normal about the core curve. For lines, circles, or helices as core curves, the effect is just a translation, rotation, or screw motion of the surface, but for other curves, the appearance can change significantly.
In Figure \ref{fig:Lissajous21} we show the Bj\"o{}rling surfaces for the lift of the $(1,2)$-Lissajous curves with $\lambda=2$, $a=1$, and two different values of $b$.
\def2.5in{2.7in}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{lissajous12-a.png}
\caption{$b=0$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{lissajous12-b.png}
\caption{$b=\pi/2$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Bj\"o{}rling surfaces for the $(1,2)$-Lissajous curve with $a=1$.}
\label{fig:Lissajous21}
\end{figure}
In Section \ref{sec:snake} we used the quaternion method to construct a Bj\"o{}rling surface with core curve
\[
c(t)=\left(-\sin (t),\frac{\cos ^2(t)}{2},\frac{1}{4} \sin (2 t)-\frac{t}{2}\right) \ .
\]
This core curve projects onto the $xy$-plane as the curve
\[
(x(t), y(t)) = \left(-\sin (t),\frac{\cos ^2(t)}{2}\right) = \left(-\sin (t),\frac{1}{4} (\cos (2 t)+1)\right) \ ,
\]
which essentially is a Lissajous curve. Applying the lifting method to this curve gives the $z$ coordinate as
\[
z(t) = \frac1{64\lambda}
\left(4 t \left(8 \lambda^2 -5\right)-8 \sin (2 t)+\sin (4 t)\right) \ ,
\]
which is significantly more complicated than what we obtained with the quaternion method. Following Remark \ref{rem:other}, we notice that we may chose as $\lambda = \lambda(t)$ any factor of
\[
x'(t)^2+y'(t)^2 = \left(\sin ^2(t)+1\right) \cos ^2(t) \ .
\]
and will still obtain integrable Bj\"o{}rling data. In fact, using $\lambda(t) = -(\sin(t)^2+1)$ produces exactly the same core curve as in Section \ref{sec:snake}. The quaternion method is still more general, because the curves in $\mathbb{R}\cdot \mbox{\bf SO}(3)$ produced by the lifting method are always multiples of $180^\circ$ rotations.
\subsection{Cycloids}\label{sec:cycloids}
\def2.5in{1.3in}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{cycloid2.pdf}
\caption{order 2 cycloid}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{deltoid.pdf}
\caption{Deltoid}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Two cycloids}
\label{fig:cycloids}
\end{figure}
The general cycloid is the trace of a chosen point in the plane of a circle that rolls along another fixed circle. If the fixed circle has radius $R$, the rolling circle radius $r$, and the tracing point in the plane of the rolling circle has distance $s$ from the center of the rolling circle, the cycloid can be parametrized as
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
x(t)\\
y(t)
\end{pmatrix} = (R+r) \begin{pmatrix}
\cos(t)\\
\sin(t)
\end{pmatrix}
-s \begin{pmatrix}
\cos((1+R/r)t)\\
\sin((1+R/r)t)
\end{pmatrix} \ .
\]
\def2.5in{2.8in}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{cycloid2a.png}
\caption{$a=2$ and $\lambda=6$}
\label{fig:cyc2}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{cycloid2b.png}
\caption{$a=20$, closed curve}
\label{fig:cyc20}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Bj\"o{}rling surfaces based on a lifted cycloid}
\label{fig:cycloid2min}
\end{figure}
We will discuss two special cases.
Let
\[
(x(t),y(t)) = (3 \cos (t)-2 \cos (3 t),3 \sin (t)-2 \sin (3 t)) \ .
\]
The $z$-coordinate of the lifted curve becomes
\[
z(t) =
\frac1{2 \lambda } \left(t \left(\lambda ^2-45\right)+18 \sin (2 t)\right)
\]
so that the lifted curve is closed when $\lambda = 3\sqrt{5}$. Observe that the self intersections disappear in the lift. This is a common but not universal phenomenon --- for instance, the closed lifts of Lissajous curves still have self intersections. We show the resulting Bj\"o{}rling surface in the closed case with $a=20$ in Figure \ref{fig:cyc20},
and in Figure \ref{fig:cyc2} a periodic surface obtained with $\lambda=6$ and $a=2$. We have chosen $b$ such that large parts of the surface are embedded.
Another simple example of a cycloid is the deltoid, given by
\[
(x(t),y(t)) = (-2 \cos (t)-\cos (2 t),\sin (2 t)-2 \sin (t)) \ .
\]
The $z$-coordinate of the lift becomes
\[
z(t)=\frac1{6\lambda}\left(3 \left(\lambda ^2-8\right) t+8 \sin (3 t)\right) \ .
\]
Observe that the singularity of the plane deltoid disappears in the lifted curve. For $\lambda=2\sqrt2$ the lift is closed.
\def2.5in{2.7in}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{deltoid.png}
\caption{$a=20, b=0$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{singdeltoid.png}
\caption{$a=-\frac12, b=\frac\pi2$}
\label{fig:singdeltoid}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Bj\"o{}rling surfaces based on the closed lift of the deltoid}
\label{fig:deltoid}
\end{figure}
For $a=-\frac12$ and $b=\frac \pi2$, the Bj\"o{}rling surface based on the deltoid exhibits the behavior explained in Remark \ref{rem:singular}. To see this, we note that the tangent vector
of the deltoid can be written as
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
x'(w)\\ y'(w)
\end{pmatrix} = r(w) \cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
-\sin(aw+b) \\ \cos(a w+b)
\end{pmatrix}
\]
with $a=-\frac12$, $b=\frac \pi2$ and $r(w) = -4 \sin(3w/2)$
so that $w$ will be a singularity if we choose $\lambda = 4 i\cdot \sin(3w/2)$. This become apparent in the Weierstrass data, given by
\begin{align*}
G(w) &= -e^{-i w /2} \\
dh &= \frac1{2\lambda} \left(\lambda -4 i\cdot \sin(3w/2) \right)^2 \, dw \ .
\end{align*}
We show this singular Bj\"o{}rling surface for $\lambda=2\sqrt2$ when the lifted curve closes in Figure \ref{fig:singdeltoid}. Incidentally, this surface is also a M\"o{}bius strip.
\subsection{Trefoil Curves}
\def2.5in{2in}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{trefoil1.pdf}
\caption{$\xi=\frac14$}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{trefoil2.pdf}
\caption{$\xi=\frac34$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Trefoil Curves}
\label{fig:trefoilcurves}
\end{figure}
In this section, we construct a knotted Bj\"o{}rling surface. The basis of this construction is the following family of curves which we call {\em trefoil curves},
\[
(x(t),y(t)) =( (\cos(t)-\xi)\cos (t), (\cos(t)+\xi)\sin (t)) \ ,
\]
for a real parameter $\xi$.
The $z$-coordinate of the lift becomes
\[
z(t) = \frac1{6\lambda}\left( 3t(\xi^2+1-\lambda^2)+2\xi \sin(3t)\right) \ ,
\]
which is closed for $\lambda = \sqrt{\xi^2+1}$. Moreover, the lift is knotted for $0<\xi<\frac12$. Choosing $a=\frac12$ and $b=\frac\pi2$ results in a Bj\"o{}rling surface that is an almost horizontal knotted minimal M\"o{}bius strip shown in Figure \ref{fig:trefoil2}.
\def2.5in{2.7in}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{trefoilmobius.png}
\caption{$a=\frac12, b=\frac\pi2$}
\label{fig:trefoil2}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{trefoil30.png}
\caption{$a=30, b=0$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Bj\"o{}rling surfaces based on the trefoil curve with $\xi=\frac14$}
\label{fig:trefoil30}
\end{figure}
The Weierstrass data of the oriented cover of the Bj\"o{}rling surface for $a=\frac12$ and $b=\frac\pi2$ are given in the coordinate $w=e^{i z/2}$ by
\begin{align*}
G(w) &=\frac{i w \left(\xi +w^6+\lambda w^3\right)}{\xi w^6-\lambda w^3+1} \\
dh & =\frac{i \left(\xi +w^6+\lambda w^3\right) \left(\xi w^6-\lambda w^3+1\right)}{ \lambda w^7} \, dw \ .
\end{align*}
One can show that numerator and denominator of $G(w)$ have no common roots in $\mathbb{C}^*$, which implies that the non-oriented surface is complete, regular, and of finite total curvature $-14\pi$.
\subsection{Spirals}
\def2.5in{2in}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{logspiral.pdf}
\caption{Logarithmic Spiral}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{archimedes.pdf}
\caption{Archimedean Spiral}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Two Spirals}
\label{fig:planespirals}
\end{figure}
As examples for non-trigonometric polyexp curves, we consider logarithmic and Archimedean spirals.
Logarithmic spirals are given by
\[
(x(t),y(t)) = \rho^t( \cos (t), \sin (t)) \ .
\]
Here, $z(t)$ becomes
\[
z(t) = \frac12 {\lambda t}-\frac{\left(\log ^2(\rho )+1\right) }{4 \lambda \log
(\rho )}\rho ^{2 t} \ .
\]
Observe that the linear term in $t$ guarantees that the space curve becomes proper, see Figure \ref{fig:logspir}.
\def2.5in{2.7in}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.5in]{archimedes.png}
\caption{Archimedean Spiral}
\label{fig:archimedes}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.5in]{logspiral.png}
\caption{Logarithmic Spiral}
\label{fig:logspir}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Bj\"o{}rling surfaces based on a spirals}
\label{fig:spirals}
\end{figure}
For the Archimedean spiral
\[
(x(t), y(t)) = t(\cos(t), \sin(t))
\]
we obtain the cubic polynomial
\[
z(t) = -\frac1{6\lambda} t \left(t^2 +3-3\lambda^2\right) \ .
\]
This leads for $|\lambda|>1$ to core curves whose $z$-coordinate has two local extrema,
well visible in Figure \ref{fig:archimedes}.
\def2.5in{2.5in}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{circlespiral.pdf}
\caption{Spiral about a circle}
\label{fig:circlespiral}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{limitleaf.png}
\caption{Helicoid with limit leaf}
\label{fig:limitleaf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Bj\"o{}rling surface using a lifted curve with bounded height}
\label{fig:limits}
\end{figure}
As a variation of the logarithmic spiral, let
\[
(x(t), y(t)) =(\rho^t+1) (\cos(t), \sin(t))
\]
which limits for $t\to -\infty$ on the unit circle (see Figure \ref{fig:circlespiral}). We obtain the lift
\[
z(t) = -\frac1{4\lambda \log(r)} \left((1+\log^2(\rho)) \rho^{2t}+ 4 \rho^t -(\lambda^2-1) t\right) \ .
\]
This means that for $\lambda=1$, the lifted curve will for $t \to -\infty$ limit on the unit circle at height 0. If we choose in addition $a=3$ and $b=\frac\pi2$, the closure of the surface becomes a minimal lamination in a cylinder about the vertical axis with two leaves: One is the Bj\"o{}rling surface (see Figure \ref{fig:limitleaf}), the other a horizontal disk at height 0. This example is very similar to the one constructed in \cite{cm28}.
\subsection{The Clothoid}
\def2.5in{2.5in}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{clothoid.pdf}
\caption{The clothoid}
\end{subfigure}
\quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{2.5in}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{clothoid.png}
\caption{$\lambda = 1.4$}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Bj\"o{}rling surface based on a lifted clothoid}
\label{fig:clothoid}
\end{figure}
In this last example, we discuss the possibility to design Bj\"o{}rling surfaces based on curves that are not polyexp.
Consider the clothoid given by
\[
(x(t), y(t)) = (C(t), S(t))
\]
where
\begin{align*}
C(t) = {}& \int_0^t \cos(s^2)\, ds \\
S(t) = {}& \int_0^t \sin(s^2)\, ds \\
\end{align*}
are the Fresnel integrals.
The $z$-coordinate of the lift is given by
\[
z(t) = \frac{\lambda^2-1}{2\lambda} t \ .
\]
As rotating normal we choose
\begin{align*}
n(t) ={}& \cos(t^2) n_1(t) + \sin(t^2) n_2(t) \\
={}& \frac1{\lambda ^2+1}
\begin{pmatrix}
{\left(1-\lambda ^2\right) \cos \left(t^2\right)} \\
{\left(1-\lambda ^2\right) \sin \left(t^2\right)} \\
{2 \lambda } \\
\end{pmatrix} \ .
\end{align*}
Note that we are adapting the rotational speed to the parametrization of the clothoid. This results in very simple Weierstrass data
\begin{align*}
G = {}&\frac{1+\lambda}{1-\lambda} e^{i z^2} \\
dh = {}& \frac{\lambda^2-1}{2\lambda}\, dz \\
\end{align*}
and in the almost horizontal Bj\"o{}rling surface in Figure \ref{fig:clothoid}. The only non-elementary functions in the surface parametrization are the Fresnel integrals:
\[
f(z) = \frac12 \operatorname{Re}
\begin{pmatrix}
2 \lambda C(z)+i \left(\lambda ^2+1\right) S(z)\\
-i \left(\lambda ^2+1\right) C(z)+2 \lambda S(z) \\
z \left(\lambda ^2-1\right) \ .
\end{pmatrix}
\]
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Many variations of the classical graph coloring have been
introduced, several of which involve graph distance, which as a
condition is usually imposed on the vertices that are given the same
color. In this paper we study packing colorings defined as follows.
The {\em packing chromatic number} $\chi_{\rho}(G)$ of $G$ is the
smallest integer $k$ such that $V(G)$ can be partitioned into
subsets $X_1, \ldots, X_k$, where $X_i$ induces an $i$-packing;
that is, vertices of $X_i$ are pairwise at distance more than $i$.
Equivalently, a {\em $k$-packing coloring} of $G$ is a function
$c:V(G)\rightarrow [k]$, where $[k]=\{1,\ldots ,k\}$, such that if
$c(u) = c(v) = i$, then $d_G(u,v) > i$, where $d_G(u,v)$ is the
usual shortest-path distance between $u$ and $v$ in $G$. We
mention that in distance-$k$ colorings $V(G)$ is partitioned into
$k$-packings.
The concept of the packing chromatic number was introduced
in~\cite{goddard-2008} and given the name in~\cite{bresar-2007}. The
problem intuitively appears more difficult
than the standard coloring problem. Indeed, the packing chromatic
number is intrinsically more difficult due to the fact that determining
$\chi_\rho$ is NP-complete even when restricted to
trees~\cite{fiala-2010}. On the other hand, Argiroffo et al.\
discovered that the packing coloring problem is solvable in
polynomial time for several nontrivial classes of
graphs~\cite{argiroffo-2014}. In addition, the packing chromatic number was
studied on hypercubes~\cite{goddard-2008,torres-2015},
Cartesian product graphs~\cite{jacobs-2013,shao-2015}, and distance
graphs~\cite{ekstein-2014,togni-2014}.
In the seminal paper~\cite{goddard-2008} the following problem was
posed: does there exist an absolute constant $M$, such that
$\chi_{\rho}(G)\le M$ holds for any subcubic graph $G$. (Recall that a graph is {\em subcubic}, if
its largest degree is bounded by $3$.) This problem led to
a lot of research but remains unsolved at the present. In
particular, the packing chromatic number of the infinite hexagonal
lattice is 7 (the upper bound being established
in~\cite{fiala-2009}, the lower bound in~\cite{korze-2014}), hence
the packing chromatic number of any subgraph of the hexagonal
lattice is bounded by $7$. The same bound also holds for subcubic
trees as follows from a result of Sloper~\cite{sloper-2004}. For the
(subcubic) family of base-3 Sierpi\' nski graphs the packing
chromatic number was bounded by 9 in~\cite{bkr-2016+}. The exact
value of the packing chromatic of some additional
subcubic graphs was determined in~\cite{ds2016}. Very
recently, Gastineau and Togni~\cite{gt-2016} found a cubic graph
with packing chromatic number equal to 13 and posed an open
problem which intrigued us: does there exist a cubic graph with
packing chromatic number larger than 13?
We proceed as follows. In the next section we prove that the answer
to the above question is positive. More precisely, we construct a cubic
graph on 78 vertices with packing chromatic number at least
$14$. A key technique in the related proof is edge subdivision.
We hence give a closer look at this operation with respect to its
effect on the packing chromatic number. In particular, the packing
chromatic number does not increase by more than 1 when an edge of a
graph is subdivided, but can decrease by at least 2. In addition, we
prove that the lower bound for the packing chromatic number of an
edge-subdivided graph is bigger than half of the packing chromatic
number of the original graph. Then, in Section~\ref{sec:deletion},
we investigate the effect on the packing chromatic number of the
following local operations: a vertex deletion, an edge deletion, and
an edge contraction. In particular, we demonstrate that the
difference $\chi_{\rho}(G)-\chi_{\rho}(G-e)$ can be arbitrarily large.
\section{Edge subdivision}
\label{sec:subdivision}
In this section we consider the packing chromatic number with
respect to the edge-subdivision operation. If $e$ is an edge of a
graph $G$, then let $S_e(G)$ denote the graph obtained from $G$ by
subdividing the edge $e$. The graph obtained from $G$ by subdividing
all its edges is denoted $S(G)$.
The following theorem is the key for the answer of the above
mentioned question of Gastineau and Togni.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:diameter} Suppose that there exists a constant $M$ such
that $\chi_{\rho}(H)\le M$ holds for any subcubic graph $H$. If $G$ is a
subcubic graph such that $\chi_{\rho}(G)=M$, then either $\chi_{\rho}(S_e(G))\le
M-2$ for any $e\in E(G)$, or ${\rm diam}(G)\ge \lceil \frac {M}{2}
\rceil -2$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent{\bf Proof.\ } Let $G$ be a subcubic graph such that $\chi_{\rho}(G)=M$, where $\chi_{\rho}(H)\le M$
for every subcubic graph $H$. If $\chi_{\rho}(S_e(G))\le M-2$ holds for any $e\in E(G)$,
there is nothing to be proved. Hence assume that there exists an
edge $e\in E(G)$ such that $\chi_{\rho}(S_e(G))\ge M-1$. Let $G'$ be the
graph obtained from $G$ by subdividing the edge $e$, and let $x'$ be
the new vertex. Let $G''$ be a copy of $G'$, with $x''$ playing the
role of $x'$. Let now $\widehat{G}$ be the graph obtained from the
disjoint union of $G'$ and $G''$ by connecting $x'$ with $x''$.
Note first that $\widehat{G}$ is a subcubic graph, and hence by the
theorem's assumption, $\chi_{\rho}(\widehat{G})\le M$. Let $c$ be an
arbitrary optimal packing coloring of $\widehat{G}$. Because
$c$ restricted to $G'$ (resp.\ $G''$) is a packing coloring of
$G'=S_e(G)$ (resp.\ $G''$), $c$ uses at least $M-1$ colors.
We claim that ${\rm diam}(\widehat{G})\ge M-1$. If $c$ colors a
vertex $u'$ of $G'$ and a vertex $u''$ of $G''$ by the color $M$,
then $d_{\widehat{G}}(u',u'')> M$, and the claim follows. Otherwise,
we assume that $c$ restricted to $G'$ does not use the color $M$. If also
$G''$ does not use color $M$, then since $\chi_{\rho}(G')\ge M-1$ and
$\chi_{\rho}(G'')\ge M-1$, there exist vertices $v',v''$ in $G'$, resp.\
$G''$, with $c(v')=c(v'')=M-1$, and consequently, ${\rm
diam}(\widehat{G})>M-1$ as desired. So assume that color $M$ is present
on $G''$ (and not on $G'$). Color $M-1$ must be present on $G'$, for
otherwise $\chi_{\rho}(G') \le M-2$. If color $M-1$ is also used on $G''$, then
it again follows that ${\rm diam}(\widehat{G})>M-1$. Hence we are left
with the situation that color $M$ is present on $G''$ and not on $G'$, while
$M-1$ is used on $G'$ and not on $G''$. We now claim that the color $M-2$ is present in
both $G'$ and $G''$. For if this is not the case, then in any of $G'$ or $G''$
that is missing color $M-2$ relabeling all vertices colored with the highest color
by the color $M-2$ would yield an
$(M-2)$-packing coloring of $G'$ or $G''$, which is again not
possible. If $w',w''$ are the vertices in $G'$, resp.\ $G''$, with
$c(w')=c(w'')=M-2$, then $d_{\widehat{G}}(w',w'') \ge M-1$. This in
turn implies ${\rm diam}(\widehat{G})\ge M-1$, and so the claim
is proved.
Consider again vertices $w',w''$ in $G'$, resp.\ $G''$, with
$c(w')=c(w'')\ge M-2$. Since ${\rm diam}(G')\ge
d_{\widehat{G}}(w',x')$ and ${\rm diam}(G'')\ge
d_{\widehat{G}}(w'',x'')$, we infer that
\begin{eqnarray*}
2\,{\rm diam}(G')+1&=& {\rm diam}(G')+{\rm diam}(G'')+1\\
&\ge&
d_{\widehat{G}}(w',x')+d_{\widehat{G}}(w'',x'')+1
\\
&=& d_{\widehat{G}}(w',w'')\\
&\ge& M-1\,.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence ${\rm diam}(G')\ge \lceil\frac{M}{2}\rceil-1$. Since clearly
${\rm diam}(G')\le {\rm diam}(G)+1$ holds, we conclude that
$${\rm diam}(G)\ge {\rm diam}(G')-1\ge \left\lceil\frac{M}{2}\right\rceil-2\,.$$
\hfill $\square$ \bigskip
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:14} There exists a cubic graph with packing chromatic
number larger than $13$.
\end{corollary}
\noindent{\bf Proof.\ } Let $G_{38}$ be the cubic graph of order $38$ with diameter
$4$ from \cite{afy-1986} shown in Figure~\ref{fig:G38}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=4.0,style=thick]
\node[vertex] (0) at (0.97,.223) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (1) at (0.9,.434) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (2) at (0.782,.623) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (3) at (0.623,.782) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (4) at (0.434,.9) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (5) at (0.223,.975) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (6) at (0,1) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (7) at (.97,-.023) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (8) at (.9,-.234) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (9) at (.782,-.423) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (10) at (.623,-.582) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (11) at (.434,-.7) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (12) at (.18,-.775) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (13) at (-.18,-.775) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (14) at (-.434,-.7) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (15) at (-.623,-.582) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (16) at (-.782,-.423) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (17) at (-.9,-.234) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (18) at (-.97,-.023) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (19) at (-.97,.223) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (20) at (-.9,.434) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (21) at (-.782,.623) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (22) at (-.623,.782) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (23) at (-.434,.9) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (24) at (-.223,.975) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (25) at (0,0.1) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (26) at (0,0.3) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (27) at (0,-.1) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (28) at (-.143,.782) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (29) at (.143,.782) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (30) at (-.55,.55) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (31) at (.55,.55) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (32) at (0.75,.155) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (33) at (-.75,.155) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (34) at (-.57,-.3) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (35) at (.57,-.3) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (36) at (-.29,-.5) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (37) at (.29,-.5) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\path
(0) edge[bend right=7] (1)
(1) edge[bend right=7] (2)
(2) edge[bend right=7] (3)
(3) edge[bend right=7](4)
(4) edge [bend right=7](5)
(5) edge [bend right=7](6)
(0) edge [bend left=7](7)
(7) edge [bend left=7](8)
(8) edge [bend left=7](9)
(9) edge [bend left=7](10)
(10) edge [bend left=7](11)
(11) edge [bend left=7](12)
(12) edge [bend left=7](13)
(13) edge [bend left=7](14)
(14) edge [bend left=7](15)
(15) edge [bend left=7](16)
(16) edge [bend left=7](17)
(17) edge [bend left=7](18)
(18) edge [bend left=7](19)
(19) edge [bend left=7](20)
(20) edge [bend left=7](21)
(21) edge [bend left=7](22)
(22) edge [bend left=7](23)
(23) edge [bend left=7](24)
(24) edge [bend left=7](6)
(25) edge (26)
(25) edge (27)
(24) edge (28)
(5) edge (29)
(2) edge (31)
(0) edge (32)
(33) edge (19)
(30) edge (21)
(34) edge (16)
(35) edge (9)
(14) edge (36)
(11) edge (37)
(36) edge (32)
(37) edge (33)
(26) edge (20)
(26) edge (1)
(27) edge (15)
(27) edge (10)
(13) edge[bend right=11] (22)
(12) edge[bend left=11] (3)
(30) edge (31)
(30) edge[bend right=10] (35)
(31) edge[bend left=10] (34)
(28) edge (34)
(29) edge (35)
(18) edge[bend right=5] (4)
(7) edge[bend left=5] (23)
(33) edge[bend right=15] (32)
(37) edge[bend right=5] (28)
(36) edge[bend left=5] (29)
(17) edge[bend right=22] (8)
(25) edge[bend left=16] (6)
;
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$G_{38}$}
\label{fig:G38}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
From~\cite[Proposition 6]{gt-2016} we know that
$\chi_{\rho}(G_ {38})=13$. We have checked by computer that
$\chi_{\rho}(S_e(G_{38}))=12$ holds for any edge $e$ of $G_{38}$. Assuming
that $M=13$ is the constant of Theorem~\ref{thm:diameter}, this
theorem implies that ${\rm diam}(G_{38})\ge
\lceil\frac{13}{2}\rceil-2=5$. However, since the diameter of
$G_{38}$ equals 4, we infer that $M$ cannot be 13. \hfill $\square$ \bigskip
A closer look to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:diameter} reveals
that the graph constructed from two copies $G'_{38}$ and $G''_{38}$ of edge-subdivided
$G_{38}$ by connecting the vertices $x'$ and $x''$ is a graph of
order 78, say $G_{78}$ schematically shown in Figure~\ref{fig:G78}, such that $\chi_{\rho}(G_{78})\ge 14$.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=2.0,style=thick]
\draw (0,0) ellipse (20pt and 12 pt);
\draw (2,0) ellipse (20pt and 12 pt);
\node (x1) at (0.32,0.02)[]{\small$x'$\normalsize};
\draw (x1);
\node (x2) at (1.72,0.02)[]{\small$x''$\normalsize};
\draw (x1);
\node (G1) at (-.2, 0.02)[]{$G_{38}'$};
\draw(G1);
\node (G2) at (2.2,0.02)[]{$G_{38}''$};
\draw(G2);
\node[vertex] (0) at (0.45,0) [scale=.35pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (1) at (0.45,0.15) [scale=.35pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (2) at (0.45,-0.15) [scale=.35pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (3) at (1.55,-0.15) [scale=.35pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (4) at (1.55,0.15) [scale=.35pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (5) at (1.55,0) [scale=.35pt,fill=black]{};
\path
(0) edge (1)
(0) edge (2)
(0) edge (5)
(5) edge (3)
(5) edge (4);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$G_{78}$}
\label{fig:G78}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Motivated by the construction from the proof of
Theorem~\ref{thm:diameter}, we next consider what happens with the
packing chromatic number of an arbitrary graph when an edge is
subdivided.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:subdivision} For any graph $G$ with packing chromatic
number $j$,
\[\left\lfloor j/2 \right\rfloor +1 \le \chi_{\rho}(S_e(G)) \le
j+1.\]
Moreover, for any $k\ge 2$ there exists a graph
$G$ with an edge $e$ such that $k=\chi_{\rho}(G)=\chi_{\rho}(S_e(G))-1$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent{\bf Proof.\ } Given a packing coloring $c$ of $G$, a packing coloring of
$S_e(G)$ can be obtained by using $c$ on vertices of $G$ and
coloring the new vertex with an additional color. Hence we get the upper
bound.
For the lower bound, let $G$ be a graph with $\chi_{\rho}(G)=j$ and consider any edge
$e=xy$ of $G$. Subdivide $e$ to get the graph $H=S_e(G)$. That is,
we remove the edge $e$ from $G$ and replace it with the path
$x,z,y$. Let $W_1, \ldots, W_r$ be an optimal packing coloring of
$H$.
We will construct a packing coloring of $G$. Note that $\{x,y\}
\not\subseteq W_n$ for any $n\ge 2$. Fix $i$ such that $2 \le i \le
r$ and suppose there are vertices $u,v \in W_i$ such that $d_G(u,v)
= i$. Since $W_i$ is an $i$-packing in $H$, we know that every
shortest $(u,v)$-path in $H$ contains the vertex $z$. From among
all pairs of vertices in $W_i$ that are at distance $i$ in $G$
select $a_i,b_i$ such that $d_G(a_i,x)=t$ is the minimum and
$d_G(b_i,y)=s$, and so $t\le s$. Thus
$d_H(a_i,b_i)=t+s+2=i+1$. Let $c\in W_i-\{a_i,b_i\}$. It now follows
that $d_G(c,x)> t$, for otherwise $d_H(c,a_i)\le 2t<i+1$, a
contradiction. Similarly, $d_G(c,y)\ge s$, or otherwise it follows
that $d_H(a_i,c)=d_G(a_i,x)+2+d_G(y,c)<t+2+s=i+1$, again a
contradiction. For each such value of $i$ we remove the vertex $a_i$
from $W_i$ and place it into a set $X$ of vertices that will
eventually be ``recolored.'' For all pairs $u,v$ remaining in $W_i$
it follows that $d_G(u,v) \ge i+1$. If $a_2$ as defined above
exists, then $a_2=x$. It follows that $W_1$ is independent in $G$
and $|X|=m \le r-1$. Otherwise if $x$ and $y$ belong to $W_1$ place
vertex $x$ in the set $X$. In this case $W_2$ is a $2$-packing in
$G$ and $|X|=m \le r-1$. Hence we can recolor the vertices in $X$
using colors $r+1,\ldots,r+m$ and this gives a packing coloring of
$G$ using at most $2r-1$ colors. That is, $\chi_{\rho}(G) \le 2r-1$.
To prove the last assertion of the theorem, consider the
following examples. For $k=2$, we have $2=\chi_{\rho}(P_3)=\chi_{\rho}(P_4)-1$, and
$P_4=S_e(P_3)$. Let now $k\ge 3$. Recall~\cite[Lemma
6]{bresar-2007} asserting that $\chi_{\rho}(S(K_k))=k+1$. Consider now the
process of obtaining $S(K_k)$ from $K_k$ by subdividing each of the
edges of $K_k$ one by one, and observe that in the beginning of this process
$\chi_{\rho}(K_k)=k$, and at the end we have $\chi_{\rho}(S(K_k))=k+1$.
Since in each step
the packing chromatic number can increase by at most one, at some
stage of the process we have graphs $G_i$ and $G_{i+1}$, such that
$G_{i+1}=S_e(G_i)$ for some edge $e$ of $G_i$, and $\chi_{\rho}(G_i)=k$,
$\chi_{\rho}(G_{i+1})=k+1$.
\hfill $\square$ \bigskip
We do not know if the lower bound of
Theorem~\ref{thm:subdivision} is sharp.
On the other hand, it is possible that the subdivision of an edge
decreases the packing chromatic number by 2. Consider the
following examples. Let $n\ge 5$, and let $X_n$ be the graph
obtained from the disjoint union of two copies of $K_n$, denoted by $U$ and $V$,
by first joining a vertex $u$ of $U$ with a vertex $v$ of $V$,
and then subdividing the edge $uv$ twice. Figure~\ref{fig:X5} depicts the graph $X_5$. Let $e=xy$ be the
edge, where $x$ is adjacent to $u$, and $y$ is adjacent to $v$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=2.0,style=thick]
\node[vertex] (0) at (0.3,0) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (1) at (1.7,0) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (2) at (.65,-.75) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (3) at (1.35,-.75) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (4) at (1,.55) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (5) at (2.15,0) [label=below:$x$,scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (6) at (2.6,0) [label=below:$y$,scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (7) at (3.05,0) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (8) at (4.45,0) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (9) at (3.75,.55) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (10) at (3.4,-.75) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (11) at (4.1,-.75) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\path
(0) edge (1)
(1) edge (2)
(2) edge (3)
(3) edge (4)
(0) edge (2)
(0) edge (3)
(0) edge (4)
(1) edge (3)
(1) edge (4)
(2) edge (4)
(1) edge (5)
(5) edge (6)
(6) edge (7)
(7) edge (8)
(7) edge (9)
(7) edge (10)
(7) edge (11)
(8) edge (9)
(8) edge (10)
(8) edge (11)
(9) edge (10)
(9) edge (11)
(10) edge (11)
;
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$X_5$}
\label{fig:X5}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We claim that $\chi_{\rho}(X_n)=2n-3$. Let $c$ be an optimal packing
coloring of $X_n$. Suppose first that $c(x)=1$ and $c(y)=2$.
Clearly, $c$ restricted to $U$ uses all the colors from $[n]$. On
the other hand, $c$ uses colors $1,3,4$ on $V$, while the other
$n-3$ vertices must receive new colors. Hence in this case, $c$ uses
$2n-3$ colors. Suppose next that one of the vertices $x$ and $y$ is
colored with a color $a$, where $a>2$. Then $c$ uses $n$ colors on
$U$, different from $a$, and $n-4$ new colors on $V$. Hence also in
this case $c$ uses $2n-3$ colors, which proves the claim.
Consider now the graph $S_e(X_n)$, and the following coloring $c$ of
this graph. Let $c(x)=c(y)=1$, and $c(v_{xy})=2$, where $v_{xy}$ is
the vertex obtained by subdividing the edge $xy$. The mapping $c$
restricted to $U$ uses colors from $[n]$ and restricted to $V$ uses
colors from $\{1,2,3,4,5\}$ together with $n-5$ new colors. Hence
$\chi_{\rho}(S_e(X_n))\le 2n-5$. The opposite inequality follows by the
observation that however $S_e(X_n)$ is colored, $n$ different colors
must be used on $U$, and out of these at most five colors can be
used also on $V$. This shows that $\chi_{\rho}(S_e(X_n))= \chi_{\rho}(X_n)-2$.
Let us call an edge $e$ of graph $G$ {\em weak} if
$\chi_{\rho}(S_e(G))<\chi_{\rho}(G)-1$. We have not been able to find a graph $G$
such that all its edges are weak. We are inclined to believe that
there are no such graphs. From this point of view the following
consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:diameter} is relevant.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:diameter} Suppose that there exists a constant $M$ such
that $\chi_{\rho}(H)\le M$ holds for any subcubic graph $H$, and let $G$ be
a subcubic graph such that $\chi_{\rho}(G)=M$. If there are no subcubic
graphs in which all edges are weak then $M\le 2\,{\rm diam}(G)+4$.
\end{corollary}
\section{Vertex deletion, edge deletion and contraction}
\label{sec:deletion}
Since the distances in a graph when an edge is removed can only
increase, it is clear that for any graph $G$, any vertex $v$ of $G$,
and any edge $e$ of $G$, we have
$$\chi_{\rho}(G-v)\le \chi_{\rho}(G)\quad {\rm and} \quad \chi_{\rho}(G-e)\le \chi_{\rho}(G).$$
On the other hand, there are no lower bounds for $\chi_{\rho}(G-v)$ and
$\chi_{\rho}(G-e)$. For the former operation, let $G_n$, $n\ge 4$, be the graph
obtained from the path $P_n$ by adding a vertex $x$ and making it
adjacent to all vertices of the path. Note that $\chi_{\rho}(G_n)\ge \lceil
\frac{n}{2}\rceil+1$, and since $G_n-x$ is isomorphic to $P_n$, we
have $\chi_{\rho}(G_n-x)=3$. To deal with edge removal we state
\begin{proposition}
\label{prp:edgeremoval} For every positive integer $r$ there exists
a graph $G$ with an edge $e$ such that $\chi_{\rho}(G)-\chi_{\rho}(G-e)\ge r$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent{\bf Proof.\ } Consider the following construction. Let $k\ge 4$, and $n\ge
2k-2$. Let $A$ and $B$ be two copies of the graph $K_n$, and
$a,a'\in V(A)$, $b,b'\in V(B)$. The graph $G_{n,k}$ is obtained from
the disjoint union of $A$ and $B$ by connecting with an edge
vertices $a$ and $b$ and also connecting vertices $a'$ and $b'$, and
then replacing the edge $a'b'$ with a path of length $2k-1$. Figure~\ref{fig:G64} depicts the graph $G_{6,4}$.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.6,style=thick]
\node[vertex] (0) at (0.25,0) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (1) at (0.25,-1) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (2) at (1,-1.65) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (3) at (1,.65) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (4) at (1.75,0) [label=above:$a$,scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (5) at (1.75,-1) [label=below:$a'$,scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (6) at (2,-1) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (7) at (2.25,-1) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (8) at (2.5,-1) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (9) at (2.75,-1) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (10) at (3,-1) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (11) at (3.25,-1) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (12) at (3.5,-1) [label=below:$b'$,scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (13) at (3.5,0) [label=above:$b$,scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (14) at (4.25,.65) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (15) at (4.25,-1.65) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (16) at (5,0) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\node[vertex] (17) at (5,-1) [scale=.75pt,fill=black]{};
\path
(0) edge (1)
(1) edge (2)
(2) edge (3)
(3) edge (4)
(0) edge (2)
(0) edge (3)
(0) edge (4)
(1) edge (3)
(1) edge (4)
(2) edge (4)
(1) edge (5)
(0) edge (5)
(2) edge (5)
(3) edge (5)
(4) edge (5)
(5) edge (6)
(6) edge (7)
(7) edge (8)
(8) edge (9)
(9) edge (10)
(10) edge (11)
(11) edge (12)
(12) edge (13)
(12) edge (14)
(12) edge (15)
(12) edge (16)
(12) edge (17)
(13) edge (14)
(13) edge (15)
(13) edge (16)
(13) edge (17)
(14) edge (15)
(14) edge (16)
(14) edge (17)
(15) edge (16)
(15) edge (17)
(16) edge (17)
(4) edge (16)
;
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$G_{6,4}$}
\label{fig:G64}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We first claim that $\chi_{\rho}(G_{n,k})\ge 2n-2$. Note that $n$ colors
are used in any packing coloring on $A$. Since the distance between
a vertex of $A$ and a vertex of $B$ is at most $3$, we derive that
only colors $1$ and $2$ can be repeated in $B$, hence the claim.
Letting $G'_{n,k}=G_{n,k}-ab$ we next claim that $\chi_{\rho}(G'_{n,k})\le
2(n-k)+4$. Consider the following packing coloring of $G'_{n,k}$.
First color the path of length $2k-1$ between $a'$ and $b'$ with
colors from $\{1,2,3\}$. Because in $G'_{n,k}$ every vertex in
$A\setminus\{a'\}$ is at distance $2k+1$ from any vertex in
$B\setminus\{b'\}$, we can use colors $4,\ldots,2k$ in both $A$ and
$B$. Note that this is possible because we have assumed that $n\ge
2k-2$, and hence the number of vertices in
$A\setminus\{a'\}$ and in $B\setminus\{{b}'\}$ is at least $2k-3$,
respectively. This in turn implies that the colors $4,\ldots,2k$ can
indeed be used twice. The remaining vertices are then colored by
unique colors. Consequently,
$$\chi_{\rho}(G'_{n,k}) \le 3+(2k-3)+[2(n-1)-2(2k-3)] = 2(n-k)+4\,.$$
It follows that $\chi_{\rho}(G_{n,k})-\chi_{\rho}(G'_{n,k})\ge
(2n-2)-[2(n-k)+4]=2k-6$. The assertion now follows.
\hfill $\square$ \bigskip
We next turn our attention to edge contractions. We denote the graph
obtained from $G$ by contracting its edge $e$ by $G|e$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:contraction} If $G$ is a graph and $e$ an edge in $G$,
then $$\chi_{\rho}(G)-1\le \chi_{\rho}(G|e)\le 2\chi_{\rho}(G)\,.$$
\end{theorem}
\noindent{\bf Proof.\ } Let $e=xy$ be the edge that is contracted in a graph $G$, and
$v_{xy}$ the resulting vertex. For the lower bound, let $c$ be an
optimal packing coloring of $G|e$. We define the coloring $c'$ of
$G$ by letting $c'(x)=c(v_{xy})$, $c'(y)=\chi_{\rho}(G|e)+1$, and
$c'(z)=c(z)$ for any other vertex in $G$. Since the distances in $G$
are at least as large as the distances in $G|e$ between the
corresponding vertices, $c'$ is packing coloring of $G$. It follows
that $\chi_{\rho}(G)\le \chi_{\rho}(G|e)+1$.
For the upper bound let $c$ be an optimal packing coloring of $G$. We
define the coloring $c'$ of $G|e$ in two steps. First, let
$c'(v_{xy})=c(y)$, and $c'(z)=c(z)$ for any other vertex $z$ of
$G|e$. Let $i\in [\chi_{\rho}(G)]$, and let $x_i$ be a vertex of $G|e$ that
minimizes $d_{G|e}(z,v_{xy})$ over all $z\in V(G|e)$ with $c(z)=i$.
(Note that $x_i$ coincides with $v_{xy}$ for exactly one $i\in
[\chi_{\rho}(G)]$.) Then, in the second step, set $c'(x_i)=\chi_{\rho}(G)+i$. We
claim that $c'$ is a packing coloring of $G|e$.
Note that for any two vertices $a$ and $b$ of $G|e$ we have that
$d_{G|e}(a,b)$ is either $d_{G}(a,b)$ or $d_{G}(a,b)-1$. Moreover,
in the latter case there exists a shortest $(a,b)$-path in $G$ that
contains the edge $xy$. Suppose that there exist vertices $u$ and
$v$, both different from $x_i$, with $c'(u)=c'(v)=i$ such that
$d_{G|e}(u,v)=i$. Clearly, then in $G$ the edge $xy$ must lie on
some shortest $(u,v)$-path $P$ of length $i+1$. Hence we may assume
that $P$ is of the form $u-P'-x-y-P''-v$. We may also assume without
loss of generality that $d_G(x_i,x)\le d_G(x_i,y)$. Since $x_i$ is a
closest vertex to $v_{xy}$ among all vertices colored by $i$, we
derive that $d_G(x_i,x)<d_G(v,x)$, hence $d_G(u,x_i)\le
d_G(u,x)+d_G(x,x_i)< d_G(u,x)+d_G(x,v)= i+1$. This is a
contradiction with $c$ being a packing coloring of $G$, in which $u$
and $x_i$ are both colored by color $i$. This shows that
$c'$ is a packing coloring of $G|e$ with $2\chi_{\rho}(G)$ colors, hence
the proof of the upper bound is also complete.
\hfill $\square$ \bigskip
Note that Theorem~\ref{thm:contraction} is in some sense dual to
Theorem~\ref{thm:subdivision}.
To see that the lower bound of Theorem~\ref{thm:contraction} is
sharp, just consider complete graphs. For the upper bound, similarly
as in Theorem~\ref{thm:subdivision}, we are not aware of any example
of a graph such that after the contraction of its edge the packing
chromatic number would increase by more than 2. On the other hand,
the graphs $S_e(X_n)$, as presented in Section~\ref{sec:subdivision}
show that the contraction of the edge $e$, yielding the graph $X_n$,
increases their packing chromatic number by $2$.
\section{Concluding remarks}
In this paper we answered a question of Gastineau and Togni~\cite{gt-2016} by
showing that there is a graph whose packing chromatic number is greater than $13$.
However, the problem from \cite{goddard-2008} concerning the existence of a constant
upper bound for the packing chromatic number on the class of cubic graphs remains
an interesting, unresolved problem. It is possible that using
Theorem~\ref{thm:diameter} leads to subcubic graphs with increasing packing chromatic
number. However, to prove this would require new methods since our approach in part
uses a computer.
Several open problems arise from considering local operations on
graphs and how these affect the packing chromatic number. For
instance, the graph $G_{38}$ from Section~\ref{sec:subdivision} has
the property that the subdivision of an arbitrary edge produces a
graph whose packing chromatic number is exactly one less than that
of $G_{38}$. Cycles of the form $C_{4k+3}$ also share this
property. It would be interesting to know more about this class of
subdivision critical graphs. The examples $X_n$ from
Section~\ref{sec:subdivision} show that there exist graphs that have
an edge whose subdivision decreases the packing chromatic number by
2. As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:subdivision} we
suspect that there does not exist a graph for which the subdivision of any of
its edges decreases the packing chromatic number by more then 1. In
other words, we suspect that there are no graphs with only weak
edges.
Following the definition of graphs that are critical
with respect to ordinary chromatic number (i.e., the chromatic
number of any subgraph is less than that of the original graph) it
is natural to study graphs that are critical with respect to the
packing chromatic number. For graphs with no isolated vertices this
is equivalent to requiring that the packing chromatic number
decreases upon the removal of any edge. Examples of these are
cycles whose order is not congruent to $0$ modulo $4$, complete
graphs, and the Petersen graph.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors wish to express their appreciation to Jernej Azarija for
the computations in the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:14}. B.B. and
S.K. are supported in part by the Ministry of Science of Slovenia
under the grants P1-0297 and ARRS-BI-US/16-17-013. D.F.R. is supported by a grant from the
Simons Foundation (Grant Number 209654 to Douglas F. Rall).
\baselineskip13pt
|
\section{Introduction}
A number field, $K$, is a finite extension of $\mathbf{Q}$. Elements of $K$ which are roots of monic polynomials with integral coefficients form a subring of $K$ called the \emph{ring of integers} of $K$ and denoted by $\mathbf{Z}_{K}$. Being an extension of $\mathbf{Z}$, $\mathbf{Z}_{K}$ shares many properties with $\mathbf{Z}$. Yet, determining for which $K$, $\mathbf{Z}_{K}$ is a unique factorization domain (which is in this case equivalent to being a principal ideal domain) is one of the most fundamental open questions of algebraic number theory. A measure for this property is the class number of $K$, denoted $h_{K}$, that is the order of the ideal class group $H(K)$, which is the multiplicative group of ideals of $\mathbf{Z}_{K}$ modulo the subgroup of principal ideals. The class number $h_{K}=1$ if and only if $\mathbf{Z}_{K}$ is a unique factorization domain.
As $\mathbf{Z}_{K}$ is a Dedekind domain, every fractional ideal of $K$, can be generated by at most two elements. Hence one has a map from projectivized ordered pairs of elements of $\mathbf{Z}_{K}$, which is a group under ideal multiplication denoted by $H^{+}(K)$, to $H_{K}$. This map is bijective exactly when $\mathbf{Z}_{K}$ admits a unit of norm $-1$. Else, this map becomes a 2-to-1 map and the group $H^{+}(K)$ is called the \emph{narrow class group}. Analogously, the order of $H^{+}(K)$, denoted $h^{+}(K)$ is called the \emph{narrow class number}.
Let us now restrict the extension degree to $2$, i.e. consider the quadratic case. Any such number field $K$ is equal to $\mathbf{Q}(\sqrt{d})$ for some square-free integer $d$. In this case the both narrow class group and the class group is computed using the corresponding binary quadratic forms of Gau{\ss}, \cite{disquisitiones}. Whenever $d>0$, $K$ is called real quadratic and whenever $d<0$, $K$ is called imaginary. In fact, for the imaginary quadratic case Gau{\ss} has determined ``almost'' all such number fields with class number one. It turns out that $\mathbf{Z}_{K}$ is a principal ideal domain if and only if $d \in \{-3,-4,-7,-8,-11,-19,-43,-67,-163\}$. However, the question of determining real quadratic number fields of class number one is still open and is referred to as class number one problem of Gau{\ss}. It must be noted that the number of such number fields is expected to be infinite.
In this paper, we introduce four families of multivariate polynomials named as $A_{k},B_{k},C_{k}$ and $D_{k}$. This work is focused to study the family $A_{k}$, though we point out properties of the remaining three polynomial families, too. For instance, we will see that the polynomial family $B_{k}$ is closely related to Fibonacci polynomials. The family $A_{k}$ will be called multivariate Lucas polynomials. Naming stems from the fact that if one reduces these polynomials to one variable, then the classical Lucas polynomials are obtained. A similar phenomenon occurs for the family $B_{k}$, that is they restrict to classical Fibonacci polynomials. Our main motivation for introducing such a family of polynomials is that given any real quadratic number field $K$ we use multivariate Lucas polynomials to define an affine surface, called \emph{\c{c}ark surface} of $K$, whose integral points are in one-to-one correspondence with narrow ideal classes in $K$. This allows us to access the more than 200 years old class number problems of Gau{\ss} from a completely different point of view. Indeed, \c{c}ark surfaces produce high degree projective surfaces which are conjecturally Kobayashi hyperbolic. By a conjecture of Lang they have finitely many $\mathbf{Q}$-rational points. Reader is suggested to consult \cite{cark/and/lang} and references therein for further details on this point of view.
The paper is organized as follows: The next section is devoted to defining and establishing basic properties of the aforementioned polynomial sequences. In particular, multivariate Lucas and Fibonacci polynomials are defined. In the last section after a quick review of narrow ideal classes and the narrow ideal class group of a quadratic number field, we define the automorphism group of a narrow ideal class. In the real quadratic case, this group is isomorphic to $\mathbf{Z}$ generated by a hyperbolic element of $\mathrm{PSL}_{2}(\ZZ)$. Using this we attach an infinite bipartite ribbon graph, called \c{c}ark in \cite{UZD}, to a narrow ideal class and show how they give rise to integral points of an appropriate affine surface.
\section{Multivariable Lucas and Fibonacci polynomials}
In this section, we will introduce four families of polynomials, $A_{k},B_{k},C_{k}$ and $D_{k}$, indexed over positive integers. These polynomials have either rational or imaginary rational coefficients. The second part is devoted to listing certain properties which will be required in upcoming sections.
\subsection{The families $A_{k}, B_{k},C_{k}$ and $D_{k}$.}
Pauli matrices, which have proven themselves to be useful tools in the context of quantum mechanics, are defined as
$$ \sigma_{1} = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}, \quad
\sigma_{2} = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & -\sqrt{-1} \\ \sqrt{-1} & 0
\end{pmatrix}, \quad
\sigma_{3} = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1
\end{pmatrix}.
$$
\noindent They are of order two and satisfy $\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}\sigma_{3} = \sqrt{-1}$. They are traceless and their determinant is $-1$, hence their eigenvalues are $\pm1$.
Together with the identity matrix Pauli matrices form a basis for the vector space of matrices of size $2\times2$ with complex entries. In particular, for the matrix
$M(x,y) = \begin{pmatrix}
1+xy & x \\ y & 1
\end{pmatrix}
$
with $x$ and $y$ being complex variables, the coefficients of $I$, $\sigma_{1}$, $\sigma_{2}$ and $\sigma_{3}$ become $A = \frac{1}{2} (2 + xy)$, $B = \frac{1}{2}(x+y)$, $C = \frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2} (x-y)$ and $D = \frac{xy}{2}$, respectively. More generally, for a sequence of even number of complex numbers $x_{1}, y_{1}, \ldots, x_{k},y_{k}$ we define
$$M(x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k},y_{k}) := M(x_{1},y_{1})\cdot\ldots\cdot M(x_{k},y_{k}).$$
Then there should exist polynomials, $A_{k},B_{k},C_{k}$ and $D_{k}$ in $x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k},y_{k}$ so that
$$M = A_{k} \cdot I + B_{k} \cdot \sigma_{1} + C_{k} \cdot \sigma_{2} + D_{k} \cdot \sigma_{3}.$$
For instance, for $M(x_{1},y_{1},x_{2},y_{2})$, one finds immediately that
\begin{eqnarray*}
A_{2}(x_{1},y_{1},x_{2},y_{2}) &=& \frac{1}{2} (2 + (x_{1}+x_{2})(y_{1}+y_{2}) + x_{1}x_{2}y_{1}y_{2}) \\
B_{2}(x_{1},y_{1},x_{2},y_{2}) &=& \frac{1}{2}( (x_{1}+x_{2})+(y_{1}+y_{2}) + x_{2}y_{1}(x_{1}+y_{2})) \\
C_{2}(x_{1},y_{1},x_{2},y_{2}) &=& \frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}( (x_{1}+x_{2})-(y_{1}+y_{2}) + x_{2}y_{1}(x_{1}-y_{2})) \\
D_{2}(x_{1},y_{1},x_{2},y_{2}) &=& \frac{1}{2} ( x_{1}(y_{1}+y_{2}) - x_{2} (y_{1}-y_{2}) + x_{1}x_{2}y_{1}y_{2})
\end{eqnarray*}
The four families of polynomials satisfy the following recursive relations:
\begin{eqnarray*}
A_{k+1}^{1,2,\ldots,k+1} &=& A_{k}^{1,2,\ldots,k}A_{1}^{k+1} + B_{k}^{1,2,\ldots,k}B_{1}^{k+1} + C_{k}^{1,2,\ldots,k}C_{1}^{k+1} + D_{k}^{1,2,\ldots,n}D_{1}^{k+1} \\
B_{k+1}^{1,2,\ldots,k+1} &=& B_{k}^{1,2,\ldots,k}A_{1}^{k+1} + A_{k}^{1,2,\ldots,k}B_{1}^{k+1} + \sqrt{-1}(C_{k}^{1,2,\ldots,k}D_{1}^{k+1} - D_{k}^{1,2,\ldots,n}C_{1}^{k+1}) \\
C_{k+1}^{1,2,\ldots,k+1} &=& C_{k}^{1,2,\ldots,k}A_{1}^{k+1} + A_{k}^{1,2,\ldots,k}C_{1}^{k+1} + \sqrt{-1}(D_{k}^{1,2,\ldots,k}B_{1}^{k+1} - B_{k}^{1,2,\ldots,n}D_{1}^{k+1}) \\
D_{k+1}^{1,2,\ldots,k+1} &=& D_{k}^{1,2,\ldots,k}A_{1}^{k+1} + A_{k}^{1,2,\ldots,k}D_{1}^{k+1} + \sqrt{-1}(B_{k}^{1,2,\ldots,k}C_{1}^{k+1} - C_{k}^{1,2,\ldots,n}B_{1}^{k+1});
\end{eqnarray*}
where $A_{k}^{i_{1},i_{2},\ldots,i_{k}}$ stands for $A_{k}(x_{i_{1}},y_{i_{1}},\ldots,x_{i_{k}},y_{i_{k}})$. These set of relations can be obtained directly from the relations among Pauli matrices. It must be pointed out that these are not the only set of equations that defines the families $A_{k},B_{k},C_{k}$ and $D_{k}$. In fact, if we let $p(k)$ denote the number of partitions of the positive integer $k$, then there are $\frac{1}{2}p(k)$-many different such formulations.
We refer to Table~\ref{table:ex} for the first four members of these families in which to avoid rational coefficients we multiplied each polynomial by $2$.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c||p{10.7cm}|}
\hline\hline
$2A_{1}$ & $x_{1} y_{1} + 2$ \\\hline
$2A_{2}$ & $x_{1} x_{2} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{1} y_{1} + x_{2} y_{1} + x_{1} y_{2} + x_{2} y_{2} + 2$ \\\hline
$2A_{3}$ & $x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{2} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{1} x_{2} y_{1} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{1} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{2} x_{3} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{1} y_{1} + x_{2} y_{1} + x_{3} y_{1} + x_{1} y_{2} + x_{2} y_{2} + x_{3} y_{2} + x_{1} y_{3} + x_{2} y_{3} + x_{3} y_{3} + 2 $\\\hline
$2A_{4}$ & $x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} y_{1} y_{2} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} y_{1} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{4} y_{1} y_{2} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{4} y_{1} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} y_{1} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} y_{2} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} y_{2} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{2} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{2} x_{4} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{1} x_{2} y_{1} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{1} y_{3} + x_{2} x_{4} y_{1} y_{3} + x_{3} x_{4} y_{1} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{2} x_{3} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{3} x_{4} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{2} y_{1} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{1} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{4} y_{1} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{2} y_{4} + x_{2} x_{3} y_{2} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{4} y_{2} y_{4} + x_{2} x_{4} y_{2} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{4} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{2} x_{4} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{3} x_{4} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{1} y_{1} + x_{2} y_{1} + x_{3} y_{1} + x_{4} y_{1} + x_{1} y_{2} + x_{2} y_{2} + x_{3} y_{2} + x_{4} y_{2} + x_{1} y_{3} + x_{2} y_{3} + x_{3} y_{3} + x_{4} y_{3} + x_{1} y_{4} + x_{2} y_{4} + x_{3} y_{4} + x_{4} y_{4} + 2$ \\\hline\hline
$2B_{1}$ & $ x_{1} + y_{1}$ \\\hline
$2B_{2}$ & $x_{1} x_{2} y_{1} + x_{2} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{1} + x_{2} + y_{1} + y_{2}$ \\\hline
$2B_{3}$ & $x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{2} y_{1} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{1} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{2} + x_{2} x_{3} y_{2} + x_{2} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{2} y_{1} y_{3} + x_{3} y_{1} y_{3} + x_{3} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{1} + x_{2} + x_{3} + y_{1} + y_{2} + y_{3}$ \\\hline
$2B_{4}$ & $x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} y_{1} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} y_{1} y_{2} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{4} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{4} y_{1} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} y_{1} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} y_{4} + x_{2} x_{4} y_{1} y_{2} y_{4} + x_{2} x_{4} y_{1} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{3} x_{4} y_{1} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{3} x_{4} y_{2} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{2} y_{1} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{1} + x_{1} x_{4} y_{1} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{2} + x_{2} x_{3} y_{2} + x_{1} x_{4} y_{2} + x_{2} x_{4} y_{2} + x_{2} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{1} x_{4} y_{3} + x_{2} x_{4} y_{3} + x_{3} x_{4} y_{3} + x_{2} y_{1} y_{3} + x_{3} y_{1} y_{3} + x_{3} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{2} y_{1} y_{4} + x_{3} y_{1} y_{4} + x_{4} y_{1} y_{4} + x_{3} y_{2} y_{4} + x_{4} y_{2} y_{4} + x_{4} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{1} + x_{2} + x_{3} + x_{4} + y_{1} + y_{2} + y_{3} + y_{4}$ \\\hline\hline
$2C_{1}$ & $ \sqrt{-1} (x_{1} - y_{1})$ \\\hline
$2C_{2}$ & $\sqrt{-1} (x_{1} x_{2} y_{1} - x_{2} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{1} + x_{2} - y_{1} - y_{2} )$ \\\hline
$2C_{3}$ & $\sqrt{-1} ( x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} - x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{2} y_{1} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{1} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{2} + x_{2} x_{3} y_{2} - x_{2} y_{1} y_{2} - x_{2} y_{1} y_{3} - x_{3} y_{1} y_{3} - x_{3} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{1} + x_{2} + x_{3} - y_{1} - y_{2} - y_{3})$ \\\hline
$2C_{4}$ & $\sqrt{-1} (x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} y_{1} y_{2} y_{3} - x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} y_{1} y_{2} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{4} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{4} y_{1} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} y_{1} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} y_{2} y_{3} - x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} y_{3} - x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} y_{4} - x_{2} x_{4} y_{1} y_{2} y_{4} - x_{2} x_{4} y_{1} y_{3} y_{4} - x_{3} x_{4} y_{1} y_{3} y_{4} - x_{3} x_{4} y_{2} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{2} y_{1} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{1} + x_{1} x_{4} y_{1} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{2} + x_{2} x_{3} y_{2} + x_{1} x_{4} y_{2} + x_{2} x_{4} y_{2} - x_{2} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{1} x_{4} y_{3} + x_{2} x_{4} y_{3} + x_{3} x_{4} y_{3} - x_{2} y_{1} y_{3} - x_{3} y_{1} y_{3} - x_{3} y_{2} y_{3} - x_{2} y_{1} y_{4} - x_{3} y_{1} y_{4} - x_{4} y_{1} y_{4} - x_{3} y_{2} y_{4} - x_{4} y_{2} y_{4} - x_{4} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{1} + x_{2} + x_{3} + x_{4} - y_{1} - y_{2} - y_{3} - y_{4})$ \\\hline\hline
$2D_{1}$ & $x_{1} y_{1}$ \\\hline
$2D_{2}$ & $x_{1} x_{2} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{1} y_{1} - x_{2} y_{1} + x_{1} y_{2} + x_{2} y_{2}$ \\\hline
$2D_{3}$ & $x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{2} y_{1} y_{2} - x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{1} x_{2} y_{1} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{1} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{2} x_{3} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{1} y_{1} - x_{2} y_{1} - x_{3} y_{1} + x_{1} y_{2} + x_{2} y_{2} - x_{3} y_{2} + x_{1} y_{3} + x_{2} y_{3} + x_{3} y_{3}$ \\\hline
$2D_{4}$ & $x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} y_{1} y_{2} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} y_{3} - x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} y_{1} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{4} y_{1} y_{2} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{2} x_{4} y_{1} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} y_{1} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{3} x_{4} y_{2} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{2} x_{3} x_{4} y_{2} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{2} y_{1} y_{2} - x_{2} x_{3} y_{1} y_{2} - x_{2} x_{4} y_{1} y_{2} + x_{1} x_{2} y_{1} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{1} y_{3} - x_{2} x_{4} y_{1} y_{3} - x_{3} x_{4} y_{1} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{2} x_{3} y_{2} y_{3} - x_{3} x_{4} y_{2} y_{3} + x_{1} x_{2} y_{1} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{1} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{4} y_{1} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{3} y_{2} y_{4} + x_{2} x_{3} y_{2} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{4} y_{2} y_{4} + x_{2} x_{4} y_{2} y_{4} + x_{1} x_{4} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{2} x_{4} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{3} x_{4} y_{3} y_{4} + x_{1} y_{1} - x_{2} y_{1} - x_{3} y_{1} - x_{4} y_{1} + x_{1} y_{2} + x_{2} y_{2} - x_{3} y_{2} - x_{4} y_{2} + x_{1} y_{3} + x_{2} y_{3} + x_{3} y_{3} - x_{4} y_{3} + x_{1} y_{4} + x_{2} y_{4} + x_{3} y_{4} + x_{4} y_{4}$\\\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{First few members of the families $A_{k},B_{k},C_{k}$ and $D_{k}$.}
\label{table:ex}
\end{table}
\subsection{Properties}
\label{sec:properties}
The following is a list of properties satisfied by these polynomials:
\begin{itemize}
\item $B_{k}, C_{k}$ and $D_{k}$ do not have any degree 0 term. That of $A_{k}$ is equal to $\frac{1}{2}\cdot 2$.
\item For any integer $k>1$ neither of the families contain a term of the form $x_{i}^{k}$ or $y_{i}^{k}$.
\item The polynomials $A_{k}(x,y,x,y,\ldots,x,y)$ and $D_{k}(x,y,x,y,\ldots,x,y)$ are comprised only of monomials of the form $x^{l}y^{l}$ for every $1 \leq l \leq k$. As a resuly, all monomials in $A_{k}$ and $D_{k}$ are of even degree.
\item The polynomials $B_{k}(x,y,x,y,\ldots,x,y)$ and $C_{k}(x,y,x,y,\ldots,x,y)$ are comprised only of monomials of the form $x^{l}y^{l+1}$ for every $1 \leq l \leq k-1$ and $x^{l+1}y^{l}$ for every $1\leq l \leq k-1$. Moreover, the number of terms of the form $x^{l}y^{l+1}$ is equal to the number of terms of the form $x^{l+1}y^{l}$. As a result, all monomials in $B_{k}$ and $C_{k}$ are of odd degree.
\item Degree of $A_{k}$ and $D_{k}$ are $2k$; whereas that of $B_{k}$ and $C_{k}$ are $2k-1$.
\item $2A_{k}, 2B_{k}, \frac{2}{\sqrt{-1}}C_{k}$ and $2D_{k}$ are elements of the ring $\mathbf{Z}[x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k},y_{k}]$ and are irreducible in this ring.
\end{itemize}
Proofs of the facts listed above can be obtained by induction which we leave to the reader. Proof of the following theorem exemplifies arguments involved in such proofs.
\begin{theorem}
The polynomial $2A_{k}(x,x,\ldots,x)$ is equal to the $2k^{\mbox{th}}$ Lucas polynomial\footnote{The $k^{\mbox{th}}$ Lucas polynomial, $L_{k}(x)$, is defined as $L_{k}(x) = 2^{-k}(( x - \sqrt{x^{2} + 4})^{k} + (x + \sqrt{x^{2}+4})^{k})$. For $k \geq 1$, Lucas polynomials satisfy the recursion $L_{k+1}(x) = x L_{k}(x) + L_{k-1}(x)$, with initial conditions being $L_{0}(x) = 2$ and $L_{1}(x) = x$. The first few Lucas polynomials are $L_{2}(x) = x^{2}+2$, $L_{3}(x) = x^{3} + 3x$, $L_{4}(x) = x^{4} + 4x^{2} + 2$.}, denoted by $L_{2k}(x)$.
\label{thm:lucas}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We know that $L_{2k}(x) = xL_{2k-1}(x) + L_{2(k-1)}(x)$. Writing the same recursion formula for $L_{2k-1}(x)$, multiplying by $x$ and subtracting from the first, we obtain $L_{2k}(x) = (x^{2}+1)L_{2(k-1)} + xL_{2k-3}(x)$. Solving for $xL_{2k-3}(x)$ from the recursion for $L_{2(k-1)}(x)$ we finally obtain the recursion formula for the even terms in the Lucas polynomial sequence, which reads $L_{2k}(x) = (x^{2} + 2)L_{2(k-1)}(x) - L_{2(k-2)}(x)$ for $k \geq 2$.
On the other hand, by definition, we have $M(x,x,\ldots,x) = M(x,x)^{k}$. As noted above for $k=1$, $2A =2+x^{2}$, $B = 2x$, $C = 0$ and $2D =x^{2}$. Suppose that $M^{k-1} = f_{k-1}(x) + B g_{k-1}(x)\sigma_{1} + Cg_{k-1}(x)\sigma_{2} + D g_{k-1}(x)\sigma_{3}$. If we write $M^{k}$ with respect to the basis consisting of identity and the Pauli matrices then we obtain the following set of equations
\begin{eqnarray*}
f_{k}(x) &=& Af_{k-1}(x) + B^{2}g_{k-1}(x) + C^{2}g_{k-1}(x) + D^{2}g_{k-1}(x))\\
g_{k}(x) &=& Ag_{k-1}(x) + f_{k-1}(x)
\end{eqnarray*}
We rewrite the first equality using $\det(M) = 1 = A^{2} - (B^{2}+C^{2}+D^{2})$ and get $f_{k}(x) = Af_{k-1}(x) + (A^{2}-1)g_{k-1}(x)$. This establishes the fact that there are polynomial families $f_{k}$ and $g_{k}$ indexed over the set of positive integers so that $M^{k} = f_{k}(x) + B g_{k}(x)\sigma_{1} + Cg_{k}(x)\sigma_{2} + D g_{k}(x)\sigma_{3}$. A short algebraic manipulation on these equations gives us the recurrence relation $f_{k+1}(x) = 2Af_{k}(x) - f_{k-1}(x)$, subject to the initial conditions that $f_{0}(x) = 1$ and $f_{1}(x) = 2A = 2+x^{2}$.
\end{proof}
Let us remark that the above method can be applied in a slightly more general setup where one obtains polynomials $f_{k}$ and $g_{k}$ of $A$ and $\det(M)$, see \cite{herpin/lucas}. One may immediately ask analogous questions for the remaining polynomial families. It is immediate to prove that $C_{k}(x,x,\ldots,x) = 0$ for any positive integer $k$. The probably more interesting result is the following result whose proof is almost identical (the only essential difference being determining the initial condition) to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:lucas} and therefore will be omitted.
\begin{theorem}
The polynomial $B_{k}(x,x,\ldots,x)$ is the $2k^{\mbox{th}}$ Fibonacci polynomial\footnote{The $k^{\mbox{th}}$ Fibonacci polynomial is defined as $F_{k}(x) = 2^{-k} \frac{(x +\sqrt{x^{2}+4})^{k} - (x - \sqrt{x^{2}+4})^{k}}{\sqrt{x^{2}+4}}$. For $k \geq 1$ Fibonacci polynomials satisfy the recursion $F_{k+1}(x) = xF_{k}(x) +F_{k-1}(x)$ subject to the initial conditions $F_{0}(x) = 0$ and $F_{1}(x) = 1$. The first few Fibonacci polynomials are $F_{2}(x) = x$, $F_{3}(x) = x^{2}+1$, $F_{4}(x) = x^{3} + 2x$.}, denoted by $F_{2k}(x)$.
\label{thm:fibonacci}
\end{theorem}
Encouraged by Theorem~\ref{thm:lucas} we make the following:
\begin{definition}
For $k \in \mathbf{Z}_{\geq1}$ we call the polynomial $2A_{k}$ to be the $2k^{\mbox{th}}$ \emph{multivariate Lucas polynomial} and denote it by $\mathcal{L}_{2k}$. Similarly, we define the $2k^{\mbox{th}}$ \emph{multivariate Fibonacci polynomial} as $B_{k}$ and denote it by $\mathcal{F}_{2k}$.
\end{definition}
To answer the analogous question for $D_{k}$ we note the following:
\begin{proposition}
For any positive integer $k$ we have $\frac{B_{k}(x,x,\ldots,x)}{2x} = \frac{D_{k}(x,x,\ldots,x)}{x^{2}}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}[Sketch of proof.]
Using the method above, one obtains a recursion formula for the polynomial $\frac{2 D_{k}(x,x,\ldots,x)}{x}$ which is exactly the same as Fibonacci polynomials with the same initial conditions.
\end{proof}
The multivariate Lucas and Fibonacci polynomial families enjoy the \emph{expected} properties of their one variable versions, which are consequences of Theorems~\ref{thm:fibonacci} and ~\ref{thm:lucas}. For instance, $\mathcal{L}_{2k}(0,0,\ldots,0) = 2$, $\mathcal{L}_{2k}(1,1,\ldots,1) = L_{2k}$; where $L_{2k}$ denote the $2k^{\mbox{th}}$ Lucas number\footnote{Lucas numbers are defined recursively as $L_{1} = 1$, $L_{2} = 3 $ and $L_{k+1} = L_{k} + L_{k-1}$.}. We also have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{L}_{2k} (x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k-1},y_{k-1},0,0) = \mathcal{L}_{2(k-1)} (x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k-1},y_{k-1}).
\label{eq:lucas/going/down}
\end{eqnarray*}
We may then obtain the following using induction:
\begin{lemma}
For any positive integer $l$ we have
$$\mathcal{L}_{2(k+l)}(x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k},y_{k},\underbrace{0,0,\ldots,0,0}_{2l-\mbox{many}})= \mathcal{L}_{2k}(x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k},y_{k}).$$
\label{thm:zeroes/in/cark/equation}
\end{lemma}
Similar properties hold also for the Fibonacci family $\mathcal{F}_{2k}$. Namely, $\mathcal{F}_{2k}(1,1,\ldots,1) = F_{2k}$; where $F_{2k}$ stands for the $2k^{\mbox{th}}$ Fibonacci number\footnote{Fibonacci numbers are defined recusively as $F_{k+1} = F_{k} + F_{k-1}$ subject to the initial conditions $F_{0} = 0$ and $F_{1} = 1$.}. We finally have
$$\mathcal{F}_{2k}(x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k-1},y_{k-1},0,0)= \mathcal{F}_{2(k-1)}(x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k-1},y_{k-1}).$$
We invite the reader to discover the related phenomenon for the families $C_{k}$ and $D_{k}$.
The generator $1$ of the group $\mathbf{Z}/k\mathbf{Z}$ acts on the ordered pair $(x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k},y_{k})$ by sending it to $(x_{k},y_{k},x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k-1},y_{k-1})$. This action leaves $\mathcal{L}_{2k}$ invariant; that is
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}_{2k}(1 \cdot (x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k},y_{k})) = \mathcal{L}_{2k}(x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k},y_{k}).
\label{eq:lucas/invariance}
\end{eqnarray}
Indeed, this symmetry can be seen easily by considering the action on the matrix $M(x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k},y_{k})$ and noting that the trace is invariant within a conjugacy class. This property has the consequence that for any $1\leq i \leq k$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{L}_{2k}(x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{i-1},y_{i-1},0,0,x_{i+1},y_{i+1},\ldots,x_{k},y_{k}) = \mathcal{L}_{2(k-1)}(x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k-1},y_{k-1}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Although $B_{k}$ and $C_{k}$ does not enjoy such a property, let us state, without proof, the following symmetry of $D_{k}$:
$$1 \cdot D_{k}(y_{1},x_{1},\ldots,y_{k},x_{k}) = D_{k}(x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k},y_{k}).$$
\section{\c{C}ark surfaces}
The main aim in this section is to define \c{c}ark surfaces using the multivariate Lucas polynomials and obtain a one-to-one correspondence between integral points of these surfaces and narrow ideal classes. Throughout $K$ stands for a real quadratic number field. We will only explain the theory of narrow ideal classes in such fields, although a much more general theory exists. Interested reader may consult \cite{lang/ant,neukirch/ant,stewart/tall/ant}.
\subsection{Narrow ideal classes.}
For such a number field $K$, there is a square-free positive integer $d$ so that $K = \mathbf{Q}(\sqrt{d})$. Since the extension degree is two its Galois group is of order $2$, and for any element $\alpha \in K$, by $\ol{\alpha}$ we denote the image of $\alpha$ under the unique non-trivial element. The ring of integers, $\mathbf{Z}_{K}$, of $K = \mathbf{Q}(\sqrt{d})$ depends on $d$. More precisely, $\mathbf{Z}_{K} = 1\cdot \mathbf{Z} + \sqrt{d}\cdot \mathbf{Z}$ whenever $d \equiv 2,3 \mod 4$ and $\mathbf{Z}_{K} = 1\cdot \mathbf{Z} + \frac{1+\sqrt{d}}{2}\mathbf{Z}$ if $d \equiv 1 \mod 4$. A subset $\aa$ of $K$ is called a \emph{fractional ideal} of $\mathbf{Z}_{K}$ (or $K$) if $\aa$ is a 2 dimensional $\mathbf{Z}$-module and for which there is an integer $\xi \in \mathbf{Z}$ so that $\xi \aa \subset \mathbf{Z}_{K}$. Note that the product of two fractional ideals is again a fractional ideal. The norm of a fractional ideal $\aa$, denoted by $N(\aa)$, is defined as $\frac{1}{\xi^{2}}[\mathbf{Z}_{K}:\xi\aa]$; where $[\mathbf{Z}_{K}:\xi\aa]$ stands for the index of $\xi\aa$ in $\mathbf{Z}_{K}$. As $\xi \aa$ is an ideal in a Dedekind domain, there are at most two elements $\alpha,\beta \in \xi \aa$ so that $(\alpha,\beta) = \xi \aa$. In this case, we say that $\aa = (\frac{\alpha}{\xi},\frac{\beta}{\xi})$ and the elements are called the generators of $\aa$.
For a fractional ideal $\aa$ generated by $\alpha,\beta \in K$, the function $f_{\aa}$ defined on the ideal $\aa$ sending any element $\nu \in \aa$ to $\frac{\nu \ol{\nu}}{N(\aa)}$ is an integral valued binary quadratic form on $\aa$. If we write $\nu = X\alpha + Y \beta$ then we have $f_{\aa}(X,Y) = aX^{2} + bXY + cY^{2}$; where $a = \frac{\alpha \ol{\alpha}}{N(\aa)}$, $b = \frac{\alpha\ol{\beta}+\ol{\alpha}\beta}{N(\aa)}$ and $c = \frac{\beta \ol{\beta}}{N(\aa)}$. One finds that the discriminant of this form, $\Delta(f_{\aa}) := b^{2} - 4ac$, is equal to $4d$ if $d \equiv 2,3 \mod 4$ and is equal to $d$ if $d \equiv 1 \mod 4$, i.e. is equal to the discriminant\footnote{The discriminant of a number field $K$ of degree $n$ is defined as the square of the determinant of the $n\times n$ matrix whose $(i,j)^{\mbox{th}}$ entry is $\sigma_{i}(\alpha_{j})$; where $\{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\ldots,\alpha_{n}\}\subset \mathbf{Z}_{K}$ is a basis of $\mathbf{Z}_{K}$ and $\{\sigma_{1},\sigma_{2},\ldots,\sigma_n\}$ is the set of distinct embeddings of $K$ into $\mathbf{C}$.} of $K$. Given a square-free $d$, the discriminant of the corresponding number field is called a \emph{fundamental discriminant}. As a result of the choice of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ $f_{\aa}$ is integral, that is $a,b,c \in \mathbf{Z}$ and as $d>0$ the form $f_{\aa}$ is indefinite. The binary quadratic form $f_{\aa}$ is, in addition, \emph{primitive}, that is the greatest common divisor of the coefficients $a,b$ and $c$ is 1.
To avoid ambiguity caused by the ordering of generators, we say that a basis $(\alpha,\beta)$ of $\aa$ is oriented if $\ol{\alpha}\beta - \alpha \ol{\beta}>0$. Any element of $K$ of positive norm, say $\lambda$, maps an oriented basis to an oriented basis via sending $(\alpha,\beta)$ to $(\lambda\alpha,\lambda\beta)$. We define two fractional ideals $\aa$ and $\mathfrak{b}$ to be equivalent if there is an element $\lambda \in K$ of positive norm so that $\aa = \lambda\mathfrak{b}$. The set of equivalence classes of fractional ideals in $K$ is denoted by $H^{+}(K)$ and is a group under multiplication called the \emph{narrow class group}. An element of $H^{+}(K)$ is denoted by $[\aa] = [\alpha,\beta]$ and is called a \emph{narrow ideal class}. Note that whenever $\mathbf{Z}_{K}$ has a unit of norm $-1$, $H^{+}(K)$ turns out to be isomorphic to the classical ideal class group $H(K)$, else it is a degree two extension of the class group. In either case, we say that a narrow ideal class of $[\aa]$ in $H^{+}(K)$ lies above its ideal class in $H(K)$.
We refer to \cite{zagier/zetafunktionen/quadratische/zahlkorper} for details and proofs of the facts above.
\subsection{Automorphisms of narrow ideal classes.}
\label{sec:automorphisms}
The group $\mathrm{PSL}_{2}(\ZZ)$ acts on the set of indefinite integral primitive binary quadratic forms via change of variable. The $\mathrm{PSL}_{2}(\ZZ)$-orbit of $f$ is denoted by $[f]$. For such a form $f(X,Y) = aX^{2} + bXY + cY^{2}$ its stabilizer is isomorphic to $\mathbf{Z}$. We call the equation $X^{2} - \Delta Z^{2} = 4$ the corresponding Pell equation; where $\Delta$ is the discriminant of $f$. The map sending an integral solution $(x,z)$ to the matrix
$W(x,z) = \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{x-zb}{2} & -cz\\
az & \frac{x+zb}{2}
\end{pmatrix}
$
gives a bijection from the set of integral solution of the corresponding Pell equation and the stabilizer of $f$. By $(x_{o},z_{o})$ we denote the solution which has the smallest positive second component among all solutions. It is called the \emph{fundamental solution}. The matrix $W_{f} = W(x_{o},z_{o})$ is called the \emph{fundamental automorphism} of $f$ which is the generator of the stabilizer of $f$, \cite[Theorem~2.5.5]{bqf/vollmer}. The other generator is $W_{f}^{-1} = W(x_{o},-z_{o})$. A direct result of this is the following:
\begin{corollary}
If $f$ is an integral primitive indefinite binary quadratic form of discriminant $\Delta$ and $W$ is a automorphism of $f$, then $\mathrm{tr}(W)^{2} - 4 = z^{2}\Delta$ for some $z \in \mathbf{Z}$.
\label{cor:trace/plus/4}
\end{corollary}
If $f = f_{\aa}$ for some narrow ideal class $\aa$ of $K$, then an element $W$ of the stabilizer $\langle W_{f} \rangle$ is called an \emph{automorphism of} $\aa$ and the matrix $W(x_{o},z_{o})$ (with $z_{o}>0$) is called the \emph{fundamental automorphism} of $\aa$. Remark that the fundamental automorphism of all narrow ideal classes of $K$ arise from the same solution, hence the fundamental solution $(x_{o},z_{o})$ is an invariant of the number field.
The two matrices
$S = \begin{pmatrix}
0&-1\\1&0
\end{pmatrix}
$
and
$L = \begin{pmatrix}
1&-1\\1&0
\end{pmatrix}
$
generate $\mathrm{PSL}_{2}(\ZZ)$ freely and therefore induce the isomorphism $\mathrm{PSL}_{2}(\ZZ) \cong \mathbf{Z}/2\mathbf{Z} \ast \mathbf{Z}/3\mathbf{Z}$. In particular, $W_{f}$ can be written as a word in $S, L$ and $L^{2}$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $W_{f}$ has no cancellations.
The action of $\mathrm{PSL}_{2}(\ZZ)$ on the set of narrow ideal classes of $K$ is defined as
$\gamma \cdot (\alpha,\beta) \mapsto (p\alpha + q\beta, r\alpha+s\beta)$; where
$\gamma = \begin{pmatrix}
p&q\\r&s
\end{pmatrix}$.
Note that $f_{\gamma\cdot\aa} = \gamma\cdot f_{\aa}$. The correspondence defined as $[\aa] \mapsto [f_{\aa}]$ is one-to-one, see \cite[\S10, Satz]{zagier/zetafunktionen/quadratische/zahlkorper}. This correspondence is far from being onto as there are many primitive forms of non-square-free discriminant. For instance, if $f = (a,b,c)$ is an indefinite binary quadratic form of arising from $\mathbf{Q}(\sqrt{d})$ with $d$ being square-free (hence its discriminant $\Delta$ is either $d$ or $4d$ depending on the class of $d \in \mathbf{Z}/4\mathbf{Z}$) then for any prime number $p>2$ not dividing $a$, the form $(a,bp,cp^{2})$ is a primitive form of discriminant $p^{2}\Delta$.
One can also prove that the correspondence $[\aa] \mapsto [W_{f_{\aa}}]$; where $[W_{f_{\aa}}]$ stands for the conjugacy class of the stabilizer of $f_{\aa}$ is one-to-one, see \cite[Proposition~2.1]{UZD}. As above, this correspondence is not surjective even when one restricts to primitive elements(i.e. elements which are not powers of other elements).
\subsection{\c{C}arks.}
The modular group $\mathrm{PSL}_{2}(\ZZ)$ acts on the upper half plane $\mathfrak{h} = \{z \in \mathbf{C} \colon \mathrm{Im}(z)>0\}$. An element $\gamma = \begin{pmatrix}
p&q\\r&s
\end{pmatrix}$
sends an element $z\in \mathfrak{h}$ to $\frac{pz+q}{rz+s}\in \mathfrak{h}$. Fixed points of the matrices $S$ and $L$ are $\sqrt{-1}$ and $\zeta_{3} = e^{2 \pi \sqrt{-1}/3}$, respectively. We mark $\sqrt{-1}$ by a $\circ$ and $\zeta_{3}$ by $\bullet$. These points are on the unit circle centered at $0 \in \mathbf{C}$. The $\mathrm{PSL}_{2}(\ZZ)$ orbit (in $\mathfrak{h}$) of the part of the circle between $\circ$ and $\bullet$ is defined as the Farey tree which will be denoted by $\mathcal{F}$, see Figure~\ref{fig:Farey/tree}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1]{Farey-tree}
\caption{The Farey tree, $\mathcal{F}$.}
\label{fig:Farey/tree}
\end{figure}
The Farey tree is by construction bipartite and planar. Moreover, it admits a free action of $\mathrm{PSL}_{2}(\ZZ)$ in such a fashion that edges of the Farey tree can be identified with elements of $\mathrm{PSL}_{2}(\ZZ)$. A similar correspondence holds between vertices of type $\circ$ (resp. $\bullet$) and cosets of the torsion subgroup $\{I,S\}$ (resp. $\{I,L,L^{2}\}$). Hence, for any subgroup $\Gamma$ of $\mathrm{PSL}_{2}(\ZZ)$, one may talk about the quotient graph, $\Gamma \backslash \mathcal{F}$, which is again bipartite but not necessarily planar as a ribbon graph. In such a graph, every vertex of type $\bullet$ is of order $1$ or $3$ and every vertex of type $\circ$ is of order $1$ or $2$. In particular, the full quotient, $\mathrm{PSL}_{2}(\ZZ) \backslash \mathfrak{h}$ is called the modular orbifold. Let us remark that the covering category consisting of \'{e}tale covers of the modular orbifold is so rich that the whole absolute Galois group can be recovered from it, see \cite{panorama}. The quotient $\mathrm{PSL}_{2}(\ZZ) \backslash \mathcal{F}$ has only two vertices, one is $\circ$ and the other is $\bullet$ with a single edge joining the two.
The conjugation action of $\mathrm{PSL}_{2}(\ZZ)$ on its subgroups is equivalent to the translation action of $\mathrm{PSL}_{2}(\ZZ)$ on the set of edges of the corresponding graph, see \cite[Theorem~2.2]{UZD}. Let us make the following:
\begin{definition}
Let $\aa$ be a narrow ideal class in $K$. Then the graph $\langle W_{f_{\aa}}\rangle \backslash \mathcal{F}$ is called the \emph{\c{c}ark} corresponding to $\aa$. This graph is denoted by $\mathfrak{C}_{\aa}$.
\end{definition}
Similar to other correspondences stated, this is again one to one but far from being surjective, as there are \c{c}arks which come from binary quadratic forms of non-square-free discriminant. Nevertheless, \c{c}arks that come from a narrow ideal class inherit all invariants of ideal classes and corresponding binary quadratic forms, e.g. discriminants, traces, etc. The graph $\mathfrak{C}_{\aa}$ is planar, can be embedded in an annulus conformally (\cite[\S3.2]{UZD}) and has a unique cycle called \emph{spine}. The number of vertices on the spine is finite and the number of vertices of type $\circ$ on the spine is equal to the number of vertices of type $\bullet$. The graph $\mathfrak{C}_{\aa}$ is then formed by attaching Farey trees to all vertices of type $\bullet$ on the spine so that they should expand both \emph{inside} and \emph{outside} the spine. Each so attached Farey tree is called a Farey branch. The number of consecutive Farey branches that point in the same direction is called a Farey bunch. The graph $\mathfrak{C}_{\aa}$ and hence the conjugacy class of $W_{f_{\aa}}$ is completely determined by the formation of these Farey bunches and the number of Farey branches within these bunches.
\begin{example}
For $K = \mathbf{Q}(\sqrt{30})$, we set $\aa = (2,\sqrt{30})$. $N(\aa) = 2$. This gives rise to the indefinite binary quadratic form $f_{\aa}(X,Y) = 2X^{2} -15Y^{2}$. We have $W_{f_{\aa}} = \begin{pmatrix}
11&30\\4&11
\end{pmatrix}$ and in terms of the generators one has $W_{f_{\aa}} = (LS)^{2}L^{2}S (LS)^{2} L^{2}S (LS)^{2}$. Figure~\ref{fig:cark/example} depicts the corresponding \c{c}ark.
\label{ex:sqrt/30}
\end{example}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{cark-example}
\caption{The \c{c}ark representing $\aa = (2,\sqrt{30})$.}
\label{fig:cark/example}
\end{figure}
\subsection{\c{C}arks as integral points.}
Let $\aa$ be a narrow ideal class in $K$ and $W_{f_{\aa}} \in \mathrm{PSL}_{2}(\ZZ)$ be its fundamental automorphism. Elements in the conjugacy class $[W_{f_{\aa}}]$ can be partially ordered according to their lengths (i.e. number of letters $S,L$ and $L^{2}$ that appear). Under the correspondence between the edges of the \c{c}ark $\mathfrak{C}_{\aa}$ and $[W_{f_{\aa}}]$ one may observe that those that are of smallest length (called \emph{minimal words}) correspond exactly to edges on the spine. Minimal words are not unique because if $W$ is such a word then so is $SWS$. In fact, minimal words can be written as a disjoint union of those that start with $S$ and those that start either with $L$ or with $L^{2}$. Among the latter there are those that can be written of the form $(LS)^{m_{1}}(L^{2}S)^{n_{1}} \ldots (LS)^{m_{k}}(L^{2}S)^{n_{k}}$; where $m_{1}, n_{1},\ldots,m_{k},n_{k}\geq 1$. To each such element in the conjugacy class, we associate the ordered pair $(m_{1},n_{1},\ldots,m_{k},n_{k})$ and call $k$ the length of the \c{c}ark. Observe that the integers $m_{i}$ represent the number of Farey trees in consecutive Farey bunches that expand in the direction of the outer boundary. Analogously $n_{i}$ stand for the number of Farey tree in the Farey bunches that expand in the direction of the inner boundary.
A couple of remarks are in order. If the conjugacy class of a word $W$ gives rise to the sequence $(m_{1},n_{1},\ldots,m_{k},n_{k})$, then $W^{l}$ gives rise to the same sequence repeated $l$-times, in particular it is represented by a $2kl$-tuple. Let us define a \c{c}ark to be \emph{primitive} if it is not a repetition of a shorter \c{c}ark. Therefore, although $W$ and $W^{l}$ give rise to the same binary quadratic form their \c{c}arks are different. Secondly, the number $k_{\aa} := k$ is fixed for a narrow ideal class $\aa$ and the length of the minimal word is equal to $2\sum_{i=1}^{k}(m_{i}+n_{i})$. However, different narrow ideal classes of the same number field $K$ may be represented by minimal words of different lengths, e.g. for $K = \mathbf{Q}(\sqrt{30})$ $H^{+}(K) \cong (\mathbf{Z}/2\mathbf{Z})^{2}$, with two narrow ideal classes that lies above the class of the principal ideal being represented by a 2-tuple, and as we have seen earlier(Example~\ref{ex:sqrt/30}), the two narrow ideal classes lying above $[(2,\sqrt{30})]$ being represented by a 4-tuple. We are now ready to prove our main theorem:
\begin{theorem}
Let $K$ be a real quadratic number field of discriminant $\Delta$. Then each narrow ideal class in $K$ gives rise to an integral solution of the equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}_{2k}(x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k},y_{k})^{2} - 4 = z^{2}\Delta;
\label{eq:cark/hypersurface}
\end{eqnarray}
for some positive integer $k$ and for some $z \in \mathbf{Z}$ which depends only on $K$.
\label{thm:affine/equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We let $k = k_{K}$ to be the maximum of $k_{\aa}$ as $\aa$ runs through $H^{+}(K)$ and let $\Delta$ be the discriminant of $K$. Set $(x_{o},z_{o})$ to be the fundamental solution of the corresponding Pell equation $X^{2} - \Delta Z^{2} = 4$. Remark that for any narrow ideal class, the fundamental automorphism will be obtained using $(x_{o},z_{o})$. For each \c{c}ark represented by $2l$-tuple, say $(m_{\aa,1},n_{\aa,1}, \ldots m_{\aa,l},n_{\aa,l})$, for $l<k$ we complete it to a $2k$-tuple by appending $2(k-l)$-many zeroes to the end of the tuple and obtain $(m_{\aa,1},n_{\aa,1}, \ldots m_{\aa,l},n_{\aa,l},0,\ldots,0)$. Given such a $2k$-tuple, say $(m_{1},n_{1},\ldots,m_{k}n_{k})$ we set:
$$W = (LS)^{m_{1}}(L^{2}S)^{n_{1}}\ldots (LS)^{m_{k}}(L^{2}S)^{n_{k}}.$$
By construction the matrix $W \in \mathrm{PSL}_{2}(\ZZ)$ is a fundamental automorphism of the binary quadratic form $f_{\aa}$. Using the correspondence between automorphisms and solutions of the Pell equation $X^{2}+\Delta Z^{2} = 4$, see Section~\ref{sec:automorphisms}, we obtain $\mathrm{tr}(W) = x = x_{o}$ and satisfies $x_{o}^{2} - 4 = \Delta z_{o}^{2}$.
Now, we observe that $M(m,n) = (LS)^{m}(L^{2}S)^{n}$. The multivariate Lucas polynomial $\mathcal{L}_{2k} = 2A_{k}$ is merely the trace of the matrix $M(x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k},y_{k})$ hence trace of $W$ is equal to $\mathcal{L}_{2k}(m_{1},n_{1},\ldots,m_{k},n_{k})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
We let $C_{K}\subset \mathbf{C}^{2k_{K}}$ denote the solution set of the equation
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{L}_{2k_{K}}(x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k_{K}},y_{k_{K}})^{2} - 4 = z^{2}\Delta;
\end{eqnarray*}
refer to it as the \emph{affine \c{c}ark hypersurface}.
\end{definition}
Recall that there is an action of $\mathbf{Z}/k\mathbf{Z}$ on $\mathcal{L}_{2k}$. This means that the set $C_{K}$ admits an action of $\mathbf{Z}/k_{K}\mathbf{Z}$, see Equation~\ref{eq:lucas/invariance}.
\begin{definition}
The \emph{affine \c{c}ark surface} of $K$ is defined as the quotient $C_{K}/(\mathbf{Z}/k_{K}\mathbf{Z})$. This surface will be denoted by $\mathcal{C}_{K}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{corollary}
Let $K$ be a real quadratic number field. Then there is a one to one correspondence between integral points of the \c{c}ark surface $\mathcal{C}_{K}$ and narrow ideal classes in $K$.
\label{thm:quotient}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
One way of this correspondence can be obtained by using Theorem~\ref{thm:affine/equation} and noting the fact that the action of $\mathbf{Z}/k_{K}\mathbf{Z}$ does not change the conjugacy class of the fundamental automorphism of narrow ideal classes.
Conversely, if we start with an integral point on $\mathcal{C}_{K}$, say $(m_{1},n_{1},\ldots,m_{k_{K}},m_{k_{K}})$, one can construct the element
$$W = (LS)^{m_{1}}(L^{2}S)^{n_{1}}\ldots (LS)^{m_{k}}(L^{2}S)^{n_{k}}$$
and look at the narrow ideal class that arises from the binary quadratic form whose fundamental automorphism is $W$, namely if
$W = \begin{pmatrix}
p&q\\r&s
\end{pmatrix}
$ then the corresponding indefinite primitive binary quadratic form is $f(X,Y) = \frac{1}{\delta} \left(rX^{2} +(s-p)XY - qY^{2}\right)$; where $\delta$ is the greatest common divisor of $r$, $s-p$ and $q$. Since this point is a solution of Equation~\ref{eq:cark/hypersurface}; where by definition $z_{o}$ is minimal, the discriminant of this form must be square-free.
\end{proof}
Let us conclude the paper with a few remarks. Instead of considering the \emph{fundamental solution} we may consider other $z$ arising from non-fundamental solutions of the corresponding Pell equation. Even more generally, we may treat $z$ as variable in the equation and consider the affine hypersurface with equation
$$\mathcal{L}_{2k}(x_{1},y_{1},\ldots,x_{k},y_{k})^{2} - 4 = z^{2}\Delta$$ in $\mathbf{C}^{2k+1}$. Each integral point on the quotient of this hypersurface with the obvious action of $\mathbf{Z}/k\mathbf{Z}$ gives rise to a binary quadratic form whose discriminant's square-free part is equal to $\Delta$. Such integral points gives rise to non-maximal orders in $\mathbf{Z}_{K}$. One may then intersect the hypersurface with $z = \lambda$ planes, where $\lambda \in \mathbf{Z}$, and then consider integral points of the intersection. In this case, again each integral point gives rise to a narrow ideal class in an appropriate class group, see \cite[Theorem~5.2.9]{computational/nt/cohen}. One may generalize Corollary~\ref{thm:quotient} immediately to this case. Indeed, assuming one can compute the class number for $K$, or almost equivalently find the number of integral points on the \c{c}ark surface of $K$, one can determine the number of integral points of this surface, see \cite[Corollary~7.28]{cox/primes/of/the/form}.
\paragraph{Acknowledgments.} This research is supported by T\"{U}B\.{I}TAK 1001 Grant 114R073.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
Diagnosing unusual events (called ``anomalies") in a large-scale network like Internet Service Providers and enterprise networks is critical and challenging for both network operators and end users. Anomalies occur due to activity from malicious operations, or misconfigurations and failures of network equipments. This paper addresses ``{\it traffic volume anomaly}", which means large and sudden positive or negative {\it traffic volume changes} due to strong variances in traffic flows. These changes are typically caused by unexpected events such as alpha events (e.g., large file transfers), outages coming from network equipment failures, network attacks like denial-of-service attacks (DoS), and traffic shifts. Diagnosing such a volume anomaly in a flow consists of three steps; detection, identification and quantification \cite{Lakhina_SIGCOMM_2004}. The {\it detection} step is to unveil time points when the network is facing an anomaly. The {\it identification} step consists of selecting the right anomaly type from a set of possible candidate anomalies. The identification step addressed in this paper additionally allows to identify which flow experiences such an anomaly. Finally, the {\it quantification} step is about to estimate the number of additional or missing bytes in the underlying traffic flow. The detection and identification problems are of interest in this paper. The quantification problem is essential but extremely challenging in the online-based approach under an incomplete observation situation that this paper addresses, and this remains an open problem.
Network-wide traffic is typically expressed in the form of matrices or multidimensional arrays, i.e., tensors. In general, a traffic volume exchanged between every pair of an ingress and an egress node or PoP (Point of Presence) during a given time period forms a two-dimensional non-negative matrix, often called the {\it traffic matrix} or the {\it flow matrix}. This paper explicitly uses the term flow matrix to avoid confusion with the link matrix mentioned hereafter. A flow is referred to as an {\it origin-destination} (OD) flow. Here, the term {\it traffic volume} refers to the number of bytes, packets, or flows measured in a certain time interval at one point in the network. A noteworthy point is that one single OD flow traverses multiple links based on the routing tables, thereby a volume anomaly in one single OD flow is visible across several links simultaneously. For diagnosing, a large-scale direct collecting of {\it flow measurements}, which is {\it flow-level data}, is extremely resource intensive due to the collection of {\it fine-grained} data. It also requires a flow monitoring infrastructure across an entire network, and this is extremely costly. To the contrary, {\it link measurements}, which are {\it device-level data}, can be easily collected by the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) that periodically collects device readings, but provides only {\it coarse-grained} information. The link measurements are generally expressed as the {\it link matrix}, which represents traffic volume of each link over time, and the link matrix is obtained by multiplying the {\it routing matrix} to the flow matrix. Practical limitations are that the collected link measurements are often noisy \cite{Roughan_JECE_2010}, contain {\it missing data} due to using the unreliable UDP transport, and lack measurement synchronization across an entire network. It should also be noted that the link measurements are a linear combination of OD flows, and, the observed traffic on each link is the {\it superposition} of multiple OD flows.
Consequently, this paper addresses the {\it flow matrix estimation problem} from the link matrix, which is referred to as {\it network tomography} \cite{Vardi_JASA_1996,Zhang_ACM_IMC_2005}, to diagnose traffic volume anomaly. This estimates a {\it directly unobservable} flow matrix from the directly observable link matrix by using standard SNMP per-link byte counts. We also refer to the problem of inferring anomalies from these indirect measurement of the flow matrix as {\it network anomography}. It should be noted that this is different from and more complex than network tomography, in the way that network anomography is performed against sequential measurements over a certain period of time, rather than from a single snapshot of measurements.
Despite extensive studies for decades in this field, network tomography and anomography represent key technical issues of network management facing network evolution.
The classical but key challenges that lie at the core of flow matrix estimation and volume anomaly diagnosis are as follows; the volume anomaly diagnosis problem stems from the fact that it only uses the link measurements, whereas the number of links in a network is generally much smaller than that of OD flows \cite{Lakhina_SIGCOMM_2004}. The problem is described as an {\it under-constrained linear-inverse problem}, where the solution relies on a prior model of the flow matrix (e.g., the Poisson model \cite{Vardi_JASA_1996}, the gravity model \cite{Zhang_SIGMETRICS_2003,Zhang_IEEEACMTranNW_2005}).
An additional challenge comes from the superimposed OD flows on a link. While an OD flow has pronounced spikes, the spikes are dwarfed in the corresponding link traffic. In other words, clearly recognizable anomalous spikes in the flow matrix can often be covered in the link matrix through ``dreadful interference" of the superimposed OD flows.
Keeping these challenges in our mind, we further need to consider an efficient and robust way to handle noisy, incomplete, high-dimensional flow matrices when the network size becomes larger.
To this end, our motivation and approach for the primary contribution of this paper are summarized as follows;
considering that the flow and link matrices have time-directional structure such as periodicity and seasonality, a novel analysis method uncovering latent time-directional structure inside matrices is required. For this purpose, a {\it Hankel matrix} representation of the link matrix with the {\it tensor structure} plays a crucial role. This paper specifically transfers this link matrix to the {\it Hankelized time-structured traffic tensor}, and analyzes it. Moreover, since these matrices have high-dimensional data accompanied with noise, a {\it subspace-based approach}, i.e., a low-rank approximation approach, is desirable to robustly model underlying latent behavior of network traffic. Thereby, we exploit a low-rank {\it tensor decomposition} not only to model robustly normal flows but also to compute big link matrices more efficiently by {\it thin} matrices rather than an entire size of matrices. Besides, as for the detection of abnormal flows, this can be newly cast as an outlier detection problem via the {\it sparsity constraint} formulation. Furthermore, the flow matrix estimation requires tolerance and insensitivity to missing measurements and non-synchronized measurements due to the unreliable UDP transport, network-wide monitoring, or machine failures. This requires to interpolate missing values in the link matrix \cite{Roughan_IEEEACM_TranNW_2012}, and motivates us to support a {\it matrix completion} function. Additionally, because the flow matrix and the link matrix grow infinitely as time goes by, an {\it online-based} approach without storing all the past measurements and model parameters is vital and effective. Finally, considering that the underlying subspace changes dramatically, and the processing speed is faster than the data acquiring speed,
this motivates us to adopt a {\it second-order optimization} algorithm because the fast convergence property in each iteration (analysis) is preferred over convergence in computation time. In fact, sampling of the link measurements is periodical but intermittent (e.g., every 5 minutes in basic SNMP).
Many efforts have been done so far in order to identify anomalies by analyzing network traffic \cite{Barford_ACM_IM_2002,Krishnamurthy_IMC_2003,Lakhina_SIGCOMM_2004,Soule_IMC_2005,Zhang_ACM_IMC_2005,Ringberg_ACMSigmetrics_2007,Roughan_IEEEACM_TranNW_2012}. They have attempt to expose anomalies by detecting deviations or errors from the constructed underlying model of normal traffic. There is, however, no single approach to satisfy the required algorithm capabilities that can handle noisy, high-dimensional, and time-series data with missing measurements in an online fashion.
Consequently, this paper presents a new proposal for an online subspace tracking of the Hankelized time-structured traffic tensor for normal flows based on the Candecomp/PARAFAC tensor decomposition by exploiting the recursive least squares (RLS) method under incomplete observation situation. This paper also estimates abnormal flows as outlier sparse flows via sparsity maximization in the under-constrained linear-inverse problem by alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM). Extensive numerical evaluations show that the proposed algorithm achieves faster convergence per iteration of model approximation, and better volume anomaly detection performance compared with state-of-the-art algorithms
\section{Related Work}
\label{Sec:Related Work}
There is a rich literature in anomaly detection algorithms, and other related fields \cite{Modi_JNCP_2013}. They are for example based on signature profiles, artificial neural networks, fuzzy logic, association rules, support vector machines, genetic algorithms, or hybrid techniques. The efficiency of those algorithms depends on their parameters, their configurations, target anomaly types, or network types. Hence, this section describes related work for anomaly diagnosis from the viewpoint of time-directional analysis of high-dimensional data. Then, especially addressing efficient analysis means of infinite time-directional traffic data accompanied with noise, high dimension and incomplete observation, the state-of-the-art algorithms for online-based subspace tracking, which is actively studied in the machine learning field, are discussed, which are closely related to our work.
\subsection{Anomaly Detection and Identification}
\label{Sec:AnomalydetectionandIdentification}
The first category of anomaly diagnosis is to detect specific kinds of traffic anomalies including network attacks, network failures, and traffic shifts \cite{Casas_ComputerNetwork_2010}. This category operates on individual and independent time series, and analyzes traffic on a particular network link, particular device readings, or particular packet features. Classical forecasting methods (e.g., ARIMA \cite{Hood_IEEETransRe_1997}, Holt-Winters \cite{Brutlag_LISA_2000}, EWMA\footnote{Exponentially Weighted Moving Average. This is equivalent to ARIMA(0,1,1) model.}, Kalman-Filter \cite{Soule_LSNI_2005}), and outliers analysis methods (e.g., Wavelet \cite{Barford_ACM_IM_2002}, Fourier Transform) are used.
The second category, which this article mainly addresses, is to diagnose anomalous traffic behaviors from a network-wide perspective. Here, the mechanisms collect coarse-grained SNMP link measurements to detect and isolate volume anomalies in OD flows. This category exploits spatial correlations across the time series of traffic from all the links of a network. Representative works are as follows; the Kalman-filtering approach \cite{Soule_IMC_2005} tracks the evolution of OD flows from SNMP measurements, and identifies anomalies as large prediction errors. The OD flows act as the {\it underlying states} of a network traffic system. The states evolve over time as the OD flows evolve, but the states are not directly observable. Namely, this approach estimates both spatial and temporal correlations \cite{Soule_IMC_2005}. However, it requires a long training period, in which direct anomaly-free OD flow measurements are used to calibrate the model. In addition, these methods do not explicitly handle noisy and higher dimensional characteristics of networks associated with a large number of nodes and links. An efficient lower dimensional approach, i.e., subspace-based approach or low-rank approximation based approach, is desirable to robustly model network traffic behavior.
A PCA (Principle Component Analysis)-based approach \cite{Lakhina_SIGCOMM_2004, Zhang_ACM_IMC_2005}, one of the subspace-based approaches, separates SNMP measurements into a normal subspace and an anomalous subspace. The success of this approach lies on two points: link traffic is a linear combination of OD flows, and each OD flow has a low intrinsic dimensionality. This approach detects an anomaly when the magnitude of the projection onto the anomal subspace exceeds an associated PCA Q-Statistic threshold \cite{Jackson_Tech_1979}. A critical problem is that it faces scalability problems in large scale networks due to the expensive calculation cost of a big size of its transformation matrix.
Further subspace-based approaches are proposed in \cite{Roughan_IEEEACM_TranNW_2012, Mardani_IEEEJSTSP_2013, Mardani_IEEEACMTranNW_2015}. Here, similar to the PCA-based approach, the flow matrix is approximated by a low-rank matrix and sparsity constraints (outlier detection). \cite{Roughan_IEEEACM_TranNW_2012} handles missing data explicitly. A robust PCA-like approach is also proposed to handle anomaly traffic as outlier traffic \cite{Wanga_CN_2012} based on the Relaxed Principal Component Pursuit \cite{Candes_JACM_2011}. Another approach is the SSA-based approach \cite{Tahereh_arXiv_2014}. SSA (singular spectrum analysis) is a technique of time-series analysis, and is a nonparametric spectral estimation method \cite{Broomhead_Physica_1986}. The time-series data is transformed into a Hankel matrix followed by the singular value decomposition to model its time structure. Multivariate SSA (M-SSA) is an extension of basic SSA into multivariate data. Nevertheless, all of these methods consider only a batch-based operation.
Other than for lower dimensional approaches, which work on a snapshot of the network information, in this paper, we address the difficulty to learn {\it a priori} how such anomalies appear in traffic volume statistics, because large networks are affected by various types of anomalies in different ways. This motivates us to consider an online-based anomaly diagnosis algorithm. An extension of the Holt-Winters forecasting algorithm supports incremental model updating via exponential smoothing \cite{Brutlag_LISA_2000}. A stochastic approximation of the Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm for a Gaussian mixture model is proposed in \cite{Hajji_IEEETranNN_2005}. With respect to the PCA-based approach, although this is a purely spatial algorithm and cannot locate the anomaly temporally, an online formulation of this is proposed that uses a sliding window implementation to identify the normal and abnormal subspaces based on a previous block of time \cite{Lakhina_SIGMETRICS_2004}. Furthermore, a distributed algorithm has been proposed in \cite{Huang_NIPS_2006}. However, since the PCA-based detection algorithm is extremely sensitive to the proper determination of the associated Q-statistics threshold, a straightforward extension into an online-based algorithm is not robust \cite{Ahmed_INFOCOM_2007}. To solve this issue, a kernel version of the recursive least squares algorithm is proposed to construct and adapt a dictionary of features that approximately spans the subspace of normal behavior \cite{Ahmed_INFOCOM_2007}. This uses, however, the number of individual IP flows. A recursive estimation of a flow matrix using a Kalman filtering approach is also proposed \cite{Casas_TC_2009}, but it uses direct OD flow measurements to calibrate the flow model.
Finally, regarding tensor-based algorithms, a higher-order PCA detection algorithm is proposed based on the Higher-Order singular value decomposition and the Higher Order Orthogonal Iteration \cite{Kim_CAMSAP_2009}. The proposed methods outperform the normal PCA with respect to the scalability of the network size. However, this only considers the direct measurement case, and does not consider network tomography. The evolution of its subspace over time is not also considered. In addition, another anomaly detection algorithm is proposed using the higher order robust PCA with the subspace distance measurement, but this does not also consider network tomography \cite{Zoltowski_GlobalSIP_2014}.
\subsection{General Online-based Subspace Methods for High-dimensional Data Analysis}
This section details general online-based subspace learning methods that our approach falls into. They have been actively studied in machine learning field recently, and can be applied to circumvent potential issues in network analysis especially for noisy, high-dimensional and incomplete measurements.
With regard to matrix-based online algorithms, a representative research is the projection approximation subspace tracking (PAST) \cite{Yang_IEEESP_1995}. GROUSE \cite{Balzano_Conf_2010} recently proposes an incremental gradient descent algorithm performed on the Grassmannian, the set of all $d$-dimensional subspaces of $\mathbb{R}^n$. The algorithm minimizes an $\ell_2$-norm cost function. GRASTA \cite{He_CVPR_2012} enhances robustness against outliers by exploiting an $\ell_1$-norm cost function. pROST proposes an improved GRASTA based on $\ell_0$-surrogates by using the conjugate gradient method \cite{Seidel_MVA_2014}. PETRELS \cite{Chi_IEEETransSP_2013} calculates the underlying subspace via a discounted recursive process for each row of the subspace matrix in parallel. Meanwhile, as for tensor-based online algorithms, an adaptive algorithm to obtain the Candecomp/PARAFAC decompositions \cite{Nion_IEEETransSP_2009} and an accelerated online tensor learning algorithm based on the Tucker decomposition \cite{Yu_ICML_2015} are proposed. However, they do not deal with missing data presence. Online imputation algorithms based on the Candecomp/PARAFAC decomposition are proposed for the presence of missing data \cite{Kasai_IEEEICASSP_2016_s,Mardani_IEEETransSP_2015}. While \cite{Kasai_IEEEICASSP_2016_s} considers the RLS-based updates, it does not consider time-structured data and anomaly detection, \cite{Mardani_IEEETransSP_2015} considers the stochastic gradient descent (SGD) for large-scale data, and is applied to analyze network anomalies. Nevertheless, its convergence speed of \cite{Mardani_IEEETransSP_2015} is not fast, and the problem definition and the formation of traffic matrices in \cite{Mardani_IEEETransSP_2015} are not the same as ours, thereby it cannot be directly compared with our proposed algorithm.
As seen above, none of these works has provided a complete and reliable solution to model and diagnose high-dimensional large scale data of network traffic data under incomplete observation in an online manner, which is the focus of our approach presented in this paper.
\section{Notations}
\label{sec:Preliminaries}
Before we present our problem formulation, we summarize the notations used in the remainder of this article. We denote scalars by lower-case letters $(a, b, c, \ldots)$, vectors as bold lower-case letters $(\vec{a}, \vec{b}, \vec{c}, \ldots)$, and matrices as bold-face capitals $(\mat{A}, \mat{B}, \mat{C}, \ldots)$. An element at $(i,j)$ of a matrix \mat{A} is represented as $\mat{A}_{i,j}$. If $\mat{A}$ has additional index like $\mat{A}[t]$ or $\mat{A}$ is a matrix product like $\mat{A}=\mat{BC}$, we use $(\mat{A}[t])_{i,j}$ or $(\mat{BC})_{i,j}$ with parenthesis. $i$-th row vector and $j$-th column of $\mat{A}$ are represented as $\mat{A}_{i,:}$ and $\mat{A}_{:,j}$, respectively. We should particularly note that the transposed column vector of $i$-th row vector $\mat{A}_{i,:}$ is specially denoted as $\vec{a}^i$ in order to explicitly express a row vector, i.e., a horizontal vector. $\mat{A}_{i,p:q}$ represents $(\mat{A}_{i,p}, \ldots, \mat{A}_{i,q}) \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times (q-p+1)}$. We call a multidimensional or multi-{\it way} (also called {\it order} or {\it mode}) array as {\it tensor}, which is denoted by $(\mathbfcal{A}, \mathbfcal{B}, \mathbfcal{C}, \ldots)$. Similarly, an element at $(i,j,k)$ of a third-order tensor $\mathbfcal{A}$ is expressed as $\mathbfcal{A}_{i,j,k}$.
Tensor {\it slice} matrices are defined as two-dimensional matrices of a tensor, defined by fixing all but two indices. For example, a {\it horizontal slice} and a {\it frontal slices} of a third-order tensor $\mathbfcal{A}$ are denoted as $\mathbfcal{A}_{i,:,:}$ and $\mathbfcal{A}_{:,:,k}$, respectively. Since $\mathbfcal{A}_{:,:,k}$ is heavily used in this article, it is simply expressed as $\mat{A}_k$ using the bold-face capital font and one single subscript in order to explicitly represent its matrix form. Finally, $\vec{a}[t]$ and $\mat{A}[t]$ with the {\it square bracket} represent the computed $\vec{a}$ and $\mat{A}$ after performing $t$-times updates (iterations) in the online-based subspace tracking algorithm described in Section \ref{Sec:ProposedOnlineTrafficTensorAnomography}.
The notation {\rm diag}(\vec{a}), where \vec{a} is a vector, stands for the diagonal matrix with $\{\vec{a}_i\}$ as diagonal elements.
We follow the tensor notation of the review article \cite{Kolda_SIAMReview_2009} throughout our article and refer to it for further details.
\section{Network Anomography}
\label{Sec:NetworkAnomography}
This section formally defines {\it network tomography} and \ {\it network anomography} \cite{Zhang_ACM_IMC_2005}. For this purpose, we summarize our assumptions. First, we assume that aggregated link measurements (i.e., link matrix) are available via SNMP, and the routing information (i.e., routing matrix) at each time can be obtained from them, such as IGP link weights and the network topology information. Here, we consider the following {\it generative traffic model}. Let $\vec{f}_{i} \in \mathbb{R}^{1\times T}$ be $i$-th traffic for a time period of $T$ between the $i$-th ($i=\{1, \ldots, F\}$) node pair sorted by in a certain order, where $F$ represents the number of flows. This is generated by adding a normal traffic, $\vec{f}_{i}^{(no)} \in \mathbb{R}^{1\times T}$, an anomaly traffic $\vec{f}_{i}^{(ano)} \in \mathbb{R}^{1\times T}$ and a noise $\vec{f}_{i}^{(noise)} \in \mathbb{R}^{1\times T}$ as $\vec{f}_{i} = \vec{f}_{i}^{(no)} + \vec{f}_{i}^{(ano)} + \vec{f}_{i}^{(noise)}$. Then, we obtain the flow matrix \mat{F} as $[(\vec{f}_{1})^T : \cdots : (\vec{f}_{i})^T : \cdots :(\vec{f}_{F})^T]^T$ $\in \mathbb{R}^{F \times T}$. Especially, $\mat{F}_{:,t}$, that is $\mat{F}$ at time $t (0 \leq t \leq T)$, is $(\vec{f}_{1}(t), \ldots, \vec{f}_{F}(t))^T \in \mathbb{R}^F$. Here, without losing generality, we assume that routing paths are {\it static} for each pair of nodes during this time period of $T$ because they can be adopted each time in case of a dynamic case. Then, a routing matrix $\mat{R} \subset \{0,1\} \in \mathbb{R}^{L \times F}$ is $\mat{R}_{l,i}=1$ when the flow $\vec{f}_{i}$ passes $l$-th link, $\mat{R}_{l,i}=0$ otherwise, where $L$ represents the number of {\it directly connected} links. Subsequently, the link traffic at time $t$ is represented as $\mat{Y}_{:,t} = \mat{R} \mat{F}_{:,t},$ and, an entire link matrix $\mat{Y} \in \mathbb{R}^{L\times T}$ is represented as $\mat{Y} = \mat{R}\mat{F}$.
Now we define the problem formulation of network tomography. The relationship among $\mat{F},\ $\mat{R} and $\mat{Y}$ can be reformulated by considering errors as $\mat{Y} = \mat{R} \mat{F} + \mat{E}$, where \mat{E} is the error matrix of size $\mathbb{R}^{L \times T}$. If $\mat{Y}$ is observable measurement and the errors are assumed to be \emph{i.i.d.} Gaussian, the ideal flow matrix $\hat{\mat{F}}$ can be modeled by minimizing the sum-of-squared errors, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mat{F}} = \defargmin_{\scriptsize{\mat{F}}} \frac{1}{2}\| \mat{Y} - \mat{R} \mat{F}\|_F^2. \nonumber
\end{equation}
This is an under-constrained or ill-posed inverse problem because the number of OD pairs (unknown quantities), $F$, is more than that of link measurements, $L$, that is $L \ll F$.
We define network anomography according to \cite{Zhang_ACM_IMC_2005} as follows. Assume that the flow matrix \mat{F} consists of {\it normal flows}, \mat{X}, and {\it abnormal flows}, \mat{V}, as $\mat{F} = \mat{X} + \mat{V}$, where $\mat{X} = [\vec{x}_1: \cdots : \vec{x}_L]$ and $\mat{V} = [\vec{v}_1 : \cdots : \vec{v}_L]$. Then, $\hat{\mat{X}}$ and $\hat{\mat{V}}$ are calculated below;
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:ProblemRe-formulation}
\{\hat{\mat{X}}, \hat{\mat{V}}\} = \defargmin_{\scriptsize{\mat{X}, \mat{V}}} \frac{1}{2} \| \mat{Y} - \mat{R}(\mat{X}+ \mat{V}) \|_F^2.
\end{equation}
If \mat{X} is fixed to $\hat{\mat{X}}$, $\hat{\mat{V}}$ is solved by the ill-posed linear inverse problem as
$ \hat{\mat{V}} = {\rm arg\ min}_{\scriptsize{\mat{V}}} \frac{1}{2} \|\mat{D} - \mat{R} \mat{V} \|_F^2$,
where $\mat{D} = \mat{Y} - \mat{R}\hat{\mat{X}}$ is a model approximation error. Here, we consider how to calculate $\mat{D}$ in existing modeling methods. Time-series analysis techniques (e.g. ARMA, ARIMA, EWMA) derive $\mat{D}$ as forecasting errors. $\mat{D}$ in signal processing based techniques (e.g. Fourier transform, Wavelet transform) is derived from high/middle frequency components by ignoring the lower frequency component. In subspace-based approaches like PCA, $\mat{D}$ is obtained from the abnormal subspace, that is the residual subspace of normal subspace projected by principle components.
Regarding the abnormal flow $\hat{\mat{V}}$ estimation from signals, a greedy algorithm \cite{Lakhina_SIGCOMM_2004} is proposed, which finds the single largest anomaly in each time instance. Another algorithm is a linear-inverse-based algorithm \cite{Zhang_ACM_IMC_2005}, which calculates the abnormal flow $\hat{\mat{V}}$ by solving the ill-posed linear inverse problem above. This has two types of algorithms. The Frobenius-norm minimization algorithm yields the optimal solution for the Gaussian noise assumption as $\hat{\mat{V}} = \mat{R}^{\dagger} \mat{D} = (\mat{R}^T \mat{R})^{-1} \mat{R}^T (\mat{Y} - \mat{R}\hat{\mat{X}})$,
where $\mat{R}^{\dagger}$ is the pseudo-inverse of \mat{R}. On the other hand,
the $\ell_p$-norm minimization with $0<p \leq 1$, which is called the {\it sparsity maximization}, considers the errors to be sparsely distributed but possibly large in magnitude. In this case, the $\tau$-th column of $\hat{\mat{V}}$ are the solutions to
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:SparsityMaximization}
\hat{\vec{v}}_{\tau} = \defargmin_{\vec{v}_{\tau}} \| \vec{v}_{\tau} \|_p {\rm \ \ \ s.t.\ \ } \vec{y}_{\tau} -\mat{R} \hat{\vec{x}}_{\tau} = \mat{R} \vec{v}_{\tau}.
\end{equation}
This article particularly focuses on the sparsity maximization algorithm for the abnormal flow estimation because this shows superior performances compared to others in \cite{Zhang_ACM_IMC_2005}.
\section{Proposed Online Traffic Tensor Anomography}
\label{Sec:ProposedOnlineTrafficTensorAnomography}
This section defines the optimization problem of our proposed algorithm, and provides detailed solutions. The overall concept and procedures are summarized in Fig.\ref{Fig:BasicConcept}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=14cm, bb=0 0 1417 1151]{figures_final/concept.eps}
\caption{Basic architecture and procedures of the proposed algorithm.}
\label{Fig:BasicConcept}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Derivation of Problem Formulation}
\label{Sec:DerivationofProblemFormulation}
To robustly model both, the underlying latent structure of normal flows as well as abnormal outlier flows from noisy high-dimensional link measurements, we reformulate the problem (\ref{Eq:ProblemRe-formulation}) by considering its low-rank constraint of \mat{RX} and the sparsity constraint of \mat{V} as
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:Problem-LowRank-Sparsity}
\min_{\scriptsize{\mat{X}, \mat{V}}} \frac{1}{2} \| \mat{Y} - \mat{R}(\mat{X}+ \mat{V}) \|_F^2 +
\mu_r \cdot {\rm rank}(\mat{R}\mat{X}) + \mu_s \| \mat{V}\|_0,
\end{equation}
where $\mu_r$ and $\mu_s$ control the rank constraint and the sparsity constraint, respectively. By following the literature \cite{Srebro_LearnTheory_2005}, the rank constraint is transformed by the decomposed rank-$R$ matrices $\mat{M}^T \mat{Q}$ of $\mat{RX}$ where $\mat{M} \in \mathbb{R}^{M \times R}$ and $\mat{Q} \in \mathbb{R}^{T \times R}$. Additionally replacing the $\ell_0$-sparsity constraint with its convex $\ell_1$-surrogate, we obtain from (\ref{Eq:Problem-LowRank-Sparsity})
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:Problem-LowRank-Sparsity-l1}
\min_{\scriptsize{\mat{X}, \mat{V}}} \frac{1}{2} \| \mat{Y} - \mat{R}(\mat{X}+\mat{V}) \|_F^2
+\mu_r ( \|\mat{M}\|^2_F + \|\mat{Q}\|^2_F ) +\ \mu_s \| \mat{V}\|_1.
\end{equation}
Now, we address how to capture the time-directional structure of multiple links. Even if we analyze (\ref{Eq:Problem-LowRank-Sparsity-l1}) by keeping the matrix form, we can capture the correlation between multiple links based on a similarity of those temporal variations. However, we cannot deal with the similarity between partial temporal variations inside one single link. In fact, network traffic has periodic and seasonality characteristics accompanied with relatively large noise and fluctuation. This should be taken into account to capture time-spatial correlations among multiple links. Thus, the multidimensional matrix, i.e., tensor, with the {\it Hankel structure} plays a crucial rule by exploiting a three-directional model against noisy and fluctuated signals. See Appendix \ref{Append_Sec:hankel} for the Hankel matrix. Although this idea is shared with the M-SSA based approach \cite{Tahereh_arXiv_2014}, which combines multiple matrices horizontally, the tensor-based representation of multi-dimensional data can efficiently describe temporal-spatial correlations than M-SSA because the tensor-based approach stacks multiple data into different directions instead of placing them side by side onto the same direction.
To this end, we first generate the Hankelized time-structured traffic tensor $\mathbfcal{Y}$, which is created by embedding a one-dimensional time-series data into multi-dimensional series. More concretely, let $\{y^l_{1}, \ldots ,y^l_{T}\} \in \mathbb{R}^{1\times T}$ be one-directional time-series traffic volume passing through $l$-th link of length $T$. Given a window length $W$, with $1<W<T$, we construct $k$-th $W$-lagged vectors $\vec{h}^l_{k} = (y^l_{k}, \ldots , y^l_{k+W-1})^T \in \mathbb{R}^W, k = 1,2,\ldots,K$, where $K=T-W+1$, and compose these vectors into the matrix $\mat{H}^l = [\vec{h}^l_{1}:\cdots :\vec{h}^l_{K}] \in \mathbb{R}^{W \times K}$ (Fig.\ref{Fig:BasicConcept}-{\sf i}). By plugging this Hankel matrix $\mat{H}^l$ into the $l$-th horizontal slice matrix of $\mathbfcal{Y}$, that is $\mathbfcal{Y}_{l,:,:}$, the traffic tensor $\mathbfcal{Y}$ is finally generated (Fig.\ref{Fig:BasicConcept}-{\sf ii}). It should be noted that the obtained traffic tensor $\mathbfcal{Y}$ results in $L \times W\times K$ size.
Next, we attempt to model $\mathbfcal{Y}$ as $\mathbfcal{X}_{\mathbfcal{R}}+\mathbfcal{V}_{\mathbfcal{R}}+\mathbfcal{E}$, where $\mathbfcal{X}_{\mathbfcal{R}}$, $\mathbfcal{V}_{\mathbfcal{R}}$, and $\mathbfcal{E}$ are its constituent {\it normal link tensor}, {\it abnormal link tensor} and {\it residual link tensor} with the same size, respectively.
Here, we model the normal link tensor $\mathbfcal{X}_{\mathbfcal{R}}$ as a low-rank subspace structure from the noisy traffic tensor $\mathbfcal{Y}$ in order to efficiently and robustly capture the change of underlying latent traffic structure of normal flows. For this purpose, particularly addressing the Candecomp/PARAFAC decomposition as a low-rank tensor approximation, we decompose the $\tau$-th frontal slice matrix of $\mathbfcal{X}_{\mathbfcal{R}}$ as $(\mathbfcal{X}_{{\mathbfcal{R}}})_{:,:,\tau}
= \mat{A} {\rm diag}(\vec{b}^{\tau}) \mat{C}^T
$, where $\mat{A} = [(\vec{a}^1)^T: \cdots: (\vec{a}^L)^T]^T$,
$\mat{B} = [(\vec{b}^1)^T: \cdots : (\vec{b}^T)^T]^T$, and
$\mat{C} = [(\vec{c}^1)^T : \cdots : (\vec{c}^W)^T]^T$ with $\{\vec{a}^l, \vec{b}^t,\vec{c}^w\} \in \mathbb{R}^{R}$ (Fig.\ref{Fig:BasicConcept}-{\sf iii}). See Appendix \ref{Append_Sec:CPDEC} for a brief introduction of the Candecomp/PARAFAC decomposition. Subsequently, we obtain the transformed problem formula of (\ref{Eq:Problem-LowRank-Sparsity-l1}) by additionally considering the normal link tensor $\mathbfcal{X}_{\mathbfcal{R}}$ with the Hankel structure as well as the Candecomp/PARAFAC tensor decomposition as
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:HankelTensorProblemFormulation}
\begin{split}
\min_{\scriptsize{\mat{A},\mat{B},\mat{C},\mat{V}}} \ \ &
\frac{1}{2} \|
\underbrace{\mathbfcal{P}_{{\Omega}}}_{\rm Missing\ data}
\underbrace{\bigl[{\mathbfcal{Y}} -(\mathbfcal{X}_{\mathbfcal{R}}+\mathbfcal{V}_{\mathbfcal{R}}) \bigr]}_{\rm Approximation\ error} \|_F^2 +
\underbrace{\mu_r (\| \mat{A}\|_F^2 + \| \mat{B}\|_F^2 + \| \mat{C}\|_F^2)}_{\rm Frobenius-norm\ regularizer}
+\!\! \underbrace{\mu_s \|\mat{V}\|_1,}_{\rm Sparsity\ regularizer}\\
{\rm s.t.}\ & \underbrace{(\mathbfcal{X}_{{\mathbfcal{R}}})_{:,:,\tau}
= \mat{A} {\rm diag}(\vec{b}^{\tau}) \mat{C}^T}_{\rm Candecomp/PARAFAC\ constraint}, {\rm \ and}
\!\! \underbrace{(\mathbfcal{X}_{{\mathbfcal{R}}})_{l,:,:} \in \mathcal{S}_H,}_{\rm Hankel\ structure\ constraint}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbfcal{Y} = \mathbfcal{H}(\mat{Y})$, $\mathbfcal{X}_{\mathbfcal{R}} = \mathbfcal{H}(\mat{RX})$, and $\mathbfcal{V}_{\mathbfcal{R}} = \mathbfcal{H}(\mat{RV})$, and $\mathbfcal{H}(\cdot)$ is the operator of the Hankelization of the matrix into the tensor structure. $\mathcal{S}_H$ represents the constraint of the linear subspace of all matrices with the Hankel structure. It should be noted that the Hankel structure constraint is placed on only $\mathbfcal{X}_{\mathbfcal{R}}$ in this paper for simplicity. In addition, the Frobenius-norm regularization offers a viable option for a batch-based low-rank tensor decomposition under the Candecomp/PARAFAC model \cite{Bazerque_IEEETransSP_2013}. Moreover, taking into account {\it incomplete observation} situation, the formulation in (\ref{Eq:HankelTensorProblemFormulation}) additionally considers the support of the analysis with interpolating missing measurements (Fig.\ref{Fig:BasicConcept}-{\sf iv}), which is generally called the {\it tensor completion} problem. For this purpose, $\mathbfcal{P}_{{\Omega}}(\cdot)$ represents the operator to extract observation data, more precisely, $\mathbfcal{P}_{\Omega}(\mathbfcal{X})_{i_1,i_2,i_3}=\mathbfcal{X}_{i_1,i_2,i_3}$ if $(i_1, i_2, i_3) \in \Omega$ and $\mathbfcal{P}_{\Omega}(\mathbfcal{X})_{i_1,i_2,i_3}=0$ otherwise. $\Omega$ is a subset of the complete set of indices $\{(i_1, i_2, i_3): i_d \in \{1, \ldots, n_d \}, d \in \{1,2,3\}$.
Finally, we consider an {\it online-based} setting of subspace learning, outlier learning, and anomaly detection method to prevent all measurements and model parameters in the past from being stored (Fig.\ref{Fig:BasicConcept}-{\sf v}). To this end, we tackle an {\it online tensor completion} problem. It should be noted that, as for the Hankel structure constraint of $\mathcal{S}_H$, this present paper considers {\it only} the two successive slice matrices to avoid model re-construction and diagonal-averaging using $\{\vec{b}^\tau\}_{\tau=t-W+1}^{\tau=t-1}$ in the past. Consequently, instead of (\ref{Eq:HankelTensorProblemFormulation}), the final problem of our proposed method is further formulated to estimate the Candecomp/PARAFAC factor matrices $\{\mat{A}, \vec{b}, \mat{C}\}$ and the abnormal flow matrix $\mat{V}$ by considering the exponential weighted least squares cost function
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:Final_Problem_Definition}
\begin{split}
\min_{\scriptsize{\mat{A},\vec{b},\mat{C},\mat{V}}} \displaystyle{\frac{1}{2}}& \underbrace{\sum_{\tau=1}^t \lambda^{t-\tau}}_{\rm Online-based} \!
\biggl[
\underbrace{{\Big\| \overbrace{{\rm\bf P}_{{\bf \Omega}_{\tau}}}^{\rm Missing\ data} \Bigl( \mat{Y}_{\tau} - \left(\mat{A} {\rm diag}(\vec{b}^\tau) \mat{C}^T
\!+\! {\mat{V}_{{\scriptsize \mat{R}}_{\tau}}} \right) \Bigr) \Big\|_F^2}}_{\rm Approximation\ error\ by\ low-rank\ Candecomp/PARAFAC}
\\
+&\ \mu_h [\tau] \Big\| \underbrace{{\rm\bf P}_{({\bf \Omega}_{\tau})_{:,1:W\!-\!1}}}_{\rm Missing\ data} \underbrace{\Bigl( (\mat{A} {\rm diag}(\vec{b}^{\tau\!-\!1}) \mat{C}^T)_{:,2:W}
- \ (\mat{A} {\rm diag}(\vec{b}^\tau) \mat{C}^T)_{:,1:W\!-\!1} \Bigr) \Big\|_F^2}_{\rm Hankel\ structure\ error} \\
+& \underbrace{\bar{\mu}_r[\tau](\| \mat{A}\|_F^2 + \| \mat{C}\|_F^2) + \mu_r [\tau] \| \vec{b}^\tau \|_2^2}_{\scriptsize \rm Frobenius\ and\ \ell_2\ norm\ regularizer\ for\ \{\mat{A},\vec{b},\mat{C}\}}\ + \!\!\!\!\!\! \underbrace{\mu_s[\tau] \| \vec{v}[\tau] \|_1}_{\scriptsize \rm Sparsity\ regularizer\ for\ \mat{V}} \!\!\!\!\!\!
\biggr],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ${\rm\bf P}_{{\bf \Omega}_\tau}(\cdot)$ is the matrix linear operator of the $\tau$-th frontal slice matrix of $\mathbfcal{P}_{{\Omega}}(\cdot)$. $\mat{Y}_\tau$ and $\mat{V}_{{\scriptsize \mat{R}_\tau}}$ are the $\tau$-th frontal slice matrices of $\mathbfcal{Y}$ and $\mathbfcal{V}_{\mathbfcal{R}}$, respectively. $\vec{v}[\tau]$ is the $W$-th column of $\mat{V}_{{\scriptsize \mat{R}_\tau}}$. $\bar{\mu}_r[\tau]=\mu_r[\tau]/\sum_{j=1}^\tau\lambda^{\tau-j}$, and we choose a lower $\mu_r$ when the data can be assumed to have a lower error rate, a relatively higher value otherwise. $0 < \lambda \leq 1$ is the so-termed {\it forgetting factor}. When $\lambda < 1$, data in the past are exponentially down-weighted, which facilitates tracking in non-stationary environments. In the case of infinite memory $\lambda = 1$, this coincides with the batch-based estimator.
We finally perform the anomaly detection and identification. A larger value in $\vec{v}$ indicates that the probability of the existence of anomaly in its flow is higher. Therefore, by introducing a threshold variable $\delta_v$, the flows of which $\vec{v}$ is larger than $\delta_v$ are categorized into abnormal flows at time $t$.
\subsection{Solutions and Algorithm}
\label{Sec:DetailedSolutionsandAlgorithm}
This section gives the detailed solutions of the final minimization problem (\ref{Eq:Final_Problem_Definition}), where unknown variables are $\vec{v}, \mat{A}, \mat{C}$, and $\vec{b}$. It is readily seen that this function is not convex. However, if $\mat{A}$, $\mat{C}$ and $\vec{b}$ are fixed, the problem becomes convex in $\vec{v}$. Similarly, if $\vec{v}$ fixed, we can refine our estimate of \mat{A}, \mat{C} and $\vec{b}$ in successive convex optimization steps. This paper uses an alternating minimization procedure to successively solve lower-dimensional convex problems by updating the unknown variables alternatively.
\subsubsection{Update of \vec{b}$[t]$ by LS (Fig.\ref{Fig:BasicConcept}: I)}
\label{Sec:UpdateOfB}
We calculate $\vec{b}[t]$ via an $\ell_2$-norm regularized least squares (LS) problem, which has a closed-form solution. The estimate $\vec{b}[t]$ is obtained by calculating (\ref{Eq:Final_Problem_Definition}) with fixed $\{ \mat{A}[t-1], \mat{C}[t-1] \}$ derived at time $t\!-\!1$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:Problem_Definition_b_timebase}
\vec{b}[t] = \defargmin_{\vec{b} \in \mathbb{R}^R} &\frac{1}{2}
\Biggl[ \| {\bf \Omega}_t \circledast
[ \mat{Y}_t - \mat{A}[t\!-\!1] {\rm diag}(\vec{b}) (\mat{C}[t\!-\!1])^T ] \|_F^2
\\
&
+ \mu_h[t] \| ({\bf \Omega}_t)_{:,1:W\!-\!1} \circledast \bigl[ (\mat{A}[t\!-\!1] {\rm diag}(\vec{b}[t\!-\!1]) \mat{C}[t\!-\!1]^T)_{:,2:W} \\
&- (\mat{A}[t\!-\!1] {\rm diag}(\vec{b}) \mat{C}[t\!-\!1]^T)_{:,1:W\!-\!1} \bigr] \|_F^2
+ \mu_r[t] \| \vec{b} \|_2^2 \Biggr], \nonumber \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf \Omega}_t$ denotes a $L\times W$ binary $\{0,1\}$-matrix with $({\bf \Omega}_t)_{l,w}=1$ if
$\mathbfcal{Y}_{l,w,t}$ is observed, and $({\bf \Omega}_t)_{l,w}=0$ otherwise.
$\circledast$ represents the Hadamard product, i.e., the element-wise product of matrices. Defining $F[t]$ as the inner objective to be minimized, we obtain $\vec{b}[t]$ since $\vec{b}[t]$ satisfies $\partial F[t]/\partial \vec{b}[t] = 0$ as
\begin{align}
\label{Eq:b_final}
\vec{b}[t] = &
\biggl[
\mu_r[t] \mat{I}_R +
\sum_{l=1}^L \sum_{w=1}^W ({\bf \Omega}_t)_{l,w}
\vec{g}_{l,w}[t] (\vec{g}_{l,w}[t])^T +
\mu_h[t] \sum_{l=1}^{L} \sum_{w=1}^{W-1} ({\bf \Omega}_t)_{l,w} (\vec{g}_{l,w}[t]) (\vec{g}_{l,w}[t])^T \biggr]^{-1}
\nonumber \\
& \biggl[
\sum_{l=1}^L \sum_{w=1}^W
({\bf \Omega}_t)_{l,w} (\mat{Y}[t])_{l,w}
\vec{g}_{l,w}[t]
+
\mu_h[t] \sum_{l=1}^{L} \sum_{w=1}^{W-1} ({\bf \Omega}_t)_{l,w} (\vec{g}_{l,w+1}[t])^T \vec{b}[t\!-\!1] \vec{g}_{l,w}[t]
\biggr],
\end{align}
where $\vec{g}_{l,w}[t] = \vec{a}^l[t-1] \circledast \vec{c}^w[t-1] \in \mathbb{R}^R$.
\subsubsection{Update of $\vec{v}[t]$ based on ADMM (Fig.\ref{Fig:BasicConcept}: II)}
\label{Sec:UpdateOfV}
$\vec{v}[t]$ is solved by the {\it alternating direction method of multipliers} (ADMM), which solves convex optimization problems by separating them into smaller sub-problems \cite{Boyd_FTML_2011}. It has recently gained big attention in wide applications in a number of areas. Thus, $\vec{v}[t]$ is obtained by solving the reformulated (\ref{Eq:Final_Problem_Definition}) by addressing only the last column of each frontal slice matrix as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:}
\vec{v}[t]& = \defargmin_{\scriptsize{\vec{v}}} {\frac{1}{2}
\| {\bf \Omega}_t \circledast \Bigl( \mat{Y}_t } - \mat{A}[t\!-\!1] {\rm diag}(\vec{b}[t]) (\mat{C}[t\!-\!1])^T- {\mat{V}_{\scriptsize \mat{R}}}_t \Bigr)
\|_F^2 +\ \mu_s[t] \| \vec{v} \|_1 \nonumber\\
& = \defargmin_{\scriptsize{\vec{v}}} \frac{1}{2}
\| \vec{q}[t] - \mat{R}_{\omega_{t, W}}\vec{v} \|_2^2 +\ \mu_s[\tau] \| \vec{v} \|_1,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\vec{q}[t] \!=\! ({\bf \Omega}_t)_{:,W} \!\circledast\! \bigl[ (\mat{Y}_t)_{:,W} \!-\!(\mat{A}[t\!-\!1] {\rm diag}(\vec{b}[t]) (\mat{C}[t\!-\!1])^T)_{:,W}\bigr] \in \mathbb{R}^L$, and $({\bf \Omega}_t)_{:,W}$ has only the last column of ${\bf \Omega}_t$. Furthermore, the routing matrix $\mat{R}_{\omega_{t, W}} \in \mathbb{R}^{L \times F}$, which corresponds to only observed measurements, is calculated as
$\mat{R}_{\omega_{t, W}}={\rm diag}(({\bf \Omega}_t )_{:,W})\mat{R}$. Thereby, this problem can be re-written as $\min f(\vec{v}) + g(\vec{z}) \ {\rm s.t.} \ \vec{v} - \vec{z} = 0$, where $f(\vec{v}) = (1/2) \| \vec{q}[t] - \mat{R}_{\omega_{t, W}}\vec{v} \|_2^2$, and $g(\vec{z}) = \mu_s[t] \| \vec{z} \|_1$. It should be also noted that the iteration index {\it t} is the {\it outer} loop index, and this is kept fixed at the ADMM loop, i.e., the {\it inner} loop, where a new index {\it k} is used instead. The augmented Lagrangian of this constrained minimization problem is expressed as $\mathcal{L}_{\xi}(\vec{v}, \vec{z}, \vec{y}) = f(\vec{v}) + g(\vec{z}) + \vec{y}^T(\vec{v} -\vec{z}) + (\xi/2) \| \vec{v} -\vec{z} \|^2_2$, where \vec{y} is the dual vector. Denoting $\vec{u} = (1/\xi) \vec{y}$ as the {\it scaled dual variable}, the sub-problems of ADMM become
\begin{subnumcases}
{}
\label{Eq:v_final_a}
\vec{v}^{k+1} = ( \mat{R}_{\omega_{t, W}}^T \mat{R}_{\omega_{t, W}} + \xi \mat{I}_{F})^{-1} (\mat{R}_{\omega_{t, W}}^T \vec{q}[t] + \xi (\vec{z}^{k} -\vec{u}^{k} )) \ \ \ \ & \\
\label{Eq:v_final_b}
\vec{z}^{k+1} = S_{\mu_s[t]/\xi} (\vec{v}^{k+1} + \vec{u}^{k+1}) & \\
\label{Eq:v_final_c}
\vec{u}^{k+1} = \vec{u}^{k} + \vec{v}^{k+1} - \vec{z}^{k+1},&
\end{subnumcases}
where $\xi > 0$ and $S_{\kappa}(a)$ is the {\it soft thresholding operator} that is defined as $S_{\kappa}(a) = {\rm sign}(a)(|a|-\kappa)_{+}$, namely, $S_{\kappa}(a)=0$ if $|a|\leq \kappa$, otherwise $S_{\kappa}(a)={\rm sign}(a)(|a|-\kappa)$. Finally, we obtain $\vec{v}^{k+1}$ as $\vec{v}[t]$.
The overall algorithm for $\vec{v}[t]$ is summarized in {\bf Algorithm \ref{Alg:Admm}}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Calculate the abnormal flow vector $\vec{v}$ at $t$}
\label{Alg:Admm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE{The absolute tolerance $\epsilon^{abs}$, the absolute relative $\epsilon^{rel}$, ADMM maximum iteration $K$.}
\STATE{Initialize $\vec{v}_{1}=\vec{v}^{0}, \vec{z}_{1}=\vec{z}^{0}, \vec{y}_{1}=\vec{y}^{0}$. \\
(either to zero or to the final value from the last subspace update of the same data vector for a warm start.)}
\FOR{$k=1,2, \ldots, K$}
\STATE{Update the abnormal flow vector \vec{v}.
\hfill (\ref{Eq:v_final_a})
}
\STATE{Update the dual vector \vec{z}.
\hfill (\ref{Eq:v_final_b})
}
\STATE{Update the scale parameter \vec{u}.
\hfill (\ref{Eq:v_final_c})
}
\STATE{Calculate primal and dual residuals $r^{pri}$ and $r^{dual}$.}
\STATE{Update stopping criteria $\epsilon^{pri}$ and $\epsilon^{dual}$ using $\epsilon^{abs}$ and $\epsilon^{rel}$.}
\IF{$r^{pri} \leq \epsilon^{pri}$ and $r^{dual} \leq \epsilon^{dual}$} \STATE{Converge and break the loop.} \ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\RETURN $\vec{v}[t]=\vec{v}^{k+1}, \vec{z}[t]=\vec{z}^{k+1}, \vec{y}[t]=\vec{y}^{k+1}$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{Update of \mat{A}$[t]$ and \mat{C}$[t]$ by RLS (Fig.\ref{Fig:BasicConcept}: III)}
\label{Sec:UpdateOfAandC}
The calculation of $\mat{C}[t]$ requires $\mat{A}[t\!-\!1]$, and the calculation of $\mat{A}[t]$ uses $\mat{C}[t]$. This paper addresses a second-order stochastic gradient based on the RLS method with forgetting parameters, which has been widely used in tracking of time varying parameters in many fields. Its computation is efficient since we update the estimates recursively every time new data becomes available. First, the problem (\ref{Eq:Final_Problem_Definition}) is reformulated to obtain $\mat{A}[t]$ as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:Problem_Definition_A}
\min_{\scriptsize \mat{A}}& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\tau=1}^t \lambda^{t-\tau}
\biggl[ \| {\bf \Omega}_\tau \circledast \bigl[ \mat{Y}_\tau
\!\!-\!\! (\mat{A} {\rm diag}(\vec{b}[\tau]) (\mat{C}[\tau\!\!-\!\!1])^T \!\!-\!\! {\mat{V}_{\scriptsize \mat{R}}}_\tau
) \bigr] \|_F^2 \\
&+ \| ({\bf \Omega}_\tau)_{:,1:W\!-\!1} \circledast \bigl[ (\mat{A} {\rm diag}(\vec{b}[\tau\!-\!1]) \mat{C}[\tau\!\!-\!\!1]^T)_{:,2:W} \\
&- (\mat{A} {\rm diag}(\vec{b}[\tau]) (\mat{C}[\tau\!\!-\!\!1])^T)_{:,1:W\!-\!1} \bigr] \|_F^2
\biggr]+
\frac{\mu_r[t]}{2} \| \mat{A}\|_F^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The objective function in (\ref{eq:Problem_Definition_A}) is decomposed into a parallel set of smaller problems, one for each row $\vec{a}^l \in \mathbb{R}^R$ of $\mat{A}$. By denoting $\mat{Y}_\tau-{\mat{V}_{\scriptsize \mat{R}}}_\tau$ as $\mat{Z}_\tau$, we obtain $\vec{a}^l[t]$ as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:problem_def_am}
\min_{\vec{a}^l \in \mathbb{R}^R} & \frac{1}{2}
\sum_{\tau=1}^t
\Biggl[
\sum_{w=1}^W
\lambda^{t-\tau} \!\!
\left( ({\bf \Omega}_{\tau})_{l,w} \!
\left((\mat{Z}_\tau)_{l,w}
\!\!-\!(\vec{a}^l)^T {\rm diag} (\vec{b}[\tau]) \vec{c}^w[\tau\!\!-\!\!1]\right) \right) ^2 \\
&+\ \mu_h \sum_{w=1}^{W\!-\!1} \lambda^{t-\tau}
\left(({\bf \Omega}_{\tau})_{l,w} \left(
(\vec{a}^l)^T {\rm diag} (\vec{b}[\tau\!\!-\!\!1]) \vec{c}^{w+1}[\tau\!\!-\!\!1]
-
(\vec{a}^l)^T {\rm diag} (\vec{b}[\tau]) \vec{c}^w[\tau\!\!-\!\!1]\right)\right)^2
\Biggr] \nonumber \\
&+\ \frac{\mu_r[t]}{2}\| \vec{a}^l\|_2^2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Online algorithm for subspace tracking and anomaly detection}
\label{Alg:overall}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE{ $\{ \mat{Y}[t]$ and ${\bf {\Omega}}[t] \}^{\infty}_{t=1}$, $\lambda$, $\mu_r$, $\mu_h$}
\STATE{Initialize \{$\mat{A}[0]$, $\vec{b}[0]$, $\mat{C}[0]$\} and \mat{Y}[0]=\mat{0}.}
\FOR{$t=1,2, \ldots$}
\STATE{Update the projection coefficient vector $\vec{b}[t]$. \hfill (\ref{Eq:b_final})}
\STATE{Calculate the abnormal flow vector $\vec{v}[t]$ via {\bf Algorithm 1} using ADMM.
}
\STATE{Detect abnormal flows from $\vec{v}[t]$.}
\STATE{Update subspace factor matrices $\mat{C}[t]$. \hfill (\ref{Eq:cw_final})}
\STATE{Update subspace factor matrices $\mat{A}[t]$. \hfill (\ref{Eq:al_final})}
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Here, denoting ${\rm diag}(\vec{b}[\tau])\vec{c}^w[\tau\!-\!1]$ and ${\rm diag}(\vec{b}[\tau\!-\!1]) \vec{c}^{w+1}[\tau\!-\!1]-{\rm diag}(\vec{b}[\tau]) \vec{c}^w[\tau\!-\!1]$ as $\vec{\alpha}_w[\tau] \in \mathbb{R}^R$ and $\vec{\beta}_w[\tau] \in \mathbb{R}^R$, respectively, $\vec{a}^l[t]$ is obtained by setting the derivative of (\ref{eq:problem_def_am}) with regard to $\vec{a}^l$ equal to zero.
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq:al_final}
\vec{a}^l[t]
&=& \vec{a}^l[t\!-\!1] \!-\! (\mat{RA}_l[t])^{-1} \Bigl(
\mu_h\sum_{w=1}^{W\!-\!1} ({\bf \Omega}_t)_{l,w+1} \vec{\beta}_w[t] (\vec{\beta}_w[t])^T
+ (\mu_r[t] - \lambda \mu_r[t\!-\!1]) \mat{I}_R \Bigr)
\vec{a}^l[t\!-\!1] \nonumber \\
&&+\ (\mat{RA}_l[t])^{-1} \sum_{w=1}^W ({\bf \Omega}_t)_{l,w} \left((\mat{Y}_t)_{l,w} - ({\mat{V}_{\scriptsize \mat{R}}}_t)_{l,w} - (\vec{\alpha}_w[t])^T \vec{a}^l[t\!-\!1] \right) \vec{\alpha}_w[t],
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mat{RA}_l[t]$ is calculated as
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
\label{eq:Update_RA}
\mat{RA}_l[t]
&=& \lambda \mat{RA}_l[t\!-\!1]
+ \displaystyle{\sum_{w=1}^W ({\bf \Omega}_t)_{l,w+1} \vec{\alpha}_w[t] \vec{\alpha}_w[t]^T} \\
&&+\ \displaystyle{\mu_h \sum_{w=1}^{W\!-\!1} ({\bf \Omega}_t)_{l,w} \vec{\beta}_w[t] \vec{\beta}_w[t]^T
+ (\mu_r[t] \!-\! \lambda \mu_r[t\!-\!1] ) \mat{I}_R}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
The derivations of (\ref{Eq:al_final}) and (\ref{eq:Update_RA}) are detailed in Appendix \ref{Append_Sec:RLS}.
Meanwhile, as for $\mat{C}[t]$, the problem (\ref{Eq:Final_Problem_Definition}) is reformulated as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{Eq:problem_def_cw}
\min_{\vec{c}^w \in \mathbb{R}^R} & \frac{1}{2}
\sum_{\tau=1}^t
\Biggl[
\sum_{l=1}^L
\lambda^{t-\tau} \!\! \left(({\bf \Omega}_{\tau})_{l,w}
\!\left((\mat{Z}_\tau)_{l,w}
\!\!-\!\! (\vec{a}^l[\tau])^T {\rm diag}
(\vec{b}[\tau]) \vec{c}^w \right) \right) ^2 \\
&+\ \mu_h \sum_{l=1}^{L} \lambda^{t-\tau}
\left(({\bf \Omega}_{\tau})_{l,w} \left(
(\vec{a}^l[\tau])^T {\rm diag} (\vec{b}[\tau\!\!-\!\!1]) \vec{c}^{w+1}[\tau] -
(\vec{a}^l[\tau])^T {\rm diag} (\vec{b}[\tau]) \vec{c}^w \right)\!
\right)^2
\Biggr] \\
&+ \frac{\mu_r[t]}{2}\| \vec{c}^w\|_2^2.\nonumber
\end{split}
\end{equation}
It should be emphasized that the second term representing the Hankel structure error is not included when $w=W$. In addition, since the second term needs $\vec{c}^{w+1}[\tau]$, this calculation cannot be performed in parallel, and the order of the calculations follows the {\it descending order} of $w$. Finally, $\vec{c}^w[t]$ can be given by denoting $(\vec{a}^l[\tau])^T {\rm diag}(\vec{b}[{\tau}])$ and $(\vec{a}^l[\tau])^T {\rm diag}(\vec{b}[\tau\!-\!1])$ as $\vec{\gamma}_{l}[\tau] \in \mathbb{R}^{1\times R}$ and $\vec{\eta}_{l}[\tau] \in \mathbb{R}^{1\times R}$, respectively, as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq:cw_final}
\vec{c}^w[t]
&=& \vec{c}^w[t\!-\!1] - (\mat{RC}_w[t])^{-1} (\mu_r[t] - \lambda \mu_r[t-1]) \vec{c}^w[t\!-\!1] \nonumber \\
& &+\ (\mat{RC}_w[t])^{-1}
\sum_{l=1}^L({\bf \Omega}_t)_{l,w}
\biggl(
\Bigl((\mat{Y}_t)_{l,w} - ({\mat{V}_{\scriptsize \mat{R}}}_t)_{l,w} \bigr. \Biggr. \nonumber\\
& &+\ \biggl. \Bigl. \mu_h \vec{\eta}_{l}[t] \vec{c}^{w+1}[t] \Bigr) \mat{I}_{R}
- (1+\mu_h)\vec{c}^w[t\!-\!1] \vec{\gamma}_{l} [t]
\biggr) (\vec{\gamma}_{l}[t])^T,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mat{RC}_w[t]$ is transformed as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Update_RC}
\mat{RC}_w[t] & =
\lambda \mat{RC}_w[t-1]
+\sum_{l=1}^L
({\bf \Omega}_t)_{l,w}(1+\mu_h)\vec{\gamma}_{l} [t] (\vec{\gamma}_{l} [t])^T + (\mu_r[t] - \lambda \mu_r[t\!-\!1]) \mat{I}_R.
\end{align}
The overall algorithm to solve (\ref{Eq:Final_Problem_Definition}) is finally summarized in {\bf Algorithm \ref{Alg:overall}}.
\subsection{Computational Complexity Analysis}
\label{Sec:ComputationalComplexityAnalysis}
This section analyzes the computational complexity per iteration of the proposed algorithm. The calculation of $\vec{b}[t]$ in Section \ref{Sec:UpdateOfB} requires $\mathcal{O}(|{\bf \Omega}_t| R^2)$ in (\ref{Eq:b_final}), where $|{\bf \Omega}_t|$ is the number of known entries in ${\bf \Omega}_t$. The calculations of $\mat{A}[t]$ and $\mat{C}[t]$ in Section \ref{Sec:UpdateOfAandC} require $\mathcal{O}(L R^3)$ for (\ref{Eq:al_final}) and $\mathcal{O}(W R^3)$ for (\ref{Eq:cw_final}), respectively, for the inversion of $\mat{RA}$ in (\ref{eq:Update_RA}) and $\mat{RC}$ in (\ref{eq:Update_RC}). As for the calculation of $\vec{v}[t]$ in \ref{Sec:UpdateOfV}, the inversion of $(\mat{R}_{\omega_{t, W}}^T \mat{R}_{\omega_{t, W}} + \xi \mat{I}_{F})$ can be done efficiently by exploiting the {\it matrix inversion lemma}, which states that $(\mat{P}+\xi \mat{A}^T \mat{A})^{-1} = \mat{P}^{-1} \mat{A}^T(\mat{I} + \xi \mat{A} \mat{P}^{-1} \mat{A}^T)^{-1} \mat{A}\mat{P}^{-1} $. This leads to $\mathcal{O}(|({\bf \Omega}_t)_{:,W}|F^2)$, where $|({\bf \Omega}_t)_{:,W}|$ is the number of known values at the $t$-th iteration. Then, the total calculation in \ref{Sec:UpdateOfV} needs at most $\mathcal{O}((K+1)|({\bf \Omega}_t)_{:,W}|F^2)$ due to this one-time inversion and $K$-times multiplications for all inner iterations in (\ref{Eq:v_final_a}), where $K$ is the maximum number of inner iterations in {\bf Algorithm 1}.
Thus, the total computational complexity at $t$-th iteration in {\bf Algorithm 2} results in $\mathcal{O}(|{\bf \Omega}_t| R^2+(L+W)R^3+(K+1)|({\bf \Omega}_t)_{:,W}|F^2))$, and reveals that the number of flows, $F$, is dominant since rank $R$ is assumed to be low-rank.
\section{Numerical Evaluation}
\label{Sec:NumericalEvaluations}
We show numerical comparisons of the proposed algorithm with state-of-the-art algorithms for synthetic and real-world datasets. All the following experiments are done on a PC with 3.0 GHz Intel Core i7 CPU and 16 GB RAM. The synthetic anomalies are injected onto the synthetic and real-world datasets to be evaluated. More concretely, as for the real-world dataset, the original signal in the dataset is firstly smoothed, and the synthetic anomalies are injected onto it. Regarding the synthetic dataset, the synthetic anomalies are injected onto the synthetic signal that includes the seasonal signal, the periodic signals and the noise. We use the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) and the F-measure value as the evaluation metrics. The ROC evaluates a binary classifier, which plots {\it true positive rate} against {\it false positive rate} at various {\it discrimination thresholds}. In this case, this thresholds correspond to $\delta_v$ in Section \ref{Sec:DerivationofProblemFormulation}. F-measure effectively references the true positives to the arithmetic mean of the predicted positives and the real positives, which is calculated as the harmonic mean between precision and recall. As for the comparison algorithms, the EWMA algorithm and the Wavelet-based algorithm proposed in \cite{Zhang_ACM_IMC_2005} are compared with the proposed algorithm. They provide a unified frame for integrating anomaly detection approaches and the inference techniques for anomaly identifications. The former is one representative method of the time-series modeling, and the latter is one of the signal processing based methods. But the latter is a batch-based method. It should be noted that the standard methods of these do not handle {\it missing data}. Therefore, the latest observed data corresponding a missing datum is interpolated to perform fair comparison. In addition, three subspace-based tracking algorithms, which are GROUSE, GRASTA, and PETRELS, are compared. We use Matlab codes provided by the respective authors.
It is important to note that since these algorithms do not have the abnormal flow detection function, we have newly integrated the function defined in (\ref{Eq:SparsityMaximization}) onto them. For the proposed algorithm, we use $\lambda=0.9, \mu_r=\mu_h=10^{-3}$ and
$\mu_s=10^{-2}\times \max({\rm abs}(\mat{R}_{\omega_{t, W}}\vec{v}))$ for synthetic datasets,
and $\mu_s=10^{-1}\times \max({\rm abs}(\mat{R}_{\omega_{t, W}}\vec{v}))$ for real-world datasets,
where ${\rm abs}(\vec{a})$ returns the absolute value of each element in \vec{a}. $K$, $\epsilon^{abs}$, and $\epsilon^{rel}$ for ADMM are $120$, $10^{-5}$, and $10^{-3}$, respectively.
\subsection{Evaluation Methodology and Synthetic Anomaly Injection}
\label{Sec:SyntheticAnomalyInjection}
The evaluation of any anomaly detection algorithms always faces the issue how to obtain {\it ground truth} because no public and reliable ground truth is available in real-world datates \cite{Soule_IMC_2005}. One popular way is that a security expert labels anomalies by manual inspection against collected live traffic traces. However, this is very expensive and time-consuming if datasets are large. In addition, this is not a perfect solution because the operator could make mistakes that miss an anomaly or generate a false positive anomaly. Furthermore, because such traces include a limited number of anomalies, comprehensive performance evaluations, which evaluate all algorithm capabilities, are difficult to perform. Instead, an alternative approach is to {\it inject synthetic anomalies}, which correspond to the ground truth, onto data signals. One advantage of this is to be able to change the {\it anomaly parameters} assuming various anomalies. In other words, the flexible configurability of anomaly parameters as explained below allows us to simulate a wide range of anomalies that cannot be found in real-world datasets, and this shall enable us to achieve comprehensive evaluations of the anomaly detection and identification performance of algorithms.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\caption{Synthetic anomaly parameters.}
\label{Tbl:SyntheticAnomalyInjectionCofig}
\begin{tabular}{p{4cm}|p{7cm}|p{4cm}}
\hline
Parameters & Settings & Description\\
\hline
\hline
Multiplicative ratio of volume change (${\it \delta}$) & $1.5 \leq \delta \leq 2.5$ & DDoS, alpha event\\
\cline{2-3}
& ${\it \delta} = 0$ & Outrage\\
\hline
Duration (${\it d}$) & ${\it d} = \{5,10,20,30\}$ (mins) & \\
\hline
Increase ratio (${\it \gamma_{i}}$) & Change time ratio against entire duration (${\it d}$): $0 \leq {\it \gamma}< 0.5$& Gradual or sudden up/down changes\\
\cline{1-1}
Decrease ratio (${\it \gamma_{d}}$) & & \\
\hline
\hline
Target OD flows (Number of flows) & N-1: One flow between one source (src) and one destination (dst) & DDoS, alpha\\
\cline{2-3}
& N-1: N flows between srcs/dess and one src/des & DDoS\\
\cline{2-3}
& All-ODs-one-link: All ODs passing one link & Outrage\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth, bb=0 0 1436 793]{figures_final/anomaly_parameters_new3.eps}
\caption{Illustration of the anomaly parameters.}
\label{Fig:SyntheticAnomalyInjectionCofig}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Hereafter, the anomaly parameters are detailed by referring the conceptual illustration shown in Fig.\ref{Fig:SyntheticAnomalyInjectionCofig}, and the summarization in Table \ref{Tbl:SyntheticAnomalyInjectionCofig}. It should be noted that this paper focuses on anomalies that bring {\it changes of volume patterns}, e.g. DDoS attacks, alpha events, outrages, and does not assume worms and port scans.
As for the {\it duration of an anomaly} $d$, most DDoS attacks are observed to continue between $5$ and $30$ minutes, and some outliers last less than $1$ minute and others last several days \cite{Moore_USS_2001}. The DDoS attacks in the Abilene Network dataset last less than $20$ minutes, and some outliers continue more than $2$ hours. The alpha events could be of any length. However, because we cannot simulate all outliers, this paper configures the duration $d$ as $\{5,10,20,30\}$ minutes.
We mimic the {\it traffic volume change}, when anomalies occur, by introducing a multiplicative factor $\delta$ that is multiplied by the original traffic of a target OD flow. Adding $20\%$, for example, of the original OD flow volume is simulated by using $\delta=1.2$. $\delta=0$ is used to capture the outage scenarios. We can mimic a variety of either the DDoS attacks or the alpha events by allowing $1.0 \leq \delta \leq 2.0$. We do not consider $\delta > 2.5$ because such changes are clearly irregular. We also address the {\it traffic shape} at the beginning and ending of anomalies. The initial rise of the DDoS attacks could be simulated by a ramp shape. The outage anomalies show an almost sudden drop in volume like a square shape. The alpha events indicate either an almost sudden rise or a ramp-shape increase. Thus, we introduce the increase ratio parameter ($\gamma_{i}$) and the decrease ratio parameter ($\gamma_{d}$) to express these shapes. For both parameters, we use $0 \leq \gamma< 0.5$ against the entire duration $d$. Finally, we address the {\it flow structure}, i.e., {\it combination of the number of sources and destinations}, that has an influence on the structure of the OD flows in an entire network. We denote ``1-1" as the OD flow that traverses from one single source to one single destination. This could occur with the DDoS attacks or the alpha events. ``N-1" refers to the OD flows between N-sources and one single destination, which could happen with the DDoS attacks. ``All-ODs-one-link" corresponds to all the OD flows that pass one particular single link.
\subsection{Real-world Dataset Evaluations}
We use the Abilene Network Dataset for the evaluation of the proposed method on real data. Abilene Network is the Internet2 backbone network in the US. It has 11 Points of Presence, where there are $121$ OD flows and $30$ links. The Abilene Network Dataset samples 2016 samples per week, and 5-minutes sampled traffic matrices are collected via Netflow. Each element of a generated flow matrix corresponds to a single OD flow over time with 5 minute increments.
The procedure to generate anomaly-injected real-world dataset is explained {by following Section \ref{Sec:SyntheticAnomalyInjection}. An example of the overall procedure is depicted in Fig.\ref{fig:AnomalyInjectionAbilene}, where the case of the $50$th flow of the Abilene Network Dataset is illustrated. The long-term statistical {\it trend} from an original OD flow (Fig.\ref{fig:AnomalyInjectionAbilene}: 1st graph) is extracted by {\it smoothing} the original signal (2nd graph). This is achieved by approximating the extracted signal by 5-th Wavelet levels by Daubechies-5 mother wavelet with $5$ levels because these underlying trends are generally non-stationary. Next, a Gaussian noise with zero mean (3rd graph) is added onto the smoothed, i.e., de-noised signal, where the distribution variance is calculated using the first 5 detailed signals (4th graph). Finally, injecting one of the anomalies (5th graph) onto smoothed noisy signal, we obtain the final anomaly-injected noisy signal (6th graph).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth, bb=0 0 1533 879]{figures_final/AnomalyInjectionProcess_new.eps}
\caption{Anomaly injection procedure in Abilene (50th flow).}
\label{fig:AnomalyInjectionAbilene}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We evaluate the case where the sampling frequency is every $5$ minutes, and observation ratio $\rho$ is $30$. Since the number of nodes, $N_{node}$, is $11$, $L=30$ and $F=12$. $W$ is $288$, which corresponds to $1$ day, and $T=2016$ (= $1$ week). The ratio of the anomaly-injected flows is $1.54$\%. The results of the modeling residual error and the ROC curve are shown in Fig.\ref{fig:Real_OR_30}. From the residual error in Fig.\ref{fig:Real_OR_30}(a), the error of Wavelet is much lower than others because, in the Wavelet algorithm, the signal with higher frequency signal is removed and the residual data is not produced by its constructed model. In addition, although the EWMA algorithm constructs a parametrized model, the number of model parameters are much more than that of the subspace-based algorithms. Among the subspace-based algorithms, the proposed algorithm shows the lowest errors. The convergence speed of PETREL is faster than that of GROUSE and GRASTA because PETRELS has a second-order convergence property. On the other hand, the proposed algorithm shows much faster convergence characteristics than that of PETRELS. As for the ROC carve in Fig.\ref{fig:Real_OR_30}(b), the proposed algorithm also outperforms the other algorithms.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\hsize]{results_final/{Abilene_Injection-error_Mixture-11-121-0.00010-121-30}.eps}
{(a) Residual error}
\label{}
\vspace*{0.3cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\hsize]{results_final/{Abilene_Injection-ROC_Mixture-11-121-0.00010-121-30}.eps}
{(b) ROC}
\label{}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\caption{Residual error and ROC for real-world dataset ($\rho=30$).}
\label{fig:Real_OR_30}
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\hsize]{results_final/{Abilene_Injection-ROC_Mixture-11-121-0.00010-121-50}.eps}
\vspace*{-0.2cm}
\caption{ROC for real-world dataset ($\rho=50$).}
\end{center}
\label{fig:Real_OR_50}
\end{figure}
The result of the ROC for an observation ratio $\rho$ of $50$ is also shown in Fig.\ref{fig:Real_OR_50}. This also shows the superior performance of the proposed algorithm against the other algorithms.
\subsection{Synthetic Datasets Evaluations}
As mentioned earlier, we use the synthetic datasets for comprehensive evaluations.
\subsubsection{Network Generation}
\label{sec:Network Generation}
The network used as an input for the simulation is generated in a random fashion. A number of nodes $N_{node}$ are randomly placed on a 2D space, and directly-connecting links among those nodes are calculated by the {\it Delaunay triangulation} algorithm, which maximizes the minimum angle of the triangles. Then, $F$ traffic flows are generated between $F$ pairs of nodes that are randomly selected. Each traffic flow travels its shortest path between its source and destination nodes, which is calculated by the {\it Dijkstra} algorithm.
\subsubsection{Anomaly-injected Traffic Generation}
We generate a virtual flow at time $t$ for the $i$-th node pair by {\it injecting} synthetic anomalies as $\vec{f}_{i}(t)=\vec{f}_{i}^{(po)}(t) + \vec{f}_{i}^{(sea)}(t) + \vec{f}_{i}^{(ano)}(t) + \vec{f}_{i}^{(noise)}(t)$
by following Section \ref{Sec:NetworkAnomography} \cite{Kim_CAMSAP_2009}. It is noted that $\vec{f}_{i}^{(no)}(t)$ in Section \ref{Sec:NetworkAnomography} is further decomposed into the {\it periodic component} $\vec{f}_{i}^{(po)}(t)$ and the {\it seasonal trend component} $\vec{f}_{i}^{(sea)}(t)$, where $\vec{f}_{i}^{(po)}(t)$ is generated as $\vec{f}_{i}^{(po)}(t)=A_1 \sin(\omega t)$, and three types of signals are mixed equally for $\vec{f}_{i}^{(sea)}(t)$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec{f}_{i}^{(sea)}(t) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
0 & {\rm (no\ trend)},\\
b_1 t & {\rm (linear\ trend)},\\
A_2/b_2 \sin(7\omega t) & {\rm (weekly\ sine\ wave\ trend)}.\nonumber
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
$\vec{f}_{i}^{(noise)}(t)$ is created as $\vec{f}_{i}^{(noise)}(t) \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2)$, which is a Gaussian noise with a zero-mean and $\sigma^2$ variance. Lastly, we inject the synthetic anomalies $\vec{f}_{i}^{(ano)}(t)$ onto the above $\vec{f}_{i}(t)$, i.e., $\mat{F}_{:,t}$ as explained in Section \ref{Sec:SyntheticAnomalyInjection}. The final link matrix for $L$ link-pairs at each time $t$ is calculated as $\mat{Y}_{:,t} = \mat{R} \mat{F}_{:,t}$.
\subsubsection{Experimental Results in Small-size Network}
We first consider a small-size network with $N_{node}=500$, where $L$ is $2958$, and $F$ is $5 \times 10^4$. $W$ is $24$, which corresponds to $1$ day, and $T$ is $168$, i.e., $1$ week. The data is sampled every hour, and the observation ratio $\rho$ is $30$. The ratio of injected anomalies is $1.81\times 10^{-2}$\%. The results are shown in Fig.\ref{fig:Synthetic_SmallSize_OR_30}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\hsize]{results_final/{Syn_Injection-error_Mixture-500-50000-0.00010-10-30}.eps}
{(a) Residual error}
\vspace*{0.4cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\hsize]{results_final/{Syn_Injection-ROC_Mixture-500-50000-0.00010-10-30}.eps}
{(b) ROC}
\vspace*{0.2cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\hsize]{results_final/{Syn_Injection-f-measure_Mixture-500-50000-0.00010-10-30}.eps}
{(C) F-Measure}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\caption{Residual error and ROC (small-size network, $\rho=30$).}
\label{fig:Synthetic_SmallSize_OR_30}
\end{figure}
It should be firstly noted that the starting index of the proposed algorithm is delayed by $24$ data stream indices because it has the Hankel structure with the $W$-lagged data as seen in Fig.\ref{fig:Synthetic_SmallSize_OR_30}. Thus, while the first issue we observe is the convergence speed at the beginning of subspace algorithms, that of the proposed algorithm is the fastest as can be seen in Fig.\ref{fig:Synthetic_SmallSize_OR_30}(a). The next observation is that the proposed algorithm indicates the highest ROC values in the entire range as can be seen in Fig.\ref{fig:Synthetic_SmallSize_OR_30}(b). The F-measure value in Fig.\ref{fig:Synthetic_SmallSize_OR_30}(c) also yields the superior performance of the proposed algorithm. Furthermore, we evaluate the case with $\rho=50$, where the parameter configurations are the same as the case in $\rho=30$. The results in Fig.\ref{fig:Synthetic_SmallSize_OR_50} are very similar to the results with the observation ratio $\rho$ of $30$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\hsize]{results_final/{Syn_Injection-ROC_Mixture-500-50000-0.00010-10-50}.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{ROC (small-size network, $\rho=50$).}
\label{fig:Synthetic_SmallSize_OR_50}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hspace*{-0.25cm}\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{results_final/{Syn_Injection-ROC_N-1-500-50000-0.00010-10-30}.eps}
{(a) $\rho=30$}
\label{}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{results_final/{Syn_Injection-ROC_N-1-500-50000-0.00010-10-50}.eps}
{(b) $\rho=50$}
\label{fig:fall}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\caption{ROC in biased flow structure (small-size network).}
\label{fig:Synthetic_DifferentAnomalyType}
\vspace*{0.5cm}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hspace*{-0.4cm}\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{results_final/{Syn_Injection-ROC-diffwinlen_Mixture-500-50000-0.00010-10-30}.eps}
{(a) $\rho=30$}
\label{}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\hspace*{0.1cm}\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{results_final/{Syn_Injection-ROC-diffwinlen_Mixture-500-50000-0.00010-10-50}.eps}
{$\rho=50$}
\label{fig:fall}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\caption{ROC (Different window lengths).}
\label{fig:Synthetic_DifferentWindowLentgh}
\end{figure}
We also evaluate the behavior of the algorithms with varying types of the injected anomalies. This especially focuses on the difference between ``Mixture" case and ``Only N-1" case. The ``Mixture" case includes ``1-1", ``N-1", and ``All-ODs-one-link" types of abnormal flows in Table \ref{Tbl:SyntheticAnomalyInjectionCofig}. To the contrary, the ``Only N-1" case contains only ``N-1" types of abnormal flows. The other configurations are the same as the first evaluation experiments. The results when $\rho=30$ and $\rho=50$ are shown in Figs.\ref{fig:Synthetic_DifferentAnomalyType}(a) and (b), respectively. Although we cannot directly compare these with Fig.\ref{fig:Synthetic_SmallSize_OR_30}(b) and Fig.\ref{fig:Synthetic_SmallSize_OR_50} because the incomplete data position and the number and positions of anomaly flows are completely different, the results with the ``Only N-1" case of GROUSE, GRASTA, Wavelet and the EWMA are similar with the ``Mixture" case. Meanwhile, whereas PETRELS decreases largely, the proposed algorithm remains the similar performance ($\rho=30$) or slightly decreases ($\rho=50$). This is due to the fact that the proposed algorithm can capture structure changes in particular. The abnormal flows in the ``Only N-1" case have a more biased structure than those in the ``Mixture" case, where the constituent flows are fairly distributed among nodes and links across the entire network.
Finally, the impact on the different window lengths $W=\{12,18,24,30,36,48\}$ for the Hankel structure are evaluated in Fig.\ref{fig:Synthetic_DifferentWindowLentgh}. The other configurations are the same as the first evaluation experiments. Fig.\ref{fig:Synthetic_DifferentWindowLentgh} reveals that $W=24$ yields the best performance in both $\rho=30$ and $\rho=50$ cases because the window length matches with the traffic periodicity.
\subsubsection{Experimental Results in Mid-size and Large-size Networks}
We further consider a mid-size network and a large-size network with the same number of flows $F=10^5$. For the mid-size network, $N_{node}$ is $1000$, $L$ is $11946$, and the ratio of injected anomalies is $1.59 \times 10^{-2}$\%. Meanwhile, the large-size network has $N_{node}$ is $3000$, $L$ is $17931$, and the ratio of injected anomalies is $1.93\times 10^{-2}$\%. Figs.\ref{fig:Synthetic_MiddleSize_OR_30} and \ref{fig:Synthetic_LargeSize_OR_30} show the results for the mid-size and the large-size networks when $\rho$ is $30$, respectively. These figures yield the superior performance of the proposed algorithm against other algorithms.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hspace*{-0.4cm}\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{results_final/{Syn_Injection-ROC_Mixture-2000-100000-0.00010-10-30}.eps}
{(a) ROC}
\label{}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\hspace*{0.1cm}\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{results_final/{Syn_Injection-f-measure_Mixture-2000-100000-0.00010-10-30}.eps}
{(b) F-measure}
\label{}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\caption{ROC and F-measure in mid-size network.}
\label{fig:Synthetic_MiddleSize_OR_30}
\vspace*{0.2cm}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\hspace*{-0.4cm}\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{results_final/{Syn_Injection-ROC_Mixture-3000-100000-0.00010-10-30}.eps}
{(a) ROC}
\label{}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\hspace*{0.2cm}\begin{minipage}{0.5\hsize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{results_final/{Syn_Injection-f-measure_Mixture-3000-100000-0.00010-10-30}.eps}
{(b) F-measure}
\label{}
\end{center}
\end{minipage}
\end{tabular}
\caption{ROC and F-measure in large-size network.}
\label{fig:Synthetic_LargeSize_OR_30}
\end{figure}
Finally, Table \ref{Tbl:ProcessingTime} shows the processing time for the mid-size network and the large-size network, respectively. The table shows not only the total processing time but also its breakdown, where ``A'' and ``B'' show the processing time for subspace tracking of $\{\vec{b}, \mat{A}, \mat{C}\}$, and the processing time for calculation of abnormal flows $\vec{v}$, respectively.
It should be noted that, whereas ``A'' depends on the implementation of each algorithm, ``B'' is calculated in the same implementation. The implemented code of our algorithm is not optimized. For the mid-size network, the proposed algorithm requires a longer tracking time (``A'') for multiple matrix inversions per iteration while a shorter calculation time (``B'') of sparse abnormal, \vec{v}, is needed compared to other algorithms. On the other hand, for the large-size network, the proposed algorithm is much faster. Since the subspace estimated by the proposed algorithm is much closer to the real subspace and is able to more efficiently capture the underlying time-series structure than others, the subsequent $\ell_1$ calculation of the proposed algorithm converges much faster than others. The results also reveals that the processing times almost match the computational complexity analysis in Section \ref{Sec:ComputationalComplexityAnalysis} with respect to the size of $L$ and $F$.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\vspace*{0.3cm}
\caption{Processing time for mid-size and large-size network.}
\label{Tbl:ProcessingTime}
\begin{tabular}{l||r|r|r||r|r|r}
\hline
Network size & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{Middle (${\it N_{node}}=2000$)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Large (${\it N_{node}}=3000$)} \\
\hline
Algorithm& A \ \ & B \ \ & Total & A\ \ & B\ \ \ & Total \\
\hline
\hline
Proposed & 393.1 & {\bf 1707.7} & {\bf 2100.8} & 693.7 & {\bf 3585.9} & {\bf 4279.7} \\
\hline
GROUSE & 2.3 & 2339.5 & 2341.8 & 0.5 & 4688.5 & 4689.0 \\
\hline
GRASTA & 3.0 & 2347.3 & 2350.2 & 1.2 & 4676.8 & 4678.0 \\
\hline
PETRELS & 11.5 & 2341.4 & 2352.9 & 14.4 & 4674.9 & 4689.3\\
\hline
Wavelet & 33.8 & 2352.8 & 2386.6 &50.8 & 4667.6 & 4718.5 \\
\hline
EWMA & {\bf 0.1} & 2336.6 & 2336.7 & {\bf 0.1} & 4626.9 & 4627.0\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we have addressed the challenge of detecting volume anomalies in large-scale data communication networks in an unsupervised way, where only the link traffic can be observed consisting of superimposed flows. For this purpose, the present paper assumes that anomalies in the flow can be identified by means of deviations of the measurements from a low rank structure. The network flow is modeled by means of a third order tensor with Hankel structure along one slice matrix to represent time-directional features as well as the spatial correlation of multiple links. By exploiting this traffic tensor with the Candecomp/PARAFC decomposition, a new online subspace tracking of the underlying low rank structure is proposed for normal flows based on the recursive least squares (RLS) method under partial observation. Meanwhile, abnormal flows are estimated as outlier sparse flows via sparsity maximization in the under-constrained linear-inverse problem.
An inherent shortcoming of our approach, which is shared by all unsupervised detection methods that are based on subspace tracking, is that anomalies which consist of change of the traffic at a very low frequency cannot be detected.
Numerical evaluations show that the proposed algorithm detects and identifies abnormal flows more accurately and with less computation time than the state-of-the-art online algorithms for a large-scale network. As future research directions, we plan to extend our studies to the cases where even the direct flow traffic data is only partially-observable. Additionally, the convergence analysis is a challenging task of the proposed online tensor optimization, and this remains an open problem.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work was initiated while H. Kasai was with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) of Technical University of Munich, Germany. Part of this work is part of a project that has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No 647158 - FlexNets). (Corresponding author: Hiroyuki Kasai.)}
\section*{Appendix}
|
\section{Introduction}
The study of the mode-decomposition of linear field perturbations of spherical (Schwarzschild) and axially-symmetric (Kerr)
black hole spacetimes has a long history in the General Relativity literature.
Such study has been applied
to a broad range of astrophysical questions such as stability of black holes (e.g.,~\cite{Regge:1957td,PhysRevD.2.2141}
in Schwarzschild spacetime and~\cite{whiting1989mode,Hartle:Wilkins:1974,casals2016horizon} in Kerr spacetime),
the self-force on a point particle moving on a curved background~\cite{Poisson:2011nh}
and
the end stages of gravitational collapse and of mergers of black holes.
These end stages typically present an
exponentially-decaying `ringdown' in the field (which was observed in the historical detection of gravitational waves by the Laser Interferometer gravitational-wave Observatory~\cite{PhysRevLett.116.061102}) followed by a late-time behaviour.
The late-time behaviour of scalar (spin-$0$), electromagnetic (spin-$1$) and gravitational (spin-$2$) field perturbations was first presented by Price \cite{Price:1971fb,Price:1972pw},
in the case of Schwarzschild spacetime. Price found that the multipole-$\ell$ field moments behave at late times (and fixed radius) as
a power law decay of $t_S^{-2\ell-3}$, where $t_S$ is the standard Schwarzschild time and $\ell$ is the field multipole.
This has henceforth been referred to as the late-time power law-tail of the Schwarzschild black hole and can be interpreted astrophysically as the method with which a star undergoing spherically-symmetric gravitational collapse
settles down finally into a black hole with `no hair' (i.e., its only conserved charges are its mass and -- if it possesses any -- its
angular momentum and electrical
charge).
The mathematics of this calculation was refined by Leaver \cite{Leaver:1986}
via an analysis in the complex-frequency domain of the retarded Green function of the wave equation satisfied by the field.
By deforming the Fourier-integration contour in the complex-frequency plane, Leaver
identified the source of the power law as coming from the branch cut that the Fourier modes of the Green function possess.
In particular, he noted that it was the low-frequency asymptotics of the branch cut that gave the dominant
contribution to the Green function at late times. Using this insight into the nature of the decay tail, Hod calculated the leading-order branch cut contribution in Kerr spacetime finding the decay tail for fields of spin-$0$, -$1$ and -$2$, all
at asymptotic null infinity, timelike infinity and at the event horizon \cite{PhysRevLett.84.10,hod2000mode}.
The result at timelike infinity is that all scalar, electromagnetic and gravitational fields decay at late times
as $t^{-2\ell-3}$,
where $t$ is the Boyer-Lindquist coordinate and $\ell$ is the multipole number corresponding to a decomposition in spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics.
In a parallel series of works, Barack and Ori also calculated the leading order decay tail in Kerr spacetime:
in~\cite{barack1999late} for the scalar field at null infinity, timelike infinity and on the event horizon, and in~\cite{PhysRevD.61.024026}
for the electromagnetic and gravitational fields on the event horizon.
Their analysis however, was performed in the time domain, and in contrast to Hod's results, was valid at arbitrary radii.
Recently, it has been observed~\cite{casals2016horizon} that an additional branch cut in the case of extreme Kerr gives rise to an instability at late times of the event horizon of this black hole, thus
generalizing previous results by Aretakis for axisymmetric perturbations~\cite{Aretakis:2012ei,aretakis2012decay}.
Further to these works, there have also been many numerical investigations of the decay tails in Kerr spacetime in various asymptotic regimes. Much difficulty is encountered in these simulations due to different choices of co-ordinates and harmonic bases, see \cite{Zenginoglu:2012us} and references therein.
While the above results provide much physical insight into the nature of disturbances to the spacetime, they are not entirely sufficient for the applications of
black hole perturbation theory to the
calculation of the self-force.
The calculation of the self-force is important in order to model accurately the emission of gravitational waves by a black hole inspiral in the
extreme (or even intermediate~\cite{le2012gravitational}) mass-ratio regime (EMRIs and IMRIs).
In~\cite{CDOW13}, the self-force was calculated in the case of a scalar charge on Schwarschild spacetime by integrating
the Green function over the past worldline of the charge. The Green function, in its turn, was calculated via Leaver's technique of contour-deformation
and it was observed that, for the branch cut contribution, the leading low-frequency asymptotics was not sufficient in order to obtain the self-force
accurately `enough'.
It was discovered that while the exponentially decaying
quasi-normal modes are dominant at intermediate times, the omission of the branch cut at these times (which comes from the branch cut modes to higher order in the frequency, as calculated in, e.g.,~\cite{PhysRevLett.109.111101,Casals:2012ng,Casals:2011aa,Casals:Ottewill:2015,casals2016quasi})
can lead to noticable errors, dispelling the identification of the branch cut with
solely late times. A more accurate statement would be that the branch cut becomes \textit{dominant} at late times.
Combining Leaver's technique
with the advances in analytic black hole perturbation theory
provided by the
method of Mano, Suzuki and Tagoshi (MST)
\cite{Mano:Suzuki:Takasugi:1996,Sasaki:2003xr}, two of us were able to calculate the higher
order corrections to Price's decay tail in Schwarzschild spacetime at arbitrary radii \cite{Casals:Ottewill:2015}. In calculating the corrections, it was
shown
that the purely power-law nature, $t_S^{-2\ell-3}$, is `corrupted' by logarithmic terms at next-to-next-to-leading order, $t_S^{-2\ell-5}\ln\, t$. These terms allowed for a better approximation of the global Green function
in Schwarzschild spacetime needed for the past-history integral found in self force calculations, such as that in~\cite{CDOW13}.
In this paper we present an extension of the calculation of~\cite{Casals:Ottewill:2015} to (sub-extremal) Kerr spacetime.
We develop the MST method for the calculation of the branch cut contribution to the retarded Green function
for field perturbations of general integer spin in Kerr.
We then apply this formalism to calculate explicitly the late-time behaviour of a massless scalar field
up to five orders.
We use Boyer-Lindquist time $t$.
Our leading order agrees with the literature results in Kerr, i.e., $t^{-2\ell-3}$.
We then find that a new logarithmic correction appears at next-to-next-to-leading order, i.e., $t^{-2\ell-5}\ln t$, as in Schwarzschild.
Finally, we compare our results with the fundamentally independent evaluation of the Green function via a real-frequency evaluation of the Fourier integral.
The layout of the rest of this paper is as follows.
In Sec.\ref{sec:GF} we introduce the retarded Green function of the Teukolsky equation for spin-field perturbations of Kerr space-time.
In Sec.\ref{eq:MST} we summarize the main MST equations, already given in the literature, and which we need for later on.
In Sec.\ref{sec:GF compl} we introduce the deformation of the frequency-integral into the complex frequency plane.
In Sec.\ref{sec:BC} we develop the formalism for the branch cut integral and obtain analytical expressions for the Green function modes along the branch cut.
We obtain small-frequency expansions of the radius-independent part of these modes in Sec.\ref{sec:low freq r-indep}
and of the radial functions in Sec.\ref{sec:low freq r-dep}.
We put together these results in Sec.\ref{sec:late-time}, where we give the late-time tail of the Green function up to the first five orders.
We conclude the main body in Sec.\ref{sec:disc} with a discussion.
We have two appendices.
In App.\ref{sec:AngularCuts} we show that extra branch cuts that the angular eigenvalues and eigenfunctions have
do not contribute to the Green function after summing over $\ell$.
In App.\ref{sec:MSTexpansions} we give small-frequency expansions for the series coefficients and for MST's so-called renormalized angular momentum parameter.
We choose units $c=G=1$ and, wherever ommited, $M=1$.
\section{Green function for the Teukolsky equation}\label{sec:GF}
The study of linear field perturbations $\psi$ on Kerr spacetime in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates $\{t,r,\theta,\phi\}$ and in the Kinnersley tetrad
can be described in a unified way by the Teukolsky equation~\cite{Teukolsky:1973ha},
\begin{align}
\left[\frac{(r^2+a^2)^2}{\Delta}-a^2\sin^2\theta\right]\spdiff{\psi}{t}+\frac{4 M a r}{\Delta}&\frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial t \partial \varphi}+
\left[\frac{a^2}{\Delta}-\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta}\right]\spdiff{\psi}{\varphi}
-\Delta^{-s}\pdiff{}{r}\left(\Delta^{s+1}\pdiff{\psi}{r}\right) -\frac{1}{\sin \theta}\pdiff{}{\theta}\left(\sin\theta \pdiff{\psi}{\theta}\right) \nonumber\\
-2s\left[\frac{a(r-M)}{\Delta}+\frac{i \cos\theta}{\sin^2\theta}\right]&\pdiff{\psi}{\varphi}
-2 s \left[\frac{M(r^2-a^2)}{\Delta}-r -i a \cos\theta\right]\pdiff{\psi}{t}+(s^2\cot^2\theta-s)\psi = 4 \pi \Sigma\cdot T,
\label{Eq:TeukMaster}
\end{align}
where $\Delta\equiv r^2-2Mr+a^2=(r-r_+)(r-r_-)$, $\Sigma\equiv r^2+a^2 \cos^2\theta$, $T$ is the matter source term and $s$ denotes the spin of interest, $s=0$, $1$ and $2$ for scalar, electromagnetic and gravitational perturbations respectively
(the Teukolsky equation (\ref{Eq:TeukMaster}) is also valid for $s=1/2$ but we shall not consider this spin in this paper).
The parameters $M$ and $a$ denote, respectively, the mass and angular momentum per unit mass.
Here, $r_{\pm}\equiv M\pm \sqrt{M^2-a^2}$ are the outer (event) horizon ($r_+$) and inner (Cauchy) horizon ($r_-$).
The Teukolsky equation (\ref{Eq:TeukMaster}) can be solved by calculating a Green function satisfying
\begin{align}
\mathcal{T}G(x,x')=4\pi\Sigma\cdot \delta_{4}(x,x'),
\end{align}
where $x$ and $x'$ are points in Kerr spacetime, $\mathcal{T}$ is the differential operator on the left hand side of Eq.(\ref{Eq:TeukMaster}), and $\delta_{4}(x,x')\equiv \delta_{4}(x-x')/\sqrt{|g|}$ is
an invariant 4-dimensional dirac delta distribution, where $g=-\Sigma^2\sin^2\theta$ is the determinant of the metric.
Teukolsky also showed that, in the frequency domain, his equation can be separated into radial and angular components by
using the spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics. For the Green function this is achieved by writing
\begin{align}
G(x,x')=2\sum_{\ell=|s|}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}\int_{-\infty+i c}^{\infty+i c}d\omega\, e^{-i \omega t+i m \phi}{}_s S_{\ell m\omega}(\theta){}_s S_{\ell m\omega}^{*}(\theta') G_{\ell m}(r,r';\omega), \label{Eq:TDGF}
\end{align}
\MC{Where did you get the above from? In Eq.2.35~\cite{Casals:Ottewill:2015} for Schwarzschild there's an extra $\Delta^s$ and $\Sigma$ (=$r^2$ in Schwarzschild)}
for some $c>0$,
where ${}_s S_{\ell m\omega}$ are the spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics~\cite{Berti:2005gp,berti2006erratum}.
Here we have made use of the axisymmetry and stationarity of Kerr space-time to set $t'=0$ and $\phi'=0$, without loss of generality.
The Fourier modes $G_{\ell m}$ of the Green function $G_{\textit{ret}}$ are then themselves Green functions of the radial Teukolsky equation:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:radial teuk. eq.}
\left[\Delta^{-s }\frac{d}{dr}\left(\Delta^{s+1}\frac{d}{dr}\right)+\frac{K^2-2is (r-M)K}{\Delta}+4is \omega r-{}_{s}\lambda_{\ell m\omega}\right]
G_{\ell m}(r,r';\omega)=\delta(r-r')
\end{equation}
where $K\equiv (r^2+a^2)\omega-am$,
and ${}_{s}\lambda_{\ell m\omega}$ is an eigenvalue of the spin-weighted spheroidal harmonic equation.
A radial Green function can be constructed from two linearly independent homogeneous solutions satisfying certain boundary conditions at infinity and at the horizon.
A physically-relevant pair of linearly independent solutions are the `ingoing' and `upgoing' solutions defined by the following boundary conditions:
\begin{align}
R^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}(r,\omega)&\sim \left\{\begin{array}{l l}
B^{\text{tra}}\Delta^{-s}e^{-i \tilde{\omega}r_*}, & r\rightarrow r_+, \\
r^{-2s-1} B^{\text{ref}} e^{i \omega r_*} +r^{-1} B^{\text{inc}} e^{-i \omega r_*}, & r \rightarrow \infty.
\end{array}
\right. \\
R^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}(r,\omega)&\sim\left\{\begin{array}{l l}
C^{\text{inc}}e^{i \tilde{\omega}r_*}+C^{\text{ref}}\Delta^{-s}e^{-i \tilde{\omega}r_*}, & r\rightarrow r_+, \\
r^{-2s-1} C^{\text{tra}} e^{i \omega r_*}, & r \rightarrow \infty.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
\MC{No subindices in the radial coefficients (or Wronskian)?}
where $\tilde{\omega}\equiv \omega-m\Omega_H$, $\Omega_H\equiv a/(r_+^2+a^2)$ is the angular velocity of the black hole
and $B^{\text{inc}/\text{ref}/\text{tra}}$ and $C^{\text{inc}/\text{ref}/\text{tra}}$ are complex coefficients.
Here we have defined the tortoise coordinate $r_*$ via $\dfrac{dr_*}{dr}=\dfrac{(r^2+a^2)}{\Delta}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tortoise}
r_*=
r+\frac{2M}{r_+-r_-}\left\{r_+\ln\left|\frac{r-r_+}{2M}\right|-r_-\ln\left|\frac{r-r_-}{2M}\right|\right\}.
\end{equation}
It is convenient to define new solutions $\hat{R}^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}$ and $\hat{R}^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}$
which are `ingoing' and `upgoing' with transmission coefficient equal to one:
\begin{align}\label{eq:hatted slns}
\hat{R}^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}\equiv \frac{R^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}}{B^{\text{tra}}}, \quad \hat{R}^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}\equiv \frac{R^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}}{C^{\text{tra}}}.
\end{align}
Consequently, they satisfy the following boundary conditions:
\begin{align} \label{eq:f,near hor}
&
\hat{R}^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}(r,\omega) \sim
\Delta^{-s}e^{-i\omega_+ r_*}
, \quad
r_*\to -\infty,
\\& \hat{R}^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}(r,\omega) \sim r^{-1-2s}e^{+i\omega r_*}, \quad r_*\to +\infty \nonumber.
\end{align}
The boundary conditions (\ref{eq:f,near hor}) determine the two solutions $R^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}$ and $R^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}$ to the radial equation uniquely for $\omega\in \mathbb{R}$.
These boundary conditions
also define $R^{in/up}_{\indmode}$ unambiguously for $\text{Im}(\omega)\ge 0$ when $r_*\in\mathbb{R}$.
In $\text{Im}(\omega) < 0$, with $r_*\in\mathbb{R}$, the solution $R^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}$ is defined by analytic continuation.
The radial Green function which specifically yields the {\it retarded} Green function via Eq.(\ref{Eq:TDGF}) can be expressed as
\begin{align}
G_{\indmode}(r,r';\omega)=-\frac{\hat{R}^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}(r_<,\omega) \hat{R}^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}(r_>,\omega)}{W
}, \label{eq:rGF}
\end{align}
where $r_<\equiv\min(r,r'), r_>\equiv\max(r,r')$, and $W$ is the constant Wronskian
\begin{align}\label{eq:Wronsk}
W
\equiv
\Delta^{s+1}\bar{W}(\hat{R}^{\text{in}}_{\ell m},\hat{R}^{\text{up}}_{\ell m})\equiv\Delta^{s+1}\left(\hat{R}^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}\frac{d \hat{R}^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}}{dr}-\hat{R}^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}\frac{d\hat{R}^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}}{dr}\right).
\end{align}
In the next section we give analytical MST expressions for the radial solutions and radial coefficients.
\section{MST Method}\label{eq:MST}
Many of the results presented will be given using the terminology of Mano, Suzuki and Takasugi \cite{Mano:Suzuki:Takasugi:1996}. For
ease of reading we will now give the relevant expressions for our calculations. For a complete disposition on the MST
methodology we direct the reader to the review by Sasaki and Tagoshi~\cite{Sasaki:2003xr}.
The solutions satisfying the retarded boundary conditions of ingoing radiation at the horizon and upgoing at
infinity are given by MST as infinite sums of hypergeometric functions and irregular confluent hypergeometric functions in various forms depending on required radii of convergence.
We note that these MST series yield a specific normalization for the `in' and `up' solutions, which we shall give explicitly.
The horizon solution is given as a series of hypergeometric functions as
\begin{align}
R^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}&=e^{i \epsilon \kappa x}(-x)^{-s-i(\epsilon+\tau)/2}(1-x)^{i(\epsilon-\tau)/2}p_{\text{in}}^\nu(x), \nonumber \\
p_{\text{in}}^\nu&\equiv\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\an{n} p_{n+\nu}(x), \nonumber\\
p_{n+\nu}(x)&\equiv{}_2F_1(n+\nu+1-i\tau,-n-\nu-i\tau;1-s-i\epsilon-i\tau;x), \label{Eq:Rin 2F1}
\end{align}
where $x\equiv\omega (r_{+}-r)/(\epsilon\kappa)$, $\epsilon\equiv2 M \omega$, $\kappa\equiv\sqrt{1-q^2}$, $q\equiv a/M$ and $\tau\equiv(\epsilon-m q)/\kappa$.
Here, the series coefficients $a_n$ are calculated using a three-term recurrence relation given by:
\begin{equation}
\alpha_n^\nu \an{n+1}+\beta_n^\nu \an{n}+\gamma_n^\nu \an{n-1}=0,
\label{Eq:anrecursion}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
\alpha_n^\nu&=\frac{i\epsilon\kappa(n+\nu+1+s+i\epsilon)(n+\nu+1+s-i\epsilon)(n+\nu+1+i\tau)}{(n+\nu+1)(2 n+2 \nu+3)} ,\label{Eq:alpha}\\
\beta_n^\nu&=-\lambda-s(s+1)+(n+\nu)(n+\nu+1)+\epsilon^2+\epsilon(\epsilon-m q)+\frac{\epsilon(\epsilon-m q)(s^2+\epsilon^2)}{(n+\nu)(n+\nu+1)},\label{Eq:beta} \\
\gamma_n^\nu&=-\frac{i\epsilon\kappa(n+\nu-s+i\epsilon)(n+\nu-s-i\epsilon)(n+\nu-i\tau)}{(n+\nu)(2 n+2 \nu-1)}. \label{Eq:gamma}
\end{align}
The parameter $\nu$ is then calculated to guarantee that $\an{n}$ is the minimal solution of Eq.(\ref{Eq:anrecursion}) both as $n\to \infty$ and as $n\to -\infty$.
For small $\epsilon$, this value admits the expansion
\begin{equation}
\nu=\ell+\nu_2 \epsilon^2+O(\epsilon^3),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{eq:nu2}
\nu_2\equiv \frac{1}{2\ell+1}\left(-2-\frac{s^2}{\ell(\ell+1)}+
\frac{\left(\left(\ell+1\right)^2-s^2\right)^2}{(2\ell+1)(2\ell+2)(2\ell+3)}-
\frac{\left(\ell^2-s^2\right)^2}{(2\ell-1)2\ell (2\ell+1)}\right).
\end{equation}
In App.\ref{sec:MSTexpansions} we give an expansions for $\nu$ up to order $\epsilon^4$ for spin-$0$.
In its turn, the value of $\nu$ chosen as indicated guarantees that the series in
Eq.(\ref{Eq:Rin 2F1}) converges for all $|x|<\infty$.
We note that the radial Teukolsky equation is invariant under complex conjugation together with $m\to -m$
and $\omega\to -\omega$. We shall therefore assume $\text{Re}(\omega)>0$ from now on without loss of generality.
A solution for $R^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}$ as a series of confluent hypergeometric functions is
\MC{From what they say above Eq.139\cite{Sasaki:2003xr}, is the following just valid for $\text{Re}(\omega)>0$ (or $\omega>0$)?}
\begin{align}
R^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}&= 2^{\nu}e^{-\pi \epsilon}e^{-i\pi(\nu+1+s)}
e^{i\hat{z}}\hat{z}^{\nu+i\epsilon_+}(\hat{z}-\epsilon\kappa)^{-s-i\epsilon_+}
\nonumber\\
&\times\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}i^n
\frac{(\nu+1+s-i\epsilon)_n}{(\nu+1-s+i\epsilon)_n}
\an{n}(2\hat{z})^n
U(n+\nu+1+s-i\epsilon,2n+2\nu+2;-2i\hat{z}), \label{eq:Rup series U}
\end{align}
where the $\an{n}$ series coefficients are the same as those in Eq.(\ref{Eq:Rin 2F1}),
$\hat{z}\equiv \omega (r-r_-)=\epsilon\kappa (1-x)$ and $\epsilon_+\equiv (\epsilon+\tau)/2$.
We use $(z)_n$ to denote the Pochhammer symbol $(z)_n=\Gamma(z+n)/\Gamma{z}$.
The series in Eq.(\ref{eq:Rup series U}) is convergent for $r>r_+$ when $\nu$ is calculated as mentioned above.
In determining $R^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}$, MST also give another solution, $R_+^\nu$, to the Teukolsky equation which has boundary condition
\begin{equation}
R_+^\nu\sim R_+^\text{tra}\frac{ e^{-i \omega r_*}}{r},\quad r\to \infty,
\end{equation}
where $R_+^\text{tra}$ is a coefficient that we determine below.
This solution can also be expressed as a series of confluent hypergeometric functions:
\begin{align}
R_{+}^{\nu}&= 2^{\nu}e^{-\pi \epsilon}e^{i\pi(\nu+1-s)}
\frac{\Gamma(\nu+1-s+i\epsilon)}{\Gamma(\nu+1+s-i\epsilon)}
e^{-i\hat{z}}\hat{z}^{\nu+i\epsilon_+}
(\hat{z}-\epsilon\kappa)^{-s-i\epsilon_+}\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}i^n
\an{n}(2\hat{z})^n
U(n+\nu+1-s+i\epsilon,2n+2\nu+2;2i\hat{z}).
\label{eq:R+MST}
\end{align}
We shall use the solution in Eq.(\ref{eq:R+MST}) later.
Finally, MST give expressions for $R^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}$ and $R^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}$ which are valid at infinity and the horizon respectively, however
we will omit these here. Using all of these expressions, the asymptotic amplitudes can be calculated \cite{Sasaki:2003xr}, we give those relevant to our results:
\begin{align}\label{eq:Binc/ref/tra}
B^{\text{tra}}=&\left(\frac{\epsilon \kappa}{\omega}\right)^{2 s}e^{i \kappa \epsilon_+(1+2\log\kappa/(1+\kappa))}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} \an{n}\nonumber,\\
B^{\rm inc}
=&\omega^{-1}\left[{K}_{\nu}-
ie^{-i\pi\nu} \frac{\sin \pi(\nu-s+i\epsilon)}
{\sin \pi(\nu+s-i\epsilon)}
{K}_{-\nu-1}\right]A_{+}^{\nu} e^{-i(\epsilon\ln\epsilon -\frac{1-\kappa}{2}\epsilon)},
\nonumber\\
B^{\rm ref}
=&\omega^{-1-2s}\left[{K}_{\nu}
+ie^{i\pi\nu} {K}_{-\nu-1}\right]A_{-}^{\nu}
e^{i(\epsilon\ln\epsilon -\frac{1-\kappa}{2}\epsilon)}, \nonumber\\
\end{align}
and\footnote{Note that there is typo in Eqs.155 and156~\cite{Sasaki:2003xr}, as the $z$ in the exponentials should be a $\hat{z}$.\MC{Check that no other $z$ should be a $\hat z$}}
\begin{align}
C^{\rm tra}
=&\omega^{-1-2s}e^{i(\epsilon\ln\epsilon -\frac{1-\kappa}{2}\epsilon)}A_{-}^\nu, \nonumber\\
R_+^{\rm tra}=&\omega^{-1}e^{-i(\epsilon\ln\epsilon-\frac{1-\kappa}{2}\epsilon)}A_{+}^\nu .
\end{align}
Here, much complication is stored in the quantities $A_{+}^\nu,A_{-}^\nu$ and $K_\nu$. These are given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:A+/-}
&A_{+}^\nu=e^{-{\pi\over 2}\epsilon}e^{{\pi\over 2}i(\nu+1-s)}
2^{-1+s-i\epsilon}{\Gamma(\nu+1-s+i\epsilon)\over
\Gamma(\nu+1+s-i\epsilon)}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}\an{n},\\
&A_{-}^\nu=2^{-1-s+i\epsilon}e^{-{\pi\over 2}i(\nu+1+s)}e^{-{\pi\over 2}\epsilon}
\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}(-1)^n{(\nu+1+s-i\epsilon)_n\over
(\nu+1-s+i\epsilon)_n}\an{n}.
\nonumber
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
K_{\nu}=& \frac{e^{i\epsilon\kappa}(2\epsilon \kappa )^{s-\nu-r}2^{-s}i^{r}
\Gamma(1-s-2i\epsilon_+)\Gamma(r+2\nu+2)}
{\Gamma(r+\nu+1-s+i\epsilon)
\Gamma(r+\nu+1+i\tau)\Gamma(r+\nu+1+s+i\epsilon)}
\nonumber\\
&\times \left ( \sum_{n=r}^{\infty}
(-1)^n\, \frac{\Gamma(n+r+2\nu+1)}{(n-r)!}
\frac{\Gamma(n+\nu+1+s+i\epsilon)}{\Gamma(n+\nu+1-s-i\epsilon)}
\frac{\Gamma(n+\nu+1+i\tau)}{\Gamma(n+\nu+1-i\tau)}
\,\an{n}\right)
\nonumber\\
&\times \left(\sum_{n=-\infty}^{r}
\frac{(-1)^n}{(r-n)!
(r+2\nu+2)_n}\frac{(\nu+1+s-i\epsilon)_n}{(\nu+1-s+i\epsilon)_n}
\an{n}\right)^{-1},
\label{eq:Knu}
\end{align}
where in this instance $r$ is an arbitrary integer chosen for convenience\footnote{We use the same symbol, $r$, for this integer number as for the radial coordinate so as to follow the same
notation as~\cite{Sasaki:2003xr}. It should be clear from the context when $r$ refers to the radial coordinate and when to this arbitrary integer.} .
\section{Green function in the complex frequency domain}\label{sec:GF compl}
The Green function given by \eqref{Eq:TDGF} in its current form would require the homogeneous `in' and `up'
solutions for all $\omega\in\mathbb{R}$ for each $\ell$ and $m$ mode.
Analytical progress can be made by means of a contour deformation on the complex-frequency plane of the real-frequency Fourier integral.
Leaver gave significant insight into the
Green function in Schwarzschild spacetime by such deformation \cite{Leaver:1986}.
When deforming the contour, one must take into account the singularities of the Fourier modes of the Green function as dictated by
Cauchy's theorem.
In Schwarzschild space-time, the singularities of the Fourier modes are: simple poles (quasi-normal modes) and a branch point at the origin
with a corresponding branch cut typically taken down the negative imaginary axis.
The contour deformation then means that the Green function may be obtained by the sum of the following contributions:
(1) a sum over the residues at the poles,
(2) an integral along a high-frequency arc and
(3) an integral around a branch cut along the negative frequency axis.
In his work, Leaver identified the low frequency portion of the branch cut integral with the late time behaviour of the Green function.
In Kerr spacetime, while the significant features of the poles giving QNMs and a branch cut leading to a late time tail remain, one also must account for branch points -- away from the origin -- in the spheroidal functions \cite{Oguchi70,BONGK:2004}.
In App. \ref{sec:AngularCuts} we show that these angular branch cuts are, however, spurious artefacts
of the spheroidal decomposition, which will vanish when we do the infinite sum over $\ell$ to obtain the full Green function.
We show a schematic representation of the contour deformation and singularities in the complex-frequency plane
in Fig.\ref{fig:Kerrcontour} (where, in the case of Schwarzschild, the angular branch cuts
are not present).
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\linewidth]{Drawing_ComplexFrequencyContourevalcuts.pdf}
\caption{
Contour deformation on the complex-frequency plane for the Green function of the Teukolsky equation in Kerr spacetime and
schematic representation of the singularities of its Fourier modes.
Dashed dark blue line: original Fourier-integration just above the real axis.
Red semi-circle: high-frequency arc integration.
Blue dots: simple poles of the Fourier modes (quasi-normal modes).
Criss-crossed black lines and envolving curves: branch cuts of the Fourier modes and corresponding integration contours around them;
off the origin (with envolving green contour) for the branch cut of the radial functions; off points away from the origin (with envolving light blue contours) for the branch
cuts of the angular functions.
Unlike the other singularities, these latter angular branch cuts and envolving integration contours are not present in Schwarzschild~\cite{Leaver:1986,Casals:2013mpa}.
We show in App.~\ref{sec:AngularCuts}, however that these angular cuts do not contribute to the full Green function.
[We note that in this figure we are ignoring any other extra cuts which the coefficients $\an{n}$ and/or the pararameter $\nu$ might have]
}
\label{fig:Kerrcontour}
\end{figure}
In this paper we are interested in the late-time behaviour of the Green function.
From asymptotic theory of Laplace transforms~\cite{Doetsch1974}, this late-time behaviour will be dictated, after performing a Laplace transform on the Green function,
by the uppermost singularities in the complex frequency plane of the Green function modes.
In the next section we argue that the only `physical' branch point in subextremal Kerr space-time is that at the origin, $\omega=0$.
Furthermore, Whiting~\cite{whiting1989mode} showed that there are no exponentially growing modes (i.e., with positive imaginary frequency) in subextremal Kerr.
Finally, on energy-conservation grounds, no quasi-normal modes may have real and non-superradiant frequency (i.e., $\omega\tilde{\omega}\ge 0$ and $\omega\neq 0$)~\cite{casals2016horizon}.
We therefore expect that the late-time behaviour of the Green function is given by the Green function modes near $\omega=0$.\MC{what about QNMs with super-radiant freq.?}
Our strategy for calculating the late-time behaviour of the Green function will be as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item express the discontinuity across the branch cut in the frequency domain radial Green function in terms of the discontinuity of the upgoing homogeneous solution;
\item find an analytic expression for the discontinuity in the upgoing homogeneous solution in terms of known MST quantities;
\item use this to calculate the induced discontinuity in the Wronskian;
\item explicitly compute a low-frequency expansion of the branch cut contribution to the Green function;
\item integrate the above branch cut expansion to obtain the behaviour of the Green function at late times.
\end{enumerate}
In Sec.\ref{sec:BC} we deal with the above point 1 (see, specifically, Eq.(\ref{Eq:GBC})), point 2 (see Eqs.(\ref{eq:disc Ruphat}), (\ref{Eq:q eqtn})) and
point 3 (see Eqs.(\ref{Eq:Wp})--(\ref{Eq:WpWm})).
In Sec.\ref{sec:low freq r-indep} we deal with point 4 for the radius-independent part and in Sec.\ref{sec:low freq r-dep}
for the radius-dependent part.
Finally, in Sec.\ref{sec:late-time} we will deal with point 5 above.
\section{Branch cut}\label{sec:BC}
By a simple rescaling of the dependent variable, the radial Eq. (\ref{eq:radial teuk. eq.}) can be rewritten in Schr\"odinger-like form
(see Eqs.2.2 and 2.13~\cite{Hartle:Wilkins:1974}\footnote{We note that the independent variable in~\cite{Hartle:Wilkins:1974} is slightly different from
the standard tortoise coordinate, but this should not affect the following conclusions about branch points.}).
It is easy to show that the potential in this Schr\"odinger-like equation goes like a constant term plus a term exponentially decreasing with the independent variable as
the horizon is approached. This means that, following the heuristic arguments in~\cite{Ching:1995tj},
the radial solution $R^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}$ is not expected to have a branch point at
$\tilde{\omega}=0$\MC{Given Eq.2.15~\cite{Hartle:Wilkins:1974}, why is it not $\Omega$ instead of $k$ in Eq.2.4~\cite{Hartle:Wilkins:1974}?}
On the other hand, the potential, after excluding the centrifugal barrier, goes like $\omega^2$ plus a term that decays slower than exponentially as radial infinity is approached.
This means that $R^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}$ is expected~\cite{Ching:1995tj} to have a branch point at the origin of the complex-frequency plane ($\omega=0$).
The MST series for the `in' and `up' radial solutions confirm the above expectations.
We first deal with the `in' solutions.
The representation in Eq.(\ref{Eq:Rin 2F1}) for `in' is in terms of hypergeometric functions which manifestly have no branch point in the complex-frequency plane, given
their analyticity properties as functions of their first three arguments~\cite{NIST:DLMF}.
The series coefficients $\an{n}$ and the renormalized angular momentum $\nu$, which appear in Eq.(\ref{Eq:Rin 2F1}), are also functions of $\omega$.
We show later on, however, that, at least to the order in $\epsilon$ to which we calculate them, these quantities possess no discontinuity along the negative imaginary axis.
In fact, we believe that these quantities have no discontinuity anywhere along the negative imaginary axis, as also expected by Leaver in~\cite{Leaver:1986a}, or, at least,
that if they happen to have any discontinuities along the negative imaginary axis, then these
do not contribute to the full Green function (e.g., they posses angular branch points, which, not only are away from the origin but also, as we show
in App.~\ref{sec:AngularCuts}, they do not contribute to the full Green function).
Alternatively, one could use the Jaff\'e series representation~\cite{Leaver:1986a} of the `in' solutions (see also Eq.73~\cite{Leaver:1986a} for the `up' solutions),
which does not depend on $\nu$, although it has different series
coeffiicients whose analytic properties should be investigated.
\MC{Do you guys have a better way to phrase this or prove/justify that $\an{n}$ and $\nu$ have no BC down the NIA?
Are Eqs.(\ref{Eq:R BC}) and (\ref{Eq:GBC}) still valid all the way down the NIA even if $\an{n}$ and $\nu$ have BCs in other places (such as angular BCs)?}
For the `up' radial solution, let us consider its series representation Eq.(\ref{eq:Rup series U}) in terms of the
irregular confluent hypergeometric functions $U(a,b,z)$.
These special functions contain a branch point at the origin of their third argument~\cite{NIST:DLMF}.
In our case, this means that the `up' solutions possess a branch point at $\omega=0$, as expected.
As is standard, we shall take the branch cut from $\omega=0$ to lie down the negative imaginary axis of the complex-$\omega$ plane.
In this paper we calculate the Green function modes along this branch cut.
The following analytic continuation property~\citep{bk:AS} will be most useful:
\begin{align}
U(a,b,ze^{2 \pi i n})=(1-e^{-2 \pi i b n})\frac{\Gamma(1-b)}{\Gamma(1+a-b)}M(a,b,z)+e^{-2 \pi i b n}U(a,b,z),\quad n\in\mathbb{Z}^+, \label{Eq:PhiBC}
\end{align}
where $M(a,b,z)$ is the regular confluent hypergeometric function.
We will use \eqref{Eq:PhiBC} to obtain an expression for the discontinuity in $\hat{R}^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}$ across the negative imaginary frequency axis -- see Eq.(\ref{eq:delta Rup}) below.
We first establish some useful notation for the analysis on the branch cut.
We define an auxiliary variable $\sigma\equiv i\omega$ to parameterise the frequency along the negative imaginary axis (it is $\sigma>0$ along the cut). Henceforth, $+/-$ {\it super}scripts denote functions evaluated respectively on the right/left of the branch cut, e.g.,
$R^{\text{up},\pm}_{\ell m}(r,\sigma)\equiv\lim_{\rho\rightarrow 0^+}R^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}(r,-i\sigma\pm\rho)$ with $\sigma>0$.
Also, the symbol `$\delta$' will denote the difference between these two limits of a certain function, e.g.,
$\deltaR^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}(r,\sigma) \equiv R^{\text{up}}_{+}(r,\sigma)-R^{\text{up}}_{-}(r,\sigma)$.
The
asymptotic behaviour at radial infinity
of the `up' radial solution is the same in the limit of the frequency approaching the negative imaginary axis from the third or the fourth quadrant:
\begin{align}
\hat{R}^{\text{up},\pm}_{\ell m}
\sim r^{-1-2s}e^{\sigma r_*} ,\quad r\to\infty.
\end{align}
This implies that the difference between the two must be subdominant at infinity:
\begin{align}
\delta\hat{R}^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}\sim r^{-1}e^{-\sigma r_*},\quad r\to \infty.
\end{align}
Therefore, this difference must be proportional to the (normalised) linearly independent solution $\hat{R}_+^\nu$:
\begin{align}
\delta\hat{R}^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}=i q(\sigma) \hat{R}_+^\nu, \label{Eq:R BC}
\end{align}
where the constant of proportionality is a `branch cut strength' function, $q(\sigma)$.
Note that $q(\sigma)$ is a real-valued function in
Schwarzschild spacetime~\cite{Casals:Ottewill:2015,Leung:2003ix}
but
in Kerr spacetime we have no reason to expect this. \\
The branch cut down the negative imaginary axis that $R^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}$ possesses is inherited by the
Wronskian $W$ via Eq.(\ref{eq:Wronsk}) and by the
Green function Fourier modes $G_{\ell m}$
via Eq.(\ref{eq:rGF}).
We now calculate the discontinuity in the Green function modes across the cut from Eq.(\ref{eq:rGF}):
\begin{align}
\delta G_{\indmode}(r,r';\sigma)&=-\hat{R}^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}(r_<,-i\sigma)\left(\frac{\hat{R}^{\text{up},+}_{\ell m}(r_>)}{W^+}-\frac{\hat{R}^{\text{up},-}_{\ell m}(r_>)}{W^-}\right) \nonumber\\
&=-\frac{\hat{R}^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}(r,-i\sigma) \hat{R}^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}(r',-i\sigma)}{W^+ W^-}
\Delta^{s+1}
\bar W(\hat{R}^{\text{up},+}_{\ell m},\hat{R}^{\text{up},-}_{\ell m}) \nonumber\\
&=-2 i \sigma \frac{q(\sigma)}{W^+W^-} \hat{R}^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}(r,-i\sigma) \hat{R}^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}(r',-i\sigma), \quad \sigma>0,
\label{Eq:GBC}
\end{align}
\MC{Check whether the $W(\hat{R}^{\text{up},+}_{\ell m},\hat{R}^{\text{up},-}_{\ell m})$ above is ok with $\Delta^{s+1} W(\hat{R}^{\text{up},+}_{\ell m},\hat{R}^{\text{up},-}_{\ell m})$}
where we have used Eq.(\ref{Eq:R BC}) and the fact that $R^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}$ possesses no branch cut.
In the following two subsections, we shall obtain expressions for the Wronskian and for the branch cut strength $q(\sigma)$.
The contribution from the branch cut to the Green function $G(x,x')$ in Eq.(\ref{Eq:TDGF}) is then given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:G_BC}
G_{BC}=
\sum_{\ell=|s|}^{\infty}\delta G_{\ell},
\end{equation}
where we have defined
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Disc Gell}
\delta G_{\ell}\equiv -2i \sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell}e^{ i m \phi} \int_{0}^{\infty}d\sigma\, e^{-\sigma t}{}_s S_{\ell m\omega}(\theta){}_s S_{\ell m\omega}^{*}(\theta') \delta G_{\indmode}(r,r';\sigma),
\end{equation}
and where the spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics are meant to be evaluated at $\omega=-i\sigma$.
\subsection{Wronskian discontinuity}
Our expression for the discontinuity of the Green function Eq.(\ref{Eq:GBC}) involves calculating the Wronskian of the two homogeneous solutions on either side of the negative imaginary axis, and taking their product: $W^+W^-$. We will now express this in terms of known asymptotic amplitudes evaluated entirely on the right hand side of the branch cut, i.e., on the 4th quadrant.
Straight-forwardly, we have
\begin{align} \label{Eq:Wp}
W^+=W(\hat{R}^{\text{in}}_{\ell m},\hat{R}^{\text{up},+}_{\ell m})&=2 \sigma \frac{B^{\text{inc},+}}{B^{\text{tra},+}}.
\end{align}
We wish to write $W^-$ in terms of functions evaluated on the right side of the cut also. Using Eq.(\ref{Eq:R BC}),
\begin{align} \label{Eq:Wm}
W^-= W(\hat{R}^{\text{in}}_{\ell m},\hat{R}^{\text{up},-}_{\ell m})&= W(\hat{R}^{\text{in}}_{\ell m},\hat{R}^{\text{up},+}_{\ell m})-i q(\sigma) W(\hat{R}^{\text{in}}_{\ell m},\hat{R}^\nu_+) \nonumber\\
&=2 \sigma \frac{B^{\text{inc},+}}{B^{\text{tra},+}}-2 i \sigma q(\sigma) \frac{B^{\text{ref},+}}{B^{\text{tra},+}},
\end{align}
so that
\begin{align}
W^+ W^-=\left(2 \sigma \frac{B^{\text{inc},+}}{B^{\text{tra},+}}\right)^2-4 i \sigma^2 q(\sigma) \frac{B^{\text{inc},+} B^{\text{ref},+}}{(B^{\text{tra},+} )^2}. \label{Eq:WpWm}
\end{align}
Here,
$B^{\text{inc},+}$, $B^{\text{ref},+}$ and $ B^{\text{tra},+}$
must be evaluated by analytically continuing
their MST expressions from the real axis down to the right of the negative imaginary axis. Practically, this amounts to setting $\epsilon=2 M \sigma e^{-i \pi/2}$ with $\sigma>0$
in our formulas. We will then expand in small $\sigma$.
\subsection{Branch cut strength}
We now derive an expression for the branch cut strength function $q(\sigma)$.
We begin by writing Eq.(\ref{eq:Rup series U}) for $C^{\text{tra}}\hat{R}^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}$ succinctly
as
\begin{align}
\hat{R}^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}(r,\omega)=\frac{1}{C^{\text{tra}}} f(\epsilon)\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} A_n(\epsilon)U(a,b,-2 i \hat{z}),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\label{eq:Rup vars}
f(\epsilon)&\equiv 2^{\nu}e^{-\pi \epsilon}e^{-i\pi(\nu+1+s)}
e^{i\hat{z}}\hat{z}^{\nu+i\epsilon_+}(\hat{z}-\epsilon\kappa)^{-s-i\epsilon_+},\\
A_n(\epsilon)&\equiv i^n
\frac{(\nu+1+s-i\epsilon)_n}{(\nu+1-s+i\epsilon)_n}
\an{n}(2\hat{z})^n,\nonumber \\
a&\equiv n+\nu+1+s-i\epsilon, \nonumber\\
b&\equiv 2n+2\nu+2.\nonumber
\end{align}
After an anticlockwise rotation of `$2 \pi$' in the complex-frequency plane we have (assuming $s\in\mathbb{Z}$):
\begin{align}
\hat{z}&\to \hat{z} e^{2 \pi i},\nonumber \\
C^{\text{tra}}(\epsilon e^{2 \pi i})&=C^{\text{tra}}(\epsilon)e^{-2 \pi \epsilon},\nonumber \\
f(\epsilon e^{2 \pi i})&=f(\epsilon) e^{2 \pi i \nu},\nonumber \\
A_n(\epsilon e^{2 \pi i})&=A_n (\epsilon).\nonumber
\end{align}
Making use of these together with Eq.(\ref{Eq:PhiBC}) with $n=1$ and the
identity~\citep{bk:AS}
\begin{align}
M(a,b,-2 i \hat{z})=\frac{\Gamma(b)}{\Gamma(b-a)}e^{-a \pi i}U(a,b,-2 i \hat{z})+\frac{\Gamma(b)}{\Gamma(a)}e^{(b-a)i \pi}
e^{-2 i \hat{z}}U(b-a,b,2 i \hat{z}),
\end{align}
we find that\MC{I think in the eq. below there was a wrong overall minus sign. So I've changed it and carried the change all the way to Eq.(\ref{Eq:q eqtn}),
which now agrees, for $a=0$, with Eqs.5.10 and 5.11~\cite{Casals:Ottewill:2015} in Schwarzschild. I have also implemented this sign change to all the expansions for
$q$ below. My concern, though, is that you had seen agreement with the numerics
for the Green function with your (I believe, wrong) sign? so, for the moment, I haven't changed the sign in any of the expansions below for $\delta G$}
\begin{align}\label{eq:delta Rup}
\delta\hat{R}^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}= & -\frac{f(\epsilon)}{C^{\text{tra}}} \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} A_n(\epsilon) \\
\times &\left[\left(e^{2 \pi i \nu}e^{2 \pi \epsilon}\left(1-e^{-2 \pi i b}\right)
\frac{\Gamma(1-b)}{\Gamma(1+a-b)} \frac{\Gamma(b)}{\Gamma(b-a)}e^{-a \pi i} \right. +e^{-2 \pi i \nu}e^{2 \pi \epsilon}-1\right)U(a,b,-2 i \hat{z}) \\
&\left.+e^{2 \pi i \nu}e^{2 \pi \epsilon}\left(1-e^{-2 \pi i b}\right)
\frac{\Gamma(1-b)}{\Gamma(1+a-b)}\frac{\Gamma(b)}{\Gamma(a)}e^{(b-a)i \pi}e^{-2 i \hat{z}}U(b-a,b,2 i \hat{z}) \right] .
\end{align}
We focus first on the coefficient of $U(a,b,-2 i \hat{z})$. Using properties of the $\Gamma$-function and putting in $a$ and $b$
explicitly, this coefficient is equal to
\begin{align}
&e^{2 \pi i \nu}e^{2 \pi \epsilon}\left(1-e^{-4 \pi i \nu}\right)\frac{\sin(\pi(\nu+i \epsilon))}{\sin(2 \pi \nu)}e^{-i \pi( \nu-i \epsilon)}
+e^{-2 \pi i \nu}e^{2 \pi \epsilon}-1 \nonumber \\
&=(1-e^{2 \pi \epsilon}e^{-2 \pi i \nu})+e^{-2 \pi i \nu}e^{2 \pi \epsilon}-1
=0.\nonumber
\end{align}
This leaves us with the $U(b-a,b,2 i \hat{z})$ term, which we want to write in terms of $\hat{R}_+^\nu$.
As with $R^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}$, for brevity we write Eq.(\ref{eq:R+MST}) for $R_+^\nu$ as
\begin{align}
R_+^\nu=g(\epsilon)\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} B_n(\epsilon)U(b-a,b,2i \hat{z}),
\end{align}
where $a$ and $b$ are as in Eq.(\ref{eq:Rup vars}) above. With a little examination, we can note the relation
\begin{align}
g(\epsilon) B_n(\epsilon)=e^{2 \pi i \nu}e^{-2 i \hat{z}}\frac{\Gamma(b-a)}{\Gamma(a)}f(\epsilon)A_n(\epsilon),
\end{align}
from which we can write the remaining part of $\delta\hat{R}^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}$ as
\begin{align}\label{eq:dRuphat intermid}
\delta\hat{R}^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}&=-\frac{g(\epsilon)}{C^{\text{tra}}}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} B_n(\epsilon) e^{ \pi \epsilon}\left(1-e^{-4 \pi i \nu}\right) \frac{\Gamma(1-b)}{\Gamma(1-(b-a))}\frac{\Gamma(b)}{\Gamma(b-a)}e^{i \pi(n+\nu-1-s)}U(b-a,b,2 i \hat{z}).
\end{align}
The $\Gamma$-functions simplify as
\begin{align}
\frac{\Gamma(1-b)}{\Gamma(1-(b-a))}\frac{\Gamma(b)}{\Gamma(b-a)}&=\frac{\sin(\pi(b-a))}{\sin(\pi b)}\nonumber \\
&=\frac{\sin(\pi(n+\nu+1-s+i \epsilon))}{\sin(\pi (2n+2\nu+2))}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{\sin(\pi(\nu+i \epsilon))}{\sin(2\pi\nu )}e^{i \pi(n+1-s)}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{e^{\pi(\epsilon+i \nu)}(1-e^{-2 \pi (\epsilon-i \nu)})}{1-e^{4 i \pi \nu}}e^{i \pi(n+1-s)}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Plugging this into Eq.(\ref{eq:dRuphat intermid}), using Eq.(\ref{eq:Binc/ref/tra}) and simplifying, we arrive at
\begin{align}\label{eq:disc Ruphat}
\delta\hat{R}^{\text{up}}_{\ell m}&=\frac{1}{C^{\text{tra}}}
\left(e^{2\pi(\epsilon-i\nu)}-1\right)
R_+^\nu \\
&=\frac{R_+^\text{tra}}{C^{\text{tra}}}
\left(e^{2\pi(\epsilon-i\nu)}-1\right)
\hat{R}_+^\nu.\nonumber
\end{align}
Comparing with Eq.\eqref{Eq:R BC} we obtain an analytic expression for the branch cut strength function:
\begin{align}
q(\sigma)=i\frac{A_+^\nu}{A_-^\nu}\omega^{2 s}\epsilon^{-2 i \epsilon}e^{i \epsilon(1- \kappa)}\left(1-e^{2\pi(\epsilon-i\nu)}\right). \label{Eq:q eqtn}
\end{align}
This expression is valid
for all integer values of $s$. All functions here are analytic at $\epsilon=0$
and so can be expanded in Taylor series about this point.
\section{Low-frequency Expansion of the Radius-Independent Part of the Branch Cut Modes}\label{sec:low freq r-indep}
We wish to calculate a small-frequency expansion of the BC modes $\delta G_{\indmode}$ in Eq.(\ref{Eq:GBC}).
In the next section we will calculate the expansion for the radial function;
in App.\ref{sec:MSTexpansions} we will do it for the series coefficients $\an{n}$ and for $\nu$;
in this section we do it for the other radius-independent quantities:
the BC strength as in Eq.(\ref{Eq:q eqtn}) and the Wronskian factor that appears in Eq.(\ref{Eq:WpWm}).
The Wronskian factor depends on $B^{inc/ref/tra}$, which will be calculated via Eq.(\ref{eq:Binc/ref/tra}).
This equation involves
$A_{\pm}^\nu$, obtainable from Eqs.(\ref{eq:A+/-}), and
$K_{\nu}$ and $K_{-\nu-1}$, obtainable from Eq.(\ref{eq:Knu}).
These latter quantities are the most time-consuming ones to calculate.
It proves useful to factor out $K_{\nu}=e^{K_{\nu}^{\text{ph}}} \check{K}_{\nu}$
and $K_{-\nu-1}=e^{K_{-\nu-1}^{\text{ph}}} \check{K}_{-\nu-1}$,
where
\begin{align}
K_{\nu}^{\text{ph}}&=i \epsilon \kappa -\nu \log (2 \epsilon \kappa ), \label{Eq:KnuPh}\\
K_{-\nu-1}^{\text{ph}}& =i \epsilon \kappa +\nu \log (2 \epsilon \kappa ),
\end{align}
and $ \check{K}_{\nu}$ and $\check{K}_{-\nu-1}$ turn out to be polynomials in $\sigma$
\MC{I took this from $\ell=m=0$ but is this true $\forall \ell$?}.
Throughout this section we will use a check symbol above a quantity
and a `ph' superscript to factor the quantity into its exponential terms as above.
Without further ado, we now proceed to give the small-frequency expansions of the various quantities obtained using the corresponding equations
just referred to. We will calculate the expansions for spin $s=0$, up to the first five leading orders (if one considers a $\log(\sigma)$ term
as yielding a different order) in a general $\ell>2$ expression and separately for the cases $\ell=m=0$ and $\ell=|m|=1$ (since these
cases are not reproduced
by the general $\ell>2$ expression).
\subsection{Mode $\ell=m=0$}
For the mode $\ell=m=0$ we obtain
\begin{align}
\check{K}_{\nu}=&\frac{9}{7}\Bigg[1+\left(\frac{4}{3}+2 \gamma_E -\frac{\kappa }{3}\right) M\sigma +
\bigg(2 \gamma_E ^2(\gamma_E-1) -\frac{4 \left(148 q^2-6739\right)}{2205}
-\frac{\pi ^2}{3}+
\bigg(\frac{ \pi ^2}{1-q^2}-\frac{2}{3}-\gamma_E \bigg)\frac{2 \kappa}{3} \bigg) M^2\sigma ^2
\nonumber \\ &
+ \bigg(
\frac{4 \gamma_E }{3} ( \gamma_E ^2-5)
+\frac{4 \left(23169-2608 q^2\right)}{6615}
-\frac{2 \pi ^2}{3}
+\gamma_E \left(\frac{32 \left(1256-37 q^2\right)}{2205}-\frac{2 \pi ^2}{3}\right)-
\nonumber \\ &
\frac{4 \left(4-q^2\right) \psi ^{(2)}(1)}{3 \left(1-q^2\right)}+\kappa \bigg(\frac{47 q^2-6367}{1323}
+\frac{\left(23-q^2\right) \pi ^2}{9 \left(1-q^2\right)}+\frac{2\gamma_E}{3} \left(1-\gamma_E +\frac{2 \pi ^2}{1- q^2}\right)- \frac{4 \psi ^{(2)}(1)}{1-q^2}\bigg)\bigg)M^3\sigma ^3\Bigg]
+o\left(\sigma^3\right),
\end{align}
where $\gamma_E$ is Euler's constant and $\psi^{(n)}(z)$ is the polygamma function, which is the $n$th-derivative of the digamma function $\psi(z)$.
Similarly,
\begin{align}
\check{K}_{-\nu-1}&=\frac{2 i}{7}\Bigg[1+\left(\frac{2}{3}+\gamma_E + \kappa \right) 2M\sigma +
\bigg(2 \gamma_E ^2\left(\gamma_E +\frac{11}{3}+2 \kappa \right)+\frac{766 q^2-17613}{2205}-\frac{\pi ^2}{3}+\left(8+\frac{2 \pi ^2}{1-q^2}\right) \frac{\kappa}{3}
\bigg) M^2\sigma ^2
\nonumber \\ &
+ \bigg(4 \gamma_E ^2\left(\frac{ \gamma_E}{3} +3+ \kappa \right)-\frac{40
\left(428+25 q^2\right)}{1323}+\frac{8 \pi ^2}{9}-\bigg(\frac{ 11094+101 q^2}{441}+\frac{2 \left(2-q^2\right) \pi ^2}{3 \left(1-q^2\right)}\bigg) \kappa
\nonumber \\ &
+\frac{2\gamma_E}{3} \bigg(\frac{
\left(766 q^2-10753\right)}{735}-\pi ^2
+\left(11+\frac{\pi ^2}{1- q^2}\right) 2\kappa \bigg)
-\left(\frac{ 4-q^2}{3 }+ \kappa \right)\frac{ 4\psi ^{(2)}(1)}{1-q^2}\bigg)M^3\sigma ^3\Bigg] +o\left(\sigma^3\right).
\end{align}
Continuing this analysis to the $A_\pm^{\nu}$ terms, we obtain
\begin{align}
\check{A}_{+}^\nu=&\frac{7}{9}\Bigg[1+\left(\frac{\kappa }{3}-4 \gamma_E \right) M\sigma +\left(\frac{2 \left(183+74
q^2\right)}{2205}+2 \gamma_E ^2-\frac{ \gamma_E \kappa }{3}\right)2 M^2\sigma ^2
\nonumber \\ &
+
\bigg(
8 \gamma_E ^2 \left(\kappa -4 \gamma_E\right)
-\frac{32 \left(183+74 q^2\right) \gamma_E }{735}
+\frac{28 \pi ^2}{3}+\frac{\left(6343+949 q^2\right) \kappa }{2205}+8 \psi ^{(2)}(1)\bigg)\frac{M^3\sigma ^3} {3}\Bigg] +o\left(\sigma^3\right),
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\check{A}_{-}^\nu =&\frac{7}{9}\Bigg[1-\left(4+5 \kappa \right) \frac{M\sigma}{3} +\left(\frac{4 \left(1591-587
q^2\right)}{245}+20 \kappa \right)\frac{ M^2\sigma ^2}{9}+\bigg(4 \left(4364 q^2-2577\right)
+\left(1807 q^2-16651\right) \kappa\bigg)\frac{ M^3\sigma ^3}{6615} \Bigg] +o\left(\sigma^3\right),
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
A_{\pm}^{\nu,\text{ph}}&=-\frac{\pi \epsilon }{2}\pm\frac{i \pi (1+\nu )}{2} -(1\pm i \epsilon ) \log (2).
\nonumber
\end{align}
While all these quantities together are sufficient for calculating the branch cut strength $q(\sigma)$, we still need the $B^{\text{inc}},B^{\text{ref}}$ and $B^{\text{tra}}$ coefficients
which appear in the Wronskian expression.
\MC{Are all the coeffs. below on the right of the cut? Yes. so we should add a superscript $+$. but then there would be 3 supercripts (inc,+,ph).
Maybe write explicitly $B^{\text{ref},+}=B^{\text{ref}}_{\text{ph}}\check{B}^{\text{ref}}$, etc}
The expansions for the coefficients that we give, when evaluated on the cut, are meant to be by taking the limit from the fourth quadrant - we do not
include a superscript `+' to not overburden the notation.
The expansions for these coefficients for $\ell=m=0$ are:
\begin{align}
\check{B}^{\text{inc}}&=\frac{14}{9\epsilon}\Bigg[1
-\left(\gamma_E +\frac{ \kappa }{3}\right) 2M\sigma +\bigg(\frac{29639+347
q^2}{2205}+2 \gamma_E ^2+\frac{(8 i -\pi) \pi }{3}+\left(\frac{2 \pi ^2}{3(1- q^2)}-4\right) \kappa \nonumber \\
& +\frac{2\gamma_E}{3} \left(2 \kappa-11\right)-\frac{8}{3}
\log (4M \kappa \sigma )\bigg)M^2\sigma ^2 +
\bigg(\frac{2}{3} \left(19-q^2\right)
+\frac{2\gamma_E ^2}{3} \left(11- \kappa-\gamma_E \right)+8 i \pi +\frac{20 \pi ^2}{9} \nonumber \\
&+\left(\frac{28 i \pi }{9}-\frac{2 \left(6801+268 q^2\right)}{6615}+\frac{
\left(12-q^2\right) \pi ^2}{ \left(1-q^2\right)9}\right) \kappa \nonumber \\
& +\frac{\gamma_E }{3} \left(\pi (\pi-8 i )
-\frac{ \left(47279+347 q^2\right)}{735}+\left(\frac{11}{3}-\frac{\pi ^2}{ 1-q^2}\right) 2\kappa
\right) \nonumber \\
&+\left(\frac{2 \gamma_E }{3}-\frac{7 \kappa }{9}-2\right)4 \log (4M \kappa \sigma )-\left(\frac{ 2+q^2}{3 }+ \kappa
\right) 2\psi ^{(2)}(1)\bigg)\frac{2M^3\sigma ^3}{1-q^2} \Bigg]+o\left(\sigma^3\right),
\end{align}
\MC{There's a $\epsilon$ in the denominator of the overall factor above? If so, maybe we shoould write it all in terms of either $\epsilon$ or $\sigma$.Also, I should then change the last $o$}
\begin{align} \label{eq:check Btra ell=0}
\check{B}^{\text{tra}}&=\frac{7}{9}\Bigg[1+\frac{\kappa M\sigma }{3}+\frac{8 \left(183+74 q^2\right) M^2\sigma
^2}{2205}+\frac{\left(6343+949 q^2\right) \kappa M^3\sigma ^3}{6615}\Bigg]+o\left(\sigma^3\right),
\end{align}
\begin{align}\label{eq:ph Binc/ref/tra ell=0}
\check{B}^{\text{ref}}&=\frac{14}{9\epsilon}\Bigg[1+2\left( \gamma_E -\frac{4 \kappa }{3}\right) M\sigma + \bigg(\frac{45809-7003
q^2}{2205}+2 \gamma_E \left(\gamma_E-\frac{11+8 \kappa }{3}\right)
+ \frac{\pi ^2}{3} \left( \frac{2 \kappa }{1- q^2}-1\right)
-\frac{8}{3} \log (4M \kappa \sigma )\bigg)M^2\sigma ^2
\nonumber \\ &
+ \bigg(
\frac{2\gamma_E^2 }{3}\left(\gamma_E-11-4 \kappa \right)
-\frac{8 \pi ^2}{9}
+\left(\frac{7243 q^2-98109}{735}+\frac{\left(15-4 q^2\right) \pi ^2}{1-q^2}\right)\frac{ \kappa}{735} +
\nonumber \\ &
\frac{ \gamma_E }{3}
\bigg(\frac{ 45809-7003 q^2}{735}-\pi ^2
+\left(\frac{26}{3}+\frac{\pi ^2}{1- q^2}\right) 2\kappa\bigg)-\left(2 \gamma_E +\frac{ \kappa }{3}\right) \frac{4}{3}\log (4M \kappa \sigma )
- \left(\frac{4 \left(4-q^2\right)}{3}+ \kappa \right) \frac{2\psi ^{(2)}(1)}{1-q^2}\bigg)2M^3\sigma ^3\Bigg]
\nonumber \\ &
+o\left(\sigma^3\right),
\end{align}
\MC{There's a $\epsilon$ in the denominator of the overall factor above? If so, maybe we shoould write it all in terms of either $\epsilon$ or $\sigma$.Also, I should then change the last $o$}
and
\begin{align}
B^{\text{inc}}_{\text{ph}}&=\frac{i \pi }{2}-\log (2)+ \left(1+2 i \pi +\kappa -2 \log (4 \sigma )\right)M\sigma+\nu (i \pi -\log (4M \kappa \sigma )),\nonumber\\
B^{\text{tra}}_{\text{ph}}&=\left(1+\kappa +2 \log (\kappa )\right)M\sigma,\nonumber \\
B^{\text{ref}}_{\text{ph}}&=-\frac{i \pi }{2}-\log (2)-\nu \log (4M \kappa \sigma )- \left(1-3 \kappa-2 \log (4 \sigma )\right)\sigma.
\end{align}
With these we can proceed to the results for the Wronskian factor and the $q$ function.
While we find the branch cut strength $q$ to be quite simple even with the exponential terms included, it is useful to show it both
with and without factoring out the exponential terms. This is so as to see how it will behave with $\ell$ \MC{But we're just doing it for $\ell=0$?}
and to find further cancellations when evaluating Eq.(\ref{Eq:GBC}). We have, for $\ell=m=0$,
\begin{align}
\check{q}(\sigma)&=-4\pi M\sigma\Bigg[1+\left(\frac{11}{3}-4 \gamma_E +2 \kappa \right)M \sigma +\left(3-q^2+
2 \gamma_E \left(2\gamma_E -\frac{11}{3} +\frac{2 \pi (\pi+7 i ) }{3}-2 \kappa \right)+\frac{11 \kappa }{3}\right)2 M^2\sigma ^2 \nonumber \\
&+ \bigg(8\gamma_E \left(\gamma_E \left(\frac{11-4 \gamma_E}{3}+2 \kappa \right)+
a^2-3+\frac{\pi(\pi+7 i ) }{3}
-\frac{11 \kappa }{3}\right)
-\frac{22\pi \left( \pi+7 i\right)}{9}-\frac{ 229+1062 q^2}{135}
\nonumber \\ &
+\left( 7-q^2-\pi (\pi-7 i) \right) \frac{4\kappa}{3} +\frac{8 \psi ^{(2)}(1)}{3}\bigg)M^3\sigma ^3\Bigg]
+o\left(\sigma^4\right),
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
q^{\text{ph}}&=i \pi (1+\nu )+2 (1-\kappa -2 \log (4 M \sigma ))M\sigma.
\end{align}
From this we see explicitly that the phase will not contribute any extra factors of $\sigma$, but there will be an alternating sign like $(-1)^{\ell+1}$\MC{How can one infer a general-$\ell$ behaviour from a $\ell=0$ expression?}. The explicit full form of $q$ for $\ell=0$ is
\begin{align}\label{eq:q ell=0}
q(\sigma)=&4 \pi M \sigma\left(1+ \left(\frac{17}{3}-4 \cdot\text{Eulerlog}\right) M\sigma+
\left(2 \left(6 \cdot\text{Eulerlog}^2-17 \cdot\text{Eulerlog}+10\right)-\pi ^2\right)\frac{2 M^2\sigma ^2}{3} \right. \nonumber \\
&+ \left(2\pi ^2\left(4 \cdot\text{Eulerlog}-\frac{17}{3}\right)-\frac{8 q^2}{5}-\frac{1}{45} \left(1440 \cdot\text{Eulerlog}^3-6120 \cdot\text{Eulerlog}^2+7200 \cdot\text{Eulerlog}-1031\right)
\right. \nonumber \\&\left.\left.
+8 \psi ^{(2)}(1)\right)\frac{M^3\sigma ^3}{3}\right)
+o\left(\sigma^4\right),
\end{align}
where EulerLog$\equiv\log(4 \sigma)+\gamma_E$.
Since the Wronskian comes in two pieces one needs to check the common phase between the two to determine an overall exponential factor, which is quite a simple task given everything we have above. After combining some simplifying exponential terms involving `$\log(2)$' and `$i\pi$', this gives
\begin{align}\label{eq:check W fac ell=0}
\check{W}^+\check{W}^-&=1-(2\gamma_E+\kappa ) 2M\sigma +
\nonumber \\ &
\bigg(\frac{245-17 q^2}{9}+8
\gamma_E ^2-\frac{2 \pi (\pi+14 i) }{3}+\left(\frac{ \pi ^2}{3(1- q^2)}-2\right)
4 \kappa
+4\gamma_E \left(2 \kappa-\frac{11}{3} \right)-\frac{16}{3} \log (4M \kappa \sigma
)\bigg)M^2\sigma ^2+
\nonumber \\ &
\bigg(\frac{8}{3} \left(23-5 q^2\right)-\frac{32 \gamma_E
^3}{3}+\frac{64 \pi ^2}{9}
+16\gamma_E ^2 \left(\frac{11}{3}- \kappa
\right)+\left(\frac{ 5 q^2-197}{3}+28 i \pi +\frac{\left(14-3
q^2\right)2 \pi ^2}{(1- q^2)3}\right) \frac{2\kappa}{3}
\nonumber \\ &
+\frac{\gamma_E }{3} \left(\frac{4}{3} \left(17 q^2-317\right)+112 i \pi +8 \pi ^2+\left(17-\frac{2 \pi ^2}{ 1-q^2}\right) 8\kappa \right)
\nonumber \\ &
+\left(\frac{64 \gamma_E }{3}-\frac{16 \kappa }{3}-32\right) \log (4M \kappa \sigma )-\left(\frac{2+q^2}{3}+ \kappa \right)\frac{8 \psi ^{(2)}(1)}{1-q^2}\bigg)M^3\sigma ^3
+o\left(\sigma^3\right),
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{eq:ph W fac ell=0}
(W^+W^-)^{\text{ph}}&=2\nu ( i \pi - \log (4M \kappa \sigma ))-4 M \sigma \log (4M \kappa \sigma ),
\end{align}
from which we can see an immediate contribution in the general-$\ell$ case from the exponential of $\sigma^{2\ell}$\MC{Again, how can one infer a general-$\ell$ behaviour from a $\ell=0$ expression?}.
Finally we present the ratio of the branch cut strength and the Wronskian product, the key quantity required in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:GBC}) to determine the discontinuity in the radial Green function. In this final step we will explicitly include much of the phase terms since they source the logarithmic contributions to the late time tail first reported in Schwarzschild in~\cite{Casals:Ottewill:2015}.
The ratio of the branch cut strength and the Wronskian product is
\begin{align}
\frac{q(\sigma)}{W^+W^-}&=e^{(1-\kappa+2\log\kappa)M\sigma}4\pi M\sigma\bigg[1+M \left(\frac{11}{3}+4 \kappa \right) \sigma+\frac{1}{3} \left(44 \gamma +\frac{1}{3} \left(-119-73 q^2\right)-\frac{4 \pi ^2}{\kappa }+68 \kappa +44 \log (4M \kappa \sigma
)\right) M^2 \sigma ^2\nonumber \\
&-\frac{1}{135} M^3 \sigma ^3 \bigg(11544+8767 q^2- (11580+10080 \kappa )(\gamma_E+\log (4M \kappa \sigma ))+ \frac{120 \pi ^2 (11+17 \kappa )}{\kappa }+60 \left(119+25
q^2\right) \kappa \nonumber \\
&+\frac{2160}{\kappa ^2}\left(1+\kappa\right) \zeta (3)\bigg)
\bigg]+o(\sigma)^4.
\end{align}
\subsection{Mode $\ell=|m|=1$\MC{But the results below are only valid for $m=1$, not for $m=-1$?}}
In Sec.\ref{sec:late-time} we will evaluate the Green function on the equator ($\theta=\pi/2$).
By the symmetries\MC{say which ones} of the Teukolsky equation, $\delta G_{1,1}+\delta G_{1,-1}=2 \text{Re}(\delta G_{1,1})$ on the equator.
Therefore, on the equator, we only need calculate $m=1$ quantities, not $m=-1$.
All results in this subsection are for $\ell=m=1$.
Much of the details of this calculation are quite similar to the previous subsection for $\ell=0$.
Therefore, we only give the main results needed, that is the expansions for the transmission coefficient for the inner solution, the branch cut strength and the Wronskian. The transmission coefficient is
\begin{align}\label{eq:check Btra ell=m=1}
\check{B}^{\text{tra}}&= 1- \left(\frac{25 i q}{361}-\kappa \right) M\sigma + \left(\frac{3416}{9025}-\frac{310997 q^2}{3258025}+\frac{236 i q \kappa }{1805}\right)
M^2 \sigma ^2+ \bigg(\frac{57390747 i q}{22806175}-\frac{840440462 i q^3}{1646605835}\nonumber \\
&-\frac{19669 \kappa }{9025}+\frac{1963303 q^2 \kappa
}{3258025}\bigg)M^3 \sigma ^3+o(M^3\sigma^3),
\end{align}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ph Btra ell=m=1}
B^{\text{tra}}_{\text{ph}}= (1+\kappa +2 \log (\kappa ))M \sigma-\frac{i q (1+\kappa +2 \log (\kappa ))}{2 (1+\kappa )}.
\end{equation}
We find the branch cut strength to be, again both with and without factoring out the exponential terms,\MC{Are all the following for $m=1$? It'd be good to also give $m=-1$ so that people can do calculations off the equator}
\begin{align}
\check{q}(\sigma)&=-4\pi M \sigma\Bigg[1+\left(\frac{79}{15}-4 \gamma_E +2 \kappa \right)M \sigma +
\bigg(\frac{113-8 i q-15 q^2}{15} +
2 \gamma_E \left(2\gamma_E- \frac{79}{15}-2 \kappa \right)
-\frac{ \pi}{3}\left(\pi+\frac{19 i }{5} \right)
+\frac{79 \kappa }{15}\bigg) 2M^2\sigma ^2+
\nonumber \\ &
\bigg(\frac{536213-252270 q^2}{23625}-\frac{296 i q}{45}-\frac{32 \gamma_E ^3}{3}
-\frac{3002 i \pi }{225}+\frac{144 q
\pi }{95}-\frac{158 \pi ^2}{45}+8\gamma_E \left(\frac{i \left(8 q+19 \pi \right)}{15}-\frac{113}{15}+q^2+\frac{ \pi ^2}{3}-\frac{79 \kappa }{15}\right)
\nonumber \\ &
+\left(\frac{103}{5}-q^2- \pi ^2-\frac{8 i q}{5}-\frac{19 i \pi }{5}\right) \frac{4\kappa}{3} +8\gamma_E ^2
\left(\frac{79}{15}+2 \kappa \right)+\frac{8 \psi ^{(2)}(2)}{3}\bigg)M^3\sigma ^3 \Bigg] +o\left(\sigma^3\right),
\end{align}
\MC{$M$'s to be included above}
\begin{align}
q^{\text{ph}}&= i \pi (1+\nu )+2 (1-\kappa -2 \log (4 \sigma ))M\sigma,
\end{align}
\MC{$M$'s to be included above}
and
\begin{align}\label{eq:q ell=1,m=1}
q(\sigma)&=-4 \pi M \sigma\Bigg[1+\left(\frac{109}{15}-4 \cdot\text{Eulerlog}\right) M\sigma +\bigg(\frac{64}{5}-\frac{8 i
q}{15}-\frac{218 \cdot\text{Eulerlog}}{15}+4 \cdot\text{Eulerlog}^2
-\frac{ \pi ^2}{3}\bigg)
2 M^2 \sigma ^2
\\ &
+ \bigg(\frac{1528463}{23625}-\frac{392 i q}{45}+\frac{872
\cdot\text{Eulerlog}^2}{15}-\frac{32 \cdot\text{Eulerlog}^3}{3}-\frac{218 \pi ^2}{45}-\frac{8
\kappa }{3}
-\frac{218 \kappa ^2}{15}+\frac{8 \kappa ^3}{3}+
\nonumber \\ &
\frac{2q^2}{3}
\left(4 \kappa -\frac{3853}{175}\right)+
\left(\frac{ \pi ^2}{3}-\frac{69}{5}+\frac{8 i q}{15}+q^2+\kappa ^2\right)8\cdot\text{EulerLog}
+\frac{8 \psi ^{(2)}(2)}{3}\bigg)M^3\sigma ^3\Bigg] +o\left(\sigma^3\right).\nonumber
\end{align}
\MC{$M$'s to be included above}
For the Wronskian, we find the expression
\begin{align}\label{eq:check W fac ell=1,m=1}
\check{W}^+\check{W}^-&=\frac{1}{144 \left(1-q^2\right) \left(2 q^2+2 i q \kappa -1\right)}\Bigg[1+
\left(4-2 i q-4 \gamma_E + \kappa -2 \psi\left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa
}\right)\right)2M\sigma \\
&+ \bigg(\frac{14503}{225}-36 i q-\frac{997 q^2}{75}+32 \gamma_E
^2-\frac{76 i \pi }{15}-\frac{4 \pi ^2}{3}-8\gamma_E \left(\frac{139}{15}-4 i q+2 \kappa \right) +\left(8-\frac{17 i q}{3}\right) 2\kappa
\nonumber \\ &
+\left(4 i q-\frac{139}{15}+8 \gamma_E -2 \kappa \ +2 \psi\left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)\right)4\psi\left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)
+\left(1+\frac{2 \kappa }{1-q^2}\right) 4\psi ^{(1)}\left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)\bigg)M^2\sigma ^2
\nonumber \\ &
+ \bigg(\frac{4}{225} \left(18806-16126 iq-6837 q^2+2436 iq^3\right)
-\frac{256 \gamma_E ^3}{3}-\frac{40 i q
\log\left(4\sigma \kappa\right)}{57}-\frac{16 \pi}{285} (722 i+307 q) +\frac{8i\pi ^2 }{45} (41 i+30 q) \nonumber \\
&+\left(\frac{14203-11100 i q-4731 q^2}{75} -\frac{76 i \pi }{5}-4 \pi ^2\right) \frac{2\kappa}{3} +64\gamma_E ^2 \left(\frac{79-30 i q}{15}+
\kappa \right) \nonumber \\
&+\frac{8\gamma_E }{3} \left(\frac{76 i \pi }{5}+4 \pi ^2-\frac{ 16783-9030 i q-2991 q^2}{75}-\frac{2}{5} (139-85 iq) \kappa
\right) \nonumber \\
&+\left(\frac{79}{15}-2 i q-4 \gamma_E + \kappa-\frac{2}{3} \psi\left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right) \right) 16\psi\left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)^2 \nonumber \\
&+\left(6-2 i q+\frac{\left(154-60 i q-15 q^2\right) \kappa }{15 \left(1-q^2\right)}-4\gamma_E \left(1+\frac{2 \kappa }{1-q^2}\right)\right)8 \psi ^{(1)}\left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right) \nonumber \\
&+4\psi\left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)
\bigg(\frac{76 i \pi }{15}+\frac{4 \pi ^2}{3}-\frac{16783-9030 i q-2991 q^2}{225} -32 \gamma_E ^2 \nonumber \\
&-\frac{2}{15} (139 -85 iq) \kappa +16\gamma_E \left(\frac{79-30 i q}{15} + \kappa \right)-4\left(1+\frac{2 \kappa }{1-q^2}\right) \psi
^{(1)}\left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)\bigg)\nonumber \\
&+\frac{16 \psi
^{(2)}(2)}{3}-\left(\frac{4-q^2}{3}+ \kappa \right) \frac{8 }{1-q^2}\psi ^{(2)}\left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)\bigg)M^3\sigma ^3\Bigg]+o\left(\sigma^3\right),
\nonumber
\end{align}
\MC{$M$'s to be included above}
and
\begin{align}\label{eq:ph W fac ell=1,m=1}
(W^+W^-&)^{\text{ph}}=\frac{i q (1+\kappa +2 \log (\kappa ))}{1+\kappa }+2\nu ( i \pi - \log (4M \kappa \sigma
))-4 \sigma \log (4M \kappa \sigma ).
\end{align}
\MC{$M$'s to be included above}
We note that the group of polygamma functions comes from the expansions of the $\Gamma$-functions which appear in $K_\nu$ and $K_{-\nu-1}$.
We can now combine the above to give our important branch cut strength to Wronskian ratio
\begin{align}
\frac{q(\sigma)}{W^+W^-}&=-\frac{M \pi (q-i \kappa )^2 M\sigma }{36 \kappa ^2}(4 M\sigma\kappa)^2 e^{-\frac{i q}{1+\kappa}(1+\kappa+2\log\kappa)+2 M \sigma(1-\kappa+2\log\kappa)}\bigg[1+ \left(-\frac{41}{15}+4 \gamma_E +4 i q+4 \psi\left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)\right)M \sigma \nonumber \\
&+\Bigg(-\frac{7252}{225}+8 \gamma_E ^2+\frac{2 \pi ^2}{3}+\gamma_E \left(-\frac{4}{5}+16 i q\right) -8 i q+\frac{10 i q \kappa
}{3}+\frac{353 \kappa ^2}{75}+\frac{76}{15} \log (4M \kappa \sigma ) \nonumber \\
&+\left(-\frac{88}{15}+16 \gamma_E +16 i q\right) \psi \left(1+\frac{i
q}{\kappa }\right)+8 \psi\left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)^2+\left(-4-\frac{8}{\kappa }\right) \psi ^{(1)}\left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa
}\right)\Bigg)M^2 \sigma ^2 \nonumber \\
& +\frac{1}{15} \Bigg(-78 \pi ^2+\frac{8}{3} \gamma \left(-881+15 \gamma (7+4 \gamma )+15 \pi ^2\right)-128 q^2 \kappa +\frac{1412 \gamma
\kappa ^2}{5}+\frac{2006587-4413 \kappa ^2}{1575}\nonumber \\
&+\frac{2}{15} i q \left(300 \pi ^2-258 q^2+300 \gamma (6+12 \gamma +5 \kappa )-25 (580+41
\kappa )\right)+24 (-1+20 \gamma +20 i q) \psi \left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)^2\nonumber \\
&+160 \psi\left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)^3+\log(4\sigma
\kappa) \left(-\frac{3116}{15}+304 \gamma +360 i q+304 \psi \left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)\right)\nonumber \\
&-\frac{4 (-44-41 \kappa +60
\gamma (2+\kappa )+60 i q (2+\kappa )) \psi ^{(1)}\left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)}{\kappa }+\psi\left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)
\Bigg(\frac{4}{5} (-2677+600 \gamma ^2+50 \pi ^2 \nonumber \\
&+80 \gamma (4+15 i q)+353 \kappa ^2+50 i q (-3+5 \kappa ))-\frac{240 (2+\kappa )
\psi ^{(1)}\left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)}{\kappa }\Bigg)-40 \psi ^{(2)}(2) \nonumber \\
&+\frac{40 (3+\kappa (3+\kappa )) \psi ^{(2)}\left(1+\frac{i
q}{\kappa }\right)}{\kappa ^2}\Bigg)M^3 \sigma ^3 \bigg] + o(\sigma^7)
\end{align}
\subsection{Mode $\ell=1$, $m=0$}
We obtain the following high order expansion for the transmission coefficient for the mode $\ell=1$, $m=0$:
\begin{align}\label{eq:Btra ell=1,m=0}
\check{B}^{\text{tra}}&=1+M \kappa \sigma +\frac{3416 M^2 \kappa ^2 \sigma ^2}{9025}+\frac{M^3 \kappa \left(-21660+1991 \kappa ^2\right) \sigma ^3}{9025}+o(\sigma^3), \\
B^{\text{tra}}_{\text{ph}}&= (1+\kappa +2 \log (\kappa ))M \sigma.
\end{align}
The expansion for the branch cut strength that we obtain is
\begin{align}\label{eq:check q ell=1,m=1}
\check{q}(\sigma)&=-4\pi M\sigma\Bigg[1+\left(\frac{79}{15}-4 \gamma_E +2 \kappa \right)M \sigma +2\left(\frac{113-19 i \pi+79 \kappa}{15}-q^2+4 \gamma_E ^2-\frac{\pi ^2}{3}-2\gamma_E
\left(\frac{79}{15}+2 \kappa \right)\right)M^2 \sigma ^2 \nonumber \\
&+ \Bigg(\frac{536213-252810 q^2}{23625}-\frac{32
\gamma_E ^3}{3}+8\gamma_E \left(\frac{19 i \pi -113-79 \kappa}{15}+q^2+\frac{ \pi ^2}{3}\right)
\nonumber \\
&+2\left( 4 \gamma_E ^2-\frac{19i\pi}{15} - \frac{ \pi ^2}{3} \right) \left(\frac{79}{15}+2 \kappa\right)+\frac{4\kappa}{3}\left(\frac{103}{5}- q^2\right)
+\frac{8 \psi ^{(2)}(2)}{3}\Bigg)M^3\sigma ^3\bigg]+o(\sigma^3),
\end{align}
\MC{$M$'s to be included above}
together with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ph q ell=1,m=1}
q^{\text{ph}}= i \pi (1+\nu )+2 (1-\kappa -2 \log (4 M\sigma ))M\sigma.
\end{equation}
\MC{$M$'s to be included above}
The expansion for the Wronskian factor in the expression for the Green function discontinuity along the cut is
\begin{align}\label{eq:check W fac ell=1,m=0}
\check{W}^+\check{W}^-&=144 \bigg[1+
\bigg(4-2 \gamma_E +\frac{ \left(1+q^2\right) \kappa }{1-q^2}\bigg) 2M\sigma
+\Bigg(\frac{14503-12226 q^2+423 a^4}{225(1- q^2)}+8 \gamma_E
^2-4\frac{19 i \pi + 139 \gamma_E}{15}+
\nonumber\\ &
\frac{(2-\gamma_E) 8 \left(1+q^2\right) \kappa }{1-q^2}
+\frac{2\pi ^2}{3} \left(\frac{2 \kappa }{1- q^2}-1\right)
\Bigg)M^2 \sigma ^2
+ \Bigg(\frac{8 \left(468 q^4-7171 q^2+9403\right)}{225 \left(1-q^2\right)}-\frac{32 \gamma_E ^3}{3}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{2 \left(123 q^6-12163 q^4+1437 q^2+14203\right) \kappa }{225 \left(1-q^2\right)^2}
+\frac{4\pi ^2 \left(8+52 q^2+\left(124-15 q^2\right) \kappa\right)}{45(1-q^2)}
+16\gamma_E ^2 \left(\frac{79}{15}+\frac{ \left(1+q^2\right) \kappa }{1-q^2}\right)
\nonumber\\ &
-\frac{152 i\pi}{15} \left(4 +\frac{ \left(1+q^2\right) \kappa }{ 1-q^2}\right)
+\frac{\gamma_E}{3} \Bigg(\frac{304 i \pi }{5}-\frac{4 \left(16783-14506 q^2+423 q^4\right)}{75 \left(1-q^2\right)}-\frac{1112 \left(1+q^2\right) \kappa }{5 \left(1-q^2\right)}
\nonumber \\
&+8\pi ^2 \left(1-\frac{2 \kappa }{ 1-q^2}\right)\Bigg)-\left(\frac{4-q^2}{3}+ \kappa\right)\frac{ 8\psi ^{(2)}(1)} {1-q^2}
+\frac{16 \psi ^{(2)}(2)}{3}\Bigg)M^3\sigma ^3\Bigg]+o(\sigma^3),
\end{align}
\MC{$M$'s to be included above}
together with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ph W fac ell=1,m=0}
(\check{W}^+\check{W}^-)_{\text{ph}}=2\nu ( i \pi - \log (4M \kappa \sigma ))-4M \sigma \log (4M \kappa \sigma ).
\end{equation}
\MC{$M$'s to be included above}
\subsection{Modes $\ell\geq2$}
\MC{Are these expansions valid both for $m\neq 0$ and $m=0$? Probably not}
One can perform the same analysis as in the previous two subsections in order
to arrive at expressions which are valid for general values of $\ell$ and $m$. The only caveat is
that in order to obtain higher order terms in the expansion we must increase the minimum $\ell$ value for which the `general' $\ell$
expansion is valid.
In the case of five leading orders, as here, the `general' $\ell$ and $m$ expansion is valid for $\ell\geq 2$ \MC{Check}.
For the transmission coefficient we obtain the expression:
\begin{align}\label{eq:check Btra ell>1}
\check{B}^{\text{tra}}&=1+ \kappa M\sigma + \left(i m q \kappa +\frac{\left(4 \ell^4+8 \ell^3-3 \ell^2-7 \ell+4\right) \kappa ^2-\left(4 \ell^2+4 \ell-7\right) m^2 q^2}{(2 \ell+3)(2 \ell-1)}\right)
\frac{M^2\sigma ^2}{(2 \ell+3)(2 \ell-1) } \nonumber \\
&-\Bigg(\frac{6 \left(3 \ell^2+3 \ell-2\right) \kappa }{(\ell+1)\ell }+\frac{\left(4 \ell^2+4 \ell-7\right) m^2 q^2 \kappa }{(2 \ell+3)(2 \ell-1)}+
\frac{\left(4 \ell^4+8 \ell^3+\ell^2-3 \ell-3\right) \kappa ^3}{3(2 \ell+3)(2 \ell-1)}\nonumber \\
&+i m q \left(\frac{4 \left(4 \ell^6+12 \ell^5-11 \ell^4-42 \ell^3+\ell^2+24 \ell-9\right)}{(2 \ell+3)(2 \ell-1) (\ell+1)^2\ell^2}-
\kappa ^2\right)\Bigg)\frac{M^3 \sigma ^3}{(2 \ell+3)(2 \ell-1)}+o(M^3 \sigma^3),
\end{align}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ph Btra ell>1}
B^{\text{tra}}_{\text{ph}}= (1+\kappa +2 \log (\kappa ))M \sigma-\frac{i m q (1+\kappa +2 \log (\kappa ))}{2 (1+\kappa )}.
\end{equation}
For the branch cut strength we obtain
\begin{align}\label{eq:check q ell>1}
& \check{q}(\sigma)=
-4\pi M\sigma\Bigg[1+ \left(\frac{P_N}{P_D}+2 \kappa +4 \psi(1+\ell)\right)M\sigma+ \Bigg(1- q^2 \nonumber
-\frac{2 i q m \left(8 \ell^2+7 \ell-7\right) }{(1+\ell) P_D}+\frac{P_N}{P_D}\left( \kappa -i\pi\right)-\frac{ \pi ^2}{3} \nonumber \\
&+\left(\frac{ P_N}{P_D}+2 \kappa \right) 2\psi(1+\ell)+4 \psi(1+\ell)^2\Bigg)2 M^2\sigma ^2
+ \Bigg(\frac{ 15 \ell^4+66 \ell^3 +58 \ell^2-17 \ell-12}{\ell (1+\ell) P_D}-\pi ^2 \left(\frac{ P_N}{P_D}+\frac{2 \kappa }{3}\right)
\nonumber \\ &+q^2 \left(\frac{6 m^2}{ (2 \ell+3)(2 \ell-1) (\ell+1) \ell }-\frac{ 15 \ell^2+19 \ell-9}{P_D}-\frac{2\kappa }{3}\right)+\frac{2 \kappa }{3}
-\frac{2iq m}{(\ell+1) P_D} \left(\frac{ P_N}{ \ell }+2 \kappa\left(8 \ell^2+7 \ell-7\right) \right)+ \nonumber \\
&\frac{\pi}{P_D} \left(\frac{4 am \left(5 \ell^2+5 \ell-3\right) }{\ell (\ell+1)}
-i P_N \left(\frac{ P_N}{P_D}+2 \kappa\right)\right)+\left(1-q^2-\frac{2 i qm \left(8 \ell^2+7 \ell-7\right) }{(\ell+1) P_D}
-\frac{ \pi ^2}{3}
+\frac{P_N }{P_D} \left(\kappa- i \pi \right)\right)4 \psi(1+\ell) \nonumber \\
&+\left(\frac{P_N}{P_D}+2 \kappa \right) 4\psi(1+\ell)^2+\frac{4\left(4 \psi(1+\ell)^3+ \psi ^{(2)}(1+\ell)\right)}{3}
+\frac{4 P_N \psi ^{(1)}(1+\ell)}{P_D}\Bigg)2M^3\sigma ^3\Bigg]+o\left(\sigma^4\right),
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{eq:ph q ell>1}
q^{\text{ph}}&=i \pi (1+\nu )+2 (1-\kappa -2 \log (4 M\sigma ))M\sigma,
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}
P_N\equiv 15 \ell^2+15 \ell-11, \quad P_D\equiv (2 \ell+3) (2 \ell+1)(2 \ell-1).
\end{equation}
For the Wronskian, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{eq:W fac ell>1}
W^+W^-=&(\check{K}_\nu)^2e^{i q m \left(\frac{2 \log (\kappa )}{\kappa +1}+1\right)}\left(4 \kappa M\sigma\right)^{-2\ell}\bigg(1-\left(2\log (4M \kappa \sigma)-4\psi(\ell+1)\right)
2M\sigma+\bigg(2 \log^2 (4M \kappa \sigma ) \nonumber \\
&\left.\left.-\left(\frac{15 \ell^2+15 \ell-11}{(2 \ell+3) \left(4 \ell^2-1\right)}+8 \psi(\ell+1)\right) \log (4M \kappa \sigma )+8
\psi(\ell+1)^2\right) 4M^2\sigma^2+o(\sigma^2)\right).
\end{align}
\MC{This is the only quantity not given up to $O(\sigma^3)$, can we not obtain that order?}
\MC{Do the above W's need overhead bars?}
Where $K_\nu$ is
\MC{Note I've tidied up the expression below. So if you write in a higher order, please don't mess the lower orders currently written}
\begin{align}
\check{K}_\nu&=\frac{\Gamma(2 \ell+1) \Gamma (2+2 \ell) \Gamma \left(1+\frac{i q m}{\kappa }\right)}{\Gamma^2(\ell+1) \Gamma \left(1+\ell+\frac{i q m}{\kappa }\right)}\Bigg[1- \left(\kappa +\frac{2 (1+\kappa ) \psi\left(1+\frac{i q m}{\kappa }\right)}{\kappa }-\frac{2 \psi\left(1+\ell+\frac{i q
m}{\kappa }\right)}{\kappa }\right)M\sigma \nonumber \\
&+ \Bigg(\frac{\left(8 \ell^4+16 \ell^3-4 \ell^2-13 \ell+4\right) \kappa ^2+2 (2 \ell+1) m^2 (\kappa^2-1)}{(2 \ell-1)^2 (2 \ell+3)^2}
-
\frac{i q m \left((16+\kappa)(\ell+1)\ell -12 \right)}{\ell (2 \ell+3)(2 \ell-1)(\ell+1) } \nonumber \\
&+2\frac{2 \left(15 \ell^2+15 \ell-11\right) \left( \psi(2 \ell+2)+ \psi(2 \ell+1)-\psi(\ell+1)\right)
-\left(8 \ell^3+27 \ell^2+13 \ell-14\right) \psi\left(1+\ell+\frac{i a m}{\kappa }\right)
}{ (2 \ell+3)(2 \ell+1)(2 \ell-1) }
\nonumber \\
&
+\frac{2}{\kappa ^2}\left( (1+\kappa ) \psi\left(1+\frac{i q m}{\kappa }\right)- \psi\left(1+\ell+\frac{i q m}{\kappa }\right)\right)^2
+2 (1+\kappa )\psi\left(1+\frac{i q m}{\kappa }\right)
\nonumber \\ &
-4 \psi ^{(1)}(1+\ell)+
\frac{2}{\kappa ^2}\left((1+\kappa )^2 \psi ^{(1)}\left(1+\frac{i q m}{\kappa }\right)- \psi ^{(1)}\left(1+\ell+\frac{i q m}{\kappa }\right)\right)
\Bigg)M^2\sigma ^2\Bigg]+o(\sigma^2),
\end{align}
with the phase as in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:KnuPh}) and the term proportional to $K_{-\nu-1}$ will only appear at the next order.
We also obtain the leading order for $K_{-\nu-1}$.
As a first step, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{eq:K-nu-1 lead}
K_{-\nu-1}\sim
-\frac{2^{\ell-1}\kappa^{s+\ell+1}\Gamma^2(\ell+s+1)}{\nu_2^2\Gamma(2\ell+1)\Gamma(2\ell+2)}
\frac{\Gamma(1-s-2i\epsilon_+)}{\Gamma(-\ell-i\tau-\nu_2\epsilon^2)}
\epsilon^{s+\ell-1},\quad \epsilon\to 0,
\end{align}
where $\nu_2$ is given in Eq.(\ref{eq:nu2}).
The last $\Gamma$-fraction in Eq.(\ref{eq:K-nu-1 lead}), $\Gamma(1-s-2i\epsilon_+)/\Gamma(-\ell-i\tau-\nu_2\epsilon^2)$ requires some care.
By inspection, we observe that it is $O(1)$ if $m\neq 0$ and/or $s\ge 1$.
Otherwise, however, it goes like
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Gamma(1-s-2i\epsilon_+)}{\Gamma(-\ell-i\tau-\nu_2\epsilon^2)}
\sim \frac{(-1)^{\ell+1}i\Gamma(1-s)\Gamma(\ell+1)}{\kappa}\epsilon, \quad \epsilon\to 0,\quad \text{if}\ m=0\ \text{and}\ s<1.
\end{equation}
This means that the leading order asymptotics
of $K_{-\nu-1}$ when $m\neq 0$ and/or $s\ge 1$ are already manifest in Eq.(\ref{eq:K-nu-1 lead}), with the last $\Gamma$-fraction of $O(1)$ .
Otherwise, the asymptotics are of one order higher in $\epsilon$ and they are manifest in
\begin{align}\label{eq:K-nu-1 lead m=1,s<1}
K_{-\nu-1}\sim
\frac{(-1)^{\ell}2^{\ell-1}\kappa^{s+\ell}\Gamma^2(\ell+s+1)\Gamma(1-s)\Gamma(\ell+1)}{\nu_2^2\Gamma(2\ell+1)\Gamma(2\ell+2)}
\epsilon^{s+\ell},\quad \epsilon\to 0,\quad \text{if}\ m=0\ \text{and}\ s<1.
\end{align}
For completeness, we have obtained the leading order result for $K_{-\nu-1}$ for general spin $s$.
Let us focus the following discussion on the case $s=0$ and $\ell\ge 2$.
We have seen above that, $e^{K_{\nu}^{\text{ph}}}$ captures the leading-order of $K_{\nu}$, so that
$K_{\nu}\sim \epsilon^{-\ell}$ for small $\epsilon$.
On the other hand, $K^{\text{ph}}_{-\nu-1}$ captures the leading order of $K_{-\nu-1}$, so that $K_{-\nu-1}\sim \epsilon^{\ell}$,
only when $m=0$; when $m\neq 0$, we have at $K_{-\nu-1}\sim \epsilon^{\ell-1}$.
\section{Low-frequency Expansion of the Radial Solutions}\label{sec:low freq r-dep}
In the expression in Eq.(\ref{Eq:GBC}) for the branch cut modes, the only radial solution that is required is the ingoing radial solution.
In this section, we provide a low-frequency expansion for the ingoing radial solution which is valid at arbitrary radius, so that it is valid in the strong field as well.
Our starting point is the representation in Eq.(\ref{Eq:Rin 2F1}).
One of the ingredients in this representation are the series coefficients $\an{n}$, for which we give a low-frequency expansion in App.\ref{sec:MSTexpansions}.
In order to complete the low-frequency expansion of the ingoing solution, we also need to expand out the hypergeometric functions themselves.
A representation of the hypergeometric functions that is useful for expanding for low frequency at arbitrary radius
is the Mellin-Barnes integral found in \cite{bk:AS}. This gives the functions as an integral
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Mellin-Barnes}
\vphantom{}_2F_1(a,b;c;x)=\frac{\Gamma(c)}{\Gamma(a)\Gamma(b)}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\text{C1}
\frac{\Gamma(a+t)\Gamma(b+t)\Gamma(-t)}{\Gamma(c+t)}(-x)^t\text{d}t,
\end{equation}
where the integral goes along the (red) contour C1 in Fig \ref{fig:Barnescontour}, separating the poles of $\Gamma(a+t)$ and $\Gamma(b+t)$ from those of $\Gamma(-t)$. In the figure,
the poles of $\Gamma(-t)$ (seen in green) are at $t\in \mathbb{N}$ \MC{But on the figure they're above the real line?}.
The functions $\Gamma(a+t)$ and $\Gamma(b+t)$ have poles (shown in red and black) occuring at, respectively,
\begin{eqnarray}
t&=&-a,-a-1,-a-2... \\
t&=&-b,-b-1,-b-2...
\end{eqnarray}
For the case of interest to us, Eq.(\ref{Eq:Rin 2F1}), we have the following values:
\begin{equation}
a=n+\nu+1-i\tau, \quad b=-n-\nu-i\tau,\quad c=1-s-i\epsilon-i\tau.
\end{equation}
Practically speaking, evaluating the integral in Eq.(\ref{eq:Mellin-Barnes}) is at first a tricky prospect: to even calculate it numerically, specifying the contour would require a lot of care. It can be made easier by shifting to the contour C2 (in blue), while picking up some of the residues of the poles of $\Gamma(-t)$, shown in green.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{Fig1_BarnesFigure.pdf}
\caption{
Plot of the contour deformation in the
complex $t$-plane for the hypergeometric function Eq.(\ref{eq:Mellin-Barnes}).
The straight blue curve is the contour (C1). The dashed red vertical line is the
contour (C2). The circled crosses correspond to the poles of the various $\Gamma$ functions in the integrand:
the blue ones are those of $\Gamma(-t)$; the green ones are those of $\Gamma(a+t)$; the red
ones are those of $\Gamma(b+t)$.
}
\label{fig:Barnescontour}
\end{figure}
Changing contour splits the calculation into two workable pieces. First there is the contribution from the residues:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Fres}
F^{\rm res}_n=\sum_{k=0}^{N}\frac{(-1)^k}{k!}\frac{\Gamma(a+k)\Gamma(b+k)}{\Gamma(c+k)}(-x)^k
\end{equation}
where $n$ indicates the dependence on the summation index in Eq.(\ref{Eq:Rin 2F1}) and
$N$ is the number of poles of $\Gamma(-t)$ that we pass through in changing contours from C1 to C2. This expression allows a Taylor expansion in $\epsilon$ to obtain exact expressions for the contributions at each order. What is left is the integral, now over a much simpler contour (C2) of our choosing that approches complex infinity on either side, passing somewhere in between the $N$th and $(N+1)$th pole. A change of variables $t=i y +N+\frac{1}{2}$ gives the integral as
\begin{equation}
F^{\rm int}_n=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{- \infty}^{\infty}
\frac{\Gamma\left(a+i y +N+\frac{1}{2}\right)\Gamma\left(b+i y +N+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left(c+i y +N+\frac{1}{2}\right)}\Gamma\left(-i y -N-\frac{1}{2}\right)(-x)^{i y +N+\frac{1}{2}}\text{d}y. \label{Eq:BarnesInt}
\end{equation}
In summary, we have obtained the expression
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Rin=pin}
R^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}=e^{i \epsilon \kappa x}(-x)^{-s-i(\epsilon+\tau)/2}(1-x)^{i(\epsilon-\tau)/2}
p_{\text{in}}^\nu(x),
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
p_{\text{in}}^\nu=
\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}\an{n} \left(F^{\rm res}_n+F^{\rm int}_n\right),
\end{equation}
which is readily amenable to a low frequency expansion.
A closed-form expression for the integral contribution here is, however, not apparent. We are forced to expand the integrand and leave each order as a integral which we can evaluate
numerically to any desired accuracy.
We then need to sum the residues and evaluate the integrals for each $n$. We truncate the $n$-sum when the leading $\epsilon$ contribution of the terms neglected is smaller
than the order in $\epsilon$ required, i.e. for an expansion to $\epsilon^3$ we can ignore terms with $|n|>3$\MC{Check this is true for$\ell=0$}.
In the next subsections we give explicit expansions
for the lowest modes, $\ell=0$ and $ 1$.
\subsection{Mode $\ell=m=0$}
Each of the hypergeometric functions in Eq.(\ref{Eq:Rin 2F1}) must be computed using the Barnes integral method described above, where the number
of terms in the infinite sum in $n$ is bound by the low frequency expansion. Working to $o(\sigma^3)$, we find, for $\ell=m=0$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:pin ell=0}
p_{\text{in}}^\nu=& \frac{7}{9}\bigg(1+\bigg[\left(\frac{1}{3}-2 x\right) \kappa+\frac{2}{\kappa}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{ (-x)^{\frac{1}{2}+i y} \text{sech}(\pi y)}{(1+2 i y) }dy \bigg]M \sigma+\bigg[\frac{2056}{2205}-\frac{592 \kappa ^2}{2205}+ \left(-2-4 \kappa -\frac{4 \kappa ^2}{3}\right)x \nonumber\\
&\quad +\frac{8 x^2 \kappa ^2}{3}+\frac{2}{\kappa}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{ (-x)^{\frac{1}{2}+i y} \text{sech}(\pi y)}{(1+2 i y) } \left(-\frac{2 H_{i y-\frac{1}{2}}}{\kappa }+2 H_{i y+\frac{1}{2}}+3 \kappa -\frac{\kappa x (2 y-5 i)}{2 y-3 i}\right)\bigg] M^2 \sigma^2\bigg)+o(M^2\sigma^2),
\end{align}
\MC{Above there're $M$'s but in the expressions in the previous section we had $M=1$. Change above $\sigma\to M\sigma$ and $a\to q$}
where $H_c$ is the complex harmonic number.
\subsection{Mode $\ell=1$}
The expressions for the $\ell=1$ case are, algebraically, significantly more complicated than those for $\ell=0$, particularly when $m=1$. The main source of this is that the arguments of the hypergeometric function are no longer integers when $\epsilon=0$. We write
\begin{align}
p_{\text{in}}^\nu&= p_{\text{in}}^\text{res}+p_{\text{in}}^\text{int},
\end{align}
where we have defined
\begin{align}
p_{\text{in}}^\text{res}&\equiv\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}a_n^{\nu} F^{\rm res}_n, \qquad p_{\text{in}}^\text{int}\equiv\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}a_n^{\nu} F^{\rm int}_n.
\end{align}
Then, to order $O(M^2 \sigma ^2)$ with $m=0$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:pinres ell=1,m=0}
p_{\text{in}}^\text{res}&=(1-2x)-M \left(2x \left(2+\frac{3}{\kappa }\right)-(1-2x)^2 \kappa \right) \sigma +M^2 \bigg(-\frac{199}{30}+\frac{3 (1-2x)^3 \kappa
^2}{5}+(1-2x)^2 \left(\frac{23}{6}+3 \kappa \right) \nonumber \\
&+(1-2x) \left(\frac{14}{5}+\frac{4}{\kappa ^2}+\frac{10}{\kappa }-2 \kappa -\frac{1999 \kappa
^2}{9025}\right)-\frac{4+10 \kappa +\kappa ^3}{\kappa ^2}\bigg) \sigma ^2+o(\sigma^2),
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{eq:pinint ell=1,m=0}
p_{\text{in}}^\text{int}&=-\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{2 i M (-x)^{\frac{3}{2}+i y} (-5 i+2 y) \text{sech}(\pi y)}{(-i+2 y) (-3 i+2 y) \kappa } \Bigg(\sigma+2 M \bigg[\frac{2}{\kappa }+\frac{\gamma_E (-1+\kappa )}{\kappa }+\frac{19 \kappa }{30}+\frac{(3 i-2 y) \kappa }{6 x (-5 i+2 y)} \nonumber \\
&+\frac{x (63-4 y (-8 i+y))
\kappa }{3 (5 i-2 y)^2}-\frac{\psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+i y\right)}{\kappa }+\left(1+\frac{1}{\kappa }\right) \psi\left(\frac{5}{2}+i y\right)-\frac{\psi\left(\frac{7}{2}+i y\right)}{\kappa }\bigg]\sigma^2\Bigg)dy+o(\sigma^2).
\end{align}
For $m=1$:
\begin{align}
p_{\text{in}}^\text{res}&=1-2 \left(1-q^2\right) x+\frac{i q \left(3-2 q^2\right) x \kappa }{1-q^2}+M \Bigg(\frac{25 i q \left(-1+q^2\right)}{361
\left(1-q^2\right)}-\frac{i q \left(46-81 q^2+36 q^4\right) x^2}{6 \left(1-q^2\right)}+\kappa +\frac{\left(8-21 q^2+12 q^4\right) x^2 \kappa
}{2-2 q^2}\nonumber \\
&+x \left(2 i q\bigg(\frac{ \left(5851-11341 q^2+5490 q^4\right)}{1083 \left(1-q^2\right)}+ \left(5-4 q^2\right) \kappa \bigg)-2 \left(2-7 q^2+4 q^4\right)-\frac{2 \left(5415-9679 q^2+5490 q^4\right) \kappa }{1083 \left(1-q^2\right)}\right)\Bigg) \sigma \nonumber \\
& +M^2
\Bigg(\frac{8 \left(462441-607268 q^2+144827 q^4\right)}{9774075 \left(1-q^2\right)}-\frac{4 \left(90-379 q^2+468 q^4-180 q^6\right) x^3}{75
\left(1-q^2\right)}+\frac{958 i q \left(-1+q^2\right)^2 \kappa }{5415 \left(1-q^2\right)^2}\nonumber \\
&-\frac{i q \left(-1596+4619 q^2-4464 q^4+1440
q^6\right) x^3 \kappa }{150 \left(1-q^2\right)^2}+x^2 \Bigg(\frac{i q \left(-132+337 q^2-276 q^4+72 q^6\right)}{4-3 q^2} \nonumber \\
&+\frac{i q
\left(-839+2369 q^2-2274 q^4+744 q^6\right) \kappa }{25 \left(1-q^2\right)^2}+\frac{3380-10535 q^2+11772 q^4-4464 q^6}{150
\left(1-q^2\right)}\nonumber \\
&+\frac{2 \left(72-412 q^2+699 q^4-468 q^6+108 q^8\right) \kappa }{3 \left(4-7 q^2+3 q^4\right)}\Bigg) \nonumber \\
&+x
\Bigg(-\frac{313653406-1483629109 q^2+2354055315 q^4-1496850012 q^6+312770400 q^8}{9774075 \left(1-q^2\right)} \nonumber \\
&-\frac{4 \left(30324-167171
q^2+301001 q^4-223086 q^6+58932 q^8\right) \kappa }{1083 \left(4-7 q^2+3 q^4\right)}-\frac{4 i q \left(-75388+209933
q^2-193620 q^4+58932 q^6\right)}{1083 \left(4-3 q^2\right)}\nonumber \\
&+\frac{i q \left(662855204-2362316633 q^2+3039926241 q^4-1653235212 q^6+312770400
q^8\right) \kappa }{9774075 \left(1-q^2\right)^2}\Bigg)\Bigg) \sigma ^2+o(\sigma^2).
\end{align}
\begin{align}
p_{\text{in}}^\text{int}&=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{(-x)^{-\frac{1}{2}-i y} \Gamma \left(\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)}{\Gamma \left(\frac{1}{2}-i y\right) \Gamma \left(\frac{i q}{\kappa }+i
y+\frac{1}{2}\right)}\Bigg[\frac{x \left(8 i q-6 i q^3-5 \kappa +6 q^2 \kappa +y \left(4 q \left(-1+q^2\right)+2 i \left(-1+2 q^2\right) \kappa \right)\right)}{\pi (-3+4 y
(-2 i+y)) \kappa } \nonumber \\
&+\Bigg(-\frac{q+i \kappa }{-6 \pi y+3 i \pi }+\frac{2 \left(q^3 (6 i-4 y)+4 q (-2 i+y)+(5+2 i y) \kappa +q^2 (-6-4 i y) \kappa \right)}{\pi (-3+4 y (-2 i+y)) \kappa ^2}\Bigg(\frac{25 i q \kappa }{722}-\psi\left(-1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right) \nonumber \\
&+\frac{\left(4 q^3 y-\left(25+4 y^2\right) \kappa (1+\kappa )-4 q y
(1+\kappa )^2+q^2 \left(-4+\left(21+4 y^2\right) \kappa \right)\right) \psi\left(1+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)}{-25-4 y^2+q^2 \left(21+4
y^2\right)-8 q y \kappa }-\psi\left(2+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right) \nonumber \\
&+\psi\left(\frac{1}{2}+i y+\frac{i q}{\kappa
}\right)+\frac{\left(-4 q^3 y+\left(25+4 y^2\right) \kappa (1+\kappa )+4 q y (1+\kappa )^2+q^2 \left(4-\left(21+4 y^2\right) \kappa
\right)\right) \psi\left(\frac{5}{2}+i y+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)}{-25-4 y^2+q^2 \left(21+4 y^2\right)-8 q y \kappa } \nonumber \\
&+\psi
\left(\frac{7}{2}+i y+\frac{i q}{\kappa }\right)\Bigg)x+\bigg(-\frac{q \left(-251+457 q^2-210 q^4+20 y^2-44 q^2 y^2+24 q^4 y^2\right)}{3 \pi (-i+2 y) (-3 i+2 y) (-5 i+2 y) \kappa ^2}\nonumber \\
&+\frac{2
\left(63 i-176 i q^2+105 i q^4-32 y+108 q^2 y-72 q^4 y-4 i y^2+16 i q^2 y^2-12 i q^4 y^2\right)}{3 \pi (-i+2 y) (-3 i+2 y) (-5 i+2 y) \kappa
}\nonumber \\
&+\frac{48 q y \kappa ^2}{\pi (-1-2 i y) (-3 i+2 y) (-5 i+2 y)}\bigg)x^2 \Bigg)M\sigma\Bigg]dy.
\end{align}
\MC{$M$'s to be included above}
\MC{Where's the Barnes for $\ell=1$ and $m=- 1$?}
\section{Late-time Tail of the Green Function} \label{sec:late-time}
We now have all the ingredients for obtaining the late-time behaviour of the Green function.
We calculate $G_{BC}$ using Eq.(\ref{eq:G_BC}). Apart from the spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics, this requires the branch cut modes $\delta G_{\indmode}$, which we obtain using Eq.(\ref{Eq:GBC}).
In its turn, this requires knowledge of the branch cut strength $q$, the Wronskian factor $W^+W^-$ and the radial `in' solutions $\hat{R}^{\text{in}}_{\ell m}$.
We have given explicit high-order expansions for small frequency for all these quantities for spin $s=0$.
A high order expansion for the branch cut strength is given in Eq.(\ref{eq:q ell=0}) for $\ell=0$, in Eqs.(\ref{eq:q ell=1,m=1}), (\ref{eq:check q ell=1,m=1}) and
(\ref{eq:ph q ell=1,m=1}) for $\ell=1$, and in Eqs.(\ref{eq:check q ell>1}) and (\ref{eq:ph q ell>1}) for $\ell \geq 2$.
A high order expansion for the Wronskian factor is given in Eqs.(\ref{eq:check W fac ell=0}) and (\ref{eq:ph W fac ell=0}) for $\ell=0$,
in Eqs.(\ref{eq:check W fac ell=1,m=1}), (\ref{eq:ph W fac ell=1,m=1}), (\ref{eq:check W fac ell=1,m=0}) and (\ref{eq:ph W fac ell=1,m=0}) for $\ell=1$,
and in Eq.(\ref{eq:W fac ell>1}) for $\ell\geq 2$.
An expansion to arbitrary order for small frequency for the radial functions at arbitrary radius can be readily obtained from Eq.(\ref{eq:Rin=pin}),
by expanding the residues Eq.(\ref{eq:Fres}) and the integrand in Eq.(\ref{Eq:BarnesInt}).
Explicit expansions are given via Eq.(\ref{eq:pin ell=0}) for $\ell=0$ and via Eqs.(\ref{eq:pinres ell=1,m=0}) and (\ref{eq:pinint ell=1,m=0}) for $\ell=1$.
We note that these radial solutions still have to be normalized by dividing by $B^{\text{tra}}$ as per Eq.(\ref{eq:hatted slns}).
We give expansions for $B^{\text{tra}}$ in Eqs.(\ref{eq:check Btra ell=0}) and (\ref{eq:ph Binc/ref/tra ell=0}) for $\ell=0$,
in Eqs.(\ref{eq:check Btra ell=m=1}), (\ref{eq:ph Btra ell=m=1}) and (\ref{eq:Btra ell=1,m=0}) for $\ell=1$,
and in Eqs.(\ref{eq:check Btra ell>1}) and (\ref{eq:ph Btra ell>1}) for $\ell\ge 2$.
The above quantities require expansions for the series coefficients $\an{n}$ and for $\nu$, which we give in App.\ref{sec:MSTexpansions}.
In the following subsection, we use the above prescription for obtaining explicit high-order expansions for the Green function at late times for $\ell=0$ and
$\ell=1$ for space-time points correcponding to a particular orbit in Kerr.
Before that, though, let us give a quick derivation of the leading power law tail decay of the Green function, where here we ignore any
frequency-independent factors in the modes and time-independent factors in the final result.
From the equations referred to in the previous paragraph, we readily have: $q\sim \sigma$,
$W^+W^- \sim \sigma^{-2\ell}$ and $\hat{R}^{\text{in}}_{\ell m} \sim O(1)$.
Therefore, from Eq.(\ref{Eq:GBC}), we have $\delta G_{\indmode} \sim \sigma^{2\ell+2}$.
Trivially, we also have ${}_s S_{\ell m\omega}(\theta)=O(1)$ \MC{Please check}.
Then, Eq.(\ref{eq:Disc Gell}) yields $\delta G_{\ell} \sim t^{-2\ell-3}$ as the leading-order behavior at late times.
Expansions for small $a\omega$ for the spin-weighted spheroidal expansion are given in, e.g.,~\cite{Kavanagh:2016idg}.
\MC{Please check. Also, these are small $a\omega$, not $M\omega$? so the expansions we give below for the GF, etc are not for small $M\omega$ only but also small $a\omega$?
or is it that we do $a\omega=(M \omega)(a/M)$, then fix $a/M$, and so they effective are small $M\omega$ expansions?}
Using these, together with the above expansions for the radial part, we can calculate the retarded Green function in the time domain. To do this we must first specify a sorce point and a field
point. We choose the points to lie on a timelike circular geodesic on the equator of radius $r_0=\frac{9 \sqrt{11}}{5}M$, so that $\varphi=\Omega t$,
with $\Omega=M^{1/2}/\left(r_0^{3/2}+aM^{1/2}\right)$.
\MC{check $\Omega$}
Our calculattion thus shows the contribution from a point at a fixed time in the past on a particle far into its orbit.
We choose a value of $a=6M/10$ for the angular momentum of the black hole.
\subsection{Mode $\ell=0$}
\MC{I changed the sign of $q$ wrt what there used to be everywhere above. However. I haven't carried over this change of sign to any of the below.
Please check whether the signs below agrees with the numerics or we need to change it (as I'd expect)? Sign changed!}
Giving the results to six digits of accuracy, the branch cut mode for $\ell=0$ is
\begin{align}\label{eq:Disc Gell ell=0}
\delta G_{\ell=0}(t)
=
\frac{8}{\tilde{t}^3}+\frac{123.074}{\tilde{t}^4}-\frac{1408. \log \left(\tilde{t}\right)-7254.94}{\tilde{t}^5}-\frac{57605.8 \log
\left(\tilde{t}\right)-185111.}{\tilde{t}^6}+o\left(\tilde{t}^{-6}\right)
\end{align}
\MC{I have changed the previous notation $\delta G_{\ell,m}(t)$ to $\delta G_{\ell}(t)$; please check if what you calculated in Eq.(\ref{eq:Disc Gell ell=0}) is indeed
$\delta G_{\ell}(t)$ defined in Eq.(\ref{eq:Disc Gell})}
\MC{Include same number of digits for all the coefficients. Is the $8.$ exact?}
with $\tilde{t}=t/M$. At leading order this is identical to that of a Schwarzschild black hole. Given the poor convergence displayed by the increasingly large coefficients of the powers of $1/\tilde{t}$, these extra terms will offer dramatic improvement at increasingly earlier times.
\subsection{Mode $\ell=1$}
We are evaluating the Green function on the equator ($\theta=\pi/2$).
For $s=0$ and $\ell=1$ the spheroidal harmonic is zero on the equator when $m=0$, and so we do not need this mode.
Furthermore, we use the symmetry mentioned above, $\delta G_{1,1}+\delta G_{1,-1}=2 \text{Re}(\delta G_{1,1})$ on the equator.
After summing over $m$ and using the same circular orbit field point as before, we find the time domain branch cut mode for $\ell=1$ to be, within six digits of accuracy,
\begin{align}\label{eq:Disc Gell ell=1}
\delta G_{\ell=1}(t)
=&\cos(\Omega t )\left(\frac{801.921}{\tilde{t}^5}+\frac{5240.65}{\tilde{t}^6}+\frac{451508.-121892. \log \tilde{t}}{\tilde{t}^7}+\frac{432880.-1.11645 \log \tilde{t}}{\tilde{t}^8}\right) \nonumber \\
&+\sin(\Omega t)\left(\frac{2.63137}{\tilde{t}^5}-\frac{2398.86}{\tilde{t}^6}-\frac{38679.2+399.969 \log \tilde{t}}{\tilde{t}^7}-\frac{2790969 - 887701. \log \tilde{t}}{\tilde{t}^8}\right)
+o\left(\tilde{t}^{-8}\right).
\end{align}
\MC{I have changed the previous notation $\delta G(t)$ to $\delta G_{\ell}(t)$; please check if what you calculated in Eq.(\ref{eq:Disc Gell ell=1}) is indeed
$\delta G_{\ell}(t)$ defined in Eq.(\ref{eq:Disc Gell})}
Here we split the integral into its two oscillatory parts coming from $e^{i m \phi}=e^{i m \Omega t}$.
\subsection{Comparisons with real frequency integration}
As a test of our method, we compare the results of the previous subsections with some specific cases of the
Green function which we have calculated using an integration of the frequency domain Green function along the original real frequency
contour. In this calculation we generate the ingoing and upgoing homogenous solutions using the MST method, numerically
evaluating for each (real) frequency point and continuing the series expansion until we get convergence to a specified
accuracy goal.
In this calculation we use the following procedure:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We find the renormalised angular momentum $\nu$ using either root-finding methods or the monodromy methods of \cite{castro2013black}. We did this over a range $-10<=\epsilon<=10$ with a grid spacing of $0.001$.
\item We calculate the homogenous solutions on this grid using the MST expansions \eqref{Eq:Rin 2F1} and \eqref{eq:Rup series U}. Here the series coefficients $\an{n}$
are evaluated using the continued fractions until a given tolerance. We truncate the sums over $n$'s when a specified accuracy goal is met.
\item From these solutions we form the retarded Green function modes as per \eqref{eq:rGF}.
\item By interpolating this function, the time-domain Green function is approximated by a numerical evaluation of the integral \eqref{Eq:TDGF} over the restricted $\epsilon$ range.\MC{No word about spheroidals?} Here we introduce two error functions, which serve to smoothly cut off the integral at its two limits giving a better approximation to the full integral (a justification for a similar smoothing in the $\ell$-sum is given in~\cite{CDOW13}).
\end{enumerate}
For comparison purposes, we choose the values used in the analytical branch cut calculation above, namely, $a=6/10M$, $\varphi=\Omega t$ and $r_0=\frac{9 \sqrt{11}}{5}M$.
We plot the comparisons in Figs.~\ref{fig:realfreqplots ell=0} and \ref{fig:realfreqplots ell=1}.
We find excellent agreement at late times $\Delta t >200M$ between the analytical branch cut calculation
and the `exact' numerical calculation.
\newpage
\begin{figure}[htb!
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{RealFreqVsBCs0l0ap6Detailed.pdf}
\caption{
Scalar Green function mode $\ell=0$ as a function of time in Kerr space-time with $a=6M/10$.
The points lie on an equatorial circular geodesic at radius $r_0=\frac{9 \sqrt{11}}{5}M$.
The blue curve is the Green function mode obtained using a numerical real-frequency Fourier integral, which is an `exact' calculation.
The other coloured curves correspond to substracting the analytic late-time Green function up to various orders for late times from the previous real-frequency calculation.
The dashed curves are the corresponding analytic, late-time Green function remainders.
We see excellent agreement for late times $t>200M$.}
\label{fig:realfreqplots ell=0}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb!
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{RealFreqVsBCs0l1ap6Detailed.pdf}
\caption{
Same as Fig.\ref{fig:realfreqplots ell=0} but for the mode $\ell=1$.}
\label{fig:realfreqplots ell=1}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:disc}
In this paper we have developed the analytical MST formalism for obtaining the branch cut modes of the Green function for general integer-spin on Kerr space-time.
We then applied this formalism to derive an expansion to five orders for small-frequency of these modes in the case of a scalar field.
This expansion can readily be used to obtain a high-order expansion of the full scalar Green function at late times for arbitrary values of the spatial coodinates.
The leading order of the expansion, for a given spheroidal $\ell$-mode, is of order $t^{-2\ell-3}$, in agreement with previous results in the literature.
The higher orders, to the best of our knowledge had not been previously obtained.
In particular, these higher orders show that a logarithmic behaviour starts appearing at order $t^{-2\ell-5}\ln t$.
A high-order late-time expansion of the Green function can be valuable for the calculation of self-forces as carried out in~\cite{CDOW13} in the case of Schwarzschild space-time.
The next step is to obtain a similar high-order expansion for a field of higher spin.
As we have developed the MST formalism for the branch cut modes for general spin, we have already
laid much of the groundwork for extending the calculation to electromagnetic and gravitatonal fields.
The gravitational case is of particular interest given the recent detections of gravitational waves from black hole inspirals by the
Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory~\cite{PhysRevLett.116.061102,Abbott:2016nmj},
in which the ringdown stage was observed.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We are thankful to Barry Wardell for useful discussions.
M.C. acknowledges partial financial support by CNPq (Brazil), process number 308556/2014-3.
C.K. was supported by the Programme for Research in Third Level
Institutions (PRTLI) Cycle 5 and co-funded under
the European Regional Development Fund.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec-intro}
Line profiles in optical spectra of OB stars\footnote{Along this paper, and following \cite{Ree03}, we use the term OB stars to refer to O/early-B type stars on the main sequence and their evolved descendants, the B supergiants. The remaining B-type stars are considered as a separated group, also called B dwarfs/giants.} are not only broadened by rotation. This statement has been known since the first large spectroscopic surveys of massive stars in the late 1950's \citep{Sle56,Con77}. First indirect suspicions, supported by the absence of narrow-line stars of this type, were soon confirmed with the advent of high-resolution spectrographs: the V-shape of some of the profiles did not correspond to an exclusively rotationally broadened line. More recently, the use of Fourier transform techniques \citep[cf.][]{Gra76}, in combination with profile fitting techniques, has allowed us to have access to actual projected rotational velocities (\vsini) in OB stars and quantify the relative contribution of the non-rotational and rotational broadenings \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{Sim07, Sim14}.
Although the extra source of line-broadening found in OB stars has been commonly quoted as macroturbulent broadening (and quantified as a macroturbulent velocity, \vmac), its connection with large scale turbulent motions of material in the line-formation region\footnote{This concept of macroturbulent broadening was initially introduced and studied in the context of cool stars \citep[see, e.g., the review by][and other historical references therein]{Gra78}. Even though the use of this term has been extended to other star domains, it does not necessarily refer to the same type of broadening mechanism or the same physical origin.} is highly improbable \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Sim10}. An alternative scenario relates this extra-broadening to the effect of stellar oscillations on the line-profiles \citep[e.g.,][]{Luc76, How04, Aer09}. In this context, not only the most commonly considered heat-driven non-radial modes, but also other spectroscopic variability phenomena identified and/or predicted in massive stars may play a role (e.g. rotational modulation, strange modes, stochastically excited non-radial modes and/or convectively driven internal gravity waves).
The presence of a variable pulsational broadening component is well known in observed line-profiles of B dwarfs/giants located in the $\beta$-Cep and SPB (slowly pulsating B-type star) instability domains \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{Aer14}. Indirect arguments presented in the last years \citep{Aer09, Sim10} indicates that this may be also the case for B Supergiants (Sgs); however, the macroturbulent-pulsational broadening connection in the whole OB star domain, a region of the Hertzsprung-Russel diagram which to-date is (by far) less explored and understood from an asteroseismic point of view, still requires direct (observational) confirmation. Indeed, even if we assume this likely connection, the exact driving mechanism (or mechanisms) of the type of oscillations which might result in the observed (macroturbulent) profiles remains undefined \citep[but see][]{Aer09, Can09, Sam10, Shi13, Sun13a, Sim15a, Aer15, Gra15a}.
Aiming at providing a set of empirical constraints which could be used to assess the pulsational (or any other) hypothesis to explain the physical origin of macroturbulent broadening in OB stars, we started in 2008 the compilation of a high-quality spectroscopic database including multi-epoch observations of a large sample of bright (V<9) Northern O- and B-type stars. This observational material, which has now become part of the IACOB spectroscopic database \citep{Sim11a, Sim15b}, presently comprises (a) high-resolution spectra of $\approx$620 Galactic stars covering spectral types between O4 and B9 and all luminosity classes, and (b) time-series spectra with a time-span of several years and various types of time-coverage for a selected sample of targets.
In \cite{Sim10} we used part of these observations to present first empirical evidence for the existence of a correlation between the macroturbulent broadening and photospheric line-profile variations in a sample of 13~OB Sgs. In \cite{Sim14} we concentrated on the line-broadening analysis of $\approx$200 O and early-B stars to investigate the impact of other sources of non-rotational broadening on the determination of projected rotational velocities in OB stars. In this paper we benefit from a much larger and extended (in terms of spectral type coverage) spectroscopic dataset to provide new observational clues to step forward in our understanding of macroturbulent broadening in massive stars. In particular, with this work we increase and improve the available information about the single snapshot properties of this enigmatic line-broadening in the whole O and B star domain \citep[which is presently fragmentary and not necessarily homogeneous, e.g.,][]{Rya02, Duf06, Lef07, Lef10, Fra10, Bou12, Sim14, Mar14, Mar15, Mah15}.
In this paper, we focus on the global aspects of the line-broadening properties of the large sample we composed. Subsequent work will be tuned towards time-series analysis for a sub-sample of $\approx$70\,--\,100 targets. Sections~\ref{sec-obs} and \ref{sec-tools} describe the observational dataset and the spectroscopic analysis tools we used to extract the level of line-broadening, line-asymmetry, and the spectroscopic parameters. The variety of profiles found in the sample is illustrated and discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-qualit} while the distribution of stars in the \vsini\,--\,\vmac\ and spectroscopic Hertzsprung-Russell \citep[sHR,][]{Lan14, Cas14} diagrams is discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-quantit}.
An extensive discussion on how these observations, once combined with further information about line-profile
skewness and variability, can help us to definitely identify the origin of the various sources of non-rotational broadening found in massive star is presented in Sect.~\ref{sec-disc}. Last, a summary of our work -- including the main conclusions -- and some future prospects are presented in Sect.~\ref{sec-summary}.
\section{Observations}\label{sec-obs}
\begin{table*} [t!]
\begin{center}
\caption{List of stars considered for this paper, including information about line-broadening and stellar parameters, and the quantity $RSk$ (relative skewness, see Eq.~\ref{eq1}). The line used to determine the line-broadening parameters is also indicated, along with its equivalent width and the signal-to-noise ratio of the adjacent continuum. Spectral classifications indicated in column 2 must be handle with care, since they come from various sources, not all of them equally reliable. EW in m\AA, \vsini\ and \vmac\ in \kms, \Teff\ in K. See Appendix~\ref{sec-append2} for a complete version of the table.}
\label{tab-t1}
\begin{tabular}{lllcccccrcccc}
\hline\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
Target & SpC & Line & SNR$_{\rm c}$ & EW & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\vsini} & & \vmac & $RSk$ & $\sigma_{RSk}$ & log~\Teff\ & log~${\mathscr L/\mathscr L_{\odot}}$ \\
\cline{6-7}\cline{9-9}
\noalign{\smallskip}
& & & & & FT & GOF & & GOF & & & & \\
\hline
... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & &... & ... & ... & ... & ...\\
HD~16582 & B2~IV & \ion{Si}{iii} & 183 & 138 & 9 & 9 & & 19 & 0.02 & 0.05 & 4.34 & 2.94 \\
HD~17081 & B7~V & \ion{Mg}{ii} & 195 & 294 & 18 & 19 & & 24 &-0.03 & 0.02 & 4.12 & 2.40 \\
HD~17603 & O7.5~Ib(f) & \ion{O}{iii} & 239 & 317 & 109 & 99 & & 115 &-0.01 & 0.02 & 4.53 & 4.21 \\
HD~17743 & B8~III & \ion{Mg}{ii} & 157 & 214 & 48 & 47 & & 22 & 0.00 & 0.06 & 4.13 & 2.21 \\
HD~18409 & O9.7~Ib & \ion{O}{iii} & 256 & 179 & 131 & 128 & & $<$ 88 & 0.08 & 0.16 & 4.51 & 3.99 \\
HD~18604 & B6~III & \ion{Mg}{ii} & 184 & 305 & 131 & 132 & & $<$ 50 & 0.07 & 0.08 & 4.11 & 2.44 \\
HD~19820 & O8.5~III(n)((f)) & \ion{O}{iii} & 316 & 251 & 144 & 147 & & $<$ 54 &-0.22 & 0.11 & 4.51 & 3.91 \\
... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & &... & ... & ... & ... & ...\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
The main observational sample discussed in this paper comprises high-resolution, single snapshot spectra of 432 Galactic stars. Basically, from the 620 O- and B-type stars in the IACOB spectroscopic database\footnote{The total amount of spectra included in the IACOB spectroscopic database by November 2015 is 4560. We note the important increase in numbers compared with the last updates in the database presented in \cite{Sim15a}: 531 stars and 3705 spectra. This illustrates how productive the on-going observing runs of the project are.} as for November 2015, we discarded:
\begin{itemize}
\item 80 stars showing clear signatures of being a double line spectroscopic binary, a multiple system or, more generally, a composite spectrum in at least one of the IACOB spectra.
\item 25 stars in which {\em all} the main diagnostic lines considered to obtain information about \vsini\ and \vmac\ (see Sect.~\ref{sec-broad-tools}) are weak, absent or present strong spectroscopic peculiarities. Among this subsample one can find stars with a spectral type earlier than O4, very fast rotators and some Oe/Be stars.
\item 83 stars having a projected rotational velocity larger than 200~\kms\ (see explanation in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-vsvm}).
\end{itemize}
The IACOB database includes spectra from two different instruments: the FIES \citep{Tel14} and HERMES \citep{Ras11} spectrographs attached to the 2.56-m Nordic Optical Telescope and the 1.2-m Mercator telescope, respectively. Both instruments provide a complete wavelength coverage between 3800 and 7000~\AA\
(9000~\AA\ for the case of HERMES spectra), and the associated resolving power (R) of the spectra is 25000/46000 (FIES) and 85000 (HERMES). By default, all the spectra in the IACOB database are reduced using the corresponding available pipelines (FIEStool\footnote{\tt \tiny http://www.not.iac.es/instruments/fies/fiestool/FIEStool.html} and HermesDRS\footnote{\tt \tiny http://www.mercator.iac.es/instruments/hermes/hermesdrs.php}, respectively) and normalized by means of own procedures implemented in IDL.
The best signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) spectrum per considered star was selected for the purposes of this study. The typical SNR is in the range 150-300. In many cases, especially for targets brighter than V=6, the same star was observed with both instruments. For these stars we preferred the HERMES spectrum over the FIES
one whenever the associated SNR is similar, because of the larger resolving power.
This main (single snapshot) spectroscopic dataset is complemented with high-resolution spectroscopic time-series of a sample of 8 selected targets (Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-step-var}). Half of these stars are well known pulsators and stars with spots located in the B main sequence star domain \citep[selected from the sample described and analyzed in][and references therein]{Aer14}, the other four correspond to bright O stars and B~Sgs surveyed by the IACOB project \citep[as an extension of the observations presented in][]{Sim10}. In all cases we rely on more than 90 spectra gathered during more than 4 years. These observations are used to provide a first comparison of the type of line-profile variability present in OB stars with an important contribution of the macroturbulent broadening and B main sequence stars with well identified causes of spectroscopic variability.
\section{Tools and methods}\label{sec-tools}
In this section we describe the strategy we followed to extract from the spectra information about (a) \vsini\ and \vmac, (b) the amount of asymmetry of the diagnostic lines considered to derive the line-broadening parameters, and (c) the stellar parameters which allow us to locate the stars in the spectroscopic HR diagram. The results from the analysis, that will be used for the discussion in Sects.~\ref{sec-resul} and \ref{sec-disc}, are summarized in Table~\ref{tab-t1}, where the meaning of each column is explained below.
\subsection{Line-broadening parameters}\label{sec-broad-tools}
We applied the {\tt iacob-broad} tool \cite[][in the following SDH14]{Sim14} to the \ion{O}{iii}~$\lambda$5591, \ion{Si}{iii}~$\lambda$4552, \ion{Mg}{ii}~$\lambda$4481, or \ion{C}{ii}~$\lambda$4267 line (depending on the spectral type of the star) to derive \vsini\ and \vmac\ in the whole sample. We followed the strategy described in SDH14; namely, the line-broadening analysis is based on a combined Fourier transform (FT) + goodness-of-fit (GOF) methodology where we consider a radial-tangential definition for the macroturbulent profile, with equal radial and tangential components, and the starting intrinsic profile for the GOF computation is simplified by a $\delta$-function.
In most cases, the outcome of the global rectification applied to all IACOB spectra was fairly good when zooming into the smaller spectral windows associated with the lines to be analyzed. However, whenever necessary, we activated the option available in {\tt iacob-broad} to locally improve the normalization before performing the line-broadening analysis.
Results from the line-broadening analysis of the 432 stars are indicated in columns 6\,--\,8 of Table~\ref{tab-t1} along with some information about the equivalent width (EW, column 5) of the considered diagnostic line (column 3) and the SNR of the adjacent continuum (column 4). We provide both FT and GOF solutions for \vsini, but only the latter, together with the associated \vmac\ will be considered in this paper. The main reason is that we found a general good agreement between the \vsini\ derived by means of both methods (better than $\pm$10 \kms\ in most cases, see Fig.~\ref{fig-f1}), but (a) the GOF approach is less affected by the subjectivity in the selection of the first zero of the Fourier transform in some complicated cases, and (b) the GOF solution allows to detect cases where we can only provide upper limits to \vmac. The latter refers to situations in which the \vmac\ value associated with the best fitting solution (minimum $\chi^2$) is larger than zero, but \vmac\,=\,0 is still an acceptable solution (below the 1-$\sigma$ confidence level). As we show and discuss in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul}, these cases normally correspond to profiles in which the rotational broadening component dominates. Those cases in which \vmac\ could not be properly determined are quoted in Table~\ref{tab-t1} by providing the value corresponding to the best fitting solution as an upper limit.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.47\textwidth, angle=90]{paperIII_fig0.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the \vsini\ values determined by means of the FT and GOF methodologies using the {\tt iacob-broad} tool. The agreement is better than $\pm$~10~\kms\ for 95\% of the sample, and better than $\pm$~20~\kms\ for the remaining stars.}
\label{fig-f1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Line-profile asymmetry}\label{sec-asym-tools}
Most of the previous work on macroturbulent broadening in OB stars concentrate on the characterization of the line-profiles via \vsini\ and \vmac. However, as is well known in the context of stellar oscillations \citep[cf.\ Chapters 5 and 6 of][]{Aer10b}, such a simplistic two-parameter description lacks an important piece of information about the properties of the profiles: the amount of {\it line-asymmetry\/}. A particularly illustrative study in this respect is the one by \cite{Sch97}, where the predicted variability of line-profiles
due to adiabatic non-radial pulsations in rotating stars is shown for a large variety of oscillation and rotation parameters. This reference work contains various diagnostics used to describe the snapshot characteristics of the line-profiles, a combination of which we adopt here as the {\it relative skewness} ($RSk$). We define this quantity as
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
RSk\,\equiv\,\langle \varv^3 \rangle / \langle \varv^2 \rangle^{3/2},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq2}
\langle \varv^n \rangle\,=\,\frac{\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} (\varv - \langle \varv \rangle )^n (1-F(\varv)) d\varv}{\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} (1-F(\varv)) d\varv} \hspace{2cm} {\rm for} \hspace{0.2cm} n=2, 3
\end{equation}
are the second and third normalized central moments of a spectral line denoted as ($\varv$, $F(\varv)$), adopting the definition used in \cite{Sch97}, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq3}
\langle \varv \rangle\,=\,\frac{\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} \varv~(1-F(\varv)) d\varv}{\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} (1-F(\varv)) d\varv}.
\end{equation}
The dimensionless quantity\footnote{In statistical terms, this quantity is quoted as third standardized moment or (Pearson's) moment coefficient of skewness.} defined by Equation~(\ref{eq1}) represents the amount of skewness of the line-profile relative to its total width. It allows to compare the amount of asymmetry for lines with very different widths in a meaningful way.
We used the same line-profiles considered to derive the line-broadening parameters (Sect.~\ref{sec-broad-tools}) for the computation of the first three moments and, ultimately, the quantity $RSk$. To compute the latter, we considered various integration limits and found the best overall choice to be an integration centered on $\langle \varv \rangle$ and extending over $\pm$2.5$\sqrt{\langle \varv^2 \rangle}$. These integration limits were selected as the best compromise between including as much information as possible from the extended wings of the V-shaped line-profiles while avoiding spurious subtleties associated with the noise of the adjacent continuum.
The computed values of $RSk$ for the whole sample of stars, along with their corresponding uncertainties, are presented in Columns 9 and 10 in Table~\ref{tab-t1}. These uncertainties result from the formal propagation of errors for Eqs~(\ref{eq1})--(\ref{eq3}), assuming that the only source of uncertainty is the noise associated with the normalized flux of the line-profile, which is inversely proportional to the signal-to-noise ratio of the adjacent continuum (SNR$_{\rm c}$). Given the stability of the spectrographs and the level of precision of the wavelength calibration, this approximation is fully justified.
\subsection{Stellar parameters}\label{sec-param-tools}
The spectroscopic stellar parameters of the sample were obtained by means of {\tt iacob-gbat} \citep[][O stars]{Sim11b} or an updated version of the tool described in \citet[][B stars]{Cas12}. These tools, aimed at performing quantitative spectroscopic analyses of O and B-type stars in a fast, automatic way, are based on a huge, pre-computed grid of \fastwind\ \citep{San97, Pul05, Riv12} synthetic spectra and a $\chi^2$ minimization line-profile fitting technique. Some notes on the followed strategy can be found in \cite{Lef07}, \cite{Cas12}, and \cite{Sab14}. In this case, we fixed \vsini\ and \vmac\ to the values resulting from the line-broadening analysis described above. From the whole set of output parameters provided by the automatic tools, we concentrate on the derived \Teff\ and \grav\ because they allow to locate the studied stars in the sHR diagram.
We provide log~\Teff\ and log~${\mathscr L/\mathscr L_{\odot}}$\footnote{${\mathscr L}$\,:=\,\Teff$^{4}$ / g $\sim$ $L$/$M$ $\sim$ $\Gamma_{\rm Edd}$ $\sim$ $g_{\rm rad}/g_{\rm grav}$ \citep{Lan14}.} in the two last columns of Table~\ref{tab-t1} to facilitate the identification of stars in the corresponding diagrams. In addition, we highlight below some important points regarding the compiled set of stellar parameters:
\begin{itemize}
\item Given the quality of the spectroscopic observations and the strategy we have followed for the spectroscopic analysis, we can assume $\approx$5\% and $\approx$0.15~dex as rough estimations for the uncertainties in the derived \Teff\ and \grav, respectively.
\item There are $\approx$50 stars for which we do not provide stellar parameters in Table~\ref{tab-t1}. Most of them are late-B stars whose parameters lay outside our grid of \fastwind\ models. The lower \Teff\ boundary of the grid is 11000 K and this implies that our analysis tools do not provide reliable parameters for stars with \Teff$\le$12000~K.
\item We have not checked one-by-one all the analyzed spectra in detail. Therefore, the stellar parameters quoted in Table~\ref{tab-t1} must be considered with caution for purposes other than those discussed in this paper, especially concerning the investigation of individual stars.
\end{itemize}
\section{Results}\label{sec-resul}
\subsection{Line profiles in O and B stars: a qualitative overview}\label{sec-resul-qualit}
Figures~\ref{fig-f2} and \ref{fig-f3} show some representative examples of the various types of line-profiles found in stars in the IACOB sample. In all cases the observed profiles, colored and labeled following the guidelines described in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-vsvm}, are complemented with information from the outcome of the line-broadening and line-asymmetry analysis (see Sect.~\ref{sec-tools}). We also over-plot, for guidance purposes, synthetic profiles with the same equivalent width as the observed ones, convolved with the indicated \vsini\ (dotted lines) and \vsini\,+\,\vmac\ values (dashed lines). The comparison between the dotted lines and the observed profiles allows us to visualize the effect of the non-rotational broadening on the shape of the lines for different \vsini\,-\,\vmac\ combinations. The dashed lines can be used to assess the quality of the final fit and visually identify line-profiles which are clearly asymmetric or have a bumpy shape (see e.g., Figure~\ref{fig-f3} and description below).
As illustrated by Figures~\ref{fig-f2} and \ref{fig-f3}, the width of the profiles ranges from narrow to broad, and its shape from clearly roundish, as expected in a rotationally dominated case, to triangular, where the so-called macroturbulent broadening is dominating. Many different combinations of width and shape occur. Most of the profiles are smooth (i.e., do not have any detectable substructure) and symmetric from visual inspection, having similar characteristics as those shown in
Figure~\ref{fig-f2}; however, there is also a non-negligible number of stars showing asymmetric profiles and/or spectroscopic signatures which could be associated with the effect of a certain type of pulsations on the line
profiles\footnote{The most clearly detectable cases from single snapshot spectra are those associated with coherent pressure modes as in $\beta$~Cep stars with moderate projected rotational velocities \citep[see, e.g., Panel B.3 in Figure~\ref{fig-f3} and][for more illustrative examples]{Tel06} or coherent gravity modes that occur in so-called SPBs \citep{Dec02}.}, spots, a magnetosphere, and/or undetected binarity. Some of these cases are shown in Figure~\ref{fig-f3}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{paperIII_fig1a.eps}
\caption{Illustrative examples of the various types of line-profiles found in the IACOB sample of O- and B-type stars. The values of \vsini\ and \vmac\ resulting from the line-broadening and line asymmetry analysis (see
Sect.~\ref{sec-tools}) are quoted in the lower right corners. Each profile has been selected to be a representative of the six regions indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig-f4} (the same color and A-B label codes are used here). The profiles are organized from bottom to top, and from left to right, following an increasing sequence of \vmac\ and \vsini, respectively.
}
\label{fig-f2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Line-broadening in O and B stars: a quantitative overview}\label{sec-resul-quantit}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{paperIII_fig1b.eps}
\caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig-f2} but for line-profiles which are more asymmetric (A.1, A.3, B.2) or have a more complex structure (A.2, B.3). A case for which only an upper limit of \vmac\ can be obtained is also illustrated in B.1. In the latter, {\tt iacob-broad} gives (\vsini, \vmac)\,=\,(134, 47) -- dashed line -- as the best fitting solution, but (134, 0) -- dotted line -- is an equally acceptable solution.}
\label{fig-f3}
\end{figure}
Outside the asteroseismology community, it is common to summarize the information about the width and shape of spectral line-profiles by means of only two time-independent line-broadening parameters: \vsini\ and \vmac. While the first one has a well defined physical meaning, \vmac\ is only a tuning parameter used to quantify the effect of any other broadening mechanism which is not rotation. For example, as indicated by \cite{Aer14}, periodic line-profile variability caused by surface inhomogeneities or by oscillations in main-sequence B stars can be mimicked by a combination of time-dependent rotational and macroturbulent broadening. Moreover, the value derived for this parameter depends on specific assumptions on the definition of the macroturbulent profile (e.g. radial-tangential vs. isotropic Gaussian, percentage of radial vs. tangential components). In addition, as highlighted in SDH14 \citep[see also][]{Sun13b, Mar14}, there is empirical evidence indicating that the methodology described in Sect.~\ref{sec-broad-tools} for disentangling rotation from other sources of line-broadening may be failing in some specific cases. This mainly refers to potential limitations -- of still unclear origin -- in having access to the actual value of the projected rotational velocity in stars with line-profiles dominated by the so-called macroturbulent broadening.
Therefore, we must handle any quantitative interpretation of the macroturbulent
broadening in O and B stars in terms of \vmac\ with care, especially when combining measurements from different sources which might not be using the same techniques or assumptions.
A detailed investigation of the shortcomings of the application of the FT and GOF methodologies in the whole O and B star domain -- following some guidelines presented in SDH14 -- is planed for a subsequent paper of this series (see also some notes in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-step-var}). In the meanwhile, we rely on the measurements resulting from the application of the methods described in Sect.~\ref{sec-broad-tools} to provide a complete homogeneous overview of the single snapshot line-broadening characteristics of stars in the whole O and B star domain.
Despite some of the \vsini\ and \vmac\ values quoted in Table~\ref{tab-t1} may change in the future, the main conclusions presented in these sections will remain since the followed approach provide a representation of the global shape of the line-profiles valid enough for the purposes of this work.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.47\textwidth, angle=90]{paperIII_fig2_vsvm.eps}
\caption{Line-broadening characterization via \vsini\ and \vmac\ of a sample of 432 Galactic O and B stars. Crosses correspond to stars for which only an upper limit in \vmac\ could be determined. Various colors and lines separate stars affected by a different relative rotational and macroturbulent broadening contribution. The 25~\kms\ horizontal and vertical lines indicate conservative limitations of the performed methodology (see main text for explanation). Gray-shadowed region groups stars with an important macroturbulent (compared to rotational) broadening contribution.
}
\label{fig-f4}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Distribution of stars in the \vsini\,--\,\vmac\ diagram}\label{sec-resul-vsvm}
The results from the line-broadening analysis of our sample of stars in the \vsini\,-\,\vmac\ diagram are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig-f4}. As previously found by \cite{Lef10}, \cite{Mar14} and SDH14 using more specific samples (in terms of spectral type and luminosity class), the whole diagram is populated below \vmac$\approx$120~\kms, except for a gap found in the low \vsini\ regime, where stars with \vmac/\vsini ~$\gtrsim$~2 and \vmac~$\gtrsim$~40~\kms\ are absent. This absence may be due to the limitations of the considered methodology (see notes in SDH14). The diagram has been divided into six regions depending on the
relative contribution of the rotational and macroturbulent broadening and taking into account a conservative lower limit of reliability in the \vsini\ and \vmac\ measurements of 25~\kms\ (see SDH14 for more details). Figures~\ref{fig-f2} and \ref{fig-f3} show some illustrative examples of the type of profiles found in each of these regions.
We separate the sample in two broad groups: stars showing an important (or dominant) macroturbulent broadening contribution are marked in red (A.1), orange (A.2), and cyan (A.3) and grouped by the gray shadow region; the other three regions consist of stars in which either rotational broadening dominates (green and dark blue, B.1 and B.3, respectively) or both \vsini\ and \vmac\ are below the limits of reliability of the methodology (pink, B.2). While there are many stars in this latter box for which \vmac~$>$~\vsini, the non-rotational
broadening could actually be associated with so-called microturbulence (SDH14) or with known sources of pulsational broadening \citep[see][]{Aer14}. We hence exclude these stars from those with clearly dominated macroturbulent profiles.
We indicate with crosses those stars for which the {\tt iacob-broad} analysis was only able to provide upper limits for the value of \vmac\ (see notes in Sect.~\ref{sec-broad-tools}). Panel B.1 in Figure~\ref{fig-f3} shows one of these cases. Most of the stars are concentrated in the region where \vmac/\vsini~$\le$~0.5. This is expected since the extra-broadening only produces a small effect on the wings of the line-profile when rotational broadening dominates. Although they are not shown in Fig.~\ref{fig-f4}, we found that this situation extends to all stars in the IACOB sample with \vsini$>$200~\kms. Therefore, we decided to exclude them from the discussion below after checking that this decision does not modify any of the conclusions presented in this paper\footnote{For information, the 83 excluded stars with \vsini$>$200 \kms\ have a very similar distribution in the spectroscopic HR diagram as that shown in the middle panel of Fig.~\ref{fig-f5} by the green and dark blue crosses. The same comment applies to Fig.~\ref{fig-f7}.}.
Despite the multi-epoch character of the IACOB spectroscopic dataset, there may still be some cases of undetected binarity or composite spectra. We have only one spectrum for some of the stars in the database and some composite spectra may not be detected with the (minimum 3) spectra we have for most of the targets. Some stars are already marked as suspicious in view of the shape of the line-profiles (e.g., HD~140873 in Fig.~\ref{fig-f3}); however, some others can still remain unidentified,especially when we only have one spectrum. We hence must keep in mind that there may be some cases in which the single snapshot line-broadening analysis presented here could end up in spurious results. In particular, a composite spectrum with two lines that are not clearly separated can be artificially fitted with a line-profile having a larger \vsini\ and, specially, larger \vmac\ than any of its individual components.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth, angle=90]{paperIII_fig3_sHRD_3panels.eps}
\caption{Location of the stars from groups A [left panel] and B [middle panel], as defined in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-vsvm}, in the sHR diagram. Same color code as in Fig.~\ref{fig-f4}. The Geneva, non-rotating evolutionary tracks \citep{Eks12} are over~plotted for guidance purposes. The black cross to the left shows the typical uncertainties in log~\Teff\ and log~${\mathscr L}$ (assuming conservative uncertainties in \Teff\ and \grav\ of 5\% and 0.15~dex, respectively, and no correlation between both quantities). [Right panel] All stars from groups A and B (except those for which \vmac\ could not be properly determined) joined together with symbol sizes proportional to \vmac.
}
\label{fig-f5}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Macroturbulent broadening across the upper part of the sHR diagram}\label{sec-resul-sHR}
The location of the stars from groups A and B in the sHR diagram is presented separately in left and middle panels, respectively, of Fig.~\ref{fig-f5}. We use the same colors and symbols as in previous figures. The non-rotating evolutionary tracks for solar metallicity from \citet{Eks12} are also shown for guidance purposes. The typical uncertainties in log~\Teff\ and log~${\mathscr L}$ (see Sect.~\ref{sec-param-tools}) are indicated with a black cross in the bottom left corner of each panel. These two panels are complemented with a third one which shows the same distribution of stars but from a different perspective. This time, we plot all stars together (except those for which \vmac\ could not be properly determined, i.e. the cross symbols in Figs.~\ref{fig-f4} and \ref{fig-f5}), using the same color code, but scaling the size of the symbols with \vmac.
All together, these figures present, for the first time, a homogeneous and statistically significant overview of the (single snapshot) line-broadening properties of stars in the whole O and B star domain.
We highlight below the main results that can be extracted from inspection of Fig.~\ref{fig-f5}, regarding the distribution of stars in the sHR diagram in terms of line-profile shape characteristics:
\begin{itemize}
\item The upper part of the sHR diagram -- including the O stars and B~Sgs or, roughly speaking, stars with initial masses $\gtrsim$15~M$_{\odot}$ -- is basically populated by stars with a remarkable non-rotational broadening component (red, orange and cyan circles). In this region of the diagram, there are only a few stars from group B (mostly green crosses with \vsini\,$>$130~\kms).
\item The relative number of stars with profiles dominated by macroturbulent broadening (red circles) becomes much smaller when moving down in the sHR diagram. There are a few outliers in the lower part of the diagram having large values of \vmac; however, these may actually be non-detected spectroscopic binaries (see note in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-vsvm}). Indeed, new observations obtained during the development of this paper have allowed us to confirm this hypothesis in a couple of targets (now excluded from the final sample). Other similar cases may still remain in the sample.
\item Contrarily to the homogeneity -- in terms of line-broadening properties -- found in O stars and B~Sgs, the situation is much more heterogeneous in the B dwarf/giant region ($\lesssim$~15~M$_{\odot}$). The only common characteristic in this lower part of the sHR diagram is that the amount of non-rotational broadening (quantified as \vmac) is much smaller in absolute terms in comparison with stars with larger masses (see right panel in Fig.~\ref{fig-f5}). Apart from this, below log~$\mathscr{L}/\mathscr{L}_{\odot}~\sim$~3.5, stars with different types of profiles are not concentrated in specific/separated regions of the diagram.
\end{itemize}
We interpret these results as empirical evidence of the existence of various types of non-rotational broadening agents acting in the realm of massive stars. Even though all of them can be quantitatively characterized in terms of \vmac\ -- and quoted as macroturbulent broadening -- from a practical point of view, their physical origin can be different. Indeed, it is natural to think that some of them could be acting at the same time, with a different relative contribution to the line-profiles, depending on the specific properties of the star at a given moment during its evolution.
Under this scenario, the distribution of stars shown in Fig.~\ref{fig-f5} indicates that, below $\approx$15~M$_{\odot}$ (or, equivalently log~$\mathscr{L}/\mathscr{L}_{\odot}~\sim$~3.5) the final shape of the stellar lines depends on a combination of different factors which are not only controlled by \Teff, \grav, and/or \vsini. This statement is in agreement with \citet[][see also notes in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-step-var}]{Aer14}, who showed that, in the B main sequence star domain, the presence of stellar spots, surface inhomogeneities, and stellar oscillations are effective sources of (variable) line-broadening. Therefore, in this case, we should avoid using the term macroturbulent broadening, or at least, be aware that the sources of broadening in these stars may have nothing to do with what we call macroturbulent broadening in other regions of the HR diagram (e.g. the Sun, cool stars, A-type stars, or even O stars and B~Sgs). As indicated by \cite{Aer14} the correct identification of the broadening agents should not rely on single snapshot, but on multi-epoch observations.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{paperIII_fig5_vm_Teff_L_v1.eps}
\caption{Dependence of \vmac\ with log~${\mathscr L}$ and \Teff\ for the same stars included in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig-f5}. Stars with log~$\mathscr{L}/\mathscr{L}_{\odot}$\,$<$\,3.5 are marked in both panels with open black circles for better identification.}
\label{fig-f5b}
\end{figure}
Above $\approx$15~M$_{\odot}$ we find a more homogeneous distribution of profile types, suggesting one main broadening agent in the upper part of the sHR diagram, whose relative contribution becomes gradually less important for lower masses. Since very similar profiles are found for stars covering a broad range of effective temperatures, gravities, rotational velocities, and wind properties, none of these stellar properties seems to be a key factor in the occurrence of this extra-broadening. In addition, the fact that this broadening agent is operating in a very similar way for stars in different evolutionary stages (from the O dwarf to the late-B supergiant phases) can be considered as a strong empirical constraint to any scenario trying to explain its physical origin.
Figure~\ref{fig-f5b} reinforces these statements and also add -- in a more quantitative way -- interesting information about the dependence of \vmac\ with log~${\mathscr L}$ and \Teff. Again, both panels of Fig.~\ref{fig-f5b} indicate the absence of a remarkable connection between \vmac\ and any of these two quantities for stars with log~$\mathscr{L}/\mathscr{L}_{\odot}\lesssim$3.5 (highlighted using black open circles). Above this value, where we postulate that only one main broadening agent (in addition to rotation) begins to dominate over the rest, a clear positive correlation between \vmac\ and log~$\mathscr{L}$ is detected. Since, the quantity $\mathscr{L}$ is proportional to $L$/$M$ or, equivalently, to $\Gamma_{\rm Edd}$ or $g_{\rm rad}/g_{\rm grav}$ \citep[see][]{Lan14}, one could argue that \vmac\ becomes larger when the impact of radiation pressure (at least in the outer, but still subsonic envelope) increases. However, as we discuss in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-obs-broad}, other effects may also explain this correlation \citep[see also][]{Gra15a}.
Circles not surrounded in black in the bottom panel of Fig~\ref{fig-f5b} show the dependence of \vmac\ with \Teff\ for the case of O stars and B~Sgs (cf., stars having log~$\mathscr{L}/\mathscr{L}_{\odot}$\,$>$\,3.5 in Fig.~\ref{fig-f5}). In addition to the decrease of \vmac\ from the early- to the late-B supergiants already pointed out by previous studies \citep[see, e.g.,][]{Duf06, Lef07, Mar08, Fra10, Mar14, Sim14}, the figure seems to indicate that there is also a small decrease of this quantity from the early-B/late-O~Sgs (log\Teff~$\sim$~4.5) towards the hotter O giants and dwarfs (log\Teff~$\gtrsim$~4.5). Last, it is interesting to note that late-O dwarfs are characterized by having the lowest values of \vmac\ among the luminous OB stars (see cyan circles with log\Teff$\gtrsim$~4.45 and log$\mathscr{L}/\mathscr{L}_{\odot}$~$>$~3.2 in Figs.~\ref{fig-f5} and \ref{fig-f5b}).
\section{Discussion}\label{sec-disc}
\subsection{On the pulsational origin of macroturbulent broadening in OB stars}\label{sec-resul-hypot}
\cite{How04} presented a summary of different scenarios which had been proposed by that time to explain the existence of what we traditionally call macroturbulent broadening in O stars and B~Sgs\footnote{In this section we mainly concentrate in the OB star domain, i.e., stars with M$_{\rm ZAMS}\gtrsim$~15~M$_{\odot}$.}. In brief, these scenarios invoke the effect of stellar winds, pulsations, differential rotation, turbulent motions and rotationally-induced tangential turbulence on the stellar lines. In all cases, there is an implicit assumption that the occurrence of this spectroscopic feature is associated with large-scale velocity fields globally affecting the line-formation region.
From all these scenarios, macroturbulent broadening in the OB star domain being a spectroscopic signature of stellar oscillations is presently the most strongly considered hypothesis. Although this possibility has not been definitely proven from an observational point of view, the works by \cite{Aer09, Aer14, Sim10, Sim15a, Aer15}, and \cite{Gra15a} have produced encouraging results in this direction.
\cite{Aer09} revived the pulsational scenario, proposed already a long time ago by \cite{Luc76}, showing that the shape of the metal line-profiles observed in the high-resolution spectra of B~Sgs can be naturally reproduced by the combined velocity broadening effect of hundreds of low-amplitude non~radial gravity-mode pulsations. This work served to support theoretically, for the first time, stellar oscillations as a viable explanation for macroturbulent broadening in OB stars.
\cite{Sim10} provided for the first time firm observational evidence for a strong correlation between the amount of non-rotational broadening affecting the line-profiles in a sample of 13 OB~Sgs and the peak-to-peak amplitude of variation of the third moment (skewness) of the lines. Interestingly, very similar trends had been obtained one year before from the simulations by \cite{Aer09}. This encouraging result helped to further support -- this time from the observational point of view -- the hypothesis of stellar oscillations being the most probable physical origin of macroturbulent broadening in B~Sgs.
In this context, we remark that \citeauthor{Aer09} did not consider the excitation of the modes but rather studied the impact of a certain type of oscillations on the line-broadening and line-profile variations.
In particular, \cite{Aer09} highlighted the importance of considering a large range of mode degrees (i.e. leading to a dense frequency spectrum of modes as, for example, occurs in gravity-mode pulsators) to reproduce, thanks to their collective effect, the observed characteristics of the macroturbulent profiles in terms of global shape and structure.
Heat-driven non-radial coherent pressure (p-) or gravity (g-) modes excited by the $\kappa$-mechanism in the iron opacity bump are clear candidates to produce stellar oscillations with these characteristics in certain regions of the HR diagram. However, these are not the only possibility. Stochastically-excited oscillations giving rise to a whole spectrum of waves driven by turbulent pressure fluctuations initiated in inefficient (in transporting energy) sub-surface convection zones \citep{Gra15a, Gra15b} or by the interface of the convective core and the radiative envelope \citep{Rog13, Aer15} are other options that have been proposed. All these causes (plus maybe also others not mentioned here, e.g. strange modes, especially in the high $L/M$ regime) could be acting together, contributing with a different weight depending on the specific star.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{shrl1_sergio_worked-crop.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{shr_luca_worked-crop.eps}
\caption{Model predictions for [left] heat-driven p- and g-modes with $\ell$=1 computed by \cite{God16}, and [right] the maximum fraction of turbulent pressure over total pressure as derived by \cite{Gra15a}.
Same observations as those included in right panel in Fig~\ref{fig-f5}, with the color code
described in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-qualit} and symbol sizes proportional to \vmac. We note that
each panel consider different evolutionary tracks for coherence with the models considered in
the original papers performing the computations.}
\label{fig-f6}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Using observations to evaluate the pulsational scenario of macroturbulent broadening in OB stars}\label{sec-resul-obs}
There are many aspects that must be considered to evaluate the suggested macroturbulent/pulsational broadening connection and, in the framework of this scenario, identify the excitation mechanism starting the instabilities which, ultimately lead to the extra-broadening of the line-profiles. In this context, it is important to remark that different types of oscillations, combined with other geometrical factors, can give raise to different spectroscopically observable features (mainly in the form of variable line-profile shape, asymmetry and broadening). We refer the reader to the works by \cite{Sch97} and \cite{Tel97} for a comprehensive illustration of predicted line-profile variations originated by adiabatic non-radial pulsations in rotating stars. Therefore, we ideally have to assess -- for the various proposed driving mechanisms -- how the predictions about all these (time-dependent) line-profile characteristics confront with the observations. In this regard, we basically enter in the domain of asteroseismology.
Time-resolved spectroscopy is the best suitable way to unravel whether the line-profile behavior is connected with strict periodicity as occurs for long-term coherent modes or rather with stochastic excitation. It is also a very powerful tool to evaluate whether the line-broadening and variability is connected with a few excited modes or is the result of collective effect of waves. Last, it can also help to identify whether there is a dominance of p- or g-modes acting on the line-profiles. However, following \cite{Sim12}, we also illustrate in next section how the empirical distribution of the single snapshot line-broadening properties in the sHR diagram discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-sHR} can be used as a complementary (and definitely {\em less expensive} compared to time-resolved spectroscopy) tool to assess the viability of the possible connection between macroturbulent broadening in OB stars and some of the excitation mechanisms of (possibly-)cyclic surface motions indicated above.
\subsubsection{Distribution of macroturbulent broadening in the sHRD and driving mechanisms of stellar oscillations}\label{sec-resul-obs-broad}
In \cite{Sim15a} we used part of the observational sample presented here to investigate possible correlations between the location of stars with a remarkable macroturbulent broadening contribution and the high-order g-mode instability strips from \cite{Miglio2007a} and \cite{Godart2011}. Later on, the same observations were included in the work by \cite{Gra15a} to assess the proposed connection between turbulent pressure fluctuations initiated in inefficient (in transporting energy) sub-surface convection zones and the occurrence of macroturbulent broadening in OB stars.
In Fig.~\ref{fig-f6} we present again the comparison of observations and model predictions for both scenarios but, this time, using the complete, cleaned sample\footnote{For comparative purposes with the observational dataset used in \cite{Sim15a} and \cite{Gra15a}, the sample considered here includes $\approx$150 stars more and excludes $\approx$20 stars afterwards detected to be spectroscopic binaries using
new multi-epoch observations compiled since then.} discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-sHR}. Similarly to right panel in Fig.~\ref{fig-f5}, we combine all stars from groups A and B in the same plot, using the color code defined in Fig.~\ref{fig-f4}, symbol sizes proportional to \vmac, and excluding those stars for which this quantity could not properly determined (see Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-vsvm}).
The left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig-f6} is an updated version of Fig.~2 from \cite{Sim15a} in which we present results in the sHR diagram (instead of the \grav-log\Teff\ diagram), and include the instability strips for heat-driven p- and g-modes with $\ell$=1 resulting from a new homogeneous set of adiabatic and
non-adiabatic computations by Godart et al.\ (2016) in the whole 3\,--\,70~M$_{\odot}$ range\footnote{Although we concentrate here on $\ell$=1, Godart et al.\ (2016) actually include and discuss results for $\ell$=1\,--\,20.}.
As already commented in \cite{Sim15a}, the presence of large red circles in the upper part of the sHR diagram outside the predicted instability domains implies a strong empirical challenge to non-radial modes excited by a heat mechanism being the main physical driver of the non-rotational broadening affecting O stars and B~Sgs \citep[except maybe for the early-B Sgs, located inside the post-TAMS g-mode strip for stars with $M\gtrsim$~10~M$_{\odot}$, see also notes in][]{Aer09}. Indeed, even only considering the stars located inside instability domains we would expect a different effect on the profile shape of the low degree p- and g-modes, the latter being characterized by having a denser frequency spectrum of excited modes. But this is not what the observations are telling us (see Sects.~\ref{sec-resul-sHR} and \ref{sec-resul-step-var}).
However, this is not the last word concerning this scenario. As indicated above, the instability domains presented in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig-f6} correspond to computations for low degree modes. The situation may improve when accounting for the predictions for higher degree modes\footnote{We note that the simulations by \cite{Aer09} considered 241 excited modes with degree $\ell$ from 1 to 10.}. In addition, it is important to remark that the use of different input parameters\footnote{For reference, the instability domains presented in left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig-f6} correspond to computations performed with the ATON evolutionary code \citep{Ventura2008} assuming the OPAL opacity tables \citep{Iglesias1996}, a metallicity Z=0.015, and the metal mixture from \cite{Grevesse1993}. See \cite{God16} for further details.} (e.g. opacities, metal mixture, metallicity, overshooting parameter) or even evolutionary codes may alter the results \citep[see, e.g.,][for recent illustrations of these effects]{Miglio2007a, Miglio2007b, Zdravkov2008, Salmon2012, TurckChieze2013, Mar13, Cas14}.
It will hence be interesting to investigate how all these effects may help to bring instability domains -- in particular, those connected with g-modes -- towards the ZAMS in the O/early-B star domain, and towards cooler temperatures in the B supergiant region, in a reasonable way. In this context, we already indicate, for example, that the instability strips recently computed by \cite{Mor16} based on the new Fe opacity measurements by \cite{Bailey2015} reach all the way to the ZAMS. Concerning the late-B~Sgs, oscillations excited by the $\epsilon$-mechanism \citep{Noe86, Unn89, Mor12b} may play an important role. Last, not to forget the predicted occurrence of adiabatic strange modes for log$\mathscr{L}/\mathscr{L}_{\odot}$~$>$~3.7 (these refer to modes for which the excitation in the iron opacity bump due to the $\kappa$-mechanism is enhanced by the large amplitude of the mode trapped into a superficial cavity; see, e.g, \citeauthor{Saio1998}~\citeyear{Saio1998}, and references therein; \citeauthor{Aer10a}~\citeyear{Aer10a}). Some of these points are explored and discussed in more detail in the parallel work by \cite{God16}.
The right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig-f6} is an adaptation of Fig.~4 from \cite{Gra15a} in which we over-plot the isocontours of the quantity P$_{\rm turb}$(max)/P (maximum fraction of turbulent pressure over total pressure) as predicted by \cite{Gra15a} to the distribution of line-broadening properties of the updated sample of stars in the sHR diagram. For completeness, the information presented in this panel must be complemented with Fig.~5 in \cite{Gra15a} in which \vmac\ is plotted against P$_{\rm turb}$(max)/P.
As already pointed out by \citeauthor{Gra15a}, the good correlation found between these two quantities render the turbulent pressure scenario as a very promising one, at least regarding the upper part of the HR diagram. Indeed, the predicted behavior of the strength of this driving mechanism with \Teff\ and $\mathscr{L}$ may explain the similarity of line profiles found in the whole O and B~Sgs domain -- this scenario implies only one
broadening agent behaving in a similar way in the whole range -- and the strong dependence of \vmac\ with $\mathscr{L}$ established empirically (see Sects.~\ref{sec-resul-sHR}). However, there is still a very important point to be evaluated in this scenario. \citeauthor{Gra15a}, only provided indirect arguments indicating that turbulent pressure fluctuations initiated in sub-surface convection zones may drive high-degree
oscillations. One could extend further this argument, indicating that we might be dealing with stochastically excited waves behaving in a similar way as the (gravity) modes assumed in the simulations by \cite{Aer09}. However, all this line of argument must still be directly proven, especially regarding the fact that we must end up reproducing the observed amount of line-broadening and profile shapes characterized by not having any detectable substructure in the spectral lines. The latter is indeed an important observational constraint to be taken into account when assessing any scenario to explain macroturbulent broadening in OB stars.
Some work in this line has been recently performed by \cite{Aer15}, who also proposed a third (maybe complementary) scenario in which macroturbulent broadening is related to the occurrence of convectively driven internal gravity waves (IGWs). \cite{Aer15} based their study in two-dimensional (2D) numerical simulations as in \cite{Rog13} and showed that the stochastic spectrum of running waves caused by IGWs may lead to detectable line-profile variability and explain the extra-broadening observed in the line-profiles of OB stars. However, given the intense CPU time required by the computations they could only perform the investigation for a 3~M$_{\odot}$\ main sequence star. Therefore, we still can not compare the predictions of this scenario with the empirical distribution of line-broadening properties in the sHR diagram as in previous cases.
New simulations of such internal gravity waves across stellar evolution is hence a very interesting line of future work in this respect. In addition, as indicated in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-obs}, and illustrated in next section, the compilation and analysis of spectroscopic time-series will also provide interesting clues to identify the type of waves and the associated driving mechanism producing the different sources of non-rotational broadening and line-profile variability detected in O stars and B~Sgs (as asteroseismology has efficiently shown in the case of B stars -- among many other type of stars across the HR diagram).
\subsubsection{Macroturbulent broadening and line-profile asymmetry}\label{sec-resul-obs-asym}
Apart from broadening effects, line asymmetries and shifts are important observables for the characterization of the seismic properties of stars, in particular if we include a description of how these line properties vary with time \citep[cf. Chapters 5 and 6 of][]{Aer10b}. It is hence of interest to incorporate quantities accounting for this information to achieve any physical interpretation of macroturbulent broadening, especially in the context of stellar oscillations.
The velocity moments of the line-profile \citep{Bal86, Aer92, Sch97} have been proven to be powerful tools to characterize the temporal behavior of line asymmetry independently of the physical cause that is originating it. An interesting work in this respect is the one by \cite{Sch97}, where line-profile asymmetry due to a long lifetime oscillation mode of degree $\ell$ and azimuthal order $m$ in rotating stars is shown for a large variety of oscillation and rotational parameters (the latter quantified in terms of the rotational frequency $\Omega$ and the inclination angle $i$ of the star). The predicted moment variations along with the line-profiles are presented for many combinations of $(\ell,m,i,\Omega)$, showing that asymmetry is obvious from the moments even though the profiles themselves are seemingly symmetric. In the same line, \cite{Bri04} demonstrated that the moments of a line-profile allow to distinguish line asymmetry due to surface spots versus oscillations and \cite{Hek10} showed the utility of using the moments even in the case of stochastically excited oscillations. While these are just three illustrative examples, many other works in the last decades have shown the interest of quantifying line-profile variations by means of the line moments.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth, angle=0]{paperIII_fig4.eps}
\caption{Macroturbulent broadening (normalized to \vsini) versus asymmetry for [Top] all 432 stars considered in this paper -- no uncertainties overplotted --; [Middle] only those stars with clear asymmetric profiles; [Bottom] stars with line-profiles in which the measured value of the quantity $RSk$ is compatible with a symmetric profile given the associated uncertainty. Same colors and symbols as in Figures~\ref{fig-f4} and \ref{fig-f5}. The size of the symbols scales with \vmac.}
\label{fig-f7}
\end{figure}
In this section, we use our single-epoch observational dataset to investigate possible correlations between \vmac\ and the amount of asymmetry of the line-profiles. Being aware of the limitations of this study -- given the expected variability of the considered quantities with time \cite[see, e.g.,][]{Sim10, Aer14} -- we still consider of interest the discussion of the results of such a single snapshot approach while awaiting for the complete on-going time-resolved IACOB observations. To this aim we plot in Fig.~\ref{fig-f7} the dimensionless ratio \vmac/\vsini\ versus the, also dimensionless, quantity $RSk$ ({\em relative skewness}) defined in Sect.~\ref{sec-asym-tools}. For a cleaner presentation of results, we divide the figure in three panels. From top to bottom we include (a) the whole sample of 432 stars discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-quantit} without uncertainties in $RSk$ over~plotted, (b) only those stars with clear asymmetric profiles, and (c) the remaining stars, in which the measured $RSk\pm\sigma_{RSk}$ is compatible with a symmetric profile\footnote{We remind that, formally, a perfectly symmetric line implies $RSk$\,=\,0, while positive/negative values of the quantity $RSk$ represent a redwards/bluewards asymmetric line (see, e.g., panels A.3 and A.1 in Fig.~\ref{fig-f3}, respectively).}.
Figure~\ref{fig-f7} is complemented with the information provided in Table~\ref{tab-tx}, where we indicate the percentage of stars -- in each of the subgroups defined in Fig.~\ref{fig-f2} -- having line-profiles with clear positive/negative {\em relative skewness} or being compatible with $RSk$\,=\,0.
\begin{table} [t!]
\small
\begin{center}
\caption{Summary of results presented in Fig.~\ref{fig-f7} regarding the quantity $RSk$. Asymmetric/symmetric profiles refer to cases with |$RSk$| -- $\sigma_{RSk}$ greater/less than zero, respectively. Stars separated by subgroups as defined in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-vsvm} (see also Fig.~\ref{fig-f2}).}
\label{tab-tx}
\begin{tabular}{llccccc}
\hline\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
& & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Asymm.} & & Symm. \\
\cline{4-5} \cline{7-7}
\noalign{\smallskip}
Color & Label &\# & $RSk <$~0 & $RSk >$~0 & & \\
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
Red & A.1 & 137 & 17\% & 41\% & & 42\% \\
Orange & A.2 & 70 & 33\% & 12\% & & 55\% \\
Cyan & A.3 & 27 & 48\% & 22\% & & 30\% \\
Green & B.1 & 73 & 7\% & 19\% & & 74\% \\
Pink & B.2 & 49 & 39\% & 10\% & & 51\% \\
Blue & B.3 & 76 & 12\% & 8\% & & 80\% \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
Total & --- & 432 & 21\% & 22\% & & 57\% \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The first interesting result to be highlighted is the presence of a remarkable number of stars with clearly identified asymmetric profiles (almost half of the global sample, see last row in Table~\ref{tab-tx}). Among them, the percentage of profiles with positive/negative skewness is basically the same ($\approx$22\%). This result can be interpreted as empirical evidence of line asymmetries being associated with a variable phenomenon which is producing a time-dependent distribution of motions in the line formation region with an average velocity close to zero. Since we are considering snapshot measurements for a large number of stars, and each of these measurements can be randomly picked at any instance during the variation cycle, such a phenomenon would result in a distribution of points similar to that shown in Fig.~\ref{fig-f7}.
This would exclude, e.g., any wind-type variability or differential rotation as main cause of the asymmetries -- at least generally speaking --, as these two cases imply motions that are going along with an ``average'' velocity different from zero (i.e. is very difficult to obtain line-asymmetries which swap sign). In contrast, stellar oscillations fulfill this requirement.
Table~\ref{tab-tx} also shows that, except for the cases in which the relative contribution of the macroturbulent broadening is negligible (i.e. B.1 and B.3, where \vmac~/\vsini\ $<$~0.5), the percentage of stars with clear asymmetric profiles is always larger than 45\%. In addition, back in Fig.~\ref{fig-f7}, the larger concentration of profiles found among the most asymmetric lines are those having a dominant contribution of the macroturbulent broadening (red dots). All this suggests the potential connection between macroturbulent broadening and line-asymmetries (and hence, following the argument above, a variable phenomenon).
As indicated by \cite{Aer09, Aer14} and \cite{Sim10}, the association between stellar oscillations, the detected asymmetries and the so-called macroturbulent broadening is a promising possibility. This scenario seems to be also supported, at least in a global sense, by the distribution of stars in the \vmac/\vsini\ vs. $RSk$ diagram presented in Fig.~\ref{fig-f7}. However, a closer inspection of the distribution of points in each of the subgroups considered in Table~\ref{tab-tx} indicates that the situation may be more complex than just assuming only one type of physical driving of the (likely variable) line-broadening and line-asymmetry in the whole O and B-type star domain. For example, the fact that the $RSk$ distribution in the middle panel of Fig.~\ref{fig-f7} is weighted to positive values in group A.1 (red) and negative values in groups A.2 (orange), A.3 (cyan) and B.2 (pink) -- see also Table~\ref{tab-tx} -- deserves further attention in future studies incorporating time-resolved information about all the considered quantities.
One interesting possibility to be investigated would be related to the different effect that pressure and gravity-dominated oscillations (which have a dominant radial and transversal component, respectively) may have on snapshot properties of the line-profiles in a large sample of stars, since their amplitude distribution across the oscillation cycle in terms of asymmetry is different \citep[e.g., Chapter 6 in][]{Aer10b}. Other options to be evaluated would be the effect that stellar winds and magnetic fields may have on the skewness properties of the considered diagnostic lines.
The analysis of time-series observations of a large sample of stars covering the various types of line-profiles will allow to investigate whether the observed distribution of points in Fig.~\ref{fig-f7} is connected to the type of oscillations indicated above. In addition, the incorporation of information about the stellar wind and magnetic properties of the considered stars -- along with the single/composite status of the analyzed spectra -- will serve to identify those cases in which the shape and variability of the considered diagnostic lines can be affected by other effects apart from stellar oscillations.
\subsubsection{Macroturbulent broadening and line-profile variability: OB stars vs. well known pulsating and spotted B stars}\label{sec-resul-step-var}
\begin{table*} [t!]
\small
\begin{center}
\caption{Results from the time-dependent line-broadening analysis of a sample of eight O and B stars with an important contribution of non-rotational sources of line-broadening.}
\label{tab-t2}
\begin{tabular}{llcccccccccccl}
\hline\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\# & Star & Sp.C & N & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\vsini} & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\vmac} & log T$_{\rm eff}$ & log $\mathscr{L}/\mathscr{L}_{\odot}$ & Notes \\
\cline{5-7} \cline{9-11}
\noalign{\smallskip}
& & & & $\bar{x}$ & $\sigma_{\rm x}$ & Range & & $\bar{x}$ & $\sigma_{\rm x}$ & Range & & & \\
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\multicolumn{12}{l}{O stars and B~Sgs (OB stars) with multi-epoch observations gathered in the framework of the IACOB project} \\
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
1 & HD~199579 & O6.5~V((f))z & 112 & 56.2 & 8\% & [48.0, 69.0] & & 81.2 & 7\% & [65.0, 90.4] & 4.60 & 3.83 & SB1\\
2 & HD~36861 & O8~III & 172 & 54.2 & 3\% & [49.4, 60.0] & & 73.2 & 4\% & [64.3, 80.0] & 4.55 & 4.06 & - \\
3 & HD~38771 & B0~Iab & 154 & 61.5 & 7\% & [49.6, 71.4] & & 82.5 & 6\% & [67.5, 95.2] & 4.47 & 4.06 & - \\
4 & HD~34085 & B8~Iab & 108 & 38.7 & 7\% & [32.3, 47.6] & & 52.9 & 10\% & [47.1, 67.5] & 4.10 & 4.10 & - \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\multicolumn{12}{l}{B main sequence stars from the study by \cite{Aer14}} \\
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
5 & HD~111123 & B0.5~IV & 119 & 28.6 & 22\% & [16.5, 41.9] & & 42.8 & 11\% & [33.1, 57.3] & 4.43 & 3.42 & SB1, nr-p \\
6 & HD~16582 & B2~IV & 59 & 11.6 & 23\% & [4.1, 16.1] & & 17.7 & 10\% & [12.7, 20.8] & 4.36 & 3.04 & r \\
7 & HD~105382 & B6~III & 106 & 68.3 & 10\% & [49.6, 78.8] & & 27.6 & 40\% & [10.8, 73.0] & 4.24 & 2.15 & spot \\
8 & HD~181558 & B5~III & 30 & 4.1 & 100\% & [0, 24.7] & & 15.4 & 48\% & [ 0.0, 27.8] & 4.17 & 1.86 & nr-g \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
With the aim to support the pulsational hypothesis to explain macroturbulent broadening in massive O and B stars and validating state-of-the-art methodologies to estimate projected rotational velocities in these stellar objects, \cite{Aer14} investigated a sample of well known spotted and pulsating B stars with time-dependent profiles. They analyzed available multi-epoch spectroscopic observations by means of similar techniques as those described in \cite{Sim14} and used in this paper. They found that both line-broadening parameters vary (in anti~phase with each other) appreciably during the pulsation cycle whenever the pulsational and rotational velocity fields have similar
magnitudes. In addition, the macroturbulent velocities derived while ignoring the pulsations can vary by tens of \kms\ during the pulsation cycle. This study hence warned about misinterpretations based on a \vsini+\vmac\ single snapshot approach for the line-broadening characterization of stars with an important non-rotational broadening contribution to the line-profiles.
Here we use already available multi-epoch observations to tackle the question how this situation compares with the case of OB stars with line profiles dominated by macroturbulent broadening and provide some first results using time-resolved spectroscopy to assess the pulsational hypothesis in these more massive objects without awaiting the full time series data.
We selected for this study four representative examples among the bright O stars and B~Sgs for which we have been gathering spectroscopic time-series during the last 4-6 years as part of the IACOB project. We complement this sample of stars with another four representative
targets selected from the study by \cite{Aer14} for purposes of comparison. A total of $\approx$\,30\,--\,170 high-resolution spectra per target were analyzed in a homogeneous way, extracting information about \vsini, \vmac, and $RSk$ from each of the considered line-profiles (\ion{O}{iii}~$\lambda$5591, \ion{Si}{iii}~$\lambda$4552, \ion{Mg}{ii}~$\lambda$4481, or \ion{Si}{ii}~$\lambda$4128, depending on the spectral type).
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.98\textwidth,angle=90]{paperIII_fig8_vsvm_sHRD.eps}
\caption{Location of the eight stars discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-step-var} in the \vsini\,--\,\vmac, and sHR diagrams. Same color code as is previous figures. The four pulsating/spotted B main sequence stars considered by \cite{Aer14} are identified with square symbols, while the remaining OB stars surveyed by the IACOB project, with still unknown pulsational properties are marked with circles. Cyan and dark blue shaded region in the sHR diagram indicate the instability domains for p- and g- heat-driven modes, respectively, with $\ell$=1 computed by \cite{God16}. Dashed red lines in the same figure indicates the isocontours of the quantity P$_{\rm turb}$(max)/P as computed by \cite{Gra15a}.}
\label{fig-f11}
\end{figure*}
The list of targets considered for this study is presented in Table~\ref{tab-t2}, where we also summarize the results from the time-dependent line-broadening analysis\footnote{We remark again the homogeneity of the line-broadening analysis for the eight stars, which was performed by the same person (SS-D), with the same tool ({\sc iacob-broad}) and making the same assumptions.}, the derived stellar parameters (from the best SNR spectrum)\footnote{In the case of the four stars presented in \cite{Aer14}, we assumed the \Teff\ and \grav\ values provided in their Table~1.} and provide some notes about the type of variability.
The eight stars are located in the \vsini\,-\,\vmac\ and sHR diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig-f11}. The interest and characteristics of these diagrams have been already described in previous sections. In this case, we incorporate to the \vsini\,-\,\vmac\ diagram information about the standard deviation and scatter resulting from the \vsini\ and \vmac\ measurements of the complete time-series (thick and thin horizontal/vertical lines, respectively). We also overplot in the sHR diagram the instability domains for p- and g- heat-driven modes with $\ell$=1 (cyan and dark blue shaped region, respectively) obtained by \cite{God16}, and the isocontours (red dashed lines) of the quantity P$_{\rm turb}$(max)/P computed by \cite{Gra15a} as described in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-obs-broad}.
Figure~\ref{fig-f12} illustrates the type of line-profile shape and variability associated with each star. In particular, each panel in this figure includes three profiles, corresponding to different epochs in which the line-asymmetry analysis has resulted in the maximum, minimum, and mean values of $RSk$, respectively, as derived from the whole time-series for a given star. This figure is complemented with Fig.~\ref{fig-f13}, which shows the complete distribution of points in the $RSk$\,--\,\vsini/\vmac\ diagram resulting from the line-broadening and line-asymmetry analysis of the full spectroscopic dataset per target.\\
We highlight below some interesting results from this study:
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.98\textwidth,angle=90]{Profiles_example4.eps}
\caption{Examples of line-profile shape and variability for the sample of stars quoted in Table~\ref{tab-t2} and discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul}. The three profiles shown in each panel correspond to different epochs in which the line-asymmetry analysis has resulted in the maximum, minimum, and mean values of $RSk$, respectively, as derived from the whole time-series (see gray filled circles in Fig.~\ref{fig-f13}). Note: HD~199579 and HD~111123 are two single line spectroscopic binaries; in both cases the line-profiles have been shifted in radial velocity to account for the orbital motion of the stars.}
\label{fig-f12}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.98\textwidth,angle=90]{Profiles_example4_asym.eps}
\caption{Distribution of points in the $RSk$\,--\,\vsini/\vmac\ diagram resulting from the line-broadening and line-asymmetry analysis of the full time-series for the sample of stars quoted in Table~\ref{tab-t2}. The three gray circles highlighted in each panel correspond to the line-profiles shown in Fig.~\ref{fig-f12} (i.e., those profiles per target having minimum, maximum and close to the mean values of the quantity $RSk$). We note the different scale in the y-axis in each panel.
}
\label{fig-f13}
\end{figure*}
\begin{itemize}
\item First, we remark that in O stars and B Sgs the scatter of the \vsini\ and \vmac\ measurements resulting from the line-broadening analysis of the spectroscopic time-series is not as extreme as in the pulsating/spotted B main sequence stars (see Table~\ref{tab-t2}). In particular, the standard deviation in the derived \vsini\ is always less than 10\% in stars \#1--4, to be compared with the much larger values obtained for stars \#5--8. Therefore, the warning about the reliability of \vsini\ measurements highlighted by \cite{Aer14} is less critical for luminous OB stars, even though their line-profiles have an important contribution of the macroturbulent broadening and show variability and asymmetries.
\item A direct (qualitative) inspection of Fig.~\ref{fig-f12} already shows that while in all cases, sources of non-rotational broadening are clearly shaping the line-profiles, the global shape and type of line-variability is significantly different in both samples. Indeed, the occurrence of line-profile variability is most clearly detected by-eye in the pulsating/spotted B main sequence stars and the considered B~Sgs than in the two investigated O-type stars. In addition, the amount of variability is much larger in the B star sample, and the type of variability is qualitatively different.
\item There is a variety of shapes and types of line-profile variability in the B sample; in contrast, these two characteristics are more homogeneous in the OB sample (even though, as illustrated in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig-f11}, this latter group of stars cover a wide range in evolutionary status and stellar properties).
\item The amount of extra-broadening is much larger in the O stars and B Sgs than in the pulsating or spotted B main sequence stars (see Table~\ref{tab-t2} and left panel in Fig.~\ref{fig-f11}).
\item The spotted B star (HD~105382, \#7) is clearly separated in the \vmac/\vsini\ diagram (Fig.~\ref{fig-f11}, left panel) from the rest of the considered targets. As indicated by \cite{Aer14} the spectroscopic variability produced by the spot can be mimicked in terms of a variable combination of \vsini\ and \vmac; however, the relative contribution of the non-rotational broadening is considerably smaller in this star (even the derived \vmac\ ranges between $\approx$20 and 40~\kms).
\item Among the pulsating B main sequence stars, the one having a larger \vmac\ and a profile-shape closer to those found in the other group of stars is the low-amplitude multi~periodic non-radial pressure-mode pulsator HD~111123 (\#5, Aerts et~al. 1998; Cuypers et~al. 2002). However, the type of variability detected in this star is different from the one observed in the other considered O stars and B~Sgs. In particular, the variability is concentrated in the core of the line in the case of HD~111123, while in the OB stars the larger variability is detected in the wings.
\item While the B main sequence star identified as a non-radial gravity mode pulsator \citep[HD~181558, \#8][]{Dec02} is one of the candidates to show an important macroturbulent broadening contribution, the global broadening of the associated line-profiles is much smaller compared to what is found in OB stars. We note, however, that this characteristic may be explained by the fact that the star present one dominant g-mode while the collective effect of many modes is required to result in a much broadened line-profile.
\item There is a fairly good qualitative agreement between the predicted pulsational properties of the stars in terms of heat-driven modes -- as indicated by the instability domains --, and the observed line-profile variability\footnote{We note that even though HD~34085 (Rigel) is located far outside the considered instability domains, the variability detected in this star has been proposed to be produced by the $\epsilon$-mechanism \citep{Mor12a, Mor12b}.} (see middle panel in Fig.~\ref{fig-f11} and Fig.~\ref{fig-f12}, respectively). However, the connection between the global shape of the line-profiles and its location inside/outside instability domains is less clear, or even non-existent. Contrarily, as indicated by \citet[][see also Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-obs-broad}]{Gra15a} there seems to be a better correlation between the amount of extra-broadening and the quantity P$_{\rm turb}$(max)/P.
\item All stars, except HD~199579 (\#1) and HD~36861 (\#2) show a considerable dispersion in the quantity $RSk$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig-f13}). In the case of the pulsating/spotted B main sequence stars, the distribution of points around $RSk$\,=\,0 is roughly symmetric. The same occurs for HD~34085 (\#4). For HD~199579 (\#1), the distribution of points in the $RSk$\,--\,\vsini/\vmac\ diagram is compatible with a set of noisy (almost) symmetric line-profiles (see also Fig.~\ref{fig-f12}). Last, most of the analyzed line-profiles in the spectroscopic time-series of HD~36861 (\#2) and HD~38771 (\#3) have positive skewness.
\end{itemize}
This first combined investigation of line-broadening and line-profile variability in a small sample of O- and B-type stars highlights the need to incorporate time-series spectroscopy to study macroturbulent broadening, opening new sources of information for the understanding of this spectroscopic phenomenon \citep[as already proposed by][]{Aer14}. The results highlighted above seems to go in the same direction as the one indicated by the distribution of single snapshot line-broadening properties in the sHR diagram presented in Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-sHR} (see Fig.~\ref{fig-f5}). Namely, a different origin of the extra source of non-rotational broadening in stars with masses above $\approx$~15~M$_{\odot}$\ and B main sequence stars. In addition, the inclusion of multi-epoch information seems to indicate that there is not necessarily a connection between the observed line-profile variability and the amount of line-broadening.
\subsubsection{Concluding remarks}
In view of all the empirical clues presented in this paper, and the various scenarios proposed to explain the occurrence of macroturbulent broadening in the OB star domain (see Sect.~\ref{sec-resul-obs-broad}), we propose that the main observed properties of the line-profiles
of stars in the uppermost part of the sHR diagram are a result of the combined effect of (a) pulsation modes associated with a heat-driven mechanism and (b) possibly-cyclic surface motions initiated by turbulent pressure instabilities.
Under this assumption, and combining the proposals by \cite{Aer09} and \cite{Gra15a}, the latter mechanism would be the main responsible of the large amount of non-rotational broadening detected in O stars and B~Sgs -- though further theoretical confirmation that the turbulent pressure scenario may end up in the observed broadening is still required --. Then, operating at the same time in certain regions of the sHR diagram, long-lived p- and g-modes excited by the $\kappa$- or $\epsilon$-mechanisms (plus maybe other spectroscopic variability agents, such as spots, variable winds, or strange modes) would be the main agents producing the observed line-profile variability (and hence asymmetries).
As a consequence, above a certain $L$/$M$ ratio (or equivalently, a certain value of log~$\mathscr{L}$), stars with line-profiles affected by a similar (dominating) macroturbulent broadening may present different type of line-profile variability depending on their location in the sHR diagram (as, e.g., predicted by the corresponding instability domains). Then, as the effect of turbulent pressure diminish when moving down towards the B star domain the observed line-profile characteristics are mainly produced by the effect of coherent heat-driven modes (or spots in certain cases).
This combined scenario could easily explain why, e.g, HD~199579 (\#1) and HD~38771 (\#3) have very similar profiles in terms of global shape, but different type of variability. Indeed, no clear variability is detected in HD~199579, as expected from the predicted absence of excited heat-driven modes for O stars close to the ZAMS, while the variability found in HD~38771 could be explained in terms of the predicted gravity-mode oscillations with dominant tangential component. It would also explain why the profile of HD~111123 (\#5) is closer in shape to the line-profiles commonly found in O stars and B~Sgs, because the star is located in a region of the sHR diagram where the effect of turbulent pressure begins to be important (see middle panel in Fig.~\ref{fig-f11}). In addition, its type of line-profile variability is the one expected for a pressure-mode pulsator. Similar arguments could be applied to the rest of stars in the sample discussed in this section. For example, the remarkable line-profile variability (mainly concentrated in the wings, as expected from a g-mode pulsator), but low value of \vmac, associated with HD~181558 (\#8).
This is, hence, a scenario which allows to explain most of the empirical evidence presented along this paper, and which must be further evaluated using time-dependent spectroscopy of a larger sample of targets (from the observational point of view), along with other theoretical simulations in the line of those presented in \cite{Aer15}.
\section{Summary and future prospects}\label{sec-summary}
In this paper we provide new observational clues for the understanding of the empirical characteristics and physical origin of the so-called macroturbulent broadening in massive O and B stars. We base this study in a large, high-quality spectroscopic dataset compiled in the framework of the IACOB project during the last 7 years. This observational material comprises high-resolution ($R$\,=\,25000\,--\,85000), high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR$>$150) spectra of a sample of 432 Galactic blue massive stars with spectral types in the range O4\,--\,B9 and covering all luminosity classes. In other words, we consider stars born with $M_{\rm ZAMS}$ in the range $\approx$~4\,--\,80~$M_{\odot}$, and their evolved descendants up to effective temperatures of the order of 10000~K. The sample can be roughly divided in O stars and B~Sgs (i.e. OB stars) -- populating the uppermost part of the HR diagram --, and B dwarfs and giants -- located in or close to the main sequence phase --. We mainly concentrate in single snapshot spectra, but also consider available multi-epoch observations to identify and exclude from the studied sample clear spectroscopic binaries and to provide some empirical clues about the potential connection between macroturbulent broadening and line-profile variability.
We use a set of modern semi-automatic tools developed to perform quantitative spectroscopic analysis of large samples of O- and B-type stars in an objective, fast and reliable way. In this paper we concentrate on the information about the line-broadening (\vsini\ and \vmac) and spectroscopic (mainly \Teff\ and \grav) parameters extracted from the spectra. This information is complemented with the computation of specific quantities to quantify the amount of asymmetry ($RSk$, relative skewness) of the lines considered for the determination of the line-broadening parameters.
We identify a variety of line-profiles in terms of shape and broadening characteristics which are quantified in terms of two line-broadening parameters. Following \cite{Sim14}, we divide the sample in two main groups (comprising three subgroups each) based on the ratio \vmac/\vsini\ and taking into account the limitations of the methodology considered for the determination of these parameters. The first group include stars showing an important (or dominant) macroturbulent broadening contribution to the line-profile. The second group consists of stars in which either rotational broadening dominates or both \vsini\ and \vmac\ are below the limits of reliability of the methodology. We also identify cases in which only upper limits of \vmac\ can be determined. These mainly refer to line-profiles dominated by rotational broadening. In this case, the derived values of \vmac\ (which can indeed be large) must be considered with caution.
We then locate the complete sample in the spectroscopic HR diagram separating the stars by line-broadening characteristics. We find that the stars with an important contribution of macroturbulent broadening to their line-profiles are mainly concentrated above $\approx$15~$M_{\odot}$. From the distribution of line-broadening properties in the sHR diagram we find empirical evidence suggesting the existence of various types of non-rotational broadening agents acting in the realm of massive stars. Even though all of them could be quantitatively characterized in terms of \vmac\ -- and quoted as macroturbulent broadening --, their physical origin can be actually different. Indeed, it is natural to think that some of them could be acting at the same time, with a different relative contribution to the line-profiles, depending on the specific properties of the star at a given moment during its evolution. In particular, under this scenario, the distribution of stars in the sHR diagram indicates that, on the one hand, below $\approx$15~M$_{\odot}$ (or, equivalently log~$\mathscr{L}/\mathscr{L}_{\odot}\approx$3.5) the final shape of the stellar lines depends on a combination of different factors which are not only controlled by \Teff\, \grav, and/or \vsini. On the other hand, the homogeneity in the type of profiles found in stars in the upper part of the sHR diagram ($\gtrsim$15~M$_{\odot}$) calls for one dominant broadening agent which, indeed, is operating in a very similar way in stars with similar $L$/$M$ but very different evolutionary stages.
The investigation of the distribution of single snapshot line-profile properties of our sample of O and B stars in the $RSk$\,--\,\vmac/\vsini\ diagram seems to indicate a potential connection between macroturbulent broadening, line-asymmetries and a variable phenomenon which is producing a time-dependent distribution of motions in the line formation region with an average velocity close to zero. This statement must, however, be confirmed using multi-epoch observations, since we have found that the effect of noise in the measurement of the quantity $RSk$ may also partly explain the observed distribution.
Following this idea of using multi-epoch observations to provide further observational clues to understand macroturbulent broadening in massive stars, we started a few years ago the compilation of a spectroscopic dataset specifically designed to this aim. While awaiting for the complete dataset, we present in this paper a proof-of-concept investigation of a sample of eight O and B star for which we already count on long time-series observations gathered during several years, including $\approx$~30\,--\,170 spectra depending on the target. This sample comprises four O stars and B~Sgs with still unknown pulsational properties (if any), and four of the well known pulsating/spotted B main sequence stars considered by \cite{Aer14}. A preliminary comparative characterization of the global shape and type of variability found in this small sample of stars seems to also go in the direction of a unique (or dominating) broadening agent acting in O stars and B~Sgs which may not be related to spots or the type of oscillations found in less massive B main sequence stars (commonly associated with pressure and/or gravity heat-driven modes). In addition, we find observational evidence indicating that the line-broadening and line-profile variability observed in O stars and B~Sgs may not be necessarily connected with the same physical driver.
Based on all the empirical results presented along this paper, and the various scenarios proposed to date to explain the occurrence of macroturbulent broadening and line-profile variability in O and B stars, we launch the following hypotheses:
\begin{itemize}
\item Surface motions initiated by turbulent pressure instabilities generated in sub-surface convection zones are the main responsible for the dominant non-rotational line-broadening component in O stars and B~Sgs \cite[as already pointed out by][]{Gra15a},
\item In the B main sequence domain, once the effect of vigorous sub-surface convection becomes negligible, stellar oscillations associated with heat-driven modes become important broadening agents \cite[see also][]{Aer14}, especially when the projected rotational velocity of the star is low. However, these sources of line-broadening never lead values of \vmac\ as large as in the case of more massive stars.
\item The most clearly detected line-profile variability is mainly produced by heat-driven pulsational modes, probably in combination with other mechanisms giving rise to spectroscopic variability, such as spots, wind variability, strange modes ...
\end{itemize}
All together, these ideas provide a scenario which explains most of the observational properties of the line-profiles considered in this paper. However, before reaching a firm conclusion, it must still be further evaluated using
\begin{itemize}
\item [(a)] time-dependent spectroscopy of a larger sample of targets,
\item [(b)] theoretical simulations to confirm that the turbulent pressure scenario may end up in the observed broadening,
\item [(c)] results from the computation of instability domains of heat-driven high-degree modes for various assumptions on the considered opacities, metal mixture, overshooting parameter, or even on the stellar evolutionary code used as baseline for the adiabatic and non-adiabatic computations, and
\item [(d)] an extension of the work by \cite{Aer15} to the O star and B~Sg domain
\end{itemize}
In addition, the extension of the type of work presented here to other metallicities (e.g. considering a similar sample of stars in both Magellanic Clouds), and other stellar domains in the HR diagram \cite[see, e.g.][]{Gra15b} will certainly provide interesting clues to further support/dismiss scenarios about macroturbulent broadening in a more general context.
\begin{acknowledgements}
This work has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness (MINECO) under the grants AYA2010-21697-C05-04,
AYA2012-39364-C02-01, and Severo Ochoa SEV-2011-0187, and by the Research
Council of KU\,Leuven under grant GOA/2013/012. Part of this research received
funding from the European Research Council under the European Community's
H2020 Framework Programme, grant agreement n$^\circ$670519 (MAMSIE). This
paper made use of the IAC Supercomputing facility HTCondor
(http://research.cs.wisc.edu/htcondor/), recently expanded and improved thanks
to FEDER funds granted by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, project
code IACA13-3E-2493. We thank Pieter Degroote for interesting discussions
related to the work, and the anonymous referee for highlighting the most critical
points of the first version of this paper.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
For a function $\psi:\R^N\ra\R$ its classical Legendre transform is defined as
\cite{Fenchel,Mandelbrojt}
\be
\psi^*(y)=\sup_x [x\cdot y-\psi(x)].
\ee
This transform plays an important role in several parts of mathematics,
notably in classical mechanics and convex geometry. Being the supremum of affine functions (of $y$), $\psi^*$ is always convex and in case $\psi$ is convex it equals the Legendre transform of its Legendre transform. One easily verifies
(see Section \ref{Sec2}) that $\psi^*=\psi$ if and only if $\psi(x)=x^2/2$, so the Legendre transform is a symmetry on the space of convex functions around its fixed point $x^2/2$.
In particular this applies when $\R^N=\C^n$. In this case we change the definition slightly and put
\be
\hat\psi(w)=\sup_z[ 2\Re (z\cdot \bar w)-\psi(z)],
\ee
where $a\cdot b:=\sum_{i=1}^n a_i b_i$.
The reason for this change is that while the supremum in (1.1) is attained if $y=\partial \psi(x)/\partial x$, the supremum in (1.2) is attained if $w=\partial\psi(z)/\partial\bar z$, and one verifies that the unique fixed point is now $\psi(z)=|z|^2$.
In this connection a very interesting observation was made by Lempert, \cite{Lempert}: Put $\omega_\psi:=i\ddbar\psi$. Assuming that $\psi$ is smooth and strictly convex, $g^*\omega_{\hat\psi}=\omega_\psi$, if $g(z)=\partial\psi(z)/\partial\bar z$. It follows from this that
\be
g^*\omega_{\hat\psi}^n=\omega_\psi^n.
\ee
The measure $\omega_\psi^n/n!=:\h{MA}_\C(\psi)$ is the complex Monge--Amp\`ere measure associated to $\psi$, and Lempert's theorem thus implies that
$\h{MA}_\C(\psi)$ and $\h{MA}_\C(\hat\psi)$ are related under the gradient map $g$.
This may be compared and perhaps contrasted to the way real Monge--Amp\`ere measures transform under gradient maps, see Section~\ref{Sec2}.
At this point we recall the definition of the Mabuchi metric in the somewhat nonstandard setting of smooth, strictly plurisubharmonic functions on $\C^n$. The idea is to view this space as an infinite dimensional manifold; an open subset of the space of all smooth functions. Its tangent space at a point $\phi$ should consist of smooth functions $\chi$ such that $\phi+t\chi$ remains strictly plurisubharmonic for $t$ close enough to zero. This set of course depends on the particular $\phi$ we have chosen, but at any rate the tangent space will always contain smooth functions of compact support, so we take by definition the space of such functions as our tangent space. The Mabuchi norm of a tangent vector $\chi$ at a point $\phi$ is now defined by
\be
\|\chi\|^2_\phi:= \int_{\C^n} |\chi|^2 \omega_\phi^n/n!.
\ee
We will interpret (1.3) as saying that the Legendre transform is an isometry for the Mabuchi metric on the space of convex functions (see section 4). It follows, at least formally, that the Legendre transform maps geodesics for the Mabuchi metric to geodesics, which reflects the so called duality principle for the complex method of interpolation \cite{BBDY}.
This is only a
special case of Lempert's result, which implies that a much more general class of gradient-like maps are isometries for the Mabuchi metric. In this note we will develop this scheme and define `Legendre tranforms' for K\"ahler potentials over a manifold $M$, usually compact.
For this we note first that the usual Legendre transform is not involutive on all plurisubharmonic functions, but just on convex functions, hence in particular on functions that are close to its fixed point $|z|^2$. Imitating this, we start with a (local) K\"ahler potential $\phi$ on $M$, and define a 'Legendre tranform' depending on $\phi$ that is defined for potentials close to $\phi$, fixes $\phi$ and is an isometry for the Mabuchi metric. For this to work, we need to assume that $\phi$ is real analytic. The definition of the $\phi$-Legendre transform involves a polarization of our real analytic potential, which is locally a function $\phi_\C(z,w)$ defined near the diagonal in $M\times M$. $\phi_\C$ is
holomorphic in $z$, antiholomorphic in $w$ and coincides with $\phi$ on the diagonal (these properties determine $\phi_\C$ uniquely). Roughly speaking, the idea is then to replace $z\cdot \bar w$ by $\phi_\C$ and define our transform as
\be
(\L_\phi \psi)(w):=\sup_z [ 2\Re\phi_\C(z,w)-\psi(z)].
\ee
When $\phi(z)=|z|^2$ this gives us back the Legendre transform of (1.2). Let us first examine this transform
in the case of a linear space, the cradle of the classical Legendre transform. Write $\Delta_{\CC^n} = \{ (z,z) \, ; \, z \in \CC^n \}$ for the diagonal.
We say that a smooth function $\phi$
on $\CC^n$ is strongly plurisubharmonic if its complex Hessian is bounded from below by a positive constant, uniformly
at all points of $\CC^n$.
\begin{thm}
Let $\phi: \CC^n \rightarrow \RR$ be a real-analytic, strongly plurisubharmonic function.
Then there are an open set $V_\phi \subseteq \CC^n \times \CC^n$ containing $\Delta_{\CC^n}$
and a neighborhood $U$ of $\phi$ in the $C^2$-norm on $\CC^n$ with the following properties:
0. For $u \in U$ the function $\L_{\phi}(u): \CC^n \rightarrow \RR \cup \{ + \infty \}$ is well-defined, where the supremum in (1.5)
runs over all $z$ with $(z,w) \in V_{\phi}$.
1. $\L_\phi(u)=u$ if and only if $u=\phi$.
2. For $u$ in a smaller neighbourhood $U'\subset U$, the function $\L_\phi(u)$ lies in $U$ and $L_\phi^2(u)=u$.
3. $\L_\phi$ is an isometry for the Mabuchi metric restricted to $U$.
\end{thm}
The transform in (1.5) works fine if $\phi$, $\psi$ and $\phi_\C$ are defined on all of $\C^n$ or $\C^{2n}$, but for functions that are only locally well defined we need to find a variant of the definition that has a global meaning on a manifold.
For this it turns out to be very convenient to use a remarkable idea of Calabi, \cite{Calabi}. The Calabi {\it diastasis function} is defined as
$$
D_\phi(z,w)=\phi(z)+\phi(w)-2\Re\phi_{\C}(z,w).
$$
We then change the above definition by applying it to $\psi+\phi$ instead of $\psi$, and then subtract $\phi$ afterwards. This way we arrive at the equivalent transform
$$
L_\phi(\psi)(w):=\L_\phi(\psi+\phi)(w)-\phi(w)=\sup_z (-D_\phi(z,w) -\psi(z)).
$$
Notice that in the classical case when $\phi(z)=|z|^2$, $D_\phi(z,w)=|z-w|^2$ and the transform becomes the familiar variant of the Legendre transform
$$
\sup_z -(|z-w|^2 +\psi(z)).
$$
The point of this is that, as is well known from the work of Calabi, $D_\phi$ only depends on $\omega_\phi=i\ddbar\phi$, i e it does not change if we add a pluriharmonic function to $\phi$. As we shall see this implies that our construction of $L_\phi=L_{\omega_\phi}$ globalizes and becomes well defined on functions $\psi$ on a manifold $M$ that are close to 0 in the $C^2$-norm. Following the ideas, but not the precise proof, of Lempert, we can then verify that $L_{\o_\phi}$ is an isometry for the Mabuchi metric on $\U_{\omega_\phi}$. Our main result is as follows:
\begin{thm}
Let $M$ be a compact K\"ahler manifold, and let $\omega$ be a real analytic K\"ahler form on $M$. Let $\H_\omega:=\{u\in C^\infty(M); i\ddbar u+\omega>0\}$. Then the generalized Legendre transform, $L_\omega$ (defined in section 4) is defined on a neigbourhood $U$ of 0 in $\H_\omega$ in the $C^2$-toplogy and
1. $L_\omega(u)=u$ if and only if $u=0$.
2. For $u$ in a smaller neighbourhood $U'\subset U$, $L_\omega(u)$ lies in $U$ and $L_\omega^2(u)=u$.
3. $L_\omega$ is an isometry for the Mabuchi metric on $\H_\omega$ restricted to $U$.
\end{thm}
\section{The classical Legendre transform}
\label{Sec2} As a warm up and for comparison we first briefly look at the classical Legendre transform, (1.1). If $\psi$ is differentiable, and if the supremum in the right hand side is attained in a point $x$, then $y=\partial\psi/\partial x=:g_\psi(x)$. Hence we have that
\be
x\cdot y\leq \psi(x)+\psi^*(y)
\ee
with equality if and only if $y=g_\psi(x)$, or in other words $x\cdot g_\psi(x)-\psi(x)=\psi^*(g_\psi(x))$.
If moreover $\psi$ is assumed smooth and strictly convex, $g_\psi$ is invertible. It follows that $\psi^*$ is also smooth, and by the symmetry of (2.1) that the inverse of $g_\psi$ is $g_{\psi^*}$. Recall that the (real) Monge--Amp\`ere measure of a (smooth) convex function is $\h{MA}_\R(\psi):=\det(\psi_{j,k}(x))dx$. It follows from the above that
$$
g_\psi^*(dy)=\h{MA}_\R(\psi),\quad \mbox{and}\quad g_{\psi^*}^*(dx)=\h{MA}_\R(\psi^*).
$$
We next turn to the Legendre transform of functions on $\C^n$ and its relation to complex Monge--Amp\`ere measures. We then redefine the Legendre transform by (1.2). Equality now occurs when $w=\partial\psi(z)/\partial \bar z=:g_\psi$, where we have also redefined the gradient map $g$ to fit better with complex notation. We now give the first case of Lempert's theorem; it should be compared to how {\it real} Monge--Amp\`ere measures transform.
\begin{thm}
\label{gpsiThm}
{\rm (Lempert)} With the above notation
\be
g_\psi^*(\omega_{\hat\psi})=\omega_\psi,
\ee
so the complex Monge--Amp\`ere measures of $\psi$ and $\hat\psi$ are related by $g_\psi^*(\h{MA}_\C(\hat\psi))=\h{MA}_\C(\psi)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} Let $\Lambda=\{(z,w); w=g_\psi(z)\}$ be the graph of the gradient map $g_\psi$ considered as a submanifold of $\C^{2n}$. On $\Lambda$
$$
d(z\cdot\bar w)=\partial\psi(z) +\dbar\hat\psi(w).
$$
(This is simply because when $(z,w)$ lie on $\Lambda$, then $\partial\psi(z)=\sum \bar w_j dz_j$ and $\dbar\hat\psi(w)=\sum z_j d\bar w_j$.)
Since the left hand side is a closed form, it follows that
$$
\bar\partial\partial\psi(z)=d\partial\psi(z)=-d\dbar\hat\psi(w)=-\ddbar\hat\psi(w).
$$
If we pull back this equation under the map $z\to (z,g_\psi(z))$ we get
$$
\ddbar\psi=g_\psi^*(\ddbar\hat\psi),
$$
which proves the theorem.
\end{proof}
We remark that the apparent discrepancy between how the gradient map transforms the real versus the complex Monge--Amp\`ere measures can be rectified as follows. First, since $[\psi^{ij}]:=[\psi_{ij}]^{-1}=[\psi^*_{ij}]$
under appropriate regularity assumptions, the Riemannian metric
$\psi_{ij}dx^i\otimes dx^j$ is the pull-back of $\psi^*_{ij}dy^i\otimes dy^j$
via the gradient map $\nabla\psi:\R^n\ra\R^n$. Therefore
the gradient map pulls back the measure $\sqrt{\det[\psi^*_{ij}]}dy^1\w\cdots\w
dy^n$ to the measure $\sqrt{\det[\psi_{ij}]}dx^1\w\cdots\w
dx^n$. When $M$ has toric symmetry, Theorem \ref{gpsiThm} precisely produces this observation via a careful translation between the real notation and the complex notation
(cf. the proof of \cite[Proposition 2.1]{CR}).
\section{Complex Legendre transforms}
Let $\O$ denote a domain in $\CC^n$.
Denote by $\phi$ a real-analytic psh function on $\O$.
Denote by $\phiC$ the analytic extension of $\phi$ to a holomorphic function on
a neighborhood $W_\phi$ of the diagonal in $\CC^n\times\overline{\CC^n}$
(whenever $(M,J)$ is a complex manifold we denote by $\overline M$
the complex manifold $(M,-J)$). Such an extension exists since the diagonal
$$
\Delta_{\CCfoot}:=\{(p,p)\in \CC^n\times \CC^n\,:\, p\in \CC^n\}
$$
is totally real in $\CC^n\times\overline{\CC^n}$.
We immediately switch point of view and work from now on in $\CC^n\times \CC^n$,
where $\phiC$ can be considered as a function on
$$
W_\phi\subset \CC^n\times \CC^n
$$
that is holomorphic in the first factor and anti-holomorphic
in the second. Explicitly, if in local coordinates
$$
\phi(z)=\sum c_{\alpha,\beta}z^\alpha \bar {z}^\beta,
$$
then
$$
\phiC(z,w)=\sum c_{\alpha,\beta}z^\alpha \bar {w}^\beta.
$$
The
{\it Calabi diastasis function} associated to a real-analytic
strongly psh function $\phi$ on $\O\subset\CC^n$
is the function
\beq\label{DphiEq}
\Dphi(p,q):=
\phi(p)+\phi(q)
-\phiC(p,q)-\phiC(q, p)
=
\phi(p)+\phi(q)
-2\Re\phiC(p,q).
\eeq
defined on $W_\phi\subset \O\times\O$.
Clearly $\Dphi(p,q) = \Dphi(q,p)$ with $\Dphi(p,p) = 0$. In the local coordinates,
$$ \Dphi(p,q) = \sum c_{\alpha,\beta} (p^{\alpha} - q^{\alpha}) \overline{(p^{\beta} - q^{\beta})}. $$
Note that the first non-zero term in the Taylor series is non-negative
as $\phi$ is psh. Moreover,
denote by $\pi_i:\CC^n\times \CC^n\ra \CC^n, \; i=1,2,$ the natural projections,
i.e., $\pi_1(z,w)=z, \pi_2(z,w)=w$.
Calabi proves the following \cite{Calabi}.
\blem
\label{CalabiLemma}
There exists an open neighborhood $V_\phi$
of $\Delta_{\O}$ contained in
$W_\phi$
on which
$\Dphi(\,\cdot\,,q)$
is strongly convex with
\beq\label{StrictConvEq}
\Dphi(z,q)
\ge
C|z-q|^2
\q
\h{on\ }
\pi_1(V_{\phi}\cap \O\times\{q\}).
\eeq
\elem
We can now define a Legendre type transform
associated to $\phi$.
For simplicity, whenever we refer to a function
in our discussions
below, we do not allow the constant function $+\infty$. We denote by
$\usc f$ the upper semi-continuous (usc) regularization of a function $f:X\ra \RR$,
$$
\usc f(x):=\lim_{\delta\ra0}\sup_{y\in X\atop |y-x|<\delta}f(y).
$$
It is the smallest usc function majorizing $f$.
\bdefin
\label{cxLegDef}
The complex Legendre transform $\Lphi$ is a mapping
taking a function $\psi:\O\ra\RR\cup\{\infty\}$ to
$$
\Lphi(\psi)(q)
:=
\usc\sup_{
p\in \O \atop (p,q)\in V_\phi
}
[2\Re \phiC(p,q)-\psi(p)].
$$
\edefin
Since $\Re \phiC(p,q)$ is pluriharmonic in $q$, $\Lphi$ is psh.
The definition depends on $V_\phi$, and we discuss that
dependence later.
When $\phi(z)=|z|^2$, then
$\phiC(z,w)=z\cdot \overline{w}$, while
$\Dphi(z,w)=|z-w|^2$, $C=1$ and $W_\phi=V_\phi=\CC^n\times\CC^n$; we recover, up to
a factor of 2, the Legendre
transform on $\RR^{2n}$.
\blem
\label{SelfDualLemma}
Let $\psi:\O\ra\RR\cup\{\infty\}$. Then
$\Lphi(\psi)=\psi$ if and only if $\psi=\phi$.
\elem
\bpf
According to Lemma \ref{CalabiLemma}, whenever $(z,w)\in V_\phi$,
$$
2\Re\phiC(z,w)\le \phi(z)+\phi(w),
$$
with equality iff $z=w$. Thus $\Lphi\phi=\phi$.
Conversely, suppose $\Lphi\psi=\psi$. Then, whenever $(z,w)\in V_\phi$,
$$
\psi(z)+\Lphi\psi(w)=
\psi(z)+\psi(w)
\ge 2\Re\phiC(z,w).
$$
Setting $z=w$ gives $\psi\ge \phi$. Since the complex Legendre transform
is order-reversing then also $\psi\le \phi$.
\epf
\bdefin
\label{phiCvxDef}
Say that a function $\psi:\O\ra\RR\cup\{\infty\}$ is $\phi$-convex
if $\psi=\Lphi\eta$
for some usc function $\eta:\O\ra\RR\cup\{\infty\}$.
\edefin
\blem
\label{DoubleDualLemma}
Let $\eta:\O\ra\RR\cup\{\infty\}$ be usc.
Then $\calL^2_\phi\eta\le\eta$ with equality
iff $\eta$ is $\phi$-convex.
\elem
\bpf
Whenever $(z,w)\in V_\phi$,
$$
\eta(z)+\Lphi\eta(w)\ge 2\Re\phiC(z,w).
$$
Thus,
\beq\label{LtwoetaEq}
\calL^2_\phi\eta(z)
=
\usc\sup_w[2\Re\phiC(w,z)-\Lphi\eta(w)]\le \usc\, \eta(z)=\eta(z).
\eeq
Next, if $\calL^2_\phi\eta=\eta$, then by definition $\eta$
is $\phi$-convex. It remains therefore to show the converse,
and for this
it suffices to show that
$\Lphi^3\nu=\Lphi\nu$ for any usc function $\nu:\O\ra\RR\cup\{\infty\}$.
By \eqref{LtwoetaEq}, $\Lphi^3\nu\le\Lphi\nu$.
However,
$\calL^2_\phi\nu\le\nu$ by \eqref{LtwoetaEq},
thus $\Lphi^3\nu\ge\Lphi\nu$.
\epf
\section{Legendre duality on compact manifolds}
Remarkably, a variant of these transforms can be defined on any
\K manifold $M$. Let $\omega$ be a closed strictly positive
real-analytic $(1,1)$-form
on $M$.
Locally then $\omega$ equals $\i\ddbar u$ for some strongly psh
real-analytic function $u$, and we define $u_\CC$ and subsequently
$$
D_\omega:=D_u,
$$
locally. To check that these definitions are actually
consistent globally and give rise to a diastasis function on a non-empty neighborhood
of $\Delta_M$ it suffices to observe
\cite{Calabi}
that
whenever $h$ is a real-valued
function on a ball in $\CC^n$ that is pluriharmonic, i.e., $\i\ddbar h=0$,
then $h=h_1(p)+\overline{h_1(p)}$ with $h_1$ holomorphic; thus,
$h_{\CCfoot}(p,\b q)=h_1(p)+\overline{h_1(q)}$, so
$D_h\equiv 0$.
Once again, by a variant of Lemma \ref{CalabiLemma} \cite[Proposition 5]{Calabi}
we obtain an open neighborhood $V_\omega$ of the diagonal on which $D_\omega$ is nonnegative and strongly convex in each variable and on which $\omega$
admits local real analytic \K potential $u$ for which $u_\CC$ exists.
This neighborhood contains a $\delta$-tubular neighborhood (with respect to some Riemannian metric) of the diagonal, at least whenever $M$ is compact.
Now, fix a real-analytic \K form $\o$ on $M$.
We can now define a Legendre transform with respect to $\o$.
\bdefin
\label{cxLegGlobalDef}
The complex Legendre transform $L_\o$ maps a function
$\psi:M\ra\RR\cup\{\infty\}$ to
$$
L_\omega(\psi)(q):=\usc\sup_{p\in M\atop (p,q)\in V_{\ovp}}
[-D_\o(p,q)-\psi(p)].
$$
\edefin
As in the setting of $\O\subset \CC^n$, the transform also depends on
$V_{\ovp}$.
\bdefin
\label{phiCvxDef}
Say that $\psi$ is $\o$-convex
if $\psi=L_\o\eta$ for some usc function $\eta:M\ra\RR\cup\{\infty\}$.
\edefin
The following lemmas follow in the same manner as Lemmas
\ref{SelfDualLemma} and \ref{DoubleDualLemma}.
In fact, intuitively, $L_\o$ is locally given by
$$
L_\o(\psi)(q)=\calL_{u}(u+\psi)-u,
$$
where $u$ is a local \K potential for $\o$.
\blem
\label{SelfDual2Lemm}
Let $\psi:M\ra\RR\cup\{\infty\}$. Then
$L_\o(\psi)=\psi$ if and only if $\psi=0$.
\elem
\blem
\label{DoubleDual2Lemma}
Let $\eta:M\ra\RR\cup\{\infty\}$.
Then $L_\o^2\eta\le\eta$ with equality
iff $\eta$ is $\o$-convex.
\elem
\section{A generalized gradient map}
\label{GradientSection}
The fact that Calabi's diastasis $D_\o$ is locally uniformly convex
in each variable
on a neighborhood of the diagonal
should, intuitively, ensure
the supremum in the definition of $L_\o$ is attained in a unique point.
In this section we
make this intuition rigorous by giving a condition that ensures the supremum is
attained.
We will discuss only the case of compact manifolds. The case of non compact manifolds, leading up to Theorem 1.1, is proved similarily.
\bthm
\label{CxLegCompactThm}
Let $(M,\o)$ be a compact closed real-analytic \K manifold. There exists $\eps=\eps(\o)>0$ such
that for every function $\eta$ satisfying $||\eta||_{C^2(M)}<\eps$, the supremum in Definition 4.1 is for any $q$ in $M$ attained at a unique point, $z=G(\eta)(q)$.
\medskip
1. If $\eta$ is of class $C^k$ then $G(\eta)$ is a diffeomorphism of $M$ of class $C^{k-1}$.
\medskip
2. $L_\o(\eta)$ is of class $C^k$ and the map $\eta\to L_\o(\eta)$ is continuous for the $C^k$-topology.
\medskip
3. $L^2_\o(\eta)=\eta$.
\medskip
4. $G(L_\o(\eta))=G(\eta)^{-1}$.
\ethm
\begin{proof}
Because $M $ is compact, the neighborhood $V_\o$ contains a ball of fixed size, call it $\delta>0$ (with respect to the the distance function $d$ of the reference metric $\o$, say), around every point on the diagonal.
Fix $q\in M$.
Let
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\label{fqEq}
f_q(z)
=
-D_\o(z,q)-\eta(z), \q z\in \pi_1(V_\o\cap (M\times\{q\})).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We claim that $f_q$ attains a unique maximum in $\pi_1(V_\o\cap (M\times\{q\}))$.
First, Lemma \ref{CalabiLemma} implies that
$$
f_q(z)\le -Cd(z,q)^2-\eta(z), \q z\in \pi_1(V_\o\cap (M\times\{q\})),
$$
and if $||\eta||_{C^2(M)}$ is sufficiently small, $f_q$ is uniformly concave on $\pi_1(V_\o\cap (M\times\{q\}))$.
If $||\eta||_{C^0(M)}<\eps$,
$$
f_q(q)\ge -\eps,
$$
while,
$$
f_q(z)\le -Cd(z,q)^2+\eps, \q z\in \pi_1(V_\vp\cap (M\times\{q\})),
$$
So, if $\eps$ is small enough,
$$
f_q(z)\le -2\eps, \q z\in
\pi_1(V_\vp\cap (M\times\{q\}))\sm B_{\delta/2}(q),
$$
Thus we see that the maximum of $f_q$ over
$\pi_1(V_\o\cap (M\times\{q\}))$
must be attained at a point in $B_{\delta/2}(q)$, which moreover is unique by the strict concavity of $f_q$.
This maximum point is the unique solution $z$ of
\beq
\label{Supr2Eq}
F_q(z):=
\nabla_z f_q(z)=
0
\eeq
in $B_{\delta/2}(q)\subset \pi_1(V_\phi\cap (M\times\{q\}))$.
We denote this unique solution
by
$z=G(\eta)(q)$.
Thus,
\beq
L_\o(\eta)(q)=f_q(G(\eta)(q))
\label{LphiSupAttainedCptEq}
\eeq
Since $f_q$ is uniformly concave in $B_{\delta/2}(q)$,
the Implicit Function Theorem (IFT) implies that $G(\eta)(q)$
is of class $C^{k-1}$ in $q$ whenever $\eta\in C^k$.
Thus, by \eqref{LphiSupAttainedCptEq} it follows that
$L_\o\psi\in C^{k-1}$.
Next, we claim that $G(\eta)$
is invertible.
To see that, let
\beq
\label{Supr2Eq}
F_{t,q}(z):=
\nabla f_{t,q}(z),
\q
f_{t,q}(z):=-D_\o(z,q)-t\eta(z).
\eeq
The IFT, applied to $F_{t,q}$, implies that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\label{GvptEq}
\nabla G(t\eta)=
-(\nabla_z F_{t,q})^{-1} \nabla_q F_{t,q}
=
(\nabla^2_z D_\o(z,q)-t\nabla^2_z\eta)^{-1} \nabla_q F_{q}
.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
When $t=0$, Lemma \ref{SelfDual2Lemm} implies that $G(0)(q)=q$,
so
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\label{Gvp0Eq}
I
=
\nabla G_\vp(0)
=
-(\nabla^2_z F_{q})^{-1} \nabla_q F_{q}
=
(\nabla^2_z D(z,q))^{-1} \nabla_q F_{q}
.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{GvptEq} and \eqref{Gvp0Eq} we see that whenever $||\eta||_{C^2}$
is sufficiently small, the Jacobian of $G(t\eta)$ is positive definite for all $t\in[0,1]$, hence the Jacobian of $G(\eta)$ is invertible. This means that $G(\eta)$ is locally injective, i e that if $q\neq q'$ and $d(q,q')$ is sufficiently small, then $G(\eta)(q)\neq G(\eta)(q')$. Since we moreover know that $G(\eta)$ is uniformly close to the identity, this gives that $G(\eta)$ is globally injective. Since it is also open, it is a diffeomorphism onto its image.
That the supremum in Definition 4.1 is obtained for $z=G(\eta)(q)$ means that
\be
L_\o(\eta)(q)=-D_\o(G(\eta)(q),q)-\eta(G((\eta)(q)).
\ee
Since, for $(z,q)\in V_\o$ we always have
\be
\eta(z)\geq -D_\o(z,q)-L_\o(\eta)(q)
\ee
it follows that
\be
\nabla L_\o(\eta)(q)=-\nabla_q D_\o(z,q).
\ee
when $G(\eta)(q)=z$, so
\be
\nabla L_\o(\eta)(q)=-(\nabla_q D_\o)(G(\eta)(q),q).
\ee
But $D_\o$ is smooth, in fact real analytic, so we get, since $G(\eta)$ is of class $C^{k-1}$ that $\nabla L_\o(\eta)$ is of class $C^{k-1}$ too. In other words $L_\o(\eta)$ is of class $C^k$.
On the other hand, if $\eta$ is close to zero, we know that $G(\eta)$ is close to the identity, which is $G(0)$. Hence, by (5.9), $\nabla L_\o(\eta)$ is close to $\nabla L_\o(0)=0$. Since it follows directly from the definition that the $C^0$-norm of $L_\o(\eta)$ is small if the $C^0$-norm of $\eta$ is small, it follows that $L_\o(\eta)$ is close to zero in the $C^k$-norm if $\eta$ is close to zero in the $C^k$-norm. In particular, with $k=2$, this implies that we can apply the arguments in the beginning of this proof to $L_\o(\eta)$. Then (5.6) implies that $L_\o^2(\eta)=\eta$ and that $G(L_\o(\eta))=G(\eta)^{-1}$.
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{The inverse gradient map and the complex \MA operator}
As we shall comment later on, our next result can be
viewed as a variant of a result of Lempert.
\bthm
\label{CxGradMapThm}
Fix a real-analytic \K form $\o$.
Then, for each smooth function $\psi$ such that $\i\ddbar\psi +\o >0$, we let $\omega_\psi:=\o+\i\ddbar\psi$. Then if $\psi$ satisfies the assumptions of
Theorem \ref{CxLegCompactThm}
$$
G(\psi)^\star \o_\psi = \o_{L_\o\psi}.
$$
Therefore, the complex \MA measure of $\psi$, $\o_\psi^n$, is pulled-back under
$G(\psi)$ to the complex \MA measure of $L_\o\psi$.
\ethm
As pointed out in the introduction and section 2, this should be compared with the contrasting
fact that the real \MA operator
is pulled-back under the inverse gradient map to the Euclidean measure.
\bpf
Since the statement is local we look at a neighborhood $W\subset M$ where we
have a real-analytic K\"ahler potential $\phi$ of $\omega$.
By definition, for $(z,w)\in V_\o$
$$
-D_\o(z,w)
\leq \psi(z)+L_\o\psi(w)
$$
with equality precisely when $z=G(\psi)(w)$. Let $\Lambda$ be the set where this holds. Then, when $(z,w)\in\Lambda$,
$$
-\del_z D_\o(z,w)
=\del_z\psi(z),
$$
or, equivalently,
$$
-\dbar_w D_\o(z,w)
=
\dbar_wL_\o\psi(w).
$$
In other words (since $D_\o(z,w)=\phi(z)+\phi(w)-\phi_\C(z,w) -\bar\phi_\C(z,w)$),
\beq
\label{delz1Eq}
\del_z\phi_\C (z,w)-\del_z\phi(z)
=\del_z\psi(z),
\eeq
and
\beq
\label{delz2Eq}
\dbar_w\phi_\C(z,w)-\dbar_w \phi(w)
=
\dbar_w L_\o\psi(w).
\eeq
This means that the identity holds when both sides are considered
as forms on $\C^{2n}$ and $(z,w)$ lies on $\Lambda$.
Since $\Lambda$ is the graph of $G(\psi)$, $\Lambda$ is a manifold of real dimension $2n$.
Let $p_1$ and $p_2$ be the projections of $W\times W$ to the first and second factors, and let $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ be their restrictions to $\Lambda$.
By Theorem \ref{CxLegCompactThm},
$\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ are invertible maps and
\beq\label{GvpEq}
G(\psi)
=
\pi_1\circ\pi_2^{-1}.
\eeq
By (6.1) and (6.2),
$$
d\phi_\C(z,w)
=
\pi_1^\star\partial(\phi+\psi)(z)
+
\pi_2^\star\dbar(\phi+L_\o\psi)(w), \q \h{when $(z,w)\in\Lambda$.}
$$
Hence the same identity holds when we restrict both sides to $\Lambda$ as differential forms.
Since the left hand side is a closed form, it follows that
$$
\pi_1^*d\partial(\phi+\psi)(z) +\pi_2^*d\dbar(\phi+L_\o\psi)(w)=0, \q \h{on $\Lambda$.}
$$
If we apply $(\pi_2^{-1})^*$ to this equation we get
$$
(\pi_2^{-1})^*\pi_1^*\dbar\partial(\phi+\psi)+\partial\dbar(\phi+L_\o\psi)=0.
$$
By \eqref{GvpEq} it follows that
$$
G(\psi)^\star\omega_\psi=G(\psi)^\star(\i\ddbar(\phi+\psi))=
\i\ddbar(\phi+L_\o\psi)=\omega_{L_\o\psi},
$$
so we are done.
\epf
\section{The Mabuchi metric}
Let $M$ be a closed compact \K manifold.
Recall that if $\omega$ is a K\"ahler form on $M$, the space of $\omega$-plurisubharmonic functions, $\H_\omega$ is the space of smooth functions on $M$ such that $\omega_\psi:=\i\ddbar\psi+\omega>0$. This is an open subset of the space of smooth functions and inherits a structure as a differentiable manifold from the one on $C^\infty(M)$. The tangent space to $\H_\omega$ is the space of smooth functions on $M$ and
one defines a weak Riemannian metric on $\H_\omega$ by
$$
g_M(\nu,\chi)_\psi =\int_M \nu\chi\omega_\psi^n,
$$
for every $\nu,\chi\in T_\psi\H_\o\cong C^\infty(M)$.
\begin{prop}
\label{FirstVarProp}
Let $\o$ be real-analytic.
There exists a neighborhood $\U_\omega$ of 0 in $\calH_\o$ in the $C^2$ topology
such that
$L_\o$ defines a Fr\'echet differentiable map from $\U_\omega$ to $\U_\omega$.
Its differential is
$$
dL_\o(\eta). \chi=-\chi\circ G(\eta), \q \forall \eta\in \U_\omega.
$$
\end{prop}
\bpf
Let $q\in M$.
Define (cf. \eqref{fqEq}),
$$
f_q(z,\eta):=
-D_\o(z,q)-\eta(z), \q z\in \pi_1(V_\o\cap (M\times\{q\})),
$$
and let $F_q(z,\eta):=\nabla_z f_q(z,\eta)$. Then $F_q$ is of class $C^{k-1}$ if $\eta$ is of class $C^k$. By the implicit function theorem
the equation
$$
F_q(z,\eta)=0
$$
defines $z$ as a function of $\eta$, $z=z(\eta)$, and since $z(\eta)$ is the point maximazing $f_q(z,\eta)$ for given $\eta$ we have that $z(\eta)=G(\eta)(q)$ (which we now regard as a function of $\eta$, while $q$ is fixed). Hence we see that $z(\eta)=G(\eta)(q)$ is of class $C^{k-1}$. Moreover
$$
L_\o(\eta)(q)=f_q(z(\eta), \eta).
$$
Hence, by the chain rule
$$
d/dt|_{t=0} L_\o(\eta +t\chi)= d/dt|_{t=0}f_q(z(\eta), \eta+t\chi),
$$
since $\nabla_zf_q(z,\eta)=0$ for $z=z(\eta)$. Since
$$
d/dt|_{t=0}f_q(z(\eta), \eta+t\chi)=-\chi(z(\eta))=-\chi(G(\eta)(q))
$$
we are done.
\epf
\begin{thm} Let $M$ be a closed compact K\"ahler manifold and let $\omega$ be a real analytic K\"ahler form.
There exists a $C^2$ neighborhood $\U_\o$ of $0$ in $\calH_\o$
such that
$L_\o$ defines a Fr\'echet differentiable map from $\U_\omega$ to
itself with the following properties:
\medskip
\noindent
(i) $L_\o$ is an isometry for the Mabuchi metric on $\U_\o$.
\medskip
\noindent
(ii) $L_\o^2\psi=\psi$ for $\psi\in\U_\o$.
\medskip
\noindent
(iii) $L_\o\psi=\psi$ if and only if $\psi=0$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Properties (ii) and (iii) are the content of
Lemma \ref{SelfDual2Lemm} and Theorem \ref{CxLegCompactThm}.
We turn to proving (i).
Indeed, by Theorem \ref{CxLegCompactThm} and Proposition \ref{FirstVarProp}
$$
\baeq
g_M(dL_\o\psi(\chi),dL_\o\psi(\nu))|_{L_\o\psi}
&=
\int_M\chi\nu\circ G(\psi)\o^n_{L_\o\psi}
\cr
&=
\int_M\chi\nu\circ G(\psi)G(\psi)^\star(\o^n_{\psi})
\cr
&=
\int_M\chi\nu\o^n_{\psi}
=g_M(\chi,\nu)|_\psi,
\eaeq
$$
proving (i).
Finally, if $\U_\o$ is a neighborhood satisfying properties (i)--(iii),
then replacing $\U_\o$ by
$\U_\o\cap \calL(\U_\o)$, we may assume $\calL$ maps $\U_\o$ to itself.
\end{proof}
This theorem should be seen in the light of the picture of $\H_\omega$ as a symmetric space, put forward by Mabuchi, Semmes and Donaldson,
\cite{M,S,Don}. In these works $\H_\omega$ is first studied as a Riemannian manifold, its curvature tensor is computed and is found to be covariantly constant. In the finite dimensional case, this implies the existence of symmetries around any point in the space. As described in \S\ref{SemmesSubSec}, Semmes has also found
symmetries for the Mabuchi metric,
but to our knowledge the $\omega_\vp$-Legendre transforms are
the first examples of explicit symmetries for $\H_\omega$.
It would be interesting to generalize the theorems of Artstein-Avidan--Milman \cite{AM}
and B\"or\"oczky--Schneider \cite{BS}
to this setting and investigate whether these are {\it all}
the symmetries of $\H_\o$ under some reasonable regularity assumptions.
From Theorem 7.2 it follows in particular that the $\omega$-Legendre transform maps geodesics in $\H_\omega$ to geodesics. By the work of
Semmes \cite{S}, geodesics in $\H_\omega$ are precisely given by solutions of the homogenous complex Monge--Amp\`ere equation, so that a curve
$t\to
\psi_t(z)=\psi(t,z)$
, where $t$ lies in a strip $0<\Re t<1$ and $\psi$ depends only on the real part of $t$, is a geodesic in
$\H_\omega$
if and only if
$$
(\i\ddbar_{t,z}\psi +\omega)^{n+1}=0.
$$
One main motivation for Lempert's work was to find symmetries of the inhomogenous complex Monge--Amp\`ere equation. Here we find a somewhat different kind of symmetries for the homogenous complex Monge--Amp\`ere equation (HCMA).
The applicability of this may be somewhat limited by the absence of positive existence results for geodesics, but if we change the set up slightly and consider functions $\psi$ defined for $t$ in a disk instead of a strip, there is at least one setting in which our theorem applies. Considering boundary data $s\to\psi_s$ on the unit circle that happen to
extend to a smooth solution of the HCMA,
then the same thing holds for sufficiently small perturbations of the data
\cite{Don2002}, see also \cite{Moriyon}. Taking the given boundary data to be identically equal
to 0, for which trivially an extension exists, we see that any boundary data that are sufficiently small can be extended to a solution of the HCMA, $\psi_t$ with $t$ in the disk $\Delta$. Theorem 7.2 shows that then $L_\o(\psi_t)$ also solves the HCMA.
Indeed, solutions of the HCMA are critical points of the energy functional induced by the Mabuchi metric
$$
E(\psi)=\int_{\Delta\times M} \partial_t\psi\wedge\dbar_t\psi\wedge \omega_{\psi_t}^n,
$$
and as shown above the energy functional is preserved under the $\vp$-Legendre transform.
\section{Relations with Lempert's and Semmes' work}
\subsection{Comparison to Lempert's theorem}
Lempert starts with a complex manifold $M$ and its holomorphic cotangent bundle $T^*(M)$. If $z$ are local coordinates on $M$ it induces local coordinates $(z,\xi)$ on $T^*(M)$, so that a one-form, i e a point in $T^*(M)$ can be written $\sum \xi_j dz_j$. There is a standard holomorphic symplectic form $\Omega$ on $T^*(M)$ that in such coordinates is written $\Omega=\sum d\xi_j\wedge dz_j$. A (local) holomorphic map from $T^*(M)$ to itself, $F$, is symplectic if $F^*(\Omega)=\Omega$, and Lempert's construction depends on the choice of such a symplectic map.
Another ingredient is a
differentiable
real valued function $\psi$ on $M$. From $\psi$ we get a gradient map
\be
z\to(z,\partial\psi)=:\nabla \psi
\ee
which is a section of $T^*(M)$.
Lempert's generalized gradient map is the map from $M$ to itself
$$
G_\psi= \pi\circ F\circ \nabla\psi,
$$
where $\pi$ is the projection from $T^*(M)$ to $M$. He then defines a generalized Legendre transform by
$$
L_F(\psi)(G_\psi(z))= \psi(z) +2\Re \Sigma(\nabla\psi),
$$
where $\Sigma$ is a {\it generating function} of the symplectic tranformation $F$. This means that $\Sigma$ is holomorphic on $T^*(M)$ and satisfies
$$
d\Sigma =\xi\cdot dz -F^*(\xi\cdot dz).
$$
Such a generating function exists at least locally since the right hand side is a closed form if $F$ is symplectic.
We indicate briefly how this translates to our set up. First, there is a minor difference that we work with a symplectic form and generating function that is holomorphic in $z$ and antiholomorphic in $\xi$, but the major difference is that we chose a different kind of generating function. The symplectic transformation $F$ gives a map from $T^*(M)$ to $M$ by $w=\pi(F(z))$. For special symplectic maps (sometimes called {\it free canonical transformations}) one can choose $(z,w)$ as coordinates on $T^*(M)$ and express the generating function in terms of these coordinates instead. Locally, our construction amounts to choosing $\phi_\C(z,w)$ as such a generating function. If we define a symplectic transformation using $\phi_\C$ as a generating function one can check that our Legendre transform coincides with Lempert's.
\label{SemmesSubSec}
\subsection{Semmes' work}
Another major motivation for our work is Semmes' work \cite{S} and we
now relate the previous theorem to his work.
Semmes starts by endowing the holomorphic cotangent bundle $(T^*)^{1,0}M$
with the complex structure $\hat J$ induced by pulling back the standard complex
structure (induced by the complex strucutre $J$ on $M$) under
the (locally defined) maps \cite[p. 530]{S}
$$
(z,\lambda)\mapsto(z,\lambda+\del_z\phi).
$$
This is well-defined and independent of the choice of local potential $\phi$ for $\o$
since $\del_z\phi-\del_z\phi'$ is holomorphic whenever $\phi'$ is another such choice.
To any smooth \K potential $\psi$, Semmes then associates
the submanifold $\La_\psi$, the graph of $\del\psi$ in $(T^*)^{1,0}M$.
Under the biholomorphism between $((T^*)^{1,0}M,\hat J)$ and $((T^*)^{1,0}M,J)$
the standard tautological 1-form $\alpha=\sum\la_i dz_i$ and holomorphic symplectic form
$\O=\sum dz_i\w d\la_i$ on the latter are pulled back to forms
that we denote by $\hat \alpha$ and $\hat \O$. Then
$\i\hat\O|_{\La_\psi}=\i\ddbar(\phi+\psi)=\o_\psi$.
Semmes goes on to observe that whenever $\vp$ is real-analytic,
there exists an involutive anti-biholomorphism of a neighborhood of $\La_\vp$
in $((T^*)^{1,0}M,\hat J)$ whose fixed-point set equals $\La_\vp$.
Thus, if $\psi$ is sufficiently close to $\vp$ in $C^2$ then $\La_\psi$ is mapped
to another submanifold that must be of the form $\La_\eta$
for some $\eta$. Theorem \ref{CxGradMapThm} precisely establishes
that this involution is given by our generalized gradient map
$G_\vp(\psi)$, so $G_\vp(\psi)(\La_{L_\o\psi})=\La_\psi$.
\bigskip
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work is based on the SQuaREs project award
``Interactions between convex geometry and complex geometry"
from the American Institute of Mathematics (AIM).
The authors are grateful to AIM and its staff
for the funding, hospitality, and excellent working conditions
over the years 2011--2013.
YAR is grateful to R.J. Berman and Chalmers Tekniska H\"ogskola
for their hospitality and support in Summer 2014 when an important part of this work was carried out.
Finally, part of this work took place while BB and YAR visited MSRI (supported by NSF grant DMS-1440140)
during the Spring 2016 semester.
This research was
supported by grants from ANR, BSF (2012236),
ERC, NSF (DMS-0802923,1206284,1515703),
VR, and a Sloan Research Fellowship.
\def\listing#1#2#3{{\sc #1}:\ {\it #2}, \ #3.}
|
\section{Introduction}
\textbf{Introduction.} It is expected that most black holes possess some rotation (e.g.,~\cite{gammie2004black,PhysRevD.67.064025}). The geometrical structure of rotating black hole space-times is a lot richer than that of nonrotating black hole space-times. For example, in Kerr space-time [i.e., a ($3+1$)-dimensional, rotating and asymptotically flat black hole] there exists a region -- the ergosphere -- ``near" the event horizon where observers cannot remain static: they must rotate in the same direction as the black hole. There also exists a region separated from the event horizon where an observer corotating with the horizon must have a velocity greater than or equal to the speed of light; the boundary of such a region is called the speed-of-light surface. Inside a Kerr black hole, there is also the so-called inner horizon, which is a Cauchy horizon for data ``outside" the black hole. Beyond the inner horizon in the inward direction there exist closed null and timelike geodesics. None of these regions (ergosphere, speed-of-light surface or inner horizon) exist in the nonrotating limit of the Kerr geometry, a Schwarzschild black hole space-time (although an inner horizon does exist for a charged spherically-symmetric --Reissner-Nordstr\"om-- black hole).
The presence of the above regions has important consequences for the physics of black holes, notably for their stability properties. For example, the inner horizon of the Reissner-Nordstr\"om solution is classically unstable~\cite{poisson1989inner,PRD41Israel-Poisson} (phenomenon of ``mass inflation"). A similar feature occurs in the Kerr geometry, where perturbations falling into the black hole are expected to produce a divergent curvature at the inner horizon~\cite{brady1995nonlinear,ori1992structure,dotti2012unstable}. The presence of the ergosphere in Kerr, in its turn, leads to the Penrose process~\cite{Penrose}, with its ``collisional" variant~\cite{PhysRevLett.103.111102}, and to the phenomenon of superradiance \cite{starobinskii1973amplification,zel1971generation}, whereby matter --particles in the first case and boson field waves in the second-- falling into the black hole may be used in order to extract rotational energy from a black hole.
The speed-of-light surface also plays an important r\^ole in the existence of superradiant modes. Superradiance in general is the cause behind various classical instabilities of black holes: under massive linear field perturbations \cite{zouros1979instabilities}; when the black hole is surrounded by a mirror \cite{Press:1972zz} (the so-called ``black hole bomb") which encloses any part of the region outside the speed-of-light surface~\cite{duffy2008renormalized}, and when a black hole lies in an anti de Sitter (AdS) universe (i.e., a universe with a negative cosmological constant) and is sufficiently small so that there exists a speed-of-light surface~\cite{hawking1999charged,PhysRevD.70.084011,winstanley2001classical}. Quantum-mechanically, the existence of a speed-of-light surface seems~\cite{kay1991theorems,Ottewill:2000qh} to be the reason why one cannot define a state describing a rotating black hole in thermal equilibrium with its own quantum boson field radiation~\cite{hartle1976path,frolov1989renormalized}. One may define such quantum state, however, if one excludes the region of the space-time beyond the speed-of-light surface by placing a mirror~\cite{duffy2008renormalized} or, possibly, and more naturally, by placing the rotating black hole in an AdS universe for a sufficiently large cosmological constant~\cite{winstanley2001classical}. We finally note that the ergosphere can be present in a rotating space-time without an event horizon (such as that of a star), in which case it leads to classical instabilities of the space-time~\cite{friedman1978ergosphere} and to quantum (Starobinski\u{\i}-Unruh) radiation~\cite{Unruh:1974bw}.
It is of great interest to understand the fate of the stability properties and rotating space-time regions in the presence of quantum corrections. One possibility is to study the backreaction effects from quantum matter on these geometrical regions of a rotating space-time. While such a study would be technically very difficult in a Kerr black hole space-time (whether or not placed inside a mirror or a AdS universe), in this Letter we undertake that study for a rotating black hole in $(2+1)$-dimensions, the so-called rotating BTZ (Ba\~nados-Teitelboim-Zanelli) black hole~\cite{banados1992black}. This black hole possesses inner (Cauchy) and outer (event) horizons and an ergosphere but no speed-of-light surface; its Cauchy horizon exhibits ``mass inflation"~\cite{chan1996interior,husain1994radiation}; its ergosphere leads to a Penrose-like process~\cite{cruz1994geodesic}. A major simplification in ($2+1$)-dimensions is the absence of propagating gravitational degrees of freedom, which eliminates the need for quantizing the gravitational field. Therefore, all quantum corrections come from the ``matter sector".
In this Letter, we analytically solve the semiclassical Einstein equations sourced by a conformally coupled and massless quantum scalar field on a rotating BTZ space-time. We obtain the quantum-backreacted metric and investigate the quantum effects on the inner horizon, outer horizon and ergosphere, and investigate the possible creation of a speed-of-light surface. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that a quantum-backreacted metric has been obtained for a {\it rotating} black hole space-time\footnote{In the nonrotating case, the quantum-backreacted metric has been obtained for a background BTZ black hole in~\cite{martinez1997back} and for a background naked singularity space-time in~\cite{casals2016quantum}.}. Our results not only provide an insight into backreaction effects that might take place for astrophysical or particle-collider, rotating black holes, but they can also be of interest for the AdS/Conformal Field Theory (CFT) conjectured correspondence (e.g.,~\cite{BSS}). For example, they can be used, following the analysis in~\cite{efk}, to test AdS/CFT in Randall Sundrum braneworlds \cite{rs2} by constructing a rotating black hole localised on an $\text{AdS}_3$ brane embedded in $\text{AdS}_4$~\cite{ehm}.
Most of the construction needed to analyze the backreaction of the black hole geometry produced by quantum fields can also be used to study the fate of a naked singularity. This could shed light on Penrose's Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis~\cite{Penrose}, which in its weaker version essentially states that, generically, no ``naked" (i.e., not covered by an event horizon) space-time singularities can form in Nature. In~\cite{casals2016quantum} we showed that quantum effects on a static naked singularity in $AdS_3$ lead to the formation of a horizon that covers it, thus enforcing Cosmic Censorship. In this Letter we confirm that quantum corrections continue to provide a mechanism for Cosmic Censorship in the spinning case as well. Therefore, this is not a peculiar feature of the static geometry, but a more generic phenomenon.
\textbf{Rotating BTZ geometry.}
The rotating BTZ geometry is obtained by identifying points in the universal covering of anti-de Sitter space-time (CAdS$_3$) by some spacelike Killing vector field corresponding to a generator of certain global isometries of $\text{AdS}_3$. Any open set of this geometry is, therefore, indistinguishable from a portion of
$\text{CAdS}_3$. The BTZ metric is given by \cite{banados1992black,banados1993geometry}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:RBTZ}
ds^2= \left(M-\frac{r^2}{\ell^2}\right)dt^2 -Jdt d\theta +\frac{dr^2}{\frac{r^2}{\ell^2}-M+\frac{J^2}{4r^2}}+r^2d\theta^2,
\end{equation}
where $t \in (-\infty,+\infty)$, $r \in (0, \infty)$ and $\theta \in [0,2\pi)$ and the cosmological constant is given by $\Lambda = -\ell^{-2}$. The BTZ geometry corresponds to either a black hole or to a naked singularity possessing\footnote{We are choosing units such that the gravitational constant is $G=1/8$ and the three-dimensional Planck's length is $l_P=\hbar G$.} mass $M$ and angular momentum $J$.
The metric (\ref{eq:RBTZ}) is stationary and axially symmetric, with corresponding Killing vectors $\xi\equiv \partial/\partialt$ and $\psi\equiv\partial/\partial\theta$, respectively.
In the case of the rotating BTZ black hole, $M\ell \geq |J|$ (the extremal case corresponding to the equality), the identification Killing field is a noncompact spacelike field -- see Eq.(\ref{Kv}) below. The resulting black hole space-time possesses an inner (Cauchy) horizon at $r=r_-= \ell |\alpha_{-}|/2$ and an outer (event) horizon at $r=r_+=\ell \alpha_{+}/2 $, where
\begin{equation} \label{alfa+-}
\alpha_{\pm} \equiv \sqrt{M+\frac{J}{\ell}}\pm\sqrt{M-\frac{J}{\ell}} \, .
\end{equation}
The inner horizon is classically unstable~\cite{chan1996interior} in a similar manner to that of Kerr or Reissner-Nordstr\"om space-times~\cite{poisson1989inner,brady1995nonlinear,ori1992structure}. Unlike Kerr, the 2+1 black hole possesses no curvature singularities but it does possess a causal singularity at $r=0$: there are inextendible incomplete geodesics that hit $r=0$ \cite{banados1993geometry}.
The Killing vector $\xi$ is timelike for $r> \rt_{\rm{SL}} \equiv\sqrt{M}\ell$, is null at $r=\rt_{\rm{SL}}$ and is spacelike for $r \in(r_+,\rt_{\rm{SL}})$. This means that no static observers can exist for $r<\rt_{\rm{SL}}$. The hypersurface $r=\rt_{\rm{SL}}$ is hence called the static limit surface and the region $r \in (r_+,\rt_{\rm{SL}})$ is called the ergosphere. In its turn, the Killing vector $\chi\equiv \xi+\Omega_H \psi$, where $\Omega_H=J/(2r_+^2)$ is the angular velocity of the event horizon, is the generator of the event horizon. The vector $\chi$ is null at the event horizon and, in the nonextremal case, is timelike everywhere outside. This means that, in the nonextremal case, observers that rigidly rotate at the angular velocity of the black hole can exist anywhere outside the event horizon, i.e., there is no speed-of-light surface. In the extremal case, on the other hand, the Killing vector $\chi$ is null everywhere on and outside the event horizon.
For $M \ell \leq -|J|$ the metric (\ref{eq:RBTZ}) describes a conical singularity, also obtained by an identification in CAdS$_3$ by a spacelike Killing vector, which in this case is compact. Note that Eq.(\ref{alfa+-}) implies that, in this case, $\alpha_{\pm}$ are both purely imaginary: no horizon is present and the geometry is a true naked singularity.
In this geometry, $\xi$ is always timelike and so there is no ergosphere.
The extremal case corresponds to maximal rotation, $M\ell=-|J|$.
Finally, we note that in the non extremal cases, $|M|\ell > |J|$, the classical solutions can be obtained by boosting the corresponding static ($J=0$) black hole \cite{MTZ} or conical solution \cite{MZ}.
\textbf{Backreacted geometry.} The backreaction of quantum matter onto the geometry can be calculated via the \textit{semiclassical} Einstein equations:
\begin{equation} \label{semi}
G_{\mu \nu} - \ell^{-2} g_{\mu \nu}= \pi \RSET{T_{\mu \nu}}.
\end{equation}
Here, $G_{\mu \nu}$ is the Einstein tensor for the quantum-backreacted metric $g_{\mu \nu}$ and $\RSET{T_{\mu \nu}}$ is the renormalized expectation value of the stress-energy tensor (RSET) of the matter field in some quantum state. The quantum state is determined by imposing boundary conditions for the field on the AdS boundary: the timelike hypersurface $r=\infty$. We note that the RSET is calculated on the classical space-time, rather than on the quantum-backreacted one (with metric $g_{\mu \nu}$).
We shall consider a conformally coupled and massless scalar field satisfying ``transparent" boundary conditions on the AdS boundary. Transparent boundary conditions correspond to decomposing the scalar field using modes which are smooth on the entire Einstein static universe \cite{avis1978quantum,Lifschytz:1993eb}. We calculate the vacuum expectation value for the RSET of the scalar field in a state corresponding to transparent boundary conditions in the following way. We consider the BTZ geometry as obtained from the appropriate identification of points in $\text{CAdS}_3$ under an element of the Lorentz group. We then apply the method of images to find the two-point function of the field equation in the BTZ geometry from that in $\text{CAdS}_3$ with the appropriate identification. We then obtain the RSET~\cite{RotatingBTZLong} from the two-point function in the standard way.
We choose the following form for a general, stationary and axisymmetric metric
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ansatz}
ds^2= (-e^{2a}b + r^2 k^2)dt^2+ 2r^2 k dt d\theta +\frac{dr^2}{b} + r^2d\theta^2\ ,
\end{equation}
for some functions $a(r)$, $b(r)$, and $k(r)$, which are given by their classical values plus corrections of order $O(l_P)$, denoted by $a_1$, $b_1$ and $k_1$ respectively. The (potential) horizons are determined by the zeros of $b(r)$ which, to order $l_P$, is $b(r)= \left(r^2/\ell^2\right)-M+\left(J^2/(4r^2)\right)+l_P b_1(r)$. Next, we solve the semiclassical Einstein equations (\ref{semi}): in the left hand side, we insert the metric ansatz Eq.(\ref{eq:ansatz}) and expand to $O(l_P)$; in the right hand side, we insert the RSET derived as indicated above. In order to integrate Einstein's equations, we fix the coordinate choice so that the values at infinity of the (rescaled) lapse and shift functions are equal to, respectively, 1 and 0, following the choice made in~\cite{banados1993geometry} for the classical unperturbed metric. The remaining two integration constants are the mass $M$ and angular momentum $J$, which, in order to make a significant comparison, we assume to have the same values as in the unperturbed solution.
In this way, we find analytic expressions for $a_1$, $b_1$ and $k_1$, which we give elsewhere~\cite{RotatingBTZLong}.
In particular,
we find that, at large distances, the quantum corrections decay as: $a_1 = O(r^{-3}),\ b_1= O(r^{-1}),\ k_1= O(r^{-3})$.
In the static limit ($J=0$, $\alpha_-=0, \alpha_+=2\sqrt{M}$), we recover the known results \cite{martinez1997back}: $a=0$, $b_1=O(1/r)$, $ k=0$.
Specifically,
we find the metric coefficient $b_1(r)$ to be of the form~\cite{RotatingBTZLong}:
\begin{equation}\label{b1}
b_1 = -\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{F_n(r)}{d_n(r)^{3/2}}\, ,
\end{equation}
where $N=\infty$ in the black hole case and is finite in the naked singularity case.
Here, $F_n(r)$ is a function that for large $r$ grows as $r^2$ and $d_n(r)$ is the squared geodesic distance between a point and its $n$th image under the identification in CAdS$_3$; it can be written as $d_n(r)=D_n r^2+E_n$ for some coefficients $D_n$ and $E_n$~\cite{RotatingBTZLong}.
\textbf{Horizons and other regions of the black hole geometry.}
We next investigate various geometrical regions of interest of the backreacted rotating black hole metric.
For the black hole, the upper summation bound $N=\infty$ and for fixed $r>r_-$, where $d_n(r)>0$, this is a converging geometric series~\cite{steif1994quantum}. The metric perturbations diverge for $d_n(r_n)=0$, which occurs for certain discrete radii satisfying $0<r_n<r_-$. As $n\to +\infty$, $r_n\to r_-$, and therefore the inner horizon becomes a surface with an accumulation of points where $d_n=0$. This is a direct consequence of the identification that produces the spinning black hole. The Killing vector that is employed in this identification is\footnote{The $SO(2,2)$ generators are $J_{ab}=x_a\partial_b-x_b\partial_a$, see e.g., \cite{banados1993geometry}.}
\begin{equation} \label{Kv}
\zeta(r_+,r_-)=r_+ J_{12} - r_- J_{03},
\end{equation}
whose norm, $\zeta\cdot \zeta = r_+^2 - r_-^2$, is positive for a nonextremal black hole. The spacelike vector $\zeta(r_+,r_-)$, however, can identify two distinct points connected by a null geodesic in the CAdS$_3$, turning this curve into a closed null solution of the geodesic equation in the black hole geometry. (We note that this curve is not everywhere future directed, as opposed to the closed timelike curves that would be produced if the identification in CAdS$_3$ was made with a timelike Killing vector: those curves would be everywhere future directed or everywhere past directed). The resulting null closed curve extends from infinity to some radius $r_{\text{min}}$ inside the inner horizon and back to infinity. This means that this geodesic is not a serious issue in classical physics because no real massless particle can follow this trajectory crossing both horizons twice~\cite{cruz1994geodesic,ACZ}. Virtual quantum mechanical particles, however, do not respect causality and we find that this gives a divergent contribution to the RSET coming from a pole in the propagator at a series of circles approaching $r_-$ from the inside. This accumulation of poles produces an essential singularity at $r_-$. We
find~\cite{RotatingBTZLong} that the Kretschmann invariant picks up a divergent contribution proportional to the square of the RSET. Therefore, the geometry indeed develops a curvature singularity at $r_-$ and, consequently, the semiclassical approximation can only be trusted for $r>r_-$.
Although both the quantum backreaction found here and the classical mass inflation found in~\cite{chan1996interior,husain1994radiation} yield a diverging (local) stress-energy at $r_-$, this singularity is not of the same nature in the two cases (in mass inflation, it is due to infinitely-blueshifted perturbations generated in the external region); plus, here the Kretschmann scalar diverges whereas for mass inflation in BTZ it does not.
The backreacted radius of the outer horizon is given by the largest positive root of $b(r)=0$. Working at $O(l_P)$, the corrected event horizon radius (in the nonextremal case) is of the form $r^{(q)}_+= r_+ \left(1+l_P x_+\right)$, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:x+}
x_+\equiv -\frac{2b_1(r_+)}{\alpha_+^2 - \alpha_-^2},
\end{equation}
and $b_1(r_+)$ is negative. Therefore, the event horizon grows, $r_+^{(q)}>r_+$. We note that the expression for $r^{(q)}_+$ via Eq.(\ref{eq:x+}) is only valid for $l_P\ll (r_+-r_-)$. In the opposite regime, $0<(r_+-r_-)\ll l_P$, the correction to the horizon radius has an expression different from Eq.(\ref{eq:x+}) \cite{RotatingBTZLong}.
In the extremal case, $r_+=r_-$, and for $r_+^2\gg \ell^2 l_P b_1(r_+)$, this expression takes the form $r_+^{(q)}= r_+(1+ \sqrt{l_P} y_+)$, where
\begin{equation}
y_+\equiv \sqrt{\frac{-b_1(r_+)}{2 M}}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
b_1(r_+)=-\frac{1}{\ell \pi^2}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^2 \sinh\left( \frac{n \pi \alpha_+}{2} \right)} \ .
\end{equation}
This limit coincides with the corrected $r_+^{(q)}$ for the extremal solution in the semiclassical approximation.
To find the boundary of the quantum-corrected ergosphere we need to solve $ g_{tt}=-e^{2a(r)}b(r)+r^2k^2(r)=0$, which we solve to $O(l_P)$. We analytically find that the sign of the quantum correction to the radius of the static limit surface is always positive.
We can also compute the quantum-corrected angular velocity of the black hole: $\Omega_H^{(q)}= \left. -\frac{g_{t\theta}}{g_{\theta\tht}}\right|_{r_+} = -k(r_+)$. We find numerical evidence that $\Omega_H-\Omega_H^{(q)}$ is always positive. We now turn to investigating the speed-of-light surface. The Killing vector $\chi^{(q)\mu}=\xi^\mu + \Omega_H^{(q)}\psi^\mu=(1,0,\Omega_H^{(q)})$ has norm $g_{\mu\nu}\chi^{(q)\mu}\chi^{(q)\nu} = -e^{2a}b+r^2k^2+2r^2k\Omega_H^{(q)}+r^2\Omega_H^{(q)^2}$. The Killing vector $\chi^{(q)\mu}$, in the nonextremal case, is timelike in the near-horizon region and becomes null on the horizon. Near infinity we find that $\chi^{(q)2}\sim -\frac{r^2}{\ell^2}\left(1 -\ell^2\Omega_H^{(q)2}\right )$. The condition for $\chi^{(q)}$ to be spacelike, and (likely) for the space-time to develop a superradiant instability is $\ell\Omega_H^{(q)}=\ell\left(\frac{J}{2r_{+}^{(q)^2}}-l_Pk_1(r_+)\right)>1$. We find that $\ell \Omega_H^{(q)}<\ell \Omega_H\leq 1$ (the equality being realized in the extremal case). We conclude that the quantum effects do not appear to change the superradiant-stability property of the classical solutions.
Another important (and delicate) case is the extremal limit $\alpha_+\to\alpha_-$. In this case, the identification that yields the extremal black hole, $\zeta_{ext}=r_+(J_{01}-J_{23})+ (J_{12}+J_{03}+J_{02}-J_{13})/2$, is not obtained as the limit $r_+ \to r_-$ of (\ref{Kv}) and therefore it is not immediately obvious what happens in this case. However, we obtain that the extremal limit of the RSET in the nonextremal black hole is equal to the RSET in the extremal black hole; the backreacted metrics share the same feature. Therefore, our results are physically meaningful for nonextremal black holes all the way down to the extremal limit.
\textbf{Naked singularity and Cosmic Censorship.}
For the nonextremal conical singularity ($M\ell<-|J| \leq 0$), the upper summation bound $N$ is finite and, therefore, convergence is not an issue. In this case, the quantum correction $b_1$ possesses at least one pole at a finite radius where $b_1 \to -\infty$. This implies that the quantum corrections always generate an event horizon that covers the conical singularity at $r=0$.
We note, however, that for finite values of $(M, J)$, the formed horizon has size $O(l_p)$ and our results are at most indicative (higher-order quantum corrections are equally important for establishing its presence). Instead, for masses just below $M=0$, and as in the static case, $r_+=O(l_p^{1/3})\gg O(l_p)$ appears to be physically meaningful~\cite{casals2016quantum}.
An alternative way of seeing this is by noting that the metric components as well as the corrections for $a$, $b$ and $k$ are continuous and analytic in the $M$-$J$ plane for $|J|<|M|\ell$. Since in the static case the quantum corrections give rise to a horizon at finite radius~\cite{casals2016quantum}, the addition of angular momentum produces a continuous change in this radius, and therefore, Cosmic Censorship continues to be upheld when angular momentum is switched on \cite{RotatingBTZLong}.
\textbf{Discussion.} We have established that the presence of a conformally coupled quantum scalar field on a rotating BTZ black hole leads to: (1) the event horizon growing ($r_+^{(q)} > r_+$), (2) the radius of the static limit surface growing ($\rt_{\rm{SL}}^{(q)}>\rt_{\rm{SL}}$), (3) the angular velocity diminishing ($\Omega_H^{(q)}<\Omega_H$), and (4) no evidence that a speed-of-light surface forms.
In particular, in the extremal case,
the generator of the horizon goes from being null to timelike
everywhere outside the horizon, and so, in a sense, ``the quantum corrections take the solutions away from extremality".
The perturbative correction shows the formation of a singularity at the inner horizon, which can be interpreted as an instability due to the existence of a curvature singularity there. In the extreme case, the event horizon also grows and the curvature singularity still forms inside, so that the black hole can no longer be called ``extremal".
Strictly speaking, however, the instability at $r_-$ signals a breakdown of the linear approximation itself, and therefore, any statement about the fate of the geometry there can be viewed, at most, as an indicative suggestion.
Nevertheless, it can also be argued that the singularity of the RSET is not a perturbative approximation but an exact result due to the existence of closed null curves (which are not everywhere future directed or past directed) in the background geometry. Therefore, the formation of a barrier of infinite energy is a real issue that cannot be dismissed on the grounds that the right hand side of (\ref{semi}) blows up, even if this equation could not provide an expression for the metric in the neighborhood of $r_-$. As a parallel, we note that, in the case of Kerr, Ref.~\cite{dotti2012unstable} directly links a classical instability of the region $r<r_-$ under linear field perturbations to the existence of
closed-timelike curves in that region.
The only sure way of learning about the space-time geometry near the inner horizon would be to solve the coupled system (\ref{semi}) exactly, in which the two-point function and the RSET are computed in the corrected geometry. In the absence of such a scheme, the best one could achieve is a perturbative procedure where the corrected $\RSET{T^{(1)}_{\mu \nu}}$ is the input to obtain a first corrected metric, $g^{(1)}_{\mu \nu}$, using (\ref{semi}). Next, this metric could be used to compute a new corrected stress-energy tensor, $\RSET{T^{(2)}_{\mu \nu}}$, etc.
In the iterative procedure outlined above, there is no need to worry about quantum gravity effects for there are no gravitons in 2+1 dimensions, and therefore, there are no gravitational loop corrections. This is a significant difference with respect to the 3+1 case, where quantum gravity corrections cannot be consistently ignored.
For $\ell M<-|J|$ (and possibly for $\ell M=-|J|$ as well), the classical naked singularity dresses up with a horizon produced by quantum effects, as in the static case. We conclude that quantum mechanics provides a mechanism for Cosmic Censorship for spinning as well as for static conical singularities.
\textbf{Acknowledgments.} M.C. acknowledges partial financial support by CNPq (Brazil), process number 308556/2014-3. A.F. acknowledges partial financial support from the Spanish MINECO through the grant FIS2014-57387-C3-1-P and the Severo Ochoa Excellence Center Project SEV-2014-0398. This work has been partially funded through Grants No. 1130658, No. 1140155, and No. 1161311 from FONDECYT. The Centro de Estudios Cient\'{\i}ficos (CECs) is funded by the Chilean Government through the Centers of Excellence Base Financing Program of CONICYT.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
Copious coronal X-ray emission is a defining characteristic of pre-main-sequence (PMS) stars. With X-ray luminosities of $\log L_X \approx$ 28--32 (with $L_X$ in units of ${\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$) and an average coronal temperature of $\approx$30$\,{\rm MK}$ \citep{pre05}, they are far more X-ray luminous and hotter than the contemporary Sun ($\log L_X \approx$26.4--27.7 at solar minimum and maximum, with a coronal temperature of $\approx$2$\,{\rm MK}$; \citealt{per00}).
PMS star X-ray luminosity increases with stellar mass and decreases with age (e.g. \citealt{pre05,pre05age}), albeit with large scatter in $L_X$ at any given mass or age. However, the stellar rotation rate is less important for PMS stellar X-ray emission, at least for members of the youngest star forming regions. PMS stars typically all show saturated levels of X-ray emission unlike low-mass stars in main sequence clusters which follow the rotation-activity relation (e.g. \citealt{wri11}). Recently, \citet{arg16} demonstrated that, within a sample of stars over a certain mass range in the intermediate age PMS cluster h~Per, the slow rotators have begun to show evidence for unsaturated X-ray emission, and the fast rotators supersaturation.
In this work we investigate how the stellar internal structure influences the coronal X-ray emission. It is known that the large-scale magnetic topology of PMS stars is linked to the evolution of the stellar internal structure \citep{gre12,gre14,fol16}. More evolved PMS stars (those with large radiative cores) are found to have more complex, multipolar, and non-axisymmetric magnetic fields compared to less evolved stars (at least for those more massive than $\sim$0.5$\,{\rm M}_\odot$, as little is known about the field topology of lower mass PMS stars; \citealt{gre12}). An increase in the large-scale magnetic field complexity likely corresponds to a reduction in the available X-ray emitting volume, with stellar coronae becoming more compact. We therefore expect that there may be differences in the X-ray luminosities of fully and partially convective PMS stars. That is indeed what we find and discuss in this paper.
In \S\ref{evolution} we briefly discuss the physics of radiative core development during the PMS contraction. In \S\ref{decay} we discuss our sample of PMS stars collated from the literature. We derive stellar masses, ages, and internal structure information from the models of \citet{sie00}. We then continue by comparing the X-ray luminosities, and the temporal evolution of $L_X$, for fully and partially convective PMS stars, and for stars on Hayashi and Henyey tracks in the Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagram. Although in this paper we only consider the \citet{sie00} models, in \citet{gre16} we considered three different PMS evolutionary models. All of the general results and conclusions discussed here remain the same, regardless of model choice. In \S\ref{Atype} we argue that the lack of X-ray detections from main sequence A-type stars is a result of stars losing their coronae as the depth of their convective zone reduces during their PMS evolution. We conclude in \S\ref{conclusions}.
\section{The evolution of PMS stars across the HR diagram}\label{evolution}
When low-mass PMS stars first become optically visible they are located in the upper-right of the $\log(L_\ast/{\rm L}_\odot)$ vs $\log T_{\rm eff}$ HR diagram. From there, stars of different mass follow different paths across the HR diagram as they contract under gravity. Initially, they host fully convective interiors as they evolve along Hayashi tracks, where their surface luminosity, $L_\ast$, decreases with increasing age. The internal luminosity of the star increases monotonically from the centre of the star to the surface value whilst the interior is fully convective.
As contraction proceeds, the temperature increases in the core and the opacity drops, eventually inhibiting convection in the central regions if the star is massive enough (stars of mass $\lesssim$0.35$\,{\rm M}_\odot$ remain fully convective for their entire evolution). The now radiative core grows outwards at the expense of the convective zone depth. Mass shells interior to the core-envelope boundary lose heat, while those exterior to the boundary gain heat. The base of the convective zone is heated and the interior luminosity of the star rises from the centre to a maximum before dropping towards the surface. This internal luminosity maximum radiatively diffuses towards the stellar surface, and eventually the surface luminosity, $L_\ast$, begins to increase with increasing age as stars evolve onto Henyey tracks. Note that stars of mass $\lesssim$0.65$\,{\rm M}_\odot$ reach the ZAMS while still on Hayashi tracks. By the time stars evolve onto Henyey tracks, the bulk of the stellar mass is contained within the radiative core ($\sim$60-70\%; \citealt{sie00}), which occupies a smaller proportion of the star by radius. Thus, stars are more centrally condensed by the time their surface luminosity has begun to increase.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{hrd.pdf}
\caption{A Hertzsprung-Russell diagram showing the PMS stars considered in this work. The mass tracks (solid black lines for 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, and 3$\,{\rm M}_\odot$) and isochrones (dotted lines for 0.1, 1, 5, 10, and 60$\,{\rm Myr}$) are from \citet{sie00}, $Z=0.02$ with convective overshooting. The dashed green line is the ZAMS. The solid blue line divides stars with fully convective interiors (black points) from those that have developed radiative cores. The blue and red points denote partially convective stars with radiative cores on Hayashi tracks (stars with $L_\ast$ decreasing with increasing age) and Henyey tracks (stars with $L_\ast$ increasing with increasing age), respectively.}
\label{HRdiagram}
\end{figure}
In this work we compare the coronal X-ray emission of fully and partially convective PMS stars, and of Hayashi track and Henyey track PMS stars. Stars on Hayashi tracks can be either fully or partially convective, while those on Henyey tracks have mostly radiative interiors. The delay between radiative core development and a star evolving onto its Henyey track is significant. As one example, using the models of \citet{sie00}, a solar mass star becomes partially convective after $\sim$2.5$\,{\rm Myr}$ and evolves onto its Henyey track at $\sim$15$\,{\rm Myr}$. Therefore, a solar mass star spends longer with a partially convective interior than it does with a fully convective interior while on its Hayashi track. A solar mass star spends $\sim$40\% of its entire PMS lifetime of $\sim$30$\,{\rm Myr}$ with a radiative core on its Hayashi track.
In the following subsection we compare the coronal X-ray emission properties of fully and partially convective PMS stars, and of those on Hayashi tracks to those on Henyey tracks in the HR diagram.
\section{The decay of PMS star X-ray emission}\label{decay}
To compare the X-ray properties of fully and partially convective PMS stars we considered five of the best studied star forming regions: the Orion Nebula Cluster (ONC), NGC~6530, NGC~2264, IC~348, and NGC~2362. We obtained X-ray luminosities ($L_X$), spectral types, observed photometry, binary star status, and cluster distance estimates from the literature. We dereddened the photometry using intrinsic colours appropriate for the spectral type, from the PMS calibrated scale of \cite{pec13}. We then calculated bolometric luminosities by applying a spectral type-dependent bolometric correction and with an assumed distance modulus appropriate for each cluster. We also assigned effective temperatures from the same scale of \citet{pec13}. Extensive details can be found in \citet{gre16}. Figure \ref{HRdiagram} is a HR diagram showing the stars in our sample, with mass tracks and isochrones from the models of \citet{sie00}, from which we obtained stellar masses, ages, and internal structure information.
Known or suspected spectroscopic / close binaries were removed from our sample in case of confusion in the optical or X-ray data. With the exception of IC~348, we used the X-ray luminosities from the MYStIX (Massive Young Star-Forming Complex Study in Infrared and X-ray) project \citep{fei13}, in particular those listed in the MPCM (MYStIX Probable Complex Members) catalog of \citet{bro13}. For IC~348, we took X-ray fluxes from \citet{ste12}. Our final sample consisted of 984 stars, of which 34 are $L_X$ upper limits (all from IC~348).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.78\linewidth]{hist.pdf}
\caption{Notched and variable width (scaled to the square root of the sample size in each case) box plots with outliers for the distribution of $\log(L_X/L_\ast)$ for (left-to-right) fully convective (conv), partially convective (rad), Hayashi track (Hay), and Henyey track (Hen) PMS stars. The cross is the mean value in each case. A difference in medians is significant when the notches of the box plots being compared do not overlap (e.g. \citealt{mcg78}). Partially convective PMS stars have, on average, lower $\log(L_X/L_\ast)$ compared to fully convective stars. The deficit is greater when comparing Hayashi to Henyey track PMS stars. The difference is caused by the decay of $L_X$ when stars develop substantial radiative cores, see text and Figure \ref{logLX_logLstar}. Figure modified from \citet{gre16}.}
\label{hist}
\end{figure}
Several previous studies have reported that PMS stars on radiative tracks in the HR diagram have lower average values of $\log(L_X/L_\ast)$ compared to those on convective tracks (e.g. \citealt{fei03,fla03,reb06,cur09,may10}). For stars of mass 1-2$\,{\rm M}_\odot$, \citet{reb06} report a factor of about 10 reduction in $\log(L_X/L_\ast)$ for partially convective stars compared to fully convective stars. About 28\% of the stars considered by \citet{reb06} are $L_X$ upper limits. The re-analysis of archival data during the MYStIX project, using the modern methods of \citet{get10} which allows $L_X$ values to be derived for faint sources that have too few counts for traditional X-ray spectral fitting methods, has eliminated almost all $L_X$ upper limits. This, combined with enhanced spectroscopic surveys of the star-forming regions (e.g. \citealt{hil13}), and new empirical colours / temperature scales calibrated for PMS stars \citep{pec13,her14}, warrants our re-examination of differences in the X-rays properties of fully and partially convective PMS stars.
In Figure \ref{hist} we compare the distributions of the logarithmic fractional X-ray luminosities, $\log(L_X/L_\ast)$, for fully and partially convective PMS stars, and for stars on Hayashi and Henyey tracks in the HR diagram. There is a large scatter in $\log(L_X/L_\ast)$ for stars of all HR diagram locations / internal structures. However, partially convective PMS stars (those which have developed radiative cores), have $\langle\log(L_X/L_\ast)\rangle$ 0.13 dex lower than what we find for fully convective PMS stars. The deficit is larger when comparing Hayashi track stars to Henyey track stars with the latter having $\langle\log(L_X/L_\ast)\rangle$ 0.52 dex less than the former. About 50\% of our entire sample are stars from the ONC, one of the youngest star forming regions. Within the ONC sample, about 80\% of the partially convective stars are still on Hayashi tracks. If we neglect the ONC stars, and consider the other four star-forming regions only, the $\langle\log(L_X/L_\ast)\rangle$ deficit is larger, with a 0.38 (0.64) dex reduction when comparing fully convective to partially convective (Hayashi track to Henyey track) stars.
The reason why Henyey track PMS stars have a lower average $\log(L_X/L_\ast)$ compared to Hayashi track PMS stars, is because many of them are under-luminous in X-rays for their bolometric luminosity. This can be seen from Figure \ref{logLX_logLstar}. If we consider fully convective stars only there is an almost linear relationship between $L_X$ and $L_\ast$, with $L_X\propto L_\ast^a$, $a=0.93\pm0.04$, and $P(0)<$5e-5.\footnote{Throughout this work linear regression fits are calculated using the expectation-maximisation algorithm, which accounts for the $L_X$ upper limits in the sample, within the ASURV (Astronomy SURVival analysis) package \citep{iso86}. Quoted $P(0)$ values are probabilities that correlations do not exist calculated from generalised Kendall's $\tau$ tests, also carried out with ASURV.} The exponent drops to $a=0.33\pm0.09$ [$P(0)<$5e-5] for partially convective stars. If we instead consider Hayashi track stars, an almost linear correlation is again found with $a=0.92\pm0.04$ [$P(0)<$5e-5]. However, this hides the fact that the majority of Hayashi track stars are fully convective. For partially convective Hayashi track stars (the blue points in Figure \ref{logLX_logLstar}) the exponent is smaller: $a=0.61\pm0.08$ [$P(0)<$5e-5]. For Henyey track stars there is no correlation between $L_X$ and $L_\ast$ [$P(0)=$0.52], with many such stars having $L_X$ well below what would be expected given their $L_\ast$. Once stars have developed substantial radiative interiors, their X-ray emission appears to decay.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{conv.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{rad.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{hay.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{radhay.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{hen.pdf}
\caption{The correlation between $L_X$ and $L_\ast$ for fully convective ({\it top left}, $L_X\propto L_\ast^a$ with $a=0.93\pm0.04$) and for partially convective PMS stars ({\it top right}, $a=0.33\pm0.09$). Points are coloured as in Figure \ref{HRdiagram}. Downward pointing arrows are stars with a $L_X$ upper limit. The almost linear relationship between $L_X$ and $L_\ast$ is maintained for Hayashi track stars ({\it bottom left}, $a=0.92\pm0.04$), however, $\sim$90\% of the such stars are fully convective. If we instead consider only Hayashi track stars with radiative cores ({\it bottom middle}) the gradient of the correlation is only $a=0.61\pm0.08$. In all cases the probability of there not being a correlation, from generalised Kendall's $\tau$ tests, is $<$5e-5, with the exception of Henyey track PMS stars ({\it bottom right}) for which there is no correlation. Figures modified from \citet{gre16}.}
\label{logLX_logLstar}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{logLX_logage_bin1.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{logLX_logage_bin2.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{logLX_logage_bin3.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\linewidth]{logLX_logage_bin4.pdf}
\caption{The decay of $L_X$ with age for stars of the indicated mass. Points are coloured as in Figure \ref{HRdiagram}. Downward pointing arrows are stars with a $L_X$ upper limit. $L_X$ decays faster with age, $t$, for higher mass stars with $L_X\propto t^a$ where $a=-0.28\pm0.08, -0.53\pm0.10, -0.86\pm0.19$, and $-1.19\pm0.35$ for 0.5-1, 1-1.5, 1.5-2, and 2-3$\,{\rm M}_\odot$ respectively. $P(0)=$0.0059 for the 2-3$\,{\rm M}_\odot$ mass range and $<$5e-5 for the others. Figure from \citet{gre16}.}
\label{logLX_logage}
\end{figure*}
X-ray emission decays with age for all PMS stars \citep{pre05age}. Considering mass-stratified samples, $L_X$ is found to decay faster with age for higher mass PMS stars, see Figure \ref{logLX_logage}. In higher mass bins there is a greater proportion of partially convective (red/blue points in Figure \ref{logLX_logage}) and Henyey track (red points) stars compared to fully convective objects (black points). This again suggests that changes in the stellar internal structure, and the evolution of PMS stars from Hayashi to Henyey tracks and the associated development of a substantial radiative core, reduces the coronal X-ray emission. We also find that the longer a star has spent with a radiative core, $t_{\rm since}$, the weaker its X-ray emission becomes with $L_X\propto t_{\rm since}^{-2/5}$, see Figure \ref{logLX_tsince}. However, we do not find any correlation between $L_X$ and radiative core mass or radius \citep{gre16}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{logLX_logtsince.pdf}
\caption{The correlation between $L_X$ and time since radiative core development, $L_X\propto t_{\rm since}^a$ with $a=-0.42\pm0.09$ and $P(0)<$5e-5. Blue/red points are stars on Hayashi/Henyey tracks. The downward pointing arrow is a star with a $L_X$ upper limit. The longer a PMS star has spent with a radiative core the less X-ray luminous it becomes. Figure from \citet{gre16}.}
\label{logLX_tsince}
\end{figure}
In the following section we argue that the decay in X-ray emission with substantial radiative core growth is consistent with the lack of X-ray detections of main sequence A-type stars.
\section{Do intermediate mass stars lose their coronae on the PMS?}\label{Atype}
The young early K-type to late-G type PMS stars in our sample will evolve into main sequence A-type stars \citep{sie00} which lack outer convective zones. The decay of their X-ray emission with substantial radiative core growth, discussed in the previous section, is consistent with the lack of X-ray detections of main sequence A-type stars.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{atype.pdf}
\caption{The X-ray detection rate vs the $(B-V)$ colour of bright stars in the ROSAT All-Sky Survey (flux limited sample). Moving right from the dashed red line corresponds to increasing outer convective zone depth. The approximate spectral type boundaries are indicated. Most A-type stars go undetected in X-rays. Of those that are, almost all are known binaries with later spectral type companions. Figure modified from \citet{sch09}, following \citet{sch07}.}
\label{rosat}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{rosat} shows the X-ray detection rate of early type stars, with the approximate spectral type boundaries indicated. Only 10-15\% of A-type stars are detected in X-rays, and of these, almost all have later spectral type binary companions that are the suspected source of the X-ray emission \citep{sch07}. The X-ray detection rate increases moving through F-type stars and with increasing outer convective zone depth. The X-ray detection rate of F-type stars is almost 100\% if a volume limited sample is considered instead of the flux limited sample plotted in Figure \ref{rosat} \citep{sch04}.
There are a few (late) A-type stars where weak coronal X-ray emission has been detected (e.g. \citealt{rob10,gun12}). However, at a level of $\log L_X \approx$ 26.5--28 (with $L_X$ in units of $\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}}$) this is well below what is typical of their young, progenitor, PMS stars (see Figure \ref{logLX_logLstar}). Given our discussion in section \ref{decay}, with the highest mass PMS stars showing the steepest decay in $L_X$ with age, and the reduction in $L_X$ with time since radiative core development, it seems we are observing the loss of the coronal X-ray emission from stars that will evolve to X-ray dark (or at least very weak X-ray emitting) main sequence A-type stars.
\section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions}
We have compared the X-ray emission properties of fully and partially convective PMS stars and of PMS stars on Hayashi and Henyey tracks in the HR diagram. We have found that the growth of the radiative core plays an important role in determining the behaviour of X-ray emission from PMS stars. Our results can be summarised as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item Partially convective PMS stars have a lower average $\log(L_X/L_\ast)$ compared to fully convective PMS stars. The deficit is larger for Henyey track PMS stars compared to those on Hayashi tracks in the HR diagram.
\item The lower average $\log(L_X/L_\ast)$ for partially convective PMS stars is driven by a decay in $L_X$ with radiative core growth. $L_X$ reduces with age and does so faster for higher mass PMS stars.
\item The longer PMS stars have spent with radiative cores the less X-ray luminous they become.
\item The (roughly) linear correlation between $L_X$ and $L_\ast$ is only valid for fully convective PMS stars. The exponent of the correlation (i.e. the value $a$ where $L_X\propto L_\ast^a$) is less when considering partially convective PMS stars.
\item There is no correlation between $L_X$ and $L_\ast$ for Henyey track PMS stars (which have mostly radiative interiors) due to many having $L_X$ values well below what is typical of Hayashi track PMS stars of similar $L_\ast$.
\item Stars which are the progenitors of (X-ray undetected) main sequence A-type stars are already losing their coronal X-ray emission during their PMS evolution.
\end{itemize}
More details, a greater discussion of the sample of stars used in our work, and additional correlations can be found in \citet{gre16}.
The reduction in $L_X$ with substantial radiative core development may be linked to the observationally inferred transition in the large-scale magnetic field topologies of PMS stars. Zeeman-Doppler imaging observations (e.g. \citealt{don11b,don11a,don12}) have revealed that (accreting) PMS stars are born with simple and axisymmetric large-scale magnetic fields, that are well-described by a tilted dipole plus a tilted octupole component \citep{gre11}, which become more dominantly octupolar with age \citep{gre14}. As PMS stars develop substantial radiative cores their large-scale magnetic fields become highly multipolar and non-axisymmetric \citep{gre12}. If the large-scale magnetic field is able to contain X-ray emitting coronal plasma\footnote{The X-ray emitting structures within the coronae of PMS stars are thought to extend to at least 2 stellar radii \citep{arg16}, far in excess of the more compact X-ray emitting regions resolved on the Sun.}, then a transition from mostly low-order multipole / axisymmetric to a mostly high-order multipole / non-axisymmetric magnetic field would correspond to a decrease in the X-ray emitting volume. In turn, this reduces the volume emission measure and therefore the X-ray luminosity.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
{SGG acknowledges support from the Science \& Technology Facilities Council (STFC) via an Ernest Rutherford Fellowship [ST/J003255/1]. CLD acknowledges support from STFC via a PhD studentship and additional funding via the STFC Studentship Enhancement Programme [ST/J500744/1], and support from the ERC Starting Grant "ImagePlanetFormDiscs" (Grant Agreement No. 639889).}
\bibliographystyle{cs19proc}
|
\section{Introduction}
Spheroidal and disk galaxy structures are generally considered to result from separate formation mechanisms. In the simplest picture of galaxy structure growth, stellar spheroids arise from dissipationless accumulation of previously formed stars in mergers (e.g., \citealp{Cole2000}), and disks arise from star formation in the dissipational collapse of high angular momentum gas (e.g., \citealp{FE1980}). Thus, placing constraints on the balance of mass formed in spheroids and disks should tell us about the balance between the modes of galaxy formation that are dissipationless and dissipational. However, there are many potential complications to this simple picture. For example, it is now argued that galaxy bulges may initially form at high redshift from gas inflows enabled by disk instabilities and be further grown by minor mergers over time (e.g., \citealp{Parry2009}; \citealp{Hopkins2010}; \citealp{Bournaud2011}). The two-phase model of \citet{Driver2013} also envisions a transition from spheroid formation at z $\gtrsim$ 1.7, enabled primarily by major mergers, to disk formation at z $\lesssim$ 1.7, enabled primarily by gas accretion. Considering the role of accretion in more detail, a recent simulation analysis of \citet{Sales2012} suggests that the main influence on the mode of structure formation is actually the alignment of material accreted into the halo, where poorly aligned accretion events result in spheroid structures and well-aligned accretion events result in disk structures.
In galaxy formation simulations, reproduction of realistic galaxy bulge and disk structures has been a longstanding problem. Early issues with the overproduction of bulges in simulations have steadily improved (e.g., as recently reviewed by \citealp{SD2015}; \citealp{BC2016}). Hydrodynamical simulations are now able to produce even extreme bulgeless disk morphologies (e.g., \citealp{Governato2010}; \citealp{Brook2011}). However, it has been noted that similar bulge formation mechanisms lead to bulges that are still somewhat more massive than are typically observed for intermediate mass disk galaxies (see e.g., \citealp{Christensen2014}).
Hydrodynamical simulations of bulge formation have thus far been limited to relatively small samples of objects in zoom-in simulations, but cosmological semi-analytic models are now producing realistic galaxy spheroid \emph{populations} through merger-driven spheroid formation mechanisms, at least for intermediate to high mass galaxies (see \citealp{SD2015} and references therein). Moving forward with both types of models, accurate observational measurements of the galaxy mass assembled in spheroids and disks down to the low mass regime should provide important constraints on the ability of cosmological simulations to reproduce realistic structural properties for entire galaxy populations.
A number of authors have now produced measurements of the relative mass contribution of galaxy bulge and disk structures at low redshift, with the broad conclusion that galaxy stellar mass is nearly equally divided between spheroid and disk structures (e.g., \citealp{Driver2007full}; \citealp{Benson2007}; \citealp{Gadotti2009}). These studies differ subtly in the detailed mass breakdown, however, with estimated disk mass contributions ranging from 35-50\% (e.g., \citealp{Benson2007}; \citealp{Gadotti2009}; \citealp{Thanjavur2016}) or up to 59\% in the case of \citet{Driver2007full}.
In order to constrain spheroid and disk masses for large galaxy samples, measurements of this type rely on photometric decompositions of composite bulge and disk systems. A number of photometric structure decomposition codes have been developed for this purpose, including \textsf{GIM2D} \citep{GIM2D}, \textsf{BUDDA} \citep{BUDDA}, \textsf{GALFIT} \citep{GALFIT}, and \textsf{IMFIT} \citep{IMFIT}. Regardless of the decomposition routine used, understanding possible fitting systematics and estimating realistic parameter uncertainties is crucial to making an accurate estimate of the galaxy spheroid and disk mass budget in a large galaxy sample. In a recent analysis using \textsf{GALFIT}, \citet{Lange_decomp} address these issues by considering a large grid of structural fits with an array of initial guess parameters for each galaxy. The variety of initial model parameters guards against convergence to local rather than global minima in model fit parameters, and realistic systematic uncertainties are derived for fit parameters by quantifying the spread in the full ensemble of fit models for each galaxy.
In this work, we derive a new measurement of the stellar mass budget of galaxy spheroids and disks using the \citet{Lange_decomp} structural decomposition of Galaxy and Mass Assembly survey \citep{GAMAsurv,Driver2011} galaxies. We summarize our data and analysis methods in \S \ref{samp} and \S \ref{meth}. We then present separate bulge and disk stellar mass function fits for galaxies of various morphological types and derive estimates of the total galaxy stellar mass density of bulges and disks in \S \ref{res}, finding a nearly equal division been spheroid and disk mass in the local Universe. We also quantify the variation of spheroid-to-disk-mass ratio as a function of galaxy mass and group halo mass, finding that spheroid mass is only dominant at the highest galaxy and group halo mass scales. We briefly summarize and discuss these results further in \S \ref{conc}.
A standard cosmology of ($H_0$, $\Omega_m$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$) = ($70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, 0.3, 0.7) is assumed throughout this paper, and h$_{0.7}$$=$$H_0$/($70$km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$) is used to indicate the $H_0$ dependence in key derived parameters.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{f1.png}
\caption{The GAMA II structural decomposition sample in redshift versus stellar mass space (grey points), with green points indicating the sliding volume-limited subsample of galaxies we use to derive spheroid and disk stellar mass function fits. The red line indicates the mass limit as a function of redshift discussed in \S \ref{MLfits}.}
\label{fig:samp}
\end{figure}
\section{The GAMA II Structure Sample}
\label{samp}
Our data is taken from the Galaxy and Mass Assembly survey phase II, known as GAMA II. GAMA is a combined spectroscopic and multi-wavelength imaging survey designed to study both galaxy-scale and large-scale structure (see \citealp{GAMAsurv,Driver2011} for an overview and \citealp{Hopkins_spec} for details of the spectroscopic data). The survey, after completion of phase II \citep{GAMADR2}, consists of three equatorial regions and two non-equatorial regions. The equatorial regions span approximately 5 deg in Dec and 12 deg in RA, centered in RA at approximately 9$^h$ (G09), 12$^h$ (G12) and 14.5$^h$ (G15). We use the three equatorial regions in this study, which are $>98$\% redshift complete to $r < 19.8$ mag \citep{GAMADR2} and combined total a sky area of 180 deg$^2$.
Within the GAMA equatorial regions, our structural fitting sample is derived from the GAMA II visual morphology catalog \citep{vismorph}, which contains $\sim$7500 objects from the GAMA tiling catalogue (TilingCatv44; \citealp{Baldry_tiling}) with survey\_class $\geq$ 1, extinction-corrected Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; \citealp{SDSScat}) $r$ band Petrosian magnitude of $r < 19.8$ mag, local flow-corrected redshift $0.002 < z < 0.06$, and normalized redshift quality nQ$>2$ (GAMA DistancesFramesv12; \citealp{Baldry2012}). These objects are visually classified into E, S0-Sa, SB0-SBa, Sab-Scd, SBab-SBcd, Sd-Irr, and “little blue spheroid” (LBS) galaxy types. We also judge 25 objects to be non-galaxy targets in the visual classification process \citep{vismorph}. These non-galaxy objects are subsequently omitted from our structural fitting sample.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{f2.png}
\caption{Stellar mass functions for the bulge (left panel) and disk (right panel) components of our two-component (S0-Sa and Sab-Scd) systems. Each population has been divided into three separate, approximately equally sampled, inclination categories. No clear trend in stellar mass function shape as a function of inclination is observed.}
\label{fig:incltest}
\end{figure*}
\section{Methods}
\label{meth}
In this section, we briefly describe the procedure used for the GAMA II structural fitting analysis and our methods for deriving stellar mass function fits to the spheroid and disk populations.
\subsection{Structural Fitting and Decomposition}
\label{strucfits}
The structure sample of 7506 galaxies (see Fig. \ref{fig:samp}), excluding non-galaxy targets and one galaxy that is too large in angular size for effective analysis, has been fit in the SDSS $r$ band with two-dimensional \citet{Sersic1968} profile models. We use the structural fits described in detail by \citet{Lange_decomp}. This fitting procedure involves the use of \textsf{GALFIT} \citep{GALFIT} as implemented using the \textsf{SIGMA} wrapper code developed for GAMA by \citet{SIGMA}. \citet{Lange_decomp} takes a grid-based approach to structural fitting, defining a large grid of initial input parameters to guard against optimisation solutions that represent local rather than global minima. Further, rather than using a single best-fit model to infer structural parameters, we consider the full ensemble of ``good'' final model fits (as described fully by \citealp{Lange_decomp}) and define each structural parameter as the \emph{median} of the resulting model distribution. We also use these distributions to derive robust uncertainties on our model fit parameters.
Of the 7506 sample galaxies, 5259 have been morphologically classified as single-component systems, while 2247 have been classified as two-component systems. We use these morphological classifications to inform whether single-S\'ersic or double-S\'ersic models are most appropriate and default to model parameters derived from single-component fits for E, Sd-Irr, and LBS systems and double-component fits for S0-Sa and Sab-Scd systems. We note that barred galaxies identified in our visual morphology classification (types SB0-SBa and SBab-SBcd) are considered in the same category as their unbarred counterparts, as we find a low $\sim$12\% bar fraction in this sample. Since the most complicated models we fit in this analysis are effectively bulge plus disk models, it is likely that the central component masses for this small population of barred galaxies will actually reflect both bulge and bar masses.
\citet{Lange_decomp} identify a sample of two-component systems where the final derived fits include S\'ersic bulge n values that are smaller than the disc n values. These systems are flagged for exclusion in the derived component mass-size relation fits if they have disk n $>$ 2 or underestimated parameter uncertainties (100 S(B)0-S(B)a and 215 S(B)ab-S(B)cd galaxies excluded). These objects have a similar stellar mass distribution to their parent morphological type categories. We test whether or not the exclusion of these objects would alter the shape of our derived mass function fits and find that the S0-Sa bulge/disk mass function knee and slope parameters are consistent within estimated uncertainties whether these objects are included or excluded. The mass function shape parameters for separate Sab-Scd bulge and disk components differ slightly if these objects are excluded, however as we discuss further in \S \ref{func_comp} we find that single-S\'ersic fits are sufficient to describe this population and therefore do not include the Sab-Scd bulge plus disk fits in our final analysis. Since the exclusion of genuine objects would alter our mass function normalisation and the shape parameters of the mass functions we employ in our final analysis are not affected by the inclusion/exclusion of these objects, we elect to include them in our analysis.
Our structural fits for two-component systems yield bulge-to-total luminosity ratios, but we do not assume that these ratios translate directly to bulge-to-total mass ratios. Instead, we estimate the stellar mass contained in bulge and disk components separately, using the \citet{Taylor2011} calibration that relates optical colour ($g-i$) and mass-to-light ratio to stellar mass (see \citealp{Lange_decomp} for complete description). Briefly, we calculate this estimate by combining SDSS $r$-band bulge and disk magnitudes with $gri$ total and central PSF magnitudes measured using the \textsf{LAMBDAR} photometry code \citep{LAMBDAR}. We assume that PSF colours are equivalent to bulge colours and that bulge and disk fluxes sum to equal the total flux in each band. With these assumptions, we derive bulge and disk $g-i$ colours and $i$-band magnitudes, which we use to estimate component stellar masses according to the \citet{Taylor2011} relation:
\begin{equation}
\log{M_{*}/M_{\odot}} = -0.68 + 0.7~(g-i) - 0.4~(M_{i}-4.58) \text{.}
\end{equation}
For single-component galaxies, we use the total galaxy stellar mass estimates of \citet{Taylor2011} derived using GAMA optical photometry and stellar population synthesis modeling with a \citet{Chabrier} initial mass function. We include the additional mass scaling factors discussed by \citet{Taylor2011} that account for light missed in finite-size GAMA apertures by comparison to S\'ersic measures of total flux from \citet{SIGMA}.
As has been discussed frequently in the literature, it is important to consider how internal dust attenuation can alter not only the observed flux but also the structural parameters we infer from photometric data (e.g., \citealp{Byun1994}; \citealp{Evans1994}; \citealp{Mollenhoff2006}; \citealp{Gadotti2010}; \citealp{Bogdan2013a}). Particularly relevant to this analysis, \citet{Gadotti2010} and \citet{Bogdan2013b} found that dust effects can cause underestimation of both bulge n values and bulge-to-disk ratios. Further, \citet{Driver2007full} found that the $B$-band luminosity functions used to infer bulge and spheroid stellar mass densities required significant inclination-dependent corrections for such internal attenuation effects.
As a result of these concerns, we test whether or not our main products, the stellar mass functions of spheroids and disks, may require additional inclination-dependent corrections. First, considering the colours that are used to derive component mass estimates, we find that there is no overall trend between our measured component colours and the component axial ratios, implying that our colours are not affected by residual reddening in more edge-on objects. Further, we consider the mass functions we infer from both bulge and disk components of our two-component galaxies subdivided by inclination ranges. We estimate photometric inclination for each galaxy as $i=\cos^{-1}{\sqrt{ ((b/a)^{2} - q_{o}^{2})/(1-q_{o}^{2}) }}$ (where $b/a$ is the photometric axial ratio and the flattening parameter $q_{o}$ is assumed to be 0.2). We then split our sample into three broad inclination categories chosen to have approximately equal numbers in each category (see Fig. \ref{fig:incltest}). Examining the bulge and disk component mass functions, we find no obvious shift in the mass functions. Some small-scale differences in the three inclination categories can be seen, however the differences in the binned mass functions are in general comparable to the Poisson error bars on these points. As a result, we conclude that despite the fact that internal attenuation should affect structural measurements for individual galaxies in an inclination-dependent fashion, our mass functions averaged over entire populations appear to be insensitive to this effect, at least within the uncertainties implied by our sample and survey size.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{f3.png}
\caption{Spheroid (left panel) and disk (right panel) stellar mass functions for different morphological classes, as fit by single Schechter functions. Although we do not fit directly to the binned galaxy counts, we show these data along with the fits for illustrative purposes, using common $1/V_{\rm max}$ weights for objects in 0.3 dex stellar mass bins as defined by \citet{Lange2015} and with Poisson error bars on the data counts. Error ranges for the individual MSMF fits are indicated by sampling 1000 times from the full posterior probability distribution of the fit parameters and plotting the resulting sampled mass functions with transparency such that darker regions indicate roughly one sigma uncertainties on the fits. The combined mass function of all components is shown in black, and we also plot the double Schechter total mass function of \citet{Kelvin_mfunc} for comparison.}
\label{fig:indivMFs}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Maximum Likelihood Stellar Mass Function Fits}
\label{MLfits}
Consistent with the approach of \citet{vismorph}, we define a sliding volume-limited subsample of our data with mass limits that vary as a function of redshift. \citet{Lange2015} previously defined the appropriate mass limits as a function of redshift to create individual volume-limited samples of GAMA II that are at least 97.7\% complete and unbiased with respect to galaxy colour. We fit a smooth function to the same mass limits as a function of redshift, given by M$_{\rm lim} =$ 4.45 $+$ 207.2$z$ $-$ 3339$z^{2}$ $+$ 18981$z^{3}$, and require the sample we use for mass function fitting to have stellar mass greater than the appropriate mass limit evaluated at its redshift (see Fig.\ \ref{fig:samp}). As in \citet{vismorph}, we also exclude a small number of objects from our sample (26), whose automatedly derived photometric apertures have been flagged as erroneously large and had been assigned erroneously high stellar mass estimates. These objects are primarily in the Sd-Irr class, by far the most numerous class in our sample. The exclusion of these few objects is expected to cause minimal mass incompleteness due to their small fractional contribution to their respective classes.
To derive fits to the stellar mass distributions of the spheroid and disk populations of GAMA II, we employ a parametric maximum likelihood fitting method (e.g., \citealp{SandageML}; \citealp{EfML}), which is also used by \citet{vismorph} to derive morphologically defined stellar mass function fits. Our approach is similar to that described by \citet{Robotham2010}, where the probability density function (PDF) for each galaxy in mass space is represented by a single \citet{Schec76} type functional form:
\begin{multline}
\Phi(\log M)d \log M = ln(10)\times\phi^{*}10^{log(M/M^{*})(\alpha+1)}\\
\times\exp(-10^{ \log (M/M^{*})})d \log M
\end{multline}
where M$^{*}$ is the characteristic mass corresponding to the position of the ``knee'' in the mass function, while $\alpha$ and $\phi^{*}$ refer to the low-mass slope of the mass function and the normalization constant, respectively.
For this fitting method, the PDF that represents each galaxy must integrate to a total probability of one over the stellar mass range of detection. Since our sample is apparent magnitude limited, the relevant stellar mass interval for this integration varies as a function of redshift, and for each galaxy in our sample, the lower integration limit is set by the sample mass limit at its redshift, i.e., the sliding sample mass limit function described previously. For the individual structural \emph{components} of multi-component galaxies, applying a lower integration limit set by the systemic mass limit would lead to integration limits that do not necessarily encompass the measured component mass itself (depending on the component-to-total-mass ratio). As a result, we take the lower integration limits for components to be equal to the systemic mass reduced by the component-to-total-mass ratio of each component. To avoid biasing the mass function fits for the separate components, we must also consider whether or not individual component masses would fall below the overall sample mass limit if they were found in isolation. Thus, we omit galaxy components from our fits if they are below our overall mass fitting limit. We do not attempt to fit mass distributions below a global limit of log(M$_{*}$/M$_{\odot}$) $= 8$, below which we expect significant surface-brightness-based incompleteness in GAMA (see \citealp{Baldry2012} for further details). Through this variable mass limit approach, each galaxy or galaxy component's PDF is normalised to account for our redshift-dependent selection function, analogous to the application of $V/V_{\rm max}$ sample weights.
The galaxy PDFs are summed over the entire chosen sample to give the likelihood function that is then maximized to derive the most likely Schechter $\alpha$ and M$^{*}$ parameters. We use a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) procedure for this analysis, implemented in the contributed \textsf{R} package $LaplacesDemon$\footnote{https://github.com/asgr/Laplacesdemon}. We choose to use the Componentwise Hit-And-Run Metropolis (CHARM) algorithm in this package and specify only a flat/uniform prior on fit parameters. We perform a minimum of 10,000 iterations for each fit (fits are also carried out 10 times for each class in order to derive jackknife errors on the fit parameters as discussed in \S \ref{res}) but also check for convergence using the $Consort$ function of $LaplacesDemon$\ and increase iterations performed for some classes where necessary. Since this procedure does not directly fit for the overall $\phi^{*}$ normalization parameter, we derive this value for each population through comparison to its observed number density. We require that the integrated Schechter function match the summed galaxy number distribution over a mass interval in which galaxy populations are well sampled (9 $<$ log(M$_{*}$/M$_{\odot}$) $<$ 10 for all types except Es where we sum up to log(M$_{*}$/M$_{\odot}$) $=$ 11 for improved statistics).
\section{Results}
\label{res}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{f4.png}
\caption{One- and two-sigma error contours for separate spheroid and disk stellar mass function fits, divided by morphological type. Contours are derived from a jackknife resampling procedure that considers 10 subvolumes and the two-dimensional posterior probability distributions of all resulting fits.}
\label{fig:errcont}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{f5.png}
\caption{Cumulative distribution of bulge S\'ersic index values by morphological type. The majority of Sab-Scd bulges display low S\'ersic indices more consistent with disky or pseudobulge structures than classical bulges.}
\label{fig:bulgen}
\end{figure}
Fig.\ \ref{fig:indivMFs} illustrates the derived spheroid and disk stellar mass function fits for the individual morphological type categories in our sample (fit parameters reported in Table \ref{tab:tab1} and binned mass function data points provided in an electronic table with columns described in Table \ref{tab:tab2new}). Single Schechter functions provide a reasonable description of each spheroid/disk population. For the morphological classes considered to be single-component systems (E, LBS, and Sd-Irr), these fits are effectively identical to the global morphological type stellar mass function fits reported by \citet{vismorph}, which expanded on the GAMA phase I analysis of \citet{Kelvin_mfunc}. For the assumed multi-component systems (S0-Sa and Sab-Scd), we derive separate bulge (or central component) and disk (outer component) stellar mass function fits. In both multi-component populations, the bulge and disk stellar mass functions differ significantly for the same galaxy type. Differences in M$^{*}$ and $\alpha$ Schechter-function parameters between separate populations are illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:errcont} along with their associated error contours. To derive robust error contours, we use a jackknife resampling procedure that divides our sample into 10 subvolumes and consider the full two-dimensional posterior probability distributions for the parameters of all resulting fits. For the Sab-Scd population, we also illustrate the stellar mass function fit contours derived from a single-component treatment of Sab-Scds in addition to the individual component fits. As we motivate in the next section, we will choose to proceed with this single-component parameterisation of the Sab-Scd population when deriving total mass estimates.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{f6a.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{f6b.png}
\caption{Combined spheroid and disk stellar mass distributions. The left panel shows the spheroid and disk populations fit by single Schechter functions (dark red and blue points and dashed lines, respectively). However, these combined functions are better fit by the summed Schechter function fits to their individual constituents (solid red and blue lines). For comparison, we also show the combined spheroid and disk mass functions that would be derived if Sab-Scd central components were assigned to the spheroid class and Sab-Scd outer components were assigned to the disk class (dotted lines). The right panel compares our preferred combined spheroid and disk mass function fits to those of other authors. Spheroid and disk stellar mass functions from \citet{Benson2007} are plotted with an arbitrary normalisation for comparison purposes (red and blue dotted lines), and the equivalent mass functions from \citet{Thanjavur2016} are plotted as red and blue dot-dashed lines (light-coloured line segments indicate the extrapolation of these mass functions below the authors' mass limit). Data point weights and error ranges are indicated as in Fig.\ \ref{fig:indivMFs}.}
\label{fig:totMFs}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Combined Spheroid and Disk Stellar Mass Functions}
\label{func_comp}
To construct combined mass functions for all spheroid-like and disk-like populations, we consider the single-component systems in the E category to consist of pure spheroids. We consider the single-component systems in the Sd-Irr category to consist of pure disks. As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:bulgen}, the LBS population displays a bulge S\'ersic n distribution that appears more skewed to low n values than the prototypical spheroids of the E population. This would seem to suggest that LBS galaxies may not closely resemble typical spheroids but rather have more in common with ``pseudobulges'' that typically display bulge n $\leq$ 2 (e.g., \citealp{KK2004}; \citealp{FD2008}). Pseudobulges are believed to differ from Es/classical bulges structurally, more closely resembling rotating disks (e.g., \citealp{Carollo1999}; \citealp{KK2004}). However, considerable ambiguity remains regarding the possibility of separating classical bulge and pseudobulge populations (see the review of \citealp{Graham2013} and references therein). Adding further complexity, \citet{Lange_decomp} find that the mass vs.\ size relation of LBSs is actually compatible with that of Es. Thus, with this ambiguity in mind, we refrain from including this population within either combined spheroid or disk mass function fit at this time and choose to report mass totals for this population separately.
For the multi-component systems of S0-Sa and Sab-Scd types, the obvious choice is to consider the central/bulge component of each class as a part of the spheroid population and the outer component as a part of the disk population. However, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:bulgen}, the Sab-Scd bulge S\'ersic index (n) distribution again suggests typically low n values consistent with the pseudobulge population. In this case, the findings of \citet{Lange_decomp} also support the association of Sab-Scd bulges with the pure disk Sd-Irr populations. In addition, \citet{Lange_decomp} find that single S\'ersic fits are sufficient to describe the Sab-Scd population, yielding characteristics that are in similarly good agreement with the pure disk population. Thus, in subsequent fits, we elect to include the relation derived from single-component fits to the Sab-Scd population in the combined disk stellar mass function.
In Fig.\ \ref{fig:totMFs}, we show combined spheroid (E plus S0-Sa bulge) and disk (Sab-Scd, Sd-Irr, and S0-Sa disk) stellar mass distributions and Schechter function fits. Both combined spheroid and disk stellar mass functions are poorly fit by a single Schechter function form. As a result, we use the sum of the individual E and S0-Sa bulge Schechter function fits to describe the total spheroid mass distribution and the sum of Sab-Scd, Sd-Irr, and S0-Sa disk Schechter function fits to describe the total disk mass distribution. The low mass end of the combined spheroid mass distribution still deviates from this combined function slightly, which is largely due to deviations of the E mass function from the best-fitting Schechter function in the lowest few mass bins.
In the right panel of Fig.\ \ref{fig:totMFs}, we also compare to the prior combined spheroid disk and stellar mass function results of \citet{Benson2007} and \citet{Thanjavur2016}. Both sets of results were derived from bulge and disk decomposition analysis of SDSS imaging and were limited in depth by SDSS redshift survey sample magnitude limit ($>$2 mags brighter than our current sample). \citet{Thanjavur2016} specifically do not fit mass functions below log(M$_{*}$/M$_{\odot}$) $= 8.9$. We indicate the extrapolation of the \citet{Thanjavur2016} mass functions to our nearly one dex lower mass limit by the light-coloured line segments in Fig.\ \ref{fig:totMFs}.
Evidently, the \citet{Benson2007} spheroid mass function strongly resembles the spheroid mass function derived in this work, however, the combined disk mass functions diverge significantly, particularly at low mass. The low-mass disk mass function slope we derive is significantly steeper than that of \citet{Benson2007}, which suggests that this slope was not well constrained in the earlier, relatively shallow sample. The disk mass function of \citet{Thanjavur2016} follows the general shape of our disk mass function over the log(M$_{*}$/M$_{\odot}$) $> 8.9$ fitting region. However, the detailed shapes of these mass functions differ, as the \citet{Thanjavur2016} mass functions are parameterised as single Schechter functions in contrast to our multiple Schechter function combinations.
Our spheroid mass function differs significantly from the \citet{Thanjavur2016} mass function at both the high and low mass end. \citet{Bernardi2013} specifically discuss apparent discrepancies in the high-mass end of the mass function with reference to earlier GAMA-based and SDSS-based results. \citet{Bernardi2013} find that the same $z < 0.06$ upper redshift limit that we currently use eliminates the highest luminosity objects that overlap between the samples. As a result, it is possible that part of this disagreement originates from the smaller volume of GAMA, which implies poorer sampling of relatively rare high-mass galaxies. As discussed by \citet{Bernardi2013}, differences in the mass-to-light ratios assumed for high-mass galaxies can also cause such discrepancies. The reason for our discrepancy compared to the \citet{Thanjavur2016} spheroid mass function at low mass is less clear, however, it likely results from differences in the assignment of components to bulge and disk categories. \citet{Thanjavur2016} use a purely algorithmic approach to assigning galaxies to single or multi-component fit categories, which is based on cuts in the probability of various bulge plus disk or single S\'ersic models. We use the visual morphology as a prior on the single or multi-component status, and as a result of the morphology distribution of our sample, the majority of low-mass objects in our sample are fit as single-component, pure disk systems. While the typical B/T values derived by \citet{Thanjavur2016} are low at low mass, these bulges added together create a spheroid mass distribution with a relatively flat low-mass slope. It is currently unclear whether these low-mass bulges are more consistent with disky pseudobulges or classical spheroids.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{f7.jpg}
\caption{Total mass density of spheroids and disks in separate classes, where points indicate the data values (with $1/V_{\rm max}$ weights), and lines indicate values derived from our Schechter function fits. Mass density estimates are bounded for each individual class. Error ranges on these fits are indicated as in Figs.\ \ref{fig:indivMFs} and \ref{fig:totMFs}.}
\label{fig:totmass}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{f8.png}
\caption{Fraction of total stellar mass contributed by each population as a function of stellar mass regime, where points indicate data totals and lines are derived from our Schechter function fits. Due to their indeterminate nature, LBSs are excluded from combined spheroid and disk categories.}
\label{fig:massratio}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Total Spheroid and Disk Mass Densities}
\label{mbreakdown}
Fig. \ref{fig:totmass} illustrates the total stellar mass density ($\rho_{*}$) values of spheroid/disk populations as a function of the stellar mass interval. For each spheroid/disk category, the peak of the stellar mass density distribution is well sampled, and our total stellar mass density estimates appear to be bounded within the limits of this sample. We derive total stellar mass density estimates for each structural category from both direct data summation using $V/V_{\rm max}$ weights ($\rho_{\Sigma}$) and integration of our stellar mass function fits ($\rho_{\phi}$). Table \ref{tab:tab2} summarizes the stellar mass density estimates along with uncertainties derived using the same jackknife resampling procedure as in \citet{vismorph}. All such estimates are subject to an additional error term from cosmic variance. With the method of \citet{DR2010}, we estimate a 22.3\% cosmic variance error contribution within our sample volume.
Integrating our combined stellar mass function fits, we find a total spheroid stellar mass density $\rho_{spheroid} = 1.24\pm 0.49 \times 10^{8}$ M$_{\odot}$Mpc$^{-3}$h$_{0.7}$, which translates to $\sim$50\% of the total stellar mass density. Breaking down the mass density further, 35\% of the total is contributed by Es, and 15\% is contributed by S0-Sa bulges. Disk-like structures are found to have mass density $\rho_{disk} = 1.20\pm 0.45 \times 10^{8}$ M$_{\odot}$Mpc$^{-3}$h$_{0.7}$, which translates to a similar $\sim$48\% of the total. The disk population contributions to the total are 22\% in Sab-Scd galaxies, 6\% in Sd-Irr galaxies, and 20\% in S0-Sa disks. The remaining few percent of the total stellar mass density is found in the ambiguous LBS class.
The spheroid and disk mass ratios we derive are broadly consistent with previous results, including the approximately equal spheroid/disk mass ratio estimated by \citet{Kelvin_mfunc} and \citet{vismorph}. Bracketing our result, \citet{Benson2007} estimated a disk mass fraction of 35-51\%, where the lower fraction is determined with a correction to the \emph{luminosity} function bias in the sample inclination distribution (see e.g., \citealp{TW2011}). Similarly, \citet{Gadotti2009} estimated a lower 36\% disk mass fraction but in a sample with a mass limit 2 dex higher than the current work. \citet{Gadotti2009} also discuss the comparison to samples with lower mass limit and find that their spheroid/disk mass fractions would indeed be approximately equal within a sample with a significantly lower mass limit.
Similarly, the recent work of \citet{Thanjavur2016} estimates a 37\% disk mass fraction in a sample with a mass limit approximately one dex higher than the current work. As discussed in \S \ref{func_comp}, the higher spheroid mass fraction results from discrepancies with our spheroid mass function at both high and low masses. It is interesting to note that our total mass fraction discrepancy with this result could potentially be resolved through treating our Sab-Scd galaxies as two-component systems. Assuming that the central components of these systems add to the spheroid mass and the outer components add to the disk mass is likely more similar to the \citet{Thanjavur2016} component treatment. In this case, we would find a total disk mass fraction of 39\% and a spheroid mass fraction of 59\%. However, we find that our actual spheroid mass \emph{function} in this case would still deviate significantly from the \citet{Thanjavur2016} spheroid mass function, as this change primarily affects the shape of the mass function at intermediate masses rather than at low or high mass (see dotted lines in the left panel of Fig.\ \ref{fig:totMFs}).
Compared both to the current work and to other authors, \citet{Driver2007full} derive a slightly higher disk mass fraction of 59\%. The higher disk mass fraction may be due in part to the deeper-than-SDSS imaging used in the \citet{Driver2007full} analysis, which should enable detection of the outskirts of galaxy disks to lower surface brightness levels than we are able to reach here. Further, the \citet{Driver2007full} analysis uses the Millennium Galaxy Catalogue (MGC; \citealp{MGC}) sample, which is $B$-band selected and may plausibly include a larger fraction of blue and likely disk-like objects at fixed \emph{mass} than our $r$-band selected sample.
The measured balance of spheroid and disk stellar mass at z$\sim$0 provides a fundamental constraint on galaxy formation and evolution models, as it effectively results from the detailed interplay between structure formation and destruction processes as they build up the galaxy population over cosmic time. Although we find estimated disk stellar mass densities slightly lower than \citet{Driver2007full}, our spheroid and disk stellar mass densities are plausibly consistent with the predicted spheroid/disk stellar mass buildup from the two-phase galaxy formation model of \citet{Driver2013}, given the uncertainties and assumptions involved in both. Further, our mass density estimates agree well with an updated version of this model as presented by \citet{Andrewsmodel}.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{f9a.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{f9b.png}
\caption{Spheroid to total mass ratios as a function of group environment for central galaxies, satellite galaxies, and the combined population. The left panel shows the per-galaxy median (squares) with estimated one-sigma errors on the median (dark bars) and the interquartile range of the data (light bars), with central and satellite points shown offset from the bin centers for clarity. The right panel shows the summed total for all objects in each bin with one-sigma error bars on the fraction in each bin indicated by vertical bars. Due to their indeterminate nature, LBSs are excluded from either spheroid or disk category here. For points with no apparent vertical bars, the one-sigma errors and/or interquartile ranges are smaller than the points.}
\label{fig:env}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Variation of the Spheroid and Disk Stellar Mass Budget}
Aside from the global mass balance, the detailed balance between galaxy spheroid and disk mass buildup to z$\sim$0 \emph{as a function of galaxy mass and environment} can be measured in both observations and galaxy evolution models. In the following section, we quantify such variations in the spheroid and disk mass budget using GAMA survey observations.
\subsubsection{Spheroid and Disk Mass as a Function of Galaxy Mass}
In Fig. \ref{fig:massratio}, we show the fraction that each spheroid/disk category in our sample contributes to the total stellar mass density in each galaxy mass bin. The trends shown in this figure are complex, but they reflect a number of expected large-scale galaxy demographic trends, such as the transition from spheroid mass dominance at high mass to disk mass dominance at low mass. For individual galaxy types, we see the E mass dominance at the highest stellar masses give way to S0-Sa disks and bulges at lower mass, then to Sab-Scd galaxies with a broad distribution through the intermediate mass regime, and finally to dwarf Sd-Irr disks with a smaller contribution from LBSs at the lowest masses we probe. The transition between overall spheroid and disk mass dominance occurs at log(M$_{*}$/M$_{\odot}$) $\sim 10.9$ just above the bimodality mass of \citet{bimodalitymass} at log(M$_{*}$/M$_{\odot}$) $\sim 10.5$, where quenched (and presumably spheroid-dominated) galaxies give way to those with recent star formation. \citet{Thanjavur2016} show qualitatively similar trends in the spheroid and disk mass ratios in their Fig.\ 11, but we find more detailed structure in the trends with mass compared to the smooth variation seen in the other work. \citet{Thanjavur2016} also find the transition point between spheroid and disk mass dominance occurs at a slightly lower mass than we find, closer to the bimodality mass.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{f10a.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{f10b.png}
\caption{Spheroid to total mass ratios for satellite galaxies, as a function of projected radius from the group center position. The left panel shows the per-galaxy median (squares) with estimated one-sigma errors on the median (dark bars) and the interquartile range of the data (light bars). The right panel shows the summed total for all objects in each bin with one-sigma error bars on the fraction in each bin indicated by vertical bars (due to their indeterminate nature, LBSs are excluded from either spheroid or disk category here).}
\label{fig:envrad}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Spheroid and Disk Mass as a Function of Environment}
Galaxy structure is well known to vary with the surrounding environment, as through the ``morphology-density relation'' (e.g., \citealp{Dressler1980}). In Fig.\ \ref{fig:env} we examine the balance between spheroid and disk mass as a function of group halo environment specifically, using group identifications derived in the GAMA II group catalog of \citet{GAMAgroups}. We also show the division between group central and satellite galaxies as derived from this catalog. We find that $\sim$54\% of the present sample are considered isolated in the GAMA group-finding analysis, i.e., in N$=$1 halos. We indicate the spheroid-to-total ratios for these points by the red ``isolated'' points in this figure. A small number ($<$40) of our sample galaxies are found in slightly lower mass groups than we plot here. However, any bins with M$_{halo} < 10^{10} M_{\odot}/h$ are sparsely populated and dominated by low-N groups (N$\leq$4) for which derived group halo mass estimates are less reliable, so we refrain from analysing these lower mass systems here.
The left panel of this figure illustrates the median and spread in the distribution of spheroid mass divided by total mass of individual galaxies in both isolated and grouped environments. From this figure, we find that the isolated objects are primarily disk dominated, whle there is extremely large spread in individual galaxy spheroid-to-total-mass ratios within each halo mass bin. In general, similar degrees of spread in spheroid-to-total-mass ratios are found for both central and satellite galaxies, which could indicate that this spread is driven in part by group-to-group variations within each halo mass bin. The median trend for satellite galaxies (and for the combined sample) rapidly flattens to a typically zero spheroid mass ratio (i.e., pure disk) by group halo mass $\sim10^{13} M_{\odot}/h$, however, the typical spheroid mass fraction among central galaxies remains nonzero to slightly lower group mass $\sim10^{12.5} M_{\odot}/h$. This marginal difference is a likely consequence of the previously discussed correlation between galaxy mass and spheroid mass ratio, as centrals tend to be more massive than satellites within a given halo mass bin and are correspondingly more likely to be spheroid dominated.
The right panel of Fig.\ \ref{fig:env} examines the relationship between spheroid mass ratio and group environment in an integrated sense, where we sum the total stellar mass of all objects in each group environment bin and plot the total spheroid mass in each bin divided by the total stellar mass of all components. We find a strong decrease in the spheroid mass fraction going from high to low group halo masses, with the mass fraction for low mass groups similar to that for isolated systems. For satellite galaxies, spheroids only dominate the mass budget for the highest mass groups we probe, above M$_{halo} \sim 10^{13.5} M_{\odot}/h$. The transition between integrated spheroid and disk mass dominance for group central galaxies occurs at a lower group halo mass M$_{halo} \sim 10^{12.5} M_{\odot}/h$, again likely reflecting the positive correlation between galaxy mass and spheroid mass ratio.
The simulations of \citet{Sales2012} examined the role of group halo properties in galaxy spheroid/disk formation and found galaxy structure to be poorly correlated with host halo properties but strongly correlated with the alignment of gas accreted into the halo. However, only a narrow range of galaxy host halo masses were considered for this analysis (similar to the halo mass of the Milky Way), which is within the regime where we find flat spheroid mass ratios as a function of group halo mass. In general, there is reason to expect a correlation between host halo environment and structure formation in simulations as well as observations. Halos in high density environments may be expected to collapse earlier than those in less dense environments and thus be more concentrated and likely to host lower angular momentum, more spheroid-dominated galaxies (e.g., as discussed by \citealp{RF2012}). Reproduction of the mass ratios of galaxy spheroid and disk structures observed across a variety of environments should provide a useful test of future developments in cosmological galaxy formation models.
With the GAMA dataset, we can also examine spheroid and disk mass trends internal to groups. For the satellite galaxy population specifically, it is likely that the spread in spheroid-to-total mass ratio at fixed halo mass is at least partially driven by residual variations of spheroid mass ratio with distance from each group's center. To investigate this trend, we use the projected distance of each galaxy from the iterative group center position (R) and scale these radii by a characteristic radius for each group, R$_{\rm group}$, which we take as the radius encompassing 50\% of the group members from \citet{GAMAgroups}.
Similar to Fig.\ \ref{fig:env}, Fig.\ \ref{fig:envrad} illustrates the variation of spheroid mass ratio with distance from the group center for both individual galaxies (left panel) and for summed totals in radius bins (right panel). We find that satellite galaxies still display significant per-galaxy variation in spheroid-to-total ratio at fixed radius, which implies that other factors such as group-to-group variations or galaxy mass segregation drive additional scatter at fixed radius. We note, however, that the recent analysis of \citet{Kafle_mseg} has found no evidence for mass segregation of the satellite population as a function of radius in the GAMA groups. In spite of the scatter at fixed radius, a clear trend exists whereby spheroid mass fraction increases as distance from the cluster center decreases. In the cluster outskirts, the typical satellite galaxy is disk dominated, and spheroid-dominated satellite galaxies are only the norm in the lowest radius bin we probe. In an integrated sense, the total mass budget for group satellites becomes spheroid dominated just below the characteristic 50th percentile group radius (as indicated by the dashed lines in Fig.\ \ref{fig:envrad}).
Qualitatively our observed mass ratio trend with radius matches the expectation from previous works where bulge-dominated \emph{morphology} is found to become more common in high density environments nearer to group/cluster cores (e.g., \citealp{Dressler1980}; \citealp{PG1984}; \citealp{Tran2001}; \citealp{Hoyle2012}). By casting this trend in terms of purely quantitative mass ratios, we intend to directly probe the regions of group parameter space in which spheroid and disk mass assembly processes dominate. We note that our error bars on these quantitative mass ratios can be large in certain regimes where sample numbers are low, particularly for centrals at large group halo mass and for the lower number density outskirts of groups. Future efforts to extend GAMA structural analysis outwards in redshift using higher resolution imaging should improve these constraints with a larger sample volume, but such constraints will necessarily apply over a larger redshift range than the z$\sim$0 results presented here.
\citet{LG2013} take a similar quantitative approach in measuring the disk-to-total mass ratios of galaxies, finding a very weak dependence of D/T on local projected fifth nearest neighbor density but a stronger trend between D/T and group crossing time (proportional to distance from the group center) that matches the sense of our mass ratio trend. \citet{LG2013} propose that galaxy harassment \citep{Moore1996}, which is most effective in high density regions where high-speed galaxy-galaxy encounters are likely, is a plausible explanation for this trend. In this scenario, our results would imply that galaxy harassment is most effective at converting disk mass to bulge mass in relatively rich group/cluster environments and within the 50th percentile group radius.
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{tab:tab1} Single Schechter stellar mass function fit parameters for the spheroid and disk stellar mass functions in Figs.~\ref{fig:indivMFs} and \ref{fig:totMFs}. Columns are: the knee in the Schechter function (M$^{*}$), the slope ($\alpha$), and the normalization constant ($\phi^{*}$). Quoted uncertainties are derived from the spread in each parameter's posterior probability distribution from fits carried out in 10 jackknife resampling iterations.}
\begin{tabular}{cccc} \hline
Population & log(M$^{*}$h$_{0.7}$$^{2}$/M$_{\odot}$) & $\alpha$ & $\phi^{*}/10^{-3}$ \\
& & & (dex$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-3}$h$_{0.7}$$^{3}$) \\ \hline
E &$11.02 \pm 0.055$ & $-0.887 \pm 0.034$ & $0.866^{+0.080}_{-0.078}$ \\
S0-Sa bulges&$10.15 \pm 0.033$ & $-0.179 \pm 0.056$ & $2.84^{+0.089}_{-0.11}$ \\
S0-Sa disks&$10.43 \pm 0.036$ & $-0.337 \pm 0.050$ & $2.06^{+0.11}_{-0.12}$ \\
Sab-Scd bulges &$9.868 \pm 0.033$ & $-0.54 \pm 0.040$ & $2.94^{+0.11}_{-0.12}$ \\
Sab-Scd disks &$10.29 \pm 0.045$ & $-0.852 \pm 0.032$ & $1.63^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$ \\
Sab-Scd combined &$10.40 \pm 0.034$ & $-0.736 \pm 0.034$ & $2.42^{+0.15}_{-0.15}$ \\
Sd-Irr &$9.647 \pm 0.065$ & $-1.58 \pm 0.062$ & $1.67^{+0.42}_{-0.31}$ \\
LBS &$9.31 \pm 0.11$ & $-1.66 \pm 0.15$ & $0.713^{+0.37}_{-0.25}$ \\
\hline
All spheroids &$10.60 \pm 0.035$ & $-0.623 \pm 0.029$ & $3.70^{+0.15}_{-0.15}$ \\
All disks &$10.73 \pm 0.033$ & $-1.20 \pm 0.016$ & $1.72^{+0.12}_{-0.12}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{tab:tab2new} Binned stellar mass function data points for individual galaxy populations, as shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:indivMFs} and \ref{fig:totMFs}. This table is provided online in machine readable form, with columns as described below.}
\begin{tabular}{cc} \hline
Column number & Column description \\ \hline
1 & stellar mass bin midpoints \\
2-4 & E stellar mass function (lower bound, measurement, upper bound) \\
5-7 & S0-Sa bulge stellar mass function (lower bound, measurement, upper bound) \\
8-10 & S0-Sa disk stellar mass function (lower bound, measurement, upper bound) \\
11-13 & Sab-Scd bulge stellar mass function (lower bound, measurement, upper bound) \\
14-16 & Sab-Scd disk stellar mass function (lower bound, measurement, upper bound) \\
17-19 & Sab-Scd combined stellar mass function (lower bound, measurement, upper bound) \\
20-22 & Sd-Irr stellar mass function (lower bound, measurement, upper bound) \\
23-25 & LBS stellar mass function (lower bound, measurement, upper bound) \\
26-28 & All spheroid stellar mass function (lower bound, measurement, upper bound) \\
29-31 & All disk stellar mass function (lower bound, measurement, upper bound) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{tab:tab2} Stellar mass densities for each spheroid/disk category, derived both by summation of data with $V/V_{\rm max}$ weights ($\rho_{\Sigma}$) and integration of stellar mass functions ($\rho_{\phi}$). A fraction of the total stellar mass is also given for each category and method. Quoted uncertainties are derived according to a jackknife resampling procedure as decribed in \S \ref{mbreakdown}. Derived stellar mass density estimates are also subject to an additional 22.3\% error contribution from cosmic variance, estimated by the method of \citet{DR2010}.}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc} \hline
Population & $\rho_{\Sigma}/10^7$ & Fraction of All (sum)& $\rho_{\phi}/10^7$ & Fraction of All (fit)\\
& (M$_{\odot}$Mpc$^{-3}$h$_{0.7}$) & & (M$_{\odot}$Mpc$^{-3}$h$_{0.7}$) & \\ \hline
All &$23 \pm 7.7$ & ... & $25 \pm 4.9$ & ... \\
\hline
E &$8.3 \pm 2.9$ & $0.36$ & $8.6 \pm 2.1$ & $0.35$ \\
S0-Sa bulges&$3.5 \pm 1.1$ & $0.15$ & $3.8 \pm 1.4$ & $0.15$ \\
S0-Sa disks &$4.9 \pm 1.7$ & $0.21$ & $5.0 \pm 1.8$ & $0.20$ \\
Sab-Scd &$5.1 \pm 1.6$ & $0.22$ & $5.4 \pm 1.8$ & $0.22$ \\
Sd-Irr &$1.3 \pm 0.40$ & $0.054$ & $1.6 \pm 0.39$ & $0.063$ \\
LBS &$0.23 \pm 0.071$ & $0.0097$ & $0.37 \pm 0.20$ & $0.015$ \\
\hline
All Spheroids &$12 \pm 4.0$ & $0.51$ & $12 \pm 4.9$ & $0.50$ \\
All Disks &$11 \pm 3.7$ & $0.48$ & $12 \pm 4.5$ & $0.48$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
\label{conc}
Using the recently expanded Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey phase II visual morphology sample and the large-scale bulge and disk decomposition analysis of \citet{Lange_decomp}, we derive new stellar mass function fits to galaxy spheroid and disk populations down to log(M$_{*}$/M$_{\odot}$) $= 8$ . We find an approximately equal division between the total stellar mass densities of galaxy spheroid and disk populations, which is broadly consistent with prior results albeit with a somewhat lower disk mass fraction than observed by \citet{Driver2007full}. The fact that \citet{Driver2007full} used deeper imaging data than in our current analysis raises the intriguing possibility that the planned future extension of GAMA structural analysis to use deeper and higher-resolution Kilo-Degree Survey imaging (KiDS; \citealp{kids}) could yield disk galaxies undetected within our current surface brightness limits or larger and more massive disks in existing galaxies. The resolution of KiDS imaging will also allow us to extend the GAMA structural analysis to higher redshift, improving the sampling of high mass galaxies and potentially resolving a discrepancy with the high-mass end of the mass function as seen in the larger SDSS volume. Further, we find a small (few percent) of our total stellar mass density in the LBS (little blue spheroid) population, which is not a clearly identified as either a spheroid or disk population at present. Future investigations with KiDS imaging should allow us to better resolve the structural characteristics of these objects, including their potential for hosting low-surface-brightness outer envelopes.
Finally, we examine the variation of the total disk and spheroid mass balance as a function of galaxy mass and group environment. We find strong overall population trends with both galaxy mass and group halo mass, where spheroids dominate the galaxy mass budget above galaxy stellar mass $\sim10^{11}$ M$_{\odot}$ and above group halo mass $\sim10^{12.5}$ M$_{\odot}/h$. Further, we find differences in the mass budget of satellites and centrals, where satellites are only spheroid dominated within higher group halo mass environments (M$_{halo} > 10^{13.5} M_{\odot}/h$). This difference is related to the typically lower masses of satellites compared to centrals at fixed halo mass. We also examine satellite galaxy spheroid-to-total mass ratio trends with radius from the group center, finding that spheroids dominate the mass budget of satellite galaxies within the 50th percentile group radius. This trend towards spheroid dominance at low group-centric radius is likely due to mechanisms that are most effective at transforming morphology where galaxy densities and encounter speeds are high, such as galaxy harassment \citep{Moore1996}.
These measurements, which are currently possible from photometric galaxy decompositions in large survey samples, provide a useful basis for comparison with the detailed structural demographics of simulated galaxies. In the future as samples of kinematic galaxy surveys continue to grow (e.g., from the SAMI survey of ~3,000 galaxies to the MaNGA survey of ~10,000 galaxies; \citealp{SAMI}; \citealp{manga}), the division between spheroid-like and disk-like galaxy \emph{dynamics} will be possible on similarly large scales, providing an even more direct constraint on models of galaxy structural evolution.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Alister Graham, Anne Samson, and the anonymous referee for helpful comments on this manuscript. SPD and AJM acknowledge funding support from the Australian Research Council under Discovery Project 130103505.
GAMA is a joint European-Australasian project based around a spectroscopic campaign using the Anglo-Australian Telescope. The GAMA input catalogue is based on data taken from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey. Complementary imaging of the GAMA regions is being obtained by a number of independent survey programmes including GALEX MIS, VST KiDS, VISTA VIKING, WISE, Herschel-ATLAS, GMRT and ASKAP providing UV to radio coverage. GAMA is funded by the STFC (UK), the ARC (Australia), the AAO, and the participating institutions. The GAMA website is http://www.gama-survey.org/ .
Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions,
the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max
Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council
for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/. The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research
Consortium for the Participating Institutions. The Participating
Institutions are the American Museum of Natural
History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of
Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University,
University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab,
the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation
Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for
Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics
and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the
Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National
Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy
(MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA),
New Mexico State University, Ohio State University, University
of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton
University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the
University of Washington.
The VIKING survey is based on observations with ESO
Telescopes at the La Silla Paranal Observatory under the
programme ID 179.A-2004.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Introduction}
Ferromagnet-nonmagnet multilayers have been extensively studied in the context of giant magnetoresistance (GMR) \cite{GMR}, data storage \cite{data-storage}, exchange interactions \cite{exchange-interaction} and several other applications\cite{thermoelectric,carlos2007,procspie}. Most of these effects are known to have a significant dependence on the interface morphology, among other parameters such as, thickness of individual components, and composition of the multilayers. Fundamentally, this interface dependence comes from variations in spin-dependent scattering of charge carriers at the interface. Therefore, issues like inter-diffusion and consequent compositional changes at the interface are some of the major bottlenecks in the field. This problem has been appreciated long back and several attempts have been made to optimize magnetoresistance in multilayers with immiscible components such as Co-Cu multilayers. GMR values of 5$\%$ have been measured at room temperature in granular Co-Cu films prepared by electro-deposition\cite{electroGMRCoCu}. People have also studied GMR in such multilayers as a function of thickness of Co layer \cite{CoGMR}, Cu layer \cite{CuGMR}, enhancement of GMR upon use of Ag additive on Cu layer\cite{AgAddGMR}, thermal effects in GMR \cite{GMTR} and applications in highly sensitive and flexible electronics\cite{flexible-electronics}.
As such, the magnetic properties of individual magnetic layers in multilayer films are dependent on magneto-crystalline anisotropy and exchange interactions, which dominate in the regime of higher and lower grain sizes, respectively. The crossover length for Co, which is one of the most widely used magnetic layer in multilayer structures, is $\sim$10 nm\cite{ferroexchange}. Typically, in thin films grown at ambient temperatures, grain sizes are known to depend on deposition rate and ambient pressure. However, the structural and morphological evolution of constituent magnetic layers, with increasing number of bilayers, have been largely ignored. Both theoretical\cite{theory1, theory2, theory3} and experimental\cite{expt0, expt1, expt2} studies on magnetic multilayers implicitly assume that the magnetic and structural properties are uniform across all the constituent layers in a multilayer system. In this report we have investigated this aspect of magnetic-nonmagnetic system in a multilayer of immiscible Co and Au, deposited using e-beam evaporation. Using glancing angle X-ray diffraction measurements we have followed the structural evolution of the top magnetic layer as a function of number of bilayers, which showed a gradually increasing degree of amorphization (reduction in grain size). Magneto-optical Kerr effect (MOKE) measurements showed a concurrent magnetic softening of the top magnetic layer as the number of bilayers was increased. Micromagnetic simulations also supported our observation.
\section{Experimental Details}
Si substrates were cleaned in acetone and then in isopropyl alcohol to remove surface impurities. 1, 2, 5 and 10 bilayers of Co and Au thin films were deposited on them using e-beam evaporation technique. A high vacuum chamber was used for this purpose with a base pressure below 1$\times 10^{-7}$ mbar. The thickness of each layer was $\sim$5 nm, as shown by quartz crystal monitor (QCM). The rates of deposition, 0.6 nm/min and 0.4 nm/min for Co and Au respectively, were maintained throughout the deposition for all the layers. X-ray reflectivity (XRR) measurements were performed on the bilayers to assess the roughness and to check the thickness of the individual layers. These parameters were extracted from the experimental data using Parrat's recursive algorithm in GenX package\cite{bjorck2007}. Evolving granularity of the multilayer films as a function of number of bilayers was studied using glancing angle X-ray diffraction method at an incident angle of 0.5 degrees to the surface. The magnetic behavior of the films were examined using Magneto-optical Kerr effect (MOKE) measurements at ambient temperatures. For all MOKE measurements, longitudinal mode was used with DC magnetic field aligned in the plane of the films.
\section{Results}
The XRR data along with the simulations are shown in Fig. \ref{XRR} and the average thickness and roughness of the layers in each sample and the errors in the parameters, obtained from fitting the data, are given in Table 1. The thickness values from the fitting are in good agreement with the values measured by QCM. The roughness of each layer is small and can be attributed to the immiscibility of Au and Co, which is due to positive heat of mixing ($\Delta H _{mix}=+11kJ/mol$)\cite{mixing}. In case of 5 and 10 bilayers the successive higher order Bragg peaks are not well defined. They are broad and show splitting because of presence of thickness error ($\sim12\%$) in the deposited layers. The top Au layer further serves to protect the underlying Co layers from oxidation.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.067]{XRR.jpg}
\caption{X-ray reflectivity data of 1,2,5 and 10 bilayers of Co/Au along with the fitting curves. A schematic of the bilayers is shown in the inset.}
\label{XRR}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Average thickness and roughness in nm obtained from XRR fitting. The subscript corresponds to the no. of bilayers.}
\label{table-thickness}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline\hline
Parameter & Thickness & Roughness \\
\hline\hline
Au$_1$ & 6.42$\pm$0.15 & 0.39$\pm$0.09 \\
Co$_1$ & 4.79$\pm$0.15 & 0.60$\pm$0.09 \\
Au$_2$ & 6.23$\pm$0.15 & 0.62$\pm$0.09 \\
Co$_2$ & 4.07$\pm$0.15 & 0.69$\pm$0.09 \\
Au$_5$ & 5.06$\pm$0.15 & 0.74$\pm$0.09 \\
Co$_5$ & 4.75$\pm$0.15 & 0.81$\pm$0.09 \\
Au$_{10}$ & 4.46$\pm$0.15 & 0.69$\pm$0.09 \\
Co$_{10}$ & 4.34$\pm$0.15 & 0.72$\pm$0.09 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The immiscibility of Co and Au is also exhibited in the XRD data (in Fig. 2) which shows no alloy phases or compounds of Co and Au. The depth of penetration (d) of x-rays was calculated from the relation\cite{glxrd} $d=\sin \theta / \mu$, where the angle of incidence, $\theta=0.5^o$ and $\mu$ is the absorption coefficient of the material, which came out to be about 6$\pm$3 nm for Au and 25$\pm$5 nm for Co. Hence, the thicknesses of the Co and Au layers used are enough for the X-rays to probe the structure of the top bilayer, which is evidenced from the fact that we are able to obtain peaks in the XRD data for the case of 1 bilayer of Co and Au. One can then see that the peaks of metastable $\alpha$ Co (200) fcc and Co (200) fcc phases are lower for the case of 2 bilayers compared to the case of 1 bilayer, and vanish completely for the sample with 5 bilayers. We explain this on the basis of increase in degree of amorphisation (granularity) of the top Co layer as the number of bilayers increase. Furthermore, even though hcp is the most stable phase of Co, in the present study, only fcc phase is seen because of the low rate of evaporation of Co, as explained in our earlier work\cite{siva}. The peaks corresponding to Au are broad in all the cases signifying that all the layers of Au are amorphous.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.32]{XRD.jpg}
\caption{Glancing angle XRD patterns of 1,2 and 5 bilayers of Co/Au showing increase in the amorphisation of the top Co layer as the number of bilayers is increased.}
\label{XRD}
\end{figure}
The well-known Scherrer equation \cite{scherrer1918} was used to compute the average grain size, $D$ of Co from the FWHM of the XRD peaks:
\begin{equation}
D=\frac{K \lambda}{\beta \cos \theta}
\end{equation}
where $K$ is a shape dependent constant, $\lambda$ is wavelength of the X-ray source used, $\beta$ is FWHM of the peak in radians and $\theta$ corresponds to the angle of incidence. Using the values $K=0.9$ and $\lambda=1.5406$\AA $ $ the average grain sizes were calculated and are tabulated in Table 2. Since the Co peaks are nonexistent in the XRD data for the case of 5 bilayers, the grain sizes could not be calculated in that case. We must note that in case of X-rays incident at glancing angles, the application of Scherrer equation assumes that grains are like cylindrical plates \cite{cyl-plates} and the grain sizes thus calculated are permitted to be greater than the film thickness. In addition, we also emphasize the fact that due to the low glancing angles we are essentially probing the top Au and top Co layers only.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.32]{moke_1.jpg}
\caption{Hysteresis loops obtained from MOKE measurements for 1,2,5 and 10 bilayers show that the coercivity decreases with the number of bilayers.}
\label{moke_1}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Grain sizes corresponding to the various peaks and number of bilayers (n) from the XRD data}
\label{grain_size}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline\hline
Type & n & $\beta$(deg) & $\theta$(deg) & $D$(nm) \\
\hline
$\alpha$ Co fcc & 1 & 0.140 & 25.744 & 62.729 \\
& 2 & 0.183 & 25.883 & 48.273 \\
\hline
Co fcc & 1 & 0.133 & 26.889 & 67.021 \\
& 2 & 0.193 & 26.971 & 46.074\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We now discuss the correlation of magnetic property with the grain sizes. During the crystalline to amorphous transition of a material, the structural correlation length is reduced i.e. the grain size decreases. There exists a ferromagnetic exchange length, $L_{ex}$ below which the exchange energy starts to balance the magneto-crystalline anisotropy energy of the grains, and is given by $L_{ex}=\sqrt{A/K_1}$, where $A$ is the exchange stiffness constant and $K_1$ is the anisotropy constant which is related to the crystal symmetry. When the average grain size D is of the order of the exchange length $L_{ex}$, it can then be used as a measure of the extent to which the exchange energy balances the magneto-crystalline anisotropy energy. As $D$ goes below $L_{ex}$, the directions of the magnetization and anisotropy direction of the individual grains start to become increasingly uncorrelated. While the magnetization directions of the grains are progressively aligned parallel to the field, the anisotropy direction can remain randomly oriented, since the torque on them due to the field is reduced significantly by exchange interaction with other grains. As a result, the effective anisotropy, averaged over several grains, is considerably reduced in magnitude. Using statistics and scaling arguments the random anisotropy model\cite{herzer1989,herzer1990} derives a relationship between the effective magneto-crystalline anisotropy constant $\langle K_1\rangle$ and the average grain size $D$ . The model assumes that an assembly of exchange coupled grains, each of size $D$ are embedded in an ideally soft ferromagnetic matrix, occupying a volume fraction $v_r$ and having their magneto-crystalline anisotropies oriented randomly. $L_{ex}$ determines the ferromagnetic correlation volume $V=L_{ex}^3$ which contains $N$ number of grains over
\begin{figure}[hbtp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{moke_2.jpg}
\caption{MOKE data of (a) 1 bilayer and (b) 10 bilayers at various angles of the sample with the longitudinal axis. Inset shows plot the coercivity H$_C$ with the longitudinal angle for 1 and 10 bilayers.}
\label{moke_2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[hbtp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.34]{hysteresis_oommf.png}
\caption{Simulated hysteresis curves of the 1,2,5 and 10 bilayers through micromagnetic simulations using OOMMF. Inset shows plot of simulated H$_{C}$ versus experimental H$_{C}$ for different bilayers (BL).}
\label{oommf_1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[hbtp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.41]{oommf_images.jpg}
\caption{ Spin orientations of all the Co layers of the 10 bilayers sample near the saturation field through OOMMF simulations. Color scheme for the spins orientation: blue - along the field, red - opposite to the field and white - intermediate directions. The yellow arrows indicate the general orientation of the spins in a region.}
\label{oommf_2}
\end{figure*}
\noindent which we take the average to arrive at the effective anisotropy constant $\langle K_1\rangle$. We note that $N=v_r(L_{ex}/D)^3$ and that statistical fluctuations for some finite $N$ will lead to the existence of a direction with minimum energy because of which the effective anisotropy energy density can then be determined from the mean of the fluctuation amplitude as:
\begin{equation}
\label{K}
\langle K \rangle = \frac {v_r K_1}{\sqrt{N}} = v_r K_1 \left( \frac{D}{L_{ex}}\right)^{3/2}
\end{equation}
Scaling $L_{ex}$ by replacing $K_1$ by $\langle K \rangle$, we get:
\begin{equation}
\label{Lex}
L_{eq}=\sqrt{A/\langle K \rangle}
\end{equation}
Combining equations $\ref{K}$ and $\ref{Lex}$, we finally arrive at the expression relating $\langle K \rangle$ and $D$
\begin{equation}
\langle K \rangle = v_r^2 K_1^4 D^6 /A^3
\end{equation}
In the absence of any other forms of anisotropy, the coercivity $H_c$ which is proportional to $\langle K \rangle$ is hence shown to vary with the 6$^{th}$ power of the grain size, $D$ when it is below the exchange length. We showed earlier using the Scherrer equation from the XRD data that the grain size showed a decreasing trend and for higher number of bilayers, we expect it to be close to the ferromagnetic exchange length\cite{ferroexchange} of Co $\sim$ 10nm (but this cannot be confirmed from the present data due to absence of XRD peaks) and hence its magneto-crystalline anisotropy constant reduces significantly with increase in the number of bilayers.
In order to investigate the relation between crystal structure and magnetic properties, we have performed MOKE measurements on the series of samples with varying number of bilayers. In Fig. \ref{moke_1}, we plot the normalized magnetization of the multilayers as a function of magnetic field. A clear decrease in the coercive field was observed with increasing number of bilayers. We emphasize here that for the MOKE measurements, a 633 nm (red) laser was used, which has a characteristic penetration depth of $\sim$10 nm\cite{depthAu}. Therefore, the observed magnetic softening of the Kerr loops in Fig. \ref{moke_1} corresponds to the top Co layer only. This is consistent with the discussion in the previous section. It is known that coupling between electron spin and crystal field leads to a directional asymmetry (anisotropy) in magnetic properties.
As smaller grains tend to be influenced more by exchange interaction, anisotropy directions remain randomly oriented even under applied field. This effect was verified by angle dependent MOKE measurements, where direction of the applied magnetic field was changed in the plane of the multilayers. Panels (a) and (b) in Fig. \ref{moke_2} show the angular variation of magnetization loops for 1 bilayer and 10 bilayers, respectively. The coercive fields extracted from these measurements are plotted in the inset of panel (b) in Fig. \ref{moke_2}. We notice that there is hardly any angular dependence in the case of 10 bilayers sample whereas 1 bilayer sample shows a clear anisotropy. This observation adds further support to the relevance of the random anisotropy model in our case.
To further understand the magnetization dynamics, micromagnetic simulations were carried out using the OOMMF package\cite{oommf}. The thickness of each layer was 5nm, cell size was 5 nm$\times$5 nm$\times$1 nm and the simulation was carried out in a 100 nm$\times$100 nm square geometry. The magnetic parameters\cite{oommf_parameters} used for the simulations were saturation magnetization M$_s$ = 1400 kA/m, exchange stiffness A = $1.12\times 10^{-11}$ J/m and anisotropy constant K$_1$ = $2.15\times 10^{6}$ J/m. As justified earlier, the anisotropy constant was progressively reduced for increasing number of bilayers in the simulation. Fig. \ref{oommf_1} shows the simulated hysteresis curves for the 1, 2, 5, and 10 bilayer samples. The coercive fields extracted from the simulations are plotted with the experimentally observed coercive fields, in the inset of Fig. \ref{oommf_1}. They appear to follow a linear relation within errors. The saturation fields observed in Fig \ref{oommf_1}, however, show an opposite trend as a function of the number of bilayers, when compared to the experimental data shown in Fig \ref{oommf_1}. In order to understand this apparent discrepancy, in Fig \ref{oommf_2} we have shown the simulated magnetic configuration of all magnetic layers in a 10 bilayer system at 2700 gauss, which is close its saturation field, 3300 gauss. Clearly, at this field, the top and bottom magnetic layers have achieved almost complete saturation while the intermediate layers are far from saturation. Since the hysteresis loops obtained in the simulations are averaged over all the layers, the apparent saturation field is higher. On the other hand, since the MOKE measurements are actually probing only the top magnetic layer, the saturation field is much less.
\section{Conclusions}
In summary, we have investigated the structural evolution and the consequent changes in magnetization dynamics of magnetic layers in ferromagnet-nonmagnet multilayer systems. Using glancing angle X-ray diffraction we were able to follow the structural changes of the top magnetic layers in multilayer systems. Low penetration depth of the light source in magneto-optical measurements provided the required resolution for following the magnetization evolution of the top magnetic layer only. Contrary to the general belief, a clear gradual change was observed in both structural and magnetic properties of the successive magnetic layers. An increasing degree of amorpization (grain size reduction) of the top layer with increasing number of bilayers resulted in a significant reduction in magnetic hardness of the top layer. The magnetic softening was discussed in the light of random anisotropy model. This observation was also found consistent with micromagnetic simulations.
\section{Acknowledgements}
We acknowledge the funding from National Institute of Science Education and Research (NISER), Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), India. We would also like to thank S. K. Rai, S. Prusty and S. S. Mishra for XRR, MOKE measurements and OOMMF simulations respectively.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
In spite of the absence of any signal of
superpartners at the LHC, still supersymmetry(SUSY) remains
one of the best possible option for the physics beyond
standard model(BSM). Looking for its signal is a very high priority task
in the next phase of LHC experiments.
The SUSY models provide a solution for hierarchy
problem, unify gauge couplings at a certain high energy scale
and in addition, offers a dark matter candidate which is absent in
the standard model(SM).
In order to interpret the recently discovered Higgs particle($\rm H_{SM}$)
of mass $\sim$ 125 GeV at the LHC \cite{Aad:2012tfa,Chatrchyan:2012xdj}
in the framework of the
minimal supersymmetric standard model(MSSM),
one requires a certain kind of parameter space, in particular for the
squark sector of the third generation~\cite{Hall:2011aa,Arbey:2011ab}.
For instance, the lightest Higgs boson
of mass $\sim$ 125~GeV in the MSSM can be obtained
either by pushing up the lighter top squark mass to a larger value or assuming
a maximal mixing in the top squark sector.
Moreover, $\mu$ term in the superpotential,
$\rm \mu H_u H_d$ is a another potential source of problem,
where $H_u$ and $ H_d$ are the two Higgs doublets require
to generate the up and down type of fermion masses.
The value of $\mu$ is expected to be around the
electroweak (EW) scale $\sim {\cal O}$(100~GeV),
but, nothing constrain it not to accept large value, in fact,
it can go far above the EW scale,
which is known as the $\mu$-problem \cite{Kim:1983dt}.
In the framework of
the Next-to-minimal supersymmetric model (NMSSM) these issues can be
addressed more naturally \cite{Fayet:1974pd,Ellis:1988er,Drees:1988fc}.
The NMSSM contains an extra Higgs singlet field($S$),
in addition to the two Higgs doublets $\rm H_u, H_d$ like the MSSM and,
the superpotential reads as,
\begin{eqnarray}
{ \rm W_{NMSSM}} = { \rm W_{MSSM}} + \lambda S {H_u}
{H_d} + \frac{1}{3}\kappa S^3,
\label{eq:poteq}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda$ and $\kappa$ are the dimensionless couplings
and $\rm W_{MSSM}$ is the part of the superpotential in the
MSSM, except the $\mu$ term. After the electroweak symmetry breaking, the
vacuum expectation value(VEV) of
the singlet field (S) $v_s$,
generates the $\mu$ term dynamically, i.e
$\mu_{eff} = \lambda v_s$.
The Higgs sector of the NMSSM contains
three neutral CP even($\rm H_1,H_2,H_3$; $\rm m_{H_1}< m_{H_2} < m_{H_3}$)
and two CP odd neutral pseudoscalars($\rm A_1,A_2$; $\rm m_{A_1} < m_{A_2}$)
plus charged Higgs boson ($H^\pm$) states
(for details, see the review of Ref.~\cite{Ellwanger:2009dp}
and Ref.~\cite{Miller:2003ay}).
The states of the physical neutral Higgs bosons are composed of both the
singlet and the doublet fields. Interestingly, one of the
CP even neutral Higgs boson can be interpreted as the recently found
SM-like Higgs boson and it remains valid for a wide range of
model parameters~\cite{Kang:2012sy,Cao:2013gba,Vasquez:2012hn,King:2012is,Heinemeyer:2011aa,Domingo:2015eea}
and, unlike the MSSM, it does
not require much fine tuning of the model parameters.
It can be attributed to the
mixing of the singlet Higgs field with the doublets via
$\lambda S {H_u} {H_d}$ term. As a consequence, this interaction, in turn
lifts the tree level Higgs boson mass substantially and then
further contribution due to the radiative
correction enable to achieve the required
Higgs boson mass of $\sim$ 125 GeV~\cite{Heinemeyer:2011aa,Domingo:2015eea}.
Naturally, with the discovery of the Higgs
boson \cite{Aad:2012tfa,Chatrchyan:2012xdj},
the NMSSM has drawn a lot attention, in general, to study in more details
the Higgs sector and the corresponding phenomenology at the LHC with a great
interest~\cite{Djouadi:2008uw,King:2012is,Vasquez:2012hn,
King:2012tr,Christensen:2013dra,Cao:2013gba,Kumar:2016vhm}.
Previous studies showed that in the NMSSM framework,
the scenario of very light Higgs bosons
($<$125~GeV) exist, while one of the CP even neutral Higgs boson SM like
\cite{Guchait:2015owa,Gunion:2012zd,King:2012is,Vasquez:2012hn,
Ellwanger:2012ke,Badziak:2013bda}.
Notably, these light Higgs
bosons are non-SM like and dominantly singlet in nature and, hence
not excluded by any past experiments due to the suppression of
their production in colliders. Needless to say, in the present context
of continuing Higgs studies in the LHC experiments,
it is one of the priority to search for these light non SM-like
Higgs bosons.
Already, in Run 1 experiments at the LHC, extensive searches were
carried out for the lightest CP odd
Higgs boson($A_1$) either producing it directly or via the decay of the
SM-like Higgs boson, $\rm H_{SM} \to\rm A_1 A_1$.
The CMS experiment performed searches
through direct production of $ A_1$ and decaying to a pair of
muons\cite{Chatrchyan:2012am}
and taus~\cite{Khachatryan:2015baw} for the mass ranges 5.5 - 14 GeV and
25-80 GeV respectively and, also looked for it in
the SM Higgs decay in 4$\tau$ final states~\cite{Khachatryan:2015baw}.
The ATLAS collaboration published results for
$A_1$ searches, $\rm H_{SM} \to A_1 A_1 \to \mu\mu \tau\tau$
decays with a mass
range 3.7 - 50~GeV~\cite{Aad:2015oqa} and also in
four photon final states corresponding to
the mass range 10 - 62 GeV~\cite{Aad:2015bua}.
From the non observation of any signal in all those searches,
the exclusion of cross sections folded with branching ratios(BR)
for a given channel are presented for the mass range $\sim 5-60$ of $A_1$.
On the phenomenological side, after the discovery of the Higgs boson at the
LHC, detection prospects of all Higgs bosons in the NMSSM are
revisited~\cite{Ellwanger:2004gz,Ellwanger:2011sk,King:2014xwa}.
Nonetheless, it is more appealing to explore the
detection possibility of the light non SM-like Higgs bosons in various
interesting decay channels to establish the NMSSM effects which are
absent in the MSSM.
In this context, searching for lighter Higgs bosons,
in particular $A_1$ is very interesting, since it can be
very light~\cite{Mahmoudi:2010xp,Bomark:2014gya}.
There are many phenomenological analysis
reported in the literature exploring the detection prospect of
$A_1$ at the
LHC~\cite{Belyaev:2008gj,Belyaev:2010ka,Almarashi:2011hj,Cerdeno:2013cz,
Curtin:2014pda,Bomark:2015fga}.
In our study as
reported in \cite{Guchait:2015owa}, the rates of production of
non SM-like Higgs bosons in various decay channels are estimated for the
LHC Run 2 experiment with the center of mass energy, $\sqrt{S}=$13~TeV.
Remarkably, it is observed that along with the dominant $b \bar b$ and
$\tau\tau$ decay modes of non SM-like Higgs bosons, the
BR for two photon $(\gamma\gamma)$ decay mode is also
very large for a certain part of the parameter space.
In particular, light $A_1$ decays to $\gamma\gamma$ mode
with a BR ranging from a few percent
to 80-90\% for a substantial region of the parameter
space\cite{Arhrib:2006sx,Dermisek:2007yt,Kim:2012az,Christensen:2013dra,Ellwanger:2015uaz,Guchait:2015owa,Bomark:2015fga}.
On the other side, as we know, experimentally photon is a very clean
object and can be reconstructed with a very high precision, which motivates
us to study the signal of non SM-like Higgs boson
in this $\gamma\gamma$
channel~\cite{Moretti:2006sv,Bomark:2014gya,Bomark:2015fga}.
In this context, it is to be noted that,
neither the SM nor the MSSM predict
this large rate of $\gamma\gamma$ decay mode of any of the Higgs boson
for any region of the parameter space.
Hence, this distinct feature appears to
be the characteristic signal of the NMSSM and can be exploited
in distinguishing it from
the other SUSY models. More precisely, in the presence of any SUSY signal,
this di-photon decay mode of $A_1$ can be used as a powerful avenue
to establish the type of the SUSY model.
In this present study, mainly we focus on $A_1$ and
explore its detection possibility in the $\gamma\gamma$ mode.
In principle, $A_1$ can be produced directly via the standard SUSY
Higgs production mechanisms, i.e primarily via the gluon gluon fusion
or through $b$ and $\bar b$ annihilation.
However, in both the cases, the production cross sections are
suppressed due its singlet nature.
In our study, we employ the SUSY particle
production, namely the associated chargino-neutralino
and, the subsequent decay of heavier neutralino state produces $A_1$,
followed by $A_1 \to \gamma\gamma$ decay.
The combination of lighter chargino($\tilde\chi_1^\pm$) and,
either of the second ($\widetilde \chi^0_2$) or the third ($\widetilde \chi^0_3$)
neutralino states is found to be produced dominantly at the LHC
energy~\cite{Ghosh:2012mc,Cerdeno:2013qta}.
In the final state, in order
to control the SM backgrounds, we require also one associated lepton
arising from $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}$ decay. The production and decay mechanism of the entire
process is shown as,
\begin{eqnarray}
pp \rightarrow \decay{\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}}{\widetilde \chi^0_1 \ell^\pm\nu} ~~~ + ~~~~
\decay{\widetilde \chi^0_{j}}{\widetilde \chi^0_1 ~\decay{A_1}{\gamma\gamma}}, \ \ (j=2,3)
\label{eq:1}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[height=5.0cm,width=18.0cm,trim={-2cm 21cm 0 3.8cm},clip]{Figs/cascade.pdf}
\caption{\small Lighter chargino($\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}$)-neutralino($\widetilde \chi^0_j$),
(j=2,3) associated production in proton-proton collision followed by
cascade decays to two photons and a lepton along with
lightest neutralinos, as Eq.~\ref{eq:1}.}
\label{fig:cascade}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\vspace{10cm}
schematically it is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:cascade}.
The final state contains
hard missing energy due to the presence of neutrinos and
neutralinos($\widetilde \chi^0_1$) which are assumed to be the lightest SUSY particle(LSP)
and stable \footnote{We are considering R-Parity conserving model.}, and
escape the detector, since they are weakly interacting.
Finally, the reaction,Eq.~\ref{eq:1} leads to the signal,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\gamma\gamma + \ell^{\pm} + \slashed E_T}.
\label{eq:sig}
\end{eqnarray}
Of course, in addition to the chargino-neutralino production cross section,
the BR($\widetilde \chi^0_{2,3} \to \widetilde \chi^0_1 A_1$) and BR($A_1 \to \gamma\gamma$), which
are sensitive to the parameter space, very crucial in determining
the signal rate. In view of this, we investigate the sensitivity of
this signal to the relevant parameters scanning those systematically
for a wide range and
identify the suitable region which provides the reasonable rate of the
signal. Finally, out of this parameter scan,
we select few benchmark parameter points for which
results are presented.
Performing a detail simulation including detector effects for
both the signal and the SM backgrounds processes, we predict
the signal significances corresponding to our choices of
parameters for a few integrated luminosity options at the LHC with the
center of mass energy, $\sqrt{S}$=13~TeV.
This paper is organized as follows, In section 2,
after briefly discussing the chargino and neutralino sector in the NMSSM,
we study the parameter space sensitivity of
chargino-neutralino associated production cross section.
The parameter sensitivity of BRs of neutralinos and $A_1$ decays
are discussed in section 3 and then propose
few benchmark points for which results are presented.
The details of the simulation are
presented in section 4, while results are discussed in section 5.
Finally, we summarize in section 6.
\section{Chargino-Neutralino production}
The chargino-neutralino associated
production($\tilde\chi^\pm_1\tilde\chi_{2,3}^0$)
in proton-proton collision is mediated purely by electro-weak(EW)
interaction at the tree level and, hence very sensitive to the parameters
space owing to the
dependence of couplings.
Therefore, in order to understand the various features of this production
process at the LHC, it is worth
to discuss the interplay between parameters and cross sections.
\subsection{Chargino and Neutralino sector in NMSSM}
In SUSY model, there are spin half EW gauginos
and Higgsinos which are the supersymmetric partners of the
gauge bosons and Higgs bosons respectively.
The soft mass terms for gauginos and the spontaneous breaking of EW
symmetry lead a mixing between gaugino and Higgsino states making
them weak eigenstates without physical mass terms.
The charginos are the mass eigenstates corresponding to the
mixed charged gaugino and Higgsino states.
Similarly, the mixings of
neutral EW gauginos and Higgsinos produce
physical neutralinos.
The masses and the corresponding physical states
can be obtained by diagonalizing the respective mass matrices.
For instance, the masses of the chargino states ($\tilde \chi_{1,2}^{\pm}$)
are obtained diagonalizing the $2 \times 2$ chargino mass matrix
by a bi-unitary transformation.
In the MSSM, the masses and composition of these chargino states
are determined by $M_2$ - the $SU(2)$ gaugino mass parameter,
$\mu$ and $\tan\beta$ - the ratio of two vacuum expectation
values($v_u,v_d$) of
the neutral components of two Higgs doublets require to break EW symmetry
spontaneously. In the NMSSM, the presence of an extra
Higgs singlet field does not modify the chargino sector,
hence it remains same as in the MSSM, except the Higgsino mass parameter
$\mu$ which is replaced by $\rm \mu_{eff}$.
On contrary, in the NMSSM, the neutralino sector
is extended due to the addition of an extra singlino state $\tilde S$ -
the fermionic superpartner of the singlet scalar field $(S)$.
Here $\tilde S$ mixes with the Higgsinos due to the presence of the
$\lambda H_u H_d S$ term in the superpotential. Thus, the resulting
${\bf 5 \times 5}$ neutralino mass matrix is given by,
\begin{equation}
\rm M_N = \left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
M_1 &0 &\frac{-g_1 v c_{\beta}}{\sqrt 2} & \frac{g_1 v s_{\beta}}{\sqrt 2} & 0 \\
0 &M_2 & \frac{g_2 v c_{\beta}}{\sqrt 2} & \frac{-g_2 v s_{\beta}}{\sqrt 2} &0 \\
\frac{-g_1 v c_{\beta}}{\sqrt 2} & \frac{g_2 v c_{\beta}}{\sqrt 2} & 0 & - \mu_{eff} & -\lambda v s_{\beta}\\
\frac{g_1 v s_{\beta}}{\sqrt 2} & \frac{-g_2 v s_{\beta}}{\sqrt 2} & - \mu_{eff} & 0 & - \lambda v c_{\beta} \\
0 & 0 & -\lambda v s_{\beta} & - \lambda v c_{\beta} & 2 \kappa v_s \end{array} \right).
\end{equation}
Here $M_1$ is the mass of $U(1)$ gaugino -
the bino($\tilde B$) and $g_1$, $g_2$ are the
weak gauge couplings.
In the MSSM limit, \emph{i.e.} $\lambda,\kappa \rightarrow 0$,
this $5 \times 5$ neutralino mass matrix reduces to a $4 \times 4$
mass matrix.
The masses of neutralinos can be derived by diagonalizing symmetric matrix
$\rm M_N$ via a unitary
transformation as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm M_{\tilde \chi^0}^D = \rm N M_N N^{\dagger}.
\label{eq:nn}
\end{eqnarray}
with N as a unitary matrix.
The analytical solution of the neutralino mass matrix presenting the spectrum
of neutralino masses and mixings
exist in the literature for the MSSM~\cite{Guchait:1991ia,Choi:2001ww}.
However for the NMSSM, the 5th order eigenvalue equation makes it more
difficult to extract exact analytical solution. Nevertheless, attempts
are there to find the approximate analytical
solution~\cite{Pandita:1994vw,Choi:2004zx}.
Consequently, the five physical neutralino states become the admixtures of
weak states, such as gauginos, Higgsinos and singlino.
Hence, in the basis $\tilde \psi^0 \equiv (-i\tilde{B},-i\tilde{W_3},
\tilde{H_d^0}, \tilde{H_u^0},\tilde{S})$, the physical neutralino
states are composed of,
\begin{eqnarray}
\rm \tilde \chi_i^0 = \rm N_{i j} \tilde \psi_j^0,
\label{eq:nmix}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rm N_{ij}$(i,j=1-5) is defined by Eq.~\ref{eq:nn}.
In particular, $\rm N_{i5}$ presents the singlino component
in the $i$-th physical neutralino state.
To conclude, in the NMSSM, the masses and the mixings of the
charginos and neutralinos at the tree level can be determined by 6
parameters, namely,
\begin{eqnarray}
M_1, \ \ M_2, \ \ \tan \beta, \ \ \mu_{eff}, \ \ \lambda, \ \ \kappa.
\end{eqnarray}
Here one can choose $M_1$ and $M_2$ to be real and
positive by absorbing phases in $\tilde B^0$ and $\tilde W^0$ respectively,
but in general $\mu_{eff}$ can be complex. In this current study,
we assume CP-conserving NMSSM setting all the input parameters real.
A careful examination of the neutralino mass matrix reveals
few characteristic features of this sector~\cite{Pandita:1994vw,Choi:2004zx}.
For instance, notice that the singlet field does not mix with the
gauge fields, and hence the singlino like neutralino states do not
interact with the gaugino like states or gauge fields.
Apparently, two out of the five neutralino states remain to be
gaugino like if, $|M_{1,2}-\mu_{eff}|> M_Z$. Note that the direct
singlet-doublet mixing is determined by $\lambda$.
The mass of the singlino like neutralino is given by $|2 \kappa v_s|$,
and so if $|2\kappa v_s| << M_{1,2},\mu_{eff}$, then the lighter
neutralino state becomes dominantly a singlino like.
On the other hand, if $|2 \kappa v_s| >> M_{1,2}, \mu_{eff}$, then the
singlino state completely decouples from the other states resulting all
four neutralino states mixtures of gaugino-Higgsino, \emph{i.e} a
MSSM like scenario, where as the remaining heavier neutralino state
appears to be completely singlino like.
The coupling structures of neutralinos
with gauge bosons and fermions remain the same as in the MSSM,
since the singlet field does not interact with them.
For the sake of discussion in the later section,
we present the $\rm {\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}-\widetilde \chi^0_j-W^\mp}$ interaction,
\begin{equation}
g_{\tilde\chi_1^{\pm}\tilde \chi_j^0 W^{\mp}}^{L}
= \frac{ e}{s_w} \left (N_{j2} V_{11}^* - \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} N_{j4}
V_{12}^* \right), ~ g_{\tilde\chi_1^{\pm}\tilde \chi_j^0 W^{\mp}}^{R}
= \frac{ e}{s_w} \left (N_{j2}^* U_{11} + \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} N_{j3}^*
U_{12} \right),
\label{eq:cnw}
\end{equation}
and $\rm {q - \tilde q -\widetilde \chi^0_j}$ couplings,
\begin{equation}
g_{d \tilde d \chi_j^0 }^{L} \approx
\frac{-e}{\sqrt{2} s_w c_w} \left ( \frac{1}{3} N_{j1} s_w -N_{j2} c_w \right ),
\ \ g_{ d \tilde d \tilde \chi_j^0 }^{R} \approx 0,
\label{eq:ddx}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
g_{u \tilde u \tilde \chi_j^0 }^{L} \approx
\frac{-e}{\sqrt{2} s_w c_w} \left ( \frac{1}{3} N_{j1} s_w +N_{j2} c_w \right ),
\ \ g_{u \tilde u \tilde \chi_i^0 }^{R} \approx 0.
\label{eq:uux}
\end{equation}
with $\rm s_w= \rm \sin\theta_w$,$\rm c_w=\rm \cos\theta_w$ and $j$=2,3
Note that, since we consider only the first two generations of squarks
and assume that the chiral mixings are negligible, hence we
omit the corresponding interaction terms and, for the same reasons,
$g_{u \tilde u \tilde \chi_j^0 }^{R}$ and
$g_{d \tilde d \tilde \chi_j^0 }^{R}$
are negligible. Apparently,
the presence of the direct effect of NMSSM through singlino component is
absent in these interactions. However, because of the unitarity of
the mixing matrix $\rm N$, the singlino component $N_{i5}$ indirectly
affects these couplings. It will be discussed more in the next
sub-section in the context of the chargino-neutralino production.
\subsection{$\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_j$ cross-section }
In this section, in the framework of the NMSSM, we discuss various
features of the chargino-neutralino($\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_j$,j=1,2,3)
associated production at the LHC. For the sake of comparison and
discussion, we also study $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_1$ production cross section, although
it has no relevance to our present context.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=7.0cm,width=15.0cm,trim={0cm 18cm 0 3.8cm},clip]{Figs/cross.pdf}
\caption{\small Tree level Feynman diagrams for chargino-neutralino
associated production via q and $\rm \bar q'$ annihilation.}
\label{fig:x2x1}
\end{figure}
As already mentioned, in hadron colliders, the chargino-neutralino pairs
are produced purely via EW interaction initiated by quark
and anti-quark annihilation as,
\begin{eqnarray}
q \bar q' \rightarrow \tilde\chi_1^\pm \widetilde \chi^0_j; \ \ \ j=1,2,3,
\end{eqnarray}
the corresponding Feynman diagrams at the tree level are shown
in Fig.~\ref{fig:x2x1}.
The $s$ and $t/u$-channels are mediated
by the $W$ boson and the first two generations of squarks respectively
and, are very sensitive to the couplings, see Eq.~\ref{eq:cnw}--\ref{eq:uux},
which are regulated by model parameters.
In case, if both the chargino and the neutralino states be pure
Higgsino like,
then the $t$ and $u$ channel diagrams decouple completely due to the
suppressed quark-squark-neutralino
couplings(Eqs.~\ref{eq:ddx},~\ref{eq:uux}), otherwise
mixed or pure gaugino likes states are favored.
The contribution of the $t/u$-channel diagrams are also suppressed for
heavier masses of squarks. Moreover, negative interference of the
$s$ and $t/u$ channel diagrams yields
an enhancement of the production cross section for heavier
masses of squarks for a given set of other parameters.
The partonic level differential $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_j$ cross section in NMSSM
can be obtained following the form given
in Ref.~\cite{Beenakker:1999xh} for the MSSM,
\begin{align}
\frac{d \hat \sigma (q \bar q \rightarrow \tilde \chi_i^{\pm}
\tilde \chi_j^{0} )}{d\hat t} ~&= ~
\frac{\pi \alpha^2}{3 \hat s^2}
\big [~|Q_{LL}|^2 ~(\hat u -m_{\tilde\chi_{j}^0}^2) ~(\hat u -m_{\tilde \chi_{i}^-}^2)~
+~|Q_{LR}|^2 (\hat t -m_{\tilde\chi_{j}^0}^2)(\hat t -m_{\tilde\chi_{i}^-}^2)~ \nonumber \\
& ~+~ 2~\hat s ~Re(Q_{LL}^* Q_{LR}) ~m_{\tilde \chi_j^0} ~m_{\tilde \chi_i^-} \big ]
\end{align}
which is expressed in terms of four helicity charges
$ Q_{LL}, Q_{LR}, Q_{RL}, Q_{RR}$.
For the sake of completeness, we also present the explicit form of
these charges \cite{Beenakker:1999xh},
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_{LL} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}s_w^2} \left [ \frac{N_{j2}^{*} V_{i1}
- 1/\sqrt{2} ~N_{j4}^* V_{i2}}{\hat s-M_W^2 }
~ + ~ V_{i1} \frac{ I_{3 \tilde q } N_{j2}^* +(e_{\tilde q} -I_{3 \tilde q}) N_{j1}^* \tan \theta_w }{\hat u - m_{\tilde q}^2} \right ], \nonumber
\\
Q_{LR} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}s_w^2} \left [ \frac{N_{j2}
U_{i1}^* + 1/\sqrt{2} ~N_{j3} U_{i2}^*}{\hat s-M_W^2 }
~ - ~(U_{i1})^* \frac{ I_{3 \tilde q^{'} } N_{j2} + (e_{\tilde q^{'}} -
I_{3 \tilde q^{'}}) N_{j1} \tan \theta_w}{\hat t - m_{\tilde q^{'}}^2} \right ],
\nonumber
\\
Q_{RR}&=&Q_{RL} =0,
\end{eqnarray}
where the Mandelstam variables are defined as,
$\hat s = (p_1 +p_2)^2; \ \ \hat t = (p_1-p_3)^2;\ \ \hat u = (p_2-p_4)^2$
in the partonic frame,
$p_1, p_2$ are the momenta of initial quarks, $p_3,p_4$ represent the
same for $\tilde\chi^\pm_i$ and $\widetilde \chi^0_j$ respectively.
Notice that, as pointed out earlier, even without any explicit
dependence of couplings, Eqs.~\ref{eq:cnw},\ref{eq:ddx} and \ref{eq:uux},
on the singlino composition, $\rm N_{j5}$ in the
neutralino state, nonetheless, it affects the
$\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_j$ production cross section due to the dilution of gaugino and
Higgsino components.
We compute this leading order(LO) cross section setting
QCD scales, $Q^2 = \hat s$-the partonic center of mass energy
and for the choice of CT10~\cite{Lai:2010vv} parton distribution function.
The corresponding next to leading order(NLO) predictions for the
$\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_j$ cross sections
are obtained from Prospino \cite{Beenakker:1996ed} and
the k-factor(=$\rm \sigma_{NLO/\sigma_{LO}}$ is found to
be $\sim 1.3$ \cite{Beenakker:1999xh}.
In the present NMSSM case, to take care NLO effects in the
cross-section, we use the same k-factor, which is not expected to be too
different with respect to the MSSM case.
We observe that LO chargino-neutralino associated production
cross-section varies from sub femto-barn(fb) level to
to few pico-barn(pb) for the mass range of 100-500 GeV of
charginos and neutralinos.
To understand the dependence of $\tilde\chi_1^\pm \tilde\chi_{j}^0$
cross sections on the parameters,
we demonstrate its variation in Fig.~\ref{fig:csm2} and Fig.~\ref{fig:csmu},
primarily for gaugino and
Higgsino like scenarios
varying $\rm M_2$ and $\rm \mu_{eff}$ respectively.
The variation of singlino composition are controlled by a set of few
choices of $\lambda, \kappa$= [a]~0.1,0.7,
[b]~0.2,0.1 for Fig.~\ref{fig:csm2} and
$\lambda,\kappa=$[a]~0.7, 0.1, [b]~0.2, 0.1 and [c]~0.4, 0.1 for
Fig.~\ref{fig:csmu}.
The other parameters are set as, $\tan\beta=10$,
$\rm\mu_{eff}=$1000~GeV(for Fig.\ref{fig:csm2}),
$\rm M_2$=600~GeV(for Fig.~\ref{fig:csmu}),
squark masses $\rm m_{Q_{L}}, m_{D_{L,R}}=1000$~GeV and
assuming the relation $\rm M_1 = M_2/2$.
In the following, we discuss the variation of cross sections
with the sensitive parameters
which has some impact on the signal sensitivity, as
will be discussed in the later sections.
{$\bullet$} The dependence of $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_j$ cross section on $M_2$, in the gaugino
like scenario($M_2 < \mu_{eff}= 1000~GeV$) is
presented in Fig.\ref{fig:csm2}. In this scenario,
in the case of $\lambda, \kappa=[a]~0.1,0.7$, the mass of singlino
is very heavy
($\rm \sim |2 \kappa v_s| = \rm 2\mu_{eff} \kappa/\lambda= \rm 14~TeV$)
and the $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}$ state is wino like of mass around $\rm M_2$,
while the $\widetilde \chi^0_1$ is bino dominated with
its mass about $m_{\widetilde \chi^0_1}\sim M_1$.
On the other hand, because of large mass of the singlino state and
lower value of $\lambda$, \emph{i.e} small singlet-doublet mixing,
the $\widetilde \chi^0_2$ and $\widetilde \chi^0_3$ states are turn out to be
dominantly wino and Higgsino like
respectively, with masses $\rm m_{\widetilde \chi^0_2} \sim M_2$ and
$\rm m_{\widetilde \chi^0_3} \sim \mu_{eff}$.
It explains the reasons of larger $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_2$
cross section in comparison to $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_1$, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:csm2}[a].
Note that, the subsequent fall of both the cross sections
with the increase of $M_2$ is purely a mass effect.
Obviously, the $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_3$ cross section is expected to be suppressed
and almost negligible dependence on $\rm M_2$.
However, in the case of $\lambda, \kappa$=[b]~0.7,0.1,
the singlino state becomes comparatively light with mass about
$\sim $300~GeV.
In this scenario, due to the large singlet-doublet mixing $(\lambda =0.7)$,
at the lower values of $M_2$, the $\widetilde \chi^0_3$ state is found to be singlino like
with very less wino and Higgsino components, whereas $\widetilde \chi^0_2, \widetilde \chi^0_1$
states appear to be more or less wino and bino like respectively.
Consequently, in this lower region of $M_2$, the
$\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_{1,2}$ cross sections are
higher than the $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_3$, mainly due to the
suppressed couplings of $\widetilde \chi^0_3$ with
gauge boson and fermions being it a dominantly a singlino state.
However, with the increase of $M_2$, the wino
(singlino) component in $\widetilde \chi^0_2$ ($\widetilde \chi^0_3$) decreases,
resulting a gradual fall(enhancement) of $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm} \widetilde \chi^0_2$
($\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm} \widetilde \chi^0_3$) cross sections.
Eventually, as $M_2$ reaches closer to $|2 \kappa v_s| \sim 300$~GeV,
the $\widetilde \chi^0_2$ and $\widetilde \chi^0_3$ states
tend to be singlino and wino like respectively and, hence due to
the depletion of $ \widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_2 $ cross section very sharply,
$\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_3$ cross section takes over it and then
falls slowly mainly due to the phase space suppression, see
Fig.~\ref{fig:csm2}[b].
However, in contrast, due to the larger mass of
singlino($\sim$ 14 TeV) the similar type of crossing between
$\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_2$ and $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_3$ cross sections is not observed
in Fig.~\ref{fig:csm2}[a].
\begin{figure}[t]
\hspace{0.2cm}
\includegraphics[height=7.3cm,width=7.3cm]{Figs/cs-m2-lp1-kp7.pdf}
\hspace{-0.1cm}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\includegraphics[height=7.3cm,width=7.3cm]{Figs/cs-m2-lp7-kp1.pdf}
\caption{\small Variation of leading order (LO) chargino-neutralino
associated production
cross section with $M_2$, at the LHC energy $\sqrt{S}$ = 13~TeV and
for two choices
of $\lambda, \kappa$=[a]~0.1,0.7, [b]~0.7,0.1.
The other parameters
are set as, $\rm \mu_{eff}=1000~GeV, \rm M_1=M_2/2$, $\tan\beta= 10$.}
\label{fig:csm2}
\end{figure}
{$\bullet$} The variation of cross sections with $\mu_{eff}$,
for Higgsino like scenario
is presented in Fig.\ref{fig:csmu},
keeping $\rm M_2=$600 GeV and for three combinations
of $\lambda$, $\kappa$= [a]~0.1,0.7, [b]~0.2, 0.1, [c]~0.4, 0.1.
In this scenario, the $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}$ state is mostly Higgsino like for the lower range
of $\rm \mu_{eff}$, and then becomes a gaugino-Higgsino mixed
state when $\mu_{eff} \sim M_2$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[height=7.0cm,width=7.0cm]{Figs/cs-mu-lp1-kp7.pdf}
\hspace{-0.1cm}
\vspace{-0.45cm}
\includegraphics[height=7.0cm,width=7.0cm]{Figs/cs-mu-lp2-kp1.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=7.0cm,width=7.0cm]{Figs/cs-mu-lp4-kp1.pdf}
\centering
\caption{\small Variation of LO chargino-neutralino associated production
cross section with $\mu_{eff}$, at the LHC energy $\sqrt{S}$=13~TeV
and for the choices of $\lambda,\kappa$=[a]~0.1,0.7, [b]~0.2,0.1,[c]~0.4,0.1.
The other parameters are set as, $\rm M_2$=600~GeV, $\rm M_1= \rm M_2/2$,
$\tan \beta= 10$.
}
\label{fig:csmu}
\end{figure}
For the scenario [a], at the
lower range of $\mu_{eff}$($\lesssim M_1$=300~GeV),
the Higgsino composition in $\widetilde \chi^0_1$ state
is the dominant one, but it becomes
bino like once $\rm \mu_{eff} \gtrsim M_1$ and a
drop of $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_1$ cross section occurs beyond $\rm \mu_{eff} \sim$300~GeV,
as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:csmu}[a].
However, for the scenario, [b] and [c], at the lower side of
$\rm \mu_{eff}$, the $\widetilde \chi^0_1$ state, along with some Higgsino component,
contains a finite fraction of singlino
(recall the singlino mass $\sim \rm 2\mu_{eff}\kappa/\lambda$), and
in particular, for the scenario[c], $\widetilde \chi^0_1$ becomes dominantly a singlino like.
Nevertheless, the $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_1$ cross section are not heavily suppressed
due to the presence of mild Higgsino component in the $\widetilde \chi^0_1$ state.
The Higgsino and bino like nature of $\widetilde \chi^0_2$ yields a steady
variation of $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_2$ cross section with $\mu_{eff}$, except for the
case [b] where a sudden drop and then further an enhancement
is observed at $\mu_{eff} \sim$ 300 GeV.
Here both the singlino and the bino masses are around $\sim$300 GeV,
implying an increase of singlino and bino components in
$\widetilde \chi^0_2$ state causing a drop
of $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_2$ cross section and beyond
this region, again it goes up with the increase of
$\rm \mu_{eff}$ due to further increase of its Higgsino component.
In the presence of small singlet-doublet mixings, in the scenario
$\lambda, \kappa$ =[a]~0.1,0.7, the $\widetilde \chi^0_3$ state is bino dominated
at the lower range of
$\rm \mu_{eff}< M_1$, resulting comparatively a lower $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_3$
cross section, which
slowly increases with $\mu_{eff}$ due to the enhancement of
Higgsino composition in it,
as observed in Fig.\ref{fig:csmu}[a]. In Fig.\ref{fig:csmu}[b],
it is found that the singlino composition
in $\widetilde \chi^0_3$ state goes up with the increase of $\rm \mu_{eff}$,
while it is below $|2 \kappa v_s|$
and, becomes completely singlino like at
$\rm \mu_{eff}\sim |2 \kappa v_s|$ $(\sim 300 GeV)$
hence the rapid fall of $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm} \widetilde \chi^0_3$ cross section.
Beyond $\rm\mu_{eff}>2|\kappa v_s|$ region, Higgsino composition in the
$\widetilde \chi^0_3$ state increases yielding more higher $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_3$ cross
section and then due to mass effect, it falls slowly.
\section
{Decays : $\tilde \chi_{2,3}^0 \to \widetilde \chi^0_1 A_1; A_1 \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$}
As stated earlier, the sensitivity of the signal
$\ell +\gamma\gamma + E{\!\!\!/}_T$, crucially depends on the combined effects of
the $\tilde \chi^{\pm}_1 \widetilde \chi^0_{2,3}$ production cross
section and subsequent BRs involved in the
cascade decays, such as $\widetilde \chi^0_{2,3} \to \widetilde \chi^0_1 A_1$
and $A_1 \to \gamma\gamma$,
$\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm} \to \widetilde \chi^0_1 \ell\nu$.
Note that the BR($\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm} \to \widetilde \chi^0_1 \ell^{\pm} \nu$) is almost the same as the
leptonic BR of W-boson for our considered parameter space.
In this section, the sensitivity of the signal,Eq.~\ref{eq:sig} cross sections
with the parameters are studied systematically by scanning those using
{\tt NMSSMTools4.9.0}\cite{Ellwanger:2004xm} taking into account
various constraints
such as dark matter, flavor physics and direct searches at LEP and LHC experiments.
In this numerical scan we use the following range of
parameters:
\begin{gather}
\rm {0.1 < \lambda < 0.7;\ \ 0.1<\kappa < 0.7;\ \ 0< A_{\lambda}<2~TeV},
\ \ \rm {-9 < A_{\kappa} < -4~GeV}; \nonumber \\
\rm {2 <\tan\beta<50; \ \ 140~GeV<\mu_{ eff}< 600~GeV} \nonumber \\
\rm {M_{Q_3}=M_{U_3}=1-3~TeV} ,\ \ {A_t = -3 ~-~ (+3) ~{ TeV}},
\label{eq:p1}
\end{gather}
The other soft masses are set as
$$\rm {M_{Q_{1/2}} =M_{U_{1/2}} =M_{D_{1/2}}= M_{D_3}=M_{L_3}=M_{E_3} =A_{E_3}=1TeV}$$
$$\rm A_b=2{TeV}, M_{L_{1,2}}=M_{E_{1,2}}=200GeV, A_{E_{1,2}}=0.$$
The important factors in this discussion are the mass and the
composition of $A_1$ which is dominantly a singlet like.
In order to understand the variation of composition of $A_1$,
here we briefly revisit the Higgs mass matrix corresponding to CP-odd states.
The initial 3$\times$3 CP odd Higgs mass matrix
reduces to 2$\times$2 matrix after rotating away the
Goldstone mode.
Hence, the CP-odd mass matrix, $\rm M_P^2$,
in the basis of doublet(A) and singlet(S),
is given by \cite{Ellwanger:2009dp,Miller:2003ay},
\bigskip
\begin{equation}
\rm
M_P^2=\rm \left( \begin{array}{cc}
M_A^2 & \lambda(A_{\lambda} -2 \kappa v_s )v \\
\lambda(A_{\lambda} -2 \kappa v_s )v & M_S^2 \\
\end{array} \right),
\label{eq:a1mass}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\rm M_A^2 = \rm \frac{2 \mu_{eff}(A_{\lambda} +\kappa v_s)}{\sin 2 \beta}, ~~
\rm M_S^2 = \rm \lambda(A_{\lambda} +4 \kappa v_s)\frac{v_u v_d}{v_s} - 3 \kappa A_{k} v_s.
\label{eq:MA}
\end{equation}
This 2$\times$2 mass matrix can be
diagonalized by an orthogonal rotation with an angle $\alpha$, as
given by,
\begin{equation}
\rm \tan 2 \alpha = \rm \frac{2 M_{12}^2}{(M_A^2 -M_S^2)},
\label{eq:alpha}
\end{equation}
where $M_{12}^2 =\lambda (A_{\lambda} - 2 \kappa v_s)v$ and
$v = \sqrt{v_u^2 + v_d^2}$.
Obviously, two mass eigenstates $(A_1,A_2)$ are the mixtures of the doublet
$(A)$ and the singlet $(S)$ weak eigen states.
$\bullet$ \underline{$\widetilde \chi_j^0 \rightarrow \widetilde \chi_1^0 A_1$, j=2,3}:
The relevant part of the coupling (Higgsino-Higgsino-Singlet)
for this decay channel is given by,
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{\tilde \chi_j^0 \tilde \chi_1^0 A_1} \approx \frac{i}{\sqrt 2} \lambda ~P_{13} \left(N_{j4} N_{13} + N_{j3} N_{14} \right).
\label{eq:n2n1a1}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{Figs/M1mu.pdf}
\caption{\small BR($\widetilde \chi^0_2 \to \widetilde \chi^0_1 A_1)$ in the $M_1-\mu_{eff}$ plane. All energy units are in GeV.}
\label{fig:M1mu}
\end{figure}
Here $\rm P_{13}\sim \cos\alpha$ presents the singlino composition in $A_1$.
Hence, for very small values of $\sin\alpha$ this coupling favors only
the Higgsino like $\widetilde \chi^0_j$ and $\widetilde \chi^0_1$ states.
Note that, in the context of our signal, the gaugino like
$\widetilde \chi^0_j$ and $\widetilde \chi^0_1$ states are not favoured in order to suppress
the decay modes such as,
$\widetilde \chi^0_j \to \widetilde \chi^0_1 Z, \ell \tilde \ell$.
This type of Higgsino like scenario can be achieved by
setting $\mu_{eff} \sim M_1 < M_2$, which also makes
$\tilde \chi_{2,3}^0$ and $\tilde \chi_{1}^0$ states almost degenerate,
i.e $m_{\widetilde \chi^0_2} \sim m_{\widetilde \chi^0_1}$, a compressed like scenario.
However, in order to have a reasonable sensitivity of this signal, the visible
decay spectrum are expected to be little bit harder to pass
kinematic thresholds, which
can be ensured by setting the mass splitting,
$\Delta m= m_{\tilde \chi_{2,3}^0}-
m_{\tilde \chi_1^0}$ to a reasonable value.
This requirement leads us to choose $M_1$ less than $\mu_{eff}$,
but of course, not by a huge gap to retain sufficient Higgsino
component, making $\widetilde \chi^0_1$ a bino-Higgsino mixed state.
In Fig.\ref{fig:M1mu}, we show the correlation of
BR($\rm \widetilde \chi^0_2 \to \widetilde \chi^0_1 A_1$) in the $\rm M_1 - \mu_{eff}$ plane.
Notice that the 10\% or more BR($\rm \widetilde \chi^0_2 \to \widetilde \chi^0_1 A_1$)
corresponds to the region
$\rm M_1 \sim \rm \mu_{eff}$ and, we found that it remains to be valid
for a wide range of $\lambda$ and $\kappa$.
This figure clearly reflects the preferred choices of $M_1$
and $\rm \mu_{eff}$ for our considered signal channel.
{$\bullet$ $\underline{A_1 \to \gamma\gamma}$: The earlier studies
\cite{Christensen:2013dra,Guchait:2015owa,Dermisek:2007yt,Arhrib:2006sx}
showed that the variation of BR of non SM-like NMSSM Higgs bosons in
various decay channels
is very dramatic depending on the region of parameters.
For instance, the singlet like $A_1$ state decouples
from the fermions leading a suppression of the tree level decay modes
$b\bar b$ and $\tau\tau$ and an enhancement of
BR($A_1 \to \gamma\gamma$) channel
~\cite{Christensen:2013dra,Dermisek:2007yt,Arhrib:2006sx}.
The cause of having a finite partial $A_1 \to \gamma\gamma$ decay width
can be understood by examining the respective coupling
structures of $A_1$ with two photons~\cite{Munir:2013wka}.
The $A_1$ state decays to two photons via loops
comprising heavy fermions and
charginos~\cite{Spira:1995rr,Spira:1997dg}, see Fig.\ref{fig:hgg}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=4.0cm,width=17.0cm,trim={2cm 22cm 0 4.0cm},clip]{Figs/diph.pdf}
\caption{\small Loop diagrams for the decay of $A_1$ to two photons,
mediated by fermion $(f)$ and chargino($\tilde \chi^{\pm})$.}
\label{fig:hgg}
\end{figure}
The partial decay width of $A_1 \to \gamma\gamma$ can be obtained
simply using the MSSM expression, but replacing the respective
couplings to the NMSSM values. Thus, it is
given as~\cite{Spira:1995rr,Spira:1997dg},
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(A_1 \rightarrow \gamma \gamma)=
\frac{G_F \alpha_{em}^2 M_{A_1}^3}{32 \sqrt 2 \pi^3}
\left |\sum_f N_c ~e_f^2 ~g_f^{A_1}~ A_f(\tau_f) ~ + ~
\sum_{\tilde \chi^{\pm}_i} ~ g_{\tilde\chi^\pm_i}^{A_1} ~ A_{\tilde \chi^{\pm}_i}
(\tau_{\tilde \chi^{\pm}_i}) \right|^2.
\label{eq:a1gg}
\end{equation}
Here $\rm N_c$ is the QCD color factor, $e_f$ is the electric charge of the fermions $(f)$,
$A_x (\tau_x)$ are the loop functions given by,
\begin{equation}
A_{x} (\tau_x)=\tau_x \left(\sin^{-1}
\frac{1}{\sqrt \tau_x} \right )^2, \ \ \tau_x = \frac{4 M^2_{x}}{M_{A_1}^2};\ \ x = f,~\tilde\chi^\pm_i.
\end{equation}
Here $g_f^{A_1}$ are the couplings of $A_1$ with the heavier
fermions(f=top and bottom quarks),
where as $g_{\tilde \chi^{\pm}}^{A_1}$ are the same with charginos, and all
those are given by
\cite{Ellwanger:2009dp},
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{u}^{A_1} = -i \frac{m_u}{\sqrt 2 v \sin \beta} P_{12}, \ \
g_{d}^{A_1} = i \frac{m_d}{\sqrt 2 v \cos \beta} P_{11},
\\
g_ {{\tilde \chi_i^{\pm}}
{\tilde \chi_j^{\mp}} {A_1}} = \frac{i}{\sqrt 2} \left [ { \lambda}
P_{13} U_{i2} V_{j2} -
{g_2} (P_{12} U_{i1} V_{j2} +P_{11} U_{i2} V_{j1}) \right]
\label{eq:coup}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $P$ and (U,V) are the mixing matrices for pseudoscalar Higgs bosons
and chargino sector respectively and, in particular
$P_{11}=\sin \alpha \sin \beta$ and $P_{12} =\sin \alpha \cos \beta$.
In the pure singlet limit of $A_1 ( P_{11},P_{12} \sim 0$),
see Eq.~\ref{eq:ddx} and, hence
the fermion couplings($g_u^{A_1},g_d^{A_1}$) approach to almost
negligible value($\sim 10^{-5}$),
and, hence the corresponding fermionic loop contribution
in Eq.~\ref{eq:a1gg} are extremely suppressed. On the other hand,
the presence of Higgsino composition in the chargino state yields a
favorable coupling with $A_1$ via the singlet-Higgsino-Higgsino
interaction(see the term proportional to $\lambda$ in Eq.\ref{eq:coup}).
Needless to say, that it is purely a typical NMSSM effect.
Naturally, it is interesting to identify the region of the parameter space
which offers a finite partial width of $A_1 \to \gamma\gamma$ mode.
We try to study it by examining the mixing of
CP odd Higgs bosons states via the mass matrix,
Eq.~\ref{eq:a1mass} ~\ref{eq:MA}.
Recall, that a very small value of $\sin\alpha$ leads a singlet
dominated $A_1$ state resulting a
suppression of its couplings with the fermions.
Following the mass matrix,
it can be realized
very easily that the lighter CP odd state $A_1$,
can be a very much singlet like in the presence of negligible mixing
between A and S states and,
essentially it can happen due to either of the following two conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$M_A^2 >> M_S^2, M_{12}^2$ \emph{i.e} the heavier state is too heavy and
purely doublet like where as the lighter state is singlet,
a decoupled type of scenario.
\item
$M_{12}^2=(A_{\lambda}- 2 \kappa v_s) \sim 0$, \emph{i.e},
a cancellation between two the terms in the off-diagonal element.
\end{enumerate}
These two scenarios are illustrated in Fig.\ref{fig:mam12},
presenting the range of $\rm M_A^2$ and $\rm M_{12}^2$
(Eq.\ref{eq:a1mass},~\ref{eq:MA}),
corresponding to BR($A_1 \to \gamma\gamma) \gtrsim 10 \%$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\hspace{-1.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=7.0cm,width=10.0cm]{Figs/M12-MAs.pdf}
\hspace{-1.4cm}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\includegraphics[height=6.8cm,width=10.0cm]{Figs/MA1-sinalpha.pdf}
\caption{\small BR($A_1 \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$) in the $M_A^2-M_{12}^2$ (left) and $\sin\alpha - M_{A_1}$ plane (right). The other parameters are varied for the range, as given in Eq.\ref{eq:p1}. All energy unit are in GeV.}
\label{fig:mam12}
\end{figure}
In the left panel, we present the range of diagonal term $\rm M_A^2$ and
the off-diagonal element $M_{12}^2$ of the mass matrix $\rm M_P^2$,
Eq.~\ref{eq:a1mass}.
As expected, for very low values of
$\rm M_{12}^2 (\sim 0)$ and corresponding to larger
values of $\rm M_A^2 \sim 10^6$,
BR$(A_1 \to \gamma \gamma)$ appears to be ($\gtrsim$80\%), and even for
the case $0 < |M_{12}^2| << M_A^2 $, it can be about 10-20\%.
It also indicates that the
BR($A_1 \to \gamma\gamma)$ becomes almost $100 \%$ for the
scenario $M_{12}^2 \sim 0$,
\emph{i.e} $A_{\lambda} \sim 2\kappa v_s$.
Moreover, we show the range of mixing angle in terms of
$\sin \alpha$ and the mass of $A_1$
in Fig.\ref{fig:mam12}(right), corresponding to the range
of $M_{12}^2$ and $M_A^2$, as shown in the left panel of the same figure.
It clearly confirms the smallness of the mixing angle
responsible to yield a large BR($A_1 \to \gamma\gamma)$ and
it occurs for a wide range of $\rm M_{A_{1}}$.
Similarly,
corresponding to the range of parameters as shown in Fig.\ref{fig:mam12}, for
which BR($A_1 \to \gamma\gamma \gtrsim$10\%),
the relevant range of $A_{\lambda}$ and $\mu_{eff}$ are shown
in the $\lambda-\kappa$ plane in the left and right panel
of Fig.~\ref{fig:alka} respectively.
\begin{figure}[t]
\hspace{-1.5cm}
\includegraphics[height=7.0cm,width=10.0cm]{Figs/la-ka-al.pdf}
\hspace{-1.3cm}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\includegraphics[height=7.0cm,width=10.0cm]{Figs/la-ka-mu.pdf}
\caption{\small $BR(A_1 \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$)($\ge 10 \%$) in
the $\lambda-\kappa$ plane for the range of $A_\lambda$(left)
and $\mu_{eff}$(right). The other parameters are varied for the range,
as given in Eq.\ref{eq:p1}.}
\label{fig:alka}
\end{figure}
It is observed that a reasonable wide ranges of $\lambda$(0.1 -- 0.4)
and $\kappa$(0.1 -- 0.65)
can provide a large
BR($A_1 \to \gamma\gamma$) for a larger range
of $A_{\lambda}$ and for a moderately large values of $\mu_{eff}$.
It is to be noted also that preferably Higgsino like lighter chargino
i.e a smaller $\mu_{eff}$ as compared to $M_2$, required in order to
enhance the partial width of this channel.
Finally, based on the above observations about the parameter dependence
of the production
cross sections, BR($\widetilde \chi^0_2 \to \widetilde \chi^0_1 A_1$) and BR($A_1 \to \gamma\gamma$),
we set up few benchmark points (BP) in order to present results.
In summary, the preferred choices are, $\widetilde \chi^0_1$ as a bino-Higgsino mixed state,
$\widetilde \chi^0_{2,3}$ and $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}$ primarily Higgsino like, i.e $\rm M_1 < \mu_{eff}$,
but not
with large gap between $M_1$ and $\mu_{eff}$, and $\rm M_2$ set
to a larger value satisfying
$M_2 > \mu_{eff}$. In Table \ref{tab:spectra}, we show six BPs and presenting
the corresponding parameters, masses of relevant particles and BRs.
Notice that BP1-BP4 present comparatively lighter masses of
chargino and neutralino
states, whereas these are massive for BP5 and BP6.
The values of $M_{A_1}$ are chosen
in such a way that the decay of the SM Higgs to a pair of $A_1$ is
forbidden in order to make it compatible with recent
SM Higgs boson results~\cite{Khachatryan:2016vau}.
For all BPs, the lightest CP even Higgs boson, $H_1$ is SM-like.
Although, both the $\widetilde \chi^0_2$ and $\widetilde \chi^0_3$ neutralino states are
Higgsino like, but, more precisely, the coupling strength depends on the
kind of Higgsino composition, either it is
$\rm \tilde H_u$ or $\rm \tilde H_d$
(see Eq.~\ref{eq:n2n1a1}) like. Notice that, for BP4, because of the higher
mass of $A_1$, the $A_1 \to Z\gamma$ also opens up and found to be its BR
around $\sim$ 2\%. This decay channel of $A_1$ can give rise to a
spectacular signal with the final state $\rm Z\gamma$ along with a lepton and
$E{\!\!\!/}_T$, when it is produced through the production mechanism, as shown in
Eq.\ref{eq:1}.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c| }
\hline
& BP1&BP2 &BP3& BP4 &BP5& BP6 \\ \hline
\hline
$\lambda$ &0.29&0.40&0.10&0.53&0.64&0.50 \\
$\kappa$ &~0.37 &0.45 &0.20 &0.39 &0.36&0.48 \\
$ \tan \beta$ &6.46 &6.46&11.0&4.0&2.5&2.84\\
$M_{A}$ &1722&340.7&1311.5&1262.4&1436.9&1655.8 \\
$A_{\kappa}$ &-4.97 & -4.97 &-3.9 &-5.8 & -6.5&-9.37 \\
$\mu_{eff}$ &342.4 &200.0 &158.5 &365.4 &636.8 &540.7\\
$M_1$ &300&150.0&135.4 &275.9& 605.8 &514.0\\
$M_2$ &606.6&606.6&1000.0 &9000&1857.4 &1597.1\\
\hline \hline
$M_{\tilde \chi_1^0}$&280.6 &131.4 &113.4 &261.8 &578.3&488.5 \\
$M_{\tilde \chi_2^0}$&356.4 &210.0 &169.0 &379.1 &657.5&559.8 \\
$M_{\tilde \chi_3^0}$&356.7 &215.6 &182.3 &385.5 &661.0&572.7 \\
$M_{\tilde \chi_1^+}$&340.0 &199.3 &161.7 &377.5 &648.6&550.6 \\
$M_{A_1}$ &62 &76 &63.1 &105.2 &62.8&66.8 \\
$M_{H_1}$ &124& 124 & 124&124 &125 &123 \\ \hline \hline
$BR( \chi_2^0 \rightarrow \tilde \chi_1^0 A_1)$ &0.92 &0.83 &0.0 &0.44
&0.98&0.05 \\
$BR( \chi_3^0 \rightarrow \tilde \chi_1^0 A_1)$ &0.27 &0.31 &0.52 &0.002
&0.11&0.97 \\
$BR(A_1\rightarrow \gamma\gamma)$ &0.79 &0.91 &0.98 &0.87 &0.97& 0.97 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{\small Parameters, masses, and BRs for six benchmark points.}
\label{tab:spectra}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\normalsize
\section {Signal and Background}
In this section we present the detection prospect of finding the signal
$\gamma\gamma +\ell^{\pm} + \slashed E_T$
at the LHC with the center of mass energy, $\sqrt S$= 13 TeV, corresponding
to a few integrated luminosity options.
As mentioned in the previous section, the signal events
appear from both the $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_{2}$ and $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}\widetilde \chi^0_{3}$ production
following the cascade decays, $\widetilde \chi^0_{2,3}\to \widetilde \chi^0_1 A_1$,
and $A_1 \to \gamma\gamma$(Eq.~\ref{eq:1}). The lepton originates mainly from
$\tilde\chi_1^\pm \to \ell^{\pm} \nu\widetilde \chi^0_1$ decay and the missing transverse
energy ($\slashed E_T$) arises due to the presence of massive LSPs,
in addition to almost massless neutrinos.
The dominant SM background contributions come from the following
processes,
\begin{eqnarray}
pp \to { W\gamma, \ \ Z\gamma, \ \ W\gamma\gamma, \ \ Z\gamma\gamma},
\end{eqnarray}
with the leptonic decays of $W/Z$.
Note that in the first two cases, the second photon originates primarily
from the initial state, radiated by incoming quarks. In addition, the another
potential source of backgrounds are due to the faking of jets as photon
in the process,
\begin{eqnarray}
pp \to W \gamma j, \ \ Z \gamma j,
\end{eqnarray}
and interestingly, it is found to be the dominant ones.
In our simulation we generate signal events using
{\tt PYTHIA6}~\cite{Sjostrand:2006za}
providing spectrum of SUSY particles and BR of various decay channels
through SLHA file\cite{Skands:2003cj}, obtained from
{\tt NMSSMTools}~\cite{Ellwanger:2004xm},
corresponding to our chosen parameter space,
as shown in Table~\ref{tab:spectra}.
The background events with 2-body at the final state($W\gamma,, Z\gamma$)
are generated directly using
{\tt PYTHIA6}, while processes consisting 3-body are simulated using
the MadGraph~\cite{Aad:2015jqa} and then {\tt PYTHIA6 } is used
for showering.
The generated events are
stored in the standard HEP format (STDHEP) \cite{stdhep}
to pass them through
{\tt Delphes3.2.0}~\cite{deFavereau:2013fsa}
to take into account the detector effects.
In our analysis we have used the default CMS card in Delphes,
but results are also checked with ATLAS default card
and not much differences are observed.
The objects in the final state such as, electron, photon and
missing transverse energy are identified and reconstructed using Delphes
based algorithms \cite{deFavereau:2013fsa}. However,
for the sake of completeness,
we describe very briefly the object reconstruction
techniques followed in the Delphes.
\begin{itemize}
\item
Lepton Selection:
The electrons are reconstructed using the information from the tracker and
ECAL parameterizing the combined reconstruction efficiency as a function
of the energy and pseudorapity. The muons are reconstructed using the
predefined reconstruction efficiency and the final momentum is obtained
by a Gaussian smearing of the initial 4-momentum vector. In our simulation,
both the electrons and the muons are selected, imposing cuts on the
transverse momenta
($p_T^\ell$) and pseudo rapidity ($\eta^l$) of lepton as,
\begin{eqnarray}
p_{T}^{\ell} \ge 20 { ~GeV}; ~|\eta^l| \le 2.5; \ \ (l = e, \mu),
\label{eq:lcut}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\eta^\ell$ restriction is due to the limited tracker coverage.
The leptons are required to be isolated by demanding the total transverse
energy $E_{T}^{ac}(\ell) \le 20 \%$ of the $p_T^\ell$,
where $E_{T}^{ac}(\ell)$ is the scalar sum of transverse energies of particles
with minimum transverse momentum 0.5 GeV
around the lepton direction within a cone size of $\Delta R=0.5$.
\item
Photon Selection: The genuine photons and electrons that
reach to the ECAL having no reconstructed tracks are considered as
photons in the Delphes
neglecting the conversions of photons into electron-positron pairs.
In the present version of Delphes~3.2.0, the fake rate of photons are not
simulated. In our simulation, we select photons subject to cuts,
\begin{eqnarray}
p_T^\gamma > 20 ~GeV; \ \ |\eta^{\gamma}|<2.4,
\end{eqnarray}
but excluding the $\eta$ region, $1.44<|\eta|^{\gamma} < 1.57$.
The isolation of photon is ensured by measuring the sum of transverse momenta
$E_T^{ac}(\gamma)$ of all particles around $\Delta R$=0.5 along the
of the axis of the photon and transverse momentum more than 0.5 GeV.
We consider photon is isolated if,
\begin{eqnarray}
E^T_{AC}(\gamma)<0.2 ~p_T^{\gamma}.
\end{eqnarray}
\item
Missing transverse energy:
In the Delphes, the missing transverse energy is estimated from
the transverse component of the total energy deposited in the detector,
as defined,
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec E{\!\!\!/}_T = - \sum {\vec p_T(i)}
\end{eqnarray}
where $i$ runs over all measured collection from the Detector. In the signal
event $\slashed E_T$ is expected to be harder as it appears
due to the comparatively heavier object $\widetilde \chi^0_1$, where as in the SM
it is mainly due to the neutrinos. Hence, $\slashed E_T$ may be a
useful variable to isolate background events by a good fraction without
affecting signal events too much.
A cut,
\begin{eqnarray}
\slashed E_T > 50 ~GeV,
\label{eq:metcut}
\end{eqnarray}
is applied in our simulation and observed that
a substantial fraction ($\gtrsim 50$\%) of background events are
rejected with a mild loss of signal events.
\end{itemize}
With a goal to separate out the signal from the background events,
we investigate several kinematic variables.
We notice that the $p_T^\gamma$ are comparatively
harder in the signal than the background events. This can be
attributed to the fact
that the photons in the signal events originate from $A_1$ decay,
which is to some extent expected to be boosted as it is produced from
heavier neutralino states. On the other hand, in the background process
photons arise due to soft or hard emission accompanied
with a $W/Z$ boson and are not as boosted as in the
signal events. Hence, we impose following hard cut on the leading($\gamma_1$)
photon and little mild on the sub-leading ($\gamma_2$) photon to eliminate
background events,
\begin{eqnarray}
p_T^{\gamma_1}>40~ GeV; \ \ p_T^{\gamma_2}> 20~ GeV.
\label{eq:gammaptcut}
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, interestingly, we observed that the distribution of $\Delta R_{\gamma_1\gamma_2}$,
defined as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta R _{\gamma_1 \gamma_2} = \sqrt{(\eta_{\gamma_1} - \eta_{\gamma_2})^2
+ (\phi_{\gamma_1} - \phi_{\gamma_2})^2} ~,
\end{eqnarray}
presents a characteristic feature for the signal events.
Two photons in signal events originating from a
comparatively massive $A_1$ are expected to be correlated and appear
without much angular separation between them, unlike the background events,
where these are not directly correlated and come out with a comparatively
wider angular separation. This interesting feature is clearly demonstrated
in the distribution of $\Delta R_{\gamma_1\gamma_2}$, as shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:drg1g2-philg2} (left), for both the signal and
dominant backgrounds, such as $W \gamma,~ W \gamma \gamma,~ W \gamma j$. Note that, $\Delta R_{\gamma_1\gamma_2}$
distributions are subject to cuts given
by Eqs.~\ref{eq:lcut}, \ref{eq:metcut}, \ref{eq:gammaptcut}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\hspace{-0.3cm}
\includegraphics[height=8.0cm,width=8.0cm]{Figs/drg12.pdf}
\hspace{-0.1cm}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\includegraphics[height=8.0cm,width=8.0cm]{Figs/philg2.pdf}
\caption {\small $\Delta R_{\gamma_1\gamma_2}$(left)
and $\Delta \phi_{l \gamma_2}$(right) distribution for both the signal
and dominant backgrounds. These are subject to selection cuts,
Eqs.~\ref{eq:lcut}, \ref{eq:metcut}, \ref{eq:gammaptcut}.}
\label{fig:drg1g2-philg2}
\end{figure}
It displays a clear difference, where the signal events are distributed in
the lower region of $\Delta R_{\gamma_1\gamma_2} $},
where as the background events mostly appear towards the higher side.
Evidently, this characteristic feature
can be exploited to improve the purity of the signal events.
Optimizing the selection of $\Delta R_{\gamma_1 \gamma_2}$, we require,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta R _{\gamma_1 \gamma_2} \le 2.0
\end{eqnarray}
in our simulation and eliminate a good fraction of
background events. Finally, to minimize the background contamination further,
in particular due to the most dominant $W\gamma j$ process, we construct
another observable, the difference in the azimuthal angle between
the lepton and the sub-leading
photon \emph{i.e} $\Delta\phi_{\ell\gamma_2}$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:drg1g2-philg2}(right), we present the distribution
of $\Delta\phi_{\ell\gamma_2}$ for both the signal and the dominant
backgrounds($\rm W\gamma, W\gamma j, W\gamma\gamma$).
This distribution clearly shows a difference in behavior of the signal events
which are distributed towards the higher values of
$\Delta \phi_{\ell\gamma_2}$, while the dominant $W\gamma j$ background
does not show any such pattern.
Hence, a selection of $\Delta\phi_{\ell\gamma_2}$ as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta\phi_{\ell\gamma_2}> 1.5.
\end{eqnarray}
further suppresses the $W\gamma j$ background without much reduction of
the signal size. Also note that in this selected region
of $\Delta \phi_{l\gamma_2}$,
only the signal contribution corresponding to the BP1 point is large,
while for the other BPs, it is more or less at the same level
as backgrounds.
Implementing all selection cuts together in the simulation, we
achieve a reasonable signal
sensitivity as discussed in the next section.
\section{Results}
\begin{table}[tb]
\centering
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.9}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
&Process& $\sigma$(NLO) &$N_{ev}$ &$N_{\gamma} \ge 2$ &$ N_l=1$
&$\slashed E_T \ge 50$ & $\Delta R_{\gamma_1 \gamma_2} $ \hspace{-0.3cm}
&$\Delta \phi_{l \gamma_2}$& $\sigma \times \epsilon$ \\
&&&&&&& $\le 2$&$\ge 1.5$ & (fb)\\ \hline \hline
BP1& $\widetilde \chi^0_2 \widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}$ &36.4 fb &0.3L &7124 &886 &569 &502 &426 &0.38 \\
& $\widetilde \chi^0_3 \widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}$ &44.8 fb &0.3L &7006 &879 &587 &519 &431 & 0.14 \\
BP2&$\widetilde \chi^0_2 \widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}$ &335 fb &0.3L&9303 &1140 &590 &415 &346 & 2.9 \\
& $\widetilde \chi^0_3 \widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}$ &442 fb&0.3L &9593 &1213 &682 &499 &418 & 1.7 \\
BP3&$\widetilde \chi^0_3 \widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}$ &539 fb &0.3L&5755 &589 &312 &270 &240 & 2.2 \\
BP4&$\widetilde \chi^0_2 \widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}$ &61.1 fb &0.3L&14750 &2555 &1916 &910 &738 & 0.6 \\
& $\widetilde \chi^0_3 \widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}$ &43.9 fb &0.3L&14827 &2447 &1873 &935 &730 & 0.002 \\
BP5&$\widetilde \chi^0_2 \widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}$ &4.00 fb &0.3L&7798 &1023 &715 &598 &475 &0.060 \\
& $\widetilde \chi^0_3 \widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}$ &1.80 fb &0.3L&8292 &1111 &809 &694 &540 & 0.003 \\
BP6& $\widetilde \chi^0_2 \widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}$ &8.80 fb &0.3L&7549 &893 &497 &353 &288 & 0.004 \\
& $\widetilde \chi^0_3 \widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}$ &4.90 fb &0.3L&9135 &1132 &813 &634 &517 & 0.080\\ \hline \hline
&$W \gamma$ &215 pb &30M &15002 &1117 &272 &65 &47 & 0.33 \\
&Z $\gamma $ &103 pb &30M &14792 &1506 &52 &12 &10 & 0.03 \\
Bkg.&$W \gamma$ j & 125 pb &2.1M &2987 &282 &137 &49 &30 & 1.80 \\
&Z$\gamma$ j & 45 pb &2.1M &2531 &1203&27 &10 &6 & 0.13 \\
&W $\gamma \gamma$ & 407 fb &0.5L &6011 &760 &260 &66 &47 & 0.40 \\
&Z $\gamma\gamma$ & 257 fb &0.5L &5312 &233 &12 &7 &4 & 0.02 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\small Event summary for the signal and
backgrounds(Bkg) subject to a set of cuts. The last column presents the cross section after multiplying the acceptance efficiency including BRs.}
\label{tab:event}
}
\end{table}
In Table~\ref{tab:event}, we present the summary of our simulation
for both the signal and the SM backgrounds showing the number of events
remaining after applying a given set of cuts.
The results are shown for the signal corresponding to six BPs
as shown in the Table~\ref{tab:spectra}.
The third column presents the production cross sections
and $N_{ev}$ in the 4th column indicates the number of events simulated
for each processes.
A k-factor 1.3 is used for the signal cross section in order to
take into account NLO effects \cite{Beenakker:1999xh}.
The NLO cross sections for background processes are evaluated using
${\tt MadGraph~{aMC}@NLO}$ \cite{Alwall:2014hca} subject to
$p_T^\gamma > 10~GeV$ and $|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.5$ for photons,
where as $p_T^j> 20~GeV$ and $|\eta^j|< 5 $ are also used for
accompanied jets at the generating level.
Requirement of two hard photons and single lepton
reduce the background contributions substantially by 3-5 orders of
magnitude, where as the signal events decrease by about an order.
The $\slashed E_T >50~GeV$ selection
is very effective in
suppressing backgrounds, in particular process accompanying
with a $Z$-boson in
which case there is no genuine source of $\slashed E_T$. The
selection of $\Delta R_{\gamma_1\gamma_2}$ appears to be very useful,
as discussed
above, in eliminating backgrounds by 60-80\% with a marginal reduction
in signal events.
Evidently, the dominant background contamination turn out to be due to
the $W\gamma j$, which is about 65\% of the total background contribution.
Notably, the background processes associated with a $Z$ boson
are not contributing significantly, because of the
requirement of single lepton and a strong $\slashed E_T$. The signal
benchmark points BP2 and BP3, comparatively with lower masses of
$\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}$ and $\widetilde \chi^0_2$ yield larger event rates, primarily due to the large
production cross sections. The last columns shows the cross sections
normalized by the selection efficiency due to set selections
for each processes and parameters.
space.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.8}
\begin{tabular}{ | l | l | l | l |l| l| l| l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
Process &BP1 &BP2 &BP3 & BP4 & BP5 &BP6 \\ \hline
$\sigma\times\epsilon$~(fb) & 0.52
& 4.6 & 2.2 & 0.6 & 0.063 & 0.084\\
\hline
${\cal L} ~{\rm (fb^{-1})}$ & \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{$S/\sqrt{B}$} \\ \hline
100
&3.1 & 28.1 & 13.3
&3.5 & 0.40 & 0.50 \\
300
&5.4 & 48.7 & 23.9
&6.0 & 0.67 & 0.88 \\
1000
&9.8 & 89.0 & 42.0 & 11.0 & 1.22 & 1.60 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\small The signal cross sections after multiplying the
acceptance efficiency
including BRs(2nd row) and significance $(S/\sqrt{B})$
for three integrated luminosity options $100, 300$ and $1000$ $\rm fb^{-1}$.
The total background cross-section is 2.74~fb. }
\label{tab:sb}
}
\end{table}
In Table~\ref{tab:sb}, we show the sensitivity of the signal presenting
the significances ($S/\sqrt{B}$) for three integrated
luminosity options $100$, $300$ and $1000 \rm~fb^{-1}$. The total
background cross section is estimated to be about 2.74~fb.
In this table the second row presents the signal cross section
corresponding to each BPs.
The significances are quite encouraging for the lower
masses ($\le 400~GeV$) of $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm},~\widetilde \chi^0_{2,3}$ and
for $A_1$ $\sim$ 60 -100 GeV, even for low integrated luminosity ${\cal L}=
$100$fb^{-1}$. However, for the higher range of masses
(BP5 and BP6), the sensitivity is very
poor due to tiny production cross sections.
We emphasize again that in order to obtain a sizeable signal rate,
the chosen parameter space are happen to be a compressed scenario.
In case of the scenario represented by BP4, where
$M_1 < \mu_{eff}$, $\tilde \chi_{2,3}^0$ decays to relatively
massive of $A_1$.
Remarkably, this signal is observable for some of the BPs corresponding
to comparatively lower masses of $\widetilde \chi^0_{2,3}$ and $\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}$ for the 300~$fb^{-1}$
luminosity option and very robust for high luminosity option 1000~$fb^{-1}$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{Figs/invmassgg.pdf}
\caption{Two photon invariant mass for three signal BPs normalizing
to unity.}
\label{fig:magg}
\end{figure}
Furthermore, it is worth to mention here that in analogy with the
SM Higgs searches,
in this study also, the di-photon invariant mass is expected to show a clear
peak at the mass of $A_1$. In Fig.\ref{fig:magg}, we show the
distribution of reconstructed $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ subject to all cuts
as listed in
Table.\ref{tab:event}. Because of the low statistics of background
events after selection, those are not shown in this figure.
Perhaps, the level of background contamination can be
reduced further by fitting
the signal peak leading an enhancement of signal sensitivity.
\section{Summary}
In the NMSSM, one of the non SM-like Higgs boson,
particularly lightest pseudoscalar $A_1$, which is mostly singlet like,
can decay to di-photon
channel via Higgsino like chargino loop with a substantial BR.
We identify the region of the
parameter space corresponding to BR($\widetilde \chi^0_{2,3}\to \widetilde \chi^0_1 A_1$) and
BR$(A_1 \to \gamma\gamma) \ge $, both at the level of 10\% or more
and present the potential ranges of $\lambda, \kappa $ along with
$\mu_{eff}, A_{\lambda}$.
We investigate the sensitivity of
the signal $\ell +\gamma\gamma +\slashed E_T$ producing $A_1$ through
the chargino-neutralino associated production as shown in Eq.\ref{eq:1}.
The possible
contamination due to the SM backgrounds are also estimated and
$W\gamma j$ is found to be the dominant one, where jet fakes as
a photon. Performing a detail simulation of the signal and the
background processes
including detector effects using Delphes, we predict the signal sensitivity
for few benchmark points and for a given integrated luminosity options
for the LHC Run 2 experiments.
Our simulation shows that this signal is observable marginally
for 100$fb^{-1}$ integrated
luminosity. However, for larger integrated luminosity option,
this signal is very robust and S/$\sqrt{B} >> 5\sigma$ sensitivity
can be achieved for the $m_{\widetilde \chi^0_{2,3}}, m_{\widetilde \chi_1^{\pm}} \sim 400$~GeV
and $M_{A_1} \sim 70$ GeV,
where as it severely degrades
for higher masses $\sim$ 600 GeV due to the heavily suppressed cross section.
The reconstructed di-photon invariant mass is expected to show a clear
visible narrow peak around the mass of $A_1$, which can
be exploited to suppress backgrounds further to improve
the signal sensitivity.
Hence, room for a possible more improvements of signal to background
ratio exist, which is not explored in the current study.
We reiterate here that
two photons BR of Higgs boson is heavily suppressed in the
SM and as well as in the MSSM. In this context,
we emphasize again very strongly that this diphoton decay mode
of $A_1$ can be used as a powerful tool to distinguish the NMSSM
from the other SUSY models.
\section{Acknowledgment}
JK would like to thank Bibhu P. Mahakud, Jyoti Ranjan Beuria and
Michael Paraskevas for useful discussions. The authors are also thankful
to Saurabh Nioygi for participating in this project in the beginning.
|
\section{Introduction}
Magnetic fields generated in laser-matter interactions are of primary interest in high energy density physics \cite{laserplasma}. For example, magnetic fields generated by the Weibel instability can explain the collisionless shocks that are found in young galaxies and other astrophysical systems \cite{weibel, astro}. In inertial confinement fusion, magnetic fields are used in one approach to reduce heat losses and thus improve performance of implosions \cite{magicf}, and in another approach (using cylindrical implosions) as a necessary criterion to reach ignition \cite{icfcylindrical}. Also, magnetic reconnection is a commonly studied process which converts some of the magnetic energy of a system into heat, and understanding the heating mechanism well could lead to better hohlraum design for inertial confinement fusion \cite{magneticreconnection}.
Proton radiography is an extensively used technique that characterizes electric and magnetic fields in plasmas over a wide range of field strengths \cite{roth}. A polyenergetic proton beam, with typical energies on the order of 10 MeV, is usually produced by high intensity laser interaction with solid targets \cite{hedfrontiers}. This beam then interacts with an object of interest (such as plasmas or shock-compressed matter) and gets deflected as a result of the Lorentz force or collisions with atoms \cite{radiographyscatter}. The outgoing beam is captured on a radiochromic film (RCF) stack which can resolve both spatial and energy profiles \cite{rcf}.
Various methods have been developed in analyzing proton radiographs. Using the principles of differential scattering and stopping, density profiles of dense matter can be retrieved from radiographs \cite{laserdriven}. Via scaling laws, field strengths of electric and magnetic fields can be estimated \cite{measuringeb,quantitative1,quantitative2}. Also, radiographs can be used to qualitatively understand electric and magnetic field structures \cite{qualitative2,qualitative3,qualitative4}. Furthermore, radiographs can be simulated numerically in order to identify features found in experimental radiographs \cite{levy,compare}.
It is only recently that techniques have been developed to reconstruct fields. The relations between the field structures and proton radiographs have been established by Kugland $\textit{et al}.$ \cite{Kugland} under certain simplifying assumptions, allowing one to obtain the line-integrated transverse magnetic field from a radiograph by solving a 2-D Poisson equation. Graziani $\textit{et al.}$ \cite{morphology} and Kasim $\textit{et al.}$ \cite{kasim} provided extensions to this technique, under similar assumptions. As such, radiographs of systems which do not obey any of the assumptions in \cite{Kugland,morphology,kasim} can only be analyzed qualitatively.
Machine learning, a field of study which enables the performance of a computer (with respect to a certain task) to increase with its experience, has seen many applications in artificial intelligence problems such as image recognition, recommender systems and speech-to-text \cite{LeCun}. Due to its ability to discover structures in high dimensional data, artificial neural networks (one example of machine learning) has seen many applications in physics, such as analyzing particle accelerator data \cite{particle}, reconstructing images in optical tomography \cite{Kamilov:15} and retrieving 3-D potentials in electron scattering \cite{dynamical}. The flexible nature of artificial neural networks and the prevalence of its usage in image recognition problems prompt us to posit its usage in imaging 3-D magnetic field structures without a need for simplifying assumptions, addressing the gaps found in existing radiograph inversion techniques.
In this paper, we first review existing work on inverting proton radiographs. We then introduce key ideas of artificial neural networks and review their applications in physics. Next, we outline the new method of using artificial neural networks to reconstruct magnetic fields and retrieving field parameters such as characteristic lengths. Via simulations, we show a proof of concept for the above ideas, and discuss how noise and selection of training data affect our results. Using an example, we highlight the need for proton tomography. Finally, we compare the artificial neural network technique with the existing methods of radiograph inversion and suggest a variety of extensions to our research.
\section{Theory}
\subsection{Existing methods of retrieving magnetic fields from radiographs}
\label{subsec:existingmethod}
In this subsection, we will outline the foundational work on proton radiograph inversion by Kugland $\textit{et al.}$, move on to discuss Graziani $\textit{et al.}$ and Kasim $\textit{et al.}$'s extensions, and conclude with the gaps in these methods.
First, we go through Kugland $\textit{et al.}$'s \cite{Kugland} definitions: The coordinates are defined such that the object is placed at $z=0$ (object plane), and $(x, y)$ refers to the coordinates on the image plane (see Fig. \ref{fig:setup}). At the object plane, the proton's coordinates are denoted as $(x_0,y_0)$. The distance between the proton source and the object is $l$ while the distance between the object to the image plane (radiochromic film stack) is $L$. $a$, the characteristic length of the object, is assumed to be much smaller than $l$ (paraxial limit) and $L\gg l$ for high magnification.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{images/setup.pdf}
\caption{Diagram of a typical proton radiography setup. A point source of distance $l$ away from the object emits a beam of protons moving generally in the $z$-direction. $L$ is the distance between the object and image plane.}
\label{fig:setup}
\end{figure}
In order to get a tractable result, Kugland $\textit{et al.}$ have made some simplifying assumptions. We start off with those relating to the proton source: (i) The source can be treated as a point source. Else, the radiograph will be blurred and the resolution of field structures will be affected. (ii) The protons deviate from their straight-line trajectories solely due to the Lorentz force interaction with the object, and we can ignore space-charge effects because the beam is charge-neutral as a result of co-moving electrons \cite{comovingelectrons}. (iii) The angular width of the beam is much greater than $a/l$ so that intensity variations in the image plane are due to proton interactions with the object, and not the angular distribution of the proton beam.
Consider the dimensionless parameter
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu\equiv \frac{l\beta}{a},
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $a$ is a characteristic length of the electromagnetic field, and $\beta$ is a characteristic deflection angle. One core assumption in Kugland $\textit{et al.}$ is that $\mu\ll1$ (hence known as the linear regime), where the spatial variation of the intensity on the screen is small. This is in contrast to the non-linear regime ($\mu$ on the order of 1 or more) where the intensity variations are large, leading to non-linear features. One example of non-linear features is caustics, which occurs when the Jacobian determinant
\begin{eqnarray}
\left|\frac{\partial (x,y)}{\partial (x_0,y_0)}\right|=0,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent resulting in features of high intensity (usually multiples of the background intensity).
Furthermore, assuming that the velocity of the proton $\mathbf{v}$ is approximately constant while the proton is within the object, (trajectories are not perturbed within the plasma so $\mathrm{dt=d}z_0/v$), the only relevant component of the magnetic potential is the one in the $z$-direction, $A_z$. Defining the line-integrated potential as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi(x_0,y_0)= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}A_z(x_0,y_0,z_0)\mathrm{d}z_0,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent then with all the assumptions listed above, Kugland $et\:al.$'s formula for radiograph inversion reads:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{\nabla_\perp^2}\Phi(x_0,y_0) = \frac{\sqrt{2m_p K}}{el} \Big( 1-\frac{I}{I_0}\frac{L^2}{l^2}\Big),
\label{eqn:poisson}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\nabla_\perp$ is the gradient with respect to the transverse coordinates $(x_0,y_0)$, $m_p$ is the mass of the proton, $K$ is the (non-relativistic) kinetic energy of the proton, $e$ is the charge of an electron, $I$ is the proton intensity distribution at the image plane and $I_0$ is the proton intensity distribution in the object plane. As such, given the intensity profile at the object plane $I_0(x_0, y_0)$ and radiograph intensity profile $I(x, y)$ (which can be transformed to $I(x_0,y_0)$ via the mapping $x=\frac{L}{l}x_0,y=\frac{L}{l}y_0$) in the regime $\mu\ll 1$, one can solve a 2-D Poisson equation to get the line-integrated potential $\Phi(x_0,y_0)$, thereby allowing one to reconstruct the line-integrated transverse magnetic field.
Using a series of perturbations, and assuming the linear regime $\mu \ll 1$, Graziani $\textit{et al.}$ \cite{morphology} proposed a correction term in the right hand side of equation (20) in Kugland $\textit{et al.}$ (equation (\ref{eqn:poisson}) in this paper) which leads to a second-order non-linear partial differential equation. The authors then conducted a simulation of their proposed equation, and found that their method reconstructed the line-integrated magnetic field accurately at locations near the peak field strength, but was inaccurate at locations where the field strengths are at least 3 orders of magnitude less than the peak field strength. Also, Graziani $\textit{et al.}$ briefly sketched a method to retrieve the line-integrated magnetic field in the non-linear regime, assuming that the direction of the proton trajectory within the object is nearly constant.
Another method, based on computational geometry, was implemented by Kasim $\textit{et al.}$ \cite{kasim}. This method works well in the beginning of the caustic regime (early part of the non-linear regime where $\mu\textgreater 1$), but the relative errors start to become very large in the regime of branching caustics (later part of the non-linear regime). Also, Kasim $\textit{et al.}$ demonstrated the large errors that come with solving the Poisson equation in Kugland $\textit{et al.}$ for a system in the non-linear regime.
So far, we have seen that existing methods of magnetic field reconstruction require simplifying assumptions in order to get an equation which, when solved, gives the line-integrated transverse magnetic field. This highlights two gaps: (i) In later parts of the non-linear regime (e.g. branching caustics regime), there is no known reconstruction method despite the fact that non-linear features do occur in some experimental radiographs \cite{nonlinear1,nonlinear2,nonlinear3}. In this regime, experimental radiographs are analyzed by comparison to simulated radiographs of a hypothesized magnetic field structure. (ii) In both regimes, there is no reconstruction method that can give the 3-D magnetic field. As we will demonstrate in the next few subsections, the proposed artificial neural network method can address both gaps.
\subsection{Artificial neural networks (ANN)}
\input{chapters/ann}
\section{Methods}
\input{chapters/methods}
\section{Results and discussion}
We have simulated special cases of equation (\ref{eqn:parameters}) as a proof of concept of the idea in section \ref{subsec:recon}. All results shown here come from applying a trained artificial neural network on the testing set (which is not used in training the artificial neural network), and is indicative of the performance when tested on experimental data. Some of the simulation parameters used in the following subsections can be found in table \ref{table:params}.
\begin{table*}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{} & Value in subsection A-E & Value in subsection F \\ \hline
Ellipsoidal blob parameter $a$/mm & 0.1 & 0.7 \\ \hline
Ellipsoidal blob parameter $b$/mm & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{1} \\ \hline
Flux rope height/mm & 2 & 0.3 \\ \hline
Flux rope parameter $a$/mm & 0.8 & 0.5 \\ \hline
Distance between proton source and object $l$/mm & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{7} \\ \hline
Distance between object and screen $L$/mm & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{93} \\ \hline
Number of neurons in input layer & 2500 & 5000 \\ \hline
Number of neurons in output layer & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{2 for subsections A, B, D, F and 1 for subsections C, E } \\ \hline
Velocity of protons in the $z$ direction/ms$^{-1}$ & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$10^6$} \\ \hline
Velocity of protons in the $x,\:y$ direction/ms$^{-1}$ & Ranges from -5$\times 10^4$ to 5$\times 10^4$ & Ranges from -6.9$\times 10^5$ to 6.9$\times 10^5$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Parameters for simulations in the following subsections. The proton velocities for subsection F refer to protons in the beam fired in the $z$ direction.}
\label{table:params}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Reconstructing magnetic fields, a proof of concept}
Consider the following two fields: (a) a magnetic ellipsoidal blob, representative of fields generated by the Weibel instability \cite{weibel}, that can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
B_\phi = B_0\frac{r_0}{a}\mathrm{exp}(-(\frac{r_0^2}{a^2}+\frac{z_0^2}{b^2})),
\label{eqn:blob}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $B_0$ is proportional to the peak field strength, $r_0$ is the distance to the center in the $xy$ plane, $z_0$ is the distance to the center along the $z$-axis, and $a,\:b$ are characteristic lengths of the ellipsoid; (b) a magnetic flux rope of Gaussian cross section, representative of fields due to laser generated plasma flows \cite{fluxrope}, can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
B_y = B_0\mathrm{exp}(-\frac{x_0^2+z_0^2}{a^2}),
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $B_0$ is the peak field strength, $x_0$ and $z_0$ are the distances to the center along the $x$- and $z$- axes respectively, and $a$ is a characteristic length of the Gaussian.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{images/matlabfig/89b_reg_hist}
\caption{Error histograms for the $\alpha$ coefficients of two basis fields, using an artificial neural network with 1 hidden layer consisting of 10 neurons. The mean errors are 0.34$\%$ and 2.74$\%$ while the median errors are 0.20$\%$ and 1.29$\%$ for $\alpha_1$ (ellipsoidal blob) and $\alpha_2$ (flux rope) respectively. More parameters can be found in table \ref{table:params}.}
\label{fig:twoalphas_reg}
\end{figure}
In terms of equation (\ref{eqn:parameters}), we assign $\alpha_1$ to $B_0$ of the magnetic ellipsoidal blob and $\alpha_2$ to $B_0$ of the magnetic flux rope. $\alpha_1$ was varied from 5 to 6 T (defocusing) in steps of 0.01 T while $\alpha_2$ was varied from 2.01 to 3 T in steps of 0.03 T, and all other parameters were kept constant. Radiographs of 50 by 50 pixels were generated for each configuration. As mentioned earlier, 70$\%$ of these radiographs were randomly chosen to train the artificial neural network, 15$\%$ were randomly assigned to the validation set to prevent overfitting, and the trained artificial neural network was used to predict the $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ values on the remainder $15\%$ of the radiographs. The errors, defined as $\left|\frac{\mathrm{predicted\:value}-\mathrm{actual\:value}}{\mathrm{actual\:value}}\right|$, are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:twoalphas_reg}. We see that nearly all the errors are less than $5\%$, suggesting that the full scale implementation outlined in section \ref{subsec:recon} will work given enough basis fields. Though there are some undesirable outliers in $\alpha_2$, it is likely to be a result of inadequate data rather than a flaw in the artificial neural network method. This will be discussed in section \ref{subsec:data_accuracy}.
\subsection{Obtaining $\mathbf{B}$ field parameters from a magnetic ellipsoidal blob}
\label{subsec:blobparams}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[ ]{\includegraphics[width=0.26\textwidth]{images/88_radiograph_noncaustic_17aug2016}}
\subfloat[ ]{\includegraphics[width=0.26\textwidth]{images/88_radiograph_caustic_16aug2016}}
\caption{(a) Radiograph for a magnetic ellipsoidal blob at B = 0.1 T, $\sigma$ = 1. This is in the non-caustic regime, where the ring around the center is smeared out. (b) Radiograph for a magnetic ellipsoidal blob at B = 0.3 T, $\sigma$ = 1. This is in the caustic regime, where most of the protons fall into a very thin ring. The scales are in arbitrary units.}
\label{fig:caustic}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{images/matlabfig/88_reg_hist}
\caption{Error histograms for $\alpha$ and $\sigma$ for a magnetic ellipsoidal blob, using an artificial neural network with 1 hidden layer consisting of 50 neurons. The mean errors are 0.26$\%$ and 0.05$\%$ while the median errors are 0.20$\%$ and 0.04$\%$ for $\alpha$ and $\sigma$ respectively. More parameters can be found in table \ref{table:params}.}
\label{fig:alphasigma_reg}
\end{figure}
In this subsection, we demonstrate that (i) the artificial neural network method works in the non-linear regime, and (ii) the parameter retrieval concept in section \ref{subsec:retrieval} can be done. Here, we retrieve the field strength coefficient $\alpha$ and the scaling factor $\sigma$.
Radiographs for a magnetic ellipsoidal blob were generated with $\alpha$ (representing $B_0$ in equation (\ref{eqn:blob})) ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 T (defocusing) in steps of $2\times 10^{-4}$ T and $\sigma$ ranging from 0.9 to 1 in steps of 0.02. This spectrum of $\alpha$ spans both the caustic and non-caustic regime, as can be seen by the radiographs plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:caustic}. The histogram of errors are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:alphasigma_reg}. We can see that the average errors are well below $1\%$, suggesting that artificial neural networks can be used for parameter retrieval, an alternative to reconstructing entire magnetic fields. We also see that this method works in the non-linear regime, where $\mu\approx 2$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{images/matlabfig/92_branchingprofile}
\caption{Horizontal profile of a radiograph for a magnetic ellipsoidal blob at 1.5 T, the branching caustics regime. Notice that there are two maxima in the intensity profile, instead of one in the case of the caustic regime.}
\label{fig:branchingprofile}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{images/matlabfig/92_reg_hist}
\caption{Error histogram of $\alpha$ for a magnetic ellipsoidal blob spanning the linear, caustic and branching caustic regime, using an artificial neural network with 1 hidden layer consisting of 10 neurons. The mean error is 0.06$\%$ while the median error is 0.04$\%$. More parameters can be found in table \ref{table:params}.}
\label{fig:branching}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Branching caustics}
\label{subsec:branching_caustics}
The power diagram method \cite{kasim} gives relative errors of more than $10\%$ in the branching caustics regime. Here, we show that the artificial neural network method is flexible enough to accommodate this scenario. We extend the range of field strengths in section \ref{subsec:blobparams} to range from 0.1 T to 1.5 T in steps of $2\times 10^{-4}$ T, spanning the linear, caustic and branching caustic regime. As an illustration, the horizontal profile of the radiograph at 1.5 T (branching caustics regime) is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:branchingprofile}. The error histogram is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:branching} and we can see that all the errors are well below $1\%$.
\subsection{Effect of noise on accuracy}
\begin{figure*}
\makebox[\textwidth][c]{\includegraphics[width=1.25\textwidth]{images/matlabfig/90_reg_hist}}
\caption{Error histograms of $\alpha$ and $\sigma$ when 5, 10, 20, and 30 percent noise is introduced into the radiographs for a magnetic ellipsoidal blob. The artificial neural network configurations are: 8 hidden layers with 80 neurons per layer, 5 hidden layers with 50 neurons per layer, 6 hidden layers with 70 neurons per layer and 7 hidden layers with 100 neurons per layer for 5, 10, 20, and 30 percent noise respectively. For $\alpha$, the mean errors are 0.92$\%$, 1.14$\%$, 1.49$\%$ and 1.91$\%$ while the median errors are 0.73$\%$, 0.82$\%$, 1.19$\%$ and 1.46$\%$ for 5, 10, 20, and 30 percent noise respectively. For $\sigma$, the mean errors are 0.18$\%$, 0.24$\%$, 0.31$\%$ and 0.41$\%$ while the median errors are 0.14$\%$, 0.18$\%$, 0.25$\%$ and 0.31$\%$ for 5, 10, 20, and 30 percent noise respectively. Notice that it takes an increase from 5$\%$ noise to 30$\%$ noise in order to roughly double the mean and median errors, indicating that the artificial neural network method is robust to noise. More parameters can be found in table \ref{table:params}.}
\label{fig:alphasigma_noise}
\end{figure*}
So far we have shown that artificial neural networks trained on noise-free radiographs can retrieve quantities from noise-free radiographs with a high accuracy. We proceed to explore the changes in accuracy when noise is introduced into all the radiographs (training, validation and testing sets). Suppose a pixel in the radiograph has a value of $\chi$ and we want to introduce random noise of $x\%$. Then each pixel is replaced by a random value from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of $\chi$ and a standard deviation of $\chi\times x\%$. This was done for $x$ = 5, 10, 20 and 30 percent on the radiographs in section \ref{subsec:blobparams}, and the entire process of training and prediction was repeated. The error histograms for $\alpha$ and $\sigma$ are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:alphasigma_noise}. We notice that for both quantities, it takes an increase from 5$\%$ to 30$\%$ noise in order to roughly double the mean and median errors. This demonstrates the robustness of artificial neural networks to noise, although noise does occasionally cause very high errors. It is worth noting that the right model to use is Poisson noise, but that model approximates Gaussian noise for a large number of particles per pixel, which is true in our case. The relationship between errors and input noise for various configurations of artificial neural networks is further explored in \cite{nwnoise1,nwnoise2,nwnoise3,sizenoise}.
\subsection{Effect of the amount of training data on accuracy}
\label{subsec:data_accuracy}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{images/matlabfig/93_reg_hist}
\caption{Error histogram in $\alpha$ for a magnetic ellipsoidal blob (more parameters in table \ref{table:params}) when the step size is increased by a factor of 5, leading to less data. The mean error is 0.20$\%$ and the median error is 0.16$\%$, using an artificial neural network with 7 hidden layers with 40 neurons per layer.}
\label{fig:stepsize}
\end{figure}
While the artificial neural network method seems promising so far, it is reliant on the large amounts of training data (specifically, the amount of information in the data, or information entropy) for its accuracy. To elucidate this fact, we generated data for a magnetic ellipsoidal blob and varied only $\alpha$ between the values 0.1 to 1.5 T, similar to the scenario in section \ref{subsec:branching_caustics}, except with a larger step size of $10^{-3}$ T. The error histogram is plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:stepsize}. In comparison to Fig. \ref{fig:branching}, we see that having a larger step size and thus having less information leads to an increase in errors. This, combined with the universality of the artificial neural network proved in \cite{hornik}, suggests that extreme outliers in errors can be overcome by generating more data that increases the information entropy of the data set and re-training the neural network. The relationship between errors and size of data set for various configurations of artificial neural networks is further explored in \cite{nwsize1,nwsize2,nwsize3,sizenoise}.
\subsection{Limitations of proton radiography and the need for proton tomography}
Proton radiographs do not necessarily form one-to-one relationships with field structures: Suppose that at the edge of a plasma that is facing the proton beam, there is a very strong $\mathbf{B}$ field that deflects the incoming protons before these protons could penetrate further. Then the radiograph formed is independent of the $\mathbf{B}$ fields in the remainder of the plasma, because no protons interact with it. Due to the lack of information in the radiographs, no method can fully reconstruct the $\mathbf{B}$ fields. As such, there is a need to modify the experimental set-up to capture more information from the $\mathbf{B}$ field.
One possible way to capture more information is to include more probe beams in different directions (tomography). As an example, consider two adjacent field structures, the ellipsoidal blob (field strength parameter assigned to $\alpha_1$, ranging from 9 to 9.25 T in steps of 0.005 T) and the flux rope (field strength parameter assigned to $\alpha_2$, ranging from 0.3 to 0.4 T in steps of 0.002 T), with the former obscuring the latter in the $z$ direction by 0.5 mm. When the artificial neural network method was used on radiographs due to a beam fired in the $z$ direction, the errors in the retrieved field strength of the flux rope are very high (top panel, Fig. \ref{fig:tomography}) due to the lack of protons probing the field structure. When another probe beam was fired in the $x$ direction (with $x$ velocity of $10^6$ ms$^{-1}$ and $y,\:z$ velocities ranging from -2$\times 10^5$ ms$^{-1}$ to 2$\times 10^5$ ms$^{-1}$) and the radiographs were used in addition to the ones from the probe beam in the $z$ direction, errors for both field strengths decrease by at least an order of magnitude (bottom panel, Fig. \ref{fig:tomography}). This demonstrates two facts: (i) the artificial neural network method (and any other method) cannot fully reconstruct magnetic fields if the radiographs carry insufficient information; (ii) including more information decreases errors, even if the field structure is not obscured, as can be seen by the reduction in errors for $\alpha_1$ in Fig. \ref{fig:tomography}. We hope this will inspire future work on theoretical error bounds in artificial neural networks given the lack of information in the data set.
\begin{figure}
\makebox[\columnwidth][c]{\includegraphics[width=1.15\columnwidth]{images/matlabfig/97_reg_hist}}
\caption{Error histograms of $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ for two scenarios. Top panel: Using radiographs generated by proton beams in the $z$ direction as training data, the mean errors are 1.20$\times 10^{-2}\%$ and $3.48\%$ while the median errors are 3.59$\times 10^{-3}\%$ and $2.50\%$ for $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ respectively, using an artificial neural network with 1 hidden layer consisting of 30 neurons. (more parameters in table \ref{table:params}). The errors for $\alpha_2$ (field strength of the flux rope) are high because the field structure associated with $\alpha_1$ (ellipsoidal blob) is deflecting many protons away from the flux rope, causing a lack of information in the resulting radiographs. Bottom panel: Using radiographs generated by proton beams in the $z$ and $x$ directions as training data, the mean errors are $1.81\times 10^{-4}\%$ and $0.11\%$ while the median errors are 1.41$\times 10^{-4}\%$ and $8.68\times 10^{-2}\%$ for $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ respectively, using an artificial neural network with 1 hidden layer consisting of 110 neurons. We see that upon including data from the proton beam in the $x$ direction, more information for both field structures is added to the data set and errors reduce by at least an order of magnitude.}
\label{fig:tomography}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison with the existing radiograph inversion techniques}
The artificial neural network method addresses the two gaps in existing reconstruction techniques, by being able to work in the non-linear regime (such as the branching caustic regime), and being able to produce 3-D reconstruction of the magnetic field. While existing inversion techniques rely on the paraxial limit for simplicity, the artificial neural network technique does not rely on such a limit, and in fact would benefit more if the paraxial limit was not used--The protons should ideally have non-zero velocities in the $x$ and $y$ directions so that it will be deflected by $\mathbf{B_\textit{z}}$, allowing the artificial neural network to capture more information and thus reconstruct the magnetic fields more accurately.
Also, existing techniques assume that the protons move in a straight line within the plasma, but this assumption does not hold when the $\mathbf{B}$ field is so strong that deflection occurs within the plasma. As a result, the existing techniques will inevitably fail in the limit of extremely large $\mathbf{B}$ fields. In comparison, the neural network method will work because it does not require this assumption.
One major benefit of using artificial neural networks is the long-run computational cost savings. Generating each set of 50 by 50 pixel radiographs (one radiograph for each variation of parameters) takes on the order of hours/days using 16 cores on one node of the Arcus Phase B supercomputer \cite{ARC}. Training the artificial neural network takes on the order of minutes/hours when using a single GPU on the Arcus Phase B, for neural networks with up to 10 hidden layers, with each layer consisting of up to 150 neurons. Reconstruction takes on the order of seconds without using any parallel processing/GPU. If this project were to go full-scale, we can see that most of the computational cost is in the generation of training data and the training of the artificial neural network, which is a one-off cost. In comparison, existing methods of reconstruction have a recurring cost. As such, over the long run, if the artificial neural network is used to invert sufficiently many radiographs, the artificial neural network method is computationally more efficient.
However, the artificial neural network method has some drawbacks. For example, the overall accuracy of the artificial neural network can only be determined empirically, whereas error-propagation can be performed for existing techniques. While the artificial neural network method will allow for computational cost savings over the long run, the minimal start-up computational cost to get it working for a non-trivial field structure is quite high, because the artificial neural network must be trained with many basis fields before it can be used. This is in contrast to existing techniques, where any field, as long as the assumptions are met, can be imaged with the computational cost of solving a differential equation.
\section{Conclusions and future work}
\label{sec:future}
In conclusion, we have reviewed existing techniques on analyzing $\mathbf{B}$ fields from proton radiography, and the basics of artificial neural networks. Using the fact that artificial neural networks are highly flexible function approximators, we proposed for the first time the idea of using artificial neural networks to reconstruct arbitrary $\mathbf{B}$ fields and retrieve important field parameters.
Via simulations, we showed that an artificial neural network can reconstruct $\mathbf{B}$ fields that can be expressed as linear combinations of two fields, and retrieve useful quantities of $\mathbf{B}$ fields such as characteristic lengths. We also explored the effects of noise and size of data set on the accuracy of the artificial neural network, and found that artificial neural networks are robust to noise. Artificial neural networks can accommodate a wide variety of scenarios and assumptions which existing techniques cannot, such as the branching caustics part of the non-linear regime. We also highlighted the need for proton tomography as certain field structures cannot be reconstructed fully due to the lack of information from a single radiograph.
As the usage of artificial neural networks in diagnosing $\mathbf{B}$ fields in high energy density plasmas is new, there are many avenues where this work can be developed further. There are at least three ways to improve the accuracy of the artificial neural network: (i) experiment with other types of artificial neural network architecture. For example, convolutional neural networks are a type of feedforward artificial neural network where the connections between neurons are inspired by the animal visual cortex \cite{convnet} and as such, perform very well in image recognition. Since radiograph inversion involves image recognition, convolutional neural networks could offer better performance than the fully connected (dense) feedforward neural network used in this paper. Recurrent neural networks are a class of artificial neural networks where the neuron connections form directed cycles, and such architecture has advantages in analyzing time series data. We could use recurrent neural networks on a time series of proton radiographs to shed light on the dynamics of the $\mathbf{B}$ field and hence the plasma. (ii) Include energy-resolved radiographs. In our simulations, we only looked at the spatial distribution of the protons, so including extra information on the proton energies could improve accuracy. (iii) Study the effects of the number of pixels on accuracy. It is interesting to note that promising results were obtained despite the low resolution of the radiographs (50 by 50 pixels). Understanding the effects of discretization noise could help us determine the quality of radiographs to be generated in order to train an artificial neural network to a specific accuracy.
Furthermore, the artificial neural network approach can be extended to similar systems, such as diagnosing electric fields in plasmas or characterizing micromagnetic patterns in magnetic media via electron scattering \cite{micromag}. Finally, a full scale implementation of an artificial neural network that can reconstruct any $\mathbf{B}$ field is a possibility we can look forward to.
\begin{acknowledgements}
The authors would like to acknowledge the support from the plasma physics HEC Consortium EPSRC grant number EP/L000237/1, as well as the Hartree Centre, Daresbury Laboratory, Central Laser Facility, and the Scientific Computing Department at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. The authors would like to acknowledge the use of the University of Oxford Advanced Research Computing (ARC) facility in carrying out this work \cite{ARC}. N.C. acknowledges financial support from the Singapore government. M.F.K. gratefully thanks the Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education for its support. M.C.L. thanks the Royal Society Newton International Fellowship for support. The authors acknowledge support from OxCHEDS and P.A.N. for his William Penney Fellowship with AWE plc.
\end{acknowledgements}
\subsection{Reconstruction of an arbitrary $\mathbf{B}$ field}
\label{subsec:recon}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{images/process.pdf}
\caption{Schematic of the prediction and reconstruction process.}
\label{fig:predictreconstructprocess}
\end{figure*}
In this section, we outline the steps to using an artificial neural network to reconstruct any arbitrary $\mathbf{B}$ field. First, we expand the magnetic field \textbf{B(r)} as a linear combination
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{B(r)} =&& \alpha_1 \mathbf{B_1}(\mathbf{\frac{r-r_1}{\sigma_1}}) + \alpha_2 \mathbf{B_2}(\mathbf{\frac{r-r_2}{\sigma_2}}) + \ldots \\
=&&\sum_{n=1}^{N} \alpha_n \mathbf{B_\textit{n}}(\mathbf{\frac{r-r_\textit{n}}{\sigma_\textit{n}}}),
\label{eqn:expansion}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $N$ is the number of terms used in the expansion, $\alpha_n$ is a scalar coefficient for the $n^\textrm{th}$ term, $\mathbf{B_\textit{n}}$ is a `basis' magnetic field, $\mathbf{r_\textit{n}}$ is the position offset of the field and $\sigma_\textit{n}$ is a scaling factor. While not necessary, these basis fields should be chosen such that most magnetic fields in plasmas can be represented with as few basis fields as possible, so that we require less training data to train the artificial neural network. One possible way to achieve this is to use principal components analysis (PCA) \cite{pca} on a large dataset of known $\mathbf{B}$ fields in plasmas. Principal components analysis looks at a large set of multidimensional vectors and first finds the direction of highest variance in the data (the first principal component), and then finds a set of vectors orthogonal to the first principal component that explains the remainder of the variance. While $\mathbf{B(r)}$ is a vector field, it can be converted into a vector $\mathbf{c}$ for principal components analysis by concatenating the magnetic fields at various different points, e.g. for a grid that runs from 0-9 in the $x$, $y$ and $z$ directions, we can write
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{c} =
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{B(r_{000})} \\ \mathbf{B(r_{001})} \\ \vdots \\ \mathbf{B(r_{999})}
\end{bmatrix},
\label{eqn:vectorc}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\mathbf{r_\textit{xyz}}$ is the vector ($x, y, z$). If such convenient basis fields cannot be determined, we can use the fact that all magnetic fields can be written in the form of equation (\ref{eqn:vectorc}), and let each element of the vector correspond to a basis field (i.e. $\mathbf{B_1}$ corresponds to $\mathbf{B_x(r_{000})}$, $\mathbf{B_2}$ corresponds to $\mathbf{B_y(r_{000})}$ and so on).
Next, generate training data by creating variations of the parameters $\alpha_n, \sigma_n \text{ and } \mathbf{r_\textit{n}}$ in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{g} =
\begin{bmatrix}
\alpha_1 \\ \mathbf{r_1} \\ \sigma_1 \\ \vdots \\ \alpha_N \\ \mathbf{r_\textit{N}} \\ \sigma_N
\end{bmatrix},
\label{eqn:parameters}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent and then conducting numerical simulations (e.g. using software packages mentioned in \cite{levy,compare}) to obtain the radiograph for each variation of the parameters. The radiograph is expressed as a vector where each element represents the intensity of the protons at a specific pixel.
Then, using the radiograph pixel values as inputs and $\mathbf{g}$ as the targets, apply backpropagation and optimization algorithms to train the feedforward neural network. After training, the artificial neural network is ready to reconstruct $\mathbf{B}$ fields: Input the radiograph into the artificial neural network to obtain the predicted parameters (in the form of equation (\ref{eqn:parameters})), and insert these values into equation (\ref{eqn:expansion}). See Fig. \ref{fig:predictreconstructprocess} for a schematic of the training and reconstruction process.
\subsection{Assumptions, practical considerations and implementation}
In our simulations, we have made some assumptions for simplicity, but these assumptions are not crucial in the success of our approach. We assumed that the probe beam only interacts with the plasma via the $\mathbf{B}$ field (no electric fields or collisions with matter). We also assumed that the proton source is a point source, and the probe beam is a planar sheet (velocities in the $z$ direction, before deflection from the plasma, are uniform). As feedforward artificial neural networks are universal function approximators, in principle the technique outlined in the previous section will still work even if the assumptions are violated (e.g. protons interact with the electric field of the plasma, protons collide with the plasma, proton source is of finite size, probe beam follows a specific angular distribution), as long as we include these effects during the production of training data (radiographs).
To obtain the radiographs we start off with the Lorentz force equation for $\mathbf{B}$ fields only, given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{v}}{\mathrm{d}t}=\frac{e}{m_p}\mathbf{v}\times\mathbf{B}.
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent This equation, along with $\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}}{\mathrm{d}t}=\mathbf{v}$ was numerically integrated given the initial conditions of $\mathbf{r}$ and $\mathbf{v}$ to get the final positions of the protons on the screen. These final coordinates are then binned in order to produce radiographs.
We used a fully connected (dense) feedforward artificial neural network for simplicity, and we will discuss the possibilities of using other types of artificial neural networks in section \ref{sec:future}. Scaled conjugate gradient was the optimization algorithm of choice during training because: (i) it is not RAM intensive (this is an important factor because in order to get more accurate results, training with more complicated $\mathbf{B}$ fields and higher resolution radiographs are required, resulting in an increase in the number of weights in the artificial neural network. If the optimization algorithm does not scale well, an impractical amount of RAM will be required); (ii) it can take advantage of parallel CPU and GPU computing, allowing it to run effectively on supercomputing clusters.
Before the training process, the entire data set is scaled so that each feature of the input and target (e.g. $\sigma_1$, $\alpha_1$, the proton intensity in pixel 1 etc.) falls in the range [-1,1] to prevent features of small magnitude from converging slowly during optimization \cite{efficientbackprop}, and the scaling is undone afterwards. The objective function was chosen to be the mean squared error (MSE) between the artificial neural network output and the target.
Due to the flexibility of artificial neural networks, overfitting (accidental modeling of noise) is an issue so early stopping and neural network regularization are implemented. In early stopping, training is halted when the errors starts increasing on a data set that was not used in the training process \cite{earlystopping}. This is done by first splitting the entire simulated data set into training, validation and testing sets at random in the ratio 70/15/15. The artificial neural network is applied to the training set, and during each iteration the mean squared error for the validation set is calculated. Initially, after each iteration, the artificial neural network becomes better at modeling the physical phenomenon and the validation mean squared error will decrease. There will come to a point when the artificial neural network starts to model the noise in the training set, and the validation mean squared error will stop decreasing and eventually start increasing (See Fig. \ref{fig:tvt} for an illustration). Training is halted after a specified number of iterations fail to decrease the validation mean squared error. In neural network regularization \cite{weightdecay}, the objective function is modified by adding a term proportional to the mean squared weight, and the constant of proportionality is known as the regularization parameter (chosen via cross-validation). This penalizes the neural network for having large weights or too many neurons, thus encouraging simpler models.
At this point, the artificial neural network is used to predict quantities on the testing set, and the testing errors are indicative of the artificial neural network's overall performance. For each simulated data set, the training process is run with the number of neurons in the hidden layer ranging from 10 to 100 in steps of 10, and the configuration with the lowest value of the objective function (mean squared error plus regularization term) is initially picked. If the value of the objective function is still decreasing when 100 neurons are used, then the search is extended in steps of 10 till 150 neurons. Once a single layer configuration is picked, another search is performed with multiple hidden layers (in increments of one layer), up to 5 hidden layers. Similarly, if the value of the objective function is still decreasing when 5 hidden layers are used, the search is extended to 10 hidden layers. After this search, the configuration with the lowest value of the objective function is picked and reported in the results section.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{images/tvt.pdf}
\caption{Typical curves of training and validation errors with respect to training iteration. Beyond a certain point, the artificial neural network starts to model noise, causing the validation error to increase. Training should be halted when this happens.}
\label{fig:tvt}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Retrieval of specific parameters}
\label{subsec:retrieval}
The idea presented in section \ref{subsec:recon} requires large amounts of data and processing power, and might be more than necessary if the user only intends to retrieve certain parameters of the $\mathbf{B}$ field, such as the peak field strength or the full width half max (FWHM) of a Gaussian magnetic flux rope, instead of reconstructing the entire field. This assumes that the user already knows the remainder of the parameters beforehand. For example, if the user only wants to retrieve the peak $\mathbf{B}$ field strength (proportional to the $\alpha_i$ coefficient), then the model of the $\mathbf{B}$ field, the offset $\mathbf{r_i}$ and the scaling factor $\sigma_i$ must be known. In this case, the user can repeat the procedure in section \ref{subsec:recon}, except with the following changes: (i) data is generated by varying only the parameter(s) of interest; (ii) the target vector consists of only the parameter(s) of interest. In fact, this can be applied to parameters other than $\alpha_i, \mathbf{r_i}$ and $\sigma_i$. For example, in an ellipsoidal magnetic blob (which is a spheroid), there are two characteristic lengths, one characterizing the length in the $xy$ plane $a$ and the other characterizing the length along the $z$-axis $b$. If the user knows all other parameters and wants to retrieve $a$ and $b$, then an artificial neural network trained on simulated radiographs which variation is only due to varying values of $a$ and $b$ will do the job.
|
\section{Introduction}
Classical Cepheid variable stars (henceforth: Cepheids) are of great interest
for several astrophysical and cosmological applications. This includes
calibrating the extragalactic distance scale with unprecedented accuracy
\citep{2016arXiv160401424R} and serving as high-sensitivity test beds for
state-of-the-art stellar evolution models
\citep[e.g.][]{2016A&A...591A...8A}.
Cepheids provide crucial insights into stellar structure and oscillations
thanks to their high-amplitude radial oscillations that can be studied
photometrically \citep{1786RSPT...76...48G}, spectroscopically
\citep{1894AN....136..281B}, and interferometrically
\citep{2000ApJ...543..972N,2001A&A...367..876K}. The long-period
Cepheid $\ell$\,Carinae is a particularly interesting specimen, since its
variability can be resolved with great precision using all three methods thanks
to its brightness and large angular diameter
\citep[][henceforth: A16]{2016MNRAS.455.4231A}.
Cepheid variability is frequently thought to be well-understood and relatively
simple. While this is true in comparison with other types of stellar
variability, recent advances in instrumentation are revealing exciting new
features of Cepheid pulsations. Of particular relevance for this work is
\emph{modulated variability}, i.e., irregularities of the variability that can
occur between consecutive pulsation cycles\hbox{---}referred to here as
cycle-to-cycle modulation\hbox{---}as well as on longer timescales (months to
years).
Modulated variability was discovered in the sole classical Cepheid located
inside the original {\it Kepler} field, V1154\,Cygni, whose pulsation period and
amplitude vary rapidly \citep{2012MNRAS.425.1312D}. Two further Cepheids
observed with space-based high-quality photometry\hbox{---}via the {\it MOST}
satellite\hbox{---}were also shown to exhibit cycle-to-cycle changes
\citep{2015MNRAS.446.4008E}. However, detecting such variability is not
straightforward, even with photometry from space
\citep{2015MNRAS.454..849P}.
Longer temporal baselines, albeit with lower photometric precision, are
achievable from the ground, and data from the {\it Optical Gravitational Lensing
Experiment (OGLE)} have been used to identify peculiarities in the light curves
and frequency spectra of hundreds of Cepheids
\citep{2008AcA....58..163S,2015AcA....65..297S,2015AcA....65..329S}, the
majority of which are short-period Cepheids pulsating in the first overtone.
These new indications of additional complexity in Cepheid pulsations have to be
considered in the context of similar results obtained for other types of
pulsating stars, such as $\delta$\,Sct and $\gamma$\,Dor stars
\citep[e.g.][]{2016MNRAS.460.1970B,2016arXiv160504443G}.
Additionally, the well-known \citet{1907AN....175..325B} effect among RR\,Lyrae
stars has been studied in exquisite detail using {\it Kepler} photometry
\citep{2010ApJ...713L.198K,2010MNRAS.409.1244S}.
Recently, \citet[henceforth: A14]{2014A&A...566L..10A} reported the discovery of
modulated radial velocity (RV) variability of four Cepheids, two of
which\hbox{---}QZ\,Nor and V335\,Pup\hbox{---}are short-period Cepheids likely
to pulsate in the first overtone and candidates for Blazhko-effect-like
long-timescale modulations (years) similar to the enigmatic V$473$\,Lyr
\citep{1982A&A...109..258B,2013AN....334..980M}.
The two additional Cepheids presented in A14\hbox{--}$\ell$ Car and
RS\,Pup\hbox{--}are long-period Cepheids for which significant RV curve
modulations among consecutive pulsation cycles were detected, varying in
particular the RV amplitude. For $\ell$\,Car, this effect was
further investigated in a campaign combining contemporaneous
spectroscopy and long-baseline near infrared (NIR) interferometry (A16).
Modulated RV variability represents a significant difficulty for at least two
types of studies involving Cepheids. Firstly, the change in RV amplitude
translates into time-dependent RV curve integrals, which represent a systematic
uncertainty for \citet{1926AN....228..359B}-\citet{1946BAN....10...91W} (BW)
distance determination (A14). Additionally, projection factors required by BW
methods appear to be subject to a complex time (cycle-to-cycle) dependence,
since modulation affects RV variability and angular diameter variations
differently (A16).
Secondly, RV curve modulation acts as noise for the detection of low-mass
companions to Cepheids, at times leading to apparent time variations in the
pulsation-averaged velocity $v_\gamma$.
This complicates the interpretation of time variable $v_\gamma$ on the order of
a few hundred m\,s$^{-1}$\ and impacts the determination of upper limits for non-binary
Cepheids
\citep[cf.][and R~.I.~Anderson et al. submitted]{2015AJ....150...13E}.
The origin of modulated variability in Cepheids is currently largely unclear,
although different mechanisms that have been suggested may be related, such as
strange-mode and non-radial pulsations, magnetic cycles, or granulation
\citep{1997A&A...326..669B,2001ApJ...555..961B,2003A&A...401..661K,2009ApJ...696L..37S,2014A&A...563L...4N}.
As mentioned in A14, the very different timescale of RV curve modulation found
in long and short-period Cepheids suggests that multiple mechanisms may be
at play.
Additionally, the link between RV curve modulation and photometric period and
amplitude variations remains as yet to be established. High-precision
photometric observations of $\ell$\,Car using the {\it BRITE} satellites could close this
important gap.
This paper aims at providing new insights into the origin of such complex
cycle-to-cycle modulations by investigating spectral line shape variability. As
a first step towards a more detailed description based on individual lines, it
focuses on cross-correlation functions (CCFs) computed for 925 high-quality,
high-resolution optical spectroscopic data of $\ell$\,Car. This is appropriate,
since CCFs are used to infer high-precision RVs among which RV curve modulation
was discovered. CCFs have the further benefit of greatly enhanced
signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) compared to individual spectral lines and are thus
well-suited to search even for weak signs of modulated variability.
The structure of the paper is as follows. Section\,\ref{sec:obs} describes
the observational data and
presents the quantities investigated in the following sections,
including proxies for CCF asymmetry as well as RVs computed at different atmospheric levels
and the impact of different RV measurement methods.
Section\,\ref{sec:results} presents a comprehensive overview of $\ell$\,Car's
modulated spectroscopic variability, starting with RVs based on different
measurement definitions in \S\ref{sec:RVs}. \S\ref{sec:CCFs} then illustrates
line profile variability as a function of phase as well as cycle-to-cycle
modulation using CCF shape indicators BIS, FWHM, and normalized depth, with a
special focus on the asymmetry parameter BIS.
\S\ref{sec:RVgrad} describes in detail the phase variability of the metallic
line velocity gradient as well as its cycle-to-cycle modulation and relation to
BIS. Section\,\ref{sec:disc} discusses possible astrophysical origins of the
discovered behavior (\S\ref{disc:gradients}), consequences for
Cepheid RV measurements (\S\ref{disc:RVmeas}), and implications for BW distance
determination, in particular related to projection factors
(\S\ref{disc:pfactors}). The final section\,\ref{sec:summary} summarizes the
results and concludes.
\section{Observations, velocities \& CCFs}\label{sec:obs}
\subsection{{\it Coralie}\ monitoring campaigns}\label{sec:obs:Coralie}
All data presented here are based on optical spectra of $\ell$\,Carinae observed
with the high-resolution ($R \sim 60\,000$) echelle spectrograph {\it Coralie}\
\citep{2001Msngr.105....1Q,2010A&A...511A..45S}, which is mounted to the
$1.2$\,m Swiss Euler telescope situated at La Silla Observatory, Chile. {\it Coralie}'s dedicated data
reduction pipeline performs bias correction, flatfielding, and cosmic ray
removal. The wavelength solution is supplied by a ThAr lamp. {\it Coralie}\ is housed
in a thermally controlled room and any small intra-night variations in
wavelength solution are corrected using reference
spectra recorded simultaneously with the science exposure to reach
single-digit m\,s$^{-1}$\ RV precision \citep[e.g.][]{2013A&A...551A..90M}.
{\it Coralie}\ has been upgraded twice over the course of the observations (2014 to
2016). Upgrades implemented in late 2014 are described in A16 and
have had $\sim 15\,$m\,s$^{-1}$\ impact on RV zero-point,
which is only marginally relevant for the present work that deals with
variations larger by one to three orders of magnitude.
In mid 2015, the method for intra-night wavelength drift
correction was changed.
Formerly, the simultaneous wavelength reference was supplied by a ThAr lamp; now
it is supplied by a Fabry-P\'erot interferometer (FP), which further increased
RV precision.
The nightly wavelength calibration continues to be provided by a ThAr lamp, and
the FP operates relative to this solution. Hence, no significant zero-point
offset is expected, and none has been found thus far. A further
exchange of {\it Coralie}'s CCD controller has also had no impact on the RV
zero-point (F. Pepe and Geneva exoplanet group, priv. comm.) while
reducing read-out time and improving noise properties.
This paper peruses {\it Coralie}\ spectra observed for two prior publications
(A14: 2014 data, A16: 2015 data)
as well as $230$ new, as yet unpublished observations carried out between 2016
February 12 and 2016 May 10. Each of the three epochs (2014, 2015, 2016) considered here
span two complete consecutive pulsation cycles.
This allows to investigate cycle-to-cycle behavior as well as long-term changes
in the RV and spectral variability.
\subsection{Cross-correlations and inferred RV}\label{sec:obs:CCFs+RVs}
All RVs presented here are measured using the cross-correlation
technique \citep{1996A&AS..119..373B,2002A&A...388..632P} and are expressed
relative to the solar system barycenter.
This technique cross-correlates a weighted numerical mask and the observed
spectrum to produce cross-correlation functions (CCFs) based on which RV is
measured by fitting Gaussian profiles. The line mask used for most Cepheid
observations is representative of a solar spectral type (henceforth: G2 mask),
and CCFs are computed such as to resemble absorption lines
\citep[for details, see][]{2002A&A...388..632P}. These velocities are referred
to as ``Gaussian RVs'' with symbol $v_r$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{2016b_CCFs.pdf}
\caption{Cross-correlation functions (CCFs) calculated using a G2 line mask and
data from the first complete 2016 cycle. Colors trace pulsation phase,
the cycle proceeds from the top center counterclockwise.}
\label{fig:CCFvariability}
\end{figure}
Figure\,\ref{fig:CCFvariability} shows CCFs computed using the first fully
sampled pulsation cycle of the 2016 campaign. The pulsation cycle proceeds
counterclockwise and pulsation phase is color-coded to aid visual inspection.
Fig.\,\ref{fig:CCFvariability} clearly shows several phase-dependent features,
including changes in: a) temperature (spectral type) via the varying depth of
the CCF; b) RV associated with the pulsation via the displacement of the CCF
along the abscissa; c) the width of the CCF; d) CCF asymmetry.
As a consequence of line asymmetry, RVs measured by fitting profiles such as
Gaussian functions to CCFs (as well as to individual spectral lines) are
biased \citep{1982A&A...109..258B} and much work has been done with the
aim of improving the accuracy of Cepheid RV measurements by considering line
asymmetry or different velocity curves of different spectral lines
\citep[e.g.][]{1967IAUS...28..207K,1990ApJ...362..333S,1992MNRAS.259..474W,1993ApJ...415..323B,2000MNRAS.314..420K,2006A&A...453..309N,2007PASP..119..398G}.
Nevertheless, Gaussian RVs are extremely precise in that they are able to
reproduce a consistent value under identical conditions, and this is illustrated
by very smooth variations and small scatter when investigated appropriately (cf.
A16). It is thanks to this precision that RV observations are now revealing
previously unknown complexity in Cepheid pulsations.
This level of extreme RV precision should however not be confused with accuracy,
i.e., the ability to reproduce the ``true'' value precisely. This is primarily
because Cepheid atmospheres are highly dynamical and thus not characterized by a
single velocity at a given phase. CCF-based RVs represent a weighted average RV
of thousands of lines formed at different levels in the atmosphere and are
therefore difficult to interpret in detail.
However, even individual spectral lines are not free of such difficulty, since
line formation in supergiant atmospheres occurs over significantly extended
regions and is therefore more susceptible to the velocity field than in dwarf
stars.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{CCF+BIS_definition.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of the quantity BIS for four pulsation phases. BIS is the
velocity difference (on the abscissa) between the CCF bisector (solid nearly
vertical line) near its top and bottom, computed as the average of the regions
included between horizontal dotted lines \citep{2001A&A...379..279Q}.}
\label{fig:BISdefinition}
\end{figure}
Despite these shortcomings, CCFs as well as RV curves based on them contain a
great deal of useful information. In particular, CCF
shape parameters exhibit smooth variations with phase due to the high SNR of
CCFs and allow to investigate the relation between RV curve
modulation and line profile variability.
Specifically, this work considers\hbox{---}in addition to RVs\hbox{---}the
CCFs' full width at half maximum (FWHM) and normalized depth, both of
which are measured by proxy via the fitted Gaussian profile.
In addition, the quantity BIS (bisector inverse span) computed directly via CCFs
serves as a proxy for line asymmetry.
BIS is computed as the difference between average bisector velocities
near the top $10\hbox{--}40$ and bottom $60\hbox{--}90\,$\% of the CCF, see
Fig.\,\ref{fig:BISdefinition} and \citet[Fig.\,5]{2001A&A...379..279Q}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{GaussBiGaussCCF.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of Gaussian and bi-Gaussian RV profile fitting to CCFs of
four different pulsation phases (selected as minimum radius, maximum expansion
velocity, maximum contrast, and maximum contraction velocity). RV is defined as
negative for objects approaching the observer.}
\label{fig:CCFgaussBigauss}
\end{figure}
Bi-Gaussian profiles have been proposed as an alternative to Gaussian profiles
for measuring RV based on CCFs, specifically to take into account line
asymmetry \citep{2006A&A...453..309N}.
To investigate how this different method of measuring RV on a given CCF reacts
to cycle-to-cycle changes in the spectral line variability,
bi-Gaussian RVs are determined for all CCFs employed in this work using
the {\tt python}
implementation\footnote{\url{http://bitbucket.org/pedrofigueira/line-profile-indicators}}
by \citet{2013A&A...557A..93F}. Bi-Gaussian RVs are denoted by the symbol
$v_{r,\rm{biG}}$.
Figure\,\ref{fig:CCFgaussBigauss} exemplifies the difference between a Gaussian
and bi-Gaussian fit to four selected CCFs. Close inspection shows
that bi-Gaussians do trace the computed CCF points more closely than a
Gaussian fit. There does remain, however, a noticeable difference between the
observed and fitted profiles. As a consequence of their tracing the CCF core more
closely than Gaussians, bi-Gaussian RVs can be expected to lead to larger RV
amplitudes.
\subsection{Metallic line velocity gradient}\label{sec:obs:RVgrad}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Explanation of velocity difference in terms of compression and stretch
within the atmosphere. Upper layers are traced by stronger (deeper) absorption
lines, lower layers by weaker (shallower) lines. $\delta v_r =
v_{r,\rm{strong}} - v_{r,\rm{weak}} - 0.641\,$km\,s$^{-1}$\ (offset corrects for
differential bias in $v_\gamma$ for weak and strong line RVs).}
\begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
Pulsational motion & expansion ($v_r \lesssim v_\gamma$) & contraction ($v_r
\gtrsim v_\gamma$) \\
Velocity gradient & & \\
\hline
$\delta v_r < 0$ & upper layers expand faster:
{\bf stretch} & upper layers contract more slowly: {\bf stretch} \\
$\delta v_r > 0$ & lower layers expand faster: {\bf compression} & lower layers
contract more slowly: {\bf compression} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:DTexplained}
\end{table*}
It has been long known that Cepheid atmospheres are subject to significant
velocity gradients
\citep[e.g.][]{1956ApJ...123..201S,1967IAUS...28..207K,1969MNRAS.145..377D,1973ApJ...180..895K,1978ApJ...222..578K}
and velocity differences among individual lines have been investigated in detail
\citep[e.g.][]{1992MNRAS.259..474W,1993ApJ...415..323B,2007A&A...471..661N}.
In this work, a metallic line velocity gradient is computed using two newly-created
correlation masks containing exclusively strong (depth $> 0.65$) and weak (depth
$< 0.55$) lines, respectively. This procedure aims to exploit the benefit of the
superior SNR of CCFs compared to individual lines in order to be maximally
sensitive to cycle-to-cycle modulation.
Both masks are based on the nominal solar (G2 spectral type) mask. The
specific division between weak and strong line masks was
adopted to achieve a similar weighting of the computed CCFs, i.e., $\sum_{i,\rm{strong}}{ d_i } \sim \sum_{i,\rm{weak}}{ d_i } $, where $d_i$ denotes the line strengths as specified
in the G2 mask. The weak-line mask thus contains 2030 lines, compared to 1209
lines in the strong-line mask.
Using strong and weak-line RVs measured by fitting Gaussian profiles to CCFs
computed using the strong and weak-line masks, the metallic velocity
gradient is defined as
\begin{equation}
\delta v_r (t) = v_{r,\rm{strong}}(t) - v_{r,\rm{weak}}(t) - 0.641\
\rm{km\,s^{-1}}\ ,
\label{eq:rvgradient}
\end{equation}
with an offset of $0.641\,$km\,s$^{-1}$\ to correct for
differential bias in the pulsation averaged velocities, cf. \S\ref{sec:RVs} and
\S\ref{sec:CCFs} as well as the well-known $k-$term problem
\citep[e.g.][]{2008A&A...489.1255N}.
Uncertainties on $\delta v_r (t)$ are computed as the squared sum of each mask's
RV uncertainties.
$\delta v_r (t)$ defined in Eq\,\ref{eq:rvgradient} traces a velocity difference
among lines formed at higher (stronger lines) and lower (weaker lines) levels in the Cepheid
atmosphere \citep[cf.][]{1994A&A...285.1012G}. $\delta v_r (t)$ thus indicates
whether the region over which the gradient is valid is being compressed
(positive $\delta v_r$) or stretched (negative $\delta v_r$) by the
pulsation (as usual, RV is positive when receding from the observer).
Table\,\ref{tab:DTexplained} succinctly summarizes this.
Similar techniques have been employed for Mira stars to investigate shock
propagation \citep{2001A&A...379..288A}.
\subsection{Variability with phase and modulated variability}
\label{sec:obs:definitions}
This paper describes variations on different timescales, i.e., 1)
variability over a pulsation cycle (alternatively: with pulsation phase, $P \sim
35.5$\,d) and 2) modulated variability, which denotes changes in the former
variability pattern that occur over timescales longer than one pulsation cycle,
ranging from one cycle to the next up to 2 years (baseline of the
observations).
This work discusses differences between measurements on different timescales,
i.e., data recorded 1) at the same time
or 2) at the same phase during different pulsation cycles.
The following notation is adopted to clearly distinguish these cases.
Differences of quantities observed \emph{at the same time} are labeled as (lowercase) $\delta$.
For instance, the metallic line velocity gradient $\delta v_r (t)$ is the
velocity difference of two different atmospheric layers measured using the same observed
spectrum (cf. \S\ref{sec:obs:RVgrad}). Differences of quantities observed in
\emph{different pulsation cycles} are labeled using (uppercase) $\Delta$. For
instance, the difference in RV curve between two pulsation cycles is $\Delta v_r
(\phi) = v_{r,\rm{cycle2}} (\phi) - v_{r,\rm{cycle1}} (\phi)$. In these cases,
phase $\phi$ is computed using ephemerides determined in \S\ref{sec:timings}
below.
\section{Results}\label{sec:results}
Figure\,\ref{fig:RVcurve} shows the Gaussian RVs measured during the three
monitoring campaigns and illustrates the nomenclature adopted for each
pulsation cycle as used in the following.
Table\,\ref{tab:RVs:data} lists velocities and CCF shape parameters (cf.
\S\ref{sec:obs:CCFs+RVs}) for a subset of the observations; the complete data
table is made publicly available online via the
CDS\footnote{\url{http://cds.u-strasbg.fr/}}. As mentioned in
\S\ref{sec:obs:CCFs+RVs} $v_r$ denotes RVs measured via Gaussian fits
to CCFs computed using the G2 mask. Other RV definitions are clearly
identified via their subscripts.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics{RVvsBJD.pdf}
\caption{RV data of $\ell$\,Carinae\ from the 2014, 2015, and 2016 campaigns. Individual
pulsation cycles discussed in the following are marked here for comparison with
all other figures. Green open circles show additional data not presented in
detail in the following; these are also made publicly available. The horizontal
dotted line represents $v_\gamma = 3.419$\,km\,s$^{-1}$\ adopted to determine the
duration of pulsation cycles.}
\label{fig:RVcurve}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lrrrrrrrrr}
\hline
BJD - $2\,400\,000$ & FWHM & BIS & depth & $v_r$ &
$v_{r,\rm{biG}}$ & $v_{r,\rm{weak}}$ & BIS$_{\rm{weak}}$ &
$v_{r,\rm{strong}}$ & BIS$_{\rm{strong}}$ \\
days & [km\,s$^{-1}$ ] & [km\,s$^{-1}$ ] & [$\%$] & [km\,s$^{-1}$ ] & [km\,s$^{-1}$ ] & [km\,s$^{-1}$ ] & [km\,s$^{-1}$ ] &
[km\,s$^{-1}$] & [km\,s$^{-1}$] \\
\hline
$ 56636.757136 $ & $ 17.4 $ & $ 0.384 $ & $ 41.7 $ & $ -6.233 \pm 0.015 $ & $ -6.578 $ & $ -6.223 \pm 0.015 $ & $ 0.462 $ & $ -6.397 \pm 0.015 $ & $ 0.136 $ \\
$ 56637.848761 $ & $ 17.1 $ & $ 0.344 $ & $ 43.2 $ & $ -4.445 \pm 0.015 $ & $ -4.758 $ & $ -4.438 \pm 0.015 $ & $ 0.405 $ & $ -4.603 \pm 0.015 $ & $ 0.084 $ \\
$ 56638.748377 $ & $ 17.0 $ & $ 0.318 $ & $ 44.3 $ & $ -2.936 \pm 0.015 $ & $ -3.223 $ & $ -2.947 \pm 0.015 $ & $ 0.375 $ & $ -3.073 \pm 0.015 $ & $ 0.048 $ \\
$ 56639.774722 $ & $ 17.0 $ & $ 0.285 $ & $ 45.1 $ & $ -1.205 \pm 0.015 $ & $ -1.463 $ & $ -1.241 \pm 0.015 $ & $ 0.346 $ & $ -1.323 \pm 0.015 $ & $ -0.007 $ \\
$ 56640.769897 $ & $ 17.1 $ & $ 0.246 $ & $ 45.5 $ & $ 0.513 \pm 0.015 $ & $0.286 $ & $ 0.445 \pm 0.015 $ & $ 0.352 $ & $ 0.422 \pm 0.015 $ & $ -0.070 $ \\
$ 56641.766439 $ & $ 17.3 $ & $ 0.184 $ & $ 45.7 $ & $ 2.234 \pm 0.015 $ & $2.061 $ & $ 2.120 \pm 0.015 $ & $ 0.310 $ & $ 2.184 \pm 0.015 $ & $ -0.159 $ \\
$ 56643.842825 $ & $ 18.3 $ & $ -0.003 $ & $ 45.1 $ & $ 5.809 \pm 0.015 $ & $ 5.814 $ & $ 5.572 \pm 0.015 $ & $ 0.071 $ & $ 5.873 \pm 0.015 $ & $ -0.342 $ \\
$ 56644.719386 $ & $ 18.8 $ & $ -0.135 $ & $ 44.5 $ & $ 7.281 \pm 0.015 $ & $7.41 $ & $ 6.993 \pm 0.015 $ & $ -0.130 $ & $ 7.406 \pm 0.015 $ & $ -0.429 $ \\
$ 56645.850598 $ & $ 19.6 $ & $ -0.316 $ & $ 43.5 $ & $ 9.134 \pm 0.015 $ & $9.431 $ & $ 8.756 \pm 0.015 $ & $ -0.422 $ & $ 9.336 \pm 0.015 $ & $ -0.563 $ \\
$ 56646.743305 $ & $ 20.4 $ & $ -0.487 $ & $ 42.6 $ & $ 10.561 \pm 0.015 $ & $11.024 $ & $ 10.109 \pm 0.015 $ & $ -0.713 $ & $ 10.821 \pm 0.015 $ & $ -0.710 $ \\
\multicolumn{10}{c}{\ldots} \\
$ 57512.458865 $ & $ 28.7 $ & $ -0.476 $ & $ 29.0 $ & $ 16.941 \pm 0.003 $ & $ 17.393 $ & $ 15.237 \pm 0.007 $ & $ -0.316 $ & $ 17.674 \pm 0.004 $ & $ 1.196 $ \\
$ 57512.591455 $ & $ 28.8 $ & $ -0.506 $ & $ 28.7 $ & $ 16.514 \pm 0.005 $ & $
17.001 $ & $ 14.755 \pm 0.010 $ & $ -0.340 $ & $ 17.269 \pm 0.005 $ & $ 1.200$ \\
$ 57512.708641 $ & $ 28.9 $ & $ -0.543 $ & $ 28.4 $ & $ 16.057 \pm 0.004 $ & $ 16.632 $ & $ 14.328 \pm 0.009 $ & $ -0.362 $ & $ 16.819 \pm 0.005 $ & $ 1.289 $ \\
$ 57514.460114 $ & $ 28.2 $ & $ 1.159 $ & $ 25.1 $ & $ 1.539 \pm 0.003 $ & $0.251 $ & $ 0.259 \pm 0.006 $ & $ -0.350 $ & $ 2.004 \pm 0.003 $ & $ 1.285 $ \\
$ 57514.498343 $ & $ 28.1 $ & $ 1.169 $ & $ 25.2 $ & $ 1.125 \pm 0.005 $ & $ -0.192 $ & $ -0.111 \pm 0.012 $ & $ -0.318 $ & $ 1.567 \pm 0.006 $ & $ 1.375 $ \\
$ 57514.547207 $ & $ 28.0 $ & $ 1.208 $ & $ 25.2 $ & $ 0.614 \pm 0.010 $ & $
-0.729 $ & $ -0.530 \pm 0.022 $ & $ -0.324 $ & $ 1.019 \pm 0.012 $ & $ 1.380$ \\
$ 57515.718169 $ & $ 25.9 $ & $ 1.185 $ & $ 25.2 $ & $ -8.849 \pm 0.004 $ & $ -9.984 $ & $ -9.247 \pm 0.008 $ & $ -0.306 $ & $ -8.932 \pm 0.004 $ & $ 1.421 $ \\
$ 57518.468137 $ & $ 23.3 $ & $ 1.246 $ & $ 27.4 $ & $ -15.377 \pm 0.004 $ & $ -16.564 $ & $ -15.492 \pm 0.007 $ & $ -0.289 $ & $ -15.597 \pm 0.004 $ & $ 1.436 $ \\
$ 57518.573887 $ & $ 23.2 $ & $ 1.229 $ & $ 27.5 $ & $ -15.392 \pm 0.003 $ & $ -16.591 $ & $ -15.499 \pm 0.006 $ & $ -0.297 $ & $ -15.616 \pm 0.003 $ & $ 1.509 $ \\
$ 57518.580913 $ & $ 23.2 $ & $ 1.233 $ & $ 27.5 $ & $ -15.396 \pm 0.003 $ & $ -16.611 $ & $ -15.515 \pm 0.006 $ & $ -0.299 $ & $ -15.617 \pm 0.004 $ & $ 1.485 $ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Example of the {\it Coralie}\ RV data used here. These data are based on
observations taken in 2014 (A14), and 2015
(A16), as well as new data from a 2016 campaign.
Measurements for the first and last 10 observations are shown. The full
data set is made publicly available through the CDS. BJD denotes
barycentric Julian date. Columns FWHM and depth are based on the Gaussian
profile fitted to the CCF. BIS denotes bisector inverse span and is measured on
the CCF.
$v_r$ is the RV measured via a Gaussian fit to the CCF computed using
the G2 mask.
$v_{r,\rm{biG}}$ is analogously measured via a bi-Gaussian profile
\citep{2013A&A...557A..93F}.
$v_{r,\rm{weak}}$ and $v_{r,\rm{strong}}$ denote RVs measured by fitting
Gaussians to CCFs computed using weak- and strong-line correlation masks,
respectively. }
\label{tab:RVs:data}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Cycle timing and modulated RV variability}
\subsubsection{Cycle timing}
\label{sec:timings}
$\ell$\,Carinae's pulsation period fluctuates from one pulsation cycle to the
next (e.g. A14, A16). Pulsation ephemerides are thus most precisely
determined using the RV data of each individual pulsation cycle.
This work defines the start of a pulsation cycle to occur at minimum radius,
since the steep RV variation during this phase allows for the most precise
timing measurement \citep[cf.][]{2012MNRAS.425.1312D,2016MNRAS.455.4231A}.
Minimum radius, by definition, is reached when $v_r = v_\gamma$ while $v_r$ is
decreasing, with $v_\gamma$ denoting the pulsation-averaged velocity. The main
uncertainty related to timing the pulsation is therefore the ability to
precisely define $v_\gamma$, since $v_\gamma$ can exhibit erratic temporal
variations due to the effects considered in this paper (see also A16).
Furthermore, $v_\gamma$ depends on the definition of RV employed (cf.
\S\ref{sec:obs:CCFs+RVs}), since $v_\gamma$ is biased due to line asymmetry and
different lines or measurement techniques differ in sensitivity to this bias.
The most consistent way of timing the pulsation via RVs is therefore to
determine $v_\gamma$ separately for each type of RV definition.
Fourier series fits with 13 harmonics to all available {\it Coralie}\ data thus yield
$v_\gamma = 3.419\,$km\,s$^{-1}$\ for Gaussian and $v_{\gamma,\rm{biG}}=3.441$\,km\,s$^{-1}$\
for bi-Gaussian RVs based on the G2 mask, as well as $v_{\gamma,\rm{strong}} =
3.571$\,km\,s$^{-1}$\ and $v_{\gamma,\rm{weak}} = 2.930$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. For the purpose of
timing the pulsations, these are adopted as \emph{true} values, although the
(statistical) uncertainty of each of these pulsation-averaged velocities is on
the order of $0.05$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. This comparison also illustrates the systematic
difficulty of determining the absolute systemic velocity to better than a few
hundred m\,s$^{-1}$.
Specifically, the duration of a pulsation cycle is determined as the time span
between consecutive intersections of the spline-interpolated RV curve with
$v_\gamma$ at minimum radius.
For the 2015 pulsation cycles, the timing specified in A16 is adopted.
Table\,\ref{tab:timings} specifies all cycle timings determined using
Gaussian RVs.
Some of the available spectra were observed outside the date range of
fully traced pulsation cycles. To make use of these data,
\emph{half-cycles} c14a, c14c, c15c, and c16a are defined as either beginning or
ending at minimum radius. Since the duration of such half-cycles cannot be
determined, a fixed pulsation period of $35.5\,$d is adopted to compute
the corresponding pulsation phase.
Throughout the paper, each cycle is plotted using a consistent scheme of colors
and symbols as shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:RVcurve}. Half-cycles are drawn in black.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lrrr}
Cycle & BJD begin & BJD end & Duration \\
& $-2\,400\,000$ & $-2\,400\,000$ & [d] \\
\hline
c14a$^\dagger$ & 56642.448 & 56660.832 & \hbox{---} \\
c14b & 56660.832 & 56696.451 & 35.619 \\
c14c$^\dagger$ & 56696.451 & 56713.398 & \hbox{---} \\
\hline
c15a & 57016.386 & 57051.957 & 35.571 \\
c15b & 57051.957 & 57087.491 & 35.534 \\
c15c$^\dagger$ & 57087.491 & 57104.522 & \hbox{---} \\
\hline
c16a$^\dagger$ & 57431.698 & 57443.184 & \hbox{---} \\
c16b & 57443.184 & 57478.681 & 35.497 \\
c16c & 57478.681 & 57514.278 & 35.597 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Timings of pulsation cycles via Gaussian RVs based on CCFs computed
using the G2 mask.
Phase is defined such that $\phi = 0$ at minimum radius. $^\dagger$ marks
incompletely traced pulsation cycles. Timings for 2015 data (c15a through c15c)
are adopted from A16.}
\label{tab:timings}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Modulated RV variability}\label{sec:RVs}
Figure\,\ref{fig:RVmodulationZoomin} illustrates $\ell$\,Car's RV curve
modulation in detail. It shows both Gaussian and bi-Gaussian RVs based on G2,
weak-line, and strong-line correlation masks. The figure shows only the enlarged
sections of the RV curve near minimum and maximum RV, since the modulated RV
variability shows most clearly at these phases.
Fig.\,\ref{fig:RVmodulationZoomin} clearly demonstrates that RV curve modulation
is exhibited regardless of the measurement method or line mask used, although
its amplitude (or extent) depends on the definition of both.
Figure\,\ref{fig:RVmodulationZoomin} also shows that cycle-to-cycle differences
are seen in each of the three campaigns. However, Gaussian RVs from
2015 and 2016 reveal the tendency of longer-timescale modulations to be
stronger than cycle-to-cycle modulations. 2014 data
constitute an exception by differing particularly strongly
between c14a and c14b near maximum RV.
At minimum RV, the greatest difference seen is between c14c and c15c, followed
by c14b and either of c16b or c. Near maximal RV, the overall greatest
difference is seen for c14a and c16a, whereas the differences among all
other cycles are much weaker.
Bi-Gaussian RVs mirror these variations closely during expansion (near minimum
RV), albeit with greater amplitude. During contraction however, bi-Gaussian RVs
exhibit different RV curve shapes with greatly amplified cycle-to-cycle
differences.
This behavior further strongly depends on the types of lines included in the
CCF, with weak lines leading to much stronger cycle-to-cycle differences than
strong lines due to enhanced asymmetry (\S\ref{sec:CCFs}).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics{lCar_ModulationZoomGauss+biGauss.pdf}
\caption{Modulated RV variability near minimum (left-hand side) and maximum
(right-hand side) velocity based on lines formed at different heights in the
atmosphere as measured using Gaussian and bi-Gaussian profiles.
RVs shown are based on strong lines in {\it top panels}, the default G2 mask in
{\it center panels}, and weak lines in {\it bottom panels}.
Symbols distinguish between the pulsation cycles, cf. Fig.\,\ref{fig:RVcurve}.
Statistical errors are smaller than symbol size.}
\label{fig:RVmodulationZoomin}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{CCF Variations}\label{sec:CCFs}
CCFs are frequently considered as representations of an average spectral line
profile. However, this represents a crude approximation and does not account for
the weighting of the spectral lines applied via the line masks, even for
non-pulsating stars.
In Cepheids, individual spectral lines are known to exhibit significant
phase-dependent asymmetry. Moreover, these asymmetric lines formed at different
depths are moving at different velocities due to the phase-dependent
velocity field. All such lines are summed into a common CCF profile, whose
detailed physical interpretation is thus complicated.
Nevertheless, certain features of the pulsations, such as temperature
variations, are clearly evident in CCFs, see Fig.\,\ref{fig:CCFvariability}. Hence, CCFs do
remain useful to investigate the variability of line profiles in Cepheids,
although one must be careful to avoid over-interpretation of these
variations.
Of course, CCFs have the added benefit of very high SNRs, allowing to compare
line profile variability even when the SNR per pixel of the spectra is rather
low (down to spectral SNR of $\sim 10$).
Four quantities are used to describe CCF variability:
1) the difference between bi-Gaussian and Gaussian RVs ($v_{r,\rm{biG}} - v_r$); 2) the bisector
inverse span (BIS), cf. Sec.\,\ref{sec:obs:CCFs+RVs}; 3) FWHM, the full width
at half-maximum of the fitted Gaussian; 4) normalized CCF depth, i.e., the normalized peak
height (here computed as a depth to resemble an absorption line) of the CCF. Figure\,\ref{fig:LineShapePhase} illustrates the variation of these parameters
as a function of phase and their modulated (cycle-to-cycle and longer-term)
character.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics{lCar_LineParamsVsPhase.pdf}
\caption{Variation of CCF shapes with pulsation phase. {\it Top left:}
Difference of bi-Gaussian and Gaussian RV, {\it top right:} Bisector
inverse span (BIS), {\it bottom left:} FWHM of fitted Gaussian, {\it bottom right:} Depth in
percent of fitted Gaussian.}
\label{fig:LineShapePhase}
\end{figure*}
The difference between bi-Gaussian and Gaussian RVs based on a G2 mask varies
between approximately $-1.7$ and $2.1$\,km\,s$^{-1}$.
Conspicuously, this difference is opposite to the BIS variation and has nearly
identical amplitude. This correspondence is a consequence of the bi-Gaussian's
construction as an asymmetric line profile.
BIS is defined such that it is negative when the line core is red-shifted
compared to the higher sections of the CCFs, ergo the bi-Gaussian RV for a
negative BIS is larger than the Gaussian RV, and vice versa for positive BIS
(core more blue-shifted than upper CCF regions).
As Figure\,\ref{fig:BISvsBiGauss} shows, there is a near one-to-one
correspondence between $v_{r,\rm{biG}} - v_r$ and the BIS parameter for all
pulsation cycles. Linear regressions assuming a fixed intercept at (0,0) yield
slopes between -0.94 and -1.07 for the individual pulsation cycles, whereas a
regression to all data has slope $-1.009$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{lCar_BISvsDeltaRVbiGauss.pdf}
\caption{Bi-Gaussian RV offset against bisector inverse span (BIS)
determined from the CCF. Each cycle is fitted separately, the average slope
over all cycles is $-1.009$.}
\label{fig:BISvsBiGauss}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics{lCar_LineParamsVsVrad.pdf}
\caption{Variation of CCF line shape parameters against RV, shown here centered
on the pulsation-averaged velocity $v_\gamma$.
{\it Top left:} bi-Gaussian minus Gaussian RV, {\it top right:} Bisector
inverse span (BIS), {\it bottom left:} FWHM of fitted Gaussian, {\it bottom right:} Depth in
percent of fitted Gaussian.}
\label{fig:LineShapeVrad}
\end{figure*}
The primary origin of spectral line asymmetry in Cepheids are
rotation \citep{2007PASP..119..398G} and velocity fields
\citep[e.g.][]{1975ApJ...201..641K,2006A&A...453..309N}. The rotational
contribution to line asymmetry originates in the convolution of the rotation profile and the
pulsation velocity. Thus, the rotational contribution to BIS
is strongest, when the pulsation velocity is extreme (minimal or maximal),
and this overall pattern is clearly observed in the BIS parameter.
The surface rotation velocity $v_{\rm{eq}}$ of a Cepheid is expected to vary by
up to $10\,\%$ over the course of an expansion-contraction half-cycle due to
conservation of angular momentum \citep{2007PASP..119..398G}.
However, since the greatest difference in $v_{\rm{eq}}$ occurs
at minimum and maximum radius where the pulsational velocity vanishes,
no significant contribution to BIS is expected due to this effect.
The contribution of pulsation-induced velocity fields to line asymmetry can be
understood as the added contributions of line forming regions moving at
different velocities. For instance, if higher layers are expanding more quickly
than lower ones, positive BIS is to be expected. Conversely, negative BIS is
expected when deeper layers are contracting more slowly than higher layers. The
steep sign reversal near minimal radius ($\phi \sim 1$) is thus a consequence of
the outward-directed shock wave reversing the velocity gradient. These
relationships are further investigated in \S\ref{sec:obs:RVgrad}.
In (non-variable) cool supergiants, velocity fields due to granulation create
significant line asymmetry, with bisectors exhibiting a smooth variation as
function of spectral type. Full bisector velocity spans (top minus bottom) range
from $\sim 300 \hbox{--} 500$\,m\,s$^{-1}$\ near G4 (less at K2) up to $\sim -1$ to
$-2$\,km\,s$^{-1}$\ near F5\hbox{--}F8 \citep{1986PASP...98..499G}.
Intriguingly, the granulation-induced bisector asymmetry of non-variable
supergiants has opposite sign from the BIS variations shown in
Fig.\,\ref{fig:LineShapePhase}, even though $\ell$\,Car's variability spans
similar spectral types.
BIS is positive when $\ell$\,Car is hottest (maximal RV), and BIS is negative
when it is coolest (after maximal radius).
Thus, it appears that granulation is not the likely origin of $\ell$\,Car's
observed line asymmetry.
The variation of parameter BIS in Figure\,\ref{fig:LineShapePhase} exhibits
several noteworthy peculiarities. First, the steep rise immediately before phase
$1.0$ is the most consistent part among the different pulsation cycles. The
outward-directed pulsation wave initiated by the main pulsation mechanism (the
He\,II partial ionization zone) is undoubtedly responsible for this feature,
since it occurs very close to minimal radius. The occurrence of this significant
realignment further supports the choice of $v_\gamma$ as reference point for
timing the duration of individual pulsation cycles (\S\ref{sec:timings}).
Second, BIS reaches more extreme values during contraction ($\phi \sim 0.8
\hbox{--} 0.9$) than during expansion ($\phi \sim 0.1 \hbox{--} 0.2$) during
some pulsation cycles (c15a and b).
Third, while cycle-to-cycle differences in BIS are evident at all phases, they
are most strongly pronounced during contraction and exhibit a wave-like pattern
that differs from cycle to cycle, is not in phase with the pulsation, and
carries over into subsequent pulsation cycles. Thus, the atmospheric velocity
field during a given cycle retains a memory of the previous cycle.
Fourth, BIS modulation is more noticeable on longer timescales than among
subsequent cycles, possibly suggesting
(semi-)periodicity, given that the 2014 and 2016 cycles are more similar to each
other than to the 2015 cycles. A periodicity of this timescale ($\sim 2$ years)
would be consistent with the order of magnitude expected for the rotational
period of a $\sim 180\,R_\odot$, $9\,M_\odot$ Cepheid
\citep{2004ApJ...604L.113K,2014A&A...564A.100A,2016A&A...591A...8A}.
The modulated variability of the BIS
parameter provides a crucial insight into the origin of RV curve modulation. As explained in Sec.\,\ref{sec:obs}, RV
measurements obtained by fitting Gaussian profiles to CCFs are biased
\citep{1982A&A...109..258B}.
However, if the shape of spectral lines at a fixed phase were to repeat
perfectly, then Gaussian RVs would be subject to the same bias in each pulsation
cycle and thus yield consistent results at fixed phase.
The modulated BIS variability here discovered demonstrates that line shapes are
not consistent between pulsation cycles, thus leading to RV curve modulation.
Bi-Gaussian RVs are even more strongly affected by these
cycle-to-cycle differences in line shape, as expected due to their asymmetric
construction (cf. Figs.\,\ref{fig:RVmodulationZoomin} and
\ref{fig:BISvsBiGauss}). This link between line asymmetry,
velocity gradients, and RV curve modulation is explored in detail using a
Doppler tomographic method in \S\ref{sec:RVgrad}.
Figure\,\ref{fig:LineShapePhase} further reveals peculiar differences in the
FWHM and CCF depth parameters among pulsation cycles. As
was the case for BIS, the most conspicuous differences are seen near pulsation phase $0.9$.
Line width at these phases has previously been discussed in terms of
shock-induced turbulence
\citep[e.g.][]{1973ApJ...180..895K,1996A&A...307..503F}.
The cycle-to-cycle variations of the FWHM parameter do not directly correlate with
those exhibited by BIS, cf. yellow circles and blue downward triangles, for
instance.
Figure\,\ref{fig:LineShapeVrad} complements Fig.\,\ref{fig:LineShapePhase} by
illustrating the variability of CCF shape parameters BIS, FWHM, and CCF depth as
a function of $v_r$, centered on $v_\gamma$. In particular, this reveals
butterfly-shaped diagrams for BIS (and thus also the $v_{r,\rm{biG}} - v_r$
difference). Figure\,\ref{fig:LineShapeVrad} features smooth variations that
differ noticeably among the pulsation cycles. It clearly shows that BIS tends to
be most extreme when RV is extreme, which illustrates the significant impact of
surface rotation on line asymmetry. An important exception to this general
behavior is the peak with positive BIS near the top center of the plot, during
expansion. This phase coincides with the piston phase of the pulsation, when
velocity gradients are expected to be strongest due to the outward-directed
pulsation wave passing through the atmosphere. The variation of FWHM is
also most disturbed near minimum radius ($v_r \sim v_\gamma$ and maximal FWHM).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics{lCar_RVvsBIS_highmask+lowmask}
\caption{BIS against RV for strong-line CCFs (left-hand panel) and weak-line
CCFs (right-hand panel). Weak lines exhibit a broader range of asymmetry than
strong lines and are subject to stronger modulations near maximal velocity
(fastest contraction).}
\label{fig:RVvsBIS_highmask+lowmask}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[]{lCar_c15a_c16a_CCFdifference_phase0p87.pdf}
\caption{Difference in CCF shape at nearly identical phase as observed in c15a
($\phi = 0.869$, cyan) and c16a ($\phi = 0.876$, black) where the difference in
BIS is maximal among pulsation cycles, cf. Fig.\,\ref{fig:LineShapePhase}.
Left-hand panel shows weak-line CCFs, right-hand panel strong-line CCFs.
Center panel shows CCFs based on G2 mask as solid lines as well as the summed
weak and strong-line CCFs as dashed line. Line bisectors are shown
for each mask computed.}
\label{fig:CCFdifferencesFixedphase}
\end{figure*}
Figure\,\ref{fig:RVvsBIS_highmask+lowmask} shows the computed BIS and RVs for
both the weak and strong-line CCFs, in analogy with the upper right panel of
Fig.\,\ref{fig:LineShapeVrad}. The resulting BIS loops are significantly
different for strong and weak line CCFs. Several interesting features appear in
these diagrams. Firstly, BIS$_{\rm{weak}}$ variations reach much more extreme
negative values at maximum velocity than BIS$_{\rm{strong}}$. This is further
illustrated by Fig.\,\ref{fig:CCFdifferencesFixedphase}.
Secondly, observed cycle-to-cycle differences in BIS are largest at maximum RV,
just as the observed differences in $v_r$.
Thirdly, BIS$_{\rm{weak}}$ exhibits more intense modulation than
BIS$_{\rm{strong}}$, which also matches the RV curve modulation seen in
Fig.\,\ref{fig:RVmodulationZoomin}.
For strong line CCFs, these loops differ more strongly at every point along the
duty cycle compared to weak line CCFs, although the differences at the extremes
is less pronounced.
For instance, c15a yields a much more compact loop than c16b. Strong line loops
(BIS$_{\rm{strong}}$ vs. $v_{r,\rm{strong}}$) are much more open during
expansion than weak line loops, for which the opposite appears to be the case.
The loops in Figure\,\ref{fig:RVvsBIS_highmask+lowmask}
exhibit the widest opening when $v_r \sim v_\gamma$, i.e., close to times of
extremal radius. The closer and steeper correlation between BIS$_{\rm{weak}}$
and $v_{r,\rm{weak}}$ compared to the same quantities derived for strong line CCFs
is peculiar and may be indicative of depth-dependent differential
rotation, since line asymmetry is in large parts due to the convolution of the
rotation and pulsational velocities.
Besides rotation, velocity fields contribute significantly to line
asymmetry. The relationship between the metallic velocity gradient and BIS
parameter is therefore investigated in detail in the following
\S\ref{sec:RVgrad}.
\subsection{Velocity Gradients}\label{sec:RVgrad}
Cepheid atmospheres are highly dynamic and characterized by strong velocity
fields.
Previous work has shown in detail the different velocities exhibited at fixed
phase for spectral lines belonging to different elements, ionization potentials,
and line depths
\citep[e.g.][]{1956ApJ...123..201S,1978ApJ...222..578K,1989ApJ...337L..29S,1990ApJ...362..333S,1992MNRAS.259..474W,2015PASP..127..503W,1993ApJ...415..323B,2006A&A...453..309N,2007A&A...471..661N,2009A&A...507..397H}
The metallic line velocity gradient, $\delta v_r (t)$, is computed here as the
difference between strong-line and weak-line RVs as defined in
Eq.\,\ref{eq:rvgradient} to investigate the relationship between the
BIS parameter and the atmospheric velocity field. The key benefit of the
presently used definition of $\delta v_r (t)$ is its ability to reveal
even small differences (both at the same time and between different pulsation
cycles) thanks to the very high RV precision afforded by the cross-correlation
technique.
However, the present approach is also limited by several choices, including
blurring due to the inclusion of many spectral lines formed at different heights
for each mask, the approximate nature of using spectral lines of different
strength to trace different atmospheric layers, and the possible influence of
different portions of the stellar disk being probed by different line masks.
Nevertheless, this approach is useful and tests performed using different line
selections revealed similar trends, albeit with different amplitudes.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics{lCar_Tomography_WithRV}
\caption{Time-dependent velocity gradients $\delta v_r$ ({\it center}) and their
correspondence to the overall RV variability $v_r$ ({\it top}) and the bisector
inverse span (BIS, {\it bottom}). $\delta v_r > 0$ indicates compression, cf.
Tab.\,\ref{tab:DTexplained}. Velocity gradients and line asymmetry are clearly
correlated, both exhibit patterns that are more similar in 2014 and 2016 than in 2015.}
\label{fig:DTresidualBIS}
\end{figure*}
Figure\,\ref{fig:DTresidualBIS} illustrates $\delta v_r$ (center panel) against
pulsation phase together with the RV curves ($v_r$, top panel) and the BIS
variation (bottom panel). The dependence of $\delta v_r$ on BIS is further shown
in Fig.\,\ref{fig:DTvsBIS}.
Figure\,\ref{fig:DTresidualBIS} reveals a globally smooth variation of the
velocity gradient as a function of pulsation phase that is dominated by three
humps of increasing amplitude located at phases of approximately 0.25, 0.77, and 0.97. A first minimum before the first hump at phase 0.1 \hbox{--} 0.15 coincides with the
peak of the RV curve, i.e., where the shock wave emerges from below. The slight
hump indicating reduced stretch thus appears to be related to the trailing part
of this shock wave.
Shortly after maximum radius (at phase $\sim 0.6$), $\delta v_r$ turns over from
negative to positive values as the star is contracting.
This compression first proceeds in an accelerated fashion until a maximum is
reached near phase 0.77 and the compression is slowed temporarily before being
re-accelerated forcefully towards the highest peak near phase 0.97.
The variation of $\delta v_r$ between phase 0.75 and 0.95 (well before minimum
radius is reached) is indicative of a process beyond gravitational collapse that
first works against the acceleration of compression and subsequently contributes
to it. This is certainly a feature of the pulsation mechanism, given that it
is apparent during every pulsation cycle.
Finally, near phase 0.95-0.98, $\delta v_r$ is reminiscent of a
discontinuity and experiences a sharp turnaround, proceeding from maximal
compression to maximum stretch in less than $10\%$ of a pulsation period. This
feature coincides with the very fast decrease in RV, cf.
Fig.\,\ref{fig:RVmodulationZoomin}, which initiates the expansion.
Figure\,\ref{fig:DTresidualBIS} also reveals the existence of significant
cycle-to-cycle changes in $\delta v_r$. The most striking differences among
pulsation cycles take place during contraction, start near $\phi=0.6$, and
proceed until expansion is initiated. This behavior is analogous to the greater
extent of RV curve modulation observed during contraction (near maximum RV).
Smaller cycle-to-cycle differences near minimum RV (phase 0.1 \hbox{--} 0.15)
further coincide with lower RV curve modulation at minimum $v_r$. $\delta v_r$
also exhibits more consistent behavior for intermediate phases during which
little to no cycle-to-cycle $v_r$ modulation is found.
The smooth variation of the each cycle's $\delta v_r$ curve demonstrate that the
present approach traces even small changes in velocity gradients with
confidence.
Similarly to the behavior of RV curve modulation, consecutive
pulsation cycles tend to reproduce similar $\delta v_r$ variability, whereas
longer timescales lead to larger differences.
Differently from the RV curve (Fig.\,\ref{fig:RVmodulationZoomin}), however, the
2014 and 2015 cycles are more similar to each other than to the cycles observed
in 2016. These different modulation patterns among the various spectral
indicators suggest a highly complex behavior of modulated line profile
variability across all spectral lines.
Comparing cycle-to-cycle changes in $\delta v_r$ with those observed for BIS in
the bottom panel of Fig.\,\ref{fig:DTresidualBIS} shows both indicators to
correlate very closely. For instance, close to phase 0.1 (near fastest $v_r$),
c15a exhibits both lowest BIS and lowest $\delta v_r$, whereas c16b exhibits
greatest BIS and $\delta v_r$. Close to phase $0.8$, c16a yields the highest
value for $\delta v_r$ and BIS, and similarly, c15b exhibits minimal BIS and
$\delta v_r$. However, the correspondence is not perfect and some smaller
differences remain. The need to adopt a common value for $v_\gamma$ for all
pulsation cycles for timing purposes (cf. \S\ref{sec:timings}) likely
dominates these small differences.
Further reasons for non-correspondence include the fact that BIS is measured on
CCFs computed using the G2 mask, which contains some spectral lines not included
in the strong and weak line masks (depth range 0.55 \hbox{--} 0.65). However,
this contribution is expected to be small, since the addition of weak and
strong-line CCFs closely resembles G2 mask-based CCFs (cf.
Fig.\,\ref{fig:CCFdifferencesFixedphase}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{lCar_DTvsBIS}
\caption{Velocity gradient $\delta v_r$ against CCF asymmetry parameter BIS.
$\delta v_r$ corresponds more closely to BIS when $\delta v_r < 0$, i.e.,
when the atmosphere is being stretched.}
\label{fig:DTvsBIS}
\end{figure}
Figure\,\ref{fig:DTvsBIS} illustrates another important feature, namely that
variations in $\delta v_r$ and line asymmetry
(BIS) correspond more closely during expansion ($\delta v_r < 0$) than during
contraction ($\delta v_r > 0$). This points towards a
resetting effect of the outward-directed pulsation wave. Other atmospheric effects such as
convection and turbulence appear to cause greater departures from this
correspondence once the shock wave has passed through the atmosphere.
Figures\,\ref{fig:DeltaDTDeltaBISvsPhase} and \ref{fig:DeltaDTvsDeltaBIS} serve
to further illustrate the correspondence between modulated BIS and $\delta v_r$.
Figure\,\ref{fig:DeltaDTDeltaBISvsPhase} shows this behavior as a function of
phase, whereas Fig.\,\ref{fig:DeltaDTvsDeltaBIS} plots $\Delta \delta v_r$
against $\Delta$BIS. It is worth recalling here the nomenclature adopted where
$\delta$ indicates the difference between measurements obtained at the same time
and $\Delta$ denotes differences between pulsation cycles. Both figures use
pulsation cycle c15a as a reference to compute cycle-to-cycle differences.
The amplitude of $\Delta$BIS is approximately a factor of 3
larger than the amplitude of $\Delta \delta v_r$, most likely due to the
difference in spectral lines between the G2 mask used to compute BIS and the
fewer and different lines used to compute weak and strong line CCFs. For
$\Delta \delta v_r$ the maximal difference among 2016
and 2015 pulsation cycles reaches $\sim 700$\,m\,s$^{-1}$, which is on the order of
$50\%$ of the average $\delta v_r$ at the same phase ($\phi \sim 0.875$).
For BIS, cycle-to-cycle differences reach up to $\sim 2.1$\,km\,s$^{-1}$\ at this phase,
with BIS ranging from $+0.1$ to $-2.0$\,km\,s$^{-1}$.
The correspondence between the shape of the $\Delta \delta v_r$ and $\Delta$BIS
curves against phase (Fig.\,\ref{fig:DeltaDTDeltaBISvsPhase}) is striking and
demonstrates that cycle-to-cycle and longer-term changes in the velocity
gradient are primarily responsible for the observed modulated BIS variability.
This important result suggests that cycle-to-cycle RV curve modulation in
long-period Cepheids discovered by A14 is primarily due to cycle-to-cycle and
longer-term variations in velocity gradients that modify the spectral line
variability, acting primarily on line asymmetry.
Despite a remarkable correspondence between the parameters,
Fig.\,\ref{fig:DeltaDTDeltaBISvsPhase} also shows that $\Delta v_r$ does not
correlate immediately with changes in the velocity gradient ($\Delta \delta
v_r$).
This is likely due to the combined influence of line profile variations on FWHM,
depth, and BIS, of which only BIS was considered here.
Further research is required to test whether such correlations could be used to
reduce the impact of modulated line profile variability on Cepheid RV
measurements.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics{lCar_DeltaDTandDeltaBISvsPhase_new2}
\caption{Cycle-to-cycle and longer-term changes in RV, $\Delta v_r$ (top),
velocity gradient, $\Delta \delta v_r$ (center), and CCF asymmetry parameter
$\Delta$\,BIS (bottom) shown relative to c15a (cyan upward triangles).
Differences among cycles seen in $\delta v_r$ and BIS correlate closely,
indicating that BIS is a suitable proxy to trace velocity gradients.
Changes in $v_r$ do not mirror directly the changes in
velocity gradient or BIS.}
\label{fig:DeltaDTDeltaBISvsPhase}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{lCar_DeltaDTvsDeltaBIS}
\caption{Cycle-to-cycle changes in velocity gradient $\delta v_r$ against those
exhibited by BIS calculated relative to Fourier series fit to c15a data.}
\label{fig:DeltaDTvsDeltaBIS}
\end{figure}
Since cycle-to-cycle changes in velocity gradient correlate with those in BIS,
it follows that BIS can serve as a suitable proxy to detect changes in velocity
gradients. This is particularly useful to extend the investigation of
cycle-to-cycle differences to fainter stars, for which the here presented
Doppler tomographic technique cannot be applied due to insufficient spectral
SNR.
Specifically, investigation of BIS can help to distinguish between time
variations in the pulsation averaged velocity $v_\gamma$ due to
spectroscopic binarity (no cycle-to-cycle difference in BIS) and modulated line shape
variability. This is useful to detect companions with low mass ratios
\citep[such as $\delta$\,Cep's spectroscopic companion, see][]{2015ApJ...804..144A}.
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:disc}
The above results reveal a first insight into the highly complex modulated line
profile variability of Cepheids.
This work has focused on quantities accessible via CCFs in order to start
exploring the origin of RV curve modulation discovered recently (A14).
Work in progress will expand this investigation to individual spectral lines. It
should be noted that RV curve modulation in short and long-period Cepheid occurs
on different timescales. Hence, the following discussion of the above results
should apply primarily to Cepheids with pulsation periods on the order
of $20 \hbox{--} 60$\,d. Further research is required to investigate how these
phenomena translate to other Cepheids and/or period ranges.
\subsection{On CCF asymmetry and velocity gradients}\label{disc:gradients}
The preceding sections have revealed a highly complex and cycle-dependent line
profile variability.
Although this paper is purely observational, it is useful to summarize the
key results capable of informing the astrophysical interpretation of the
observed modulations. The most important clues found here include (in arbitrary
order):
\begin{enumerate}
\item pulsation cycles retain memory of the preceding cycle;
\item long-term modulation tends to dominate over short-term modulation;
\item there is tentative evidence for a repetition in BIS modulation (2014
compared to 2016 data);
\item $\Delta$BIS correlates closely with $\Delta \delta v_r$;
\item the strongest cycle-to-cycle differences in $\delta v_r$ occur during
contraction, well before minimal radius;
\item the asymmetry of weak lines more strongly correlates with pulsational
velocity than for strong lines;
\item weak lines show greater asymmetry and exhibit greater
cycle-to-cycle modulation than strong lines.
\end{enumerate}
Changes in the velocity field could be explained by several mechanisms,
including convection, additional (e.g., non-radial or strange) pulsation modes,
surface inhomogeneities (spots), or inelastic shock. Granulation has previously
been mentioned as a possible explanation for so-called ``period-jitter'' in
Cepheids \citep{2014A&A...563L...4N}. As mentioned in \S\ref{sec:obs:RVgrad}
however, granulation-induced line asymmetry in non-variable supergiants has
opposite sign of $\ell$\,Car's line asymmetry.
Hence, other asymmetry-inducing effects such pulsation-induced velocity
gradients and rotation complicate the assessment of granulation based on line
asymmetries.
Multi-dimensional models of pulsation-convection
interactions \citep{2013MNRAS.435.3191M,2015MNRAS.449.2539M} should provide
interesting insights into this possible explanation. Convective perturbations of
the velocity field are likely to occur, since convective cells in cool
supergiants are large and $\ell$\,Car is a particularly cool Cepheid.
$\Delta$BIS is particularly strong when $\ell$\,Car is coldest, further
corroborating a link with convection.
Rotation and associated magnetic phenomena are an interesting possibility
primarily because of the tentative evidence of a pattern repeating over a 2-year
timescale, which is broadly consistent with the expected rotation period of
$\ell$\,Car. In addition, the dependence of line asymmetry on formation height
indicates possible differential (depth-dependent) rotation. While a magnetic
origin of amplitude modulations has been suggested \citep{2009ApJ...696L..37S},
little is known observationally about the magnetic fields of Cepheids \citep[see
e.g. $\eta$\,Aql in][]{2010MNRAS.408.2290G}. Inhomogeneities in the velocity
field of $\ell$\,Car's surface (e.g. due to spots) could lead to line asymmetries similar
to those observed in other rotating stars
\citep{1958IAUS....6..209D,1977SvAL....3..147G,1988ApJ...334.1008T}.
Shock associated with the pulsation has received much attention in the
literature
\citep[e.g.][]{1975ApJ...201..641K,1984ApJ...279..202S,1994ApJ...420..401B,2006A&A...457..575M,2014ApJ...794...80E,2016ApJ...824....1N}.
Unresolved, time-dependent line-splitting via the
\cite{1952SchwarzschildMechanism} mechanism could introduce line asymmetry,
which, if the shock were inelastic, could change from one cycle to the next and
affect the velocity field. Line splitting and emission of the shock-sensitive
Ca\,II K line in $\ell$\,Car was previously reported \citet{1969MNRAS.145..377D}
and is also seen at certain phases in the {\it Coralie}\ spectra, together with
emission in H\,$\alpha$. Furthermore, UV emission observed at certain phases has
been linked to shock for $\ell$\,Car
\citep{1984ApJ...279..202S,1994ApJ...420..401B,2016ApJ...824....1N}. The strong
BIS modulation occurring during contraction could be related to such
inelasticity, or may be indicative of additional (e.g. higher-order
or non-radial) pulsation modes.
At present, these considerations remain of course speculative. Future work involving
additional stars, individual line profiles, and broader coverage of the
electromagnetic spectrum will allow additional insights into the complexity of
Cepheid pulsations.
\subsection{Implications for Cepheid RV measurements}\label{disc:RVmeas}
As shown in this paper, $\ell$\,Car's line profile variability (LPV) is subject
to modulation between consecutive pulsation cycles as well as on longer timescales.
Since RVs are measured via the Doppler shift of spectral lines, it is
clear that RV curve modulation is a symptom of cycle-to-cycle changes in LPV.
In general, the concept of a single radial velocity is ill-defined for a
Cepheid due to well-known velocity gradients
\citep[e.g.][]{1956ApJ...123..201S,1969MNRAS.145..377D,1992MNRAS.259..474W,1993ApJ...415..323B,2007A&A...471..661N}.
While velocity gradients may bias individual RV measurements, they do not
preclude the recovery of the true pulsational variability if such bias
can be accounted for, e.g. via (phase-dependent) projection factors, see also
\S\ref{disc:pfactors}.
However, this work shows that the phase variability of velocity
gradients does not repeat perfectly between pulsation cycles, leading to a
complex time-dependence of RV variability. This problem is analogous to the difficulties encountered by
RV-based planet searches, where stellar signals due to activity or granulation
negatively impact the detectability of low-mass planets. Thankfully,
the variability of the BIS parameter is a useful indicator for modulated LPV and
can help to distinguish between RV signals due to low-mass companions and
pulsation-related ``noise''.
At present it is however unclear how to mitigate the impact of modulated LPV on
RV measurements.
The method for measuring RV (weak lines, strong lines, Gaussian,
bi-Gaussian) also impacts the resulting pulsation-averaged velocity $v_\gamma$,
cf. Tab.\,\ref{tab:DeltaRp}, limiting the ability to
search for low-mass companions using inhomogeneous data sets (cf. R.~I.~Anderson
et al submitted).
The dependence on $v_\gamma$ on line strength exceeds the dependence on the profile fitted to the computed CCF:
$v_\gamma$ differs by $\sim 600$\,m\,s$^{-1}$\ between weak- and strong-line RVs,
whereas Gaussian and bi-Gaussian RV based on the G2 mask are consistent to
within a few tens of m\,s$^{-1}$.
This behavior is certainly due to the stronger asymmetry of weak line CCFs
(\S\ref{sec:CCFs}), which is more pronounced near maximum than near minimum RV,
thus biasing $v_\gamma$ \citep[cf.][]{2008A&A...489.1255N}.
Studies aiming to investigate binarity or Galactic rotation curves
\citep[e.g.][]{1997A&A...318..416P} may thus benefit from employing strong-line
RVs, since these exhibit weaker asymmetry and are thus less biased. On the other
hand, studies interested in revealing modulated LPV in Cepheids may benefit from using
weak-line RVs as a first indicator.
In summary, different use cases may benefit from using differently defined RVs.
However, the definition of the RV measurement can lead to phase-dependent
differences among RV measured using different instruments, or even by different
authors. Employing consistently defined RVs is thus crucial for high-precision
RV analyses, e.g. when investigating Cepheid binarity. For the time being, it is
unclear whether RV curve modulation can be avoided by defining the measurement
adequately. However, averaging over long temporal baselines may cancel out these
effects, cf. \S\ref{disc:pfactors} below.
\subsection{Implications for Baade-Wesselink Distance and p-factors}
\label{disc:pfactors}
RV curve modulation represents a difficulty for Baade-Wesselink type analyses
that exploit Cepheid pulsations to measure quasi-geometric distances.
Specifically, distance
\begin{equation}
d \propto \Delta R / \Delta \Theta = p / \Delta \Theta\
\int{v_r\, \rm{d}\phi}\ ,
\label{eq:BWdistance}
\end{equation}
where $p$ is the projection factor required to translate the
observed, disk-integrated line-of-sight velocity into the pulsational velocity,
$\Delta \Theta$ is the full-amplitude
angular diameter variation, and the RV integral is computed over the same phase
range. $\Delta \Theta$ can be averaged
over many cycles \citep[e.g.][]{2016A&A...587A.117B}, or determined for
individual half-cycles of expansion or contraction (A16). As argued in A14, cycle-to-cycle
and longer-term changes in RV amplitude and shape result in systematic
changes of the RV integral. This introduces a systematic distance uncertainty
if the measured $\Delta R$ and $\Delta \Theta$ are not equivalent, e.g. by not
being measured contemporaneously or by other systematics intervening even if measured
contemporaneously.
$p-$factors have been decomposed as follows \citep{2007A&A...471..661N}:
\begin{equation}
p = p_0 \cdot f_{\rm{grad}} \cdot f_{\rm{o-g}}\ ,
\label{eq:p-factor}
\end{equation}
where $f_{\rm{grad}}$ is a factor representing the impact of
velocity gradients, $f_{\rm{o-g}}$ represents the difference between the
motion of optical and gas layers, and $p_0$ represents all other effects such
as geometry and limb darkening.
A16 investigated whether angular diameter variations repeated perfectly, or
whether they, too, exhibit modulated variability. They further investigated
whether any modulation pattern would reproduce the trends exhibited by RV data.
The high-quality interferometric dataset obtained for $\ell$\,Car showed
tentative signs of modulated angular variability, although contributions from
instrumental effects could not be fully excluded.
Interestingly, however, RV and angular diameters exhibited very different
modulation behavior, which was interpreted as being the result of the different
motions of the optical continuum (measured by interferometry) and the gas
(measured via spectral lines). This can be expressed as a complex time
dependence\hbox{---}possibly changing from cycle to cycle\hbox{---}not
previously considered for factor $f_{\rm{o-g}}$ in Eq.\,\ref{eq:p-factor}.
Section\,\ref{sec:RVgrad} demonstrates that $\ell$\,Car's velocity gradients
also exhibit a complex time-dependence, which is furthermore not in phase with
the pulsations and enters the definition of $p$ via a previously unknown
time-dependence of factor $f_{\rm{grad}}$. Having measured RV using different
line masks and profiles fitted to CCFs, let us now consider the impact of how RV
is defined on $p$.
Table\,\ref{tab:DeltaRp} lists values of RV integrals, $\int{v_r \rm{d}\phi} =
\Delta R/p$, computed for RVs based on three different correlation masks, as
well as bi-Gaussian RVs based on the G2 mask, measured for the individual
half-cycles accessible.
The duration of each half-cycle is determined as described in \S\ref{sec:obs}
using pulsation-averaged $v_\gamma$ (cf. \S\ref{disc:RVmeas}).
$\Delta R/p$ is then computed as done previously (A14,A16) using cubic splines
and Monte Carlo simulations (10\,000 draws). Note that durations and $\Delta
R/p$ can differ here from the values presented in A14 and A16 due to different
definitions of $v_\gamma$.
The row labeled $\langle \vert \Delta R/p \vert \rangle$ in
Table\,\ref{tab:DeltaRp} lists average absolute values of $\Delta R/p$ depending
on the definition of the RV measurement.
$\langle \vert \Delta R/p \vert \rangle$ depends significantly on the method
employed to measure RV (e.g. Gaussian vs. bi-Gaussian fits to CCFs), as expected
from the different RV amplitudes, cf.
Fig.\,\ref{fig:RVmodulationZoomin}. The row labeled $\sigma$ lists the standard
deviation of all $\vert \Delta R/p \vert$ and is followed by the fractional
standard deviation, $\sigma / \langle \vert \Delta R/p \vert \rangle$, which
shows that Gaussian RVs based on strong spectral lines yield the most consistent
result for $\Delta R/p$, exhibiting a scatter of $2.3\%$ compared to a scatter
of $3.0\%$ for bi-Gaussian RVs. Gaussian RVs based on the G2 mask yield the
second most consistent results among pulsation cycles, with a scatter of
$2.6\%$, followed by weak-line RVs. This behavior is directly related to the
cycle-to-cycle changes in the BIS parameter, which directly affects bi-Gaussian
RVs, and is expressed more strongly for weak-line CCFs, cf.
\S\ref{sec:CCFs}.
Importantly, the definition of the RV measurement employed directly affects the
value of the projection factor obtained in empirical $p-$factor calibrations.
To illustrate this point, let us adopt $\ell$\,Car's distance of $497.5$\,pc
\citep{2007AJ....133.1810B}, the average $\langle \Delta \Theta \rangle =
0.569$ of two consecutive half-cycles (A16), and the average $\langle
\vert \Delta R/p \vert \rangle$ to determine $p = d \cdot \Delta \Theta / (
9.3095 \cdot \langle \vert \Delta R/p \vert \rangle) $, assuming $R_\odot =
696\,342$\,km \citep{2012ApJ...750..135E}. Statistical uncertainties are not included for this comparison whose aim is to illustrate the dependence of $p$ on
the RV measurement technique. $p$ is thus found to range from $1.207$ for
bi-Gaussian RVs to $1.330$ for weak-line RVs, even when averaging over many
pulsation cycles.
$p$ thus implicitly depends on the definition of the RV measurement by up to
$10\%$. This compares to the $\sim 10\%$ uncertainty on empirical $p-$factor
calibrations imposed by the accuracy of current parallax measurements
\citep{2016A&A...587A.117B}.
As this comparison shows, employing a consistent definition of RV measurements
is crucial for determining $p-$factors and in particular
for calibrating a $p-$$P_{\rm{puls}}$-relation
\citep{2007A&A...471..661N,2016A&A...587A.117B}.
Summing over $\Delta R/p$\ of consecutive
half-cycles listed in Tab.\,\ref{tab:DeltaRp} reveals no significant net
growth or shrinkage in linear radius (mean growth is $-0.04\,R_\odot/p$ with $\sigma=0.96\,R_\odot/p$ for Gaussian
RVs computed with G2 mask), i.e., short-term differences in $\Delta R/p$ cancel
out over longer timescales. This suggests that a consistent value of $\Delta
R/p$ can be determined if sufficiently many pulsation cycles are averaged.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lrrrrrrrrr}
\hline
\hline
& & \multicolumn{2}{r}{weak line, Gaussian} & \multicolumn{2}{r}{G2 mask,
Gaussian} & \multicolumn{2}{r}{G2 mask, bi-Gaussian} &
\multicolumn{2}{r}{strong lines, Gaussian} \\
& & \multicolumn{2}{r}{$v_\gamma = 2.930$\,km\,s$^{-1}$} &
\multicolumn{2}{r}{$v_\gamma = 3.419$\,km\,s$^{-1}$} &
\multicolumn{2}{r}{$v_\gamma = 3.441$\,km\,s$^{-1}$} &
\multicolumn{2}{r}{$v_\gamma = 3.571$\,km\,s$^{-1}$} \\
Cycle & $N_{\rm{RV}}$
& duration & $\Delta R/p$ & duration & $\Delta R/p$ & duration & $\Delta R/p$ & duration & $\Delta R/p$ \\
& & [d] & [$R_\odot$] & [d] & [$R_\odot$] & [d] & [$R_\odot$] & [d] &
[$R_\odot$]
\\
\hline
c14a & 55 & 18.467(7) & 22.135(8) & 18.379(7) & 22.888(7) & 18.13(2) & 24.47(2)
& 18.318(6) & 23.395(8) \\
c14b\_1 & 50 & 17.074(8) & -22.436(7) & 17.174(6) & -23.185(7) & 17.32(2) &
-24.35(2) & 17.250(6) & -23.830(7) \\
c14b\_2 & 37 & 18.555(8) & 23.489(8) & 18.442(6) & 24.102(8) & 18.37(2) &
26.10(2) & 18.363(6) & 24.556(8) \\
c14c$^\dagger$ & 115 & 16.84(6) & -22.02(1) & 16.96(6) & -22.74(1) & 17.3(2) &
-24.16(5) & 17.10(7) & -23.38(1) \\
c15a\_1 & 66 & 16.917(1) & -22.554(2) & 17.046(1) & -23.355(1) & 17.269(4) &
-24.950(3) & 17.133(1) & -24.006(1) \\
c15a\_2 & 81 & 18.624(1) & 23.848(2) & 18.500(1) & 24.374(1) & 18.256(4) &
26.509(3) & 18.417(1) & 24.802(1) \\
c15b\_1 & 86 & 17.087(2) & -22.873(2) & 17.223(1) & -23.686(1) & 17.328(4) &
-25.182(3) & 17.316(2) & -24.334(1) \\
c15b\_2 & 58 & 18.414(2) & 22.798(2) & 18.280(1) & 23.399(1) & 18.189(4) &
26.142(4) & 18.188(2) & 23.866(2) \\
c15c$^\dagger$ & 32 & 17.155(2) & -23.605(2) & 17.272(2) & -24.335(1) &
17.517(6) & -26.135(4) & 17.347(2) & -24.938(2) \\
c16b\_1 & 53 & 17.071(1) & -23.256(1) & 17.154(1) & -23.978(1) & 17.284(3) &
-25.274(3) & 17.214(1) & -24.580(1) \\
c16b\_2 & 57 & 18.420(1) & 22.551(2) & 18.340(1) & 23.430(1) & 18.237(4) &
24.338(3) & 18.283(1) & 24.151(1) \\
c16c\_1 & 54 & 17.280(2) & -23.625(2) &
17.369(1) & -24.337(1) & 17.500(4) & -25.881(3) & 17.436(1) & -24.931(1) \\
c16c\_2$^\ddagger$ & 19 & 18.277(2) & 21.986(4) & 18.183(1) & 22.962(2) &
18.043(4) & 23.967(7) & 18.121(2) & 23.724(3) \\
\hline
$\langle \vert \Delta R/p \vert \rangle$ & & & 22.860 & & 23.598 & & 25.189 & &
24.192
\\
$\sigma$ & & & 0.648 & & 0.580 & & 0.885 & & 0.545 \\
$\sigma/\langle \vert \Delta R/p \vert \rangle$ & & & 0.028 & & 0.026 & &
0.030 & & 0.023 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{l}{$p\ [ d=497.5\,\rm{pc},\ \Delta\Theta=0.56895\
\rm{mas}$]} & 1.330 & & 1.288 & & 1.207 & & 1.257
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Dependence of $v_\gamma$, half-cycle duration, integral of RV
curve\hbox{---}here denoted by $\Delta R/p$\hbox{---}, and projection factors
$p$ required for Baade-Wesselink distance measurements per pulsation half-cycle
(contraction/expansion) on measurement technique and lines used to compute RV.
Cycles are labeled as in Fig.\,\ref{fig:RVcurve}, with $\_1$ and $\_2$ denoting
first and second half of cycle. Statistical uncertainties are listed for
duration and $\Delta R/p$ using the notation $18.467(7) = 18.467 \pm
0.007$ and are based on 10\,000 Monte Carlo repetitions.
$^\dagger$ marks cycles determined by extrapolation to nearest $v_\gamma$,
$^\ddagger$ marks the cycle with the fewest observations, for which the spline
fit is not as well constrained due to larger gaps in phase coverage.
Fluctuations of the average $\Delta R/p$ per method are $2\hbox{--}3$
percent.
$p$-factors are computed for each method assuming distance
\citep{2007AJ....133.1810B} and angular diameter variation \citep[using the
average of both measurements]{2016MNRAS.455.4231A} as stated to illustrate
\emph{systematic} differences in $p$.}
\label{tab:DeltaRp}
\end{table*}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:summary}
This paper investigates the origin of cycle-to-cycle and longer-term modulations
of long-period Cepheid RV curves as discovered recently (A14) using
$\ell$\,Carinae as an example.
CCFs were computed based on $925$ high-SNR high-resolution
optical spectra observed during three campaigns (2014, 2015, and 2016), each of
which cover at least two complete consecutive pulsation cycles.
Cycle-to-cycle differences in the spectral line profile
variability pattern are investigated and found to be significant,
even among consecutive cycles, becoming
more noticeable over longer timescales. The asymmetry parameter BIS exhibits the
most peculiar cycle-to-cycle variability and is considered in detail.
The dependence of the inferred RV variability on the measurement
technique is investigated by computing CCFs for three different line masks (G2,
weak lines, strong lines) and measuring RV by fitting either Gaussian or bi-Gaussian
profiles. Bi-Gaussian RVs exhibit stronger RV curve modulation than Gaussian
RVs, since the primary effect of modulated line profile variability concerns
asymmetry and since bi-Gaussians are by construction sensitive to such
asymmetry.
Weak-line CCFs generally exhibit stronger asymmetry than strong-line CCFs and
are more strongly affected by cycle-to-cycle variations.
Modulated BIS variability primarily originates in
long-term (cycle-to-cycle and longer) variations of atmospheric velocity
gradients and can therefore serve to identify this effect.
This is important, since BIS provides a straightforward means to distinguish
temporal variations in the pulsation-averaged velocity $v_\gamma$ due to modulated line profile
variability (modulated BIS variability) from ones caused by orbital motion (no
modulated BIS variability).
Visualization of cycle-to-cycle changes in velocity gradient indicates the
atmosphere to retain memory of the preceding cycle. The modulation
pattern seen for BIS suggests a possible repetition of this parameter's variability
over a timescale of $\sim 2$\,yr, which is close to the expected rotation
period for a star such as $\ell$\,Car.
Establishing a recurrence or even periodicity of this kind would be invaluable
for better understanding the origin of cycle-dependent velocity gradient
variations.
Possible origins of modulated line profile variations as well as their relevance
for BW distances are discussed, underlining the importance of
consistently defined RV measurements for BW distances. Since RV curve modulation
tends to average out over long timescales, it is advantageous for BW
analyses to reduce exposure to individual pulsation cycles.
This will be of particular importance when {\it Gaia} will soon enable the
empirical calibration of projection factors for hundreds of Galactic Cepheids.
More generally, this work exposes previously unknown complexity in the
pulsation of Cepheids and opens a new window to further the understanding of
stellar pulsations.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Useful discussions with Xavier Dumusque and the assistance of many
observers are acknowledged. I am grateful to the entire Euler team, the Geneva
stellar variability group, and the Geneva
exoplanet group for their assistance and support. The friendly
and competent assistance by all ESO and non-ESO staff at La Silla Observatory was greatly appreciated. The anonymous referee's timely and positive response is acknowledged.
The Swiss Euler telescope is funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation.
The ability to operate such long-term campaigns on a small telescope with
high-quality instrumentation was crucial to this work's ability to
illustrate the complex behavior of Cepheid pulsations in this amount of
detail.
This research was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation via an Early
Postdoc.Mobility fellowship and has made use of NASA's ADS Bibliographic
Services.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
The Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) is to decide whether it is
possible to find an assignment to a set of variables which satisfies constraints between certain subsets of the variables. This paradigm has been
applied in diverse application areas such as Artificial Intelligence,
Bioinformatics and Operations Research~\cite{Rossi06:handbook,Hell08:survey}.
As the CSP is known to be $\NP$-complete, much theoretical work has been
devoted to the identification of tractable subproblems. Important
tractable cases have been identified by restricting the hypergraph \textit{structure} of the constrained subsets
of variables~\cite{Grohe07:otherside,DBLP:journals/jacm/Marx13}.
Other tractable cases have been identified by restricting the forms
of constraints (sometimes called the constraint {\em
language})~\cite{DBLP:journals/jacm/JeavonsCG97,Feder98:monotone}. Work
on both of these areas is now very far advanced: a full complexity
dichotomy for any structural or language restriction now requires the
classification of just one remaining family of
languages~\cite{Barto14:survey,DBLP:journals/jacm/BartoK14}.
Moreover, it is known that
a full characterisation of the complexity of the \emph{binary} CSP
(where constraints restrict the assignment to precisely two variables)
would enable a full characterisation of the complexity of all language restrictions
for the general CSP with constraints of any arity~\cite{Feder98:monotone}.
However, identifying the subproblems obtained by restricting the language or
the structure of a CSP alone is not a sufficiently rich framework in which to investigate
the full complexity landscape.
For example, we may wish to identify all the instances solved by a particular
algorithm, such as enforcing arc-consistency~\cite{Dechter03:processing,Rossi06:handbook}.
It has been shown~\cite{Feder98:monotone,Cohen16:GACdecides}
that this class of instances includes all instances defined by
a certain structural restriction,
together with all instances defined by a certain language restriction,
as well as further instances that are not defined by either kind of restriction alone.
Hence we need a more flexible mechanism for describing subproblems that will
allow us to unify and generalise such descriptions.
Here we develop a new mechanism of this kind that uses certain tools
from graph theory to define restricted classes of labelled graphs
that represent binary CSP instances.
Our mechanism allows us to
impose simultaneous restrictions on both the structure and the language of an instance,
and hence obtain a more refined collection of subproblems,
allowing a more detailed complexity analysis.
Subproblems of the CSP of this kind are sometimes referred to as \emph{hybrid}
subproblems and, currently, very little is known about the complexity of
such subproblems~\cite{Carbonnel16:constraints}.
The tools that we use to obtain restricted classes of labelled graphs build on a
well-established line of research in graph theory, by considering local
``obstructions" or ``forbidden patterns". The idea of using forbidden patterns
has previously been applied to the binary CSP and resulted in the discovery of a
number of new tractable
classes~\cite{Cohen12:pivot,ccez15:jcss,Cooper15:dam,EscamocherThesis}; related
ideas also appeared in~\cite{Madelain07:sicomp,Kun08:forbidden}.
However, we will show in this paper that in order to unify structural, language
and existing hybrid restrictions within a single framework we need even more
flexibility.
In graph theory it proved useful to go beyond the idea of forbidden subgraphs
and introduce the more flexible concept of forbidden minors.
A well-known result of Robertson and Seymour states that any set of graphs closed
under the operation of taking minors is specified by a finite set of forbidden minors.
Rather than adapt the full machinery of graph minors to the CSP framework,
we consider here the slightly simpler notion of a
\emph{topological minor}~\cite{Diestel10:graph}.
We show that by adapting the notion of topological minor to the CSP framework
we are able to provide a unified description of all tractable structural classes,
all tractable language classes, and some new tractable classes that cannot be captured
as either structural classes or language classes.
Moreover, we are able to show that the class of tree-structured CSP instances
has a very simple description in this framework, and
there exist tractable classes of the binary CSP
that properly extend this class and yet still have a very simple description.
\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:defs}
We define the constraint satisfaction problem in
Section~\ref{sec:csp} and patterns in Section~\ref{sec:patterns}.
Section~\ref{sec:forbidding} then introduces the idea of defining
restricted classes of CSP instances by forbidding certain patterns to occur
as sub-patterns or topological minors.
\subsection{The CSP}\label{sec:csp}
Constraint satisfaction is a paradigm for describing computational problems.
Each problem instance is represented as a constraint network:
a collection of variables that take their value from some given domain.
Some subsets of the variables have a further restriction on their allowed simultaneous
assignments, called a constraint. A solution to such a network assigns a value
to each variable such that every constraint is satisfied.
In this paper we consider only \emph{binary} constraint networks,
where every constraint limits the values of precisely two variables.
It has been shown that
any constraint network can be reduced to an equivalent binary network over a different
domain of values~\cite{Dechter89:tree,Rossi90:equivalence}.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:CSP}
An instance of the binary constraint satisfaction problem (CSP)
is a triple \tuple{V,D,C} where $V$ is a finite set of variables,
for each $v \in V$, $D(v)$ is a finite domain of values for $v$,
and $C$ is a set of constraints,
containing a constraint $R_{uv}$ for each pair of variables $\tuple{u,v}$.
The constraint $R_{uv} \subseteq D(u)\times D(v)$
is the set of compatible assignments to the variables $u$ and $v$.
A \emph{solution} to a binary CSP instance is an assignment $s:V\to D$ of values to variables
such that, for each constraint $R_{uv}$, $\tuple{s(u),s(v)} \in R_{uv}$.
\end{definition}
We will assume that there is \emph{exactly one} binary constraint between any two variables.
That is, if we define $R'_{uv}$ as
$\{\tuple{b,a}\mid\tuple{a,b}\in R_{uv}\}$,
then $R_{vu} = R'_{uv}$.
This is just a notational convenience since we can pre-process each instance,
replacing $R_{uv}$ with $R_{uv} \cap R'_{vu}$.
A constraint will be called \emph{trivial} if it is equal to
the Cartesian product of the domains of its two variables.
We will say that a class of CSP instances is \emph{tractable} if there is
a polynomial-time algorithm to decide whether any instance in the class has a solution.
The size of a constraint instance will be taken to be the sum of the sizes of the
constraint relations. If the size of the domain for any variable
and the arity of the constraints is bounded,
then this is polynomial in the number of variables.
Note that Definition~\ref{def:CSP} describes a standard
form of mathematical specification for a CSP instance
that is convenient for theoretical analysis.
In the next subsection we will introduce an alternative representation
in terms of patterns (see Construction~\ref{constructPI}).
Often more concise representations are used,
and trivial constraints are usually not represented~\cite{Rossi06:handbook}.
Arc consistency (AC) is a fundamental concept for the binary
CSP~\cite{Dechter03:processing,Rossi06:handbook}.
\begin{definition}
A pair of variables $(u,v)$ is said to be arc-consistent if for each value
$a\in D(u)$ in the domain of $u$, there is a value $b\in D(v)$ in the domain of $v$ such that
$\tuple{a,b} \in R_{uv}$.
A binary CSP instance is \emph{arc consistent} if every pair of variables is arc-consistent.
\end{definition}
Given an arbitrary CSP instance $I$ there is a unique smallest set of domain values which can
be removed to make the instance arc-consistent. Furthermore the discovery of this unique
minimal set of domain values and their removal, called establishing arc-consistency,
can be done in polynomial time~\cite{Cooper1989}. For a given instance $I$ we will denote by
$\AC{I}$ the instance obtained after establishing arc-consistency.
\subsection{Patterns}
\label{sec:patterns}
We now introduce the central notion of a pattern, which can be thought of as a labelled
graph, with three distinct kinds of edges.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:patt}
A \emph{pattern} is a structure $\tuple{X,E^{\sim},E^{+},E^{-}}$,
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $X$ is a set of \emph{points};
\item $E^\sim$ is a binary equivalence relation over $X$
whose equivalence classes are called \emph{parts};
\item $E^{+}$ is a symmetric binary relation over $X$ whose tuples are called \emph{positive edges};
\item $E^{-}$ is a symmetric binary relation over $X$ whose tuples are called \emph{negative edges}.
\end{itemize}
The sets $E^\sim$ and $E^{+}$ are disjoint, and the sets $E^\sim$ and $E^{-}$ are disjoint.
\end{definition}
In a general pattern
there may be pairs of points $x$ and $y$ in distinct parts such that
$(x,y)$ is neither a positive nor a negative edge,
and there may be pairs of points $x$ and $y$ in distinct parts such that
$(x,y)$ is \emph{both} a positive and a negative edge.
A pattern is called \emph{complete}
if every pair of points $x$ and $y$ in distinct parts are connected by either a positive
or negative edge (but not both),
and hence $E^{\sim} \cup E^{+} \cup E^{-} = X^2$.
\begin{example}
Some examples of patterns are illustrated in a standard way in Figure~\ref{fig:sp}.
The pattern shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(a) is complete, but the others are not.
\thicklines \setlength{\unitlength}{0.7pt}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{picture}(480,110)(0,0)
\put(0,10){
\begin{picture}(130,100)(0,0)
\put(0,0){\usebox{\varone}} \put(80,0){\usebox{\varone}}
\put(40,40){\usebox{\varone}} \put(10,20){\line(1,0){80}}
\dashline[50]{7}(10,20)(50,60) \dashline[50]{7}(50,60)(90,20)
\put(50,0){\makebox(0,0){(a)}}
\end{picture}}
\put(120,10){\begin{picture}(130,100)(0,0)
\put(0,0){\usebox{\varone}} \put(80,0){\usebox{\varone}}
\put(40,50){\usebox{\varthree}} \put(10,20){\line(1,1){40}}
\put(10,20){\line(1,0){80}} \put(90,20){\line(-1,1){40}}
\dashline[50]{7}(10,20)(50,70) \dashline[50]{7}(50,80)(90,20)
\put(50,0){\makebox(0,0){(b)}}
\end{picture}}
\put(240,10){\begin{picture}(100,60)(0,0)
\put(0,0){\usebox{\varone}}
\put(80,0){\usebox{\varone}} \dashline[50]{7}(10,20)(90,20)
\qbezier(10,20)(50,30)(90,20) \put(50,0){\makebox(0,0){(c)}}
\end{picture}}
\put(360,10)
{\begin{picture}(130,100)(0,0)
\put(0,0){\usebox{\varone}} \put(80,0){\usebox{\varone}}
\put(40,50){\usebox{\varthree}} \put(10,20){\line(1,1){40}}
\put(90,20){\line(-1,1){40}} \dashline[50]{7}(10,20)(50,70)
\dashline[50]{7}(50,80)(90,20) \put(50,0){\makebox(0,0){(d)}}
\end{picture}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Some example patterns.
Points are shown as filled circles, parts as ovals,
positive edges as solid lines and negative edges as dashed lines.
}
\label{fig:sp}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
It will often be convenient to build special patterns to represent binary CSP instances,
so we now define the following construction.
\begin{construction}
\label{constructPI}
For any binary CSP instance $I=\tuple{V,D,C}$,
where $C = \{R_{uv} \mid u,v \in V, u \neq v\}$,
we define a corresponding complete pattern
$\PI{I} = \tuple{X,E^{\sim},E^{+},E^{-}}$ where
\begin{itemize}
\item
$X = \{x_{v,d} \mid v \in V, a \in D(v)\}$;
\item
$E^\sim = \{(x_{u,a},x_{v,b}) \mid u = v\}$;
\item
$E^{+} = \{(x_{u,a},x_{v,b}) \mid u \neq v, \tuple{a,b} \in R_{uv}\}$;
\item
$E^{-} = \{(x_{u,a},x_{v,b}) \mid u \neq v, \tuple{a,b} \not\in R_{uv}\}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{construction}
We remark that for any instance $I$ the points of $\PI{I}$ are the possible
assignments for each individual variable, and the parts of $\PI{I}$
correspond to sets of possible assignments for a particular variable.
Positive edges in $\PI{I}$
correspond to allowed pairs of assignments and
are therefore closely related to the edges of the
\emph{microstructure} representation of $I$ defined in~\cite{Jegou93:microstructure};
negative edges correspond to disallowed pairs of assignments and
are closely related to the edges of the
\emph{microstructure complement} discussed in~\cite{Cohen2003d}.
\begin{example}
Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(a) shows the pattern $\PI{I}$
for a rather trivial instance $I$ with three variables,
each of which has only one possible value.
Note that $I$ has no solution because the only possible assignments for two pairs of variables
are in negative edges and hence disallowed by the constraints.
\end{example}
A pattern with no positive edges will be called a \emph{negative pattern}.
It will sometimes be convenient to build negative patterns from graphs,
so we now define the following construction.
\begin{construction}%
\label{constructPG}
For any graph $G=\tuple{V,E}$, we define a corresponding negative pattern
$\PG{G} = \tuple{X,E^{\sim},\emptyset,E^{-}}$ where
\begin{itemize}
\item
$X = \{x_{e,v} \mid e \in E, v \in e\}$;
\item
$E^\sim = \{(x_{e,u},x_{f,v}) \mid u = v\}$;
\item
$E^{-} = \{(x_{e,u},x_{f,v}) \mid e = f, u \neq v\}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{construction}
\begin{example}
Let $C_3$ be the 3-cycle, that is, the graph with three vertices, $v_1,v_2,v_3$,
and 3 edges $e_1,e_2,e_3$, where $e_1 = \{v_1,v_2\}, e_2 = \{v_2,v_3\}$ and $e_3 = \{v_3,v_1\}$.
The associated negative pattern $\PG{C_3}$ defined by Construction~\ref{constructPG}
is the pattern with 6 points, 3 parts, and 3 negative edges
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:acyclic}.
\thicklines \setlength{\unitlength}{0.7pt}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{picture}(100,110)(0,-10)
\put(0,60){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(40,0){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(80,60){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\dashline[50]{6}(10,70)(50,30)
\dashline[50]{6}(10,90)(90,90)
\dashline[50]{6}(50,10)(90,70)
\end{picture}
\caption{The pattern $\PG{C_3}$ constructed from the cycle graph $C_3$
by Construction~\ref{constructPG}.
}
\label{fig:acyclic}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
In graph theory, a \emph{subdivision} operation on a graph replaces an edge $(u,v)$ with
a path of length two by introducing a new vertex $z_{uv}$, and connecting $u$ to $z_{uv}$
and $z_{uv}$ to $v$~\cite{Diestel10:graph}.
A graph $G$ is said to be a topological minor of a graph $H$ if some sequence of subdivision
operations on $G$ yields a subgraph of $H$~\cite{Diestel10:graph}.
We now define an operation on patterns that is analogous to the subdivision operation on graphs,
but takes into account the three different types of edges that are present in a pattern.
This subdivision operation for patterns
is crucial to the idea of defining topological minors in patterns,
as described in Section~\ref{sec:forbidding}.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:subdivision}
Let $P = \tuple{X,E^{\sim},E^{+},E^{-}}$ be a pattern.
For any two distinct parts $U,V$ of $P$,
we define $E^+_{UV} = E^+ \cap (U \times V)$,
$E^-_{UV} = E^- \cap (U \times V)$,
and $Z_{UV} = \{z_{xy} \mid (x,y) \in E^+_{UV} \} \cup \{z'_{xy},z''_{xy} \mid (x,y) \in E^-_{UV}\}$.
The \emph{subdivision} of $P$ at $U,V$
is defined to be the pattern $P_d = \tuple{X_d,E_d^{\sim},E_d^{+},E_d^{-}}$ where
\begin{itemize}
\item
$X_d = X \cup Z_{UV}$;
\item
$E_d^\sim = E^\sim \cup (Z_{UV} \times Z_{UV})$;
\item
$
\begin{aligned}[t]
E_d^+ = (E^+ \setminus & \{(x,y),(y,x) \mid (x,y) \in E^+_{UV} \})\\
& \cup \{(x,z_{xy}),(z_{xy},x),(z_{xy},y),(y,z_{xy}) \mid (x,y) \in E^+_{UV}\};
\end{aligned}
$
\item
$
\begin{aligned}[t]
E_d^- = (E^- \setminus & \{(x,y),(y,x) \mid (x,y) \in E^-_{UV}\})\\
& \cup \{(x,z'_{xy}),(z'_{xy},x),(z''_{xy},y),(y,z''_{xy}) \mid (x,y) \in E^-_{UV}\}.
\end{aligned}
$
\end{itemize}
Pattern $P'$ is called a \emph{subdivision} of $P$ if it can be obtained from $P$
by some (possibly empty) sequence of subdivision operations.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
\label{ex:subdivision}
The pattern shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(d) can be obtained by performing
a single subdivision operation on the pattern shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(c).
\end{example}
We remark that positive and negative edges are treated differently in
Definition~\ref{def:subdivision}: a single extra point, $z_{xy}$, is added for each
positive edge $(x,y)$, and \emph{two} extra points, $z'_{xy}$ and $z''_{xy}$,
are added for each negative edge (see Example~\ref{ex:subdivision}).
This difference reflects a semantic difference between positive and negative edges
in a CSP instance, which we illustrate as follows.
Suppose that the assignment of $a$ to variable $u$ and $b$ to variable $v$ extends to a solution. For any other variable $w$,
the points $\tuple{u,a}$ and $\tuple{v,b}$ must both be compatible with some common point
$\tuple{w,c}$. On the other hand the assignment of $a$ to variable $u$ and $b$ to variable $v$ may not extend to a solution if there are points \tuple{w,c} and \tuple{w,d} where \tuple{u,a} is incompatible with \tuple{w,c}, \tuple{v,b} is incompatible with \tuple{w,d} and the rest of the instance forces $w$ to take either value $a$ or $b$.
\section{Forbidding patterns}
\label{sec:forbidding}
In the remainder of this paper we consider classes of binary CSP instances that are
defined by \emph{forbidding} a specified set of patterns from occurring in certain ways,
which we now define.
\subsection{Occurrences of one pattern in another}
\begin{definition}
\label{def:patternhomomorphism}
A pattern $P_1 = \tuple{X_1,E_1^{\sim},E_1^{+},E_1^{-}}$ is said to
have a \emph{homomorphism} to
a pattern $P_2 = \tuple{X_2,E_2^{\sim},E_2^{+},E_2^{-}}$,
if there is a mapping $h:X_1 \rightarrow X_2$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item
if $(x,y) \in E_1^\sim$ then $(h(x),h(y)) \in E_2^\sim$, and
\item
if $(x,y) \in E_1^{+}$ then $(h(x),h(y)) \in E_2^{+}$, and
\item
if $(x,y) \in E_1^{-}$ then $(h(x),h(y)) \in E_2^{-}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
A homomorphism $h$ from a pattern $P_1 = \tuple{X_1,E_1^{\sim},E_1^{+},E_1^{-}}$
to a pattern $P_2 = \tuple{X_2,E_2^{\sim},E_2^{+},E_2^{-}}$ will be said to
\emph{preserve parts} if it satisfies the additional
property that for all $(x,y) \in X_1^2$, if
$(x,y) \not\in E_1^\sim$, then $(h(x),h(y)) \not\in E_2^\sim$.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:sub-pattern}
A pattern $P_1$ is said to \emph{occur as a sub-pattern} in
a pattern $P_2$,
denoted $\SP{P_1}{P_2}$,
if there is a homomorphism from $P_1$ to $P_2$ that preserves parts.
\end{definition}
Earlier papers~\cite{Cohen12:pivot,Cooper15:dam}
have defined the notions of pattern and the notion of occurring as a sub-pattern
in slightly different ways, but these are all essentially equivalent to
Definition~\ref{def:sub-pattern}.
\begin{example}
The pattern shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(d)
has a homomorphism to the pattern shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(c),
but does not occur as a sub-pattern in this pattern.
The pattern shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(d)
does occur as a sub-pattern in the pattern shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(b).
\end{example}
Now we introduce a new form of occurrence that will be our focus in this paper,
and will allow us to define a wider range of restricted subproblems of the CSP.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:top-minor}
A pattern $P_1$ is said to
\emph{occur as a topological minor}
in a pattern $P_2$,
denoted $P_1 \stackrel{TM}{\rightarrow} P_2$,
if some subdivision of $P_1$ occurs as a sub-pattern in $P_2$.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
The pattern shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(c) occurs as a topological minor in
the pattern shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(d) and
in the pattern shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(b).
\end{example}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:properties}
For any patterns $P, P'$ and $P''$ the following properties hold:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*)]
\item \label{lem:propreflexive}
$\SP{P}{P}$ and $\TM{P}{P}$;
\item \label{lem:propSPimpliesTM}
If $\SP{P}{P'}$, then $\TM{P}{P'}$;
\item \label{lem:propSPtrans}
If $\SP{P}{P'}$ and $\SP{P'}{P''}$, then $\SP{P}{P''}$;
\item \label{lem:propTMtrans}
If $\TM{P}{P'}$ and $\TM{P'}{P''}$, then $\TM{P}{P''}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Part~\ref{lem:propreflexive}
is obtained by taking the identity function as a homomorphism,
and an empty sequence of subdivisions.
Part~\ref{lem:propSPimpliesTM}
is obtained by taking an empty sequence of subdivisions.
Part~\ref{lem:propSPtrans}
is obtained by composing the two homomorphisms.
Part~\ref{lem:propTMtrans}
follows from the following observation:
assume that $h$ is a homomorphism from $P_1$ to $P_2$ that preserves parts,
and that $P_3$ is the pattern obtained by performing a subdivision operation on $P_2$
at parts $U$ and $V$.
Now consider the pattern $Q$ obtained by performing a
subdivision operation on $P_1$ at the parts that are mapped by $h$ to $U$ and $V$.
By our definition of subdivision, it follows that $h$ can be extended
to a homomorphism $h'$ from $Q$ to $P_3$ that preserves parts.
Hence in any sequence of subdivision operations and homomorphisms that preserve parts
we can re-order the operations to perform all subdivisions at the start, and then compose
all the homomorphisms.
\end{proof}
Recall that establishing arc-consistency in an instance $I$ involves removing domain values from $I$ and yields the (unique) instance AC($I$), hence it
cannot introduce an occurrence of a pattern as a sub-pattern or as a topological minor
if it did not already occur. This gives the following result.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:AC}
For any patterns $P$ and $I$, where $I$ represents an instance the following properties hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] If $\SP{P}{\PI{\AC{I}}}$, then $\SP{P}{\PI{I}}$;
\item[(b)] If $\TM{P}{\PI{\AC{I}}}$, then $\TM{P}{\PI{I}}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Establishing arc-consistency can be done in polynomial time,
so for many of our results we will only need to consider arc-consistent CSP instances.
\subsection{Restricted classes of instances}
We can use Definition~\ref{def:sub-pattern} to define restricted classes of
binary CSP instances by forbidding the occurrence of certain patterns
as sub-patterns in those instances.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:CSPSP}
Let $\cal S$ be a set of patterns.
We denote by \ForbSP{\cal S} the set
of all binary CSP instances $I$ such that for all $P \in S$
it is not the case that $\SP{P}{\PI{I}}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
We will say that a pattern $P$ is \emph{sub-pattern tractable} if
\ForbSP{\{P\}} is tractable;
we will say that a pattern $P$ is \emph{sub-pattern $\NP$-complete}
if \ForbSP{\{P\}} is $\NP$-complete.
\end{definition}
For simplicity, we write \ForbSP{P} for \ForbSP{\{P\}}.
The complexity of the class \ForbSP{\cal S} has been determined
for a wide range of patterns~\cite{Cooper10:BTP,Cohen12:pivot,Cooper15:dam}.
In fact, for all \emph{negative} patterns $P$
the complexity of \ForbSP{P}
has been completely characterised~\cite{Cohen12:pivot}.
To define this characterisation, we need to introduce the idea of \emph{star patterns}.
A connected graph $G$ is called a \emph{star} if it is acyclic, and has
exactly one vertex of degree greater than 2.
The vertex of degree greater than 2 in a star graph will
be called the central vertex.
A pattern $P$ will be called a \emph{star pattern}
if it can be obtained from the pattern $\PG{G}$ for some star graph $G$ by merging
zero or more points in the part of $\PG{G}$ corresponding to the central vertex of $G$.
\begin{example}
\label{ex:starpatterns}
Since the empty graph is a star graph,
the simplest star pattern is the empty pattern, which has no points.
Some other examples of star patterns are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:NPCstars}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\thicklines \setlength{\unitlength}{0.7pt}
\centering
\begin{picture}(500,140)(0,0)
\put(0,10){
\begin{picture}(180,130)(-80,0)
\put(0,0){\usebox{\varone}}
\put(0,60){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(-40,90){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(-80,60){\usebox{\varone}}
\dashline[50]{7}(-30,120)(10,70)
\dashline[50]{7}(-70,80)(-30,100)
\put(40,30){\usebox{\varone}} \put(80,30){\usebox{\varone}}
\dashline[50]{7}(10,20)(50,50) \dashline[50]{7}(10,90)(50,50)
\dashline[50]{7}(50,50)(90,50) \put(50,0){\makebox(0,0){(a)}} \end{picture}}
\put(240,10){
\begin{picture}(100,90)(0,0)
\put(0,0){\usebox{\varone}} \put(0,60){\usebox{\varone}} \put(80,0){\usebox{\varone}} \put(80,60){\usebox{\varone}} \put(40,25){\usebox{\varfour}} \dashline[50]{7}(10,20)(50,35)
\dashline[50]{7}(10,80)(50,45) \dashline[50]{7}(50,55)(90,20)
\dashline[50]{7}(50,65)(90,80) \put(50,0){\makebox(0,0){(b)}} \end{picture}}
\put(400,10){
\begin{picture}(100,90)(0,0)
\put(0,0){\usebox{\varone}} \put(0,60){\usebox{\varone}} \put(80,0){\usebox{\varone}} \put(80,60){\usebox{\varone}} \put(40,30){\usebox{\varone}} \dashline[50]{7}(10,20)(50,50)
\dashline[50]{7}(10,80)(50,50) \dashline[50]{7}(50,50)(90,20)
\dashline[50]{7}(50,50)(90,80) \put(50,0){\makebox(0,0){(c)}} \end{picture}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Examples of star patterns.}
\label{fig:NPCstars}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\begin{definition}[\cite{Cohen12:pivot}]
\label{def:pivotk}
For any $k \geq 1$, the star pattern with 3 branches, each of length $k$,
where exactly two points are merged in the central part,
as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pivot}, is called Pivot($k$).
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\thicklines \setlength{\unitlength}{0.7pt}
\centering
\begin{picture}(380,125)
\put(0,80){\usebox{\varii}}
\put(80,80){\usebox{\varii}} \put(130,80){\usebox{\varii}}
\put(180,60){\usebox{\varii}} \put(230,80){\usebox{\varii}}
\put(280,80){\usebox{\varii}} \put(360,80){\usebox{\varii}}
\put(0,20){\usebox{\varii}} \put(80,20){\usebox{\varii}}
\put(130,20){\usebox{\varii}}
\dashline[50]{7}(10,110)(35,100)
\dashline[50]{7}(65,100)(90,90) \dashline[50]{7}(90,110)(140,90)
\dashline[50]{7}(140,110)(190,90) \dashline[50]{7}(190,90)(240,110)
\dashline[50]{7}(240,90)(290,110) \dashline[50]{7}(290,90)(315,100)
\dashline[50]{7}(345,370,110) \dashline[50]{7}(10,30)(35,40)
\dashline[50]{7}(65,40)(90,50) \dashline[50]{7}(90,30)(140,50)
\dashline[50]{7}(140,30)(190,70) \dashline[50]{7}(345,100)(370,110)
\put(50,100){\makebox(0,0){.\;.\;.}} \put(50,40){\makebox(0,0){.\;.\;.}}
\put(330,100){\makebox(0,0){.\;.\;.}}
\put(0,0){\makebox(200,280){$\overbrace{\makebox(180,0){}}^{\mbox{$k$ edges}}$}}
\put(0,0){\makebox(200,0){$\underbrace{\makebox(180,0){}}_{\mbox{$k$ edges}}$}}
\put(0,0){\makebox(565,80){$\underbrace{\makebox(180,0){}}_{\mbox{$k$ edges}}$}}
\end{picture}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\caption{The pattern Pivot($k$).
}
\label{fig:pivot}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}[\cite{Cohen12:pivot}]
\label{thm:pivotSPtractable}
For any $k \geq 1$, the negative pattern Pivot(k) shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pivot}
is sub-pattern tractable, as are all negative patterns $P$ such that
$\SP{P}{Pivot(k)}$; all other negative patterns are sub-pattern $\NP$-complete.
\end{theorem}
To go beyond this result and define a wider range of restricted classes
we use Definition~\ref{def:top-minor}
to define restricted classes of binary CSP instances by forbidding
the occurrence of certain patterns as topological minors in those instances.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:CSPTM}
Let $\cal S$ be a set of patterns.
We denote by \ForbTM{\cal S} the set
of all binary CSP instances $I$ such that for all $P \in S$
it is not the case that $\TM{P}{\PI{I}}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
We will say that a pattern $P$ is \emph{topological-minor tractable} if
\ForbTM{\{P\}} is tractable;
we will say that a pattern $P$ is \emph{topological-minor $\NP$-complete} if
\ForbTM{\{P\}} is $\NP$-complete.
\end{definition}
For simplicity, we write \ForbTM{P} for \ForbTM{\{P\}}.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:properties}\,\ref{lem:propSPimpliesTM},
if $P$ occurs as a sub-pattern of some pattern $Q$, then it also
occurs as a topological minor of $Q$.
Hence for any pattern $P$ we have that
$\ForbTM{P} \subseteq \ForbSP{P}$.
The following is an immediate consequence.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:sp}
If a pattern $P$ is sub-pattern tractable then $P$ is also topological-minor tractable.
\end{lemma}
\begin{example}
\label{ex:1a1bSPandTMtractable}
The two patterns shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(a) and~\ref{fig:sp}(b)
are known to be sub-pattern
tractable~\cite{Cooper15:dam,EscamocherThesis}. Hence, they are
also topological-minor tractable, by Lemma~\ref{lem:sp}.
\end{example}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:properties}\,\ref{lem:propTMtrans},
if $P$ occurs as a topological minor in $Q$ then
$\ForbTM{P} \subseteq \ForbTM{Q}$.
The following is an immediate consequence.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:trans}
If pattern $P \stackrel{TM}{\rightarrow} Q$, and $Q$
is topological-minor tractable, then $P$ is also topological-minor tractable.
\end{lemma}
\begin{example}
\label{ex:figSPisTMtractable}
We can deduce from Lemma~\ref{lem:trans} that
Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(d) is topological-minor tractable, since
Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(d) occurs as a sub-pattern (and hence also as a topological minor)
in Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(b),
and we have already seen that Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(b) is topological-minor
tractable.
Similarly, Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(c) is topological-minor tractable, since
Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(c) occurs as a topological minor in Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(d).
However, Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(c) is sub-pattern $\NP$-complete, since it
cannot occur as a sub-pattern of any instance, so for this pattern P,
\ForbSP{P} contains all possible CSP instances.
\end{example}
The topological-minor tractability of the pattern in Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(c) has a simple corollary.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:2var}
All 2-part patterns are topological-minor tractable.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $P$ be an arbitrary 2-part pattern with parts $U$ and $V$
and let $Q$ be the pattern in Figure~\ref{fig:sp}(c).
The function which maps all of $U$ to one point of $Q$
and all of $V$ to the other point of $Q$
is necessarily a homomorphism from $P$ to $Q$ that preserves parts,
since $Q$ has both a positive and a negative edge between these points,
so $P \stackrel{SP}{\rightarrow} Q$ and hence $P \stackrel{TM}{\rightarrow} Q$.
It was shown in Example~\ref{ex:figSPisTMtractable} that $Q$ is
topological-minor tractable, so by Lemma~\ref{lem:trans},
it follows that $P$ is topological-minor tractable.
\end{proof}
For some patterns $P$, the sets \ForbSP{P} and \ForbTM{P} are identical,
as our next result shows.
A pattern $P$ will be called
\emph{star-like} if removing the positive edges from $P$
gives a negative pattern $P'$ such that $\SP{P'}{P''}$ for some
star pattern $P''$.
\begin{example}
\label{ex:starlike}
All of the patterns in Figure~\ref{fig:sp} and Figure~\ref{fig:NPCstars} are star-like,
but the pattern shown in Figure~\ref{fig:acyclic} is not star-like.
\end{example}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:star}
If $P$ is a star-like negative pattern, then $\ForbTM{P} = \ForbSP{P}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:properties}\,\ref{lem:propSPimpliesTM},
for any pattern $P$ we have that
$\ForbTM{P} \subseteq \ForbSP{P}$.
To obtain the reverse inclusion,
let $P$ be a star-like negative pattern,
and let $Q$ be a star pattern such that $\SP{P}{Q}$.
By the definition of star pattern, for any subdivision $Q'$ of $Q$,
we have that $\SP{Q}{Q'}$.
Hence, by Lemma~\ref{lem:properties}\,\ref{lem:propSPtrans}
$\SP{P}{Q'}$, so $\ForbSP{P} \subseteq \ForbSP{Q'}$.
But this implies, by Definition~\ref{def:top-minor}, that
$\ForbSP{P} \subseteq \ForbTM{P}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:pivotSPtractable}, any pattern Pivot($k$) is sub-pattern tractable,
and by Proposition~\ref{prop:star} we know that forbidding Pivot($k$) as a
topological minor defines the same set of instances as forbidding
Pivot($k$) as a sub-pattern.
Therefore, for any $k \geq 1$, the pattern Pivot($k$) is also topological-minor tractable.
Similarly,
by Theorem~\ref{thm:pivotSPtractable}, each star pattern $P$
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:NPCstars} is sub-pattern $\NP$-complete.
By Proposition~\ref{prop:star}, for each of these patterns
$\ForbTM{P} = \ForbSP{P}$.
Consequently, these patterns are also topological-minor $\NP$-complete.
\end{example}
We now give a partial converse of Proposition~\ref{prop:star},
by showing that for all patterns $P$ that are not star-like,
\ForbTM{P} cannot be expressed by forbidding
any finite set of sub-patterns. This means that the notion of forbidding the occurrence of
a pattern as a topological minor provides more expressive power than forbidding
arbitrary (finite) sets of patterns from occurring as sub-patterns.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:notstarlike}
If $P$ is a pattern that is not star-like, then
$\ForbTM{P} \neq\ \ForbSP{\cal S}$
for all finite sets of patterns $\cal S$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $P$ be a pattern that is not star-like, and let $P'$ be the negative pattern obtained
by removing all positive edges of $P$.
Note that $\SP{P'}{P}$.
In any pattern, say that a part $U$ is \emph{distinguished} if two
negative edges share a single point in $U$
or if there are negative edges from $U$ to more than two other parts.
Since $P$ is not star-like, the negative pattern $P'$ must contains a
cycle of parts connected by negative edges,
or two distinguished parts.
Hence, for any fixed $k$, by a sufficiently long
sequence of subdivision operations, we can construct a subdivision $P''$ of $P'$
which either has a cycle of parts of length greater than $k$ or two
distinguished parts separated by a sequence of connected parts of length greater than $k$.
By adding positive edges, we can then convert $P''$ into a complete pattern
of the form $\PI{I}$ for some CSP instance $I$.
Now for any fixed finite set of patterns $\cal S$ there will be a bound $k$ on
the number of parts of any pattern in $\cal S$.
It follows that \ForbTM{P} cannot be defined by forbidding the sub-patterns in $\cal S$,
since $I \notin \ForbTM{P}$ but no pattern in $\cal S$
can occur as a sub-pattern in $\PI{I}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Structural restrictions}
\label{sec:structural}
For any CSP instance $I=\tuple{V,D,C}$, the \emph{constraint graph} of $I$
is defined to be the graph $\tuple{V,E}$, where $E$ is the set of pairs $\{x,y\}$
for which the associated constraint $R_{xy}$ is non-trivial.
A number of tractable subproblems of the CSP have been defined by specifying
restrictions on the constraint graph; such restricted classes of instances are known as
\emph{structural classes}~\cite{Grohe07:otherside,DBLP:journals/jacm/Marx13}.
It is known that a structural class of binary CSP instances is tractable if and only if
every instance has a constraint graph of bounded treewidth~\cite[Theorem~5.1]{Grohe07:otherside}
(subject to the standard complexity-theoretic assumption that $\FPT \neq \WW$, which we will assume throughout this section~\cite{Downey99:parametrized,Flum06:parametrized}).
We show in this section that such classes cannot be defined by forbidding
the occurrence of a finite set of sub-patterns.
However, they \emph{can} be defined by forbidding the occurrence of one or more
patterns as topological minors.
We will also use this characterisation of tractable structural classes
to show that a large class of negative patterns are topological minor tractable.
First we extend the notion of a constraint graph to arbitrary patterns.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:constraintgraphpattern}
For any pattern $P$, the \emph{constraint graph} of $P$, denoted $\CG{P}$,
is defined to be the graph $\tuple{V,E}$, where
$V$ is the set of all parts of $P$, and $E$ is the set of pairs of parts $\{U,W\}$
such that there is a negative edge $(x,y) \in P$ with $x \in U$ and $y \in W$.
\end{definition}
For any binary CSP instance $I$, the constraint graph of $I$ is given by $\CG{\PI{I}}$.
Now we note the close link between
our notion of a pattern occurring as a topological minor of another pattern
and the standard notion of a topological minor in a graph~\cite{Diestel10:graph}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:graphtopminor}
For any graph $G$ and any pattern $P$,
$\TM{\PG{G}}{P}$ if and only if
$G$ is a topological minor of the graph $\CG{P}$.
\end{lemma}
The simplest structural class of CSP instances of bounded treewidth is the class
of instances whose constraint graph is acyclic (that is, has treewidth 1).
This class was one of the first sub-problems of the CSP to be shown to be tractable~\cite{Freuder82:backtrack-free}.
We now show that this class can be characterised very simply by excluding
the single pattern $\PG{C_3}$ shown in Figure~\ref{fig:acyclic}
from occurring as a topological minor.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:acyclic}
The class of acyclic binary CSP instances equals $\ForbTM{\PG{C_3}}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The class of acyclic graphs may be characterised as graphs which do not contain $C_3$
as a topological minor~\cite{Diestel10:graph}.
Hence, by Lemma~\ref{lem:graphtopminor} and Definition~\ref{def:constraintgraphpattern},
a binary CSP instance $I$ is acyclic if and only if
it is not the case that $\TM{\PG{C_3}}{\PI{I}}$.
\end{proof}
Since the pattern $\PG{C_3}$ is not star-like (see Example~\ref{ex:starlike}),
it follows immediately from Proposition~\ref{prop:notstarlike} that
acyclic CSP instances cannot be defined by any finite set of forbidden sub-patterns.
\begin{corollary}
The class of acyclic binary CSP instances is not equal to
\ForbSP{\cal S} for any finite set of patterns $\cal S$.
\end{corollary}
Proposition~\ref{prop:acyclic}
can easily be extended to any of the tractable classes of binary CSP instances
defined by imposing any fixed bound on the treewidth of the constraint
graph~\cite{Freuder85:backtrack-bounded}, although in this case the set of of
forbidden patterns is explicitly known only for $k\leq 3$~\cite{Arnborg90:forbidden}.
\begin{theorem}
For any fixed $k\geq 1$, the class of binary CSP instances with constraint
graphs of treewidth at most $k$ equals \ForbTM{{\cal S}_k}
for some finite set of patterns ${\cal S}_k$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The graph minor theorem~\cite{Robertson04:jctb} implies that for any fixed
$k\geq 1$ there is a finite set $O_k$ of graphs such that the class of graphs of
treewidth at most $k$ is precisely the class of graphs excluding all graphs from
the set $O_k$ as topological minors~\cite{Diestel10:graph}. (More precisely, the
graph minor theorem gives a finite set of minors as obstructions but this set
can be turned into a finite set of
topological minors as obstructions in a standard way,
see~\cite[Exercise 34, Chapter 12]{Diestel10:graph}.)
Consequently, by Lemma~\ref{lem:graphtopminor},
for any $k\geq 1$ the class of binary CSP instances with
constraint graphs of treewidth at most $k$ can be defined
as $\ForbTM{{\cal S}_k}$ for the finite set of negative patterns ${\cal S}_k$
given by ${\cal S}_k = \{\PG{G} \mid G\in O_k\}$.
\end{proof}
In fact, we are able to show that many other patterns are topological-minor tractable
using other standard results from graph theory.
The following theorem characterises the topological-minor tractability of patterns of the
form $\PG{G}$, for all graphs $G$ of maximum degree three.
\begin{theorem}
Let $G$ be an arbitrary graph of maximum degree three.
Then, \PG{G} is topological-minor tractable if and only if $G$ is planar
\emph{(}assuming $\FPT \neq \WW$\emph{)}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
One of the well-known results of Robertson and Seymour shows that the class of graphs obtained
by excluding $G$ as a minor has bounded treewidth if and only if $G$ is
planar~\cite{Robertson86:excluding} (see also~\cite[Theorem~12.4.3]{Diestel10:graph}).
It is known that for a graph $G$ of maximum degree three and any graph $G'$, $G$
is a minor of $G'$ if and only if $G$ is a topological minor of
$G'$~\cite[Proposition~1.7.4~(ii)]{Diestel10:graph}.
Thus, for a graph $G$ of maximum degree three, the class of graphs obtained by
excluding $G$ as a topological minor has bounded treewidth if and only if $G$ is
planar.
The theorem then follows from the fact that,
assuming $\FPT \neq \WW$, a structural class of binary CSP instances is
tractable if and only if the associated class of constraint graphs is of bounded
treewidth~\cite{Grohe07:otherside}.
\end{proof}
Unfortunately this result does not extend to graphs of higher degree, as the following
example shows.
\begin{example}
Consider a star graph $G$ where the central vertex has degree 4.
Note that $G$ is planar.
In all subdivisions of $G$, the central vertex still has degree 4,
so it cannot occur as a topological minor in any graph of maximum degree three.
Hence, by Lemma~\ref{lem:graphtopminor}, $\PG{G}$ cannot occur as a topological minor in
any CSP instance whose constraint graph is a hexagonal grid.
Since the treewidth of the class of hexagonal grids is unbounded~\cite{Diestel10:graph},
this structural class of CSP instances is intractable, assuming $\FPT \neq \WW$,
by the results of~\cite{Grohe07:otherside}.
\end{example}
\section{Tractable classes that generalise acyclicity}
\label{sec:scheme}
In this section we will give several more examples of patterns that are
topological-minor tractable.
We conclude the section with Theorem~\ref{thm:P2}
where we define several new tractable classes which properly extend
the class of acyclic CSP instances discussed in Section~\ref{sec:structural}.
\begin{figure}
\thicklines \setlength{\unitlength}{0.7pt}
\centering
\begin{picture}(350,140)(50,-20)
\put(0,10){
\begin{picture}(90,90)(0,0)
\put(0,40){\usebox{\varone}} \put(60,40){\usebox{\varone}}
\put(30,0){\usebox{\varone}}
\dashline[50]{7}(40,20)(70,60) \dashline[50]{7}(10,60)(70,60)
\put(42,-20){\makebox(0,0){$J$}}
\end{picture}}
\put(120,10){
\begin{picture}(100,100)(0,0)
\put(0,60){\usebox{\vartwo}} \put(40,0){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(80,70){\usebox{\varone}} \dashline[50]{7}(10,70)(50,30)
\dashline[50]{7}(10,90)(90,90) \dashline[50]{7}(50,10)(90,90)
\put(50,-20){\makebox(0,0){$K$}}
\end{picture}}
\put(260,40){
\begin{picture}(130,100)(0,0)
\put(0,0){\usebox{\varone}} \put(50,0){\usebox{\varone}}
\put(100,0){\usebox{\varone}} \put(150,0){\usebox{\varone}}
\dashline[50]{7}(10,20)(60,20) \dashline[50]{7}(60,20)(110,20)
\dashline[50]{7}(110,20)(160,20) \put(85,-10){\makebox(0,0){$L$}}
\end{picture}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Three patterns which are topological-minor tractable.}
\label{fig:new}
\end{figure}
Consider the patterns shown in Figure~\ref{fig:new}.
By Theorem~\ref{thm:pivotSPtractable},
$J$ is sub-pattern tractable and hence also topological-minor tractable,
by Lemma~\ref{lem:sp}.
However, the remaining patterns, $K$ and $L$ are more interesting.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:KisTMtractable}
The pattern $K$, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:new}, is
sub-pattern $\NP$-complete but topological-minor tractable.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:pivotSPtractable}, $K$ is sub-pattern $\NP$-complete.
Now consider an instance $I$ in which the pattern $K$
does not occur as a topological minor, and let $G_I$ be the
constraint graph of $I$.
Suppose the pattern $J$, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:new}, occurs as a sub-pattern on the triple of variables $(x,y,z)$
in $I$, with $y$ being the variable at which the two negative edges meet.
Since $K$ does not occur as a topological minor in $I$, it follows
that there is no path from $x$ to $z$ in $G_I$ that does not pass through $y$.
We can therefore find a tree-decomposition of $G_I$ into components in which $J$
does not occur as a sub-pattern, where these components overlap only at such variables $y$,
which we can call articulation variables.
Since \ForbSP{J} is tractable, as noted above,
any subinstance corresponding to a leaf component can be solved in polynomial time
for each possible assignment to the unique articulation variable
which joins it to its parent component in the tree-decomposition.
This leads to the elimination of the leaf component and possible
elimination of some values in the domain of this articulation
variable. The original instance $I$ can be solved in polynomial time by
repeatedly solving and eliminating sub-instances corresponding to leaf components in this way.
\end{proof}
We will show in Theorem~\ref{thm:line} below
that the pattern $L$ shown in Figure~\ref{fig:new} is also topological-minor tractable.
In order to do so, we will extend the proof technique used in
Theorem~\ref{thm:KisTMtractable} to a \emph{generic scheme} for proving
topological-minor tractability of patterns.
To develop our generic scheme we need some results from graph theory.
If $T$ is a set of vertices of a graph $G$, we write $G[T]$ for the
induced graph on $T$. We say that \tuple{T_1,T_2} is a
\emph{separation} of $G$ if $G = G[T_1] \cup G[T_2]$. The
\emph{separator} of the separation \tuple{T_1,T_2} is $T_1 \cap T_2$
and its \emph{order} is $| T_1 \cap T_2|$.
The \emph{torso} of $T_1$ in the separation \tuple{T_1,T_2}
is obtained from the induced graph $G[T_1]$
by adding every edge between the vertices of the separator.
A \emph{Tutte decomposition} of a graph $G$ is a tree, where each
node is labelled with a subset of the vertices of $G$, each arc
induces a separation of $G$ of order at most two, and the torso of
each node is three-connected, or a cycle, or has at most 2 vertices.
It is known that every finite graph has a Tutte decomposition of this
kind~\cite{Tutte66:connectivity}.
To demonstrate topological-minor tractability for a pattern $P$ we proceed as follows.
Let $I$ be an instance in which $P$ does not occur as a topological minor and
let $G_I$ be its constraint graph.
We denote by $n$ the number of variables in $I$
and by $d$ the maximum domain size of any variable in $I$.
Build a Tutte decomposition of $G_I$, and
consider any leaf node $S$ in this decomposition, inducing the separation
\tuple{S,T} of $G_I$.
Let $I[S]$ be the subinstance
of $I$ on the variables of $S$.
Suppose that the following two assumptions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(\textbf{A1})]
$I[S]$ can be solved and its solutions projected onto the
separator of \tuple{S,T} in polynomial time;
the resulting reduced instance on $T$ will be denoted by $I'[T]$.
\item[(\textbf{A2})]
$P$ does not occur as a topological minor in $\PI{I'[T]}$.
\end{enumerate}
Then it follows that a recursive algorithm, which
at each step chooses some leaf $S$ of the decomposition,
and then solves the associated sub-problem $I[S]$
to obtain the reduced instance $I'[T]$,
will solve the original instance using a
polynomial (in $n$ and $d$) number of calls to the polynomial-time algorithm from
(\textbf{A1}).
In the proofs below we will omit the simple cases
where the separator has order less than two,
or $S$ contains at most 3 vertices,
or the torso of $S$ is a cycle (and hence has treewidth 2
and is solvable in polynomial time).
Hence we will assume that the torso of $S$ contains more than three vertices
and is three-connected.
Finally, note that if $\{u,v\}$ is an order-2 separator
for some separation \tuple{S,T} of $G_I$
then we have the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item Any path in $G_I$ from a vertex in $S$ to a vertex in $T$
must pass through $u$ or $v$;
\item There must exist some path from $u$ to $v$ in $G_I[T]$,
which we will denote $path_{T}(u,v)$.
\end{itemize}
We now use this generic scheme to prove the tractability of pattern $L$ from
Figure~\ref{fig:new}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:line}
The pattern $L$, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:new}, is sub-pattern $\NP$-complete
but topological-minor tractable.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:pivotSPtractable}, $L$ is sub-pattern $\NP$-complete.
To establish topological-minor tractability using the generic scheme we only only need to establish the two assumptions.
(\textbf{A1})\quad
Let $J$ be the pattern consisting of two intersecting negative edges, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:new}.
Suppose that $J$ occurs in $\PI{I[S]}$ as a sub-pattern on two \emph{disjoint} triples
of variables $(x,y,z)$ and $(x',y',z')$ in $I[S]$.
As explained above for the generic scheme, we can assume
that the torso of $S$ is 3-connected.
It follows by Menger's theorem~\cite{Dirac66:Menger} that there are
three disjoint paths from $x$ to $x'$ in the torso of $S$.
There must be one of these paths, $\pi$, which does
not pass through $y$ or $y'$. Hence there must be a subpath $\sigma$ of $\pi$
which begins at $x$ or $z$ and ends at $x'$ or $z'$ (or vice versa,
i.e., which begins at $x'$ or $z'$ and ends at $x$ or $z$) and which does not
pass through any other variables in $\{x,y,z,x',y',z'\}$. Without loss of
generality, suppose that $\sigma$ joins $x$ to $x'$. But then $L$ occurs
as a topological minor on the extended path $\sigma^{+}$
given by $z \rightarrow y \rightarrow x, \sigma,
x' \rightarrow y' \rightarrow z'$.
But this implies that $L$ occurs as a
topological minor in $\PI{I}$, since if $\sigma^{+}$ passes
by the edge $\{u,v\}$ in the torso of $S$, this edge can be replaced
by $path_T(u,v)$ which is a path from $u$ to $v$ in $T$, whose
existence was noted in the discussion above.
Since this contradicts
our initial assumption, we can deduce that
$J$ does not occur in $\PI{I[S]}$ as a sub-pattern on two \emph{disjoint} triples.
We can therefore deduce that all pairs of triples of variables
$(x,y,z)$, $(x',y',z')$ for which $J$ occurs as a sub-pattern in
$\PI{I[S]}
$ intersect, i.e. $\{x,y,z\} \cap \{x',y',z'\} \neq \emptyset$.
Now, consider an arbitrary
triple of variables $(x,y,z)$ on which $J$ occurs as a sub-pattern.
It follows that the instance which results after any instantiation (and removal) of
the three variables $x,y,z$ contains no occurrence of $J$ as a sub-pattern, since for
each triple of variables $(x',y',z')$ on which $J$ occurs in $I[S]$, at least
one of its variables has been eliminated by instantiation.
Thus, after instantiation of at most three variables, $\PI{I[S]}$
does not contain $J$ as a sub-pattern. This also holds for
any version of $I[S]$ obtained by instantiating the variables $u,v$.
As noted above, \ForbSP{J} is tractable.
We can therefore determine in polynomial time which instantiations of
$u,v$ can be extended to a solution of $I[S]$.
We remove the pair $(p,q)$ from $R_{uv}$ in $I$
whenever the assignment of $p$ to $u$ and $q$ to $v$
cannot be extended to a solution to $I[S]$.
Finally, we delete all variables in $S$ from $I$ apart from $u$ and $v$.
Proceeding in this way we construct $I'[T]$ in polynomial time as required.
(\textbf{A2}):\quad
Suppose, for a contradiction, that we introduce some occurrence of the pattern $L$ as a
topological minor in $\PI{I'[T]}$ when reducing $I$ to $I'[T]$.
This occurrence of $L$ must use a newly-introduced edge in $I'[T]$.
During the reduction from $I$ to $I'[T]$,
we can introduce negative (but not positive) edges in $\PI{I'[T]}$
between the parts corresponding to $u$ and $v$.
Suppose that a negative edge $(p,q)$ is introduced by the reduction
from $I$ to $I'[T]$.
This can only be the case if there was a path $\pi = (u,w_1,\ldots,w_t,v)$
in the constraint graph $G_I[S]$
and hence a sequence of negative edges between the corresponding parts in $\PI{I[S]}$
linking $p$ to $q$.
This means that we can replace the newly-introduced edge
in the occurrence of $L$ in $\PI{I'[T]}$ by a sequence of negative edges
so that $L$ occurs as a topological minor in $\PI{I}$ for the original instance $I$.
This contradiction shows that we cannot introduce $L$ as a topological
minor in $\PI{I'[T]}$ when reducing $I$ to $I'[T]$.
Hence we have established both assumptions, so the result follows by our generic proof scheme.
Note that the number of instances of \ForbSP{J} that need to be solved
is $O(nd^5)$.
\end{proof}
As our final result in this section we show how the well-known tractable class
of acyclic instances can be generalised to obtain larger tractable classes
defined by forbidding the occurrence of certain patterns as topological minors.
The main tool we use will again be the generic scheme based on Tutte decompositions
described above.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:P2}
Let $P_0$ be any sub-pattern tractable pattern with three parts,
$U_1,U_2,U_3$ where there is at most one negative edge between $U_1$
and $U_2$, and between $U_2$ and $U_3$, and no edges between $U_1$ and $U_3$.
Let $P$ be a pattern with four parts $U_1,U_2,U_3,U_4$ obtained by extending $P_0$ as follows.
The pattern $P$ has six new points $p_1,p_2 \in U_1$, $q_1,q_2 \in U_4$,
and $r_1,r_2 \in U_3$, together with three new
negative edges $\{p_1,r_1\}$, $\{p_2,q_1\}$, $\{q_2,r_2\}$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:newfromthm}).
Any such $P$ is topological-minor tractable.
\end{theorem}
\thicklines \setlength{\unitlength}{0.7pt}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{picture}(360,250)(0,0)
\put(60,130){\begin{picture}(100,120)(0,0)
\put(0,40){\usebox{\varthree}} \put(40,0){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(80,40){\usebox{\varthree}} \put(40,80){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(50,110){\line(1,-1){40}} \put(10,70){\line(1,1){40}}
\dashline[50]{7}(10,70)(50,90) \dashline[50]{7}(50,90)(90,70)
\dashline[50]{7}(10,60)(90,60) \dashline[50]{7}(10,50)(50,30)
\dashline[50]{7}(50,10)(90,50)
\put(0,90){\makebox(0,0){$U_1$}}
\put(100,90){\makebox(0,0){$U_3$}}
\put(73,112){\makebox(0,0){$U_2$}}
\put(50,-10){\makebox(0,0){$U_4$}}
\put(-7,50){\makebox(0,0){$p_2$}}
\put(-7,60){\makebox(0,0){$p_1$}}
\put(108,50){\makebox(0,0){$r_2$}}
\put(108,60){\makebox(0,0){$r_1$}}
\put(33,30){\makebox(0,0){$q_2$}}
\put(33,10){\makebox(0,0){$q_1$}}
\end{picture}}
\put(180,130){
\begin{picture}(100,120)(0,0)
\put(0,40){\usebox{\varfour}} \put(40,0){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(80,40){\usebox{\varthree}} \put(40,80){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(50,110){\line(1,-1){40}} \put(10,80){\line(4,1){40}}
\put(10,80){\line(4,3){40}} \dashline[50]{7}(10,70)(50,90)
\dashline[50]{7}(50,90)(90,70) \dashline[50]{7}(10,60)(90,60)
\dashline[50]{7}(10,50)(50,30) \dashline[50]{7}(50,10)(90,50)
\end{picture}}
\put(0,10){\begin{picture}(100,120)(0,0)
\put(0,40){\usebox{\varfour}} \put(40,0){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(80,40){\usebox{\varthree}} \put(40,80){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(50,90){\line(2,-1){40}} \put(10,80){\line(4,1){40}}
\put(10,80){\line(4,3){40}} \dashline[50]{7}(10,70)(50,90)
\dashline[50]{7}(50,110)(90,70) \dashline[50]{7}(10,60)(90,60)
\dashline[50]{7}(10,50)(50,30) \dashline[50]{7}(50,10)(90,50)
\end{picture}}
\put(120,10){
\begin{picture}(100,120)(0,0)
\put(0,40){\usebox{\varthree}} \put(40,0){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(80,40){\usebox{\varthree}} \put(40,80){\usebox{\varthree}}
\put(10,70){\line(1,1){40}} \put(50,110){\line(1,-1){40}}
\put(10,70){\line(2,1){40}} \dashline[50]{7}(10,70)(50,100)
\dashline[50]{7}(50,90)(90,70) \dashline[50]{7}(10,60)(90,60)
\dashline[50]{7}(10,50)(50,30) \dashline[50]{7}(50,10)(90,50)
\end{picture}}
\put(240,10){
\begin{picture}(100,120)(0,0)
\put(0,40){\usebox{\varthree}} \put(40,0){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(80,40){\usebox{\varthree}} \put(40,80){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(50,110){\line(1,-1){40}} \put(10,70){\line(2,1){40}}
\dashline[50]{7}(10,70)(50,110) \dashline[50]{7}(50,90)(90,70)
\dashline[50]{7}(10,60)(90,60) \dashline[50]{7}(10,50)(50,30)
\dashline[50]{7}(50,10)(90,50)
\end{picture}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Topological-minor tractable patterns derived from sub-pattern tractable
patterns.}
\label{fig:newfromthm}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}
The proof uses the generic scheme described in Section~\ref{sec:scheme}, so we
only need to establish the two assumptions.
(\textbf{A1})\quad
Suppose first that $P_{0}$ occurs as a sub-pattern in $\PI{I[S]}$ on the
triple of variables $(x,y,z)$. As explained above, when using the generic scheme
we will assume that the torso of $S$ is three-connected. Then, by Menger's theorem
there are three disjoint paths $\pi_1, \pi_2, \pi_3$ from $x$ to $z$
in the torso of $S$.
Hence there must be two of these paths, say $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$,
which do not pass through $y$. But this implies that $P$ occurs as a
topological minor in $\PI{I}$, since if either $\pi_1$ or $\pi_2$ passes
through the edge $\{u,v\}$ in the torso of $S$, this edge can be replaced
by $path_T(u,v)$ which is a path from $u$ to $v$ in $G_I[T]$, whose
existence was shown in the discussion of the generic scheme above.
Since this contradicts our initial assumption, we can assume that $P_0$ does
{\em not} occur as a sub-pattern in $\PI{I[S]}$. This also holds for any
sub-problem of $I[S]$ obtained by instantiating the variables $u,v$.
Therefore, by the sub-pattern tractability of $P_{0}$, we can determine
in polynomial time which instantiations of $u,v$ can be extended to a
solution of $I[S]$.
We remove the pair $(p,q)$ from $R_{uv}$ in $I$
whenever the assignment of $p$ to $u$ and $q$ to $v$
cannot be extended to a solution to $I[S]$.
Finally, we delete all variables in $S$ from $I$ except for $u$ and $v$.
Proceeding in this way we construct $I'[T]$ in polynomial time, as required.
(\textbf{A2})\quad
Suppose, for a
contradiction, that we introduce the pattern $P$ as a topological
minor of $\PI{I'[T]}$ when reducing $I$ to $I'[T]$.
This occurrence of $P$ must use a newly-introduced negative edge.
Observe that, by definition, $P$ contains at
most one negative edge between any two parts.
Suppose that a
negative edge $(p,q)$ is introduced by the reduction from $I$ to $I'[T]$.
This can only be the case if there was a path
$\pi = (u,w_1,\ldots,w_t,v)$ in the constraint graph $G_I[S]$
and hence a sequence of negative edges between the corresponding parts in $\PI{I[S]}$
linking $p$ to $q$.
Furthermore, in $I'[T]$, if there is a positive edge $(p',q')$
between the parts corresponding to $u$ and $v$
then there is necessarily a solution to $I[S]$ including the assignments
$p'$ to $u$ and $q'$ to $v$ (and hence a solution on the subinstance $I[\pi]$ of
$I[S]$ on the path $\pi = (u,w_1,\ldots,w_t,v)$ in $I[S]$).
This means that we can replace the edge $(p,q)$ in the occurrence of
$P$ in $I'[T]$ by a sequence of negative edges
so that $P$ occurs as a topological minor in $\PI{I}$ for the original instance $I$.
This contradiction shows that we cannot introduce an occurrence of $P$ as a
topological minor in $\PI{I'[T]}$ by reducing $I$ to $I'[T]$.
Hence we have established both assumptions, so the result follows by our generic proof scheme.
Note that the number of instances of $\ForbSP{P_0}$ that need to be solved is $O(nd^2)$.
\end{proof}
Theorem~\ref{thm:P2} tells us that any pattern $P_0$ satisfying the conditions of the theorem
can be used as a building block for a
topological-minor tractable pattern by adding two paths of negative
edges. The resulting topological-minor tractable patterns
for all such patterns $P_0$ are shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:newfromthm}. For each of these patterns $P$,
the pattern shown in Figure~\ref{fig:acyclic} occurs as a sub-pattern
and hence as a topological minor of $P$. Thus, by the transitivity of
occurrence as a topological minor, each tractable class
\ForbTM{P} necessarily contains all acyclic binary CSP instances.
All of the tractable classes identified in this section rely on finding a
Tutte decomposition of the constraint graph of an instance and showing
that a certain pattern does not occur as a sub-pattern in any node of the
decomposition.
Since detecting whether a fixed pattern occurs as a sub-pattern can
be done in polynomial time~\cite{Cohen12:pivot}, and constructing a
Tutte decomposition is also polynomial-time, all the tractable classes
described in this section can be identified in polynomial-time.
\section{Detection of topological minors}
For every fixed undirected graph $H$, there is an $O(n^3)$ time
algorithm that tests, given a graph $G$ with $n$ vertices, if $H$ is a topological
minor of $G$~\cite{DBLP:conf/stoc/GroheKMW11}.
However, for detecting topological minors in patterns the situation is
different. For some patterns $P$ it is possible to decide in polynomial time whether
$P$ occurs as a topological minor of a given pattern $P'$.
For example, by Lemma~\ref{lem:graphtopminor}, deciding whether a negative pattern
of the form $\PG{G}$ for some graph $G$ occurs as a topological
minor in a pattern $P'$ amounts to detecting whether
$G$ is a topological minor of the constraint graph of $P'$, and hence
can be achieved in polynomial time~\cite{DBLP:conf/stoc/GroheKMW11}.
By Proposition~\ref{prop:star},
deciding whether a star-like negative pattern occurs as a topological minor in an instance
can also be achieved in
polynomial time because this is equivalent to deciding whether it
occurs as a sub-pattern, which is achievable in polynomial time by exhaustive
search.
It follows from our observations at the end of Section~\ref{sec:scheme}
that deciding whether any of the patterns shown in Figure~\ref{fig:new}
or Figure~\ref{fig:newfromthm} occur as a topological minor in
an instance can also be done in polynomial time.
However, for some patterns (such as the 4-part pattern $M$ shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:patternPXX}), it is $\coNP$-complete to determine whether
the pattern occurs as a topological minor in an arbitrary given pattern,
as our next results show.
Characterising all patterns $P$ for which it is possible to decide in polynomial time whether
$P$ occurs as a topological minor in a given pattern $P'$
remains an open problem.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\thicklines \setlength{\unitlength}{0.7pt}
\centering
\begin{picture}(300,80)(0,0)
\put(80,0){
\begin{picture}(140,50)(0,-20)
\put(0,0){\usebox{\vartwo}} \put(40,0){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(80,0){\usebox{\vartwo}} \put(120,0){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(10,30){\line(1,0){40}} \put(10,30){\line(2,-1){40}}
\put(10,10){\line(2,1){40}} \put(50,30){\line(1,0){40}}
\put(90,30){\line(1,0){40}} \put(90,30){\line(2,-1){40}}
\put(90,10){\line(2,1){40}} \dashline[50]{7}(10,10)(50,10)
\dashline[50]{7}(90,10)(130,10)
\put(75,-20){\makebox(0,0){$M$}}
\end{picture}
}
\end{picture}
\caption{A pattern that is coNP-complete to detect as a topological minor.}
\label{fig:patternPXX}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\thicklines \setlength{\unitlength}{0.7pt}
\centering
\begin{picture}(300,380)(0,-40)
\put(0,170){
\begin{picture}(300,130)(-20,-25)
\put(0,20){\usebox{\varone}} \put(40,0){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(80,0){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(140,0){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(200,0){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(40,50){\usebox{\vartwo}} \put(80,50){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(140,50){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(200,50){\usebox{\vartwo}} \put(240,20){\usebox{\varone}}
\put(10,40){\line(2,1){40}} \put(10,40){\line(4,-3){40}}
\put(50,60){\line(1,0){60}}
\thinlines \dottedline{2}(110,60)(125,60) \thicklines
\put(125,60){\line(1,0){45}}
\thinlines \dottedline{2}(170,60)(185,60) \thicklines
\put(185,60){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(50,10){\line(1,0){60}}
\thinlines \dottedline{2}(110,10)(125,10) \thicklines
\put(125,10){\line(1,0){45}}
\thinlines \dottedline{2}(170,10)(185,10) \thicklines
\put(185,10){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(210,60){\line(2,-1){40}} \put(210,10){\line(4,3){40}}
\put(-13,30){\makebox(0,0){$p_{i-1}$}}
\put(270,30){\makebox(0,0){$p_{i}$}}
\put(40,99){\makebox(0,0){$v_{i1}$}}
\put(80,99){\makebox(0,0){$v_{i2}$}}
\put(190,99){\makebox(0,0){$v_{im}$}}
\put(40,-10){\makebox(0,0){$\overline{v}_{i1}$}}
\put(80,-10){\makebox(0,0){$\overline{v}_{i2}$}}
\put(190,-10){\makebox(0,0){$\overline{v}_{im}$}}
\put(130,-28){\makebox(0,0){(a)}}
\end{picture}}
\put(0,0){
\begin{picture}(150,140)(-30,0)
\put(0,50){\usebox{\varone}} \put(40,0){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(40,50){\usebox{\vartwo}} \put(40,100){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(80,50){\usebox{\varone}} \put(10,70){\line(1,-1){40}}
\put(10,70){\line(4,1){40}} \put(10,70){\line(2,3){40}}
\put(50,30){\line(1,1){40}} \put(50,80){\line(4,-1){40}}
\put(50,130){\line(2,-3){40}}
\put(-25,60){\makebox(0,0){$p_{n+r-1}$}}
\put(118,60){\makebox(0,0){$p_{n+r}$}}
\put(30,120){\makebox(0,0){$\overline{v}_{jr}$}}
\put(31,65){\makebox(0,0){$v_{kr}$}}
\put(30,20){\makebox(0,0){$\overline{v}_{\ell r}$}}
\put(50,-20){\makebox(0,0){(b)}}
\end{picture}}
\put(200,85){
\begin{picture}(90,50)(-20,-10)
\put(0,0){\usebox{\vartwo}} \put(40,0){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(10,30){\line(1,0){40}} \put(10,30){\line(2,-1){40}}
\put(10,10){\line(2,1){40}}
\put(74,20){\makebox(0,0){$p_{0}$}}
\put(-10,20){\makebox(0,0){$u$}}
\put(30,-20){\makebox(0,0){(c)}}
\end{picture}}
\put(200,0){
\begin{picture}(90,50)(-20,0)
\put(0,0){\usebox{\vartwo}} \put(40,0){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(10,30){\line(1,0){40}} \put(10,30){\line(2,-1){40}}
\put(10,10){\line(2,1){40}}
\put(72,20){\makebox(0,0){$w$}}
\put(-22,20){\makebox(0,0){$p_{n+m}$}}
\put(30,-20){\makebox(0,0){(d)}}
\end{picture}}
\end{picture}
\caption{The building blocks for the CSP
instance $I$ constructed in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:PXX}.}
\label{fig:npc}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:PXX}
The problem of deciding $I \in \ForbTM{M}$ is $\coNP$-complete.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The problem is clearly in $\coNP$, so it suffices to give a reduction
from 3-SAT to the complement of the problem of deciding $I \in \ForbTM{M}$.
Let $I_{SAT}$ be an instance of 3-SAT with variables
$x_1,\ldots,x_n$ and clauses $C_1,\ldots,C_m$. We will create a binary CSP
instance $I$ with variables $\{u,w\} \cup \{p_i\mid i=0\dots n+m\}
\cup \{v_{ir},\overline{v}_{ir}\mid i=1\dots n, r=1\dots m\}$, such
that determining whether $\TM{M}{\PI{I}}$ is equivalent to deciding whether
$I_{SAT}$ has a solution.
Consider the patterns shown in Figure~\ref{fig:npc} where each part is labelled
with a variable of $I$.
Connect with negative edges all pairs of points in different parts in these patterns
that are not already connected, to obtain complete patterns representing sub-instances
of $I$.
The instance $I$ is constructed by combining sub-instances of these four kinds, as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item
For each variable $x_i$ in $I_{SAT}$ we include an instance $I_{x_i}$ obtained from a pattern
of the form shown in Figure~\ref{fig:npc}(a).
\item
For each clause $C_r$ in $I_{SAT}$ we include an instance $I_{C_r}$
obtained from a pattern of the form shown in Figure~\ref{fig:npc}(b),
where the choice of variables for the three central parts
depends on the literals in the clause $C_r$ in the following way:
variable $v_{ir}$ corresponds to
$\neg x_i$ occurring in clause $C_r$ and variable $\overline{v}_{ir}$
corresponds to $x_i$ occurring in clause $C_r$.
That is, the example shown in Figure~\ref{fig:npc}(b) would correspond to the
clause $x_j \vee \neg x_k \vee x_\ell$.
\item
We also include one instance obtained from the pattern
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:npc}(c) and one instance obtained from the pattern
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:npc}(d);
\item Finally, we complete the resulting pattern by adding negative edges
to obtain $\PI{I}$.
\end{itemize}
The only pairs of parts in $\PI{I}$ that are connected by more than one
positive edge are $\{u,p_0\}$ and $\{p_{n+m},w\}$.
So, if $M$ occurs as a topological minor in $\PI{I}$, then the
points of $M$ must map injectively to these two pairs of parts.
Therefore, deciding whether $M$ occurs as a topological minor in $\PI{I}$ is
equivalent to deciding whether there is a path $\pi$ of positive
edges from $p_0$ to $p_{n+m}$ in $\PI{I}$
which passes through each part at most once.
Any such path $\pi$ must pass through the points $p_0,p_1,\ldots,p_{n+m}$ in this order,
because the positive edges in $\PI{I_{x_i}}$ ($1 \leq i \leq n$)
use different points in each part (shown as the bottom of
the two points in Figure~\ref{fig:npc})
from the positive edges in $\PI{I_{C_r}}$ ($1 \leq j \leq m$)
(which use the top points), so there are no short-cuts.
If such a path $\pi$ exists, then for each variable $x_i$ of
$I_{SAT}$, the path $\pi$ must select in $I_{x_i}$ either the upper path through
variables $v_{ir}$ ($r=1,\ldots,m$) or the lower path through
variables $\overline{v}_{ir}$ ($r=1,\ldots,m$).
Thus $\pi$ selects a truth value for each variable $x_i$: TRUE if $\pi$ follows
the upper of these two paths, FALSE otherwise.
Moreover, for each clause $C_r$ in $I_{SAT}$ the path $\pi$
must pass from $p_{n+r-1}$ to $p_{n+r}$ by one of the three paths in $\PI{I_{C_r}}$
without passing through parts that have
been already used by $\pi$. Thus, for $\pi$ to exist it must have
already assigned TRUE to one of the literals of the clause $C_r$.
It follows that $M$ occurs as a topological minor of $\PI{I}$
if and only if $\PI{I}$ has an appropriate path of positive edges, which occurs if
and only if $I_{SAT}$ is satisfiable.
\end{proof}
The instance $I$ in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:PXX} is clearly
inconsistent since there are some constraint relations which are
empty. An instance is said to be \emph{globally consistent} if each
variable-value assignment $\tuple{v_i,a}$ can be extended to a
solution. We now give another example of a pattern which is
$\coNP$-complete to detect as a topological minor even in
globally-consistent instances.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\thicklines \setlength{\unitlength}{0.7pt}
\newsavebox{\varthreebig}
\savebox{\varthreebig}(20,60){
\begin{picture}(20,60)(2,0)
\put(10,30){\oval(20,60)} \put(10,10){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(10,30){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}} \put(10,50){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\end{picture}}
\begin{picture}(350,130)(0,0)
\put(0,0){
\begin{picture}(150,130)(0,10)
\put(20,40){\usebox{\varthreebig}} \put(100,40){\usebox{\varthreebig}}
\put(60,100){\usebox{\varone}}
\put(30,90){\line(4,3){40}} \put(110,90){\line(-4,3){40}}
\put(30,90){\line(1,0){80}} \put(30,70){\line(1,0){80}}
\put(30,90){\line(4,-1){80}} \put(30,70){\line(4,1){80}}
\put(30,90){\line(2,-1){80}} \put(30,50){\line(2,1){80}}
\thinlines
\dashline[50]{7}(30,50)(115,50)
\dashline[50]{7}(30,70)(115,50) \dashline[50]{7}(30,50)(115,70)
\thicklines \put(70,13){\makebox(0,0){$M'$}}
\end{picture}}
\put(200,0){
\begin{picture}(150,130)(0,10)
\put(20,40){\usebox{\varthreebig}} \put(100,40){\usebox{\varthreebig}}
\put(30,90){\line(1,0){80}} \put(30,70){\line(1,0){80}}
\put(30,90){\line(4,-1){80}} \put(30,70){\line(4,1){80}}
\put(30,90){\line(2,-1){80}} \put(30,50){\line(2,1){80}}
\put(135,100){\makebox(0,0){$p_{0}$}}
\put(-5,100){\makebox(0,0){$p_{n+m}$}}
\put(70,13){\makebox(0,0){$E$}}
\end{picture}}
\end{picture}
\caption{The pattern $M'$ and one of the building blocks for the
globally-consistent instance $I'$ in which detecting it is $\coNP$-complete.}
\label{fig:patternPX}
\end{figure}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:PX}
The problem of deciding $I \in \ForbTM{M'}$
for globally-consistent instances $I$ is $\coNP$-complete.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We use a very similar construction to the one used in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:PXX}.
Let $I$ be the instance constructed in that proof. Let $I'$ be identical to $I$ except that:
\begin{itemize}
\item we replace the sub-instances obtained from the patterns
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:npc}(c) and Figure~\ref{fig:npc}(d)
with a single sub-instance obtained from the pattern $E$
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:patternPX};
\item for each variable-value assignment $\tuple{v,a}$ of $I$, we create a solution
which is an extension of $\tuple{v,a}$,
by adding a new value $b(v,a,v')$ to the domain of each variable $v' \neq v$
which is compatible with $\tuple{v,a}$
and with all such values $b(v,a,v'')$ ($v'' \notin \{v,v'\}$),
but incompatible with all other variable-value assignments.
\end{itemize}
By construction, $I'$ is clearly globally-consistent.
If $M'$ occurs as a topological minor of $\PI{I'}$, then the points of $M'$
must map injectively to the points of $E$,
and so again the question is whether there is a path
(of length greater than 1) of positive edges
linking $p_0$ to $p_{n+m}$. As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:PXX},
this path exists if and only if the instance $I_{SAT}$ is
satisfiable. Hence, the decision problem
$I \in \ForbTM{P_{X}}$ for globally-consistent instances $I$ is $\coNP$-complete.
\end{proof}
Theorems~\ref{thm:PXX} and \ref{thm:PX} show that not all classes defined by forbidding topological minors
can be recognized in polynomial time.
Certain uses of tractable classes require polynomial-time
recognition: in particular, the automatic recognition and resolution
of easy instances within general-purpose solvers. On the other hand,
polynomial-time recognition of a tractable class $\mathcal{C}$ is not
required for the construction of a polynomial-time solvable
relaxation in $\mathcal{C}$, nor in the proof (by a human being) that
a subproblem of CSP encountered in practice falls in $\mathcal{C}$.
\section{Augmented patterns}
For some CSP instances we have extra information such as an ordering on the variables
or on the domains (or both).
In this section we introduce the idea of adding an additional relation to a pattern
to allow us to capture information of this kind.
A pattern $P$, together with an additional relation on the points of $P$
will be called an \emph{augmented pattern}.
We will demonstrate that augmented patterns can be used to define new hybrid tractable classes
that extend those described in earlier sections.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:extendedpatt}
An \emph{augmented pattern} is a pair $\tuple{P,R}$ where
$P$ is a pattern and $R$ is a relation (of any arity) over the points of $P$.
The augmented pattern $\tuple{P,R}$ will be denoted $P_R$.
\end{definition}
Obvious examples of
relations that could be added to a pattern are disequality relations or partial orders on
points, and this idea has been explored in a number of papers~\cite{Cohen12:pivot,Cooper10:BTP,LICS2016}.
\begin{definition}
A homomorphism between augmented patterns $P_R$ and $P'_{R'}$ is a
homomorphism $h$ from $P$ to $P'$ such that
for all tuples $\tuple{x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_k} \in R$,
the tuple $\tuple{h(x_1),h(x_2),\ldots,h(x_k)} \in R'$.
\end{definition}
Using this extended definition of homomorphism, we can extend the notion of
occurring as a sub-pattern (Definition~\ref{def:sub-pattern})
and occurring as a topological minor (Definition~\ref{def:top-minor}) to augmented patterns
in the natural way.
Now we can extend Definitions~\ref{def:CSPSP} and~\ref{def:CSPTM}, as follows,
to define restricted classes of CSP instances
and associated relations by forbidding the occurrence of certain augmented patterns.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:ForbSPaugmented}
Let $m$ be a constant, and let $\cal S$ be a set of augmented patterns
such that for each $P_R \in {\cal S}$ the relation $R$ has arity $m$.
Let $\operatorname{Rel}$ be a partial function that maps an instance $I$
to a relation $R_I$ of arity $m$ over the points of $\PI{I}$.
We denote by \ForbSP{{\cal S},\operatorname{Rel}} the set
of all binary CSP instances $I$ such that $\operatorname{Rel}(I)$ is defined
and for all $P_R \in S$ it is not the case that $\SP{P_R}{\PI{I}_{\operatorname{Rel}(I)}}$.
We denote by \ForbTM{{\cal S},\operatorname{Rel}} the set
of all binary CSP instances $I$ such that $\operatorname{Rel}(I)$ is defined
and for all $P_R \in S$ it is not the case that $\TM{P_R}{\PI{I}_{\operatorname{Rel}(I)}}$.
\end{definition}
One of the simplest ways to augment a pattern $P$ is by adding a binary
disequality relation, $\neq$, to specify that some points of $P$ are distinct.
A homomorphism from an augmented pattern $P_{\neq}$
to an augmented pattern $Q_{\neq}$ must map points that are specified to be distinct
in $P$ to points that are specified to be distinct in $Q$.
In the next three theorems,
we shall assume that for any instance $I$, \emph{all} points in $\PI{I}_{\neq}$
are specified to be distinct.
In other words, we shall assume that for any instance $I$
the function $\operatorname{Rel}$ introduced
in Definition~\ref{def:ForbSPaugmented} always returns the binary relation $\neq$
containing all pairs of distinct points of $I$. We will denote this relation by
$\operatorname{Rel}_{\neq}$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\thicklines \setlength{\unitlength}{0.7pt}
\centering
\begin{picture}(380,125)
\put(0,80){\usebox{\varii}}
\put(80,80){\usebox{\varii}} \put(130,80){\usebox{\varii}}
\put(180,60){\usebox{\varii}} \put(230,80){\usebox{\varii}}
\put(280,80){\usebox{\varii}} \put(360,80){\usebox{\varii}}
\put(0,20){\usebox{\varii}} \put(80,20){\usebox{\varii}}
\put(130,20){\usebox{\varii}}
\dashline[50]{7}(10,110)(35,100)
\dashline[50]{7}(65,100)(90,90) \dashline[50]{7}(90,110)(140,90)
\dashline[50]{7}(140,110)(190,90) \dashline[50]{7}(190,90)(240,110)
\dashline[50]{7}(240,90)(290,110) \dashline[50]{7}(290,90)(315,100)
\dashline[50]{7}(345,370,110) \dashline[50]{7}(10,30)(35,40)
\dashline[50]{7}(65,40)(90,50) \dashline[50]{7}(90,30)(140,50)
\dashline[50]{7}(140,30)(190,70) \dashline[50]{7}(345,100)(370,110)
\put(50,100){\makebox(0,0){.\;.\;.}} \put(50,40){\makebox(0,0){.\;.\;.}}
\put(330,100){\makebox(0,0){.\;.\;.}}
\put(172,90){\makebox(0,0){$p$}} \put(172,70){\makebox(0,0){$q$}}
\put(258,47){\makebox(0,0){$p \neq q$}}
\end{picture}
\caption{The augmented pattern Pivot$_{\neq}$($k$).}
\label{fig:pivotneq}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt}
\end{figure}
Now consider the augmented pattern Pivot$_{\neq}$($k$) which is obtained from
the pattern Pivot($k$) defined in Definition~\ref{def:pivotk}
by adding a disequality relation specifying that the two points in the central node
are distinct, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pivotneq}.
Forbidding this pattern from occurring as a sub-pattern
results in a larger class of instances than forbidding the pattern Pivot($k$),
but our next result shows that this larger class is still tractable.
\begin{theorem}
The augmented pattern Pivot$_{\neq}$($k$), shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pivotneq}, is sub-pattern tractable.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $I \in \ForbSP{Pivot_{\neq}(k),\operatorname{Rel}_{\neq}}$ for some constant $k$.
If $\PI{I}$ has a point $x_{v,a}$ which belongs to no negative
edge (i.e., it is compatible with all assignments to all other variables),
then we can clearly remove all points in the same part as $x_{v,a}$
without introducing the pattern or affecting the existence of a solution.
Thus we can assume without loss of generality that $\PI{I}$ contains no such points.
A similar remark holds if $\PI{I}$ has any parts containing just a single point.
We can also assume without loss of generality that the constraint
graph of $I$ is connected.
A variable $v$ is called an \emph{articulation variable} of $I$ if removing
$v$ from $I$ disconnects the constraint graph of $I$.
Any instance can be decomposed into a tree of components which only intersect at
articulation variables.
It therefore suffices to show that any instance $I$ without
articulation variables can be solved in polynomial time,
so we shall assume that $I$ has no articulation variables.
If Pivot($2k$) does not occur as a sub-pattern in $\PI{I}$ then,
by Theorem~\ref{thm:pivotSPtractable} we have that $I$ is tractable.
To deal with the remaining case,
assume that Pivot($2k$) occurs as a sub-pattern in $\PI{I}$
with the central part $U$ of Pivot($2k$) mapping to part $V$ of $\PI{I}$.
Let $S_{2k}$ be the set of parts of $\PI{I}$ to which the parts of Pivot($2k$) are mapped.
Since Pivot$_{\neq}$($k$) does not occur as a sub-pattern in $\PI{I}_{\neq}$
(and hence neither does Pivot$_{\neq}$($2k$)), the two points in the central
part $U$ of Pivot($2k$) must map to the \emph{same} point in \PI{I},
which we denote by $x_{v,a}$.
By our assumptions, we know that there is
another (distinct) value $b$ in the domain of $v$ which belongs to a negative
edge in \PI{I}, connecting part $V$ to some other part $W$.
If $W$ is only connected to $S_{2k}$ in the constraint graph of $\PI{I}$
via $V$, then $v$ is an articulation variable of $I$, which
contradicts our assumption.
Hence, there is a path $\pi$ in the constraint graph of $\PI{I}$
linking $W$ to some part $Y \in S_{2k}$ such that $Y \neq V$.
By choosing $\pi$ to be minimal, we can assume that no other parts on the path $\pi$
belong to $S_{2k}$. Now, since $Y$ must lie on one of the three
branches of the occurrence of Pivot($2k$) in $\PI{I}$, we can extend $\pi$ by
following this branch from $Y$ either towards or away from the
central part $V$, in order to obtain a path of length at least $k$.
This length-$k$ path, together with the first $k$ variables of
the other two branches of Pivot($2k$), gives an occurrence of the pattern
Pivot$_{\neq}$($k$) in $\PI{I}_{\neq}$,
which contradicts our choice of $I$, so we are done.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\thicklines \setlength{\unitlength}{0.7pt}
\centering
\begin{picture}(260,140)(20,-20)
\put(0,0){
\begin{picture}(100,110)(0,-10)
\put(0,60){\usebox{\vartwo}} \put(40,0){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(80,70){\usebox{\varone}} \dashline[50]{7}(10,70)(50,30)
\dashline[50]{7}(10,90)(90,90) \dashline[50]{7}(50,10)(90,90)
\put(55,-20){\makebox(0,0){$K_{\neq}$}}
\put(-8,90){\makebox(0,0){$p$}} \put(-8,70){\makebox(0,0){$q$}}
\put(32,30){\makebox(0,0){$p'$}} \put(32,10){\makebox(0,0){$q'$}}
\put(105,30){\makebox(0,0){\shortstack{ $p \neq q$ \\ $p' \neq q'$ }}}
\end{picture}
}
\put(180,0){
\begin{picture}(100,110)(0,-10)
\put(0,60){\usebox{\vartwo}} \put(40,0){\usebox{\vartwo}}
\put(80,60){\usebox{\vartwo}} \dashline[50]{6}(10,70)(50,30)
\dashline[50]{6}(10,90)(90,90) \dashline[50]{6}(50,10)(90,70)
\put(55,-20){\makebox(0,0){$\PG{C_3}_{\neq}$}}
\put(-8,90){\makebox(0,0){$p$}} \put(-8,70){\makebox(0,0){$q$}}
\put(32,30){\makebox(0,0){$p'$}} \put(32,10){\makebox(0,0){$q'$}}
\put(110,90){\makebox(0,0){$p''$}} \put(110,70){\makebox(0,0){$q''$}}
\put(130,20){\makebox(0,0){\shortstack{ $p \neq q$ \\ $p' \neq q'$ \\ $p'' \neq q''$ }}}
\end{picture}
}
\end{picture}
\caption{Two augmented patterns which are topological-minor tractable.}
\label{fig:neq}
\end{figure}
Now consider the augmented pattern $K_{\neq}$, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:neq},
which is obtained from the pattern $K$ shown in Figure~\ref{fig:new}
by adding a disequality relation to specify that any two points in
the same part are distinct.
We now show that forbidding $K_{\neq}$ from occurring as a topological
minor results in a tractable class (which is larger than the class obtained by
forbidding the pattern $K$ as a topological minor discussed in Theorem~\ref{thm:KisTMtractable}).
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:KneqTMtractable}
The augmented pattern $K_{\neq}$, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:neq}, is sub-pattern NP-complete but topological-minor tractable.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:pivotSPtractable}, the (negative) pattern $K$ shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:new} is sub-pattern $\NP$-complete.
Since $\ForbSP{K}\subseteq\ForbSP{K_{\neq},\operatorname{Rel}_{\neq}}$, we have that $K_{\neq}$ is also
sub-pattern $\NP$-complete.
To show that $K_{\neq}$is topological-minor tractable
we will show that establishing arc-consistency is
sufficient to decide the existence of a solution for any instance in $\ForbTM{K_{\neq},\operatorname{Rel}_{\neq}}$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:AC},
without loss of generality we need consider only arc consistent instances.
We will show, by induction on the number of variables, that in any arc-consistent instance
$I \in \ForbTM{K_{\neq},\operatorname{Rel}_{\neq}}$, any assignment to a single variable
can be extended to a solution of $I$.
This is certainly true for instances on up to two variables, by the
definition of arc consistency.
Now assume that $I$ has more than two variables,
and consider the assignment of the value $a$ to the variable $v$.
Let $I[v=a]$ be the
instance obtained from $I$ by making this assignment,
eliminating variable $v$ and eliminating from the domain of
all other variables $w$ all values $b$ such that $\tuple{a,b} \notin R_{vw}$.
By arc consistency, none of the resulting domains in $I[v=a]$ is empty,
i.e., for each variable $w$ there is a value $c_w$ in the domain of $w$
such that $\tuple{a,c_w} \in R_{vw}$.
By the absence of $K_{\neq}$ as a topological minor in $\PI{I}_{\neq}$,
we can deduce that all variables $w$ that were connected to $v$ in the constraint graph of $I$
are not connected in the constraint graph of $I[v=a]$.
Let $S_1,\ldots,S_m$ be the connected components
of the constraint graph of $I[v=a]$.
For any $k=1,\ldots,m$, consider the subinstance $I[S_k]$
of the original instance $I$ on the variables of $S_k$.
Clearly, each $I[S_k] \in \ForbTM{K_{\neq},\operatorname{Rel}_{\neq}}$ and each $I[S_k]$ is arc-consistent.
Furthermore, since at least the variable $v$ has been eliminated
from the original set of variables, we know that each $I[S_k]$ has strictly
fewer variables than $I$ (even if $m=1$).
Hence, by our inductive hypothesis,
the assignment of any value $c_w$ to any variable $w$ in $I[S_k]$
can be extended to a solution $s_k$ to $I[S_k]$.
The solutions $s_k$ ($k=1,\ldots,m$) together with the assignment of $a$ to $v$
then form a solution to $I$ and the result follows by induction.
\end{proof}
Now consider the augmented pattern $\PG{C_3}_{\neq}$, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:neq},
which is obtained from the pattern $\PG{C_3}$ shown in Figure~\ref{fig:acyclic}
by adding a disequality relation specifying that any two points in the same part are distinct.
We now show that forbidding $\PG{C_3}_{\neq}$ from occurring as a topological
minor results in a tractable class (which is larger than the
class of acyclic instances obtained by forbidding the pattern $\PG{C_3}$
as a topological minor discussed in Proposition~\ref{prop:acyclic}).
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:CneqTMtractable}
The augmented pattern $\PG{C_3}_{\neq}$, shown in Figure~\ref{fig:neq}, is sub-pattern NP-complete
but topological-minor tractable.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:pivotSPtractable}, the (negative) pattern $\PG{C_3}$ shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:acyclic} is sub-pattern $\NP$-complete.
Since $\ForbSP{\PG{C_3}}\subseteq\ForbSP{\PG{C_3}_{\neq},\operatorname{Rel}_{\neq}}$, we have that $\PG{C_3}_{\neq}$ is
also sub-pattern $\NP$-complete.
Singleton arc consistency (SAC) is an operation which consists in
applying the following operation on an instance $I$ until
convergence: if the instance $I[v=a]$ obtained by making the
assignment of the value $a$ to the variable $v$ and establishing arc consistency
is empty, then eliminate $a$ from the domain of $v$ in $I$.
To show that $\PG{C_3}_{\neq}$ is topological-minor tractable
we will show that SAC is a decision procedure for $\ForbTM{\PG{C_3}_{\neq},\operatorname{Rel}_{\neq}}$.
Since establishing SAC cannot introduce any occurrence of the pattern,
we need only consider instances that are singleton-arc-consistent
(i.e., where no more eliminations are possible by SAC).
We will show, by induction on the number of variables, that in any
singleton-arc-consistent instance $I \in \ForbTM{\PG{C_3}_{\neq},\operatorname{Rel}_{\neq}}$,
any assignment to a single variable can be extended to a solution to $I$.
This is certainly true for instances on up to two variables, by the
definition of arc consistency.
Now assume that $I$ has more than two variables,
and consider the assignment of the value $a$ to the variable $v$.
Let $N$ be the set of parts of $\PI{I}$ that are connected by a negative edge to
$x_{v,a}$. We can assume that $N \neq \emptyset$, otherwise we could make
the assignment $a$ to variable $v$ without affecting the rest of the
instance $I$, and thus reduce $I$ to an instance on fewer variables
(which by our inductive hypothesis would have a solution).
Now let $I[N]$ be the subinstance of $I$ on the variables corresponding to
parts in $N$, with the domain of each variable $w$ of $I[N]$
reduced to those values $c$ such that $(a,c) \in R_{vw}$.
Since $I$ is singleton arc-consistent, $I[N]$ is arc-consistent.
Let $J'_{\neq}$ be the augmented pattern shown in Figure~\ref{fig:proofP}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\thicklines \setlength{\unitlength}{0.7pt}
\centering
\begin{picture}(460,110)(0,0)
\put(180,0){
\begin{picture}(100,110)(0,-10)
\put(0,60){\usebox{\vartwo}} \put(40,10){\usebox{\varone}}
\put(80,70){\usebox{\varone}} \dashline[50]{7}(10,70)(50,30)
\dashline[50]{7}(10,90)(90,90)
\put(55,-10){\makebox(0,0){$J'_{\neq}$}}
\put(-8,90){\makebox(0,0){$p$}} \put(-8,70){\makebox(0,0){$q$}}
\put(70,30){\makebox(0,0){$r_1$}}
\put(140,50){\makebox(0,0){$p \neq q$}}
\put(110,90){\makebox(0,0){$r_2$}}
\end{picture}
}
\end{picture}
\caption{The augmented pattern $J'_{\neq}$ used in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:CneqTMtractable}}
\label{fig:proofP}
\end{figure}
Note that $\SP{J'_{\neq}}{\PG{C_3}_{\neq}}$.
Now, since $\PG{C_3}_{\neq}$ does not occur as a topological minor in $\PI{I}_{\neq}$,
we can deduce that $J'_{\neq}$ does not occur as a topological minor in $\PI{I[N]}$.
Hence, $K_{\neq}$ does not occur as a topological minor in $\PI{I[N]}$ either,
since $\SP{J'_{\neq}}{K_{\neq}}$.
By the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:KneqTMtractable},
any arc-consistent instance in $\ForbTM{K_{\neq},\operatorname{Rel}_{\neq}}$ has a solution,
so $I[N]$ has a solution which we denote by $s_N$.
Let $u$ be a variable of $I[N]$ and denote by $a_u$ the value assigned to $u$ by $s_N$.
Let $I_u$ be the subinstance of $I$ on
all variables of $I$ except $\{v\} \cup (N \setminus \{u\})$.
Let $S_u$ be the set of variables $w$ of $I_u$ which are either
(1) $u$ itself,
(2) directly constrained by the assignment of $a_u$ to $u$
(i.e., variables $w$ such that $\tuple{a_u,b} \notin R_{uw}$ for some $b$ in the domain of $w$),
or
(3) such that the pattern $J'_{\neq}$ occurs as a topological minor in $\PI{I_u}_{\neq}$
with the point $r_1$ of $J'_{\neq}$ mapping to $x_{u,a_u}$
and the point $r_2$ of $J'_{\neq}$ mapping to some point $x_{w,b}$ for some $b$.
Let $I[S_u]$ be the subinstance of $I$ on the set of variables $S_u$.
Clearly $I[S_u]$ is singleton arc-consistent (since $I$ is),
and has fewer variables than $I$ (since $v \notin S_u$).
Hence, by our inductive hypothesis, the assignment
of value $a_u$ to variable $u$ can be extended to a solution $s_u$ of $I[S_u]$.
Now let $u' \in N \setminus \{u\}$.
By the absence of $\PG{C_3}_{\neq}$ as a topological minor in $\PI{I}$, we can deduce
that no assignment in $s_u$ can be incompatible with any assignment
to a variable $y$ in $S_{u'} \setminus S_u$, except
possibly in the case that the assignment to $y$ is directly incompatible
with both the assignment of $a_u$ to $u$ and $a_{u'}$ to $u'$.
In this latter case, the solution $s_{u'}$ projected onto $S_{u'} \setminus S_u$
is necessarily consistent with $s_u$.
Hence, by a simple inductive argument, we can create a consistent partial assignment
composed of the assignment of $a$ to $v$,
and the assignments specified by $s_N$ and each $s_u$
(projected onto the not-yet-assigned variables).
The rest of the instance $I$, if it is non-empty,
is not constrained by this partial assignment and by
our inductive hypothesis has a solution; combining these partial solutions
gives a solution to $I$.
\end{proof}
Classes of the CSP that are defined by specifying a restricted set of
constraint relations over some fixed domain $D$ are known as \emph{language
classes}~\cite{DBLP:journals/jacm/JeavonsCG97,Feder98:monotone}.
Every known tractable language
class~\cite{DBLP:journals/jacm/JeavonsCG97,Barto14:survey} of CSP instances
is characterised by an operation $f:D^k \rightarrow D$ with
the property that for all constraints $R_{uv}$, and all pairs
$\tuple{p_1,q_1},\tuple{p_2,q_2},\ldots,\tuple{p_k,q_k} \in R_{uv}$, the pair
$\tuple{f(p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_k),f(q_1,q_2,\ldots,q_k)} \in R_{uv}$; such an
operation is known as a \emph{polymorphism} of the constraint
relations~\cite{Barto14:survey,DBLP:journals/jacm/JeavonsCG97}.
We now show that using augmented patterns we can characterise every known
tractable language class using a single forbidden augmented sub-pattern.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:languageasForbSP}
Every tractable language class of binary CSP instances that is characterised by
a polymorphism $f$
is equal to $\ForbSP{P_R,\operatorname{Rel}_f}$ for some augmented pattern $P_R$ and
function $\operatorname{Rel}_f$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The $k$-ary operation $f:D^k \rightarrow D$ can be specified by a $(k+1)$-ary relation $R_f$ over $D$
where $R_f = \{\tuple{a_1,\ldots,a_{k+1}} \mid a_{k+1} = f(a_1,\ldots,a_k)\}$.
Define $\operatorname{Rel}_f$ to be the function that maps any CSP instance $I$ over $D$
to the relation $R$ over the points of $\PI{I}$, where
$R = \{\tuple{x_{v,a_1},\ldots,x_{v,a_{k+1}}} \mid \tuple{a_1,\ldots,a_{k+1}} \in R_f\}$.
The class of all instances $I$ over domain $D$
for which all constraint relations admit $f$ as a
polymorphism, is precisely the class of instances defined by
$\ForbSP{P_R,\operatorname{Rel}_f}$ where $P = \tuple{X,E^\sim,E^+,E^-}$ with
\begin{itemize}
\item $X = U\cup V$,
where $U = \{p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_{k+1}\}$ and $V = \{q_1,q_2,\ldots,q_{k+1}\}$;
\item $E^\sim = (U \times U) \cup (V \times V)$;
\item $E^+ = \{(p_i,q_i) \mid p_i \in U, q_i \in V, i=1,2,\ldots,k\}$;
\item $E^- = \{(p_{k+1},q_{k+1})\}$;
\end{itemize}
and $R = \{(p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_{k+1}),(q_1,q_2,\ldots,q_{k+1})\}$,
as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:tableau}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\thicklines \setlength{\unitlength}{0.7pt}
\newsavebox{\varkdotsbig}
\savebox{\varkdotsbig}(20,100){
\begin{picture}(20,100)(2,40)
\put(10,45){\oval(20,110)}
\put(10,0){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(10,20){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(10,50){\makebox(0,0){$\vdots$}}
\put(10,70){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\put(10,90){\makebox(0,0){$\bullet$}}
\end{picture}}
\begin{picture}(150,120)(80,40)
\thicklines
\put(20,90){\usebox{\varkdotsbig}}
\put(100,90){\usebox{\varkdotsbig}}
\put(30,140){\line(1,0){80}}
\put(30,120){\line(1,0){80}}
\put(30,70){\line(1,0){80}}
\dashline[50]{7}(30,50)(110,50)
\put(5,140){\makebox(0,0){$p_1$}}
\put(5,120){\makebox(0,0){$p_2$}}
\put(5,70){\makebox(0,0){$p_k$}}
\put(0,50){\makebox(0,0){$p_{k+1}$}}
\put(135,140){\makebox(0,0){$q_1$}}
\put(135,120){\makebox(0,0){$q_2$}}
\put(135,70){\makebox(0,0){$q_k$}}
\put(143,50){\makebox(0,0){$q_{k+1}$}}
\put(270,130){\makebox(0,0){$p_{k+1} = f(p_1,p_2,\ldots,p_k)$}}
\put(270,110){\makebox(0,0){$q_{k+1} = f(q_1,q_2,\ldots,q_k)$}}
\end{picture}
\caption{The augmented pattern $P_R$ used in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:languageasForbSP}.}
\label{fig:tableau}
\end{figure}
\end{proof}
We remark that the algebraic dichotomy conjecture~\cite{Bulatov05:classifying},
which is a refinement of the dichotomy conjecture of Feder and
Vardi~\cite{Feder98:monotone}, implies that \emph{every} tractable language is
characterised by a single polymorphism, and thus under this conjecture
Theorem~\ref{thm:languageasForbSP} applies to \emph{all} tractable language
classes of binary CSP instance over a fixed domain.
\section{Conclusions and open problems}
The notion of a pattern occurring as a topological minor, introduced here,
allows a new approach to the definition of tractable classes of CSP instances.
We have shown that this approach, together with the notion of augmented
patterns, can unify the description of all tractable structural and language
classes, as well as allowing new and more general tractable classes to be
identified. We therefore believe that it has great potential for systematically
identifying all tractable classes of the CSP.
One long-term goal is to characterise precisely which patterns $P$
are topological-minor tractable and for which such patterns $P$,
\ForbTM{P} is recognisable in polynomial time. For
example, Figure~\ref{fig:open} shows three simple patterns whose
topological minor tractability is currently open.
\thicklines \setlength{\unitlength}{0.7pt}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{picture}(360,150)(0,0)
\put(0,50){
\begin{picture}(100,100)(0,0)
\put(0,60){\usebox{\vartwo}} \put(40,10){\usebox{\varone}}
\put(80,70){\usebox{\varone}} \dashline[50]{7}(10,70)(50,30)
\dashline[50]{7}(10,90)(90,90) \dashline[50]{7}(50,30)(90,90)
\end{picture}}
\put(20,0){
\begin{picture}(130,100)(0,0)
\put(0,0){\usebox{\varone}} \put(50,0){\usebox{\varone}}
\put(100,0){\usebox{\varone}} \put(150,0){\usebox{\varone}}
\put(200,0){\usebox{\varone}} \dashline[50]{7}(10,20)(60,20)
\dashline[50]{7}(60,20)(110,20) \dashline[50]{7}(110,20)(160,20)
\dashline[50]{7}(160,20)(210,20)
\end{picture}}
\put(220,20){
\begin{picture}(140,120)(0,0)
\put(0,80){\usebox{\varthree}} \put(60,0){\usebox{\varthree}}
\put(60,60){\usebox{\varthree}} \put(120,80){\usebox{\varthree}}
\dashline[50]{7}(10,90)(70,20) \dashline[50]{7}(70,10)(130,90)
\dashline[50]{7}(10,110)(130,110) \dashline[50]{7}(10,100)(70,90)
\dashline[50]{7}(70,80)(130,100) \dashline[50]{7}(70,30)(70,70)
\end{picture}}
\end{picture}
\caption{Three patterns whose topological-minor tractability is open.}
\label{fig:open}
\end{figure}
Another avenue of future
research is the discovery of other applications for topological
minors, such as in variable elimination~\cite{ccez15:jcss}.
Indeed, perhaps the most interesting open question is whether the notion of topological
minor, introduced in this paper, will find
applications other than the definition of tractable classes of the CSP.
We have seen that certain classic results from graph theory can lead
to results concerning topological minors of CSP instances. An
intriguing avenue for future research is to build bridges in the
other direction. For example, a corollary of the proof of
Theorem~\ref{thm:PXX} is that finding a path linking two given
vertices and which passes at most once through each part of an
$n$-partite graph is $\NP$-hard. Another way of expressing this is that
finding a \emph{heterochromatic path} linking two given vertices in a
vertex-coloured graph is $\NP$-hard~\cite{DBLP:journals/endm/LiZB01,broersma2005paths}.
To achieve further progress it may
well be necessary to further refine or modify the definition of a
topological minor given here. We regard this work as simply a first
step towards a general topological theory of complexity for
constraint satisfaction problems.
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper we present Thrill, a new open-source C++ framework for algorithmic distributed batch data processing.
The need for parallel and distributed algorithms cannot be ignored anymore, since individual processor cores' clock speeds have stagnated in recent years.
At the same time, we have experienced an explosion in data volume so that scalable distributed data analysis has become a bottleneck in an ever-increasing range of applications.
With Thrill we want to make a step at bridging the gap between two traditional scenarios of ``Big Data'' processing.
On the one hand, in academia and high-performance computing (HPC), distributed algorithms are often handcrafted in C/C++ and use MPI for explicit communication. This achieves high efficiency at the price of difficult implementation.
On the other hand, global players in the software industry created their own ecosystem to cope with their data analysis needs.
Google popularized the MapReduce~\cite{dean2008mapreduce} model in 2004 and described their in-house implementation.
Apache Hadoop and more recently Apache Spark~\cite{zaharia2010spark} and Apache Flink~\cite{alexandrov2014stratosphere} have gained attention as open-source Scala/Java-based solutions for heavy duty data processing.
These frameworks provide a simple programming interface and promise \emph{automatic} work parallelization and scheduling, \emph{automatic} data distribution, and \emph{automatic} fault tolerance.
While most benchmarks highlight the scalability of these frameworks, the bottom line efficiency has been shown to be lacking~\cite{mcsherry2015scalability}, surprisingly with the CPU often being the bottleneck~\cite{ousterhout2015making}.
Thrill's approach to bridging this gap is a library of \emph{scalable algorithmic primitives} like \DIAOp{Map}, \DIAOp{ReduceByKey}, \DIAOp{Sort}, and \DIAOp{Window}, which can be combined efficiently to construct larger complex algorithms using pipelined data-flow style programming.
Thrill is written in modern C++14 from the ground up, has minimal external dependencies, and compiles cross-platform on Linux, Mac OS, and Windows.
By using C++, Thrill is able to exploit compile-time optimization, template meta-programming, and explicit memory management.
Thrill enables efficient processing of fixed-length items like single characters or fixed-dimensional vectors without object overhead due to the zero overhead abstractions of C++.
It treats data types of operations as opaque and utilizes template programming to instantiate operations with user-defined functions (UDFs).
For example, the comparison function of the sorting operation is compiled into the actual internal sorting and merging algorithms (similar to \textcode{std::sort}).
At the same time, Thrill makes no attempts to optimize the execution order of operations, as this would require introspection into the data and how UDFs manipulate it.
Thrill programs run in a collective bulk-synchronous manner similar to most MPI programs.
Thrill primarily focuses on fast in-memory computation, but transparently uses external memory when needed.
The functional programming style used by Thrill enables easy parallelization, which also works remarkably well for shared memory parallelism.
Hence, due to the restriction to scalable primitives, Thrill programs run on a wide range of homogeneous parallel systems.
By using C++, Thrill aims for high performance distributed algorithms. JVM-based frameworks are often slow due to the overhead of the interpreted bytecode, even though just-in-time (JIT) compilation has leveled the field somewhat. Nevertheless, due to object indirections and garbage collection, Java/Scala must remain less cache-efficient.
While efficient CPU usage should be a matter of course, especially when processing massive amounts of data, the ultimate bottleneck for scalable distributed application is the (bisection) bandwidth of the network.
But by using more tuned implementations, more CPU time is left for compression, deduplication~\cite{sanders2013communication}, and other algorithms to reduce communication.
Nevertheless, in smaller networks the CPU is often the bottleneck~\cite{ousterhout2015making}, and for most applications a small cluster is sufficient.
A consequence of using C++ is that memory management has to be done explicitly. While this is desirable for more predictable and higher performance than garbage collected memory, it does make programming more difficult. However, with modern C++11 this has been considerably alleviated, and Thrill uses reference counting extensively.
While scalable algorithms promise eventually higher performance with more hardware, the performance hit going from parallel shared memory to a distributed setting is large.
This is due to the communication latency and bandwidth bottlenecks.
This network overhead and the additional management overheads of big data frameworks often make speedups attainable only with unjustifiable hardware costs~\cite{mcsherry2015scalability}.
Thrill cannot claim zero overhead, as network costs are unavoidable. But by overlapping computation and communication, and by employing binary optimized machine code, we keep the overhead small.
Thrill is open-source under the BSD 2-clause license and available as a community project on GitHub\footnote{\url{http://github.com/thrill/thrill}}. It currently has more than 52\,K lines of C++ code and approximately a dozen developers have contributed.
\paragraph*{Overview} The rest of this section introduces related work with an emphasis on Spark and Flink.
Section~\ref{sec:design} discusses the design of Thrill, in particular its API and the rationale behind the chosen concept.
We present a complete WordCount example in Section~\ref{sec:wordcount}, followed by an overview of the current portfolio of operations and details of their implementation.
In Section~\ref{sec:experiments}, experimental results of a comparison of Thrill, Spark, and Flink based on five micro benchmarks including PageRank and KMeans are shown.
Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} concludes and provides an outlook for future work.
\paragraph*{Our Contributions}
Thrill demonstrates that with the advent of C++11 lambda-expressions, it has become feasible to use C++ for big data processing using an abstract and convenient API comparable to currently popular frameworks like Spark or Flink.
This not only harvests the usual performance advantages of C++, but allows us moreover to transparently compile sequences of local operations into a single binary code via sophisticated template meta-programming.
By using arrays as the primary data type, we enable additional basic operations that have to be emulated by more complicated and more costly operations in traditional multiset-based systems.
Our experimental evaluation demonstrates that even the current prototypical implementation already offers a considerable performance advantage over Spark and Flink.
\subsection{Related Work}
Due to the importance and hype of the ``Big Data'' topic, a myriad of distributed data processing frameworks have been proposed in recent years~\cite{chen2014data}.
These cover many different aspects of this challenge like data warehousing and batch processing, stream aggregation~\cite{toshniwal2014storm}, interactive queries~\cite{melnik2010dremel}, and specialized graph~\cite{malewicz2010pregel,low2012distributed} and machine learning frameworks~\cite{tensorflow2015-whitepaper}.
In 2004, Google established the MapReduce paradigm~\cite{dean2008mapreduce} as an easy-to-use interface for scalable data analysis.
Their paper spawned a whole research area on how to express distributed algorithms using just \emph{map} and \emph{reduce} in as few rounds as possible.
Soon, Apache Hadoop was created as an open-source MapReduce framework written in Java for commodity hardware clusters.
Most notable from this collection of programs was the Hadoop distributed file system (HDFS)~\cite{shvachko2010hadoop}, which is key for fault tolerant data management for MapReduce.
Subsequently, a large body of academic work was done optimizing various aspects of Hadoop like scheduling and data shuffling~\cite{lee2012parallel}.
MapReduce and Hadoop are very successful due to their simple programming interface, which at the same time is a severe limitation.
For example, iterative computations are reported to be very slow due to the high number of MapReduce rounds, each of which may need a complete data exchange and round-trip to disks.
More recent frameworks such as Apache Spark and Apache Flink offer a more general interface to increase usability and performance.
Apache Spark operates on an abstraction called \emph{resilient distributed datasets} (RDDs)~\cite{zaharia2010spark}.
This abstraction provides the user with an easy-to-use interface which consists of a number of deterministic coarse-grained operations.
Each operation can be classified either as \emph{transformation} or \emph{action}.
A transformation is a lazy operation that defines a new RDD given another one, e.g. \DIAOp{map} or \DIAOp{join}.
An action returns computed results to the user program, e.g. \DIAOp{count}, \DIAOp{collect}, or reads/writes data from/to external storage.
When an action triggers computation, Spark examines the sequence of previously called transformations and identifies so-called execution \emph{stages}.
Spark runs in a master-worker architecture. While the driver program runs on the master, the actual computation occurs on the workers with a \emph{block-based} work-partitioning and scheduling system.
Spark can maintain already computed RDDs in main memory to be reusable by future operations, in order to speed-up iterative computations~\cite{zaharia2012resilient}.
In more recent versions, Spark added two more APIs: DataFrames~\cite{armbrust2015spark} and Datasets.
Both offer domain specific languages for higher level declarative programming similar to SQL, which allows Spark to optimize the query execution plan.
Even further, it enables Spark to generate optimized query bytecode online, aside of the original Scala/Java program.
The optimized bytecode can use more efficient direct access methods to the data, which no longer needs to be stored as JVM objects, and hence garbage collection can be avoided.
The DataFrame engine is built on top of the original RDD processing interface.
Apache Flink originated from the Stratosphere research project~\cite{alexandrov2014stratosphere} and is progressing from an academic project to industry.
While Flink shares many ideas with Spark such as the master-worker model, lazy operations, and iterative computations, it tightly integrates concepts known from parallel database systems.
Flink's core interface is a domain-specific declarative language.
Furthermore, Flink's focus has turned to streaming rather than batch processing.
In Flink, the optimizer takes a user program and produces a graph of logical operators.
The framework then performs rule- and cost-based optimizations, such as reordering of operations, pipelining of local operations, selection of algorithms, and evaluation of different data exchange patterns to find an execution plan Flink believes is best for a given user program and cluster configuration.
Flink is based on a pipelined execution engine comparable to parallel database systems, which is extended to integrate streaming operations with rich windowing semantics.
Iterative computations are sped up by performing delta-iterations on changing data only, as well as placing computation on the same worker across iterations.
Fault tolerance is achieved by continuously taking snapshots of the distributed data streams and operator states~\cite{carbone2015lightweight}, a concept inspired by Chandy-Lamport snapshots~\cite{chandy1985distributed}.
Flink also has an own memory management system separate from the JVM's garbage collector for higher performance and better control of memory peaks.
The interfaces of Spark and Flink differ in some very important ways.
Flink's optimizer requires introspection into the components of data objects and how the UDFs operate on them.
This requires many Scala/Java annotations to the UDFs and incurs an indirection for access to the values of components.
In contrast to Spark's RDD interface, where users can make use of \emph{host language control-flow}, Flink provides custom iteration operations.
Hence, Flink programs are in this respect more similar to declarative SQL statements than to an imperative language.
The newer DataFrame and Dataset interfaces introduce similar concepts to Spark, but extend them further with a custom code generation engine.
At its core, Spark is an in-memory batch engine that executes streaming jobs as a series of mini-batches.
In contrast, Flink is based on a pipelined execution engine used in database systems, allowing Flink to process streaming operations in a pipelined way with lower latency than in the micro-batch model.
In addition, Flink supports external memory algorithms whereas Spark is mainly an in-memory system with spilling to external memory.
Overall the JVM is currently the dominant platform for open-source big data frameworks.
This is understandable from the point of view of programmer productivity but surprising when considering that C++ is the predominant language for performance critical systems -- and big data processing is inherently performance critical.
Spark~\cite{armbrust2015scaling} (with Project Tungsten) and Flink (with MemorySegments) therefore put great efforts into overcoming performance penalties of the JVM, for example by using explicit \emph{Unsafe} memory operations and generating optimized bytecode to avoid object overhead and garbage collection.
With Thrill we present a C++ framework as an alternative that does not incur these overheads in the first place.
\section{Design of Thrill}\label{sec:design}
Thrill programs are written in C++ and compile into binary programs.
The execution model of this binary code is similar to MPI programs: one identical program is run collectively on $h$ machines.
Thrill currently expects all machines to have nearly identical hardware, since it balances work and data equally between the machines.
The binary program is started simultaneously on all machines, and connects to the others via a network protocol.
Thrill currently supports TCP sockets and MPI as network backends.
The startup procedures depend on the specific backend and cluster environment.
Each machine is called a \emph{host}, and each work thread on a host is called a \emph{worker}. Currently, Thrill requires all hosts to have the same number of cores $c$, hence, in total there are $p = h \cdot c$ worker threads. Additionally, each host has one thread for network/data handling and one for asynchronous disk I/O.
Each of the $h$ hosts have $h-1$ reliable network connections to the other hosts, and the hosts and workers are enumerated $0 \ldots h-1$ and $0 \ldots p-1$. Thrill does not have a designated master or driver host, as all communication and computation is done collectively.
Thrill currently provides no fault tolerance. While our data-flow API permits smooth integration of fault tolerance using asynchronous checkpoints~\cite{carbone2015lightweight,chandy1985distributed}, the execution model of exactly $h$ machines may have to be changed.
\subsection{Distributed Immutable Arrays}
\begin{figure}\centering\small
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3,
item/.style={draw, minimum size=10mm, transform shape},
itemPE0/.style={item, fill=dblue!20},
itemPE1/.style={item, fill=dred!20},
itemPE2/.style={item, fill=dgreen!20},
itemPE3/.style={item, fill=brown!20},
item0/.style={itemPE0}, item1/.style={itemPE0}, item2/.style={itemPE0}, item3/.style={itemPE0},
item4/.style={itemPE1}, item5/.style={itemPE1}, item6/.style={itemPE1}, item7/.style={itemPE1},
item8/.style={itemPE2}, item9/.style={itemPE2}, item10/.style={itemPE2}, item11/.style={itemPE2},
item12/.style={itemPE3}, item13/.style={itemPE3}, item14/.style={itemPE3}, item15/.style={itemPE3},
]
\foreach \x in {0,...,15} {
\node[item\x] (A\x) at (\x,0) {};
}
\node[left=1pt of A0] {$A$};
\begin{scope}[yshift=-25mm]
\foreach \x in {0,...,15} {
\node[item\x] (B\x) at (\x,0) {};
}
\end{scope}
\foreach \x in {0,...,15} {
\draw[->] (A\x) -- (B\x);
}
\node[left=1pt of B0] {$B$};
\begin{scope}[yshift=-5cm]
\foreach \x in {0,...,15} {
\node[item\x] (C\x) at (\x,0) {};
}
\end{scope}
\node[left=1pt of C0] {$C$};
\foreach \x in {0,4,8,12,16} {
\draw[thick] (\x - 0.5,1) -- (\x - 0.5,-6);
}
\begin{scope}[font=\footnotesize,yshift=15mm]
\node at (1.5,0) {$p_0$};
\node at (5.5,0) {$p_1$};
\node at (9.5,0) {$p_2$};
\node at (13.5,0) {$p_3$};
\end{scope}
\foreach \x/\y in {%
0/3, 1/10, 2/4, 3/1, 4/0, 5/7, 6/8, 7/11, 8/15,
9/14, 10/5, 11/12, 12/6, 13/2, 14/13, 15/9}
{
\draw[->] (B\x.south) to[out=270,in=90,looseness=0.25] (C\y.north);
}
\begin{scope}[
xshift=210mm, yshift=20mm,
node distance=3mm,
datanode/.style={draw, fill=yellow!50!orange!70!white},
dataarrow/.style={->, thick},
]
\node (A) {$A$};
\node [datanode, ellipse, below=of A, inner sep=-5pt, minimum height=20pt] (B) {$B \!:=\! A.\!\operatorname{Map}(f)$};
\node [datanode, rectangle, below=of B, inner sep=3pt] (C) {$C \!:=\! B.\operatorname{Sort}(c)$};
\node [below=of C] (C') {$C$};
\draw[dataarrow] (A) -- (B);
\draw[dataarrow] (B) -- (C);
\draw[dataarrow] (C) -- (C');
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{Distribution of a DIA between processors (left) and a data-flow graph (right)}
\label{alg:dia graph}
\end{figure}
The central concept in Thrill's high-level data-flow API is the \emph{distributed immutable array} (DIA).
A DIA is an array of items which is distributed over the cluster in some way.
No direct array access is permitted.
Instead, the programmer can apply so-called \emph{DIA operations} to the array as a whole.
These operations are a set of \emph{scalable primitives}, listed in Table~\ref{tab:operations}, which can be composed into complex distributed algorithms.
DIA operations can create DIAs by reading files, transform existing DIAs by applying user functions, or calculate scalar values collectively, used to determine the further program control flow. In a Thrill program, these operations are used to lazily construct a DIA \emph{data-flow} graph in C++ (see Figure~\ref{alg:dia graph}).
The data-flow graph is only executed when an \emph{action} operation is encountered.
How DIA items are actually stored and in what way the operations are executed on the distributed system remains transparent to the user.
In the current prototype of Thrill, the array is usually distributed evenly between the $p$ workers in order. DIAs can contain any C++ data type, provided serialization methods are available (more in Section~\ref{sec:data}). Thrill contains built-in serialization methods for all primitive types, and most STL types; only custom non-trivial classes require additional methods.
Each DIA operation in Table~\ref{tab:operations} is implemented as a C++ template class, which can be instantiated with appropriate UDFs.
\subsection{Example: WordCount}\label{sec:wordcount}
\begin{figure}\centering
\begin{lstlisting}[numbers=left, numberstyle=\tiny, numbersep=4pt]
void WordCount(thrill::Context& ctx,
std::string input, std::string output) {
using Pair = std::pair<std::string, size_t>;
auto word_pairs = ReadLines(ctx, input)
.template FlatMap<Pair>(
// flatmap lambda: split and emit each word
[](const std::string& line, auto emit) {
Split(line, ' ', [&](std::string_view sv) {
emit(Pair(sv.to_string(), 1));
});
});
word_pairs.ReduceByKey(
// key extractor: the word string
[](const Pair& p) { return p.first; },
// commutative reduction: add counters
[](const Pair& a, const Pair& b) {
return Pair(a.first, a.second + b.second);
})
.Map([](const Pair& p) {
return p.first + ": "
+ std::to_string(p.second); })
.WriteLines(output);
}
\end{lstlisting}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{Complete WordCount Example in Thrill}
\label{alg:wc}
\end{figure}
We now present a complete code of the popular WordCount benchmark in Algorithm~\ref{alg:wc} to demonstrate how easy it is to program in Thrill. The program counts the number of occurrences of each unique word in a text.
In Thrill, WordCount including file I/O consists of five DIA operations.
\DIAOp{ReadLines} (line~4) and \DIAOp{WriteLines} (line~22) are used to read the text and write the result from/to the file system.
Thrill currently uses standard POSIX filesystem methods to read and write to disk, and it requires a distributed parallel file system such as NFS, Lustre, or Ceph to provide a common view to all compute hosts.
ReadLines takes a \textcode{thrill::Context} object, which is only required for source DIA operations, and a set of files.
The result of ReadLines is a \DIA{std::string}, which contains each line of the files as an item.
The set of files is ordered lexicographically and the set of lines is partitioned equally among the workers.
However, this DIA is not assigned to a variable name.
Instead, we immediately append a \DIAOp{FlatMap} operation (line~5) which splits each text line into words and emits one \textcode{std::pair$\langle$std::string,size\_t$\rangle$} (aliased as \textcode{Pair}) containing $(\textcode{word},1)$ per word.
In the example, we use a custom \textcode{Split} function and \textcode{std::string\_view} to reference characters in the text line, and copy them into word strings.
The \textcode{emit} \textcode{auto} parameter of the \DIAOp{FlatMap} lambda function (line~7) enables Thrill to pipeline the \textcode{FlatMap} with the following \DIAOp{ReduceByKey} operation.
Details on pipelining are discussed in Section~\ref{sec:data-flow}.
The result of \DIAOp{FlatMap} is a \DIA{Pair}, which is assigned to the variable \textcode{word\_pairs}.
Note that the keyword \textcode{auto} makes C++ infer the appropriate type for \textcode{word\_pairs} automatically.
The operation \DIAOp{ReduceByKey} is then used to reduce $(\textcode{word},1)$ pairs by \textcode{word}.
This DIA operation must be parameterized with a key extractor (take \textcode{word} out of the pair, line~14) and a reduction function (sum two pairs with the same key together, line~17).
Thrill currently implements \DIAOp{ReduceByKey} using hash tables, as described in Section~\ref{sec:impl details}.
Notice that C++ will infer most types during instantiation of \DIAOp{ReduceByKey}, both input and output are implicit; only with \DIAOp{FlatMap} it is necessary to specify what type gets emitted.
The output of \DIAOp{ReduceByKey} is again a \DIA{Pair}. We need to use a \DIAOp{Map} to transform the \textcode{Pairs} into printable strings (lines~19--21), which can then be written to disk using the \DIAOp{WriteLines} action. Again, the return type of the \DIAOp{Map} (\textcode{std::string}) is inferred automatically, and hence the result of the \DIAOp{Map} operation is implicitly a \DIA{std::string}.
Notice that it is not obvious that the code in Algorithm~\ref{alg:wc} describes a parallel and distributed algorithm.
It is the \emph{implementation} of the DIA operations in the lazily built data-flow graph which perform the actual distributed execution.
The code instructs the C++ compiler to instantiate and optimize these template classes with the UDFs provided.
At runtime, objects of these template classes are procedurally created and evaluated when actions are encountered in the DIA data-flow graph.
\subsection{Overview of DIA Operations}\label{sec:diaop}
\begin{table}
\caption{DIA Operations of Thrill}
\label{tab:operations}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline
Operation & User Defined Functions \\ \hline\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Sources} \\ \hline
$\textbf{Generate}(n) : \Arr{ 0, \ldots, n-1}$ & $n: \text{DIA size}$ \\
$\textbf{Generate}(n, g) : \Arr{A}$ & $g: \textbf{unsigned} \rightarrow A$ \\ \hline
$\textbf{ReadLines}() : \text{files} \rightarrow \Arr{\textbf{string}}$ & \\
$\textbf{ReadBinary}\langle{A}\rangle() : \text{files} \rightarrow \Arr{A}$ & $A : \text{data type}$ \\ \hline\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Local Operations (no communication)} \\ \hline
$\textbf{Map}(f) : \Arr{A} \rightarrow \Arr{B}$ & $f : A \rightarrow B $ \\ \hline
$\textbf{FlatMap}(f) : \Arr{A} \rightarrow \Arr{B}$ & $f : A \rightarrow \textbf{list}(B)$ \\ \hline
$\textbf{Filter}(f) : \Arr{A} \rightarrow \Arr{A}$ & $f : A \rightarrow \textbf{bool}$ \\ \hline
$\textbf{BernoulliSample}(p) : \Arr{A} \rightarrow \Arr{A}$ & $p : \text{success probability}$ \\ \hline
$\textbf{Union}() : \Arr{A} \times \Arr{A} \cdots \rightarrow \Arr{A}$ & \\ \hline
$\textbf{Collapse}() : \Arr{A} \rightarrow \Arr{A}$ & \\ \hline
$\textbf{Cache}() : \Arr{A} \rightarrow \Arr{A}$ & \\ \hline\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Distributed Operations (communication between workers)} \\ \hline
$\textbf{ReduceByKey}(k,r) : $ & $k : A \rightarrow K$ \\
$\textbf{ReduceToIndex}(i,r,n) :$ & $i : A \rightarrow [0,n)$ \\
\qquad$\Arr{A} \rightarrow \Arr{A}$ & $r : A \times A \rightarrow A$ \\
$\textbf{GroupByKey}(k,g) :$ & $g : \textbf{iterable}(A) \rightarrow B$ \\
$\textbf{GroupToIndex}(i,g,n) : $ & $n : \text{result size}$ \\
\qquad$\Arr{A} \rightarrow \Arr{B}$ & \\ \hline
$\textbf{Sort}(c) : \Arr{A} \rightarrow \Arr{A}$ & $c : A \times A \rightarrow \textbf{bool} $ \\ \hline
$\textbf{Merge}(c) : \Arr{A} \times \Arr{A} \cdots \rightarrow \Arr{A}$ & $c : A \times A \rightarrow \textbf{bool} $ \\ \hline
$\textbf{Concat}() : \Arr{A} \times \Arr{A} \cdots \rightarrow \Arr{A}$ & \\ \hline
$\textbf{PrefixSum}(s, i): \Arr{A} \rightarrow \Arr{A}$ & $s : A \times A \rightarrow A$ \\
& $i : \text{initial value}$ \\ \hline
$\textbf{Zip}(z) : \Arr{A} \times \Arr{B} \cdots \rightarrow \Arr{C}$ & $z : A \times B \cdots \rightarrow C $ \\ \hline
$\textbf{ZipWithIndex}(z) : \Arr{A} \rightarrow \Arr{B}$ & $z : \textbf{unsigned} \times A \cdots \rightarrow B $ \\ \hline
$\textbf{Window}(k, w) : \Arr{A} \rightarrow \Arr{B}$ & $k : \text{window size}$ \\
$\textbf{FlatWindow}(k, f) : \Arr{A} \rightarrow \Arr{B}$ & $w : A^k \rightarrow B $ \\
& $f : A^k \rightarrow \textbf{list}(B)$ \\ \hline\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Actions} \\ \hline
$\textbf{Execute}()$ & \\ \hline
$\textbf{Size}() : \Arr{A} \rightarrow \textbf{unsigned}$ & \\ \hline
$\textbf{AllGather}() : \Arr{A} \rightarrow \textbf{list}(A)$ & \\ \hline
$\textbf{Sum}(s, i) : \Arr{A} \rightarrow A$ & $s : A \times A \rightarrow A$ \\
$\textbf{Min}(i) : \Arr{A} \rightarrow A$ & $i : \text{initial value}$ \\
$\textbf{Max}(i) : \Arr{A} \rightarrow A$ & \\ \hline
$\textbf{WriteLines}() : \Arr{\textbf{string}} \rightarrow \text{files}$ & \\
$\textbf{WriteBinary}() : \Arr{A} \rightarrow \text{files}$ & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{tab:operations} gives an overview of the DIA-operations currently supported by Thrill.
The immutability of a DIA enables functional-style data-flow programming.
As DIA operations can depend on other DIAs as inputs, these form a directed acyclic graph (DAG), which is called the \emph{DIA data-flow graph}.
We denote DIA operations as vertices in this graph, and directed edges represent a dependency. Intuitively, one can picture a directed edge as the \emph{values} of a DIA as they flow from one operation into the next.
We classify all DIA operations into four categories. \emph{Source} operations have no incoming edges and generate a DIA from external sources like files, database queries, or simply by generating the integers $0 \ldots n-1$. Operations which have one or more incoming edges and return a DIA are classified further as \emph{local} (LOps) and \emph{distributed} operations (DOps). Examples of LOps are \DIAOp{Map} or \DIAOp{Filter}, which apply a function to every item of the DIA independently. LOps can be performed locally and in parallel, without any communication between workers. On the other hand, DOps such as \DIAOp{ReduceByKey} or \DIAOp{Sort} may require communication and a full data round-trip to disks.
The fourth category are \emph{actions}, which do not return a DIA and hence have no outgoing edges.
The DIA data-flow graph is built lazily, i.e. DIA operations are not immediately executed when created.
Actions trigger evaluation of the graph and return a value to the user program. For example, writing a DIA to disk or calculating the sum of all values are actions.
By inspecting the results of actions, a user program can determine the future program flow, e.g. to iterate a loop until a condition is met.
Hence, control flow decisions are performed collectively in C++ with imperative loops or recursion (host language control-flow).
Initial DIAs can be generated with Thrill's \emph{source} operations. \DIAOp{Generate} creates a DIA by mapping each index $[0,size)$ to an item using a generator function. \DIAOp{ReadLines} and \DIAOp{ReadBinary} read data from the file system and create a DIA with this data.
Thrill's \DIAOp{FlatMap} LOp corresponds to the \emph{map} step in the MapReduce paradigm. Each item of the input DIA is mapped to zero, one, or more output items by a function $f$. In C++ this is done by calling an \DIAOp{emit} function for each item, as shown in the WordCount example. Special cases of \DIAOp{FlatMap} are \DIAOp{Map}, which maps each item to exactly one output, \DIAOp{Filter}, which selects a subset of the input DIA, and \DIAOp{BernoulliSample}, which samples each item independently with constant probability $p$. The LOp \DIAOp{Union} fuses two or more DIAs into one without regard for item order. In contrast, the DOp \DIAOp{Concat} keeps the order of the input DIAs and concatenates them, which requires communication.
\DIAOp{Cache} explicitly materializes the result of a DIA operation for later use. \DIAOp{Collapse} on the other hand folds a pipeline of functions, as described in more detail in Section~\ref{sec:impl details}.
The \emph{reduce} step from the MapReduce paradigm is represented by Thrill's \DIAOp{ReduceByKey} and \DIAOp{GroupByKey} DOps. In both operations, input items are grouped by a key.
Keys are extracted from items using the \emph{key extractor} function $k$, and then mapped to workers using a hash function $h$.
In \DIAOp{ReduceByKey}, the associative reduction function $r$ specifies how two items are combined into one.
In \DIAOp{GroupByKey}, all items with a certain key are collected on one worker and processed by the group function $g$. When possible, \DIAOp{ReduceByKey} should be preferred as it allows local reduction and thus lowers communication volume and running time.
Both ReduceByKey and GroupByKey also offer a \DIAOp{ToIndex} variant, wherein each item of the input DIA is mapped by a function $i$ to an index in the result DIA. The size of the resulting DIA must be given as $n$. Items which map to the same index are either reduced using an associative reduction function $r$, or processed by a group function $g$. Empty slots in the DIA are filled with a neutral item.
\DIAOp{Sort} sorts a DIA with a user-defined comparison function $c$ and \DIAOp{Merge} merges multiple sorted DIAs, again using a user-defined comparison function $c$. \DIAOp{PrefixSum} uses an associative function $s$ to compute the prefix sum (partial sum) for each item.
\DIAOp{Zip} combines two or more DIAs index-wise using a zip function $z$ similar to functional programming languages.
The function $z$ is applied to all items with index $i$ to deliver the new item at index $i$.
The regular \DIAOp{Zip} function requires all DIAs to have equal length, but Thrill also provides variants which cut the DIAs to the shortest or pad them to the longest. \DIAOp{ZipWithIndex} zips each DIA item with its global index. While \DIAOp{ZipWithIndex} can be emulated using \DIAOp{Generate} and \DIAOp{Zip}, the combined variant requires less communication.
\DIAOp{Window} respects the ordering of a DIA and delivers all $k$ consecutive items (a sliding window) to a function $w$ which returns exactly one item. In the \DIAOp{FlatWindow} variant, the window function $f$ can emit zero or more items. Thrill also provides specializations which delivers all disjoint windows of $k$ consecutive items.
\DIAOp{Sum} is an action, which computes an associative function $s$ over all items in a DIA and returns the result on every worker. By default \DIAOp{Sum} uses $+$. \DIAOp{Max} and \DIAOp{Min} are specializations of \DIAOp{Sum} with other operators. \DIAOp{Size} returns the number of items in a DIA and \DIAOp{AllGather} returns a whole DIA as \textcode{std::vector$\langle{T}\rangle$} on each worker. \DIAOp{WriteLines} and \DIAOp{WriteBinary} write a DIA to the file system. \DIAOp{Execute} can be used to explicitly trigger evaluation of DIA operations.
Besides the actions which trigger evaluation, Thrill also provides \emph{action futures}, \DIAOp{SumFuture}, \DIAOp{MinFuture}, \DIAOp{AllGatherFuture}, etc, which only insert an action vertex into the DIA data-flow graph, but \emph{do not} trigger evaluation.
Using action futures one can calculate multiple results (e.g. the minimum \emph{and} maximum item) with just one data round trip.
The current set of scalable primitive DIA operations listed in Table~\ref{tab:operations} is definitely not final, and more distributed algorithmic primitives may be added in the future as necessary and prudent. In Section~\ref{sec:impl details} we describe the implementations of some of the operations in more detail. We also envision future work on how to accelerate scalable primitives, which can then be use as drop-in replacement to our current straight-forward implementations.
\subsection{Why Arrays?}\label{ss:why}
Thrill's DIA API is obviously similar to Spark and Flink's data-flow languages, which themselves are similar to many functional programming languages~\cite{misale2016comparison}. However, we explicitly define the items in DIAs to be ordered. This order may be arbitrary after operations like \DIAOp{ReduceByKey}, which hash items to indexes in the array, but they do have an order. Many of our operations like \DIAOp{PrefixSum}, \DIAOp{Sort}, \DIAOp{Merge}, \DIAOp{Zip}, and especially \DIAOp{Window} only make sense with an ordered data type.
Having an order on the distributed array opens up new opportunities in how to exploit this order in algorithms. Essentially, the order reintroduces the concept of \emph{locality} into distributed data-flow programming.
While one cannot access DIA items directly, such as in a imperative for loop over an array, one \emph{can} iterate over them using a \DIAOp{Window} function \emph{in parallel} with adjacent items as context.
A common design pattern in Thrill programs is to use \DIAOp{Sort} or \DIAOp{ReduceToIndex} to bring items into a desired order, and then to process them using a \DIAOp{Window}.
Furthermore, if the computation in a \DIAOp{Window} needs context from more than one DIA, these can be \DIAOp{Zip}-ped together first.
We are looking forward to future work on how this order paradigm can be exploited.
Furthermore, extending Thrill beyond one-dimensional arrays to higher dimensional arrays, (sparse) matrices, or graphs is not only useful but also conceptually interesting since these data types have a more complex concept of locality.
\subsection{Data-Flow Graph Implementation}\label{sec:data-flow}
Contrary to the picture of DIAs we have drawn for application programmers in the preceding sections, the distributed array of items usually does not exist explicitly.
Instead, a DIA remains purely a conceptual data-flow between two concrete DIA operations.
This data-flow abstraction allows us to apply an optimization called \emph{pipelining} or \emph{chaining}.
Chaining in general describes the process of combining the logic of one or more functions into a single one (called \emph{pipeline}).
In Thrill we chain together all independently parallelizable local operations (\DIAOp{FlatMap}, \DIAOp{Map}, \DIAOp{Filter}, and \DIAOp{BernoulliSample}), and the first local computation steps of the next distributed DIA operation into one block of optimized binary code.
Via this chaining, we reduce both the overhead of the data flow between them, as well as the total number of operations, and obviate the need to store intermediate explicit arrays.
Additionally, we leverage the C++ compiler to combine the local computations \emph{on the assembly level} with full optimization, thus reducing the number of indirections to a minimum, which additionally improves cache efficiency.
In essence, we combine all local computation of one bulk-synchronous parallel (BSP) superstep~\cite{gerbessiotis1994direct} using chaining into one block of assembly code.
To integrate the implementations of DIA operations into the pipelining framework we subdivide them into three parts: \emph{Link}, \emph{Main} and \emph{Push} (see Figure~\ref{fig:dop parts} for an example).
The Link part handles incoming items by performing some \emph{finalizing local work} like storing or transmitting them.
This process closes the pipeline and results in a single executable code block containing its logic.
The Main part contains the actual DIA operation logic like sorting, synchronous communication, etc.
And finally, the Push part represents the start of a new pipeline by \emph{emitting} items for further processing.
Depending on the type of a DIA operation, subdivisions can also be empty or trivial.
\begin{figure}\centering\footnotesize
\usetikzlibrary{calc,shapes.multipart}
\begin{tikzpicture}[
node distance=2.5mm,
datanode/.style={draw, semithick, fill=yellow!50!orange!70!white},
lop/.style={datanode, ellipse, inner sep=0pt, minimum height=19pt},
dop/.style={datanode, rectangle split, inner sep=4pt, align=center},
dataarrow/.style={->, thick},
]
\begin{scope}[xshift=0mm]
\draw[densely dashed] (2.0,1.1) -- ++(0,-6.8);
\node[dop, rectangle split parts=2] at (0,0) (A0) {
\nodepart{one} $A := \operatorname{ReadLines}_{[0,\frac{n}{2})}()$ \\
Main: open files, set cursor
\nodepart{two} Push: read lines from files
};
\node[above=1mm of A0] {\textbf{Worker 0}};
\node[dop, rectangle split parts=3, below=of A0] (B0) {
\nodepart{one} Link: sample and store
\nodepart{two} $B := A.\operatorname{Sort}()$ \\
Main: exchange samples,\\ classify and transmit
\nodepart{three} Push: merge sorted runs
};
\node[lop,below=of B0] (C0) {$C := B.\operatorname{Map}()$};
\node[dop, rectangle split parts=2, below=of C0] (F0) {%
\nodepart{one} Link: write to files
\nodepart{two} $C.\operatorname{WriteLines}_{[0,\frac{\ell}{2})}()$
};
\draw[dataarrow] (A0) -- (B0);
\draw[dataarrow] (B0) -- (C0);
\draw[dataarrow] (C0) -- (F0);
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=40mm]
\node[dop, rectangle split parts=2] at (0,0) (A1) {
\nodepart{one} $A := \operatorname{ReadLines}_{[\frac{n}{2},n)}()$ \\
Main: open files, set cursor
\nodepart{two} Push: read lines from files
};
\node[above=1mm of A1] {\textbf{Worker 1}};
\node[dop, rectangle split parts=3, below=of A1] (B1) {
\nodepart{one} Link: sample and store
\nodepart{two} $B := A.\operatorname{Sort}()$ \\
Main: exchange samples,\\ classify and transmit
\nodepart{three} Push: merge sorted runs
};
\node[lop,below=of B1] (C1) {$C := B.\operatorname{Map}()$};
\node[dop, rectangle split parts=2, below=of C1] (F1) {%
\nodepart{one} Link: write to files
\nodepart{two} $C.\operatorname{WriteLines}_{[\frac{\ell}{2},n)}()$
};
\draw[dataarrow] (A1) -- (B1);
\draw[dataarrow] (B1) -- (C1);
\draw[dataarrow] (C1) -- (F1);
\end{scope}
\draw[dataarrow, <->, >=latex] (B0.two east) -- (B1.two west);
\draw[dataarrow, ->, >=latex] ($(B0.two east) + (0,-8pt)$) -- (B1.three west);
\draw[dataarrow, ->, >=latex] ($(B1.two west) + (0,-8pt)$) -- (B0.three east);
\begin{scope}[very thick,red,rounded corners=2pt]
\draw ($(A0.two split west) + (-4pt,-4pt)$) rectangle
($(B0.text split east) + (8pt,-2pt)$);
\draw ($(B0.two split west) + (-4pt,2pt)$) rectangle
($(F0.text split east) + (8pt,-2pt)$);
\draw ($(A1.two split west) + (-4pt,-4pt)$) rectangle
($(B1.text split east) + (8pt,-2pt)$);
\draw ($(B1.two split west) + (-4pt,2pt)$) rectangle
($(F1.text split east) + (8pt,-2pt)$);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Subdivisions of DOps and chained Push, LOps, and Link parts}
\label{fig:dop parts}
\end{figure}
We explain these subdivisions using \DIAOp{PrefixSum} as an example.
In the Link part, \DIAOp{PrefixSum} receives a stream of items from a preceding operation and stores them in sequence.
While storing them, each worker keeps a local sum over all items.
In the Main part, the workers perform a global synchronous exclusive prefix sum on the local sums to calculate the initial value of their items.
This local initial value is then added to items while they are being read and Push-ed into the next operation.
Chaining also affects how data dependencies between DIA operations are represented in Thrill's data-flow graph.
Due to pipelining of local operations into one assembly block, all LOp are fused with the succeeding DOp vertices.
Hence only vertices representing distributed operations remain in the DAG.
This optimized data-flow DAG corresponds to a set of BSP supersteps and their data dependencies, and is executed lazily when an action is encountered.
Execution is done by Thrill's \emph{StageBuilder}, which performs a reverse breadth-first \emph{stage} search in the optimized DAG to determine which DIA operations need to be calculated.
The gathered vertices are then executed in topological order such that their data dependencies are resolved prior to execution.
Unnecessary recomputations are avoided by maintaining the state of each vertex, and DIA operations are automatically disposed via reference counting.
We implemented chaining and our execution model by making heavy use of C++ template programming.
More precisely, we compose a pipeline by chaining together the underlying (lambda) functions using their static functor types.
Since these types can be deduced by static analysis, chaining can take place during compile time, and hence chained operations can be optimized into single pipelined functions on the assembly code level.
In the end all trivially-parallel local operation like \DIAOp{Map}, \DIAOp{FlatMap}, etc. introduce zero overhead during runtime, and are combined with the following DIA operation's \emph{Link} part.
The caveat of Thrill's chaining mechanism is that the preceding LOp and DOp's (lambda) functions $f_1,f_2,\ldots$ become part of the DIA operation's template instantiation types as \DIA{$T,f_1,f_2,\ldots$}.
This is usually not a problem, since with C++11 we can encourage liberal use of the \textcode{auto} keyword instead of using concrete \DIA{T} types.
However, in iterative or recursive algorithms \DIA{T} variables have to be updated.
These variables are only references to the actual DIA operations, which are immutable, but the references must point to the same underlying DIA operation template type.
We address this issues by adding a special operation named \DIAOp{Collapse} which constructs a \DIA{T} from \DIA{$T,f_1,f_2,\ldots$}.
This operation creates an additional vertex in the data-flow DAG that closes the current pipeline, stores it, and creates a new (empty) one.
The framework will issue compilation errors when \DIAOp{Collapse} is required.
In Thrill we took pipelining of data processing one step further by enabling \emph{consumption} of source DIA storage \emph{while} pushing data to the next operation.
DIA operations transform huge data sets, but a naive implementation would read all items from one DIA, push them all into the pipeline for processing, and then deallocate the data storage.
Assuming the next operation also stores all items, this requires twice the amount of storage.
However, with \emph{consume} enabled, the preceding DIA operation's storage is deallocated while processing the items, hence the storage for all items is needed only once, plus a small overlapping buffer.
\subsection{Data, Network, and I/O Layers}\label{sec:data}
Below the convenient high-level DIA API of Thrill lie several software layers which do the actual data handling.
DIA operations are C++ template classes which are chained together as described in Section~\ref{sec:data-flow}.
These operations store and transmit the items using the \emph{data}, \emph{net}, and \emph{io} layers.
Items have to be serialized to byte-sequences for transmission via the network or for storage on disk. Thrill contains a custom C++ serialization framework which aims to deliver high performance and low to zero overhead. This is possible because neither signatures nor versioning are needed.
In general, fixed-length trivial items like integers and fixed-size numerical vectors are stored with zero overhead. Variable length items like strings and variable-length vectors are prepended with their length. Compound objects are stored as a sequence of their components.
DIA operations process a stream of items, which need to be transmitted or stored, and then read.
Such a stream of items is serialized directly into the memory buffer of a \emph{Block}, which is by default 2\,MiB in size.
Items in a Block are stored without separators or other per-item overhead. This is possible because Thrill's serialization methods correctly advance a cursor to the next item.
Hence, currently only four integers are required as overhead per Block and zero per item.
This efficient Block storage format is important for working with small items like plain integers or characters, but Thrill can also process large blobs spanning multiple Blocks.
A sequence of Blocks is called a \emph{File}, even though it is usually stored in main memory. DIA operations read/write items sequentially to/from Files using template \emph{BlockReader} and \emph{BlockWriter} classes.
To transmit items to other workers, DIA operations have two choices. One is a set of efficient \emph{synchronous} collective communication primitives similar to MPI, such as \emph{AllReduce}, \emph{Broadcast}, and \emph{PrefixSum}. These utilize the same serialization framework and are mostly used for blocking communication of small data items, e.g. an integer AllReduce is often used to calculate the total number of items in a DIA.
The second choice are \emph{Streams} for transmitting large amounts of items \emph{asynchronously}. Streams enable bulk all-to-all communication between all workers.
Thrill contains two subtypes of Streams which differ in the order items are received from other workers: \emph{CatStream}s deliver items strictly in worker rank order, while \emph{MixStream}s deliver items in the arbitrary order in which Blocks are received from the network.
Besides transmitting items in Blocks using the BlockReader and BlockWriter classes, Streams can also scatter whole ranges of a File to other workers without an additional deep copy of the Block's data in the network layer.
Items in Blocks scattered via Streams to workers on the same host are ``transmitted'' via reference counting and not deeply copied.
All communication with workers on the same host is done via shared memory within the same process space.
All Blocks in a Thrill program are managed by the \emph{BlockPool}.
Blocks are reference counted and automatically deleted once they are no longer in any File or used by the network system.
The BlockPool also keeps track of the total amount of memory used in Blocks.
Once a user-defined limit is exceeded, the BlockPool asynchronously swaps out the least recently used Blocks to a local disk.
To distinguish which Blocks may be evicted and which are being used by the data system, Blocks have to be \emph{pinned} to access their data.
Pins can be requested asynchronously to enable prefetching from external memory.
However, all the complexity of pinning Blocks is hidden in the BlockReader/Writer such as to make implementation of DIA operations easy.
Thrill divides available system memory into three parts (by default equally): BlockPool memory, DIA operations memory, and free floating heap memory for user objects like \textcode{std::string}.
All memory is tracked in Thrill by overloading \textcode{malloc()}, hence the user application needs no special allocators.
Memory limits for DIA operations' internal data structures are negotiated and defined when executed during evaluation.
The StageBuilder determines which DIA operations participate in a stage and divides the allotted memory fairly between them.
It is important for external memory support that the operations adhere to these internal memory limits, e.g. by correctly sizing their hash tables and sort buffers.
\subsection{Details on the Reduce, Group, and Sort Implementations}\label{sec:impl details}
Besides pipelining DIA operations, careful implementations of the core algorithms in the operations themselves are important for performance. Most operations are currently implemented rather straight-forwardly, and future work may focus on more sophisticated versions of specific DIA operations. Due to the generic DIA operation interface, these future implementations can then be easily plugged into existing applications.
\subsubsection{Reduce Operations}
\DIAOp{ReduceByKey} and \DIAOp{ReduceToIndex} are implemented using multiple levels of hash tables, because items can be immediately reduced due to associative or even commutative reduction operations $r : A \times A \rightarrow A$.
Thrill distinguishes two reduction phases: the pre-phase prior to transmission and the post-phase receiving items from other workers.
Items which are pushed into the Reduce-DOp are first processed by the key extractor $k : A \rightarrow K$ or index function $i : A \rightarrow [0,n)$ (see Table~\ref{tab:operations}). The key space $K$ or index space $[0,n)$ is divided equally onto the range of workers $[0,p)$. During the pre-phase, each worker hashes and inserts items into one of $p$ separate hash tables, each destined for one worker. If a hash table exceeds its fill-factor, its content is transmitted. If two items with matching keys are found, they are combined locally using $r$.
Items that are received from other workers in the post-phase are inserted into a second level of hash tables. Again, matching items are immediately reduced using $r$.
To enable truly massive data processing, Thrill may spill items into external memory during the post-phase.
The second level of hash tables are again partitioned into $k$ separate tables.
If any of the $k$ tables exceeds its fill-factor, its content is spilled into a File.
When all items have been received by the post-phase, the spilled Files are recursively reduced by choosing a new hash function and reusing the hash table.
The pre- and post-phases use custom linear probing hash tables with built-in reduction on collisions. One large memory segment is used for $p$ separate hash tables. Initially, only a small area of each partition is filled and used to save allocation time. When a hash table is flushed or spilled, its allocated size is doubled until the memory limit prescribed by the StageBuilder is reached.
\subsubsection{Group Operations}
\DIAOp{GroupByKey} and \DIAOp{GroupToIndex} are based on sorting and multiway merging of sorted runs. Items pushed into the Group-DOp are first processed by the key extractor $k : A \rightarrow K$ or index function $i : A \rightarrow [0,n)$, the result space $K$ or $[0,n)$ is distributed evenly onto all $p$ workers. After determining the destination worker, items are immediately transmitted to the appropriate worker via a Stream.
Each worker stores all received items in an in-memory vector.
Once the vector is full or heap memory is exhausted, the vector is sorted by key, and serialized into a File which may be swapped to external memory.
Once all items have been received, the sorted runs are merged using an efficient multiway merger.
The stream of sorted items is separated into subsequences with equal keys, and these sequences are delivered to the group function $g : \textbf{iterable}(A) \rightarrow B$ as a multiway merge iterator.
\subsubsection{Distributed Sorting}
The operation \DIAOp{Sort} rearranges all DIA items into a global order as defined by a comparison function.
In the Link step on each worker, all local incoming items are written to a File.
Simultaneously, a random sample is drawn using reservoir sampling and sent to worker 0 once all items have been seen.
In the Main part, Thrill uses Super Scalar Sample Sort~\cite{sanders2004super} to redistribute items between workers:
worker 0 receives all sample items, sorts them locally, chooses $p-1$ equidistant splitters, and broadcasts the splitters back to all workers.
These build a balanced binary tree with $p$ buckets to determine the target worker for each item in $\lceil \log p \rceil$ comparisons.
As Super Scalar Sample Sort requires the number of buckets to be a power of two, the tree is filled with sentinels as necessary.
Items are then read from the File, classified using the splitter tree, and transmitted via a Stream to the appropriate worker.
When a worker reaches its memory limit while receiving items, the items are sorted and written to a File.
If multiple sorted Files are created, these are merged during the Push part.
Datasets with many duplicated items can lead to load balance problems if sorting is implemented naively.
To mitigate skew, Thrill uses the global array position of the item to break ties and determine its recipient.
When an item is equal to a splitter, it will be sent to the lower rank worker if and only if its global array position is lower than the corresponding quantile of workers.
\section{Experimental Results}\label{sec:experiments}
We compared Apache Spark 2.0.0, Apache Flink 1.0.3, and Thrill using five synthetic micro benchmark applications on the Amazon Web Services (AWS) EC2 cloud.
Our benchmark and input set is based on HiBench~\cite{huang2011hibench}, which we extended\footnote{\url{http://github.com/thrill/fst-bench}} with implementations for Flink and Thrill.
We selected five micro benchmarks: \emph{WordCount}, \emph{\mbox{PageRank}}, \emph{TeraSort}, \emph{KMeans}, and \emph{Sleep}.
To focus on the performance of the frameworks themselves, we attempted to implement the benchmarks equally well using each of the frameworks, and made sure that the same basic algorithms were used.
Spark and Flink can be programmed in Java or Scala, and we include implementations of both whenever possible.
The code for Spark and Flink benchmarks was taken from different sources, all implementations for Thrill were written by us and are included in the Thrill C++ source code as examples.
While we tried to configure Spark and Flink best possible, the complexity and magnitude of configuration options these frameworks provide make it possible that we may have missed some tuning parameters.
For the most part we kept the parameters from HiBench.
The experiments are run with weak scaling of the input, which means that the input size increases with the number hosts $h$, where each AWS host has 32 cores.
\subsection{The Micro Benchmarks}
Implementations of \emph{WordCount} were available in Java and Scala from the examples accompanying Spark and Flink.
The WordCount benchmarks process $h \cdot 32\text{\,GiB}$ of text generated by a C++ version of Hadoop's RandomTextWriter.
There are only 1\,000 distinct words in this random text, which we do not consider a good benchmark for reduce, since only very little data needs to be communicated, but this input seems to be an accepted standard.
For \emph{PageRank} we used only implementations which perform ten iterations of the naive algorithm involving a join of the current ranks with all outgoing edges and a reduction to collect all contributions to the new ranks.
We took the implementation from Spark's examples and modified it to use integers instead of strings as page keys.
We adapted Flink's example to calculate PageRank without normalization and to perform a fixed number of iterations.
Thrill emulates a join operation using \DIAOp{ReduceToIndex} and \DIAOp{Zip} with the page id as the index into the DIA.
The input graph for the experiments contained $h \cdot 4\text{\,M}$ vertices with an average of 39.5 edges per vertex, totaling $\approx h \cdot 2.7\,\text{GiB}$ in size, and generated using the PagerankData generator in HiBench.
\emph{TeraSort} requires sorting 100 byte records, and we used the standard sort method in each framework.
HiBench provided a Java implementation for Spark, and we used an unofficial Scala implementation\footnote{\url{https://github.com/eastcirclek/terasort}}~\cite{dongwon2015terasort} for Flink.
Hadoop's \emph{teragen} was used to generate $h \cdot 16\text{\,GiB}$ as input.
For \emph{KMeans} we used the implementations from Spark and Flink's examples.
Spark calls its machine learning package, while Flink's example is a whole algorithm.
We made sure that both essentially perform ten iterations of Lloyd's algorithm using random initial centroids, and we implemented this algorithm in Thrill.
We fixed the number of dimensions to three, because Flink's implementation required a fixed number of dimensions, and the number of clusters to ten.
Following HiBench's settings, Apache Mahout's GenKMeansDataset was used to generate $h \cdot 16\text{\,M}$ sample points, and the binary Mahout format was converted to text for reading with Flink and Thrill ($\approx h \cdot 8.8\,\text{GiB}$ in size).
The \emph{Sleep} benchmark is used to measure framework startup overhead time.
It launches one map task per core which sleeps for 60 seconds.
\subsection{The Platform}
\begin{table*}[b]
\caption{Resource Utilization of Frameworks with in Benchmarks}\label{tag:utilization}
\centering%
\iffalse
+-----------+-------------+-------------------+------------------+-------------------+--------------------+---------------------+
| bench | frame | cpu_user_sys_perc | cpu_user_secs | net_tx_rx_bytes | net_speed_per_host | diskstats |
+-----------+-------------+-------------------+------------------+-------------------+--------------------+---------------------+
| kmeans | flink_java | 3.650259 | 184.238593844608 | 136007.93042022 | 26.8601229250498 | 18.6254996009271 |
| pagerank | flink_java | 60.312147 | 253.360195924664 | 70309.6381757259 | 167.371406455342 | 0.00979921587222248 |
| sleep | flink_java | 0.020344 | 0.01222332580112 | 1.327397108078 | 0.0221027178189456 | 0.00200273644799791 |
| wordcount | flink_java | 71.495153 | 247.505992304363 | 68414.9235324264 | 196.011783710504 | 70.1735389365987 |
| kmeans | flink_scala | 4.277547 | 183.18917993465 | 122547.742559075 | 29.2411602053395 | 19.4032384851081 |
| pagerank | flink_scala | 60.94792 | 284.075790386115 | 69624.4879991412 | 150.781835664354 | 0.0264283014919737 |
| sleep | flink_scala | 0.017364 | 0.01042942336176 | 1.33696067333221 | 0.0222564171713095 | 0.00158320442146679 |
| terasort | flink_scala | 26.222241 | 68.9202428636977 | 116389.831915319 | 452.543438022679 | 153.323134737436 |
| wordcount | flink_scala | 77.548695 | 290.290888323399 | 68982.2620489597 | 183.399825107919 | 72.8253832087217 |
| kmeans | prepare | 4.548086 | 0.73414698389757 | 110.028907448053 | 6.38877877581347 | 0.172500738635731 |
| pagerank | prepare | 0.033687 | 0.50533157264247 | 2806.81849759817 | 1.87111393483992 | 3.75753702028883 |
| sleep | prepare | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| terasort | prepare | 0.039077 | 1.01916092020295 | 16714.4546421766 | 6.40871064720841 | 12.7165513804449 |
| wordcount | prepare | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| kmeans | spark_java | 21.714219 | 206.068801418962 | 28203.5303826928 | 28.3164502201886 | 1.32381115204867 |
| pagerank | spark_java | 43.182256 | 453.457477398519 | 48270.8172119856 | 45.9638896712266 | 19.7505070160506 |
| sleep | spark_java | 0.427259 | 0.29511994681855 | 107.876561760902 | 1.56155863458714 | 0.689877849681114 |
| terasort | spark_java | 20.332471 | 76.0490211766918 | 163290.492779076 | 421.81997885093 | 134.206189821685 |
| wordcount | spark_java | 69.567214 | 70.5365846884197 | 94071.2605870366 | 921.600512423353 | 0.751060323134237 |
| kmeans | spark_scala | 27.120474 | 80.798261509283 | 22013.8874592185 | 66.1192816151909 | 0.419822929674009 |
| pagerank | spark_scala | 29.347475 | 392.481006241674 | 48240.3324140906 | 36.0262972608455 | 16.4867421327992 |
| sleep | spark_scala | 0.425546 | 0.29813620415194 | 107.921632528305 | 1.54042408792744 | 0.679694947201432 |
| wordcount | spark_scala | 63.514374 | 49.0751831709347 | 72466.6490799785 | 939.443472630415 | 0.731422078948677 |
| kmeans | thrill | 50.248306 | 35.4389211444498 | 17950.0509127975 | 252.571501084946 | 0.00545837595711952 |
| pagerank | thrill | 27.299397 | 70.7060352514668 | 56518.3697901368 | 217.734540961155 | 0.690379594075751 |
| sleep | thrill | 0.011717 | 0.00692339778745 | 0.775919854640961 | 0.0131198684401623 | 0.00168890419121549 |
| terasort | thrill | 25.316233 | 49.0778208420517 | 86635.4449579716 | 393.074648361672 | 113.536382541209 |
| wordcount | thrill | 26.730484 | 15.7930261805822 | 66610.6099664569 | 1127.29762943402 | 0.0300622843863398 |
+-----------+-------------+-------------------+------------------+-------------------+--------------------+---------------------+
\fi
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Spark (Scala)} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Flink (Scala)} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Thrill} \\ \hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{CPU} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Net} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{CPU} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Net} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{CPU} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Net} \\ \hline%
WordCount & 49\,s & 64\,\% & 939\,MiB/s & 290\,s & 78\,\% & 183\,MiB/s & 16\,s & 27\,\% & 1\,127\,MiB/s \\
PageRank & 392\,s & 29\,\% & 36\,MiB/s & 284\,s & 61\,\% & 151\,MiB/s & 70\,s & 27\,\% & 217\,MiB/s \\
TeraSort & 76\,s & 20\,\% & 421\,MiB/s & 69\,s & 26\,\% & 452\,MiB/s & 49\,s & 25\,\% & 393\,MiB/s \\
KMean & 81\,s & 27\,\% & 66\,MiB/s & 183\,s & 4.3\,\% & 29\,MiB/s & 35\,s & 50\,\% & 253\,MiB/s \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\medskip
The table shows the CPU utilization as seconds and percentage of total running time, and the average network bandwidth in MiB/s, both averaged over all hosts during the benchmark run with 16 hosts. TeraSort shows Spark (Java), as we have no Scala implementation.
\end{table*}
We performed our micro benchmarks on AWS using $h$~r3.8xlarge EC2 instances.
Each instance contains 32 vCPU cores of an Intel Xeon E5-2670 v2 with 2.5\,GHz, 244\,GiB RAM, and two local 320\,GiB SSD disks.
We measured 86\,GiB/s single-core/L1-cache, 11.6\,GiB/s single-core/RAM, and 74\,GiB/s 32-core/RAM memory bandwidth using a memory benchmark tool\footnote{\url{http://panthema.net/2013/pmbw/}}.
The SSDs reached 460\,MiB/s when reading 8\,MiB blocks, and 397\,MiB/s when writing.
The $h$ instances were allocated in one AWS availability zone and were connected with a 10 gigabit network.
Our network performance measurements showed $\approx$\,100\,$\mu$s ping latency, and up to 1\,GiB/s sustained point-to-point bandwidth.
All frameworks used TCP sockets for transmitting data.
We experimented with AWS S3, EBS, and EFS as data storage for the benchmark inputs, but ultimately chose to run a separate CephFS cluster on the EC2 instances.
Ceph provided reliable, repeatable performance and minimized external factors in our experiments.
Each EC2 instance carried one Ceph ODS on a local SSD, and we configured the Ceph cluster to keep only one replication block to minimize bandwidth due to data transfer.
We did not use HDFS since Thrill does not support it, and because a POSIX-based distributed file system (DFS) provided a standard view for all frameworks.
The other SSD was used for temporary files created by the frameworks.
All Spark implementations use the RDD interface.
Support for fault tolerance in Spark and Flink incurred no additional overhead, because no checkpoints were written.
By default checkpointing is deactivated and must be explicitly configured.
All compression was deactivated, and Spark was configured to use Kyro serialization.
We used Ubuntu 16.04 LTS (Xenial Xerus) with Linux kernel 4.4.0-31, Ceph 10.2.2 (jewel), Oracle Java 1.8.0\_101, Apache Spark 2.0.0, Apache Flink 1.0.3, and compiled Thrill using gcc 5.4.0 with cmake in Release mode.
\begin{figure*}
\centering\footnotesize
\begin{tikzpicture}[trim axis left,trim left=-7ex]
\begin{axis}[myPlot,
title={WordCount},
legend columns=2,
legend to name={plotlegend},
ylabel={time per byte per host [ns]},
ymin=0,
]
\addplot coordinates { (1,2.16322) (2,2.45464) (4,2.60068) (8,2.7685) (16,3.03663) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Spark (Java)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,1.5814) (2,1.87192) (4,2.01819) (8,2.16441) (16,2.29102) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Spark (Scala)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,9.00051) (2,8.99876) (4,10.4054) (8,9.75481) (16,10.2115) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Flink (Java)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,9.66997) (2,9.83196) (4,10.5705) (8,10.4427) (16,11.001) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Flink (Scala)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,0.8009) (2,1.0134) (4,1.4592) (8,1.35623) (16,1.78291) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Thrill};
\legend{Spark (Java), Spark (Scala), Flink (Java), Flink (Scala), Thrill};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
%
\begin{tikzpicture}[trim axis left,trim left=-7ex]
\begin{axis}[myPlot,
title={PageRank},
legend columns=2,
ymin=0,
]
\addplot coordinates { (1,146.014) (2,223.255) (4,280.241) (8,312.095) (16,367.067) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Spark (Java)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,119.943) (2,199.727) (4,248.163) (8,368.006) (16,467.618) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Spark (Scala)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,134.484) (2,144.501) (4,146.81) (8,145.481) (16,147.112) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Flink (Java)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,135.356) (2,147.32) (4,149.062) (8,154.747) (16,163.061) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Flink (Scala)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,27.3159) (2,36.6878) (4,44.6588) (8,58.0087) (16,91.6275) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Thrill};
\legend{};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
%
\begin{tikzpicture}[trim axis left,trim left=-7ex]
\begin{axis}[myPlot,
title={TeraSort},
legend columns=2,
ymin=0,
]
\addplot coordinates { (1,15.1457) (2,17.3741) (4,22.0729) (8,19.8237) (16,22.0581) }; \pgfplotsset{cycle list shift=2}
\addlegendentry{descr=Spark (Java)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,11.3049) (2,12.4712) (4,17.072) (8,14.2912) (16,15.0906) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Flink (Scala)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,7.2752) (2,7.84674) (4,9.5485) (8,9.9889) (16,12.8153) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Thrill};
\legend{};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\begin{tikzpicture}[trim axis left,trim left=-7ex]
\begin{axis}[myPlot,
title={KMeans},
legend columns=2,
xlabel={number of hosts $h$},
ylabel={time per byte per host [ns]},
ymin=0,
]
\addplot coordinates { (1,14.3032) (2,28.8454) (4,37.9637) (8,48.7995) (16,56.695) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Spark (Java)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,6.47617) (2,6.29795) (4,12.7334) (8,8.79041) (16,17.5065) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Spark (Scala)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,45.225) (2,76.6669) (4,87.9253) (8,147.818) (16,298.031) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Flink (Java)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,41.9441) (2,61.734) (4,69.1947) (8,116.567) (16,248.954) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Flink (Scala)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,1.76066) (2,2.03475) (4,2.29996) (8,2.69229) (16,4.27379) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Thrill};
\legend{};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{3mm}%
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[myPlot,
title={Sleep},
legend columns=2,
legend=none,
xlabel={number of hosts $h$},
ylabel={overhead time [s]},
every axis legend/.code={\let\addlegendentry\relax},
ymin=0,
]
\addplot coordinates { (1,5.391) (2,5.76) (4,6.564) (8,7.986) (16,11.243) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Spark (Java)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,5.281) (2,5.717) (4,6.501) (8,7.955) (16,11.348) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Spark (Scala)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,1.884) (2,1.971) (4,1.98) (8,2.012) (16,2.173) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Flink (Java)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,1.871) (2,1.991) (4,2.02) (8,1.993) (16,2.271) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Flink (Scala)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,0.331) (2,0.349) (4,0.358) (8,0.448) (16,0.611) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Thrill};
\legend{};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{2mm}%
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[minimum width=50mm, minimum height=49mm]{};
\node{\ref{plotlegend}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Experimental results of Apache Spark 2.0.0, Apache Flink 1.0.3, and Thrill on $h$ AWS r3.8xlarge hosts}
\label{fig:results}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering\footnotesize
\begin{tikzpicture}[trim axis left,trim left=-7ex]
\begin{axis}[myPlot,
title={WordCount},
legend columns=2,
legend to name={slowdownlegend},
ylabel={slowdown over fastest},
ymin=0,
]
\addplot coordinates { (1,2.70098) (2,2.42219) (4,1.78227) (8,2.04132) (16,1.70319) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Spark (Java)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,1.97453) (2,1.84717) (4,1.38309) (8,1.59591) (16,1.28499) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Spark (Scala)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,11.238) (2,8.87981) (4,7.13088) (8,7.19261) (16,5.72747) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Flink (Java)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,12.0739) (2,9.70199) (4,7.24403) (8,7.69979) (16,6.17027) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Flink (Scala)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,1) (2,1) (4,1) (8,1) (16,1) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Thrill};
\legend{Spark (Java), Spark (Scala), Flink (Java), Flink (Scala), Thrill};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
%
\begin{tikzpicture}[trim axis left,trim left=-7ex]
\begin{axis}[myPlot,
title={PageRank},
legend columns=2,
ymin=0,
]
\addplot coordinates { (1,5.34538) (2,6.08526) (4,6.27514) (8,5.38014) (16,4.00608) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Spark (Java)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,4.39094) (2,5.44397) (4,5.55687) (8,6.34398) (16,5.10347) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Spark (Scala)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,4.9233) (2,3.93866) (4,3.28736) (8,2.50791) (16,1.60554) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Flink (Java)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,4.95521) (2,4.01549) (4,3.33779) (8,2.66766) (16,1.77961) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Flink (Scala)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,1) (2,1) (4,1) (8,1) (16,1) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Thrill};
\legend{};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
%
\begin{tikzpicture}[trim axis left,trim left=-7ex]
\begin{axis}[myPlot,
title={TeraSort},
legend columns=2,
ymin=0.8,
]
\addplot coordinates { (1,2.08183) (2,2.21417) (4,2.31166) (8,1.98458) (16,1.72124) }; \pgfplotsset{cycle list shift=2}
\addlegendentry{descr=Spark (Java)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,1.5539) (2,1.58935) (4,1.78793) (8,1.43071) (16,1.17755) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Flink (Scala)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,1) (2,1) (4,1) (8,1) (16,1) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Thrill};
\legend{};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\begin{tikzpicture}[trim axis left,trim left=-7ex]
\begin{axis}[myPlot,
title={KMeans},
legend columns=2,
xlabel={number of hosts $h$},
ylabel={slowdown over fastest},
ymin=0,
]
\addplot coordinates { (1,8.1238) (2,14.1763) (4,16.5062) (8,18.1257) (16,13.2657) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Spark (Java)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,3.67827) (2,3.09519) (4,5.53634) (8,3.26503) (16,4.09625) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Spark (Scala)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,25.6865) (2,37.6967) (4,38.229) (8,54.904) (16,69.7347) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Flink (Java)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,23.823) (2,30.3398) (4,30.0851) (8,43.2967) (16,58.2514) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Flink (Scala)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,1) (2,1) (4,1) (8,1) (16,1) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Thrill};
\legend{};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{3mm}%
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[myPlot,
title={Sleep},
legend columns=2,
legend=none,
xlabel={number of hosts $h$},
ylabel={slowdown over fastest},
every axis legend/.code={\let\addlegendentry\relax},
ymin=0,
]
\addplot coordinates { (1,16.287) (2,16.5043) (4,18.3352) (8,17.8259) (16,18.401) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Spark (Java)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,15.9547) (2,16.3811) (4,18.1592) (8,17.7567) (16,18.5728) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Spark (Scala)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,5.69184) (2,5.64756) (4,5.53073) (8,4.49107) (16,3.55646) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Flink (Java)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,5.65257) (2,5.70487) (4,5.64246) (8,4.44866) (16,3.71686) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Flink (Scala)};
\addplot coordinates { (1,1) (2,1) (4,1) (8,1) (16,1) };
\addlegendentry{descr=Thrill};
\legend{};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{2mm}%
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[minimum width=50mm, minimum height=49mm]{};
\node{\ref{slowdownlegend}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Slowdown of Apache Spark 2.0.0, Apache Flink 1.0.3, and Thrill on $h$ AWS r3.8xlarge hosts over the fastest framework}
\label{fig:results slowdown}
\end{figure*}
\def\smallskipamount{\smallskipamount}
\begin{figure*}
\centering\footnotesize
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileLeft,
title={WordCount with Spark (Scala)},
]
\addplot coordinates { (0.086235,0.0941027) (1.09162,2.06246) (2.09162,6.0228) (3.09162,7.27801) (4.09162,1.58713) (5.09161,1.20146) (6.09162,2.02556) (7.09161,1.15707) (8.09223,2.72622) (9.09162,12.5738) (10.0916,30.741) (11.0916,31.4983) (12.0916,37.7884) (13.0311,52.934) (14.0863,86.4925) (15.0916,93.0549) (16.0917,94.236) (17.0918,95.4424) (18.0917,96.5782) (19.0917,96.2693) (20.0311,94.8852) (21.0862,94.1798) (22.0916,95.9075) (23.0916,95.307) (24.092,95.9071) (25.0918,96.3656) (26.092,96.3585) (27.0919,95.1647) (28.0311,94.0228) (29.0291,92.7679) (30.0863,92.9996) (31.0923,94.5364) (32.0918,95.8979) (33.0311,94.9617) (34.0293,92.7884) (35.0862,89.866) (36.0919,90.4488) (37.0916,93.054) (38.092,93.8559) (39.0916,93.021) (40.0917,89.7714) (41.0311,86.6282) (42.0867,87.8979) (43.0916,88.5377) (44.0311,92.3383) (45.0864,92.3472) (46.0311,91.9572) (47.0865,91.9637) (48.0916,92.3587) (49.0311,92.7702) (50.0862,93.9079) (51.0313,94.6547) (52.0864,93.5486) (53.0917,93.9393) (54.0918,93.9115) (55.0922,92.1093) (56.0939,91.1043) (57.0313,81.8709) (58.0292,88.8063) (59.0298,87.2405) (60.0294,92.0551) (61.0291,81.1957) (62.0291,65.8792) (63.0862,43.514) (64.0916,14.1858) (65.0916,19.3556) (66.0311,71.6) (67.0863,67.6465) (68.0916,32.7299) (69.0916,5.9473) (70.0916,3.15659) (71.0916,3.13924) (72.0916,2.06439) (73.0916,0.0176002) (74.0916,0.00979751) (75.0916,0.0528945) (76.0916,0.0530263) }; \label{plot_cpu}
\end{axis}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileRight,
legend to name={profilelegend},
legend columns=3,
]
\pgfplotsset{cycle list shift=1}
\addlegendimage{/pgfplots/refstyle=plot_cpu}\addlegendentry{CPU Utilization}
\addplot coordinates { (0.086235,0.0018338) (1.09162,0.0328736) (2.09162,0.0780865) (3.09162,31.1213) (4.09162,22.2723) (5.09161,18.0961) (6.09162,26.7695) (7.09161,1.39498) (8.09223,3.02803) (9.09162,72.8327) (10.0916,266.375) (11.0916,444.101) (12.0916,449.516) (13.0311,531.316) (14.0863,940.97) (15.0916,1293.02) (16.0917,1256.77) (17.0918,1327.61) (18.0917,1348.71) (19.0917,1280.83) (20.0311,1115.8) (21.0862,1288.07) (22.0916,1325.24) (23.0916,1386.42) (24.092,1425.49) (25.0918,1383.66) (26.092,1380.38) (27.0919,1498.25) (28.0311,1496.61) (29.0291,1537.96) (30.0863,1455.84) (31.0923,1420.09) (32.0918,1443.85) (33.0311,1557.76) (34.0293,1538.93) (35.0862,1480.74) (36.0919,1459.73) (37.0916,1397.87) (38.092,1443.04) (39.0916,1527.77) (40.0917,1474.65) (41.0311,1480.68) (42.0867,1415.05) (43.0916,1409.03) (44.0311,1433.19) (45.0864,1510.31) (46.0311,1512.1) (47.0865,1512.82) (48.0916,1464.92) (49.0311,1450.18) (50.0862,1457.42) (51.0313,1511.8) (52.0864,1501.42) (53.0917,1526.03) (54.0918,1474.92) (55.0922,1469.07) (56.0939,1355.3) (57.0313,1495) (58.0292,1485.87) (59.0298,1439.92) (60.0294,1474.89) (61.0291,1321.79) (62.0291,1183.54) (63.0862,897.288) (64.0916,320.154) (65.0916,16.2273) (66.0311,15.218) (67.0863,21.6908) (68.0916,13.3514) (69.0916,0.538233) (70.0916,0.197615) (71.0916,0.187601) (72.0916,0.196017) (73.0916,0.18821) (74.0916,0.201494) (75.0916,0.19229) (76.0916,0.181191) }; \addlegendentry{Network Throughput}
\addplot coordinates { (0.086235,0.0133272) (1.09162,0.187256) (2.09162,0.29126) (3.09162,0.161011) (4.09162,0.00439453) (5.09161,0.0166016) (6.09162,0.0546875) (7.09161,3.00855) (8.09223,3.01001) (9.09162,5.95474) (10.0916,0.00610352) (11.0916,0.00146484) (12.0916,0.00268555) (13.0311,0.0682292) (14.0863,0.00206801) (15.0916,0) (16.0917,0.000976562) (17.0918,0.043457) (18.0917,0.00390625) (19.0917,0.0581055) (20.0311,0.0145833) (21.0862,0.0541705) (22.0916,0.0107422) (23.0916,0.00976562) (24.092,0.0090332) (25.0918,0.0581055) (26.092,0.00146484) (27.0919,0.0589294) (28.0311,0.0668945) (29.0291,0.0708008) (30.0863,0.0737592) (31.0923,0.0656738) (32.0918,0.0278015) (33.0311,0.0291667) (34.0293,2.96753) (35.0862,5.58241) (36.0919,11.8409) (37.0916,8.87012) (38.092,6.06885) (39.0916,0.0294495) (40.0917,0.0300293) (41.0311,0.0140625) (42.0867,0.0112592) (43.0916,0.00854492) (44.0311,0.0124349) (45.0864,0.0346106) (46.0311,0.0188477) (47.0865,0.0736156) (48.0916,0.0203857) (49.0311,0.0631511) (50.0862,0.121409) (51.0313,0.16237) (52.0864,0.192814) (53.0917,0.129059) (54.0918,0.111969) (55.0922,0.1875) (56.0939,0.170288) (57.0313,0.147656) (58.0292,0.222504) (59.0298,0.169067) (60.0294,0.218658) (61.0291,0.238861) (62.0291,0.15918) (63.0862,0.138241) (64.0916,0.129669) (65.0916,0.146729) (66.0311,0.241146) (67.0863,0.216682) (68.0916,0.324707) (69.0916,0.25708) (70.0916,0.340332) (71.0916,0.19165) (72.0916,0.278564) (73.0916,0.341736) (74.0916,0.265015) (75.0916,0.576172) (76.0916,0.661621) }; \addlegendentry{Disk Throughput}
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\vspace{\smallskipamount}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileLeft,
title={WordCount with Flink (Scala)},
]
\addplot coordinates { (0.153308,0) (1.15331,5.17095) (2.15332,13.9337) (3.15334,22.6217) (4.15333,37.6631) (5.20315,39.2501) (6.21586,44.4444) (7.16357,46.5207) (8.15334,52.16) (9.15333,55.4756) (10.1534,56.2121) (11.1534,59.6254) (12.1534,59.6911) (13.1534,61.5166) (14.1533,65.5234) (15.1534,68.2405) (16.1534,72.1205) (17.1534,75.5023) (18.1534,78.091) (19.1538,80.5801) (20.2031,83.7139) (21.2161,86.8093) (22.2159,88.4395) (23.216,90.3355) (24.2158,93.5182) (25.2158,95.6639) (26.2159,95.3908) (27.1636,93.2682) (28.2033,89.9538) (29.1635,85.8839) (30.2031,80.7732) (31.1636,73.0881) (32.1534,72.1516) (33.1533,65.8334) (34.2031,63.1089) (35.2158,58.4941) (36.1635,53.6145) (37.1533,53.4323) (38.2031,52.1117) (39.2158,52.2152) (40.2158,50.4629) (41.2158,49.2151) (42.2158,48.7317) (43.2158,48.8191) (44.2159,47.2675) (45.1635,46.2927) (46.1533,46.4634) (47.2032,47.5804) (48.1635,45.4563) (49.1534,49.4887) (50.1533,49.2828) (51.1533,46.8113) (52.1533,48.0281) (53.1533,45.9949) (54.1533,44.922) (55.1533,44.8531) (56.1533,43.6374) (57.1533,44.2706) (58.1534,45.432) (59.1533,47.1808) (60.1533,46.7927) (61.1533,49.443) (62.1533,50.289) (63.1533,50.7603) (64.1533,46.6978) (65.1533,43.3365) (66.1533,44.1619) (67.1533,49.8104) (68.1533,47.2077) (69.2031,46.6795) (70.2159,50.044) (71.1635,51.7331) (72.2032,52.9078) (73.1635,53.9158) (74.1534,58.6109) (75.1533,57.9745) (76.1533,56.3227) (77.1533,57.5994) (78.1533,57.175) (79.2031,57.7547) (80.2158,57.7671) (81.2158,62.6226) (82.1635,65.7933) (83.2031,69.2598) (84.2158,69.8477) (85.1635,66.5388) (86.2031,70.8116) (87.2159,71.6345) (88.2159,74.7755) (89.2159,78.7144) (90.2158,82.444) (91.1635,82.4698) (92.2032,85.7889) (93.1637,86.4651) (94.2033,92.4406) (95.2158,96.7233) (96.2158,97.8236) (97.2158,97.7202) (98.1636,98.6293) (99.2034,98.4928) (100.164,98.6537) (101.153,98.9539) (102.203,99.0728) (103.164,99.0208) (104.153,98.9296) (105.153,98.6771) (106.154,99.08) (107.153,99.0794) (108.153,98.9938) (109.203,99.4756) (110.216,99.1951) (111.164,99.1316) (112.153,99.4211) (113.153,99.3712) (114.153,99.3925) (115.153,99.1199) (116.153,99.235) (117.153,99.3183) (118.153,99.4819) (119.203,99.7535) (120.216,99.7869) (121.164,99.7227) (122.153,99.8046) (123.153,99.8437) (124.153,99.762) (125.203,99.6307) (126.216,99.8886) (127.164,99.1926) (128.153,99.875) (129.153,99.6888) (130.153,99.7634) (131.153,99.7772) (132.203,99.6527) (133.216,99.7499) (134.216,99.9414) (135.216,99.1925) (136.164,99.952) (137.153,99.8691) (138.153,99.8926) (139.153,99.8632) (140.153,99.8948) (141.153,99.7738) (142.153,99.703) (143.153,99.8143) (144.203,99.7975) (145.164,99.9854) (146.153,99.8711) (147.153,99.6868) (148.153,99.7326) (149.153,99.6991) (150.203,99.7054) (151.216,99.9961) (152.216,99.8455) (153.164,99.9938) (154.153,99.9746) (155.203,99.954) (156.164,99.7523) (157.153,99.7912) (158.203,99.7271) (159.164,99.466) (160.153,99.6188) (161.203,99.8419) (162.164,99.6724) (163.203,99.1475) (164.216,99.728) (165.216,99.914) (166.216,99.8515) (167.216,99.754) (168.216,99.555) (169.216,99.7773) (170.216,99.9198) (171.216,99.8086) (172.216,99.427) (173.216,99.8495) (174.216,99.4294) (175.216,99.5219) (176.216,99.4359) (177.216,99.4554) (178.216,99.5713) (179.216,99.8008) (180.216,99.6928) (181.216,99.9141) (182.216,99.787) (183.216,99.7207) (184.164,99.5931) (185.153,99.7891) (186.203,99.8878) (187.164,99.5955) (188.153,99.4086) (189.153,99.6545) (190.153,99.8421) (191.153,99.9297) (192.153,99.5445) (193.203,99.7681) (194.216,99.8747) (195.216,99.9902) (196.216,99.9609) (197.216,99.8589) (198.216,99.7875) (199.216,99.6165) (200.216,99.7473) (201.216,99.6651) (202.216,99.8106) (203.164,99.7602) (204.153,99.7909) (205.203,99.6137) (206.216,99.4044) (207.216,99.7129) (208.216,99.8555) (209.216,99.6645) (210.216,99.6914) (211.216,99.8613) (212.216,99.875) (213.164,99.2993) (214.153,99.6463) (215.203,99.7128) (216.164,99.7917) (217.153,99.6246) (218.153,99.1698) (219.153,99.6696) (220.153,99.4963) (221.153,99.7342) (222.203,99.6231) (223.216,99.6386) (224.164,99.3916) (225.203,99.1249) (226.164,99.0868) (227.203,98.9161) (228.164,99.0786) (229.203,98.3984) (230.164,98.9864) (231.153,98.8581) (232.153,98.5562) (233.153,98.9169) (234.203,98.6181) (235.216,98.466) (236.216,98.1312) (237.216,98.3852) (238.216,98.201) (239.164,98.5317) (240.203,98.1219) (241.216,97.6204) (242.216,97.943) (243.216,98.6118) (244.216,98.1399) (245.216,98.0426) (246.216,97.8279) (247.216,97.7317) (248.216,97.8122) (249.216,97.423) (250.164,97.2677) (251.153,97.3202) (252.203,97.5454) (253.216,97.2954) (254.216,97.8819) (255.164,96.9333) (256.153,97.4395) (257.203,97.6667) (258.216,97.6612) (259.216,97.5005) (260.216,97.3444) (261.216,97.3175) (262.216,97.3959) (263.216,97.6525) (264.216,97.6688) (265.164,98.1984) (266.203,97.9681) (267.216,98.2585) (268.216,98.5625) (269.216,98.6801) (270.216,98.7292) (271.216,98.5025) (272.216,98.5862) (273.216,98.468) (274.216,98.2841) (275.164,98.455) (276.153,98.6314) (277.203,98.0696) (278.216,92.627) (279.216,94.116) (280.216,95.3806) (281.216,92.3566) (282.216,94.6419) (283.164,94.1211) (284.153,91.0221) (285.153,92.2172) (286.153,89.2004) (287.153,83.4264) (288.153,74.2055) (289.153,65.7809) (290.203,63.7648) (291.216,68.8629) (292.164,78.3265) (293.153,74.3849) (294.153,83.2388) (295.153,85.5529) (296.203,89.1891) (297.216,91.0533) (298.216,91.3269) (299.164,89.3959) (300.153,88.6823) (301.203,91.0895) (302.216,89.2924) (303.216,88.8585) (304.164,88.6765) (305.203,89.6167) (306.216,90.5689) (307.164,88.214) (308.203,90.5864) (309.216,91.2265) (310.216,92.0992) (311.216,92.1952) (312.216,91.4489) (313.216,92.3367) (314.216,91.484) (315.216,91.6868) (316.216,90.4158) (317.164,90.6298) (318.153,88.4443) (319.203,86.8302) (320.164,85.4354) (321.153,85.0353) (322.153,83.4601) (323.153,82.836) (324.153,83.4715) (325.153,80.4987) (326.153,78.9407) (327.203,75.5842) (328.164,73.6158) (329.153,71.9936) (330.153,67.525) (331.153,63.6241) (332.153,60.3374) (333.153,56.9222) (334.203,53.1051) (335.216,51.71) (336.216,46.179) (337.216,41.2363) (338.216,37.8219) (339.216,34.9256) (340.216,31.1981) (341.216,27.3342) (342.216,23.1349) (343.216,20.5943) (344.216,17.9621) (345.216,16.2017) (346.216,14.3142) (347.216,12.7884) (348.216,10.7711) (349.216,10.0779) (350.216,9.38629) (351.216,8.95323) (352.216,7.74022) (353.216,6.94604) (354.216,7.27404) (355.216,6.84476) (356.216,6.29826) (357.216,6.05077) (358.216,5.65222) (359.216,5.67398) (360.216,5.27213) (361.216,5.1159) (362.216,5.05506) (363.216,5.09497) (364.216,5.89466) (365.216,5.02464) (366.216,4.86761) (367.216,4.89996) (368.216,4.61005) (369.216,4.48439) (370.216,3.99375) (371.216,3.29258) (372.216,2.31853) (373.216,1.93701) (374.216,1.76197) (375.216,1.77314) (376.216,1.76783) (377.216,1.7042) (378.216,1.0122) (379.216,0.652549) (380.216,0.440103) (381.216,0.404301) (382.216,0.340348) (383.216,0.210999) (384.216,0.226697) (385.216,0.209046) (386.216,0.208921) (387.216,0.655962) };
\end{axis}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileRight,
]
\pgfplotsset{cycle list shift=1}
\addplot coordinates { (0.153308,0) (1.15331,3.23167) (2.15332,36.0448) (3.15334,97.599) (4.15333,193.731) (5.20315,218.051) (6.21586,209.542) (7.16357,251.181) (8.15334,276.033) (9.15333,290.176) (10.1534,311.948) (11.1534,351.425) (12.1534,387.166) (13.1534,410.874) (14.1533,426.086) (15.1534,456.79) (16.1534,453.529) (17.1534,446.26) (18.1534,457.817) (19.1538,487.836) (20.2031,491.805) (21.2161,504.375) (22.2159,524.931) (23.216,534.454) (24.2158,614.12) (25.2158,640.041) (26.2159,673.459) (27.1636,680.519) (28.2033,678.037) (29.1635,676.074) (30.2031,665.654) (31.1636,639.676) (32.1534,632.582) (33.1533,617.509) (34.2031,607.821) (35.2158,582.146) (36.1635,556.405) (37.1533,564.722) (38.2031,561.135) (39.2158,570.86) (40.2158,554.111) (41.2158,557.176) (42.2158,554.17) (43.2158,532.596) (44.2159,530.701) (45.1635,534.789) (46.1533,530.741) (47.2032,547.192) (48.1635,550.427) (49.1534,540.977) (50.1533,549.767) (51.1533,535.901) (52.1533,537.28) (53.1533,542.201) (54.1533,525.488) (55.1533,518.817) (56.1533,531.772) (57.1533,529.35) (58.1534,510.209) (59.1533,520.473) (60.1533,520.087) (61.1533,545.107) (62.1533,556.575) (63.1533,556.761) (64.1533,547.527) (65.1533,516.041) (66.1533,526.711) (67.1533,523.822) (68.1533,527.312) (69.2031,513.811) (70.2159,535.399) (71.1635,514.735) (72.2032,503.508) (73.1635,519.944) (74.1534,531.161) (75.1533,546.201) (76.1533,539.278) (77.1533,521.214) (78.1533,524.159) (79.2031,499.932) (80.2158,464.222) (81.2158,512.821) (82.1635,507.57) (83.2031,491.284) (84.2158,493.734) (85.1635,441.755) (86.2031,434.86) (87.2159,445.119) (88.2159,436.25) (89.2159,429.14) (90.2158,435.949) (91.1635,424.458) (92.2032,397.318) (93.1637,399.198) (94.2033,403.535) (95.2158,420.74) (96.2158,369.88) (97.2158,332.482) (98.1636,297.672) (99.2034,272.378) (100.164,231.963) (101.153,227.127) (102.203,174.654) (103.164,169.489) (104.153,159.062) (105.153,123.878) (106.154,127.651) (107.153,106.296) (108.153,99.4463) (109.203,67.9723) (110.216,73.453) (111.164,59.5842) (112.153,51.175) (113.153,48.0118) (114.153,45.0531) (115.153,37.0191) (116.153,36.1592) (117.153,36.2149) (118.153,29.0888) (119.203,28.6115) (120.216,26.4056) (121.164,22.7879) (122.153,20.2454) (123.153,19.4069) (124.153,15.0296) (125.203,13.3751) (126.216,9.86214) (127.164,7.99204) (128.153,6.71593) (129.153,8.23922) (130.153,6.19375) (131.153,6.31423) (132.203,3.28155) (133.216,1.07676) (134.216,1.83227) (135.216,0.0131646) (136.164,0.0146739) (137.153,0.0140902) (138.153,0.0117392) (139.153,0.0113412) (140.153,0.0143726) (141.153,0.0200694) (142.153,0.0107409) (143.153,0.00947126) (144.203,0.0135192) (145.164,0.0112656) (146.153,0.0207897) (147.153,0.0147372) (148.153,0.0108166) (149.153,0.0133785) (150.203,0.00763021) (151.216,0.0152963) (152.216,0.026849) (153.164,0.0183878) (154.153,0.0135921) (155.203,0.0114781) (156.164,0.0157181) (157.153,0.0171588) (158.203,0.0269279) (159.164,0.0123082) (160.153,0.0143785) (161.203,0.0132504) (162.164,0.0195716) (163.203,0.0161752) (164.216,0.0144339) (165.216,0.0150623) (166.216,0.0251718) (167.216,0.0220181) (168.216,0.0114869) (169.216,0.00787078) (170.216,0.0165724) (171.216,0.0169416) (172.216,0.0129321) (173.216,0.0145404) (174.216,0.0142555) (175.216,0.0155094) (176.216,0.0150058) (177.216,0.0126814) (178.216,0.0154799) (179.216,0.0141634) (180.216,0.0100744) (181.216,0.0116645) (182.216,0.0108006) (183.216,0.0160053) (184.164,0.0141274) (185.153,0.01165) (186.203,0.0201552) (187.164,0.0208571) (188.153,0.0120816) (189.153,0.0216291) (190.153,0.0131348) (191.153,0.0160326) (192.153,0.018932) (193.203,0.0256008) (194.216,0.0131614) (195.216,0.01706) (196.216,0.0168006) (197.216,0.0134782) (198.216,0.126037) (199.216,2.16969) (200.216,1.28681) (201.216,3.64296) (202.216,2.45837) (203.164,3.08449) (204.153,5.71924) (205.203,6.26169) (206.216,8.49463) (207.216,8.70134) (208.216,7.48681) (209.216,8.14264) (210.216,8.20691) (211.216,10.3736) (212.216,12.4756) (213.164,16.7911) (214.153,18.9673) (215.203,23.6814) (216.164,21.2613) (217.153,28.5742) (218.153,30.7479) (219.153,25.936) (220.153,39.8547) (221.153,35.2562) (222.203,54.2137) (223.216,55.2488) (224.164,69.8728) (225.203,77) (226.164,82.2078) (227.203,95.2755) (228.164,100.169) (229.203,123.156) (230.164,131.238) (231.153,143.125) (232.153,159.286) (233.153,170.875) (234.203,203.764) (235.216,214.044) (236.216,242.365) (237.216,244.074) (238.216,264.694) (239.164,302.615) (240.203,316.637) (241.216,338.357) (242.216,364.938) (243.216,378.835) (244.216,396.748) (245.216,424.276) (246.216,418.508) (247.216,442.211) (248.216,463.635) (249.216,461.102) (250.164,463.516) (251.153,484.945) (252.203,499.261) (253.216,503.3) (254.216,497.044) (255.164,491.009) (256.153,478.394) (257.203,488.394) (258.216,461.972) (259.216,460.421) (260.216,432.718) (261.216,422.549) (262.216,400.755) (263.216,403.013) (264.216,376.472) (265.164,373.279) (266.203,343.722) (267.216,324.852) (268.216,302.627) (269.216,289.001) (270.216,276.137) (271.216,248.319) (272.216,236.504) (273.216,207.401) (274.216,199.143) (275.164,188.634) (276.153,158.262) (277.203,154.143) (278.216,133.703) (279.216,111.602) (280.216,90.4918) (281.216,58.2373) (282.216,58.7461) (283.164,57.1397) (284.153,39.4645) (285.153,22.8524) (286.153,51.6946) (287.153,46.1582) (288.153,31.8727) (289.153,33.8492) (290.203,39.3682) (291.216,41.3262) (292.164,51.4583) (293.153,45.5379) (294.153,35.5215) (295.153,47.2425) (296.203,46.7844) (297.216,48.3447) (298.216,47.9023) (299.164,53.0597) (300.153,34.0099) (301.203,42.7926) (302.216,41.6994) (303.216,35.1563) (304.164,42.9942) (305.203,31.8178) (306.216,30.056) (307.164,36.4) (308.203,34.8733) (309.216,41.7644) (310.216,30.5611) (311.216,24.8165) (312.216,28.018) (313.216,19.7879) (314.216,21.2383) (315.216,17.3638) (316.216,15.7683) (317.164,14.5958) (318.153,11.3457) (319.203,7.12557) (320.164,5.8663) (321.153,7.62754) (322.153,4.8788) (323.153,8.41895) (324.153,5.10257) (325.153,5.73322) (326.153,2.35937) (327.203,2.43368) (328.164,2.04821) (329.153,3.75331) (330.153,3.71518) (331.153,3.84089) (332.153,1.97197) (333.153,3.33681) (334.203,2.83376) (335.216,2.65907) (336.216,3.49969) (337.216,4.45292) (338.216,1.33523) (339.216,1.39023) (340.216,2.31847) (341.216,1.69453) (342.216,1.63215) (343.216,1.21143) (344.216,1.02453) (345.216,0.838208) (346.216,1.05761) (347.216,0.829316) (348.216,0.340141) (349.216,0.377944) (350.216,0.221886) (351.216,0.506951) (352.216,0.586202) (353.216,0.111059) (354.216,0.112221) (355.216,0.114059) (356.216,0.195689) (357.216,0.114061) (358.216,0.114333) (359.216,0.114242) (360.216,0.114639) (361.216,0.109216) (362.216,0.0155005) (363.216,0.0228602) (364.216,0.104193) (365.216,0.0191366) (366.216,0.0168805) (367.216,0.0345658) (368.216,0.206551) (369.216,0.107925) (370.216,0.331452) (371.216,0.466227) (372.216,0.336429) (373.216,0.195018) (374.216,0.0145895) (375.216,0.0172772) (376.216,0.0175518) (377.216,0.128678) (378.216,0.380039) (379.216,0.106064) (380.216,0.102816) (381.216,0.0182068) (382.216,0.119767) (383.216,0.0200487) (384.216,0.0259401) (385.216,0.0154449) (386.216,0.0166493) (387.216,0.149276) };
\addplot coordinates { (0.153308,0) (1.15331,0.855347) (2.15332,9.36935) (3.15334,26.6938) (4.15333,58.6809) (5.20315,79.4373) (6.21586,82.9619) (7.16357,98.5022) (8.15334,112.629) (9.15333,112.473) (10.1534,123.357) (11.1534,142.923) (12.1534,153.799) (13.1534,163.936) (14.1533,173.146) (15.1534,184.37) (16.1534,179.058) (17.1534,182.274) (18.1534,184.37) (19.1538,199.324) (20.2031,198.979) (21.2161,202.168) (22.2159,212.411) (23.216,220.43) (24.2158,258.488) (25.2158,270.245) (26.2159,285.498) (27.1636,285.135) (28.2033,282.65) (29.1635,283.85) (30.2031,291.655) (31.1636,270.781) (32.1534,272.247) (33.1533,264.235) (34.2031,262.284) (35.2158,248.726) (36.1635,237.673) (37.1533,238.748) (38.2031,243.741) (39.2158,246.839) (40.2158,233.054) (41.2158,232.62) (42.2158,236.872) (43.2158,220.471) (44.2159,224.813) (45.1635,220.922) (46.1533,223.831) (47.2032,228.794) (48.1635,230.075) (49.1534,226.072) (50.1533,225.261) (51.1533,228.287) (52.1533,222.305) (53.1533,226.8) (54.1533,216.458) (55.1533,213.579) (56.1533,222.376) (57.1533,221.11) (58.1534,213.187) (59.1533,216.317) (60.1533,218.651) (61.1533,223.726) (62.1533,223.988) (63.1533,234.554) (64.1533,232.204) (65.1533,211.763) (66.1533,219.1) (67.1533,215.764) (68.1533,216.214) (69.2031,214.454) (70.2159,223.467) (71.1635,212.75) (72.2032,208.184) (73.1635,212.468) (74.1534,216.885) (75.1533,221.539) (76.1533,216.002) (77.1533,214.901) (78.1533,212.637) (79.2031,203.061) (80.2158,195.729) (81.2158,206.562) (82.1635,206.897) (83.2031,199.993) (84.2158,200.053) (85.1635,178.349) (86.2031,185.492) (87.2159,184.917) (88.2159,176.486) (89.2159,174.277) (90.2158,178.79) (91.1635,172.544) (92.2032,165.577) (93.1637,152.489) (94.2033,163.356) (95.2158,164.85) (96.2158,148.475) (97.2158,131.508) (98.1636,115.897) (99.2034,109.605) (100.164,86.413) (101.153,88.9011) (102.203,70.4314) (103.164,65.7958) (104.153,59.0645) (105.153,49.1704) (106.154,46.6351) (107.153,40.0352) (108.153,34.2659) (109.203,25.3107) (110.216,24.0784) (111.164,20.9141) (112.153,18.6797) (113.153,16.3906) (114.153,12.595) (115.153,13.8492) (116.153,12.9407) (117.153,12.3438) (118.153,7.60864) (119.203,8.94347) (120.216,7.0315) (121.164,6.42643) (122.153,6.47705) (123.153,4.29419) (124.153,5.43604) (125.203,3.90197) (126.216,2.46363) (127.164,2.24531) (128.153,1.45459) (129.153,2.55816) (130.153,1.71704) (131.153,1.63794) (132.203,1.65648) (133.216,0.246338) (134.216,0.501221) (135.216,0.0012207) (136.164,0.00130208) (137.153,0.00268555) (138.153,0.00341797) (139.153,0.0012207) (140.153,0.00244141) (141.153,0.00244141) (142.153,0) (143.153,0.000244141) (144.203,0.00275735) (145.164,0.00130208) (146.153,0.000244141) (147.153,0.00146484) (148.153,0.0012207) (149.153,0.000732422) (150.203,0.000459558) (151.216,6.10352e-05) (152.216,0.000305176) (153.164,0.00182292) (154.153,0.000244141) (155.203,0.000229779) (156.164,0) (157.153,0) (158.203,0) (159.164,0.000325521) (160.153,0.00146484) (161.203,0.00183824) (162.164,0.000520833) (163.203,0.00137868) (164.216,0.000244141) (165.216,0.0012207) (166.216,0.0012207) (167.216,0.0131836) (168.216,0.0012207) (169.216,0.0012207) (170.216,0.00244141) (171.216,0.00244141) (172.216,0.000244141) (173.216,0) (174.216,0.00268555) (175.216,0.0012207) (176.216,0) (177.216,0.00146484) (178.216,0.00146484) (179.216,0) (180.216,0.00195312) (181.216,6.10352e-05) (182.216,0.000549316) (183.216,0) (184.164,0.000260417) (185.153,0.000732422) (186.203,0) (187.164,0) (188.153,0) (189.153,0.000305176) (190.153,0.000732422) (191.153,0.000488281) (192.153,0.000244141) (193.203,0.00183824) (194.216,0.000244141) (195.216,0.00170898) (196.216,0.0012207) (197.216,0.00366211) (198.216,0.212402) (199.216,1.05738) (200.216,0.472656) (201.216,1.59815) (202.216,1.18848) (203.164,1.70235) (204.153,2.26245) (205.203,1.9954) (206.216,3.96729) (207.216,3.4585) (208.216,3.71655) (209.216,3.46582) (210.216,3.31494) (211.216,4.20874) (212.216,5.63342) (213.164,8.37812) (214.153,7.74805) (215.203,10.0356) (216.164,10.2021) (217.153,12.8305) (218.153,12.9617) (219.153,11.6456) (220.153,17.6792) (221.153,15.2984) (222.203,22.014) (223.216,24.6369) (224.164,28.9987) (225.203,31.386) (226.164,37.0268) (227.203,39.4423) (228.164,44.6276) (229.203,51.8313) (230.164,57.9229) (231.153,60.0007) (232.153,68.4048) (233.153,71.8027) (234.203,89.0804) (235.216,93.6379) (236.216,99.618) (237.216,107.018) (238.216,115.473) (239.164,131.354) (240.203,134.199) (241.216,145.401) (242.216,154.123) (243.216,166.515) (244.216,171.19) (245.216,180.653) (246.216,187.176) (247.216,189.803) (248.216,197.868) (249.216,192.683) (250.164,202.817) (251.153,208.011) (252.203,214.18) (253.216,210.893) (254.216,212.558) (255.164,210.271) (256.153,203.936) (257.203,203.192) (258.216,191.227) (259.216,191.981) (260.216,180.985) (261.216,171.353) (262.216,165.195) (263.216,168.497) (264.216,150.296) (265.164,154.286) (266.203,138.23) (267.216,127.77) (268.216,124.969) (269.216,113.522) (270.216,108.106) (271.216,99.2689) (272.216,94.9274) (273.216,80.1282) (274.216,76.6975) (275.164,69.5997) (276.153,58.041) (277.203,53.5195) (278.216,41.5576) (279.216,38.4451) (280.216,34.0115) (281.216,22.7761) (282.216,22.613) (283.164,21.8768) (284.153,15.1816) (285.153,8.86548) (286.153,18.4854) (287.153,16.9119) (288.153,10.7057) (289.153,11.6302) (290.203,15.2194) (291.216,17.8662) (292.164,16.923) (293.153,19.5918) (294.153,14.1193) (295.153,18.6255) (296.203,16.1675) (297.216,18.5472) (298.216,18.191) (299.164,19.3549) (300.153,12.7588) (301.203,16.1633) (302.216,14.4496) (303.216,15.1746) (304.164,15.2023) (305.203,12.6927) (306.216,11.6648) (307.164,12.6735) (308.203,14.1473) (309.216,17.4097) (310.216,12.0662) (311.216,9.33179) (312.216,10.4932) (313.216,8.97367) (314.216,9.87129) (315.216,8.30737) (316.216,7.34131) (317.164,7.46902) (318.153,4.7539) (319.203,3.37477) (320.164,2.6) (321.153,3.55914) (322.153,2.45173) (323.153,3.70508) (324.153,2.33276) (325.153,2.00537) (326.153,0.501953) (327.203,0.473116) (328.164,0.556771) (329.153,1.0022) (330.153,0.503662) (331.153,1.00146) (332.153,0.501831) (333.153,1.00268) (334.203,0.471967) (335.216,0.581299) (336.216,0.423462) (337.216,1.00146) (338.216,0.000335693) (339.216,0.0010376) (340.216,0.000244141) (341.216,0.000976562) (342.216,0.00292969) (343.216,0.00393677) (344.216,0) (345.216,0.00146484) (346.216,0.0012207) (347.216,0.00439453) (348.216,0) (349.216,0.00610352) (350.216,0.00244141) (351.216,0.0012207) (352.216,0.013916) (353.216,0) (354.216,0.00317383) (355.216,0.00146484) (356.216,0.00195312) (357.216,0.0012207) (358.216,0.000244141) (359.216,0) (360.216,0.000732422) (361.216,0.000244141) (362.216,0.00012207) (363.216,0.000244141) (364.216,0.000244141) (365.216,0.000488281) (366.216,0.00222778) (367.216,0) (368.216,0.00149536) (369.216,0.00616455) (370.216,0.0266113) (371.216,0.010498) (372.216,0.000732422) (373.216,0.0015564) (374.216,0.00146484) (375.216,0.00195312) (376.216,0.00268555) (377.216,0.00439453) (378.216,0.000976562) (379.216,0.00390625) (380.216,0.00292969) (381.216,0.00195312) (382.216,0.0012207) (383.216,0.000732422) (384.216,0.00292969) (385.216,0.0012207) (386.216,0.00146484) (387.216,0.0483704) };
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\vspace{\smallskipamount}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileLeft,
title={WordCount with Thrill}
]
\addplot coordinates { (0.088952,0.185662) (1.03413,3.13666) (2.08901,14.6289) (3.0945,64.6937) (4.0945,47.131) (5.0945,46.2379) (6.0945,39.3767) (7.0945,39.2666) (8.0945,34.1708) (9.0945,34.2353) (10.0341,37.3589) (11.0889,33.1909) (12.0945,32.6082) (13.0945,33.4675) (14.0945,34.1025) (15.0945,32.2635) (16.0945,33.7509) (17.0945,34.5541) (18.0945,33.7714) (19.0945,34.6688) (20.0945,36.787) (21.0945,33.4702) (22.0945,31.5522) (23.0341,32.7295) (24.0889,32.6103) (25.0341,34.1479) (26.0889,32.6799) (27.0945,31.6464) (28.0945,36.4249) (29.0945,32.7947) (30.0341,33.622) (31.0889,33.0833) (32.0945,33.736) (33.0945,31.2577) (34.0341,33.9161) (35.1105,31.1921) (36.0341,28.9745) (37.0889,35.6762) (38.0945,31.4673) (39.0945,33.5869) (40.0945,36.0502) (41.0945,34.8196) (42.0945,31.5827) (43.0945,29.2235) (44.0945,27.1541) (45.0945,21.4474) (46.0945,17.9084) (47.0945,14.6245) (48.0945,12.7735) (49.0945,11.1447) (50.0945,9.50754) (51.0945,8.17649) (52.0945,7.0008) (53.0945,3.76437) (54.0945,2.05028) (55.0945,1.00038) (56.0945,0.62367) (57.0945,0.574497) (58.0945,0.764064) };
\end{axis}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileRight,
]
\pgfplotsset{cycle list shift=1}
\addplot coordinates { (0.088952,0.000148156) (1.03413,0.0101475) (2.08901,48.4003) (3.0945,1038.68) (4.0945,2139.29) (5.0945,1946.33) (6.0945,1719.85) (7.0945,1682) (8.0945,1525.09) (9.0945,1483.5) (10.0341,1622.96) (11.0889,1462.02) (12.0945,1453.66) (13.0945,1509) (14.0945,1504.7) (15.0945,1453.94) (16.0945,1481.66) (17.0945,1535.73) (18.0945,1519.09) (19.0945,1529.66) (20.0945,1595.83) (21.0945,1493.68) (22.0945,1429.35) (23.0341,1481.32) (24.0889,1432.16) (25.0341,1519.38) (26.0889,1437.47) (27.0945,1430.65) (28.0945,1582.97) (29.0945,1484.92) (30.0341,1510.6) (31.0889,1457.45) (32.0945,1461.08) (33.0945,1375.69) (34.0341,1471.16) (35.1105,1446.96) (36.0341,1282.26) (37.0889,1490.59) (38.0945,1362.06) (39.0945,1436.26) (40.0945,1473.77) (41.0945,1419.72) (42.0945,1282.65) (43.0945,1234.52) (44.0945,1066.15) (45.0945,866.014) (46.0945,721.147) (47.0945,622.61) (48.0945,492.123) (49.0945,429.074) (50.0945,343.444) (51.0945,303.966) (52.0945,239.894) (53.0945,138.25) (54.0945,73.5657) (55.0945,48.991) (56.0945,32.6228) (57.0945,26.7469) (58.0945,14.1929) };
\addplot coordinates { (0.088952,0.000689339) (1.03413,0.00729167) (2.08901,0.0349265) (3.0945,0) (4.0945,0.0361328) (5.0945,0.0427246) (6.0945,0.0012207) (7.0945,0.0339355) (8.0945,0.000488281) (9.0945,0.00183105) (10.0341,0.00195312) (11.0889,0.000229779) (12.0945,0.00268555) (13.0945,0.00204468) (14.0945,0.000244141) (15.0945,0) (16.0945,9.15527e-05) (17.0945,0.000854492) (18.0945,0.000488281) (19.0945,0.0125732) (20.0945,0.0621948) (21.0945,0.0655518) (22.0945,0.0258789) (23.0341,0.009375) (24.0889,0.0320542) (25.0341,0.222787) (26.0889,0.0546875) (27.0945,0.10791) (28.0945,0.0178223) (29.0945,0.0539246) (30.0341,0.168229) (31.0889,0.0209099) (32.0945,0.0649414) (33.0945,0.00561523) (34.0341,0.0148437) (35.1105,0.0319106) (36.0341,0.00625) (37.0889,0.0133272) (38.0945,0.0493164) (39.0945,0.00491333) (40.0945,0.00149536) (41.0945,0.00292969) (42.0945,0) (43.0945,0.0307617) (44.0945,0.00170898) (45.0945,0) (46.0945,0.000244141) (47.0945,0.0815735) (48.0945,0.00170898) (49.0945,0.0830078) (50.0945,0.046875) (51.0945,0.168457) (52.0945,0.0322266) (53.0945,0.0576172) (54.0945,0) (55.0945,0.0400391) (56.0945,0) (57.0945,0.0290527) (58.0945,0.000732422) };
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\vspace{\smallskipamount}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileLeft,
title={PageRank with Spark (Scala)},
]
\addplot coordinates { (0.096568,0.110744) (1.10261,2.43017) (2.10261,6.10886) (3.1026,7.04512) (4.1026,0.975657) (5.1026,0.479027) (6.1026,5.71039) (7.1026,11.2501) (8.1026,11.1489) (9.1026,22.9356) (10.1026,35.891) (11.1026,47.0596) (12.1026,43.5851) (13.043,43.3022) (14.0401,37.0094) (15.0401,48.6329) (16.0966,48.3345) (17.0428,47.9714) (18.0401,42.2246) (19.0401,34.9807) (20.0966,33.2981) (21.1026,44.64) (22.0428,49.9087) (23.0966,58.6782) (24.1026,55.8141) (25.1026,54.1178) (26.1026,47.4441) (27.0428,46.3318) (28.0401,40.7576) (29.0966,38.9853) (30.0428,36.8383) (31.0966,29.107) (32.1026,29.4077) (33.0428,45.5512) (34.0401,46.5245) (35.0401,61.5011) (36.0966,68.9135) (37.043,74.1959) (38.0401,70.0835) (39.0401,59.8533) (40.0401,58.0555) (41.0401,55.5754) (42.0401,53.6217) (43.0966,45.6465) (44.1026,30.126) (45.0431,34.3594) (46.0966,28.7634) (47.1026,29.0702) (48.1026,27.8173) (49.0428,28.9893) (50.0401,30.583) (51.0404,39.5334) (52.0401,37.7465) (53.0401,34.7911) (54.0401,48.5189) (55.0401,42.8126) (56.0402,46.2292) (57.0401,49.6787) (58.0401,50.5715) (59.0966,61.126) (60.1026,51.2221) (61.1026,41.0304) (62.1026,40.5635) (63.1026,43.267) (64.1026,37.9864) (65.1026,39.4584) (66.1026,41.015) (67.1026,36.2186) (68.1026,42.8241) (69.1026,47.1959) (70.1026,49.5446) (71.0428,45.8793) (72.0401,40.2603) (73.0401,56.775) (74.0401,59.479) (75.0401,62.5423) (76.0401,64.1902) (77.0403,71.5433) (78.0401,55.7952) (79.0401,51.4671) (80.0401,35.9941) (81.0401,23.4329) (82.0401,20.3716) (83.0966,21.8992) (84.0428,27.3808) (85.0966,25.1465) (86.1026,24.6654) (87.1026,24.2966) (88.0429,21.6766) (89.0966,7.50393) (90.1026,5.19288) (91.1026,7.78954) (92.0428,5.36208) (93.0401,11.3815) (94.0401,14.6648) (95.0401,5.75466) (96.0401,4.51509) (97.0401,4.70851) (98.0966,59.2905) (99.043,79.4562) (100.097,85.0892) (101.103,88.5608) (102.043,89.9918) (103.097,88.403) (104.043,84.0766) (105.097,54.5073) (106.103,23.1375) (107.043,3.93687) (108.097,43.4812) (109.043,90.0125) (110.04,85.5505) (111.04,90.0691) (112.04,86.8544) (113.097,81.4374) (114.043,76.6741) (115.04,67.0626) (116.04,55.8897) (117.097,50.9353) (118.043,43.6134) (119.04,36.9641) (120.097,40.7203) (121.103,36.0486) (122.103,36.9282) (123.103,28.9787) (124.103,30.3635) (125.103,26.4541) (126.103,16.8674) (127.103,13.4888) (128.103,16.0315) (129.103,19.443) (130.103,19.8586) (131.103,20.3073) (132.103,26.3925) (133.103,19.5181) (134.103,19.6437) (135.103,21.4826) (136.103,27.5025) (137.103,31.5231) (138.103,32.6413) (139.103,30.6037) (140.103,29.8383) (141.103,29.0785) (142.103,29.8361) (143.043,33.4642) (144.04,37.0193) (145.04,39.3851) (146.04,35.1421) (147.04,32.4179) (148.04,33.2526) (149.04,34.3098) (150.04,34.5689) (151.04,39.1722) (152.04,44.3002) (153.04,47.9122) (154.04,47.9602) (155.04,51.0557) (156.04,47.6924) (157.04,42.6354) (158.097,44.9787) (159.043,37.2059) (160.097,40.729) (161.043,33.1319) (162.097,32.574) (163.103,26.4687) (164.103,26.4709) (165.103,26.5122) (166.103,26.5391) (167.103,29.8245) (168.043,32.7523) (169.097,29.1241) (170.103,27.759) (171.103,22.4917) (172.103,19.7852) (173.103,28.2556) (174.103,31.9376) (175.103,31.6619) (176.103,36.021) (177.103,37.7107) (178.103,34.8253) (179.103,31.885) (180.103,31.7207) (181.103,31.8244) (182.103,34.5648) (183.103,32.0277) (184.103,31.5743) (185.103,31.5175) (186.103,31.3829) (187.103,28.1301) (188.103,23.9225) (189.103,19.4203) (190.103,12.8207) (191.103,7.64953) (192.103,6.58597) (193.103,6.63495) (194.103,6.65425) (195.103,6.67789) (196.103,6.18822) (197.103,2.05829) (198.103,0.445365) (199.103,0.425942) (200.103,2.79386) (201.103,6.42389) (202.103,6.47085) (203.103,6.42371) (204.103,6.45516) (205.103,6.46303) (206.103,6.4648) (207.103,6.45912) (208.103,6.46877) (209.103,6.45123) (210.103,6.40427) (211.103,6.4375) (212.103,6.4512) (213.103,6.46299) (214.103,4.70908) (215.103,0.447494) (216.103,0.210885) (217.103,0.216869) (218.103,0.234488) (219.103,0.240445) (220.103,0.250007) (221.103,0.236395) (222.103,0.240236) (223.103,0.242396) (224.103,0.21883) (225.103,0.214905) (226.103,0.201233) (227.103,0.201233) (228.103,0.210883) (229.103,1.6153) (230.103,6.16607) (231.103,6.15432) (232.103,6.26369) (233.103,6.26174) (234.103,6.26368) (235.103,6.15616) (236.103,6.23245) (237.103,6.08822) (238.043,4.55646) (239.04,16.937) (240.04,66.199) (241.04,74.179) (242.04,76.2545) (243.04,56.3899) (244.097,45.1681) (245.043,41.7919) (246.04,40.8413) (247.097,35.0452) (248.043,40.4219) (249.04,42.5262) (250.097,41.4051) (251.103,41.2109) (252.043,56.885) (253.04,49.4149) (254.04,80.3276) (255.04,84.2559) (256.04,74.6529) (257.04,61.5154) (258.04,60.5181) (259.097,67.3696) (260.043,80.1041) (261.097,74.6117) (262.103,66.2294) (263.103,62.863) (264.103,59.7554) (265.103,60.3627) (266.103,57.9072) (267.103,56.6948) (268.103,54.0398) (269.103,50.8559) (270.103,47.9475) (271.103,46.868) (272.103,44.2457) (273.103,43.6569) (274.043,36.177) (275.04,33.162) (276.04,36.3678) (277.04,35.1525) (278.04,34.7901) (279.04,33.5757) (280.04,35.6225) (281.04,34.995) (282.04,33.9625) (283.04,31.1025) (284.04,29.9087) (285.04,26.6031) (286.04,23.4534) (287.04,23.4512) (288.04,27.9572) (289.04,35.3979) (290.04,35.5617) (291.04,31.2749) (292.097,37.1763) (293.043,33.0421) (294.04,42.9007) (295.04,48.2349) (296.097,41.1671) (297.103,35.134) (298.103,36.5538) (299.103,35.5953) (300.103,35.9255) (301.103,36.15) (302.103,37.2082) (303.103,36.1568) (304.103,34.2222) (305.103,35.3475) (306.103,32.5386) (307.103,27.743) (308.103,23.8111) (309.103,22.5205) (310.103,23.5424) (311.103,26.0649) (312.103,24.4271) (313.103,22.1843) (314.103,20.3931) (315.103,17.7982) (316.103,14.1073) (317.103,19.6355) (318.103,22.4166) (319.103,22.1542) (320.103,22.3313) (321.103,22.2378) (322.103,17.4537) (323.103,16.6155) (324.103,16.6259) (325.103,16.5018) (326.103,16.3834) (327.103,10.6311) (328.103,7.04109) (329.103,6.66324) (330.103,6.15015) (331.103,6.07333) (332.103,6.01669) (333.103,3.91127) (334.103,3.98419) (335.103,6.47586) (336.103,6.85358) (337.103,6.83214) (338.103,6.74568) (339.103,6.80337) (340.103,11.0678) (341.103,15.5424) (342.103,15.4539) (343.103,20.3123) (344.103,21.498) (345.103,21.3658) (346.103,20.4891) (347.103,19.632) (348.103,15.7442) (349.103,10.2504) (350.103,6.26277) (351.043,1.61399) (352.04,1.67382) (353.04,73.3696) (354.04,82.6693) (355.04,81.869) (356.04,72.1171) (357.097,47.4058) (358.103,39.2745) (359.043,42.0877) (360.04,66.1564) (361.097,72.5672) (362.043,65.4254) (363.04,64.983) (364.04,65.3724) (365.04,60.5831) (366.04,64.9978) (367.04,59.2789) (368.04,51.3566) (369.04,71.9582) (370.04,69.6876) (371.04,62.9755) (372.04,62.0341) (373.04,63.507) (374.04,67.9101) (375.04,75.7886) (376.097,76.4557) (377.103,81.3652) (378.103,80.7787) (379.103,72.2612) (380.103,59.5528) (381.103,58.4312) (382.103,57.2832) (383.103,56.0408) (384.103,48.2263) (385.103,46.2194) (386.103,46.0745) (387.103,46.1003) (388.103,46.109) (389.103,46.0278) (390.103,44.7195) (391.103,42.9802) (392.103,43.7058) (393.103,35.8382) (394.103,29.2574) (395.103,37.8493) (396.103,36.4254) (397.103,29.997) (398.103,24.9646) (399.103,19.001) (400.043,19.1826) (401.04,19.5887) (402.04,25.9473) (403.04,25.9376) (404.04,25.7586) (405.04,25.7272) (406.04,25.7345) (407.04,25.7421) (408.097,29.5301) (409.043,19.4845) (410.04,24.4095) (411.04,24.431) (412.04,24.3027) (413.04,22.9051) (414.04,20.0538) (415.04,17.0225) (416.04,19.0124) (417.04,20.517) (418.04,22.4251) (419.04,21.2549) (420.04,20.6003) (421.04,20.9329) (422.04,19.7813) (423.097,25.7077) (424.103,19.1993) (425.103,19.3419) (426.103,19.373) (427.103,19.3713) (428.103,19.2363) (429.103,18.9101) (430.103,18.2914) (431.103,16.4346) (432.103,11.3406) (433.103,10.2978) (434.103,9.58332) (435.103,8.4652) (436.103,10.5063) (437.103,12.2712) (438.103,11.5187) (439.103,9.62023) (440.103,6.84002) (441.103,6.65437) (442.103,6.64441) (443.103,6.65637) (444.103,6.6485) (445.103,11.7544) (446.103,12.7266) (447.103,17.8502) (448.103,17.4738) (449.103,13.8301) (450.103,12.5177) (451.103,12.5215) (452.103,12.5137) (453.103,11.6113) (454.103,9.3965) (455.103,8.31135) (456.103,8.14903) (457.103,6.94119) (458.103,4.71172) (459.103,2.48042) (460.103,1.86076) (461.043,1.17438) (462.04,25.2474) (463.04,79.6021) (464.04,93.2242) (465.04,91.3991) (466.04,88.3063) (467.04,83.685) (468.04,81.5896) (469.097,80.1197) (470.043,77.5182) (471.04,77.011) (472.04,70.4) (473.04,78.0185) (474.04,74.9362) (475.04,82.4337) (476.04,81.5118) (477.097,77.6348) (478.043,71.3326) (479.097,76.4365) (480.103,75.9952) (481.103,72.9994) (482.103,66.8325) (483.103,66.7594) (484.103,72.5001) (485.103,70.6823) (486.103,68.4445) (487.103,68.4531) (488.103,68.1102) (489.103,68.9458) (490.103,68.1153) (491.103,59.2765) (492.103,52.1165) (493.103,53.2135) (494.103,53.7561) (495.103,57.4396) (496.103,49.5093) (497.103,44.8002) (498.103,39.054) (499.103,34.9142) (500.043,33.2946) (501.04,37.4907) (502.04,37.4349) (503.04,37.1406) (504.04,37.0918) (505.04,43.0998) (506.04,39.9253) (507.04,29.8348) (508.04,28.6892) (509.04,28.6805) (510.04,29.8678) (511.04,30.3814) (512.04,29.8421) (513.04,24.7115) (514.04,22.3459) (515.04,21.0046) (516.04,17.449) (517.04,15.3253) (518.097,18.6635) (519.043,7.92111) (520.04,12.8571) (521.04,10.1947) (522.097,7.09221) (523.103,7.41245) (524.103,7.98353) (525.103,7.61101) (526.103,11.5559) (527.103,12.9826) (528.103,13.3127) (529.103,13.3165) (530.103,13.3206) (531.103,15.0322) (532.103,19.3163) (533.103,19.3497) (534.103,19.3144) (535.103,19.215) (536.043,20.6001) (537.097,18.1749) (538.103,19.2559) (539.103,17.9161) (540.103,12.7205) (541.103,6.75969) (542.103,4.84568) (543.103,4.50833) (544.103,4.51192) (545.103,4.08262) (546.103,2.34236) (547.103,1.00797) (548.103,0.609588) (549.103,0.613445) (550.103,0.61918) (551.103,0.615332) (552.103,0.611364) (553.103,0.607437) (554.103,0.603534) (555.103,0.605603) (556.103,0.599805) (557.103,0.605599) (558.103,0.597657) (559.103,0.585999) (560.103,0.59967) (561.103,0.589904) (562.103,0.970524) (563.103,4.54305) (564.103,0.468731) (565.103,0.404476) (566.103,0.402404) (567.103,0.400454) (568.103,0.414202) (569.103,0.41794) (570.103,0.418067) (571.103,0.421911) (572.103,0.42589) (573.103,0.425893) (574.103,0.410184) (575.103,0.455467) (576.103,6.35931) (577.103,6.45517) (578.103,11.7056) (579.103,12.4453) (580.103,10.9688) (581.103,6.61188) (582.103,6.20705) (583.043,4.56392) (584.04,50.6018) (585.04,83.9536) (586.04,85.7795) (587.04,87.2001) (588.04,81.06) (589.04,60.3425) (590.04,62.7288) (591.04,58.2035) (592.04,59.5748) (593.04,65.8847) (594.04,64.5909) (595.04,62.4789) (596.04,75.4287) (597.097,75.8912) (598.103,79.1132) (599.103,76.3863) (600.103,71.5061) (601.103,67.1196) (602.103,63.7676) (603.103,60.352) (604.043,66.8524) (605.04,62.7716) (606.097,64.6764) (607.103,66.1287) (608.103,65.7639) (609.103,59.441) (610.103,53.4313) (611.103,53.7279) (612.103,56.1161) (613.043,62.0322) (614.04,54.9034) (615.04,57.1063) (616.04,47.3891) (617.04,39.7408) (618.097,37.7105) (619.043,30.5194) (620.04,40.363) (621.04,41.3218) (622.04,42.9466) (623.04,39.8466) (624.04,38.4165) (625.04,39.2732) (626.04,39.0308) (627.04,35.7338) (628.097,36.7556) (629.043,31.7561) (630.04,33.1601) (631.04,28.9472) (632.097,25.2304) (633.103,13.0649) (634.103,9.63853) (635.103,13.0904) (636.103,13.6116) (637.103,13.0928) (638.103,11.7649) (639.103,10.1488) (640.103,8.65424) (641.103,8.36997) (642.103,7.75248) (643.103,7.44742) (644.103,6.1939) (645.103,5.63654) (646.103,5.74275) (647.103,7.44741) (648.103,7.44521) (649.103,7.07081) (650.103,6.60864) (651.103,6.46467) (652.103,6.45723) (653.103,5.97507) (654.103,4.39868) (655.103,5.87172) (656.103,7.02707) (657.103,7.23645) (658.103,7.24441) (659.103,7.23641) (660.103,7.22463) (661.103,7.25022) (662.103,7.25812) (663.103,7.25805) (664.103,7.2053) (665.103,7.18172) (666.103,9.8723) (667.103,12.9526) (668.103,12.2458) (669.103,10.4067) (670.103,7.52792) (671.103,7.09981) (672.103,7.59766) (673.103,12.9804) (674.103,12.3712) (675.043,13.7937) (676.097,16.1937) (677.103,15.4136) (678.103,13.4142) (679.103,12.7784) (680.043,11.4782) (681.04,12.8471) (682.04,15.3462) (683.04,13.4691) (684.04,12.0883) (685.04,11.0326) (686.04,10.8644) (687.04,10.4216) (688.04,10.4041) (689.04,9.76687) (690.04,7.01166) (691.04,5.44424) (692.04,5.09247) (693.04,4.8017) (694.097,3.72333) (695.103,0.244282) (696.103,0.263691) (697.103,0.206969) (698.103,0.209055) (699.103,0.273414) (700.103,5.58162) (701.103,6.22467) (702.103,6.32036) (703.103,5.92961) (704.103,3.16508) (705.043,1.89853) (706.04,48.576) (707.04,85.0294) (708.04,93.9828) (709.04,91.3243) (710.04,85.3399) (711.04,61.6759) (712.097,57.0851) (713.043,71.88) (714.097,89.9243) (715.043,87.0904) (716.04,85.1003) (717.097,89.0133) (718.043,92.1318) (719.04,88.3889) (720.04,83.9179) (721.04,78.3476) (722.04,79.4048) (723.04,85.4579) (724.04,87.8457) (725.04,89.2331) (726.04,88.4982) (727.04,87.4796) (728.04,85.6785) (729.04,81.6138) (730.04,80.2025) (731.04,75.4611) (732.04,74.1538) (733.04,74.7287) (734.04,73.5267) (735.097,72.2569) (736.043,61.254) (737.04,57.9908) (738.04,54.638) (739.04,47.748) (740.04,39.149) (741.04,34.8356) (742.097,32.3737) (743.103,29.4083) (744.103,31.0845) (745.103,28.9381) (746.103,17.7316) (747.103,16.3882) (748.103,16.1189) (749.103,16.1683) (750.103,16.409) (751.103,16.2225) (752.103,8.2769) (753.103,7.72884) (754.103,5.16271) (755.103,2.00587) (756.103,1.57239) (757.103,1.56867) (758.103,1.57232) (759.103,1.56469) (760.103,1.58221) (761.103,1.57264) (762.103,1.57447) (763.103,1.57819) (764.103,1.59036) (765.103,5.01947) (766.103,7.26304) (767.103,7.66059) (768.103,7.93072) (769.103,13.6996) (770.103,13.7454) (771.103,13.7294) (772.103,17.9667) (773.103,19.7527) (774.103,19.7464) (775.103,19.4608) (776.103,19.7327) (777.103,19.7168) (778.103,22.9446) (779.103,24.7062) (780.103,23.6335) (781.103,21.3537) (782.103,19.2131) (783.103,17.8712) (784.103,16.4544) (785.103,14.7878) (786.103,13.3124) (787.103,13.0291) (788.103,12.1076) (789.103,7.68412) (790.103,5.82572) (791.103,4.63624) (792.103,3.19934) (793.103,2.93463) (794.103,6.51955) (795.103,6.6427) (796.103,6.64667) (797.103,6.65026) (798.103,6.64459) (799.103,6.64655) (800.103,6.64661) (801.103,6.61335) (802.103,8.73097) (803.103,7.41046) (804.103,6.16439) (805.103,5.41942) (806.103,3.0452) (807.103,1.05771) (808.103,0.267658) (809.103,0.201236) (810.103,0.21291) (811.103,0.230513) (812.103,0.230583) (813.103,0.21879) (814.103,0.230592) (815.103,3.83342) (816.043,6.07087) (817.04,31.6538) (818.04,81.2316) (819.04,90.8855) (820.04,86.9799) (821.04,71.5236) (822.04,52.7806) (823.097,42.6087) (824.103,40.1873) (825.103,36.6809) (826.043,47.9452) (827.04,85.5864) (828.04,92.0788) (829.04,86.3976) (830.04,81.6816) (831.04,80.5463) (832.04,83.2587) (833.04,82.1424) (834.04,76.8302) (835.04,75.4485) (836.04,77.2138) (837.04,84.7448) (838.04,90.6321) (839.097,91.7755) (840.043,90.9039) (841.04,92.2756) (842.04,95.0967) (843.04,93.2752) (844.04,88.904) (845.04,86.8893) (846.097,87.8416) (847.043,87.5353) (848.04,86.2787) (849.04,78.0429) (850.04,66.8272) (851.04,50.2503) (852.04,40.6983) (853.04,37.2074) (854.097,29.8584) (855.103,24.764) (856.103,21.9507) (857.103,21.3509) (858.103,16.0128) (859.103,12.1418) (860.103,10.2631) (861.103,9.79168) (862.103,9.52763) (863.103,9.7306) (864.103,8.25423) (865.103,5.47968) (866.103,5.48475) (867.103,5.47418) (868.103,5.47821) (869.103,5.47979) (870.103,5.21653) (871.103,5.47418) (872.103,5.47479) (873.103,5.48072) (874.103,1.90333) (875.103,1.18384) (876.103,3.61714) (877.103,7.17784) (878.103,7.29668) (879.103,13.0523) (880.103,11.5534) (881.103,11.1128) (882.103,12.4744) (883.103,13.3581) (884.103,13.3537) (885.103,13.3541) (886.103,13.2893) (887.103,13.3088) (888.103,13.0509) (889.103,12.5022) (890.103,12.3277) (891.103,12.3339) (892.103,12.3276) (893.103,11.6885) (894.103,10.3791) (895.103,9.09975) (896.103,5.91213) (897.103,5.29969) (898.103,5.82627) (899.103,5.24539) (900.103,5.08942) (901.103,5.09259) (902.103,6.95201) (903.103,11.1396) (904.103,10.4668) (905.103,7.37271) (906.103,6.65234) (907.103,6.65045) (908.103,6.64648) (909.103,6.64465) (910.103,6.6543) (911.103,9.18544) (912.103,12.7109) (913.103,11.3864) (914.103,10.1191) (915.103,8.63817) (916.103,8.60028) (917.103,8.27123) (918.103,7.0199) (919.103,6.45508) (920.103,6.45319) (921.103,6.26762) (922.103,5.56383) (923.103,2.85323) (924.103,0.226637) (925.103,0.216816) (926.103,0.210891) (927.103,0.209062) (928.103,0.218779) (929.103,0.205096) (930.103,0.212971) (931.103,0.212974) (932.103,0.210936) (933.103,0.203124) (934.103,0.203124) (935.103,0.19928) (936.103,0.203063) (937.103,0.203124) (938.103,0.201171) (939.103,0.205078) (940.103,0.203184) (941.103,5.083) (942.103,6.15641) (943.043,3.78626) (944.04,76.7252) (945.04,90.1397) (946.04,91.1856) (947.04,90.0062) (948.04,81.6038) (949.04,81.2526) (950.04,91.5295) (951.04,90.4163) (952.04,79.6885) (953.04,85.0571) (954.04,91.6187) (955.04,92.4419) (956.04,85.0605) (957.04,80.9789) (958.04,83.3332) (959.04,90.555) (960.04,89.4553) (961.04,89.4745) (962.04,90.0987) (963.04,90.8809) (964.097,92.0323) (965.103,86.046) (966.043,83.2555) (967.04,85.6503) (968.04,85.6424) (969.04,79.9112) (970.04,79.58) (971.04,77.2509) (972.097,66.531) (973.103,50.2541) (974.103,43.8306) (975.103,41.9529) (976.103,39.7522) (977.103,32.377) (978.103,28.1017) (979.103,21.9453) (980.103,18.9946) (981.103,16.3065) (982.103,14.462) (983.103,14.2329) (984.103,13.9024) (985.103,14.0155) (986.103,14.266) (987.103,14.1947) (988.103,12.5618) (989.103,9.41427) (990.103,5.67817) (991.103,5.25681) (992.103,1.37903) (993.103,1.37707) (994.103,1.36737) (995.103,1.37713) (996.103,1.37695) (997.103,1.37341) (998.103,1.38873) (999.103,1.90294) (1000.1,7.38293) (1001.1,7.43966) (1002.1,7.46901) (1003.1,7.45758) (1004.1,11.0174) (1005.1,13.5177) (1006.1,13.3946) (1007.1,13.436) (1008.1,14.7375) (1009.1,19.4263) (1010.1,19.569) (1011.1,19.5612) (1012.1,19.5592) (1013.1,19.557) (1014.1,19.5077) (1015.1,17.9734) (1016.1,14.8384) (1017.1,13.2772) (1018.1,12.9491) (1019.1,11.6763) (1020.1,11.5093) (1021.1,11.1228) (1022.1,9.59003) (1023.1,6.91462) (1024.1,5.36094) (1025.1,5.27881) (1026.1,5.29779) (1027.1,5.28021) (1028.1,4.78811) (1029.1,1.78159) (1030.1,0.785341) (1031.1,0.795166) (1032.1,0.785339) (1033.1,0.796877) (1034.1,0.790892) (1035.1,0.785339) (1036.1,0.787047) (1037.1,0.789059) (1038.1,0.79132) (1039.1,0.790892) (1040.1,0.790891) (1041.1,6.49196) (1042.1,8.15686) (1043.1,7.72367) (1044.1,6.64264) (1045.1,6.65033) (1046.1,6.65643) (1047.1,6.65836) (1048.1,4.981) (1049.1,1.15883) (1050.1,0.416049) (1051.1,0.419962) (1052.1,0.420012) (1053.1,0.410107) (1054.1,0.410289) (1055.1,0.404247) (1056.1,0.412304) (1057.1,0.40248) (1058.1,0.40033) (1059.1,0.398557) (1060.1,0.400513) (1061.1,0.400328) (1062.1,0.394653) (1063.1,5.6338) (1064.1,6.43367) (1065.1,5.80023) (1066.1,6.28516) (1067.1,6.14475) (1068.04,6.55493) (1069.04,78.7069) (1070.04,90.1984) (1071.04,90.5216) (1072.04,92.2877) (1073.04,72.132) (1074.1,36.4183) (1075.04,27.8953) (1076.04,53.5889) (1077.1,83.5618) (1078.04,85.7997) (1079.04,81.5018) (1080.04,89.1806) (1081.04,86.1571) (1082.04,85.7798) (1083.04,80.2831) (1084.04,79.445) (1085.1,82.0673) (1086.04,87.1072) (1087.04,90.7305) (1088.1,88.0856) (1089.1,86.2585) (1090.1,84.5843) (1091.1,84.0632) (1092.1,83.6599) (1093.1,81.03) (1094.1,82.4241) (1095.1,84.0836) (1096.1,83.9223) (1097.1,83.4432) (1098.1,81.0542) (1099.1,76.3501) (1100.1,70.821) (1101.1,61.1414) (1102.1,53.8134) (1103.1,48.2188) (1104.1,47.9362) (1105.1,47.1716) (1106.1,41.4652) (1107.1,31.7638) (1108.1,20.9265) (1109.1,18.5441) (1110.1,15.5606) (1111.1,13.1879) (1112.1,9.97095) (1113.1,9.1679) (1114.1,5.66314) (1115.1,5.67102) (1116.04,5.19668) (1117.04,1.77185) (1118.04,7.40259) (1119.04,7.25402) (1120.04,7.42804) (1121.04,7.43177) (1122.04,7.42786) (1123.04,7.43549) (1124.04,7.42407) (1125.04,6.33643) (1126.1,9.41723) (1127.1,5.67438) (1128.04,1.26714) (1129.04,9.69718) (1130.04,13.5061) (1131.04,13.5197) (1132.04,13.4534) (1133.04,13.5375) (1134.1,18.6329) (1135.04,7.77191) (1136.04,13.399) (1137.1,14.3566) (1138.1,7.29104) (1139.1,7.2639) (1140.1,7.16233) (1141.1,7.06082) (1142.1,7.05667) (1143.1,6.67729) (1144.1,5.30689) (1145.1,3.82558) (1146.1,1.8248) (1147.1,0.98645) (1148.1,0.984558) (1149.1,0.978758) (1150.1,0.986449) (1151.1,0.984558) (1152.1,0.982604) (1153.1,0.990357) (1154.1,0.988279) (1155.1,0.984435) (1156.1,0.984559) (1157.1,0.982667) (1158.1,6.76325) (1159.1,7.03906) (1160.1,7.02923) (1161.1,7.03912) (1162.1,7.04309) (1163.1,7.03906) (1164.1,7.03339) (1165.1,7.03723) (1166.1,7.04322) (1167.1,7.03729) (1168.1,6.37926) (1169.1,11.3204) (1170.1,10.7424) (1171.1,9.23705) (1172.1,7.36941) (1173.1,6.85549) (1174.1,6.85372) (1175.1,6.83218) (1176.1,5.79176) (1177.1,2.91978) (1178.1,0.621066) (1179.1,1.10771) (1180.1,6.65057) (1181.1,6.4102) (1182.1,6.48997) (1183.1,7.77813) (1184.1,1.38817) (1185.1,0.203125) (1186.1,0.199218) (1187.1,0.210936) (1188.1,0.201171) (1189.1,2.65761) (1190.1,6.26562) (1191.1,6.22661) (1192.04,5.96272) (1193.04,4.80097) (1194.04,78.1062) (1195.04,89.1197) (1196.04,88.4577) (1197.04,83.954) (1198.04,52.6542) (1199.1,55.2522) (1200.04,50.9804) (1201.04,40.5792) (1202.04,43.0112) (1203.04,45.9043) (1204.04,80.4482) (1205.04,85.4183) (1206.04,88.4265) (1207.04,90.3013) (1208.04,82.442) (1209.1,72.299) (1210.04,72.4152) (1211.04,80.9457) (1212.04,85.1117) (1213.04,83.2069) (1214.04,82.8231) (1215.04,82.7569) (1216.1,82.6138) (1217.04,86.2941) (1218.04,84.2169) (1219.04,79.5245) (1220.04,79.8852) (1221.04,79.5866) (1222.04,83.4213) (1223.04,86.3274) (1224.04,83.2852) (1225.1,79.5749) (1226.04,73.1741) (1227.04,76.5076) (1228.04,65.0396) (1229.04,52.4745) (1230.04,47.2647) (1231.04,41.806) (1232.1,32.3108) (1233.1,28.1927) (1234.1,27.1037) (1235.1,26.8474) (1236.1,26.599) (1237.1,26.7683) (1238.1,26.499) (1239.1,24.979) (1240.1,21.4655) (1241.1,21.438) (1242.1,18.7908) (1243.1,15.2068) (1244.1,12.4516) (1245.1,11.9086) (1246.1,7.53213) (1247.1,2.45563) (1248.1,1.57043) (1249.1,1.56671) (1250.1,1.57641) (1251.1,1.57251) (1252.1,1.57642) (1253.1,1.57654) (1254.1,1.5686) (1255.1,1.57245) (1256.1,1.59812) (1257.1,3.43167) (1258.1,7.3223) (1259.1,7.65695) (1260.1,8.91425) (1261.1,13.4814) (1262.1,13.7213) (1263.1,13.7288) (1264.1,13.7211) (1265.1,13.7188) (1266.1,13.6935) (1267.1,13.6741) (1268.1,13.5314) (1269.1,13.4882) (1270.1,13.3676) (1271.1,13.2445) (1272.1,12.1465) (1273.1,8.40997) (1274.1,5.93786) (1275.1,5.17237) (1276.1,3.05905) (1277.1,1.27963) (1278.1,1.18966) (1279.1,1.2034) (1280.1,1.1974) (1281.1,1.18945) (1282.1,1.18182) (1283.1,1.17969) (1284.1,1.18768) (1285.1,1.17798) (1286.1,5.34735) (1287.1,7.20534) (1288.1,7.24224) (1289.1,7.22876) (1290.1,7.24622) (1291.1,7.23285) (1292.1,7.23651) (1293.1,7.24609) (1294.1,10.9501) (1295.1,13.2328) (1296.1,18.136) (1297.1,18.8401) (1298.1,16.0156) (1299.1,13.2403) (1300.1,13.0176) (1301.1,12.7869) (1302.1,11.6916) (1303.1,8.18164) (1304.1,4.70423) (1305.1,2.10205) (1306.1,4.95434) (1307.1,1.01735) (1308.1,5.77738) (1309.1,4.43816) (1310.1,0.300813) (1311.1,0.210938) (1312.1,0.199279) (1313.1,0.210998) (1314.1,0.19928) (1315.1,4.56213) (1316.1,6.20509) (1317.04,4.09515) (1318.04,54.6039) (1319.1,81.7403) (1320.1,90.0371) (1321.1,89.1779) (1322.04,76.583) (1323.04,35.8188) (1324.04,42.1286) (1325.04,38.9728) (1326.1,53.6366) (1327.1,37.3736) (1328.1,22.2992) (1329.1,18.4041) (1330.1,12.9522) (1331.1,1.06315) (1332.1,0.119385) (1333.1,0.0488967) (1334.1,0.0939656) (1335.1,0.158565) (1336.1,0.0391384) (1337.1,0.0625999) (1338.1,0.207387) };
\end{axis}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileRight,
]
\pgfplotsset{cycle list shift=1}
\addplot coordinates { (0.096568,0.00233855) (1.10261,0.0349936) (2.10261,0.429056) (3.1026,32.2469) (4.1026,24.3211) (5.1026,16.285) (6.1026,22.1929) (7.1026,48.0902) (8.1026,74.7553) (9.1026,17.8041) (10.1026,114.664) (11.1026,228.948) (12.1026,236.273) (13.043,96.9152) (14.0401,101.558) (15.0401,190.57) (16.0966,187.723) (17.0428,82.9464) (18.0401,24.1502) (19.0401,111.062) (20.0966,41.7021) (21.1026,40.4333) (22.0428,118.265) (23.0966,122.597) (24.1026,43.0581) (25.1026,60.5161) (26.1026,26.6736) (27.0428,24.8412) (28.0401,19.0503) (29.0966,46.9027) (30.0428,7.26253) (31.0966,3.56894) (32.1026,6.08574) (33.0428,13.5735) (34.0401,7.65602) (35.0401,6.09178) (36.0966,19.8792) (37.043,8.61394) (38.0401,2.66485) (39.0401,3.86419) (40.0401,3.31987) (41.0401,1.03761) (42.0401,0.00960035) (43.0966,0.257035) (44.1026,11.361) (45.0431,49.1894) (46.0966,50.393) (47.1026,102.88) (48.1026,131.021) (49.0428,121.942) (50.0401,81.6235) (51.0404,77.1586) (52.0401,94.1545) (53.0401,76.3405) (54.0401,129.768) (55.0401,175.142) (56.0402,171.396) (57.0401,242.998) (58.0401,136.835) (59.0966,151.136) (60.1026,120.905) (61.1026,34.9167) (62.1026,31.9098) (63.1026,41.5705) (64.1026,29.655) (65.1026,34.0043) (66.1026,48.0344) (67.1026,36.5191) (68.1026,111.137) (69.1026,114.368) (70.1026,165.493) (71.0428,114.945) (72.0401,34.2765) (73.0401,129.208) (74.0401,125.881) (75.0401,120.646) (76.0401,89.3836) (77.0403,165.468) (78.0401,183.078) (79.0401,16.0213) (80.0401,35.5186) (81.0401,53.6783) (82.0401,26.8126) (83.0966,30.3093) (84.0428,83.0276) (85.0966,47.5141) (86.1026,42.733) (87.1026,30.5891) (88.0429,26.0294) (89.0966,6.4403) (90.1026,7.23946) (91.1026,9.99727) (92.0428,5.66116) (93.0401,19.5113) (94.0401,27.2564) (95.0401,0.0295341) (96.0401,0.0207257) (97.0401,2.07471) (98.0966,82.3224) (99.043,749.83) (100.097,1092.19) (101.103,543.002) (102.043,437.368) (103.097,42.459) (104.043,25.351) (105.097,0.250125) (106.103,0.0985126) (107.043,0.0240644) (108.097,0.315261) (109.043,0.017895) (110.04,0.0139422) (111.04,0.0110812) (112.04,0.0107757) (113.097,0.00664535) (114.043,0.023993) (115.04,0.00952131) (116.04,0.00476248) (117.097,0.00433053) (118.043,0.00516612) (119.04,0.0125104) (120.097,0.00857024) (121.103,0.0274448) (122.103,0.0105365) (123.103,0.0101903) (124.103,0.0152279) (125.103,0.0270256) (126.103,0.0228259) (127.103,0.0151791) (128.103,0.0181169) (129.103,0.0164343) (130.103,0.0163729) (131.103,0.00817104) (132.103,0.012238) (133.103,0.0127094) (134.103,0.010504) (135.103,0.0246026) (136.103,0.00981398) (137.103,0.0170625) (138.103,0.0221373) (139.103,0.0184093) (140.103,0.0130233) (141.103,0.00506266) (142.103,0.0210382) (143.043,0.0204662) (144.04,0.0334318) (145.04,0.0163333) (146.04,0.015482) (147.04,0.00831473) (148.04,0.00568814) (149.04,0.0119544) (150.04,0.0148263) (151.04,0.0403301) (152.04,0.0194124) (153.04,0.0240416) (154.04,0.0099246) (155.04,0.0521383) (156.04,0.0194584) (157.04,0.0180994) (158.097,0.026529) (159.043,0.0186723) (160.097,0.0117142) (161.043,0.0128666) (162.097,0.0395917) (163.103,0.00982981) (164.103,0.0201484) (165.103,0.0187531) (166.103,0.005639) (167.103,0.0240346) (168.043,0.0134) (169.097,0.0197754) (170.103,0.0211691) (171.103,0.0119729) (172.103,0.0330581) (173.103,0.0664921) (174.103,0.0160748) (175.103,0.0137442) (176.103,0.0311478) (177.103,0.00913202) (178.103,0.023416) (179.103,0.00598922) (180.103,0.0103709) (181.103,0.01612) (182.103,0.0345191) (183.103,0.0206253) (184.103,0.0135115) (185.103,0.0216006) (186.103,0.0195613) (187.103,0.0251465) (188.103,0.0285378) (189.103,0.0237006) (190.103,0.0251657) (191.103,0.0150557) (192.103,0.0140549) (193.103,0.00698916) (194.103,0.0163307) (195.103,0.0126221) (196.103,0.0115994) (197.103,0.0154158) (198.103,0.00926287) (199.103,0.00265999) (200.103,0.0270055) (201.103,0.00901096) (202.103,0.0101294) (203.103,0.0156933) (204.103,0.0113754) (205.103,0.010045) (206.103,0.00927326) (207.103,0.00483395) (208.103,0.00767775) (209.103,0.00642829) (210.103,0.0118826) (211.103,0.0186838) (212.103,0.00516405) (213.103,0.0193202) (214.103,0.0118232) (215.103,0.0290612) (216.103,0.0185999) (217.103,0.014082) (218.103,0.0131357) (219.103,0.00932496) (220.103,0.00665195) (221.103,0.00972929) (222.103,0.0110753) (223.103,0.0099411) (224.103,0.00779532) (225.103,0.0124646) (226.103,0.00615433) (227.103,0.0106206) (228.103,0.00505566) (229.103,0.0431937) (230.103,0.0210545) (231.103,0.00912601) (232.103,0.00354828) (233.103,0.00900723) (234.103,0.0124128) (235.103,0.012778) (236.103,0.0123523) (237.103,0.0112418) (238.043,0.0126415) (239.04,281.494) (240.04,920.945) (241.04,178.981) (242.04,100.126) (243.04,292.973) (244.097,94.9874) (245.043,24.4036) (246.04,116.729) (247.097,150.785) (248.043,107.75) (249.04,170.993) (250.097,214.818) (251.103,149.763) (252.043,410.693) (253.04,176.907) (254.04,197.683) (255.04,115.277) (256.04,38.0162) (257.04,0.00880763) (258.04,56.9544) (259.097,42.7915) (260.043,17.4524) (261.097,0.00877224) (262.103,0.0150557) (263.103,0.00457076) (264.103,0.0158998) (265.103,0.00997372) (266.103,0.00975103) (267.103,0.377728) (268.103,0.0125357) (269.103,0.00691298) (270.103,0.0136727) (271.103,0.022306) (272.103,0.00875252) (273.103,0.0157134) (274.043,0.00846284) (275.04,0.0299638) (276.04,0.0266213) (277.04,0.0105179) (278.04,0.0174934) (279.04,0.0217839) (280.04,0.0144662) (281.04,0.00971155) (282.04,0.0152283) (283.04,0.0188744) (284.04,0.0152658) (285.04,0.0257597) (286.04,0.012626) (287.04,0.012991) (288.04,0.0285173) (289.04,0.00910513) (290.04,0.0120739) (291.04,0.00850004) (292.097,0.0231558) (293.043,0.011842) (294.04,0.0427518) (295.04,0.0222599) (296.097,0.0158501) (297.103,0.00888889) (298.103,0.0125994) (299.103,0.00899757) (300.103,0.00921362) (301.103,0.0214812) (302.103,0.0108725) (303.103,0.0245972) (304.103,0.0445906) (305.103,0.0291161) (306.103,0.0251862) (307.103,0.0162548) (308.103,0.0250821) (309.103,0.00683772) (310.103,0.0341483) (311.103,0.00883669) (312.103,0.0147098) (313.103,0.0173478) (314.103,0.0272806) (315.103,0.0148313) (316.103,0.0102459) (317.103,7.2591) (318.103,0.0112182) (319.103,0.00592895) (320.103,0.0141932) (321.103,0.0148323) (322.103,0.0159345) (323.103,0.0142757) (324.103,0.0183536) (325.103,0.0141646) (326.103,0.0262179) (327.103,0.0113419) (328.103,0.0114792) (329.103,0.00469612) (330.103,0.0128007) (331.103,0.0261301) (332.103,0.0077995) (333.103,0.0199526) (334.103,0.0343777) (335.103,0.0194674) (336.103,0.0110712) (337.103,0.00949772) (338.103,0.0201531) (339.103,0.0127938) (340.103,0.03893) (341.103,0.00597193) (342.103,0.0122426) (343.103,0.0490042) (344.103,0.0158669) (345.103,0.0201657) (346.103,0.0117973) (347.103,0.0079885) (348.103,0.0182055) (349.103,0.0231499) (350.103,0.0156666) (351.043,0.0196666) (352.04,21.5336) (353.04,1346.72) (354.04,792.465) (355.04,3.08139) (356.04,95.8443) (357.097,352.529) (358.103,98.649) (359.043,81.8278) (360.04,446.386) (361.097,213.747) (362.043,5.05378) (363.04,52.8994) (364.04,181.307) (365.04,8.68614) (366.04,0.0204273) (367.04,0.00547514) (368.04,66.3208) (369.04,63.4881) (370.04,0.0164977) (371.04,0.0138583) (372.04,5.40248) (373.04,0.0194319) (374.04,1.99233) (375.04,0.0219641) (376.097,0.0157947) (377.103,2.91049) (378.103,0.0165406) (379.103,0.00597804) (380.103,0.0194403) (381.103,0.00651371) (382.103,0.00578906) (383.103,0.0175846) (384.103,0.0212194) (385.103,0.013565) (386.103,0.0108197) (387.103,0.0100017) (388.103,0.0103545) (389.103,0.0112039) (390.103,0.00857358) (391.103,0.0115727) (392.103,0.0224409) (393.103,0.0279992) (394.103,0.0053957) (395.103,0.048392) (396.103,0.0366725) (397.103,0.0217357) (398.103,0.0377261) (399.103,0.00830229) (400.043,0.0162038) (401.04,0.0186151) (402.04,0.0153501) (403.04,0.0210135) (404.04,0.0191228) (405.04,0.0233814) (406.04,0.00437832) (407.04,0.00669844) (408.097,0.00926037) (409.043,0.00966873) (410.04,0.00697266) (411.04,0.0139295) (412.04,0.00852255) (413.04,0.0145674) (414.04,0.0205599) (415.04,0.0186151) (416.04,0.0291787) (417.04,0.00641105) (418.04,0.00904447) (419.04,0.0127596) (420.04,0.0408602) (421.04,0.0106077) (422.04,0.0201436) (423.097,0.0428794) (424.103,0.00924115) (425.103,0.0237725) (426.103,0.0168329) (427.103,0.0124863) (428.103,0.0215558) (429.103,0.00798825) (430.103,0.0146605) (431.103,0.0200116) (432.103,0.0212222) (433.103,0.0199751) (434.103,0.0118812) (435.103,0.0232941) (436.103,0.0256391) (437.103,0.00365281) (438.103,0.0165046) (439.103,0.0203558) (440.103,0.00986538) (441.103,0.00997066) (442.103,0.00679784) (443.103,0.00731114) (444.103,0.00938407) (445.103,0.0402022) (446.103,0.00988197) (447.103,0.0313427) (448.103,0.0147224) (449.103,0.0137317) (450.103,0.0129366) (451.103,0.00609743) (452.103,0.0236639) (453.103,0.0162844) (454.103,0.00951976) (455.103,0.0235853) (456.103,0.0211009) (457.103,0.00736069) (458.103,0.0194904) (459.103,0.00573494) (460.103,0.0119824) (461.043,0.0206611) (462.04,548.438) (463.04,1873.23) (464.04,1336.42) (465.04,2.44035) (466.04,68.7954) (467.04,16.1064) (468.04,12.651) (469.097,0.00922862) (470.043,0.0076942) (471.04,1.68005) (472.04,0.00970526) (473.04,26.6856) (474.04,0.00476569) (475.04,0.0201328) (476.04,0.0108144) (477.097,0.0101909) (478.043,0.0163019) (479.097,0.0167974) (480.103,0.0138905) (481.103,0.0150935) (482.103,0.0214521) (483.103,0.0236709) (484.103,0.0136836) (485.103,0.0183134) (486.103,0.0218289) (487.103,0.0121646) (488.103,0.0316446) (489.103,0.0203135) (490.103,0.0203228) (491.103,0.0195921) (492.103,0.00539629) (493.103,0.0197381) (494.103,0.0214208) (495.103,0.0341189) (496.103,0.0279113) (497.103,0.0116143) (498.103,0.0275537) (499.103,0.0279325) (500.043,0.0107519) (501.04,0.00700165) (502.04,0.00761669) (503.04,0.0100219) (504.04,0.00506774) (505.04,0.037521) (506.04,0.0213994) (507.04,0.00888013) (508.04,0.00816025) (509.04,0.0134005) (510.04,0.0142125) (511.04,0.0102058) (512.04,0.0256044) (513.04,0.0247741) (514.04,0.00619802) (515.04,0.0190431) (516.04,0.0295136) (517.04,0.0146422) (518.097,0.0176961) (519.043,0.00897385) (520.04,0.00874498) (521.04,0.0204934) (522.097,0.00945862) (523.103,0.0127225) (524.103,0.0363893) (525.103,0.0170678) (526.103,0.0329032) (527.103,0.00849021) (528.103,0.00772385) (529.103,0.00892175) (530.103,0.0242694) (531.103,0.0232684) (532.103,0.0116205) (533.103,0.0103611) (534.103,0.00959349) (535.103,0.018697) (536.043,0.0100381) (537.097,0.00875288) (538.103,0.0114338) (539.103,0.0228145) (540.103,0.02012) (541.103,0.0130665) (542.103,0.0165537) (543.103,0.0165584) (544.103,0.0129632) (545.103,0.0192138) (546.103,0.0205646) (547.103,0.00857936) (548.103,0.0176476) (549.103,0.0125676) (550.103,0.0101694) (551.103,0.0104449) (552.103,0.00916002) (553.103,0.0101204) (554.103,0.0130884) (555.103,0.010455) (556.103,0.00858724) (557.103,0.0108706) (558.103,0.0148854) (559.103,0.00432057) (560.103,0.0158112) (561.103,0.00675261) (562.103,0.0346246) (563.103,0.0170238) (564.103,0.0138163) (565.103,0.00828751) (566.103,0.00839994) (567.103,0.005677) (568.103,0.00346626) (569.103,0.0123379) (570.103,0.0139308) (571.103,0.00822235) (572.103,0.0199845) (573.103,0.00910051) (574.103,0.00697312) (575.103,0.0381564) (576.103,0.0350339) (577.103,0.00652021) (578.103,0.0485908) (579.103,0.0065293) (580.103,0.0159757) (581.103,0.0199315) (582.103,0.00933982) (583.043,0.0192891) (584.04,1033.45) (585.04,1228.98) (586.04,70.2051) (587.04,325.387) (588.04,461.248) (589.04,154.126) (590.04,193.183) (591.04,35.8553) (592.04,139.868) (593.04,49.8936) (594.04,0.354383) (595.04,15.2105) (596.04,91.515) (597.097,9.16133) (598.103,0.0121498) (599.103,13.273) (600.103,0.0133237) (601.103,0.00479753) (602.103,0.0159645) (603.103,0.0188872) (604.043,16.645) (605.04,0.0236215) (606.097,0.017304) (607.103,0.0189445) (608.103,0.0265837) (609.103,0.0147266) (610.103,0.0147434) (611.103,0.0319977) (612.103,1.8324) (613.043,0.306544) (614.04,16.5044) (615.04,12.6733) (616.04,0.0166799) (617.04,0.017135) (618.097,0.0133917) (619.043,0.0233982) (620.04,3.03351) (621.04,0.00650559) (622.04,0.00827636) (623.04,0.0103608) (624.04,0.013758) (625.04,0.017333) (626.04,0.00938689) (627.04,0.0103881) (628.097,0.00663111) (629.043,0.0145309) (630.04,0.0166247) (631.04,0.0202363) (632.097,0.0243993) (633.103,0.01557) (634.103,0.0137062) (635.103,0.0313375) (636.103,0.0145815) (637.103,0.0197916) (638.103,0.0204506) (639.103,0.0136422) (640.103,0.0128816) (641.103,0.0131643) (642.103,0.014588) (643.103,0.0122436) (644.103,0.00735117) (645.103,0.0205942) (646.103,0.0102613) (647.103,0.00193694) (648.103,0.0113661) (649.103,0.0116499) (650.103,0.0186513) (651.103,0.00920899) (652.103,0.0120714) (653.103,0.0111858) (654.103,0.0112597) (655.103,0.0396374) (656.103,0.00394219) (657.103,0.00519877) (658.103,0.0118588) (659.103,0.00856601) (660.103,0.0111569) (661.103,0.00882382) (662.103,0.0190617) (663.103,0.00679458) (664.103,0.0108543) (665.103,0.0165449) (666.103,0.0425149) (667.103,0.0160692) (668.103,0.022228) (669.103,0.0131943) (670.103,0.017243) (671.103,0.0166613) (672.103,0.00890523) (673.103,0.0427176) (674.103,0.00793801) (675.043,0.0369989) (676.097,0.0137627) (677.103,0.00973892) (678.103,0.0171428) (679.103,0.0151757) (680.043,0.0179366) (681.04,0.0320384) (682.04,0.0107759) (683.04,0.0125786) (684.04,0.008503) (685.04,0.0168851) (686.04,0.00812134) (687.04,0.00932147) (688.04,0.0126602) (689.04,0.0181194) (690.04,0.016339) (691.04,0.0136751) (692.04,0.0198996) (693.04,0.00706846) (694.097,0.0139355) (695.103,0.0182101) (696.103,0.0170211) (697.103,0.0102642) (698.103,0.0175543) (699.103,0.0112503) (700.103,0.0437548) (701.103,0.0136574) (702.103,0.00877076) (703.103,0.0186882) (704.103,0.0150669) (705.043,0.0123216) (706.04,1113.28) (707.04,1626.14) (708.04,554.021) (709.04,217.517) (710.04,6.14704) (711.04,23.8912) (712.097,4.13301) (713.043,278.855) (714.097,48.8627) (715.043,0.0340298) (716.04,16.5473) (717.097,4.85735) (718.043,0.0124235) (719.04,0.0139188) (720.04,0.0189847) (721.04,0.00618626) (722.04,0.0192685) (723.04,0.0192746) (724.04,0.020385) (725.04,0.0275048) (726.04,0.00957384) (727.04,0.0160868) (728.04,0.0201696) (729.04,0.0129903) (730.04,0.0173912) (731.04,0.013068) (732.04,0.0180833) (733.04,0.0187521) (734.04,0.0162208) (735.097,0.0292445) (736.043,0.0275916) (737.04,0.0195816) (738.04,0.0184761) (739.04,0.0225414) (740.04,0.0215811) (741.04,0.0152926) (742.097,0.0245073) (743.103,0.0109875) (744.103,0.00994272) (745.103,0.0260746) (746.103,0.0188676) (747.103,0.00830104) (748.103,0.0104111) (749.103,0.0137216) (750.103,0.0145064) (751.103,0.0108695) (752.103,0.0154689) (753.103,0.0104183) (754.103,0.0173549) (755.103,0.0180555) (756.103,0.0109275) (757.103,0.0149647) (758.103,0.0120529) (759.103,0.00593569) (760.103,0.0126421) (761.103,0.00820306) (762.103,0.0102768) (763.103,0.0137174) (764.103,0.00940365) (765.103,0.0297441) (766.103,0.0149615) (767.103,0.0137028) (768.103,0.018007) (769.103,0.0258384) (770.103,0.011392) (771.103,0.006731) (772.103,0.0300737) (773.103,0.0135468) (774.103,0.0133748) (775.103,0.0157844) (776.103,0.0156804) (777.103,0.0068298) (778.103,0.0324084) (779.103,0.0145219) (780.103,0.00925343) (781.103,0.0136589) (782.103,0.0233183) (783.103,0.00644111) (784.103,0.0185493) (785.103,0.0180538) (786.103,0.0156705) (787.103,0.0315159) (788.103,0.0228334) (789.103,0.0153501) (790.103,0.00871017) (791.103,0.0110462) (792.103,0.011729) (793.103,0.0416774) (794.103,0.0154533) (795.103,0.0126839) (796.103,0.0144132) (797.103,0.0135036) (798.103,0.00487241) (799.103,0.015423) (800.103,0.0151223) (801.103,0.00869024) (802.103,0.0369571) (803.103,0.0118072) (804.103,0.0164996) (805.103,0.02052) (806.103,0.00892905) (807.103,0.0141431) (808.103,0.012975) (809.103,0.012131) (810.103,0.0106658) (811.103,0.0133859) (812.103,0.0181554) (813.103,0.00559707) (814.103,0.0123681) (815.103,0.0472682) (816.043,0.0155756) (817.04,648.131) (818.04,1490.91) (819.04,498.267) (820.04,1.2213) (821.04,0.0171446) (822.04,192.566) (823.097,317.49) (824.103,113.083) (825.103,6.71164) (826.043,332.71) (827.04,218.873) (828.04,37.5299) (829.04,0.0118467) (830.04,0.00714048) (831.04,0.01379) (832.04,0.0190915) (833.04,0.0121656) (834.04,0.0156631) (835.04,0.0329867) (836.04,0.779222) (837.04,0.288452) (838.04,0.016182) (839.097,0.0142037) (840.043,1.18629) (841.04,16.7809) (842.04,0.0145919) (843.04,0.0242993) (844.04,0.0181709) (845.04,0.0225565) (846.097,0.0196259) (847.043,0.0154153) (848.04,0.0240471) (849.04,0.0291991) (850.04,0.0291125) (851.04,0.0284524) (852.04,0.0297085) (853.04,0.0206692) (854.097,0.0332142) (855.103,0.00546374) (856.103,0.0113027) (857.103,0.00394648) (858.103,0.0178782) (859.103,0.020093) (860.103,0.0126225) (861.103,0.00740301) (862.103,0.0180812) (863.103,0.00746449) (864.103,0.0154997) (865.103,0.0199433) (866.103,0.0122528) (867.103,0.00462056) (868.103,0.00370413) (869.103,0.00769567) (870.103,0.0162946) (871.103,0.0100061) (872.103,0.0120303) (873.103,0.0096633) (874.103,0.0128981) (875.103,0.0145416) (876.103,0.0373414) (877.103,0.0113027) (878.103,0.026445) (879.103,0.0137188) (880.103,0.00774662) (881.103,0.0178546) (882.103,0.0106627) (883.103,0.0142963) (884.103,0.0115872) (885.103,0.0104254) (886.103,0.0212995) (887.103,0.00431526) (888.103,0.0120526) (889.103,0.0177751) (890.103,0.00939601) (891.103,0.0108553) (892.103,0.0176205) (893.103,0.00872044) (894.103,0.0138466) (895.103,0.0219711) (896.103,0.0108541) (897.103,0.00682607) (898.103,0.020627) (899.103,0.0126031) (900.103,0.0137049) (901.103,0.0120362) (902.103,0.0341027) (903.103,0.0103286) (904.103,0.0202286) (905.103,0.0156571) (906.103,0.0130352) (907.103,0.0119641) (908.103,0.0128975) (909.103,0.00811674) (910.103,0.0107069) (911.103,0.0395968) (912.103,0.0177783) (913.103,0.0147989) (914.103,0.0183472) (915.103,0.00856441) (916.103,0.0162027) (917.103,0.0093049) (918.103,0.0160223) (919.103,0.013179) (920.103,0.0119241) (921.103,0.0152141) (922.103,0.0137195) (923.103,0.0112438) (924.103,0.0105538) (925.103,0.0185903) (926.103,0.0135416) (927.103,0.00744522) (928.103,0.0056891) (929.103,0.00553494) (930.103,0.0137394) (931.103,0.0108969) (932.103,0.0103732) (933.103,0.00806253) (934.103,0.0115637) (935.103,0.00909042) (936.103,0.0157043) (937.103,0.0152259) (938.103,0.0133699) (939.103,0.0136508) (940.103,0.0054019) (941.103,0.043098) (942.103,0.0243953) (943.043,21.448) (944.04,1715.97) (945.04,1502.67) (946.04,222.816) (947.04,231.189) (948.04,55.672) (949.04,84.8661) (950.04,31.5475) (951.04,0.011137) (952.04,2.18023) (953.04,13.2634) (954.04,0.0228404) (955.04,0.0222035) (956.04,0.0191864) (957.04,0.0179965) (958.04,0.0134415) (959.04,0.507296) (960.04,0.019691) (961.04,0.0128256) (962.04,0.0205501) (963.04,0.0210788) (964.097,0.0193369) (965.103,0.0188989) (966.043,0.015382) (967.04,0.0103728) (968.04,0.0193117) (969.04,0.0114709) (970.04,0.0164629) (971.04,0.0149043) (972.097,0.0363058) (973.103,0.0381797) (974.103,0.0325523) (975.103,0.0216238) (976.103,0.0249509) (977.103,0.018471) (978.103,0.0178055) (979.103,0.0242337) (980.103,0.0106391) (981.103,0.0203622) (982.103,0.00739481) (983.103,0.00725994) (984.103,0.00705447) (985.103,0.0076692) (986.103,0.0106997) (987.103,0.0124724) (988.103,0.0102551) (989.103,0.00637605) (990.103,0.0223433) (991.103,0.0136147) (992.103,0.00922662) (993.103,0.0106003) (994.103,0.011461) (995.103,0.00944326) (996.103,0.0144432) (997.103,0.0093647) (998.103,0.00960255) (999.103,0.0286407) (1000.1,0.00657526) (1001.1,0.0119113) (1002.1,0.0123788) (1003.1,0.0201682) (1004.1,0.0220462) (1005.1,0.00794588) (1006.1,0.0161625) (1007.1,0.009512) (1008.1,0.0316634) (1009.1,0.0197574) (1010.1,0.00922667) (1011.1,0.0119049) (1012.1,0.00808968) (1013.1,0.00410216) (1014.1,0.0105021) (1015.1,0.0171819) (1016.1,0.0186295) (1017.1,0.0120583) (1018.1,0.00714313) (1019.1,0.00876534) (1020.1,0.0238294) (1021.1,0.0132924) (1022.1,0.0148814) (1023.1,0.0177027) (1024.1,0.0153717) (1025.1,0.00970669) (1026.1,0.0159546) (1027.1,0.00538861) (1028.1,0.0186755) (1029.1,0.0124908) (1030.1,0.00513305) (1031.1,0.0099822) (1032.1,0.0081929) (1033.1,0.0126869) (1034.1,0.00516809) (1035.1,0.0100798) (1036.1,0.0110529) (1037.1,0.0116564) (1038.1,0.0124583) (1039.1,0.0221987) (1040.1,0.00939579) (1041.1,0.044498) (1042.1,0.0265244) (1043.1,0.0133011) (1044.1,0.00999355) (1045.1,0.00725072) (1046.1,0.010264) (1047.1,0.0155951) (1048.1,0.0193515) (1049.1,0.0101384) (1050.1,0.0201422) (1051.1,0.00799639) (1052.1,0.0117828) (1053.1,0.0111001) (1054.1,0.0111624) (1055.1,0.00631134) (1056.1,0.0154366) (1057.1,0.0048577) (1058.1,0.0105864) (1059.1,0.0100779) (1060.1,0.0128155) (1061.1,0.00909631) (1062.1,0.00779849) (1063.1,0.0473126) (1064.1,0.00399538) (1065.1,0.0600204) (1066.1,0.0167192) (1067.1,0.35306) (1068.04,79.987) (1069.04,1730.93) (1070.04,1396.75) (1071.04,81.784) (1072.04,89.0021) (1073.04,0.0137222) (1074.1,13.9878) (1075.04,49.364) (1076.04,227.289) (1077.1,126.433) (1078.04,0.549283) (1079.04,42.5949) (1080.04,30.6971) (1081.04,0.00686364) (1082.04,0.00936589) (1083.04,0.0287757) (1084.04,0.179022) (1085.1,0.446948) (1086.04,0.0197826) (1087.04,9.57298) (1088.1,0.0230155) (1089.1,0.0182461) (1090.1,0.0117952) (1091.1,0.0149999) (1092.1,0.00981579) (1093.1,0.0218001) (1094.1,0.0165257) (1095.1,0.0201131) (1096.1,0.0123106) (1097.1,0.0169599) (1098.1,0.0174109) (1099.1,0.0340069) (1100.1,0.0273655) (1101.1,0.0277577) (1102.1,0.0190535) (1103.1,0.00613955) (1104.1,0.0163305) (1105.1,0.023111) (1106.1,0.0326488) (1107.1,0.0325881) (1108.1,0.0140255) (1109.1,0.0104058) (1110.1,0.022949) (1111.1,0.0093037) (1112.1,0.00957232) (1113.1,0.0154222) (1114.1,0.0115018) (1115.1,0.00771814) (1116.04,0.012465) (1117.04,0.0272501) (1118.04,0.0106588) (1119.04,0.0141097) (1120.04,0.00702366) (1121.04,0.0118501) (1122.04,0.0107922) (1123.04,0.0125379) (1124.04,0.00583328) (1125.04,0.00867365) (1126.1,0.0113305) (1127.1,0.0173546) (1128.04,0.012717) (1129.04,0.0336055) (1130.04,0.0143708) (1131.04,0.0123975) (1132.04,0.0122267) (1133.04,0.0129657) (1134.1,0.0171638) (1135.04,0.0113218) (1136.04,0.0129762) (1137.1,0.0196848) (1138.1,0.00906354) (1139.1,0.0111424) (1140.1,0.0203054) (1141.1,0.0171329) (1142.1,0.00632187) (1143.1,0.0126295) (1144.1,0.0159345) (1145.1,0.0134472) (1146.1,0.0188544) (1147.1,0.00919644) (1148.1,0.0108707) (1149.1,0.0131674) (1150.1,0.00759252) (1151.1,0.0106609) (1152.1,0.00875685) (1153.1,0.0126141) (1154.1,0.00675059) (1155.1,0.00672215) (1156.1,0.00976133) (1157.1,0.0190837) (1158.1,0.0324864) (1159.1,0.00956697) (1160.1,0.00886744) (1161.1,0.00986662) (1162.1,0.0191987) (1163.1,0.00739369) (1164.1,0.0157342) (1165.1,0.0105035) (1166.1,0.0132342) (1167.1,0.0135107) (1168.1,0.014205) (1169.1,0.0433135) (1170.1,0.0147924) (1171.1,0.0178589) (1172.1,0.00944651) (1173.1,0.0128265) (1174.1,0.0186987) (1175.1,0.0148464) (1176.1,0.0184818) (1177.1,0.0181883) (1178.1,0.00952079) (1179.1,0.039985) (1180.1,0.0121014) (1181.1,0.0136201) (1182.1,0.0433317) (1183.1,0.0301352) (1184.1,0.0163751) (1185.1,0.0058035) (1186.1,0.0108412) (1187.1,0.0156732) (1188.1,0.00975866) (1189.1,0.042963) (1190.1,0.00795469) (1191.1,0.00995131) (1192.04,0.019065) (1193.04,89.5596) (1194.04,1672.66) (1195.04,1151.18) (1196.04,11.089) (1197.04,0.0146643) (1198.04,94.8299) (1199.1,196.856) (1200.04,56.2664) (1201.04,104.953) (1202.04,38.705) (1203.04,170.949) (1204.04,213.607) (1205.04,21.6952) (1206.04,15.8914) (1207.04,0.0103466) (1208.04,0.0194008) (1209.1,9.24613) (1210.04,3.60784) (1211.04,0.00734002) (1212.04,0.0146235) (1213.04,0.0147777) (1214.04,0.0183388) (1215.04,0.0123562) (1216.1,0.0194508) (1217.04,0.0224507) (1218.04,0.0243315) (1219.04,0.00910373) (1220.04,0.0181) (1221.04,0.0149597) (1222.04,17.4002) (1223.04,0.0131789) (1224.04,0.0230156) (1225.1,0.0224199) (1226.04,0.0123308) (1227.04,0.0230051) (1228.04,0.0354827) (1229.04,0.0203418) (1230.04,0.0173441) (1231.04,0.0315677) (1232.1,0.0182446) (1233.1,0.0178891) (1234.1,0.0182623) (1235.1,0.0156374) (1236.1,0.0198256) (1237.1,0.00964785) (1238.1,0.0110423) (1239.1,0.00540147) (1240.1,0.00937241) (1241.1,0.015332) (1242.1,0.0157773) (1243.1,0.0137053) (1244.1,0.0180875) (1245.1,0.0117941) (1246.1,0.0205088) (1247.1,0.0239113) (1248.1,0.00715991) (1249.1,0.00969315) (1250.1,0.010073) (1251.1,0.00565638) (1252.1,0.00532852) (1253.1,0.0127237) (1254.1,0.0184014) (1255.1,0.0150119) (1256.1,0.0123929) (1257.1,0.0290977) (1258.1,0.0106747) (1259.1,0.0140662) (1260.1,0.0326263) (1261.1,0.0183622) (1262.1,0.0135213) (1263.1,0.0181815) (1264.1,0.0113718) (1265.1,0.0110569) (1266.1,0.0159845) (1267.1,0.0130698) (1268.1,0.0161894) (1269.1,0.00252326) (1270.1,0.00660365) (1271.1,0.0138534) (1272.1,0.010179) (1273.1,0.0226862) (1274.1,0.0149924) (1275.1,0.0130033) (1276.1,0.0117401) (1277.1,0.0185343) (1278.1,0.0049334) (1279.1,0.00918803) (1280.1,0.00786436) (1281.1,0.0111494) (1282.1,0.00666992) (1283.1,0.0115296) (1284.1,0.0149192) (1285.1,0.00998144) (1286.1,0.0442996) (1287.1,0.00540352) (1288.1,0.00789594) (1289.1,0.0118342) (1290.1,0.0129204) (1291.1,0.0216726) (1292.1,0.0186835) (1293.1,0.0103193) (1294.1,0.0337204) (1295.1,0.0235024) (1296.1,0.0412659) (1297.1,0.00833334) (1298.1,0.0228914) (1299.1,0.00624572) (1300.1,0.0127419) (1301.1,0.00991936) (1302.1,0.0117431) (1303.1,0.0207711) (1304.1,0.0169127) (1305.1,0.0439276) (1306.1,0.0177384) (1307.1,0.0190801) (1308.1,0.0443505) (1309.1,0.0112692) (1310.1,0.0101995) (1311.1,0.0180679) (1312.1,0.00884459) (1313.1,0.0112956) (1314.1,0.0117775) (1315.1,0.0490585) (1316.1,0.0128657) (1317.04,0.0176548) (1318.04,1189.88) (1319.1,1389.13) (1320.1,326.961) (1321.1,0.0317514) (1322.04,0.0251443) (1323.04,94.1273) (1324.04,204.423) (1325.04,100.605) (1326.1,248.801) (1327.1,162.699) (1328.1,89.9487) (1329.1,51.9931) (1330.1,51.0403) (1331.1,23.4101) (1332.1,22.5054) (1333.1,1.59587) (1334.1,18.9663) (1335.1,30.6455) (1336.1,1.39629) (1337.1,6.18814) (1338.1,4.03701) };
\addplot coordinates { (0.096568,0.000459558) (1.10261,0.0268555) (2.10261,0.0273438) (3.1026,0.131104) (4.1026,0.00341797) (5.1026,0.0100098) (6.1026,0) (7.1026,0.00952148) (8.1026,0.0375977) (9.1026,0.0380859) (10.1026,0.0119629) (11.1026,0.0193481) (12.1026,0.0195007) (13.043,0.003125) (14.0401,0.0183105) (15.0401,0.0463867) (16.0966,0) (17.0428,0) (18.0401,0.0742798) (19.0401,0.0271606) (20.0966,0.0944393) (21.1026,0.0625) (22.0428,0.059375) (23.0966,0.14568) (24.1026,0.0578613) (25.1026,0.00146484) (26.1026,0.0332031) (27.0428,0.00364583) (28.0401,0) (29.0966,0.027114) (30.0428,0) (31.0966,0.00459558) (32.1026,0.0117188) (33.0428,0.0148437) (34.0401,11.8291) (35.0401,2.95728) (36.0966,0.000229779) (37.043,11.2987) (38.0401,21.926) (39.0401,0) (40.0401,0.0112305) (41.0401,0.0101013) (42.0401,0.0204468) (43.0966,0) (44.1026,0.0112305) (45.0431,0.014681) (46.0966,0) (47.1026,0) (48.1026,0.00390625) (49.0428,0.0260091) (50.0401,0.0253906) (51.0404,0.0219727) (52.0401,0.0241699) (53.0401,0.0164185) (54.0401,0.0136719) (55.0401,0.000976562) (56.0402,0.00366211) (57.0401,0) (58.0401,0) (59.0966,0.000459558) (60.1026,0) (61.1026,0) (62.1026,0.00439453) (63.1026,0.0131836) (64.1026,0.00708008) (65.1026,0.00292969) (66.1026,0) (67.1026,1.97876) (68.1026,64.1367) (69.1026,56.2769) (70.1026,41.2214) (71.0428,17.3162) (72.0401,0.0101013) (73.0401,46.7773) (74.0401,83.2437) (75.0401,46.2116) (76.0401,8.4288) (77.0403,0.523682) (78.0401,28.309) (79.0401,40.3489) (80.0401,0.96014) (81.0401,0.0178223) (82.0401,0.00805664) (83.0966,36.7693) (84.0428,22.0881) (85.0966,19.7264) (86.1026,20.8682) (87.1026,9.26367) (88.0429,19.1203) (89.0966,24.793) (90.1026,0.0314941) (91.1026,0.0170898) (92.0428,0) (93.0401,0) (94.0401,3.81711) (95.0401,20.803) (96.0401,30.2495) (97.0401,17.4375) (98.0966,0) (99.043,8.40339) (100.097,66.4536) (101.103,48.2256) (102.043,0.0371745) (103.097,0) (104.043,5.39583) (105.097,110.328) (106.103,75.0854) (107.043,26.8646) (108.097,5.98331) (109.043,0.0241862) (110.04,16.7058) (111.04,65.0405) (112.04,93.3813) (113.097,46.918) (114.043,5.25807) (115.04,0) (116.04,5.18188) (117.097,27.8734) (118.043,23.2359) (119.04,0.0012207) (120.097,0.000689339) (121.103,20.6142) (122.103,65.2185) (123.103,47.0777) (124.103,27.7286) (125.103,0.67334) (126.103,34.9639) (127.103,54.5568) (128.103,3.7356) (129.103,0.00537109) (130.103,0.000732422) (131.103,0.0136719) (132.103,0.0267029) (133.103,0.0100098) (134.103,0.0107422) (135.103,0.00244141) (136.103,0.0124512) (137.103,0.00488281) (138.103,0.00244141) (139.103,0.0466309) (140.103,0.0146484) (141.103,0.0192871) (142.103,0.0114746) (143.043,0.020931) (144.04,0.00952148) (145.04,0) (146.04,0.000976562) (147.04,0.00170898) (148.04,0.00952148) (149.04,0.00219727) (150.04,0) (151.04,0) (152.04,0) (153.04,0.000732422) (154.04,0.00415039) (155.04,0.00415039) (156.04,0.00497437) (157.04,0.006073) (158.097,0.0199908) (159.043,0.00364583) (160.097,0.00252757) (161.043,0.0119792) (162.097,0.0312787) (163.103,0.00927734) (164.103,0.0090332) (165.103,0) (166.103,0.0100098) (167.103,0) (168.043,0) (169.097,0.0344382) (170.103,0.0187988) (171.103,0.0168457) (172.103,0.00952148) (173.103,0.0178223) (174.103,0.0163574) (175.103,0) (176.103,0.000976562) (177.103,0.00341797) (178.103,0.0151367) (179.103,0.00195312) (180.103,0) (181.103,0.000244141) (182.103,0.00170898) (183.103,0.00268555) (184.103,6.25659) (185.103,20.8579) (186.103,20.8615) (187.103,20.8714) (188.103,27.5967) (189.103,41.7249) (190.103,37.0945) (191.103,20.8748) (192.103,25.8048) (193.103,46.0069) (194.103,57.5986) (195.103,41.6883) (196.103,41.7332) (197.103,66.7715) (198.103,80.272) (199.103,59.9526) (200.103,41.7316) (201.103,41.6407) (202.103,41.8078) (203.103,35.4081) (204.103,20.9795) (205.103,20.8679) (206.103,20.8714) (207.103,20.8352) (208.103,20.8252) (209.103,9.99565) (210.103,20.9781) (211.103,20.8696) (212.103,20.8828) (213.103,35.7824) (214.103,41.6062) (215.103,40.2514) (216.103,20.851) (217.103,20.8662) (218.103,68.3877) (219.103,90.581) (220.103,82.7771) (221.103,83.0327) (222.103,83.7055) (223.103,82.8504) (224.103,44.2962) (225.103,0) (226.103,0.0183105) (227.103,0) (228.103,9.56564) (229.103,20.8589) (230.103,20.917) (231.103,20.8828) (232.103,20.8599) (233.103,20.879) (234.103,12.9465) (235.103,0.015625) (236.103,0) (237.103,0) (238.043,0.00625) (239.04,0.0078125) (240.04,0) (241.04,0) (242.04,0) (243.04,0) (244.097,11.4791) (245.043,22.1648) (246.04,20.9834) (247.097,19.5981) (248.043,22.0568) (249.04,21.1208) (250.097,9.62915) (251.103,0.00415039) (252.043,0.00478516) (253.04,0.0161133) (254.04,0.00732422) (255.04,0.00415039) (256.04,0.00415039) (257.04,0) (258.04,0) (259.097,0.00809973) (260.043,0.00130208) (261.097,0.0266544) (262.103,0.010498) (263.103,0.00180054) (264.103,0.00244141) (265.103,0.00195312) (266.103,0) (267.103,0) (268.103,12.5139) (269.103,20.8718) (270.103,20.8654) (271.103,20.8554) (272.103,20.8628) (273.103,20.7322) (274.043,10.7781) (275.04,0) (276.04,0.000976562) (277.04,0) (278.04,0.0109863) (279.04,0.00878906) (280.04,0.00317383) (281.04,0.00830078) (282.04,0.0144043) (283.04,0.0107422) (284.04,0.0090332) (285.04,0.00708008) (286.04,0.00720215) (287.04,0) (288.04,0.000183105) (289.04,0.011322) (290.04,0.00634766) (291.04,0.0195312) (292.097,0.013557) (293.043,0.0159831) (294.04,0.00219727) (295.04,0.0119629) (296.097,0.00367647) (297.103,0.000244141) (298.103,0.00317383) (299.103,0.00610352) (300.103,0.00244141) (301.103,0) (302.103,0) (303.103,0) (304.103,10.9009) (305.103,20.8718) (306.103,3.89331) (307.103,0) (308.103,14.6001) (309.103,20.8701) (310.103,22.1775) (311.103,58.5969) (312.103,37.3261) (313.103,14.6093) (314.103,0.00463867) (315.103,0.00244141) (316.103,0.0017395) (317.103,18.7697) (318.103,20.8662) (319.103,20.8767) (320.103,20.8818) (321.103,20.9177) (322.103,0.811279) (323.103,0.00195312) (324.103,20.7373) (325.103,20.7964) (326.103,20.8166) (327.103,20.9309) (328.103,20.907) (329.103,39.0373) (330.103,42.9421) (331.103,20.9492) (332.103,20.8432) (333.103,20.8631) (334.103,44.0588) (335.103,55.845) (336.103,64.3498) (337.103,41.6848) (338.103,41.7434) (339.103,51.8591) (340.103,59.5942) (341.103,27.9075) (342.103,41.4916) (343.103,41.7305) (344.103,41.7593) (345.103,33.217) (346.103,29.007) (347.103,20.8615) (348.103,20.3989) (349.103,29.2889) (350.103,17.9228) (351.043,19.6763) (352.04,20.8391) (353.04,20.9609) (354.04,20.4619) (355.04,26.7468) (356.04,41.7417) (357.097,23.4876) (358.103,26.4365) (359.043,33.0073) (360.04,34.6021) (361.097,18.6934) (362.043,22.7966) (363.04,20.8694) (364.04,20.8684) (365.04,20.8496) (366.04,0.875244) (367.04,0.000976562) (368.04,0.017334) (369.04,0.00146484) (370.04,0.00195312) (371.04,0.0078125) (372.04,0.0238953) (373.04,0.0163574) (374.04,5.55615) (375.04,41.3679) (376.097,39.4663) (377.103,41.5911) (378.103,41.7419) (379.103,41.859) (380.103,59.6969) (381.103,20.8923) (382.103,25.0271) (383.103,41.5918) (384.103,41.7542) (385.103,34.5613) (386.103,2.36768) (387.103,0.00170898) (388.103,0) (389.103,0.0012207) (390.103,0.00683594) (391.103,0.00317383) (392.103,0) (393.103,0.00317383) (394.103,0.000488281) (395.103,0.00146484) (396.103,0.00875854) (397.103,0.00488281) (398.103,0.0158691) (399.103,0) (400.043,0.00416667) (401.04,0.0180664) (402.04,0.0169373) (403.04,0.0184631) (404.04,0.000488281) (405.04,0.0144043) (406.04,0.0234375) (407.04,0) (408.097,0) (409.043,0.000846354) (410.04,0.0307922) (411.04,0.0222168) (412.04,17.0689) (413.04,20.8904) (414.04,20.8565) (415.04,20.8587) (416.04,20.8565) (417.04,20.8721) (418.04,5.44971) (419.04,0.000732422) (420.04,0.00628662) (421.04,46.6712) (422.04,41.7172) (423.097,38.9518) (424.103,41.1294) (425.103,41.8919) (426.103,63.5899) (427.103,65.1118) (428.103,62.4803) (429.103,62.5269) (430.103,68.7539) (431.103,71.6931) (432.103,34.9758) (433.103,0.0260315) (434.103,0.00146484) (435.103,3.96948) (436.103,0.013916) (437.103,0.00854492) (438.103,0) (439.103,0) (440.103,6.29428) (441.103,17.5412) (442.103,0.0129395) (443.103,0.012207) (444.103,0.015625) (445.103,16.5542) (446.103,63.5019) (447.103,74.3003) (448.103,62.5156) (449.103,62.5933) (450.103,47.2866) (451.103,37.5305) (452.103,9.60112) (453.103,20.7294) (454.103,20.7395) (455.103,35.791) (456.103,24.3809) (457.103,0.00219727) (458.103,0.0183105) (459.103,9.22094) (460.103,20.8728) (461.043,40.0761) (462.04,41.5438) (463.04,41.9353) (464.04,41.6989) (465.04,38.2822) (466.04,41.7385) (467.04,22.7148) (468.04,20.8599) (469.097,19.6385) (470.043,22.2712) (471.04,18.3357) (472.04,0.0341797) (473.04,0.00439453) (474.04,0.0253906) (475.04,14.5566) (476.04,20.8484) (477.097,19.3047) (478.043,22.6296) (479.097,19.5145) (480.103,21.0027) (481.103,7.95532) (482.103,12.5149) (483.103,20.8593) (484.103,20.8611) (485.103,23.0461) (486.103,41.7158) (487.103,41.7014) (488.103,30.8462) (489.103,20.8604) (490.103,20.865) (491.103,20.3479) (492.103,0.00219727) (493.103,0.0331421) (494.103,0) (495.103,0.0136719) (496.103,0.0251465) (497.103,0.0100098) (498.103,0.00610352) (499.103,0.00463867) (500.043,0.0188802) (501.04,0.0356445) (502.04,0.0175781) (503.04,0.0166016) (504.04,0.0119629) (505.04,0.0234375) (506.04,0.00488281) (507.04,0.00537109) (508.04,0.000732422) (509.04,0.00219727) (510.04,0.000732422) (511.04,0.00170898) (512.04,0.00338745) (513.04,0.00317383) (514.04,0) (515.04,0) (516.04,0.00219727) (517.04,0.00421143) (518.097,11.775) (519.043,22.2672) (520.04,23.6677) (521.04,20.8665) (522.097,44.0175) (523.103,62.6186) (524.103,51.7353) (525.103,41.9458) (526.103,32.9634) (527.103,62.3255) (528.103,74.4695) (529.103,62.333) (530.103,62.7995) (531.103,62.479) (532.103,52.8003) (533.103,22.73) (534.103,1.95923) (535.103,0.00952148) (536.043,0.000520833) (537.097,15.9175) (538.103,20.8637) (539.103,20.8626) (540.103,20.8721) (541.103,26.3845) (542.103,41.7268) (543.103,26.4912) (544.103,20.8066) (545.103,20.8749) (546.103,31.2702) (547.103,55.6382) (548.103,41.73) (549.103,41.7427) (550.103,41.73) (551.103,43.0611) (552.103,53.6003) (553.103,25.6588) (554.103,20.792) (555.103,20.9063) (556.103,20.9064) (557.103,20.8718) (558.103,0.44043) (559.103,0) (560.103,0.0325317) (561.103,0.00952148) (562.103,0.0317383) (563.103,0.0114746) (564.103,0.0119629) (565.103,0.0090332) (566.103,0.00146484) (567.103,11.3435) (568.103,29.5069) (569.103,41.5025) (570.103,41.5742) (571.103,42.1006) (572.103,53.2229) (573.103,52.8667) (574.103,35.0669) (575.103,20.5596) (576.103,21.1116) (577.103,20.8906) (578.103,10.6445) (579.103,0.00415039) (580.103,0.00561523) (581.103,0.000732422) (582.103,0.00390625) (583.043,0.0223308) (584.04,0.0124512) (585.04,0.00561523) (586.04,0) (587.04,0.0136719) (588.04,0.00732422) (589.04,0) (590.04,0.0205688) (591.04,0.00537109) (592.04,0.0244141) (593.04,0.00415039) (594.04,0.00561523) (595.04,0.0012207) (596.04,18.7727) (597.097,19.6333) (598.103,8.5581) (599.103,0.000976562) (600.103,0.000976562) (601.103,0) (602.103,0.000732422) (603.103,0.00244141) (604.043,0.00078125) (605.04,0) (606.097,0) (607.103,0.00341797) (608.103,0.000732422) (609.103,0.00488281) (610.103,0.343994) (611.103,20.5524) (612.103,40.2264) (613.043,44.5184) (614.04,41.6363) (615.04,41.7385) (616.04,40.3652) (617.04,20.882) (618.097,2.99425) (619.043,0.00130208) (620.04,0.0203552) (621.04,0.0310059) (622.04,0.0292969) (623.04,0.00756836) (624.04,0.00805664) (625.04,0) (626.04,0.0241699) (627.04,0) (628.097,0.00261374) (629.043,0.00078125) (630.04,0.00134277) (631.04,0.0105286) (632.097,0.00890395) (633.103,0.00463867) (634.103,0.000732422) (635.103,0.0027771) (636.103,0.000610352) (637.103,0.00292969) (638.103,5.19214) (639.103,28.0832) (640.103,38.3662) (641.103,21.9116) (642.103,47.825) (643.103,71.8787) (644.103,83.4534) (645.103,64.6536) (646.103,41.8386) (647.103,41.7786) (648.103,33.448) (649.103,37.615) (650.103,35.3845) (651.103,22.6526) (652.103,20.7566) (653.103,19.552) (654.103,0.0244446) (655.103,0.0015564) (656.103,19.2178) (657.103,0.935059) (658.103,24.9634) (659.103,23.5049) (660.103,23.4655) (661.103,41.7297) (662.103,62.3823) (663.103,61.5109) (664.103,57.7878) (665.103,20.8139) (666.103,20.9187) (667.103,20.8709) (668.103,37.5618) (669.103,22.1467) (670.103,20.8654) (671.103,20.8247) (672.103,17.7856) (673.103,20.902) (674.103,8.9314) (675.043,0.00260417) (676.097,0.00942096) (677.103,0.0012207) (678.103,12.3371) (679.103,7.48877) (680.043,0.0134766) (681.04,0) (682.04,0.0175781) (683.04,0.0273438) (684.04,13.0952) (685.04,20.8894) (686.04,20.853) (687.04,20.8811) (688.04,20.8532) (689.04,10.4583) (690.04,0.00439453) (691.04,0.000732422) (692.04,0) (693.04,0.00463867) (694.097,0.0089614) (695.103,0) (696.103,0) (697.103,0.00146484) (698.103,12.513) (699.103,20.8767) (700.103,20.8645) (701.103,20.8571) (702.103,20.8909) (703.103,36.0463) (704.103,30.853) (705.043,22.2328) (706.04,20.9053) (707.04,20.8776) (708.04,20.7168) (709.04,20.4637) (710.04,20.8743) (711.04,20.836) (712.097,19.6675) (713.043,31.5052) (714.097,39.0242) (715.043,29.6576) (716.04,0.0012207) (717.097,3.73691) (718.043,0) (719.04,20.8504) (720.04,6.14697) (721.04,20.3172) (722.04,20.4477) (723.04,20.8382) (724.04,14.4201) (725.04,17.5335) (726.04,20.8645) (727.04,20.8792) (728.04,20.8) (729.04,18.9919) (730.04,0) (731.04,0.0012207) (732.04,0.0112305) (733.04,0.00418091) (734.04,2.10132) (735.097,19.6323) (736.043,22.2611) (737.04,20.8755) (738.04,20.8706) (739.04,20.8574) (740.04,20.4505) (741.04,0.0270996) (742.097,0.060432) (743.103,0.0285645) (744.103,0.0109863) (745.103,0.00756836) (746.103,0.0314941) (747.103,0) (748.103,0) (749.103,0) (750.103,0.000732422) (751.103,0) (752.103,0) (753.103,0.00146484) (754.103,0.00878906) (755.103,0.00219727) (756.103,0) (757.103,0) (758.103,0.0012207) (759.103,0.00683594) (760.103,2.71167) (761.103,20.8504) (762.103,16.0886) (763.103,16.6956) (764.103,37.5811) (765.103,72.0894) (766.103,83.6407) (767.103,79.0815) (768.103,63.2776) (769.103,107.997) (770.103,152.504) (771.103,115.11) (772.103,88.4075) (773.103,103.918) (774.103,92.0459) (775.103,47.606) (776.103,12.0684) (777.103,0) (778.103,0) (779.103,0.00292969) (780.103,0.0170898) (781.103,0.00585938) (782.103,0) (783.103,0.00415039) (784.103,4.1731) (785.103,20.864) (786.103,20.5676) (787.103,20.8704) (788.103,20.867) (789.103,20.2583) (790.103,19.2229) (791.103,0.00350952) (792.103,0.0117798) (793.103,0.0130005) (794.103,0.0331421) (795.103,0.00439453) (796.103,0.0249023) (797.103,0.012207) (798.103,0) (799.103,0.00268555) (800.103,0) (801.103,0.032196) (802.103,0.0117188) (803.103,0.0463867) (804.103,0.0283203) (805.103,0.00292969) (806.103,0.0148926) (807.103,0.00219727) (808.103,0.00146484) (809.103,6.25244) (810.103,20.8615) (811.103,39.8721) (812.103,41.7271) (813.103,41.7036) (814.103,62.448) (815.103,58.0017) (816.043,28.5812) (817.04,7.28668) (818.04,20.9082) (819.04,13.3967) (820.04,20.866) (821.04,35.469) (822.04,41.7283) (823.097,39.2732) (824.103,41.7392) (825.103,18.3208) (826.043,0.0119792) (827.04,0.0090332) (828.04,0) (829.04,0.00146484) (830.04,0.00146484) (831.04,0.0150146) (832.04,0.00830078) (833.04,0.0126953) (834.04,17.355) (835.04,41.7255) (836.04,22.0728) (837.04,20.8404) (838.04,20.8667) (839.097,19.5673) (840.043,16.7135) (841.04,0.00146484) (842.04,0.000976562) (843.04,0.000244141) (844.04,0) (845.04,0.00292969) (846.097,7.84651) (847.043,22.2547) (848.04,20.8655) (849.04,20.8872) (850.04,20.8797) (851.04,0.408417) (852.04,0.0395508) (853.04,0.0328674) (854.097,0.0233513) (855.103,0.00390625) (856.103,0.0102539) (857.103,0.00415039) (858.103,0.00512695) (859.103,0.00170898) (860.103,0.00292969) (861.103,0.0823059) (862.103,0.0275879) (863.103,0.0454102) (864.103,0.0253906) (865.103,0.0148926) (866.103,0.0275879) (867.103,0) (868.103,0) (869.103,0) (870.103,0) (871.103,0.00146484) (872.103,0.0012207) (873.103,0) (874.103,0) (875.103,3.96362) (876.103,32.8613) (877.103,61) (878.103,45.2095) (879.103,53.0657) (880.103,96.7493) (881.103,171.171) (882.103,175.783) (883.103,166.695) (884.103,167.255) (885.103,154.927) (886.103,106.746) (887.103,38.5093) (888.103,20.8155) (889.103,20.9143) (890.103,23.4568) (891.103,38.3184) (892.103,20.8584) (893.103,7.15551) (894.103,0.00952148) (895.103,0.00756836) (896.103,0.0153809) (897.103,0.00292969) (898.103,0.00244141) (899.103,0.00146484) (900.103,0) (901.103,0) (902.103,0.00146484) (903.103,0.0012207) (904.103,0.00170898) (905.103,0.00366211) (906.103,0.00146484) (907.103,0) (908.103,0) (909.103,0) (910.103,0.0195312) (911.103,0.00146484) (912.103,0) (913.103,0.0100098) (914.103,0.0207214) (915.103,0.0175781) (916.103,0.00512695) (917.103,0.00244141) (918.103,0.0180664) (919.103,0) (920.103,2.03125) (921.103,38.7695) (922.103,25.6257) (923.103,20.4349) (924.103,20.8787) (925.103,20.8652) (926.103,20.8818) (927.103,20.5723) (928.103,20.8731) (929.103,20.8491) (930.103,20.8779) (931.103,29.018) (932.103,1.51464) (933.103,0.0012207) (934.103,0.000244141) (935.103,0) (936.103,0.000976562) (937.103,0.012207) (938.103,0) (939.103,0) (940.103,0.339355) (941.103,20.623) (942.103,20.8587) (943.043,22.2728) (944.04,20.5538) (945.04,0.0112305) (946.04,0.0163574) (947.04,0.00683594) (948.04,0.0119629) (949.04,0.524414) (950.04,35.2932) (951.04,41.8036) (952.04,22.3098) (953.04,20.8687) (954.04,20.8628) (955.04,20.8723) (956.04,7.90014) (957.04,0.00292969) (958.04,0) (959.04,0) (960.04,0) (961.04,0) (962.04,0.00292969) (963.04,0.000732422) (964.097,0) (965.103,0) (966.043,0.00104167) (967.04,0.00195312) (968.04,0) (969.04,0) (970.04,0.0065918) (971.04,1.71216) (972.097,19.6234) (973.103,20.8462) (974.103,20.8911) (975.103,20.8543) (976.103,20.8696) (977.103,0.878662) (978.103,0.0168457) (979.103,0.00439453) (980.103,0.00439453) (981.103,0.086792) (982.103,0.0317383) (983.103,0.019043) (984.103,0.020752) (985.103,0.010498) (986.103,0.00415039) (987.103,0.0270996) (988.103,0) (989.103,0) (990.103,0.000976562) (991.103,0) (992.103,0.00219727) (993.103,0.000976562) (994.103,0) (995.103,0) (996.103,0.00170898) (997.103,0.00292969) (998.103,14.1221) (999.103,20.9964) (1000.1,20.8526) (1001.1,36.3103) (1002.1,89.2918) (1003.1,124.624) (1004.1,112.934) (1005.1,109.407) (1006.1,106.339) (1007.1,139.821) (1008.1,112.162) (1009.1,84.5952) (1010.1,82.8728) (1011.1,83.182) (1012.1,83.3853) (1013.1,36.3242) (1014.1,0.017334) (1015.1,0.00634766) (1016.1,0.00146484) (1017.1,0.0124512) (1018.1,0) (1019.1,0.00439453) (1020.1,0.000488281) (1021.1,0) (1022.1,0.00439453) (1023.1,0.00610352) (1024.1,0.000976562) (1025.1,0) (1026.1,0.000244141) (1027.1,0.00146484) (1028.1,0.00219727) (1029.1,0.00146484) (1030.1,0.0197754) (1031.1,0.000732422) (1032.1,0) (1033.1,0.0119629) (1034.1,0.00817871) (1035.1,0.0126953) (1036.1,0) (1037.1,0.0229492) (1038.1,0.00756836) (1039.1,0.000976562) (1040.1,0) (1041.1,0.0141296) (1042.1,0.0258789) (1043.1,0.048584) (1044.1,0.0163574) (1045.1,0.0219727) (1046.1,10.4243) (1047.1,37.6812) (1048.1,41.8747) (1049.1,41.7255) (1050.1,41.7171) (1051.1,41.721) (1052.1,48.6709) (1053.1,26.3843) (1054.1,20.8767) (1055.1,20.8418) (1056.1,20.8343) (1057.1,20.8897) (1058.1,6.76758) (1059.1,0) (1060.1,0.015625) (1061.1,0) (1062.1,0.000732422) (1063.1,0.0144043) (1064.1,0.0252686) (1065.1,0.0148926) (1066.1,0.000732422) (1067.1,0.0236816) (1068.04,0.0158854) (1069.04,0.000732422) (1070.04,0) (1071.04,0.00527954) (1072.04,0.00244141) (1073.04,7.61255) (1074.1,13.4862) (1075.04,0.0174479) (1076.04,0.00146484) (1077.1,11.2626) (1078.04,22.1192) (1079.04,20.9895) (1080.04,20.9141) (1081.04,20.8233) (1082.04,20.9102) (1083.04,10.4607) (1084.04,0.000732422) (1085.1,0) (1086.04,0) (1087.04,0) (1088.1,0.00275735) (1089.1,0) (1090.1,0.00415039) (1091.1,0) (1092.1,0.000976562) (1093.1,0.020752) (1094.1,0.0169678) (1095.1,0.0012207) (1096.1,19.093) (1097.1,35.2276) (1098.1,41.8819) (1099.1,41.8149) (1100.1,41.7071) (1101.1,40.0005) (1102.1,20.9335) (1103.1,2.11499) (1104.1,0.0129395) (1105.1,0.0141602) (1106.1,0.0178223) (1107.1,0.0410156) (1108.1,0.012207) (1109.1,0.00268555) (1110.1,0.000244141) (1111.1,0) (1112.1,0.00317383) (1113.1,0.00537109) (1114.1,0.000976562) (1115.1,0) (1116.04,0) (1117.04,0.000244141) (1118.04,0.00292969) (1119.04,0) (1120.04,0.0239258) (1121.04,0) (1122.04,0.0012207) (1123.04,3.98999) (1124.04,4.01606) (1125.04,0.0078125) (1126.1,0) (1127.1,0.0180664) (1128.04,21.6929) (1129.04,54.6067) (1130.04,83.4348) (1131.04,83.2183) (1132.04,83.5057) (1133.04,121.475) (1134.1,133.428) (1135.04,122.293) (1136.04,84.4295) (1137.1,89.1319) (1138.1,96.2076) (1139.1,71.2346) (1140.1,41.7166) (1141.1,41.6944) (1142.1,41.7727) (1143.1,21.6082) (1144.1,9.72633) (1145.1,0.000732422) (1146.1,0.00390625) (1147.1,0) (1148.1,0) (1149.1,0.00219727) (1150.1,0.0185547) (1151.1,0.000732422) (1152.1,0.000732422) (1153.1,0.0107422) (1154.1,0.0128784) (1155.1,0.0355835) (1156.1,0) (1157.1,0.00341797) (1158.1,0.000976562) (1159.1,0) (1160.1,0) (1161.1,0) (1162.1,0.361969) (1163.1,3.6438) (1164.1,0.0187988) (1165.1,0.012207) (1166.1,0) (1167.1,0.00756836) (1168.1,21.7417) (1169.1,20.7972) (1170.1,20.9338) (1171.1,20.8816) (1172.1,20.8628) (1173.1,26.3081) (1174.1,21.9074) (1175.1,20.877) (1176.1,20.8474) (1177.1,20.876) (1178.1,20.8714) (1179.1,12.7517) (1180.1,0.0148926) (1181.1,0.00170898) (1182.1,0.00366211) (1183.1,0.0163574) (1184.1,0.0114441) (1185.1,0.0180359) (1186.1,0) (1187.1,0.0209961) (1188.1,0.00219727) (1189.1,0.00195312) (1190.1,0) (1191.1,0) (1192.04,0.0399089) (1193.04,0.036377) (1194.04,0.0151367) (1195.04,0.019043) (1196.04,0.00415039) (1197.04,4.17603) (1198.04,20.8662) (1199.1,19.64) (1200.04,22.2503) (1201.04,20.8606) (1202.04,20.8618) (1203.04,18.3289) (1204.04,0.00439453) (1205.04,0.0012207) (1206.04,0) (1207.04,0.000244141) (1208.04,18.896) (1209.1,19.6402) (1210.04,22.2477) (1211.04,20.8609) (1212.04,20.8643) (1213.04,20.898) (1214.04,18.1693) (1215.04,20.868) (1216.1,19.6362) (1217.04,30.3229) (1218.04,41.4477) (1219.04,42.1038) (1220.04,12.6809) (1221.04,0) (1222.04,0.0116577) (1223.04,2.83472) (1224.04,20.5547) (1225.1,19.6198) (1226.04,21.876) (1227.04,20.5669) (1228.04,21.1514) (1229.04,20.4272) (1230.04,0) (1231.04,0.0078125) (1232.1,0.0110294) (1233.1,0.0065918) (1234.1,0.00585938) (1235.1,0.00219727) (1236.1,0) (1237.1,0) (1238.1,0.000976562) (1239.1,0.00219727) (1240.1,0.00439453) (1241.1,0) (1242.1,0) (1243.1,0.00878906) (1244.1,0.00292969) (1245.1,3.85037) (1246.1,4.13305) (1247.1,0.0117188) (1248.1,0.0268555) (1249.1,0.00268555) (1250.1,0.000732422) (1251.1,0.000488281) (1252.1,0.033905) (1253.1,1.46973) (1254.1,2.53687) (1255.1,3.99121) (1256.1,37.3438) (1257.1,41.7686) (1258.1,26.8667) (1259.1,76.0235) (1260.1,127.573) (1261.1,122.91) (1262.1,103.971) (1263.1,105.387) (1264.1,108.247) (1265.1,86.302) (1266.1,35.1904) (1267.1,2.09375) (1268.1,0.000488281) (1269.1,4.15771) (1270.1,20.8735) (1271.1,2.72608) (1272.1,0.00692749) (1273.1,0.0065918) (1274.1,2.08819) (1275.1,20.8843) (1276.1,38.7107) (1277.1,41.74) (1278.1,41.6457) (1279.1,41.6492) (1280.1,35.2669) (1281.1,0.000732422) (1282.1,0.0331116) (1283.1,0.0275879) (1284.1,0.0090332) (1285.1,0.0158691) (1286.1,0.00146484) (1287.1,0.0249023) (1288.1,0.000488281) (1289.1,0.00390625) (1290.1,0.000976562) (1291.1,0.00146484) (1292.1,0.00146484) (1293.1,0.000488281) (1294.1,0.00146484) (1295.1,0.00244141) (1296.1,0.00268555) (1297.1,0.00268555) (1298.1,0.00488281) (1299.1,3.96289) (1300.1,13.8598) (1301.1,20.8818) (1302.1,20.8941) (1303.1,20.8401) (1304.1,32.5452) (1305.1,41.7844) (1306.1,29.483) (1307.1,20.8623) (1308.1,20.6123) (1309.1,21.1013) (1310.1,6.89282) (1311.1,0.0012207) (1312.1,0.0489197) (1313.1,0.0146484) (1314.1,0.0268555) (1315.1,0.0107422) (1316.1,0.00585938) (1317.04,0.0145833) (1318.04,0.00146484) (1319.1,0.00206801) (1320.1,0.00292969) (1321.1,0.00146484) (1322.04,0.0078125) (1323.04,0.0419922) (1324.04,3.99707) (1325.04,0.0161133) (1326.1,1.62064) (1327.1,22.8558) (1328.1,66.5537) (1329.1,16.0191) (1330.1,72.1846) (1331.1,55.3821) (1332.1,61.3) (1333.1,60.2899) (1334.1,79.7852) (1335.1,99.9107) (1336.1,69.7551) (1337.1,67.9739) (1338.1,84.4135) };
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\vspace{\smallskipamount}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileLeft,
title={PageRank with Flink (Scala)},
]
\addplot coordinates { (0.107716,0.601898) (1.11445,22.7469) (2.05612,85.6409) (3.05195,55.3612) (4.10773,24.061) (5.11449,21.8474) (6.05543,28.857) (7.052,25.16) (8.05199,27.2612) (9.05197,40.2877) (10.0523,68.9364) (11.1081,86.6329) (12.1146,88.9138) (13.1145,90.4715) (14.1146,87.902) (15.0558,83.903) (16.052,71.8178) (17.1078,48.5462) (18.0554,63.1623) (19.0519,95.3322) (20.1078,94.9039) (21.1145,91.9614) (22.1145,95.5989) (23.1145,92.8744) (24.0554,92.2222) (25.052,74.1095) (26.1078,86.9919) (27.0554,92.041) (28.1077,65.8768) (29.1144,18.5504) (30.0554,9.38707) (31.052,8.35081) (32.052,19.5359) (33.052,18.8142) (34.052,13.6839) (35.052,36.4312) (36.052,17.4754) (37.052,27.7987) (38.052,16.644) (39.052,24.3702) (40.1078,34.5859) (41.1145,47.0078) (42.1145,55.5628) (43.1145,66.2899) (44.1145,80.5102) (45.1144,87.8437) (46.1145,92.2206) (47.1145,88.5598) (48.1145,93.2001) (49.1145,87.8836) (50.0557,94.3001) (51.1078,92.3539) (52.1144,95.8799) (53.1145,96.5126) (54.1146,92.6896) (55.0555,95.708) (56.1079,96.5269) (57.0556,96.5927) (58.1077,97.508) (59.1145,94.9263) (60.1145,88.6107) (61.0554,75.4097) (62.0519,52.7692) (63.1077,20.4792) (64.1144,6.86753) (65.1144,6.02192) (66.1144,74.1331) (67.1144,99.8535) (68.1144,99.7988) (69.1144,99.8106) (70.1144,94.5502) (71.1144,95.8277) (72.0554,84.386) (73.0519,23.6804) (74.0519,2.27594) (75.0519,5.60379) (76.052,14.3748) (77.1078,13.2376) (78.0554,25.4481) (79.1078,22.3189) (80.1145,24.1544) (81.0555,25.8677) (82.052,22.3371) (83.052,27.607) (84.052,27.7779) (85.052,38.2033) (86.052,48.5489) (87.052,57.8291) (88.052,68.9811) (89.1078,78.4571) (90.1145,87.6702) (91.1144,89.8355) (92.1145,90.9808) (93.1145,90.5192) (94.1145,91.1995) (95.0554,90.413) (96.1079,91.2114) (97.0555,91.3014) (98.1078,90.3972) (99.1145,91.0206) (100.115,90.022) (101.114,90.2672) (102.115,90.5404) (103.055,87.0638) (104.052,79.4603) (105.052,57.7135) (106.108,28.3258) (107.114,7.24034) (108.114,1.07768) (109.114,5.06727) (110.114,5.59802) (111.114,5.76857) (112.114,5.67393) (113.114,5.86682) (114.114,5.45553) (115.114,5.64887) (116.114,6.20522) (117.114,6.27) (118.114,6.42993) (119.114,6.54941) (120.114,6.56131) (121.055,6.87692) (122.108,6.3687) (123.114,7.06557) (124.114,6.94785) (125.114,7.76678) (126.114,5.32692) (127.055,3.45739) (128.108,24.6159) (129.114,99.6895) (130.114,99.961) (131.114,99.9043) (132.114,99.5891) (133.114,92.6072) (134.055,96.6625) (135.108,59.9877) (136.114,8.38164) (137.055,0.711196) (138.052,10.9533) (139.052,17.8472) (140.108,31.5825) (141.055,25.5553) (142.052,46.6206) (143.052,29.1272) (144.052,43.8798) (145.052,36.9149) (146.052,51.4409) (147.052,56.1377) (148.108,62.9358) (149.114,71.9422) (150.115,75.081) (151.055,82.27) (152.108,87.8522) (153.055,90.0884) (154.108,91.8312) (155.114,92.0131) (156.115,92.4275) (157.115,91.6654) (158.056,91.5989) (159.108,93.5731) (160.114,94.0731) (161.056,91.3029) (162.108,89.609) (163.114,83.4534) (164.114,74.2548) (165.055,59.8245) (166.108,35.6447) (167.114,13.1935) (168.114,7.53129) (169.114,90.952) (170.114,99.959) (171.114,99.9492) (172.114,99.9199) (173.114,93.1666) (174.114,96.8492) (175.114,81.9391) (176.114,15.7304) (177.055,0.00624869) (178.052,7.53385) (179.108,14.714) (180.055,27.8919) (181.052,29.9399) (182.052,37.018) (183.052,30.0238) (184.052,39.3312) (185.052,41.748) (186.052,49.0074) (187.052,52.4389) (188.052,57.8052) (189.052,68.3142) (190.105,71.7929) (191.052,77.2883) (192.052,81.3053) (193.108,86.6996) (194.115,88.7341) (195.115,92.0192) (196.055,89.942) (197.108,92.7434) (198.114,91.6765) (199.147,93.4162) (200.055,91.8422) (201.108,91.1952) (202.114,87.8593) (203.115,86.2947) (204.055,79.9894) (205.108,68.2834) (206.055,48.2196) (207.108,26.9117) (208.114,6.8864) (209.114,3.88552) (210.114,42.0622) (211.114,99.6113) (212.114,99.9044) (213.114,99.6815) (214.055,99.8457) (215.052,91.106) (216.052,96.6665) (217.108,54.5116) (218.114,7.22484) (219.055,7.21242) (220.052,16.3066) (221.052,23.7845) (222.052,34.7683) (223.052,36.7877) (224.052,32.1231) (225.052,47.0986) (226.052,43.4785) (227.052,50.7941) (228.052,56.9755) (229.052,63.9907) (230.052,71.0928) (231.108,77.7211) (232.115,83.5554) (233.115,87.2606) (234.114,91.1211) (235.114,90.644) (236.114,93.3759) (237.114,93.0491) (238.114,93.9944) (239.114,94.7951) (240.114,95.2758) (241.055,94.5929) (242.108,93.0932) (243.114,89.7167) (244.114,82.6483) (245.114,73.2574) (246.114,55.5988) (247.114,34.568) (248.114,12.0023) (249.114,28.418) (250.114,99.3281) (251.114,99.9824) (252.114,99.8594) (253.114,99.4579) (254.055,92.501) (255.052,96.5782) (256.052,60.5265) (257.052,5.93884) (258.108,5.75956) (259.114,8.93637) (260.055,26.0104) (261.052,34.3227) (262.108,35.4003) (263.055,39.1264) (264.052,35.5155) (265.052,44.3604) (266.052,43.6737) (267.052,52.7857) (268.108,59.869) (269.114,66.9362) (270.115,74.1476) (271.115,79.9361) (272.114,86.0125) (273.115,89.975) (274.055,90.0419) (275.108,92.3365) (276.114,92.3365) (277.114,92.8021) (278.114,93.4598) (279.115,94.1678) (280.114,94.4976) (281.115,92.3074) (282.114,90.0556) (283.115,88.0648) (284.114,79.7356) (285.114,67.3672) (286.114,47.7631) (287.055,26.8121) (288.052,7.23537) (289.108,28.8563) (290.055,99.5396) (291.108,99.8179) (292.055,99.8187) (293.108,99.5654) (294.114,91.7765) (295.104,97.0198) (296.108,60.8522) (297.114,6.36071) (298.114,12.8521) (299.055,13.6143) (300.108,22.4255) (301.114,22.5877) (302.055,26.6774) (303.052,34.3221) (304.052,35.6315) (305.052,40.869) (306.052,47.6637) (307.052,49.7863) (308.052,58.436) (309.052,66.3676) (310.108,74.5658) (311.055,76.9202) (312.108,86.249) (313.114,88.4979) (314.114,91.6827) (315.055,93.5447) (316.052,93.6734) (317.108,95.9188) (318.055,94.4966) (319.108,94.5801) (320.114,96.1817) (321.115,92.4907) (322.115,92.9796) (323.055,86.6948) (324.108,80.2876) (325.114,64.8478) (326.114,42.7425) (327.114,21.4832) (328.055,10.2729) (329.108,6.04627) (330.114,6.13525) (331.114,5.85509) (332.114,5.0743) (333.114,3.80774) (334.114,1.9037) (335.114,5.19501) (336.114,78.1046) (337.114,99.8926) (338.114,99.9139) (339.114,99.7911) (340.055,93.58) (341.108,96.1697) (342.055,88.6215) (343.108,24.4218) (344.114,6.75595) (345.114,8.26849) (346.114,15.7892) (347.055,18.5595) (348.052,24.1988) (349.052,37.4358) (350.052,40.3673) (351.108,40.8872) (352.055,49.3638) (353.108,50.8836) (354.055,59.35) (355.052,64.8687) (356.108,72.3699) (357.055,79.7368) (358.108,85.7904) (359.114,90.6485) (360.056,92.5623) (361.108,94.844) (362.115,95.2472) (363.114,97.0639) (364.055,96.0827) (365.108,96.4674) (366.115,95.2283) (367.115,94.3544) (368.114,92.4336) (369.115,88.5859) (370.114,82.8318) (371.114,72.8868) (372.055,53.6469) (373.108,35.0956) (374.114,17.1816) (375.114,6.20103) (376.114,3.79199) (377.114,59.285) (378.114,99.7851) (379.114,99.8046) (380.114,99.9903) (381.114,97.01) (382.114,94.2491) (383.055,95.2824) (384.052,37.6944) (385.052,5.77334) (386.052,7.6573) (387.052,13.7678) (388.052,23.8289) (389.052,21.8694) (390.052,30.7531) (391.052,35.4012) (392.052,42.1685) (393.052,43.5442) (394.052,53.2087) (395.052,55.2676) (396.052,58.92) (397.108,70.4128) (398.055,77.3958) (399.108,84.4792) (400.055,85.2242) (401.108,90.2018) (402.115,91.3636) (403.114,92.5361) (404.114,91.9082) (405.114,94.4588) (406.115,94.3466) (407.114,95.7528) (408.114,94.6917) (409.114,95.101) (410.115,92.6306) (411.114,88.7007) (412.055,81.0341) (413.108,65.7423) (414.114,43.4074) (415.115,23.5018) (416.114,9.2432) (417.114,33.9708) (418.114,99.875) (419.114,99.8418) (420.055,99.8438) (421.052,99.875) (422.108,92.5277) (423.055,97.6535) (424.052,60.9415) (425.052,7.84745) (426.108,11.1811) (427.114,11.759) (428.055,18.7009) (429.052,21.9847) (430.052,26.4485) (431.052,33.3525) (432.108,37.5594) (433.055,45.8499) (434.052,49.621) (435.052,55.5957) (436.052,60.9592) (437.052,69.9821) (438.052,74.5834) (439.108,82.0027) (440.115,87.5631) (441.114,90.0088) (442.114,93.6897) (443.115,95.9804) (444.115,95.5225) (445.056,97.3137) (446.108,96.4716) (447.114,96.2078) (448.056,96.1964) (449.108,95.7736) (450.115,92.9226) (451.114,88.5201) (452.055,80.5667) (453.108,69.3253) (454.055,45.8513) (455.108,26.2547) (456.055,8.7796) (457.108,23.3629) (458.114,98.9703) (459.114,99.8692) (460.114,99.832) (461.114,99.6054) (462.114,92.1844) (463.114,98.1457) (464.055,69.2249) (465.108,15.9166) };
\end{axis}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileRight,
]
\pgfplotsset{cycle list shift=1}
\addplot coordinates { (0.107716,4.99268) (1.11445,360.164) (2.05612,1736.28) (3.05195,689.102) (4.10773,79.9396) (5.11449,110.37) (6.05543,180.784) (7.052,190.999) (8.05199,318.067) (9.05197,391.272) (10.0523,861.303) (11.1081,1168.52) (12.1146,1248.09) (13.1145,1224.94) (14.1146,1151.95) (15.0558,1095.87) (16.052,931.314) (17.1078,556.494) (18.0554,168.722) (19.0519,15.1251) (20.1078,0.819771) (21.1145,0.71553) (22.1145,0.893155) (23.1145,0.848314) (24.0554,7.48798) (25.052,193.142) (26.1078,636.866) (27.0554,780.829) (28.1077,577.975) (29.1144,222.915) (30.0554,11.6108) (31.052,5.8066) (32.052,4.18104) (33.052,0.0883239) (34.052,0.020222) (35.052,0.0507844) (36.052,0.0342064) (37.052,0.0194519) (38.052,0.0254151) (39.052,0.0143254) (40.1078,0.0214407) (41.1145,0.243711) (42.1145,3.06353) (43.1145,0.647217) (44.1145,0.229987) (45.1144,3.97102) (46.1145,9.35844) (47.1145,10.4197) (48.1145,45.4682) (49.1145,58.0688) (50.0557,182.019) (51.1078,187.349) (52.1144,275.412) (53.1145,265.229) (54.1146,326.02) (55.0555,401.527) (56.1079,504.043) (57.0556,493.246) (58.1077,525.803) (59.1145,518.062) (60.1145,509.047) (61.0554,459.699) (62.0519,419.787) (63.1077,256.149) (64.1144,95.2477) (65.1144,31.9273) (66.1144,3.90367) (67.1144,0.0215121) (68.1144,0.0259876) (69.1144,0.0206829) (70.1144,0.0218227) (71.1144,0.0375085) (72.0554,0.107709) (73.0519,0.0993099) (74.0519,0.0337058) (75.0519,0.0365952) (76.052,0.0430133) (77.1078,0.0145235) (78.0554,0.0177147) (79.1078,0.0145162) (80.1145,0.0853949) (81.0555,3.02081) (82.052,2.87048) (83.052,13.6518) (84.052,20.0871) (85.052,26.1361) (86.052,27.7209) (87.052,15.8056) (88.052,26.8487) (89.1078,19.2469) (90.1145,17.0688) (91.1144,17.4887) (92.1145,29.5877) (93.1145,77.4092) (94.1145,145.856) (95.0554,203.27) (96.1079,271.555) (97.0555,315.104) (98.1078,324.47) (99.1145,411.55) (100.115,384.797) (101.114,433.336) (102.115,468.927) (103.055,440.477) (104.052,443.782) (105.052,383.052) (106.108,254.522) (107.114,73.8099) (108.114,16.9506) (109.114,109.33) (110.114,95.892) (111.114,55.7018) (112.114,43.7412) (113.114,24.0679) (114.114,0.0206962) (115.114,0.0206908) (116.114,0.0509432) (117.114,2.1627) (118.114,11.5225) (119.114,15.9184) (120.114,20.2564) (121.055,22.3678) (122.108,28.8006) (123.114,48.6477) (124.114,42.4854) (125.114,48.9406) (126.114,52.4134) (127.055,42.1183) (128.108,12.2618) (129.114,0.0255491) (130.114,0.0328896) (131.114,0.0333071) (132.114,0.0217516) (133.114,0.0218281) (134.055,0.0132429) (135.108,0.0446012) (136.114,0.0356441) (137.055,0.0284115) (138.052,0.0323937) (139.052,0.0123874) (140.108,0.0204942) (141.055,0.0407538) (142.052,0.0207155) (143.052,0.0197805) (144.052,0.0126169) (145.052,1.93029) (146.052,46.9326) (147.052,86.9199) (148.108,144.037) (149.114,128.753) (150.115,122.066) (151.055,130.28) (152.108,115.475) (153.055,116.069) (154.108,118.335) (155.114,184.866) (156.115,232.137) (157.115,249.907) (158.056,267.347) (159.108,336.769) (160.114,398.335) (161.056,413.42) (162.108,484.485) (163.114,464.901) (164.114,482.458) (165.055,468.276) (166.108,339.347) (167.114,156.415) (168.114,35.636) (169.114,1.27665) (170.114,0.0249888) (171.114,0.0280743) (172.114,0.0258267) (173.114,0.0246984) (174.114,0.0180318) (175.114,0.0282399) (176.114,0.0381473) (177.055,0.0255274) (178.052,0.0316582) (179.108,0.0173553) (180.055,0.0260906) (181.052,0.0402051) (182.052,0.037621) (183.052,3.28316) (184.052,10.0247) (185.052,17.2622) (186.052,64.7519) (187.052,99.0934) (188.052,114.368) (189.052,120.086) (190.105,117.414) (191.052,125.387) (192.052,98.5203) (193.108,95.2678) (194.115,128.039) (195.115,173.072) (196.055,190.707) (197.108,232.909) (198.114,265.357) (199.147,278.98) (200.055,397.779) (201.108,402.425) (202.114,407.011) (203.115,482.399) (204.055,483.268) (205.108,458.764) (206.055,398.341) (207.108,274.631) (208.114,103.859) (209.114,21.1542) (210.114,8.32806) (211.114,0.0363132) (212.114,0.0401575) (213.114,0.0281802) (214.055,0.0181644) (215.052,0.0397775) (216.052,0.0321166) (217.108,0.0321097) (218.114,0.0485596) (219.055,0.0192221) (220.052,0.0390239) (221.052,0.0276806) (222.052,0.0238646) (223.052,0.0222355) (224.052,0.0201747) (225.052,0.0304281) (226.052,22.5551) (227.052,84.9385) (228.052,98.9103) (229.052,96.365) (230.052,121.437) (231.108,117.44) (232.115,104.781) (233.115,92.0596) (234.114,99.885) (235.114,131.668) (236.114,197.062) (237.114,228.889) (238.114,281.682) (239.114,311.69) (240.114,358.233) (241.055,400.627) (242.108,400.826) (243.114,461.439) (244.114,489.577) (245.114,485.607) (246.114,451.111) (247.114,333.405) (248.114,140.604) (249.114,16.8125) (250.114,0.0298769) (251.114,0.0262237) (252.114,0.0218413) (253.114,0.0185384) (254.055,0.0192539) (255.052,0.0347879) (256.052,0.0439615) (257.052,0.0200855) (258.108,0.0361737) (259.114,0.0178468) (260.055,0.0263794) (261.052,0.0311409) (262.108,0.0231982) (263.055,0.0247698) (264.052,3.80983) (265.052,11.4571) (266.052,31.2695) (267.052,81.2682) (268.108,117.073) (269.114,126.593) (270.115,128.654) (271.115,125.69) (272.114,110.65) (273.115,99.3595) (274.055,104.356) (275.108,155.99) (276.114,196.577) (277.114,242.657) (278.114,279.394) (279.115,317.353) (280.114,330.683) (281.115,398.611) (282.114,422.466) (283.115,481.544) (284.114,487.325) (285.114,487.732) (286.114,403.115) (287.055,279.732) (288.052,103.468) (289.108,14.2802) (290.055,0.0220961) (291.108,0.0259422) (292.055,0.0261712) (293.108,0.0264008) (294.114,0.0180724) (295.104,0.0294044) (296.108,0.0356354) (297.114,0.0250238) (298.114,0.0340928) (299.055,0.0150019) (300.108,0.0315166) (301.114,0.0337234) (302.055,0.0342445) (303.052,7.52635) (304.052,4.58198) (305.052,25.7813) (306.052,50.1556) (307.052,74.0364) (308.052,63.1205) (309.052,81.4631) (310.108,56.8319) (311.055,60.3875) (312.108,84.1322) (313.114,104.356) (314.114,135.756) (315.055,185.864) (316.052,218.931) (317.108,251.018) (318.055,280.252) (319.108,310.402) (320.114,370.014) (321.115,377.927) (322.115,481.954) (323.055,467.469) (324.108,472.415) (325.114,458.537) (326.114,354.412) (327.114,219.312) (328.055,88.1652) (329.108,33.2951) (330.114,39.9264) (331.114,41.6101) (332.114,48.2369) (333.114,43.4754) (334.114,26.1235) (335.114,8.39549) (336.114,1.31864) (337.114,0.0194872) (338.114,0.0338877) (339.114,0.0298214) (340.055,0.0322596) (341.108,0.0283018) (342.055,0.026436) (343.108,0.0317811) (344.114,0.0297473) (345.114,0.0341246) (346.114,0.0436941) (347.055,0.0252432) (348.052,0.0156208) (349.052,0.0139452) (350.052,0.0311817) (351.108,7.5733) (352.055,27.0075) (353.108,32.4867) (354.055,57.7274) (355.052,39.9803) (356.108,59.3274) (357.055,62.067) (358.108,86.6087) (359.114,88.5934) (360.056,123.881) (361.108,190.011) (362.115,210.073) (363.114,285.576) (364.055,295.58) (365.108,345.492) (366.115,355.684) (367.115,403.656) (368.114,415.939) (369.115,456.326) (370.114,475.942) (371.114,477.26) (372.055,435.209) (373.108,303.173) (374.114,190.668) (375.114,95.0397) (376.114,11.0857) (377.114,1.28348) (378.114,0.0186292) (379.114,0.0197666) (380.114,0.0274677) (381.114,0.0332281) (382.114,0.0171515) (383.055,0.0269785) (384.052,0.0213483) (385.052,0.0426262) (386.052,0.0344763) (387.052,0.0259119) (388.052,0.0180019) (389.052,0.0110919) (390.052,0.0219261) (391.052,1.92319) (392.052,0.0556566) (393.052,18.6451) (394.052,48.4282) (395.052,79.2314) (396.052,91.3685) (397.108,97.2872) (398.055,93.7965) (399.108,78.192) (400.055,81.0334) (401.108,95.062) (402.115,134.708) (403.114,176.683) (404.114,217.22) (405.114,261.398) (406.115,301.722) (407.114,302.586) (408.114,366.146) (409.114,445.286) (410.115,440.687) (411.114,479.423) (412.055,504.949) (413.108,474.222) (414.114,384.254) (415.115,234.96) (416.114,107.917) (417.114,13.5689) (418.114,0.0205505) (419.114,0.0216127) (420.055,0.0270804) (421.052,0.0321184) (422.108,0.0304789) (423.055,0.0252069) (424.052,0.0327609) (425.052,0.03204) (426.108,0.0505919) (427.114,0.0193277) (428.055,0.0233123) (429.052,0.0417616) (430.052,0.0293268) (431.052,6.64629) (432.108,8.77879) (433.055,29.8762) (434.052,40.7757) (435.052,45.3266) (436.052,41.76) (437.052,45.3166) (438.052,47.0935) (439.108,64.7785) (440.115,75.8826) (441.114,96.2162) (442.114,145.617) (443.115,200.624) (444.115,253.102) (445.056,275.347) (446.108,324.064) (447.114,343.968) (448.056,342.268) (449.108,434.295) (450.115,463.601) (451.114,478.552) (452.055,490.299) (453.108,478.041) (454.055,401.712) (455.108,257.854) (456.055,124.738) (457.108,22.2947) (458.114,0.0301017) (459.114,0.027684) (460.114,0.0266753) (461.114,0.0333772) (462.114,0.0235026) (463.114,0.0209855) (464.055,0.0189021) (465.108,3.5937) };
\addplot coordinates { (0.107716,0.00528493) (1.11445,2.73315) (2.05612,0.0304687) (3.05195,0.0126953) (4.10773,0.0322553) (5.11449,0.0321655) (6.05543,0.0492187) (7.052,0.00756836) (8.05199,0.0236816) (9.05197,0.0170593) (10.0523,0.0254517) (11.1081,0.00367647) (12.1146,0) (13.1145,0.000244141) (14.1146,0.0180054) (15.0558,0.00260417) (16.052,0.00195312) (17.1078,0.0574449) (18.0554,0.00188802) (19.0519,0.0654297) (20.1078,0.0365349) (21.1145,0.0681152) (22.1145,0.105713) (23.1145,0.0432129) (24.0554,0.0015625) (25.052,0.0300293) (26.1078,0.00275735) (27.0554,0.00598958) (28.1077,0.0314797) (29.1144,0.00146484) (30.0554,0.0015625) (31.052,0) (32.052,0.0405273) (33.052,0.00170898) (34.052,0) (35.052,0) (36.052,0.000244141) (37.052,0.000976562) (38.052,0.00219727) (39.052,0.0168457) (40.1078,5.74449e-05) (41.1145,0.000305176) (42.1145,0) (43.1145,0.000244141) (44.1145,0.000335693) (45.1144,0) (46.1145,0) (47.1145,0.00204468) (48.1145,0.00250244) (49.1145,0.00317383) (50.0557,0.00260417) (51.1078,0.000689339) (52.1144,0.00302124) (53.1145,0.00219727) (54.1146,0.00146484) (55.0555,0.00208333) (56.1079,0.00137868) (57.0556,0.00234375) (58.1077,0.00183824) (59.1145,0.00146484) (60.1145,0.00146484) (61.0554,0.00104167) (62.0519,0.00390625) (63.1077,0.00206801) (64.1144,0) (65.1144,0) (66.1144,0.000244141) (67.1144,0) (68.1144,0.000244141) (69.1144,0.00195312) (70.1144,6.10352e-05) (71.1144,0.000305176) (72.0554,0.00104167) (73.0519,0.000488281) (74.0519,0.000335693) (75.0519,0) (76.052,0) (77.1078,0.00261374) (78.0554,0.00214844) (79.1078,0.00275735) (80.1145,0.00244141) (81.0555,0.00104167) (82.052,0.0015564) (83.052,0.00390625) (84.052,0.00146484) (85.052,0.00195312) (86.052,0) (87.052,0) (88.052,0.00195312) (89.1078,0.00137868) (90.1145,0.00146484) (91.1144,0.00146484) (92.1145,0.00341797) (93.1145,0.00219727) (94.1145,0) (95.0554,0) (96.1079,0.000229779) (97.0555,0) (98.1078,0.000229779) (99.1145,0.00195312) (100.115,6.10352e-05) (101.114,0.000305176) (102.115,0.000488281) (103.055,0.000260417) (104.052,0.000976562) (105.052,0) (106.108,0) (107.114,0.00219727) (108.114,0.00128174) (109.114,0.00146484) (110.114,0.00146484) (111.114,0.000244141) (112.114,0.0012207) (113.114,0.0012207) (114.114,0.0012207) (115.114,0.0012207) (116.114,2.25367) (117.114,2.92529) (118.114,5.80005) (119.114,1.73291) (120.114,0.026123) (121.055,0.0117188) (122.108,0.00229779) (123.114,0.0200195) (124.114,0.000244141) (125.114,0) (126.114,0.000244141) (127.055,0.00234375) (128.108,0.000459558) (129.114,0.00146484) (130.114,0) (131.114,0.000823975) (132.114,0) (133.114,0.000244141) (134.055,0.000520833) (135.108,0) (136.114,0) (137.055,0.00208333) (138.052,0.000305176) (139.052,0.00317383) (140.108,0.00160846) (141.055,0.000260417) (142.052,0.000244141) (143.052,0.00268555) (144.052,0.0012207) (145.052,0.0012207) (146.052,0.000244141) (147.052,0) (148.108,0.0011489) (149.114,0.0012207) (150.115,0.0012207) (151.055,3.99245) (152.108,0.00229779) (153.055,0) (154.108,0.0011489) (155.114,0) (156.115,0.00244141) (157.115,0.000244141) (158.056,0) (159.108,0.00137868) (160.114,0) (161.056,0.00651042) (162.108,0.000229779) (163.114,0.000244141) (164.114,0) (165.055,0.000260417) (166.108,0) (167.114,0.000976562) (168.114,0.000305176) (169.114,0.00146484) (170.114,0.00244141) (171.114,0.000244141) (172.114,0.0012207) (173.114,0.00146484) (174.114,0.0012207) (175.114,0.000976562) (176.114,0.0432129) (177.055,0) (178.052,0.0012207) (179.108,0.00160846) (180.055,0.00104167) (181.052,0) (182.052,0.00219727) (183.052,0.00366211) (184.052,0.000976562) (185.052,0) (186.052,0.00195312) (187.052,0.000976562) (188.052,0) (189.052,0.00170898) (190.105,0.000305176) (191.052,6.10352e-05) (192.052,0.000244141) (193.108,0.000229779) (194.115,0) (195.115,0.000244141) (196.055,0) (197.108,0.000919118) (198.114,0.000305176) (199.147,0.00146484) (200.055,0.00286458) (201.108,0.000229779) (202.114,0.00167847) (203.115,0.00170898) (204.055,0.00390625) (205.108,0.00183824) (206.055,0.00130208) (207.108,0.00137868) (208.114,0.00195312) (209.114,0.0012207) (210.114,0.00170898) (211.114,0.000732422) (212.114,0.00244141) (213.114,0.000244141) (214.055,0.00130208) (215.052,0) (216.052,0.0012207) (217.108,0.00390625) (218.114,0.0012207) (219.055,0.00104167) (220.052,0.00219727) (221.052,0.000854492) (222.052,0.000732422) (223.052,0.000976562) (224.052,0) (225.052,0.000976562) (226.052,0.000732422) (227.052,0.0012207) (228.052,0.000549316) (229.052,0.000732422) (230.052,0.000732422) (231.108,0.000229779) (232.115,0.00344849) (233.115,0) (234.114,0.00292969) (235.114,0.00244141) (236.114,0.00146484) (237.114,0.0012207) (238.114,0.00244141) (239.114,0.00341797) (240.114,0.0012207) (241.055,0.00208333) (242.108,0.00344669) (243.114,0) (244.114,0.0012207) (245.114,0) (246.114,0.00146484) (247.114,0.00341797) (248.114,0) (249.114,0.000244141) (250.114,0.00195312) (251.114,0.00012207) (252.114,0.000244141) (253.114,0) (254.055,0.000520833) (255.052,0.000244141) (256.052,0.000244141) (257.052,0.0012207) (258.108,0.000287224) (259.114,0.000488281) (260.055,0.000520833) (261.052,0.000976562) (262.108,0.000775505) (263.055,0) (264.052,0.000244141) (265.052,0.00244141) (266.052,0.00170898) (267.052,0) (268.108,0.00229779) (269.114,0.00366211) (270.115,0.0012207) (271.115,0.000244141) (272.114,0) (273.115,0) (274.055,0.00130208) (275.108,0) (276.114,0.0012207) (277.114,0.00390625) (278.114,0) (279.115,0.000244141) (280.114,0.0012207) (281.115,6.10352e-05) (282.114,0.000305176) (283.115,0) (284.114,0.000244141) (285.114,0.000244141) (286.114,0) (287.055,0.00130208) (288.052,0.000305176) (289.108,0.000459558) (290.055,0.0015625) (291.108,0.000229779) (292.055,0.000878906) (293.108,0.000229779) (294.114,0.000244141) (295.104,0.00338542) (296.108,0.0011489) (297.114,0) (298.114,0.00268555) (299.055,0.00260417) (300.108,0.00229779) (301.114,0) (302.055,0) (303.052,0.000488281) (304.052,0.0012207) (305.052,0) (306.052,0.0012207) (307.052,0.00268555) (308.052,0.0012207) (309.052,0.000244141) (310.108,0.00137868) (311.055,6.51042e-05) (312.108,0.000287224) (313.114,0) (314.114,0.000244141) (315.055,0.000390625) (316.052,0) (317.108,0.0011489) (318.055,0.00078125) (319.108,0.00275735) (320.114,0.00170898) (321.115,0.000488281) (322.115,0.000732422) (323.055,0.00182292) (324.108,0.00275735) (325.114,0.00268555) (326.114,0.00146484) (327.114,0) (328.055,0.00390625) (329.108,0.00206801) (330.114,0.00219727) (331.114,0) (332.114,0.00341797) (333.114,0) (334.114,0.000976562) (335.114,0) (336.114,0.0012207) (337.114,0.00341797) (338.114,0.000976562) (339.114,0.00195312) (340.055,0.00104167) (341.108,5.74449e-05) (342.055,0.000325521) (343.108,0) (344.114,0.000244141) (345.114,0.0017395) (346.114,0) (347.055,0.00104167) (348.052,0.00350952) (349.052,0) (350.052,0.00439453) (351.108,0.00183824) (352.055,0.00208333) (353.108,0.00206801) (354.055,0.00208333) (355.052,0.00195312) (356.108,0.00252757) (357.055,0) (358.108,0.00229779) (359.114,0.000976562) (360.056,0.00338542) (361.108,0) (362.115,0.000732422) (363.114,0) (364.055,0.00104167) (365.108,0) (366.115,0.000976562) (367.115,0.00244141) (368.114,0.00146484) (369.115,0.00170898) (370.114,0.000976562) (371.114,6.10352e-05) (372.055,0.000585937) (373.108,0) (374.114,0.0012207) (375.114,0.000335693) (376.114,0) (377.114,0.000976562) (378.114,0.00088501) (379.114,0) (380.114,0.00195312) (381.114,0.000732422) (382.114,0.000732422) (383.055,0.00104167) (384.052,0.000732422) (385.052,0.00195312) (386.052,0.00146484) (387.052,0) (388.052,0.00195312) (389.052,0.00170898) (390.052,0.00317383) (391.052,0) (392.052,0) (393.052,0.000488281) (394.052,0) (395.052,0) (396.052,0.000976562) (397.108,0.00137868) (398.055,0.00104167) (399.108,0.0011489) (400.055,0.0015625) (401.108,5.74449e-05) (402.115,0.000305176) (403.114,0) (404.114,0.0012207) (405.114,0.000335693) (406.115,0) (407.114,0) (408.114,0.0015564) (409.114,0.00128174) (410.115,0.00170898) (411.114,0.000976562) (412.055,0.00078125) (413.108,0.00137868) (414.114,0.00170898) (415.115,0.00195312) (416.114,0.00146484) (417.114,0) (418.114,0.00195312) (419.114,0.00219727) (420.055,0.003125) (421.052,0) (422.108,0) (423.055,0) (424.052,0.000732422) (425.052,0) (426.108,0.00459558) (427.114,0.00927734) (428.055,0.00338542) (429.052,0.000976562) (430.052,0.0012207) (431.052,0.000488281) (432.108,0.00212546) (433.055,0.00078125) (434.052,0.000244141) (435.052,0.0012207) (436.052,0.000488281) (437.052,0) (438.052,0) (439.108,0.000373391) (440.115,0.00170898) (441.114,0.000244141) (442.114,0.000488281) (443.115,0.000732422) (444.115,0.0012207) (445.056,0.0015625) (446.108,0.00206801) (447.114,0) (448.056,0.00234375) (449.108,0.00206801) (450.115,0.00366211) (451.114,0.00146484) (452.055,0.00364583) (453.108,0.000919118) (454.055,0.0015625) (455.108,0.0011489) (456.055,0.00104167) (457.108,0.00459558) (458.114,0.00292969) (459.114,0.00219727) (460.114,0.00146484) (461.114,0.000488281) (462.114,0.0067749) (463.114,0) (464.055,0.00208333) (465.108,0.0101103) };
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\vspace{\smallskipamount}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileLeft,
title={PageRank with Thrill},
xlabel={Execution Time [s]},
]
\addplot coordinates { (0.042464,0) (1.09877,46.1355) (2.10494,50.7069) (3.10493,75.4085) (4.10494,97.6414) (5.10494,96.5774) (6.10494,41.5403) (7.10494,5.48182) (8.10495,55.5159) (9.10495,24.6205) (10.105,23.5481) (11.1049,17.0439) (12.0453,2.50751) (13.0989,44.7122) (14.105,91.7684) (15.105,97.9731) (16.1049,97.121) (17.1049,97.26) (18.1049,97.1929) (19.1049,97.0267) (20.1049,90.4013) (21.105,13.3885) (22.0453,44.5081) (23.0988,59.6036) (24.0453,100) (25.0988,99.9982) (26.105,97.2735) (27.105,73.7548) (28.1049,16.5194) (29.1049,10.4879) (30.0453,11.4096) (31.1242,9.72043) (32.1049,5.50673) (33.1049,4.96339) (34.1049,2.97736) (35.1049,1.64835) (36.1049,1.19672) (37.1049,1.36482) (38.1049,1.27499) (39.1049,1.4794) (40.1049,3.50919) (41.1049,5.23519) (42.1049,18.2108) (43.105,43.4559) (44.105,39.0142) (45.0453,100) (46.0988,99.9982) (47.1049,98.667) (48.1049,86.4044) (49.1049,25.3094) (50.1049,13.4174) (51.1049,12.6918) (52.1049,9.22239) (53.1049,3.89123) (54.1049,0.914928) (55.1049,1.18592) (56.1049,1.36683) (57.1049,1.39377) (58.1049,1.44349) (59.1049,1.22332) (60.1049,1.28072) (61.1049,1.26013) (62.1049,1.35571) (63.1049,1.34393) (64.1049,2.21836) (65.0453,16.6506) (66.0988,33.871) (67.105,20.5756) (68.1049,87.4599) (69.1049,99.9941) (70.1049,99.065) (71.1054,91.1545) (72.1049,54.9811) (73.1049,11.1265) (74.1049,8.99594) (75.1049,8.55074) (76.1049,7.23395) (77.1049,6.09052) (78.1049,6.05236) (79.1049,4.80972) (80.1049,2.67699) (81.1049,1.83173) (82.1049,1.32177) (83.1049,1.34596) (84.1049,1.14548) (85.1049,2.56707) (86.0453,21.8057) (87.0425,25.2247) (88.0988,29.1449) (89.1049,72.1584) (90.0453,99.3047) (91.0988,97.0474) (92.1049,91.0869) (93.105,66.0744) (94.1049,15.4345) (95.1049,11.464) (96.1049,10.0933) (97.1049,6.17966) (98.1049,4.20254) (99.1049,3.35875) (100.105,2.76892) (101.105,1.61633) (102.105,1.02156) (103.105,1.47535) (104.105,1.35618) (105.105,1.22922) (106.105,1.16721) (107.105,1.24807) (108.105,3.04421) (109.045,21.5252) (110.099,31.6878) (111.105,26.2445) (112.105,71.4389) (113.105,99.7903) (114.105,97.18) (115.105,90.1436) (116.105,64.341) (117.105,14.8969) (118.105,10.5333) (119.105,9.69726) (120.105,5.9481) (121.105,4.94398) (122.105,4.43349) (123.105,3.6129) (124.105,2.65581) (125.105,2.15478) (126.105,0.970212) (127.105,1.64803) (128.105,1.72559) (129.105,1.39949) (130.105,2.07431) (131.045,26.2662) (132.099,24.5267) (133.105,28.9692) (134.105,59.5055) (135.045,99.9958) (136.099,99.2735) (137.105,90.2879) (138.105,69.7238) (139.105,17.6031) (140.105,9.37674) (141.105,7.40861) (142.105,8.1253) (143.105,8.04388) (144.105,6.68191) (145.105,3.19289) (146.105,1.26506) (147.105,0.988735) (148.105,1.01753) (149.105,1.06217) (150.105,1.00869) (151.105,0.950316) (152.105,1.11512) (153.105,1.29147) (154.105,3.81472) (155.045,33.5508) (156.042,32.5015) (157.099,21.0781) (158.045,66.2318) (159.099,99.2247) (160.105,98.1394) (161.105,89.7266) (162.045,67.1465) (163.099,16.4537) (164.105,11.1496) (165.105,9.63988) (166.105,6.05527) (167.105,4.24854) (168.105,3.80581) (169.105,2.63679) (170.045,2.26933) (171.099,1.9597) (172.105,0.983309) (173.105,1.49877) (174.105,1.36986) (175.105,1.50419) (176.105,1.27002) (177.105,1.17117) (178.105,8.31373) (179.105,22.201) (180.105,43.0843) (181.105,25.372) (182.105,88.3291) (183.105,99.3649) (184.105,98.5162) (185.105,83.9157) (186.105,34.3852) (187.105,11.5973) (188.105,9.86413) (189.105,8.68425) (190.105,9.22754) (191.105,4.3707) (192.105,1.96376) (193.105,1.33136) (194.105,1.35416) (195.105,1.1946) (196.105,1.10439) (197.105,0.99873) (198.105,1.02138) (199.105,1.2138) (200.105,1.3617) (201.105,3.41619) (202.105,25.8307) (203.105,39.13) (204.105,16.4549) (205.105,68.9755) (206.105,96.3859) (207.105,96.2822) (208.105,89.7836) (209.105,60.6181) (210.045,17.6383) (211.099,10.5175) (212.045,8.56869) (213.099,7.35414) (214.105,3.97283) (215.105,1.96742) (216.105,1.75885) (217.105,1.13791) (218.105,1.6486) (219.105,1.52909) (220.105,1.46302) (221.105,1.19407) (222.105,1.26492) (223.105,2.77241) (224.105,24.4402) (225.045,17.248) (226.042,40.6594) (227.099,33.0438) (228.105,85.353) (229.105,97.3658) (230.105,90.3664) (231.105,80.3856) (232.105,37.1318) (233.105,10.7684) (234.105,9.14193) (235.105,8.17292) (236.105,6.44295) (237.105,7.12914) (238.105,4.22438) (239.105,1.27902) (240.105,0.999533) (241.105,1.10741) (242.105,1.02009) (243.105,1.03929) (244.105,1.11999) (245.105,1.09695) (246.105,1.99015) (247.105,13.7971) (248.105,25.1487) (249.105,92.8687) (250.105,37.0124) (251.105,3.11009) (252.105,3.03779) (253.105,1.41803) (254.105,0.534305) (255.105,0.177847) (256.105,0.0156232) (257.105,0.0117175) (258.045,0.0708457) (259.099,0.152584) (260.105,0.203195) };
\end{axis}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileRight,
]
\pgfplotsset{cycle list shift=1}
\addplot coordinates { (0.042464,0) (1.09877,2102.26) (2.10494,1478.94) (3.10493,541.283) (4.10494,90.3965) (5.10494,0.0117161) (6.10494,0.011961) (7.10494,39.3407) (8.10495,875.074) (9.10495,1099.82) (10.105,1061.93) (11.1049,1041.25) (12.0453,949.605) (13.0989,91.6241) (14.105,0.0104739) (15.105,0.00658643) (16.1049,0.00898086) (17.1049,0.00731914) (18.1049,0.00694665) (19.1049,0.010882) (20.1049,0.230289) (21.105,3.58552) (22.0453,0.00655103) (23.0988,0.00777515) (24.0453,0.003707) (25.0988,0.0101965) (26.105,14.4968) (27.105,204.097) (28.1049,590.194) (29.1049,747.282) (30.0453,861.265) (31.1242,802.88) (32.1049,420.851) (33.1049,361.969) (34.1049,236.709) (35.1049,134.735) (36.1049,91.01) (37.1049,83.3647) (38.1049,77.7495) (39.1049,72.0455) (40.1049,44.1484) (41.1049,0.807605) (42.1049,2.74292) (43.105,1.23793) (44.105,0.00484675) (45.0453,0.00681702) (46.0988,0.00867617) (47.1049,3.25901) (48.1049,170.608) (49.1049,618.911) (50.1049,985.47) (51.1049,996.494) (52.1049,728.231) (53.1049,317.286) (54.1049,90.1976) (55.1049,87.4338) (56.1049,91.0963) (57.1049,79.8634) (58.1049,86.4779) (59.1049,79.1919) (60.1049,71.2698) (61.1049,67.5303) (62.1049,75.0754) (63.1049,70.1654) (64.1049,44.0228) (65.0453,1.03019) (66.0988,8.75637) (67.105,4.9285) (68.1049,6.56507) (69.1049,3.79421) (70.1049,19.7005) (71.1054,126.607) (72.1049,424.993) (73.1049,733.099) (74.1049,635.866) (75.1049,594.353) (76.1049,489.931) (77.1049,389.253) (78.1049,369.813) (79.1049,294.459) (80.1049,169.412) (81.1049,133.234) (82.1049,81.6557) (83.1049,92.7529) (84.1049,65.6806) (85.1049,41.8301) (86.0453,1.35562) (87.0425,4.05274) (88.0988,0.00676451) (89.1049,0.549397) (90.0453,20.4509) (91.0988,12.7607) (92.1049,74.7499) (93.105,299.432) (94.1049,881.377) (95.1049,819.193) (96.1049,752.22) (97.1049,433.59) (98.1049,285.704) (99.1049,218.325) (100.105,177.333) (101.105,134.697) (102.105,90.81) (103.105,96.8466) (104.105,101.702) (105.105,85.7443) (106.105,75.7748) (107.105,65.7907) (108.105,50.8198) (109.045,0.672449) (110.099,3.17659) (111.105,0.00624045) (112.105,0.00738394) (113.105,0.982962) (114.105,25.8452) (115.105,103.693) (116.105,303.188) (117.105,837.797) (118.105,762.811) (119.105,697.246) (120.105,404.741) (121.105,300.179) (122.105,277.393) (123.105,225.683) (124.105,160.069) (125.105,147.923) (126.105,94.1991) (127.105,122.458) (128.105,105.191) (129.105,80.7764) (130.105,22.3141) (131.045,3.43034) (132.099,5.15514) (133.105,0.010196) (134.105,0.00876802) (135.045,0.0126214) (136.099,8.81519) (137.105,88.3655) (138.105,330.21) (139.105,734.733) (140.105,632.692) (141.105,482.473) (142.105,534.636) (143.105,545.315) (144.105,465.567) (145.105,231.797) (146.105,95.2859) (147.105,72.2518) (148.105,72.5331) (149.105,73.5915) (150.105,67.0057) (151.105,62.4066) (152.105,59.9673) (153.105,64.9519) (154.105,39.4284) (155.045,0.603247) (156.042,5.16006) (157.099,3.06856) (158.045,3.49916) (159.099,7.00872) (160.105,31.4659) (161.105,128.217) (162.045,300.605) (163.099,767.529) (164.105,792.537) (165.105,695.724) (166.105,421.257) (167.105,278.521) (168.105,253.147) (169.105,167.28) (170.045,162.864) (171.099,142.511) (172.105,68.2949) (173.105,110.247) (174.105,98.1178) (175.105,95.0657) (176.105,72.1963) (177.105,50.6318) (178.105,2.74219) (179.105,2.88173) (180.105,4.41702) (181.105,0.23205) (182.105,7.36268) (183.105,3.24394) (184.105,8.93849) (185.105,145.022) (186.105,474.262) (187.105,841.993) (188.105,709.62) (189.105,613.564) (190.105,689.964) (191.105,344.008) (192.105,165.745) (193.105,104.965) (194.105,90.0467) (195.105,84.7354) (196.105,78.8349) (197.105,72.8354) (198.105,70.6352) (199.105,64.8973) (200.105,71.4871) (201.105,31.929) (202.105,1.13205) (203.105,2.94324) (204.105,0.0100696) (205.105,0.00951338) (206.105,6.06437) (207.105,54.0201) (208.105,191.802) (209.105,449.655) (210.045,895.71) (211.099,764.532) (212.045,608.932) (213.099,493.449) (214.105,316.788) (215.105,136.531) (216.105,121.746) (217.105,99.9546) (218.105,125.246) (219.105,114.017) (220.105,96.2849) (221.105,84.082) (222.105,70.3279) (223.105,56.6441) (224.105,6.09647) (225.045,4.061) (226.042,0.0462391) (227.099,1.56735) (228.105,1.51087) (229.105,25.0116) (230.105,101.652) (231.105,310.973) (232.105,498.712) (233.105,696.966) (234.105,633.902) (235.105,552.439) (236.105,414.88) (237.105,485.153) (238.105,305.281) (239.105,113.762) (240.105,88.9735) (241.105,85.0141) (242.105,73.026) (243.105,65.6199) (244.105,66.6615) (245.105,65.2548) (246.105,67.7212) (247.105,11.1746) (248.105,6.7283) (249.105,6.78781) (250.105,1.79324) (251.105,6.3727) (252.105,4.8718) (253.105,56.1144) (254.105,160.726) (255.105,13.7998) (256.105,1.81073) (257.105,0.07531) (258.045,0.450263) (259.099,1.31896) (260.105,0.0295347) };
\addplot coordinates { (0.042464,0) (1.09877,0.0279757) (2.10494,0.0705261) (3.10493,0.0466309) (4.10494,0.0187988) (5.10494,0.0168457) (6.10494,0.0636292) (7.10494,0.0201721) (8.10495,0.121338) (9.10495,0.0327148) (10.105,0.0290527) (11.1049,0.13501) (12.0453,0.108854) (13.0989,0.00137868) (14.105,0.0290527) (15.105,0) (16.1049,0.000488281) (17.1049,0.0256348) (18.1049,0.000732422) (19.1049,0.00146484) (20.1049,0) (21.105,0.0339355) (22.0453,0.00234375) (23.0988,0) (24.0453,0.00182292) (25.0988,0.00183824) (26.105,0.00244141) (27.105,0.00195312) (28.1049,0.0314941) (29.1049,0.00280762) (30.0453,0.00341797) (31.1242,0.00183824) (32.1049,0.0175171) (33.1049,0.00170898) (34.1049,0.000732422) (35.1049,0.000244141) (36.1049,0.0278015) (37.1049,0.00369263) (38.1049,0.00732422) (39.1049,0.00708008) (40.1049,0.00439453) (41.1049,0.00384521) (42.1049,0.00488281) (43.105,0) (44.105,0.00170898) (45.0453,0) (46.0988,0) (47.1049,0.00170898) (48.1049,0) (49.1049,0) (50.1049,0) (51.1049,0) (52.1049,0.000488281) (53.1049,1.93823) (54.1049,1.51514) (55.1049,5.82934) (56.1049,3.50342) (57.1049,0.0170898) (58.1049,0.0148926) (59.1049,0.00149536) (60.1049,0.0196228) (61.1049,0) (62.1049,0.00106812) (63.1049,0.000976562) (64.1049,0.00195312) (65.0453,0) (66.0988,0.00301585) (67.105,0.000823975) (68.1049,0.00195312) (69.1049,0.00146484) (70.1049,0.00146484) (71.1054,0.00418091) (72.1049,0.0012207) (73.1049,0.000244141) (74.1049,0.000488281) (75.1049,0) (76.1049,0) (77.1049,0.000488281) (78.1049,0) (79.1049,0) (80.1049,0) (81.1049,0) (82.1049,0.0012207) (83.1049,0.000488281) (84.1049,0) (85.1049,0.000488281) (86.0453,0.00130208) (87.0425,0) (88.0988,3.52137) (89.1049,9.15527e-05) (90.0453,0.000618489) (91.0988,0) (92.1049,0.00610352) (93.105,0.00253296) (94.1049,0.000732422) (95.1049,0) (96.1049,0.000579834) (97.1049,0.000579834) (98.1049,0.00195312) (99.1049,0.00146484) (100.105,0.000976562) (101.105,0.00204468) (102.105,0.000976562) (103.105,0) (104.105,0.000488281) (105.105,0) (106.105,0.000244141) (107.105,0.000488281) (108.105,0) (109.045,0) (110.099,0) (111.105,0) (112.105,0.000244141) (113.105,0) (114.105,0.000244141) (115.105,0.000488281) (116.105,0.000244141) (117.105,0.000732422) (118.105,0.000976562) (119.105,0.000579834) (120.105,0) (121.105,0) (122.105,0.000488281) (123.105,0) (124.105,0.00170898) (125.105,0) (126.105,0.000579834) (127.105,0) (128.105,0) (129.105,0.000244141) (130.105,0) (131.045,0.000618489) (132.099,0) (133.105,0) (134.105,0) (135.045,0) (136.099,0) (137.105,0) (138.105,0) (139.105,0) (140.105,0) (141.105,0) (142.105,0.000244141) (143.105,0) (144.105,0) (145.105,0) (146.105,0) (147.105,0.000488281) (148.105,0) (149.105,0) (150.105,0) (151.105,0) (152.105,0.000732422) (153.105,0.00244141) (154.105,0) (155.045,0) (156.042,0.000976562) (157.099,0) (158.045,0) (159.099,0) (160.105,0) (161.105,0.000976562) (162.045,0) (163.099,0) (164.105,0) (165.105,0) (166.105,0.000244141) (167.105,0) (168.105,0) (169.105,0) (170.045,0) (171.099,0) (172.105,0) (173.105,0) (174.105,0) (175.105,0) (176.105,0) (177.105,0) (178.105,0) (179.105,0) (180.105,0) (181.105,0) (182.105,0) (183.105,0) (184.105,0) (185.105,0) (186.105,0) (187.105,0.00195312) (188.105,0) (189.105,0) (190.105,0) (191.105,0) (192.105,0) (193.105,0) (194.105,0) (195.105,0) (196.105,0) (197.105,0) (198.105,0) (199.105,0) (200.105,0) (201.105,0) (202.105,0) (203.105,0) (204.105,0) (205.105,0) (206.105,0) (207.105,0) (208.105,0) (209.105,0) (210.045,0) (211.099,0) (212.045,0) (213.099,0) (214.105,0) (215.105,0) (216.105,0) (217.105,0) (218.105,0) (219.105,0) (220.105,0) (221.105,0) (222.105,0) (223.105,0) (224.105,0) (225.045,0) (226.042,0) (227.099,0) (228.105,0) (229.105,0) (230.105,0) (231.105,0) (232.105,0) (233.105,0) (234.105,0) (235.105,0) (236.105,0) (237.105,0) (238.105,0) (239.105,0) (240.105,0) (241.105,0) (242.105,0) (243.105,0) (244.105,0) (245.105,0.000732422) (246.105,0) (247.105,0) (248.105,0.00268555) (249.105,0.0112305) (250.105,0.169189) (251.105,0.00170898) (252.105,0.687012) (253.105,14.8664) (254.105,96.8657) (255.105,28.3886) (256.105,12) (257.105,9.5994) (258.045,0.467969) (259.099,10.3548) (260.105,0.790771) };
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\medskip
\ref{profilelegend}
\caption{CPU utilization, and network and disk throughput averaged over all hosts during the median WordCount and PageRank benchmark runs with 16 hosts.}
\label{fig:results profile1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering\footnotesize
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileLeft,
title={TeraSort with Spark (Java)},
]
\addplot coordinates { (0.133272,0.0611972) (1.14159,1.77476) (2.14159,5.77226) (3.14159,6.60874) (4.14159,4.17505) (5.14159,1.02388) (6.14159,1.04777) (7.14159,5.68498) (8.14159,10.3906) (9.08437,9.93814) (10.1333,17.8368) (11.1416,12.7531) (12.1417,25.5372) (13.1419,45.0954) (14.1416,41.1703) (15.1416,31.4392) (16.1416,17.4114) (17.1416,11.6823) (18.1416,9.48435) (19.1416,7.95989) (20.1416,8.44834) (21.1416,8.34276) (22.1416,7.81927) (23.1416,7.29296) (24.1416,6.52044) (25.1416,6.89626) (26.1416,7.21871) (27.1416,7.79849) (28.1416,8.30076) (29.1416,8.0858) (30.1416,7.587) (31.1416,8.19512) (32.1416,7.59418) (33.1416,7.56024) (34.1416,7.5078) (35.1416,7.19121) (36.1416,7.25449) (37.1416,7.35352) (38.1416,7.39544) (39.1416,6.93113) (40.1416,5.27584) (41.1416,2.98589) (42.1416,3.16485) (43.0844,1.28007) (44.1333,9.19091) (45.1417,13.5389) (46.0844,36.3768) (47.0793,56.4175) (48.0791,54.1229) (49.0791,37.3809) (50.0791,29.9179) (51.1406,20.9612) (52.1416,20.7619) (53.1416,23.2665) (54.1416,22.6481) (55.1416,23.607) (56.1416,26.0506) (57.1416,28.5506) (58.1416,22.2363) (59.1416,20.7624) (60.154,17.7378) (61.1416,18.517) (62.0844,26.1307) (63.1333,25.4078) (64.0844,26.1755) (65.1333,26.1014) (66.1416,22.2463) (67.1416,23.3532) (68.1416,24.0463) (69.0844,25.9057) (70.1333,23.8685) (71.0844,23.7036) (72.1333,21.9584) (73.0844,22.1016) (74.1333,20.7616) (75.1416,22.9901) (76.0844,19.4583) (77.1333,10.8381) (78.1416,11.5591) (79.0844,9.07859) (80.1339,45.1856) (81.0844,82.0102) (82.1333,78.7575) (83.1416,60.1279) (84.0844,39.4391) (85.0791,19.3995) (86.0791,6.50312) (87.0791,28.9102) (88.0791,26.3496) (89.0791,38.1375) (90.1333,34.3254) (91.1416,21.6801) (92.1416,10.2047) (93.0844,6.04891) (94.1333,13.6215) (95.1416,20.1464) (96.1416,18.0283) (97.0844,20.2227) (98.0943,23.7464) (99.0791,28.6003) (100.079,24.1847) (101.079,20.7915) (102.079,21.5489) (103.133,27.2399) (104.142,25.4724) (105.142,31.2087) (106.142,26.042) (107.142,29.7332) (108.142,26.3791) (109.142,9.04657) (110.142,5.01014) (111.142,9.42241) (112.142,8.83422) (113.084,13.8606) (114.133,27.2481) (115.084,26.5363) (116.079,32.4097) (117.079,29.0217) (118.079,29.6531) (119.079,26.8296) (120.133,24.5251) (121.142,16.6549) (122.142,19.9895) (123.142,24.8425) (124.142,26.6948) (125.142,27.6954) (126.142,27.9911) (127.142,20.229) (128.084,18.0813) (129.134,13.0091) (130.142,18.2217) (131.142,20.0161) (132.084,26.3482) (133.079,29.0704) (134.133,37.6199) (135.142,33.6742) (136.084,29.453) (137.079,31.3337) (138.079,20.3526) (139.079,20.5479) (140.133,17.0422) (141.084,23.6312) (142.079,27.792) (143.079,24.9374) (144.079,30.3471) (145.133,29.8049) (146.142,29.1988) (147.142,31.3178) (148.084,30.5034) (149.133,32.6883) (150.142,28.056) (151.084,29.2242) (152.079,32.3459) (153.133,29.5784) (154.084,21.681) (155.133,27.6887) (156.142,32.0662) (157.142,28.4575) (158.142,25.6805) (159.142,23.8493) (160.142,21.032) (161.142,21.1036) (162.142,25.8019) (163.142,28.9469) (164.142,29.165) (165.142,28.6809) (166.084,30.5725) (167.133,20.9625) (168.142,23.0095) (169.084,27.5589) (170.133,28.2378) (171.142,30.8178) (172.142,31.8454) (173.142,26.4527) (174.084,27.0389) (175.079,27.9309) (176.079,28.0436) (177.079,28.4631) (178.079,27.2101) (179.079,31.8517) (180.079,29.8032) (181.079,29.385) (182.133,33.1984) (183.084,29.3327) (184.079,27.9776) (185.079,27.1573) (186.079,27.1704) (187.133,29.5682) (188.142,21.167) (189.142,25.0126) (190.142,23.9468) (191.142,24.078) (192.142,27.65) (193.142,26.3529) (194.142,27.3937) (195.142,23.7195) (196.142,20.3567) (197.142,24.8322) (198.142,31.3133) (199.142,29.6109) (200.142,34.1004) (201.142,29.2988) (202.142,25.9271) (203.084,22.5882) (204.079,27.104) (205.079,23.0295) (206.079,23.9469) (207.079,18.8324) (208.079,18.252) (209.079,18.8513) (210.133,18.5368) (211.142,19.7443) (212.084,29.9498) (213.133,34.4244) (214.084,21.7465) (215.079,23.4872) (216.079,27.9467) (217.079,18.9221) (218.133,27.1483) (219.084,26.4013) (220.133,20.2317) (221.084,24.703) (222.079,34.1637) (223.079,33.3911) (224.079,30.9692) (225.079,24.5849) (226.079,17.4816) (227.079,17.0538) (228.079,16.2765) (229.133,19.2215) (230.142,24.4741) (231.084,29.5899) (232.079,30.9365) (233.079,38.3848) (234.079,47.7816) (235.079,53.3337) (236.133,60.6881) (237.084,58.4638) (238.133,54.905) (239.084,51.9243) (240.079,51.7602) (241.079,47.0578) (242.079,43.0225) (243.079,42.2812) (244.079,41.1472) (245.079,41.7482) (246.079,43.4331) (247.079,41.2601) (248.079,41.045) (249.079,43.1017) (250.133,42.357) (251.142,38.9527) (252.142,41.8761) (253.084,41.7729) (254.079,44.2835) (255.079,36.3724) (256.079,32.4508) (257.079,29.3032) (258.079,31.657) (259.079,38.8641) (260.079,35.7296) (261.079,27.2471) (262.079,21.9374) (263.079,12.9525) (264.079,9.61785) (265.079,9.77445) (266.079,11.2302) (267.079,11.0783) (268.079,10.2059) (269.079,11.2819) (270.133,7.00371) (271.084,7.64795) (272.079,15.4233) (273.079,15.0353) (274.079,14.5064) (275.079,13.8914) (276.079,12.7077) (277.079,11.8134) (278.079,10.9147) (279.079,9.98992) (280.079,8.97406) (281.079,7.97436) (282.079,6.94935) (283.079,5.35835) (284.133,3.32661) (285.142,2.97447) (286.142,5.19624) (287.142,6.39046) (288.084,6.45068) (289.079,5.85197) (290.133,8.85039) (291.084,8.73713) (292.133,4.76678) (293.084,4.53814) (294.079,3.59969) (295.079,3.2756) (296.133,2.55499) (297.142,2.20827) (298.084,1.85207) (299.079,5.95407) (300.133,38.8183) (301.142,49.8406) (302.142,50.9771) (303.142,52.3058) (304.142,44.3729) (305.084,39.2787) (306.079,35.9199) (307.079,34.3271) (308.079,37.1039) (309.079,34.4812) (310.133,29.5181) (311.084,29.5914) (312.079,19.7505) (313.079,12.5469) (314.079,8.3184) (315.079,6.84736) (316.133,4.30651) (317.084,2.93527) (318.079,2.15873) (319.079,1.8379) (320.133,1.7175) (321.084,1.67033) (322.133,1.53146) (323.142,1.72649) (324.084,1.74135) (325.133,1.57258) (326.084,2.44671) (327.133,2.65806) (328.084,2.638) (329.079,1.54344) (330.133,2.3378) (331.084,1.69403) (332.133,1.5551) (333.142,1.45355) (334.142,1.21844) (335.142,1.37944) (336.084,2.18878) (337.133,1.847) (338.142,1.60863) (339.084,3.28561) (340.079,2.76542) (341.079,3.14929) (342.133,2.13392) (343.142,0.836505) (344.142,0.653998) (345.084,0.746603) (346.079,0.78106) (347.079,0.927444) (348.133,0.674654) (349.142,0.423574) (350.142,0.198166) (351.142,0.243674) (352.142,0.265796) (353.146,0.156835) (354.082,0.197226) (355.133,0.152848) (356.142,0.152858) (357.142,0.196917) (358.142,0.129168) (359.142,0.158818) (360.142,0.171384) (361.142,0.143479) (362.142,0.101942) (363.142,0.125371) (364.142,0.106213) (365.142,0.0371706) (366.142,0.107847) (367.142,0.0785865) (368.084,0.0794829) (369.133,0.125384) (370.142,0.182593) (371.142,0.0880061) (372.142,0.0372093) (373.142,0.0608841) (374.142,0.683982) (375.142,0.842262) (376.142,0.879226) };
\end{axis}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileRight,
]
\pgfplotsset{cycle list shift=1}
\addplot coordinates { (0.133272,0.0157969) (1.14159,0.325327) (2.14159,0.0453154) (3.14159,13.1475) (4.14159,29.0442) (5.14159,28.0679) (6.14159,10.8321) (7.14159,110.338) (8.14159,138.702) (9.08437,243.675) (10.1333,427.909) (11.1416,484.725) (12.1417,824.667) (13.1419,1468.94) (14.1416,1865.58) (15.1416,1950.44) (16.1416,1827.73) (17.1416,1821.2) (18.1416,1658.28) (19.1416,1515.12) (20.1416,1571.06) (21.1416,1630.84) (22.1416,1508.96) (23.1416,1482.73) (24.1416,1304.53) (25.1416,1424.29) (26.1416,1452.25) (27.1416,1573.28) (28.1416,1629.3) (29.1416,1639.09) (30.1416,1509.55) (31.1416,1662.58) (32.1416,1495.72) (33.1416,1530.15) (34.1416,1532.17) (35.1416,1520.3) (36.1416,1505.68) (37.1416,1473.93) (38.1416,1536.71) (39.1416,1476.85) (40.1416,1114.54) (41.1416,696.59) (42.1416,724.13) (43.0844,321.156) (44.1333,9.94186) (45.1417,243.181) (46.0844,1341.89) (47.0793,1761.54) (48.0791,1903.66) (49.0791,1887.47) (50.0791,1776.74) (51.1406,1416.41) (52.1416,1269.49) (53.1416,1492.72) (54.1416,1382.85) (55.1416,1534.65) (56.1416,1612.41) (57.1416,1716.18) (58.1416,1480.78) (59.1416,1368.89) (60.154,1259.89) (61.1416,1239.56) (62.0844,1584.22) (63.1333,1597.3) (64.0844,1751.23) (65.1333,1624.94) (66.1416,1434.01) (67.1416,1555.29) (68.1416,1569.77) (69.0844,1676.74) (70.1333,1590.35) (71.0844,1517.43) (72.1333,1480.88) (73.0844,1458.02) (74.1333,1347.66) (75.1416,1450.82) (76.0844,1281.91) (77.1333,688.803) (78.1416,688.791) (79.0844,132.592) (80.1339,133.489) (81.0844,960.541) (82.1333,1077.61) (83.1416,323.651) (84.0844,2.3257) (85.0791,227.545) (86.0791,113.468) (87.0791,819.336) (88.0791,613.277) (89.0791,251.423) (90.1333,0.698065) (91.1416,153.398) (92.1416,0.0661554) (93.0844,189.691) (94.1333,580.434) (95.1416,945.484) (96.1416,462.535) (97.0844,512.498) (98.0943,223.474) (99.0791,448.463) (100.079,202.961) (101.079,312.415) (102.079,355.859) (103.133,395.558) (104.142,152.155) (105.142,128.835) (106.142,70.7018) (107.142,290.75) (108.142,34.385) (109.142,154.924) (110.142,295.759) (111.142,546.018) (112.142,97.3158) (113.084,111.406) (114.133,950.129) (115.084,494.28) (116.079,70.8884) (117.079,319.255) (118.079,194.168) (119.079,89.4876) (120.133,248.16) (121.142,367.867) (122.142,189.406) (123.142,1.03764) (124.142,98.196) (125.142,343.84) (126.142,602.795) (127.142,544.512) (128.084,430.794) (129.134,291.157) (130.142,256.148) (131.142,28.689) (132.084,62.2861) (133.079,316.642) (134.133,353.325) (135.142,391.982) (136.084,145.151) (137.079,630.989) (138.079,504.324) (139.079,300.972) (140.133,56.4444) (141.084,0.0106398) (142.079,135.798) (143.079,230.055) (144.079,398.246) (145.133,335.791) (146.142,195.188) (147.142,207.619) (148.084,421.801) (149.133,471.464) (150.142,30.479) (151.084,242.436) (152.079,98.2866) (153.133,494.04) (154.084,310.187) (155.133,156.562) (156.142,0.699898) (157.142,166.472) (158.142,36.7809) (159.142,83.3866) (160.142,0.0243488) (161.142,31.1082) (162.142,81.9361) (163.142,255.34) (164.142,357.952) (165.142,563.078) (166.084,270.562) (167.133,0.565329) (168.142,10.1202) (169.084,161.56) (170.133,158.435) (171.142,77.334) (172.142,25.6626) (173.142,51.127) (174.084,270.351) (175.079,284.553) (176.079,21.2029) (177.079,75.9752) (178.079,284.038) (179.079,252.867) (180.079,108.479) (181.079,112.388) (182.133,155.133) (183.084,263.429) (184.079,19.8922) (185.079,75.3982) (186.079,328.929) (187.133,83.1041) (188.142,228.94) (189.142,58.6969) (190.142,84.3971) (191.142,144.403) (192.142,293.1) (193.142,377.046) (194.142,88.8786) (195.142,17.1599) (196.142,1.59) (197.142,98.1979) (198.142,244.682) (199.142,170.912) (200.142,262.979) (201.142,197.609) (202.142,142.833) (203.084,576.505) (204.079,723.528) (205.079,442.932) (206.079,282.934) (207.079,97.2586) (208.079,88.7549) (209.079,245.021) (210.133,2.85844) (211.142,17.0382) (212.084,204.852) (213.133,108.618) (214.084,174.83) (215.079,26.643) (216.079,2.48078) (217.079,119.965) (218.133,429.186) (219.084,397.104) (220.133,238.972) (221.084,158.018) (222.079,511.99) (223.079,295.571) (224.079,131.4) (225.079,144.094) (226.079,70.4578) (227.079,374.026) (228.079,210.74) (229.133,354.18) (230.142,340.253) (231.084,343.798) (232.079,457.825) (233.079,653.413) (234.079,650.163) (235.079,463.644) (236.133,224.745) (237.084,260.059) (238.133,339.257) (239.084,311.032) (240.079,291.92) (241.079,184.227) (242.079,142.883) (243.079,76.277) (244.079,8.6374) (245.079,72.1887) (246.079,104.78) (247.079,136.357) (248.079,187.348) (249.079,149.873) (250.133,119.063) (251.142,156.96) (252.142,356.635) (253.084,220.098) (254.079,551.1) (255.079,382.784) (256.079,187.611) (257.079,390.836) (258.079,522.979) (259.079,509.993) (260.079,421.029) (261.079,281.625) (262.079,349.654) (263.079,333.223) (264.079,295.714) (265.079,349.425) (266.079,443.713) (267.079,358.427) (268.079,356.118) (269.079,371.848) (270.133,285.69) (271.084,306.373) (272.079,387.718) (273.079,216.27) (274.079,257.504) (275.079,202.195) (276.079,204.604) (277.079,257.27) (278.079,217.035) (279.079,142.48) (280.079,158.667) (281.079,173.222) (282.079,111.404) (283.079,144.065) (284.133,73.4234) (285.142,206.844) (286.142,112.466) (287.142,53.6475) (288.084,31.4546) (289.079,60.046) (290.133,349.782) (291.084,89.6761) (292.133,71.4356) (293.084,23.8789) (294.079,47.3112) (295.079,34.9112) (296.133,26.1784) (297.142,25.6576) (298.084,57.535) (299.079,14.6032) (300.133,30.9731) (301.142,25.4606) (302.142,12.3835) (303.142,1.69953) (304.142,73.0619) (305.084,162.805) (306.079,0.0313902) (307.079,0.0275234) (308.079,0.0208055) (309.079,159.064) (310.133,728.139) (311.084,583.575) (312.079,178.973) (313.079,361.591) (314.079,384.156) (315.079,317.165) (316.133,362.518) (317.084,385.076) (318.079,420.219) (319.079,347.729) (320.133,313.505) (321.084,294.577) (322.133,288.199) (323.142,313.087) (324.084,349.091) (325.133,308.091) (326.084,368.355) (327.133,355.35) (328.084,301.089) (329.079,283.505) (330.133,256.819) (331.084,222.982) (332.133,301.594) (333.142,312.69) (334.142,257.974) (335.142,316.962) (336.084,360.81) (337.133,291.574) (338.142,182.631) (339.084,207.746) (340.079,138.599) (341.079,258.647) (342.133,271.135) (343.142,158.814) (344.142,167.822) (345.084,180.904) (346.079,206.825) (347.079,271.631) (348.133,194.296) (349.142,105.963) (350.142,35.9612) (351.142,57.41) (352.142,77.9376) (353.146,48.3533) (354.082,356.921) (355.133,17.0956) (356.142,27.0523) (357.142,64.5689) (358.142,19.7927) (359.142,33.112) (360.142,53.1568) (361.142,29.2262) (362.142,25.1744) (363.142,14.8319) (364.142,29.5848) (365.142,3.72164) (366.142,20.8111) (367.142,19.0482) (368.084,14.8696) (369.133,20.1997) (370.142,40.6895) (371.142,8.19944) (372.142,0.321645) (373.142,0.163829) (374.142,0.0600981) (375.142,0.0523733) (376.142,0.0487617) };
\addplot coordinates { (0.133272,0.370089) (1.14159,2.86383) (2.14159,1.25836) (3.14159,1.31445) (4.14159,0.184814) (5.14159,0.334015) (6.14159,0.0904846) (7.14159,0.151123) (8.14159,0.0397949) (9.08437,0.0078125) (10.1333,0.0232078) (11.1416,0.000244141) (12.1417,0.00146484) (13.1419,0.168457) (14.1416,0.0285645) (15.1416,0.0469666) (16.1416,0.00146484) (17.1416,0.032959) (18.1416,0.136108) (19.1416,0.00146484) (20.1416,0.00292969) (21.1416,0.266815) (22.1416,0.055603) (23.1416,0.286133) (24.1416,0.0136719) (25.1416,0.307617) (26.1416,0.583862) (27.1416,0.232666) (28.1416,0.00390625) (29.1416,0.12915) (30.1416,0.00146484) (31.1416,0.00341797) (32.1416,0.114258) (33.1416,0.00195312) (34.1416,17.7448) (35.1416,8.87182) (36.1416,8.86988) (37.1416,8.03223) (38.1416,3.79443) (39.1416,0.000976562) (40.1416,0) (41.1416,0.012207) (42.1416,0.0012207) (43.0844,0.00260417) (44.1333,0.0230066) (45.1417,0.0107727) (46.0844,0.0135417) (47.0793,0.0124512) (48.0791,0.0170898) (49.0791,0.00204468) (50.0791,0.0124512) (51.1406,0.0202493) (52.1416,0.0963135) (53.1416,0.0884705) (54.1416,0.107452) (55.1416,0.0956116) (56.1416,0.103882) (57.1416,0.105988) (58.1416,0.0793762) (59.1416,0.078949) (60.154,0.0661316) (61.1416,0.0670166) (62.0844,0.0887044) (63.1333,0.119456) (64.0844,0.102083) (65.1333,0.129826) (66.1416,0.0940857) (67.1416,0.0930786) (68.1416,0.113312) (69.0844,0.110188) (70.1333,0.100442) (71.0844,0.13776) (72.1333,0.106991) (73.0844,0.12181) (74.1333,0.113195) (75.1416,0.148041) (76.0844,2.4193) (77.1333,35.544) (78.1416,62.9769) (79.0844,104.12) (80.1339,242.168) (81.0844,291.091) (82.1333,318.564) (83.1416,332.597) (84.0844,333.019) (85.0791,332.426) (86.0791,333.585) (87.0791,333.068) (88.0791,330.951) (89.0791,330.624) (90.1333,328.514) (91.1416,329.525) (92.1416,332.642) (93.0844,333.983) (94.1333,333.204) (95.1416,333.011) (96.1416,333.409) (97.0844,332.637) (98.0943,317.533) (99.0791,348.858) (100.079,332.584) (101.079,333.396) (102.079,333.39) (103.133,332.805) (104.142,332.078) (105.142,332.205) (106.142,332.644) (107.142,328.301) (108.142,308.916) (109.142,313.575) (110.142,312.69) (111.142,310.048) (112.142,315.239) (113.084,330.479) (114.133,308.682) (115.084,289.275) (116.079,277.275) (117.079,247.542) (118.079,250.095) (119.079,248.682) (120.133,223.121) (121.142,229.04) (122.142,226.07) (123.142,228.072) (124.142,229.625) (125.142,219.907) (126.142,219.408) (127.142,214.767) (128.084,215.886) (129.134,193.901) (130.142,186.725) (131.142,185.842) (132.084,197.902) (133.079,184.362) (134.133,171.989) (135.142,185.422) (136.084,154.514) (137.079,145.864) (138.079,128.631) (139.079,87.0317) (140.133,97.7058) (141.084,91.8267) (142.079,84.2676) (143.079,83.2656) (144.079,109.646) (145.133,65.4913) (146.142,84.9317) (147.142,62.1435) (148.084,86.5776) (149.133,49.9827) (150.142,2.46969) (151.084,5.77939) (152.079,42.0238) (153.133,57.5214) (154.084,4.80755) (155.133,2.12173) (156.142,13.6775) (157.142,30.2732) (158.142,15.323) (159.142,5.02808) (160.142,1.2623) (161.142,10.6219) (162.142,15.4606) (163.142,8.86099) (164.142,108.574) (165.142,68.8967) (166.084,59.4886) (167.133,8.50804) (168.142,12.1226) (169.084,86.5335) (170.133,11.8798) (171.142,70.1644) (172.142,7.52234) (173.142,25.0549) (174.084,23.9294) (175.079,71.0357) (176.079,29.5367) (177.079,7.49146) (178.079,6.36988) (179.079,14.2883) (180.079,28.1037) (181.079,8.01447) (182.133,19.6892) (183.084,84.3782) (184.079,8.90454) (185.079,2.55884) (186.079,38.9286) (187.133,75.4642) (188.142,10.2523) (189.142,51.0456) (190.142,10.0329) (191.142,91.0413) (192.142,121.957) (193.142,99.2231) (194.142,67.7456) (195.142,23.6041) (196.142,10.1257) (197.142,74.1454) (198.142,136.081) (199.142,75.8863) (200.142,60.8214) (201.142,70.7294) (202.142,69.1812) (203.084,332.129) (204.079,305.35) (205.079,239.257) (206.079,229.484) (207.079,61.5335) (208.079,99.0877) (209.079,230.656) (210.133,41.328) (211.142,11.1147) (212.084,16.7716) (213.133,42.6837) (214.084,172.714) (215.079,14.1059) (216.079,2.2666) (217.079,71.8279) (218.133,100.633) (219.084,220.329) (220.133,195.321) (221.084,24.0227) (222.079,122.13) (223.079,149.801) (224.079,111.36) (225.079,12.1214) (226.079,50.1853) (227.079,253.24) (228.079,224.43) (229.133,180.301) (230.142,212.779) (231.084,192.44) (232.079,283.275) (233.079,320.291) (234.079,323.306) (235.079,328.403) (236.133,248.164) (237.084,191.364) (238.133,169.028) (239.084,219.913) (240.079,210.061) (241.079,167.694) (242.079,133.041) (243.079,78.0967) (244.079,52.8673) (245.079,79.1406) (246.079,99.6876) (247.079,149.503) (248.079,167.405) (249.079,161.018) (250.133,129.622) (251.142,143.078) (252.142,304.115) (253.084,203.395) (254.079,293.814) (255.079,316.804) (256.079,210.911) (257.079,280.684) (258.079,320.977) (259.079,322.188) (260.079,325.455) (261.079,326.619) (262.079,326.223) (263.079,322.536) (264.079,321.987) (265.079,322.558) (266.079,324.162) (267.079,326.092) (268.079,324.383) (269.079,323.951) (270.133,317.99) (271.084,315.436) (272.079,307.37) (273.079,290.504) (274.079,282.622) (275.079,262.896) (276.079,248.535) (277.079,238.178) (278.079,232.729) (279.079,227.563) (280.079,171.541) (281.079,176.657) (282.079,188.771) (283.079,149.053) (284.133,154.119) (285.142,207.427) (286.142,118.063) (287.142,71.6844) (288.084,77.594) (289.079,60.1724) (290.133,284.385) (291.084,118.25) (292.133,70.6375) (293.084,49.0842) (294.079,42.64) (295.079,42.9781) (296.133,49.991) (297.142,42.9177) (298.084,62.8636) (299.079,33.3632) (300.133,23.5174) (301.142,25.4986) (302.142,26.4297) (303.142,22.2919) (304.142,49.5891) (305.084,167.14) (306.079,18.121) (307.079,6.99682) (308.079,11.4167) (309.079,64.1175) (310.133,331.976) (311.084,333.61) (312.079,333.076) (313.079,331.642) (314.079,332.718) (315.079,333.039) (316.133,333.111) (317.084,331.575) (318.079,330.731) (319.079,332.669) (320.133,331.264) (321.084,331.228) (322.133,317.62) (323.142,327.06) (324.084,322.757) (325.133,293.532) (326.084,311.082) (327.133,297.009) (328.084,311.631) (329.079,309.606) (330.133,309.855) (331.084,308.888) (332.133,306.75) (333.142,306.53) (334.142,301.311) (335.142,281.782) (336.084,299.187) (337.133,283.999) (338.142,247.875) (339.084,256.736) (340.079,256.793) (341.079,260.404) (342.133,258.902) (343.142,207.967) (344.142,181.201) (345.084,180.795) (346.079,221.663) (347.079,261.596) (348.133,214.322) (349.142,174.575) (350.142,144.183) (351.142,74.2388) (352.142,61.4751) (353.146,55.6746) (354.082,77.213) (355.133,53.3555) (356.142,45.5245) (357.142,35.9022) (358.142,33.3767) (359.142,46.7352) (360.142,36.2202) (361.142,34.9599) (362.142,34.4785) (363.142,35.4437) (364.142,35.8676) (365.142,27.1884) (366.142,20.7727) (367.142,21.0114) (368.084,22.4769) (369.133,19.597) (370.142,20.868) (371.142,20.8967) (372.142,21.2027) (373.142,9.35452) (374.142,15.0043) (375.142,1.24765) (376.142,0.182465) };
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\vspace{\smallskipamount}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileLeft,
title={TeraSort with Flink (Scala)},
]
\addplot coordinates { (0.038157,0) (1.09472,0.0202235) (2.10064,0.0195343) (3.10064,0.0195392) (4.10064,0.0175806) (5.04069,0.0312578) (6.09473,13.9897) (7.10065,0.527765) (8.10064,0.035163) (9.10064,0.00977112) (10.1006,0.037124) (11.1006,0.103611) (12.1006,1.72123) (13.1007,3.99757) (14.0407,26.7327) (15.0382,27.1886) (16.0382,23.1615) (17.0948,28.3697) (18.1007,47.1819) (19.0407,20.0775) (20.0382,27.2965) (21.0382,33.3764) (22.0382,23.4199) (23.0383,40.0036) (24.0382,24.7212) (25.0382,40.8075) (26.0948,32.1415) (27.0407,36.2617) (28.0382,40.6765) (29.0382,31.8506) (30.0382,41.716) (31.0382,32.1513) (32.0382,39.4319) (33.0382,38.0173) (34.0382,35.7618) (35.0382,41.3556) (36.0382,35.3114) (37.0948,39.2384) (38.0407,37.2649) (39.0383,37.3896) (40.1487,37.7635) (41.0407,34.0058) (42.0382,44.021) (43.0947,36.7311) (44.0407,48.2728) (45.0615,42.5743) (46.0382,42.9003) (47.0382,41.3345) (48.0382,34.6117) (49.0382,42.15) (50.0383,37.4432) (51.0382,43.6947) (52.0382,46.0729) (53.0382,43.7684) (54.0382,41.0534) (55.0382,33.7559) (56.0382,38.449) (57.0382,29.0915) (58.0566,24.1107) (59.0382,21.5011) (60.0948,20.7296) (61.0407,19.6509) (62.0382,19.011) (63.0948,20.8822) (64.1007,23.796) (65.1007,23.8971) (66.0407,21.8155) (67.0382,18.535) (68.0629,17.2034) (69.0382,20.1873) (70.0382,22.0028) (71.0382,22.4291) (72.0382,21.2541) (73.0382,17.562) (74.0382,19.5682) (75.0382,18.7067) (76.0382,18.7154) (77.0382,18.5569) (78.0382,17.3056) (79.0948,16.9511) (80.0407,18.1132) (81.0382,17.4681) (82.0382,16.1567) (83.0382,16.2474) (84.0382,16.3399) (85.0947,16.2702) (86.0407,17.017) (87.0382,16.7721) (88.0382,16.2285) (89.0382,16.4872) (90.0382,16.0114) (91.0866,12.2812) (92.1436,12.6431) (93.0407,13.7345) (94.0862,13.1187) (95.0948,11.5309) (96.0407,12.4998) (97.0382,12.9378) (98.0681,12.8935) (99.0923,13.6026) (100.095,14.5585) (101.066,14.9334) (102.095,16.0892) (103.101,15.5717) (104.041,16.3547) (105.038,17.05) (106.038,17.1574) (107.038,18.1079) (108.038,17.7976) (109.038,16.9701) (110.038,16.5071) (111.038,16.4819) (112.038,16.4386) (113.038,15.5384) (114.038,15.8291) (115.038,17.7536) (116.038,18.4434) (117.038,17.9336) (118.038,18.6182) (119.038,19.99) (120.038,20.4586) (121.038,20.3255) (122.096,20.5431) (123.038,22.8401) (124.06,18.2688) (125.095,18.5151) (126.041,19.9287) (127.038,18.8767) (128.038,22.2899) (129.038,16.9187) (130.057,16.7049) (131.038,19.8311) (132.038,17.5384) (133.038,17.2347) (134.095,17.8415) (135.101,16.23) (136.041,16.6377) (137.038,16.5464) (138.038,17.3682) (139.038,16.3857) (140.038,17.2304) (141.038,17.2247) (142.038,17.1125) (143.095,17.5607) (144.041,17.3932) (145.038,16.8794) (146.038,16.2758) (147.038,17.0304) (148.038,16.4777) (149.038,16.9286) (150.038,16.8988) (151.038,16.1338) (152.038,16.5015) (153.038,17.1058) (154.038,17.3871) (155.038,17.393) (156.095,18.543) (157.041,19.8406) (158.038,19.2086) (159.038,20.0279) (160.038,20.9441) (161.038,19.4355) (162.038,18.8955) (163.095,20.2347) (164.041,19.7182) (165.095,19.7995) (166.155,19.0226) (167.041,18.4386) (168.087,16.8255) (169.038,16.0683) (170.038,16.3524) (171.038,16.2434) (172.038,15.827) (173.038,16.0891) (174.038,15.768) (175.038,16.0676) (176.038,17.2752) (177.038,15.0044) (178.038,13.7867) (179.095,14.565) (180.101,14.9704) (181.101,15.183) (182.041,17.0827) (183.038,15.6854) (184.038,17.1609) (185.038,16.1647) (186.095,14.5178) (187.041,16.9919) (188.038,18.3523) (189.038,19.4158) (190.06,16.3858) (191.038,17.4665) (192.038,21.6476) (193.095,22.3687) (194.041,19.5167) (195.095,17.1135) (196.041,17.9262) (197.038,17.8549) (198.038,17.8015) (199.038,19.5162) (200.088,18.8748) (201.038,18.8903) (202.095,16.6013) (203.101,17.1063) (204.041,17.3034) (205.095,15.7723) (206.041,15.6045) (207.038,14.9838) (208.038,13.725) (209.038,13.1681) (210.038,13.564) (211.038,13.322) (212.038,13.0464) (213.038,12.433) (214.038,12.4351) (215.038,12.9072) (216.095,12.3899) (217.041,14.3517) (218.095,14.0423) (219.041,16.7221) (220.038,16.0256) (221.038,15.6121) (222.095,16.5473) (223.041,18.3447) (224.038,18.1707) (225.095,16.8702) (226.101,17.5805) (227.041,18.7196) (228.095,16.9948) (229.041,17.6376) (230.095,17.0176) (231.041,17.4362) (232.038,17.5559) (233.095,16.2598) (234.041,18.6852) (235.038,17.4068) (236.038,17.5124) (237.095,17.0564) (238.101,19.41) (239.051,17.9404) (240.038,19.5001) (241.038,19.4742) (242.038,17.325) (243.085,16.4086) (244.095,18.8508) (245.068,18.5087) (246.038,23.3371) (247.038,20.0763) (248.038,16.867) (249.038,15.59) (250.095,11.836) (251.041,12.0879) (252.095,8.78709) (253.101,5.31981) (254.041,4.3534) (255.095,3.342) (256.101,0.613589) (257.101,5.48455) (258.101,86.2109) (259.101,99.5973) (260.101,99.9981) (261.101,99.998) (262.101,99.6682) (263.101,92.1348) (264.101,78.471) (265.101,84.4484) (266.041,89.9084) (267.095,96.417) (268.101,95.8065) (269.041,94.825) (270.095,98.2786) (271.041,98.7993) (272.095,98.8863) (273.041,97.816) (274.096,93.9642) (275.041,89.9737) (276.038,78.7557) (277.038,47.1839) (278.095,21.6342) (279.041,6.33125) (280.038,2.15442) (281.038,2.5551) (282.038,1.44079) (283.038,1.60369) (284.095,2.0966) (285.041,2.6523) (286.038,2.93624) (287.095,2.42094) (288.041,2.62538) (289.095,2.50337) (290.041,3.1725) (291.038,3.12994) (292.038,2.94525) (293.095,3.04547) (294.041,3.69084) (295.038,2.73519) (296.038,2.47666) (297.095,2.32065) (298.101,2.30023) (299.041,2.07246) (300.038,2.17663) (301.038,2.21325) (302.038,2.34498) (303.038,2.23285) (304.038,2.3688) (305.095,2.28551) (306.041,2.0592) (307.095,1.6108) (308.041,1.64008) (309.095,1.87635) (310.041,2.79439) (311.038,1.98738) (312.038,1.72951) (313.095,1.70053) (314.101,1.58454) (315.041,1.32591) (316.038,1.16435) (317.095,1.3212) (318.041,1.48472) (319.038,1.63833) (320.038,1.63263) (321.095,1.65016) (322.101,1.39681) (323.041,1.39714) (324.038,1.25414) (325.095,1.20362) (326.041,1.0504) (327.038,1.0996) (328.038,1.14239) (329.038,1.31841) (330.038,1.54604) (331.038,1.3221) (332.095,1.4878) (333.101,1.36163) (334.041,1.36278) (335.038,1.17181) (336.038,1.19676) (337.095,1.29712) (338.041,1.33475) (339.095,1.45874) (340.041,1.20842) (341.038,1.33606) (342.038,1.38677) (343.038,1.18636) (344.095,1.00433) (345.041,1.13641) (346.038,1.17318) (347.038,1.04805) (348.038,1.28415) (349.038,1.1051) (350.038,0.943265) (351.038,1.24629) (352.038,1.07914) (353.095,0.754174) (354.041,1.17904) (355.038,1.06735) (356.038,0.915131) (357.038,0.931943) (358.038,1.11972) (359.095,0.752721) (360.041,0.917885) (361.095,0.859191) (362.041,0.717858) (363.038,0.7082) (364.038,0.782023) (365.095,0.426242) (366.041,0.472529) (367.113,0.38766) (368.041,0.458552) (369.095,0.336344) (370.041,0.614714) (371.038,5.01045) (372.038,1.35761) (373.095,0.32657) (374.101,0.492017) (375.041,0.223593) (376.095,0.318078) (377.101,0.315953) (378.101,0.259594) (379.041,0.412633) (380.095,0.371417) (381.101,0.443937) (382.101,0.410526) (383.101,0.318951) (384.101,0.245275) (385.101,0.225433) (386.101,0.30075) (387.041,0.221889) (388.038,0.269023) (389.095,0.355398) (390.101,0.435803) (391.041,0.314083) (392.095,0.295713) (393.101,0.257172) (394.101,0.199912) (395.041,0.368898) (396.095,0.16784) (397.101,0.282552) (398.041,0.357033) (399.095,0.272084) (400.041,0.245327) (401.095,0.390252) (402.041,0.653563) (403.095,0.199424) (404.101,0.752148) (405.101,1.21323) (406.041,0.824623) (407.095,0.365421) (408.041,0.351421) (409.095,0.308596) (410.041,0.409896) (411.095,0.205024) (412.041,0.227637) (413.095,0.167905) (414.041,0.173353) (415.095,0.195106) (416.101,0.11357) (417.101,0.174179) (418.101,0.168265) (419.041,0.361623) (420.095,0.317146) (421.101,0.207352) (422.101,0.405125) (423.041,0.115083) (424.095,0.0626431) (425.101,0.131213) (426.101,0.278007) (427.101,0.217175) (428.101,0.272205) (429.101,0.350402) (430.101,0.132909) (431.101,0.00981502) (432.101,0.0274198) };
\end{axis}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileRight,
]
\pgfplotsset{cycle list shift=1}
\addplot coordinates { (0.038157,0) (1.09472,0.0106918) (2.10064,0.00994396) (3.10064,0.0108196) (4.10064,0.0130777) (5.04069,2.29511) (6.09473,4.65139) (7.10065,0.0593775) (8.10064,0.0346061) (9.10064,0.0431407) (10.1006,0.0477872) (11.1006,0.200033) (12.1006,9.08428) (13.1007,27.9691) (14.0407,53.3132) (15.0382,36.1797) (16.0382,56.5907) (17.0948,44.8037) (18.1007,23.6513) (19.0407,108.187) (20.0382,83.1935) (21.0382,118.513) (22.0382,166.581) (23.0383,100.734) (24.0382,179.224) (25.0382,109.121) (26.0948,187.327) (27.0407,200.899) (28.0382,173.827) (29.0382,241.191) (30.0382,169.03) (31.0382,249.226) (32.0382,217.865) (33.0382,232.531) (34.0382,253.832) (35.0382,209.841) (36.0382,276.227) (37.0948,235.568) (38.0407,270.745) (39.0383,280.388) (40.1487,264.789) (41.0407,298.093) (42.0382,209.421) (43.0947,262.609) (44.0407,215.66) (45.0615,256.404) (46.0382,277.576) (47.0382,218.449) (48.0382,289.524) (49.0382,238.95) (50.0383,278.429) (51.0382,259.118) (52.0382,255.254) (53.0382,267.81) (54.0382,231.122) (55.0382,272.189) (56.0382,263.218) (57.0382,307.233) (58.0566,306.956) (59.0382,364.868) (60.0948,354.928) (61.0407,347.861) (62.0382,339.343) (63.0948,320.935) (64.1007,317.026) (65.1007,320.518) (66.0407,332.528) (67.0382,324.564) (68.0629,324.006) (69.0382,315.445) (70.0382,319.984) (71.0382,316.339) (72.0382,318.461) (73.0382,321.543) (74.0382,324.507) (75.0382,323.547) (76.0382,328.293) (77.0382,337.78) (78.0382,336.258) (79.0948,327.13) (80.0407,336.081) (81.0382,316.904) (82.0382,310.966) (83.0382,319.772) (84.0382,322.314) (85.0947,321.419) (86.0407,333.752) (87.0382,312.484) (88.0382,311.493) (89.0382,317.524) (90.0382,316.538) (91.0866,288.98) (92.1436,330.356) (93.0407,384.215) (94.0862,285.86) (95.0948,338.187) (96.0407,289.794) (97.0382,297.372) (98.0681,303.288) (99.0923,296.397) (100.095,417.627) (101.066,312.289) (102.095,349.206) (103.101,324.735) (104.041,326.925) (105.038,331.931) (106.038,324.624) (107.038,333.86) (108.038,332.446) (109.038,326.321) (110.038,322.011) (111.038,324.591) (112.038,326.123) (113.038,321.556) (114.038,315.02) (115.038,329.294) (116.038,314.766) (117.038,316.857) (118.038,327.747) (119.038,328.969) (120.038,324.674) (121.038,320.713) (122.096,317.802) (123.038,608.461) (124.06,321.744) (125.095,353.012) (126.041,334.231) (127.038,335.597) (128.038,319.776) (129.038,329.504) (130.057,319.081) (131.038,309.501) (132.038,323.761) (133.038,320.438) (134.095,309.72) (135.101,318.882) (136.041,323.922) (137.038,324.952) (138.038,330.051) (139.038,324.424) (140.038,326.699) (141.038,338.139) (142.038,338.017) (143.095,342.625) (144.041,340.227) (145.038,328.584) (146.038,331.135) (147.038,325.325) (148.038,319.476) (149.038,308.839) (150.038,323.563) (151.038,313.097) (152.038,310.334) (153.038,322.751) (154.038,319.963) (155.038,318.851) (156.095,335.836) (157.041,348.437) (158.038,349.837) (159.038,353.173) (160.038,356.017) (161.038,348.161) (162.038,338.877) (163.095,364.322) (164.041,337.487) (165.095,343.25) (166.155,346.159) (167.041,337.07) (168.087,329.431) (169.038,322.201) (170.038,321.921) (171.038,324.105) (172.038,324.776) (173.038,324.438) (174.038,325.853) (175.038,324.41) (176.038,318.275) (177.038,318.44) (178.038,316.209) (179.095,305.714) (180.101,296.086) (181.101,298.203) (182.041,302.176) (183.038,301.197) (184.038,295.661) (185.038,290.025) (186.095,295.898) (187.041,303.3) (188.038,299.93) (189.038,323.746) (190.06,320.825) (191.038,363.544) (192.038,335.11) (193.095,331.304) (194.041,349.433) (195.095,332.32) (196.041,358.182) (197.038,345.455) (198.038,343.195) (199.038,349.545) (200.088,330.846) (201.038,461.493) (202.095,334.723) (203.101,327.383) (204.041,330.364) (205.095,326.363) (206.041,332.52) (207.038,319.417) (208.038,307.862) (209.038,309.843) (210.038,307.709) (211.038,301.191) (212.038,296.949) (213.038,290.805) (214.038,289.836) (215.038,285.395) (216.095,284.996) (217.041,304.19) (218.095,309.053) (219.041,333.735) (220.038,331.276) (221.038,325.656) (222.095,323.838) (223.041,335.256) (224.038,332.976) (225.095,328.43) (226.101,331.43) (227.041,338.703) (228.095,333.684) (229.041,343.079) (230.095,352.06) (231.041,339.204) (232.038,323.975) (233.095,321.093) (234.041,331.175) (235.038,329.395) (236.038,329.279) (237.095,330.747) (238.101,328.622) (239.051,337.302) (240.038,337.606) (241.038,334.553) (242.038,334.835) (243.085,319.16) (244.095,401.479) (245.068,310.529) (246.038,367.057) (247.038,338.969) (248.038,347.58) (249.038,331.507) (250.095,327.102) (251.041,338.798) (252.095,313.052) (253.101,245.456) (254.041,162.108) (255.095,128.167) (256.101,63.2638) (257.101,20.0814) (258.101,0.67796) (259.101,0.0125398) (260.101,0.022499) (261.101,0.048945) (262.101,0.054849) (263.101,0.558172) (264.101,14.2053) (265.101,41.3492) (266.041,62.1161) (267.095,151.481) (268.101,574.543) (269.041,824.984) (270.095,365.297) (271.041,309.368) (272.095,328.948) (273.041,336.665) (274.096,321.627) (275.041,346.417) (276.038,413.784) (277.038,402.355) (278.095,336.335) (279.041,328.763) (280.038,294.606) (281.038,299.127) (282.038,289.535) (283.038,286.52) (284.095,347.919) (285.041,410.361) (286.038,480.155) (287.095,336.454) (288.041,343.762) (289.095,282.315) (290.041,261.824) (291.038,262.86) (292.038,347.409) (293.095,360.726) (294.041,374.705) (295.038,387.774) (296.038,344.246) (297.095,298.903) (298.101,292.263) (299.041,258.935) (300.038,266.38) (301.038,291.56) (302.038,371.842) (303.038,346.855) (304.038,400.706) (305.095,379.077) (306.041,350.006) (307.095,277.912) (308.041,303.474) (309.095,276.67) (310.041,318.293) (311.038,352.888) (312.038,333.542) (313.095,349.441) (314.101,341.428) (315.041,274.453) (316.038,246.649) (317.095,291.394) (318.041,308.436) (319.038,316.81) (320.038,321.731) (321.095,370.399) (322.101,339.279) (323.041,369.245) (324.038,286.669) (325.095,260.351) (326.041,254.165) (327.038,239.261) (328.038,263.563) (329.038,294.662) (330.038,397.669) (331.038,311.54) (332.095,346.685) (333.101,315.683) (334.041,293.25) (335.038,207.172) (336.038,247.082) (337.095,271.368) (338.041,300.153) (339.095,367.719) (340.041,296.216) (341.038,271.474) (342.038,288.898) (343.038,264.585) (344.095,229.028) (345.041,246.021) (346.038,267.952) (347.038,229.658) (348.038,327.484) (349.038,243.182) (350.038,210.899) (351.038,278.064) (352.038,230.594) (353.095,169.449) (354.041,218.719) (355.038,177.574) (356.038,215.426) (357.038,198.168) (358.038,238.655) (359.095,154.197) (360.041,189.978) (361.095,196.315) (362.041,147.418) (363.038,169.843) (364.038,148.172) (365.095,90.4362) (366.041,117.55) (367.113,82.5319) (368.041,109.345) (369.095,81.7897) (370.041,119.596) (371.038,71.9277) (372.038,68.0302) (373.095,59.2) (374.101,103.447) (375.041,48.0363) (376.095,51.1227) (377.101,64.9035) (378.101,65.37) (379.041,85.7763) (380.095,79.7479) (381.101,60.7367) (382.101,70.3186) (383.101,97.8642) (384.101,71.8773) (385.101,44.0434) (386.101,67.8803) (387.041,54.7634) (388.038,54.0521) (389.095,93.8351) (390.101,92.7222) (391.041,70.6502) (392.095,66.5658) (393.101,70.1276) (394.101,46.6866) (395.041,79.4222) (396.095,35.8142) (397.101,56.2916) (398.041,84.6712) (399.095,62.3199) (400.041,55.1521) (401.095,108.028) (402.041,171.885) (403.095,35.9045) (404.101,168.512) (405.101,256.117) (406.041,35.8366) (407.095,45.7132) (408.041,51.0383) (409.095,36.4102) (410.041,27.485) (411.095,31.2739) (412.041,19.0427) (413.095,27.7699) (414.041,20.5299) (415.095,14.6378) (416.101,12.7111) (417.101,12.413) (418.101,15.575) (419.041,33.5078) (420.095,28.7225) (421.101,12.658) (422.101,29.6972) (423.041,18.2861) (424.095,9.9966) (425.101,13.6434) (426.101,24.0038) (427.101,15.9334) (428.101,24.2598) (429.101,25.0024) (430.101,0.0968456) (431.101,0.164994) (432.101,0.163972) };
\addplot coordinates { (0.038157,0) (1.09472,0.00459558) (2.10064,0.00317383) (3.10064,0.0195923) (4.10064,0.0263672) (5.04069,0.00911458) (6.09473,0.00919118) (7.10065,0.0183716) (8.10064,0.00982666) (9.10064,0.00756836) (10.1006,0.0212402) (11.1006,0.00756836) (12.1006,0.0228577) (13.1007,0.0158691) (14.0407,0.00286458) (15.0382,0) (16.0382,0.00738525) (17.0948,0.0433421) (18.1007,0.0180664) (19.0407,0.00234375) (20.0382,0) (21.0382,0.0153503) (22.0382,0.00195312) (23.0383,0.0134277) (24.0382,0.012207) (25.0382,0.0166931) (26.0948,0.0103401) (27.0407,0.0375) (28.0382,0.0227051) (29.0382,0) (30.0382,0.0090332) (31.0382,0.00146484) (32.0382,0.00585938) (33.0382,0.0249023) (34.0382,0.0197754) (35.0382,0.00146484) (36.0382,0.0187988) (37.0948,0.105009) (38.0407,0.0132812) (39.0383,0.0192871) (40.1487,0.0195312) (41.0407,0.00494792) (42.0382,0.00820923) (43.0947,0.00275735) (44.0407,0.0244792) (45.0615,0) (46.0382,0.0473633) (47.0382,0.00845337) (48.0382,0.0151367) (49.0382,0.00439453) (50.0383,0) (51.0382,0.0560303) (52.0382,0.00146484) (53.0382,0.00292969) (54.0382,0.00366211) (55.0382,0.0970764) (56.0382,0.147461) (57.0382,0.0100098) (58.0566,0.127441) (59.0382,0.000244141) (60.0948,0.104549) (61.0407,0.00130208) (62.0382,0.00146484) (63.0948,0.183364) (64.1007,0.00854492) (65.1007,0.00146484) (66.0407,0.144011) (67.0382,0.0854492) (68.0629,0.00268555) (69.0382,0.098877) (70.0382,0.143799) (71.0382,0.00146484) (72.0382,0.00643921) (73.0382,0.00195312) (74.0382,0) (75.0382,0.123047) (76.0382,0.289795) (77.0382,0.00497437) (78.0382,0.130615) (79.0948,0.00298714) (80.0407,0) (81.0382,0.139832) (82.0382,0.00146484) (83.0382,0.00366211) (84.0382,0.00195312) (85.0947,0.130831) (86.0407,0.2875) (87.0382,0.0112305) (88.0382,0.205566) (89.0382,0) (90.0382,0.161133) (91.0866,0.0012207) (92.1436,0.103401) (93.0407,0.10625) (94.0862,0.00317383) (95.0948,0.00298714) (96.0407,0.163281) (97.0382,0.141846) (98.0681,0.00415039) (99.0923,0.112305) (100.095,0.0778953) (101.066,0) (102.095,0.0039637) (103.101,0) (104.041,0.00286458) (105.038,0.101562) (106.038,0.16983) (107.038,0.00177002) (108.038,0.13208) (109.038,0.0012207) (110.038,0.000244141) (111.038,6.10352e-05) (112.038,0.13446) (113.038,0.000244141) (114.038,0.000244141) (115.038,0.0936584) (116.038,0.169189) (117.038,0.000732422) (118.038,0.124512) (119.038,0) (120.038,0.0930176) (121.038,0.00244141) (122.096,0.00170898) (123.038,0.204346) (124.06,0.00146484) (125.095,0.00137868) (126.041,0.155729) (127.038,0.0397949) (128.038,0.00244141) (129.038,0.0012207) (130.057,0.205566) (131.038,0) (132.038,0.003479) (133.038,0) (134.095,0.000229779) (135.101,0.123291) (136.041,0.180567) (137.038,0.104797) (138.038,0.0961914) (139.038,0.000732422) (140.038,0.000244141) (141.038,0.000732422) (142.038,0.134735) (143.095,0.000229779) (144.041,0.00104167) (145.038,0.136932) (146.038,0.263184) (147.038,0.00292969) (148.038,0.178467) (149.038,0.0012207) (150.038,0.161133) (151.038,0.00244141) (152.038,0.00268555) (153.038,0.0922852) (154.038,0.104004) (155.038,0.000244141) (156.095,0.122703) (157.041,0.149219) (158.038,0.0012207) (159.038,0.00244141) (160.038,0.249512) (161.038,0) (162.038,0.00292969) (163.095,0.000517004) (164.041,0.000260417) (165.095,0.0746783) (166.155,0.0596924) (167.041,0.112825) (168.087,0.121826) (169.038,0.000488281) (170.038,0.000244141) (171.038,0) (172.038,0.136353) (173.038,0.00146484) (174.038,0.00170898) (175.038,0.0888977) (176.038,0.168213) (177.038,0.0012207) (178.038,0.19165) (179.095,0.00160846) (180.101,0.0854492) (181.101,0.0012207) (182.041,0.00260417) (183.038,0.00219727) (184.038,0.189941) (185.038,0.000244141) (186.095,0.107766) (187.041,0.120573) (188.038,0.0012207) (189.038,0.00244141) (190.06,0.17041) (191.038,0.00317383) (192.038,0.00268555) (193.095,5.74449e-05) (194.041,0.000260417) (195.095,0.115579) (196.041,0.184505) (197.038,0.122864) (198.038,0.0927734) (199.038,0) (200.088,0.000244141) (201.038,0) (202.095,0.112736) (203.101,0) (204.041,0.000520833) (205.095,0.111587) (206.041,0.275521) (207.038,0.000244141) (208.038,0.105957) (209.038,0) (210.038,0.148926) (211.038,0.00341797) (212.038,0.00244141) (213.038,0.00146484) (214.038,0.191895) (215.038,0.00170898) (216.095,0.00137868) (217.041,0.229167) (218.095,0.00137868) (219.041,0.00260417) (220.038,0.2146) (221.038,0.0402832) (222.095,0.00252757) (223.041,6.51042e-05) (224.038,0.000244141) (225.095,0.089614) (226.101,0.0919495) (227.041,0.106315) (228.095,0.113281) (229.041,0) (230.095,0.000229779) (231.041,0) (232.038,0.134644) (233.095,0) (234.041,0.00260417) (235.038,0.103271) (236.038,0.200684) (237.095,0.000229779) (238.101,0.161133) (239.051,0.00390625) (240.038,0) (241.038,0.10498) (242.038,0.0012207) (243.085,0.00244141) (244.095,0.179228) (245.068,0.000260417) (246.038,0.00146484) (247.038,0.233398) (248.038,0.00170898) (249.038,0.00146484) (250.095,0.101562) (251.041,0.0908854) (252.095,0.00298714) (253.101,6.10352e-05) (254.041,0.00208333) (255.095,0.111443) (256.101,0.13739) (257.101,0.214661) (258.101,0) (259.101,0.000976562) (260.101,0) (261.101,0.000244141) (262.101,0.12912) (263.101,0.0354004) (264.101,5.27954) (265.101,27.396) (266.041,46.4794) (267.095,118.084) (268.101,288.596) (269.041,332.397) (270.095,332.926) (271.041,334.027) (272.095,333.512) (273.041,333.99) (274.096,334.118) (275.041,332.801) (276.038,333.746) (277.038,333.289) (278.095,333.669) (279.041,333.592) (280.038,333.6) (281.038,334.059) (282.038,333.705) (283.038,333.228) (284.095,333.725) (285.041,333.656) (286.038,333.479) (287.095,334.038) (288.041,333.522) (289.095,333.953) (290.041,333.547) (291.038,334.03) (292.038,333.572) (293.095,333.395) (294.041,333.368) (295.038,333.787) (296.038,318.243) (297.095,316.362) (298.101,313.269) (299.041,311.533) (300.038,312.26) (301.038,312.946) (302.038,312.958) (303.038,312.644) (304.038,313.042) (305.095,323.606) (306.041,333.423) (307.095,333.641) (308.041,333.98) (309.095,326.457) (310.041,312.208) (311.038,312.803) (312.038,312.673) (313.095,314.02) (314.101,318.192) (315.041,291.076) (316.038,291.494) (317.095,310.737) (318.041,328.711) (319.038,316.181) (320.038,321.302) (321.095,308.578) (322.101,292.802) (323.041,291.487) (324.038,296.026) (325.095,298.201) (326.041,305.244) (327.038,292.095) (328.038,291.716) (329.038,297.28) (330.038,311.276) (331.038,296.782) (332.095,295.683) (333.101,290.215) (334.041,291.667) (335.038,287.44) (336.038,295.638) (337.095,308.777) (338.041,294.119) (339.095,296.338) (340.041,285.575) (341.038,283.253) (342.038,282.467) (343.038,281.988) (344.095,270.424) (345.041,271.913) (346.038,262.393) (347.038,263.73) (348.038,260.1) (349.038,246.882) (350.038,248.832) (351.038,250.28) (352.038,238.774) (353.095,240.252) (354.041,214.329) (355.038,209.787) (356.038,208.908) (357.038,209.246) (358.038,205.201) (359.095,216.797) (360.041,194.712) (361.095,159.289) (362.041,179.811) (363.038,184.304) (364.038,160.534) (365.095,147.338) (366.041,134.064) (367.113,114.429) (368.041,104.872) (369.095,106.314) (370.041,108.162) (371.038,122.93) (372.038,98.546) (373.095,62.867) (374.101,97.1861) (375.041,79.9451) (376.095,61.8299) (377.101,68.2597) (378.101,63.2971) (379.041,82.8233) (380.095,79.0165) (381.101,84.7751) (382.101,73.5464) (383.101,65.7578) (384.101,71.1163) (385.101,65.0868) (386.101,65.2727) (387.041,69.6246) (388.038,63.2529) (389.095,70.7824) (390.101,66.2734) (391.041,69.8636) (392.095,64.6895) (393.101,64.9693) (394.101,67.8138) (395.041,72.4102) (396.095,62.4602) (397.101,72.5112) (398.041,67.3918) (399.095,64.9775) (400.041,49.0323) (401.095,85.1037) (402.041,167.148) (403.095,64.4008) (404.101,130.752) (405.101,273.308) (406.041,68.4787) (407.095,49.1215) (408.041,44.78) (409.095,58.0853) (410.041,44.4927) (411.095,34.7417) (412.041,39.3389) (413.095,19.5853) (414.041,22.2692) (415.095,19.6616) (416.101,20.9894) (417.101,21.3476) (418.101,20.8524) (419.041,22.6001) (420.095,19.6461) (421.101,21.0127) (422.101,20.8614) (423.041,22.256) (424.095,19.8483) (425.101,20.8596) (426.101,20.8654) (427.101,21.0485) (428.101,20.9415) (429.101,20.8492) (430.101,21.0391) (431.101,4.0936) (432.101,0.546875) };
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\vspace{\smallskipamount}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileLeft,
title={TeraSort with Thrill}
]
\addplot coordinates { (0.090337,0.133859) (1.09597,2.48501) (2.09597,2.11608) (3.09597,2.08139) (4.09597,1.8867) (5.09597,1.8299) (6.09597,1.81789) (7.09597,1.94145) (8.09597,2.05334) (9.09597,1.94177) (10.096,2.12911) (11.096,2.08793) (12.096,1.91937) (13.096,1.74085) (14.096,1.84153) (15.096,1.99457) (16.096,2.03296) (17.096,2.11174) (18.096,2.01958) (19.096,2.0536) (20.096,2.15996) (21.096,1.92533) (22.096,1.91578) (23.096,2.15588) (24.096,2.00316) (25.096,1.99835) (26.096,2.20403) (27.096,2.24542) (28.096,2.27026) (29.096,2.32607) (30.096,2.24046) (31.096,2.13929) (32.096,2.24343) (33.096,2.34974) (34.096,2.46094) (35.096,2.56435) (36.096,2.03315) (37.096,2.40026) (38.096,2.32526) (39.096,2.42989) (40.096,2.41498) (41.096,2.34144) (42.096,2.4255) (43.096,2.98209) (44.096,6.21691) (45.096,14.9382) (46.096,22.4615) (47.096,28.9238) (48.096,32.3109) (49.096,34.2002) (50.096,45.2054) (51.096,59.1687) (52.096,68.5032) (53.096,79.2226) (54.096,88.1914) (55.0357,92.1224) (56.0903,71.8778) (57.096,1.90825) (58.0357,2.45125) (59.0335,28.6262) (60.0335,47.5145) (61.0904,50.9879) (62.0357,52.4036) (63.0335,53.1145) (64.0904,51.4684) (65.0357,48.5834) (66.0335,45.0361) (67.0335,44.8983) (68.0335,45.0997) (69.0335,44.5264) (70.0903,43.9611) (71.096,43.807) (72.0357,43.5232) (73.0335,43.3876) (74.0335,42.8823) (75.0903,40.5534) (76.0357,36.4395) (77.0335,33.9606) (78.0903,25.4) (79.0357,24.5922) (80.0903,19.8155) (81.0357,15.475) (82.0903,9.22205) (83.096,7.43667) (84.096,6.55797) (85.096,6.36987) (86.096,5.81152) (87.096,4.6147) (88.096,4.06298) (89.096,3.30758) (90.1233,2.57963) (91.096,2.3828) (92.096,2.40301) (93.096,3.26737) (94.096,4.7232) (95.096,5.09419) (96.096,5.45125) (97.096,4.95577) (98.096,5.82492) (99.096,7.3005) (100.096,7.95716) (101.096,9.94619) (102.096,10.2259) (103.096,9.8766) (104.096,10.168) (105.096,10.1125) (106.096,12.0971) (107.096,13.2413) (108.096,14.8875) (109.096,14.8106) (110.096,14.3843) (111.096,15.1203) (112.096,15.7296) (113.096,17.0487) (114.096,17.7718) (115.096,17.5778) (116.096,18.5081) (117.096,19.4504) (118.096,20.5888) (119.036,17.5356) (120.09,25.8095) (121.036,18.0052) (122.033,24.6975) (123.033,25.2524) (124.09,29.7649) (125.036,21.2301) (126.033,28.3532) (127.09,35.7265) (128.096,35.5893) (129.096,39.4875) (130.096,46.7414) (131.096,57.8713) (132.096,83.5679) (133.096,91.4887) (134.096,92.732) (135.096,80.0732) (136.133,75.6987) (137.036,50.4147) (138.033,46.3462) (139.09,43.9952) (140.036,44.1097) (141.033,36.4828) (142.09,21.2968) (143.036,22.8244) (144.09,18.27) (145.096,18.7373) (146.096,18.3842) (147.096,18.1865) (148.036,19.3858) (149.09,17.1093) (150.096,18.0014) (151.096,18.0853) (152.036,19.2186) (153.09,16.8178) (154.036,19.1805) (155.09,16.9666) (156.096,17.8195) (157.036,19.1524) (158.09,17.0375) (159.036,19.0112) (160.09,17.0098) (161.036,19.2447) (162.09,16.8709) (163.096,18.063) (164.036,19.1862) (165.09,16.9603) (166.036,19.2418) (167.09,17.0558) (168.036,19.0583) (169.09,17.0752) (170.096,18.2038) (171.036,19.1737) (172.09,17.1431) (173.036,19.3271) (174.09,17.1517) (175.036,19.2788) (176.09,17.6785) (177.096,19.303) (178.036,21.2225) (179.09,18.2015) (180.096,19.4048) (181.096,19.093) (182.096,19.1358) (183.096,19.1976) (184.036,20.8924) (185.09,18.52) (186.096,19.735) (187.036,20.695) (188.09,18.2644) (189.096,19.41) (190.096,19.2837) (191.096,19.2307) (192.096,19.6189) (193.096,20.6687) (194.096,20.0689) (195.096,19.9886) (196.096,19.8298) (197.096,19.6209) (198.096,19.7854) (199.096,20.0519) (200.036,22.1597) (201.033,21.5815) (202.033,22.6013) (203.09,20.8164) (204.036,23.5928) (205.091,21.1683) (206.036,23.8694) (207.09,21.6675) (208.036,24.065) (209.09,21.2448) (210.096,22.7575) (211.096,22.9702) (212.096,23.2136) (213.096,23.4189) (214.096,23.3101) (215.096,24.0395) (216.096,24.632) (217.096,24.9896) (218.096,26.4143) (219.096,26.6528) (220.096,27.6338) (221.096,28.212) (222.096,29.8989) (223.036,39.0094) (224.09,37.6439) (225.036,45.7613) (226.09,40.3374) (227.036,45.5539) (228.09,41.6076) (229.096,44.4946) (230.096,44.6171) (231.096,45.0005) (232.096,45.9907) (233.096,46.3506) (234.096,46.9992) (235.096,46.6282) (236.096,46.8009) (237.096,46.3645) (238.096,46.6635) (239.096,46.5983) (240.096,47.003) (241.096,48.0026) (242.096,48.9135) (243.096,49.095) (244.096,49.1456) (245.096,49.1053) (246.096,49.152) (247.096,49.145) (248.096,49.3277) (249.096,49.2955) (250.096,49.2709) (251.096,49.2582) (252.097,49.1928) (253.096,49.7063) (254.096,49.7273) (255.036,52.8112) (256.09,44.8724) (257.036,46.7333) (258.09,40.9573) (259.096,41.2965) (260.096,38.3129) (261.096,38.065) (262.096,38.1572) (263.096,37.991) (264.096,37.9742) (265.096,38.0632) (266.096,38.0386) (267.036,40.8351) (268.09,31.1845) (269.096,34.7608) (270.096,35.4069) (271.096,37.3485) (272.096,36.7759) (273.096,36.735) (274.096,36.7667) (275.096,37.6888) (276.096,37.8952) (277.096,24.2763) (278.096,14.708) (279.096,5.08085) };
\end{axis}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileRight,
]
\pgfplotsset{cycle list shift=1}
\addplot coordinates { (0.090337,21.7833) (1.09597,486.92) (2.09597,696.688) (3.09597,678.415) (4.09597,632.826) (5.09597,629.711) (6.09597,635.42) (7.09597,670.078) (8.09597,704.782) (9.09597,683.675) (10.096,726.658) (11.096,724.846) (12.096,668.341) (13.096,628.038) (14.096,666.194) (15.096,692.98) (16.096,717.499) (17.096,748.679) (18.096,711.482) (19.096,730.942) (20.096,753.104) (21.096,679.538) (22.096,679.719) (23.096,764.258) (24.096,722.704) (25.096,713.182) (26.096,765.25) (27.096,750.947) (28.096,774.94) (29.096,796.382) (30.096,759.359) (31.096,736.926) (32.096,759.443) (33.096,784.307) (34.096,799.004) (35.096,807.107) (36.096,684.174) (37.096,752.417) (38.096,703.771) (39.096,735.861) (40.096,691.322) (41.096,656.363) (42.096,625.752) (43.096,609.06) (44.096,574.566) (45.096,469.242) (46.096,434.429) (47.096,390.24) (48.096,314.899) (49.096,249.189) (50.096,177.158) (51.096,129.459) (52.096,62.378) (53.096,35.6599) (54.096,12.8437) (55.0357,1.21921) (56.0903,5.26213) (57.096,16.7704) (58.0357,2.065) (59.0335,1.12891) (60.0335,6.99151) (61.0904,0.00456647) (62.0357,0.00704785) (63.0335,3.18735) (64.0904,61.2084) (65.0357,100.019) (66.0335,95.2394) (67.0335,72.1942) (68.0335,69.7198) (69.0335,69.7248) (70.0903,68.385) (71.096,69.9508) (72.0357,71.7144) (73.0335,66.7135) (74.0335,88.0696) (75.0903,96.0426) (76.0357,102.219) (77.0335,125.635) (78.0903,256.638) (79.0357,165.161) (80.0903,352.997) (81.0357,287.211) (82.0903,543.818) (83.096,620.813) (84.096,694.293) (85.096,861.888) (86.096,804.532) (87.096,843.832) (88.096,902.907) (89.096,957.994) (90.1233,961.962) (91.096,889.181) (92.096,802.579) (93.096,821.878) (94.096,879.071) (95.096,874.699) (96.096,838.717) (97.096,731.38) (98.096,811.813) (99.096,825.952) (100.096,841.832) (101.096,836.231) (102.096,864.804) (103.096,758.178) (104.096,736.282) (105.096,757.5) (106.096,800.733) (107.096,883.859) (108.096,839.323) (109.096,758.406) (110.096,703.945) (111.096,640.657) (112.096,728.937) (113.096,648.959) (114.096,770.217) (115.096,678.576) (116.096,600.707) (117.096,673.957) (118.096,564.377) (119.036,457.986) (120.09,445.005) (121.036,315.007) (122.033,267.097) (123.033,172.355) (124.09,238.162) (125.036,350.546) (126.033,190.514) (127.09,195.144) (128.096,149.908) (129.096,198.943) (130.096,299.289) (131.096,306.891) (132.096,285.926) (133.096,97.3806) (134.096,2.91472) (135.096,137.621) (136.133,250.071) (137.036,170.668) (138.033,325.954) (139.09,505.462) (140.036,645.371) (141.033,429.337) (142.09,290.096) (143.036,331.467) (144.09,332.829) (145.096,350.452) (146.096,328.785) (147.096,360.377) (148.036,370.361) (149.09,365.853) (150.096,300.963) (151.096,341.319) (152.036,354.899) (153.09,287.649) (154.036,333.061) (155.09,305.109) (156.096,268.125) (157.036,346.789) (158.09,346.921) (159.036,287.586) (160.09,328.794) (161.036,358.33) (162.09,317.461) (163.096,319.562) (164.036,342.873) (165.09,312.867) (166.036,354.181) (167.09,335.895) (168.036,307.179) (169.09,313.867) (170.096,351.76) (171.036,310.036) (172.09,303.306) (173.036,327.145) (174.09,323.748) (175.036,308.05) (176.09,366.361) (177.096,334.511) (178.036,276.95) (179.09,292.861) (180.096,298.083) (181.096,261.597) (182.096,269.888) (183.096,279.522) (184.036,271.653) (185.09,263.198) (186.096,295.592) (187.036,233.304) (188.09,234.06) (189.096,236.815) (190.096,157.762) (191.096,187.666) (192.096,207.417) (193.096,286.42) (194.096,173.817) (195.096,178.086) (196.096,146.782) (197.096,96.4804) (198.096,169.607) (199.096,110.553) (200.036,153.591) (201.033,190.679) (202.033,273.622) (203.09,315.702) (204.036,307.812) (205.091,187.858) (206.036,196.324) (207.09,379.106) (208.036,250.31) (209.09,204.192) (210.096,144.382) (211.096,116.369) (212.096,224.62) (213.096,243.722) (214.096,75.6814) (215.096,64.633) (216.096,93.7418) (217.096,92.298) (218.096,153.041) (219.096,73.4028) (220.096,43.6363) (221.096,46.8427) (222.096,141.571) (223.036,112.454) (224.09,98.9017) (225.036,106.723) (226.09,193.051) (227.036,177.902) (228.09,320.281) (229.096,303.415) (230.096,317.379) (231.096,298.507) (232.096,209.233) (233.096,227.378) (234.096,408.238) (235.096,232.068) (236.096,354.092) (237.096,90.2427) (238.096,86.7661) (239.096,44.1937) (240.096,30.3994) (241.096,72.4492) (242.096,40.1774) (243.096,27.6935) (244.096,17.339) (245.096,8.79655) (246.096,17.8934) (247.096,24.8449) (248.096,85.2658) (249.096,49.5205) (250.096,25.8339) (251.096,43.3426) (252.097,33.3734) (253.096,156.46) (254.096,72.3723) (255.036,13.2496) (256.09,148.027) (257.036,66.5833) (258.09,24.6243) (259.096,35.8159) (260.096,30.7973) (261.096,22.7262) (262.096,16.4951) (263.096,17.8034) (264.096,10.0124) (265.096,23.5061) (266.096,15.6287) (267.036,23.6134) (268.09,23.3809) (269.096,29.5771) (270.096,17.2359) (271.096,30.8989) (272.096,20.563) (273.096,3.67562) (274.096,10.5649) (275.096,37.2378) (276.096,14.8787) (277.096,38.4236) (278.096,7.50401) (279.096,1.34377) };
\addplot coordinates { (0.090337,0) (1.09597,0.327881) (2.09597,0.0942383) (3.09597,0.321838) (4.09597,0.0916748) (5.09597,0.00610352) (6.09597,0.00146484) (7.09597,0.265137) (8.09597,0.128601) (9.09597,0.149139) (10.096,0.157959) (11.096,0.729126) (12.096,0.226318) (13.096,0.00338745) (14.096,0) (15.096,0.124756) (16.096,0) (17.096,0.103027) (18.096,0.0012207) (19.096,0) (20.096,0.000732422) (21.096,0) (22.096,0.150879) (23.096,0.00241089) (24.096,0.000732422) (25.096,0.00268555) (26.096,0.000244141) (27.096,0) (28.096,0.107391) (29.096,0.0017395) (30.096,0.00320435) (31.096,0.00170898) (32.096,0.00170898) (33.096,0.00415039) (34.096,0.00170898) (35.096,0.000488281) (36.096,0) (37.096,0.00378418) (38.096,0.00390625) (39.096,0.00390625) (40.096,0.00219727) (41.096,0.00424194) (42.096,0.00268555) (43.096,0) (44.096,0) (45.096,0.000488281) (46.096,0) (47.096,0.00268555) (48.096,0.00219727) (49.096,0) (50.096,0) (51.096,0) (52.096,0.00585938) (53.096,0.00170898) (54.096,0) (55.0357,0) (56.0903,0.00160846) (57.096,0) (58.0357,0.000520833) (59.0335,0.00170898) (60.0335,0.000183105) (61.0904,0.000459558) (62.0357,0.000520833) (63.0335,0) (64.0904,0.000545726) (65.0357,0) (66.0335,0) (67.0335,0.00115967) (68.0335,0.000976562) (69.0335,0.00195312) (70.0903,0.000919118) (71.096,0.00253296) (72.0357,0.000520833) (73.0335,0.000488281) (74.0335,0) (75.0903,0.000459558) (76.0357,0) (77.0335,0.000488281) (78.0903,0) (79.0357,0.00104167) (80.0903,0) (81.0357,0) (82.0903,0.000459558) (83.096,0) (84.096,0.000976562) (85.096,0) (86.096,0.000488281) (87.096,0) (88.096,0.000488281) (89.096,0.000823975) (90.1233,0) (91.096,0.000579834) (92.096,0) (93.096,0.000488281) (94.096,0.000579834) (95.096,0.00512695) (96.096,0.020752) (97.096,0.0367126) (98.096,0.084198) (99.096,0.015625) (100.096,0.77124) (101.096,27.6697) (102.096,66.6724) (103.096,7.8335) (104.096,10.2695) (105.096,9.6097) (106.096,91.4777) (107.096,189.479) (108.096,166.533) (109.096,163.623) (110.096,128.027) (111.096,191.278) (112.096,190.408) (113.096,142.385) (114.096,192.192) (115.096,54.3633) (116.096,80.5123) (117.096,80.7431) (118.096,16.9621) (119.036,119.838) (120.09,123.007) (121.036,78.6285) (122.033,157.187) (123.033,163.735) (124.09,199.519) (125.036,213.212) (126.033,145.117) (127.09,96.6845) (128.096,33.8) (129.096,53.0581) (130.096,162.529) (131.096,158.113) (132.096,252.326) (133.096,126.378) (134.096,25.7706) (135.096,127.091) (136.133,161.28) (137.036,214.492) (138.033,292.341) (139.09,294.885) (140.036,329.431) (141.033,328.269) (142.09,331.276) (143.036,328.856) (144.09,324.591) (145.096,327.915) (146.096,328.865) (147.096,329.872) (148.036,331.887) (149.09,332.268) (150.096,322.412) (151.096,315.646) (152.036,316.188) (153.09,310.019) (154.036,329.387) (155.09,304.426) (156.096,316.827) (157.036,317.25) (158.09,306.536) (159.036,316.235) (160.09,311.748) (161.036,329.232) (162.09,313.987) (163.096,323.023) (164.036,324.17) (165.09,325.509) (166.036,327.277) (167.09,322.905) (168.036,321.054) (169.09,316.772) (170.096,321.234) (171.036,323.323) (172.09,324.937) (173.036,325.645) (174.09,326.732) (175.036,321.378) (176.09,324.245) (177.096,321.808) (178.036,324.67) (179.09,315.181) (180.096,301.964) (181.096,298.237) (182.096,276.368) (183.096,296.724) (184.036,283.396) (185.09,253.079) (186.096,269.175) (187.036,266.89) (188.09,235.375) (189.096,246.721) (190.096,245.738) (191.096,222.443) (192.096,218.016) (193.096,269.844) (194.096,212.52) (195.096,166.555) (196.096,157.945) (197.096,145.79) (198.096,161.699) (199.096,148.585) (200.036,171.461) (201.033,176.759) (202.033,225.136) (203.09,282.843) (204.036,309.796) (205.091,182.578) (206.036,221.338) (207.09,313.509) (208.036,302.988) (209.09,253.422) (210.096,164.042) (211.096,184.726) (212.096,245.982) (213.096,216.857) (214.096,78.8909) (215.096,104.495) (216.096,69.92) (217.096,100.904) (218.096,168.289) (219.096,93.1344) (220.096,73.9816) (221.096,61.7231) (222.096,101.794) (223.036,104.282) (224.09,103.5) (225.036,80.8662) (226.09,203.33) (227.036,180.36) (228.09,277.966) (229.096,295.987) (230.096,289.993) (231.096,272.917) (232.096,237.597) (233.096,237.741) (234.096,306.392) (235.096,287.73) (236.096,290.15) (237.096,208.238) (238.096,113.087) (239.096,70.2917) (240.096,65.0234) (241.096,67.6889) (242.096,52.8503) (243.096,60.134) (244.096,20.5467) (245.096,20.9102) (246.096,21.8054) (247.096,28.5848) (248.096,60.1682) (249.096,49.214) (250.096,24.3921) (251.096,35.5467) (252.097,35.7532) (253.096,138.908) (254.096,86.3136) (255.036,22.5019) (256.09,129.83) (257.036,87.6003) (258.09,42.4976) (259.096,30.4561) (260.096,20.9812) (261.096,29.7286) (262.096,22.6721) (263.096,20.8942) (264.096,21.6167) (265.096,21.0529) (266.096,20.5701) (267.036,21.9398) (268.09,18.1101) (269.096,21.0471) (270.096,18.5879) (271.096,21.5669) (272.096,21.6866) (273.096,20.5299) (274.096,20.4879) (275.096,25.8025) (276.096,18.0041) (277.096,20.2926) (278.096,25.3866) (279.096,24.1994) };
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\vspace{\smallskipamount}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileLeft,
title={KMeans with Spark (Scala)},
]
\addplot coordinates { (0.029679,0) (1.02968,0.941917) (2.08676,6.27201) (3.09218,7.53282) (4.09217,1.397) (5.03165,0.194569) (6.02968,0.530019) (7.08675,1.60059) (8.03165,0.653241) (9.02967,0.160602) (10.0299,13.4298) (11.0298,65.5923) (12.0297,83.8168) (13.0297,49.3969) (14.0303,22.4586) (15.0297,59.2718) (16.0297,60.7028) (17.0297,26.7033) (18.0297,45.7413) (19.0305,77.5856) (20.0297,74.696) (21.0868,52.1647) (22.0317,45.0377) (23.0297,33.7617) (24.0297,35.7543) (25.0299,54.4551) (26.0868,69.8713) (27.0317,76.4901) (28.0868,70.5842) (29.0922,57.4037) (30.0317,42.2114) (31.0868,35.1931) (32.0317,33.2168) (33.0297,31.6359) (34.0297,46.6121) (35.0298,46.7232) (36.0297,67.2957) (37.0297,76.6822) (38.0297,72.6215) (39.0298,75.1266) (40.0297,72.7901) (41.0297,64.6891) (42.0868,48.927) (43.0922,44.1208) (44.0317,36.09) (45.0297,34.4499) (46.0297,22.436) (47.0297,25.8184) (48.0297,31.9084) (49.0868,45.0077) (50.0317,44.1382) (51.0297,54.6602) (52.0868,30.7266) (53.0922,11.9724) (54.0922,8.71657) (55.0922,8.75682) (56.0922,8.76816) (57.0922,8.76035) (58.0922,8.76407) (59.0922,8.20304) (60.0922,4.70795) (61.0922,1.28847) (62.0317,0.433452) (63.0297,0.406309) (64.0297,0.404357) (65.0867,0.391605) (66.0922,2.23039) (67.0922,1.63368) (68.0317,0.814718) (69.0297,35.104) (70.0297,88.5706) (71.0297,72.968) (72.0297,69.8001) (73.0868,38.5094) (74.0922,25.4992) (75.0316,19.0855) (76.0297,22.2799) (77.0297,25.621) (78.0297,22.8632) (79.0297,13.7567) (80.0868,8.50336) (81.0922,2.20395) (82.0922,0.982482) (83.0922,0.978819) (84.0922,2.51234) (85.0317,10.8966) (86.0297,15.6571) (87.0297,12.3728) (88.0297,11.5902) (89.0297,11.691) (90.0297,13.727) (91.0297,13.2893) (92.0297,14.0165) (93.0297,16.3265) (94.0297,17.6869) (95.0297,16.3704) (96.0297,13.6996) (97.0297,15.1283) (98.0297,14.8896) (99.0297,11.1828) (100.03,11.7058) (101.03,11.9783) (102.03,10.6222) (103.03,5.37831) (104.03,3.53376) (105.03,4.94596) (106.03,6.68942) (107.03,7.63697) (108.03,7.49796) (109.03,6.70029) (110.03,6.66615) (111.03,6.6812) (112.03,6.76115) (113.03,10.4531) (114.03,10.756) (115.03,14.403) (116.03,15.1297) (117.03,15.7315) (118.03,15.5327) (119.03,18.2858) (120.03,27.1751) (121.03,29.7594) (122.03,24.121) (123.03,20.1959) (124.03,18.209) (125.03,14.7851) (126.03,15.26) (127.03,15.281) (128.03,15.1037) (129.03,16.3933) (130.03,12.9844) (131.03,7.05694) (132.03,6.71179) (133.03,6.56846) (134.03,7.08256) (135.03,6.46421) (136.03,7.10836) (137.03,6.72376) (138.03,6.07797) (139.03,7.25765) (140.03,6.0288) (141.03,5.86383) (142.03,7.03998) (143.03,5.8275) (144.03,6.50304) (145.03,5.87256) (146.03,8.04911) (147.03,6.96028) (148.03,5.3556) (149.03,6.16525) (150.03,5.66523) (151.03,5.36021) (152.03,5.46728) (153.03,5.28391) (154.03,4.71709) (155.03,4.53819) (156.03,4.26004) (157.03,4.58272) (158.03,4.01283) (159.03,3.56145) (160.03,4.03064) (161.03,4.18858) (162.03,3.38658) (163.03,4.16102) (164.03,3.62917) (165.03,3.2111) (166.03,4.19359) (167.03,3.7296) (168.03,3.10339) (169.03,3.46899) (170.03,3.41059) (171.03,2.91546) (172.03,3.27144) (173.03,2.94616) (174.03,3.24736) (175.03,3.1124) (176.087,2.95338) (177.092,2.82602) (178.032,3.07876) (179.087,2.41599) (180.032,2.43601) (181.03,3.04107) (182.03,1.88137) (183.03,1.35178) (184.087,1.22641) (185.092,1.3213) (186.092,1.86546) (187.092,1.22552) (188.092,1.26597) (189.092,1.57307) (190.092,1.35516) (191.032,1.52115) (192.087,1.2013) (193.092,1.41052) (194.092,1.43408) (195.032,1.31909) (196.03,1.21127) (197.087,1.17047) (198.092,1.44589) (199.092,1.5834) (200.092,0.981387) (201.092,0.803154) (202.092,0.805196) (203.092,0.731026) (204.092,0.603935) (205.092,0.837715) (206.092,0.562841) (207.092,0.517876) (208.092,0.613745) (209.032,0.833507) (210.03,0.539245) (211.087,0.562964) (212.092,0.537399) (213.092,0.623447) (214.092,0.52574) (215.092,0.603905) (216.092,0.763811) (217.092,0.554902) (218.092,0.384875) (219.092,0.287164) (220.092,0.375359) (221.092,0.271609) (222.092,0.365367) (223.092,0.308799) (224.032,0.235436) (225.03,7.57592) (226.03,69.9293) (227.03,31.2262) (228.087,9.08005) (229.092,5.26165) (230.092,2.94871) (231.032,7.40906) (232.03,1.33342) (233.068,48.5509) (234.03,92.8161) (235.03,89.4048) (236.03,90.3844) (237.03,90.3687) (238.03,37.0955) (239.03,19.5802) (240.03,92.2203) (241.03,90.0779) (242.03,90.3683) (243.03,88.9028) (244.03,40.3269) (245.03,13.0784) (246.03,71.8784) (247.03,91.6611) (248.03,86.9819) (249.03,93.826) (250.03,40.9101) (251.03,10.5758) (252.03,86.5279) (253.03,89.8675) (254.03,89.9797) (255.03,86.4064) (256.03,30.7366) (257.03,10.6397) (258.03,96.3691) (259.03,88.285) (260.03,91.2642) (261.03,77.0785) (262.03,23.0531) (263.087,48.0232) (264.032,93.091) (265.03,90.2629) (266.03,91.8242) (267.03,60.2408) (268.03,11.4941) (269.03,68.9865) (270.03,93.0169) (271.03,90.518) (272.03,89.9562) (273.03,38.6033) (274.03,13.7353) (275.03,96.2327) (276.03,89.8346) (277.03,90.6846) (278.03,77.923) (279.03,24.9999) (280.03,35.1274) (281.03,95.9907) (282.03,90.0791) (283.03,89.7962) (284.03,64.1264) (285.03,12.0508) (286.03,91.1492) (287.03,89.1476) (288.03,89.0966) (289.03,83.3368) (290.03,19.9831) (291.03,21.7518) (292.087,98.8888) (293.032,97.045) (294.03,78.8372) };
\end{axis}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileRight,
]
\pgfplotsset{cycle list shift=1}
\addplot coordinates { (0.029679,0) (1.02968,0.039444) (2.08676,2.83621) (3.09218,19.3857) (4.09217,22.476) (5.03165,18.8243) (6.02968,23.5552) (7.08675,11.0103) (8.03165,0.284038) (9.02967,1.44326) (10.0299,19.2458) (11.0298,614.703) (12.0297,1021.19) (13.0297,378.474) (14.0303,41.51) (15.0297,152.865) (16.0297,256.648) (17.0297,131.943) (18.0297,782.146) (19.0305,899.722) (20.0297,635.994) (21.0868,236.115) (22.0317,21.8096) (23.0297,288.157) (24.0297,402.781) (25.0299,749.41) (26.0868,692.63) (27.0317,717.108) (28.0868,536.075) (29.0922,9.71804) (30.0317,0.00864561) (31.0868,90.8701) (32.0317,202.449) (33.0297,428.974) (34.0297,823.791) (35.0298,469.568) (36.0297,1076.95) (37.0297,872.353) (38.0297,582.101) (39.0298,583.749) (40.0297,404.406) (41.0297,22.5698) (42.0868,0.0089395) (43.0922,0.0109796) (44.0317,0.00781266) (45.0297,88.7811) (46.0297,145.962) (47.0297,479.369) (48.0297,364.33) (49.0868,774.416) (50.0317,572.813) (51.0297,859.577) (52.0868,437.097) (53.0922,77.275) (54.0922,0.00678884) (55.0922,0.0124543) (56.0922,0.0138941) (57.0922,0.0071245) (58.0922,0.00943656) (59.0922,0.0073272) (60.0922,0.0110261) (61.0922,0.0358397) (62.0317,0.0330896) (63.0297,0.027386) (64.0297,0.0365131) (65.0867,1.37491) (66.0922,52.3037) (67.0922,38.4942) (68.0317,15.5177) (69.0297,6.22256) (70.0297,0.723499) (71.0297,0.729183) (72.0297,1.09468) (73.0868,0.172681) (74.0922,0.00912825) (75.0316,0.00749022) (76.0297,0.00983124) (77.0297,0.122235) (78.0297,0.0274275) (79.0297,0.00774768) (80.0868,0.0140541) (81.0922,0.00717356) (82.0922,0.00430943) (83.0922,0.00427687) (84.0922,0.273362) (85.0317,0.169164) (86.0297,0.269526) (87.0297,0.110873) (88.0297,7.19326) (89.0297,8.28274) (90.0297,9.56841) (91.0297,16.8492) (92.0297,14.0825) (93.0297,6.65999) (94.0297,0.0458931) (95.0297,0.0281453) (96.0297,3.4173) (97.0297,10.7706) (98.0297,11.3784) (99.0297,15.3974) (100.03,26.772) (101.03,25.4862) (102.03,27.5311) (103.03,34.748) (104.03,26.3561) (105.03,35.7845) (106.03,56.5009) (107.03,48.2409) (108.03,46.8659) (109.03,59.8041) (110.03,51.0103) (111.03,59.2541) (112.03,63.5544) (113.03,48.8503) (114.03,57.8768) (115.03,53.0741) (116.03,51.455) (117.03,51.0552) (118.03,59.1494) (119.03,49.9764) (120.03,49.9328) (121.03,53.4389) (122.03,42.9423) (123.03,57.8837) (124.03,45.2209) (125.03,54.3523) (126.03,46.3305) (127.03,52.6339) (128.03,56.0944) (129.03,54.7221) (130.03,54.0729) (131.03,51.0147) (132.03,56.0553) (133.03,51.5507) (134.03,56.5434) (135.03,63.0644) (136.03,51.5705) (137.03,56.8562) (138.03,57.0909) (139.03,52.1908) (140.03,56.5743) (141.03,58.18) (142.03,50.0621) (143.03,51.7544) (144.03,53.3301) (145.03,47.9728) (146.03,55.2924) (147.03,51.8247) (148.03,54.0793) (149.03,46.9859) (150.03,51.186) (151.03,51.0698) (152.03,42.568) (153.03,44.1504) (154.03,49.6334) (155.03,35.42) (156.03,38.8917) (157.03,36.8706) (158.03,27.3394) (159.03,38.125) (160.03,34.6985) (161.03,36.744) (162.03,41.709) (163.03,31.3833) (164.03,31.8048) (165.03,33.8961) (166.03,32.5225) (167.03,38.8398) (168.03,32.4771) (169.03,36.0826) (170.03,26.9097) (171.03,38.6528) (172.03,34.3287) (173.03,34.5642) (174.03,28.5433) (175.03,33.9493) (176.087,29.5275) (177.092,32.4788) (178.032,27.5925) (179.087,31.9977) (180.032,26.7034) (181.03,28.6704) (182.03,22.5016) (183.03,17.4792) (184.087,15.7069) (185.092,24.0239) (186.092,10.0326) (187.092,22.618) (188.092,15.5719) (189.092,20.2374) (190.092,18.0798) (191.032,15.5181) (192.087,15.6518) (193.092,20.0608) (194.092,17.8547) (195.032,15.3851) (196.03,19.3626) (197.087,14.1272) (198.092,20.4674) (199.092,13.0283) (200.092,20.2135) (201.092,8.49002) (202.092,11.8026) (203.092,9.55524) (204.092,10.5762) (205.092,6.28191) (206.092,8.87286) (207.092,7.08253) (208.092,6.96891) (209.032,9.95855) (210.03,7.37656) (211.087,6.67775) (212.092,8.51955) (213.092,9.87911) (214.092,6.45701) (215.092,8.73829) (216.092,7.35791) (217.092,7.68607) (218.092,6.64702) (219.092,2.77563) (220.092,4.41046) (221.092,4.85801) (222.092,2.60938) (223.092,4.38934) (224.032,5.02656) (225.03,0.62859) (226.03,33.8962) (227.03,154.913) (228.087,18.7105) (229.092,0.0605787) (230.092,6.36367) (231.032,45.3106) (232.03,18.9731) (233.068,1.92618) (234.03,28.9469) (235.03,109.926) (236.03,125.441) (237.03,16.538) (238.03,0.270435) (239.03,2.49528) (240.03,0.729082) (241.03,92.1213) (242.03,115.406) (243.03,70.3327) (244.03,0.364944) (245.03,2.22881) (246.03,0.91655) (247.03,64.4709) (248.03,131.605) (249.03,81.7501) (250.03,0.374487) (251.03,2.40131) (252.03,1.6474) (253.03,74.7764) (254.03,133.909) (255.03,68.4793) (256.03,0.299904) (257.03,2.73084) (258.03,2.38685) (259.03,107.179) (260.03,123.331) (261.03,45.7521) (262.03,0.206122) (263.087,2.70466) (264.032,45.7966) (265.03,114.442) (266.03,112.016) (267.03,9.21762) (268.03,0.362509) (269.03,2.91833) (270.03,61.1889) (271.03,130.915) (272.03,85.8122) (273.03,0.427469) (274.03,2.80602) (275.03,1.56822) (276.03,101.329) (277.03,120.96) (278.03,54.975) (279.03,0.217052) (280.03,2.68596) (281.03,29.1994) (282.03,122.905) (283.03,112.039) (284.03,14.4994) (285.03,2.55295) (286.03,1.79384) (287.03,105.327) (288.03,124.206) (289.03,47.7304) (290.03,0.287388) (291.03,2.74638) (292.087,0.985546) (293.032,0.978899) (294.03,0.743247) };
\addplot coordinates { (0.029679,0) (1.02968,0.180695) (2.08676,0.0682445) (3.09218,0.00146484) (4.09217,0.0803223) (5.03165,0.0856771) (6.02968,0.00732422) (7.08675,0.000459558) (8.03165,0.174772) (9.02967,0.156738) (10.0299,0.153076) (11.0298,1.51782) (12.0297,1.1062) (13.0297,0.752197) (14.0303,0.295654) (15.0297,0.28125) (16.0297,0.470459) (17.0297,0.0625) (18.0297,1.00073) (19.0305,1.25147) (20.0297,0.46875) (21.0868,0.00206801) (22.0317,0.0015625) (23.0297,0.86792) (24.0297,0.898438) (25.0299,2.21094) (26.0868,0.269531) (27.0317,1.04011) (28.0868,0.70818) (29.0922,0.00366211) (30.0317,0.00703125) (31.0868,0.259335) (32.0317,0.309375) (33.0297,0.509277) (34.0297,12.8701) (35.0298,6.14184) (36.0297,10.4197) (37.0297,11.0222) (38.0297,13.1578) (39.0298,1.73559) (40.0297,0.338867) (41.0297,0.234619) (42.0868,0.0133272) (43.0922,0.00219727) (44.0317,0.015625) (45.0297,0.25) (46.0297,0.501709) (47.0297,0.25) (48.0297,0.25) (49.0868,1.17762) (50.0317,0.466666) (51.0297,1.03125) (52.0868,0.264706) (53.0922,0.00805664) (54.0922,0) (55.0922,0) (56.0922,0.00292969) (57.0922,0.0100098) (58.0922,0.0012207) (59.0922,0.00610352) (60.0922,0.010498) (61.0922,0.0212097) (62.0317,0.0161458) (63.0297,0.00805664) (64.0297,0.015625) (65.0867,0.0130974) (66.0922,0.00314331) (67.0922,0) (68.0317,0.0486979) (69.0297,0.0175781) (70.0297,0.0107422) (71.0297,0.00341797) (72.0297,0.00195312) (73.0868,0.00183824) (74.0922,0.00268555) (75.0316,0) (76.0297,0) (77.0297,0) (78.0297,0) (79.0297,0.000732422) (80.0868,0) (81.0922,0) (82.0922,0) (83.0922,0.0012207) (84.0922,0) (85.0317,0) (86.0297,0.000732422) (87.0297,0.00268555) (88.0297,0.000732422) (89.0297,0.0012207) (90.0297,0.00195312) (91.0297,0.00292969) (92.0297,0.0090332) (93.0297,0.00854492) (94.0297,0.00854492) (95.0297,0.00317383) (96.0297,0.00588989) (97.0297,0) (98.0297,0.000427246) (99.0297,0) (100.03,0.020752) (101.03,0.00537109) (102.03,0.00463867) (103.03,0.00146484) (104.03,0.00537109) (105.03,0) (106.03,0) (107.03,0) (108.03,0) (109.03,0.000732422) (110.03,0) (111.03,0) (112.03,0) (113.03,0.0012207) (114.03,0) (115.03,0) (116.03,0.000732422) (117.03,0.00463867) (118.03,0.00146484) (119.03,0.0012207) (120.03,0.00463867) (121.03,0.00454712) (122.03,0.013092) (123.03,0.00878906) (124.03,0.0117188) (125.03,0.00805664) (126.03,0.00448608) (127.03,0) (128.03,0.00991821) (129.03,0) (130.03,0.00317383) (131.03,0.000976562) (132.03,0.000244141) (133.03,0.00244141) (134.03,0.000244141) (135.03,0.00146484) (136.03,0.000488281) (137.03,0.000488281) (138.03,0.0012207) (139.03,0.00146484) (140.03,0) (141.03,0) (142.03,0) (143.03,0.00732422) (144.03,0.000732422) (145.03,0.000488281) (146.03,0.000732422) (147.03,0.000244141) (148.03,15.0466) (149.03,18.6872) (150.03,0.860107) (151.03,0.00131226) (152.03,0.00424194) (153.03,0.0109863) (154.03,0.00622559) (155.03,16.3203) (156.03,22.6652) (157.03,22.3681) (158.03,0.00350952) (159.03,0.00289917) (160.03,0.00317383) (161.03,0.00195312) (162.03,0.000732422) (163.03,0.00317383) (164.03,0.00216675) (165.03,0.000732422) (166.03,0) (167.03,0.00219727) (168.03,0.00341797) (169.03,0.00216675) (170.03,0.000732422) (171.03,0.000488281) (172.03,0.00268555) (173.03,0.00463867) (174.03,0.00280762) (175.03,0.00146484) (176.087,0.00160846) (177.092,0.00146484) (178.032,0.003125) (179.087,0.00203929) (180.032,0.00078125) (181.03,0.0012207) (182.03,0.00579834) (183.03,0.00952148) (184.087,0.0052562) (185.092,0.00878906) (186.092,0.00787354) (187.092,0.000732422) (188.092,0.00460815) (189.092,0.00106812) (190.092,0.00396729) (191.032,0.000520833) (192.087,0.000919118) (193.092,0.011261) (194.092,0.000244141) (195.032,0.00234375) (196.03,0.00317383) (197.087,0.00137868) (198.092,0.00488281) (199.092,0.00192261) (200.092,0.00244141) (201.092,0.00146484) (202.092,0.000976562) (203.092,0.00878906) (204.092,0.00143433) (205.092,0.00317383) (206.092,0.000732422) (207.092,0.00195312) (208.092,0.00341797) (209.032,0.00439453) (210.03,0.00219727) (211.087,0.00183824) (212.092,0.00384521) (213.092,0.0117188) (214.092,0.00924683) (215.092,0.00976562) (216.092,0.00515747) (217.092,0.00195312) (218.092,0.00411987) (219.092,0.00180054) (220.092,17.17) (221.092,23.1816) (222.092,20.9936) (223.092,0.00881958) (224.032,0.00152995) (225.03,0.00463867) (226.03,0.000976562) (227.03,0.0012207) (228.087,0.00275735) (229.092,0.00411987) (230.092,0.00170898) (231.032,0.00364583) (232.03,0.00146484) (233.068,0.00415039) (234.03,0.00460815) (235.03,0.0582886) (236.03,0.132812) (237.03,0.16803) (238.03,0.107819) (239.03,0.0212708) (240.03,0.0197754) (241.03,0.0103455) (242.03,0.208618) (243.03,0.183685) (244.03,0.140411) (245.03,0.0735168) (246.03,0.220459) (247.03,0.216644) (248.03,0.193237) (249.03,0.264496) (250.03,0.22226) (251.03,0.106934) (252.03,0.349304) (253.03,0.264343) (254.03,0.233429) (255.03,0.229828) (256.03,0.101135) (257.03,0.0151367) (258.03,0.313232) (259.03,0.209991) (260.03,0.233734) (261.03,0.265991) (262.03,0.082428) (263.087,0.141257) (264.032,0.26237) (265.03,0.223633) (266.03,0.226318) (267.03,0.253448) (268.03,0.0600281) (269.03,0.253662) (270.03,0.256104) (271.03,0.366425) (272.03,0.514191) (273.03,0.815338) (274.03,0.55899) (275.03,1.02716) (276.03,0.398712) (277.03,0.382507) (278.03,0.503784) (279.03,0.232086) (280.03,0.135254) (281.03,0.364258) (282.03,0.248444) (283.03,0.229736) (284.03,0.2677) (285.03,0.063385) (286.03,0.217651) (287.03,0.206818) (288.03,0.228302) (289.03,0.250427) (290.03,0.0887146) (291.03,0.0114746) (292.087,0) (293.032,0.00078125) (294.03,0.000488281) };
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\vspace{\smallskipamount}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileLeft,
title={KMeans with Flink (Scala)},
]
\addplot coordinates { (0.079433,0) (1.07945,5.36084) (2.07948,80.3582) (3.07946,80.5314) (4.07946,75.4233) (5.07983,85.0224) (6.08073,89.3635) (7.08005,90.0476) (8.07948,89.7839) (9.08008,90.8116) (10.0795,90.7263) (11.0795,89.9386) (12.0796,88.8135) (13.0795,87.3776) (14.0796,87.3399) (15.0797,89.1148) (16.0796,87.1577) (17.0797,85.3739) (18.0797,82.7873) (19.0796,85.2286) (20.0795,87.5373) (21.0796,87.4962) (22.0795,87.8287) (23.0795,87.5799) (24.0796,87.3299) (25.0795,87.0816) (26.0799,88.1775) (27.0795,88.3815) (28.0795,84.1203) (29.0795,68.6968) (30.1336,41.547) (31.0847,31.577) (32.0795,15.4167) (33.1336,28.6414) (34.0848,17.0477) (35.0795,28.342) (36.0794,16.2124) (37.0794,17.2141) (38.1336,8.89802) (39.1419,6.01339) (40.0847,2.27753) (41.0795,17.3067) (42.0794,54.6386) (43.0794,10.1309) (44.0794,5.11482) (45.0794,3.18872) (46.0794,3.55274) (47.0794,5.14728) (48.0794,3.87137) (49.0794,3.51827) (50.0794,2.58818) (51.0794,3.01712) (52.0794,2.96391) (53.0794,3.31151) (54.0794,3.09647) (55.0794,3.27598) (56.0794,2.8143) (57.1336,3.52459) (58.0847,3.19129) (59.0794,2.99744) (60.0794,2.70601) (61.0794,2.68808) (62.0794,2.91092) (63.0794,3.74432) (64.0794,3.97233) (65.1336,3.07771) (66.0847,3.19157) (67.0794,3.2485) (68.0794,3.03674) (69.0794,2.81334) (70.0794,2.82368) (71.0794,3.37767) (72.0794,2.5603) (73.0794,2.94138) (74.0794,3.4252) (75.0794,3.88335) (76.0794,2.66535) (77.0794,2.57049) (78.0794,2.66357) (79.1336,2.98307) (80.0847,2.8548) (81.0794,2.21706) (82.0794,2.60313) (83.1336,2.12408) (84.0847,2.41911) (85.0794,2.5921) (86.1016,2.02373) (87.1336,1.93436) (88.0847,2.04264) (89.1336,2.36245) (90.0847,1.91078) (91.0794,1.75114) (92.0794,2.39915) (93.0794,1.89296) (94.0794,2.16144) (95.0794,2.23219) (96.0794,2.65497) (97.0794,2.59247) (98.0794,2.23597) (99.0794,1.96712) (100.079,1.98356) (101.079,2.05733) (102.079,3.09025) (103.079,2.46683) (104.079,3.71459) (105.079,2.14478) (106.079,2.23247) (107.079,2.1561) (108.079,2.23841) (109.079,2.32132) (110.079,2.96226) (111.079,2.35325) (112.079,2.10049) (113.079,1.99879) (114.079,2.00884) (115.134,1.8797) (116.085,2.36768) (117.079,2.39299) (118.079,2.54082) (119.079,2.56725) (120.079,1.96567) (121.079,3.11557) (122.079,2.66505) (123.079,2.18917) (124.079,2.126) (125.079,2.61402) (126.079,2.46873) (127.079,3.5532) (128.079,3.07302) (129.079,2.38393) (130.079,2.54905) (131.079,2.08787) (132.079,3.32729) (133.079,2.01089) (134.079,1.89101) (135.079,1.94138) (136.079,2.27164) (137.079,2.85305) (138.079,2.29667) (139.079,2.09179) (140.134,1.93281) (141.085,2.0132) (142.079,1.95594) (143.079,2.12815) (144.079,2.45372) (145.079,2.56203) (146.079,2.33383) (147.079,2.16458) (148.079,2.04993) (149.134,2.04763) (150.085,1.9147) (151.079,1.6683) (152.079,1.82777) (153.134,1.58766) (154.085,1.87741) (155.134,1.72178) (156.142,1.43446) (157.142,1.42776) (158.085,1.63893) (159.079,1.47901) (160.079,1.96296) (161.134,2.28806) (162.085,1.96233) (163.079,2.059) (164.134,2.13378) (165.085,2.4438) (166.079,3.04876) (167.134,1.93838) (168.085,2.2541) (169.079,2.05632) (170.079,2.70494) (171.079,3.80531) (172.079,2.88794) (173.079,2.48055) (174.079,2.76758) (175.134,2.18176) (176.085,2.15512) (177.079,2.36868) (178.079,2.26196) (179.134,2.02617) (180.085,2.54139) (181.134,2.24509) (182.085,2.0216) (183.079,2.48422) (184.079,3.89794) (185.134,2.60651) (186.085,2.30964) (187.079,2.21269) (188.079,2.74116) (189.079,2.54341) (190.079,1.98747) (191.079,2.04174) (192.079,3.26293) (193.079,2.94393) (194.079,4.32641) (195.134,3.86418) (196.085,1.99047) (197.079,2.2637) (198.079,4.43189) (199.079,2.13606) (200.079,2.47592) (201.079,2.81076) (202.079,2.95989) (203.079,2.98668) (204.079,2.90501) (205.134,1.90019) (206.085,2.08974) (207.134,2.43609) (208.085,3.17314) (209.134,2.6725) (210.085,1.84423) (211.079,2.12363) (212.079,2.32344) (213.079,2.44309) (214.134,3.27222) (215.142,3.15536) (216.085,1.65229) (217.134,2.33418) (218.085,2.16796) (219.134,2.10927) (220.142,1.68899) (221.085,1.95106) (222.079,2.7244) (223.079,3.68706) (224.079,4.33916) (225.079,1.84669) (226.079,2.07745) (227.079,1.7115) (228.079,2.40392) (229.079,1.85694) (230.079,1.97031) (231.079,1.61117) (232.079,2.01262) (233.079,2.08202) (234.079,2.14316) (235.079,2.86014) (236.079,3.10617) (237.079,1.73203) (238.079,2.07185) (239.079,2.07694) (240.079,2.00738) (241.079,2.51438) (242.079,2.45182) (243.079,2.48399) (244.079,2.18393) (245.079,3.40063) (246.079,2.83408) (247.079,2.03427) (248.079,1.92735) (249.079,2.28354) (250.079,2.38668) (251.079,1.83792) (252.079,2.51729) (253.079,3.07381) (254.079,1.86876) (255.079,1.90451) (256.134,1.71906) (257.085,2.16818) (258.079,1.90646) (259.079,2.2237) (260.079,2.60491) (261.079,2.31832) (262.079,2.17886) (263.079,1.9511) (264.079,1.83789) (265.079,1.9476) (266.079,1.89595) (267.079,1.8031) (268.079,1.84946) (269.079,2.23278) (270.079,2.30271) (271.079,2.11306) (272.079,2.2414) (273.079,1.92301) (274.079,1.66197) (275.134,1.52074) (276.085,1.8075) (277.079,2.34887) (278.079,2.53101) (279.134,1.70422) (280.142,1.84198) (281.142,1.73396) (282.085,1.76783) (283.079,1.87639) (284.079,2.13209) (285.079,2.25287) (286.079,2.24892) (287.079,1.91968) (288.079,1.88609) (289.079,1.67375) (290.079,1.75057) (291.079,1.86718) (292.079,1.97801) (293.079,1.56984) (294.079,1.54823) (295.079,1.48065) (296.134,1.49078) (297.085,1.74287) (298.079,1.6028) (299.079,1.76129) (300.134,2.87911) (301.085,2.43301) (302.079,2.02944) (303.079,2.16571) (304.079,1.67804) (305.079,1.56599) (306.134,1.87696) (307.085,2.1045) (308.079,2.13593) (309.134,1.81938) (310.085,1.745) (311.079,1.75432) (312.079,1.88677) (313.079,1.83533) (314.079,2.01798) (315.079,1.97841) (316.079,1.97906) (317.134,2.18581) (318.085,1.96606) (319.079,1.86196) (320.079,2.10816) (321.079,2.05883) (322.079,1.96994) (323.079,1.89493) (324.079,1.92172) (325.079,1.72968) (326.079,1.77525) (327.079,2.07875) (328.079,2.10755) (329.079,2.12382) (330.079,1.7388) (331.134,1.79272) (332.085,1.79998) (333.134,1.82366) (334.085,2.12622) (335.079,2.35784) (336.079,2.1225) (337.079,2.08438) (338.079,2.02346) (339.134,1.9166) (340.085,1.90833) (341.079,1.83568) (342.134,2.02523) (343.085,2.05144) (344.079,1.98147) (345.134,1.76351) (346.085,1.80681) (347.079,1.85715) (348.079,1.74223) (349.134,1.97497) (350.142,1.83822) (351.085,2.16603) (352.079,2.58837) (353.079,2.49274) (354.079,2.62767) (355.079,1.91785) (356.079,1.99565) (357.134,1.88242) (358.085,1.81952) (359.079,2.819) (360.079,4.06614) (361.079,2.13192) (362.079,2.23405) (363.079,1.97769) (364.079,1.97684) (365.079,1.65089) (366.079,1.49218) (367.134,1.5329) (368.142,1.79412) (369.142,1.81043) (370.085,1.93916) (371.079,1.88165) (372.079,1.79261) (373.079,1.67525) (374.079,1.91193) (375.079,1.94096) (376.079,1.98911) (377.079,1.8869) (378.079,1.75234) (379.079,1.58064) (380.079,1.93392) (381.079,1.80243) (382.079,1.96942) (383.079,1.39203) (384.079,1.44511) (385.079,1.56981) (386.134,1.27195) (387.085,1.49703) (388.079,1.22594) (389.079,1.13307) (390.079,1.27366) (391.079,1.51764) (392.134,1.31916) (393.085,1.40981) (394.079,1.32491) (395.079,0.948443) (396.079,0.945115) (397.079,1.03372) (398.079,1.25985) (399.134,1.4006) (400.085,1.60655) (401.134,1.63842) (402.085,1.39706) (403.079,1.15843) (404.079,1.21714) (405.079,1.28604) (406.079,1.19099) (407.079,1.5703) (408.079,1.07535) (409.079,1.54011) (410.079,1.53102) (411.079,0.962122) (412.079,1.22242) (413.134,1.17776) (414.085,1.07061) (415.079,1.36438) (416.079,1.74469) (417.079,1.98441) (418.079,1.77554) (419.134,1.58811) (420.142,1.37652) (421.085,1.34577) (422.079,1.52062) (423.079,2.45085) (424.079,2.09676) (425.079,1.87184) (426.079,1.27211) (427.079,2.73554) (428.079,3.58119) (429.134,1.91758) (430.085,2.08954) (431.079,1.905) (432.079,1.81508) (433.079,1.26811) (434.079,1.32308) (435.079,1.55758) (436.079,1.30378) (437.079,1.73231) (438.079,2.45616) (439.079,1.96045) (440.079,1.9208) (441.079,1.30412) (442.079,1.2507) (443.079,1.34864) (444.079,1.76921) (445.134,1.79811) (446.142,1.67144) (447.142,1.5004) (448.085,1.52708) (449.079,1.60423) (450.079,1.27741) (451.134,1.03029) (452.085,1.04942) (453.079,1.39833) (454.079,1.62079) (455.079,1.51259) (456.079,1.49221) (457.134,1.27362) (458.142,1.08301) (459.085,1.10645) (460.079,1.2822) (461.079,1.57883) (462.079,1.54159) (463.134,1.14882) (464.085,1.3122) (465.079,2.25575) (466.079,0.904618) (467.079,0.853692) (468.079,1.11817) (469.079,1.24222) (470.134,1.39566) (471.142,1.54432) (472.085,1.97436) (473.134,1.7366) (474.142,1.13153) (475.142,1.0818) (476.085,1.22354) (477.134,1.36326) (478.142,1.1902) (479.142,1.16005) (480.142,0.715889) (481.142,0.733588) (482.085,0.613978) (483.079,0.64804) (484.079,0.854938) (485.079,0.9776) (486.079,1.48768) (487.079,1.79319) (488.079,1.0183) (489.079,1.12512) (490.079,1.24041) (491.079,1.30056) (492.079,1.14571) (493.134,1.11375) (494.142,1.11046) (495.142,0.964524) (496.142,0.784598) (497.142,0.854488) (498.085,0.724533) (499.079,0.840479) (500.079,1.25837) (501.079,1.33605) (502.079,1.13506) (503.079,1.45178) (504.079,1.35356) (505.079,1.29614) (506.134,1.29776) (507.142,0.987854) (508.142,1.03417) (509.142,0.999091) (510.142,0.513397) (511.142,0.443029) (512.142,0.403908) (513.142,0.516867) (514.142,0.570272) (515.142,0.653961) (516.085,0.87134) (517.079,1.34978) (518.079,1.77362) (519.134,1.25194) (520.142,1.10195) (521.142,0.901572) (522.085,0.899925) (523.134,1.14443) (524.085,1.1099) (525.134,0.972547) (526.085,0.976306) (527.079,1.28203) (528.079,1.19827) (529.079,1.09043) (530.079,1.14056) (531.079,2.11266) (532.079,1.64107) (533.134,1.53682) (534.085,1.91053) (535.079,3.83818) (536.134,6.08816) (537.085,17.2442) (538.079,26.3917) (539.079,28.0466) (540.079,31.6104) (541.079,27.3995) (542.079,29.1125) (543.079,23.5927) (544.079,27.0023) (545.079,19.6714) (546.134,23.2987) (547.085,16.3757) (548.079,15.9905) (549.079,9.39052) (550.079,4.97855) (551.079,5.13044) (552.134,6.8333) (553.085,5.40965) (554.079,5.31776) (555.079,2.68817) (556.079,1.18247) (557.134,1.11332) (558.085,1.33988) (559.079,3.88262) (560.079,0.801373) (561.079,0.787987) (562.134,2.58742) (563.142,0.793475) (564.085,0.641953) (565.079,0.806125) (566.079,0.803746) (567.079,0.801914) (568.079,0.831285) (569.079,2.2305) (570.079,0.903468) (571.079,0.929262) (572.134,1.01375) (573.142,0.789688) (574.085,0.635561) (575.079,0.801443) (576.134,0.931033) (577.142,0.798416) (578.142,0.809614) (579.142,0.838681) (580.142,0.796196) (581.142,0.788658) (582.142,0.888668) (583.142,0.859886) (584.142,0.813719) (585.142,0.791962) (586.085,0.639599) (587.079,0.795623) (588.079,0.796132) (589.079,0.846562) (590.134,0.850012) (591.142,0.596087) (592.142,0.592358) (593.142,0.595786) (594.142,0.733091) (595.142,1.88419) (596.142,0.938953) (597.142,1.88108) (598.142,0.686074) (599.142,0.60741) (600.142,0.597726) (601.142,0.603607) (602.142,0.593941) (603.142,0.597978) (604.142,0.605493) (605.142,0.600118) (606.142,0.593949) (607.142,0.707981) (608.142,0.595907) (609.142,1.54341) (610.142,1.36347) (611.142,0.601889) (612.142,0.591749) (613.142,0.727536) (614.142,0.6017) (615.142,0.603783) (616.142,0.593776) (617.142,0.595963) (618.142,0.593949) (619.142,0.69225) (620.142,0.605556) (621.142,0.593826) (622.142,0.592117) (623.142,0.592426) (624.142,0.607873) (625.142,0.716823) (626.142,0.596515) (627.142,0.598161) (628.142,0.59634) (629.142,0.6352) (630.142,0.594558) (631.142,0.611603) (632.142,0.593889) (633.142,0.598111) (634.142,0.598224) (635.142,0.658729) (636.142,0.59628) (637.142,0.601833) (638.142,0.598163) (639.142,0.618048) (640.142,0.6019) (641.142,0.597909) (642.142,0.607874) (643.142,0.60788) (644.142,0.593886) (645.142,0.714813) (646.142,0.590103) (647.142,1.18289) (648.142,1.72641) (649.142,1.87539) (650.142,1.01367) (651.142,0.604414) (652.142,0.607993) (653.142,0.598243) (654.142,0.600102) (655.142,0.613443) (656.142,0.605753) (657.142,0.597923) (658.142,1.74733) (659.142,1.51752) (660.142,0.593888) (661.142,0.596224) (662.142,0.598162) (663.142,0.594317) (664.142,0.60383) (665.142,0.604165) (666.142,0.598119) (667.142,0.594256) (668.142,0.592243) (669.142,0.666861) (670.142,0.642842) (671.142,0.715539) (672.142,0.596084) (673.142,0.5961) (674.142,0.600238) (675.142,0.599816) (676.142,0.598045) (677.142,0.592304) (678.142,0.598334) (679.142,1.79153) (680.142,0.985656) (681.142,0.596559) (682.142,0.608078) (683.142,0.655154) (684.142,0.596094) (685.142,0.725417) (686.142,0.591686) (687.142,0.443062) (688.142,0.40187) (689.142,0.4018) (690.142,0.413646) (691.142,0.397659) (692.142,0.417479) (693.142,0.403879) (694.142,0.407664) (695.142,0.535424) (696.142,1.91017) (697.142,0.545235) (698.142,0.435229) (699.142,0.405837) (700.085,0.428601) (701.134,0.387424) (702.142,1.7457) (703.142,0.544902) (704.142,0.403699) (705.142,0.401745) (706.142,0.417566) (707.142,0.395816) (708.142,0.42737) (709.142,0.403696) (710.142,0.404006) (711.142,0.405775) (712.142,0.403693) (713.142,0.4001) (714.142,0.401747) (715.142,0.409689) (716.142,0.400023) (717.142,0.398157) (718.142,0.402177) (719.142,0.405774) (720.142,0.409686) (721.142,0.553176) (722.142,0.404008) (723.142,0.403699) (724.142,0.400092) (725.142,0.403776) (726.142,0.396187) (727.142,0.401813) (728.142,0.396124) (729.142,0.411766) (730.142,0.409935) (731.142,0.398024) (732.142,0.397954) (733.142,1.2008) (734.142,1.09706) (735.142,0.399798) (736.142,0.401738) (737.142,0.401813) (738.142,0.405823) (739.142,0.407543) (740.142,0.409558) (741.142,0.399484) (742.142,0.441092) (743.142,0.401751) (744.142,0.398199) (745.142,0.406031) (746.142,0.459185) (747.142,0.398147) (748.142,0.398209) (749.142,0.401979) (750.142,0.40389) (751.142,0.401867) (752.085,0.420385) (753.134,0.380629) (754.142,0.405905) (755.142,0.411833) (756.142,0.404187) (757.142,0.406034) (758.142,0.422) (759.142,0.405844) (760.142,0.410072) (761.142,0.394413) (762.142,0.398325) (763.142,0.409689) (764.142,1.48518) (765.142,1.04712) (766.142,0.404061) (767.142,0.407812) (768.142,0.402057) (769.142,0.419717) (770.142,0.402248) (771.142,0.411589) (772.142,1.18757) (773.142,1.36766) (774.142,0.417992) (775.142,0.286219) (776.142,0.207952) (777.142,0.205885) (778.142,0.213775) (779.142,0.207901) (780.142,0.206015) (781.142,0.217603) (782.142,0.207897) (783.085,0.213613) (784.134,0.199463) (785.142,0.209789) (786.142,0.206008) (787.142,0.254841) (788.142,0.200085) (789.142,0.20582) (790.142,0.209988) (791.142,0.213819) (792.085,0.267761) (793.079,29.6509) (794.079,87.0231) (795.079,36.5456) (796.134,18.0562) (797.085,25.8633) (798.134,19.3538) (799.142,31.4402) (800.085,13.3861) (801.134,26.8288) (802.085,24.2384) (803.079,19.7037) (804.079,30.1561) (805.079,14.1751) (806.079,18.7379) (807.079,9.46144) (808.079,6.78147) (809.079,6.78828) (810.079,8.57789) (811.079,9.18974) (812.079,5.68332) (813.079,4.54601) (814.079,4.17593) (815.079,5.3955) (816.079,3.59508) (817.079,3.74589) (818.079,4.69644) (819.079,5.52398) (820.134,4.92326) (821.085,7.80788) (822.079,3.53985) (823.079,3.65778) (824.079,4.19665) (825.079,3.90333) (826.079,2.7071) (827.134,2.99541) (828.085,2.75951) (829.079,2.74058) (830.079,2.73803) (831.079,2.58282) (832.079,2.62634) (833.079,2.52085) (834.079,3.63074) (835.079,3.79412) (836.079,3.13524) (837.079,2.66012) (838.079,2.53824) (839.079,2.36766) (840.079,2.47595) (841.079,2.8175) (842.079,2.74537) (843.134,2.92349) (844.085,2.59275) (845.079,2.53122) (846.079,2.75749) (847.079,2.46214) (848.079,2.38023) (849.079,2.48332) (850.079,2.03141) (851.134,2.81811) (852.085,1.6952) (853.079,2.87365) (854.079,2.20962) (855.079,3.66804) (856.079,4.06755) (857.079,2.46001) (858.079,2.66007) (859.079,2.10699) (860.079,2.07992) (861.079,1.99488) (862.079,1.91627) (863.079,2.18937) (864.079,2.57157) (865.079,1.84058) (866.134,2.3581) (867.085,1.80617) (868.079,1.86836) (869.079,2.09005) (870.134,2.59623) (871.085,2.19894) (872.079,2.07967) (873.079,2.1733) (874.079,2.11365) (875.079,2.72515) (876.079,2.40886) (877.079,4.34912) (878.134,3.74196) (879.085,1.7629) (880.134,1.91435) (881.085,1.90068) (882.079,1.85041) (883.079,2.43585) (884.134,2.61962) (885.085,2.45327) (886.079,2.61559) (887.079,3.05795) (888.079,2.25973) (889.134,2.2371) (890.085,3.13054) (891.079,2.31963) (892.079,2.15559) (893.079,1.87377) (894.079,2.47006) (895.134,2.20739) (896.085,1.74944) (897.079,2.37444) (898.079,2.34089) (899.079,2.05013) (900.079,1.98555) (901.079,1.81923) (902.079,2.30957) (903.079,3.69654) (904.079,2.53013) (905.079,2.23852) (906.079,2.05895) (907.079,3.26264) (908.079,3.09488) (909.079,2.19261) (910.079,2.36035) (911.079,2.62326) (912.079,2.59772) (913.079,2.21585) (914.079,1.92007) (915.079,2.71289) (916.079,3.09028) (917.079,2.25285) (918.079,2.34346) (919.079,2.252) (920.134,2.93011) (921.085,3.35342) (922.079,2.45362) (923.079,3.77202) (924.079,5.09024) (925.134,2.96022) (926.085,2.88059) (927.079,3.32071) (928.079,2.3891) (929.134,2.7182) (930.085,2.32801) (931.079,1.86428) (932.079,2.64126) (933.079,2.4388) (934.079,2.33181) (935.079,2.33545) (936.079,1.63266) (937.134,2.09667) (938.085,2.37161) (939.079,2.60659) (940.134,2.71849) (941.085,2.62482) (942.079,2.2721) (943.079,2.91015) (944.079,3.71242) (945.134,2.63149) (946.085,2.44939) (947.079,2.21301) (948.134,2.97421) (949.085,2.75548) (950.079,3.17984) (951.079,4.352) (952.079,4.15971) (953.134,3.10685) (954.085,3.11971) (955.079,3.14636) (956.079,2.59204) (957.079,2.3092) (958.079,3.07409) (959.079,3.27014) (960.134,2.40465) (961.085,2.66823) (962.079,3.10139) (963.134,3.47987) (964.085,5.66418) (965.079,2.97601) (966.079,3.01957) (967.134,3.93604) (968.142,4.05318) (969.085,2.97912) (970.134,3.19229) (971.085,3.18732) (972.079,3.09402) (973.079,3.18907) (974.079,2.00012) (975.134,2.30093) (976.085,2.76081) (977.079,5.94763) (978.134,2.84911) (979.142,2.42035) (980.085,2.54217) (981.134,2.21214) (982.085,1.97568) (983.079,1.91348) (984.079,1.84999) (985.079,2.47462) (986.079,2.10339) (987.079,2.08072) (988.079,2.14715) (989.134,2.23445) (990.085,2.08589) (991.079,2.32117) (992.079,3.74268) (993.079,2.69584) (994.079,1.97453) (995.079,1.963) (996.134,2.03788) (997.085,1.79719) (998.134,1.85818) (999.085,2.02611) (1000.08,2.34999) (1001.08,2.12137) (1002.08,2.08645) (1003.08,2.0111) (1004.08,1.95313) (1005.08,1.6716) (1006.08,2.21977) (1007.08,2.19517) (1008.08,2.53556) (1009.08,2.99315) (1010.08,2.07799) (1011.08,1.935) (1012.08,1.95334) (1013.08,1.75406) (1014.08,2.07749) (1015.08,2.00476) (1016.08,2.08779) (1017.08,1.76376) (1018.08,2.09908) (1019.08,3.38386) (1020.08,2.06565) (1021.08,2.05295) (1022.08,1.94029) (1023.08,1.82511) (1024.08,2.56831) (1025.08,3.40055) (1026.13,2.53657) (1027.08,2.96176) (1028.08,2.33883) (1029.13,1.88707) (1030.08,2.83945) (1031.08,2.77788) (1032.08,2.05322) (1033.08,1.77613) (1034.08,1.69304) (1035.08,1.78479) (1036.08,1.72112) (1037.08,1.81928) (1038.08,1.88958) (1039.08,1.97697) (1040.08,1.96119) (1041.08,1.81629) (1042.08,1.91278) (1043.08,2.04152) (1044.08,2.07712) (1045.13,1.76034) (1046.14,1.8297) (1047.08,2.00082) (1048.08,1.98813) (1049.08,2.1012) (1050.08,2.19095) (1051.08,1.90601) (1052.08,1.79807) (1053.08,1.59331) (1054.13,1.69487) (1055.08,1.57781) (1056.08,1.58519) (1057.08,1.81384) (1058.08,2.02809) (1059.08,1.80495) (1060.08,1.96864) (1061.08,3.19387) (1062.13,1.8642) (1063.14,1.80589) (1064.14,1.94036) (1065.14,1.88045) (1066.08,1.96833) (1067.08,1.76183) (1068.08,2.13216) (1069.13,3.19916) (1070.14,1.69741) (1071.08,2.08535) (1072.08,2.43813) (1073.08,2.03125) (1074.08,1.88023) (1075.08,1.77079) (1076.08,1.61701) (1077.13,1.80854) (1078.08,2.20583) (1079.13,2.26353) (1080.08,1.44641) (1081.13,1.42731) (1082.14,1.5365) (1083.14,2.96972) (1084.08,1.57063) (1085.13,1.87949) (1086.08,2.10646) (1087.13,2.02116) (1088.08,1.90554) (1089.13,1.77567) (1090.14,1.61104) (1091.14,1.6976) (1092.08,1.81676) (1093.13,1.65345) (1094.14,1.65785) (1095.08,2.83687) (1096.08,1.54482) (1097.13,1.62434) (1098.14,1.58923) (1099.08,1.83532) (1100.13,1.85274) (1101.08,1.49285) (1102.13,2.00303) (1103.08,1.57998) (1104.13,1.46383) (1105.08,1.36742) (1106.08,2.04554) (1107.13,1.94165) (1108.08,1.82223) (1109.13,1.29578) (1110.14,1.35303) (1111.08,1.51608) (1112.13,1.69054) (1113.14,1.97452) (1114.08,1.98552) (1115.13,1.68467) (1116.08,1.71936) (1117.13,1.54412) (1118.08,1.60105) (1119.13,1.47771) (1120.08,3.129) (1121.13,2.23812) (1122.14,1.10106) (1123.08,1.39807) (1124.08,1.30119) (1125.13,1.40069) (1126.08,1.3356) (1127.13,1.32658) (1128.14,1.4552) (1129.08,1.35654) (1130.13,0.991651) (1131.14,0.989919) (1132.14,0.868065) (1133.14,1.05955) (1134.14,1.39877) (1135.14,1.28289) (1136.14,1.19025) (1137.14,0.9232) (1138.08,1.57694) (1139.13,1.86531) (1140.14,2.2967) (1141.14,1.26163) (1142.14,1.06866) (1143.14,1.09783) (1144.14,1.04256) (1145.14,1.11741) (1146.14,1.17915) (1147.14,1.05104) (1148.08,0.84989) (1149.13,4.14935) (1150.14,2.83668) (1151.14,2.24948) (1152.14,1.94269) (1153.14,1.92805) (1154.14,2.15492) (1155.14,2.41999) (1156.08,1.99488) (1157.13,1.94631) (1158.14,1.77275) (1159.08,2.01928) (1160.13,3.07484) (1161.14,1.99796) (1162.14,1.81135) (1163.14,1.42713) (1164.14,1.3569) (1165.14,1.20606) (1166.14,1.1797) (1167.14,1.27672) (1168.08,1.20043) (1169.13,1.52919) (1170.08,1.27804) (1171.13,2.84333) (1172.14,2.8425) (1173.08,1.75448) (1174.08,1.38331) (1175.13,1.32877) (1176.14,1.1956) (1177.14,1.18205) (1178.14,1.19237) (1179.08,1.05715) (1180.13,1.31361) (1181.14,1.21037) (1182.14,1.20925) (1183.14,1.18986) (1184.14,1.20002) (1185.14,1.1873) (1186.14,1.32581) (1187.14,2.52843) (1188.14,1.1032) (1189.14,1.01106) (1190.14,2.35825) (1191.14,1.426) (1192.14,1.0515) (1193.08,0.890382) (1194.13,2.66407) (1195.14,1.0059) (1196.14,1.01225) (1197.14,1.02906) (1198.14,0.818776) (1199.14,0.797665) (1200.08,0.724841) (1201.13,0.773151) (1202.14,0.605921) (1203.14,0.600116) (1204.08,0.428782) (1205.13,0.749468) (1206.08,0.514913) (1207.13,0.75296) (1208.08,0.516297) (1209.13,0.751227) (1210.14,0.598118) (1211.14,0.598346) (1212.14,0.599875) (1213.14,0.600433) (1214.08,0.42676) (1215.13,0.681078) (1216.14,0.402052) (1217.14,0.405718) (1218.14,0.398146) (1219.14,0.444995) (1220.14,0.443134) (1221.14,0.460427) (1222.14,0.405654) (1223.14,0.403822) (1224.14,0.393995) (1225.14,0.399799) (1226.14,0.442736) (1227.14,0.442847) (1228.14,0.438902) (1229.14,0.405411) (1230.14,0.398024) (1231.14,0.403639) (1232.14,0.401678) (1233.14,0.450513) (1234.14,0.441051) (1235.14,0.658975) (1236.14,0.405829) (1237.14,0.401938) (1238.14,0.43348) (1239.14,0.438994) (1240.14,0.443075) (1241.14,0.41183) (1242.14,0.399847) (1243.14,0.392464) (1244.14,0.407729) (1245.14,0.397833) (1246.14,0.413729) (1247.14,0.400162) (1248.14,0.398017) (1249.14,0.413702) (1250.14,0.404006) (1251.14,0.397908) (1252.14,0.396185) (1253.14,0.403945) (1254.14,0.396187) (1255.14,0.403773) (1256.14,0.401992) (1257.14,0.409808) (1258.14,0.43728) (1259.14,0.513888) (1260.14,1.94888) (1261.14,0.497952) (1262.14,0.397955) (1263.14,1.3049) (1264.14,1.16669) (1265.14,0.399983) (1266.14,0.411765) (1267.14,0.396186) (1268.14,0.405907) (1269.14,0.401981) (1270.14,0.400031) (1271.14,0.400172) (1272.14,0.405786) (1273.14,0.39618) (1274.14,0.411822) (1275.14,0.407728) (1276.14,0.409802) (1277.14,0.398334) (1278.14,0.399846) (1279.14,0.405905) (1280.14,0.400225) (1281.14,0.399922) (1282.14,0.397776) (1283.14,0.402116) (1284.14,0.398272) (1285.14,0.492124) (1286.14,0.406082) (1287.14,0.394417) (1288.14,0.403706) (1289.14,0.407792) (1290.14,0.460905) (1291.14,0.407663) (1292.14,0.403951) (1293.14,0.396371) (1294.14,0.401806) (1295.14,0.447258) (1296.14,0.464552) (1297.14,0.456641) (1298.14,0.406021) (1299.14,0.404007) (1300.14,0.405839) (1301.14,0.41566) (1302.14,0.254801) (1303.14,0.200147) (1304.14,0.211733) (1305.14,0.205885) (1306.14,0.211743) (1307.14,0.198247) (1308.14,0.209794) (1309.14,0.249114) (1310.14,0.254883) (1311.14,0.247073) (1312.14,0.215729) (1313.14,0.209729) (1314.14,0.210064) (1315.14,0.208097) (1316.14,0.291719) (1317.14,0.214104) (1318.14,0.202538) (1319.14,0.20418) (1320.14,0.210112) (1321.14,0.206471) (1322.14,0.216199) (1323.14,0.205891) (1324.14,0.21005) (1325.14,0.21212) (1326.14,0.215778) (1327.14,0.210162) (1328.14,0.198603) (1329.14,0.215721) (1330.14,0.208256) (1331.08,0.228354) (1332.08,55.6344) (1333.08,51.6248) (1334.08,16.7309) (1335.08,25.666) (1336.08,27.9353) (1337.13,23.477) (1338.08,25.8262) (1339.08,18.2622) (1340.08,30.0576) (1341.08,22.0332) (1342.08,18.66) (1343.13,25.5377) (1344.08,17.5977) (1345.08,17.4438) (1346.08,11.9547) (1347.08,9.2566) (1348.13,10.3948) (1349.08,13.935) (1350.13,8.09095) (1351.14,6.0564) (1352.14,6.44307) (1353.08,6.18897) (1354.08,5.72789) (1355.08,6.83107) (1356.13,5.53671) (1357.14,5.46599) (1358.14,6.4953) (1359.14,5.18363) (1360.14,5.44286) (1361.14,5.71615) (1362.14,5.07944) (1363.08,4.39914) (1364.13,4.97695) (1365.14,4.87751) (1366.08,5.88321) (1367.08,4.69528) (1368.08,7.10228) (1369.08,7.09595) (1370.08,5.14073) (1371.08,7.05392) (1372.08,6.46493) (1373.08,4.17989) (1374.08,4.18899) (1375.08,4.179) (1376.13,5.32053) (1377.08,5.34351) (1378.08,4.52153) (1379.08,6.15923) (1380.08,7.10049) (1381.13,4.4858) (1382.08,4.07924) (1383.13,4.21493) (1384.14,3.74552) (1385.08,4.44914) (1386.08,5.24121) (1387.13,4.43999) (1388.08,4.20466) (1389.13,5.88025) (1390.14,4.58103) (1391.14,4.90154) (1392.08,4.72442) (1393.13,4.80955) (1394.14,4.2314) (1395.14,5.2712) (1396.14,6.2742) (1397.08,4.13055) (1398.08,5.8623) (1399.08,6.35849) (1400.13,4.71529) (1401.14,5.5798) (1402.14,5.37064) (1403.08,4.7064) (1404.13,5.40613) (1405.08,5.22787) (1406.13,8.18264) (1407.14,5.17117) (1408.14,6.19766) (1409.14,5.55232) (1410.14,4.35356) (1411.14,4.25381) (1412.08,5.48798) (1413.13,4.70093) (1414.14,4.34581) (1415.14,4.23338) (1416.08,3.96461) (1417.13,3.89123) (1418.14,3.41314) (1419.08,2.93428) (1420.13,3.81632) (1421.14,3.79836) (1422.14,3.47343) (1423.14,3.51531) (1424.14,3.31058) (1425.14,3.82854) (1426.14,3.83462) (1427.14,5.23024) (1428.14,6.06204) (1429.08,3.91946) (1430.13,4.17032) (1431.08,3.59013) (1432.08,5.3497) (1433.08,4.96868) (1434.08,4.14566) (1435.08,3.73841) (1436.08,3.74764) (1437.08,3.92217) (1438.13,4.64609) (1439.08,2.66081) (1440.08,2.86062) (1441.08,2.91593) (1442.08,3.37223) (1443.08,4.10377) (1444.08,2.78733) (1445.08,2.90493) (1446.13,4.29868) (1447.08,4.15035) (1448.08,4.47529) (1449.08,5.34008) (1450.08,3.68956) (1451.08,3.17529) (1452.08,3.08695) (1453.08,3.28385) (1454.08,4.04586) (1455.13,5.38928) (1456.08,2.70891) (1457.13,3.47623) (1458.14,3.11361) (1459.08,2.42891) (1460.13,3.50815) (1461.08,3.03063) (1462.08,4.5882) (1463.13,3.928) (1464.08,3.47049) (1465.08,3.07312) (1466.08,3.00841) (1467.08,3.23302) (1468.13,3.63025) (1469.08,3.01635) (1470.08,3.66796) (1471.08,3.28666) (1472.08,2.76817) (1473.13,3.09535) (1474.14,4.55568) (1475.08,3.96861) (1476.13,2.67079) (1477.08,2.85433) (1478.13,3.10068) (1479.08,4.02034) (1480.13,3.47363) (1481.08,2.64418) (1482.13,2.98731) (1483.08,2.91081) (1484.08,2.78947) (1485.08,2.66404) (1486.08,2.28876) (1487.13,2.03577) (1488.14,2.29754) (1489.14,2.50961) (1490.14,2.27474) (1491.08,2.36519) (1492.13,2.79404) (1493.08,3.25681) (1494.08,3.46098) (1495.08,4.15549) (1496.13,3.90474) (1497.14,4.79833) (1498.14,3.36198) (1499.08,3.16568) (1500.13,3.03576) (1501.14,2.60507) (1502.14,2.03888) (1503.14,2.29117) (1504.14,3.44556) (1505.14,3.33004) (1506.14,3.0395) (1507.14,2.44646) (1508.14,3.71006) (1509.14,2.60281) (1510.14,2.30862) (1511.14,2.38312) (1512.14,2.21312) (1513.14,1.90857) (1514.14,2.4662) (1515.14,2.50168) (1516.14,2.14809) (1517.14,2.27777) (1518.14,1.96599) (1519.14,2.02182) (1520.14,2.83673) (1521.14,3.28354) (1522.14,3.52965) (1523.14,4.12778) (1524.14,1.99989) (1525.14,2.29877) (1526.08,2.12502) (1527.13,2.20279) (1528.14,1.90981) (1529.14,1.69217) (1530.14,1.92406) (1531.14,1.47833) (1532.14,1.22634) (1533.14,1.05359) (1534.14,0.950531) (1535.14,1.0512) (1536.08,1.21352) (1537.13,1.31644) (1538.08,1.53889) (1539.13,1.43812) (1540.14,1.63698) (1541.14,1.58596) (1542.08,1.7087) (1543.08,1.60183) (1544.13,2.10184) (1545.14,1.79189) (1546.14,1.26003) (1547.14,1.0184) (1548.14,0.641003) (1549.14,0.641233) (1550.14,0.752985) (1551.14,0.908748) (1552.14,1.19272) (1553.14,1.44607) (1554.14,1.8535) (1555.14,1.51192) (1556.08,1.1953) (1557.08,1.22697) (1558.13,0.987094) (1559.08,1.10164) (1560.08,1.63288) (1561.13,1.04779) (1562.14,0.800863) (1563.14,0.69968) (1564.14,0.740433) (1565.14,0.868383) (1566.08,0.721336) (1567.13,0.909978) (1568.14,0.941539) (1569.08,1.14938) (1570.08,0.818723) (1571.13,1.20278) (1572.08,1.43022) (1573.08,1.06961) (1574.13,1.19873) (1575.14,1.25173) (1576.14,1.24995) (1577.14,0.786183) (1578.08,0.817894) (1579.13,0.955538) (1580.08,0.99704) (1581.13,0.727463) (1582.14,0.783539) (1583.08,0.652058) (1584.13,0.70366) (1585.14,0.846125) (1586.14,1.18299) (1587.08,0.992593) (1588.08,1.19165) (1589.13,1.03924) (1590.14,0.986406) (1591.14,0.845301) (1592.08,1.0562) (1593.13,1.17268) (1594.14,0.881897) (1595.14,1.02216) (1596.14,0.853571) (1597.14,0.818433) (1598.14,0.925342) (1599.14,2.00689) (1600.08,0.601145) (1601.13,0.643402) (1602.14,1.13768) (1603.14,1.1064) (1604.14,1.12626) (1605.14,0.727507) (1606.08,0.647869) (1607.13,1.00949) (1608.14,0.793642) (1609.14,0.742371) (1610.14,0.627548) (1611.14,0.526598) (1612.14,0.615545) (1613.14,0.783173) (1614.14,0.890978) (1615.08,0.557453) (1616.13,0.462553) (1617.14,0.655272) (1618.08,0.780265) (1619.13,1.00102) (1620.14,0.773998) (1621.14,0.629442) (1622.14,0.563727) (1623.14,0.776232) (1624.14,0.845291) (1625.14,0.531119) (1626.14,0.407672) (1627.14,0.407841) (1628.14,0.417344) (1629.14,0.364348) (1630.14,0.465166) (1631.14,0.997672) (1632.14,2.18396) (1633.14,0.798642) (1634.14,0.717015) (1635.14,0.480519) (1636.14,0.412998) (1637.14,0.50605) (1638.08,0.641382) (1639.13,0.548144) (1640.14,0.417734) (1641.14,0.421959) (1642.14,0.381543) (1643.14,0.390981) (1644.14,0.395949) (1645.14,0.409138) (1646.14,0.684427) (1647.14,0.760871) (1648.14,0.65204) (1649.14,0.477551) (1650.14,0.485258) (1651.14,0.499196) (1652.14,0.623544) (1653.14,0.642333) (1654.14,0.424007) (1655.14,0.339454) (1656.14,0.347336) (1657.14,0.356646) (1658.14,0.350658) (1659.14,0.364645) (1660.08,0.551701) (1661.13,0.841131) (1662.14,3.13834) (1663.14,3.02945) (1664.14,2.42336) (1665.14,1.97877) (1666.14,1.96223) (1667.14,2.09404) (1668.14,2.10401) (1669.14,1.99381) (1670.14,3.27864) (1671.14,2.02719) (1672.14,1.78969) (1673.14,1.77351) (1674.14,1.77719) (1675.08,2.30878) (1676.13,2.29481) (1677.14,1.57874) (1678.14,1.58231) (1679.14,1.61892) (1680.14,3.01964) (1681.08,1.55256) (1682.13,1.91235) (1683.08,3.57574) (1684.08,2.45683) (1685.08,1.46758) (1686.13,1.50909) (1687.14,1.38073) (1688.14,1.38072) (1689.14,1.38966) (1690.14,1.38305) (1691.08,1.26354) (1692.13,1.5017) (1693.14,1.56107) (1694.08,1.27913) (1695.08,1.40655) (1696.13,1.57285) (1697.14,1.39888) (1698.08,1.19219) (1699.08,1.193) (1700.13,1.35215) (1701.08,1.11023) (1702.08,2.28119) (1703.13,1.89953) (1704.08,1.0557) (1705.13,1.30313) (1706.14,1.18001) (1707.14,1.1857) (1708.14,1.19211) (1709.08,1.10357) (1710.08,1.19348) (1711.13,2.48108) (1712.14,1.24384) (1713.14,0.985989) (1714.14,0.997829) (1715.14,0.994244) (1716.14,0.985805) (1717.14,0.991618) (1718.14,1.18606) (1719.14,1.03088) (1720.14,1.05403) (1721.14,1.04868) (1722.14,1.04899) (1723.14,0.989538) (1724.14,0.991794) (1725.14,0.993921) (1726.14,0.99606) (1727.14,0.999547) (1728.14,0.992159) (1729.14,1.13325) (1730.08,0.857313) (1731.13,0.992937) (1732.14,0.666592) (1733.14,0.594027) (1734.08,0.472306) (1735.13,0.786524) (1736.14,0.656497) (1737.14,0.460417) (1738.14,0.403769) (1739.14,0.401928) (1740.14,0.403637) (1741.14,0.39601) (1742.14,0.39808) (1743.14,0.409188) (1744.14,0.403755) (1745.14,0.50952) (1746.14,0.40571) (1747.14,0.403756) (1748.14,0.803152) (1749.14,1.91776) (1750.14,0.53898) (1751.14,0.462501) (1752.14,0.401931) (1753.14,0.401746) (1754.14,0.402) (1755.14,0.40003) (1756.14,0.233026) (1757.14,0.243031) (1758.14,0.254677) (1759.14,0.256481) (1760.14,0.203682) (1761.14,0.201784) (1762.14,0.213386) (1763.14,0.199887) (1764.14,0.215528) (1765.14,0.211549) (1766.14,0.205755) (1767.08,0.219406) (1768.13,0.198997) (1769.14,0.203677) (1770.14,0.207585) (1771.14,0.209721) (1772.14,0.207466) (1773.14,0.203677) (1774.14,0.20575) (1775.14,0.551164) (1776.14,1.61337) (1777.14,0.270586) (1778.14,0.205757) (1779.14,0.203922) (1780.14,0.211618) (1781.14,0.205816) (1782.14,0.203915) (1783.14,0.203861) (1784.14,0.209726) (1785.14,0.205814) (1786.14,0.201845) (1787.14,0.213688) (1788.14,0.20973) (1789.14,0.209654) (1790.14,0.211741) (1791.14,0.237191) (1792.14,0.266308) (1793.14,0.266395) (1794.14,0.20203) (1795.14,0.203745) (1796.14,0.203976) (1797.14,0.209671) (1798.14,0.20569) (1799.14,0.205876) (1800.14,0.207829) (1801.14,0.233786) (1802.14,0.205811) (1803.14,0.207956) (1804.14,0.205758) (1805.14,0.203983) (1806.14,0.213634) (1807.14,0.205752) (1808.14,0.205883) (1809.14,0.270978) (1810.14,14.3162) (1811.14,79.223) (1812.08,27.2785) (1813.08,26.4407) (1814.13,28.78) (1815.12,23.7317) (1816.08,30.5622) (1817.08,27.7119) (1818.08,27.0737) (1819.13,27.2343) (1820.14,23.1543) (1821.08,22.621) (1822.13,19.8155) (1823.08,20.8143) (1824.08,12.9874) (1825.13,10.771) (1826.14,9.16396) (1827.08,5.86716) (1828.13,11.6709) (1829.14,4.69256) (1830.14,9.65105) (1831.08,10.5393) (1832.13,8.46062) (1833.08,4.91528) (1834.08,6.78362) (1835.08,7.11561) (1836.13,8.5875) (1837.14,5.49674) (1838.14,8.34104) (1839.14,5.92166) (1840.14,7.19969) (1841.14,7.92841) (1842.14,7.64076) (1843.14,5.85184) (1844.08,5.82543) (1845.13,6.64866) (1846.14,5.75972) (1847.14,5.00835) (1848.14,4.83616) (1849.08,5.0582) (1850.13,7.08144) (1851.14,5.54557) (1852.14,7.36521) (1853.08,7.79049) (1854.13,6.23265) (1855.14,5.64657) (1856.14,5.90156) (1857.14,6.40115) (1858.14,7.94338) (1859.08,7.89501) (1860.13,7.45612) (1861.08,5.50239) (1862.08,7.35073) (1863.13,5.52953) (1864.08,7.64528) (1865.08,6.76943) (1866.08,5.1806) (1867.08,4.69561) (1868.08,5.28541) (1869.08,5.43214) (1870.08,5.36572) (1871.08,5.35952) (1872.08,5.17336) (1873.08,5.71186) (1874.08,6.39219) (1875.08,5.33586) (1876.08,5.13083) (1877.08,4.88476) (1878.08,5.89698) (1879.08,5.8438) (1880.08,4.95634) (1881.08,4.77387) (1882.08,4.74064) (1883.08,5.48866) (1884.08,6.85252) (1885.08,4.56979) (1886.08,4.31227) (1887.08,4.74409) (1888.08,4.2725) (1889.08,5.23385) (1890.08,6.47623) (1891.08,6.24948) (1892.08,5.20458) (1893.08,4.28144) (1894.08,4.34028) (1895.08,3.8138) (1896.13,4.46764) (1897.08,3.94422) (1898.13,4.68408) (1899.14,4.19671) (1900.08,3.74015) (1901.13,4.12345) (1902.14,3.75761) (1903.14,4.26769) (1904.08,6.19012) (1905.13,6.92295) (1906.14,4.14008) (1907.14,4.82444) (1908.14,4.49778) (1909.14,4.65705) (1910.08,6.71929) (1911.13,6.08457) (1912.08,5.38954) (1913.08,4.51671) (1914.13,6.40578) (1915.08,5.21509) (1916.13,4.44234) (1917.14,4.15359) (1918.14,4.344) (1919.14,4.24321) (1920.08,3.95881) (1921.08,4.03332) (1922.13,4.16571) (1923.08,4.2588) (1924.13,4.9388) (1925.08,4.2215) (1926.13,4.40547) (1927.14,3.93658) (1928.08,3.97901) (1929.13,4.42963) (1930.08,4.22871) (1931.08,5.00052) (1932.13,5.67792) (1933.08,4.69653) (1934.13,5.4084) (1935.14,4.37761) (1936.08,4.16256) (1937.13,6.51581) (1938.08,4.81889) (1939.13,5.85605) (1940.08,6.32381) (1941.08,5.52928) (1942.08,5.44444) (1943.08,7.58951) (1944.08,5.28667) (1945.08,4.58988) (1946.08,4.28546) (1947.08,5.47075) (1948.08,5.32487) (1949.08,4.66248) (1950.08,3.56894) (1951.08,4.09128) (1952.08,4.15422) (1953.08,3.64961) (1954.08,3.69653) (1955.08,3.33572) (1956.08,3.39381) (1957.08,3.32157) (1958.08,3.86516) (1959.08,3.76368) (1960.08,3.57095) (1961.08,3.2933) (1962.08,3.12454) (1963.08,3.34441) (1964.08,3.31764) (1965.08,3.12908) (1966.08,3.2658) (1967.08,3.49809) (1968.08,3.1242) (1969.08,2.57788) (1970.08,3.23241) (1971.08,3.29907) (1972.08,2.94579) (1973.08,2.63037) (1974.13,1.82233) (1975.14,1.83916) (1976.14,1.66638) (1977.14,2.53722) (1978.14,2.53457) (1979.14,2.34295) (1980.14,3.17109) (1981.14,2.62303) (1982.08,1.95132) (1983.13,1.73032) (1984.08,1.84712) (1985.13,2.04775) (1986.08,2.43176) (1987.13,1.95075) (1988.14,1.58227) (1989.14,1.42053) (1990.14,1.0066) (1991.08,0.949627) (1992.13,0.847719) (1993.14,0.867652) (1994.14,0.684442) (1995.14,0.691786) (1996.14,0.452635) (1997.08,0.515011) (1998.13,0.805046) (1999.14,0.519114) (2000.14,0.724995) (2001.14,0.695911) (2002.14,0.488621) (2003.14,0.389097) (2004.14,0.538886) (2005.08,0.635908) (2006.13,0.457966) (2007.14,0.482915) (2008.14,1.47082) (2009.14,1.65961) (2010.14,0.504432) (2011.14,1.41784) (2012.14,1.35973) (2013.14,0.605235) (2014.14,0.677135) (2015.14,0.616062) (2016.14,0.463201) (2017.14,0.50192) (2018.14,0.467109) (2019.08,0.556537) (2020.08,3.28147) (2021.08,2.58166) (2022.08,2.34429) (2023.13,2.23687) (2024.08,2.10784) (2025.08,2.25372) (2026.13,2.52486) (2027.14,2.24293) (2028.08,1.90921) (2029.08,1.9688) (2030.08,1.96545) (2031.08,2.87191) (2032.13,2.98284) (2033.08,2.05084) (2034.08,2.00178) (2035.13,2.04099) (2036.08,1.88553) (2037.08,3.53658) (2038.08,2.48029) (2039.08,2.02633) (2040.08,1.82838) (2041.13,1.92928) (2042.08,1.73972) (2043.08,1.89691) (2044.13,2.07881) (2045.08,2.58339) (2046.08,2.96629) (2047.08,1.7785) (2048.13,1.73281) (2049.14,2.84981) (2050.08,2.50962) (2051.08,2.50488) (2052.08,2.23513) (2053.08,1.40498) (2054.08,1.4131) (2055.08,1.46977) (2056.08,1.62502) (2057.13,1.76574) (2058.08,1.38048) (2059.13,1.47528) (2060.08,1.30763) (2061.13,1.54924) (2062.14,1.39967) (2063.14,1.18967) (2064.08,1.06642) (2065.13,1.29962) (2066.14,1.18576) (2067.14,1.20781) (2068.08,1.06526) (2069.13,1.31598) (2070.14,2.24133) (2071.14,1.73392) (2072.14,1.13634) (2073.14,0.992027) (2074.14,0.990337) (2075.14,1.00587) (2076.08,0.931187) (2077.13,1.19214) (2078.08,0.849099) (2079.13,1.12166) (2080.08,0.855574) (2081.08,0.98863) (2082.08,1.03448) (2083.08,0.997731) (2084.13,1.08918) (2085.14,0.883633) (2086.14,0.848891) (2087.14,0.800323) (2088.14,0.796438) (2089.14,0.807942) (2090.14,0.800439) (2091.14,0.695528) (2092.14,0.599566) (2093.14,0.592357) (2094.14,0.604237) (2095.14,0.601999) (2096.14,0.665082) (2097.14,0.578069) (2098.14,0.27208) (2099.14,0.207766) (2100.14,0.207834) (2101.14,0.237092) (2102.14,0.258595) (2103.14,0.309596) (2104.14,0.225647) (2105.14,0.207652) (2106.14,0.201906) (2107.14,0.20783) (2108.14,0.199893) (2109.14,0.209783) (2110.14,0.21162) (2111.14,0.203735) (2112.14,0.207892) (2113.14,0.207771) (2114.14,0.203738) (2115.14,0.20789) (2116.14,0.205946) (2117.14,0.215402) (2118.14,0.211735) (2119.14,0.21167) (2120.08,0.229821) (2121.13,0.223076) (2122.14,0.256799) (2123.14,0.260544) (2124.14,0.205875) (2125.14,0.199955) (2126.14,0.199893) (2127.14,0.207831) (2128.14,0.215589) (2129.14,0.244888) (2130.14,1.74609) (2131.14,0.33313) (2132.14,0.215712) (2133.14,0.240896) (2134.14,0.26257) (2135.14,0.26254) (2136.14,0.209655) (2137.14,0.21766) (2138.14,0.201974) (2139.14,0.205632) (2140.14,0.205935) (2141.14,0.208062) (2142.14,0.207589) (2143.14,0.20398) (2144.14,0.211737) (2145.14,0.205696) (2146.14,0.200015) (2147.14,0.205821) (2148.14,0.238905) (2149.14,0.256702) (2150.14,0.276099) (2151.14,0.20569) (2152.14,0.209709) (2153.14,0.205821) (2154.14,0.211549) (2155.14,0.199589) (2156.14,0.215522) (2157.08,0.426691) (2158.13,0.267237) (2159.14,0.239032) (2160.08,0.369676) (2161.13,0.368452) (2162.14,0.344521) (2163.14,0.315283) (2164.14,0.285894) (2165.14,0.209657) (2166.14,0.20778) (2167.14,0.202022) (2168.14,0.213504) (2169.14,0.201845) (2170.14,0.205998) (2171.14,0.207704) (2172.14,0.205636) (2173.14,0.207652) (2174.14,0.209651) (2175.14,0.20362) (2176.14,0.201972) (2177.14,0.254688) (2178.14,0.254591) (2179.14,0.260532) (2180.14,0.205634) (2181.08,0.213153) (2182.13,0.188135) (2183.14,0.244746) (2184.14,0.245038) (2185.14,0.270273) (2186.14,0.2821) (2187.14,0.209789) (2188.08,0.219856) (2189.08,23.6138) (2190.08,77.2114) (2191.08,15.87) (2192.08,21.9248) (2193.13,19.6538) (2194.08,33.1235) (2195.08,24.2323) (2196.08,32.5503) (2197.08,28.5639) (2198.08,19.991) (2199.08,28.8535) (2200.08,18.8824) (2201.08,23.1042) (2202.08,21.2566) (2203.08,13.7974) (2204.08,8.70363) (2205.13,10.9337) (2206.08,7.81806) (2207.08,7.53487) (2208.08,7.95007) (2209.08,11.9977) (2210.08,6.03789) (2211.08,5.09357) (2212.13,7.78926) (2213.14,9.15154) (2214.14,8.064) (2215.14,6.29124) (2216.14,7.17267) (2217.14,8.64485) (2218.08,6.17323) (2219.13,8.71854) (2220.14,8.59802) (2221.08,6.67283) (2222.08,5.8007) (2223.08,6.22135) (2224.13,5.72014) (2225.14,5.60483) (2226.08,7.78336) (2227.13,7.27675) (2228.14,6.13042) (2229.14,6.4414) (2230.14,5.28801) (2231.14,5.44231) (2232.14,5.58755) (2233.14,6.18729) (2234.08,6.50309) (2235.13,6.98622) (2236.08,7.25036) (2237.13,6.51667) (2238.14,6.76115) (2239.14,7.50538) (2240.14,6.95644) (2241.14,7.07966) (2242.08,8.93171) (2243.13,6.48326) (2244.08,5.83354) (2245.13,7.24621) (2246.14,5.37245) (2247.08,5.03935) (2248.13,5.50025) (2249.14,5.62946) (2250.14,7.08484) (2251.14,8.04894) (2252.14,7.15253) (2253.14,5.10325) (2254.08,6.53625) (2255.13,6.79042) (2256.14,5.15303) (2257.14,4.41808) (2258.14,4.48578) (2259.14,4.40855) (2260.14,4.21583) (2261.14,4.40555) (2262.14,4.20577) (2263.14,4.73552) (2264.14,4.28864) (2265.08,3.79814) (2266.13,4.16178) (2267.08,4.45643) (2268.08,5.48314) (2269.13,4.86209) (2270.14,4.07338) (2271.14,6.6566) (2272.08,4.16663) (2273.13,5.25533) (2274.14,5.56936) (2275.14,4.14739) (2276.08,3.38006) (2277.13,4.06188) (2278.14,4.14667) (2279.08,4.73325) (2280.08,3.77993) (2281.13,6.61018) (2282.14,7.53251) (2283.14,4.45943) (2284.08,4.14746) (2285.08,4.15997) (2286.08,4.41279) (2287.13,4.42331) (2288.08,3.88327) (2289.13,4.10306) (2290.14,4.31368) (2291.14,4.13556) (2292.14,5.3486) (2293.08,6.06089) (2294.08,5.56458) (2295.08,5.0792) (2296.08,4.08517) (2297.08,4.09841) (2298.08,4.14307) (2299.08,4.0883) (2300.08,4.07345) (2301.08,5.045) (2302.08,4.18662) (2303.08,4.50655) (2304.08,5.52191) (2305.08,4.64268) (2306.08,3.93087) (2307.13,4.515) (2308.08,3.69178) (2309.08,3.64503) (2310.08,4.19496) (2311.08,5.23817) (2312.08,6.96014) (2313.13,4.05607) (2314.14,3.68748) (2315.14,3.91104) (2316.08,3.71264) (2317.13,3.72953) (2318.08,3.29536) (2319.13,3.70254) (2320.08,3.0358) (2321.08,4.42121) (2322.13,4.81213) (2323.08,3.909) (2324.08,4.53514) (2325.08,5.44112) (2326.13,4.06659) (2327.14,4.55378) (2328.14,3.86529) (2329.14,5.17414) (2330.08,5.0923) (2331.13,3.63315) (2332.14,3.34016) (2333.14,5.21088) (2334.08,4.09881) (2335.08,5.7873) (2336.13,6.03825) (2337.14,3.67996) (2338.14,3.28711) (2339.14,3.18892) (2340.14,3.94894) (2341.14,4.02241) (2342.14,3.61) (2343.14,3.78413) (2344.14,3.04644) (2345.08,2.97797) (2346.13,3.83317) (2347.08,3.31052) (2348.13,3.13057) (2349.14,3.68237) (2350.08,3.1613) (2351.08,2.27463) (2352.08,2.79222) (2353.08,2.91831) (2354.08,2.82341) (2355.08,2.46764) (2356.08,2.52235) (2357.08,2.7436) (2358.13,3.71992) (2359.14,4.06108) (2360.08,3.67881) (2361.13,2.96682) (2362.08,2.47795) (2363.08,2.76204) (2364.08,2.91224) (2365.08,2.52239) (2366.08,2.55335) (2367.08,2.11962) (2368.13,2.80879) (2369.14,2.54093) (2370.08,2.12992) (2371.08,1.9664) (2372.08,2.24625) (2373.13,2.48133) (2374.14,2.66857) (2375.08,2.78874) (2376.08,3.57398) (2377.08,2.2737) (2378.08,2.44697) (2379.13,2.2596) (2380.08,2.20152) (2381.13,2.0077) (2382.14,1.72922) (2383.14,1.04553) (2384.08,0.623557) (2385.13,0.650761) (2386.14,0.547503) (2387.14,0.799448) (2388.14,0.672872) (2389.14,0.83302) (2390.14,1.07999) (2391.14,0.875745) (2392.14,0.791499) (2393.14,0.710501) (2394.14,0.530662) (2395.08,0.735) (2396.13,0.670497) (2397.14,0.680276) (2398.14,0.596983) (2399.14,0.644474) (2400.14,0.551092) (2401.14,0.394356) (2402.14,0.603884) (2403.14,0.480562) (2404.14,0.583348) (2405.14,0.675979) (2406.14,0.627494) (2407.14,0.501126) (2408.14,0.453116) (2409.14,0.653026) (2410.14,0.720221) (2411.14,0.708375) (2412.14,0.511502) (2413.08,0.676505) (2414.13,0.504697) (2415.14,0.6249) (2416.14,0.541285) (2417.14,0.802513) (2418.08,3.1553) (2419.13,2.82086) (2420.14,2.15626) (2421.14,2.25506) (2422.14,2.5083) (2423.14,3.70611) (2424.14,2.53313) (2425.14,3.65806) (2426.14,2.36541) (2427.14,2.17141) (2428.14,2.13103) (2429.14,2.13451) (2430.14,2.21674) (2431.14,2.08629) (2432.14,3.6254) (2433.14,2.15262) (2434.14,1.99417) (2435.08,1.88675) (2436.13,2.06312) (2437.14,1.94745) (2438.14,2.15246) (2439.14,3.01015) (2440.14,2.62422) (2441.14,1.79542) (2442.14,1.77424) (2443.08,1.74257) (2444.13,1.86754) (2445.14,1.85512) (2446.14,1.90682) (2447.08,1.9241) (2448.13,1.84094) (2449.14,1.67503) (2450.14,1.60693) (2451.14,1.59003) (2452.14,1.57432) (2453.14,1.69174) (2454.14,1.7292) (2455.14,1.68785) (2456.14,1.64196) (2457.14,1.58655) (2458.14,1.58163) (2459.14,1.58495) (2460.08,1.4853) (2461.08,2.37724) (2462.08,2.56256) (2463.08,1.50693) (2464.08,1.4814) (2465.08,1.39992) (2466.08,1.62765) (2467.08,2.89192) (2468.08,1.4979) (2469.08,1.42658) (2470.08,1.55755) (2471.08,1.48147) (2472.08,1.50329) (2473.13,1.49892) (2474.14,1.25588) (2475.14,1.17157) (2476.14,1.03872) (2477.14,0.999186) (2478.14,0.999812) (2479.14,1.02523) (2480.14,0.823671) (2481.14,0.799353) (2482.14,0.825286) (2483.14,0.843041) (2484.14,0.867913) (2485.14,0.842833) (2486.14,0.791708) (2487.14,0.643098) (2488.14,0.603481) (2489.14,0.600108) (2490.14,0.605545) (2491.14,0.594005) (2492.08,0.641835) (2493.13,0.644155) (2494.14,0.609797) (2495.14,0.664026) (2496.14,0.521385) (2497.14,0.397532) (2498.14,0.217657) (2499.14,0.205825) (2500.08,0.221234) (2501.13,0.200944) (2502.14,0.205817) (2503.14,0.20777) (2504.14,0.211559) (2505.14,0.211782) (2506.14,0.207656) (2507.14,0.360471) (2508.14,1.70858) (2509.14,0.301706) (2510.14,0.213689) (2511.14,0.213987) (2512.14,0.205877) (2513.14,0.20789) (2514.14,0.205752) (2515.14,0.205762) (2516.14,0.211611) (2517.14,0.199894) (2518.14,0.209479) (2519.14,0.204097) (2520.14,0.213633) (2521.14,0.199832) (2522.14,0.205813) (2523.14,0.203677) (2524.14,0.248651) (2525.14,0.264318) (2526.14,0.256688) (2527.14,0.219434) (2528.14,0.205808) (2529.14,0.209671) (2530.14,0.201907) (2531.14,0.201729) (2532.14,0.247125) (2533.14,0.258681) (2534.14,0.345124) (2535.14,0.215649) (2536.14,0.203863) (2537.14,0.199891) (2538.14,0.205942) (2539.14,0.221382) (2540.14,0.203921) (2541.14,0.19794) (2542.14,0.202082) (2543.14,0.205765) (2544.14,0.290203) (2545.14,0.266378) (2546.14,0.280158) (2547.14,0.207643) (2548.14,0.203987) (2549.14,0.2038) (2550.14,0.209479) (2551.14,0.239143) (2552.14,0.248857) (2553.14,0.293867) (2554.14,0.213692) (2555.14,0.203861) (2556.14,0.207586) (2557.14,0.207828) (2558.14,0.215653) (2559.14,0.207705) (2560.14,0.207706) (2561.14,0.2038) (2562.14,0.207713) (2563.14,0.215583) (2564.14,0.205815) (2565.14,0.211676) (2566.14,0.205751) (2567.14,0.201853) (2568.14,0.205821) (2569.14,0.209651) (2570.14,0.317665) (2571.14,0.207708) (2572.14,0.199771) (2573.14,0.21162) (2574.14,0.211735) (2575.14,0.205937) (2576.14,0.207582) (2577.14,0.20179) (2578.14,0.209843) (2579.14,0.209416) (2580.14,0.219622) (2581.14,0.199955) (2582.14,0.199832) (2583.14,0.207778) (2584.14,0.200016) (2585.14,0.201723) (2586.14,0.20765) (2587.14,0.205691) (2588.14,0.201783) (2589.14,0.211494) (2590.14,0.201907) (2591.14,0.209846) (2592.08,0.225721) (2593.13,46.2598) (2594.14,64.4796) (2595.14,21.0084) (2596.14,12.6484) (2597.08,34.5681) (2598.08,32.8543) (2599.13,26.3997) (2600.14,33.3278) (2601.08,28.0347) (2602.08,25.5344) (2603.13,30.5425) (2604.08,24.1256) (2605.13,30.2086) (2606.08,27.9157) (2607.08,15.0009) (2608.08,9.732) (2609.08,9.76131) (2610.08,10.8333) (2611.13,7.78883) (2612.08,12.9645) (2613.13,4.59631) (2614.14,8.23399) (2615.08,11.136) (2616.08,6.19891) (2617.13,12.4394) (2618.08,9.04797) (2619.13,6.62449) (2620.08,4.80435) (2621.08,5.45148) (2622.13,7.66209) (2623.14,8.33886) (2624.14,5.76133) (2625.14,6.99247) (2626.08,7.14534) (2627.13,6.19067) (2628.14,6.20354) (2629.14,8.48117) (2630.14,8.46398) (2631.14,7.11207) (2632.14,6.78506) (2633.14,6.06537) (2634.14,6.78356) (2635.14,7.75956) (2636.14,8.13178) (2637.08,8.41576) (2638.13,6.83479) (2639.08,7.21682) (2640.13,7.20332) (2641.14,6.45623) (2642.14,6.31922) (2643.14,6.85362) (2644.14,7.84093) (2645.14,8.30976) (2646.14,7.57996) (2647.14,5.96735) (2648.14,6.36644) (2649.14,6.1282) (2650.08,6.08344) (2651.13,7.3446) (2652.08,7.78231) (2653.13,6.64816) (2654.14,6.95556) (2655.14,7.98759) (2656.08,7.62877) (2657.08,6.67148) (2658.08,8.2401) (2659.13,6.30233) (2660.08,5.36282) (2661.13,6.28869) (2662.14,6.00634) (2663.14,7.00303) (2664.14,6.62873) (2665.14,6.53489) (2666.14,6.06532) (2667.14,4.74106) (2668.14,5.22816) (2669.14,4.92954) (2670.14,5.16836) (2671.08,4.91389) (2672.08,6.11911) (2673.08,4.96389) (2674.13,5.05719) (2675.14,4.94126) (2676.08,5.17966) (2677.13,6.08524) (2678.14,6.83363) (2679.14,5.73452) (2680.08,4.5394) (2681.08,6.01197) (2682.13,5.10068) (2683.14,4.22886) (2684.08,4.98074) (2685.13,5.29394) (2686.14,5.62768) (2687.14,5.78426) (2688.08,4.29311) (2689.13,5.53156) (2690.08,5.67024) (2691.13,4.78497) (2692.14,5.0643) (2693.08,4.206) (2694.08,4.64014) (2695.08,4.425) (2696.08,5.72812) (2697.08,5.39576) (2698.08,4.59875) (2699.08,4.60019) (2700.13,5.23395) (2701.08,4.70739) (2702.08,5.18372) (2703.13,5.0602) (2704.08,3.68668) (2705.13,3.9688) (2706.08,3.63862) (2707.13,5.76827) (2708.08,5.19174) (2709.13,4.68822) (2710.08,4.65753) (2711.13,6.91932) (2712.08,4.38098) (2713.08,3.92371) (2714.08,3.51243) (2715.08,3.75756) (2716.08,3.90746) (2717.08,3.19554) (2718.08,3.65004) (2719.13,3.9467) (2720.14,4.14357) (2721.14,6.35968) (2722.14,5.01274) (2723.14,5.55222) (2724.08,5.44568) (2725.13,3.71515) (2726.08,4.2596) (2727.13,3.78788) (2728.14,3.73411) (2729.14,3.86635) (2730.14,3.81457) (2731.14,3.14864) (2732.14,3.82332) (2733.08,4.10101) (2734.13,4.12962) (2735.14,3.50513) (2736.14,3.84954) (2737.14,4.30382) (2738.08,3.99937) (2739.13,3.47595) (2740.14,5.18204) (2741.08,4.34782) (2742.08,3.44056) (2743.08,4.19549) (2744.13,5.83653) (2745.08,3.09605) (2746.13,3.68028) (2747.14,3.78229) (2748.14,3.27944) (2749.08,2.79566) (2750.13,3.47198) (2751.14,3.50849) (2752.14,3.26417) (2753.14,3.43443) (2754.14,3.27625) (2755.14,3.30186) (2756.14,3.34536) (2757.14,3.33173) (2758.14,3.03864) (2759.08,3.43777) (2760.13,3.42638) (2761.14,3.29997) (2762.08,3.15953) (2763.13,4.01459) (2764.08,2.93625) (2765.13,2.54475) (2766.14,2.72347) (2767.14,2.87494) (2768.14,2.98494) (2769.14,3.09744) (2770.14,2.36876) (2771.14,2.31282) (2772.14,1.76624) (2773.08,1.77656) (2774.13,1.82632) (2775.14,3.04103) (2776.14,2.91296) (2777.14,1.83363) (2778.14,1.56214) (2779.14,1.56018) (2780.14,1.6987) (2781.14,1.85361) (2782.14,1.7057) (2783.14,1.69028) (2784.14,1.40826) (2785.14,1.27989) (2786.14,1.27739) (2787.08,1.3686) (2788.13,3.30168) (2789.14,3.24315) (2790.14,2.94579) (2791.14,2.82629) (2792.14,2.98776) (2793.14,3.59512) (2794.14,2.71685) (2795.14,3.82914) (2796.14,2.77889) (2797.14,3.96238) (2798.14,3.74288) (2799.14,2.24319) (2800.08,2.04118) (2801.13,2.19584) (2802.14,2.59543) (2803.14,3.41203) (2804.14,2.08947) (2805.14,1.98277) (2806.14,1.98447) (2807.14,2.07332) (2808.14,2.82143) (2809.14,3.00558) (2810.14,1.81764) (2811.14,1.78208) (2812.14,1.76126) (2813.14,1.76279) (2814.14,1.87276) (2815.14,1.92543) (2816.17,1.79873) (2817.14,1.80667) (2818.14,1.76302) (2819.14,1.79193) (2820.14,1.93822) (2821.14,1.91339) (2822.14,1.70415) (2823.14,1.83079) (2824.14,1.61663) (2825.14,1.52993) (2826.14,1.52446) (2827.14,1.39249) (2828.14,1.53666) (2829.14,1.39785) (2830.14,1.38739) (2831.14,1.38079) (2832.14,1.37802) (2833.14,1.56602) (2834.14,2.9552) (2835.14,1.50642) (2836.14,1.38983) (2837.14,1.37858) (2838.14,1.39204) (2839.14,2.34337) (2840.14,2.20013) (2841.14,1.2806) (2842.14,1.21511) (2843.14,1.24108) (2844.14,1.25895) (2845.14,1.17019) (2846.14,1.03673) (2847.14,1.04441) (2848.14,0.994519) (2849.14,0.994172) (2850.14,1.00361) (2851.14,0.794151) (2852.14,0.801675) (2853.14,0.792495) (2854.14,0.810076) (2855.14,0.798143) (2856.14,0.789824) (2857.14,0.80173) (2858.14,0.761029) (2859.14,0.601706) (2860.14,0.601539) (2861.14,0.604133) (2862.14,0.635073) (2863.14,0.662477) (2864.14,0.666256) (2865.14,0.613502) (2866.14,0.598233) (2867.14,0.57) (2868.14,0.45907) (2869.14,0.400274) (2870.14,0.401677) (2871.14,0.396193) (2872.14,0.398271) (2873.14,0.405535) (2874.14,0.400219) (2875.14,0.40011) (2876.14,1.42701) (2877.14,1.06739) (2878.14,0.217479) (2879.14,0.202022) (2880.14,0.207526) (2881.14,0.20203) (2882.14,0.203925) (2883.14,0.211432) (2884.14,0.205987) (2885.14,0.203798) (2886.14,0.199775) (2887.14,0.199954) (2888.14,0.205938) (2889.14,0.215398) (2890.14,0.20588) (2891.14,0.227323) (2892.14,0.26814) (2893.14,0.280077) (2894.14,0.231343) (2895.14,0.203615) (2896.14,0.204054) (2897.14,0.209848) (2898.14,0.205635) (2899.14,0.205876) (2900.14,0.201967) (2901.14,0.207652) (2902.14,0.20783) (2903.14,0.262575) (2904.14,0.204035) (2905.14,0.207649) (2906.14,0.200017) (2907.14,0.207768) (2908.14,0.215337) (2909.14,0.203861) (2910.14,0.211807) (2911.14,0.201724) (2912.14,0.207711) (2913.14,0.205936) (2914.14,0.209474) (2915.14,0.219545) (2916.14,0.198124) (2917.14,0.201729) (2918.14,0.211745) (2919.14,0.207775) (2920.14,0.217479) (2921.14,0.207764) (2922.14,0.207956) (2923.14,0.213513) (2924.14,0.211809) (2925.08,0.219731) (2926.08,45.5294) (2927.08,65.5597) (2928.08,20.632) (2929.08,12.7885) (2930.13,23.5568) (2931.14,30.0124) (2932.08,27.7866) (2933.13,35.7156) (2934.08,25.2618) (2935.13,31.2194) (2936.14,18.4733) (2937.14,18.775) (2938.14,30.5299) (2939.08,14.1307) (2940.08,15.7819) (2941.08,7.45474) (2942.08,10.0878) (2943.13,7.68891) (2944.14,7.67874) (2945.14,5.70093) (2946.14,8.48592) (2947.14,8.12743) (2948.14,6.8729) (2949.14,5.23894) (2950.08,8.55476) (2951.13,9.43334) (2952.14,8.92511) (2953.08,6.75105) (2954.13,6.15738) (2955.14,5.07525) (2956.14,7.85117) (2957.14,7.1181) (2958.08,5.42935) (2959.13,5.76357) (2960.08,6.38658) (2961.08,7.4913) (2962.08,7.26158) (2963.13,6.92082) (2964.14,6.31116) (2965.08,6.53806) (2966.08,9.06038) (2967.08,8.26006) (2968.08,5.71851) (2969.13,7.77495) (2970.08,7.09711) (2971.13,8.50381) (2972.08,7.70558) (2973.13,5.909) (2974.08,4.87578) (2975.08,6.53109) (2976.13,7.39603) (2977.08,6.26586) (2978.08,6.49115) (2979.13,6.56458) (2980.08,5.90219) (2981.08,5.62211) (2982.13,6.83953) (2983.08,5.408) (2984.08,6.95676) (2985.13,6.45743) (2986.14,7.71784) (2987.14,7.20669) (2988.08,6.38065) (2989.08,5.58501) (2990.08,6.02662) (2991.08,7.4932) (2992.13,6.19429) (2993.08,5.87647) (2994.08,5.85094) (2995.08,5.77859) (2996.08,5.71919) (2997.13,6.09283) (2998.14,6.65892) (2999.08,7.28257) (3000.13,7.51308) (3001.14,6.89766) (3002.14,6.93824) (3003.14,7.83394) (3004.14,6.83699) (3005.14,6.01323) (3006.14,7.94086) (3007.08,7.07272) (3008.13,8.62744) (3009.08,5.42652) (3010.13,6.57075) (3011.14,5.74736) (3012.14,5.99152) (3013.14,5.89004) (3014.14,6.53305) (3015.14,6.62574) (3016.08,5.37043) (3017.13,5.85) (3018.14,5.94805) (3019.14,6.3368) (3020.14,5.30542) (3021.14,5.11967) (3022.08,4.84679) (3023.13,5.69285) (3024.08,6.68806) (3025.13,6.02117) (3026.14,5.60393) (3027.14,5.24832) (3028.08,6.26438) (3029.13,6.81996) (3030.14,5.72093) (3031.08,6.55913) (3032.13,5.12795) (3033.14,5.12021) (3034.08,3.76764) (3035.13,5.33598) (3036.08,4.86177) (3037.08,4.99697) (3038.13,8.81773) (3039.08,5.2118) (3040.08,4.10123) (3041.08,4.47169) (3042.13,4.30052) (3043.14,4.28397) (3044.14,4.0708) (3045.08,4.08069) (3046.13,4.63876) (3047.08,4.4308) (3048.13,5.74346) (3049.14,4.99938) (3050.14,3.85961) (3051.14,4.18267) (3052.14,4.31701) (3053.14,4.5879) (3054.14,5.33871) (3055.14,4.58121) (3056.14,4.8711) (3057.14,4.81561) (3058.14,4.83871) (3059.08,3.86487) (3060.08,3.63273) (3061.08,3.7167) (3062.13,4.16816) (3063.14,3.86281) (3064.14,4.42904) (3065.14,4.28143) (3066.14,5.74874) (3067.14,4.17756) (3068.14,3.59911) (3069.08,3.18548) (3070.13,3.67904) (3071.14,3.6912) (3072.14,4.02039) (3073.08,3.73347) (3074.08,4.6976) (3075.13,3.91571) (3076.08,3.1029) (3077.13,3.37747) (3078.14,3.3706) (3079.14,3.23808) (3080.14,3.7557) (3081.08,3.06621) (3082.13,4.07264) (3083.08,4.18652) (3084.13,3.31913) (3085.14,3.18753) (3086.14,2.7684) (3087.08,2.14462) (3088.08,2.69948) (3089.08,2.85132) (3090.13,3.14775) (3091.08,3.03262) (3092.08,3.39275) (3093.13,2.84973) (3094.14,2.42407) (3095.08,1.83513) (3096.08,2.01337) (3097.08,1.89787) (3098.08,2.36035) (3099.08,3.66195) (3100.13,1.70081) (3101.14,1.14922) (3102.14,1.00071) (3103.14,1.1363) (3104.14,0.99388) (3105.14,1.03916) (3106.14,1.40169) (3107.08,1.42152) (3108.13,1.12157) (3109.14,1.01408) (3110.14,0.867257) (3111.14,0.969152) (3112.14,1.13604) (3113.14,1.16309) (3114.14,2.89293) (3115.14,3.59903) (3116.14,3.11476) (3117.14,2.30364) (3118.14,2.13645) (3119.14,2.10601) (3120.14,1.99215) (3121.14,2.11977) (3122.14,1.97724) (3123.14,2.01126) (3124.14,2.28244) (3125.14,2.28388) (3126.14,3.39108) (3127.14,2.33774) (3128.14,1.87747) (3129.14,2.4) (3130.14,2.66758) (3131.14,1.8753) (3132.14,1.98868) (3133.14,2.24975) (3134.14,1.94181) (3135.14,1.79704) (3136.14,1.73285) (3137.14,1.82162) (3138.14,1.80125) (3139.14,1.76288) (3140.14,1.96305) (3141.14,2.14696) (3142.14,2.19488) (3143.14,1.90032) (3144.14,1.86715) (3145.14,1.87784) (3146.14,1.89537) (3147.14,2.65057) (3148.14,3.18876) (3149.14,2.33473) (3150.14,2.07413) (3151.14,1.89391) (3152.14,1.72489) (3153.14,1.70332) (3154.14,1.81073) (3155.14,1.63931) (3156.14,1.60481) (3157.14,1.58944) (3158.14,1.57818) (3159.14,3.11969) (3160.14,1.89454) (3161.14,3.09176) (3162.14,1.73051) (3163.14,1.59089) (3164.14,1.59538) (3165.14,1.59897) (3166.14,1.5828) (3167.14,1.59135) (3168.14,1.59525) (3169.14,1.59636) (3170.14,1.52677) (3171.14,1.38712) (3172.14,2.49952) (3173.14,2.01211) (3174.14,1.25413) (3175.14,1.04858) (3176.14,0.996151) (3177.14,0.990851) (3178.14,0.960354) (3179.14,0.796103) (3180.14,0.797818) (3181.14,0.791655) (3182.14,0.788477) (3183.14,0.794096) (3184.14,0.803741) (3185.14,0.872267) (3186.14,0.798214) (3187.14,0.795998) (3188.14,0.790117) (3189.14,0.640904) (3190.14,0.609408) (3191.14,0.591871) (3192.14,0.602133) (3193.14,0.587975) (3194.14,0.399539) (3195.14,0.403822) (3196.14,0.476097) (3197.14,0.405767) (3198.14,0.403757) (3199.14,0.405904) (3200.14,0.407731) (3201.14,0.394172) (3202.14,0.398263) (3203.14,0.262524) (3204.14,0.209359) (3205.14,0.209901) (3206.14,0.203869) (3207.14,0.236874) (3208.14,0.266502) (3209.14,0.268331) (3210.14,0.221337) (3211.14,0.199781) (3212.14,0.211796) (3213.14,0.209849) (3214.14,0.205569) (3215.14,0.203749) (3216.14,0.215527) (3217.14,0.197878) (3218.14,0.225327) (3219.14,0.274202) (3220.14,0.250666) (3221.14,0.221633) (3222.14,0.779027) (3223.14,1.34988) (3224.14,0.239137) (3225.14,0.20967) (3226.14,0.201976) (3227.14,0.203798) (3228.14,0.213704) (3229.14,0.213575) (3230.14,0.203799) (3231.14,0.200016) (3232.14,0.205818) (3233.14,0.213451) (3234.14,0.209852) (3235.08,0.219603) (3236.08,71.0541) (3237.08,52.8802) (3238.08,17.762) (3239.13,27.4464) (3240.08,29.7843) (3241.08,33.543) (3242.08,18.7716) (3243.13,23.9776) (3244.14,28.3579) (3245.08,19.6779) (3246.13,24.8552) (3247.08,19.477) (3248.08,18.7707) (3249.08,22.4316) (3250.08,10.4139) (3251.13,12.4907) (3252.14,13.3899) (3253.14,9.27019) (3254.08,6.24188) (3255.08,5.27182) (3256.08,7.65645) (3257.08,5.53808) (3258.08,7.28494) (3259.08,11.1043) (3260.08,5.46954) (3261.08,7.33276) (3262.08,7.56701) (3263.08,6.98331) (3264.08,7.05245) (3265.08,5.67195) (3266.08,5.30765) (3267.08,6.86138) (3268.08,6.26535) (3269.08,6.14577) (3270.08,8.25601) (3271.08,8.86496) (3272.08,7.98978) (3273.08,7.38288) (3274.08,6.21338) (3275.08,6.5653) (3276.08,6.58343) (3277.08,7.47295) (3278.08,7.50387) (3279.08,7.80353) (3280.08,7.25934) (3281.08,6.72879) (3282.08,9.08751) (3283.08,7.36178) (3284.08,5.76732) (3285.08,5.46659) (3286.08,5.53365) (3287.08,8.87007) (3288.08,6.39938) (3289.08,6.87224) (3290.13,8.76303) (3291.08,6.39683) (3292.08,6.66131) (3293.08,7.16142) (3294.08,6.11762) (3295.08,5.88065) (3296.13,6.33622) (3297.08,5.60486) (3298.08,6.04999) (3299.08,7.98978) (3300.08,7.46696) (3301.08,6.04782) (3302.08,7.45503) (3303.08,10.0331) (3304.08,5.98331) (3305.08,5.9912) (3306.08,6.07592) (3307.08,5.81255) (3308.08,5.63798) (3309.08,8.85399) (3310.13,6.66314) (3311.08,6.25129) (3312.08,6.24368) (3313.08,6.49173) (3314.08,6.90296) (3315.08,6.06253) (3316.08,5.37009) (3317.08,5.04577) (3318.08,4.76192) (3319.08,5.9678) (3320.08,5.21071) (3321.08,4.78266) (3322.08,5.22602) (3323.08,5.67527) (3324.08,7.2076) (3325.08,5.30658) (3326.08,5.35283) (3327.08,4.82987) (3328.08,5.43173) (3329.08,5.30416) (3330.08,5.91501) (3331.08,4.49009) (3332.08,4.44178) (3333.08,4.56212) (3334.08,6.63678) (3335.08,6.31773) (3336.13,4.55697) (3337.08,4.16453) (3338.08,4.61183) (3339.08,4.61144) (3340.08,7.4609) (3341.13,6.23039) (3342.08,3.75033) (3343.08,4.54916) (3344.08,4.71237) (3345.08,6.29191) (3346.08,5.1465) (3347.08,4.63031) (3348.13,4.66886) (3349.08,3.92439) (3350.08,5.57433) (3351.08,4.40541) (3352.08,4.11687) (3353.08,5.43743) (3354.08,6.26631) (3355.08,7.90848) (3356.08,5.40232) (3357.08,4.53296) (3358.08,5.04666) (3359.08,4.52875) (3360.08,3.83065) (3361.08,3.82728) (3362.08,3.80062) (3363.08,4.9333) (3364.08,5.05852) (3365.08,4.63701) (3366.08,5.63293) (3367.08,4.07147) (3368.08,4.13792) (3369.08,4.08804) (3370.13,4.60677) (3371.08,3.76897) (3372.13,4.31881) (3373.08,3.66106) (3374.13,4.43601) (3375.08,3.43894) (3376.08,3.53348) (3377.08,3.85056) (3378.08,3.65214) (3379.08,3.3464) (3380.08,3.92057) (3381.08,5.24279) (3382.08,4.38701) (3383.13,3.57598) (3384.08,3.07838) (3385.08,3.99798) (3386.08,3.29595) (3387.08,2.94485) (3388.08,2.87573) (3389.08,2.97824) (3390.08,2.96548) (3391.08,3.65309) (3392.08,3.76919) (3393.08,2.94677) (3394.08,2.78905) (3395.08,2.73748) (3396.08,4.44067) (3397.13,3.7965) (3398.08,2.14598) (3399.08,2.00053) (3400.08,2.88935) (3401.08,3.20546) (3402.08,2.62532) (3403.08,2.03725) (3404.08,2.24362) (3405.08,1.96194) (3406.08,1.48128) (3407.08,1.90451) (3408.08,1.87348) (3409.13,1.72716) (3410.08,0.749189) (3411.08,1.13425) (3412.08,1.40155) (3413.13,1.64259) (3414.08,0.919522) (3415.08,1.51377) (3416.08,1.47278) (3417.08,1.35319) (3418.08,1.35674) (3419.08,1.31355) (3420.08,1.21746) (3421.08,1.11327) (3422.13,2.97036) (3423.08,3.13867) (3424.08,2.93373) (3425.08,2.28524) (3426.08,2.39663) (3427.08,2.61724) (3428.08,2.62008) (3429.08,2.65352) (3430.08,2.73601) (3431.13,3.98776) (3432.08,2.40607) (3433.08,4.37227) (3434.08,2.61505) (3435.08,2.30376) (3436.08,3.26446) (3437.13,4.31648) (3438.14,2.32987) (3439.14,3.12096) (3440.14,2.88985) (3441.14,2.14379) (3442.14,1.82553) (3443.14,1.61947) (3444.14,1.59306) (3445.14,1.59948) (3446.14,1.58541) (3447.14,1.5781) (3448.14,1.58473) (3449.14,1.58477) (3450.14,2.63285) (3451.14,2.3188) (3452.14,1.59164) (3453.14,1.62064) (3454.14,1.60639) (3455.14,1.60597) (3456.14,1.59228) (3457.14,1.58848) (3458.14,1.64243) (3459.14,1.60228) (3460.14,1.63723) (3461.14,1.66203) (3462.14,1.58651) (3463.14,1.39366) (3464.14,1.38383) (3465.14,1.44534) (3466.14,1.50909) (3467.14,1.38646) (3468.14,1.3863) (3469.14,1.50528) (3470.14,1.39592) (3471.14,1.39259) (3472.14,1.4129) (3473.14,1.45876) (3474.14,1.465) (3475.14,1.48253) (3476.14,1.38371) (3477.14,1.40581) (3478.14,1.44722) (3479.14,1.44833) (3480.14,1.35989) (3481.14,1.082) (3482.14,1.03876) (3483.14,1.01559) (3484.14,0.998223) (3485.14,0.928757) (3486.14,0.845059) (3487.14,0.860476) (3488.14,0.811395) (3489.14,0.80363) (3490.14,0.837028) (3491.14,0.877637) (3492.14,0.797873) (3493.14,0.790297) (3494.14,0.801859) (3495.14,1.82457) (3496.14,1.76869) (3497.14,0.672653) (3498.14,0.599456) (3499.14,0.598152) (3500.14,0.606109) (3501.14,0.458354) (3502.14,0.438626) (3503.14,0.451331) (3504.14,0.458574) (3505.14,0.419157) (3506.14,0.419602) (3507.14,0.455037) (3508.14,0.464103) (3509.14,0.425346) (3510.08,0.219609) (3511.08,1.10731) (3512.13,1.63911) (3513.14,0.401993) (3514.14,0.41121) (3515.14,0.411644) (3516.14,0.39986) (3517.14,0.397782) (3518.14,0.398142) (3519.14,0.403828) (3520.08,0.219411) (3521.13,0.614137) (3522.14,0.402179) (3523.14,0.356679) (3524.14,0.21357) (3525.14,0.200148) (3526.14,0.209854) (3527.08,0.0104147) (3528.08,64.8968) (3529.08,53.077) (3530.08,22.5935) (3531.13,23.788) (3532.08,34.2788) (3533.13,27.3153) (3534.14,26.2413) (3535.14,30.2719) (3536.08,22.7845) (3537.08,25.8383) (3538.08,17.1073) (3539.13,21.7293) (3540.08,23.784) (3541.08,12.7798) (3542.08,12.4403) (3543.08,6.49508) (3544.13,6.35773) (3545.08,7.23536) (3546.13,6.05455) (3547.08,7.58259) (3548.08,8.50391) (3549.08,5.51249) (3550.13,4.96711) (3551.14,5.75717) (3552.14,6.26465) (3553.08,5.89561) (3554.08,4.87381) (3555.13,4.86203) (3556.14,6.23372) (3557.14,5.16206) (3558.14,4.45015) (3559.14,6.82654) (3560.08,5.20516) (3561.08,4.66936) (3562.13,4.45752) (3563.14,4.4836) (3564.14,3.91856) (3565.14,3.8744) (3566.08,3.85265) (3567.08,4.44179) (3568.08,5.33412) (3569.08,6.32934) (3570.08,5.79439) (3571.08,4.12783) (3572.08,3.90872) (3573.08,5.10537) (3574.13,4.58273) (3575.08,5.394) (3576.08,4.38579) (3577.08,7.55756) (3578.08,4.24986) (3579.08,3.53411) (3580.08,3.34147) (3581.08,5.44007) (3582.08,4.98479) (3583.08,5.88994) (3584.08,7.22745) (3585.08,6.06885) (3586.08,4.22699) (3587.08,4.86428) (3588.08,6.0597) (3589.08,4.65141) (3590.08,4.7464) (3591.08,4.68278) (3592.13,6.35017) (3593.14,5.03238) (3594.14,5.59922) (3595.14,5.98678) (3596.14,5.40456) (3597.14,4.52201) (3598.14,4.41404) (3599.14,4.01033) (3600.08,4.69474) (3601.08,6.41113) (3602.08,5.77715) (3603.08,6.38887) (3604.08,5.87116) (3605.08,4.76872) (3606.08,6.44868) (3607.08,4.92746) (3608.08,4.19319) (3609.08,4.201) (3610.08,4.64436) (3611.08,4.95082) (3612.08,4.41117) (3613.08,4.48177) (3614.08,5.10485) (3615.08,4.94983) (3616.08,5.5058) (3617.08,4.09692) (3618.08,4.23912) (3619.08,4.76594) (3620.08,6.13714) (3621.08,5.37147) (3622.08,5.06189) (3623.08,5.86506) (3624.08,5.07396) (3625.08,5.74193) (3626.08,5.32982) (3627.08,4.72405) (3628.08,4.74123) (3629.08,5.6782) (3630.08,5.79462) (3631.08,5.9168) (3632.08,6.70776) (3633.08,6.51916) (3634.08,6.34309) (3635.08,6.83451) (3636.08,9.04209) (3637.13,7.08833) (3638.08,6.86745) (3639.13,5.85185) (3640.08,5.20029) (3641.08,5.82424) (3642.08,5.71456) (3643.13,6.78744) (3644.08,6.1659) (3645.13,6.74971) (3646.08,6.01792) (3647.08,5.65626) (3648.08,5.88429) (3649.13,6.03573) (3650.14,6.27482) (3651.14,7.0858) (3652.08,5.49617) (3653.13,6.35144) (3654.08,7.14815) (3655.08,5.85961) (3656.08,6.29568) (3657.13,8.01793) (3658.08,6.35066) (3659.08,5.5547) (3660.08,4.52343) (3661.08,5.34125) (3662.08,6.57669) (3663.08,7.09636) (3664.13,5.83244) (3665.14,5.88703) (3666.08,6.47004) (3667.13,6.01196) (3668.08,5.19405) (3669.08,6.80504) (3670.08,5.23252) (3671.13,5.92881) (3672.14,5.39334) (3673.14,5.1302) (3674.14,5.75292) (3675.14,6.52639) (3676.14,4.23965) (3677.14,3.93493) (3678.14,4.26578) (3679.14,4.1227) (3680.08,3.74549) (3681.13,4.68069) (3682.08,3.98826) (3683.13,4.7675) (3684.08,6.38967) (3685.13,6.08144) (3686.08,2.93567) (3687.13,4.22608) (3688.08,3.76567) (3689.13,4.47079) (3690.14,4.39417) (3691.14,4.63136) (3692.14,4.02135) (3693.14,4.87223) (3694.14,4.72681) (3695.14,5.04688) (3696.14,3.73549) (3697.14,2.94276) (3698.08,2.77121) (3699.13,3.16749) (3700.08,2.12007) (3701.13,2.76326) (3702.14,2.3036) (3703.14,2.0726) (3704.08,1.56096) (3705.13,2.54577) (3706.08,1.86548) (3707.13,2.58897) (3708.14,2.28459) (3709.14,1.64966) (3710.08,1.82616) (3711.13,2.1014) (3712.14,3.22577) (3713.08,1.40724) (3714.13,2.94547) (3715.14,1.73345) (3716.14,1.46318) (3717.14,1.15854) (3718.08,0.695511) (3719.13,1.30063) (3720.14,1.23022) (3721.14,1.22966) (3722.08,0.834036) (3723.13,1.83439) (3724.08,0.79614) (3725.13,1.25149) (3726.08,0.4709) (3727.13,1.75769) (3728.14,1.03279) (3729.14,1.21249) (3730.14,1.15112) (3731.14,0.860609) (3732.14,0.881552) (3733.14,0.920137) (3734.14,1.10773) (3735.14,1.04272) (3736.14,1.16368) (3737.14,1.45819) (3738.14,1.11322) (3739.14,0.91613) (3740.14,0.994668) (3741.14,1.08111) (3742.14,1.32847) (3743.08,2.95856) (3744.08,3.38555) (3745.13,2.96108) (3746.08,2.30308) (3747.13,2.62538) (3748.08,2.72775) (3749.13,3.52387) (3750.08,2.02294) (3751.13,2.36852) (3752.14,1.99323) (3753.14,1.99615) (3754.14,1.99286) (3755.14,1.98135) (3756.14,2.93042) (3757.14,3.93326) (3758.14,2.36828) (3759.14,2.38439) (3760.08,3.0662) (3761.13,1.95441) (3762.14,1.62653) (3763.14,1.59925) (3764.14,1.58905) (3765.14,1.58408) (3766.14,1.59019) (3767.14,1.57905) (3768.14,1.58167) (3769.14,1.54093) (3770.14,1.38017) (3771.14,1.42528) (3772.14,1.38218) (3773.14,1.38403) (3774.14,1.41733) (3775.14,1.45287) (3776.14,1.54846) (3777.14,1.42762) (3778.14,1.4395) (3779.14,1.39228) (3780.14,1.38329) (3781.14,1.38365) (3782.14,1.38193) (3783.14,1.4096) (3784.08,1.32329) (3785.13,1.50061) (3786.14,1.39563) (3787.14,1.37545) (3788.08,1.48171) (3789.13,3.31063) (3790.08,1.37906) (3791.13,1.48942) (3792.08,1.26776) (3793.13,1.49367) (3794.08,1.27394) (3795.13,1.60193) (3796.14,1.42825) (3797.14,1.42833) (3798.08,1.34459) (3799.13,1.54573) (3800.14,2.43537) (3801.14,2.35513) (3802.08,1.17702) (3803.13,1.31027) (3804.14,1.19958) (3805.14,0.811129) (3806.14,0.794019) (3807.14,0.790188) (3808.14,0.794156) (3809.14,0.793908) (3810.14,0.799786) (3811.14,0.889915) (3812.14,0.795738) (3813.14,0.796247) (3814.14,0.831357) (3815.14,0.599939) (3816.14,0.629651) (3817.14,0.62689) (3818.14,0.44879) (3819.14,0.420926) (3820.14,0.403519) (3821.14,0.399733) (3822.14,0.401929) (3823.14,0.40749) (3824.14,0.405645) (3825.14,0.405602) (3826.14,0.397901) (3827.14,0.393799) (3828.14,0.405783) (3829.14,0.405535) (3830.14,0.207526) (3831.14,0.205638) (3832.14,0.270838) (3833.14,0.207952) (3834.14,0.20362) (3835.14,0.207962) (3836.14,0.21761) (3837.14,0.264174) (3838.14,0.253045) (3839.14,0.223566) (3840.14,0.211501) (3841.14,0.202154) (3842.14,0.200015) (3843.14,0.215534) (3844.14,0.266463) (3845.14,0.272341) (3846.14,0.229224) (3847.14,0.200015) (3848.14,0.207842) (3849.14,3.55813) (3850.08,61.5787) (3851.13,51.157) (3852.08,25.6179) (3853.13,31.6618) (3854.08,32.8852) (3855.08,30.0041) (3856.13,30.139) (3857.08,22.1029) (3858.13,28.8778) (3859.14,18.2651) (3860.08,19.4947) (3861.08,32.4613) (3862.08,13.6489) (3863.13,21.771) (3864.14,7.64511) (3865.14,6.59127) (3866.14,11.8051) (3867.08,12.0206) (3868.13,16.3779) (3869.14,9.95333) (3870.14,4.87092) (3871.14,6.61412) (3872.14,6.97274) (3873.14,7.41696) (3874.14,6.64647) (3875.08,8.94632) (3876.08,6.39312) (3877.08,8.93167) (3878.13,8.43058) (3879.08,5.24411) (3880.13,6.24015) (3881.14,5.78267) (3882.14,5.34397) (3883.14,6.68958) (3884.14,5.93009) (3885.14,6.11905) (3886.14,6.57735) (3887.08,5.77311) (3888.13,7.56546) (3889.14,7.68819) (3890.14,6.67039) (3891.14,5.96441) (3892.14,8.2014) (3893.14,8.20433) (3894.14,8.54334) (3895.14,7.49349) (3896.14,7.45238) (3897.08,7.67351) (3898.08,9.39181) (3899.13,9.21739) (3900.14,8.56111) (3901.14,7.30216) (3902.14,6.31334) (3903.14,5.84387) (3904.14,8.44975) (3905.14,9.78125) (3906.14,6.8847) (3907.14,5.87991) (3908.14,6.1011) (3909.14,6.81774) (3910.08,4.99689) (3911.13,6.34487) (3912.14,6.22406) (3913.14,5.9043) (3914.14,6.16499) (3915.08,4.75703) (3916.13,6.22799) (3917.08,4.29907) (3918.08,6.42011) (3919.13,5.54411) (3920.08,4.607) (3921.08,5.27241) (3922.13,5.76313) (3923.08,4.57259) (3924.13,5.60129) (3925.08,5.59143) (3926.08,5.82289) (3927.08,6.23421) (3928.13,5.37874) (3929.14,5.05723) (3930.14,4.96242) (3931.14,6.01624) (3932.14,5.37342) (3933.14,6.90213) (3934.08,5.32193) (3935.13,5.00954) (3936.14,5.20547) (3937.14,5.57619) (3938.14,5.23129) (3939.08,4.55583) (3940.13,5.32307) (3941.14,4.75946) (3942.14,5.13401) (3943.08,4.98392) (3944.13,6.98727) (3945.08,4.79495) (3946.13,6.41858) (3947.08,6.4694) (3948.13,4.85092) (3949.08,4.33145) (3950.13,5.42927) (3951.14,5.4449) (3952.08,5.25458) (3953.13,6.07272) (3954.14,4.7592) (3955.08,4.59488) (3956.08,4.45137) (3957.13,6.73471) (3958.08,7.13819) (3959.13,5.67528) (3960.14,5.26518) (3961.08,4.4109) (3962.13,5.54821) (3963.14,6.2743) (3964.14,5.88904) (3965.14,5.44826) (3966.14,4.82197) (3967.08,4.07987) (3968.08,5.01503) (3969.08,5.41602) (3970.08,5.82266) (3971.08,5.76422) (3972.08,4.53445) (3973.13,4.5915) (3974.14,5.05455) (3975.14,7.21774) (3976.14,5.83555) (3977.14,5.87541) (3978.14,6.94305) (3979.14,5.33865) (3980.14,4.51778) (3981.14,4.00932) (3982.14,4.79988) (3983.14,4.17445) (3984.14,4.41348) (3985.14,5.96758) (3986.14,4.96069) (3987.14,4.08298) (3988.14,3.23828) (3989.14,3.549) (3990.14,4.06111) (3991.14,4.34683) (3992.14,3.91597) (3993.14,3.01154) (3994.14,3.1451) (3995.08,2.62218) (3996.13,3.69596) (3997.08,3.28619) (3998.13,3.52502) (3999.14,3.48634) (4000.08,2.61729) (4001.13,2.93434) (4002.14,2.50877) (4003.14,2.58446) (4004.14,2.55417) (4005.14,2.6438) (4006.14,3.02918) (4007.08,2.338) (4008.13,4.6888) (4009.14,2.25501) (4010.08,2.16004) (4011.13,2.71392) (4012.14,2.18027) (4013.14,2.64401) (4014.14,2.38593) (4015.14,2.49194) (4016.14,2.06821) (4017.14,2.58747) (4018.08,2.28029) (4019.13,3.50816) (4020.14,2.66722) (4021.14,3.67483) (4022.14,2.49436) (4023.14,3.2197) (4024.14,2.31624) (4025.08,1.54519) (4026.08,3.02554) (4027.08,2.43599) (4028.08,1.75895) (4029.08,1.23733) (4030.13,2.02203) (4031.14,1.26394) (4032.14,1.58473) (4033.14,1.26476) (4034.08,1.01723) (4035.13,1.41094) (4036.14,1.41153) (4037.14,1.30554) (4038.14,0.822225) (4039.08,0.0416823) (4040.13,0.706732) (4041.08,0.0667561) (4042.13,3.77969) (4043.08,2.04444) (4044.13,2.52062) (4045.08,1.92806) (4046.13,2.57162) (4047.14,2.34815) (4048.14,2.10882) (4049.08,1.92105) (4050.13,2.73378) (4051.08,4.02327) (4052.13,3.45626) (4053.08,1.98587) (4054.13,2.61064) (4055.08,2.06189) (4056.13,3.66775) (4057.14,2.26934) (4058.14,2.0001) (4059.08,1.6944) (4060.13,2.3077) (4061.14,1.90354) (4062.14,1.75147) (4063.14,1.7285) (4064.14,1.86013) (4065.14,1.73259) (4066.14,1.54041) (4067.14,1.67541) (4068.14,2.7446) (4069.14,2.49294) (4070.14,1.61916) (4071.14,1.55837) (4072.14,1.54718) (4073.14,1.54775) (4074.14,1.59071) (4075.14,1.5458) (4076.14,1.68772) (4077.08,1.28216) (4078.13,2.21652) (4079.08,1.26325) (4080.08,1.55636) (4081.08,1.53393) (4082.13,1.78809) (4083.08,1.27388) (4084.08,1.56792) (4085.13,2.23065) (4086.08,1.31763) (4087.13,1.81881) (4088.14,1.5542) (4089.14,1.74906) (4090.14,1.61638) (4091.14,1.72387) (4092.14,1.78419) (4093.08,1.39444) (4094.13,1.84768) (4095.14,1.57862) (4096.14,1.69083) (4097.08,1.27746) (4098.08,1.63168) (4099.13,2.07295) (4100.14,1.46573) (4101.14,1.42127) (4102.14,1.25502) (4103.14,1.09403) (4104.14,1.01521) (4105.14,0.984556) (4106.08,0.679161) (4107.08,1.10814) (4108.13,1.94611) (4109.14,0.531223) (4110.14,0.409761) (4111.14,0.398017) (4112.14,0.399798) (4113.14,0.39601) (4114.14,0.407663) (4115.14,0.411604) (4116.08,0.217383) (4117.13,0.573947) (4118.14,0.401758) (4119.14,0.407858) (4120.14,0.403815) (4121.14,0.403823) (4122.14,0.398263) (4123.14,0.405597) (4124.14,0.309533) (4125.14,0.213578) (4126.14,0.201847) (4127.14,0.208245) (4128.14,0.209951) (4129.14,0.223352) (4130.14,0.266424) (4131.14,0.252754) (4132.14,0.302025) (4133.14,0.253027) (4134.14,0.268544) (4135.14,0.233269) (4136.14,0.198001) (4137.14,0.21364) (4138.14,0.203861) (4139.14,0.199892) (4140.14,0.205822) (4141.14,0.209781) (4142.14,0.211376) (4143.14,0.198124) (4144.14,0.207713) (4145.14,0.211495) (4146.14,0.203983) (4147.14,0.209664) (4148.14,0.203623) (4149.14,0.211552) (4150.14,0.207712) (4151.14,0.209595) (4152.14,0.201666) (4153.14,0.209608) (4154.14,0.201784) (4155.14,0.219124) (4156.14,0.203743) (4157.14,0.20197) (4158.14,0.19794) (4159.14,0.219121) (4160.14,0.203798) (4161.14,0.21778) (4162.14,0.205954) (4163.14,0.205685) (4164.14,0.207783) (4165.14,0.209715) (4166.14,0.203737) (4167.14,0.199961) (4168.14,0.197946) (4169.14,0.20759) (4170.14,0.211736) (4171.14,0.201852) (4172.14,0.203737) (4173.14,0.203921) (4174.14,0.211627) (4175.14,0.20765) (4176.14,0.207706) (4177.14,0.199961) (4178.14,0.201666) (4179.14,0.207828) (4180.14,0.217543) (4181.14,0.199954) (4182.14,0.21547) (4183.14,0.20393) (4184.14,0.205821) (4185.14,0.203744) (4186.14,0.201977) (4187.14,0.205696) (4188.14,0.996803) (4189.08,0.0145846) (4190.08,1.21387) (4191.13,0.391287) (4192.14,0.203931) (4193.14,0.204046) (4194.14,0.205697) (4195.14,0.212034) (4196.14,0.209735) (4197.14,0.201907) (4198.14,0.203931) (4199.14,0.206059) (4200.08,0.0145899) (4201.08,42.7837) (4202.08,81.5698) (4203.08,82.0756) (4204.08,48.7342) (4205.08,44.9851) (4206.13,59.9404) (4207.08,60.1559) (4208.08,78.2132) (4209.08,79.6447) (4210.13,69.4587) (4211.14,51.0435) (4212.14,34.2532) (4213.14,27.6013) (4214.14,21.9078) (4215.14,14.2357) };
\end{axis}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileRight,
]
\pgfplotsset{cycle list shift=1}
\addplot coordinates { (0.079433,0) (1.07945,101.722) (2.07948,1183.11) (3.07946,640.629) (4.07946,554.798) (5.07983,550.263) (6.08073,629.967) (7.08005,637.338) (8.07948,657.936) (9.08008,689.249) (10.0795,693.914) (11.0795,651.976) (12.0796,644.07) (13.0795,609.638) (14.0796,610.589) (15.0797,648.543) (16.0796,625.572) (17.0797,546.196) (18.0797,582.891) (19.0796,625.183) (20.0795,633.364) (21.0796,627.554) (22.0795,644.981) (23.0795,619.444) (24.0796,621.109) (25.0795,615.356) (26.0799,631.004) (27.0795,567.333) (28.0795,451.061) (29.0795,283.009) (30.1336,106.681) (31.0847,32.0249) (32.0795,4.93185) (33.1336,0.776795) (34.0848,1.29817) (35.0795,0.644711) (36.0794,0.849115) (37.0794,0.487042) (38.1336,0.579599) (39.1419,0.281425) (40.0847,0.391571) (41.0795,476.046) (42.0794,460.98) (43.0794,88.5328) (44.0794,64.0564) (45.0794,72.2485) (46.0794,65.2778) (47.0794,64.4578) (48.0794,59.9382) (49.0794,59.2008) (50.0794,53.4859) (51.0794,52.2484) (52.0794,47.6929) (53.0794,48.4542) (54.0794,49.6658) (55.0794,49.8135) (56.0794,49.6915) (57.1336,44.8702) (58.0847,41.1101) (59.0794,38.0981) (60.0794,50.5722) (61.0794,50.7434) (62.0794,53.7859) (63.0794,56.0211) (64.0794,51.5208) (65.1336,48.2908) (66.0847,45.9154) (67.0794,48.9663) (68.0794,54.9922) (69.0794,53.974) (70.0794,51.9636) (71.0794,52.1443) (72.0794,53.2465) (73.0794,56.656) (74.0794,60.4322) (75.0794,58.0923) (76.0794,52.4117) (77.0794,53.0284) (78.0794,56.1517) (79.1336,49.5937) (80.0847,40.5045) (81.0794,34.5765) (82.0794,43.6557) (83.1336,32.808) (84.0847,34.8341) (85.0794,38.8686) (86.1016,39.2278) (87.1336,43.3354) (88.0847,40.516) (89.1336,42.4935) (90.0847,27.4477) (91.0794,28.4191) (92.0794,44.0871) (93.0794,40.3622) (94.0794,42.1836) (95.0794,44.8693) (96.0794,43.92) (97.0794,39.2737) (98.0794,40.5936) (99.0794,43.5699) (100.079,43.0685) (101.079,44.7177) (102.079,37.7211) (103.079,39.0422) (104.079,41.2001) (105.079,37.1418) (106.079,41.5867) (107.079,41.2299) (108.079,40.2561) (109.079,41.5293) (110.079,38.644) (111.079,30.7409) (112.079,37.8835) (113.079,37.2821) (114.079,40.896) (115.134,39.7881) (116.085,50.4294) (117.079,42.6339) (118.079,40.7884) (119.079,36.5119) (120.079,39.9626) (121.079,58.3065) (122.079,49.2002) (123.079,40.69) (124.079,37.3855) (125.079,54.7242) (126.079,51.0462) (127.079,62.4637) (128.079,40.0356) (129.079,41.2382) (130.079,46.3977) (131.079,36.6198) (132.079,41.1816) (133.079,40.2795) (134.079,39.4107) (135.079,40.2308) (136.079,45.5067) (137.079,46.041) (138.079,27.2955) (139.079,32.2417) (140.134,36.3696) (141.085,42.7079) (142.079,41.9251) (143.079,43.4436) (144.079,46.6937) (145.079,40.6707) (146.079,40.8628) (147.079,43.5126) (148.079,39.0087) (149.134,37.7527) (150.085,27.9993) (151.079,19.9823) (152.079,24.5074) (153.134,23.0135) (154.085,24.7701) (155.134,23.2818) (156.142,17.0726) (157.142,19.385) (158.085,29.068) (159.079,24.8295) (160.079,35.4035) (161.134,47.4174) (162.085,37.0784) (163.079,35.8247) (164.134,43.3307) (165.085,42.8442) (166.079,34.9319) (167.134,41.3877) (168.085,48.2299) (169.079,44.732) (170.079,55.5178) (171.079,51.2865) (172.079,51.5042) (173.079,39.6729) (174.079,46.8498) (175.134,43.3549) (176.085,46.0118) (177.079,49.5636) (178.079,39.7421) (179.134,29.8834) (180.085,49.6632) (181.134,44.7061) (182.085,39.2385) (183.079,42.1724) (184.079,29.1112) (185.134,38.4231) (186.085,36.4145) (187.079,34.4589) (188.079,49.6244) (189.079,51.5118) (190.079,41.8605) (191.079,44.6135) (192.079,45.6415) (193.079,46.74) (194.079,47.6055) (195.134,43.9445) (196.085,39.1658) (197.079,49.3989) (198.079,71.0675) (199.079,36.9884) (200.079,50.526) (201.079,54.0954) (202.079,50.063) (203.079,55.7522) (204.079,54.718) (205.134,35.6197) (206.085,43.5186) (207.134,46.3032) (208.085,41.4037) (209.134,36.2328) (210.085,33.1704) (211.079,37.7045) (212.079,42.2738) (213.079,42.4534) (214.134,53.2317) (215.142,42.1067) (216.085,27.7944) (217.134,41.2784) (218.085,40.5231) (219.134,34.989) (220.142,29.7282) (221.085,39.2163) (222.079,46.3764) (223.079,44.5424) (224.079,43.1654) (225.079,36.0433) (226.079,38.3936) (227.079,30.1356) (228.079,44.9391) (229.079,33.4326) (230.079,40.6516) (231.079,32.5184) (232.079,40.7127) (233.079,42.8345) (234.079,41.7811) (235.079,33.1613) (236.079,40.8614) (237.079,30.8867) (238.079,42.5529) (239.079,43.5616) (240.079,41.9091) (241.079,53.6731) (242.079,46.7975) (243.079,45.4807) (244.079,39.7843) (245.079,34.2216) (246.079,33.0935) (247.079,39.9567) (248.079,40.8953) (249.079,45.2433) (250.079,40.4314) (251.079,38.3948) (252.079,44.4819) (253.079,38.8949) (254.079,35.3517) (255.079,39.0456) (256.134,33.8996) (257.085,38.847) (258.079,29.1677) (259.079,42.3472) (260.079,46.3467) (261.079,38.2059) (262.079,38.401) (263.079,40.8952) (264.079,34.0482) (265.079,35.1437) (266.079,31.8385) (267.079,34.9292) (268.079,38.7517) (269.079,43.7693) (270.079,42.8128) (271.079,38.4545) (272.079,44.4161) (273.079,34.4254) (274.079,34.7178) (275.134,29.3595) (276.085,33.4888) (277.079,29.6473) (278.079,33.7181) (279.134,35.5712) (280.142,35.5144) (281.142,31.6433) (282.085,36.7267) (283.079,41.3881) (284.079,39.2186) (285.079,42.576) (286.079,38.3084) (287.079,36.8256) (288.079,40.2645) (289.079,38.1848) (290.079,37.7916) (291.079,34.756) (292.079,30.4477) (293.079,26.0241) (294.079,28.1044) (295.079,32.1737) (296.134,33.8121) (297.085,38.899) (298.079,35.4555) (299.079,37.1053) (300.134,39.9388) (301.085,38.2961) (302.079,39.4588) (303.079,41.463) (304.079,36.961) (305.079,34.7636) (306.134,40.3211) (307.085,36.29) (308.079,31.999) (309.134,29.6087) (310.085,37.2416) (311.079,39.8751) (312.079,41.8636) (313.079,36.1883) (314.079,34.6815) (315.079,32.5435) (316.079,36.9267) (317.134,40.0076) (318.085,38.03) (319.079,39.2965) (320.079,43.572) (321.079,38.9222) (322.079,38.555) (323.079,40.0141) (324.079,36.2212) (325.079,27.0965) (326.079,31.6468) (327.079,35.4241) (328.079,34.3895) (329.079,36.3682) (330.079,30.265) (331.134,38.0682) (332.085,37.3099) (333.134,36.0145) (334.085,40.6998) (335.079,43.3429) (336.079,35.4014) (337.079,40.3542) (338.079,42.7474) (339.134,37.6922) (340.085,33.6857) (341.079,35.3623) (342.134,34.8232) (343.085,32.4882) (344.079,35.7838) (345.134,38.3348) (346.085,34.5606) (347.079,36.9698) (348.079,34.8037) (349.134,36.4829) (350.142,32.7145) (351.085,37.5489) (352.079,44.8001) (353.079,41.3075) (354.079,41.3074) (355.079,39.3895) (356.079,38.3864) (357.134,34.7184) (358.085,39.1595) (359.079,28.1012) (360.079,58.4204) (361.079,30.7926) (362.079,37.7179) (363.079,28.7686) (364.079,27.9959) (365.079,26.5328) (366.079,27.7858) (367.134,29.4162) (368.142,33.1921) (369.142,29.2648) (370.085,25.0458) (371.079,21.0941) (372.079,20.5395) (373.079,34.7258) (374.079,39.2896) (375.079,42.979) (376.079,36.3452) (377.079,29.1921) (378.079,21.2131) (379.079,23.9835) (380.079,32.5739) (381.079,30.3645) (382.079,35.3624) (383.079,28.0631) (384.079,29.3393) (385.079,25.247) (386.134,19.7234) (387.085,19.9109) (388.079,20.5441) (389.079,20.1066) (390.079,27.0595) (391.079,27.0225) (392.134,26.8311) (393.085,27.7962) (394.079,22.673) (395.079,13.1099) (396.079,15.2152) (397.079,22.2623) (398.079,26.1268) (399.134,26.5136) (400.085,29.5481) (401.134,26.0812) (402.085,20.6021) (403.079,20.428) (404.079,22.3164) (405.079,22.9029) (406.079,21.0269) (407.079,32.2847) (408.079,21.6834) (409.079,26.5208) (410.079,26.4681) (411.079,19.2335) (412.079,24.0963) (413.134,19.6157) (414.085,16.3434) (415.079,26.7362) (416.079,34.3422) (417.079,37.2946) (418.079,31.3515) (419.134,30.8605) (420.142,24.962) (421.085,21.6315) (422.079,28.4713) (423.079,48.3178) (424.079,42.8806) (425.079,36.7248) (426.079,28.1701) (427.079,48.0516) (428.079,48.8187) (429.134,31.7236) (430.085,41.0136) (431.079,37.2872) (432.079,31.1877) (433.079,21.8616) (434.079,27.6757) (435.079,34.2179) (436.079,23.4369) (437.079,30.8317) (438.079,47.8741) (439.079,32.7636) (440.079,39.6635) (441.079,28.7228) (442.079,28.6412) (443.079,31.3659) (444.079,38.5736) (445.134,29.5363) (446.142,24.8392) (447.142,19.2691) (448.085,24.8571) (449.079,27.9936) (450.079,24.1072) (451.134,20.2054) (452.085,21.0541) (453.079,24.6696) (454.079,27.5422) (455.079,23.8965) (456.079,21.6255) (457.134,21.1221) (458.142,21.5159) (459.085,22.3737) (460.079,23.0474) (461.079,24.6081) (462.079,20.9209) (463.134,16.1551) (464.085,19.4848) (465.079,18.724) (466.079,15.9386) (467.079,16.4575) (468.079,20.4262) (469.079,19.0937) (470.134,19.7905) (471.142,23.728) (472.085,27.3427) (473.134,23.3397) (474.142,16.5236) (475.142,22.4566) (476.085,26.4007) (477.134,22.6124) (478.142,19.7848) (479.142,15.4726) (480.142,9.09348) (481.142,8.75939) (482.085,11.0888) (483.079,12.488) (484.079,14.7945) (485.079,16.4974) (486.079,18.8914) (487.079,16.2102) (488.079,16.9943) (489.079,21.2213) (490.079,22.2282) (491.079,23.7281) (492.079,23.5396) (493.134,19.7354) (494.142,21.4889) (495.142,14.3404) (496.142,16.4221) (497.142,13.1583) (498.085,7.14022) (499.079,15.3043) (500.079,25.1804) (501.079,22.7719) (502.079,19.961) (503.079,19.7736) (504.079,19.3851) (505.079,24.4332) (506.134,23.6612) (507.142,15.6138) (508.142,15.4732) (509.142,10.7174) (510.142,9.39545) (511.142,9.82256) (512.142,8.88471) (513.142,9.29033) (514.142,5.85896) (515.142,3.37398) (516.085,11.7478) (517.079,25.8073) (518.079,30.6618) (519.134,19.8237) (520.142,16.6244) (521.142,13.2982) (522.085,7.78481) (523.134,13.4014) (524.085,10.6752) (525.134,11.7505) (526.085,13.1083) (527.079,17.7456) (528.079,12.6496) (529.079,14.8805) (530.079,15.6754) (531.079,31.4066) (532.079,22.3464) (533.134,20.4033) (534.085,14.4773) (535.079,3.48909) (536.134,0.027851) (537.085,0.017457) (538.079,0.0411484) (539.079,0.0464412) (540.079,0.0477769) (541.079,0.0181811) (542.079,0.0421946) (543.079,0.0273922) (544.079,0.0605581) (545.079,0.04406) (546.134,0.0508371) (547.085,0.070475) (548.079,0.0623406) (549.079,0.0641888) (550.079,0.0565116) (551.079,0.0216428) (552.134,0.0195784) (553.085,0.0326159) (554.079,0.0505924) (555.079,0.059552) (556.079,0.0308138) (557.134,0.0248951) (558.085,0.02982) (559.079,0.0461714) (560.079,0.0491341) (561.079,0.0316669) (562.134,0.0233586) (563.142,0.039281) (564.085,0.0547746) (565.079,0.0431662) (566.079,0.0261163) (567.079,0.0183032) (568.079,0.0486379) (569.079,0.041393) (570.079,0.04848) (571.079,0.0300852) (572.134,0.0228144) (573.142,0.0366292) (574.085,0.0471186) (575.079,0.0403539) (576.134,0.0298467) (577.142,0.0191387) (578.142,0.0311998) (579.142,0.0449726) (580.142,0.0430052) (581.142,0.0305182) (582.142,0.0249184) (583.142,0.034798) (584.142,0.0426485) (585.142,0.040844) (586.085,0.0256911) (587.079,0.0186391) (588.079,0.0364859) (589.079,0.0491579) (590.134,0.0447535) (591.142,0.0253746) (592.142,0.0290986) (593.142,0.0308603) (594.142,0.0400222) (595.142,0.0406923) (596.142,0.0235837) (597.142,0.0271159) (598.142,0.0344) (599.142,0.0481738) (600.142,0.0456564) (601.142,0.0256249) (602.142,0.0191907) (603.142,0.0335189) (604.142,0.0492005) (605.142,0.0378036) (606.142,0.0260377) (607.142,0.024773) (608.142,0.0316789) (609.142,0.0492658) (610.142,0.0391764) (611.142,0.0331868) (612.142,0.0260411) (613.142,0.0322659) (614.142,0.0468684) (615.142,0.0398427) (616.142,0.0242822) (617.142,0.0239182) (618.142,0.035005) (619.142,0.0515893) (620.142,0.0464866) (621.142,0.0221057) (622.142,0.0215458) (623.142,0.0306062) (624.142,0.0453556) (625.142,0.0418276) (626.142,0.0259554) (627.142,0.0298959) (628.142,0.0311178) (629.142,0.0491389) (630.142,0.043804) (631.142,0.0305334) (632.142,0.0224925) (633.142,0.0384628) (634.142,0.0460182) (635.142,0.0413993) (636.142,0.0323408) (637.142,0.0194382) (638.142,0.0303529) (639.142,0.0483027) (640.142,0.0397573) (641.142,0.0336677) (642.142,0.0186744) (643.142,0.0351973) (644.142,0.04653) (645.142,0.0378632) (646.142,0.0267411) (647.142,0.0281675) (648.142,0.0304498) (649.142,0.0476727) (650.142,0.0506562) (651.142,0.0247263) (652.142,0.021603) (653.142,0.0294661) (654.142,0.0467577) (655.142,0.0407958) (656.142,0.0236949) (657.142,0.0250822) (658.142,0.0276891) (659.142,0.0431337) (660.142,0.0424717) (661.142,0.0211632) (662.142,0.0275889) (663.142,0.0344943) (664.142,0.0545824) (665.142,0.0389247) (666.142,0.0261151) (667.142,0.0239144) (668.142,0.0321065) (669.142,0.0520903) (670.142,0.0399632) (671.142,0.0269198) (672.142,0.0236909) (673.142,0.0371569) (674.142,0.0449153) (675.142,0.0442261) (676.142,0.030801) (677.142,0.0264963) (678.142,0.034473) (679.142,0.0450304) (680.142,0.0459164) (681.142,0.0221804) (682.142,0.0293491) (683.142,0.0356688) (684.142,0.046267) (685.142,0.041165) (686.142,0.0211083) (687.142,0.020512) (688.142,0.0319494) (689.142,0.0474415) (690.142,0.0467042) (691.142,0.0231244) (692.142,0.0327182) (693.142,0.0326003) (694.142,0.0449064) (695.142,0.0446002) (696.142,0.0231334) (697.142,0.0242954) (698.142,0.0375611) (699.142,0.0470529) (700.085,0.0406857) (701.134,0.026712) (702.142,0.0218277) (703.142,0.0356338) (704.142,0.0488033) (705.142,0.0390727) (706.142,0.0280245) (707.142,0.0256186) (708.142,0.0310525) (709.142,0.0464318) (710.142,0.0428403) (711.142,0.026293) (712.142,0.0309278) (713.142,0.0330995) (714.142,0.0464073) (715.142,0.046204) (716.142,0.0291369) (717.142,0.0243058) (718.142,0.0310046) (719.142,0.0433339) (720.142,0.0421269) (721.142,0.0264598) (722.142,0.0232216) (723.142,0.0254684) (724.142,0.0435094) (725.142,0.0424386) (726.142,0.0264841) (727.142,0.0293096) (728.142,0.028208) (729.142,0.044085) (730.142,0.0435963) (731.142,0.0225286) (732.142,0.0202376) (733.142,0.0329007) (734.142,0.0491377) (735.142,0.0393988) (736.142,0.0267735) (737.142,0.0236321) (738.142,0.0385757) (739.142,0.0424547) (740.142,0.039095) (741.142,0.0285475) (742.142,0.0275985) (743.142,0.0362571) (744.142,0.0455622) (745.142,0.0419378) (746.142,0.0344885) (747.142,0.0255414) (748.142,0.031144) (749.142,0.0451759) (750.142,0.0442925) (751.142,0.0275723) (752.085,0.0256037) (753.134,0.0368104) (754.142,0.0450218) (755.142,0.039836) (756.142,0.0232327) (757.142,0.0270773) (758.142,0.0291029) (759.142,0.0431142) (760.142,0.0458179) (761.142,0.0265698) (762.142,0.0253828) (763.142,0.0308858) (764.142,0.0435528) (765.142,0.0417709) (766.142,0.0230802) (767.142,0.0257762) (768.142,0.033363) (769.142,0.0482444) (770.142,0.0366537) (771.142,0.0274261) (772.142,0.025014) (773.142,0.029842) (774.142,0.0529696) (775.142,0.0422491) (776.142,0.0314372) (777.142,0.0281449) (778.142,0.032847) (779.142,0.044208) (780.142,0.0382451) (781.142,0.030883) (782.142,0.0294775) (783.085,0.0327275) (784.134,0.0405236) (785.142,0.0518809) (786.142,0.032938) (787.142,0.0262033) (788.142,0.031896) (789.142,0.0420744) (790.142,0.0433138) (791.142,0.0243093) (792.085,0.0154035) (793.079,32.0498) (794.079,46.5767) (795.079,2.44554) (796.134,0.0263689) (797.085,0.019078) (798.134,1.49544) (799.142,4.91553) (800.085,10.9451) (801.134,5.50044) (802.085,15.1397) (803.079,12.8563) (804.079,15.2707) (805.079,15.2243) (806.079,25.3104) (807.079,48.4218) (808.079,63.3208) (809.079,62.4903) (810.079,60.6764) (811.079,57.8061) (812.079,51.777) (813.079,52.4444) (814.079,50.5041) (815.079,43.939) (816.079,40.1395) (817.079,42.0245) (818.079,41.7563) (819.079,41.5672) (820.134,44.9583) (821.085,39.2754) (822.079,45.0834) (823.079,37.4429) (824.079,32.5196) (825.079,35.5714) (826.079,29.3508) (827.134,32.4529) (828.085,32.7795) (829.079,34.7311) (830.079,35.4968) (831.079,35.6216) (832.079,35.5445) (833.079,31.2862) (834.079,35.0745) (835.079,33.9363) (836.079,33.7383) (837.079,33.4712) (838.079,33.7941) (839.079,27.2144) (840.079,32.6628) (841.079,36.606) (842.079,33.1639) (843.134,35.621) (844.085,30.8742) (845.079,29.6116) (846.079,28.2393) (847.079,26.2054) (848.079,24.971) (849.079,25.0685) (850.079,24.139) (851.134,25.1938) (852.085,23.9925) (853.079,26.9305) (854.079,24.1016) (855.079,18.1342) (856.079,23.9045) (857.079,28.3679) (858.079,25.6519) (859.079,26.6362) (860.079,27.2117) (861.079,27.8453) (862.079,24.3109) (863.079,24.4487) (864.079,26.3659) (865.079,25.3552) (866.134,27.8126) (867.085,25.2014) (868.079,26.1541) (869.079,26.5905) (870.134,29.1774) (871.085,26.15) (872.079,26.0273) (873.079,28.3257) (874.079,27.1532) (875.079,27.4754) (876.079,26.474) (877.079,28.4597) (878.134,24.8805) (879.085,22.7901) (880.134,24.0141) (881.085,23.0222) (882.079,24.9657) (883.079,25.1575) (884.134,27.9568) (885.085,27.1774) (886.079,26.6932) (887.079,24.611) (888.079,26.1313) (889.134,28.5852) (890.085,17.9988) (891.079,25.2729) (892.079,27.7398) (893.079,26.0839) (894.079,31.5491) (895.134,26.343) (896.085,24.2876) (897.079,30.3602) (898.079,27.2063) (899.079,25.5403) (900.079,28.1811) (901.079,25.4366) (902.079,26.2523) (903.079,35.541) (904.079,25.6143) (905.079,25.9857) (906.079,25.5504) (907.079,27.029) (908.079,26.7582) (909.079,27.9608) (910.079,30.999) (911.079,29.2373) (912.079,25.9346) (913.079,27.5972) (914.079,27.5345) (915.079,30.5552) (916.079,22.0961) (917.079,28.9367) (918.079,26.9617) (919.079,26.044) (920.134,27.392) (921.085,29.6404) (922.079,35.0291) (923.079,35.435) (924.079,39.7564) (925.134,36.1121) (926.085,24.5689) (927.079,35.6076) (928.079,28.3702) (929.134,34.6358) (930.085,29.9234) (931.079,24.917) (932.079,35.502) (933.079,28.2626) (934.079,28.2445) (935.079,30.9045) (936.079,23.3531) (937.134,27.2496) (938.085,35.2728) (939.079,31.0169) (940.134,30.8691) (941.085,27.537) (942.079,26.0211) (943.079,26.7449) (944.079,32.4083) (945.134,36.473) (946.085,29.3956) (947.079,24.9803) (948.134,39.2055) (949.085,39.0539) (950.079,38.3075) (951.079,36.6107) (952.079,40.309) (953.134,40.3762) (954.085,37.0709) (955.079,41.7922) (956.079,30.8488) (957.079,29.9339) (958.079,31.375) (959.079,29.6512) (960.134,32.0924) (961.085,35.2037) (962.079,35.9621) (963.134,35.8729) (964.085,23.7979) (965.079,37.7764) (966.079,38.6965) (967.134,37.7566) (968.142,38.2783) (969.085,35.9029) (970.134,37.1487) (971.085,39.1116) (972.079,27.3266) (973.079,25.471) (974.079,27.0756) (975.134,32.0429) (976.085,33.6302) (977.079,34.9111) (978.134,31.3394) (979.142,27.9799) (980.085,35.0957) (981.134,28.5254) (982.085,22.9497) (983.079,24.3335) (984.079,28.2062) (985.079,31.5726) (986.079,27.8882) (987.079,26.4505) (988.079,24.9424) (989.134,26.0288) (990.085,27.6595) (991.079,26.0471) (992.079,27.495) (993.079,28.1926) (994.079,24.8606) (995.079,24.1863) (996.134,23.7466) (997.085,23.1196) (998.134,26.5141) (999.085,24.7684) (1000.08,27.5359) (1001.08,24.8052) (1002.08,26.0708) (1003.08,24.7945) (1004.08,25.2074) (1005.08,23.6583) (1006.08,25.8137) (1007.08,24.2899) (1008.08,23.9315) (1009.08,24.2085) (1010.08,24.3428) (1011.08,24.486) (1012.08,24.9268) (1013.08,23.4868) (1014.08,25.8451) (1015.08,24.2106) (1016.08,25.7427) (1017.08,20.9515) (1018.08,21.2174) (1019.08,22.2112) (1020.08,25.2297) (1021.08,27.0176) (1022.08,26.2238) (1023.08,25.7614) (1024.08,24.101) (1025.08,25.1105) (1026.13,24.3233) (1027.08,19.656) (1028.08,25.5297) (1029.13,24.2826) (1030.08,24.6752) (1031.08,25.515) (1032.08,24.9158) (1033.08,25.9926) (1034.08,21.5586) (1035.08,22.1648) (1036.08,22.0919) (1037.08,22.9693) (1038.08,24.8432) (1039.08,26.5736) (1040.08,24.307) (1041.08,24.6839) (1042.08,25.7801) (1043.08,27.3174) (1044.08,25.1556) (1045.13,22.0916) (1046.14,23.9003) (1047.08,24.7199) (1048.08,24.3187) (1049.08,22.0666) (1050.08,23.7518) (1051.08,24.3985) (1052.08,22.5004) (1053.08,23.2782) (1054.13,24.8124) (1055.08,21.6922) (1056.08,22.5064) (1057.08,23.2609) (1058.08,24.5193) (1059.08,22.7549) (1060.08,25.3502) (1061.08,24.5436) (1062.13,24.0709) (1063.14,23.7365) (1064.14,21.8395) (1065.14,21.4603) (1066.08,23.4306) (1067.08,23.5199) (1068.08,24.2429) (1069.13,24.7745) (1070.14,23.0819) (1071.08,25.7118) (1072.08,27.0918) (1073.08,26.0013) (1074.08,24.2458) (1075.08,24.2807) (1076.08,24.0311) (1077.13,23.4658) (1078.08,23.4906) (1079.13,26.6665) (1080.08,20.7611) (1081.13,22.1816) (1082.14,19.2253) (1083.14,21.7757) (1084.08,21.6814) (1085.13,23.5844) (1086.08,23.0648) (1087.13,26.2878) (1088.08,27.031) (1089.13,24.0476) (1090.14,21.8791) (1091.14,20.4204) (1092.08,22.4696) (1093.13,21.7748) (1094.14,18.8473) (1095.08,24.5412) (1096.08,24.2328) (1097.13,23.7049) (1098.14,24.0976) (1099.08,21.9179) (1100.13,22.5238) (1101.08,21.9952) (1102.13,28.4024) (1103.08,25.4489) (1104.13,19.1525) (1105.08,23.9862) (1106.08,25.4808) (1107.13,26.3302) (1108.08,26.077) (1109.13,20.3804) (1110.14,19.4245) (1111.08,24.83) (1112.13,26.6947) (1113.14,24.588) (1114.08,24.7474) (1115.13,26.784) (1116.08,25.8214) (1117.13,21.7432) (1118.08,25.1287) (1119.13,19.6795) (1120.08,20.0948) (1121.13,24.7436) (1122.14,20.3776) (1123.08,27.5909) (1124.08,22.4877) (1125.13,24.0163) (1126.08,21.7845) (1127.13,18.9866) (1128.14,20.4793) (1129.08,23.2605) (1130.13,19.7498) (1131.14,17.707) (1132.14,16.0924) (1133.14,17.5116) (1134.14,20.5165) (1135.14,20.0296) (1136.14,18.9484) (1137.14,18.9524) (1138.08,23.5339) (1139.13,17.4587) (1140.14,15.8113) (1141.14,13.9894) (1142.14,10.2507) (1143.14,10.0082) (1144.14,10.9725) (1145.14,16.2305) (1146.14,19.6357) (1147.14,17.4976) (1148.08,10.0762) (1149.13,16.4331) (1150.14,12.3741) (1151.14,9.30387) (1152.14,17.9074) (1153.14,16.9296) (1154.14,15.9894) (1155.14,16.6642) (1156.08,11.5758) (1157.13,0.0303237) (1158.14,0.0312325) (1159.08,0.0475126) (1160.13,0.0361331) (1161.14,0.0331542) (1162.14,0.0282476) (1163.14,0.0335315) (1164.14,0.0489997) (1165.14,0.042935) (1166.14,0.0246276) (1167.14,0.0229885) (1168.08,0.0314362) (1169.13,0.0566314) (1170.08,0.0411284) (1171.13,0.0231169) (1172.14,0.0281856) (1173.08,0.0321677) (1174.08,0.0452967) (1175.13,0.0357436) (1176.14,0.0296088) (1177.14,0.0331084) (1178.14,0.0329538) (1179.08,0.0463902) (1180.13,0.0406038) (1181.14,0.0314281) (1182.14,0.0283092) (1183.14,0.0310771) (1184.14,0.0453849) (1185.14,0.0332225) (1186.14,0.025934) (1187.14,0.0301491) (1188.14,0.0272311) (1189.14,0.0436071) (1190.14,0.0379856) (1191.14,0.035527) (1192.14,0.0237142) (1193.08,0.031221) (1194.13,0.0474607) (1195.14,0.0416993) (1196.14,0.0251625) (1197.14,0.0229023) (1198.14,0.0309585) (1199.14,0.0580088) (1200.08,0.0408504) (1201.13,0.0200069) (1202.14,0.0206409) (1203.14,0.0264509) (1204.08,0.0472986) (1205.13,0.0402697) (1206.08,0.0281719) (1207.13,0.0297813) (1208.08,0.0300471) (1209.13,0.0428966) (1210.14,0.0391972) (1211.14,0.0304013) (1212.14,0.0286448) (1213.14,0.0293147) (1214.08,0.0524795) (1215.13,0.0406146) (1216.14,0.029407) (1217.14,0.0304005) (1218.14,0.0289277) (1219.14,0.0382062) (1220.14,0.0424581) (1221.14,0.0402323) (1222.14,0.020953) (1223.14,0.0357545) (1224.14,0.0414561) (1225.14,0.0430566) (1226.14,0.0285362) (1227.14,0.0214708) (1228.14,0.0326739) (1229.14,0.050113) (1230.14,0.0380591) (1231.14,0.0225222) (1232.14,0.0259818) (1233.14,0.0265201) (1234.14,0.0413307) (1235.14,0.0440701) (1236.14,0.0312371) (1237.14,0.0320276) (1238.14,0.0312784) (1239.14,0.0439359) (1240.14,0.0395187) (1241.14,0.0313987) (1242.14,0.0296687) (1243.14,0.0313414) (1244.14,0.0492517) (1245.14,0.0401127) (1246.14,0.0262114) (1247.14,0.0310925) (1248.14,0.0308438) (1249.14,0.0447204) (1250.14,0.0368582) (1251.14,0.0318706) (1252.14,0.0189006) (1253.14,0.0360019) (1254.14,0.0414698) (1255.14,0.0460866) (1256.14,0.0276915) (1257.14,0.0246235) (1258.14,0.0345004) (1259.14,0.053622) (1260.14,0.0366796) (1261.14,0.0259282) (1262.14,0.0229123) (1263.14,0.0229409) (1264.14,0.048347) (1265.14,0.040589) (1266.14,0.026989) (1267.14,0.0246918) (1268.14,0.0300659) (1269.14,0.0448095) (1270.14,0.0460424) (1271.14,0.0238889) (1272.14,0.0326435) (1273.14,0.0301862) (1274.14,0.0438524) (1275.14,0.039047) (1276.14,0.0309834) (1277.14,0.0311579) (1278.14,0.0293209) (1279.14,0.0511073) (1280.14,0.0392827) (1281.14,0.0283191) (1282.14,0.0196743) (1283.14,0.0283319) (1284.14,0.0441417) (1285.14,0.0400681) (1286.14,0.0323711) (1287.14,0.0246517) (1288.14,0.0339754) (1289.14,0.0447021) (1290.14,0.0414403) (1291.14,0.023668) (1292.14,0.0191202) (1293.14,0.0346842) (1294.14,0.0520745) (1295.14,0.0405241) (1296.14,0.0284204) (1297.14,0.0259613) (1298.14,0.0295255) (1299.14,0.0458514) (1300.14,0.038012) (1301.14,0.0232302) (1302.14,0.0276996) (1303.14,0.0305622) (1304.14,0.0419656) (1305.14,0.0373295) (1306.14,0.032159) (1307.14,0.0312775) (1308.14,0.0328998) (1309.14,0.044063) (1310.14,0.0417936) (1311.14,0.0270933) (1312.14,0.0337605) (1313.14,0.0324652) (1314.14,0.0484551) (1315.14,0.0430937) (1316.14,0.0311915) (1317.14,0.0248913) (1318.14,0.034058) (1319.14,0.0417909) (1320.14,0.0420861) (1321.14,0.0293589) (1322.14,0.0215211) (1323.14,0.0297407) (1324.14,0.0544888) (1325.14,0.0391044) (1326.14,0.0234619) (1327.14,0.0255761) (1328.14,0.0393064) (1329.14,0.0450894) (1330.14,0.039177) (1331.08,0.0262145) (1332.08,71.2198) (1333.08,21.3625) (1334.08,0.216371) (1335.08,0.0406132) (1336.08,0.961866) (1337.13,5.53198) (1338.08,4.07203) (1339.08,0.267743) (1340.08,0.0313616) (1341.08,0.0249064) (1342.08,0.0269728) (1343.13,0.0428638) (1344.08,0.0496753) (1345.08,11.9637) (1346.08,22.9786) (1347.08,37.6776) (1348.13,59.4792) (1349.08,55.3387) (1350.13,69.2947) (1351.14,73.3308) (1352.14,60.3182) (1353.08,57.6797) (1354.08,59.7666) (1355.08,60.4702) (1356.13,65.1073) (1357.14,61.0806) (1358.14,60.4445) (1359.14,59.9001) (1360.14,57.4298) (1361.14,59.5148) (1362.14,59.2747) (1363.08,54.774) (1364.13,58.2493) (1365.14,55.0679) (1366.08,52.6165) (1367.08,55.1786) (1368.08,48.9267) (1369.08,48.6639) (1370.08,50.6538) (1371.08,52.238) (1372.08,53.2981) (1373.08,53.9714) (1374.08,55.6286) (1375.08,53.3964) (1376.13,50.7853) (1377.08,42.8371) (1378.08,47.7796) (1379.08,46.1545) (1380.08,46.9509) (1381.13,49.711) (1382.08,41.958) (1383.13,47.0368) (1384.14,43.8651) (1385.08,48.3732) (1386.08,59.9354) (1387.13,56.2958) (1388.08,49.4775) (1389.13,76.0066) (1390.14,55.9821) (1391.14,58.4824) (1392.08,52.014) (1393.13,58.6762) (1394.14,59.8583) (1395.14,54.2154) (1396.14,51.0163) (1397.08,50.509) (1398.08,53.2369) (1399.08,57.6738) (1400.13,57.2307) (1401.14,58.0009) (1402.14,56.3246) (1403.08,58.4435) (1404.13,57.3001) (1405.08,56.0678) (1406.13,61.919) (1407.14,59.1957) (1408.14,51.5961) (1409.14,53.9691) (1410.14,52.2165) (1411.14,53.8) (1412.08,49.733) (1413.13,54.474) (1414.14,51.7102) (1415.14,42.8371) (1416.08,44.2345) (1417.13,45.7135) (1418.14,41.4765) (1419.08,37.631) (1420.13,48.5332) (1421.14,48.693) (1422.14,45.9376) (1423.14,42.0486) (1424.14,36.2592) (1425.14,34.2622) (1426.14,38.8471) (1427.14,38.7043) (1428.14,38.9694) (1429.08,35.7999) (1430.13,39.1781) (1431.08,42.5252) (1432.08,45.2055) (1433.08,35.1278) (1434.08,47.1341) (1435.08,41.249) (1436.08,45.498) (1437.08,40.6657) (1438.13,43.1211) (1439.08,35.4771) (1440.08,36.17) (1441.08,37.6084) (1442.08,39.7821) (1443.08,38.5336) (1444.08,37.4875) (1445.08,38.7003) (1446.13,44.7082) (1447.08,45.782) (1448.08,47.4578) (1449.08,46.5225) (1450.08,48.1778) (1451.08,44.1092) (1452.08,40.2466) (1453.08,38.9191) (1454.08,36.45) (1455.13,36.5379) (1456.08,33.4066) (1457.13,41.468) (1458.14,37.1999) (1459.08,31.7389) (1460.13,41.1265) (1461.08,40.4501) (1462.08,34.484) (1463.13,47.3372) (1464.08,45.6511) (1465.08,44.1845) (1466.08,45.4134) (1467.08,38.5308) (1468.13,38.7241) (1469.08,31.1956) (1470.08,37.2843) (1471.08,35.8973) (1472.08,35.5852) (1473.13,40.4398) (1474.14,28.0056) (1475.08,31.1907) (1476.13,28.2355) (1477.08,35.0239) (1478.13,42.7166) (1479.08,42.2422) (1480.13,37.4595) (1481.08,36.6158) (1482.13,35.5769) (1483.08,30.0783) (1484.08,32.2015) (1485.08,36.7349) (1486.08,33.6378) (1487.13,30.984) (1488.14,33.9934) (1489.14,33.7787) (1490.14,23.6402) (1491.08,25.3708) (1492.13,31.399) (1493.08,40.1176) (1494.08,47.3109) (1495.08,47.3191) (1496.13,36.4362) (1497.14,43.9898) (1498.14,43.6566) (1499.08,41.0259) (1500.13,40.0719) (1501.14,36.4038) (1502.14,29.3015) (1503.14,28.9413) (1504.14,39.7033) (1505.14,27.7207) (1506.14,27.6507) (1507.14,32.2786) (1508.14,32.5921) (1509.14,26.1289) (1510.14,30.865) (1511.14,32.496) (1512.14,32.8933) (1513.14,27.2476) (1514.14,29.3852) (1515.14,27.0668) (1516.14,25.7096) (1517.14,26.296) (1518.14,22.4567) (1519.14,23.3585) (1520.14,24.9577) (1521.14,31.2007) (1522.14,25.0857) (1523.14,33.664) (1524.14,20.1412) (1525.14,26.2074) (1526.08,22.0925) (1527.13,24.1683) (1528.14,23.971) (1529.14,25.1853) (1530.14,28.7382) (1531.14,18.3892) (1532.14,15.0741) (1533.14,14.5284) (1534.14,13.7856) (1535.14,14.0145) (1536.08,14.9073) (1537.13,17.3936) (1538.08,20.8977) (1539.13,17.958) (1540.14,20.6286) (1541.14,22.3336) (1542.08,19.2777) (1543.08,18.9723) (1544.13,26.692) (1545.14,22.0524) (1546.14,15.8607) (1547.14,13.0735) (1548.14,9.94692) (1549.14,10.8077) (1550.14,12.4193) (1551.14,14.2336) (1552.14,17.3882) (1553.14,17.2779) (1554.14,20.7726) (1555.14,17.9903) (1556.08,16.9723) (1557.08,19.7137) (1558.13,17.2894) (1559.08,18.0155) (1560.08,22.2282) (1561.13,14.1427) (1562.14,11.1457) (1563.14,11.8178) (1564.14,12.0526) (1565.14,14.2069) (1566.08,11.6192) (1567.13,14.3889) (1568.14,14.2811) (1569.08,15.5811) (1570.08,12.3723) (1571.13,17.9971) (1572.08,20.5594) (1573.08,18.3926) (1574.13,18.2188) (1575.14,10.3872) (1576.14,10.5267) (1577.14,10.5719) (1578.08,12.9035) (1579.13,14.8492) (1580.08,15.5307) (1581.13,11.6532) (1582.14,11.8047) (1583.08,10.3977) (1584.13,8.98479) (1585.14,9.80806) (1586.14,12.8298) (1587.08,13.7231) (1588.08,18.8231) (1589.13,13.2338) (1590.14,12.3048) (1591.14,10.1307) (1592.08,7.85084) (1593.13,11.5348) (1594.14,11.9996) (1595.14,10.6859) (1596.14,9.62067) (1597.14,11.3782) (1598.14,8.60371) (1599.14,6.19964) (1600.08,8.65346) (1601.13,10.9396) (1602.14,16.9126) (1603.14,15.6396) (1604.14,16.889) (1605.14,13.8847) (1606.08,12.1488) (1607.13,12.7344) (1608.14,8.99464) (1609.14,9.13482) (1610.14,9.50077) (1611.14,8.79935) (1612.14,10.0765) (1613.14,12.832) (1614.14,12.2895) (1615.08,9.36117) (1616.13,8.14307) (1617.14,9.6736) (1618.08,11.1855) (1619.13,15.0597) (1620.14,12.0642) (1621.14,12.8532) (1622.14,10.3621) (1623.14,10.044) (1624.14,10.5187) (1625.14,6.59406) (1626.14,6.83674) (1627.14,6.58404) (1628.14,6.69286) (1629.14,6.7823) (1630.14,8.42509) (1631.14,11.1134) (1632.14,11.9808) (1633.14,11.0297) (1634.14,10.6439) (1635.14,9.53951) (1636.14,9.34701) (1637.14,7.72985) (1638.08,7.60317) (1639.13,7.2156) (1640.14,7.6593) (1641.14,7.69198) (1642.14,6.76301) (1643.14,7.05335) (1644.14,6.59199) (1645.14,6.82337) (1646.14,9.79395) (1647.14,11.4138) (1648.14,11.0337) (1649.14,9.82924) (1650.14,9.7805) (1651.14,9.06343) (1652.14,6.38371) (1653.14,7.43035) (1654.14,6.70976) (1655.14,6.2799) (1656.14,6.50412) (1657.14,6.50682) (1658.14,6.57835) (1659.14,6.60787) (1660.08,7.61043) (1661.13,3.37165) (1662.14,10.674) (1663.14,9.0272) (1664.14,1.38562) (1665.14,0.0402571) (1666.14,0.0250143) (1667.14,0.026139) (1668.14,0.0316372) (1669.14,0.041868) (1670.14,0.0442304) (1671.14,0.0254197) (1672.14,0.0219483) (1673.14,0.0381768) (1674.14,0.0506916) (1675.08,0.0440545) (1676.13,0.0261556) (1677.14,0.0260459) (1678.14,0.0399951) (1679.14,0.045716) (1680.14,0.0388923) (1681.08,0.0362968) (1682.13,0.0245715) (1683.08,0.0340252) (1684.08,0.0476614) (1685.08,0.0410421) (1686.13,0.0212005) (1687.14,0.0312863) (1688.14,0.0266912) (1689.14,0.0520982) (1690.14,0.0491908) (1691.08,0.0258992) (1692.13,0.0255676) (1693.14,0.0268925) (1694.08,0.0511604) (1695.08,0.0334779) (1696.13,0.0309959) (1697.14,0.0228628) (1698.08,0.0316935) (1699.08,0.0544991) (1700.13,0.0387773) (1701.08,0.0250389) (1702.08,0.015708) (1703.13,0.0447437) (1704.08,0.0463707) (1705.13,0.0391195) (1706.14,0.0189885) (1707.14,0.0366322) (1708.14,0.0420328) (1709.08,0.0455255) (1710.08,0.0414685) (1711.13,0.0271888) (1712.14,0.0298562) (1713.14,0.027375) (1714.14,0.0478103) (1715.14,0.035445) (1716.14,0.0254661) (1717.14,0.0256908) (1718.14,0.0314951) (1719.14,0.0542665) (1720.14,0.0434165) (1721.14,0.028943) (1722.14,0.0281143) (1723.14,0.0322351) (1724.14,0.0438461) (1725.14,0.0374771) (1726.14,0.0230509) (1727.14,0.0247825) (1728.14,0.0350286) (1729.14,0.0408875) (1730.08,0.0445841) (1731.13,0.0249506) (1732.14,0.0285361) (1733.14,0.0335215) (1734.08,0.0455869) (1735.13,0.0397089) (1736.14,0.024584) (1737.14,0.0374458) (1738.14,0.043511) (1739.14,0.0428547) (1740.14,0.037644) (1741.14,0.0277494) (1742.14,0.0336223) (1743.14,0.0282576) (1744.14,0.0440592) (1745.14,0.0402405) (1746.14,0.0304074) (1747.14,0.0247857) (1748.14,0.031208) (1749.14,0.0517579) (1750.14,0.0401402) (1751.14,0.0200338) (1752.14,0.0350203) (1753.14,0.0333777) (1754.14,0.0469226) (1755.14,0.0316686) (1756.14,0.0285314) (1757.14,0.0302573) (1758.14,0.0324982) (1759.14,0.0406754) (1760.14,0.042887) (1761.14,0.0306108) (1762.14,0.0246279) (1763.14,0.0313311) (1764.14,0.0440877) (1765.14,0.0333785) (1766.14,0.0252078) (1767.08,0.025638) (1768.13,0.0443604) (1769.14,0.0449012) (1770.14,0.0408123) (1771.14,0.0268901) (1772.14,0.0343909) (1773.14,0.0419557) (1774.14,0.0475912) (1775.14,0.0423354) (1776.14,0.0247062) (1777.14,0.0301449) (1778.14,0.0250434) (1779.14,0.0539585) (1780.14,0.0377056) (1781.14,0.0260303) (1782.14,0.0262608) (1783.14,0.0308122) (1784.14,0.042935) (1785.14,0.0394684) (1786.14,0.0212435) (1787.14,0.0277137) (1788.14,0.0236347) (1789.14,0.0517931) (1790.14,0.0350751) (1791.14,0.0278628) (1792.14,0.0279211) (1793.14,0.0337584) (1794.14,0.0474897) (1795.14,0.0389125) (1796.14,0.0261243) (1797.14,0.0199924) (1798.14,0.0326061) (1799.14,0.045403) (1800.14,0.0374216) (1801.14,0.0254945) (1802.14,0.0370845) (1803.14,0.036425) (1804.14,0.041771) (1805.14,0.046148) (1806.14,0.0237099) (1807.14,0.0266246) (1808.14,0.0353222) (1809.14,0.157135) (1810.14,30.5067) (1811.14,68.2035) (1812.08,3.28097) (1813.08,0.031337) (1814.13,0.152735) (1815.12,1.47933) (1816.08,0.0458899) (1817.08,0.0146907) (1818.08,0.034635) (1819.13,0.0427747) (1820.14,0.0467604) (1821.08,0.0121119) (1822.13,0.0350139) (1823.08,0.0408308) (1824.08,8.96319) (1825.13,34.7662) (1826.14,50.5619) (1827.08,51.2132) (1828.13,56.4705) (1829.14,61.9838) (1830.14,67.3584) (1831.08,64.9215) (1832.13,73.6833) (1833.08,70.5725) (1834.08,63.5856) (1835.08,65.3564) (1836.13,67.4667) (1837.14,63.8228) (1838.14,69.4416) (1839.14,66.7117) (1840.14,58.0364) (1841.14,59.888) (1842.14,66.3871) (1843.14,67.3751) (1844.08,63.7046) (1845.13,67.2241) (1846.14,61.2352) (1847.14,63.5197) (1848.14,66.0852) (1849.08,67.3705) (1850.13,70.9488) (1851.14,70.6473) (1852.14,70.9141) (1853.08,72.5759) (1854.13,72.0871) (1855.14,71.9758) (1856.14,67.8044) (1857.14,59.7146) (1858.14,64.3537) (1859.08,66.8104) (1860.13,70.0097) (1861.08,54.9346) (1862.08,58.2703) (1863.13,61.3425) (1864.08,60.7788) (1865.08,62.5129) (1866.08,68.4241) (1867.08,63.1654) (1868.08,68.0118) (1869.08,67.0649) (1870.08,67.1489) (1871.08,71.7875) (1872.08,70.0223) (1873.08,65.7928) (1874.08,64.1175) (1875.08,65.9323) (1876.08,61.3186) (1877.08,58.7839) (1878.08,61.6176) (1879.08,53.0194) (1880.08,58.4352) (1881.08,62.7101) (1882.08,59.2802) (1883.08,58.7247) (1884.08,57.4068) (1885.08,59.9883) (1886.08,55.3861) (1887.08,60.2835) (1888.08,58.1306) (1889.08,50.9915) (1890.08,53.1217) (1891.08,55.2584) (1892.08,52.6435) (1893.08,49.8908) (1894.08,55.2877) (1895.08,50.1601) (1896.13,54.5674) (1897.08,47.9671) (1898.13,55.6141) (1899.14,54.8138) (1900.08,51.6521) (1901.13,56.5125) (1902.14,51.8291) (1903.14,55.2738) (1904.08,52.6767) (1905.13,55.656) (1906.14,52.1576) (1907.14,46.4562) (1908.14,57.4193) (1909.14,51.6526) (1910.08,50.6592) (1911.13,49.6016) (1912.08,53.3337) (1913.08,48.6598) (1914.13,59.4241) (1915.08,48.0732) (1916.13,60.6618) (1917.14,53.2679) (1918.14,54.148) (1919.14,55.4584) (1920.08,49.225) (1921.08,53.9352) (1922.13,57.7472) (1923.08,59.1974) (1924.13,54.6496) (1925.08,50.08) (1926.13,57.4069) (1927.14,52.398) (1928.08,58.4757) (1929.13,60.3601) (1930.08,57.3372) (1931.08,56.9756) (1932.13,54.4812) (1933.08,60.0682) (1934.13,57.0989) (1935.14,61.3314) (1936.08,57.5763) (1937.13,56.573) (1938.08,54.1659) (1939.13,60.4776) (1940.08,55.4169) (1941.08,56.489) (1942.08,60.4283) (1943.08,60.6868) (1944.08,62.6069) (1945.08,54.0863) (1946.08,44.2967) (1947.08,51.2996) (1948.08,59.4732) (1949.08,56.0728) (1950.08,53.8988) (1951.08,58.5771) (1952.08,51.8113) (1953.08,43.6518) (1954.08,51.3482) (1955.08,50.137) (1956.08,50.7899) (1957.08,47.992) (1958.08,46.893) (1959.08,47.4123) (1960.08,46.3724) (1961.08,47.5939) (1962.08,48.2225) (1963.08,52.9244) (1964.08,49.9475) (1965.08,41.3388) (1966.08,40.3975) (1967.08,46.3505) (1968.08,43.1108) (1969.08,35.0733) (1970.08,39.304) (1971.08,34.4929) (1972.08,28.4993) (1973.08,28.393) (1974.13,26.233) (1975.14,28.7948) (1976.14,26.5244) (1977.14,24.7025) (1978.14,30.4075) (1979.14,33.0768) (1980.14,29.3082) (1981.14,30.0924) (1982.08,31.2087) (1983.13,30.5016) (1984.08,30.8393) (1985.13,28.2814) (1986.08,29.3585) (1987.13,29.9159) (1988.14,24.9867) (1989.14,25.7399) (1990.14,10.7765) (1991.08,10.1222) (1992.13,9.57708) (1993.14,13.0564) (1994.14,10.4299) (1995.14,7.48585) (1996.14,5.25666) (1997.08,7.78839) (1998.13,14.1568) (1999.14,8.40393) (2000.14,8.25959) (2001.14,7.19502) (2002.14,5.12699) (2003.14,6.33329) (2004.14,9.78088) (2005.08,13.1931) (2006.13,10.3046) (2007.14,9.62639) (2008.14,10.5954) (2009.14,11.6008) (2010.14,11.0806) (2011.14,10.3862) (2012.14,10.466) (2013.14,11.1561) (2014.14,10.1959) (2015.14,9.08139) (2016.14,9.24107) (2017.14,9.95226) (2018.14,9.89342) (2019.08,10.3796) (2020.08,10.2421) (2021.08,9.79395) (2022.08,9.62992) (2023.13,9.45783) (2024.08,10.0074) (2025.08,9.70201) (2026.13,9.26003) (2027.14,9.71756) (2028.08,10.0113) (2029.08,9.63583) (2030.08,9.74751) (2031.08,9.66797) (2032.13,9.03521) (2033.08,10.1303) (2034.08,9.39188) (2035.13,9.31583) (2036.08,9.98316) (2037.08,9.68685) (2038.08,9.67512) (2039.08,9.76534) (2040.08,9.69677) (2041.13,9.47979) (2042.08,9.86862) (2043.08,9.75685) (2044.13,9.32765) (2045.08,10.0136) (2046.08,9.56697) (2047.08,9.66539) (2048.13,9.39312) (2049.14,8.36942) (2050.08,6.72699) (2051.08,9.60836) (2052.08,9.6674) (2053.08,9.61294) (2054.08,9.82037) (2055.08,9.68456) (2056.08,9.52806) (2057.13,6.82544) (2058.08,0.109832) (2059.13,0.0480781) (2060.08,0.0439814) (2061.13,0.0237576) (2062.14,0.0273502) (2063.14,0.0359569) (2064.08,0.0549473) (2065.13,0.0361884) (2066.14,0.0189225) (2067.14,0.0251884) (2068.08,0.0339975) (2069.13,0.0469053) (2070.14,0.0360019) (2071.14,0.0254587) (2072.14,0.0306219) (2073.14,0.0384387) (2074.14,0.0441386) (2075.14,0.0359822) (2076.08,0.0230389) (2077.13,0.0256516) (2078.08,0.0400222) (2079.13,0.0537395) (2080.08,0.0458936) (2081.08,0.0226481) (2082.08,0.0236461) (2083.08,0.041476) (2084.13,0.0432794) (2085.14,0.0377201) (2086.14,0.0239974) (2087.14,0.029072) (2088.14,0.031371) (2089.14,0.049771) (2090.14,0.0402712) (2091.14,0.0233374) (2092.14,0.022035) (2093.14,0.0374304) (2094.14,0.05216) (2095.14,0.0356594) (2096.14,0.0230459) (2097.14,0.0273464) (2098.14,0.0374775) (2099.14,0.0439312) (2100.14,0.0353724) (2101.14,0.0273671) (2102.14,0.0273483) (2103.14,0.0384931) (2104.14,0.0430032) (2105.14,0.0356174) (2106.14,0.0265751) (2107.14,0.0348039) (2108.14,0.0312811) (2109.14,0.0556507) (2110.14,0.0390481) (2111.14,0.0202119) (2112.14,0.0320048) (2113.14,0.0385262) (2114.14,0.0456628) (2115.14,0.0382396) (2116.14,0.0272275) (2117.14,0.0268388) (2118.14,0.0293211) (2119.14,0.0487576) (2120.08,0.0411233) (2121.13,0.0226345) (2122.14,0.0279681) (2123.14,0.0332891) (2124.14,0.0468535) (2125.14,0.0400389) (2126.14,0.0212326) (2127.14,0.0260223) (2128.14,0.0372564) (2129.14,0.043138) (2130.14,0.0440188) (2131.14,0.0267066) (2132.14,0.0291847) (2133.14,0.032128) (2134.14,0.0427007) (2135.14,0.039692) (2136.14,0.0236049) (2137.14,0.0288625) (2138.14,0.0332999) (2139.14,0.0536386) (2140.14,0.0466508) (2141.14,0.0258898) (2142.14,0.0282431) (2143.14,0.0353687) (2144.14,0.0558844) (2145.14,0.0402467) (2146.14,0.021488) (2147.14,0.0244136) (2148.14,0.0316081) (2149.14,0.0458922) (2150.14,0.0436455) (2151.14,0.0231424) (2152.14,0.0260666) (2153.14,0.0285924) (2154.14,0.044298) (2155.14,0.0337852) (2156.14,0.0219659) (2157.08,0.0804183) (2158.13,0.0402639) (2159.14,0.0491607) (2160.08,0.039887) (2161.13,0.0206147) (2162.14,0.0251531) (2163.14,0.0413363) (2164.14,0.0508307) (2165.14,0.0392096) (2166.14,0.023509) (2167.14,0.0214434) (2168.14,0.0344394) (2169.14,0.0550218) (2170.14,0.0380541) (2171.14,0.0238912) (2172.14,0.0278493) (2173.14,0.0371753) (2174.14,0.0526116) (2175.14,0.0441494) (2176.14,0.0225497) (2177.14,0.0250882) (2178.14,0.0319081) (2179.14,0.0490775) (2180.14,0.0460468) (2181.08,0.0184064) (2182.13,0.0241236) (2183.14,0.027696) (2184.14,0.0501517) (2185.14,0.0371942) (2186.14,0.0314045) (2187.14,0.0223588) (2188.08,0.0364773) (2189.08,53.1051) (2190.08,48.5863) (2191.08,0.476789) (2192.08,0.0287283) (2193.13,0.0398716) (2194.08,0.0505288) (2195.08,0.0326586) (2196.08,0.0105568) (2197.08,0.0412181) (2198.08,0.046244) (2199.08,0.0428326) (2200.08,0.0368616) (2201.08,0.0355576) (2202.08,4.43213) (2203.08,25.367) (2204.08,26.8796) (2205.13,34.5649) (2206.08,44.1558) (2207.08,54.7503) (2208.08,58.8221) (2209.08,61.1465) (2210.08,65.9255) (2211.08,69.463) (2212.13,70.709) (2213.14,71.6165) (2214.14,70.017) (2215.14,70.0653) (2216.14,68.0079) (2217.14,61.7721) (2218.08,70.4966) (2219.13,70.5998) (2220.14,70.7992) (2221.08,63.6236) (2222.08,66.4336) (2223.08,65.0849) (2224.13,68.3933) (2225.14,68.2867) (2226.08,59.0419) (2227.13,69.4727) (2228.14,66.9375) (2229.14,65.1516) (2230.14,69.4309) (2231.14,70.6027) (2232.14,68.6053) (2233.14,72.6182) (2234.08,64.6954) (2235.13,76.5133) (2236.08,67.5874) (2237.13,68.3729) (2238.14,70.1341) (2239.14,71.2417) (2240.14,66.6176) (2241.14,61.2017) (2242.08,47.5436) (2243.13,57.5824) (2244.08,58.9216) (2245.13,63.9233) (2246.14,66.0741) (2247.08,65.9276) (2248.13,61.0211) (2249.14,59.6069) (2250.14,64.0053) (2251.14,60.8447) (2252.14,55.6296) (2253.14,57.0821) (2254.08,52.6073) (2255.13,62.2167) (2256.14,64.3394) (2257.14,53.2269) (2258.14,51.5552) (2259.14,47.0407) (2260.14,46.3143) (2261.14,53.1219) (2262.14,52.6364) (2263.14,56.7893) (2264.14,49.2418) (2265.08,48.8816) (2266.13,44.7936) (2267.08,41.4875) (2268.08,50.1692) (2269.13,56.1823) (2270.14,51.372) (2271.14,51.7489) (2272.08,47.8398) (2273.13,51.1834) (2274.14,45.7376) (2275.14,47.2011) (2276.08,44.0127) (2277.13,52.8417) (2278.14,41.5974) (2279.08,39.109) (2280.08,43.4582) (2281.13,56.0545) (2282.14,46.4497) (2283.14,50.7763) (2284.08,49.3541) (2285.08,53.2012) (2286.08,52.9883) (2287.13,52.1305) (2288.08,46.7185) (2289.13,48.4818) (2290.14,51.0623) (2291.14,49.3962) (2292.14,42.9179) (2293.08,39.3856) (2294.08,46.1985) (2295.08,50.6989) (2296.08,50.793) (2297.08,52.6177) (2298.08,51.8617) (2299.08,53.1105) (2300.08,48.6135) (2301.08,49.0232) (2302.08,50.2141) (2303.08,50.6149) (2304.08,43.7771) (2305.08,40.6777) (2306.08,48.1921) (2307.13,55.1439) (2308.08,47.8623) (2309.08,43.7214) (2310.08,47.2035) (2311.08,56.9881) (2312.08,43.2964) (2313.13,41.6548) (2314.14,47.0544) (2315.14,48.9826) (2316.08,45.6437) (2317.13,46.4573) (2318.08,41.2628) (2319.13,42.8533) (2320.08,36.5603) (2321.08,46.8176) (2322.13,50.0626) (2323.08,47.2905) (2324.08,45.0086) (2325.08,53.1564) (2326.13,45.542) (2327.14,54.8161) (2328.14,47.397) (2329.14,47.3433) (2330.08,51.9652) (2331.13,41.2371) (2332.14,40.6349) (2333.14,46.332) (2334.08,49.9461) (2335.08,49.7526) (2336.13,47.7037) (2337.14,43.5511) (2338.14,42.9298) (2339.14,40.8118) (2340.14,53.1959) (2341.14,48.0648) (2342.14,44.0223) (2343.14,44.3506) (2344.14,40.9315) (2345.08,38.5351) (2346.13,48.4234) (2347.08,44.5598) (2348.13,45.2323) (2349.14,46.0962) (2350.08,39.4935) (2351.08,30.2008) (2352.08,35.4383) (2353.08,39.1118) (2354.08,38.7316) (2355.08,37.8942) (2356.08,35.4584) (2357.08,36.7386) (2358.13,35.4786) (2359.14,29.6365) (2360.08,31.9537) (2361.13,37.5935) (2362.08,36.7299) (2363.08,37.9282) (2364.08,39.6611) (2365.08,35.0056) (2366.08,36.5783) (2367.08,28.456) (2368.13,35.4774) (2369.14,33.5064) (2370.08,33.1535) (2371.08,31.2173) (2372.08,34.0465) (2373.13,37.1083) (2374.14,37.5501) (2375.08,32.4301) (2376.08,24.4642) (2377.08,33.6641) (2378.08,34.8572) (2379.13,28.294) (2380.08,23.232) (2381.13,20.9143) (2382.14,10.3921) (2383.14,7.09405) (2384.08,6.48355) (2385.13,10.785) (2386.14,10.1451) (2387.14,13.288) (2388.14,11.6752) (2389.14,12.2365) (2390.14,12.4725) (2391.14,9.57613) (2392.14,9.50215) (2393.14,9.1192) (2394.14,10.5021) (2395.08,13.2631) (2396.13,11.7248) (2397.14,8.3999) (2398.14,4.9959) (2399.14,6.35282) (2400.14,9.7661) (2401.14,7.78796) (2402.14,10.9377) (2403.14,9.07917) (2404.14,9.93385) (2405.14,8.37655) (2406.14,5.50416) (2407.14,4.71173) (2408.14,8.56393) (2409.14,9.66616) (2410.14,10.0718) (2411.14,10.7256) (2412.14,10.0619) (2413.08,9.64594) (2414.13,6.10871) (2415.14,7.94712) (2416.14,4.77615) (2417.14,8.57871) (2418.08,7.91222) (2419.13,7.49721) (2420.14,7.48785) (2421.14,7.71297) (2422.14,6.43163) (2423.14,5.00795) (2424.14,6.17956) (2425.14,5.71835) (2426.14,8.79136) (2427.14,8.84648) (2428.14,8.87083) (2429.14,8.37729) (2430.14,7.14818) (2431.14,3.57947) (2432.14,3.63372) (2433.14,7.56196) (2434.14,8.03691) (2435.08,8.09507) (2436.13,7.27029) (2437.14,7.45575) (2438.14,8.42261) (2439.14,5.96953) (2440.14,6.29996) (2441.14,8.88581) (2442.14,8.53049) (2443.08,7.22468) (2444.13,7.83436) (2445.14,8.29815) (2446.14,5.3265) (2447.08,5.6433) (2448.13,6.20973) (2449.14,7.91546) (2450.14,8.06125) (2451.14,8.05545) (2452.14,7.99986) (2453.14,8.54615) (2454.14,6.05628) (2455.14,5.08661) (2456.14,6.89571) (2457.14,9.03428) (2458.14,8.74033) (2459.14,8.69265) (2460.08,8.86629) (2461.08,7.84727) (2462.08,3.85405) (2463.08,3.5351) (2464.08,4.37681) (2465.08,7.59451) (2466.08,7.53467) (2467.08,7.65984) (2468.08,7.64623) (2469.08,2.2914) (2470.08,0.0399459) (2471.08,0.0254033) (2472.08,0.02377) (2473.13,0.0377379) (2474.14,0.0487275) (2475.14,0.0362661) (2476.14,0.0299757) (2477.14,0.0229703) (2478.14,0.0453949) (2479.14,0.0586574) (2480.14,0.0366507) (2481.14,0.026155) (2482.14,0.0221117) (2483.14,0.0282848) (2484.14,0.0442765) (2485.14,0.0472161) (2486.14,0.0289696) (2487.14,0.0301002) (2488.14,0.0357328) (2489.14,0.044365) (2490.14,0.0392803) (2491.14,0.0224341) (2492.08,0.0122633) (2493.13,0.0407004) (2494.14,0.0401208) (2495.14,0.0369634) (2496.14,0.0247814) (2497.14,0.0257545) (2498.14,0.0288119) (2499.14,0.0434698) (2500.08,0.037168) (2501.13,0.0173203) (2502.14,0.0315214) (2503.14,0.0357065) (2504.14,0.0511349) (2505.14,0.0364447) (2506.14,0.0278846) (2507.14,0.0179512) (2508.14,0.0451337) (2509.14,0.0633874) (2510.14,0.0370937) (2511.14,0.0266829) (2512.14,0.0170545) (2513.14,0.0336569) (2514.14,0.0492114) (2515.14,0.0418345) (2516.14,0.0288741) (2517.14,0.0238359) (2518.14,0.0347486) (2519.14,0.0478404) (2520.14,0.0365683) (2521.14,0.0250138) (2522.14,0.0259406) (2523.14,0.0276865) (2524.14,0.0439965) (2525.14,0.0347953) (2526.14,0.0227416) (2527.14,0.0222349) (2528.14,0.0373315) (2529.14,0.0443771) (2530.14,0.0387149) (2531.14,0.0244534) (2532.14,0.030186) (2533.14,0.0307371) (2534.14,0.0446769) (2535.14,0.0381983) (2536.14,0.0250675) (2537.14,0.0264355) (2538.14,0.0456938) (2539.14,0.0494856) (2540.14,0.0385913) (2541.14,0.0223301) (2542.14,0.0256385) (2543.14,0.0391274) (2544.14,0.056049) (2545.14,0.0480352) (2546.14,0.0330554) (2547.14,0.0222271) (2548.14,0.034294) (2549.14,0.04769) (2550.14,0.0395885) (2551.14,0.0228096) (2552.14,0.0208246) (2553.14,0.035564) (2554.14,0.0467888) (2555.14,0.0392722) (2556.14,0.0246011) (2557.14,0.0273088) (2558.14,0.0343265) (2559.14,0.0482461) (2560.14,0.0382339) (2561.14,0.0197664) (2562.14,0.0301313) (2563.14,0.0361338) (2564.14,0.0418526) (2565.14,0.0369774) (2566.14,0.0236016) (2567.14,0.0267467) (2568.14,0.0358668) (2569.14,0.0504548) (2570.14,0.0399327) (2571.14,0.0241388) (2572.14,0.0271638) (2573.14,0.0431993) (2574.14,0.0465261) (2575.14,0.0506975) (2576.14,0.0333029) (2577.14,0.0213303) (2578.14,0.0379539) (2579.14,0.0520003) (2580.14,0.0432648) (2581.14,0.0335357) (2582.14,0.018464) (2583.14,0.0348601) (2584.14,0.0442299) (2585.14,0.0374551) (2586.14,0.0242086) (2587.14,0.02255) (2588.14,0.0326896) (2589.14,0.0507539) (2590.14,0.0406945) (2591.14,0.022725) (2592.08,0.0154313) (2593.13,68.4237) (2594.14,28.8544) (2595.14,0.197005) (2596.14,0.0257604) (2597.08,0.0222145) (2598.08,0.0190234) (2599.13,0.0446554) (2600.14,0.0339491) (2601.08,0.0323765) (2602.08,0.0182528) (2603.13,0.0403331) (2604.08,0.0371789) (2605.13,1.4539) (2606.08,6.44135) (2607.08,25.3054) (2608.08,32.7607) (2609.08,27.4762) (2610.08,41.3612) (2611.13,45.4899) (2612.08,44.6901) (2613.13,54.4271) (2614.14,48.5128) (2615.08,45.2619) (2616.08,56.4718) (2617.13,59.5125) (2618.08,62.8569) (2619.13,68.1806) (2620.08,56.7855) (2621.08,63.0279) (2622.13,67.4994) (2623.14,63.7174) (2624.14,67.8338) (2625.14,67.9629) (2626.08,61.21) (2627.13,73.3543) (2628.14,82.5293) (2629.14,76.9755) (2630.14,71.0034) (2631.14,76.0135) (2632.14,73.1276) (2633.14,77.4444) (2634.14,81.8954) (2635.14,76.894) (2636.14,69.0373) (2637.08,64.6836) (2638.13,69.9693) (2639.08,68.0025) (2640.13,75.5601) (2641.14,75.6276) (2642.14,75.0068) (2643.14,65.8731) (2644.14,71.699) (2645.14,64.8723) (2646.14,63.875) (2647.14,72.9829) (2648.14,71.1893) (2649.14,65.8399) (2650.08,61.202) (2651.13,66.6499) (2652.08,68.6858) (2653.13,79.6623) (2654.14,76.065) (2655.14,75.5669) (2656.08,66.9969) (2657.08,67.6978) (2658.08,63.4643) (2659.13,64.7481) (2660.08,61.0614) (2661.13,71.3579) (2662.14,63.5614) (2663.14,62.6485) (2664.14,65.429) (2665.14,56.2463) (2666.14,61.8249) (2667.14,62.3432) (2668.14,62.0748) (2669.14,54.2754) (2670.14,53.1357) (2671.08,56.9869) (2672.08,53.521) (2673.08,55.029) (2674.13,62.4271) (2675.14,62.6412) (2676.08,49.3587) (2677.13,56.0534) (2678.14,58.9754) (2679.14,58.6723) (2680.08,52.29) (2681.08,56.3014) (2682.13,57.0826) (2683.14,46.9307) (2684.08,49.5502) (2685.13,61.1898) (2686.14,50.981) (2687.14,49.014) (2688.08,51.8849) (2689.13,55.7109) (2690.08,48.113) (2691.13,56.2206) (2692.14,62.05) (2693.08,50.1806) (2694.08,53.9401) (2695.08,48.6656) (2696.08,48.5955) (2697.08,38.7225) (2698.08,50.2361) (2699.08,49.2536) (2700.13,53.679) (2701.08,52.1874) (2702.08,51.8153) (2703.13,45.8507) (2704.08,45.9701) (2705.13,51.5661) (2706.08,43.8701) (2707.13,47.6364) (2708.08,48.1135) (2709.13,51.3824) (2710.08,44.9208) (2711.13,46.591) (2712.08,54.6223) (2713.08,48.8389) (2714.08,44.6331) (2715.08,50.0598) (2716.08,47.3457) (2717.08,36.9784) (2718.08,47.0889) (2719.13,49.4724) (2720.14,45.7817) (2721.14,46.2165) (2722.14,41.1274) (2723.14,47.0424) (2724.08,43.1348) (2725.13,45.3415) (2726.08,56.1097) (2727.13,50.3483) (2728.14,45.1225) (2729.14,45.2909) (2730.14,45.1046) (2731.14,35.1123) (2732.14,45.6048) (2733.08,50.6566) (2734.13,51.4232) (2735.14,45.484) (2736.14,47.7445) (2737.14,42.7387) (2738.08,34.3614) (2739.13,44.2217) (2740.14,48.5326) (2741.08,44.3277) (2742.08,45.3802) (2743.08,44.1105) (2744.13,35.4747) (2745.08,26.2818) (2746.13,47.22) (2747.14,44.556) (2748.14,43.3381) (2749.08,40.6823) (2750.13,53.1945) (2751.14,47.7651) (2752.14,39.0591) (2753.14,38.0099) (2754.14,43.9637) (2755.14,47.5659) (2756.14,41.7943) (2757.14,38.0067) (2758.14,37.8355) (2759.08,38.3159) (2760.13,38.1654) (2761.14,39.3434) (2762.08,40.8788) (2763.13,40.12) (2764.08,40.4145) (2765.13,39.9195) (2766.14,41.8352) (2767.14,36.9373) (2768.14,31.8117) (2769.14,37.6497) (2770.14,35.8848) (2771.14,36.6774) (2772.14,32.4895) (2773.08,31.6906) (2774.13,29.4521) (2775.14,26.3607) (2776.14,26.0085) (2777.14,31.8104) (2778.14,29.3367) (2779.14,30.1476) (2780.14,30.0779) (2781.14,26.6825) (2782.14,21.9882) (2783.14,22.6552) (2784.14,23.3306) (2785.14,23.8884) (2786.14,25.8706) (2787.08,25.7675) (2788.13,22.0841) (2789.14,13.2525) (2790.14,17.6476) (2791.14,15.202) (2792.14,18.1222) (2793.14,10.424) (2794.14,9.27171) (2795.14,6.27728) (2796.14,4.3378) (2797.14,6.58043) (2798.14,9.5952) (2799.14,9.7065) (2800.08,9.99823) (2801.13,9.33142) (2802.14,9.20933) (2803.14,8.42591) (2804.14,9.80377) (2805.14,9.58576) (2806.14,9.59101) (2807.14,9.47988) (2808.14,7.13561) (2809.14,4.06214) (2810.14,8.24314) (2811.14,9.67779) (2812.14,9.65834) (2813.14,9.6056) (2814.14,9.39201) (2815.14,6.50042) (2816.17,4.11935) (2817.14,9.61418) (2818.14,9.59682) (2819.14,9.62582) (2820.14,9.6715) (2821.14,8.79542) (2822.14,0.986948) (2823.14,0.0375342) (2824.14,0.042069) (2825.14,0.0549095) (2826.14,0.0311083) (2827.14,0.0249957) (2828.14,0.0345944) (2829.14,0.0467703) (2830.14,0.0376441) (2831.14,0.0260816) (2832.14,0.0224234) (2833.14,0.0422791) (2834.14,0.04484) (2835.14,0.034964) (2836.14,0.0198392) (2837.14,0.0296414) (2838.14,0.0316798) (2839.14,0.0423938) (2840.14,0.0389158) (2841.14,0.0210735) (2842.14,0.0182242) (2843.14,0.0371866) (2844.14,0.0471399) (2845.14,0.0427741) (2846.14,0.022453) (2847.14,0.0257447) (2848.14,0.0347582) (2849.14,0.0521873) (2850.14,0.0450587) (2851.14,0.0287316) (2852.14,0.0255086) (2853.14,0.0403707) (2854.14,0.0459979) (2855.14,0.0429214) (2856.14,0.0299614) (2857.14,0.024072) (2858.14,0.0398255) (2859.14,0.0443349) (2860.14,0.0371103) (2861.14,0.0228636) (2862.14,0.0273399) (2863.14,0.0380414) (2864.14,0.0444309) (2865.14,0.035587) (2866.14,0.022116) (2867.14,0.0265295) (2868.14,0.0355272) (2869.14,0.0402637) (2870.14,0.0354703) (2871.14,0.0235538) (2872.14,0.0259483) (2873.14,0.0334199) (2874.14,0.048993) (2875.14,0.0378141) (2876.14,0.0248183) (2877.14,0.0289799) (2878.14,0.0374516) (2879.14,0.0557485) (2880.14,0.0381546) (2881.14,0.0301005) (2882.14,0.0254748) (2883.14,0.0387283) (2884.14,0.0428022) (2885.14,0.039656) (2886.14,0.0286138) (2887.14,0.0198404) (2888.14,0.0389344) (2889.14,0.0486615) (2890.14,0.0458954) (2891.14,0.0216437) (2892.14,0.0284924) (2893.14,0.0373756) (2894.14,0.0441962) (2895.14,0.0371732) (2896.14,0.0269095) (2897.14,0.0259841) (2898.14,0.0338326) (2899.14,0.0445741) (2900.14,0.0354855) (2901.14,0.0249605) (2902.14,0.0238326) (2903.14,0.0328876) (2904.14,0.0478363) (2905.14,0.0371004) (2906.14,0.0291956) (2907.14,0.028527) (2908.14,0.0383547) (2909.14,0.0491615) (2910.14,0.0393321) (2911.14,0.028552) (2912.14,0.0323959) (2913.14,0.0353341) (2914.14,0.0469062) (2915.14,0.0379807) (2916.14,0.031508) (2917.14,0.0263351) (2918.14,0.0356742) (2919.14,0.0517368) (2920.14,0.0375348) (2921.14,0.0245284) (2922.14,0.0246321) (2923.14,0.0387879) (2924.14,0.0460517) (2925.08,0.047293) (2926.08,69.7605) (2927.08,32.5183) (2928.08,0.0688169) (2929.08,0.046209) (2930.13,0.0241419) (2931.14,0.0286543) (2932.08,0.023192) (2933.13,0.042498) (2934.08,0.0466499) (2935.13,0.0307441) (2936.14,0.0438333) (2937.14,0.019077) (2938.14,0.411241) (2939.08,12.2834) (2940.08,21.859) (2941.08,32.7072) (2942.08,39.6017) (2943.13,52.9835) (2944.14,63.3937) (2945.14,66.4742) (2946.14,55.9171) (2947.14,56.7683) (2948.14,61.7239) (2949.14,66.2686) (2950.08,62.8388) (2951.13,65.8858) (2952.14,61.8157) (2953.08,55.3005) (2954.13,68.3643) (2955.14,61.6975) (2956.14,61.7484) (2957.14,63.2204) (2958.08,65.219) (2959.13,66.9359) (2960.08,61.2538) (2961.08,62.563) (2962.08,59.3798) (2963.13,72.674) (2964.14,67.572) (2965.08,71.1142) (2966.08,72.0897) (2967.08,71.9732) (2968.08,62.8795) (2969.13,66.6642) (2970.08,69.2911) (2971.13,72.0704) (2972.08,67.4016) (2973.13,62.2313) (2974.08,57.8879) (2975.08,72.8758) (2976.13,77.7651) (2977.08,75.1287) (2978.08,73.2204) (2979.13,65.7574) (2980.08,59.818) (2981.08,67.4066) (2982.13,64.9886) (2983.08,63.8003) (2984.08,63.16) (2985.13,69.519) (2986.14,67.685) (2987.14,64.1685) (2988.08,63.8902) (2989.08,66.0378) (2990.08,57.6485) (2991.08,63.5055) (2992.13,71.061) (2993.08,66.6509) (2994.08,67.534) (2995.08,69.5432) (2996.08,64.4538) (2997.13,70.7061) (2998.14,70.9432) (2999.08,76.1676) (3000.13,75.67) (3001.14,71.4992) (3002.14,69.5879) (3003.14,67.1116) (3004.14,71.1183) (3005.14,69.4655) (3006.14,67.0634) (3007.08,64.9622) (3008.13,69.6609) (3009.08,64.3919) (3010.13,69.0928) (3011.14,60.5983) (3012.14,63.8772) (3013.14,67.3343) (3014.14,70.7319) (3015.14,67.8208) (3016.08,69.1501) (3017.13,61.9025) (3018.14,62.0945) (3019.14,62.8155) (3020.14,64.5253) (3021.14,60.8159) (3022.08,62.4161) (3023.13,60.5817) (3024.08,55.3249) (3025.13,54.201) (3026.14,60.5605) (3027.14,59.7371) (3028.08,49.6643) (3029.13,55.6048) (3030.14,53.0805) (3031.08,48.5589) (3032.13,55.1417) (3033.14,46.2776) (3034.08,52.2644) (3035.13,50.8377) (3036.08,51.3988) (3037.08,53.8605) (3038.13,52.5056) (3039.08,46.793) (3040.08,53.4295) (3041.08,56.8236) (3042.13,48.8441) (3043.14,52.6897) (3044.14,54.024) (3045.08,48.5391) (3046.13,53.6435) (3047.08,49.8815) (3048.13,52.4653) (3049.14,49.128) (3050.14,49.4629) (3051.14,53.7785) (3052.14,53.679) (3053.14,48.5991) (3054.14,48.1662) (3055.14,56.2771) (3056.14,53.9648) (3057.14,54.1839) (3058.14,55.6939) (3059.08,49.0666) (3060.08,48.8452) (3061.08,52.7919) (3062.13,51.8531) (3063.14,50.5546) (3064.14,53.015) (3065.14,43.1258) (3066.14,49.8151) (3067.14,47.5022) (3068.14,44.5523) (3069.08,43.4231) (3070.13,51.9956) (3071.14,50.8945) (3072.14,48.6554) (3073.08,43.3087) (3074.08,41.6798) (3075.13,50.7477) (3076.08,46.5502) (3077.13,50.2755) (3078.14,48.0441) (3079.14,42.6386) (3080.14,44.1327) (3081.08,41.1246) (3082.13,38.5656) (3083.08,38.4934) (3084.13,48.5764) (3085.14,45.1913) (3086.14,38.9432) (3087.08,34.8564) (3088.08,41.414) (3089.08,40.9624) (3090.13,46.8222) (3091.08,37.3679) (3092.08,36.7503) (3093.13,36.3412) (3094.14,35.5425) (3095.08,29.1209) (3096.08,26.4622) (3097.08,20.8663) (3098.08,21.3144) (3099.08,18.8323) (3100.13,14.8832) (3101.14,18.6267) (3102.14,18.6031) (3103.14,18.855) (3104.14,17.0044) (3105.14,17.7823) (3106.14,16.9954) (3107.08,13.9154) (3108.13,18.1704) (3109.14,19.7121) (3110.14,17.3571) (3111.14,10.4752) (3112.14,9.85603) (3113.14,8.37613) (3114.14,7.17566) (3115.14,6.96095) (3116.14,7.55666) (3117.14,9.32703) (3118.14,8.50674) (3119.14,6.30383) (3120.14,7.01846) (3121.14,9.08566) (3122.14,6.74034) (3123.14,6.65964) (3124.14,9.45256) (3125.14,8.96735) (3126.14,11.1125) (3127.14,7.82092) (3128.14,9.03317) (3129.14,7.86589) (3130.14,6.67968) (3131.14,8.62921) (3132.14,8.17357) (3133.14,10.1591) (3134.14,7.46059) (3135.14,7.15348) (3136.14,8.05579) (3137.14,13.55) (3138.14,11.0142) (3139.14,10.0878) (3140.14,11.8864) (3141.14,12.5738) (3142.14,6.81811) (3143.14,9.28832) (3144.14,7.98783) (3145.14,10.7162) (3146.14,9.99069) (3147.14,11.9254) (3148.14,13.0852) (3149.14,9.01953) (3150.14,11.6366) (3151.14,7.89881) (3152.14,8.39782) (3153.14,5.25411) (3154.14,0.0559946) (3155.14,0.0480578) (3156.14,0.0220509) (3157.14,0.0247875) (3158.14,0.0352203) (3159.14,0.0482225) (3160.14,0.0468155) (3161.14,0.0189929) (3162.14,0.0215372) (3163.14,0.0355327) (3164.14,0.0473277) (3165.14,0.0382937) (3166.14,0.0255793) (3167.14,0.0250624) (3168.14,0.0374609) (3169.14,0.05211) (3170.14,0.0317984) (3171.14,0.0225207) (3172.14,0.0261335) (3173.14,0.033549) (3174.14,0.0448271) (3175.14,0.0440803) (3176.14,0.025651) (3177.14,0.0297636) (3178.14,0.0291423) (3179.14,0.0507564) (3180.14,0.039307) (3181.14,0.026314) (3182.14,0.0198898) (3183.14,0.0321945) (3184.14,0.0615481) (3185.14,0.0504352) (3186.14,0.0258804) (3187.14,0.0256372) (3188.14,0.0317584) (3189.14,0.0507542) (3190.14,0.0398265) (3191.14,0.0227396) (3192.14,0.0250986) (3193.14,0.0316547) (3194.14,0.0486021) (3195.14,0.0405484) (3196.14,0.0243308) (3197.14,0.0263797) (3198.14,0.0302836) (3199.14,0.0492196) (3200.14,0.0425879) (3201.14,0.0235184) (3202.14,0.023368) (3203.14,0.0290715) (3204.14,0.0474335) (3205.14,0.0413359) (3206.14,0.0343731) (3207.14,0.0256264) (3208.14,0.0291217) (3209.14,0.0476781) (3210.14,0.0394778) (3211.14,0.0249) (3212.14,0.0247489) (3213.14,0.0343801) (3214.14,0.0569516) (3215.14,0.0388574) (3216.14,0.0242843) (3217.14,0.0187899) (3218.14,0.0365422) (3219.14,0.0536613) (3220.14,0.0403301) (3221.14,0.023523) (3222.14,0.0248999) (3223.14,0.0342875) (3224.14,0.0466538) (3225.14,0.0462408) (3226.14,0.0280221) (3227.14,0.029308) (3228.14,0.0290549) (3229.14,0.0519006) (3230.14,0.0401539) (3231.14,0.0238909) (3232.14,0.0260801) (3233.14,0.0286907) (3234.14,0.0485102) (3235.08,0.0424059) (3236.08,84.7405) (3237.08,17.3882) (3238.08,0.352983) (3239.13,0.0397968) (3240.08,0.0493569) (3241.08,0.0235008) (3242.08,0.0224578) (3243.13,0.0421247) (3244.14,0.0481031) (3245.08,0.0579814) (3246.13,0.0150095) (3247.08,0.0255144) (3248.08,0.046825) (3249.08,0.0662659) (3250.08,28.0485) (3251.13,57.3341) (3252.14,60.4585) (3253.14,63.3074) (3254.08,70.5478) (3255.08,69.2678) (3256.08,59.4307) (3257.08,68.11) (3258.08,67.5374) (3259.08,69.055) (3260.08,63.9832) (3261.08,62.873) (3262.08,64.2513) (3263.08,63.7122) (3264.08,65.5479) (3265.08,65.5481) (3266.08,69.9801) (3267.08,74.0919) (3268.08,76.1883) (3269.08,67.2556) (3270.08,68.3377) (3271.08,66.8711) (3272.08,74.0739) (3273.08,76.7724) (3274.08,76.726) (3275.08,78.0446) (3276.08,77.2843) (3277.08,74.8507) (3278.08,73.9497) (3279.08,78.7301) (3280.08,67.522) (3281.08,70.6012) (3282.08,63.8794) (3283.08,61.3446) (3284.08,69.8015) (3285.08,67.654) (3286.08,71.8788) (3287.08,70.5854) (3288.08,73.3218) (3289.08,70.4932) (3290.13,66.4998) (3291.08,62.2211) (3292.08,70.8581) (3293.08,72.6114) (3294.08,75.4375) (3295.08,71.7704) (3296.13,68.574) (3297.08,64.7471) (3298.08,67.5167) (3299.08,69.5987) (3300.08,70.0526) (3301.08,73.6308) (3302.08,71.004) (3303.08,69.0427) (3304.08,64.8339) (3305.08,71.8616) (3306.08,72.3555) (3307.08,67.0022) (3308.08,70.0818) (3309.08,63.5541) (3310.13,68.5443) (3311.08,63.159) (3312.08,74.9555) (3313.08,69.6676) (3314.08,64.0509) (3315.08,67.6209) (3316.08,62.5164) (3317.08,61.1044) (3318.08,61.2416) (3319.08,62.5134) (3320.08,55.8986) (3321.08,57.8183) (3322.08,57.7418) (3323.08,56.9216) (3324.08,53.048) (3325.08,60.3801) (3326.08,59.1869) (3327.08,56.0092) (3328.08,63.6908) (3329.08,57.9294) (3330.08,48.3938) (3331.08,58.9734) (3332.08,57.7644) (3333.08,52.2515) (3334.08,55.0706) (3335.08,53.1465) (3336.13,48.9137) (3337.08,54.4961) (3338.08,59.3283) (3339.08,48.2929) (3340.08,47.1545) (3341.13,58.2008) (3342.08,51.1005) (3343.08,54.1442) (3344.08,57.3766) (3345.08,58.1476) (3346.08,59.4344) (3347.08,56.1955) (3348.13,56.9055) (3349.08,44.4717) (3350.08,54.0862) (3351.08,58.0395) (3352.08,49.6841) (3353.08,47.6762) (3354.08,52.9237) (3355.08,55.7566) (3356.08,53.42) (3357.08,58.4226) (3358.08,54.2169) (3359.08,50.2223) (3360.08,49.5536) (3361.08,44.0228) (3362.08,44.1043) (3363.08,53.5398) (3364.08,56.8138) (3365.08,54.709) (3366.08,49.3661) (3367.08,46.2192) (3368.08,53.958) (3369.08,48.938) (3370.13,56.0987) (3371.08,48.8293) (3372.13,56.989) (3373.08,46.2987) (3374.13,55.1055) (3375.08,47.7016) (3376.08,41.3257) (3377.08,50.1211) (3378.08,47.2158) (3379.08,45.3838) (3380.08,45.3594) (3381.08,46.3367) (3382.08,47.2104) (3383.13,42.6578) (3384.08,42.1415) (3385.08,49.8235) (3386.08,43.2572) (3387.08,42.5654) (3388.08,45.2306) (3389.08,44.9288) (3390.08,31.643) (3391.08,43.941) (3392.08,42.0244) (3393.08,39.0024) (3394.08,38.5615) (3395.08,36.7085) (3396.08,43.5423) (3397.13,38.0493) (3398.08,34.3289) (3399.08,33.8434) (3400.08,38.0728) (3401.08,34.4912) (3402.08,38.7689) (3403.08,23.2246) (3404.08,31.5981) (3405.08,25.84) (3406.08,21.0604) (3407.08,26.3486) (3408.08,23.8621) (3409.13,20.903) (3410.08,15.6711) (3411.08,24.7515) (3412.08,23.2513) (3413.13,32.1239) (3414.08,20.661) (3415.08,23.9287) (3416.08,14.1521) (3417.08,25.4845) (3418.08,26.7513) (3419.08,20.866) (3420.08,21.0429) (3421.08,20.7083) (3422.13,20.356) (3423.08,18.0753) (3424.08,22.7814) (3425.08,17.1597) (3426.08,23.1215) (3427.08,20.5733) (3428.08,21.8743) (3429.08,15.9316) (3430.08,20.4983) (3431.13,22.7945) (3432.08,14.0663) (3433.08,10.516) (3434.08,7.75637) (3435.08,8.4345) (3436.08,6.72109) (3437.13,5.62866) (3438.14,6.3968) (3439.14,5.20839) (3440.14,0.177886) (3441.14,0.0283012) (3442.14,0.0283407) (3443.14,0.0289335) (3444.14,0.0480463) (3445.14,0.0431945) (3446.14,0.0223849) (3447.14,0.0337316) (3448.14,0.0300447) (3449.14,0.0479342) (3450.14,0.03483) (3451.14,0.0215524) (3452.14,0.0252683) (3453.14,0.0390385) (3454.14,0.0481596) (3455.14,0.0476491) (3456.14,0.0307996) (3457.14,0.0276969) (3458.14,0.0286385) (3459.14,0.0539739) (3460.14,0.0347496) (3461.14,0.0263977) (3462.14,0.0256994) (3463.14,0.0288816) (3464.14,0.0530496) (3465.14,0.0374428) (3466.14,0.026411) (3467.14,0.0229071) (3468.14,0.0383291) (3469.14,0.0462503) (3470.14,0.0451455) (3471.14,0.0314787) (3472.14,0.0308391) (3473.14,0.0335702) (3474.14,0.0481036) (3475.14,0.0375685) (3476.14,0.0245841) (3477.14,0.0225295) (3478.14,0.0298219) (3479.14,0.0504442) (3480.14,0.0367791) (3481.14,0.0280136) (3482.14,0.0188061) (3483.14,0.0449561) (3484.14,0.0558412) (3485.14,0.0409581) (3486.14,0.0279537) (3487.14,0.0236024) (3488.14,0.0315159) (3489.14,0.0508676) (3490.14,0.0392739) (3491.14,0.0238029) (3492.14,0.0234847) (3493.14,0.0287601) (3494.14,0.0592724) (3495.14,0.038825) (3496.14,0.0207578) (3497.14,0.0262988) (3498.14,0.0355156) (3499.14,0.044259) (3500.14,0.0530067) (3501.14,0.0303968) (3502.14,0.0244876) (3503.14,0.0303491) (3504.14,0.0484896) (3505.14,0.0376145) (3506.14,0.0188516) (3507.14,0.0266617) (3508.14,0.0303356) (3509.14,0.0494989) (3510.08,0.0354551) (3511.08,0.0262285) (3512.13,0.023793) (3513.14,0.0398284) (3514.14,0.0530555) (3515.14,0.0418036) (3516.14,0.0371726) (3517.14,0.0290633) (3518.14,0.0244901) (3519.14,0.0445858) (3520.08,0.0465396) (3521.13,0.0193767) (3522.14,0.0169447) (3523.14,0.0294807) (3524.14,0.0621252) (3525.14,0.0380858) (3526.14,0.0243563) (3527.08,0.0120158) (3528.08,84.22) (3529.08,17.816) (3530.08,0.046726) (3531.13,0.0301383) (3532.08,0.024639) (3533.13,0.0456482) (3534.14,0.0493734) (3535.14,0.0423703) (3536.08,0.0146315) (3537.08,0.0246572) (3538.08,0.0355334) (3539.13,0.042657) (3540.08,0.0369031) (3541.08,5.30126) (3542.08,22.7684) (3543.08,43.423) (3544.13,40.48) (3545.08,31.8736) (3546.13,38.4251) (3547.08,37.632) (3548.08,50.5633) (3549.08,48.4739) (3550.13,51.6733) (3551.14,45.8346) (3552.14,42.4532) (3553.08,38.9957) (3554.08,48.6634) (3555.13,53.1572) (3556.14,41.2745) (3557.14,39.0782) (3558.14,45.5431) (3559.14,46.0633) (3560.08,46.9368) (3561.08,49.6954) (3562.13,52.8039) (3563.14,44.9206) (3564.14,41.6107) (3565.14,46.2193) (3566.08,43.407) (3567.08,42.7321) (3568.08,39.1704) (3569.08,40.8416) (3570.08,33.4625) (3571.08,23.0931) (3572.08,29.2982) (3573.08,45.7614) (3574.13,48.5284) (3575.08,28.8807) (3576.08,32.6269) (3577.08,36.2631) (3578.08,32.707) (3579.08,44.7735) (3580.08,43.1517) (3581.08,36.2513) (3582.08,45.0821) (3583.08,69.2051) (3584.08,46.7727) (3585.08,49.4724) (3586.08,53.473) (3587.08,57.953) (3588.08,50.5129) (3589.08,51.6471) (3590.08,53.7044) (3591.08,51.1568) (3592.13,50.5727) (3593.14,52.1235) (3594.14,54.7207) (3595.14,52.4952) (3596.14,55.0501) (3597.14,54.3969) (3598.14,50.2912) (3599.14,50.7236) (3600.08,52.2767) (3601.08,50.8565) (3602.08,54.6421) (3603.08,58.035) (3604.08,53.2434) (3605.08,50.574) (3606.08,50.9024) (3607.08,52.0719) (3608.08,55.0815) (3609.08,52.96) (3610.08,56.2266) (3611.08,60.1887) (3612.08,49.9886) (3613.08,50.0952) (3614.08,53.2975) (3615.08,49.7955) (3616.08,56.1687) (3617.08,53.2082) (3618.08,53.5631) (3619.08,53.2027) (3620.08,55.8418) (3621.08,55.965) (3622.08,55.1379) (3623.08,57.1909) (3624.08,60.1724) (3625.08,52.2243) (3626.08,48.8279) (3627.08,55.9147) (3628.08,54.2003) (3629.08,71.4392) (3630.08,75.446) (3631.08,72.1212) (3632.08,68.9451) (3633.08,65.436) (3634.08,68.9416) (3635.08,73.117) (3636.08,62.0974) (3637.13,64.5146) (3638.08,65.3467) (3639.13,66.4285) (3640.08,54.7949) (3641.08,63.8958) (3642.08,50.984) (3643.13,66.8473) (3644.08,85.5587) (3645.13,71.7999) (3646.08,71.0157) (3647.08,68.265) (3648.08,69.458) (3649.13,72.4155) (3650.14,77.6036) (3651.14,66.8843) (3652.08,67.952) (3653.13,69.5168) (3654.08,59.0711) (3655.08,67.5844) (3656.08,69.7121) (3657.13,71.931) (3658.08,67.882) (3659.08,71.1527) (3660.08,48.8822) (3661.08,67.689) (3662.08,65.539) (3663.08,62.6656) (3664.13,65.3339) (3665.14,62.668) (3666.08,65.2254) (3667.13,68.2478) (3668.08,63.8854) (3669.08,66.1813) (3670.08,65.1847) (3671.13,71.4561) (3672.14,66.5516) (3673.14,64.1487) (3674.14,62.7606) (3675.14,67.0075) (3676.14,56.3327) (3677.14,55.5537) (3678.14,56.9596) (3679.14,49.7253) (3680.08,46.1771) (3681.13,53.53) (3682.08,47.253) (3683.13,55.4423) (3684.08,46.9086) (3685.13,55.2756) (3686.08,47.6268) (3687.13,55.1917) (3688.08,54.219) (3689.13,57.3195) (3690.14,59.3016) (3691.14,60.8076) (3692.14,54.7676) (3693.14,52.5704) (3694.14,51.454) (3695.14,51.0142) (3696.14,46.2825) (3697.14,44.2853) (3698.08,40.6198) (3699.13,41.3215) (3700.08,31.4834) (3701.13,37.134) (3702.14,34.8126) (3703.14,33.3887) (3704.08,26.1605) (3705.13,29.2976) (3706.08,20.8674) (3707.13,27.1535) (3708.14,31.1996) (3709.14,25.9675) (3710.08,30.0129) (3711.13,33.6148) (3712.14,28.6198) (3713.08,17.3945) (3714.13,20.0182) (3715.14,22.0834) (3716.14,22.9497) (3717.14,21.2747) (3718.08,16.3038) (3719.13,21.9145) (3720.14,19.7536) (3721.14,19.1487) (3722.08,14.7993) (3723.13,31.1277) (3724.08,16.5414) (3725.13,23.8837) (3726.08,15.5622) (3727.13,23.6754) (3728.14,16.6486) (3729.14,17.1246) (3730.14,16.6888) (3731.14,15.416) (3732.14,16.2134) (3733.14,15.3311) (3734.14,16.4868) (3735.14,15.466) (3736.14,15.9523) (3737.14,20.7012) (3738.14,17.536) (3739.14,17.9438) (3740.14,19.1985) (3741.14,18.8537) (3742.14,17.7029) (3743.08,18.6747) (3744.08,20.4305) (3745.13,24.8902) (3746.08,4.89432) (3747.13,10.5448) (3748.08,2.21761) (3749.13,0.048632) (3750.08,0.0495828) (3751.13,0.0276801) (3752.14,0.0226846) (3753.14,0.040355) (3754.14,0.0582088) (3755.14,0.0457482) (3756.14,0.0347031) (3757.14,0.0232319) (3758.14,0.0395337) (3759.14,0.0502613) (3760.08,0.0443472) (3761.13,0.0291148) (3762.14,0.0172359) (3763.14,0.0262558) (3764.14,0.0456006) (3765.14,0.0453996) (3766.14,0.0228068) (3767.14,0.0232412) (3768.14,0.029939) (3769.14,0.0567245) (3770.14,0.0335896) (3771.14,0.0259432) (3772.14,0.0228092) (3773.14,0.0298922) (3774.14,0.0533245) (3775.14,0.0349178) (3776.14,0.0250222) (3777.14,0.0255169) (3778.14,0.0284719) (3779.14,0.0516941) (3780.14,0.0408685) (3781.14,0.0215326) (3782.14,0.0230583) (3783.14,0.0344131) (3784.08,0.0490657) (3785.13,0.0430109) (3786.14,0.0281423) (3787.14,0.0301045) (3788.08,0.0339684) (3789.13,0.0445876) (3790.08,0.0377542) (3791.13,0.0260156) (3792.08,0.018199) (3793.13,0.0406993) (3794.08,0.0500403) (3795.13,0.0331299) (3796.14,0.0244494) (3797.14,0.0227078) (3798.08,0.0306328) (3799.13,0.0512969) (3800.14,0.0370797) (3801.14,0.0273698) (3802.08,0.0207746) (3803.13,0.0373325) (3804.14,0.0447647) (3805.14,0.0351325) (3806.14,0.0268987) (3807.14,0.0231999) (3808.14,0.0298809) (3809.14,0.0540672) (3810.14,0.0405616) (3811.14,0.0238973) (3812.14,0.0211585) (3813.14,0.0352074) (3814.14,0.0529433) (3815.14,0.042425) (3816.14,0.0298537) (3817.14,0.0298797) (3818.14,0.0289101) (3819.14,0.0477655) (3820.14,0.0428223) (3821.14,0.0274878) (3822.14,0.0231393) (3823.14,0.0295616) (3824.14,0.0508648) (3825.14,0.0348785) (3826.14,0.0302115) (3827.14,0.0226496) (3828.14,0.0320158) (3829.14,0.0551389) (3830.14,0.0382785) (3831.14,0.021489) (3832.14,0.0308156) (3833.14,0.0279895) (3834.14,0.0494606) (3835.14,0.0423765) (3836.14,0.0204747) (3837.14,0.0216276) (3838.14,0.0326478) (3839.14,0.0477309) (3840.14,0.044655) (3841.14,0.0215175) (3842.14,0.0268687) (3843.14,0.0305061) (3844.14,0.0499699) (3845.14,0.0500306) (3846.14,0.031711) (3847.14,0.0289551) (3848.14,0.0339058) (3849.14,5.89422) (3850.08,75.9119) (3851.13,23.9187) (3852.08,0.0251616) (3853.13,0.029432) (3854.08,0.0515615) (3855.08,0.0445455) (3856.13,0.0172431) (3857.08,0.0229198) (3858.13,0.0381676) (3859.14,0.0593182) (3860.08,0.0436612) (3861.08,0.0194116) (3862.08,0.0126463) (3863.13,0.590281) (3864.14,18.7582) (3865.14,50.5636) (3866.14,50.7307) (3867.08,54.7557) (3868.13,51.6322) (3869.14,60.8569) (3870.14,65.9276) (3871.14,65.4069) (3872.14,64.5969) (3873.14,63.3706) (3874.14,65.5819) (3875.08,64.4024) (3876.08,63.3641) (3877.08,60.7209) (3878.13,70.3657) (3879.08,65.1746) (3880.13,68.218) (3881.14,65.0958) (3882.14,67.5128) (3883.14,64.6069) (3884.14,69.441) (3885.14,69.5461) (3886.14,65.1383) (3887.08,54.9519) (3888.13,62.8756) (3889.14,67.9161) (3890.14,79.4472) (3891.14,71.4233) (3892.14,78.8033) (3893.14,81.428) (3894.14,77.364) (3895.14,79.0751) (3896.14,80.5489) (3897.08,88.063) (3898.08,84.6742) (3899.13,83.9164) (3900.14,70.6191) (3901.14,73.2518) (3902.14,66.9212) (3903.14,72.431) (3904.14,74.6768) (3905.14,75.2652) (3906.14,68.0683) (3907.14,64.7234) (3908.14,67.443) (3909.14,52.6608) (3910.08,52.9317) (3911.13,68.3595) (3912.14,59.8185) (3913.14,59.4174) (3914.14,61.5199) (3915.08,55.3561) (3916.13,49.4536) (3917.08,51.5765) (3918.08,60.6736) (3919.13,61.715) (3920.08,56.0152) (3921.08,57.6631) (3922.13,59.3055) (3923.08,52.6478) (3924.13,51.8308) (3925.08,56.5443) (3926.08,67.8521) (3927.08,59.3748) (3928.13,65.8652) (3929.14,66.2189) (3930.14,56.4934) (3931.14,53.9645) (3932.14,52.0329) (3933.14,58.6603) (3934.08,59.3863) (3935.13,62.3987) (3936.14,63.6563) (3937.14,55.5564) (3938.14,51.5615) (3939.08,53.0359) (3940.13,62.979) (3941.14,60.7942) (3942.14,59.7365) (3943.08,62.9033) (3944.13,63.9509) (3945.08,56.5425) (3946.13,61.8055) (3947.08,55.7507) (3948.13,61.1746) (3949.08,55.6531) (3950.13,67.2742) (3951.14,55.2754) (3952.08,45.92) (3953.13,49.5586) (3954.14,54.7645) (3955.08,54.9108) (3956.08,53.494) (3957.13,61.1242) (3958.08,59.0886) (3959.13,53.0104) (3960.14,43.9549) (3961.08,56.3508) (3962.13,55.6326) (3963.14,64.4547) (3964.14,60.1358) (3965.14,65.5567) (3966.14,56.9075) (3967.08,51.1622) (3968.08,51.7421) (3969.08,48.4606) (3970.08,56.8699) (3971.08,57.5135) (3972.08,55.566) (3973.13,58.9529) (3974.14,63.6493) (3975.14,51.7135) (3976.14,50.9759) (3977.14,57.6653) (3978.14,65.5174) (3979.14,62.8286) (3980.14,55.9833) (3981.14,49.8185) (3982.14,64.3508) (3983.14,51.6287) (3984.14,44.7426) (3985.14,53.8081) (3986.14,47.3883) (3987.14,42.669) (3988.14,44.5293) (3989.14,45.8921) (3990.14,50.4972) (3991.14,51.8584) (3992.14,45.1559) (3993.14,40.3666) (3994.14,42.6023) (3995.08,37.453) (3996.13,49.2399) (3997.08,42.5443) (3998.13,47.1417) (3999.14,42.5432) (4000.08,32.6496) (4001.13,37.5464) (4002.14,38.9063) (4003.14,39.2786) (4004.14,37.3773) (4005.14,37.9117) (4006.14,38.6483) (4007.08,31.1207) (4008.13,37.3479) (4009.14,33.8134) (4010.08,33.4373) (4011.13,38.6043) (4012.14,33.802) (4013.14,36.256) (4014.14,31.8059) (4015.14,36.0966) (4016.14,31.4916) (4017.14,34.7836) (4018.08,34.5703) (4019.13,36.4196) (4020.14,26.263) (4021.14,25.0419) (4022.14,25.087) (4023.14,25.2816) (4024.14,21.6847) (4025.08,19.4503) (4026.08,25.5581) (4027.08,26.4836) (4028.08,24.5376) (4029.08,23.7334) (4030.13,28.1505) (4031.14,21.7894) (4032.14,28.7518) (4033.14,24.0667) (4034.08,15.4499) (4035.13,14.631) (4036.14,12.7497) (4037.14,9.70449) (4038.14,6.43147) (4039.08,3.41433) (4040.13,12.0347) (4041.08,4.98297) (4042.13,12.2089) (4043.08,4.54497) (4044.13,11.9474) (4045.08,4.43323) (4046.13,7.89825) (4047.14,7.11318) (4048.14,7.13515) (4049.08,3.85764) (4050.13,11.1696) (4051.08,3.98788) (4052.13,11.1308) (4053.08,4.17441) (4054.13,8.41834) (4055.08,4.17223) (4056.13,11.3242) (4057.14,8.09031) (4058.14,8.03587) (4059.08,4.34064) (4060.13,11.022) (4061.14,7.66928) (4062.14,7.93594) (4063.14,7.89294) (4064.14,7.41295) (4065.14,6.4172) (4066.14,6.28373) (4067.14,6.293) (4068.14,5.86855) (4069.14,5.58905) (4070.14,5.89828) (4071.14,6.49167) (4072.14,7.02266) (4073.14,6.7497) (4074.14,6.43586) (4075.14,6.8245) (4076.14,7.04584) (4077.08,3.66805) (4078.13,9.10646) (4079.08,3.4458) (4080.08,7.65059) (4081.08,8.24468) (4082.13,11.6292) (4083.08,4.37806) (4084.08,8.14892) (4085.13,9.7331) (4086.08,2.53433) (4087.13,11.5805) (4088.14,8.13758) (4089.14,8.29162) (4090.14,8.19) (4091.14,8.1985) (4092.14,8.17089) (4093.08,4.2213) (4094.13,9.49097) (4095.14,2.7837) (4096.14,0.0365671) (4097.08,0.0241315) (4098.08,0.0392388) (4099.13,0.0444466) (4100.14,0.0488774) (4101.14,0.0231647) (4102.14,0.0264625) (4103.14,0.0244359) (4104.14,0.0488185) (4105.14,0.0458941) (4106.08,0.0253814) (4107.08,0.0216239) (4108.13,0.037114) (4109.14,0.0451669) (4110.14,0.0415697) (4111.14,0.0324214) (4112.14,0.0218608) (4113.14,0.0342904) (4114.14,0.0496996) (4115.14,0.0393784) (4116.08,0.0208055) (4117.13,0.0195436) (4118.14,0.0347735) (4119.14,0.0556145) (4120.14,0.0395088) (4121.14,0.0184864) (4122.14,0.0199881) (4123.14,0.0306856) (4124.14,0.0551181) (4125.14,0.0442997) (4126.14,0.0331396) (4127.14,0.0246943) (4128.14,0.0404294) (4129.14,0.0493264) (4130.14,0.0487535) (4131.14,0.0233008) (4132.14,0.0298092) (4133.14,0.0274784) (4134.14,0.042952) (4135.14,0.0465051) (4136.14,0.0266285) (4137.14,0.0267656) (4138.14,0.0266431) (4139.14,0.0413786) (4140.14,0.0420174) (4141.14,0.027539) (4142.14,0.0247486) (4143.14,0.0330382) (4144.14,0.0418989) (4145.14,0.0426897) (4146.14,0.0278141) (4147.14,0.0238441) (4148.14,0.0304142) (4149.14,0.0520107) (4150.14,0.0392623) (4151.14,0.0259053) (4152.14,0.0220879) (4153.14,0.0329515) (4154.14,0.0498931) (4155.14,0.0423738) (4156.14,0.0346639) (4157.14,0.0279236) (4158.14,0.0331779) (4159.14,0.0443792) (4160.14,0.042707) (4161.14,0.0280065) (4162.14,0.0313507) (4163.14,0.0337743) (4164.14,0.0421879) (4165.14,0.0421857) (4166.14,0.0234684) (4167.14,0.0297637) (4168.14,0.0363272) (4169.14,0.0461747) (4170.14,0.0433034) (4171.14,0.0279319) (4172.14,0.0208229) (4173.14,0.0307438) (4174.14,0.0525603) (4175.14,0.0354257) (4176.14,0.0254617) (4177.14,0.0171522) (4178.14,0.0352557) (4179.14,0.0527836) (4180.14,0.0416121) (4181.14,0.0266568) (4182.14,0.0206791) (4183.14,0.0310563) (4184.14,0.04862) (4185.14,0.0417902) (4186.14,0.0240907) (4187.14,0.0248448) (4188.14,0.0328431) (4189.08,0.0530395) (4190.08,0.0493611) (4191.13,0.0299868) (4192.14,0.0284122) (4193.14,0.0328488) (4194.14,0.0473608) (4195.14,0.0458284) (4196.14,0.0194285) (4197.14,0.0353605) (4198.14,0.0281135) (4199.14,0.0411925) (4200.08,0.0472571) (4201.08,10.9997) (4202.08,3.9521) (4203.08,5.64893) (4204.08,7.80099) (4205.08,6.10198) (4206.13,5.60719) (4207.08,4.84348) (4208.08,4.34155) (4209.08,3.02243) (4210.13,0.0547399) (4211.14,0.0427251) (4212.14,0.0326132) (4213.14,0.0204509) (4214.14,0.0237206) (4215.14,0.0345907) };
\addplot coordinates { (0.079433,0) (1.07945,28.8811) (2.07948,239.003) (3.07946,161.069) (4.07946,135.368) (5.07983,125.1) (6.08073,147.911) (7.08005,145.172) (8.07948,151.881) (9.08008,148.698) (10.0795,154.125) (11.0795,134.546) (12.0796,130.058) (13.0795,207.745) (14.0796,294.107) (15.0797,379.608) (16.0796,406.077) (17.0797,403.356) (18.0797,420.031) (19.0796,433.325) (20.0795,442.02) (21.0796,434.365) (22.0795,446.175) (23.0795,433.201) (24.0796,424.603) (25.0795,405.521) (26.0799,405.979) (27.0795,368.323) (28.0795,365.677) (29.0795,329.284) (30.1336,331.466) (31.0847,299.797) (32.0795,215.088) (33.1336,84.4081) (34.0848,63.1281) (35.0795,39.6891) (36.0794,31.7624) (37.0794,62.9072) (38.1336,92.2952) (39.1419,65.4865) (40.0847,56.636) (41.0795,49.4473) (42.0794,14.1039) (43.0794,0.079834) (44.0794,0.0678711) (45.0794,13.5296) (46.0794,33.3055) (47.0794,118.879) (48.0794,201.856) (49.0794,229.656) (50.0794,230.918) (51.0794,250.2) (52.0794,255.926) (53.0794,271.542) (54.0794,304.366) (55.0794,259.475) (56.0794,193.11) (57.1336,96.385) (58.0847,41.7677) (59.0794,7.6145) (60.0794,49.3997) (61.0794,57.8566) (62.0794,42.2498) (63.0794,31.4273) (64.0794,3.79004) (65.1336,0.0547737) (66.0847,0.183333) (67.0794,0.128418) (68.0794,0.223541) (69.0794,0.2229) (70.0794,0.194824) (71.0794,0.105713) (72.0794,0.137054) (73.0794,0.356445) (74.0794,0.114014) (75.0794,0.043457) (76.0794,0.0817871) (77.0794,0.00683594) (78.0794,0.0012207) (79.1336,6.96139) (80.0847,18.2047) (81.0794,7.34741) (82.0794,0.0969238) (83.1336,0.119945) (84.0847,17.9112) (85.0794,29.2451) (86.1016,23.0786) (87.1336,39.4575) (88.0847,44.5456) (89.1336,39.2718) (90.0847,28.7992) (91.0794,41.7242) (92.0794,29.0664) (93.0794,20.8684) (94.0794,20.9031) (95.0794,11.313) (96.0794,20.9177) (97.0794,15.2012) (98.0794,20.8868) (99.0794,0.105225) (100.079,18.9641) (101.079,14.5479) (102.079,0.100586) (103.079,0.186035) (104.079,21.2276) (105.079,12.1402) (106.079,6.74438) (107.079,39.0356) (108.079,21.0337) (109.079,0) (110.079,8.95411) (111.079,20.9353) (112.079,3.46631) (113.079,15.0027) (114.079,18.353) (115.134,0.117877) (116.085,0.1375) (117.079,17.7786) (118.079,15.6624) (119.079,2.50708) (120.079,39.925) (121.079,24.2428) (122.079,0.00292969) (123.079,5.35083) (124.079,20.9922) (125.079,7.20459) (126.079,6.34082) (127.079,20.8701) (128.079,6.17212) (129.079,0.00292969) (130.079,13.635) (131.079,30.7974) (132.079,20.9358) (133.079,1.31689) (134.079,0.00341797) (135.079,0) (136.079,1.74268) (137.079,20.7041) (138.079,45.2551) (139.079,32.2632) (140.134,0) (141.085,0.00208333) (142.079,0.00366211) (143.079,14.7608) (144.079,48.9854) (145.079,31.4639) (146.079,4.96997) (147.079,0.00219727) (148.079,0) (149.134,1.99563) (150.085,42.2802) (151.079,24.8856) (152.079,0.00460815) (153.134,0) (154.085,0.00208333) (155.134,0.00321692) (156.142,21.2424) (157.142,39.1953) (158.085,6.61895) (159.079,0.00585938) (160.079,0.00616455) (161.134,9.89084) (162.085,24.5707) (163.079,37.4905) (164.134,27.3892) (165.085,0) (166.079,0) (167.134,0.000919118) (168.085,20.393) (169.079,26.688) (170.079,43.4995) (171.079,12.6523) (172.079,0.00292969) (173.079,0.557129) (174.079,0) (175.134,31.3886) (176.085,30.6604) (177.079,36.8457) (178.079,2.15357) (179.134,6.25344) (180.085,22.4546) (181.134,6.11587) (182.085,0.00266927) (183.079,18.8685) (184.079,14.8896) (185.134,18.9688) (186.085,22.3339) (187.079,7.59595) (188.079,23.992) (189.079,9.90181) (190.079,0.428375) (191.079,0.419434) (192.079,0.492889) (193.079,1.15295) (194.079,11.8779) (195.134,20.8569) (196.085,17.2674) (197.079,19.1228) (198.079,22.8703) (199.079,29.8931) (200.079,39.0078) (201.079,26.8608) (202.079,13.3445) (203.079,0.898926) (204.079,0.862549) (205.134,1.45005) (206.085,16.6104) (207.134,20.2383) (208.085,22.2534) (209.134,9.96504) (210.085,1.36663) (211.079,0.689423) (212.079,9.77783) (213.079,42.0568) (214.134,27.7686) (215.142,20.9243) (216.085,1.90667) (217.134,31.7142) (218.085,0.268164) (219.134,24.0354) (220.142,40.3743) (221.085,2.24183) (222.079,2.70971) (223.079,2.04865) (224.079,0.964108) (225.079,0.77121) (226.079,59.9026) (227.079,40.7497) (228.079,0.0461426) (229.079,0.145508) (230.079,0.767548) (231.079,0.00219727) (232.079,13.4626) (233.079,43.2736) (234.079,12.1892) (235.079,0.86377) (236.079,3.23194) (237.079,9.19873) (238.079,20.844) (239.079,19.1218) (240.079,19.2266) (241.079,0.57486) (242.079,1.64014) (243.079,0.502441) (244.079,32.2613) (245.079,38.7788) (246.079,21.1804) (247.079,10.0005) (248.079,7.13415) (249.079,22.9727) (250.079,10.9487) (251.079,20.8848) (252.079,21.7359) (253.079,20.897) (254.079,1.73755) (255.079,4.0361) (256.134,20.1547) (257.085,23.9656) (258.079,21.0505) (259.079,22.3675) (260.079,17.5462) (261.079,2.30371) (262.079,0.363281) (263.079,0.845947) (264.079,0.369385) (265.079,6.94699) (266.079,21.6306) (267.079,17.1761) (268.079,21.6662) (269.079,20.0308) (270.079,16.0832) (271.079,0.333221) (272.079,1.0993) (273.079,1.22754) (274.079,0.50708) (275.134,4.09904) (276.085,21.9961) (277.079,23.9062) (278.079,18.8912) (279.134,18.7174) (280.142,15.1108) (281.142,21.1634) (282.085,24.6852) (283.079,21.9251) (284.079,21.4011) (285.079,10.2898) (286.079,0.424316) (287.079,11.5009) (288.079,21.6404) (289.079,2.00366) (290.079,18.1392) (291.079,42.5467) (292.079,7.87598) (293.079,0.190674) (294.079,18.5306) (295.079,29.3108) (296.134,18.8198) (297.085,21.9096) (298.079,13.989) (299.079,0.672363) (300.134,5.78719) (301.085,22.7899) (302.079,22.1309) (303.079,26.8462) (304.079,20.9321) (305.079,5.25732) (306.134,0.795984) (307.085,15.5955) (308.079,19.4257) (309.134,0.0435432) (310.085,17.3974) (311.079,17.7189) (312.079,0.876465) (313.079,1.34768) (314.079,1.43408) (315.079,1.09079) (316.079,1.03907) (317.134,1.27206) (318.085,3.31667) (319.079,41.7546) (320.079,24.6118) (321.079,4.35498) (322.079,20.9512) (323.079,20.8928) (324.079,20.8901) (325.079,8.42794) (326.079,21.1128) (327.079,26.0723) (328.079,23.2783) (329.079,17.6661) (330.079,0.366913) (331.134,0.540212) (332.085,16.3968) (333.134,37.6461) (334.085,25.5315) (335.079,49.1506) (336.079,35.37) (337.079,3.9419) (338.079,2.81057) (339.134,19.8073) (340.085,11.5284) (341.079,8.52633) (342.134,51.205) (343.085,5.37451) (344.079,0.686523) (345.134,0.826947) (346.085,0.516634) (347.079,19.284) (348.079,31.4749) (349.134,16.131) (350.142,9.20529) (351.085,22.4156) (352.079,4.84106) (353.079,0.787109) (354.079,4.68531) (355.079,20.8078) (356.079,8.49607) (357.134,15.8557) (358.085,24.9406) (359.079,22.1533) (360.079,10.5244) (361.079,12.9221) (362.079,21.4741) (363.079,0.828369) (364.079,0.491699) (365.079,0.525604) (366.079,0.567383) (367.134,0.419118) (368.142,24.6206) (369.142,34.0728) (370.085,25.6025) (371.079,19.6012) (372.079,0.200684) (373.079,0.201447) (374.079,8.4541) (375.079,31.6851) (376.079,24.7082) (377.079,2.61963) (378.079,0.299072) (379.079,0.429932) (380.079,0.729492) (381.079,17.2109) (382.079,35.0713) (383.079,22.8702) (384.079,21.3423) (385.079,6.00095) (386.134,1.61371) (387.085,26.8782) (388.079,32.315) (389.079,8.44091) (390.079,1.08615) (391.079,1.23459) (392.134,0.374713) (393.085,5.57578) (394.079,33.346) (395.079,29.885) (396.079,0.553833) (397.079,0.575195) (398.079,10.0281) (399.134,20.182) (400.085,17.7879) (401.134,39.304) (402.085,15.5708) (403.079,0.649689) (404.079,0.427734) (405.079,0.773407) (406.079,0.93161) (407.079,2.55078) (408.079,1.50805) (409.079,1.11109) (410.079,0.882538) (411.079,0.406738) (412.079,27.8782) (413.134,33.9823) (414.085,26.2136) (415.079,40.9372) (416.079,36.2749) (417.079,2.29589) (418.079,7.41015) (419.134,35.483) (420.142,37.1194) (421.085,20.3609) (422.079,0.345367) (423.079,0.677002) (424.079,0.00463867) (425.079,0.00411987) (426.079,1.2456) (427.079,21.8335) (428.079,12.6909) (429.134,0.797105) (430.085,0.48877) (431.079,5.2402) (432.079,21.0258) (433.079,8.49848) (434.079,0.706543) (435.079,4.71359) (436.079,21.5503) (437.079,11.1516) (438.079,33.6758) (439.079,44.2317) (440.079,37.8623) (441.079,21.2319) (442.079,0.885498) (443.079,0.859619) (444.079,1.14283) (445.134,15.852) (446.142,20.5515) (447.142,0.852783) (448.085,1.54531) (449.079,1.05151) (450.079,0.937958) (451.134,0.877527) (452.085,14.2929) (453.079,54.2554) (454.079,44.5698) (455.079,18.7807) (456.079,22.8288) (457.134,39.4899) (458.142,31.743) (459.085,23.0165) (460.079,13.4855) (461.079,20.7894) (462.079,23.2719) (463.134,22.9339) (464.085,21.9659) (465.079,28.6201) (466.079,13.3791) (467.079,0.000732422) (468.079,0.0483398) (469.079,0.00195312) (470.134,38.9161) (471.142,65.2214) (472.085,24.4078) (473.134,0.618337) (474.142,0.652588) (475.142,21.1362) (476.085,24.7888) (477.134,52.8293) (478.142,29.4683) (479.142,0.00170898) (480.142,0.00411987) (481.142,7.85934) (482.085,22.2655) (483.079,4.90015) (484.079,0.303467) (485.079,0.665192) (486.079,0.585419) (487.079,0.432587) (488.079,8.79435) (489.079,21.4568) (490.079,5.04532) (491.079,1.14914) (492.079,0.782715) (493.134,4.59518) (494.142,42.2382) (495.142,48.6846) (496.142,34.821) (497.142,0.339355) (498.085,0.00120442) (499.079,0.254883) (500.079,21.1052) (501.079,27.9551) (502.079,55.29) (503.079,50.8828) (504.079,38.8865) (505.079,3.48584) (506.134,0.587517) (507.142,0.546143) (508.142,0.158691) (509.142,0.00146484) (510.142,12.5196) (511.142,20.8442) (512.142,0.0444946) (513.142,0.00366211) (514.142,0.00512695) (515.142,17.6994) (516.085,16.7677) (517.079,0.0422974) (518.079,0.00317383) (519.134,0.008071) (520.142,20.1587) (521.142,28.1884) (522.085,40.0266) (523.134,9.07121) (524.085,0.302343) (525.134,0.496755) (526.085,0.306771) (527.079,0.365479) (528.079,11.9934) (529.079,21.0703) (530.079,1.01438) (531.079,0.48996) (532.079,0.828369) (533.134,0.30193) (534.085,2.66901) (535.079,20.8928) (536.134,9.41082) (537.085,21.7093) (538.079,12.9707) (539.079,0.00170898) (540.079,19.2754) (541.079,14.0498) (542.079,0.00360107) (543.079,0.00341797) (544.079,0.00268555) (545.079,0.00219727) (546.134,6.0133) (547.085,22.1302) (548.079,12.2534) (549.079,21.485) (550.079,31.7539) (551.079,19.2605) (552.134,20.435) (553.085,22.1776) (554.079,14.2353) (555.079,10.252) (556.079,0.427246) (557.134,2.10731) (558.085,28.4583) (559.079,42.5925) (560.079,5.31347) (561.079,0.000488281) (562.134,0.00137868) (563.142,3.09009) (564.085,9.97553) (565.079,29.9788) (566.079,39.555) (567.079,24.6509) (568.079,11.1995) (569.079,17.6113) (570.079,15.8316) (571.079,4.43677) (572.134,0.00402114) (573.142,0.00793457) (574.085,0.000260417) (575.079,0.00512695) (576.134,0.00482536) (577.142,19.7586) (578.142,15.7283) (579.142,5.40085) (580.142,7.56592) (581.142,7.51928) (582.142,7.65991) (583.142,3.74759) (584.142,0.000976562) (585.142,0.00708008) (586.085,0.00152995) (587.079,0.00146484) (588.079,0.00195312) (589.079,0.000488281) (590.134,0.00160846) (591.142,0.00387573) (592.142,0.000976562) (593.142,0.00585938) (594.142,0.0012207) (595.142,0.00216675) (596.142,0.00119019) (597.142,0.00195312) (598.142,0.000244141) (599.142,0.00268555) (600.142,0.00460815) (601.142,0.00338745) (602.142,4.68756) (603.142,8.54083) (604.142,8.54223) (605.142,8.5422) (606.142,7.04367) (607.142,8.11404) (608.142,8.46533) (609.142,8.64304) (610.142,0.996828) (611.142,0.0072937) (612.142,0.000732422) (613.142,0.000976562) (614.142,7.43093) (615.142,8.53586) (616.142,8.54956) (617.142,7.27588) (618.142,0.00146484) (619.142,0.00268555) (620.142,0.00195312) (621.142,0.671356) (622.142,8.68067) (623.142,8.70898) (624.142,15.3851) (625.142,15.0928) (626.142,17.0166) (627.142,16.938) (628.142,15.6652) (629.142,11.8789) (630.142,8.41553) (631.142,8.41672) (632.142,0.424622) (633.142,5.25299) (634.142,8.68237) (635.142,8.2612) (636.142,15.8335) (637.142,9.30069) (638.142,8.44019) (639.142,7.88058) (640.142,0.00338745) (641.142,7.53537) (642.142,8.76758) (643.142,8.78467) (644.142,6.70291) (645.142,0.00289917) (646.142,0.00192261) (647.142,0.277344) (648.142,4.34229) (649.142,11.3809) (650.142,12.9933) (651.142,11.1238) (652.142,10.7519) (653.142,4.18238) (654.142,2.54931) (655.142,3.07175) (656.142,3.32541) (657.142,3.3711) (658.142,4.27661) (659.142,4.27149) (660.142,7.41696) (661.142,13.0302) (662.142,12.4903) (663.142,12.9129) (664.142,8.74243) (665.142,10.0139) (666.142,10.9463) (667.142,9.78107) (668.142,6.65796) (669.142,3.785) (670.142,3.81369) (671.142,4.91504) (672.142,5.54639) (673.142,4.11377) (674.142,5.1828) (675.142,4.96945) (676.142,8.10373) (677.142,6.4768) (678.142,9.59768) (679.142,8.70142) (680.142,10.4743) (681.142,9.12326) (682.142,9.58567) (683.142,8.44531) (684.142,9.39722) (685.142,29.6926) (686.142,28.7089) (687.142,26.2165) (688.142,3.76123) (689.142,0.765625) (690.142,3.00949) (691.142,4.32004) (692.142,3.89673) (693.142,3.78088) (694.142,2.92089) (695.142,2.81589) (696.142,22.2534) (697.142,31.5831) (698.142,27.0337) (699.142,10.297) (700.085,9.77812) (701.134,2.01735) (702.142,2.5415) (703.142,2.91821) (704.142,3.16263) (705.142,0.854218) (706.142,0.383026) (707.142,1.71289) (708.142,3.35205) (709.142,3.44385) (710.142,3.89963) (711.142,6.7275) (712.142,5.46045) (713.142,6.12793) (714.142,6.63086) (715.142,6.82882) (716.142,10.6885) (717.142,9.16138) (718.142,10.216) (719.142,9.91573) (720.142,9.32566) (721.142,7.93991) (722.142,5.02734) (723.142,5.23224) (724.142,10.722) (725.142,8.8735) (726.142,9.37716) (727.142,7.30423) (728.142,5.72119) (729.142,12.1778) (730.142,12.3976) (731.142,10.3564) (732.142,7.2732) (733.142,5.15039) (734.142,4.76786) (735.142,3.69482) (736.142,0.180145) (737.142,3.72119) (738.142,3.49927) (739.142,3.55078) (740.142,3.72702) (741.142,2.31516) (742.142,0.416016) (743.142,0.551514) (744.142,14.116) (745.142,16.384) (746.142,16.8232) (747.142,15.5078) (748.142,16.408) (749.142,9.20654) (750.142,9.51221) (751.142,7.12766) (752.085,9.19349) (753.134,14.8811) (754.142,16.8105) (755.142,15.2394) (756.142,15.8437) (757.142,15.2448) (758.142,16.6069) (759.142,15.2246) (760.142,16.8357) (761.142,15.2558) (762.142,15.4162) (763.142,14.2927) (764.142,15.23) (765.142,8.05857) (766.142,8.77756) (767.142,7.19824) (768.142,8.55664) (769.142,14.8108) (770.142,14.8757) (771.142,7.23288) (772.142,8.61059) (773.142,11.4959) (774.142,16.8643) (775.142,9.41721) (776.142,8.37107) (777.142,6.90893) (778.142,8.24316) (779.142,8.2461) (780.142,8.25894) (781.142,6.89255) (782.142,8.41528) (783.085,8.98451) (784.134,7.93107) (785.142,7.03565) (786.142,8.50998) (787.142,8.32672) (788.142,8.51929) (789.142,7.39161) (790.142,9.17526) (791.142,9.19006) (792.085,30.4914) (793.079,22.1753) (794.079,18.4416) (795.079,1.58414) (796.134,0.00226907) (797.085,0) (798.134,0.0021829) (799.142,0.0012207) (800.085,0.00182292) (801.134,1.87176) (802.085,0.901823) (803.079,3.19361) (804.079,6.06543) (805.079,0.945068) (806.079,0.0305176) (807.079,0) (808.079,0.000244141) (809.079,0.0205078) (810.079,0.000732422) (811.079,0.0012207) (812.079,0.00854492) (813.079,0.000854492) (814.079,0.00146484) (815.079,0.00805664) (816.079,0.00265503) (817.079,0.00714111) (818.079,0.00317383) (819.079,0.0012207) (820.134,0.00548598) (821.085,0.00221354) (822.079,0.00244141) (823.079,0.00170898) (824.079,0.00686646) (825.079,0.00854492) (826.079,0.00265503) (827.134,0.00160846) (828.085,0.00130208) (829.079,0.000488281) (830.079,0.00170898) (831.079,0.00534058) (832.079,0.000488281) (833.079,0.00170898) (834.079,0.00366211) (835.079,0.00195312) (836.079,0.286102) (837.079,0.000732422) (838.079,0.0012207) (839.079,0.0012207) (840.079,0) (841.079,3.46848) (842.079,13.6138) (843.134,19.6844) (844.085,38.7732) (845.079,16.7639) (846.079,0.00167847) (847.079,0.0120544) (848.079,1.17358) (849.079,20.7288) (850.079,46.2847) (851.134,83.4735) (852.085,47.8167) (853.079,75.0147) (854.079,82.7433) (855.079,54.4052) (856.079,20.696) (857.079,23.1111) (858.079,22.4353) (859.079,22.0708) (860.079,35.8571) (861.079,32.1152) (862.079,3.30103) (863.079,0.000976562) (864.079,0.00268555) (865.079,21.5005) (866.134,45.3777) (867.085,28.8917) (868.079,7.89721) (869.079,20.8689) (870.134,10.1256) (871.085,0.00569661) (872.079,20.8611) (873.079,27.0599) (874.079,15.6836) (875.079,27.3962) (876.079,44.3213) (877.079,22.9463) (878.134,30.4822) (879.085,5.76041) (880.134,20.5778) (881.085,7.46819) (882.079,14.604) (883.079,18.7185) (884.134,0.00215418) (885.085,0.00234375) (886.079,13.7631) (887.079,36.2488) (888.079,18.7165) (889.134,38.4501) (890.085,24.4815) (891.079,34.0681) (892.079,1.64844) (893.079,20.7451) (894.079,10.9295) (895.134,9.29067) (896.085,22.4679) (897.079,2.38916) (898.079,0.000488281) (899.079,0.00219727) (900.079,0.00146484) (901.079,0.00216675) (902.079,18.0329) (903.079,15.2857) (904.079,9.84459) (905.079,20.9167) (906.079,9.77783) (907.079,36.5806) (908.079,27.3376) (909.079,37.8345) (910.079,32.8495) (911.079,37.4132) (912.079,29.2005) (913.079,19.5232) (914.079,0.00906372) (915.079,9.76171) (916.079,20.8259) (917.079,28.7246) (918.079,37.3652) (919.079,27.6137) (920.134,8.46964) (921.085,0.00152995) (922.079,17.9612) (923.079,15.3623) (924.079,14.3235) (925.134,17.8883) (926.085,0.00152995) (927.079,19.2893) (928.079,27.1851) (929.134,17.269) (930.085,2.22705) (931.079,20.8632) (932.079,10.3725) (933.079,15.7533) (934.079,21.0091) (935.079,20.8071) (936.079,20.7463) (937.134,29.48) (938.085,52.1296) (939.079,43.7578) (940.134,24.565) (941.085,21.9904) (942.079,19.407) (943.079,0.00170898) (944.079,21.1144) (945.134,42.8499) (946.085,0.00361328) (947.079,0.000732422) (948.134,0.00379136) (949.085,0) (950.079,16.9013) (951.079,41.7232) (952.079,8.01905) (953.134,0.00160846) (954.085,0.00260417) (955.079,0.00338745) (956.079,0.000946045) (957.079,14.6018) (958.079,18.716) (959.079,20.8613) (960.134,36.5471) (961.085,41.72) (962.079,31.0417) (963.134,23.2855) (964.085,44.586) (965.079,31.2273) (966.079,20.8623) (967.134,19.6216) (968.142,20.5845) (969.085,42.0734) (970.134,41.3618) (971.085,42.8802) (972.079,14.3826) (973.079,0.907959) (974.079,20.6216) (975.134,20.9197) (976.085,22.2551) (977.079,20.6538) (978.134,45.1875) (979.142,0) (980.085,0.00335286) (981.134,1.68612) (982.085,42.2924) (983.079,25.1995) (984.079,0.00366211) (985.079,0.00265503) (986.079,0.00216675) (987.079,0) (988.079,6.32105) (989.134,52.3713) (990.085,28.814) (991.079,9.16407) (992.079,0.00195312) (993.079,0.00177002) (994.079,0.000305176) (995.079,33.226) (996.134,56.4841) (997.085,42.7623) (998.134,24.9665) (999.085,44.4521) (1000.08,34.2037) (1001.08,43.8625) (1002.08,46.6797) (1003.08,40.5149) (1004.08,41.2139) (1005.08,21.681) (1006.08,14.6074) (1007.08,18.7173) (1008.08,11.0887) (1009.08,20.8611) (1010.08,1.37668) (1011.08,0.00241089) (1012.08,0.000732422) (1013.08,0.00195312) (1014.08,0.00219727) (1015.08,0.00268555) (1016.08,0.00265503) (1017.08,0.00219727) (1018.08,0.000732422) (1019.08,0.000976562) (1020.08,19.4092) (1021.08,13.9133) (1022.08,2.08911) (1023.08,20.8619) (1024.08,10.3717) (1025.08,32.3315) (1026.13,59.0271) (1027.08,34.7855) (1028.08,5.62845) (1029.13,0.0011489) (1030.08,7.90163) (1031.08,39.2732) (1032.08,28.3513) (1033.08,35.2076) (1034.08,35.6533) (1035.08,23.248) (1036.08,20.2094) (1037.08,8.34375) (1038.08,20.5322) (1039.08,35.8147) (1040.08,64.9399) (1041.08,31.6719) (1042.08,9.25097) (1043.08,20.9316) (1044.08,19.5569) (1045.13,15.9113) (1046.14,11.3688) (1047.08,22.1862) (1048.08,19.4695) (1049.08,23.3025) (1050.08,23.7139) (1051.08,24.6308) (1052.08,29.7356) (1053.08,28.2596) (1054.13,29.8353) (1055.08,24.9156) (1056.08,19.6389) (1057.08,10.74) (1058.08,21.191) (1059.08,9.17041) (1060.08,20.8941) (1061.08,22.9014) (1062.13,33.8178) (1063.14,30.8747) (1064.14,42.8762) (1065.14,33.3864) (1066.08,17.3142) (1067.08,17.2503) (1068.08,0.0032959) (1069.13,0.000689339) (1070.14,6.83291) (1071.08,22.1868) (1072.08,9.52319) (1073.08,20.6604) (1074.08,8.83594) (1075.08,0.00216675) (1076.08,18.1934) (1077.13,35.6771) (1078.08,53.6831) (1079.13,19.5161) (1080.08,0.881804) (1081.13,4.81247) (1082.14,20.8687) (1083.14,9.688) (1084.08,35.3202) (1085.13,29.1764) (1086.08,0.198666) (1087.13,0.00298714) (1088.08,0.00830078) (1089.13,0.00252757) (1090.14,10.9725) (1091.14,59.9789) (1092.08,39.6688) (1093.13,18.6893) (1094.14,0.00244141) (1095.08,0.00458984) (1096.08,0.00585938) (1097.13,25.7592) (1098.14,43.1465) (1099.08,43.525) (1100.13,20.6668) (1101.08,0.00152995) (1102.13,0.00321692) (1103.08,7.2539) (1104.13,66.6971) (1105.08,23.7798) (1106.08,0.00805664) (1107.13,0.00229779) (1108.08,0.00286458) (1109.13,0.000229779) (1110.14,37.9475) (1111.08,57.3736) (1112.13,7.74494) (1113.14,0.00170898) (1114.08,0.00143229) (1115.13,0.0056296) (1116.08,5.05309) (1117.13,43.1735) (1118.08,52.6432) (1119.13,0.00183824) (1120.08,0.194596) (1121.13,19.4666) (1122.14,10.6453) (1123.08,0.623698) (1124.08,20.4951) (1125.13,11.5333) (1126.08,0.00432942) (1127.13,9.14131) (1128.14,20.4953) (1129.08,22.2628) (1130.13,27.2263) (1131.14,40.7998) (1132.14,24.2705) (1133.14,20.2751) (1134.14,20.9185) (1135.14,40.9641) (1136.14,32.8433) (1137.14,43.5332) (1138.08,42.1383) (1139.13,18.7588) (1140.14,0.00231934) (1141.14,0.00186157) (1142.14,0.00610352) (1143.14,4.79858) (1144.14,20.8846) (1145.14,22.2426) (1146.14,18.7182) (1147.14,0.00537109) (1148.08,19.3257) (1149.13,21.264) (1150.14,34.098) (1151.14,25.5804) (1152.14,20.6579) (1153.14,6.94946) (1154.14,0.00341797) (1155.14,15.9918) (1156.08,16.5539) (1157.13,0.0011489) (1158.14,12.6286) (1159.08,21.8851) (1160.13,19.3867) (1161.14,21.8486) (1162.14,41.6265) (1163.14,32.9576) (1164.14,22.9253) (1165.14,21.9748) (1166.14,21.5261) (1167.14,22.6067) (1168.08,25.0605) (1169.13,28.9426) (1170.08,13.2137) (1171.13,0.00229779) (1172.14,0.00244141) (1173.08,0.00182292) (1174.08,0.000854492) (1175.13,16.8283) (1176.14,15.445) (1177.14,0) (1178.14,0.00653076) (1179.08,0.003125) (1180.13,0.00241268) (1181.14,34.5235) (1182.14,42.24) (1183.14,7.2229) (1184.14,9.29907) (1185.14,0.00723267) (1186.14,0.0078125) (1187.14,0.00341797) (1188.14,14.606) (1189.14,18.1999) (1190.14,0.00305176) (1191.14,17.8664) (1192.14,23.2181) (1193.08,21.6127) (1194.13,2.1875) (1195.14,20.8675) (1196.14,18.0685) (1197.14,0.0012207) (1198.14,0.00341797) (1199.14,0.000732422) (1200.08,0.00104167) (1201.13,0.00341797) (1202.14,0.00390625) (1203.14,0.00195312) (1204.08,0.00143229) (1205.13,0.00134995) (1206.08,0.00302734) (1207.13,0.00344669) (1208.08,0.00852864) (1209.13,0.00229779) (1210.14,0.00305176) (1211.14,0.00354004) (1212.14,0.00390625) (1213.14,0.00415039) (1214.08,0.00260417) (1215.13,0.00557215) (1216.14,0.0038147) (1217.14,0.00317383) (1218.14,0.00183105) (1219.14,17.9282) (1220.14,23.2209) (1221.14,20.1996) (1222.14,0.0012207) (1223.14,0.00366211) (1224.14,0.00170898) (1225.14,0.00949097) (1226.14,17.9131) (1227.14,23.2344) (1228.14,20.198) (1229.14,0.00244141) (1230.14,0.00338745) (1231.14,0.00289917) (1232.14,0.00244141) (1233.14,17.7407) (1234.14,23.2196) (1235.14,20.3918) (1236.14,0.00601196) (1237.14,0.00219727) (1238.14,17.7827) (1239.14,23.2123) (1240.14,20.3586) (1241.14,0.00427246) (1242.14,0.00268555) (1243.14,0.00415039) (1244.14,0.000732422) (1245.14,0.00302124) (1246.14,0.00192261) (1247.14,0.00195312) (1248.14,0.000610352) (1249.14,0.00268555) (1250.14,0.00305176) (1251.14,0.00286865) (1252.14,0.00219727) (1253.14,0.00244141) (1254.14,0.00146484) (1255.14,0.00927734) (1256.14,0.00167847) (1257.14,0.0012207) (1258.14,17.7329) (1259.14,23.0683) (1260.14,20.5424) (1261.14,0.00497437) (1262.14,0.00146484) (1263.14,0.000732422) (1264.14,0.00134277) (1265.14,0.00314331) (1266.14,0.00265503) (1267.14,0.00292969) (1268.14,0.00268555) (1269.14,0.00592041) (1270.14,0.0012207) (1271.14,0.00543213) (1272.14,0.00341797) (1273.14,0.00512695) (1274.14,0.000732422) (1275.14,0.00518799) (1276.14,0.00436401) (1277.14,0.00439453) (1278.14,0.00219727) (1279.14,0.000976562) (1280.14,0.00289917) (1281.14,0.000946045) (1282.14,0.00317383) (1283.14,0.00244141) (1284.14,0.00146484) (1285.14,0.00878906) (1286.14,0.00192261) (1287.14,0.000976562) (1288.14,0.00317383) (1289.14,0.00146484) (1290.14,0.00289917) (1291.14,0.00387573) (1292.14,0.000244141) (1293.14,0.00146484) (1294.14,0.00201416) (1295.14,17.6723) (1296.14,23.0932) (1297.14,20.5813) (1298.14,0.00292969) (1299.14,0.00262451) (1300.14,0.00338745) (1301.14,0.00900269) (1302.14,0.00219727) (1303.14,0.00219727) (1304.14,0.0012207) (1305.14,0.012207) (1306.14,0.0136414) (1307.14,0.00683594) (1308.14,0.00146484) (1309.14,17.3296) (1310.14,22.771) (1311.14,21.2498) (1312.14,0.00488281) (1313.14,0.00195312) (1314.14,0.283203) (1315.14,2.98971) (1316.14,0.0773621) (1317.14,10.5425) (1318.14,10.4856) (1319.14,9.96876) (1320.14,9.40598) (1321.14,10.6118) (1322.14,10.6121) (1323.14,8.80396) (1324.14,10.415) (1325.14,10.4091) (1326.14,8.9653) (1327.14,10.9241) (1328.14,10.9638) (1329.14,9.61685) (1330.14,11.4648) (1331.08,12.2506) (1332.08,2.70386) (1333.08,0.0090332) (1334.08,0.00341797) (1335.08,0.0112305) (1336.08,0.00534058) (1337.13,0.00390625) (1338.08,0.00625) (1339.08,0) (1340.08,0.00289917) (1341.08,0.00704956) (1342.08,0.00439453) (1343.13,0.00137868) (1344.08,0.00260417) (1345.08,0.00387573) (1346.08,0.00827026) (1347.08,0.00146484) (1348.13,0.00252757) (1349.08,0.00130208) (1350.13,0.00390625) (1351.14,0.000701904) (1352.14,0.00268555) (1353.08,0.00234375) (1354.08,0.00350952) (1355.08,0.00543213) (1356.13,0.00341797) (1357.14,0.00317383) (1358.14,0.00708008) (1359.14,0.00234985) (1360.14,0.00280762) (1361.14,0.0093689) (1362.14,0.000732422) (1363.08,0.00442708) (1364.13,0.000689339) (1365.14,0.00415039) (1366.08,0.00458984) (1367.08,0.00390625) (1368.08,0.00415039) (1369.08,0.000732422) (1370.08,17.3852) (1371.08,23.058) (1372.08,20.9019) (1373.08,0.000732422) (1374.08,17.3306) (1375.08,23.2339) (1376.13,19.568) (1377.08,0.00078125) (1378.08,0.0012207) (1379.08,0.0209961) (1380.08,0.00167847) (1381.13,16.1656) (1382.08,26.8872) (1383.13,39.535) (1384.14,8.46125) (1385.08,0.0023763) (1386.08,16.3923) (1387.13,31.8336) (1388.08,67.7692) (1389.13,68.289) (1390.14,41.637) (1391.14,20.9242) (1392.08,38.9677) (1393.13,52.5327) (1394.14,63.8933) (1395.14,83.4651) (1396.14,92.2036) (1397.08,70.6058) (1398.08,44.6026) (1399.08,21.5681) (1400.13,37.6985) (1401.14,64.2922) (1402.14,74.9463) (1403.08,69.2633) (1404.13,24.7944) (1405.08,1.17106) (1406.13,18.8793) (1407.14,24.8008) (1408.14,62.4324) (1409.14,61.4724) (1410.14,34.008) (1411.14,27.1206) (1412.08,44.5138) (1413.13,25.4635) (1414.14,48.5874) (1415.14,59.6981) (1416.08,22.2369) (1417.13,5.71025) (1418.14,0.00268555) (1419.08,9.91058) (1420.13,19.6355) (1421.14,23.4911) (1422.14,28.7278) (1423.14,17.5991) (1424.14,18.78) (1425.14,18.5649) (1426.14,38.2998) (1427.14,32.3418) (1428.14,24.1206) (1429.08,22.3597) (1430.13,18.7348) (1431.08,22.2542) (1432.08,28.3269) (1433.08,58.6057) (1434.08,49.2292) (1435.08,49.1161) (1436.08,57.954) (1437.08,47.5467) (1438.13,37.2519) (1439.08,16.6052) (1440.08,40.7368) (1441.08,14.5439) (1442.08,50.792) (1443.08,42.0144) (1444.08,20.6189) (1445.08,19.9093) (1446.13,20.0478) (1447.08,21.0651) (1448.08,29.3415) (1449.08,82.0731) (1450.08,64.6167) (1451.08,54.3728) (1452.08,53.836) (1453.08,14.5511) (1454.08,20.8059) (1455.13,25.5932) (1456.08,39.4844) (1457.13,11.2298) (1458.14,20.939) (1459.08,3.08985) (1460.13,31.3584) (1461.08,0.00439453) (1462.08,0.00268555) (1463.13,0.00229779) (1464.08,19.1271) (1465.08,23.2656) (1466.08,53.2299) (1467.08,94.6763) (1468.13,47.8072) (1469.08,22.8269) (1470.08,5.40011) (1471.08,20.8298) (1472.08,14.1746) (1473.13,51.2231) (1474.14,5.13769) (1475.08,0.00166016) (1476.13,0.00180951) (1477.08,32.311) (1478.13,71.8207) (1479.08,59.4999) (1480.13,35.333) (1481.08,0.00807292) (1482.13,0.00235524) (1483.08,2.02344) (1484.08,53.1292) (1485.08,51.5317) (1486.08,34.5951) (1487.13,18.977) (1488.14,0.0012207) (1489.14,0.000976562) (1490.14,35.3254) (1491.08,57.7609) (1492.13,48.3113) (1493.08,50.7537) (1494.08,62.407) (1495.08,18.7883) (1496.13,19.6234) (1497.14,2.33276) (1498.14,20.2214) (1499.08,22.1922) (1500.13,42.2111) (1501.14,29.2683) (1502.14,79.3476) (1503.14,54.1961) (1504.14,20.9246) (1505.14,20.7457) (1506.14,20.9783) (1507.14,20.8615) (1508.14,9.08228) (1509.14,20.8637) (1510.14,23.5453) (1511.14,15.9758) (1512.14,0.00485229) (1513.14,5.02124) (1514.14,20.7607) (1515.14,33.7036) (1516.14,39.6078) (1517.14,0.883545) (1518.14,16.6501) (1519.14,16.6697) (1520.14,0.00265503) (1521.14,4.86765) (1522.14,20.8628) (1523.14,7.62891) (1524.14,4.62671) (1525.14,20.8493) (1526.08,24.4857) (1527.13,52.9302) (1528.14,26.7947) (1529.14,4.09449) (1530.14,33.9787) (1531.14,28.5706) (1532.14,0.00146484) (1533.14,15.0821) (1534.14,41.7119) (1535.14,22.8992) (1536.08,22.244) (1537.13,37.8587) (1538.08,37.1495) (1539.13,50.9966) (1540.14,39.6741) (1541.14,35.3688) (1542.08,22.2707) (1543.08,9.32739) (1544.13,0.00252757) (1545.14,0.00216675) (1546.14,6.68765) (1547.14,41.0198) (1548.14,18.9428) (1549.14,0.00195312) (1550.14,0) (1551.14,12.1511) (1552.14,20.6965) (1553.14,0.476807) (1554.14,0.00170898) (1555.14,20.8611) (1556.08,0.00361328) (1557.08,12.4568) (1558.13,14.0418) (1559.08,19.6304) (1560.08,0.00167847) (1561.13,0.00433708) (1562.14,0.00170898) (1563.14,0.00439453) (1564.14,2.43335) (1565.14,20.87) (1566.08,10.6924) (1567.13,0.000689339) (1568.14,6.26025) (1569.08,22.2576) (1570.08,6.20142) (1571.13,10.6655) (1572.08,22.277) (1573.08,27.8787) (1574.13,32.2249) (1575.14,22.27) (1576.14,22.9564) (1577.14,21.7788) (1578.08,32.0684) (1579.13,32.5135) (1580.08,2.16553) (1581.13,0.00456687) (1582.14,0.00146484) (1583.08,0.00260417) (1584.13,0.0107996) (1585.14,35.4106) (1586.14,45.2434) (1587.08,23.2521) (1588.08,20.8405) (1589.13,11.161) (1590.14,20.8962) (1591.14,21.8041) (1592.08,24.8182) (1593.13,20.2787) (1594.14,0) (1595.14,0.00317383) (1596.14,15.8144) (1597.14,33.9917) (1598.14,23.2378) (1599.14,21.6251) (1600.08,0.00377604) (1601.13,0.00433708) (1602.14,3.53464) (1603.14,20.8027) (1604.14,8.99219) (1605.14,0.00598145) (1606.08,6.67871) (1607.13,19.6362) (1608.14,6.19959) (1609.14,12.2275) (1610.14,35.4331) (1611.14,18.9822) (1612.14,0.00146484) (1613.14,0.00268555) (1614.14,0.000732422) (1615.08,0.00257161) (1616.13,19.6424) (1617.14,12.4598) (1618.08,0.0015625) (1619.13,5.89086) (1620.14,20.8642) (1621.14,6.20239) (1622.14,0.00317383) (1623.14,18.0057) (1624.14,15.3181) (1625.14,0.00228882) (1626.14,15.9714) (1627.14,31.5732) (1628.14,42.9414) (1629.14,4.18262) (1630.14,12.8101) (1631.14,20.5141) (1632.14,0.00790405) (1633.14,0.00878906) (1634.14,16.4905) (1635.14,16.8354) (1636.14,0.00723267) (1637.14,0) (1638.08,0.00559896) (1639.13,31.3582) (1640.14,4.17429) (1641.14,20.8632) (1642.14,8.28662) (1643.14,0.00366211) (1644.14,16.2139) (1645.14,23.2951) (1646.14,21.8462) (1647.14,0.000976562) (1648.14,0.00317383) (1649.14,16.1521) (1650.14,23.1682) (1651.14,22.0283) (1652.14,12.5158) (1653.14,20.8618) (1654.14,20.8694) (1655.14,12.3989) (1656.14,0.00100708) (1657.14,0.00146484) (1658.14,0.00439453) (1659.14,0.00341797) (1660.08,0.00325521) (1661.13,0.00364775) (1662.14,0.00839233) (1663.14,0.0117188) (1664.14,0.00488281) (1665.14,8.34595) (1666.14,20.8661) (1667.14,4.11426) (1668.14,0.0045166) (1669.14,0.000976562) (1670.14,0.00265503) (1671.14,0.00485229) (1672.14,16.6884) (1673.14,16.6318) (1674.14,0.00219727) (1675.08,0.00413411) (1676.13,0.0114602) (1677.14,0.00146484) (1678.14,4.20679) (1679.14,20.8599) (1680.14,8.25559) (1681.08,0.00465495) (1682.13,0.00321692) (1683.08,0.00234375) (1684.08,0.00341797) (1685.08,12.854) (1686.13,19.2682) (1687.14,0.00146484) (1688.14,0.00170898) (1689.14,0.00219727) (1690.14,0.00540161) (1691.08,0.60153) (1692.13,19.4353) (1693.14,22.6985) (1694.08,24.5435) (1695.08,38.3923) (1696.13,20.3469) (1697.14,32.4226) (1698.08,17.1703) (1699.08,20.8618) (1700.13,27.1941) (1701.08,24.8279) (1702.08,21.9707) (1703.13,0.0011489) (1704.08,0.00130208) (1705.13,0.00404986) (1706.14,0.00314331) (1707.14,0.00146484) (1708.14,0.00161743) (1709.08,0.0015625) (1710.08,0.000701904) (1711.13,0.00318819) (1712.14,0.00366211) (1713.14,0.00512695) (1714.14,0.0012207) (1715.14,0.00418091) (1716.14,0.00152588) (1717.14,0.0012207) (1718.14,0.00244141) (1719.14,16.1328) (1720.14,23.0847) (1721.14,22.1375) (1722.14,0.00411987) (1723.14,0.00137329) (1724.14,0.00366211) (1725.14,0.00314331) (1726.14,0.00549316) (1727.14,0.00836182) (1728.14,0.00537109) (1729.14,0) (1730.08,0.00309245) (1731.13,0.00272863) (1732.14,0.00146484) (1733.14,0) (1734.08,17.0932) (1735.13,21.926) (1736.14,22.0276) (1737.14,0.00195312) (1738.14,0.00170898) (1739.14,0.00170898) (1740.14,0.00436401) (1741.14,0.00119019) (1742.14,0.00146484) (1743.14,0.00537109) (1744.14,0.0012207) (1745.14,0.00442505) (1746.14,0.00344849) (1747.14,0.000976562) (1748.14,0.00170898) (1749.14,15.8709) (1750.14,23.0706) (1751.14,22.4096) (1752.14,0.00765991) (1753.14,0.00222778) (1754.14,0.00756836) (1755.14,0.00259399) (1756.14,0.000732422) (1757.14,15.6593) (1758.14,23.2394) (1759.14,22.447) (1760.14,0.00216675) (1761.14,0.000732422) (1762.14,0.000488281) (1763.14,0.00146484) (1764.14,0.0012207) (1765.14,0.00387573) (1766.14,0.00973511) (1767.08,0) (1768.13,0.00275735) (1769.14,0.000976562) (1770.14,0.00485229) (1771.14,0.00216675) (1772.14,0.00219727) (1773.14,0.00341797) (1774.14,0) (1775.14,0.00369263) (1776.14,0.00344849) (1777.14,0.0012207) (1778.14,0.000976562) (1779.14,0.000976562) (1780.14,0.00393677) (1781.14,0.00289917) (1782.14,0.00839233) (1783.14,0.00244141) (1784.14,0.000976562) (1785.14,0.00439453) (1786.14,0.00167847) (1787.14,0.00735474) (1788.14,0.00219727) (1789.14,0.0012207) (1790.14,0.00289917) (1791.14,15.8706) (1792.14,23.1758) (1793.14,22.301) (1794.14,0.00244141) (1795.14,0.00436401) (1796.14,0.00778198) (1797.14,0.000732422) (1798.14,0.00195312) (1799.14,0.00292969) (1800.14,0.00314331) (1801.14,0.00143433) (1802.14,0.00170898) (1803.14,0.00146484) (1804.14,0.000732422) (1805.14,0.00387573) (1806.14,0.00424194) (1807.14,0) (1808.14,0.00366211) (1809.14,0.00146484) (1810.14,0.00808716) (1811.14,0.00558472) (1812.08,0.00966797) (1813.08,0.00323486) (1814.13,0.00298714) (1815.12,0.00130208) (1816.08,0.00509644) (1817.08,0.00408936) (1818.08,0.00427246) (1819.13,0.0011489) (1820.14,0.00119019) (1821.08,0.00198567) (1822.13,0.00189568) (1823.08,0.003125) (1824.08,0.0012207) (1825.13,0.00364775) (1826.14,0.00244141) (1827.08,0.00152995) (1828.13,0.0078125) (1829.14,0.000488281) (1830.14,0.00167847) (1831.08,0.000260417) (1832.13,0.0011489) (1833.08,0.003125) (1834.08,0.00170898) (1835.08,0.000244141) (1836.13,0.00126379) (1837.14,0.000976562) (1838.14,0.00146484) (1839.14,0.00170898) (1840.14,0.00393677) (1841.14,0.00244141) (1842.14,0.00784302) (1843.14,0.00201416) (1844.08,0.00651042) (1845.13,0.00137868) (1846.14,0.00366211) (1847.14,0.00735474) (1848.14,0.00415039) (1849.08,0) (1850.13,0.000660616) (1851.14,0) (1852.14,0.00244141) (1853.08,0) (1854.13,0) (1855.14,0.00338745) (1856.14,0.00341797) (1857.14,0.000976562) (1858.14,0.00219727) (1859.08,16.5591) (1860.13,21.7741) (1861.08,24.194) (1862.08,0.0012207) (1863.13,0.00574449) (1864.08,18.5596) (1865.08,27.2202) (1866.08,48.1581) (1867.08,41.7947) (1868.08,26.7412) (1869.08,34.3797) (1870.08,49.6741) (1871.08,48.4023) (1872.08,72.2612) (1873.08,98.7282) (1874.08,76.0467) (1875.08,60.7389) (1876.08,83.3244) (1877.08,68.9731) (1878.08,62.1577) (1879.08,71.3938) (1880.08,103.834) (1881.08,71.8487) (1882.08,40.8513) (1883.08,40.1428) (1884.08,20.865) (1885.08,1.2424) (1886.08,25.9875) (1887.08,54.1169) (1888.08,21.7917) (1889.08,20.3521) (1890.08,26.3195) (1891.08,23.0093) (1892.08,25.2515) (1893.08,42.6338) (1894.08,44.602) (1895.08,20.5392) (1896.13,19.4278) (1897.08,36.9857) (1898.13,42.1721) (1899.14,43.8613) (1900.08,11.3112) (1901.13,24.4876) (1902.14,20.8806) (1903.14,19.7826) (1904.08,38.6248) (1905.13,55.543) (1906.14,67.8149) (1907.14,60.6278) (1908.14,48.1868) (1909.14,52.0649) (1910.08,71.6462) (1911.13,61.4315) (1912.08,59.7932) (1913.08,56.7661) (1914.13,46.1707) (1915.08,22.1893) (1916.13,17.6181) (1917.14,0.00170898) (1918.14,26.011) (1919.14,41.7354) (1920.08,37.8341) (1921.08,32.1469) (1922.13,19.633) (1923.08,11.0669) (1924.13,1.9437) (1925.08,22.1346) (1926.13,53.6225) (1927.14,47.9465) (1928.08,45.9651) (1929.13,25.4685) (1930.08,2.16855) (1931.08,0.00463867) (1932.13,26.369) (1933.08,11.4911) (1934.13,24.6283) (1935.14,39.9031) (1936.08,41.4067) (1937.13,19.6728) (1938.08,34.7674) (1939.13,77.0053) (1940.08,42.4578) (1941.08,32.7317) (1942.08,43.6362) (1943.08,28.7727) (1944.08,7.43311) (1945.08,39.7297) (1946.08,69.0351) (1947.08,73.4583) (1948.08,75.7981) (1949.08,72.2134) (1950.08,37.0019) (1951.08,64.6275) (1952.08,66.916) (1953.08,41.2124) (1954.08,24.2285) (1955.08,62.5151) (1956.08,41.0651) (1957.08,17.8201) (1958.08,0.00268555) (1959.08,20.5471) (1960.08,12.7773) (1961.08,22.6135) (1962.08,45.0413) (1963.08,43.068) (1964.08,22.5642) (1965.08,8.31614) (1966.08,35.4095) (1967.08,31.9385) (1968.08,40.1839) (1969.08,35.1311) (1970.08,41.7282) (1971.08,20.3181) (1972.08,48.7929) (1973.08,60.6245) (1974.13,42.3192) (1975.14,57.6589) (1976.14,42.9133) (1977.14,43.532) (1978.14,62.3784) (1979.14,38.2698) (1980.14,19.792) (1981.14,55.8764) (1982.08,59.8085) (1983.13,38.4295) (1984.08,10.2906) (1985.13,33.7651) (1986.08,22.2535) (1987.13,11.8497) (1988.14,20.8923) (1989.14,32.1843) (1990.14,41.8161) (1991.08,2.86019) (1992.13,38.3532) (1993.14,20.8827) (1994.14,16.0659) (1995.14,20.8476) (1996.14,21.9939) (1997.08,13.298) (1998.13,27.7887) (1999.14,3.79663) (2000.14,0.00167847) (2001.14,19.9942) (2002.14,29.1933) (2003.14,41.7205) (2004.14,61.0754) (2005.08,37.9125) (2006.13,35.2206) (2007.14,8.29099) (2008.14,0.00195312) (2009.14,0.00244141) (2010.14,0.00192261) (2011.14,17.8764) (2012.14,15.446) (2013.14,0.00170898) (2014.14,15.5344) (2015.14,27.4436) (2016.14,56.5809) (2017.14,53.0629) (2018.14,43.6526) (2019.08,39.8768) (2020.08,27.6011) (2021.08,0.00637817) (2022.08,0.000701904) (2023.13,0.00720933) (2024.08,0.003125) (2025.08,0.00314331) (2026.13,0.00183824) (2027.14,23.6494) (2028.08,44.5198) (2029.08,1.2605) (2030.08,0.00363159) (2031.08,0.000488281) (2032.13,0.00456687) (2033.08,0.0015625) (2034.08,20.1031) (2035.13,12.4416) (2036.08,0.00260417) (2037.08,0.00436401) (2038.08,0.00186157) (2039.08,0.00244141) (2040.08,22.8559) (2041.13,41.4605) (2042.08,29.5406) (2043.08,0.064209) (2044.13,13.8631) (2045.08,24.6452) (2046.08,23.0176) (2047.08,17.1045) (2048.13,15.7284) (2049.14,14.8062) (2050.08,28.0799) (2051.08,32.0862) (2052.08,31.9436) (2053.08,33.9309) (2054.08,32.4277) (2055.08,18.9463) (2056.08,53.708) (2057.13,44.142) (2058.08,24.3924) (2059.13,0.575828) (2060.08,13.351) (2061.13,19.582) (2062.14,0.00485229) (2063.14,0.00195312) (2064.08,0.00234375) (2065.13,0.00318819) (2066.14,0) (2067.14,20.8706) (2068.08,22.2557) (2069.13,19.6346) (2070.14,4.05612) (2071.14,0.000488281) (2072.14,0.00509644) (2073.14,0.00366211) (2074.14,0.00463867) (2075.14,16.7238) (2076.08,17.7048) (2077.13,0.00232652) (2078.08,0.003125) (2079.13,0.000919118) (2080.08,0.00491536) (2081.08,4.20047) (2082.08,21.1492) (2083.08,7.98227) (2084.13,13.7997) (2085.14,23.2492) (2086.14,23.1032) (2087.14,0.341949) (2088.14,12.8368) (2089.14,20.4831) (2090.14,0.00241089) (2091.14,0.00219727) (2092.14,0.00241089) (2093.14,0.00219727) (2094.14,0.759766) (2095.14,20.6531) (2096.14,17.585) (2097.14,0.00778198) (2098.14,0.00292969) (2099.14,0.00268555) (2100.14,0.00411987) (2101.14,14.5877) (2102.14,22.7178) (2103.14,22.9473) (2104.14,1.09741) (2105.14,0.00509644) (2106.14,0.0010376) (2107.14,0.00222778) (2108.14,0.000732422) (2109.14,0.00244141) (2110.14,0.00582886) (2111.14,0.00515747) (2112.14,0.000732422) (2113.14,0.00387573) (2114.14,0.00292969) (2115.14,0.00558472) (2116.14,0.00146484) (2117.14,0.00558472) (2118.14,0.00250244) (2119.14,0.00488281) (2120.08,0.00465495) (2121.13,13.7456) (2122.14,23.2309) (2123.14,23.0566) (2124.14,0.455078) (2125.14,0.00387573) (2126.14,0.000732422) (2127.14,0.00997925) (2128.14,0.00146484) (2129.14,0.00146484) (2130.14,0.00558472) (2131.14,0.00170898) (2132.14,0.00265503) (2133.14,14.4788) (2134.14,23.2139) (2135.14,23.2141) (2136.14,0.440979) (2137.14,0.00201416) (2138.14,0.00219727) (2139.14,0.000244141) (2140.14,0.00411987) (2141.14,0.00540161) (2142.14,0) (2143.14,0.00790405) (2144.14,0.00219727) (2145.14,0.00411987) (2146.14,0) (2147.14,0.00387573) (2148.14,14.3861) (2149.14,23.1448) (2150.14,23.2151) (2151.14,0.603027) (2152.14,0.00338745) (2153.14,0.00170898) (2154.14,0.000976562) (2155.14,0.00265503) (2156.14,1.17701) (2157.08,1.44085) (2158.13,3.59099) (2159.14,6.46192) (2160.08,0.139551) (2161.13,0.0824908) (2162.14,0.00387573) (2163.14,0.00317383) (2164.14,0.0307617) (2165.14,0.00192261) (2166.14,0.00146484) (2167.14,0.0015564) (2168.14,0.00317383) (2169.14,0.00585938) (2170.14,0.00119019) (2171.14,0.0038147) (2172.14,0.00143433) (2173.14,0.00961304) (2174.14,0.00317383) (2175.14,0.00314331) (2176.14,0.000488281) (2177.14,14.261) (2178.14,23.1607) (2179.14,23.1658) (2180.14,0.762665) (2181.08,0.000260417) (2182.13,0.00387753) (2183.14,14.3254) (2184.14,23.1348) (2185.14,23.2305) (2186.14,0.659912) (2187.14,0.00476074) (2188.08,0.00364583) (2189.08,0.00341797) (2190.08,0.000946045) (2191.08,3.01074) (2192.08,0.740448) (2193.13,0.00183824) (2194.08,0.00260417) (2195.08,0.00387573) (2196.08,0.00366211) (2197.08,0.0027771) (2198.08,0.00219727) (2199.08,0.000976562) (2200.08,0.00314331) (2201.08,0.00540161) (2202.08,0.00219727) (2203.08,0.0124817) (2204.08,0.000305176) (2205.13,0.00985184) (2206.08,0.00208333) (2207.08,0.00292969) (2208.08,0.0119934) (2209.08,0.0012207) (2210.08,0.00183105) (2211.08,0.00415039) (2212.13,0.00137868) (2213.14,0.00415039) (2214.14,0.000976562) (2215.14,0.00216675) (2216.14,0.000976562) (2217.14,0.00244141) (2218.08,0) (2219.13,0.0078125) (2220.14,0.00292969) (2221.08,0.000520833) (2222.08,0.00512695) (2223.08,0) (2224.13,0.00505515) (2225.14,0.00241089) (2226.08,0.000260417) (2227.13,0.00425092) (2228.14,0.00170898) (2229.14,0.00170898) (2230.14,0.006073) (2231.14,0.00567627) (2232.14,0.00170898) (2233.14,0.00253296) (2234.08,0.000325521) (2235.13,0.009622) (2236.08,0.00390625) (2237.13,0.00206801) (2238.14,0.00326538) (2239.14,0.00415039) (2240.14,0.00143433) (2241.14,16.8449) (2242.08,40.1117) (2243.13,11.9801) (2244.08,17.8427) (2245.13,9.98163) (2246.14,0.000732422) (2247.08,26.869) (2248.13,41.4329) (2249.14,70.2842) (2250.14,83.4889) (2251.14,89.6348) (2252.14,136.87) (2253.14,146.121) (2254.08,130.825) (2255.13,114.145) (2256.14,83.3187) (2257.14,72.4967) (2258.14,41.2014) (2259.14,3.84985) (2260.14,45.5662) (2261.14,49.9577) (2262.14,2.34888) (2263.14,0.000976562) (2264.14,0.000396729) (2265.08,0.00208333) (2266.13,11.7819) (2267.08,44.5024) (2268.08,31.0645) (2269.13,13.7999) (2270.14,0) (2271.14,0.00143433) (2272.08,0.00130208) (2273.13,15.7104) (2274.14,41.7205) (2275.14,8.22558) (2276.08,0.00100911) (2277.13,0.00183824) (2278.14,18.7757) (2279.08,35.2989) (2280.08,14.7713) (2281.13,31.3584) (2282.14,10.4304) (2283.14,40.54) (2284.08,46.7956) (2285.08,66.1116) (2286.08,62.57) (2287.13,57.2534) (2288.08,45.1224) (2289.13,37.2615) (2290.14,22.0806) (2291.14,27.3059) (2292.14,39.3599) (2293.08,8.36432) (2294.08,50.0884) (2295.08,52.5882) (2296.08,22.7969) (2297.08,25.8049) (2298.08,51.5264) (2299.08,28.7727) (2300.08,0) (2301.08,33.7583) (2302.08,32.8765) (2303.08,5.36817) (2304.08,33.6967) (2305.08,58.7329) (2306.08,32.9077) (2307.13,28.5515) (2308.08,0) (2309.08,18.7805) (2310.08,20.0909) (2311.08,18.9924) (2312.08,48.5394) (2313.13,66.7542) (2314.14,28.1321) (2315.14,13.5254) (2316.08,31.2005) (2317.13,20.5514) (2318.08,8.59115) (2319.13,22.5963) (2320.08,6.88698) (2321.08,21.0258) (2322.13,45.3302) (2323.08,44.2615) (2324.08,48.9205) (2325.08,56.0835) (2326.13,41.2022) (2327.14,45.7883) (2328.14,24.7698) (2329.14,21.4707) (2330.08,42.2003) (2331.13,5.27712) (2332.14,0) (2333.14,37.2825) (2334.08,44.5094) (2335.08,30.9226) (2336.13,95.3741) (2337.14,55.2793) (2338.14,0.00088501) (2339.14,10.4304) (2340.14,20.8599) (2341.14,18.0774) (2342.14,45.8694) (2343.14,60.3779) (2344.14,10.989) (2345.08,16.243) (2346.13,24.8826) (2347.08,28.9275) (2348.13,21.7951) (2349.14,37.0136) (2350.08,59.5903) (2351.08,11.4586) (2352.08,0.00286865) (2353.08,9.27343) (2354.08,61.8915) (2355.08,40.8706) (2356.08,23.4807) (2357.08,41.8161) (2358.13,28.8314) (2359.14,35.4649) (2360.08,59.4302) (2361.13,77.2055) (2362.08,23.7851) (2363.08,0.000732422) (2364.08,0) (2365.08,11.9377) (2366.08,20.885) (2367.08,23.6508) (2368.13,46.8003) (2369.14,25.6841) (2370.08,1.4888) (2371.08,0.00195312) (2372.08,16.6902) (2373.13,18.6121) (2374.14,37.1186) (2375.08,30.3638) (2376.08,20.7942) (2377.08,30.7261) (2378.08,13.0359) (2379.13,0.000459558) (2380.08,33.2268) (2381.13,32.5115) (2382.14,21.4539) (2383.14,26.2014) (2384.08,24.7006) (2385.13,25.4827) (2386.14,22.4824) (2387.14,8.57519) (2388.14,7.67657) (2389.14,20.8528) (2390.14,4.79663) (2391.14,0.00143433) (2392.14,49.6039) (2393.14,76.4968) (2394.14,7.17993) (2395.08,16.9362) (2396.13,22.3366) (2397.14,20.8628) (2398.14,17.4302) (2399.14,62.5596) (2400.14,26.1396) (2401.14,3.51852) (2402.14,20.6748) (2403.14,9.13233) (2404.14,0.00170898) (2405.14,24.1635) (2406.14,38.3698) (2407.14,4.11795) (2408.14,11.8699) (2409.14,20.8296) (2410.14,20.5728) (2411.14,17.0827) (2412.14,20.9248) (2413.08,9.275) (2414.13,0.00674977) (2415.14,0.00561523) (2416.14,7.59982) (2417.14,37.5537) (2418.08,22.9381) (2419.13,0.000689339) (2420.14,0.00561523) (2421.14,0.000701904) (2422.14,0.00338745) (2423.14,17.6548) (2424.14,61.6216) (2425.14,47.3816) (2426.14,1.33054) (2427.14,0.00289917) (2428.14,13.4365) (2429.14,23.1342) (2430.14,35.7148) (2431.14,22.3813) (2432.14,0.00265503) (2433.14,0.00170898) (2434.14,0.0012207) (2435.08,0.00286458) (2436.13,0.320054) (2437.14,20.8391) (2438.14,12.147) (2439.14,0.00219727) (2440.14,0.00439453) (2441.14,0.00241089) (2442.14,0.0057373) (2443.08,14.6198) (2444.13,18.466) (2445.14,0.00268555) (2446.14,0.00500488) (2447.08,0.00247396) (2448.13,8.18845) (2449.14,36.2231) (2450.14,37.3618) (2451.14,21.8633) (2452.14,20.7141) (2453.14,46.3626) (2454.14,37.0175) (2455.14,17.003) (2456.14,16.3208) (2457.14,0.00119019) (2458.14,0.00805664) (2459.14,0.0131836) (2460.08,0.00078125) (2461.08,4.76901) (2462.08,20.8318) (2463.08,7.72827) (2464.08,0.00219727) (2465.08,0.0012207) (2466.08,0.00558472) (2467.08,0.00271606) (2468.08,0.0022583) (2469.08,0.0012207) (2470.08,0.000732422) (2471.08,0.00875854) (2472.08,13.2493) (2473.13,34.2461) (2474.14,43.4053) (2475.14,1.63916) (2476.14,0.0102234) (2477.14,0.00265503) (2478.14,0.00488281) (2479.14,1.02346) (2480.14,20.715) (2481.14,11.5911) (2482.14,13.135) (2483.14,23.2224) (2484.14,22.9722) (2485.14,2.01978) (2486.14,9.29098) (2487.14,21.0261) (2488.14,3.01196) (2489.14,0.00244141) (2490.14,0.00219727) (2491.14,0.00216675) (2492.08,0.00078125) (2493.13,17.063) (2494.14,15.1924) (2495.14,0.00292969) (2496.14,0.000701904) (2497.14,0.0017395) (2498.14,0.003479) (2499.14,0.000732422) (2500.08,0.00104167) (2501.13,0.0041073) (2502.14,0.00708008) (2503.14,0.00244141) (2504.14,5.66681) (2505.14,20.865) (2506.14,6.81445) (2507.14,0.00534058) (2508.14,0.0065918) (2509.14,0.0071106) (2510.14,0.00878906) (2511.14,14.0151) (2512.14,8.5986) (2513.14,0.00195312) (2514.14,0.000732422) (2515.14,0.0012207) (2516.14,0.00387573) (2517.14,0.00143433) (2518.14,0.00219727) (2519.14,0.000732422) (2520.14,0.000976562) (2521.14,0.00314331) (2522.14,0.00143433) (2523.14,0.00170898) (2524.14,12.9956) (2525.14,23.0896) (2526.14,23.1189) (2527.14,2.14441) (2528.14,0.00234985) (2529.14,0.00146484) (2530.14,0.00219727) (2531.14,0.00436401) (2532.14,12.9979) (2533.14,23.0818) (2534.14,23.1119) (2535.14,2.16846) (2536.14,0.00772095) (2537.14,0.00268555) (2538.14,0.00805664) (2539.14,0.00588989) (2540.14,0.00537109) (2541.14,0.00509644) (2542.14,0.00265503) (2543.14,0.00268555) (2544.14,12.7439) (2545.14,23.1668) (2546.14,22.9314) (2547.14,2.50412) (2548.14,0.00268555) (2549.14,0.00268555) (2550.14,0.00146484) (2551.14,12.9162) (2552.14,23.1525) (2553.14,22.7151) (2554.14,2.56372) (2555.14,0.00341797) (2556.14,0.00289917) (2557.14,0.00485229) (2558.14,0.00823975) (2559.14,0.00146484) (2560.14,0.00634766) (2561.14,0.00436401) (2562.14,0.0032959) (2563.14,0.00537109) (2564.14,0.00137329) (2565.14,0.00372314) (2566.14,0.00314331) (2567.14,0.00216675) (2568.14,0.00683594) (2569.14,0.00540161) (2570.14,0.00341797) (2571.14,0.00219727) (2572.14,0.00265503) (2573.14,0.00219727) (2574.14,0.00195312) (2575.14,0.00366211) (2576.14,0.00314331) (2577.14,0.00143433) (2578.14,0.00463867) (2579.14,0.00170898) (2580.14,0.00317383) (2581.14,0.00143433) (2582.14,0.00265503) (2583.14,0.00244141) (2584.14,0.00268555) (2585.14,0.00244141) (2586.14,0.00146484) (2587.14,0.00143433) (2588.14,0.00109863) (2589.14,0.00219727) (2590.14,0.00195312) (2591.14,0.00363159) (2592.08,0.00276692) (2593.13,0.00206801) (2594.14,0.0071106) (2595.14,0.00518799) (2596.14,0.006073) (2597.08,0.0038737) (2598.08,0.00439453) (2599.13,0.00646255) (2600.14,12.5205) (2601.08,24.0042) (2602.08,17.752) (2603.13,8.06962) (2604.08,0.00078125) (2605.13,0.000689339) (2606.08,0.000683594) (2607.08,0.00170898) (2608.08,0.00317383) (2609.08,0.000976562) (2610.08,12.78) (2611.13,21.6576) (2612.08,24.6375) (2613.13,14.0182) (2614.14,22.7614) (2615.08,24.0612) (2616.08,3.64573) (2617.13,0.00183824) (2618.08,0.00273437) (2619.13,0.000459558) (2620.08,0.00104167) (2621.08,0.00509644) (2622.13,0.00244141) (2623.14,0.00195312) (2624.14,0.00662231) (2625.14,0.00454712) (2626.08,0.0225261) (2627.13,0.00758272) (2628.14,0.00341797) (2629.14,0.00881958) (2630.14,0.00854492) (2631.14,0.00534058) (2632.14,0.00512695) (2633.14,0.00341797) (2634.14,0) (2635.14,0.000488281) (2636.14,0.00314331) (2637.08,0.00078125) (2638.13,0.00367647) (2639.08,0) (2640.13,0.000459558) (2641.14,0.000946045) (2642.14,0.000732422) (2643.14,0.00186157) (2644.14,0.00341797) (2645.14,0.00195312) (2646.14,26.5981) (2647.14,38.2238) (2648.14,0.00250244) (2649.14,0.000976562) (2650.08,40.9341) (2651.13,61.8056) (2652.08,44.7058) (2653.13,55.6209) (2654.14,35.7497) (2655.14,53.9987) (2656.08,75.1932) (2657.08,70.6626) (2658.08,70.9829) (2659.13,74.8746) (2660.08,66.7844) (2661.13,93.5184) (2662.14,77.4448) (2663.14,62.5034) (2664.14,76.6985) (2665.14,91.0898) (2666.14,81.4445) (2667.14,58.3091) (2668.14,52.1506) (2669.14,27.2779) (2670.14,20.5854) (2671.08,0.000748698) (2672.08,10.1875) (2673.08,31.3929) (2674.13,35.4202) (2675.14,20.7458) (2676.08,0.00100911) (2677.13,0.00298714) (2678.14,0.00311279) (2679.14,31.1677) (2680.08,60.0172) (2681.08,41.2912) (2682.13,51.0813) (2683.14,11.6238) (2684.08,0.00104167) (2685.13,0.00353286) (2686.14,18.7784) (2687.14,31.2913) (2688.08,31.6369) (2689.13,55.5421) (2690.08,39.6563) (2691.13,59.7116) (2692.14,85.5393) (2693.08,71.4456) (2694.08,2.65869) (2695.08,20.7905) (2696.08,44.4233) (2697.08,49.0415) (2698.08,44.1455) (2699.08,74.2829) (2700.13,59.2176) (2701.08,22.2661) (2702.08,20.8804) (2703.13,52.7204) (2704.08,47.5125) (2705.13,31.6193) (2706.08,51.975) (2707.13,24.1402) (2708.08,0.00299479) (2709.13,21.5962) (2710.08,46.4588) (2711.13,91.6179) (2712.08,48.6577) (2713.08,22.0962) (2714.08,1.68091) (2715.08,0.000396729) (2716.08,10.4347) (2717.08,50.4368) (2718.08,57.8713) (2719.13,13.6949) (2720.14,0.00219727) (2721.14,6.44699) (2722.14,58.6606) (2723.14,40.156) (2724.08,71.6357) (2725.13,55.821) (2726.08,5.58451) (2727.13,0.00252757) (2728.14,21.7376) (2729.14,39.1157) (2730.14,27.5439) (2731.14,40.2888) (2732.14,4.60693) (2733.08,6.67838) (2734.13,22.0237) (2735.14,48.1941) (2736.14,66.9443) (2737.14,60.5393) (2738.08,34.0218) (2739.13,19.6278) (2740.14,23.0713) (2741.08,19.9654) (2742.08,21.1902) (2743.08,70.1845) (2744.13,37.2116) (2745.08,15.8814) (2746.13,29.3996) (2747.14,20.8391) (2748.14,2.0603) (2749.08,12.8941) (2750.13,37.0825) (2751.14,17.2392) (2752.14,41.7288) (2753.14,36.4011) (2754.14,41.7127) (2755.14,11.3569) (2756.14,26.9707) (2757.14,37.6179) (2758.14,45.8604) (2759.08,43.4966) (2760.13,59.7183) (2761.14,63.5717) (2762.08,24.201) (2763.13,43.2096) (2764.08,46.7641) (2765.13,11.7866) (2766.14,20.863) (2767.14,12.396) (2768.14,20.8627) (2769.14,39.635) (2770.14,58.0256) (2771.14,44.4832) (2772.14,40.905) (2773.08,22.2788) (2774.13,19.6349) (2775.14,20.8401) (2776.14,38.2882) (2777.14,64.4254) (2778.14,22.0179) (2779.14,0.0110168) (2780.14,22.9456) (2781.14,35.3367) (2782.14,8.35886) (2783.14,19.0569) (2784.14,14.2658) (2785.14,0.00195312) (2786.14,0.00167847) (2787.08,13.3533) (2788.13,59.3491) (2789.14,58.364) (2790.14,27.0151) (2791.14,5.6455) (2792.14,11.9499) (2793.14,23.0178) (2794.14,44.1148) (2795.14,15.5859) (2796.14,11.433) (2797.14,26.0889) (2798.14,6.30377) (2799.14,0.00445557) (2800.08,9.1) (2801.13,33.8996) (2802.14,36.6887) (2803.14,20.8753) (2804.14,20.8631) (2805.14,20.8645) (2806.14,20.372) (2807.14,40.9433) (2808.14,57.6655) (2809.14,30.3636) (2810.14,20.5601) (2811.14,20.4191) (2812.14,6.98654) (2813.14,4.65845) (2814.14,32.4167) (2815.14,28.6812) (2816.17,0.892059) (2817.14,0.00216675) (2818.14,0.00561523) (2819.14,19.7862) (2820.14,63.939) (2821.14,59.4348) (2822.14,13.4113) (2823.14,13.9551) (2824.14,1.69531) (2825.14,12.9934) (2826.14,20.864) (2827.14,20.8635) (2828.14,20.8626) (2829.14,4.74078) (2830.14,0.000732422) (2831.14,0.00314331) (2832.14,0.0072937) (2833.14,0.00808716) (2834.14,16.2827) (2835.14,17.0376) (2836.14,0.00534058) (2837.14,0.00949097) (2838.14,0.00415039) (2839.14,0.0105286) (2840.14,3.90015) (2841.14,21.0423) (2842.14,20.2656) (2843.14,23.1365) (2844.14,23.0578) (2845.14,3.26782) (2846.14,0.00192261) (2847.14,12.5166) (2848.14,20.8035) (2849.14,0.00390625) (2850.14,0.00317383) (2851.14,0.00119019) (2852.14,0.00314331) (2853.14,0.000976562) (2854.14,20.865) (2855.14,12.4599) (2856.14,0.00338745) (2857.14,0.00265503) (2858.14,0.00201416) (2859.14,0.000305176) (2860.14,8.3462) (2861.14,18.1808) (2862.14,11.844) (2863.14,23.0294) (2864.14,22.9795) (2865.14,3.50461) (2866.14,0.00479126) (2867.14,0.00802612) (2868.14,0.00219727) (2869.14,0.00537109) (2870.14,0.00735474) (2871.14,0.0072937) (2872.14,0.000946045) (2873.14,0.00219727) (2874.14,0.00219727) (2875.14,0.0012207) (2876.14,0.00170898) (2877.14,0.00314331) (2878.14,0.00390625) (2879.14,0.00463867) (2880.14,0.00219727) (2881.14,0.00192261) (2882.14,0.00289917) (2883.14,0.00439453) (2884.14,0.00146484) (2885.14,0.00292969) (2886.14,0.00216675) (2887.14,0.00265503) (2888.14,0.00201416) (2889.14,0.00469971) (2890.14,0.00219727) (2891.14,11.7222) (2892.14,22.5281) (2893.14,23.0593) (2894.14,4.04101) (2895.14,0.00839233) (2896.14,0.00241089) (2897.14,0.00460815) (2898.14,0.00292969) (2899.14,0.00415039) (2900.14,0.00311279) (2901.14,0.00680542) (2902.14,0.00314331) (2903.14,0.000732422) (2904.14,0.000732422) (2905.14,0.00317383) (2906.14,0.00192261) (2907.14,0.00363159) (2908.14,0.00195312) (2909.14,0.00439453) (2910.14,0.00341797) (2911.14,0.00143433) (2912.14,0.00192261) (2913.14,0.00219727) (2914.14,0.00390625) (2915.14,0.00341797) (2916.14,0.00289917) (2917.14,0.000946045) (2918.14,0.00170898) (2919.14,0.00256348) (2920.14,0.00341797) (2921.14,0.00387573) (2922.14,0.00314331) (2923.14,0.00308228) (2924.14,0.00244141) (2925.08,0.00257161) (2926.08,0.00338745) (2927.08,0.00704956) (2928.08,0.00366211) (2929.08,0.00292969) (2930.13,0.00853056) (2931.14,0.00363159) (2932.08,0.00257161) (2933.13,0.000919118) (2934.08,0.00286458) (2935.13,0.00160846) (2936.14,0.00268555) (2937.14,0.00192261) (2938.14,0.00195312) (2939.08,0.0046875) (2940.08,0.00195312) (2941.08,0.00244141) (2942.08,0.00314331) (2943.13,0.00160846) (2944.14,0.000732422) (2945.14,0.00341797) (2946.14,0.000976562) (2947.14,0.000701904) (2948.14,0.00268555) (2949.14,0.00158691) (2950.08,0.00416667) (2951.13,0.00344669) (2952.14,0.00558472) (2953.08,0.00784505) (2954.13,0.00160846) (2955.14,0.00674438) (2956.14,0.00152588) (2957.14,0.00817871) (2958.08,0.00520833) (2959.13,0.00712317) (2960.08,0.00576172) (2961.08,0.00634766) (2962.08,0.0012207) (2963.13,0.000689339) (2964.14,0.00366211) (2965.08,0.00104167) (2966.08,0.000976562) (2967.08,0.00143433) (2968.08,0.00268555) (2969.13,0.00390625) (2970.08,0.00234375) (2971.13,0.00390625) (2972.08,0.00179036) (2973.13,0.00229779) (2974.08,0.00416667) (2975.08,0.00219727) (2976.13,0.00459558) (2977.08,0.000748698) (2978.08,0.00268555) (2979.13,11.2519) (2980.08,26.7438) (2981.08,21.3243) (2982.13,73.2458) (2983.08,60.6381) (2984.08,32.2596) (2985.13,9.70697) (2986.14,20.8607) (2987.14,29.2716) (2988.08,50.5646) (2989.08,77.6641) (2990.08,75.8698) (2991.08,41.6141) (2992.13,31.4198) (2993.08,44.4902) (2994.08,57.051) (2995.08,73.0722) (2996.08,81.9065) (2997.13,38.1523) (2998.14,10.3747) (2999.08,0.00390625) (3000.13,10.8314) (3001.14,59.1523) (3002.14,61.2878) (3003.14,72.7849) (3004.14,57.5208) (3005.14,4.30591) (3006.14,0.000732422) (3007.08,18.2029) (3008.13,15.301) (3009.08,15.5772) (3010.13,87.1909) (3011.14,51.4575) (3012.14,18.2473) (3013.14,25.7755) (3014.14,39.7429) (3015.14,24.5142) (3016.08,35.32) (3017.13,99.0839) (3018.14,25.9729) (3019.14,0.00415039) (3020.14,18.3076) (3021.14,41.6418) (3022.08,33.8705) (3023.13,100.488) (3024.08,84.0404) (3025.13,42.384) (3026.14,40.2353) (3027.14,53.9392) (3028.08,56.1934) (3029.13,56.8522) (3030.14,82.7602) (3031.08,22.7351) (3032.13,19.4584) (3033.14,30.2298) (3034.08,44.727) (3035.13,32.3589) (3036.08,66.7617) (3037.08,88.9611) (3038.13,49.4166) (3039.08,37.7085) (3040.08,39.0805) (3041.08,28.6904) (3042.13,25.7614) (3043.14,57.5881) (3044.14,21.2585) (3045.08,22.3203) (3046.13,5.78076) (3047.08,0.00517578) (3048.13,3.23828) (3049.14,47.9284) (3050.14,42.9604) (3051.14,26.0229) (3052.14,39.5146) (3053.14,6.74024) (3054.14,0.00170898) (3055.14,30.0097) (3056.14,77.7222) (3057.14,25.5427) (3058.14,14.2736) (3059.08,20.3158) (3060.08,0) (3061.08,0.000488281) (3062.13,56.6718) (3063.14,91.8818) (3064.14,61.3911) (3065.14,19.7507) (3066.14,6.65698) (3067.14,20.8022) (3068.14,18.2476) (3069.08,45.0444) (3070.13,102.632) (3071.14,36.2527) (3072.14,0.00241089) (3073.08,16.2031) (3074.08,18.1345) (3075.13,27.4531) (3076.08,50.1918) (3077.13,51.5458) (3078.14,2.29517) (3079.14,0.00366211) (3080.14,0.00531006) (3081.08,21.3443) (3082.13,82.673) (3083.08,44.6235) (3084.13,18.5248) (3085.14,20.8694) (3086.14,9.68409) (3087.08,3.67653) (3088.08,59.5105) (3089.08,90.8455) (3090.13,43.4019) (3091.08,11.8265) (3092.08,20.8606) (3093.13,1.28975) (3094.14,0.00292969) (3095.08,39.944) (3096.08,46.2959) (3097.08,16.2153) (3098.08,19.3472) (3099.08,31.0233) (3100.13,42.0528) (3101.14,43.021) (3102.14,50.0454) (3103.14,11.802) (3104.14,0.00390625) (3105.14,0.00366211) (3106.14,4.18634) (3107.08,35.61) (3108.13,40.0841) (3109.14,19.8195) (3110.14,0.00906372) (3111.14,18.4212) (3112.14,14.9072) (3113.14,29.0249) (3114.14,66.3166) (3115.14,80.8636) (3116.14,65.1865) (3117.14,25.1601) (3118.14,0) (3119.14,4.17725) (3120.14,29.2063) (3121.14,47.1169) (3122.14,45.8362) (3123.14,6.94531) (3124.14,0.00268555) (3125.14,0.00219727) (3126.14,12.5166) (3127.14,37.4964) (3128.14,34.8721) (3129.14,15.0784) (3130.14,0.00146484) (3131.14,0.00317383) (3132.14,0.00292969) (3133.14,41.0994) (3134.14,56.5078) (3135.14,29.2336) (3136.14,6.44831) (3137.14,5.01636) (3138.14,20.851) (3139.14,11.6441) (3140.14,33.3805) (3141.14,29.0889) (3142.14,0.00439453) (3143.14,0.0012207) (3144.14,0.00170898) (3145.14,0.000976562) (3146.14,30.4587) (3147.14,68.1499) (3148.14,45.1997) (3149.14,16.8415) (3150.14,0.00244141) (3151.14,10.6338) (3152.14,22.8868) (3153.14,23.166) (3154.14,13.0027) (3155.14,2.16064) (3156.14,17.4478) (3157.14,3.56104) (3158.14,0.000732422) (3159.14,0.00668335) (3160.14,0.00350952) (3161.14,0.00183105) (3162.14,17.0027) (3163.14,20.8645) (3164.14,20.8659) (3165.14,20.853) (3166.14,20.7777) (3167.14,20.7259) (3168.14,20.4741) (3169.14,20.8726) (3170.14,19.7966) (3171.14,0.00192261) (3172.14,0.00463867) (3173.14,0) (3174.14,0.00170898) (3175.14,0.00439453) (3176.14,0.00338745) (3177.14,0.00219727) (3178.14,0.000732422) (3179.14,0.00341797) (3180.14,0.00415039) (3181.14,0.00460815) (3182.14,0.00146484) (3183.14,0.000244141) (3184.14,0.00268555) (3185.14,0.527832) (3186.14,20.7742) (3187.14,1.78271) (3188.14,0.00146484) (3189.14,0.00177002) (3190.14,0.00177002) (3191.14,0.000701904) (3192.14,0.00439453) (3193.14,0.00488281) (3194.14,0.0038147) (3195.14,0.00195312) (3196.14,0.00704956) (3197.14,0.00732422) (3198.14,0.00488281) (3199.14,0.00219727) (3200.14,0.00881958) (3201.14,0.00216675) (3202.14,0.00485229) (3203.14,0.00219727) (3204.14,0.00244141) (3205.14,0.00219727) (3206.14,0.00289917) (3207.14,10.5583) (3208.14,23.2209) (3209.14,23.238) (3210.14,4.33667) (3211.14,0.00192261) (3212.14,0.0012207) (3213.14,0.0012207) (3214.14,0.0012207) (3215.14,0.00146484) (3216.14,0.00216675) (3217.14,0.000244141) (3218.14,10.5555) (3219.14,23.0115) (3220.14,23.1514) (3221.14,4.62839) (3222.14,0.00289917) (3223.14,0.00317383) (3224.14,0.00427246) (3225.14,0.00244141) (3226.14,0.00762939) (3227.14,0.00244141) (3228.14,0.00195312) (3229.14,0.00195312) (3230.14,0.00195312) (3231.14,0.00756836) (3232.14,0.00143433) (3233.14,0.00146484) (3234.14,0) (3235.08,0.00182292) (3236.08,0.00265503) (3237.08,0.00265503) (3238.08,0.000732422) (3239.13,0.00574449) (3240.08,0.0015625) (3241.08,0.00854492) (3242.08,0.000732422) (3243.13,0.000459558) (3244.14,0.00268555) (3245.08,0.00260417) (3246.13,0.00364775) (3247.08,0) (3248.08,0.00170898) (3249.08,0.00274658) (3250.08,0.0022583) (3251.13,0.00203929) (3252.14,0.000244141) (3253.14,0.00244141) (3254.08,0.00836589) (3255.08,0.00146484) (3256.08,10.1603) (3257.08,22.8024) (3258.08,22.8721) (3259.08,5.52637) (3260.08,0.00244141) (3261.08,0.00732422) (3262.08,0.00390625) (3263.08,0) (3264.08,0.000976562) (3265.08,0.00170898) (3266.08,0.0012207) (3267.08,0.0012207) (3268.08,0.000732422) (3269.08,0.00537109) (3270.08,0) (3271.08,0.00561523) (3272.08,0) (3273.08,0) (3274.08,0.000732422) (3275.08,0.00488281) (3276.08,0.000976562) (3277.08,0.000732422) (3278.08,0.00341797) (3279.08,0.00177002) (3280.08,0.0010376) (3281.08,0) (3282.08,0.000244141) (3283.08,0.00610352) (3284.08,0.0071106) (3285.08,0.000732422) (3286.08,5.7902) (3287.08,21.0584) (3288.08,4.66309) (3289.08,0.00561523) (3290.13,5.76103) (3291.08,44.4901) (3292.08,64.3108) (3293.08,60.0027) (3294.08,45.5147) (3295.08,81.2969) (3296.13,54.8676) (3297.08,101.386) (3298.08,83.4092) (3299.08,83.1886) (3300.08,73.0927) (3301.08,72.7173) (3302.08,74.8499) (3303.08,68.0412) (3304.08,54.357) (3305.08,32.9746) (3306.08,37.7398) (3307.08,2.02685) (3308.08,15.0415) (3309.08,26.6238) (3310.13,19.6339) (3311.08,4.38958) (3312.08,10.4617) (3313.08,62.3161) (3314.08,47.3558) (3315.08,57.8405) (3316.08,35.2448) (3317.08,16.3795) (3318.08,0.00341797) (3319.08,0.00439453) (3320.08,4.17383) (3321.08,44.1668) (3322.08,65.4241) (3323.08,62.8977) (3324.08,39.3511) (3325.08,41.3699) (3326.08,38.906) (3327.08,54.3365) (3328.08,85.5095) (3329.08,68.9467) (3330.08,41.8413) (3331.08,44.6494) (3332.08,53.6485) (3333.08,41.6077) (3334.08,49.6582) (3335.08,42.6453) (3336.13,24.0062) (3337.08,32.0857) (3338.08,31.9206) (3339.08,36.0359) (3340.08,61.6464) (3341.13,52.1354) (3342.08,17.918) (3343.08,0.00244141) (3344.08,23.8854) (3345.08,36.6702) (3346.08,34.7962) (3347.08,53.0702) (3348.13,38.5273) (3349.08,11.2682) (3350.08,5.02637) (3351.08,20.8591) (3352.08,15.7871) (3353.08,24.2602) (3354.08,36.6142) (3355.08,30.2082) (3356.08,35.791) (3357.08,46.8982) (3358.08,35.8425) (3359.08,33.8471) (3360.08,28.6482) (3361.08,39.6506) (3362.08,17.1826) (3363.08,30.957) (3364.08,55.792) (3365.08,57.0198) (3366.08,50.2539) (3367.08,56.0168) (3368.08,41.4316) (3369.08,16.7207) (3370.13,28.8048) (3371.08,24.325) (3372.13,10.4104) (3373.08,0.00234375) (3374.13,37.2544) (3375.08,19.9661) (3376.08,12.3015) (3377.08,51.5797) (3378.08,44.5852) (3379.08,24.8186) (3380.08,18.7757) (3381.08,56.2647) (3382.08,24.9221) (3383.13,25.4568) (3384.08,53.256) (3385.08,22.9832) (3386.08,4.17188) (3387.08,47.2908) (3388.08,72.9373) (3389.08,31.2525) (3390.08,41.1042) (3391.08,31.1728) (3392.08,0.00241089) (3393.08,12.5164) (3394.08,62.6296) (3395.08,60.0408) (3396.08,47.8901) (3397.13,41.9464) (3398.08,33.007) (3399.08,7.9685) (3400.08,20.8607) (3401.08,20.53) (3402.08,31.3225) (3403.08,52.178) (3404.08,39.6803) (3405.08,8.73828) (3406.08,45.8636) (3407.08,55.7853) (3408.08,24.9216) (3409.13,17.4901) (3410.08,45.9331) (3411.08,37.4557) (3412.08,38.152) (3413.13,22.6406) (3414.08,3.59375) (3415.08,26.5495) (3416.08,36.4587) (3417.08,27.6303) (3418.08,25.731) (3419.08,62.5618) (3420.08,42.701) (3421.08,8.23313) (3422.13,12.641) (3423.08,70.094) (3424.08,70.6138) (3425.08,21.3848) (3426.08,33.6284) (3427.08,30.5141) (3428.08,22.9937) (3429.08,22.0501) (3430.08,24.2138) (3431.13,20.1206) (3432.08,42.9021) (3433.08,51.7517) (3434.08,32.9545) (3435.08,28.5015) (3436.08,41.5977) (3437.13,24.1049) (3438.14,37.7686) (3439.14,62.639) (3440.14,8.84351) (3441.14,0.00143433) (3442.14,0.00143433) (3443.14,0) (3444.14,0.00170898) (3445.14,17.4238) (3446.14,15.8977) (3447.14,0.00167847) (3448.14,0.00170898) (3449.14,0.000488281) (3450.14,0.00244141) (3451.14,4.62814) (3452.14,20.863) (3453.14,7.83472) (3454.14,23.947) (3455.14,56.9048) (3456.14,33.0083) (3457.14,26.9053) (3458.14,34.0742) (3459.14,20.1907) (3460.14,0.00231934) (3461.14,0.00134277) (3462.14,0.00167847) (3463.14,0.000732422) (3464.14,0.00750732) (3465.14,18.9009) (3466.14,20.8318) (3467.14,20.808) (3468.14,6.1084) (3469.14,0.959225) (3470.14,20.6726) (3471.14,20.8559) (3472.14,10.0803) (3473.14,37.3955) (3474.14,43.5794) (3475.14,27.1494) (3476.14,3.11032) (3477.14,9.47897) (3478.14,22.9156) (3479.14,23.1743) (3480.14,15.3296) (3481.14,23.0361) (3482.14,23.1203) (3483.14,5.63379) (3484.14,0.00146484) (3485.14,9.33667) (3486.14,23.1215) (3487.14,22.925) (3488.14,5.96875) (3489.14,0) (3490.14,0.00231934) (3491.14,0.000946045) (3492.14,0.00143433) (3493.14,0.000732422) (3494.14,0.00585938) (3495.14,0.00408936) (3496.14,0.00387573) (3497.14,0.00302124) (3498.14,0.00463867) (3499.14,0.00292969) (3500.14,0.00585938) (3501.14,0.0107727) (3502.14,9.20651) (3503.14,23.0674) (3504.14,23.1814) (3505.14,5.89282) (3506.14,9.38669) (3507.14,23.051) (3508.14,23.0886) (3509.14,5.82471) (3510.08,0.00286458) (3511.08,0.00265503) (3512.13,0.0087029) (3513.14,0.00146484) (3514.14,0.00512695) (3515.14,0.00195312) (3516.14,0.00143433) (3517.14,0.000946045) (3518.14,0.00366211) (3519.14,0.00268555) (3520.08,0.00273437) (3521.13,0.00413603) (3522.14,0.00143433) (3523.14,0.00170898) (3524.14,0.00439453) (3525.14,0.00234985) (3526.14,0.00524902) (3527.08,0.00322266) (3528.08,0.00463867) (3529.08,0.00317383) (3530.08,0.0012207) (3531.13,0.00749656) (3532.08,0.00152995) (3533.13,0.00229779) (3534.14,0.00146484) (3535.14,0.00244141) (3536.08,0.00234375) (3537.08,0.0012207) (3538.08,0.0012207) (3539.13,0.00620404) (3540.08,0.0109375) (3541.08,0.00244141) (3542.08,0.00561523) (3543.08,0.000732422) (3544.13,0.00183824) (3545.08,0.000260417) (3546.13,0.00321692) (3547.08,0.00130208) (3548.08,0) (3549.08,0.00170898) (3550.13,0.0039637) (3551.14,0.00152588) (3552.14,0.000488281) (3553.08,0.000260417) (3554.08,0.00219727) (3555.13,0.00646255) (3556.14,0.00463867) (3557.14,0.00717163) (3558.14,0.00244141) (3559.14,0.00488281) (3560.08,0.00104167) (3561.08,0.0127258) (3562.13,0.0011489) (3563.14,0.00488281) (3564.14,0.00219727) (3565.14,0.00366211) (3566.08,0.00104167) (3567.08,0.000732422) (3568.08,0) (3569.08,0.00195312) (3570.08,0.00195312) (3571.08,0) (3572.08,0.00561523) (3573.08,0.029541) (3574.13,0) (3575.08,0) (3576.08,0.00292969) (3577.08,0.000976562) (3578.08,0) (3579.08,0.00317383) (3580.08,0.00177002) (3581.08,0.000305176) (3582.08,0.000488281) (3583.08,16.1958) (3584.08,17.1265) (3585.08,4.17295) (3586.08,29.3615) (3587.08,64.995) (3588.08,74.4482) (3589.08,41.8989) (3590.08,41.68) (3591.08,10.0097) (3592.13,0.000919118) (3593.14,9.04248) (3594.14,45.8238) (3595.14,57.4267) (3596.14,69.6397) (3597.14,17.9829) (3598.14,0) (3599.14,0.00341797) (3600.08,18.8773) (3601.08,28.0376) (3602.08,28.0876) (3603.08,41.7637) (3604.08,33.3423) (3605.08,17.6704) (3606.08,5.47681) (3607.08,37.5249) (3608.08,44.4961) (3609.08,21.2717) (3610.08,20.8306) (3611.08,3.67559) (3612.08,0) (3613.08,14.096) (3614.08,27.5693) (3615.08,29.1422) (3616.08,63.313) (3617.08,32.4781) (3618.08,4.16553) (3619.08,22.4179) (3620.08,29.2263) (3621.08,22.6599) (3622.08,37.3778) (3623.08,62.6008) (3624.08,21.4757) (3625.08,12.6409) (3626.08,37.3654) (3627.08,16.6306) (3628.08,0.000732422) (3629.08,35.7525) (3630.08,60.9715) (3631.08,36.0904) (3632.08,48.7068) (3633.08,43.4256) (3634.08,28.0386) (3635.08,15.0705) (3636.08,36.377) (3637.13,56.5531) (3638.08,54.3244) (3639.13,16.6606) (3640.08,8.04173) (3641.08,37.2286) (3642.08,34.209) (3643.13,69.906) (3644.08,73.6239) (3645.13,62.435) (3646.08,29.7239) (3647.08,20.9225) (3648.08,20.4929) (3649.13,19.4696) (3650.14,21.4624) (3651.14,56.3013) (3652.08,62.8979) (3653.13,38.0041) (3654.08,22.2294) (3655.08,53.8169) (3656.08,32.4055) (3657.13,8.07445) (3658.08,25.8016) (3659.08,24.7546) (3660.08,14.3362) (3661.08,41.6648) (3662.08,38.8042) (3663.08,64.4009) (3664.13,51.3807) (3665.14,27.002) (3666.08,24.2453) (3667.13,70.7941) (3668.08,30.644) (3669.08,63.3701) (3670.08,84.2693) (3671.13,43.185) (3672.14,9.23096) (3673.14,33.5088) (3674.14,31.4755) (3675.14,17.6683) (3676.14,73.7457) (3677.14,59.1761) (3678.14,34.0224) (3679.14,31.0439) (3680.08,44.4966) (3681.13,64.7321) (3682.08,64.6283) (3683.13,85.5986) (3684.08,73.1945) (3685.13,43.6188) (3686.08,53.3713) (3687.13,83.4317) (3688.08,26.2242) (3689.13,52.8417) (3690.14,68.2232) (3691.14,19.3359) (3692.14,14.9239) (3693.14,43.9629) (3694.14,29.3887) (3695.14,23.8062) (3696.14,47.1226) (3697.14,47.4924) (3698.08,35.2592) (3699.13,29.0009) (3700.08,10.8) (3701.13,56.8307) (3702.14,32.0546) (3703.14,28.6319) (3704.08,27.4091) (3705.13,21.6233) (3706.08,8.05977) (3707.13,39.3191) (3708.14,20.8544) (3709.14,1.93921) (3710.08,21.9544) (3711.13,20.0595) (3712.14,40.0876) (3713.08,51.4391) (3714.13,85.6342) (3715.14,40.0843) (3716.14,30.1057) (3717.14,36.5339) (3718.08,0.000520833) (3719.13,17.8842) (3720.14,23.8359) (3721.14,50.0722) (3722.08,52.4419) (3723.13,45.2275) (3724.08,33.175) (3725.13,24.9641) (3726.08,21.6323) (3727.13,43.855) (3728.14,64.6682) (3729.14,68.4297) (3730.14,41.4648) (3731.14,0.00222778) (3732.14,30.6706) (3733.14,35.9749) (3734.14,0.00585938) (3735.14,6.29947) (3736.14,42.174) (3737.14,39.5522) (3738.14,34.5734) (3739.14,58.5735) (3740.14,18.7774) (3741.14,0.00534058) (3742.14,8.35147) (3743.08,31.1078) (3744.08,26.8495) (3745.13,43.355) (3746.08,30.2304) (3747.13,35.7603) (3748.08,21.9278) (3749.13,19.1634) (3750.08,21.9609) (3751.13,19.8996) (3752.14,41.0271) (3753.14,33.7341) (3754.14,21.1582) (3755.14,20.8447) (3756.14,20.8772) (3757.14,20.8679) (3758.14,13.2102) (3759.14,21.1435) (3760.08,8.92578) (3761.13,25.8832) (3762.14,22.7508) (3763.14,7.2434) (3764.14,0.00244141) (3765.14,16.5656) (3766.14,16.7562) (3767.14,0.000976562) (3768.14,0.00668335) (3769.14,0.00512695) (3770.14,0.00219727) (3771.14,0.00195312) (3772.14,0.00408936) (3773.14,0.00268555) (3774.14,19.0343) (3775.14,47.7808) (3776.14,27.0169) (3777.14,73.2913) (3778.14,56.7161) (3779.14,4.07862) (3780.14,0.00244141) (3781.14,0.00109863) (3782.14,0.00634766) (3783.14,26.4817) (3784.08,9.93624) (3785.13,30.9246) (3786.14,0.00143433) (3787.14,0.00292969) (3788.08,0.0015625) (3789.13,0.00574449) (3790.08,0) (3791.13,0.00284352) (3792.08,0.00179036) (3793.13,0.00321692) (3794.08,0.00598958) (3795.13,7.65918) (3796.14,23.0812) (3797.14,23.2139) (3798.08,16.2428) (3799.13,21.7829) (3800.14,23.1484) (3801.14,6.76168) (3802.08,0.00667317) (3803.13,0.00574449) (3804.14,0.00317383) (3805.14,0.00195312) (3806.14,0.00289917) (3807.14,0) (3808.14,0.000732422) (3809.14,0.00341797) (3810.14,0.000488281) (3811.14,0.00289917) (3812.14,0.00436401) (3813.14,0.00170898) (3814.14,0.00317383) (3815.14,0.00366211) (3816.14,8.21261) (3817.14,23.1215) (3818.14,23.1821) (3819.14,6.83423) (3820.14,0.00170898) (3821.14,0.00180054) (3822.14,0.00192261) (3823.14,0.00268555) (3824.14,0.00170898) (3825.14,0.00552368) (3826.14,0.00134277) (3827.14,0.00241089) (3828.14,0.00888062) (3829.14,0.00537109) (3830.14,0.00610352) (3831.14,0.00195312) (3832.14,0.010498) (3833.14,0.00415039) (3834.14,0.00268555) (3835.14,0) (3836.14,8.18258) (3837.14,23.0103) (3838.14,22.7924) (3839.14,7.36231) (3840.14,0.00268555) (3841.14,0.00192261) (3842.14,0.00753784) (3843.14,8.16626) (3844.14,23.1467) (3845.14,22.8708) (3846.14,7.16745) (3847.14,0.00143433) (3848.14,0.0012207) (3849.14,0.00170898) (3850.08,0.000520833) (3851.13,0.00468176) (3852.08,0.00179036) (3853.13,0.000689339) (3854.08,0.0015625) (3855.08,0.00784302) (3856.13,0.0011489) (3857.08,0.00283203) (3858.13,0.00537109) (3859.14,0.00341797) (3860.08,0.00625) (3861.08,0.00146484) (3862.08,0.0050354) (3863.13,0.00206801) (3864.14,0.0032959) (3865.14,0.000732422) (3866.14,0.0012207) (3867.08,0.00361328) (3868.13,0.000689339) (3869.14,0.00268555) (3870.14,0.0012207) (3871.14,0.0012207) (3872.14,0.00680542) (3873.14,0.00195312) (3874.14,0.00244141) (3875.08,0) (3876.08,0.0012207) (3877.08,0.000732422) (3878.13,0) (3879.08,0) (3880.13,0.0011489) (3881.14,0.00012207) (3882.14,0.000488281) (3883.14,0) (3884.14,0.000244141) (3885.14,0.00317383) (3886.14,0.00131226) (3887.08,0.00130208) (3888.13,0.00537109) (3889.14,0.0065918) (3890.14,0.00537109) (3891.14,0.00219727) (3892.14,0.00979614) (3893.14,0) (3894.14,0.00512695) (3895.14,0) (3896.14,0.000976562) (3897.08,0.000520833) (3898.08,0) (3899.13,0.00183824) (3900.14,11.3909) (3901.14,21.0415) (3902.14,20.0252) (3903.14,20.9158) (3904.14,22.9558) (3905.14,45.6963) (3906.14,58.2444) (3907.14,60.7019) (3908.14,50.3291) (3909.14,61.6299) (3910.08,90.5292) (3911.13,62.8723) (3912.14,66.2024) (3913.14,73.0088) (3914.14,61.2124) (3915.08,82.9091) (3916.13,83.931) (3917.08,75.711) (3918.08,83.1462) (3919.13,65.8426) (3920.08,21.944) (3921.08,39.1536) (3922.13,39.5195) (3923.08,16.0573) (3924.13,16.7812) (3925.08,16.5206) (3926.08,8.34473) (3927.08,20.8599) (3928.13,3.8727) (3929.14,16.2502) (3930.14,17.0691) (3931.14,0.00195312) (3932.14,16.6883) (3933.14,31.6211) (3934.08,19.5511) (3935.13,8.47795) (3936.14,45.7685) (3937.14,36.8926) (3938.14,19.1968) (3939.08,46.5107) (3940.13,31.9488) (3941.14,9.68513) (3942.14,12.3443) (3943.08,35.3511) (3944.13,47.7562) (3945.08,42.3914) (3946.13,57.985) (3947.08,65.8948) (3948.13,20.6259) (3949.08,44.5123) (3950.13,80.4559) (3951.14,68.3376) (3952.08,21.6625) (3953.13,38.1847) (3954.14,30.5367) (3955.08,8.90104) (3956.08,27.2749) (3957.13,43.9182) (3958.08,28.3229) (3959.13,29.5545) (3960.14,20.821) (3961.08,14.669) (3962.13,47.6491) (3963.14,64.0598) (3964.14,48.4026) (3965.14,24.9731) (3966.14,18.9502) (3967.08,19.1992) (3968.08,20.4397) (3969.08,40.1575) (3970.08,28.9922) (3971.08,27.0614) (3972.08,19.6231) (3973.13,19.699) (3974.14,13.57) (3975.14,43.6511) (3976.14,71.4805) (3977.14,39.2448) (3978.14,19.2159) (3979.14,34.8619) (3980.14,41.6682) (3981.14,21.207) (3982.14,26.0183) (3983.14,22.3397) (3984.14,7.51391) (3985.14,20.8596) (3986.14,53.2588) (3987.14,75.4546) (3988.14,65.8738) (3989.14,62.2097) (3990.14,41.249) (3991.14,25.9687) (3992.14,20.8601) (3993.14,50.0632) (3994.14,61.9438) (3995.08,25.7513) (3996.13,31.0919) (3997.08,7.93646) (3998.13,19.5234) (3999.14,34.3371) (4000.08,54.6151) (4001.13,61.8374) (4002.14,49.9308) (4003.14,3.88037) (4004.14,16.1801) (4005.14,17.1421) (4006.14,4.14917) (4007.08,25.9107) (4008.13,43.6221) (4009.14,25.1662) (4010.08,4.18047) (4011.13,35.3472) (4012.14,34.3886) (4013.14,33.579) (4014.14,28.8418) (4015.14,20.8521) (4016.14,7.46631) (4017.14,16.4776) (4018.08,44.5518) (4019.13,23.0586) (4020.14,40.8142) (4021.14,22.3411) (4022.14,20.5193) (4023.14,20.7236) (4024.14,51.3824) (4025.08,52.1445) (4026.08,31.6926) (4027.08,27.396) (4028.08,20.0037) (4029.08,19.5502) (4030.13,47.4318) (4031.14,25.9019) (4032.14,12.29) (4033.14,41.6435) (4034.08,5.81745) (4035.13,10.7054) (4036.14,8.34546) (4037.14,37.5498) (4038.14,20.7479) (4039.08,0.00260417) (4040.13,33.3148) (4041.08,39.3828) (4042.13,26.0246) (4043.08,14.6372) (4044.13,20.5935) (4045.08,16.0245) (4046.13,36.5903) (4047.14,20.9668) (4048.14,0.00219727) (4049.08,20.2273) (4050.13,31.7298) (4051.08,72.7879) (4052.13,59.5428) (4053.08,46.7503) (4054.13,53.2411) (4055.08,22.2524) (4056.13,20.3026) (4057.14,41.6206) (4058.14,29.7686) (4059.08,0.00234375) (4060.13,0.00229779) (4061.14,0.00167847) (4062.14,0.00427246) (4063.14,0.00219727) (4064.14,14.1284) (4065.14,19.1943) (4066.14,0.00686646) (4067.14,0.0012207) (4068.14,16.2302) (4069.14,17.0904) (4070.14,1.44678) (4071.14,20.864) (4072.14,17.728) (4073.14,17.8694) (4074.14,23.8433) (4075.14,20.7131) (4076.14,10.8684) (4077.08,18.8112) (4078.13,41.4561) (4079.08,0.0015625) (4080.08,2.45142) (4081.08,0.00265503) (4082.13,0.00229779) (4083.08,0.00390625) (4084.08,7.167) (4085.13,53.1776) (4086.08,24.715) (4087.13,7.36558) (4088.14,0.00366211) (4089.14,7.0918) (4090.14,29.4341) (4091.14,43.9763) (4092.14,14.1637) (4093.08,0.00260417) (4094.13,0.00413603) (4095.14,0.00537109) (4096.14,0.00799561) (4097.08,7.6448) (4098.08,22.9952) (4099.13,21.8303) (4100.14,8.00171) (4101.14,7.12351) (4102.14,37.6113) (4103.14,41.9021) (4104.14,8.03576) (4105.14,7.01709) (4106.08,24.4984) (4107.08,22.6787) (4108.13,10.1347) (4109.14,20.8599) (4110.14,10.3725) (4111.14,0.00186157) (4112.14,0.00314331) (4113.14,0.00195312) (4114.14,0) (4115.14,10.4304) (4116.08,0.00104167) (4117.13,21.5447) (4118.14,0.000732422) (4119.14,0.00585938) (4120.14,0.00292969) (4121.14,0.00216675) (4122.14,0.00302124) (4123.14,0.00219727) (4124.14,0.00292969) (4125.14,0.00317383) (4126.14,0.00732422) (4127.14,18.7758) (4128.14,14.5515) (4129.14,6.99469) (4130.14,23.009) (4131.14,23.1206) (4132.14,15.2607) (4133.14,29.5444) (4134.14,44.029) (4135.14,19.7712) (4136.14,0.00167847) (4137.14,0.00314331) (4138.14,0.00146484) (4139.14,0.000732422) (4140.14,0.00170898) (4141.14,0.00289917) (4142.14,0.00192261) (4143.14,0.00268555) (4144.14,0.00415039) (4145.14,0.00170898) (4146.14,0.00241089) (4147.14,0.00143433) (4148.14,0.00146484) (4149.14,0.000976562) (4150.14,0.00537109) (4151.14,0.00216675) (4152.14,0.00375366) (4153.14,0.00244141) (4154.14,0.00244141) (4155.14,0.00244141) (4156.14,0.00805664) (4157.14,0.00265503) (4158.14,0.00146484) (4159.14,0.00863647) (4160.14,0.00268555) (4161.14,0.00241089) (4162.14,0.00289917) (4163.14,0.00506592) (4164.14,0.00317383) (4165.14,0.00366211) (4166.14,0.000946045) (4167.14,0.00216675) (4168.14,0.00268555) (4169.14,0.0012207) (4170.14,0.00415039) (4171.14,0.00219727) (4172.14,0.00192261) (4173.14,0.00170898) (4174.14,0.00268555) (4175.14,0.00268555) (4176.14,0.000488281) (4177.14,0.00170898) (4178.14,0.00170898) (4179.14,0.00219727) (4180.14,0.00292969) (4181.14,0.00216675) (4182.14,0.00497437) (4183.14,0.0012207) (4184.14,0.00244141) (4185.14,0.000976562) (4186.14,0.00610352) (4187.14,0.00289917) (4188.14,0.000732422) (4189.08,0.00764974) (4190.08,0.00146484) (4191.13,0.00436581) (4192.14,0.00167847) (4193.14,0.00686646) (4194.14,0.00317383) (4195.14,0.00341797) (4196.14,0) (4197.14,0.00314331) (4198.14,0.000488281) (4199.14,0.00195312) (4200.08,0.000520833) (4201.08,44.7803) (4202.08,85.0437) (4203.08,89.9514) (4204.08,68.7844) (4205.08,12.1228) (4206.13,56.0653) (4207.08,45.5197) (4208.08,50.585) (4209.08,70.1751) (4210.13,90.6338) (4211.14,88.7832) (4212.14,70.8002) (4213.14,49.4275) (4214.14,30.6282) (4215.14,28.4267) };
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\vspace{\smallskipamount}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileLeft,
title={KMeans with Thrill},
xlabel={Execution Time [s]},
]
\addplot coordinates { (0.092092,1.43144) (1.09754,24.0548) (2.09754,54.6933) (3.09754,72.5527) (4.09754,72.3309) (5.09754,60.7282) (6.09754,54.2735) (7.09755,51.5472) (8.03738,49.6274) (9.0918,54.0341) (10.0975,55.7873) (11.0975,69.8297) (12.0975,85.9432) (13.0975,97.9372) (14.0975,99.2219) (15.0975,99.7421) (16.0975,99.3652) (17.0975,98.2556) (18.0374,95.1736) (19.0919,38.594) (20.0975,82.6912) (21.0374,27.4107) (22.0919,36.7988) (23.0975,91.5113) (24.0374,17.9794) (25.0919,24.1573) (26.0975,92.3866) (27.0374,31.9123) (28.0919,24.7115) (29.0975,91.8002) (30.0374,32.0406) (31.0919,20.9318) (32.0975,89.767) (33.0374,38.7779) (34.0919,27.4514) (35.0975,90.8204) (36.0374,29.9985) (37.0919,20.1675) (38.0374,95.426) (39.035,37.2669) (40.0918,16.0163) (41.0975,78.5481) (42.0374,51.8269) (43.0918,7.2399) (44.0975,76.6207) (45.0374,66.888) (46.0918,8.13121) (47.0975,81.8478) (48.0975,58.9784) (49.0975,8.94375) (50.0975,79.5651) (51.0975,100) (52.0975,99.998) (53.0975,99.9981) (54.0975,99.998) (55.0975,99.998) (56.0975,99.9062) (57.0975,95.204) (58.0975,24.0349) (59.0975,2.98119) (60.0975,0.84813) (61.0975,0.013678) (62.0975,0.0175891) (63.0975,0.0156226) (64.0975,0.0117187) (65.1019,0.00416732) (66.2423,0.00910117) (67.1,0.00624869) (68.1016,0.00976562) (69.0975,0.0928624) (70.0975,0.00781494) };
\end{axis}
\begin{axis}[myPlotProfileRight,
]
\pgfplotsset{cycle list shift=1}
\addplot coordinates { (0.092092,0.0246198) (1.09754,74.4078) (2.09754,1344.62) (3.09754,1983.76) (4.09754,1819.91) (5.09754,1613.55) (6.09754,1447.14) (7.09755,1406.25) (8.03738,1384.64) (9.0918,1372.21) (10.0975,1120.04) (11.0975,1096.75) (12.0975,1129.87) (13.0975,961.599) (14.0975,572.105) (15.0975,285.558) (16.0975,106.421) (17.0975,29.5928) (18.0374,5.41391) (19.0919,2.21493) (20.0975,0.326624) (21.0374,4.2435) (22.0919,0.79125) (23.0975,0.337523) (24.0374,3.64516) (25.0919,1.03284) (26.0975,0.266479) (27.0374,2.99633) (28.0919,1.47507) (29.0975,0.267188) (30.0374,8.45551) (31.0919,15.2111) (32.0975,3.35754) (33.0374,19.7679) (34.0919,11.5263) (35.0975,1.91133) (36.0374,7.4238) (37.0919,2.7643) (38.0374,5.90346) (39.035,5.57072) (40.0918,1.93239) (41.0975,0.806561) (42.0374,1.88529) (43.0918,3.17345) (44.0975,0.162364) (45.0374,1.73215) (46.0918,2.73224) (47.0975,0.208585) (48.0975,2.17217) (49.0975,2.70516) (50.0975,0.0298939) (51.0975,0.00806859) (52.0975,0.00855684) (53.0975,0.0489054) (54.0975,0.00843603) (55.0975,0.00992641) (56.0975,0.00892897) (57.0975,0.0216797) (58.0975,0.0131489) (59.0975,2.48216) (60.0975,28.5458) (61.0975,15.009) (62.0975,14.3793) (63.0975,14.961) (64.0975,3.71651) (65.1019,0.0189762) (66.2423,0.0219016) (67.1,0.404489) (68.1016,0.238167) (69.0975,1.54093) (70.0975,0.0146078) };
\addplot coordinates { (0.092092,0) (1.09754,0.00512695) (2.09754,0.00799561) (3.09754,0.041748) (4.09754,0.00341797) (5.09754,0.0470581) (6.09754,0.00415039) (7.09755,0.00732422) (8.03738,0.00182292) (9.0918,0.000459558) (10.0975,0.0055542) (11.0975,0) (12.0975,0.00146484) (13.0975,0.00195312) (14.0975,0) (15.0975,0.00384521) (16.0975,0.00268555) (17.0975,0.000244141) (18.0374,0.00572917) (19.0919,0) (20.0975,0.00418091) (21.0374,0.00078125) (22.0919,0) (23.0975,0.00219727) (24.0374,0) (25.0919,0.0011489) (26.0975,0.000244141) (27.0374,0.003125) (28.0919,0.00160846) (29.0975,0.000488281) (30.0374,0.00364583) (31.0919,0) (32.0975,0.00958252) (33.0374,0.00364583) (34.0919,0.00482536) (35.0975,0.00512695) (36.0374,0.00651042) (37.0919,0.000689339) (38.0374,0.00260417) (39.035,0.000244141) (40.0918,0.000919118) (41.0975,0.000244141) (42.0374,0.00104167) (43.0918,0) (44.0975,0) (45.0374,0) (46.0918,0.00390625) (47.0975,0) (48.0975,0) (49.0975,0) (50.0975,0) (51.0975,0.00170898) (52.0975,0.000976562) (53.0975,0.0402832) (54.0975,0) (55.0975,0.0402832) (56.0975,0.00442505) (57.0975,0) (58.0975,0.00561523) (59.0975,0.00170898) (60.0975,0.00418091) (61.0975,0) (62.0975,0.00524902) (63.0975,0.000488281) (64.0975,0.00146484) (65.1019,0.000260417) (66.2423,0.00286458) (67.1,0.000260417) (68.1016,0.00170898) (69.0975,0.000976562) (70.0975,0) };
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\medskip
\ref{profilelegend}
\caption{CPU utilization, and network and disk throughput averaged over all hosts during the median TeraSort and KMeans benchmark runs with 16 hosts.}
\label{fig:results profile2}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{The Results}
Figure~\ref{fig:results} shows the median result of three benchmark runs for $h = 1,2,4,8,16$ hosts.
We plotted the time divided by the number of input bytes on one host, which is proportional to the number of items per host.
Figure~\ref{fig:results slowdown} shows the same results as Figure~\ref{fig:results}, except plotted as the slowdown in running time of each framework over the fastest.
Additionally, we measured a performance profile of the CPU, network, and disk I/O utilization during the benchmarks using information from the Linux kernel, and show the results for $h = 16$ in Table~\ref{tag:utilization} and Figures~\ref{fig:results profile1}--\ref{fig:results profile2}.
Thrill consistently outperforms Spark and Flink in all benchmarks on all numbers of hosts, and is often several times faster than the other frameworks.
The speedup of Thrill over Spark and Flink is highest on a single host, and grows smaller as network and disk I/O become bottlenecks.
In WordCount, the text is read from the DFS, split into words, and the word pairs are reduced locally.
As only 1\,000 unique words occur, the overall result is small and communication thereof is negligible.
Thrill maximizes network utilization with 1\,127\,MiB/s via the DFS and uses only 27\% of the available CPU time for splitting and reducing.
Spark also nearly maximizes the network with 939\,MiB/s, but utilizes the CPU 64\% of the running time.
Flink is a factor 5.7 slower than Thrill in WordCount with 16 hosts, uses the CPU 78\% of the time, and is not network bound.
Thrill's reduction via hash tables are very fast, the other frameworks require considerable more CPU time for the same task.
With 16 hosts Thrill is network bound due to the network file system, and Spark (Scala) is only a factor 1.28 slower.
In PageRank, the current rank values are joined with the adjacency lists of the graph and transmitted via the network to sum all rank contributions for the next iteration in a reduction.
Hence, the PageRank benchmark switches back and forth ten times between high CPU load while joining, and high network load while reducing (see Figure~\ref{fig:results profile1}).
Spark (Java) is a factor 4.0 slower than Thrill on 16 hosts, while Flink (Java) is a factor 1.6 slower.
Flink's pipelined execution engine works well in this benchmark, and reaches 61\% CPU and 15\% network utilization.
From the execution profile of Spark one can see that it does not balance work well between the hosts due to stragglers.
Hence, each iteration takes longer than necessary.
We believe Thrill's performance could be increased even further by implementing a \textcode{Join} algorithm.
In TeraSort, Spark is only a factor 1.7 slower and Flink a factor 1.18 than Thrill on 16 hosts.
Spark reaches only 20\% CPU and 42\% network utilization on average, Flink 26\% and 45\%, and Thrill 25\% and 39\%, respectively.
Flink's pipelined execution outperforms Spark in TeraSort, as was previously shown by an other author~\cite{dongwon2015terasort}.
The implementations appear well tuned, however, due to the CPU and network utilization we believe all can be improved.
In the KMeans algorithm, the set of centroids are broadcast.
Then all points are reclassified to the closest centroid, after which new centroids are determined from all points via a reduction.
Like PageRank, the KMeans algorithm interleaves high local work and high network load (a reduction and a broadcast).
Spark (Scala) is a factor 4.1 slower than Thrill on 16 hosts, Spark (Java) a factor 13, and Flink more than 50.
We believe this is due to the JVM object overhead for vectors, and to inefficiencies in the way Spark and Flink broadcast the centroids.
Flink's query optimizer does not seem to work well for the KMeans example accompanying their source package.
Thrill utilizes the CPU 50\% and the network 25\% of the running time, while Spark reach 27\% CPU and only 7\% network utilization.
The Sleep benchmark highlights the startup time of the frameworks.
We plotted the running time excluding the slept time in Figure~\ref{fig:results}.
Spark requires remarkably close to $5 + h \cdot 0.4$ seconds to start up.
Apparently, hosts are not started in parallel.
Flink's start up time was much lower, and Thrill's less than one second.
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}\label{sec:conclusion}
With Thrill we have demonstrated that a C++ library can be used as a distributed data processing framework reaching a similarly high level of abstraction as the currently most popular systems based on Java and Scala while gaining considerable performance advantages.
In the future, we want to use Thrill on the one hand for implementing scalable parallel algorithms (e.g. for construction of succinct text indices) that are both advanced and high level.
Thrill has already been used for more than five suffix sorting algorithms, logistic regression, and graph generators.
On the other hand, at a much lower level, we want to use Thrill as a platform for developing algorithmic primitives for big data tools that enable massively scalable load balancing, communication efficiency, and fault tolerance.
While Thrill is so far a prototype and research platform, the results of this paper are sufficiently encouraging to see a possible development into a main stream big data processing tool.
Of course, a lot of work remains in that direction such as implementing interfaces for other popular tools like Hadoop and the AWS stack, and creating frontends in scripting languages like Python for faster algorithm prototyping.
To achieve practical scalability and robustness for large cluster configurations, we also need significant improvements in issues like load balancing, fault tolerance and native support for high performance networks like InfiniBand or Omni-Path.
Furthermore, we view it as useful to introduce additional operations and data types like graphs and multidimensional arrays in Thrill (see also Section~\ref{ss:why}).
But, we are not sure whether automatic query plan optimization as in Flink should be a focus of Thrill, because that makes it more difficult to implement complex algorithms with a sufficient amount of control over the computation.
Rather it may be better to use Thrill as an intermediate language for a yet higher level tool that would no longer be a plain library but a true compiler with a query optimizer.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
We would like thank the AWS Cloud Credits for Research program for making the experiments in Section~\ref{sec:experiments} possible.
Our research was supported by the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize 2012, and the Large-Scale Data Management and Analysis (LSDMA) project in the Helmholtz Association.
\IEEEtriggeratref{18}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Automata Networks and Local Causality}
\label{sec:definitions}
\subsection{Automata Networks}
\seclabel{an}
We declare an Automata Network (AN) with a finite set of finite-state machines
having transitions between their local states conditioned by the state of other
automata in the network.
An AN is defined by a triple $(\Sigma,S,T)$ (\defref{cfsm}) where
$\Sigma$ is the set of automata identifiers;
$S$ associates to each automaton a finite set of local states:
if $a\in\Sigma$, $S(a)$ refers to the set of local states of $a$;
and $T$ associates to each automaton its local transitions.
Each local state is written of the form $a_i$, where $a\in\Sigma$ is the automaton in
which the state belongs to, and $i$ is a unique identifier;
therefore given $a_i,a_j\inS(a)$, $a_i=a_j$ if and only if $a_i$ and $a_j$
refer to the same local state of the automaton $a$.
For each automaton $a\in\Sigma$, $T(a)$ refers to the set of transitions of
the form $t=\antrl aij\ell$ with $a_i,a_j\inS(a)$, $a_i\neq a_j$, and $\ell$
the enabling condition of $t$, formed by a (possibly empty) set of local states
of automata different than $a$ and containing at most one local state of each
automaton.
The \emph{pre-condition} of transition $t$, noted $\precond t$, is the set composed
of $a_i$ and of the local states in $\ell$;
the \emph{post-condition}, noted $\postcond t$ is the set composed of $a_j$
and of the local states in $\ell$.
\begin{definition}[Automata Network $(\Sigma,S,T)$]
\label{def:cfsm}
An \emph{Automata Network} (AN) is defined by a tuple $(\Sigma,S,T)$ where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Sigma$ is the finite set of automata identifiers;
\item For each $a\in\Sigma$, $S(a) = \{a_i,\dots,a_j\}$ is the finite set of local states of automaton $a$;
$S \stackrel{\Delta}= \prod_{a\in\Sigma} S(a)$ is the finite set of global states;\\
$\mathbf{LS} \stackrel{\Delta}= \bigcup_{a\in\Sigma} S(a)$ denotes the set of all the local states.
\item $T = \{ a \mapsto T_a \mid a\in \Sigma \}$, where $\forall a\in\Sigma,
T_a \subseteq S(a)\times\powerset{\mathbf{LS}\setminus S(a)} \times S(a)$
with $(a_i,\ell,a_j)\in T_a \Rightarrow a_i\neq a_j$
and $\forall b\in\Sigma, \card{\ell\capS(b)} \leq 1$,
is the mapping from automata to their finite set of local transitions.
\end{itemize}
\noindent
We note $a_i\xrightarrow \ell a_j\in T \stackrel{\Delta}\Leftrightarrow (a_i,\ell,a_j)\in T(a)$
and
$\antr aij\in T \stackrel{\Delta}\Leftrightarrow \exists\ell\in\powerset{\mathbf{LS}\setminus S(a)}, \antrl
aij\ell\in T$.
Given $t = a_i\xrightarrow\ell a_j\in T$,
$\f{orig}(t)\stackrel{\Delta}= a_i$,
$\f{dest}(t)\stackrel{\Delta}= a_j$,
$\f{enab}(t)\stackrel{\Delta}= \ell$,
$\precond t\stackrel{\Delta}= \{a_i\}\cup\ell$, and
$\postcond t\stackrel{\Delta}= \{a_j\}\cup\ell$.
\end{definition}
At any time, each automaton is in one and only one local state, forming the
global state of the network.
Assuming an arbitrary ordering between automata identifiers, the set of global
states of the network is referred to as $S$ as a shortcut for $\prod_{a\in\Sigma}S(a)$.
Given a global state $s\inS$, $\get sa$ is the local state of automaton $a$
in $s$, i.e., the $a$-th coordinate of $s$.
Moreover we write $a_i\in s \stackrel{\Delta}\Leftrightarrow \get sa=a_i$; and for any
$ls\in\powerset{\mathbf{LS}}$, $ls\subseteq s\stackrel{\Delta}\Leftrightarrow \forall a_i\in ls,\get sa=a_i$.
In the scope of this paper, we allow, but do not enforce, the parallel application of transitions in
different automata.
This leads to the definition of a \emph{step} as a set of transitions, with at
most one transition per automaton (\defref{step}).
For notational convenience, we allow empty steps.
The pre-condition (resp. post-condition) of a step $\tau$, noted $\precond \tau$
(resp. $\postcond \tau$),
extends the similar notions on transitions:
the pre-condition (resp. post-condition) is the union of the pre-conditions
(resp. post-conditions) of composing transitions.
A step $\tau$ is \emph{playable} in a state $s\inS$ if and only if
$\precond \tau \subseteq s$, i.e., all the local states in the pre-conditions of
transitions are in $s$.
If $\tau$ is playable in $s$, $s\cdot\tau$ denotes the state after the
applications of all the transitions in $\tau$, i.e., where for each transition
$\antrl aij\ell\in\tau$, the local state of automaton $a$ has been replaced with
$a_j$.
\begin{definition}[Step]
\deflabel{step}
Given an AN $(\Sigma,S,T)$, a \emph{step} $\tau$ is a subset of local transitions $T$
such that for each automaton $a\in\Sigma$, there is at most one local transition $T(a)$ in $\tau$
($\forall a\in\Sigma, \card{(\tau\cap T(a))}\leq 1$).
\noindent
We note
$\precond\tau\stackrel{\Delta}= \bigcup_{t\in\tau}\precond t$
and
$\postcond\tau\stackrel{\Delta}= \bigcup_{t\in\tau}\postcond t \setminus
\{\f{orig}(t)\mid t\in\tau\}$.
\noindent
Given a state $s\in S$
where $\tau$ is playable ($\precond\tau\subseteq s$),
$s\cdot\tau$ denotes the state where
$\forall a\in\Sigma$,
$\get{(s\cdot\tau)}a=a_j$ if $\exists \antr aij\in\tau$,
and
$\get{(s\cdot\tau)}a=\get sa$ otherwise.
\end{definition}
Remark that $\postcond\tau \subseteq s\cdot\tau$ and that this definition
implicitly rules out steps composed of incompatible transitions, i.e., where different
local states of a same automaton are in the pre-condition.
A \emph{trace} (\defref{trace}) is a sequence of successively playable steps from a state $s\inS$.
The pre-condition $\precond\pi$ of a trace $\pi$ is the set of local
states that are required to be in $s$ for applying $\pi$
($\precond\pi\subseteq s$);
and the post-condition $\postcond\pi$ is the set of local states that are
present in the state after the full application of $\pi$
($\postcond\pi\subseteq s\cdot\pi$).
\begin{definition}[Trace]
\deflabel{trace}
Given an AN $(\Sigma,S,T)$ and a state $s\in S$,
a \emph{trace} $\pi$ is a sequence of steps such that $\forall i\in\indexes\pi$,
$\precond{\pi^i}\subseteq (s\cdot\pi^1\cdot\cdots\pi^{i-1})$.
\noindent
The pre-condition $\precond\pi$ and
the post-condition $\postcond\pi$ are
defined as follows:
for all $n\in\indexes\pi$,
for all $a_i\in\precond\pi^n$,
$a_i\in\precond\pi \stackrel{\Delta}\Leftrightarrow
\forall m\in\range 1{n-1},
S(a)\cap\precond\pi^m = \emptyset$;
similarly,
for all $n\in\indexes\pi$,
for all $a_j\in\postcond{\pi^n}$,
$a_j\in\postcond\pi \stackrel{\Delta}\Leftrightarrow
\forall m\in\range {n+1}m,
S(a)\cap\postcond{\pi^m} = \emptyset$.
If $\pi$ is empty,
$\precond\pi=\postcond\pi=\emptyset$.
\noindent
The set of transitions composing a trace $\pi$ is noted
$\f{tr}(\pi)\stackrel{\Delta}=\bigcup_{n=1}^{\card \pi}{\pi^n}$.
\end{definition}
Given an automata network $(\Sigma,S,T)$ and a state $s\in S$,
the local state $g_\top\in \mathbf{LS}$ is \emph{reachable} from $s$
if and only if
either $g_\top\in s$ or
there exists a trace $\pi$ with
$\precond\pi\subseteq s$ and
$g_\top\in\postcond\pi$.
We consider a trace $\pi$ for $g_\top$ reachability from $s$ is
\emph{minimal}
if and only if there exists no different trace reaching $g_\top$
having each successive step being a subset of a step in $\pi$ with the same
ordering (\defref{minimal}).
Say differently, a trace is minimal for $g_\top$ reachability if no step or
transition can be removed from it without breaking the trace validity or
$g_\top$ reachability.
\begin{definition}[Minimal trace for local state reachability]\deflabel{minimal}
A trace $\pi$ is \emph{minimal} w.r.t. $g_\top$ reachability from $s$
if and only if
there is no trace $\varpi$ from $s$, $\varpi\neq\pi$, $\card\varpi\leq\card\pi$, $g_\top\in\postcond\varpi$,
such that
there exists an injection $\phi: \indexes\varpi\to\indexes\pi$
with $\forall i,j\in\indexes\varpi$,
$i < j \Leftrightarrow \phi(i)<\phi(j)$
and
$\varpi^i \subseteq \pi^{\phi(i)}$.
\end{definition}
Automata networks as presented can be considered as a class of $1$-safe Petri
Nets \cite{BC92} (at most one token per place) having groups of mutually
exclusive places, acting as the automata, and where each transition has one and
only one incoming and out-going arc and any number of read arcs.
The semantics considered in this paper where transitions within different automata
can be applied simultaneously echoes with Petri net step-semantics and
concurrent/maximally concurrent semantics \cite{Janicki86,Priese98,Janicki2015}.
In the Boolean network community, such a semantics is referred to as the
asynchronous generalized update schedule \cite{Aracena09}.
\subsection{Local Causality}
\seclabel{local-causality}
Locally reasoning within one automaton $a$, the reachability of one of its local
state $a_j$ from some global state $s$ with $\get sa=a_i$ can be described by
a (local) \emph{objective},
that we note $\obj{a_i}{a_j}$
(\defref{objective}).
\begin{definition}[Objective]
\label{def:objective}
Given an automata network $(\Sigma,S,T$),
an \emph{objective} is a pair of local states $a_i,a_j\inS(a)$ of a same automaton
$a\in\Sigma$ and is denoted $\obj{a_i}{a_j}$.
The set of all objectives is referred to as
$\mathbf{Obj}\stackrel{\Delta}=\{ \obj{a_i}{a_j} \mid (a_i,a_j)\in S(a)\timesS(a), a\in\Sigma \}$.
\end{definition}
Given an objective $\anobj aij\in\mathbf{Obj}$, $\f{local-paths}(\anobj aij)$ is the set of
local acyclic paths of transitions $T(a)$ within automaton $a$ from $a_i$ to $a_j$ (\defref{csol}).
\begin{definition}[$\f{local-paths}$]\deflabel{csol}
Given $\anobj aij\in\mathbf{Obj}$,
if $i=j$, \penalty 0$\f{local-paths}(\anobj aii)\stackrel{\Delta}=\{\varepsilon\}$;
if $i\neq j$,
a sequence $\eta$ of transitions in $T(a)$
is in $\f{local-paths}(\anobj aij)$ if and only if
$\card\eta\geq 1$,
$\f{orig}(\eta^1) = a_i$,
$\f{dest}(\eta^{\card\eta})=a_j$,
$\forall n\in\range 1 {\card\eta-1}$,
$\f{dest}(\eta^n) = \f{orig}(\eta^{n+1})$,
and
$\forall n,m\in \indexes\eta,
n>m\Rightarrow
\f{dest}(\eta^n)\neq\f{orig}(\eta^m)$.
\end{definition}
As stated by \ptyref{csol}, any trace reaching $a_j$ from a state containing $a_i$ uses all the transitions
of at least one local acyclic path in $\f{local-paths}(\anobj aij)$.
\begin{property}
For any trace $\pi$,
for any $a\in\Sigma$, $a_i,a_j\inS(a)$,
$1\leq n\leq m\leq\card\pi$
where
$a_i\in\precond{\pi^n}$
and
$a_j\in\postcond{\pi^m}$,
there exists a local acyclic path $\eta\in\f{local-paths}(\anobj aij)$
that is a sub-sequence of $\pi^{n..m}$, i.e.,
there is an injection $\phi:\indexes\eta \to \range nm$ with
$\forall u,v\in\indexes\eta,
u<v \Leftrightarrow \phi(u)<\phi(v)$
and
$\eta^u \in\pi^{\phi(u)}$.
\ptylabel{csol}
\end{property}
A local path is not necessarily a trace, as transitions may be conditioned by
the state of other automata that may need to be reached beforehand.
A local acyclic path being of length at most $\card{S(a)}$ with unique
transitions, the number of local acyclic paths is polynomial in the number of transitions
$T(a)$ and exponential in the number of local states in $a$.
\begin{example}
Let us consider the automata network $(\Sigma,S,T)$, graphically represented
in \figref{example1}, where:
\begin{align*}
\Sigma & = \{a,b,c,d\}
\\
S(a) &= \{a_0, a_1\} &
T(a) &= \{ \antrl a01{\{b_0\}}, \antrl a10{\emptyset}\}
\\
S(b) &= \{b_0, b_1\} &
T(b) &= \{ \antrl b01{\{a_1\}}, \antrl b10{\{a_0\}} \}
\\
S(c) &= \{c_0, c_1, c_2\} &
T(c) &= \{ \antrl c01{\{a_1\}}, \antrl c10{\{b_1\}},
\antrl c12{\{b_0\}}, \antrl c02{\{d_1\}}\}
\\
S(d) &= \{d_0, d_1\} &
T(d) &= \emptyset \phantom{\antrl d00{\{b_0\}}}
\end{align*}
The local paths for the objective $\anobj c02$ are
$\f{local-paths}(\anobj c02)=\{ \antrl c01{\{a_1\}} \xrightarrow{\{b_0\}} c_2, \antrl c02{\{d_1\}}\}$.
From the state $\state{a_0,b_0,c_0,d_0}$, instances of traces are\\
$
\begin{aligned}
&\{\antrl a01{\{b_0\}}\}\!::\!
\{\antrl b01{\{a_1\}},\antrl c01{\{a_1\}}\}\!::\!
\{\antrl a10{\emptyset}\}\!::\!
\{\antrl b10{\{a_0\}}\}\!::\!
\{ \antrl c12{\{b_0\}}\} \enspace;\\
&\{\antrl a01{\{b_0\}}\}\!::\!\{\antrl c01{\{a_1\}}\}\!::\!\{ \antrl c12{\{b_0\}}\}\enspace;
\end{aligned}
$\\
the latter only being a minimal trace for $c_2$ reachability.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\input{figures/example1.pgf}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{An example of automata network.
Automata are represented by labelled boxes, and local states by circles
where ticks are their identifier within the automaton -- for instance, the local
state $a_0$ is the circle ticked 0 in the box $a$.
A transition is a directed edge between two local states within the same
automaton.
It can be labelled with a set of local states of other automata.
In this example, all the transitions are conditioned by at most one other local state.
\label{fig:example1}}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
This paper introduces a new reduction for automata networks parametrized by a
reachability property of the form: from a state ${s}$ there exists a trace which
leads to a state where a given automaton $g$ is in state $g_\top$.
The goal-oriented reduction preserves \emph{all} the minimal traces satisfying
the reachability property under a general concurrent semantics which allows at
each step simultaneous transitions of an arbitrary number of automata.
Those results straightforwardly apply to the asynchronous semantics where only
one transition occurs at a time:
any minimal trace of the asynchronous semantics is a minimal trace in the
general concurrent semantics.
Its time complexity is polynomial in the total number of transitions and
exponential with the maximal number of local states within an automaton.
Therefore, the procedure is extremely scalable when applied on
networks between numerous automata, but where each automaton has a few local states.
Applied to logical models of biological networks, the goal-oriented reduction
can lead to a drastic shrinkage of the reachable state space with a negligible
computational cost.
We illustrated its application for the model-checking of simple reachability
properties, but also for the validation of cut sets, which requires the
completeness of minimal traces in the reduced model.
It results that the goal-oriented reduction can increase considerably the scalability of
the formal analysis of dynamics of automata networks.
The goal is expressed as a single local state reachability, which also allows to
to support sequential reachability properties between (sub)states
using an extra automaton.
For instance, the property ``reach $a_1$ and $b_1$, then reach $c_1$'' can be encoded
using one extra automaton $g$, where $\antrl g01{\{a_1,b_1\}}$ and $\antrl g1\top{\{c_1\}}$.
Further work consider performing the reduction on the fly, during the state
space exploration, expecting a stronger pruning.
Although the complexity of the reduction is low, such approaches
would benefit from heuristics to indicate when a new reduction step may be
worth to apply.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
We experimented the goal-oriented reduction on several biological networks and quantify the
shrinkage of the reachable state space.
Then, we illustrate potential applications with the verification of simple reachability, and of cut sets.
In both cases, the reduction drastically increases the tractability of those applications.
\subsection{Results on model reduction}
We conducted experiments on Automata Networks (ANs) that model dynamics of biological networks.
For different initial states, and for different reachability goals, we compared
the number of local transitions in the AN specifications ($\card{T}$),
the number of reachable states,
and the size of the so-called complete finite prefix of the unfolding of the net \cite{Esparza08}.
This latter structure is a finite partial order representation of all the possible traces,
which is well studied in concurrency theory.
It aims at offering a compact representations of the reachable state spaces by exploiting the
concurrency between transitions:
if $t_1$ and $t_2$ are playable in a given state and are not in conflict (notably when
$\precond t_1\cap\precond t_2=\emptyset$),
a standard approach would consider 4 global transitions ($t_1$ then $t_2$, and $t_2$ then $t_1$),
whereas a partial order structure would simply declare $t_1$ and $t_2$ as concurrent, imposing no
ordering between them.
Hence, unfoldings drop part of the combinatorial explosion of the state space due to the interleaving of concurrent transitions.
The selected networks are models of signalling pathways and gene regulatory networks:
two Boolean models of Epidermal Growth Factor receptors (EGF-r) \cite{Sahin09,egfr104},
one Boolean model of tumor cell invasion (Wnt) \cite{Cohen2015},
two Boolean models of T-Cell receptor (TCell-r) \cite{Klamt06,tcrsig94},
one Boolean model of Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase network (MAPK) \cite{Grieco2013},
one multi-valued model of fate determination in the Vulval Precursor Cells (VPC) in C. elegans \cite{WM13-FG},
one Boolean model of T-Cell differentiation (TCell-d) \cite{Abou-Jaoude2015},
and one Boolean models of cell cycle regulation (RBE2F) \cite{e2frburl}.
The ANs result from automatic translation from the logical network specifications in
the above references; for most models using the \texttt{logicalmodel} tool \cite{logicalmodel}.
Note that the obtained ANs are bisimilar to the logical networks \cite{CHJPS14-CMSB}.
For each of these models, we selected initial states and nodes for which the activation will be the
reachability goal\footnote{Scripts and models
available at \url{http://loicpauleve.name/gored-suppl.zip}}.
Typically, the initial states correspond to various input signal combinations
in the case of signalling cascades, or to pluripotent states for gene networks;
and goals correspond to transcription factors or genes of importance for the model
(output nodes for signalling cascades, key regulators for gene networks).
\Tabref{benchmarks} sums up the results before and after the goal-oriented reduction.
The number of reachable states is computed with \texttt{its-reach} \cite{itstools}
using a symbolic representation,
and the size of the complete finite prefix (number of instances of transitions) is
computed with \texttt{Mole} \cite{mole}.
The goal-oriented reduction is performed using \texttt{Pint}{} \cite{PINTurl}.
In each case, the reduction step took less than 0.1s, thanks to its very low complexity when applied to logical networks.
There is a substantial shrinkage of the dynamics for the reduced models, which can turn out
to be drastic for large models.
In some cases, the model is too large to compute the state space without reduction.
For some large models, the unfolding is too large to be computed, whereas it can provide a very
compact representation compared to the state space for large networks exhibiting a high degree of
concurrency (e.g., TCell-d, RBE2F).
In the case of first profile of TCell-d and EGF-r (104)
the reduction removed all the transitions, resulting in an empty model.
Such a behaviour can occur when the local causality analysis statically
detect that the reachability goal is impossible, i.e., the necessary
condition of \secref{gored-filter} is not satisfied.
On the other hand, a non-empty reduced model does not guarantee the goal reachability.
\Supplref{partial} show additional results with the reduction made without the filtering
$\valid{{s}}$ (\secref{gored-filter}).
\def\multicolumn{2}{c|}{KO}{\multicolumn{2}{c|}{KO}}
\def\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\bf KO}{\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\bf KO}}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.5mm}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\begin{table}[p]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|:l||^r|^r|^r||^r^l|^r^l|}
\cline{5-8}
\multicolumn{4}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Verification of goal reachability}\\
\hline
Model & $\card{T}$ & \# states & |unf| &
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{\texttt{NuSMV}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\texttt{its-reach}}
\\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{EGF-r (20)}
& 68 & 4,200 & 1,749 & 0.2s & 10Mb & 0.17 & 7Mb \\
& \textbf{43} & \textbf{722} & \bfseries 336
& \textbf{0.1} & \textbf{8Mb} & \textbf{0.1s} & \textbf{5Mb}\\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Wnt (32)}
& 197 & 7,260,160 & KO & 30s & 48Mb & 0.3s & 18Mb\\
\rowstyle{\bf}
& 117 & 241,060 & 217,850 & 0.9s & 32Mb & 0.5s & 17Mb \\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{TCell-r (40)}
& 90 & $\approx 1.2\cdot 10^{11}$ & KO & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{KO} & 1.1s & 52Mb\\
\rowstyle{\bf}
& 46 & 25,092 & 14,071 & 3.8s & 36Mb & 0.6s & 15Mb \\\hline
MAPK (53)
& 173 & $\approx 3.8\cdot 10^{12}$ & KO & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{KO} & 0.9s & 60Mb\\
profile 1 \rowstyle{\bf}
& 113 & $\mathbf{\approx 4.5\cdot 10^{10}}$ & KO & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\bf KO} & 2s & 48Mb\\\hline
MAPK (53)
& 173 & 8,126,465 & KO & 63s & 83Mb & 0.2s & 15Mb\\
profile 2 \rowstyle{\bf}
& 69 & 269,825 & 155,327 & 1.5s & 36Mb & 0.4s & 18Mb \\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{VPC (88)}
& 332 & KO & KO & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{KO} & 1s & 50Mb\\
\rowstyle{\bf}
& 219 & $\mathbf{1.8\cdot 10^9}$ & 43,302 & 236s & 156Mb & 0.8s & 21Mb\\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{TCell-r (94)}
& 217& KO & KO & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{KO} &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{KO} \\
& \textbf{42} & \textbf{54.921} & \bf 1,017 & \textbf{0.4} & \textbf{23Mb} & \textbf{0.26s} & \textbf{14Mb}
\\\hline
TCell-d (101) &
384 & $\approx 2.7\cdot 10^8$ & 257 & 3s & 40Mb & 0.5s & 24Mb \\
profile 1 \rowstyle{\bf} &
0 & 1 & 1 & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\cellcolor{gray}}\\\hline
TCell-d (101) &
384 & KO & KO & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{KO} & 0.5s & 23Mb \\
profile 2 \rowstyle{\bf} &
161 & 75,947,684 & KO & 474s & 260Mb & 0.3s & 19Mb\\\hline
EGF-r (104) &
378 & 9,437,184 & 47,425 & 7s & 35Mb & 0.6s & 23Mb \\
profile 1 &
\textbf{0} & \textbf{1} & \textbf{1} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\cellcolor{gray}}
\\\hline
EGF-r (104) &
378 & $\approx 2.7 \cdot 10^{16}$ & KO & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{KO}& 1.36s & 60Mb
\\
profile 2 \rowstyle{\bf} &
\textbf{69} & 62,914,560 & KO & \textbf{11s} & \textbf{33Mb} & \textbf{0.3s} & \textbf{17Mb}
\\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{RBE2F (370)} &
742 & KO & KO & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{KO} &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{KO}\\
\rowstyle{\bf} &
56 & 2,350,494 & 28,856 & 5s & 377Mb & 5s & 170Mb \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Comparisons before (normal font) and \textbf{after} (bold font) the goal-oriented AN reduction.
Each model is identified by the system, the number of automata (within
parentheses), and a profile specifying the initial state and the reachability goal.
$\card{T}$ is the number of local transitions in the AN specification;
``\#states'' is the number of reachable global states from the initial state;
``|unf|'' is the size of the complete finite prefix of the unfolding.
``KO'' indicates an execution running out of time (30 minutes) or memory.
When applied to goal reachability, we show the total execution time and memory used by the tools
\texttt{NuSMV} and \texttt{its-reach}.
Computation times where obtained on an Intel\textregistered{}
Core\texttrademark{} i7 3.4GHz CPU with 16GB RAM.
\emph{For each case, the reduction procedure took less than 0.1s}.
\tablabel{benchmarks}}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[p]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|:l|^c|^c|^c|^c|^c|}
\cline{2-6}
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{}
\rowstyle{\normalfont}
& Wnt (32) & TCell-r (40) & EGF-r (104) & TCell-d (101)& RBE2F (370) \\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\texttt{NuSMV}} &
44s 55Mb & KO & KO & KO & KO \\
\rowstyle{\bf} &
9.1s 27Mb & 2.4s 34Mb & 13s 33Mb & 600s 360Mb & 6s 29Mb\\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\texttt{its-ctl}} &
105s 2.1Gb & 492s 10Gb & KO & KO & KO\\
\rowstyle{\bf} &
16s 720Mb & 11s 319Mb & 21s 875Mb & KO & 179s 1.8Gb \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Comparisons before (normal font) and \textbf{after} (bold font) the goal-oriented AN reduction
for CTL model-checking of cut sets.}
\label{tab:cutsets}
\end{table}
\subsection{Example of application: goal reachability}
In order to illustrate practical applications of the goal-oriented model reduction, we
first
systematically applied model-checking for the goal reachability on the initial and reduced model
(\tabref{benchmarks}).
We compared two different softwares:
\texttt{NuSMV} \cite{NuSMV2} which combines Binary Decision Diagrams and SAT approaches for synchronous systems,
and \texttt{its-reach} \cite{itstools} which implements efficient decision diagram data structures
\cite{Hamez09}.
In both cases, the transition systems specified as input of these tools is an
exact encoding of the asynchronous semantics of the automata networks, where steps
(\defref{step}) are always composed of only one transition.
For \texttt{NuSMV}, the reachability property is specified with CTL \cite{ClarkeEmerson81}
(``\texttt{EF} ${g_\top}$'', $g_\top$ being the goal local state, and \verb|EF| the \emph{exists eventually}
CTL operator).
It is worth noting that \texttt{NuSMV} implements the \emph{cone of influence} reduction
\cite{Biere99verifyingsafety} which removes variables not involved in the property.
\texttt{its-reach} is optimized for checking if a state belongs to the reachable state
space, and cannot perform CTL checking.
Experiments show a remarkable gain in tractability for the model-checking of
reduced networks.
For large cases, we observe that the dynamics can be tractable only after model reduction (e.g.,
TCell-r (94), RBE2F (370)).
\texttt{its-reach} is significantly more efficient than \texttt{NuSMV}
because it is tailored for simple reachability checking, whereas \texttt{NuSMV}
handles much more general properties.
Because the goal-reduction preserves all the minimal traces for the goal reachability, it preserves
the goal reachability: the results of the model-checking is equivalent in the initial and reduced
model.
\subsection{Example of application: cut set verification}
The above application to simple reachability does not requires the preservation of \emph{all} the
minimal traces.
Here, we apply the goal-oriented reduction to the cut sets for reachability, where the
\emph{completeness of minimal traces is crucial}.
Given a goal, a \emph{cut set} is a set of local states such that any trace leading to the
goal involves, in some of its transitions, one of these local states.
Therefore, disabling all the local states of a cut set should make the reachability of the goal
impossible.
This disabling could be implemented by the knock-out/in of the corresponding species in the
biological system:
cut sets predict mutations which should prevent a concerned reachability to occur (e.g., active
transcription factor).
Such cut sets have been studied in \cite{Sahin09,PAK13-CAV} and are close to intervention sets
\cite{Klamt06} (which are not defined on traces but on pseudo-steady states).
We focus here on verifying if a (predicted) set of local states is, indeed, a cut set for the goal
reachability.
In the scope of this experiment, we consider cut sets that are disjoint with the initial state.
The cut set property can be expressed with CTL:
$\{a_1,b_1\}$ is a cut set for $g_\top$ reachability if the model satisfies the CTL property
\texttt{not E [ (not $a_1$ and not $b_1$) U $g_\top$ ]} (\texttt{U} being the \emph{until}
operator).
The property states that there exists no trace where none of the local state of the cut set is
reached prior to the goal.
It is therefore required that \emph{all} the minimal traces to the goal reachability are present in the
model: if one is missing, a set of local states could be validated as cut set whereas it may not be
involved in the missed trace.
\Tabref{cutsets} compares the model-checking of cut sets properties using \texttt{NuSMV} and
\texttt{its-ctl} \cite{itstools} on a range of the biological networks used in the previous
sections.
Because the dynamical property is much more complex, \texttt{its-reach} cannot be used.
The cut sets have been computed beforehand with \texttt{Pint}{}.
Because the goal-oriented reduction preserves all the minimal traces to the goal, the results are
equivalent in the reduced models.
Similarly to the simple reachability, the goal-oriented reduction drastically improves the tractability of
large models.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Automata networks model dynamical systems resulting from simple interactions between entities.
Each entity is typically represented by an automaton with few internal states which evolve subject
to the state of a narrow range of other entities in the network.
Richness of emerging dynamics arises from several factors including the topology of the interactions, the
presence of feedback loop, and the concurrency of transitions.
Automata networks, which subsume Boolean and multi-valued networks, are
notably used to model dynamics of biological systems, including signalling networks or gene
regulatory networks (e.g.,
\cite{Abou-Jaoude2015,Cohen2015,Grieco2013,Klamt06,tcrsig94,Sahin09,egfr104,WM13-FG}).
The resulting models can then be confronted with biological knowledge, for
instance by checking if some time series data can be reproduced by the
computational model.
In the case of models of signalling or gene regulatory networks, such data
typically refer to the possible activation of a transcription factor, or a gene,
from a particular state of the system, which reflects both the environment and
potential perturbations.
Automata networks have also been used to infer targets to control the behaviour
of the system.
For instance, in \cite{Abou-Jaoude2015,Sahin09}, the author use Boolean networks
to find combinations of signals or combinations of mutations that should alter
the cellular behaviour.
From a formal point of view, numerous biological properties can be expressed in
computation models as reachability properties:
from an initial state, or set of states, the existence of a sequence of transitions
which leads to a desired state, or set of states.
For instance, an initial state can represent a combination of signals/perturbations of a signalling network;
and the desired states the set of states where the concerned transcription factor is active.
One can then verify the (im)possibility of such an activation, possibly by
taking into account mutations, which can be modelled, for instance, as the freezing of some
automata to some fixed states, or by the removal of some transitions.
Due to the increasing precision of biological knowledge, models of networks become larger and larger
and can gather hundreds to thousands of interacting entities making the formal analysis of their
dynamics a challenging task:
the reachability problem in automata networks/bounded Petri nets is
PSPACE-complete \cite{ChengEP95}, which limits its scalability.
Facing a model too large for a raw exhaustive analysis, a natural approach is to reduce its dynamics
while preserving important properties.
Multiple approaches, often complementary, have been explored since decades
to address such a challenge in dynamical and concurrent systems
\cite{Sifakis84,Kurshan94,Bensalem95}.
In the scope of rule-based models of biological networks, efficient static analysis methods have been developed
to lump numerous global states of the systems based on the fragmentation of
interacting components \cite{Feret_IJSI2013};
and to
\emph{a posteriori} compress simulated traces to obtain compact
witnesses of dynamical properties \cite{Danos12-IARCS}.
Reductions preserving the attractors of dynamics (long-term/steady-state
behaviour) have also been proposed for chemical reaction networks \cite{Madelaine14} and Boolean networks
\cite{Naldi11-TCS}.
The latter approach applies to formalisms close to automata networks but does not
preserve reachability properties.
On Petri nets, different structural reductions have been proposed to
reduce the size of the model specification while preserving
bisimulation \cite{Schnoebelen00}, or liveness and LTL properties \cite{Ber86,HP-ppl06}.
Procedures such as the cone of influence reduction \cite{Biere99verifyingsafety}
or relevant subnet computation \cite{Talcott2006} allow to identify
variables/transitions which have no influence on a given dynamical property.
Our work has a motivation similar to the two latter approaches.
\paragraph*{Contribution}
We introduce a reduction of automata networks which identifies
transitions that do not contribute to a given reachability property and hence can be ignored.
The considered automata networks are finite sets of finite-state machines where
transitions between their local states are conditioned by the state of other
automata in the network.
We use a general concurrent semantics where any number of automata can apply one
transition within one step.
We call a \emph{trace} a sequential interleaved execution of steps.
Our reduction preserves all the minimal traces satisfying reachability properties of the form ``from state $s$ there exist
successive steps that lead to a state where a given automaton $g$ is in local state $g_\top$''.
A trace is \emph{minimal} if no step nor transition can be removed
from it and resulting in a sub-trace that satisfies the concerned reachability property.
The complexity of the procedure is polynomial in the number of local transitions,
and exponential in the maximal size of automata.
Therefore, the reduction is scalable for networks of multiple
automata, where each have a few local states.
The identification of the transitions that are not part of any minimal trace is
performed by a static analysis of the causality of transitions within automata.
It extends previous static analysis of reachability properties by
abstract interpretation \cite{PMR12-MSCS,PAK13-CAV}.
In \cite{PMR12-MSCS}, necessary or sufficient conditions for reachability are
derived, but they do not allow to capture all the (minimal) traces towards a
reachability goal.
In \cite{PAK13-CAV}, the static analysis extracts local states, referred to as
cut-sets, which are necessarily reached prior to a given reachability goal.
The results presented here are orthogonal: we identify transitions that are
never part of a minimal trace for the given reachability property.
It allows us to output a reduced model where all such transitions
are removed while preserving all the minimal traces for reachability.
Hence, whereas \cite{PAK13-CAV} focuses on identifying necessary conditions for reachability,
this article focuses on preserving sufficient conditions for reachability.
The effectiveness of our goal-oriented reduction is experimented on actual
models of biological networks and show significant shrinkage of the dynamics of
the automata networks, enhancing the tractability of a concrete verification.
Compared to other model reductions, our goal is similar to
the cone of influence reduction \cite{Biere99verifyingsafety} or
relevant subnet computation \cite{Talcott2006}
mentioned above, which identify variables/transitions that do not impact a given property.
Here, our approach offers a much more fine-grained analysis in
order to identify the sufficient transitions and values of variables that contribute to
the property, which leads to stronger reductions.
\paragraph*{Outline}
\Secref{definitions} sets up the definition and semantics of the automata
networks considered in this paper, together with the local causality analysis
for reachability properties, based on prior work.
\Secref{reduction} first depicts a necessary condition using local causality
analysis for satisfying a reachability property
and then introduce the goal-oriented reduction with the proof of minimal traces
preservation.
\Secref{experiments} shows the efficiency of the reduction on a range of
biological networks.
Finally, \secref{discussion} discusses the results and motivates further work.
\paragraph*{Notations}
Integer ranges are noted $[m;n] \stackrel{\Delta}= \{m, m+1, \cdots, n\}$.
Given a finite set $A$, $\card A$ is the cardinality of $A$;
$\powerset A$ is the power set of $A$.
Given $n\in \mathbb N$,
$x = (x^i)_{i \in [1;n]}$ is a sequence of elements indexed by $i \in [1;n]$;
$\card x = n$;
$x^{m..n}$ is the subsequence $(x^i)_{i\in[m;n]}$;
$x\!::\! e$ is the sequence $x$ with an additional element $e$ at the end;
$\varepsilon$ is the empty sequence.
\section{Proof of minimal traces preservation}
\suppllabel{gored-proof}
We assume a global AN $(\Sigma,S,T)$ where
$g\in\Sigma$, $g_\top\inS(g)$, and ${s}\inS$ with
$\get{{s}}{g}\neq g_\top$.
From \ptyref{csol} and \defref{valid}, any trace reaching first $a_i$ and then $a_j$ uses all
the transitions of at least one local path in $\rcsol{s}(\anobj aij)$.
We first prove with \lemref{last-is-known}
that the last transition of a minimal trace $\pi$ for $g_\top$ reachability, of the form $\pi^{\card\pi}=\{\antr gi\top\}$, is necessarily in $\tr(\RLCG)$.
Indeed, by definition of $\mathcal B$, $\anobj g0\top\in\mathcal B$;
and by \lemref{csol-end}, $\antr gi\top \notin
\rcsol{s}(\anobj g0\top)$ implies that reaching $g_i$ requires to reach $g_\top$ beforehand.
\begin{lemma}
Given $\antr aji\inT$, if $\antr aji \notin \f{tr}(\rcsol{s}(\anobj a0i))$,
then for any trace $\pi$ from ${s}$
with $a_j\in\postcond{\pi^v}$
and $a_i\in\postcond{\pi^w}$ for some $v,w\in\indexes\pi$,
there exists $u<v$ with $a_i\in\postcond{\pi^u}$.
\label{lem:csol-end}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\eta\in\rcsol{s}(\anobj a0j)$ be an acyclic local path such that
$\forall n\in\indexes\eta$, $a_i\neq\f{dest}(\eta^n)$.
The sequence $\eta\!::\! \antr aji$ is then acyclic and, by definition, belongs to
$\rcsol{s}(\anobj a0i)$, which is a contradiction.
\qed
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
If $\pi$ is a minimal trace for $g_\top$ reachability from state ${s}$,
then, necessarily,
$\pi^{\card\pi}\subseteq\tr(\RLCG)$.
\label{lem:last-is-known}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As $\pi$ is minimal for $g_\top$ reachability, without loss of generality, we can assume that
$\pi^{\card\pi} = \{\antr gi\top\}$.
By definition, $\f{tr}(\rcsol{s}(\anobj g0\top))\subseteq\tr(\RLCG)$.
By \lemref{csol-end}, if $\antr gi\top\notin\f{tr}(\rcsol{s}(\anobj g0\top))$,
then there exists $u < \card\pi$ such that
$g_\top \in \postcond{\pi^u}$; hence, $\pi$ would be non minimal.
\qed
\end{proof}
The rest of the proof of \thmref{gored} is derived by contradiction:
if a transition of $\pi$ is not in $\tr(\RLCG)$, we can build a sub-trace of $\pi$
which preserves $g_\top$ reachability, therefore $\pi$ is not minimal.
Given a transition $\antr aij$ in the $q$-th step of $\pi$ that is not in $\tr(\RLCG)$, removing
$\antr aij$ from $\pi^q$ would imply to remove any further transition that depend causally
on it.
Two cases arise from this fact:
either all further transitions that depend on $a_j$ must be removed;
or $\antr aij$ is part of loop within automaton $a$, and it is sufficient to remove the loop from $\pi$.
\Lemref{cycle} ensures that if $\anobj azk$ is in $\mathcal B$ and if
$a_z$ occurs before the $q$-th step and $a_k$ after the $q$-th step of $\pi$,
then $\antr aij\notin\f{tr}(\rcsol{{s}}(\anobj azk))$ only if
$\antr aij$ is part of a loop, i.e., there are two steps surrounding $q$
where the automaton $a$ is in the same state before their application.
\begin{lemma}
Given $a\in\Sigma$ and $u,q,v\in\indexes\pi$,
$u\leq q< v$,
with
$a_z \in\precond{\pi^u}$,
$a_k \in \precond{\pi^v}\cup\postcond{\pi^v}$,
and
$\antr aij\in\pi^q\setminus\tr(\RLCG)$,
if $\anobj azk\in\mathcal B$
then
$\exists m,n\in\range uv$, $m\leq q\leq n$ such that
$\postcond{(\pi^{1..m-1})}\capS(a)
=\postcond{(\pi^{1..n})}\capS(a)$;
and
$a_k\in\precond{\pi^v}\Rightarrow n <v$.
\lemlabel{cycle}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $\antr aij\notin\tr(\RLCG)$ and $\anobj azk\in\tr(\RLCG)$, necessarily
$\antr aij\notin\f{tr}(\rcsol{s}(\anobj azk))$.
Therefore $\antr aij$ belongs to a loop of a local path from $a_z$ (at index $u$ in $\pi$) to $a_k$
(at index $v$ in $\pi$).
Hence, $\exists m,n\in\range{u}{v}$ with $m \leq q \leq n$
and $a_h,a_x,a_y\in S(a)$
such that
$\antr ahx\in\pi^m$ and
$\antr ayh\in\pi^n$;
therefore
$\postcond{(\pi^{1..m-1})} \cap S(a)
=\postcond{(\pi^{1..n})}\capS(a) = a_h$.
In the case where $a_k\in\precond{\pi^v}$,
$a_k\neq a_h$, hence $n < v$.
\qed
\end{proof}
Intuitively, \lemref{cycle} imposes that $\pi$ has the following form:
\[
\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
& \text{\rotatebox{270}{$a_z\in$}}
&&&& \text{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\notin\tr(\RLCG)$}}
&&&& \text{\rotatebox{270}{$a_k\in$}}
\\
\pi = \cdots & \!::\!\pi^u\!::\! & \cdots & \!::\! \antr ahx \!::\! & \cdots &
\!::\! \mathbf{\antr aij} \!::\! & \cdots & \!::\!\antr ayh\!::\! & \cdots & \!::\!\pi^v\!::\! & \cdots
\\
&\scriptstyle u & & \scriptstyle m&& \scriptstyle q && \scriptstyle n && \scriptstyle v
\end{array}
\]
given that $\anobj azk\in\mathcal B$.
The idea is then to remove the transitions forming the loop within automaton $a$.
However, transitions in other automata may depend causally on the transitions
that compose the local loop in automaton $a$ within steps $m$ and $n$, following the notations in \lemref{cycle}.
\Lemref{cb} establishes that we can always find $m$ and $n$ such that
none of the transitions within these steps with an enabling condition depending on automaton $a$
are in $\tr(\RLCG)$.
Indeed, if a transition in $\tr(\RLCG)$ depends on a local state of $a$, let us call it $a_p$,
the objectives $\anobj a0p$ and $\anobj apk$ are in $\mathcal B$, due to the second and third condition in
\defref{rlcg}.
\Lemref{cycle} can then be applied on the subpart of $\pi$ that contains the transition $\antr aij$
not in $\tr(\RLCG)$ and that concretizes either $\anobj a0p$ or $\anobj apk$ to identify a smaller loop
containing $\antr aij$.
\begin{lemma}
Let us assume $a\in\Sigma$
and
$q\in\indexes\pi$
with
$\antr aij\in\pi^q\setminus\tr(\RLCG)$.
There exists $m,n\in\indexes\pi$
with
$m\leq q\leq n$
such that
$\forall t\in\f{tr}(\pi^{m+1..n})$,
$\f{enab}(t)\capS(a)\neq\emptyset\Rightarrow t\notin\tr(\RLCG)$,
and,
if $a=g$ or
$\exists t\in\f{tr}(\pi^{n+1..\card\pi})\cap\tr(\RLCG)$
with
$\f{enab}(t)\capS(a)\neq\emptyset$,
then
$\postcond{(\pi^{1..m-1})}\capS(a)
=\postcond{(\pi^{1..n})}\capS(a)$
.
\lemlabel{cb}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, let us assume that $a\neq g$ and
for any $t\in\pi^{q+1..\card\pi}$,
$\f{enab}(t)\capS(a)\neq\emptyset \Rightarrow t\notin \tr(\RLCG)$:
the lemma is verified with $m=q$ and $n=\card\pi$.
Then, let us assume there exists $v\in\range{q+1}{\card\pi}$ such that
$\exists t\in\f{tr}(\pi^v)\cap\tr(\RLCG)$ with
$a_k\in\f{enab}(t)$.
By \defref{rlcg},
this implies $\anobj a0k\in\mathcal B$.
By \lemref{cycle}, there exists
$m,n\in\range 1 {v-1}$ with $m\leq q\leq n$ such that
$\postcond{(\pi^{1..m-1})}\capS(a)
=\postcond{(\pi^{1..n})}\capS(a)$.
Otherwise, $a=g$, and by \lemref{cycle} with $a_k=g_\top$, there exists
$m,n\in\range 1 {\card\pi}$ with $m\leq q\leq n$ and $m\neq n$ such that
$\postcond{(\pi^{1..m-1})}\capS(a)
=\postcond{(\pi^{1..n})}\capS(a)$.
Remark that it is necessary that $n < \card\pi$:
if $n=\card\pi$, $g_\top\in\postcond{(\pi^{1..m-1})}$, so $\pi$ would be not minimal.
In both cases, if there exists $r\in\range {m+1} n$ such that
$\exists a_p\inS(a)$ and $\exists t\in\pi^r$ with
$a_p\in\f{enab}(t)$,
then $t\in\tr(\RLCG)$ implies that $\anobj a0p\in\mathcal B$ and $\anobj apk\in\mathcal B$
(\defref{rlcg}).
If $r > q$, by \lemref{cycle} with
$a_k=a_p$ and $v=r$,
there exists $m',n'\in\range {m+1} n$
such that $m' \leq q \leq n' < r\leq n$ with
$\postcond{(\pi^{1..m'-1})}\capS(a)
=\postcond{(\pi^{1..n'})}\capS(a)$.
If $r \leq q$, by \lemref{cycle} with
$a_0=a_p$ and $u=r$,
there exists $m',n'\in\range {m+1}n$
such that $r \leq m' \leq q \leq n'$ with
$\postcond{(\pi^{1..m'-1})}\capS(a)
=\postcond{(\pi^{1..n'})}\capS(a)$.
Therefore, by induction with \lemref{cycle},
there exists $m,n\in\indexes\pi$
such that
$\forall t\in\f{tr}(\pi^{m+1..n})$,
$\f{enab}(t)\capS(a)\neq\emptyset \Rightarrow t\notin\tr(\RLCG)$.
\qed
\end{proof}
Using \lemref{cb}, we show how we can identify a subset of transitions in $\pi$ that can be
removed to obtain a sub-trace for $g_\top$ reachability.
In the following, we refer to the couple $(m,n)$ of \lemref{cb}
with $\f{cb}(\pi,a,q)$ (\defref{cb}).
\begin{definition}[$\f{cb}(\pi,a,q)$]
\deflabel{cb}
Given $a\in\Sigma$, $q\in\indexes\pi$ with $t\in\pi^q\setminus\tr(\RLCG)$ and $\Sigma(t)=a$,
we define $\f{cb}(\pi,a,q) = (m,n)$ where $m,n\in\indexes\pi$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\forall t\in\f{tr}(\pi^{m+1..n})$, $\f{enab}(t)\capS(a)\neq\emptyset\Rightarrow
t\notin\tr(\RLCG)$;
\item
$a=g\vee \exists t\in\f{tr}(\pi^{n+1..\card\pi})\cap\tr(\RLCG)$
with
$\f{enab}(t)\capS(a)\neq\emptyset$
$\Longrightarrow$
$\postcond{(\pi^{1..m-1})}\capS(a)
=\postcond{(\pi^{1..n})}\capS(a)$.
Moreover, if $a=g$, then $n<\card\pi$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
We use \lemref{cb} to collect the portions of $\pi$ to redact according to each automaton.
We start from the last transition in $\pi$ that is not in $\tr(\RLCG)$:
if $\f{tr}(\pi)\not\subseteq\tr(\RLCG)$,
there exists $l \in\indexes\pi$ such that
$\pi^l\not\subseteq\tr(\RLCG)$
and $\forall n>l, \pi^n\subseteq\tr(\RLCG)$.
By \lemref{last-is-known}, we know that $l < \card\pi$.
Let us denote by $\antr bij$ one of the transitions in $\pi^l$ which is not in $\tr(\RLCG)$.
We define
$\Psi \subseteq \Sigma \times \indexes\pi \times \indexes\pi$
the smallest set which satisfies:
\begin{itemize}
\item $(b,m,n) \in\Psi$ if $\f{cb}(\pi,l,b) = (m,n)$
\item $\forall(a,m,n)\in\Psi$,
$\forall q\in[m+1;n]$,
$\forall t\in\pi^q$,
$\f{enab}(t)\capS(a)\neq\emptyset \Longrightarrow (\Sigma(t),m',n') \in\Psi$
where $\f{cb}(\pi,q,\Sigma(t)) = (m',n')$.
\end{itemize}
Finally, let us define the sequence of steps $\varpi$
as the sequence of steps $\pi$ where the transitions delimited by $\Psi$ are removed:
for each $(a,m,n)\in\Psi$, all the transitions of automaton $a$ occurring
between $\pi^m$ and $\pi^n$ are removed.
Formally,
$\card\varpi=\card\pi$
and
for all $q\in\indexes\pi$,
$\varpi^q \stackrel{\Delta}= \{ t \in\pi^q\mid \nexists (a,m,n)\in\Psi: a=\Sigma(t) \wedge
m\leq q\leq n \}$.
From \lemref{cb} and $\Psi$ definition, $\varpi$ is a valid trace.
Moreover, by \lemref{cb}, there is no $q\in\indexes\pi$ such that
$(g,q,\card\pi)\in\Psi$, hence $g_\top \in\postcond\varpi$.
Therefore, $\pi$ is not minimal, which contradicts our hypothesis.
$\qed$
\begin{example}
Let us consider the reachability of $c_2$ in the AN of \figref{example1} from state
$\state{a_0,b_0,c_0,d_0}$.
The transitions $\tr(\RLCG)$ preserved by the reduction for that goal
are listed in \figref{example1r}.
Let $\pi$ be the following trace in the AN of \figref{example1}:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\pi&=\{\antrl a01{\{b_0\}}\}\!::\!
\{\antrl b01{\{a_1\}},\antrl c01{\{a_1\}}\}\!::\!
\{\antrl a10{\emptyset}\}\!::\!
\{\antrl b10{\{a_0\}}\}
\\&\qquad \!::\!
\{ \antrl c12{\{b_0\}}\}\enspace.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
The latest transition not in $\tr(\RLCG)$ is $\antrl b10{\{a_0\}}$ at step $4$.
One can compute $\f{cb}(\pi,4,b)=(2,4)$, and as there is no transition involving $b$ between steps $3$ and $4$,
$\Psi = \{(b,2,4)\}$; therefore, the sequence
\begin{equation*}
\varpi=\{\antrl a01{\{b_0\}}\}\!::\!
\{\antrl c01{\{a_1\}}\}\!::\!
\{\antrl a10{\emptyset}\}\!::\!
\{\}\!::\!
\{ \antrl c12{\{b_0\}}\}
\end{equation*}
is a valid sub-trace of $\pi$ reaching $c_2$, proving $\pi$ non-minimality.
\end{example}
In conclusion, if $\pi$ is a minimal trace for $g_\top$ reachability from
state ${s}$, then, $\f{tr}(\pi)\subseteq\tr(\RLCG)$.
\section{Goal-Oriented Reduction}
\label{sec:reduction}
Assuming a global AN $(\Sigma,S,T)$, an initial state
${s}\inS$ and a reachability goal $g_\top$ where $g\in\Sigma$ and
$g_\top\inS(g)$, the goal-oriented reduction identifies a subset of local
transitions $T$ that are sufficient for producing all the minimal
traces leading to $g_\top$ from ${s}$.
The reduction procedure takes advantage of the local causality analysis both to
fetch the transitions that matter for the reachability goal and to filter out
objectives that can be statically proven impossible.
\subsection{Necessary condition for local reachability}
\seclabel{gored-filter}
Given an objective $\anobj aij$ and a global state $s\inS$ where
$\get sa=a_i$, prior work has demonstrated necessary conditions
for the existence of a trace leading to $a_j$ from $s$ \cite{PMR12-MSCS,PAK13-CAV}.
Those necessary conditions rely on the local causality analysis defined in
previous section for extracting necessary steps that have to be performed in order
to reach the concerned local state.
Several necessary conditions have been established in \cite{PMR12-MSCS}, taking
into account several features captured by the local paths (dependencies,
sequentiality, partial order constraints, \ldots).
The complexity of deciding most of these necessary conditions is polynomial in
the total number of local transitions and exponential in the maximum number of local states
within an automaton.
In this section, we consider a generic reachability over-approximation predicate
$\valid{{s}}$ which is false only when applied to an objective that
has no trace concretizing it from ${s}$:
$a_j$ is reachable from $s$ with $\get sa=a_i$ only if $\valid{{s}}(\anobj aij)$.
\begin{definition}[$\valid{{s}}$]
Given any objective $\anobj aij\in\mathbf{Obj}$,
$\valid{{s}}(\anobj aij)$ if there exists a trace $\pi$ from ${s}$ such that
$\exists m,n\in\indexes\pi$ with
$m\leq n$, $a_i\in\precond{\pi^m}$, and $a_j\in\postcond{\pi^n}$.
\deflabel{valid}
\end{definition}
\def\Omega{\Omega}
For the sake of self-consistency, we give in \pporef{oa} an instance
implementation of such a predicate.
It is a simplified version of a necessary condition for reachability demonstrated in \cite{PMR12-MSCS}.
Essentially, the set of valid objectives $\Omega$ is built as follows:
initially, it contains all the objectives of the form $\anobj aii$ (that are always valid);
then an objective $\anobj aij$ is added to $\Omega$ only if there exists
a local acyclic path $\eta\in\f{local-paths}(\anobj aij)$
where all the objectives from the initial state $s$ to the enabling conditions
of the transitions are already in $\Omega$:
if $b_k\in\f{enab}(\eta^n)$ for some $n\in\indexes\eta$,
then the objective $\anobj b0k$ is already in the set, assuming $\get sb=b_0$.
\def\f{F}{\f{F}}
\begin{proposition}
\ppolabel{oa}
For all objective $P\in\mathbf{Obj}$,
$\valid{{s}}(P) \stackrel{\Delta}\Leftrightarrow P\in\Omega$
where
$\Omega$ is the least fixed point of the monotonic function
$\f{F}:\powerset{\mathbf{Obj}}\to\powerset{\mathbf{Obj}}$ with
\begin{align*}
\f{F}(\Omega) \stackrel{\Delta}=
\{ \anobj aij\in\mathbf{Obj}&\mid
\exists \eta\in\f{local-paths}(\anobj aij): \\
&
\qquad
\forall n\in\indexes\eta,
\forall b_k\in\f{enab}(\eta^n),
\obj{\get{{s}}b}{b_k}\in\Omega \}
\enspace.
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
Applied to the AN of \figref{example1},
if ${s} = \langle a_0,b_0,c_0,d_0\rangle$,
$\valid{{s}}(\anobj c02)$ is true because
$\antrl c01{a_1}\xrightarrow{b_0} c_2\in\f{local-paths}(\anobj c02)$
with
$\valid{{s}}(\anobj a01)$ true
and
$\valid{{s}}(\anobj b00)$ true.
On the other hand,
$\valid{{s}}(\anobj d01)$ is false.
\medskip
Note that \Pporef{oa} is an instance of $\valid{{s}}$ implementation; any other implementation satisfying
\defref{valid} can be used to apply the reduction proposed in this article.
In \cite{PMR12-MSCS}, more restrictive over-approximations are proposed.
\subsection{Reduction procedure}
\seclabel{gored-proc}
This section depicts the goal-oriented reduction procedure which
aims at identifying transitions that do not take part in any minimal trace
from the given initial state to the goal local state $g_\top$.
The reduction relies on the local causality analysis
to delimit local paths that may be involved in the goal reachability:
any local transitions that is not captured by this analysis can be removed from the model without
affecting the minimal traces for its occurrence.
The reduction procedure (\defref{rlcg}) consists of collecting a set $\mathcal B$ of objectives whose local acyclic paths
may contribute to a minimal trace for the goal reachability.
To ease notations, and without loss of generality, we assume that any
automaton $a$ is in state $a_0$ in ${s}$.
Given an objective, only the local paths where all the enabling conditions lead to valid objectives
are considered ($\rcsol{s}$).
The local transitions corresponding to the objectives in $\mathcal B$ are noted $\tr(\RLCG)$.
Initially starting with the main objective $\anobj g0\top$ (\defref{rlcg}(1)), the procedure
iteratively collects objectives that may be involved for the enabling conditions
of local paths of already collected objectives.
If a transition $\antrl bjk\ell$ is in $\tr(\RLCG)$, for each $a_i\in\ell$, the objective $\anobj a0i$
is added in $\mathcal B$ (\defref{rlcg}(2));
and for each other objective $\anobj b\star i\in\mathcal B$,
the objective $\anobj bki$ is added in $\mathcal B$ (\defref{rlcg}(3)).
Whereas the former criteria references the objectives required for concretizing a local path from the
initial state,
the later criteria accounts for the possible interleaving and successions of
local paths within a same automaton: e.g., $g_\top$ reachability may require to reach
$b_k$ and $b_i$ in some (undefined) order, we then consider 4 objectives: $\anobj b0k$,
$\anobj bki$,
$\anobj b0i$,
and $\anobj bik$.
\begin{definition}[$\mathcal B$]~
Given an AN $(\Sigma,S,T)$,
an initial state ${s}$ where, without loss of generality, $\forall a\in\Sigma$, $\get{{s}}{a}=a_0$,
and a local state $g_\top$ with $g\in\Sigma$ and $g_\top\inS(g)$,
$\mathcal B\subseteq\mathbf{Obj}$ is the smallest set which satisfies the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\obj{g_0}{g_\top}\in\mathcal B$
\item $\antrl{b}{j}{k}{\ell}\in\tr(\RLCG) \Rightarrow
\forall a_i\in\ell, \obj{a_0}{a_i}\in\mathcal B$
\item $\antrl{b}{j}{k}{\ell}\in\tr(\RLCG)
\wedge
\obj{b_\star}{b_i}\in\mathcal B
\Rightarrow
\obj{b_k}{b_i}\in\mathcal B$
\end{enumerate}
\begin{align*}
\text{with}\qquad
\tr(\RLCG) & \stackrel{\Delta}= \bigcup_{P\in\mathcal B} \f{tr}(\rcsol{{s}}(P))\enspace,
\text{ where, $\forall P\in\mathbf{Obj}$,}
\\
\rcsol{s}(P) & \stackrel{\Delta}= \{\eta\in\f{local-paths}(P)\mid \forall n\in\indexes\eta,
\\&\qquad\qquad
\forall b_k\in\f{enab}(\eta^n), \valid{{s}}(\anobj b0k)\}\enspace,
\label{eq:rcsol}
\end{align*}
$\f{enab}(t)$ being the enabling condition of local transition $t$ (\defref{cfsm}).
\deflabel{rlcg}
\end{definition}
\Thmref{gored} states that any trace which is minimal for the reachability of $g_\top$ from initial state
${s}$ is composed only of transitions in $\tr(\RLCG)$.
The proof is given in \supplref{gored-proof}.
It results that the AN $(\Sigma,S,\tr(\RLCG))$ contains less transitions
but preserves all the minimal traces for the reachability of the goal.
\begin{theorem}
For each \emph{minimal} trace $\pi$ reaching $g_\top$ from ${s}$,
$\f{tr}(\pi)\subseteq\tr(\RLCG)$.
\label{thm:gored}
\end{theorem}
\Figref{example1r} shows the results of the reduction on the example AN
of \figref{example1} for the reachability of $c_2$ from the state where
all automata start at $0$.
Basically, the local path from $c_0$ to $c_2$ using $d_1$ being impossible to
concretize (because $\valid{{s}}(\anobj d01)$ is false), it has been removed,
and consequently, so are the transitions involving $b_1$ as $b_1$ is not required for
$c_2$ reachability.
In this example, the subnet computation for reachability properties proposed in
\cite{Talcott2006} would have removed only the transition $\antrl c02{d_1}$ from
\figref{example1}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\input{figures/example1r.pgf}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Reduced automata network from \figref{example1} for the reachability of
$c_2$ from initial state indicated in grey.}
\label{fig:example1r}
\end{figure}
Because the number of objectives is polynomial ($\card{\mathbf{Obj}}=\sum_{a\in\Sigma} \card{S(a)}^2$), the computation
of $\mathcal B$ and $\tr(\RLCG)$ is very efficient, both from a time and space complexity point of view.
The sets $\mathcal B\subseteq \mathbf{Obj}$ and $\tr(\RLCG)\subseteqT$ can be built iteratively, from the empty
sets:
when a new objective $\anobj b\star i$ is inserted in $\mathcal B$,
each transition in $\f{tr}(\rcsol{s}(\anobj b\star i))$ is added in $\tr(\RLCG)$, if not already in;
and for each transition $\antr bjk$ currently in $\tr(\RLCG)$, the objective $\anobj bki$ is added in
$\mathcal B$, if not already in.
When a new transition $\antrl bjk\ell$ is added in $\tr(\RLCG)$,
for each $a_i\in\ell$, the objective $\anobj a0i$ is added in $\mathcal B$, if not already in;
and for each objective $\anobj b\star i$ currently in $\mathcal B$, the objective $\anobj bki$ is added in
$\mathcal B$, if not already in.
Putting aside the $\f{tr}(\rcsol{s})$ computation, the above steps require a polynomial time and a
linear space with respect to the number of transitions and objectives.
The computation of $\f{tr}(\rcsol{s}(\anobj aij))$ requires a time exponential with the number of local
states in automaton $a$ ($\card{S(a)}$), due to the number of acyclic local paths
(\secref{local-causality}), but a quadratic space: indeed, each individual local
acyclic path does not need to be stored, only its set of local transitions, without conditions.
Then, $\valid{{s}}$ is called at most once per objective.
We assume that the complexity of $\valid{{s}}$ is polynomial with the number of automata and
transitions and exponential with the maximum number of local states within an automaton
(it is the case of the one presented in \secref{gored-filter})
Overall, the reduction procedure has a polynomial space complexity ($\card{\mathbf{Obj}} + \card{T}$) and
time complexity polynomial with the total number of automata
and local transitions, and exponential with the maximum number $k$ of local states within an automaton
($k =\max_{a\in\Sigma}\card{S(a)}$).
Therefore, assuming $k \ll \card{\Sigma}$, the goal-oriented reduction offers a very low complexity, especially with regard to a full exploration of the $k^{\card{\Sigma}}$ states.
\section{Experiments with partial reduction}
\suppllabel{partial}
The goal-oriented reduction relies on two intertwined analyses of the local causality in ANs:
(1) the computation of potentially involved objectives (\secref{gored-proc}) and
(2) the filtering of objective that can be proven impossible (\secref{gored-filter}).
The second part can be considered optional: one could simply define the predicate
$\valid{{s}}$ to be always true.
In order to appreciate the effect of this second part, we show here the intermediary results of
model reduction without the filtering of impossible objectives.
It is shown in table below, in the lines in \textit{italic}.
As we can see, for some models it has no effect on the reduction, for some others the filtering
parts is necessary to obtained important reduction of the state space (e.g., MAPK, TCell-r (94),
TCell-d).
\begin{scriptsize}
\begin{longtable}{|:l||^r|^r|^r|}
\hline
Model & \# tr & \# states & |unf| \\\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{EGF-r (20)}
& 68 & 4,200 & 1,749 \\
\rowstyle{\itshape} &
43 & 722 & 336\\
& \textbf{43} & \textbf{722} & \bfseries 336 \\\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{Wnt (32)}
& 197 & 7,260,160 & KO\\
\rowstyle{\itshape} &
134 &241,060 & 217,850\\
\rowstyle{\bf}
& 117 & 241,060 & 217,850 \\\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{TCell-r (40)}
& 90 & $\approx 1.2\cdot 10^{11}$ &KO\\
\rowstyle{\itshape}
& 46 & 25,092 & 14,071 \\
\rowstyle{\bf}
& 46 & 25,092 & 14,071 \\\hline
MAPK (53)
& 173 & $\approx 3.8\cdot 10^{12}$ &KO\\
profile 1
\rowstyle{\itshape} &
147 & $\approx 9\cdot 10^{10}$ & KO \\
\rowstyle{\bf}
& 113 & $\mathbf{\approx 4.5\cdot 10^{10}}$ & KO \\\hline
MAPK (53)
& 173 & 8,126,465 & KO \\
profile 2 \rowstyle{\itshape}
& 148 & 1,523,713 & KO \\
\rowstyle{\bf}
& 69 & 269,825 & 155,327 \\\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{VPC (88)}
& 332 & KO & KO \\
\rowstyle{\itshape}
& 278 & $\approx 2.9\cdot 10^{12}$ & 185,006\\
\rowstyle{\bf}
& 219 & $\mathbf{1.8\cdot 10^9}$ & 43,302 \\\hline
\multirow{3}{*}{TCell-r (94)}
& 217& KO & KO \\
\rowstyle{\itshape}
& 112 & KO & KO\\
& \textbf{42} & \textbf{54.921} & \bf 1,017 \\\hline
TCell-d (101) &
384 & $\approx 2.7\cdot 10^8$ & 257 \\
profile 1
\rowstyle{\itshape} &
275 & $\approx 1.1\cdot 10^8$ & 159\\
\rowstyle{\bf} &
0 & 1 & 1 \\\hline
TCell-d (101) &
384 & KO & KO \\
profile 2
\rowstyle{\itshape}&
253 & $\approx 2.4\cdot 10^{12}$ & KO \\
\rowstyle{\bf} &
161 & 75,947,684 & KO \\\hline
EGF-r (104) &
378 & 9,437,184 & 47,425 \\
profile 1
\rowstyle{\itshape} &
120 & 12,288 & 1,711\\
&
\textbf{0} & \textbf{1} & \textbf{1} \\\hline
EGF-r (104) &
378 & $\approx 2.7 \cdot 10^{16}$ & KO\\
profile 2
\rowstyle{\itshape} &
124 & $\approx 2\cdot 10^9$ & KO\\
\rowstyle{\bf} &
69 & 62,914,560 & KO\\\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{RBE2F (370)} &
742 & KO & KO \\
\rowstyle{\itshape}&
56 & 2,350,494 & 28,856 \\
\rowstyle{\bf} &
56 & 2,350,494 & 28,856 \\\hline
\end{longtable}
\end{scriptsize}
|
\section{Introduction}
\noindent Understanding the origin of turbulence in accretion disks is a long-standing problem in astrophysics~\citep{JiBa13}.
The simplest model for the flow of gas in an accretion disk consists of an isothermal incompressible constant density fluid
rotating with a Keplerian angular velocity $\Omega \propto r^{-3/2}$, where $r$ is the distance to the accreting central object.
Despite the hydrodynamic stability of such flows to small disturbances~\citep{Ra17},
the possibility of a nonlinear transition to turbulence via finite-amplitude disturbances is not precluded.
However, this has not been demonstrated and so several mechanisms capable of destabilizing Keplerian flows have been proposed
in the literature \citep[see][for a recent review]{Tuetal14}.
Prominent amongst these is the magnetorotational instability~\citep[MRI, see][]{BaHa98,Ba03},
which can drive vigorous turbulence and transport angular momentum at rates required for accretion to occur.
However, the MRI operates in ionized disks only and so it does not apply to cool protostellar disks.
There are many mechanisms that might give rise to turbulence in the absence of magnetic fields:
baroclinic instabilities~\citep{KlaBo03,JoGa06,PeStJu07},
instabilities driven by radial~\citep{GoSch67,Fr68,UrBra98} or axial stratification~\citep{ShaRu05,DuMaNoRiHeZa05,MaPeJiBaLe15},
crossflow instabilities~\citep{Ker15}, convective instabilities~\citep{LiPa80,RyGo92} or self-gravitation~\citep{To64,LiPri87}.
Nevertheless, their applicability to accretion disks is still under investigation.
Whereas there is an understanding of the underlying instability mechanisms,
their non-linear evolution and saturated state have still to be studied in realistic disk simulations
with the proper radiation transport and analysing the effect of the boundary conditions.
\noindent In general, the lack of observational evidence and the computational limitations in simulating the extreme
parameter values governing the dynamics of accretion disks makes them a particularly difficult object to study \citep[see e.g.][]{Miesch15}.
This has motivated the development of laboratory experiments capturing the essential physics at play.
Quasi-Keplerian flows, for which the angular velocity decreases radially, whereas the angular momentum increases, can in principle be realized
in laboratory experiments of fluids between two concentric rotating cylinders (Taylor--Couette flow).
If the cylinders are assumed to be infinite in length the basic laminar flow is purely azimuthal
\begin{equation}\label{Couetteflow}
v(r)=\frac{\Omega_o r_o^2-\Omega_ir_i^2}{r_o^2-r_i^2}r+
\frac{(\Omega_i-\Omega_o)(r_ir_o)^2}{r_o^2-r_i^2}\frac{1}{r},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\Omega_i$ ($\Omega_o$) and $r_i$ ($r_o$) are the angular velocity and radius of the inner (outer) cylinder.
Provided that $\Omega_i>\Omega_o$ but $r_i^2\Omega_i<r_o^2\Omega_o$ then the basic \emph{Couette} flow~\eqref{Couetteflow} is quasi-Keplerian.
Despite the apparent simplicity of this model, laboratory realizations of quasi-Keplerian velocity profiles are fraught with difficulty.
In practice, the viscous interaction between fluid and end-plates confining the fluid in the axial direction results in secondary flows,
also known as Ekman circulation (EC). EC can extend deep into the bulk flow and cause the azimuthal velocity to significantly
deviate from the theoretical profile~\eqref{Couetteflow} as the rotation speeds increase~\citep{RiZa99,hollerbach2004}.
\noindent Pioneering experiments of quasi-Keplerian flows were conducted by \cite{JiBuSchGo06}, who used a short height-to-gap aspect ratio and end plates
split into two independently rotating rings. \cite{JiBuSchGo06} carefully adjusted the rotation speed of the rings so as to minimize EC and
measured Reynolds stresses in the bulk. They concluded that the bulk flow was laminar despite reaching Reynolds numbers of up to $10^6$.
These results were questioned by \cite{PaLa11}, who used a tall apparatus with end plates attached to the outer cylinder.
\cite{PaLa11} split the inner cylinder vertically in three sections and measured the torque on the central section so as to reduce
the effect of the end plates in their measurements. However, \citet{Av12} performed direct numerical simulations
reproducing the precise geometry of \cite{JiBuSchGo06} and \cite{PaLa11} and showed that in both setups strong EC render the
flows turbulent at Reynolds numbers as low as $10^3$. Although his simulations were consistent with the turbulent flows
observed by \cite{PaLa11}, as confirmed by subsequent experiments~\citep{NoHuVdVSunLoLa15}, they were in apparent
contradiction with the laminar flows observed by \cite{JiBuSchGo06}.
More recently, \cite{EdJi14} attributed this discrepancy to the large gap in Reynolds numbers between simulations and experiments.
They directly measured velocity profiles in a new experimental setup and showed that if the end plates are rotated within a certain range of velocities,
hereafter referred to as optimal boundary conditions, quasi-Keplerian Couette flow \eqref{Couetteflow} is obtained and remains stable even
when subject to strong disturbances.
We here perform direct numerical simulations of experimental quasi-Keplerian flows for Reynolds numbers up to $50,000$.
We show that as the Reynolds number increases, turbulence becomes progressively confined to thin boundary layers at the end plates.
As a result laminar quasi-Keplerian profiles are realized in the bulk of the experiment. We provide a detailed picture of the relaminarisation
process and the role of the boundary conditions for two distinct configurations studied by \cite{EdJi15}.
Our results bridge the gap between experiments and previous simulations and
support the experimental conclusion that constant density isothermal quasi-Keplerian Taylor--Couette flows are stable.
\section{Specification of the problem and numerical methods}
A fluid of kinematic viscosity $\nu$ is contained in
the annular gap between two vertical
concentric cylinders of length $h$ and radii $r_i$ and $r_o$.
The subindex $i$ ($o$) denotes the inner (outer) cylinder and $d = r_o-r_i$ is the gap width.
Differential rotation is generated by rotating the cylinders
at independent angular velocities $\Omega_i$ and $\Omega_o$.
The shear Reynolds number, $R_s$, and the rotation number, $R_\Omega$,
were chosen as control parameters
\begin{equation}\label{control_params}
R_s = \dfrac{\tilde{S} d^2}{\nu},
\qquad
R_\Omega = \dfrac{2\tilde{\Omega}}{\tilde{S}},
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{S}$ and $\tilde{\Omega}$ are the shear and rotation speed of the basic Couette flow \eqref{Couetteflow}
evaluated at the mean geometric radius $\tilde{r}=\sqrt{r_i r_o}$. The rotation number allows for a clear distinction between
cyclonic ($R_\Omega > 0$) and anticyclonic ($R_\Omega < 0$) flows.
It has been widely used to characterize different rotation regimes of the Taylor--Couette
experiments and to compare results for different geometries~\citep{DuDaDaLoRiZa05,RaDeWe10,PaVgDuSunLo12}.
In astrophysics $q = -\frac{d \ln \Omega}{d \ln r}$ is used to characterise the rotation law.
The flow is quasi-Keplerian if $R_\Omega$ ($q$) is chosen within the range
$-\infty < R_\Omega < -1$ ($0 < q < 2$). In the simulations presented in this paper,
$R_\Omega = -1.038$ ($q = 1.93$) was chosen, corresponding to the experiments of~\cite{JiBuSchGo06}
and simulations of~\cite{Av12}, and close to the value $q = 1.8$ chosen by \cite{EdJi14}.
Their apparatus is axially bounded by two horizontal plates
which rotate differentially with respect to the cylinders.
These end plates can be further split into
several independently rotating rings whose angular velocities
can be adjusted to best approximate~\eqref{Couetteflow}.
The geometry of their apparatus is fully specified by
two dimensionless parameters: the radius ratio,
$\eta = r_i/r_o = 0.3478$, and the length-to-gap aspect ratio,
$\Gamma = h/d = 2.1$.
Different configurations of this apparatus
differ from one another in the number of
rings into which the end plates are split.
Here, we study in detail two configurations,
the so-called \emph{HTX} and \emph{wide ring} (\emph{WR}),
in which only one ring rotates differentially with respect
to the cylinders. In the \emph{HTX} configuration
(dashed line in figure~\ref{axial_bounconds} $(a)$)
the end plates are split in three rings. The inner and outer rings
are attached to the cylinders, whereas the central ring rotates
at an angular velocity $\Omega_e$ intermediate to those of
the cylinders. In the \emph{WR} configuration
(solid line in figure~\ref{axial_bounconds} $(a)$)
there is a single ring that spans the entire annulus but also rotates independently. The dot-dashed line
in figure~\ref{axial_bounconds} $(a)$ illustrates the boundary conditions of \cite{JiBuSchGo06}, who designed
their device to study the magnetorotational instability by using electrically conducting fluids and
an imposed axial magnetic field. We will refer to this configuration as \emph{MRI}.
\begin{figure}\setlength{\piclen}{0.35\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
$(a)$ & $(b)$ & $(c)$ \\
\includegraphics[width=0.65\piclen]{axial_bc} &
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{wide_torque} &
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{HTX_torque} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{$(a)$ Rotation speed of the end plates ($\Omega_e$) normalised
by the rotation speed of the inner cylinder ($\Omega_i$)
in the \emph{WR}, \emph{HTX} and \emph{MRI} configurations.
$(b)$ Torque ($G$) on the cylinders and end plates in the
the \emph{WR} configuration as a function of $\Omega_e$.
$G$ is normalised by the torque of the Couette profile~\eqref{Couetteflow}
($G_\text{Couette}$). The optimal rotation range is enclosed in a rectangular box.
$(c)$ Same as in $(b)$ for the \emph{HTX} configuration. In both $(b)$ and
$(c)$ torques were computed at $R_s = 644$.}
\label{axial_bounconds}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Numerical method}
The Navier--Stokes equations have been solved in cylindrical coordinates using a second
order time-splitting method \citep{HuRa98,MeBaAl10}. The spatial discretization
is via a Galerkin-Fourier expansion in $\theta$ and Chebyshev
collocation in $r$ and $z$. Hereafter the radial $u$, azimuthal $v$ and axial $w$ velocities
are normalized with respect to the characteristic velocity $\tilde{S} d$ used in the definition
of the shear Reynolds number \eqref{control_params}. The code used is a parallelized version of
a spectral solver that has been widely tested~\citep{AGLM08,LoMa15,LoMaAv15}. Details of the
parallelization strategy can be found in~\cite{ShiRaHoAv15}.
In the \emph{WR} and \emph{HTX} configurations there are discontinuities in the angular velocity
at the junctions where elements rotating at different speeds meet.
For an accurate use of spectral techniques these discontinuities
must be regularised (see~\cite{LoSh98}). In the \emph{WR} configuration
this is accomplished through the introduction of two exponential functions in the form
\begin{equation}\label{Om_wide}
\begin{split}
\Omega(r) = \Omega_e+(\Omega_o - \Omega_e)e^{-(r-r_o)/\epsilon}\\
+(\Omega_i-\Omega_e)e^{(r-r_i)/\epsilon},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
whereas in the \emph{HTX} configuration two hyperbolic tangent functions are used
\begin{equation}\label{Om_HTX}
\begin{split}
\Omega(r) = 0.5(\Omega_i+\Omega_o + (\Omega_o - \Omega_e)\,\tanh((r-\hat{r_o})/\epsilon)\\
+(\Omega_e-\Omega_i)\,\tanh((r-\hat{r_i})/\epsilon)),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\hat{r_o}=r_i+0.48$ and $\hat{r_i}=r_i+0.071$ are the radial locations
at which the central ring meets the outer and inner rings respectively.
In both cases $\epsilon = 0.01$ was used.
The numerical resolution was carefully chosen in order to meet several requirements.
First, we checked that the total angular momentum flux through cylinders and end plates vanished in
the statistically stationary regime.
Second, we gradually increased the number of collocation points until
converged values of the torque at the inner and outer cylinders were obtained.
Finally, we checked the spectral
convergence of the code using the infinity norm of the spectral
coefficients of the computed solutions, defined as
$||a_l||_\infty=\max_{n,m}\,|a_{l,n,m}|$ for the radial direction, and
analogously for the axial and azimuthal directions. An example of
spatial convergence is illustrated
in figure~\ref{converge}, which shows $||a_j||_\infty$, with
$j=l,n,m$, of the radial velocity $u$ for a solution corresponding to
the \emph{HTX} configuration at $R_s=25747$. This solution was computed with
$L=360$ and $N=221$ Chebyshev axial points in $r$ and $z$,
and $M=320$ Fourier modes in $\theta$. In all simulations
the trailing coefficients of the spectral expansion
were at least four orders of magnitude
smaller than the leading coefficients.
Table~\ref{res} shows the spatial resolution
corresponding to the largest $R_s$
simulated for each configuration. The reader is referred to~\cite{BrEck13}
for a comprehensive analysis on the suitability of
these convergence criteria for Taylor--Couette flows
at large Reynolds numbers.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{convergence_test.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Convergence of the spectral coefficients
of the radial velocity $u$ in the three spatial
directions using the infinity norm.
It corresponds to a simulation of the \emph{HTX} configuration at $R_s= 25747$.
This solution has been computed with $L=360$
Chebyshev radial points, $M=320$ Fourier modes and $N=221$
Chebyshev axial points.}
\label{converge}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c}
Configuration & $L$ & $N$ & $M$ & $R_s$\\\hline
\emph{WR} & 128 & 256 & 544 & 47630\\
\emph{HTX} & 392 & 642 & 224 & 32180\\
\emph{MRI} & 192 & 192 & 288 & 12874\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ Maximum spatial resolution and $R_s$ for
each configuration. $L$,$N$ and $M$ indicate the number of spectral modes
in the radial, azimuthal and axial directions, respectively.}
\label{res}
\end{table}
\subsection{Optimal boundary conditions}\label{sec:opt}
Following~\cite{EdJi15}, we here determine the optimal rotation speed of the end plates
from a balance of the angular momentum
fluxes (torque) through the boundaries of the apparatus.
In particular, optimal rotation is identified when
the torque at the end plates ($G_e$) becomes zero,
so that the torque on the cylinders
has the same magnitude but opposite sign,
$G_i = -G_o$, as in the infinite-cylinder idealization.
Figures~\ref{axial_bounconds} $(b)$ and $(c)$ show the torque across the cylinders and end plates
as a function of $\Omega_e$ for solutions computed
at $R_s = 644$ in both configurations. In agreement with~\cite{EdJi15},
in both cases there exist a narrow
range of $\Omega_e$ for which $G_e = 0$ is
approximately fulfilled
(rectangular box in figures~\ref{axial_bounconds} $(b)$ and $(c)$).
For our simulations we chose
$\Omega_{e} = 0.62 \Omega_i$ (\emph{HTX}) and $\Omega_{e} = 0.21 \Omega_i$ (\emph{WR}).
Note that the torque in the \emph{WR}
configuration is substantially larger than
in the \emph{HTX} setup. The reason for this will
be discussed in \S\ref{sec:low_Re}, along with the description
of the secondary flows in both setups.
\section{Basic flow and transition to turbulence}\label{sec:low_Re}
\subsection{Wide ring}\label{sec:low_wide}
Figure~\ref{meridional} $(a)$ shows that in the \emph{WR} configuration
the secondary EC cells extend
over the entire annulus.
Near the end plates, the flow is deflected radially towards
the cylinders leading to two
Ekman vortices with opposite sense of
circulation. The size and intensity of these
vortices change with $\Omega_e$
and it is only under optimal boundary conditions that
these have nearly equal size
and strength ($\max |u| = 0.08$).
When the fluid reaches the cylinders
it is transported from the end plates to the mid-plane over
Stewartson boundary layers. As a result,
two strong radial jets emerge from the cylinders and
displace the flow towards mid-gap. The circulation
cycle is then closed by two vertical cells
that transport the fluid back to the end plates.
These large-scale secondary flows
lead to linear instabilities that
manifest themselves at the equatorial region~\citep{AGLM08,Av12},
and cause a transition to turbulence at low values of
$R_s$. Figure~\ref{eigenandturbulent} $(a)$ shows, through isosurfaces of the
radial velocity $u$, the location of the most unstable mode
at the onset of instability. Note that
the axisymmetric part of $u$ has been subtracted
to facilitate visualization. The flow pattern emerging from
this primary transition, which takes place at $R_s \approx 865$,
is a rotating wave with azimuthal wave number $m=2$. As $R_s$
is further increased, the flow undergoes secondary instabilities
leading to either rotating waves with different $m$ or quasi-periodic
states, and becomes eventually turbulent at $R_s \approx 3218$.
Figure~\ref{eigenandturbulent} $(c)$ shows isosurfaces of $u$
for a turbulent state computed at $R_s=3862$.
Interestingly, the turbulence does not extend towards the end plates
but remains concentrated around the mid-plane.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}\setlength{\piclen}{0.2\linewidth}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{$(a)$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$(b)$} \\
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{wide_radial_Re500.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{wide_axial_Re500.pdf}&
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{HTX_radial_Re500.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{HTX_axial_Re500.pdf} \\
$u$ & $w$ & $u$ & $w$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ Meridional sections $(r,z)$ showing color maps of
the radial (left panel) and axial (right panel) velocities in the \emph{WR} $(a)$ and
\emph{HTX} $(b)$ configurations. The solutions depicted correspond in both cases to laminar flow
computed at $Re_s = 644$. In all figures shown in this paper, dark (light) regions
indicate zones of positive (negative) velocities. There are $20$ contours equally distributed
in $u \in [-0.08,0.06]$, $w \in [-0.11,0.11]$ and $u \in [-0.02,0.08]$, $w \in [-0.07,0.07]$
for the \emph{WR} and \emph{HTX} configurations respectively.}
\label{meridional}
\end{figure}
\subsection{HTX}\label{sec:low_HTX}
Figure~\ref{meridional} $(b)$ shows that in the \emph{HTX} configuration
the secondary EC is mainly confined to the vicinity of the end plates.
Because of the split end plates, the radial flow along them
is arranged in four alternating outward-inward vortices
which direct the flow towards the junctions between the rings.
The pair of vortices located at the outermost part of
the end plates are significantly larger and more intense ($\max |u| = 0.08$)
than those arising near the inner cylinder ($\max |u| = 0.02$).
Significant axial transport of fluid towards
the mid-plane occurs only
in a narrow region around mid-gap. However,
the flow does not reach the mid-plane,
as it is recirculated towards the inner cylinder
by a strong radial inflow that arise at an approximately intermediate
distance between the end plates and
the equatorial region. Finally,
the flow is pushed back towards
the end plates by axial velocities
arising in the regions near the cylinders.
A comparison with the \emph{WR} configuration reveals that
the substantial difference in torque
shown in section~\ref{sec:opt} is caused by the influence of
the Stewartson boundary layers that form at the cylinders in
the \emph{WR} configuration. These produce strong
azimuthal velocity gradients near the cylinders,
which result in a significant increase of the torque
as compared with that in the \emph{HTX} configuration.
The meridional circulation in the HTX configuration becomes unstable
at $R_s \approx 727$. The instability results in a rotating wave
with $m=5$ localised at the end plates (see figure~\ref{eigenandturbulent} $(b)$),
and the flow becomes quickly chaotic as $R_s$ is increased ($R_s \approx 1287$).
Nevertheless, the turbulence remains primarily localised
near the upper and lower third of the experiment (see figure~\ref{eigenandturbulent} $(d)$),
so that the zonal flow at the equatorial region is barely
affected by the secondary flows and nearly matches a quasi-Keplerian velocity profile,
see \S\ref{sec:high_HTX}.
\begin{figure}\setlength{\piclen}{0.22\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
$(a)$ & $(b)$ & $(c)$ & $(d)$\\
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{wide_eigen_Re700} &
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{HTX_eigen_Re600}&
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{wide_turbulent_Re3000} &
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{HTX_turbulent_Re3000}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{$(a)$ and $(b)$ show isosurfaces of the radial velocity of
the leading eigenmodes near the onset of instability.
The axisymmetric component has been subtracted to facilitate visualization of the spatial structure
of the unstable mode. $(a)$ Equatorial rotating wave with $m=2$ computed at $R_s=772$ in the \emph{WR} configuration, $(b)$
Rotating wave with $m=5$ localised near the end plates for $R_s=901$
in the \emph{HTX} configuration. $(c)$ and $(d)$ show isosurfaces of the radial velocity for
turbulent states computed at $R_s=3862$ in the \emph{WR} $(c)$ and
\emph{HTX} $(d)$ configurations. There are $6$ isosurfaces equally distributed
across $u \in [-0.13,0.12]$ and $u \in [-0.09,0.14]$ in the \emph{WR} and
\emph{HTX} configurations respectively.}
\label{eigenandturbulent}
\end{figure}
\section{Dynamics at high Reynolds numbers}
As the rotation of the cylinders is increased
the spatial arrangement of the secondary flows
undergo significant changes in both configurations,
which alter the structure of the resulting turbulence.
While this transition occurs smoothly with increasing $R_s$,
we here distinguish between low and high Reynolds numbers
using $R_s \approx 10^4$ as an approximate threshold,
beyond which the changes described in this section begin
to become apparent.
\subsection{Wide ring}
Figure~\ref{meridional_high} $(a)$ shows the structure
of the time-averaged secondary flow for the \emph{WR} configuration at $R_s=19302$. Here
the radial jets that emanate from the cylinders
at the equatorial region do not extend across the entire gap,
but remain localised in regions closer to the cylinders.
The gradual displacement of these
jets towards the cylinders as $R_s$ increases
is accompanied by the emergence of
two pairs of radial flow cells on top and
bottom of them. These radial cells
recirculate the flow towards the cylinders,
so that the vertical transport of
fluid from the equator towards the end plates
that closes the Ekman circulation cycle is also confined
to the vicinity of the cylinders.
As a result, the radial and axial velocities are nearly zero over the
central region of the gap and
the flow becomes essentially azimuthal in the bulk, resulting in vanishing Reynolds stresses.
The turbulent dynamics of this system is confined to
the region in which the radial equatorial jets penetrate into the bulk flow. Hence as $R_s$ increases and the secondary flows occupy regions closer to
the cylinders, significant turbulent fluctuations are only
found in the vicinity of the cylinders.
Figure~\ref{turb_evol} $(a)$ clearly illustrates
the progressive localisation of the turbulence
near the cylinders as $R_s$ increases. Interestingly,
turbulent structures occur mainly near
the inner cylinder, which could be related
to the large curvature of the apparatus ($\eta=r_i/r_o=0.3478$).
Figure~\ref{profiles_wide} $(a)$ shows
the mean azimuthal velocity $v$ for
$R_s=47630$. With the exception of the zones
near the cylinders, where the flow is obviously
affected by the turbulence, it is observed
that $v$ is nearly independent of the
axial coordinate. This is
confirmed in figure~\ref{profiles_wide} $(b)$,
where $v(r)$ is shown at three different
axial locations. Although these profiles collapse together, they differ substantially
from the desired quasi-Keplerian velocity
profile~\eqref{Couetteflow}, shown as
a (black) solid line in figure~\ref{profiles_wide} $(b)$. Interestingly, despite
vanishing fluctuations (and hence Reynolds stresses) in the bulk, the profile is far
from ideal because of the effect of the global EC.
\begin{figure}\setlength{\piclen}{0.22\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{$(a)$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$(b)$} \\
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{Re13000_wide_radial.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{Re13000_wide_axial.pdf}&
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{mean_radial_Re22529_HTX.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{mean_axial_Re22529_HTX.pdf} \\
$u$ & $w$ & $u$ & $w$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ Meridional sections $(r,z)$ showing color maps of the mean radial (left panel) and axial (right panel) velocities in
the \emph{WR} $(a)$ and \emph{HTX} $(b)$ configurations. The solutions depicted were computed at $R_s = 19310$ in
$(a)$ and $R_s=22529$ in $(b)$. There are $20$ contours equally distributed
in $u \in [-0.16,0.08]$, $w \in [-0.17,0.17]$ and $u \in [-0.07,0.10]$, $w \in [-0.06,0.06]$
for the \emph{WR} and \emph{HTX} configurations respectively.}
\label{meridional_high}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}\setlength{\piclen}{0.33\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
& $(a)$ \emph{WR} & \\
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{wide_turbulent_Re11586} &
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{wide_turbulent_Re27035}&
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{wide_turbulent_Re47630} \\
$R_s=11586$ & $R_s=27035$ & $R_s=47630$ \\
& $(b)$ \emph{HTX} & \\
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{HTX_turbulent_Re9655} &
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{HTX_turbulent_Re19310}&
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{HTX_turbulent_Re32180} \\
$R_s=9655$ & $R_s=19310$ & $R_s=32180$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ Evolution of the isosurfaces of the radial velocity $u$ with $R_s$ in both configurations.
There are $2$ isosurfaces corresponding to $u= \pm 0.04$ in both cases. Note that plots corresponding to the \emph{WR} configuration
are slightly tilted to better illustrate the gradual displacement of the turbulence towards the cylinders.}
\label{turb_evol}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{HTX}\label{sec:high_HTX}
Figure~\ref{meridional_high} $(b)$ shows the structure of the time-averaged secondary meridional flow for the \emph{HTX} configuration at $R_s=22529$.
As $R_s$ increases both radial and axial velocities are progressively confined to the end plates,
resulting in an increasingly larger region where the flow remains nearly purely azimuthal.
There is a fraction of the secondary flow generated at the end plates that
is transported to the equator over
a boundary layer at the inner cylinder. The formation of this boundary layer leads
to the emergence of two large-scale circulation cells,
which are progressively confined to the inner cylinder as
$R_s$ is increased. These cells are similar to but significantly weaker
than those in the \emph{WR} configuration.
Turbulent fluctuations
are also progressively confined to the end plates as $R_s$ increases (see~figure~\ref{turb_evol} $(b)$).
Some fluctuations caused by the
large-scale recirculation flow may also occur
in the vicinity of the inner cylinder. However,
given their low intensity, it can be stated that the flow
remains nearly laminar when sufficiently far from the end plates.
As seen in figure~\ref{profiles_wide} $(c)$, the mean azimuthal
velocity is only significantly affected by the secondary flows
in the vicinity of the end plates. Hence, negligible differences
were found when measuring radial profiles of the mean azimuthal velocity
in the bulk at different axial locations (see figure~\ref{profiles_wide} $(c)$).
Despite large-scale secondary flows develop at the inner cylinder,
unlike for the \emph{WR} configuration,
these are not sufficiently strong as to significantly modify
the azimuthal velocity. As a result,
the azimuthal velocity profiles in this configuration
closely approximate the desired quasi-Keplerian
Couette flow~\eqref{Couetteflow}.
It should be noted that \cite{EdJi14}
reported velocity profiles with a small but noticiable
deviations from~\eqref{Couetteflow} near the inner cylinder.
Such deviations suggest that, while the turbulence at the inner cylinder
does not affect the bulk flow in
our simulations, its influence might not be entirely negligible
in experiments at larger $R_s$.
\begin{figure}\setlength{\piclen}{0.16\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
$(a)$ & $(b)$ & $(c)$ & $(d)$ \\
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{mean_azi_Re47630_wide.pdf} &
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{profiles_Re37000_wide.pdf}&
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{mean_azi_Re32180_HTX.pdf} &
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{profiles_Re25d3_HTX}\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{ $(a)$ and $(c)$ show color maps and contours illustrating the mean azimuthal velocity $v$
in the \emph{WR} and \emph{HTX} configurations respectively, whereas
radial profiles of $v$ computed at three different axial locations are shown
in $(b)$ \emph{WR} and $(d)$ \emph{HTX}. In both cases the solution depicted
corresponds to the maximum $R_s$ achieved in our simulations, $R_s=47630$ in $(a)$ and $(b)$, and $R_s=32180$ in $(c)$ and $(d)$.
There are $40$ contours equally distributed across the full range of $v$. The (black)
shows the quasi-Keplerian velocity profile~\eqref{Couetteflow} that would be achieved
The horizontal lines superimposed upon figure $(a)$ indicate the axial locations at which the azimuthal velocity profiles
have been computed.}
\label{profiles_wide}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Dynamics of the \emph{MRI} configuration}\label{sec:MRI}
\cite{Av12} performed direct numerical simulations of the \emph{MRI} configuration of \citet{JiBuSchGo06} up to $R_s=6437$,
for which turbulence was found to fill the entire domain.
Here we extend the range of Reynolds numbers by a factor of two.
First of all, we note that the rotation speeds of the end-plate rings used by \cite{JiBuSchGo06} are not optimal
and result in large torque at the end plates. At low $R_s$, the meridional circulation resembles that of the \emph{WR} configuration (see figure 1 in~\cite{Av12}),
with a strong radial jet located at the equatorial region. However, unlike the \emph{WR}, the radial flow at the end plates is entirely inward,
and so there is a single large-scale circulation cell in the upper and lower half of the experiment
As in the \emph{WR} configuration the large scale circulation cells and
turbulent motions cluster here progressively near the inner cylinder (see figures~\ref{second_MRI} $(a)$ and $(b)$),
leaving a nearly azimuthal and laminar flow in the remaining part of the gap.
Figures~\ref{second_MRI} $(c)$ and $(d)$ show the time-averaged azimuthal velocity $v$ and radial profiles of $v$ at $R_s = 12874$ respectively.
Here $v(r)$ is also nearly uniform in the axial direction, but differs from the theoretical Couette flow~\eqref{Couetteflow}.
Hence we conclude that although \cite{JiBuSchGo06} measured negligible Reynolds stresses in the bulk of their experiment,
their flows were strongly turbulent in thin boundary layers at the cylinders.
Interestingly, in the bulk the profiles are in fact quasi-Keplerian yet substantially shifted with respect
to Couette flow because of the sharp drop at the cylinder boundary layers. Similar velocity profiles for this configuration
were reported in the numerical simulations of ~\cite{obabko2008} and experiments of~\cite{ScJiBuGo12}, who speculated that the deviation in the profiles near the inner cylinder might
be caused by the existence of turbulent Stewartson boundary layers.
\begin{figure}\setlength{\piclen}{0.16\linewidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
$(a)$ & $(b)$ & $(c)$ & $(d)$\\
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{radial_MRI} &
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{axial_MRI}&
\includegraphics[width=\piclen]{azi_MRI} &
\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{profiles_MRI}\\
$u$ & $w$ & $v$ ~ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{$(a)$, $(b)$ and $(c)$ show meridional sections $(r,z)$ illustrating the mean radial,
axial and azimuthal velocities in the \emph{MRI} configuration
for a solution computed at $R_s = 12874$. $20$ contours
equally distributed across $u \in [-0.15,0.03]$, $w \in [-0.17,0.17]$ and $v \in [0.06,0.78]$ have been added.
$(d)$ Radial profiles of $v$ computed at the same axial locations as
in figure~\ref{profiles_wide}.}
\label{second_MRI}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion and conclusions}
We have performed direct numerical simulations of the flow in a Taylor-Couette device that \cite{EdJi14}
specifically designed to infer the hydrodynamic stability of constant-density Keplerian flows.
A first interesting observation is that the occurrence of turbulence at low $R_s$ appears to be
a robust feature of quasi-Keplerian Taylor--Couette flows.
Nevertheless, turbulence manifests itself differently depending on axial boundary conditions.
In the \emph{WR} configuration, as well as in the \emph{HTX} and \emph{MRI} configurations if the boundary conditions are not optimal,
as in \cite{JiBuSchGo06}, the end plates drive a large-scale EC which gives rise to strongly turbulent boundary layers at the cylinders.
In contrast, when the \emph{HTX} configuration is operated under optimal boundary conditions,
the EC and associated turbulence is localised near the end plates.
As $R_s$ increases turbulence localises to thin boundary layers, whereas the flow in the bulk becomes nearly azimuthal and axially uniform.
The progressive relaminarisation of the bulk flow observed in these configurations does not however imply that they are all adequate
to infer the stability of astrophysical flows. As reported in~\cite{EdJi15}, the azimuthal velocity profiles achieved in the \emph{WR} configuration
differ substantially from a quasi-Keplerian profile, even in their optimal regime of operation, whereas laminar Couette profiles can be realized in
the \emph{HTX} configuration with optimal boundary conditions. \cite{LePaAuDaKe16} showed that quasi-Keplerian
profiles can also be achieved in experiments if stable stratification is added near the end plates.
However, this method becomes impractical for the large Reynolds numbers investigated in
the Princeton experiments.
It is remarkable that in spite of the nearly one order of magnitude gap in Reynolds numbers between our simulations
and the experiments of \cite{EdJi15}, the azimuthal velocity profiles are indistinguishable.
This suggests that, despite the turbulent boundary layers, the velocity profiles exhibit self-similar behaviour,
in agreement with the observations~\cite{EdJi15}.
Taken together, these results show that isothermal constant density quasi-Keplerian Taylor--Couette flows are stable at least up to
$R_s=\mathcal{O}(10^6)$. Noteworthy, for $\eta=0.3478$ and $Re=10^6$ the energy of disturbances imposed to the laminar flow can be
transiently amplified up to a factor of $G=408$ \citep[see eq.~(5.1) in][]{Maretzke_jfm2014}.
Hence it seems that for quasi-Keplerian flows linear transient growth is a poor indicator of turbulence transition.
Our results highlight that experiments of astrophysical flows cannot only rely on measuring velocity fluctuations alone,
because vanishing Reynolds stresses do not imply quasi-Keplerian velocity profiles.
Similarly, torque measurements are inadequate because they cannot be used to infer the level of turbulence in the bulk,
which may be laminar despite highly turbulent boundary layers.
We remark that the experiments simulated here were performed with a constant density fluid,
whereas in accretion disks the gas is strongly stratified in the axial and radial directions.
Hence the results shown here apply to barotropic gases only.
For stratified quasi-Keplerian flows several instabilities have been reported.
Examples are the strato-rotational instability~\citep{MoMcWiJaYa01,BaGal07},
the radiative instability~\citep{LeDiRie10,riedinger2011radiative},
the zombie vortex instability~\citep{MaPeJiBaLe15,LeLa16},
the vertical shear instability~\citep{UrBra98,NeGrUm13} and
the subcritical global instability~\citep{KlaBo03,JoGa06,PeStJu07}.
The ability to realize quasi-Keplerian velocity profiles
in experiments at large Reynolds numbers
opens up avenues for new experimental investigations of some of these instabilities
and their underlying mechanisms. Candidates
are the vertical shear instability or
subcritical global instability, which could be addressed with experiments of radially stratified
Taylor--Couette flows including thermal relaxation, or the zombie vortex instability,
which could be studied in a Taylor--Couette setup subject to strong stable stratification in the vertical
direction. Nevertheless, additional issues related to the interplay between
end plates and stratification must be first addressed~\citep{LoMaAv15}.
\acknowledgments
We are grateful to red Espa\~nola de Supercomputaci\'on (RES) and the Regionales Rechenzentrum Erlangen (RRZE) for the computational resources provided.
|
\section{Introduction}
There has been a lot of recent interest in equilibrium correlations of conserved quantities in one-dimensional Hamiltonian systems, in particular in the form of the temporal-relaxation for a system in equilibrium. Remarkable predictions have been obtained for the form of spatio-temporal correlations in systems of one-dimensional fluids and anharmonic chains, using the framework of
fluctuating hydrodynamics \cite{HenkPRL2012,MendlSpohnPRL13,SpohnJStat14,RamaswamyPRL02}.
For generic nonlinear systems with three conserved quantities (mass, momentum, energy), it has been predicted that
there are two sound modes which exhibit correlations as those in the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang (KPZ) equation, and a single heat mode showing characteristics of a Levy walk. These predictions have been verified in many systems \cite{mendl14,DasDharPRE14,spohn15}.
These studies of equilibrium fluctuations of conserved quantities have led to some progress in resolving the long standing puzzle of anomalous heat transport in one dimensional systems \cite{Lepri0PR3,DharAdvPhy08,Book}. The general consensus from about two decades of theoretical and numerical studies is that in one dimensional momentum conserving non-integrable systems, the heat transport is anomalous, that is the heat conductivity ($\kappa$) diverges with system size ($\kappa \sim N^{\alpha}$, where $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1 $ ). The decay of equilibrium fluctuations shows similar anomalous features which lead to a understanding of the nonequilibrium state via linear response.
An important aspect, which affects transport and fluctuations in a many-body system, is the integrability of the Hamiltonian. It is widely believed that, if we apply different temperatures to the two ends of an integrable system, then the energy current would not decay with system size (for large systems). This is referred to as ballistic transport. It is expected in non-integrable systems that typical non-linear interactions should lead to sufficient effective stochasticity in the dynamics, which should then cause a decay of the heat current with system size. Similarly the decay of equilibrium fluctuations is expected to be ballistic, i.e, the width of the correlation function spreads in time as $\sim t$. There are very few simulations exploring equilibrium correlations of conserved quantities in integrable models \cite{TheodorPRL99,Zhao2006,ShastryYoungPRB10}.
Also we have not found a mathematical statement in the literature of the conditions under which one gets non-decay, with system-size, of the energy current in the open-system with applied temperature bias, and of ballistic scaling of correlations functions.
In fact there are examples of integrable systems \cite{AdharPRL99}, in one dimensions with stochastic dynamics and in higher dimensions with Hamiltonian dynamics, where one has diffusive transport (though no local equilibrium).
Some exact results are known on properties of the equilibrium energy current correlation function, for example in terms of Mazur inequalities \cite{ZotosJLTP02}. But it is not clear what this precisely means for either the decay of equilibrium spatio-temporal correlations, or for the system size dependence of current in the non-equilibrium setting.
The main aim of this paper is to perform a detailed study of the form of equilibrium correlations in integrable systems.
In particular we study the well known model of an anharmonic chain, the Toda chain \cite{TodaSpringer12}, first introduced in 1967 as example of an integrable one-dimensional (1D) system which generalizes the harmonic chain to large amplitude oscillations. The chain is characterized by non-linear interactions of exponential type between nearest neighbors while still being integrable. The exact solvability of the model was studied in \cite{FlaschkaPhysRev74,HenonPhysRev74}
where it was reported how to construct a full set of conserved quantities using the
Lax pair formalism. The periodic lattice was studied in \cite{KacMorPNAS75,TanakaPTPS76} using the inverse scattering method. In the limit
of large anharmonicity the chain is characterized by soliton solutions, which are stable wave packets localized in real space. For infinite chains the isolated soliton solution was found by Toda \cite{TodaSpringer12}. For periodic finite chains one can find exact solutions, the so-called cnoidal waves, which are periodic trains of solitons \cite{TodaSpringer12,ShastryYoungPRB10}. The equilibrium thermodynamic properties such as specific heat, etc \cite{TodaSaitoh} can be studied by performing exact integrals with respect to Gibbs distribution. Although special exact classes of solutions are known for the Toda chain, finite temperature dynamical properties such as correlation functions are hard to access analytically. There have been some attempts to study finite temperature dynamical properties of Toda chain through non-interacting soliton gas analogy \cite{ButtnerMertnesSSC79, BauerMertensPhyB88, TheodorPRL99} and through taking classical limit of a quantum Toda chain \cite{CuccoliPRB93}.
The quantum Toda chain was solved in \cite{Gutzwiller80} and by the Bethe ansatz in \cite{SutherlandRMJM78}.
A review of various static and dynamic properties of the Toda chain can be found in \cite{CuccoliIJMPB94}.
Energy transport in the Toda chain was studied in \cite{ZotosJLTP02}, where the decay of current correlations and overlap of currents with other conserved quantities were studied in the context of Mazur inequalities.
A careful numerical study was carried out in \cite{ShastryYoungPRB10} looking at the decay of current correlations in finite systems prepared in canonical equilibrium.
It was pointed out that the Mazur relations needed to be modified and that one needed to take projections of the current to not just the conserved quantities but also to their bilinear combinations.
Among the other results in \cite{ShastryYoungPRB10}, the existence of special ``cnoidal" solutions in the periodic Toda chain was noted and the effect of cubic and quartic perturbations on the decay of conserved quantities was studied.
To test the role of integrability in heat transport, it is interesting to study transport in perturbed integrable systems. The effect of solitons on the heat transport in Toda chain and its perturbations was studied in \cite{TodaPhyScript79}. The diatomic alternate mass Toda chain which is non-integrable was studied in \cite{HatanoPRE99} where it was found that the thermal conductivity $\kappa$ diverges with system size $N$ as as $\kappa \sim N^{0.34}$.
Heat transport in Toda chain perturbed with conservative noise was studied in \cite{StolzJSP10,CedricCMP2014} where again it was seen that the current decays with system size (anomalously).
In \cite{BenettinJSP13} it was pointed out that the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam (FPU) chain can be studied as a perturbation of Toda chain and that they exhibit similar behavior at short times.
Another motivation for our study is from the context of recent studies on
thermalization in integrable quantum systems.
It has been shown that integrable quantum systems prepared in special initial conditions, relax to a state that can be described by Generalized Gibbs Ensemble (GGE), i.e. thermal equilibrium state is described by a distribution $P=e^{-\sum_n \lambda_n I_n}/Z(\{\lambda_n\})$, where $I_n$ are the conserved quantities of the system, $\lambda_n$ are corresponding Lagrange multipliers and $Z$ is the appropriate partition function \cite{Rigol16}. On the other hand, typical states and also typical energy eigenstates are described by the usual Gibbs' ensemble (with only temperature specified) \cite{goldstein06,nandy16}.
An interesting question then, is to see how integrability shows up in the dynamics of the system when it is prepared in an initial thermal Gibbs state.
In this paper we investigate the spatio-temporal equilibrium correlations of fluctuations of the three conserved quantities: stretch, momentum and energy in
the Toda chain. The equilibrium state is chosen to correspond to the one with specified temperature ($T$) and pressure ($P$) with zero average momentum. Our main results are as follows
(i) In all parameter regimes we find from numerical simulations that the correlations exhibit ballistic scaling, which means that all correlation functions have the form $C(x,t)= (1/t) f(x/t)$, where $f$ is some scaling function (non-universal).
(ii) In two limiting cases the Toda system reduces to the harmonic chain
and the hard particle gas. In these cases we are able to compute all correlation functions exactly. We show that there is excellent agreement between direct simulations of the Toda with these exact results.
(iii) We follow the prescription used in the theory of fluctuating hydrodynamics of non-integrable anharmonic chains and carry out a transformation to the three ``normal'' modes corresponding to the three conserved quantities.
We find that one can then again see a separation of the heat and sound modes, but unlike the non-integrable case, here the cross correlations between different modes are non-vanishing even at long times.
The plan of the paper is as follows. In Sec.~(\ref{model}) we precisely define the Toda chain model and gives a summary of some known exact results.
The numerical results for spatio-temporal correlations of the three conserved quantities in the Toda chain are presented in Sec.~(\ref{Eqb}).
We also discuss the form of correlation functions in the normal-mode basis.
We summarize the main findings of this work in Sec.~(\ref{conc}).
\section{Toda chain: Model, definitions and summary of some exact results}
\label{model}
We first define the Toda model on a ring geometry. We consider $N$ particles with position $q_x$, momentum $p_x$ with $x=1,\ldots,N$. We define a ``stretch'' variable $r_x = q_{x+1}-q_x$.
The Toda Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{align}
&H = \sum_{x=1}^N \frac{p_x^2}{2} + V( r_x)~, \\
&{\rm where}~~V(r_x)=\frac{a}{b}e^{-b r_x}~, \nonumber
\end{align}
and we take periodic boundary conditions $q_{N+1}=\sum_{x=1}^N r_x=q_1+L$, $q_0=q_N-L$, where $L$ is the length of the lattice.
The equations of motion are
\begin{equation}
m \ddot{q}_x= - a [~ e^{-b (q_x-q_{x-1})}-e^{-b (q_{x+1}-q_{x})}~ ]~, ~~~x=1,\ldots,N~. \label{EOM}
\end{equation}
Using the Lax pair formulation one can construct $N$ constants of motion, the first few of which are
\begin{align}
I_1 &= \sum_{x=1}^N p_x~, \label{IToda}
I_2 = \sum_{x=1}^N \left[ \frac{p_x^2}{2} + V(r_x)\right]\\
I_3 &= \sum_{x=1}^N \left[ \frac{p_x^3}{3} + (p_x+p_{x+1}) ~V(r_{x}) \right]\nonumber.
\end{align}
In addition we have a trivial but important conserved quantity $I_0 \equiv L =
\sum_{x=1}^N r_x$, in the case of periodic boundaries.
{\bf{Limiting cases}}: If one takes the limit $b \to 0$, $a \to \infty$ with $a b = \omega^2$ constant, then one gets a harmonic chain with spring constant $\omega^2$. In addition there is a large linear term which can be canceled with an appropriate ``pressure'' term [adding a term $P r$ to the potential $V(r)$ with $P = a$]. On the other hand in the limit $b \to \infty$ the potential vanishes for $r >0$ and is infinite at $r=0$, thus mimicking a hard-particle gas. As we will see, in these limiting cases, all dynamical correlations can be exactly computed. In both these cases, some equilibrium dynamical results were already known
\cite{JepsenJMP65, Montroll60, DharSabhapanditJSP15,HegedeSabhapanditPRL13} and even many exact properties of the non-equilibrium steady state are known \cite{RiederLebowitzJMP67,RoyDhar08,DharAdvPhy08}.
{\bf{Solitons and phonons}}: As noted in \cite{ShastryYoungPRB10} the Toda chain on the ring has a family of the so-called ``Cnoidal" wave solutions that are periodic in time and space, very similar to the normal modes of a harmonic chain. For harmonic lattice the overall amplitude of the normal modes is a free parameter and apart from this freedom, there are exactly $N$ independent periodic solutions each specified by a wave-vector $k$ and a corresponding frequency $\omega_k$ (independent of amplitudes). For the nonlinear Toda lattice, one can again construct $N$ solutions specified by wave-vectors $k$ but there is a free ``non-linearity'' parameter depending on the amplitude $A$ of the solution and in this case, the frequencies depend on $A$. The explicit solutions are stated in \cite{ShastryYoungPRB10}. Here we note the observation made there, that for small amplitudes, the Cnoidal waves look like sinusoidal waves or phonons (the normal modes of a harmonic lattice) while for large amplitudes, they look like trains of solitons (localized excitations).
In the hard particle gas limit, the dynamics consist of particles moving ballistically and exchanging velocities on collision. A velocity pulse would simply pass un-scattered through this system. Thus this limit is characterized by ``non-interacting" solitons. So we see
that the two limiting cases discussed above correspond to excitations being either phonon-like or soliton-like and for general parameters, we expect a mixture
of these two.
{\bf Specification of the equilibrium state and definition of correlation functions}:
The Toda chain has a large number of conserved quantities, and accordingly one can construct generalized ensembles which are invariant
distributions. Such general ensembles are specified by a set of $N$ Lagrange multipliers corresponding to the $N$ conserved quantities. Here we restrict our discussion to the special case where the initial state is
prepared such that only the conserved quantities energy, stretch and momentum are specified while all other Lagrange multipliers are set to zero.
More specifically we prepare the system initially in a state described by the following canonical ensemble (with zero average momentum) and at specified temperature $T$ and pressure $P$:
\begin{equation}
Prob(\{ r_x,p_x\})= \frac{ e^{-\beta \sum_{x=1}^N \left[ p_x^2/2+V(r_x)+P r_x\right]}}{Z}~,\label{Peq}
\end{equation}
where the partition function is simply given by $Z=[\int_{-\infty}^\infty dp \int_{-\infty}^\infty dr e^{-\beta (p^2/2+V(r)+Pr)}]^N $.
Corresponding to the three global conserved quantities
$(I_0,I_1,I_2)$, we can define the local conserved fields $r_x(t),p_x(t),e_x(t)=p_x^2/2+V(r_x)$. It is easy to see that they satisfy the continuity equations
\begin{align}
\partial_t r_x &=p_{x+1}-p_x \nonumber\\
\partial_t p_x &= V'(r_x)-V'(r_{x-1}) \label{conteq}\\
\partial_t e_x &= p_{x+1}V'(r_x)-p_x V'(r_{x-1})~.\nonumber
\end{align}
Defining a local pressure variable ${P} = - V'(r)$, and the discrete derivative $\partial_x f(x)= f(x+1)-f(x)$ we see that the above equations can be written in the following form
\begin{align}
\partial_t r_x(t) +\partial_x j_r(x,t)& = 0~, \label{conteq2} \\
\partial_t p_x(t) +\partial_x j_p(x,t)& = 0~, \nonumber \\
\partial_t e_x(t) + \partial_x j_e(x,t) &= 0~,~~{\rm where}\nonumber \\
[j_r(x,t),j_p(x,t),j_e(x,t)]&=[-p_x(t), {P}_{x-1}(t), p_x(t) {P}_{x-1}(t)] \nonumber
\end{align}
Next, we define the fluctuations of the fields from their equilibrium values as
\begin{equation}
u_1(x,t)=r_x(t)-\langle r \rangle,~u_2(x,t)=p_x(t),~u_3(x,t)=e_x(t)-\langle e \rangle~, \label{eqcorr1}
\end{equation}
where $\langle \ldots \rangle$ denote average over the initial equilibrium state.
We will look at the following dynamic correlation functions:
\begin{equation}
{C}_{\alpha \nu} (x,t) = \langle u_{\alpha}(x,t) u_{\nu}(0,0) \rangle~, \label{eqcorr2}
\end{equation}
with $\alpha,\nu=1,2,3$. The average is over initial conditions chosen from Eq.~(\ref{Peq}) and the dynamics in Eq.~(\ref{EOM}) [or equivalently the first two equations in Eq.~(\ref{conteq})].
{\bf {Correlation functions in the special limiting cases of Toda lattice}}:
Exact results for the correlations of velocity $\langle p_x(t) p_0(0) \rangle$ were obtained in the papers by Montroll and Mazur \cite{Montroll60} for the harmonic chain and by Jepsen \cite{JepsenJMP65} for the hard particle gas.
The dynamics of harmonic crystal being linear and the initial conditions taken from Gaussian distribution makes it simple to obtain exactly the full set of correlations $C_{\alpha\beta}(x,t)$. It turns out that for the hard-particle gas, one can use a recently developed formalism \cite{DharSabhapanditJSP15}, to again compute the full set of correlation functions \cite{Kunduetal16}. Here we summarize these results (some details of the calculations are given in the appendix).
For a harmonic chain with nearest neighbor spring constant $\omega^2$, the correlation functions are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{rr}(x,t) &=& T {\cal J}_{2|x|} (2\omega t) /\omega^2 \label{harmC} \\
C_{rp}(x,t) &=& T \left[-\frac{{\cal J}_{2|x|-1} (2\omega t)}{\omega}\theta(-x) + \frac{{\cal J}_{2|x|+1} (2\omega t)}{\omega}\theta(x)\right] \nonumber \\
C_{pr}(x,t) &=& T \left[ -\frac{{\cal J}_{2|x|+1} (2\omega t)}{\omega}\theta(-x) + \frac{{\cal J}_{2|x|-1} (2\omega t)}{\omega}\theta(x)\right] \nonumber \\
C_{pp}(x,t) &=& T {\cal J}_{2|x|} (2\omega t) \nonumber\\
C_{ee}(x,t) &=& \frac{1}{2}\left[ C^2_{rr}(x,t) + C^2_{rp}(x,t) + C^2_{pr}(x,t) + C^2_{pp}(x,t)\right] \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal J}_n(z)$ is Bessel function of the first kind of order n and $\theta(x)$ is the Heaviside theta function.
For the hard particle gas, we consider initial velocities chosen from Maxwell distribution with variance $\bar{v}^2 =T$. The correlation functions are then given by
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{rr}(x,t) &=& \frac{1}{\rho^2 \sigma_t} \frac{e^{-\frac{1}{2}({\frac{x}{\sigma_t}})^2}}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \label{HPGC} \\
C_{pp}(x,t) &=& \frac{\bar{v}^2}{\sigma_t} \left({\frac{x}{\sigma_t}}\right)^2 \frac{e^{-\frac{1}{2}({\frac{x}{\sigma_t}})^2}}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}\nonumber \\
C_{ee}(x,t) &=& \frac{\bar{v}^4}{4\sigma_t} \left[ \left( \frac{x}{\sigma_t}\right)^4 - 2\left( \frac{x}{\sigma_t}\right)^2 + 1 \right] \frac{e^{-\frac{1}{2}({\frac{x}{\sigma_t}})^2}}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho = P/T$ is the average density and $\sigma_t = \rho \bar{v} t$.
{\bf Sum rules}: We note here \cite{SpohnJStat14,Book} that the correlation functions of conserved quantities satisfy the following exact sum rules (see appendix for derivation), in the limit $N \to \infty$
\eqa{
\sum_x C^{\alpha\beta}(x,t) &= \sum_x C^{\alpha\beta}(x,0)~, \label{sumrules} \\
\frac{d}{d t} \sum_x x C^{\alpha\beta}(x,t) &= \langle J^\alpha(0) u^\beta(0,0) \rangle~, \nonumber \\
\frac{d^2}{d t^2} \sum_x x^2C^{\alpha\beta}(x,t) &= 2 \langle J^\alpha (t) j^\beta (0,0)\rangle \\
{\rm where}~~J(t)& =\sum_x j(x,t)~. \nonumber
}
These sum rules serve as useful check of numeric simulations. Further they provide useful information on transport properties. For example, the last of the above equation enables one to relate total current correlations to spreading of correlation functions of corresponding conserved quantities. One can then try to say
something about non-equilibrium transport via linear response theory \cite{liu,li}. For the case of the integrable models studied here, we see ballistic scaling of correlations of all conserved currents, and this immediately implies that
the corresponding total currents do not decay to zero in the infinite time limit.
We now first present results from direct simulations on the form of these different correlation functions.
In our simulations we explore different parameter regimes and in the two limiting cases, compare our results with the above exact results.
\section{Numerical results for correlations of conserved quantities}
\label{Eqb}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{Exact_harmonic}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{Exact_hard}
\caption{(a,b) Toda chain with parameters $a = 20.0, b = 0.05, P=20.0, T=1.0, N=256$ at time $t=80$. This corresponds to the harmonic limit. The simulations of the Toda are compared with the exact harmonic chain correlation functions (red dashed lines) as given in text. Here $\omega^2=1$, hence $C_{rr} = C_{pp}$. (c) Toda chain with parameters $a = 0.1, b = 10.0, P = 0.1, T = 1.0, N = 1024$ corresponding to hard-particle limit, at time $t = 400$. The solid black lines are the values of exact correlation function , as given in text (with $\sigma_t = \rho \bar{v}t$).}
\label{exactcorr}
\end{figure}
{\bf Numerical details:} The Toda-chain is simulated by numerically evaluating Eq.~(\ref{EOM}) using the velocity-Verlet algorithm. We choose a small time-step ($dt \leq 0.01$) in the simulations which keeps the total energy and momentum constant to a high accuracy ( relative error less than $10^{-6} $ for energy and $10^{-4} $ in $I_3$ ).
To capture the equilibrium correlations, we prepare the system in an initial state in a canonical $(T,P)$ ensemble by drawing random numbers ${p,r}$ for each particle from the distribution ${e^{-\beta (p^2/2 +V(r)+P r)}}/{Z}$ through inverse transform sampling. For the partition function to be bounded, we require that pressure is non-zero for Toda Lattice. The full set of spatio-temporal correlation functions, defined in Eq.~(\ref{eqcorr2}) are computed by taking averages over $10^6 - 10^7$ initial conditions.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{harmonic_diag_corr}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{T1_diag_corr}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{hard_diag_corr}
\caption{Diagonal correlation functions Eq.~(\ref{eqcorr2}) for Toda lattice for two different times (dashed line indicates later time). The black dashed line show position of sound velocity as predicted from Eq.~(\ref{soundspeed}) at the two times (a) Harmonic Limit at time $t = 80, 120$ [parameters of Fig.~\ref{exactcorr}(a)]. (b) Toda chain with parameter $a = 1, b = 1, P = 1, T = 1 ,N = 1024$ at time $t = 200,300$. (c) Hard-Particle limit [parameters of Fig.~\ref{exactcorr}(c)] at time $t = 200, 400$. }
\label{directcorr}
\end{figure}
We present numerical results and discuss their scaling in three different parameter regimes. These correspond to the harmonic and hard particle limits and an intermediate regime. In the former cases, comparisons are made with the exact results stated in the previous section. For the three conserved quantities we will use the notation $r \leftrightarrow 1,~p \leftrightarrow 2,~e \leftrightarrow 3$.
\textbf{Case I: $a=20, b=0.05, P=20.0, T=1.0$} ---
In this limit, the Toda lattice is expected to show similar characteristics of the harmonic lattice. In Fig.~\ref{exactcorr}(a) and \ref{exactcorr}(b) we show results for the diagonal correlations $C_{rr},C_{ee}$ in the Toda lattice respectively and compare them with exact harmonic chain results as given in Eqs.~(\ref{harmC}). We find an excellent agreement. For our parameters, the effective spring constant $\omega^2=1$ and hence $C_{rr}=C_{pp}$.
The correlations are extended and oscillatory. In Fig.~\ref{directcorr}(a), the momentum and energy spatio-temporal correlations are shown for two different times illustrating how they spread with time. The speed of sound here is $c\approx 1$. In Fig.~\ref{directcorrscaled}(a) and \ref{directcorrscaled}(b), we plot the same data after scaling the $x$ and $y$ axes by factors of $1/t$ and $t$ respectively (ballistic scaling).
We see a good collapse in the bulk with some deviations near the sound peaks,
which occur near the edge.
\textbf{Case II: $a=1.0, b=1.0, P=1.0, T=1.0$} ---
This corresponds to the intermediate regime and we no longer see the oscillations in the correlations. In Fig.~\ref{directcorr}(b), the momentum and energy correlations are shown for two different times. The speed of sound here is $c = 0.8833...$. The stretch and momentum correlations only have peaks at the edges,
while the energy correlation has an additional small peak in the middle.
In Fig.~\ref{directcorrscaled}(b) we see that there is a very good ballistic scaling of the correlation functions.
\textbf{Case III: $a=0.1, b=10.0, P=0.1, T=1.0$} ---
This corresponds to the hard particle gas limit and again we see no oscillations. In Fig.~\ref{exactcorr}(c) the results for correlation functions from direct simulations of the Toda chain are compared with the exact results for the hard
particle gas in Eq.~(\ref{HPGC}). We again see excellent agreement with the numerical data. We now see that the nature of correlations are very different. The stretch correlation has a single peak at the center and energy
correlation has a relatively large central peak.
In Fig.~\ref{directcorr}(c) the correlations are shown at two different times.
The speed of sound is $c=0.1709...$ while Fig.~\ref{directcorrscaled}(c) shows the expected ballistic scaling.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{harmonic_diag_corr_scaled}
\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{T1_diag_corr_scaled}
\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{hard_diag_corr_scaled}
\caption{The diagonal correlation functions Eq.~(\ref{eqcorr2}) for Toda lattice in various limits for two different times are plotted with ballistic scaling. (a) and (b) shows collapse momentum and energy correlations respectively in harmonic limit with parameters that of Fig.~\ref{directcorr}(a). Although the scaling is good in the bulk, the edges show significant deviations. (c) shows ballistic scaling for Toda with parameters as that of Fig.~\ref{directcorr}(b). In (d) we show ballistic scaling in the hard particle limit with parameters as in Fig.~\ref{directcorr}(c).}
\label{directcorrscaled}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{trunc_all_corr}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{toda_all_corr}
\caption{Figure shows all correlation functions between the three locally conserved quantities $(r,p,e)$ for (a) truncated Toda chain [potential given by Eq.~(\ref{TruncTodaPot})] and parameters $P = 0$, $T = 0.5$, $N = 8192$ at time $t = 2000$. (b) Toda chain with $a=1, b=1, P=1$ and all other parameters the same as in (a).}
\label{AllCorr}
\end{figure}
To see the huge effect of integrability on the form of correlations, we show
results from a simulation with a potential corresponding to a truncated Toda potential with parameters $P,T$ chosen to be close to the actual Toda simulations.
Note that truncation leads to an FPU potential and is expected to destroy integrability.
The truncated Toda potential to quartic order is given by
\begin{equation} V_{tr}(r) = \frac{r^2}{2} - \frac{r^3}{6} +\frac{r^4}{24}~,\label{TruncTodaPot}\end{equation}
and we have set $P=0.0, T=0.5$ to match the equilibrium properties with that of Toda chain with parameters $a=1, b=1, P=1, T=0.5$. With this parameters, the speed of sound in truncated Toda chain is $c = 1.004...$ and for Toda chain is $c = 0.938...$ which is about a $6 \%$ difference.
In Fig.~\ref{AllCorr} we show a comparison of the correlation functions of Toda chain with the corresponding truncated Toda chain. We see that they
show significant qualitative differences.
In particular for the truncated Toda (FPU) chain, the correlation functions show localized and well-separated peaks, while in the Toda chain, they are broad and overlapping. The cross correlations are of similar order in both cases and we will now see how this changes when we transform to normal mode basis. The normal mode representation more clearly shows the difference between the Toda results and the FPU.
{\bf Description in terms of normal modes}:
In the usual hydrodynamic theory of anharmonic chains \cite{SpohnJStat14},
it is convenient to go to a description in terms of ``normal'' hydrodynamic modes of the system. The normal modes, which we will denote by $(\phi_+,\phi_0,\phi_-)$ consist of linear combinations of the original field $(u_1,u_2,u_3)$ chosen in such a way that the correlation matrix becomes approximately diagonal at long times, i.e, the cross correlations between different modes become negligible at long times. At the level of linearized hydrodynamics, for the diagonal elements of the correlation
matrix, well-separated peaks for each mode is seen. Specifically
one finds (at the linear level) a single diffusively spreading heat mode and two propagating sound modes moving with speeds $\pm c$. While it is not obvious
what such a normal mode transformation will achieve for our integrable system,
we nevertheless proceed to construct such a transformation (using the three
variable description) and analyze the correlations in this basis.
We briefly review the construction of the normal mode transformation, starting
with the microscopic continuity equations given by Eq.~(\ref{conteq2}).
The conserved currents $j_\alpha$ are then expanded about their equilibrium value up to linear order in the fields leading to the linear equations
\begin{equation}
\partial_t u_\alpha(x,t)+\partial_x (A^{\alpha \beta}u_\beta(x,t)) =0
\end{equation}
where
\[
A=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -1 &0 \\
\partial_l P&0&\partial_e P \\
0 & P & 0
\end{array}
\right).
\]
The partial derivatives above are computed using the equilibrium equation of state $P=P(l,e)$ where $l=\langle r\rangle, e=\langle e \rangle$.
The diagonalization of the matrix $A$ leads to the form
$RAR^{-1}=diag(-c,0,c)$, where the matrix $R$ is completely fixed by the normalization condition $RC(t=0)R^T=1$, with $C$ the correlation matrix. We refer the reader to \cite{SpohnJStat14} for explicit expressions. The constant $c$ corresponds to the sound velocity and can be computed explicitly from equilibrium correlation functions through the formula \cite{SpohnJStat14}
\begin{eqnarray}
c^2 = \frac{1}{\Gamma} \left(\frac{1}{2\beta^2} + \langle V + Py; V +Py \rangle \right),
\label{sound}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\Gamma = \beta(\langle y;y\rangle\langle V;V \rangle- \langle y;V\rangle^2) + \frac{\langle y;y \rangle}{2\beta}\nonumber$, and where $\langle A;B\rangle=\langle A B\rangle-\langle A\rangle \langle B\rangle$.
For the Toda potential one can simplify Eq.(\ref{sound}) to get the form
\begin{equation}
c^2=\frac{b^2}{\beta}\frac{ \left(2 z^2 \psi ^{(1)}(z)-2 z+1\right)}{ ((2 z+1) \psi ^{(1)}(z)-2)},
\label{soundspeed}
\end{equation}
where $z=\frac{\beta P}{b}$ and $\psi^{(1)}(z)$ is Polygamma function which is defined as $\psi^{(1)}(z) = \frac{d^2}{dz^2} \log(\Gamma(z))$ and $\Gamma(z)$ is the standard Gamma-function. It is interesting to note that for the special case with $P=b$, the above formula
is very close to one derived in \cite{BauerMertensPhyB88}.
For small $b$ and $P=a$, Eq.~(\ref{soundspeed}) can be expanded to give the expected speed of sound in a harmonic chain $c=\sqrt{ab}$.
In the other limit, when $b \rightarrow \infty$ and the external pressure is $P$ the above formula gives the hard particle limit $c = \sqrt{3 \beta}P$.
These two limits can also be obtained in the high temperature (corresponding
to large $b$) and low temperature limits (small $b$) by expanding with respect
to $z$, leading to the same expressions for speed of sound to the leading order.
The normal mode transformation is then defined by
$\phi_s = \sum_\alpha R_{s,\alpha} u_\alpha$, for $s=+,0,-$.
We can then compute correlations for these normal modes
\begin{equation}
C_{rs}= \langle \phi_r(x,t) \phi_s(0,0)\rangle~,
\end{equation}
for $r,s=+,0,-$. As we will see this normal mode transformation separates the two sound modes $s=+,-$ moving with velocity $\pm c$ respectively and the heat mode $s=0$. All the modes continue to show ballistic scaling.
We now show numerical data of the correlations in normal modes for the Toda chain in various parameter regimes.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{T1_modes_200_300_350}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{T1_sound_n}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{T1_heat_n}
\caption{Normal mode representation- Case I with parameters $a = 1, b = 1, P=1, T = 1$ and $N=1024$. (a) Heat and sound modes plotted together at times $t=200$ (red), $t=300$ (blue) and $t=350$ (green). The two sound modes move to left and to the right with velocities $\mp c$ (vertical dashed lines indicate the distance $ct$). (b) The sound modes at the three times are scaled ballistically
and we see a good collapse even at small times. (c) The heat modes are scaled ballistically.}
\label{T1}
\end{figure}
{\textbf {Case I:} $a=1.0, b=1.0, P=1.0, T=1.0$} ---
In Fig.~\ref{T1}(a) we show the sound and heat modes plotted together at three different times $t=200, 300, 350$. The speed of sound is $c = 0.883...$. The scaled right moving sound modes and the scaled heat modes are plotted in Fig.~\ref{T1}(b) and Fig.~\ref{T1}(c) respectively.
The scaling collapse is very good even for short times. The sound mode is
broad and asymmetric. The heat mode on the other hand has a broad central peak and also significant side peaks. The amplitude of heat mode is much less than that of sound mode, which implies less scattering. In Figs.~\ref{T1}(b) and \ref{T1}(c) we show the ballistic scaling of the right moving sound mode and the heat mode. Note that the shift by $ct$ for the sound mode is not really necessary to see scaling collapse for the ballistic case. Typically we find that the off-diagonal correlations are of same magnitude as that of the diagonal correlations.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{T5_modes_200_300_450}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{T5_sound}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{T5_heat}
\caption{ Normal mode representation - Case II with parameters parameters $a=1.0, b=1.0, P=1.0, T=5.0$ and $N=1024$. (a) Heat and sound modes plotted together , at times $t=200$ (red), $t=300$ (blue) and $t=450$ (green). The two sound modes move to the left and to the right with speed $c$ (vertical dashed lines indicate the position $ct$). (b) This shows the ballistic scaling of the sound modes at the three different times. These are now almost Gaussian (shown by black solid line with standard deviation $\sigma = 0.1982...$). (c) This shows the ballistically scaled heat mode. The amplitude of the heat and sound modes are now comparable.}
\label{T5}
\end{figure}
{\textbf {Case II:} $a=1.0, b=1.0, T=5.0, P=1.0$} --- In Fig.~\ref{T5}(a) we show the three normal modes correlations plotted together. The speed of sound in this case is $0.6232...$. At high temperatures the dynamics is controlled by solitons, which are moving slower than their phonon counterparts. At this temperature the phonon-soliton interaction is negligible and the sound mode is symmetric and fits well to a Gaussian with $\sigma = 0.1982$, while the heat mode has faster decay. Another feature is that at high temperatures the diagonal correlations are at least an order of magnitude larger than the cross-correlations. In Figs.~\ref{T5}(b) and \ref{T5}(c) we show the ballistic scaling of the left moving sound mode and the heat mode.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{hard_sound_heat_300_400_500}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{hard_sound}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{hard_heat}
\caption{Normal mode representation - Case III with parameters $a=0.1, b=10.0, P=0.1, T=1.0$ and $N=1024$, corresponding to the large anharmonicity limit.
(a) This shows the heat and the two sound modes at times $t=300$ (red), $t=400$ (blue) and $t=500$ (green). The distances $x=\pm ct$ are marked with vertical dashed lines. (b) This shows the ballistic scaling of the sound modes. (c) This shows ballistic scaling of the heat mode.}
\label{HardP}
\end{figure}
{\textbf {Case III:} $a=0.1, b=10.0, T=1.0, P=1.0$} --- In Fig.~\ref{HardP}(a) we show the three normal modes correlations plotted together, in a parameter regime corresponding to the hard particle limit.
The speed of sound is $0.17093$. The heat and sound modes now have single peaks but these are broad and with significant overlap at all times. Also note that the heat mode is larger in amplitude than the two sound modes unlike the other cases. In Figs.~\ref{HardP}(b) and \ref{HardP}(c) we show the ballistic scaling of the right moving sound mode and the heat mode.
Finally we show that the normal mode representation also brings out clearly the striking differences between integrable and non-integrable models.
In Figs.~\ref{TruncToda}(a) and \ref{TruncToda}(b) we plot the normal mode correlations for the truncated Toda chain whose correlations (in usual variables) were presented in Fig.~\ref{AllCorr}(a). We see the striking differences between these and the corresponding plots for the Toda chain in Figs.~(\ref{T1},\ref{T5},\ref{HardP}). In particular we see that for the non-integrable case, the sound modes show the KPZ scaling form $C_{++}(x,t) = f_+((x+ct)/(\lambda_s t^{2/3}))/(\lambda_s t)^{2/3}$, while the heat modes show Levy-$5/3$ scaling $C_{00}= f_0(x/(\lambda_h t^{3/5}))/(\lambda_h t)^{3/5}$, where
$f_{+,0}$ and $\lambda_{s,h}$ are appropriate scaling functions and scaling factors.
The cross correlation between the three normal modes in the truncated Toda lattice is shown in Fig.~ \ref{cross_nm}(a) and for Toda chain in Fig.~ \ref{cross_nm}(b). In this case we see that for both the Toda chain and its truncated version, the off-diagonal correlations between heat and sound modes are much
smaller than the diagonal correlations.
The main difference between the two cases is that in the truncated Toda chain, the modes are localized, while for integrable Toda chain they have a broad spreading.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{trunc_nm_time}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{trunc_sound.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio ]{trunc_heat.pdf}
\caption{(a) Sound and Heat modes for truncated Toda chain (Eq.~ (\ref{TruncTodaPot})) with parameters $P=0.0$, $T = 0.5$, $N = 8192$ at times $t = 2000$ (red) $t=3000$ (blue) and $t=3500$ (green). The black dashed line show the positions $\pm ct$ and coincide with the peaks of the sound modes.
(b) This shows the expected KPZ-scaling of the sound modes, with
exponent $2/3$ as per hydrodynamics prediction. (c) This shows the heat mode scaling with the the expected Levy exponent $3/5$. }
\label{TruncToda}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio] {trunc_nm_cross_corr}
\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio] {toda_nm_cross_corr}
\caption{This shows the cross correlations between the normal modes at $t = 2000$ which are smaller than their respective diagonal correlations for (a) Truncated Toda chain with parameters as given in Fig.~\ref{AllCorr}(a). (b) Toda chain with same parameters as Fig.~\ref{AllCorr} (b). }
\label{cross_nm}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{conc}
We have studied the spatio-temporal equilibrium correlation functions of the fluctuations of three conserved quantities (stretch, momentum and energy) in the Toda chain. We found analytical expressions of these correlations in two different limits of the Toda chain, namely harmonic chain and hard particle gas and verified them in direct molecular dynamics simulations. The two limits can be argued to correspond to either phonon dominated dynamics or soliton dominated dynamics.
For generic parameter regimes, our numerical data shows that the Toda correlations always exhibit ballistic scaling. We pointed out that this form is completely different from the correlations seen in a truncated Toda potential, which exhibits the universal scaling forms predicted by nonlinear fluctuating hydrodynamics of generic anharmonic chains. We carried out the transformation to normal modes following the approach of hydrodynamics (for the three variables) and found that this is still useful in separating the multiple peaks seen in correlation functions of the conserved variables. Also, an explicit formula for the speed of sound is obtained. Unlike non-integrable systems, the normal modes
have peaks with large width (both mean position and width of the peaks scale linearly with time).
Ballistic scaling of space-time correlations seems to be a generic feature of classical integrable systems, and proving this rigorously remains an open interesting problem. The question is also of interest in the context of integrable quantum systems.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We thank Henk van Beijeren, Sanjib Sabhapandit, Rukmini Dey and Vishal Vasan for discussions. AD would like to thank support from the Indo-Israel joint research project No. 6-8/2014(IC) and from the French Ministry of Education through the grant ANR (EDNHS).
\section{Appendix}
\subsection{Harmonic Chain correlation functions}
The Hamiltonian for the harmonic chain is given by
\begin{equation}
H = \sum_{x=1}^N \frac{p^2_x}{2} + \frac{\omega^2 r^2_x}{2}~,
\end{equation}
where $r_x = q_{x+1} - q_x$ and we assume periodic boundary conditions $r_{0}=r_N$ and $p_{N+1}=p_1$. The variables $\{r_x,p_x\}$ satisfy the equations of motion
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_t{r_x} &=& p_{x+1} - p_x~,\\
\partial_t{p_x} &=& \omega^2( r_{x} - r_{x-1})~. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Defining Fourier transform variables $\tilde{r}_k=\sum_{x=1}^N e^{i k x} r_x,~
\tilde{p}_k=\sum_{x=1}^N e^{i k x} p_x $, these satisfy the equations
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_t \begin{pmatrix}r_k\\partial_k\end{pmatrix} &=& \hat{T} \begin{pmatrix}r_k\\partial_k\end{pmatrix} \nonumber \\
{\rm where}~~ \hat{T}&=& 2{i\mkern1mu} \sin(k/2)\begin{pmatrix}0&e^{{i\mkern1mu} k/2}\\\omega^2 e^{-{i\mkern1mu} k/2}&0\end{pmatrix}~. \label{rpsoln} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Let $\hat{S}$ be the matrix which diagonalizes $\hat{B}$, i.e, $\hat{S}^{-1} \hat{B} \hat{S} = i \Lambda$. Then the solution of the above equation is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{pmatrix}\tilde{r}_k(t)\\\tilde{p}_k(t)\end{pmatrix} &=& \hat{S} e^{{i\mkern1mu} \Lambda t} \hat{S}^{-1} \begin{pmatrix}\tilde{r}_k(0)\\\tilde{p}_k(0) \end{pmatrix}\\
&=& \begin{pmatrix}
\cos(\lambda t) & \frac{{i\mkern1mu} e^{{i\mkern1mu} k/2}}{\omega} \sin(\lambda t)\\
{{i\mkern1mu} \omega e^{-{i\mkern1mu} k/2}} \sin(\lambda t) & \cos(\lambda t) \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}\tilde{r}_k(0)\\\tilde{p}_k(0) \end{pmatrix} \nonumber~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda=2 \omega \sin (k/2)$.
The translational invariance of the problem means that the correlation matrix
\begin{eqnarray}
C(x,t)= \begin{pmatrix}
\langle r_x(t) r_0(0)\rangle & \langle r_x(t) p_0(0)\rangle \\
\langle p_x(t) r_0(0)\rangle &\langle p_x(t) p_0(0)\rangle \end{pmatrix}
\end{eqnarray}
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
C(x,t)&=&\frac{1}{N} \sum_k \tilde{C}(k,t) e^{-{i\mkern1mu} k x},~\label{Cxp} \\
{\rm where}~\tilde{C}(k,t)&=&\begin{pmatrix}
\langle \tilde{r}_k(t) \tilde{r}_{-k}(0)\rangle & \langle \tilde{r}_k(t) \tilde{p}_{-k}(0)\rangle \\
\langle \cx{p}_k(t) \cx{r}_{-k}(0)\rangle &\langle \cx{p}_k(t) \cx{p}_{-k}(0)\rangle \end{pmatrix}~.
\end{eqnarray}
Using the solution in Eq.~(\ref{rpsoln}) and the fact that (since the initial distribution is taken from a Gibbs ensemble with temperature $T$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{C}(k,0)&=&\begin{pmatrix}
\langle \tilde{r}_k(0) \tilde{r}_{-k}(0)\rangle & \langle \tilde{r}_k(0) \tilde{p}_{-k}(0)\rangle \\
\langle \cx{p}_k(0) \cx{r}_{-k}(0)\rangle &\langle \cx{p}_k(0) \cx{p}_{-k}(0)\rangle \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} T/\omega^2 &0 \\ 0 & T\end{pmatrix}~, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{C}(k,t)
&=& T \begin{pmatrix}
\cos(\lambda t)/\omega^2 & \frac{{i\mkern1mu} e^{{i\mkern1mu} k/2}}{\omega} \sin(\lambda t)\\
\frac{{i\mkern1mu} e^{-{i\mkern1mu} k/2}}{\omega} \sin(\lambda t) & \cos(\lambda t)
\end{pmatrix}~. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Doing inverse Fourier transform gives $C(x,t)$ [Eq.~(\ref{Cxp})]. After straightforward manipulations and going to large $N$ limit we get the following explicit correlation matrix
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{rr}(x,t) &=& T {\cal J}_{2|x|} (2\omega t) /\omega^2 \\
C_{rp}(x,t) &=& T (-\frac{{\cal J}_{2|x|-1} (2\omega t)}{\omega}\Theta(-x) + \frac{{\cal J}_{2|x|+1} (2\omega t)}{\omega}\Theta(x)) \nonumber \\
C_{pr}(x,t) &=& T(-\frac{{\cal J}_{2|x|+1} (2\omega t)}{\omega}\Theta(-x) + \frac{{\cal J}_{2|x|-1} (2\omega t)}{\omega}\Theta(x)) \nonumber \\
C_{pp}(x,t) &=& T {\cal J}_{2|x|} (2\omega t) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal J}_n(z)$ is the Bessel function of first kind and $\Theta(x)$ is the Heaviside theta function.
Since the process is Gaussian, the energy correlation is derived using expressing higher order moments in terms of two-point correlation functions.
$C_{ee}(x,t) = [C^2_{rr}(x,t) + C^2_{rp}(x,t) + C^2_{pr}(x,t) + C^2_{pp}(x,t)]/2$.
\subsection{Hard Particle Gas correlation function}
In the hard-particle limit, the particles simply exchange velocity when they collide with each other. Thus the system can effectively be mapped to a gas of non-interacting particles, where particles exchange their identity on each collision. Indeed this mapping to the non-interacting gas was used by Jepsen \cite{JepsenJMP65} to obtain an exact
solution for velocity-velocity autocorrelation functions in the hard-particle gas. A simpler approach was recently proposed in \cite{DharSabhapanditJSP15} to obtain the velocity-velocity autocorrelation function and we have extended this to obtain other correlations \cite{Kunduetal16}. Here we present a heuristic approach which gives the asymptotic exact results.
Since the initial
velocities are chosen independently for each particle, the contribution to the correlation
function $\langle v_r(t)v_0(0)\rangle$ is non-zero only when the velocity of the $r$th particle at time $t$ is the same as that of the zero-th particle at time $0$.
The initial velocity distribution of each particle is chosen from a Maxwell distribution $f(v) =\frac{e^{- v^2/2\bar{v}^2}}{\sqrt{2 \pi}\bar{v}}$, with $\bar{v}^2=k_B T=1/\beta$. The velocity correlation function is thus approximately given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle v_x(t)v_0(0)\rangle &=&
\int dv v^2 \delta(x-\rho vt) \frac{f(v/\bar{v})}{\bar{v}} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{\bar{v}^2}{\sigma_t} \left({\frac{x}{\sigma_t}}\right)^2 \frac{e^{-\frac{1}{2}({\frac{x}{\sigma_t}})^2}}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}~, \label {hpvv}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\sigma_t = \rho\bar{v} t$.
To compute the stretch correlations, we note that
\begin{align}
&\langle r_x(t) r_0(0) \rangle = \langle [ q_{x+1}(t) -q_x(t) )(q_1(0) -q_0(0)] \rangle \nonumber \\
&~~~~= - \left[ \langle q_{x+1}(t) q_0(0) \rangle - 2 \langle q_x(t) q_0(0) \rangle + \langle q_{x-1}(t) q_0(0) \rangle \right] \nonumber\\
&= -\partial_x^2 \langle(q_x(t)q_0(0) \rangle~,
\end{align}
where we have used the translation symmetry of the chain.
Now taking two time derivatives gives
\begin{align}
\partial_t \langle r_x(t) r_0(0) \rangle &= -\partial^2_x \langle(v_x(t) q_0(0) \rangle \nonumber = -\partial^2_x \langle(v_x(0)q_0(-t) \rangle \nonumber~, \\
\partial^2 _t \langle r_x(t) r_0(0) \rangle &= \partial^2_x \langle(v_x(0)v_0(-t) \rangle \nonumber
= -\partial^2_x \langle(v_x(t)v_0(0) \rangle \nonumber,
\end{align}
where we used time-translation invariance.
Using this, the stretch correlation can be written in terms of velocity correlations as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle r_x(t) r_0(0) \rangle = \int_{0}^{t} dt' \int_{0}^{t'}dt'' \partial^2_x \langle v_x(t)v_0(0) \rangle\nonumber~.
\end{eqnarray}
This finally gives (taking the continuous $x$ limit):
\begin{equation}
\langle r_x(t) r_0(0) \rangle = \frac{1}{\rho^2 \sigma_t} \frac{e^{-\frac{1}{2}({\frac{x}{\sigma_t}})^2}}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}~.
\end{equation}
For Energy correlation, we need to compute
\eqa{
\langle e_x(t);e_0(0) \rangle &= \langle e_x(t)e_0(0) \rangle - \langle e_x(t) \rangle \langle e_0(0) \rangle \nonumber \\
&=\frac{1}{4} \langle [v^2_x(t) - \langle v^2_x(0) \rangle] [ v^2_0(0) -\langle v^2_0(0)\rangle ] \rangle \nonumber~.
}
A similar computation as that leading to Eq.~(\ref{hpvv}) gives
\begin{equation}
\langle e_x(t);e_0(0) \rangle = \frac{\bar{v}^4}{\sigma_t} \left[ \left( \frac{x}{\sigma_t}\right)^4 - 2\left( \frac{x}{\sigma_t}\right)^2 + 1 \right] f\left(\frac{x}{\sigma_t}\right)~.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Sum Rules}
Here we outline proof's of the the sum rules mentioned in Sec.~(\ref{model}).
The zeroth sum rule says that for a conserved quantity, the total
correlation of the system remain constant in time, i.e,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{x} C^{\alpha\beta}(x,t) = \sum_x C^{\alpha\beta}(x,0)~. \label{sumr0}
\end{equation}
Recall that we are interested in correlations of the fluctuations around equilibrium values $u_\alpha(x,t) = I_\alpha(x,t) - \langle I_\alpha \rangle$.
Let us also define the current fluctuations as $\Delta j_\alpha(x,t) = j_\alpha(x,t)- \langle j_\alpha \rangle$ and the total current $J^\alpha(t)=\sum_{x} j^\alpha(x,t)$. From the equations of motion we get
\begin{equation}
\partial_t u^{\alpha}(x,t) = \Delta j^\alpha_{x-1}(t) - \Delta j^\alpha_x(t)~. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Multiplying both sides by $u^{\beta}(0,0)$ and averaging over the initial equilibrium distribution gives
\eqa{
\partial_t C^{\alpha\beta}(x,t) &= \langle \Delta j^\alpha_{x-1}(t)u^{\beta}(0,0) \rangle - \langle \Delta j^\alpha_x(t)u^{\beta}(0,0) \rangle \nonumber \\
&= \langle \Delta j^\alpha_{0}(0)u^\beta_{1-x}(-t) \rangle - \langle \Delta j^\alpha_0(0) u^\beta_{-x}(-t)) \rangle~, \label{Cdt}
}
where we used space and time-translational invariance. Summing over all sites we then get
\eqa{
\frac{d}{dt} \sum_x C^{\alpha\beta}(x,t) &= \sum_x [ \langle\Delta j^\alpha_{0}(0)u^\beta_{x-1}(-t) \rangle -\langle\Delta j^\alpha_0(0) u^\beta_x(-t) \rangle] \nonumber
}
which vanishes, since $\sum u^\beta_x$ is a conserved quantity. Hence the result in Eq.~(\ref{sumr0}) follows.
The other sum rules are on the moments of spatial correlation functions
of conserved quantities. The first and second sum rules respectively state
\eqa{
\frac{d}{dt} \sum_x x C^{\alpha\beta}(x,t) &= \sum_{x=-N/2}^{N/2-1} \langle \Delta j^\alpha(x,0) u^\beta(0,0) \rangle \nonumber \\ & -N \langle j^\alpha(-N/2,t) ^{\beta}(0,0) \rangle ~, \nonumber \\
& = \langle J^\alpha u^\beta \rangle ~~~ (N \to \infty) \label{sumr1} \\
\frac{d^2}{dt^2} \sum_x x^2 C^{\alpha\beta}(x,t) &= 2 \sum_{-N/2}^{N/2-1} C^{\alpha\beta}_j(x,t) \nonumber \\&
+ N \left[ C^{\alpha\beta}_{j}(-\frac{N}{2},t) - C^{\alpha\beta}_{j}(\frac{N}{2}-1,t)\right] \nonumber \\
&= 2 \sum_x C^{\alpha\beta}_j(x,t) \label{sumr2} ~~~~(N\to \infty)
}
where $C^{\alpha \beta}_j(x,t) = \langle \Delta j^\alpha (x,t) \Delta j^\beta(0,0)\rangle$ and we note that Eq.~(\ref{sumr1}) only involves an equilibrium equal time correlation.
The proof starts by following steps as those for Eq.~(\ref{Cdt}) to get
\begin{equation}
\partial_t C^{\alpha\beta}(x,t)= \langle \Delta j^\alpha_{x-1}(0)u^\beta_0(-t) \rangle - \langle \Delta j^\alpha_x(0) u^\beta_0(-t) \rangle~. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Multiplying the above equation by $x$, summing over all $x$, and after simplifications using the fact that $\sum_x u^{\beta}(x,t) = const$ gives Eq.~(\ref{sumr1}).
Taking another time derivative, and on using the continuity equations we get
\eqa{
\frac{d^2}{dt^2} C^{\alpha\beta}(x,t) &= -[ \langle \Delta j^{\alpha}_{x-1}(0) [\Delta j^{\beta}_{-1}(-t) - \Delta j^{\beta}_0(-t)] \rangle \nonumber\\ & - \langle \Delta j^{\alpha}_x(0) [\Delta j^{\beta}_{-1}(-t) - \Delta j^{\beta}_0(-t)] \rangle ]\nonumber \\
&= \left[ C^{\alpha\beta}_j(x+1,t) - 2 C^{\alpha\beta}_j(x,t)+ C^{\alpha\beta}_j(x-1,t)\right]~. \nonumber
}
Multiplying the above equation by $x^2$, summing over all $x$, and after simplifications using the first sum-rule $\sum_x C^{\alpha\beta}(x,t) = const$ gives Eq.~(\ref{sumr2}).
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
\newcommand{\cite{GleissenthallBR16,KillianABJV07,BielyD0S13,DragoiHZ16,LesaniBC16,Pel16,KVW15:CAV}}{\cite{GleissenthallBR16,KillianABJV07,BielyD0S13,DragoiHZ16,LesaniBC16,Pel16,KVW15:CAV}}
Distributed algorithms have many applications in avionic and
automotive embedded systems, computer networks, and the internet
of things.
The central idea is to achieve dependability by replication, and
to ensure that all correct replicas behave as one, even if some of
the replicas fail.
In this way, the correct operation of the system is more reliable than
the correct operation of its parts.
Fault-tolerant algorithms typically have been used in applications
where highest reliability is required because human life is at
risk (e.g., automotive or avionic industries), and even unlikely
failures of the system are not acceptable.
In contrast, in more mainstream applications like replicated
databases, human intervention to restart the system from a
checkpoint was often considered to be acceptable, so that
expensive fault tolerance mechanisms were not used in
conventional applications.
However, new application domains such as cloud computing provide a new
motivation to study fault-tolerant algorithms: with the huge
number of computers involved, faults are the norm~\cite{Netflix5}
rather than an exception, so that fault tolerance becomes an
economic necessity; and so does the correctness of fault
tolerance mechanisms.
Hence, design, implementation, and verification of distributed systems
constitutes an active research area~\cite{GleissenthallBR16,KillianABJV07,BielyD0S13,DragoiHZ16,LesaniBC16,Pel16,KVW15:CAV}{}.
Although distributed algorithms show complex behavior, and are
difficult to understand for human engineers, there is only very
limited tool support to catch logical errors in fault-tolerant
distributed algorithms at design time.
The state of the art in the design of fault-tolerant
systems is exemplified by the recent work on Paxos-like
distributed algorithms like Raft~\cite{Ongaro2014} or
M$^2$PAXOS~\cite{Pel16}.
The designers encode these
algorithms in TLA+~\cite{TLA}, and use the TLC model checker to
automatically find bugs in small instances, i.e., in
distributed systems containing, e.g., three processes.
Large distributed systems (e.g., clouds) need guarantees for
\emph{all} numbers of processes.
These guarantees are typically given using hand-written
mathematical proofs.
In principle, these proofs could be encoded and machine-checked using
the TLAPS proof system~\cite{ChaudhuriDLM10}, PVS~\cite{LR93},
Isabelle~\cite{Charron-BostM09}, Coq~\cite{LesaniBC16},
Nuprl~\cite{RahliGBC15}, or similar
systems; but this requires human expertise in the proof checkers
and in the application domain, and a lot of effort.
Ensuring correctness of the implementation is an open challenge:
As the implementations are done by hand~\cite{Ongaro2014,Pel16}, the
connection between the specification and the implementation is
informal, such that there is no formal argument about the
correctness of the implementation.
To address the discrepancy between design, implementation, and
verification, Dr\u{a}goi et al.~\cite{DragoiHZ16} introduced a
domain-specific language PSync which is used for two purposes:
(i) it compiles into running code, and (ii) it is used for
verification.
Their verification approach~\cite{DHVWZ14}, requires a developer to
provide invariants, and similar verification conditions.
While this approach requires less human intervention than writing
machine-checkable proofs, coming up with invariants of
distributed systems requires considerable human ingenuity.
The Mace~\cite{KillianABJV07} framework is based on a similar idea,
and is an extension to C++.
While being fully automatic, their approach to correctness is
light-weight in that it uses a tool that explores random walks to
find (not necessarily all) bugs, rather than actually verifying
systems.
\begin{figure}\label{fig:st}
\lstinputlisting[language=distal]{distal.tex}
\caption{Code example of a distributed algorithm in DISTAL~\cite{BielyD0S13}.
A distributed system consists of $n$ processes,
at most $t < n/3$ of which are Byzantine faulty. The correct ones
execute the code, and no assumptions is made about the faulty processes.
}
\end{figure}
In this paper we focus on automatic verification methods for
programming constructs that are typical for fault-tolerant
distributed algorithms.
Figure~\ref{fig:st} is an example of
a distributed algorithm in the domain-specific language
DISTAL~\cite{BielyD0S13}.
It encodes the core of the reliable broadcast protocol
from~\cite{ST87:abc}, which is used as building block of many
fault-tolerant distributed systems.
Line~\ref{line:tp1} and Line~\ref{line:nmt} use so-called ``threshold
guards'' that check whether a given number of messages from
distinct senders arrived at the receiver.
As threshold guards are the central algorithmic idea for fault
tolerance, domain-specific languages such as DISTAL or PSync have
constructs for them (see~\cite{DragoiHZ16} for an
overview of domain-specific languages and formalization
frameworks for distributed systems).
For instance, the code in Figure~\ref{fig:st} works for systems with
$n$ processes among which~$t$ can fail, with $t < n/3$ as
required for Byzantine fault tolerance~\cite{LSP80}.
In such systems, waiting for messages from $n-t$ processes ensures
that if all correct processes send messages, then faulty
processes cannot prevent progress.
Similarly, waiting for $t+1$ messages ensures that at least one
message was sent by a correct process.
Konnov et al.~\cite{KVW15:CAV} introduced an automatic method to
verify safety of algorithms with threshold guards.
Their method is parameterized in that it verifies distributed
algorithms for all values of parameters ($n$ and $t$) that
satisfy a resilience condition ($t < n/3$).
This work bares similarities to the classic work on reduction for
parallel programs by Lipton~\cite{Lipton75}.
Lipton proves statements like ``all $P$ operations on a semaphore are
left movers with respect to operations on other processes.''
He proves that given a run that ends in a given state,
the same state is reached by the run in which the $P$ operation
has been moved.
Konnov et al.~\cite{KVW15:CAV} do a similar analysis for
threshold-guarded operations, in which they analyze the relation
between statements from Figure~\ref{fig:st} like ``\texttt{send
EchoMsg}'' and ``\texttt{UPON RECEIVING EchoMsg TIMES t + 1}''
in order to determine which statements are movable.
From this, they develop an offline partial order reduction that
together with acceleration~\cite{BardinFLP08,KVW16:IandC} reduced
reachability checking to complete bounded
model checking using SMT.
In this way, they automatically check safety of fault-tolerant
algorithms.
However, for fault-tolerant distributed algorithms liveness is as
important as safety: This comes from the celebrated impossibility result by Fischer, Lynch,
and Paterson~\cite{FLP85} that states that a fault-tolerant
consensus algorithm cannot ensure both safety and liveness in
asynchronous systems.
It is folklore that designing a safe fault-tolerant
distributed algorithm is trivial: \emph{just do nothing}; e.g., by never committing transactions, one cannot commit
them in inconsistent order.
Hence, a technique that verifies only safety may establish the
``correctness'' of a distributed algorithm that never does
anything useful.
To achieve trust in correctness of a distributed algorithm,
we need tools that verify both safety and liveness.
As exemplified by~\cite{FarzanKP16}, liveness verification of
parameterized distributed and concurrent systems is still a
research challenge.
Classic work on parameterized model checking by German and
Sistla~\cite{GS1992} has several restrictions on the
specifications ($\forall i.\, \phi(i)$) and the computational
model (rendezvous), which are incompatible with fault-tolerant
distributed algorithms.
In fact, none of the approaches
(e.g.,~\cite{CTV2008,EN95,EmersonK03LICS,PXZ02}) surveyed
in~\cite{2015Bloem} apply to the algorithms we consider.
More generally, in the parameterized case, going from safety to
liveness is not straightforward.
There are systems where safety is decidable and liveness is
not~\cite{Esparza99}.
\newcommand{\cite{CT96,ST87:abc,BrachaT85,MostefaouiMPR03,Raynal97,Gue02,DobreS06,BrasileiroGMR01,SongR08}}{\cite{CT96,ST87:abc,BrachaT85,MostefaouiMPR03,Raynal97,Gue02,DobreS06,BrasileiroGMR01,SongR08}}
\paragraph{Contributions.} We generalize the approach by Konnov
et al.~\cite{KVW16:IandC,KVW15:CAV} to liveness by
presenting a framework and a model checking tool that takes as input a
description of a distributed algorithm (in our variant~\cite{GKSVW14:SFM} of Promela~\cite{H2003}) and specifications
in a
fragment of linear temporal logic.
It then shows correctness for all parameter values (e.g., $n$ and $t$) that
satisfy the required resilience condition (e.g., $t < n/3$), or reports
a counterexample:
\begin{enumerate}
\item As in the classic result by Vardi and Wolper~\cite{VW86}, we
observe that it is sufficient to search for counterexamples that
have the form of a lasso, i.e., after a finite prefix an
infinite loop is entered.
Based on this, we analyze specifications automatically, in order to
enumerate possible shapes of lassos depending on temporal
operators~$\ltlF$ and~$\ltlG$ and evaluations of threshold guards.
\item We automatically do offline partial order reduction
using the algorithm's description.
For this, we introduce a more refined mover analysis for threshold
guards and temporal properties.
We extend Lipton's reduction method~\cite{Lipton75}
(re-used and extended by many others~\cite{CohenL98,Doeppner77,Lamport89pretendingatomicity,Elmas09,Flanagan:2005,KVW16:IandC}), so that we maintain
invariants, which allows us to go beyond reachability and
verify specifications with the temporal operators $\ltlF$ and
$\ltlG$.
\item By combining acceleration~\cite{BardinFLP08,KVW16:IandC} with
Points~1 and~2, we obtain a short counterexample property, that is,
that infinite executions (which may potentially be
counterexamples) have ''equivalent'' representatives of bounded
length.
The bound depends on the process code and is independent of the
parameters.
The equivalence is understood in terms of temporal logic
specifications that are satisfied by the original executions and
the representatives, respectively.
We show that the length of the representatives increases mildly
compared to reachability checking in~\cite{KVW15:CAV}.
This implies a so-called completeness threshold~\cite{KroeningOSWW11}
for threshold-based algorithms and our fragment of~\LTL{}.
\item Consequently, we only have to check a reasonable number of SMT queries
that encode parameterized and bounded-length representatives of
executions.
We show that if the parameterized system violates a temporal property, then SMT
reports a counterexample for one of the queries.
We prove that otherwise the specification holds for all system sizes.
\item Our theoretical results and our implementation push
the boundary of liveness verification for fault-tolerant
distributed algorithms.
While prior results~\cite{JohnKSVW13:fmcad} scale just to two out of ten
benchmarks from~\cite{KVW15:CAV}, we verified safety and liveness
of all ten.
These benchmarks originate from distributed algorithms~\cite{CT96,ST87:abc,BrachaT85,MostefaouiMPR03,Raynal97,Gue02,DobreS06,BrasileiroGMR01,SongR08}{} that
constitute the core of important services such as replicated state
machines.
\end{enumerate}
From a theoretical viewpoint, we introduce new concepts and conduct
extensive proofs (the proofs can be found in~\cite{KLVW16:arxiv})
for Points~1 and~2.
From a practical viewpoint, we have built a complete framework for
model checking of fault-tolerant distributed algorithms that use
threshold guards, which constitute the central programming
paradigm for dependable distributed systems.
\makeatletter{}
\section{Representation of Distributed Algorithms}\label{sec:Ab}
\subsection{Threshold Automata}
\label{sec:TA}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
{\makeatletter{}
\tikzstyle{node}=[circle,draw=black,thick,minimum size=4.3mm,inner sep=0.75mm,font=\normalsize]
\tikzstyle{init}=[circle,draw=black!90,fill=green!10,thick,minimum size=4.3mm,inner sep=0.75mm,font=\normalsize]
\tikzstyle{final}=[circle,draw=black!90,fill=red!10,thick,minimum size=4.3mm,inner sep=0.75mm,font=\normalsize]
\tikzstyle{rule}=[->,thick]
\tikzstyle{post}=[->,thick,rounded corners,font=\normalsize]
\tikzstyle{pre}=[<-,thick]
\tikzstyle{cond}=[rounded
corners,rectangle,minimum
width=1cm,draw=black,fill=white,font=\normalsize]
\tikzstyle{asign}=[rectangle,minimum
width=1cm,draw=black,fill=gray!5,font=\normalsize]
\tikzset{every loop/.style={min distance=5mm,in=140,out=113,looseness=2}}
\begin{tikzpicture}[>=latex, thick,scale=0.9, every node/.style={scale=01}]
\node[] at (0, 1.15) [init,label=left:\textcolor{blue}{$\ell_0$}] (0) {};
\node[] at (0, -1.15) [init,node,label=left:\textcolor{blue}{$\ell_1$}] (1) {};
\node[] at (3.5, 0) [node,label=below:\textcolor{blue}{$\ell_2$}] (2) {};
\node[] at (6, 0) [final,label=below right:\textcolor{blue}{$\ell_3$}] (3) {};
\draw[post] (0) to[]
node[rotate=-17, align=center,anchor=east, midway,yshift=-.23cm,xshift=.75cm]
{$r_2 \colon \gamma_1 \mapsto \cpp{x}$} (2);
\draw[post] (1) to[] node[rotate=17, anchor=north,yshift=.48cm,xshift=-.25cm]
{$r_1 \colon \mathit{true} \mapsto \cpp{x}$~ ~}(2);
\draw[post] (0) -| node[anchor=south,yshift=-.45cm,xshift=1cm, pos=.25] (xpp)
{$r_3 \colon \gamma_2 \mapsto \cpp{x}$} (3);
\draw[post] (2)to[]
node[align=center,anchor=north, midway]
{$r_4 \colon \gamma_2$} (3);
\draw[post] (1) -| node[anchor=north, pos=.25,yshift=.35cm,xshift=1cm] (xget)
{$r_5 \colon \gamma_2 \mapsto \cpp{x}$} (3);
\draw[rule] (0) to[out=225,in=270,looseness=8]
node[align=center,anchor=east,midway]{$r_6$} (0);
\draw[rule] (2) to[out=15,in=60,looseness=8]
node[align=center,anchor=north,midway,xshift=.2cm,yshift=.3cm]{$r_7$} (2);
\draw[rule] (3) to[out=15,in=60,looseness=8]
node[align=center,anchor=north,midway,yshift=.4cm]{$r_8$} (3);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\end{center}
\caption{The threshold automaton corresponding to Figure~\ref{fig:st}
with $\gamma_1 \colon x \ge (t+1) - f$ and $\gamma_2 \colon x \ge
(n-t) - f$
over parameters
$n$, $t$, and $f$, representing the number of processes, the upper
bound on the faulty processes (used in the code), and the actual
number of faulty processes. The negative number $-f$ in the threshold is
used to model the environment, and captures that at most $f$ of
the received messages may have been sent by faulty processes.
}
\label{fig:stunningexample}
\end{figure}
As internal representation in our tool, and in the theoretical work of
this paper, we use \emph{threshold automata} (TA) defined
in~\cite{KVW16:IandC}.
The TA that corresponds to the DISTAL code from Figure~\ref{fig:st}
is given in Figure~\ref{fig:stunningexample}.
The threshold automaton represents the local control flow of a single
process, where arrows represent local transitions that are
labeled with $\varphi \mapsto \mathsf{act}$: Expression~$\varphi$
is a threshold guard and the action $\mathsf{act}$ may increment
a shared variable.
\begin{example}\label{ex:machina} The TA from
Figure~\ref{fig:stunningexample} is quite similar to the code in
Figure~\ref{fig:st}: if \texttt{START} is called with $v=1$ this
corresponds to the initial local state $\ell_1$, while otherwise
a process starts in~$\ell_0$.
Initially a process has not sent any messages.
The local state $\ell_2$ in Figure~\ref{fig:stunningexample}
captures that the process has sent
\texttt{EchoMsg} and \texttt{accept} evaluates to false,
while $\ell_3$ captures that the
process has sent \texttt{EchoMsg} and \texttt{accept} evaluates
to true.
The syntax of Figure~\ref{fig:st}, although checking how
many messages of some type are received, hides bookkeeping
details and the environment, e.g., message buffers.
For our verification technique, we need to make such issues explicit:
The shared variable $x$ stores the number of correct processes
that have sent \texttt{EchoMsg}.
Incrementing~$x$ models that \texttt{EchoMsg} is sent when the
transition is taken.
Then, execution of Line~\ref{line:init} corresponds to the transition
$r_1$.
Executing Line~\ref{line:tp1} is captured by $r_2$: the check whether
$t+1$ messages are received is captured by the fact that $r_2$
has the guard $\gamma_1$, that is, $x \ge (t+1) - f$.
Intuitively, this guard checks whether sufficiently many processes
have sent \texttt{EchoMsg} (i.e., increased~$x$), and takes into
account that at most~$f$ messages may have been sent by
faulty processes.
Namely, if we observe the guard in the equivalent form $x + f\ge
t+1$, then we notice that it evaluates to true when the total
number of received \texttt{EchoMsg} messages from correct
processes ($x$) and potentially received messages from faulty processes (at most $f$), is at least
$t+1$, which corresponds to the guard of Line~\ref{line:tp1}.
Transition~$r_4$ corresponds to Line~\ref{line:nmt}, $r_3$
captures that Line~\ref{line:init} and Line~\ref{line:nmt} are
performed in one protocol step, and $r_5$ captures
Line~\ref{line:tp1} and Line~\ref{line:nmt}.
\end{example}
While the example shows that the code in a domain-specific
language and a TA are quite close, it should be noted that in
reality, things are slightly more involved.
For instance, the DISTAL runtime takes care of the bookkeeping of sent
and received messages (waiting queues at different network
layers, buffers, etc.), and just triggers the high-level protocol
when a threshold guard evaluates to true.
This typically requires counting the number of
received messages.
While these local counters are present in the implementation, they
are abstracted in the~TA.
For the purpose of this paper we do not need to get into the details.
Discussions on data abstraction and automated generation of TAs from
code similar to DISTAL can be found in~\cite{KVW16:psi}.
We recall the necessary definitions introduced in~\cite{KVW16:IandC}.
A threshold automaton is a tuple~$\textsf{TA} = ({\mathcal L}, {\mathcal I}, \Gamma,
\Pi, {\mathcal R},{\ident{RC}}} \newcommand{\abst}{\alpha)$ whose components are defined as follows:
The \emph{local states} and the \emph{initial states} are in the
finite sets ${\mathcal L}$ and ${\mathcal I}\subseteq{\mathcal L}$,
respectively.
For simplicity, we identify local states with natural numbers, i.e., ${\mathcal L}= \{1, \dots, |{\mathcal L}| \}$.
\emph{Shared variables} and \emph{parameter variables} range
over~${\mathbb N}_0$ and are in the finte sets $\Gamma$
and~$\Pi$, respectively.
The \emph{resilience condition}~${\ident{RC}}} \newcommand{\abst}{\alpha$ is a formula over
parameter variables in linear integer arithmetic, and the
\emph{admissible parameters} are
$\mathbf{P}_{RC} = \{ \mathbf{p}\in {\mathbb N}_0^{|\paraset|} \colon \mathbf{p} \models
{\ident{RC}}} \newcommand{\abst}{\alpha \}$.
After an example for resilience conditions, we will conclude the
definition of a threshold automaton by defining~${\mathcal R}$ as the finite set of rules.
\begin{example}\label{ex:rc}
The admissible parameters and resilience conditions are motivated
by fault-tolerant distributed algorithms: Let $n$
be the number of processes, $t$ be the assumed number of faulty
processes, and in a run, $f$ be the actual number of faults.
For these parameters, the famous result by Pease, Shostak and
Lamport~\cite{LSP80} states that agreement can be solved iff the
resilience condition $n > 3t \wedge t \ge f \ge 0$ is satisfied.
Given such constraints, the set $\mathbf{P}_{RC}$ is infinite, and in
Section~\ref{sec:countsys} we will see that this results in an
infinite state system.
\end{example}
A \emph{rule} is a tuple $({\mathit{from}}, {\mathit{to}}, \varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{\le}},
\varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{>}}, \vec{u})$, where ${\mathit{from}}$ and ${\mathit{to}}$ are from
${\mathcal L}$, and capture from which local state to which a process
moves via that rule.
A rule can only be executed if $\varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{\le}}$ and $\varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{>}}$ are true; both
are conjunction of guards.
Each guard consists of a shared variable $x \in \Gamma$,
coefficients $a_0, \dots, a_{|\paraset|} \in {\mathbb Z}$, and parameter
variables $p_1, \dots, p_{|\paraset|} \in \Pi$ so that $x \ge a_0 +
\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{{|\paraset|}} a_i \cdot p_i$ is
a \emph{lower guard}
and
$x < a_0 + \sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{{|\paraset|}} a_i \cdot p_i $
is an \emph{upper guard}. Then,
$\Phi^{\mathrm{rise}}$ and $\Phi^{\mathrm{fall}}$ are the sets of lower and upper
guards.\footnote{Compared to~\cite{KVW15:CAV}, we use the more
intuitive notation of $\Phi^{\mathrm{rise}}$ and $\Phi^{\mathrm{fall}}$: lower guards
can only change from false to true (rising), while upper guards can only
change from true to false (falling); cf.\ Proposition~\ref{prop:mono}.}
Rules may increase shared variables using an update vector $\vec{u}
\in {\mathbb N}_0^{|\globset|}$ that is added to the vector of shared
variables.
Finally,~${\mathcal R}$ is the finite set of rules.
\begin{example} A rule corresponds to an edge in
Figure~\ref{fig:stunningexample}.
The pair $({\mathit{from}},{\mathit{to}})$ encodes the edge while
$(\varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{\le}},\varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{>}},\vec{u})$ encodes the edge label.
For example, rule~$r_2$ would be $(\ell_0,\ell_2,\gamma_1,\top,1)$.
Thus, a rule corresponds to a (guarded) statement from
Figure~\ref{fig:st} (or combined statements as discussed in
Example~\ref{ex:machina}).
\end{example}
The above definition of TAs is quite general.
It allows loops, increase of shared variables in loops, etc.
As has been observed in~\cite{KVW16:IandC}, if one does not restrict
increases on shared variables, the resulting systems may produce
runs that visit infinitely many states, and there is little hope for
a complete verification method.
Hence, Konnov et al.~\cite{KVW15:CAV} analyzed the TAs of the
benchmarks~\cite{CT96,ST87:abc,BrachaT85,MostefaouiMPR03,Raynal97,Gue02,DobreS06,BrasileiroGMR01,SongR08}{}: They observed that some states have self-loops (corresponding to
busy-waiting for messages to arrive) and in the case of failure
detector based algorithms~\cite{Raynal97} there are loops that
consist of at most two rules.
None of the rules in loops increase shared variables.
In our theory, we allow more general TAs than actually found in the
benchmarks. In more detail, we make the following assumption:
\paragraph{Threshold automata for fault-tolerant distributed algorithms.}
As in~\cite{KVW16:IandC}, we assume that if a rule~$r$ is in a loop,
then $r.\vec{u} = \vec{0}$.
In addition, we use the restriction that all the cycles of a TA are
simple, i.e., between any two locations in a cycle there exists
exactly one node-disjoint directed path (nodes in cycles may have
self-loops).
We conjecture that this restriction can be relaxed as
in~\cite{KVW15:CAV}, but this is orthogonal to our~work.
\begin{example} In the TA from
Figure~\ref{fig:stunningexample} we use the shared variable~$x$
as the number of correct processes that have sent a message.
One easily observes that the rules that update~$x$ do not belong to
loops.
Indeed, all the benchmarks~\cite{CT96,ST87:abc,BrachaT85,MostefaouiMPR03,Raynal97,Gue02,DobreS06,BrasileiroGMR01,SongR08}{} share this structure.
This is because at the algorithmic level, all these algorithms are
based on the
reliable communication assumption (no message loss and no
spurious message generation/duplication), and not much is gained by
resending the same message.
In these algorithms a process checks whether
sufficiently many processes (e.g., a majority) have sent a
message to signal that they are in some specific local state.
Consequently, a receiver would ignore duplicate messages from the same
sender.
In our analysis we exploit this characteristic of distributed
algorithms with threshold guards, and make the corresponding
assumption that processes do not send (i.e., increase~$x$) from
within a loop.
Similarly, as a process cannot make the sending of a message undone,
we assume that shared variables are never decreased.
So, while we need these assumptions to derive our results, they are
justified by our application domain.
\end{example}
\subsection{Counter Systems}
\label{sec:countsys}
A threshold automaton models a single process.
Now the question arises how we define the composition of multiple
processes that will result in a distributed system.
Classically, this is done by parallel composition and interleaving
semantics: A state of a distributed system that consists of $n$
processes is modeled as $n$-dimensional vector of local states.
The transition to a successor state is then defined by
non-deterministically picking a process, say $i$, and changing the
$i$th component of the $n$-dimensional vector according to the
local transition relation of the process.
However, for our domain of threshold-guarded algorithms, we do not
care about the precise $n$-dimensional vector so that we use a
more efficient encoding: It is well-known that the system state
of specific distributed or concurrent systems can be represented
as a counter system~\cite{Lub84,PXZ02,AlbertiGP16,KVW16:IandC}:
instead of recording for some local state~$\ell$, which
processes are in~$\ell$, we are only interested in \emph{how many
processes are in~$\ell$}.
In this way, we can efficiently encode transition systems in SMT with
linear integer arithmetics.
Therefore, we formalize the semantics of the threshold automata by
counter systems.
Fix a threshold automaton $\textsf{TA}$, a function (expressible as linear combination
of parameters) $N\colon \mathbf{P}_{RC} \rightarrow {\mathbb N}_0$ that determines
the number of modeled processes, and admissible parameter values $\mathbf{p}
\in \mathbf{P}_{RC}$.
A counter system $\textsf{Sys}(\Sk)$ is defined as a transition system
$(\Sigma,I,R)$, with configurations $\Sigma$ and
$I$ and transition relation~$R$ defined below.
\begin{definition}\label{def:config}
A configuration $\sigma=({\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}},\vec{g},\mathbf{p})$ consists of a vector
of \emph{counter values} $\sigma.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}} \in
{\mathbb N}_0^{|\local|}$, a vector of
\emph{shared variable values} $\sigma.\vec{g} \in
{\mathbb N}_0^{|\globset|}$, and a vector of \emph{parameter values}
$\sigma.\mathbf{p} = \mathbf{p}$.
The set $\Sigma$ contains all configurations.
The initial configurations are in set~$I$, and
each initial configuration $\sigma$ satisfies
$\sigma.\vec{g} = \vec{0}$, $\sum_{i
\in {\mathcal I}} \sigma.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[i] = N(\mathbf{p})$, and
$\sum_{i \not\in {\mathcal I}} \sigma.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[i] = 0$.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}\label{ex:config}
The safety property from Example~\ref{ex:rc},
refers to an initial configuration that satisfies
resilience condition $n > 3t \wedge t \ge f \ge 0$, e.g., $4 >
3\cdot 1 \wedge 1 \ge 0 \ge 0$ such that $\sigma.\mathbf{p} =
(4,1,0)$.
In our encodings we typically have
$N$ is the function $(n,t,f) \mapsto n-f$.
Further, $\sigma.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_0] = N(\mathbf{p})= n-f = 4$ and
$\sigma.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_i] = 0$, for $\ell_i
\in{\mathcal L}\setminus\{\ell_0\}$, and the shared variable
$\sigma.\vec{g}=0$.
\end{example}
A \emph{transition} is a pair $t=({\mathit{rule}},{\mathit{factor}})$ of a rule and a
non-negative integer called the \emph{acceleration factor}.
For $t=({\mathit{rule}},{\mathit{factor}})$ we write $t.\vec{u}$ for
${\mathit{rule}}.\vec{u}$, etc. A transition $t$ is \emph{unlocked}
in~$\sigma$ if $ \forall k \in \{0, \dots, t.{\mathit{factor}} - 1 \}.\;
(\sigma.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}},\sigma.\vec{g} + k\cdot t.\vec{u}, \sigma.\mathbf{p})
\models t.\varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{\le}} \wedge t.\varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{>}}.\nonumber $ A transition
$t$ is \emph{applicable (or enabled)} in~$\sigma$, if it is
unlocked, and $\sigma.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[t.{\mathit{from}}] \ge t.{\mathit{factor}}$,
or $t.{\mathit{factor}}=0$.
\begin{example}\label{ex:accel}
This notion of applicability contains acceleration and is central for
our approach.
Intuitively, the value of the factor corresponds to how
many times the rule is executed by different processes. In this way, we
can subsume steps by an arbitrary number of
processes into one transition.
Consider Figure~\ref{fig:stunningexample}.
If for some $k$, $k$ processes are in location $\ell_1$, then in
classic modeling it takes $k$ transitions to move these processes
one-by-one to~$\ell_2$.
With acceleration, however, these $k$ processes can
be moved to $\ell_2$ in one step, independently of $k$.
In this way, the bounds we compute will be independent of the
parameter values.
However, assuming $x$ to be a shared variable and $f$ being a
parameter that captures the number of faults, our
(crash-tolerant) benchmarks include rules like ``$x<f \mapsto
\cpp{x}$'' for local transition to a special ``crashed'' state.
The above definition ensures that at most $f-x$
of these transitions are accelerated into one transition (whose
factor thus is at most $f-x$).
This precise treatment of threshold guards
is crucial for fault-tolerant distributed
algorithms.
The central contribution of this paper is to show how acceleration can
be used to shorten schedules while maintaining specific temporal
logic properties.
\end{example}
\begin{definition}\label{def:TofSigma}
The configuration $\sigma'$ is the result of applying the enabled
transition $t$ to $\sigma$, if
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\sigma'.\vec{g} = \sigma.\vec{g} + t.{\mathit{factor}} \cdot t.\vec{u}$
\item $\sigma'.\mathbf{p} = \sigma.\mathbf{p}$
\item if $t.{\mathit{from}} \ne t.{\mathit{to}}$ then
$\sigma'.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[t.{\mathit{from}}]=\sigma.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[t.{\mathit{from}}]
- t.{\mathit{factor}}$,
$\sigma'.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[t.{\mathit{to}}]=\sigma.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[t.{\mathit{to}}] +
t.{\mathit{factor}}$, and\\
$\forall \ell \in {\mathcal L} \setminus \{t.{\mathit{from}}, t.{\mathit{to}} \}.\;
\sigma'.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell]=\sigma.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell]$.
\item if $t.{\mathit{from}} = t.{\mathit{to}}$ then $\sigma'.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}} =
\sigma.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}.$
\end{enumerate}
In this case we use the notation $\sigma' =
t(\sigma)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{example} \label{ex:guards} Let us again consider
Figure~\ref{fig:stunningexample} with $n=4$, $t=1$, and $f=1$.
We consider the initial configuration where $\sigma.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_1]
= n-f = 3$ and $\sigma.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_i] = 0$, for $\ell_i
\in{\mathcal L}\setminus\{\ell_0\}$.
The guard of rule $r_5$, $\gamma_2 \colon x \ge (n-t) - f = 2$,
initially evaluates to false because $x=0$.
The guard of rule $r_1$ is true, so that any transition $(r_1,
{\mathit{factor}})$ is unlocked.
As $\sigma.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_1] = 3$, all transitions $(r_1,
{\mathit{factor}})$, for $0\le{\mathit{factor}}\le 3$ are applicable.
If the transition $(r_1,2)$ is applied to the initial configuration,
we obtain that $x=2$ so that, after the application, $\gamma_2$
evaluates to true.
Then $r_5$ is unlocked and the transitions $(r_5,1)$ and $(r_5,
0)$ are applicable as $\sigma.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_1] = 1$.
Since $\gamma_2$ checks for greater or equal,
once it becomes true it remains true.
Such monotonic behavior is given for all guards, as has already been
observed in~\cite[Proposition 7]{KVW16:IandC}, and is a crucial property.
\end{example}
The transition relation $R$
is defined as follows: Transition $(\sigma, \sigma')$ belongs to
$R$ iff there is a rule $r\in{\mathcal R}$ and a factor $k\in{\mathbb N}_0$
such that $\sigma' = t(\sigma)$ for $t=(r,k)$.
A \emph{schedule} is a sequence of
transitions.
For a schedule~$\tau$ and an index~$i: 1 \le i \le |\tau|$, by $\tau[i]$
we denote the $i$th transition of $\tau$, and by $\tau^i$ we
denote the prefix $\tau[1], \dots, \tau[i]$ of~$\tau$.
A schedule $\tau = t_1, \dots, t_m$ is \emph{applicable} to
configuration $\sigma_0$, if there is a sequence of
configurations $\sigma_1,\dots, \sigma_m$ with $\sigma_i =
t_{i} (\sigma_{i-1})$ for $1 \le i \le m$.
A schedule $t_1, \dots, t_m$ where $t_i.{\mathit{factor}}=1$ for $0< i\le m$
is called \emph{conventional}.
If there is a $t_i.{\mathit{factor}}>1$, then a schedule is \emph{accelerated}.
By $\tau \cdot \tau'$ we denote the concatenation
of two schedules $\tau$ and~$\tau'$.
We will reason about schedules in Section~\ref{sec:repr} for our mover
analysis, which is naturally expressed by swapping neighboring
transitions in a schedule.
To reason about temporal logic properties, we need to reason about the
configurations that are ``visited'' by a schedule.
For that we now introduce paths.
A finite or infinite sequence $\gst_0, t_1, \gst_1, \dots, t_{k-1}, \gst_{k-1},
t_k, \dots$ of alternating configurations and transitions is called a
\emph{path}, if for every transition~$t_i$, $i\in{\mathbb N}$, in
the sequence, holds that~$t_i$ is enabled in~$\gst_{i-1}$, and
$\gst_i = t_i(\gst_{i-1})$.
For a configuration~$\gst_0$ and a finite schedule~$\tau$ applicable
to~$\gst_0$, by $\finpath{\gst_0}{\tau}$ we denote $\gst_0, t_1, \gst_1,
\dots, t_{|\tau|}, \gst_{|\tau|}$ with
$\gst_i = t_i(\gst_{i-1})$, for $1 \le i \le |\tau|$.
Similarly, if $\tau$ is an infinite schedule applicable to~$\gst_0$,
then $\infpath{\gst_0}{\tau}$ represents an infinite sequence
$\gst_0, t_1, \gst_1, \dots, t_{k-1}, \gst_{k-1}, t_k, \dots$
where $\gst_i = t_i(\gst_{i-1})$,
for all $i > 0$.
The evaluation of the threshold guards solely
defines whether certain rules are unlocked.
As was discussed in
Example~\ref{ex:guards}, along a path, the evaluations of guards
are monotonic.
The set of upper guards that evaluate to false and lower guards that
evaluate to true\dash---called
the context\dash---changes only finitely many times.
A schedule can thus be understood as an alternating sequence of
schedules without context change, and context-changing transitions.
We will recall the definitions of context etc.\ from~\cite{KVW15:CAV}
in Section~\ref{sec:structguards}. We
say that a schedule $\tau$ is \emph{steady} for a configuration
$\gst$, if every configuration of $\finpath{\gst}{\tau}$ has
the same context.
Due to the resilience conditions and admissible parameters, our counter
systems are in general infinite state.
The following proposition establishes an important property for
verification.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:finite}
Every (finite or infinite) path visits finitely many configurations.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Definition~\ref{def:TofSigma}(3), if a transition $t$ is applied to a
configuration $\sigma$, then the sum of the counters remains unchanged,
that is,
$\sum_{\ell\in{\mathcal L}} \sigma.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell] = \sum_{\ell\in{\mathcal L}}
t(\sigma).{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell]$. By
repeating this argument, the sum of the counters remains stable in a
path. By Definition~\ref{def:TofSigma}(2) the parameter values also
remain stable in a path.
By Definition~\ref{def:TofSigma}(1), it remains to show that in each
path eventually the shared variable $\vec{g}$ stop increasing.
Let us fix a rule $r=({\mathit{from}}, {\mathit{to}}, \varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{\le}}, \varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{>}},
\vec{u})$ that increases $\vec{g}$. By the definition of a
transition, applying some transition $(r,{\mathit{factor}})$ decreases
${\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[r.{\mathit{from}}]$ by ${\mathit{factor}}$.
As by assumption on TAs,
$r$ is not in a cycle, ${\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[r.{\mathit{from}}]$ is increased only
finitely often, namely, at most $N(\mathbf{p})$
times.
As there are only finitely many rules in a TA, the proposition
follows.
\end{proof}
\makeatletter{}
\section{Verification Problems:
Parameterized Reachability vs. Safety \& Liveness.}
\label{sec:reach-and-live}
In this section we will discuss the verification problems for
fault-tolerant distributed algorithms. A central challenge is to handle
resilience conditions precisely.
\begin{example} \label{ex:reach}
The safety property (unforgeability)
of~\cite{ST87:abc} expressed in terms of
Figure~\ref{fig:stunningexample} means that no process should
ever enter~$\ell_3$ if initially all processes are in~$\ell_0$,
given that $n > 3t \wedge t \ge f \ge 0$.
We can
express this in the counter system: under the
resilience condition $n > 3t \wedge t \ge f \ge 0$, given an
initial configuration~$\sigma$, with $\sigma.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_0] =
n-f$, to verify safety, we have to establish the absence of a
schedule $\tau$ that satisfies $\sigma'=\tau(\sigma)$ and
$\sigma'.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_3] > 0$.
In order to be able to answer this question, we have to deal with these
resilience conditions precisely: Observe that $\ell_3$ is
unreachable, as all outgoing transitions from $\ell_0$ contain
guards that evaluate to false initially, and since all processes
are in $\ell_0$ no process ever increases~$x$.
A slight modification of $t \ge f$ to $t+1 \ge f$ in the resilience
condition changes the result, i.e., one fault too many breaks the
system.
For example, if $n=4$, $t=1$, and $f=2$, then the new resilience
condition holds, but as the guard~$\gamma_1: x \ge (t+1) -f$ is
now initially true, then one correct process can fire the
rule~$r_2$ and increase~$x$.
Now when $x=1$, the guard $\gamma_2: x\ge (n-t) -f$ becomes true, so
that the process can fire the rule~$r_4$ and reach the
state~$\ell_3$.
This tells us that unforgeability is not satisfied in the system where
the resilience condition is $n > 3t \wedge t+1 \ge f \ge 0$.
\end{example}
This is the verification question studied in~\cite{KVW15:CAV},
which can be formalized as follows:
\begin{definition}[Parameterized reachability]
Given a threshold automaton~$\Sk$ and a Boolean formula~$B$ over
$\{{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[i] = 0 \mid i \in {\mathcal L}\}$,
check whether there are parameter values~$\mathbf{p} \in \mathbf{P}_{RC}$,
an initial configuration $\gst_0 \in I$ with~$\gst_0.\mathbf{p} =
\mathbf{p}$ and a finite schedule~$\tau$ applicable to~$\gst_0$ such
that~$\tau(\gst_0) \models B$.
\end{definition}
As shown in~\cite{KVW15:CAV}, if such a schedule exists, then
there is also a schedule of bounded length.
In this paper, we do not limit ourselves to reachability, but consider
specifications of
\emph{counterexamples to safety and liveness} of FTDAs from the
literature.
We observe that such specifications use a simple subset of linear temporal
logic that contains only the temporal operators~$\ltlF$ and~$\ltlG$.
\begin{example}\label{ex:fair}
Consider a liveness property from the distributed algorithms
literature
called correctness~\cite{ST87:abc}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:correctness}
\ltlG\ltlF \psi_\text{fair} \rightarrow ({\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_0] = 0 \rightarrow
\ltlF {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_3] \ne 0).
\end{equation}
Formula~$\psi_\text{fair}$ expresses the reliable communication
assumption of distributed algorithms~\cite{FLP85}.
In this example, $\psi_\text{fair} \equiv {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_1] = 0 \wedge (x\ge
t+1 \rightarrow {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_0] = 0 \wedge {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_1] =
0) \wedge (x\ge n-t \rightarrow {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_0] = 0 \wedge
{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_2] = 0)$.
Intuitively, $\ltlG\ltlF \psi_\text{fair}$ means that all processes in
$\ell_1$ should eventually leave this state, and if sufficiently
many messages of type~$x$ are sent ($\gamma_1$ or $\gamma_2$
holds true), then all processes eventually receive them.
If they do so, they have to eventually fire rules~$r_1$,~$r_2$,~$r_3$,
or~$r_4$ and thus leave locations~$\ell_0$,~$\ell_1$,
and~$\ell_2$.
Our approach is based on possible shapes of \emph{counterexamples}.
Therefore, we consider the negation of the
specification~(\ref{eq:correctness}), that is, $
\ltlG\ltlF \psi_\text{fair} \wedge {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_0] = 0
\wedge \ltlG {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_3] = 0$. In the following we define
the logic that can express such counterexamples.
\end{example}
The fragment of LTL limited to~$\ltlF$ and~$\ltlG$ was studied
in~\cite{EtessamiVW02,KroeningOSWW11}.
We further restrict it to the logic that we call \emph{Fault-Tolerant
Temporal Logic} ($\ELTLTB$), whose
syntax is shown in Table~\ref{table:eltlft-syntax}.
The formulas derived from \emph{cform}\dash---called counter
formulas\dash---restrict counters, while the formulas
derived from \emph{gform}\dash---called guard formulas\dash---restrict
shared variables.
The formulas derived from \emph{pform} are propositional formulas.
The temporal operators $\ltlF$ and $\ltlG$ follow the standard
semantics~\cite{CGP1999,BK08}, that is, for a configuration~$\gst$ and an
infinite
schedule~$\tau$, it holds that ~$\infpath{\gst}{\tau} \models \varphi$, if:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\gst \models \varphi$, when $\varphi$ is a propositional formula,
\item $\exists \tau',\tau'':
\tau = \tau' \cdot \tau''.\ \infpath{\tau'(\gst)}{\tau''} \models \psi$, when $\varphi=\ltlF \psi$,
\item $\forall \tau',\tau'':
\tau = \tau' \cdot \tau''.\ \infpath{\tau'(\gst)}{\tau''} \models \psi$, when $\varphi=\ltlG \psi$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{table}
\begin{align*}
\psi &::=
\mathit{pform} \ |\ \ltlG \psi\ |\ \ltlF \psi \ |\ \psi \wedge \psi\\
\mathit{pform} &::= \mathit{cform} \ |\ \mathit{gform} \vee \mathit{cform}\\
\mathit{cform} &::= \bigvee_{\ell \in \mathit{Locs}} {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell] \ne
0 \ |\ \bigwedge_{\ell \in \mathit{Locs}} {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell] = 0 \ |\ \mathit{cform} \wedge
\mathit{cform} \\
\mathit{gform} &::= \mathit{guard}
\ |\ \neg \mathit{gform} \ |\ \mathit{gform} \wedge \mathit{gform}
\end{align*}
\caption{The syntax of~$\ELTLTB$-formulas: $\mathit{pform}$ defines
propositional formulas, and $\psi$ defines temporal formulas.
We assume that $\mathit{Locs} \subseteq {\mathcal L}$ and $\mathit{guard} \in
\Phi^{\mathrm{rise}} \cup \Phi^{\mathrm{fall}}$.} \label{table:eltlft-syntax}
\end{table}
To stress that the formula should be satisfied by \emph{at least
one path}, we prepend $\ELTLTB$-formulas with the existential path
quantifier~$\ltlE$.
We use the shorthand notation~$\mathit{true}$ for a valid
propositional formula, e.g.,~$\bigwedge_{i \in \emptyset} {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[i] =
0$.
We also denote with~$\ELTLTB$ the set of all formulas that can be
written using the logic~$\ELTLTB$.
We will reason about invariants of the finite
subschedules, and
consider a propositional formula~$\psi$.
Given a configuration~$\gst$, a finite schedule~$\tau$ applicable
to~$\sigma$, and~$\psi$, by
$\setconf{\gst}{\tau}\models \psi$
we denote
that~$\psi$ holds in every configuration $\sigma'$ visited by the
path~$\finpath{\gst}{\tau}$.
In other words, for every prefix~$\tau'$ of~$\tau$, we have that
$\tau'(\gst)\models \psi$.
\begin{definition}[Parameterized unsafety \& non-liveness]\label{def:pmcp}
Given a threshold automaton~$\Sk$ and an $\ELTLTB{}$ formula $\psi$, check
whether there are parameter values $\mathbf{p} \in \mathbf{P}_{RC}$, an initial
configuration $\gst_0 \in I$ with $\gst_0.\mathbf{p} = \mathbf{p}$, and an
infinite schedule~$\tau$ of~$\textsf{Sys}(\Sk)$ applicable to~$\gst_0$ such that
$\infpath{\gst_0}{\tau} \models \psi$.
\end{definition}
\paragraph{Complete bounded model checking.}
We solve this problem by showing how to
reduce it to bounded model checking while guaranteeing
completeness.
To this end, we have to construct a bounded-length encoding of
infinite schedules. In more detail:
\begin{itemize}
\item We observe that if $\infpath{\gst_0}{\tau} \models \psi$,
then there is an initial state~$\gst$ and two finite schedules
$\vartheta$ and $\rho$ (of unknown length) that can be used to
construct an infinite (lasso-shaped) schedule $\vartheta \cdot
\rho^\omega$, such that $\infpath{\gst}{\vartheta \cdot \rho^\omega}
\models \psi$ (Section~\ref{sec:lasso}).
\item Now given $\vartheta$ and $\rho$, we prove that we can use a
$\psi$-specific reduction, to cut $\vartheta$ and $\rho$ into
subschedules $\vartheta_1,\dots,\vartheta_m$ and $\rho_1,\dots,\rho_n$,
respectively so that the subschedules satisfy subformulas of $\psi$
(Sections~\ref{sec:shapelasso}, \ref{sec:enumerating-lassos}
and~\ref{sec:structguards}).
\item We use an offline partial order reduction, specific to the
subformulas of $\psi$,
and acceleration to construct
representative schedules $\jrep{\vartheta_i}$ and
$\jrep{\rho_j}$ that satisfy the required $\ELTLTB$
formulas that are satisfied $\vartheta_i$ and~$\rho_j$, respectively for $1 \le i
\le m$ and $1 \le j \le n$.
Moreover, $\jrep{\vartheta_i}$ and $\jrep{\rho_j}$ are
fixed sequences of rules, where bounds on the lengths of the
sequences are known (Section~\ref{sec:repr}).
\item These fixed sequence of rules can be used to encode a query to
the SMT solver (Section~\ref{sec:smtencodings}). We ask whether there is an applicable schedule in
the counter system that
satisfies the sequence of rules and~$\psi$ (Section~\ref{sec:subexp}). If the SMT solver
reports a contradiction, there exists no counterexample.
\end{itemize}
Based on these theoretical results, our tool implements the
high-level verification algorithm from Figure~\ref{fig:pseudo} (in the comments we give the
sections that are concerned with the respective step):
\begin{figure}
\begin{lstlisting}[language=pseudo,numbers=none,columns=fullflexible]
algorithm parameterized_model_checking($\Sk$, $\varphi$): // see Def. @\ref{def:pmcp}@
${\cal G}$ := cut_graph ($\varphi$) /* Sect. 4 */
${\cal H}$ := threshold_graph($\Sk$) /* Sect. 5 */
for each $\prec$ in topological_orderings(${\cal G} \cup {\cal H}$) do // e.g., using @\cite{Canfield1995}@
check_one_order($\Sk$, $\varphi$, ${\cal G}$, ${\cal H}$, $\prec$) /* Sect. 6-7 */
if SMT_sat() then report the SMT model as a counterexample
\end{lstlisting}
\caption{A high-level description of the verification algorithm. For details
of \texttt{check\_one\_order}, see Section~\ref{sec:one-order} and Figure~\ref{fig:pseudosmt}.}
\label{fig:pseudo}
\end{figure}
\makeatletter{}\section{Shapes of Schedules that Satisfy~$\ELTLTB$}\label{sec:counterexamples}
We characterize all possible shapes of
lasso schedules that satisfy an
$\ELTLTB{}$-formula~$\varphi$.
These shapes are characterized by so-called \emph{cut points}: We
show that every lasso satisfying~$\varphi$ has a fixed number of
cut points, one cut point per a subformula of~$\varphi$ that
starts with~$\ltlF$.
The configuration in the cut point of a subformula~$\ltlF \psi$ must
satisfy~$\psi$, and all configurations between two cut points
must satisfy certain propositional formulas, which are extracted
from the subformulas of~$\varphi$ that start with~$\ltlG$.
Our notion of a cut point is motivated by extreme appearances of
temporal operators~\cite{EtessamiVW02}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\makeatletter{}\begin{tikzpicture}[x=1cm,y=1cm,font=\scriptsize,>=latex];
\tikzstyle{node}=[circle,fill=black,minimum size=0.1cm,inner sep=0cm];
\tikzstyle{cut}=[cross out,thick,draw=red!90!black,
minimum size=0.15cm,inner sep=0mm,outer sep=.1mm];
\tikzstyle{path}=[-];
\tikzstyle{Gfin}=[-, very thick, blue];
\draw[rounded corners] (-.2,-.8) rectangle (8.2, 1);
\begin{scope}[xshift=0cm, yshift=0cm]
\node at (0.1, .7) { \normalsize\textbf{(a)} };
\node[node] (0) at (0, 0) {};
\foreach \x/\n in {.6/A, 1.2/B, 1.8/C, 2.4/D, 3.0/E, 3.6/F}
\node[cut,label={above:$\n$}] (\n) at (\x,0) {};
\draw[path] (0) -- (A);
\draw[path] (A) -- (B);
\draw[path] (B) -- (C);
\draw[path] (C) -- (D);
\draw[Gfin] (D) -- (E);
\draw[Gfin] (E) -- (F);
\draw[->] (F) edge[bend right=55,looseness=1.7] (D);
\draw[|<->|] ($(A)+(0,-.5)$)
--node[midway, fill=white, text=black]
{$b$} ($(F)+(0,-.5)$);
\node at ($(A)+(0,-.25)$) {$a$};
\node at ($(B)+(0,-.25)$) {$d$};
\node at ($(C)+(0,-.25)$) {$e$};
\node at ($(E)+(0,-.25)$) {$c$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=4.3cm, yshift=0cm]
\node at (0.1, .7) { \normalsize\textbf{(b)} };
\node[node] (0) at (0, 0) {};
\foreach \x/\n in {.6/A, 1.8/B, 1.2/C, 2.4/D, 3.0/E, 3.6/F}
\node[cut,label={above:$\n$}] (\n) at (\x,0) {};
\draw[path] (0) -- (A);
\draw[path] (A) -- (C);
\draw[path] (C) -- (B);
\draw[path] (B) -- (D);
\draw[Gfin] (D) -- (E);
\draw[Gfin] (E) -- (F);
\draw[->] (F) edge[bend right=55,looseness=1.7] (D);
\draw[|<->|] ($(A)+(0,-.5)$)
--node[midway, fill=white, text=black]
{$b$} ($(F)+(0,-.5)$);
\node at ($(A)+(0,-.25)$) {$a$};
\node at ($(B)+(0,-.25)$) {$d$};
\node at ($(C)+(0,-.25)$) {$e$};
\node at ($(E)+(0,-.25)$) {$c$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=0cm, yshift=-2cm]
\node at (0.1, .7) { \normalsize\textbf{(c)} };
\node[node] (0) at (0, 0) {};
\foreach \x/\n in {1.2/A, 1.8/B, 2.4/C, .6/D, 3.0/E, 3.6/F}
\node[cut,label={above:$\n$}] (\n) at (\x,0) {};
\draw[path] (0) -- (D);
\draw[Gfin] (D) -- (A);
\draw[Gfin] (A) -- (B);
\draw[Gfin] (B) -- (C);
\draw[Gfin] (C) -- (E);
\draw[Gfin] (E) -- (F);
\draw[->] (F) edge[bend right=55] (D);
\draw[|<->|] ($(D)+(0,-.5)$)
--node[midway, fill=white, text=black]
{$b$} ($(F)+(0,-.5)$);
\node at ($(A)+(0,-.25)$) {$a$};
\node at ($(B)+(0,-.25)$) {$d$};
\node at ($(C)+(0,-.25)$) {$e$};
\node at ($(E)+(0,-.25)$) {$c$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=4.3cm, yshift=-2cm]
\node at (0.1, .7) { \normalsize\textbf{(d)} };
\node[node] (0) at (0, 0) {};
\foreach \x/\n in {3.0/A, 2.4/B, 1.8/C, .6/D, 1.2/E, 3.6/F}
\node[cut,label={above:$\n$}] (\n) at (\x,0) {};
\draw[path] (0) -- (D);
\draw[Gfin] (D) -- (E);
\draw[Gfin] (E) -- (C);
\draw[Gfin] (C) -- (B);
\draw[Gfin] (B) -- (A);
\draw[Gfin] (A) -- (F);
\draw[->] (F) edge[bend right=55] (D);
\draw[|<->|] ($(D)+(0,-.5)$)
--node[midway, fill=white, text=black]
{$b$} ($(F)+(0,-.5)$);
\node at ($(A)+(0,-.25)$) {$a$};
\node at ($(B)+(0,-.25)$) {$d$};
\node at ($(C)+(0,-.25)$) {$e$};
\node at ($(E)+(0,-.25)$) {$c$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=0cm, yshift=-4cm]
\node at (0.1, .7) { \normalsize\textbf{(e)} };
\node[node] (0) at (0, 0) {};
\foreach \x/\n in {.6/A, 2.4/B, 1.8/C, 1.2/D, 3.0/E, 3.6/F}
\node[cut,label={above:$\n$}] (\n) at (\x,0) {};
\draw[path] (0) -- (A);
\draw[path] (A) -- (D);
\draw[Gfin] (D) -- (C);
\draw[Gfin] (C) -- (B);
\draw[Gfin] (B) -- (E);
\draw[Gfin] (E) -- (F);
\draw[->] (F) edge[bend right=55] (D);
\draw[|<->|] ($(A)+(0,-.5)$)
--node[midway, fill=white, text=black]
{$b$} ($(F)+(0,-.5)$);
\node at ($(A)+(0,-.25)$) {$a$};
\node at ($(B)+(0,-.25)$) {$d$};
\node at ($(C)+(0,-.25)$) {$e$};
\node at ($(E)+(0,-.25)$) {$c$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=4.3cm, yshift=-4cm]
\node at (2, 0) { \normalsize{(and 15 more...)} };
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{The shapes of lassos that satisfy
the formula $\ltlE \ltlF (a \wedge \ltlF d \wedge \ltlF e
\wedge \ltlG b \wedge \ltlG \ltlF c)$. The crosses show cut points for:
(A)~formula $\ltlF (a \wedge \ltlF d \wedge \ltlF e
\wedge \ltlG b \wedge \ltlG \ltlF c)$,
(B)~formula $\ltlF d$, (C)~formula $\ltlF e$,
(D)~loop start, (E)~formula~$\ltlF c$, and
(F)~loop end.
}
\label{fig:lasso-shapes}
\end{figure}
\begin{example}\label{ex:many-shapes-of-lassos}
Consider the $\ELTLTB$ formula
$\varphi \equiv \ltlE \ltlF (a \wedge \ltlF d \wedge \ltlF e
\wedge \ltlG b \wedge \ltlG \ltlF c)$, where $a, \dots, e$
are propositional
formulas, whose structure is not of interest in this section.
Formula~$\varphi$ is satisfiable by certain paths that have lasso shapes,
i.e., a path consists of a finite prefix and a loop, which is repeated
infinitely.
These lassos may differ in the actual occurrences of the propositions
and the start of the loop: For instance, at some point,~$a$ holds,
and since then~$b$ always holds, then~$d$ holds at some point,
then~$e$ holds at some point,
then the loop is entered, and $c$ holds infinitely often inside the loop.
This is the case~(a) shown in Figure~\ref{fig:lasso-shapes}, where the
configurations in the cut points~$A$, $B$, $C$, and~$D$ must satisfy
the propositional formulas~$a$, $d$, $e$, and~$c$ respectively,
and the configurations between~$A$ and $F$ must satisfy the propositional
formula~$b$.
This example does not restrict the propositions between the initial state and
the cut point~A, so
that this lasso shape, for instance, also captures the path where $b$ holds
from the beginning.
There are 20 different lasso shapes for~$\varphi$, five of them are
shown in the figure.
We construct lasso shapes that are sufficient
for finding a path satisfying an $\ELTLTB$ formula.
In this example, it is sufficient to consider lasso shapes~(a) and~(b),
since the other shapes can be constructed from~(a) and~(b) by unrolling
the loop several times.
\end{example}
\subsection{Restricting Schedules to Lassos}
\label{sec:lasso}
In the seminal paper~\cite{VW86}, Vardi and Wolper showed that if a
finite-state transition system~$M$ \emph{violates} an~\LTL{}
formula\dash---which requires \emph{all paths} to satisfy the
formula\dash---then there is a path in~$M$ that (i)~violates the formula
and (ii)~has lasso shape.
As our logic~$\ELTLTB{}$ specifies counterexamples to the properties of
fault-tolerant distributed algorithms, we are interested in this result in
the following form: if the transition system \emph{satisfies} an~$\ELTL{}$
formula\dash---which requires \emph{one path} to satisfy the
formula\dash---then~$M$ has a path that (i)~\emph{satisfies} the formula
and (ii)~has lasso shape.
As observed above, counter systems are infinite state.
Consequently, one cannot apply the results of~\cite{VW86} directly.
However, using Proposition~\ref{prop:finite}, we show that a similar
result holds for counter systems of threshold automata
and~$\ELTLTB$:
\newcommand{\proplassoscheda}{Given a threshold automaton~$\Sk$ and an $\ELTLTB{}$ formula~$\varphi$, if
$\textsf{Sys}(\Sk) \models \ltlE \varphi$, then there are an initial
configuration~$\gst_1 \in I$ and a schedule $\tau \cdot
\rho^\omega$ with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the path satisfies the formula:
$\infpath{\gst_1}{\tau \cdot \rho^\omega} \models \varphi$,
\item application of~$\rho$ forms a cycle:
$\rho^k(\tau(\gst_1)) = \tau(\gst_1)$ for~$k \ge 0$.
\end{enumerate}}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:lasso-sched}
\proplassoscheda
\end{proposition}
Although in \cite{KLVW16:arxiv} we use B\"uchi automata to prove
Proposition~\ref{prop:lasso-sched}, we do not use B\"uchi
automata in this paper.
Since $\ELTLTB$ uses only the temporal operators $\ltlF$ and $\ltlG$,
we found it much easier to reason about the structure of
$\ELTLTB{}$ formulas directly (in the spirit
of~\cite{EtessamiVW02}) and then apply path reductions, rather
than constructing the synchronous product of a B\"uchi automaton
and of a counter system and then finding proper path reductions.
Although Proposition~\ref{prop:lasso-sched} guarantees
counterexamples of lasso shape, it is not sufficient
for model checking: (i) counter systems are infinite state, so
that state enumeration may not terminate, and (ii)
Proposition~\ref{prop:lasso-sched} does not provide us with
bounds on the length of the lassos needed for bounded
model checking.
In the next section, we show how to split a lasso schedule in finite
segments and to find constraints on lasso schedules that satisfy
an $\ELTLTB{}$ formula.
In Section~\ref{sec:repr} we then construct shorter (bounded length)
segments.
\subsection{Characterizing Shapes of Lasso Schedules}
\label{sec:shapelasso}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\makeatletter{} \begin{tikzpicture}[font=\small,
level distance=7mm,
level 1/.style={sibling distance=30mm},
level 2/.style={sibling distance=17mm, level distance=11mm},
level 3/.style={sibling distance=12mm}]
\tikzstyle{form}=[rectangle,draw,rounded corners,
minimum height=.5cm];
\node[form,label={[xshift=0mm]east:[0]}]
{$\mathit{can}(\varphi)$ }
child[sibling distance=15mm,
edge from parent path={(\tikzparentnode\tikzparentanchor)
edge [bend right]
(\tikzchildnode\tikzchildanchor)}] {
node[form,label={[xshift=-5mm]south east:[0.0]}] {$a$}
}
child[sibling distance=20mm] {
node[form,label={[xshift=-7mm]south east:[0.1]}]
{$\ltlF (d \wedge \ltlG \mathit{true})$}
child[sibling distance=20mm] {
node[form,label={south:[0.1.0]}] {$d$}
}
child[sibling distance=2mm] {
node[form,label={[xshift=0mm]south:[0.1.1]}] {$\ltlG \mathit{true}$}
}
}
child[sibling distance=17mm] {
node[form,label={[xshift=-6mm]south east:[0.2]}]
{$\ltlF (e \wedge \dots)$ }
child[sibling distance=12mm] {
node[form,label={[xshift=-5mm]south east:[0.2.0]}] {$e$}
}
child[sibling distance=6mm] {
node[form,label={[xshift=0mm]south:[0.2.1]}] {$\ltlG \mathit{true}$}
}
}
child[sibling distance=25mm] {
node[form,label={[xshift=-6mm]north east:[0.3]}]
{$\ltlG (b \wedge \ltlF (c \wedge \ltlG \mathit{true})
\wedge \ltlG \mathit{true})$}
child[sibling distance=15mm] {
node[form,label={south:[0.3.0]}] {$b$}
}
child[sibling distance=14mm] {
node[form,label={[xshift=8mm]south:[0.3.1]}]
{$\ltlF (c \wedge \ltlG \mathit{true})$}
child { node[form] {$c$} } child {
node[form] {$\ltlG \mathit{true}$} }
}
child[sibling distance=16mm] {
node[form,label={south:[0.3.2]}] {$\ltlG \mathit{true}$}
}
};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A canonical syntax tree of the $\ELTLTB$ formula
$\varphi \equiv \ltlF (a \wedge \ltlF d \wedge \ltlF e
\wedge \ltlG b \wedge \ltlG \ltlF c)$
considered in Example~\ref{ex:many-shapes-of-lassos}.
The labels $[w]$ denote identifiers of the tree nodes.
}
\label{Fig:syntax-tree}
\end{figure}
We now construct a cut graph of an $\ELTLTB$ formula:
Cut graphs constrain the orders in which subformulas that start with the
operator~$\ltlF$ are witnessed by configurations.
The nodes of a cut graph correspond to cut points, while the edges
constrain the order between the cut points.
Using cut points, we give necessary and sufficient conditions for a
lasso to satisfy an~$\ELTLTB$ formula in
Theorems~\ref{thm:witness-soundness}
and~\ref{thm:witness-completeness}.
Before defining cut graphs, we give the technical definitions of
canonical formulas and canonical syntax trees.
\begin{definition}
We inductively define canonical~$\ELTLTB$ formulas:
\begin{itemize}
\item if $p$ is a propositional formula, then the formula~$p \wedge \ltlG
\mathit{true}$ is a canonical formula of rank 0,
\item if $p$ is a propositional formula and formulas $\psi_1, \dots, \psi_{k}$
are canonical formulas (of any rank) for some $k \ge 1$, then the formula
$p \wedge \ltlF \psi_1 \wedge \dots \wedge \ltlF \psi_k \wedge \ltlG
\mathit{true}$ is a canonical formula of rank 1,
\item if $p$ is a propositional formula and formulas $\psi_1, \dots,
\psi_k$ are canonical formulas (of any rank) for
some $k \ge 0$, and $\psi_{k+1}$ is a canonical formula of rank 0 or 1, then
the formula $p \wedge \ltlF \psi_1 \wedge \dots \wedge \ltlF \psi_k
\wedge \ltlG \psi_{k+1}$ is a canonical formula of rank 2.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
Let $p$ and $q$ be propositional formulas.
The formulas $p \wedge \ltlG \mathit{true}$ and $\mathit{true} \wedge \ltlF (q \wedge \ltlG
\mathit{true}) \wedge \ltlG (p \wedge \ltlG \mathit{true})$ are canonical, while the
formulas $p$, $\ltlF q$, and $\ltlG p$ are not canonical.
Continuing Example~\ref{ex:many-shapes-of-lassos}, the canonical version of the
formula $\ltlF (a \wedge \ltlF d \wedge \ltlF e
\wedge \ltlG b \wedge \ltlG \ltlF c)$ is the formula
$\ltlF (a \wedge \ltlF (d \wedge \ltlG \mathit{true}) \wedge \ltlF (e \wedge \ltlG \mathit{true})
\wedge \ltlG (b \wedge \ltlF (c \wedge \ltlG \mathit{true}) \wedge \ltlG \mathit{true}))$.
\end{example}
We will use formulas in the following canonical form in order to
simplify presentation.
\begin{observation}
The properties of canonical $\ELTLTB$ formulas:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Every canonical formula consists of canonical subformulas
of the form $p \wedge \ltlF
\psi_1 \wedge \dots \wedge \ltlF \psi_k \wedge \ltlG \psi_{k+1}$ for
some $k \ge 0$, for a propositional formula~$p$, canonical formulas
$\psi_1, \dots, \psi_k$, and a formula~$\psi_{k+1}$ that is either
canonical, or equals to~$\mathit{true}$.
\item If a canonical formula contains a subformula
$\ltlG(\dots \wedge \ltlG \psi)$, then $\psi$ equals $\mathit{true}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{observation}
\begin{proposition}\label{thm:canonical-form}
There is a function~$\mathit{can}: \ELTLTB \rightarrow \ELTLTB$
that produces for each formula $\varphi \in \ELTLTB$ an equivalent
canonical formula~$\mathit{can}(\varphi)$.
\end{proposition}
For an $\ELTLTB$ formula, there may be several equivalent canonical formulas,
e.g., $p \wedge \ltlF (q \wedge \ltlG \mathit{true}) \wedge \ltlF (p \wedge \ltlG
\mathit{true}) \wedge \ltlG \mathit{true}$ and $p \wedge \ltlF (p \wedge \ltlG \mathit{true})
\wedge \ltlF (q \wedge \ltlG \mathit{true}) \wedge \ltlG \mathit{true}$ differ in the
order of $\ltlF$-subformulas.
With the function~$\mathit{can}$ we fix one such a formula.
\paragraph{Canonical syntax trees.}
The canonical syntax tree of the formula introduced in
Example~\ref{ex:many-shapes-of-lassos} is shown in
Figure~\ref{Fig:syntax-tree}.
With ${\mathbb N}_0^*$ we denote the set of all finite words over natural
numbers\dash---these words are used as node identifiers.
\begin{definition}
The \emph{canonical syntax tree} of a formula $\varphi \in \ELTLTB$ is
the set ${\cal T}(\varphi) \subseteq \ELTLTB \times {\mathbb N}_0^*$
constructed inductively as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The tree contains the root node
labeled with the canonical formula~$\mathit{can}(\varphi)$ and id~$0$, that
is, $\left<\mathit{can}(\varphi), 0\right> \in {\cal T}(\varphi)$.
\item Consider a tree node $\left<\psi, w\right> \in {\cal T}(\varphi)$ such that
for some canonical formula $\psi' \in \ELTLTB$ one of the following
holds: (a)~$\psi = \psi' = \mathit{can}(\varphi)$, or (b)~$\psi = \ltlF
\psi'$, or (c)~$\psi = \ltlG \psi'$.
If $\psi'$ is $p \wedge \ltlF \psi_1 \wedge \dots \wedge \ltlF \psi_k \wedge
\ltlG \psi_{k+1}$ for some $k \ge 0$, then the tree ${\cal T}(\varphi)$
contains a child node for each of the conjuncts of~$\psi'$, that is,
$\left<p, w.0\right> \in {\cal T}(\varphi)$, as well as $\left<\ltlF
\psi_i, w.i\right> \in {\cal T}(\varphi)$ and $\left<\ltlG \psi_j,
w.j\right> \in {\cal T}(\varphi)$ for $1 \le i \le k$ and $j=k+1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{observation}
The canonical syntax tree ${\cal T}(\varphi)$ of an $\ELTLTB$ formula~$\varphi$
has the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item Every node $\left<\psi, w\right>$ has the unique identifier~$w$,
which encodes the path to the node from the root.
\item Every intermediate node is labeled with a temporal operator $\ltlF$ or
$\ltlG$ over the conjunction of the formulas in the children nodes.
\item The root node is labeled with the formula~$\varphi$ itself, and $\varphi$
is equivalent to the conjunction of the root's children formulas,
possibly preceded with a temporal operator $\ltlF$ or $\ltlG$.
\end{itemize}
\end{observation}
The temporal formulas that appear under the operator~$\ltlG$
have to be dealt with by the loop part of a lasso.
To formalize this, we say that a node with id $w \in {\mathbb N}_0^*$ is
\emph{covered} by a $\ltlG$-node, if $w$ can be split into two words $u_1,
u_2 \in {\mathbb N}_0^*$ with $w = u_1.u_2$, and there is a formula $\psi \in
\ELTLTB$ such that $\left<\ltlG \psi, u_1\right> \in {{\cal T}(\varphi)}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\makeatletter{}\begin{tikzpicture}[font=\small,>=latex];
\tikzstyle{node}=[circle,fill=black,minimum size=1mm,inner sep=0cm];
\node[node,label={below:$[0]$}] (init) at (0, 0) {};
\node[node,label={[xshift=0mm]above:$[0.1]$}] (01) at (1.5,.75) {};
\node[node,label={[xshift=0mm]above:$[0.2]$}] (02) at (1.5,-.75) {};
\node[node,label={below right:$\mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{start}}$}] (ls) at (3,0) {};
\node[node,label={[xshift=0mm]above:$[0.3.1]$}] (031) at (4.5,.75) {};
\node[node,label={below right:$\mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{end}}$}] (le) at (6, 0) {};
\draw[->] (ls) edge (le);
\draw[->] (init) edge (01);
\draw[->] (init) edge (02);
\draw[->] (ls) -- (031);
\draw[->] (031) -- (le);
\draw[->] (init) -- (ls);
\draw[->] (01) -- (ls);
\draw[->] (02) -- (ls);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The cut graph of the canonical syntax tree
in Figure~\ref{Fig:syntax-tree}}
\label{Fig:prec-graph}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Cut graphs.} Using the canonical syntax
tree~${\cal T}(\varphi)$ of a formula~$\varphi$, we capture in a
so-called \emph{cut graph}
the possible orders in which formulas $\ltlF \psi$ should be
witnessed by configurations of a lasso-shaped path.
We will then use the occurrences of the formula $\psi$
to cut the lasso into bounded finite schedules.
\begin{example}\label{ex:cut}
Figure~\ref{Fig:prec-graph} shows the cut graph of the canonical
syntax tree in Figure~\ref{Fig:syntax-tree}.
It consists of tree node ids for subformulas starting with $\ltlF$,
and two special nodes for the start and the end of the
loop.
In the cut graph, the node with id 0 precedes the node with id 0.1,
since at least one configuration satisfying $(a \wedge \ltlF
(d \wedge \dots) \wedge \dots)$ should occur on a path before (or
at the same moment as) a state satisfying $(d \wedge
\dots)$.
Similarly, the node with id 0 precedes the node with id
0.2.
The nodes with ids 0.1 and 0.2 do not have to precede each
other, as the formulas~$d$ and~$e$ can be satisfied in either
order.
Since the nodes with the ids $0$, $0.1$, and $0.2$ are not covered by
a $\ltlG$-node, they both precede the loop start.
The loop start precedes the node with id $0.3.1$, as this node is
covered by a $\ltlG$-node.
\end{example}
\begin{definition}\label{def:cutgraph}
The \emph{cut graph} ${\cal G}(\varphi)$ of an $\ELTLTB$ formula
is a directed acyclic graph $({\cal V}_{\pgraph}, {\cal E}_{\pgraph})$
with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The set of nodes ${\cal V}_{\pgraph}=\{ \mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{start}}, \mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{end}} \} \cup \{w \in
{\mathbb N}_0^* \mid \exists \psi.\ \left<\ltlF \psi, w\right> \in {\cal T}(\varphi)\}$
contains the tree ids that label $\ltlF$-formulas
and two special nodes $\mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{start}}$ and $\mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{end}}$, which denote the start and
the end of the loop respectively.
\item The set of edges~${\cal E}_{\pgraph}$ satisfies the following constraints:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Each tree node $\left<\ltlF \psi, w\right> \in {\cal T}(\varphi)$
that is \emph{not} covered by a $\ltlG$-node precedes the loop start, i.e.,
$(w, \mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{start}}) \in {\cal E}_{\pgraph}$.
\item For each tree node $\left<\ltlF \psi, w\right> \in {\cal T}(\varphi)$
covered by a $\ltlG$-node:
\begin{itemize}
\item the loop start precedes $w$, i.e., $(\mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{start}}, w) \in {\cal E}_{\pgraph}$, and
\item $w$ precedes the loop end, i.e., $(w, \mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{end}}) \in {\cal E}_{\pgraph}$.
\end{itemize}
\item For each pair of tree nodes $\left<\ltlF \psi_1, w\right>, \left<\ltlF
\psi_2, w.i\right> \in {\cal T}(\varphi)$ not covered by a $\ltlG$-node, we
require $(w, w.i) \in {\cal E}_{\pgraph}$.
\item For each pair of tree nodes $\left<\ltlF \psi_1, w_1\right>, \left<\ltlF
\psi_2, w_2\right> \in {\cal T}(\varphi)$ that are both covered by a
$\ltlG$-node, we require either $(w_1, w_2) \in {\cal E}_{\pgraph}$, or $(w_2, w_1)
\in {\cal E}_{\pgraph}$ (but not both).
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{def:cutfun}
Given a lasso~$\tau \cdot \rho^\omega$ and a cut graph
${\cal G}(\varphi)=({\cal V}_{\pgraph}, {\cal E}_{\pgraph})$, we call a function $\zeta:
{\cal V}_{\pgraph} \to \{0, \dots, |\tau| + |\rho| - 1\}$ a
\emph{cut function}, if the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\zeta(\mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{start}}) = |\tau|$ and
$\zeta(\mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{end}}) = |\tau| + |\rho| - 1$,
\item if $(v, v') \in {\cal E}_{\pgraph}$, then $\zeta(v) \le \zeta(v')$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
We call the indices $\{\zeta(v) \mid v \in {\cal V}_{\pgraph} \}$ the \emph{cut
points}.
Given a schedule~$\tau$ and an index~$k: 0 \le k < |\tau| + |\rho|$, we say
that the index~$k$ \emph{cuts} $\tau$ into $\pi'$ and $\pi''$, if $\tau =
\pi' \cdot \pi''$ and $|\pi'| = k$.
Informally, for a tree node $\left<\ltlF \psi, w\right> \in
{\cal T}(\varphi)$, a cut point $\zeta(w)$ witnesses satisfaction
of~$\ltlF \psi$, that is, the formula~$\psi$ holds at the
configuration located at the cut point.
It might seem that Definitions~\ref{def:cutgraph} and~\ref{def:cutfun}
are too restrictive.
For instance, assume that the node $\left<\ltlF \psi, w\right>$ is not
covered by a $\ltlG$-node, and there is a lasso schedule~$\tau
\cdot \rho^\omega$ that satisfies the formula~$\varphi$ at a
configuration~$\gst$.
It is possible that the formula~$\psi$ is witnessed only by a cut
point inside the loop.
At the same time, Definition~\ref{def:cutfun} forces~$\zeta(w) \le
\zeta(\mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{start}})$.
We show that this problem is resolved by unwinding the loop~$K$ times
for some $K \ge 0$, so that there is a cut function for the lasso
with the prefix $\tau \cdot \rho^K$ and the loop~$\rho$:
\newcommand{\propunwinding}{Let $\varphi$ be an $\ELTLTB$ formula, $\gst$ be a configuration and $\tau
\cdot \rho^\omega$ be a lasso schedule applicable to~$\gst$ such that
$\infpath{\gst}{\tau \cdot \rho^\omega} \models \varphi$ holds.
There is a constant~$K \ge 0$ and a cut function~$\zeta$
such that for every $\left<\ltlF \psi, w\right> \in
{\cal G}({\cal T}(\varphi))$ if~$\zeta(w)$ cuts $(\tau \cdot \rho^K) \cdot
\rho$ into $\pi'$ and~$\pi''$, then~$\psi$ is satisfied at the cut point,
that is,
$\infpath{\pi'(\gst)}{\pi'' \cdot \rho^\omega} \models \psi$.}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:unwinding}
\propunwinding
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch]
The detailed proof is given in~\cite{KLVW16:arxiv}.
We will present the required constant~$K \ge 0$ and the cut
function~$\zeta$.
To this end, we use extreme appearances of
$\ltlF$-formulas~(cf.~\cite[Sec.~4.3]{EtessamiVW02}) and use them
to find~$\zeta$.
An extreme appearance of a formula~$\ltlF \psi$ is the
furthest point in the lasso that still witnesses~$\psi$.
There might be a subformula that is required to be witnessed in the
prefix,
but in $\tau
\cdot \rho^\omega$it
is only witnessed by the loop.
To resolve this, we replace $\tau$ by a a longer prefix $\tau \cdot \rho^K$, by
unrolling the loop~$\rho$ several times; more precisely, $K$ times,
where $K$ is the number
of nodes that should precede the lasso start.
In other words, if all extreme appearances of the nodes happen to be in
the loop part, and they appear in the order that is against the
topological order of the graph~${\cal G}({\cal T}(\varphi))$, we
unroll the loop~$K$ times (the number of nodes that have to be in
the prefix) to find the prefix, in which the nodes respect the
topological order of the graph.
In the unrolled schedule we can now find extreme appearances of the
required subformulas in the
prefix.
\end{proof}
We show that to satisfy an~$\ELTLTB$ formula, a lasso should
(i)~satisfy propositional subformulas of $\ltlF$-formulas in the
respective cut points, and (ii)~maintain the propositional formulas of
$\ltlG$-formulas from some cut point on.
This is formalized as a witness.
In the following definition, we use a short-hand notation for propositional
subformulas: given an~$\ELTLTB$-formula $\psi$ and its canonical
form~$\mathit{can}(\psi) = \psi_0 \wedge
\ltlF \psi_1 \wedge \dots \wedge \ltlF \psi_k \wedge \ltlG \psi_{k+1}$,
we use the notation~$\mathit{prop}(\psi)$ to denote the formula~$\psi_0$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:prop-witness}
Given a configuration~$\gst$, a lasso $\tau \cdot \rho^\omega$ applicable
to~$\gst$, and an $\ELTLTB$ formula $\varphi$, a cut
function~$\zeta$ of ${\cal G}({\cal T}(\varphi))$ is a \emph{witness}
of~$\infpath{\gst}{\tau \cdot \rho^\omega} \models \varphi$, if the
three conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}[label={\bfseries\emph{(C\arabic*)}}, leftmargin=.75cm]
\item\label{assume:root}
For $\mathit{can}(\varphi) \equiv \psi_0 \wedge \ltlF \psi_1 \wedge \dots
\wedge \ltlF \psi_k \wedge \ltlG \psi_{k+1}$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\gst \models \psi_0$, and
\item $\setconf{\gst}{\tau \cdot \rho} \models \mathit{prop}(\psi_{k+1})$.
\end{enumerate}
\item\label{assume:Gfin-prefix}
For $\left<\ltlF \psi, v\right> \in {\cal T}(\varphi)$
with $\zeta(v) < |\tau|$, if $\zeta(v)$ cuts $\tau \cdot \rho$
into $\pi'$ and $\pi''$ and
$\psi \equiv \psi_0 \wedge \ltlF \psi_1 \wedge \dots
\wedge \ltlF \psi_k \wedge \ltlG \psi_{k+1}$,
then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\pi'(\gst) \models \psi_0$, and
\item $\setconf{\pi'(\gst)}{\pi''} \models \mathit{prop}(\psi_{k+1})$.
\end{enumerate}
\item\label{assume:Gfin-loop}
For $\left<\ltlF \psi, v\right> \in {\cal T}(\varphi)$
with $\zeta(v) \ge |\tau|$, if $\zeta(v)$ cuts $\tau \cdot \rho$
into $\pi'$ and $\pi''$ and
$\psi \equiv \psi_0 \wedge \ltlF \psi_1 \wedge \dots
\wedge \ltlF \psi_k \wedge \ltlG \psi_{k+1}$,
then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\pi'(\gst) \models \psi_0$, and
\item $\setconf{\tau(\gst)}{\rho} \models
\mathit{prop}(\psi_{k+1})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Conditions~(a) require that propositional formulas hold
in a configuration, while conditions~(b) require that
propositional formulas hold on a finite suffix.
Hence, to ensure that a cut function constitutes a witness, one has to
check the configurations of a \emph{fixed number of finite} paths
(between the cut points).
This property is crucial for the path reduction (see
Section~\ref{sec:repr}).
Theorems~\ref{thm:witness-soundness}
and~\ref{thm:witness-completeness} show that the existence of a
witness is a sound and complete criterion for the existence of a
lasso satisfying an~$\ELTLTB$ formula.
\newcommand{\thmwitnesssoundness}{Let~$\gst$ be a configuration, $\tau \cdot \rho^\omega$ be a lasso applicable
to~$\gst$, and $\varphi$ be an $\ELTLTB$ formula.
If there is a witness of $\infpath{\gst}{\tau \cdot \rho^\omega} \models \varphi$,
then the lasso~$\tau \cdot \rho^\omega$ satisfies~$\varphi$,
that is~$\infpath{\gst}{\tau \cdot \rho^\omega} \models \varphi$.}
\begin{theorem}[Soundness]\label{thm:witness-soundness}
\thmwitnesssoundness
\end{theorem}
\newcommand{\thmwitnesscompleteness}{Let $\varphi$ be an $\ELTLTB$ formula, $\gst$ be a configuration and $\tau
\cdot \rho^\omega$ be a lasso applicable to~$\gst$ such that
$\infpath{\gst}{\tau \cdot \rho^\omega} \models \varphi$ holds.
There is a witness of $\infpath{\gst}{(\tau \cdot \rho^K) \cdot \rho^\omega}
\models \varphi$ for some~$K \ge 0$.}
\begin{theorem}[Completeness]\label{thm:witness-completeness}
\thmwitnesscompleteness
\end{theorem}
Theorem~\ref{thm:witness-soundness} is proven for subformulas of
$\varphi$ by structural induction on the intermediate nodes of the
canonical syntax tree.
In the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:witness-completeness} we use
Proposition~\ref{prop:unwinding} to prove the points of
Definition~\ref{def:prop-witness}.
(The detailed proofs are given in~\cite{KLVW16:arxiv}.)
\subsection{Using Cut Graphs to Enumerate Shapes of Lassos}
\label{sec:enumerating-lassos}
Proposition~\ref{prop:lasso-sched} and Theorem~\ref{thm:witness-completeness}
suggest that in order to find a schedule that satisfies an $\ELTLTB$
formula~$\varphi$, it is sufficient to look for lasso schedules that can be cut in
such a way that the configurations at the cut points and the configurations
between the cut points satisfy certain propositional formulas.
In fact, the cut points as defined by cut functions
(Definition~\ref{def:cutfun}) are \emph{topological orderings} of the cut
graph~${\cal G}({\cal T}(\varphi))$.
Consequently, by enumerating the topological
orderings of the cut graph~${\cal G}({\cal T}(\varphi))$ we can enumerate
the \emph{lasso shapes}, among which there is a lasso schedule
satisfying~$\varphi$ (if~$\varphi$ holds on the counter
system).
These shapes differ in the order, in which $\ltlF$-subformulas of~$\varphi$ are
witnessed.
For this, one can use fast generation algorithms,
e.g.,~\cite{Canfield1995}.
\begin{example}
Consider the cut graph in Figure~\ref{Fig:prec-graph}.
The ordering of its vertices $0, 0.1, 0.2, \mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{start}}, 0.3.1, \mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{end}}$ corresponds
to the lasso shape~(a) shown in Figure~\ref{fig:lasso-shapes}, while the
ordering $\mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{start}}, 0, 0.2, 0.1, \mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{start}}, 0.3.1, \mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{end}}$ corresponds to the
lasso shape~(b).
These are the two lasso shapes that one has to analyze, and they are
the result of our construction using the cut graph.
The other 18 lasso shapes in the figure are not required, and not
constructed by our method.
\end{example}
From this observation, we conclude that given a topological ordering $v_1,
\dots, v_{|{\cal V}_{\pgraph}|}$ of the cut graph ${\cal G}({\cal T}(\varphi)) =
({\cal V}_{\pgraph}, {\cal E}_{\pgraph})$, one has to look for a lasso schedule that
can be written as an alternating sequence of configurations~$\gst_i$
and schedules~$\tau_j$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lasso-sequence}
\gst_0,\tau_0,\gst_1,\tau_1, \dots, \gst_\ell, \tau_\ell,
\dots, \gst_{|{\cal V}_{\pgraph}|-1}, \tau_{|{\cal V}_{\pgraph}|}, \gst_{|{\cal V}_{\pgraph}|},
\end{equation}
where $v_\ell = \mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{start}}$, $v_{|{\cal V}_{\pgraph}|} = \mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{end}}$, and $\gst_\ell =
\gst_{|{\cal V}_{\pgraph}|}$.
Moreover, by Definition~\ref{def:prop-witness}, the sequence of
configurations and schedules should satisfy~\ref{assume:root}--\ref{assume:Gfin-loop}, e.g.,
if a node~$v_i$ corresponds to the formula $\ltlF
(\psi_0 \wedge \dots \wedge \ltlG \psi_{k+1})$ and this formula
matches Condition~\ref{assume:Gfin-prefix}, then the following
should hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Configuration~$\gst_i$ satisfies the propositional formula:
$\gst_i \models \psi_0$.
\item All configurations visited by the schedule $\tau_i \cdot \dots \cdot
\tau_{|{\cal V}_{\pgraph}|}$ from the configuration~$\gst_i$ satisfy the
propositional formula~$\mathit{prop}(\psi_{k+1})$.
Formally, $\setconf{\gst_i}{\tau_i \cdot \dots \cdot
\tau_{|{\cal V}_{\pgraph}|}} \models \mathit{prop}(\psi_{k+1})$.
\end{enumerate}
One can write an SMT query for the sequence
(\ref{eq:lasso-sequence}) satisfying
Conditions~\ref{assume:root}--\ref{assume:Gfin-loop}.
However, this approach has two problems:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The order of rules in schedules $\tau_0, \dots, \tau_{|{\cal V}_{\pgraph}|}$
is not fixed. Non-deterministic choice of rules complicates
the SMT query.
\item To guarantee completeness of the search, one requires a bound
on the length of schedules $\tau_0, \dots, \tau_{|{\cal V}_{\pgraph}|}$.
\end{enumerate}
For reachability properties these issues were addressed
in~\cite{KVW15:CAV} by showing that one only has to consider
specific orders of the rules; so-called representative schedules.
To lift this technique to~$\ELTLTB$, we are left with two issues:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The shortening technique applies to steady schedules, i.e., the schedules
that do not change evaluation of the guards.
Thus, we have to break the schedules $\tau_0, \dots, \tau_{|{\cal V}_{\pgraph}|}$ into
steady schedules.
This issue is addressed in Section~\ref{sec:structguards}.
\item The shortening technique preserves state reachability, e.g.,
after shortening of~$\tau_i$, the resulting schedule still reaches
configuration~$\gst_{i+1}$. But it may violate an invariant
such as $\setconf{\gst_i}{\tau_i \cdot \dots \cdot
\tau_{|{\cal V}_{\pgraph}|}} \models \mathit{prop}(\psi_{k+1})$.
This issue is addressed in Section~\ref{sec:repr}.
\end{enumerate}
\makeatletter{}\section{Cutting Lassos with Threshold Guards}\label{sec:structguards}
We introduce threshold graphs to cut a lasso into steady
schedules, in order to apply the shortening technique of
Section~\ref{sec:repr}.
Then, we combine the cut graphs and threshold graphs to cut a lasso into smaller
finite segments, which can be first shortened and then checked with the
approach introduced in Section~\ref{sec:enumerating-lassos}.
Given a configuration~$\gst$, its context~$\omega(\gst)$ is the set that
consists of the lower guards unlocked in~$\gst$ and the upper guards locked
in~$\gst$, i.e., $\omega(\gst) = \Omega^\mathrm{rise} \cup \Omega^{\mathrm{fall}}$, where $\Omega^\mathrm{rise} = \{ g
\in \Phi^{\mathrm{rise}} \mid \gst \models g \}$ and $\Omega^{\mathrm{fall}} = \{ g \in \Phi^{\mathrm{fall}} \mid
\gst \not\models g \}$.
As discussed in Example~\ref{ex:guards} on page~\pageref{ex:guards},
since the shared variables are never decreased, the contexts in a path are
monotonically non-decreasing:
\begin{proposition}[Prop.~3 of \cite{KVW15:CAV}]\label{prop:mono}
If a transition~$t$ is enabled in a configuration~$\gst$, then
$\omega(\gst) \subseteq \omega(t(\gst))$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{example}
Continuing Example~\ref{ex:guards}, which
considers the TA in Figure~\ref{fig:stunningexample}.
Both threshold guards~$\gamma_1$ and~$\gamma_2$ are false in the initial
state~$\gst$.
Thus, $\omega(\gst)=\emptyset$.
The transition $t=(r_1, 1)$ unlocks the guard~$\gamma_1$, i.e.,
$\omega(t(\gst)) = \{\gamma_1\}$.
\end{example}
As the transitions of the counter system~$\textsf{Sys}(\Sk)$ never decrease shared
variables, the loop of a lasso schedule must be steady:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:lasso-is-steady}
For each configuration~$\gst$ and a schedule~$\tau \cdot
\rho^\omega$, if $\rho^k(\tau(\gst)) = \tau(\gst)$ for $k \ge 0$,
then the loop $\rho$ is steady for~$\tau(\gst)$, that is,
$\omega(\rho(\tau(\gst))) = \omega(\tau(\gst))$.
\end{proposition}
In~\cite{KVW15:CAV}, Proposition~\ref{prop:mono} was used to cut a
finite path into segments, one per context.
We introduce threshold graphs and their topological orderings to apply
this idea to lasso schedules.
\begin{definition}\label{def:tgraph}
A \emph{threshold graph} is~${\cal H}(\Sk)= ({\cal V}_{\tgraph}, {\cal E}_{\tgraph})$
such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item The vertices set~${\cal V}_{\tgraph}$ contains the threshold guards
and the special node~$\mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{start}}$, i.e., ${\cal V}_{\tgraph} =
\Phi^{\mathrm{rise}} \cup \Phi^{\mathrm{fall}} \cup \{\mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{start}}\}$.
\item There is an edge from a guard~$g_1 \in \Phi^{\mathrm{rise}}$ to a guard~$g_2 \in
\Phi^{\mathrm{rise}}$, if $g_2$ cannot be unlocked before~$g_1$, i.e., $(g_1, g_2)
\in {\cal E}_{\tgraph}$, if for each configuration $\gst \in \Sigma$, $\gst
\models g_2$ implies $\gst \models g_1$.
\item There is an edge from a guard~$g_1 \in \Phi^{\mathrm{fall}}$ to a guard~$g_2 \in
\Phi^{\mathrm{fall}}$, if $g_2$ cannot be locked before~$g_1$, i.e., $(g_1, g_2)
\in {\cal E}_{\tgraph}$, if for each configuration $\gst \in \Sigma$, $\gst
\not\models g_2$ implies $\gst \not\models g_1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Note that the conditions in Definition~\ref{def:tgraph} can be easily checked
with an SMT solver, for all configurations.
\begin{example}
The threshold graph of the TA in Figure~\ref{fig:stunningexample} has
the vertices ${\cal V}_{\tgraph}=\{\gamma_1, \gamma_2,\mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{start}}\}$ and the edges
${\cal E}_{\tgraph} = \{(\gamma_1, \gamma_2)\}$.
\end{example}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\makeatletter{}\begin{tikzpicture}[x=1cm,y=1cm,font=\scriptsize,>=latex];
\tikzstyle{node}=[circle,fill=black,minimum size=0.1cm,inner sep=0cm];
\tikzstyle{cut}=[cross out,thick,draw=red!90!black,
minimum size=0.15cm,inner sep=0mm,outer sep=.1mm];
\tikzstyle{path}=[-];
\tikzstyle{Gfin}=[-, very thick, blue];
\begin{scope}[xshift=0cm, yshift=0cm]
\node at (0.1, .3) { \normalsize\textbf{(a)} };
\node[node] (0) at (0, 0) {};
\foreach \x/\n in {.75/A, 1.5/B, 2.25/C, 3.0/D, 3.75/E}
\node[cut] (\n) at (\x,0) {};
\draw[path] (0) -- (A);
\draw[path] (A) -- (B);
\draw[path] (B) -- (C);
\draw[Gfin] (C) -- (D);
\draw[Gfin] (D) -- (E);
\draw[->] (E) edge[bend right=60] (C);
\draw[|<->|] ($(0)+(0,-.5)$)
--node[midway, fill=white, text=black]
{$\kappa[\ell_3]=0$} ($(E)+(0,-.5)$);
\node at ($(A)+(0,-.25)$) {$\gamma_1$};
\node at ($(B)+(0,-.25)$) {$\gamma_2$};
\node at ($(D)+(0,-.25)$) {$\psi_{\mathit{fair}}$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=4.3cm, yshift=0cm]
\node at (0.1, .3) { \normalsize\textbf{(b)} };
\node[node] (0) at (0, 0) {};
\foreach \x/\n in {1.1/A, 2.25/C, 3.0/D, 3.75/E}
\node[cut] (\n) at (\x,0) {};
\draw[path] (0) -- (A);
\draw[path] (A) -- (C);
\draw[Gfin] (C) -- (D);
\draw[Gfin] (D) -- (E);
\draw[->] (E) edge[bend right=60] (C);
\draw[|<->|] ($(0)+(0,-.5)$)
--node[midway, fill=white, text=black]
{$\kappa[\ell_3]=0$} ($(E)+(0,-.5)$);
\node at ($(A)+(0,-.25)$) {$\gamma_1$};
\node at ($(D)+(0,-.25)$) {$\psi_{\mathit{fair}}$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=0cm, yshift=-1.5cm]
\node at (0.1, .3) { \normalsize\textbf{(c)} };
\node[node] (0) at (0, 0) {};
\foreach \x/\n in {2.25/C, 3.0/D, 3.75/E}
\node[cut] (\n) at (\x,0) {};
\draw[path] (0) -- (D);
\draw[Gfin] (C) -- (D);
\draw[Gfin] (D) -- (E);
\draw[->] (E) edge[bend right=60] (C);
\draw[|<->|] ($(0)+(0,-.5)$)
--node[midway, fill=white, text=black]
{$\kappa[\ell_3]=0$} ($(E)+(0,-.5)$);
\node at ($(D)+(0,-.25)$) {$\psi_{\mathit{fair}}$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{The shapes of lassos to check the correctness property
in Example~\ref{ex:fair}. Recall that $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$
are the threshold guards, defined as $x \ge t+1-f$ and $x \ge n-t-f$
respectively.
}
\label{fig:ta-lasso-shapes}
\end{figure}
Similar to Section~\ref{sec:enumerating-lassos}, we consider a topological
ordering $g_1, \dots, g_\ell, \dots, g_{|{\cal V}_{\tgraph}|}$ of the vertices
of the threshold graph.
The node~$g_\ell = \mathsf{loop}_{\mathsf{start}}$ indicates the point where a loop should start, and
thus by Proposition~\ref{prop:lasso-is-steady}, after that point the context
does not change.
Thus, we consider only the subsequence~$g_1, \dots, g_{\ell-1}$ and split the
path $\infpath{\gst}{\tau \cdot \rho}$ of a lasso schedule~$\tau \cdot
\rho^\omega$ into an alternating sequence of configurations~$\gst_i$ and
schedules~$\tau_0$ and $t_j \cdot \tau_j$, for $1 \le j < \ell$,
ending up with the loop~$\rho$
(starting in~$\gst_{\ell-1}$ and ending in~$\gst_\ell = \gst_{\ell-1}$):
\begin{equation}
\gst_0,\tau_0,\gst_1, (t_1\cdot\tau_1) , \dots,
\gst_{\ell-2}, (t_{\ell-1}\cdot\tau_{\ell-1}), \gst_{\ell-1}, \rho,
\gst_\ell \label{eq:lasso-thresh-seq}
\end{equation}
In this sequence, the transitions $t_1, \dots, t_{\ell-1}$ change the
context, and the schedules~$\tau_0, \tau_1, \dots, \tau_{\ell-1},
\rho$ are steady.
Finally, we interleave a topological ordering of the vertices of the
cut graph with a topological ordering of the vertices of the
threshold graph.
More precisely, we use a topological ordering of the vertices of the
union of the cut graph and the threshold graph.
We use the resulting sequence to cut a lasso schedule
following the approach in Section~\ref{sec:enumerating-lassos}
(cf.
Equation~(\ref{eq:lasso-sequence})).
By enumerating all such interleavings, we obtain all lasso shapes.
Again, the lasso is a sequence of steady schedules and
context-changing transitions.
\begin{example}
Continuing Example~\ref{eq:correctness} given on page~\pageref{eq:correctness},
we consider the lasso shapes that satisfy the $\ELTLTB{}$ formula
$\ltlG\ltlF \psi_\text{fair} \wedge {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_0] = 0 \wedge \ltlG
{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_3] = 0$.
Figure~\ref{fig:ta-lasso-shapes} shows the lasso shapes that have to be
inspected by an SMT solver.
In case~(a), both threshold guards~$\gamma_1$ and~$\gamma_2$ are eventually
changed to true, while the counter~$\kappa[\ell_3]$ is never increased
in a fair execution.
For $n=3t$, this is actually a counterexample to the correctness property explained in
Example~\ref{eq:correctness}.
In cases~(b) and~(c) at most one threshold guard is eventually changed to true,
so these lasso shapes cannot produce a counterexample.
\end{example}
In the following section, we will show how to shorten steady schedules, while
maintaining Conditions~\ref{assume:root}--\ref{assume:Gfin-loop} of
Definition~\ref{def:prop-witness}, required to satisfy the~$\ELTLTB$
formula.
\makeatletter{}\section{The Short Counterexample Property}\label{sec:repr}
Our verification approach focuses on counterexamples, and
as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:reach-and-live}, negations of
specifications are expressed in~$\ELTLTB{}$.
In the case of reachability properties, counterexamples are finite
schedules reaching a bad state from an initial state.
An efficient method for finding counterexamples to reachability
can be found in~\cite{KVW15:CAV}.
It is based on the short counterexample property.
Namely, it was proven that for each threshold automaton, there is a
constant~$d$ such that if there is a schedule that reaches a bad
state, then there must also exist an accelerated schedule that
reaches that state in at most~$d$ transitions (i.e., $d$ is
the diameter of the counter system).
The proof in~\cite{KVW15:CAV} is based on the following three steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item each finite schedule (which may or may not be a counterexample),
can be divided into a few steady schedules,
\item for each of these steady schedules they find a representative,
i.e., an accelerated schedule of bounded length,
with the same starting and ending configurations
as the original schedule,
\item at the end, all these representatives are concatenated in
the same order as the original steady schedules.
\end{enumerate}
This result guarantees that the system is correct if no
counterexample to reachability properties is found using bounded
model checking with bound~$d$.
In this section, we extend the technique from Point~2 from
reachability properties to $\ELTLTB{}$ formulas.
The central result regarding Point~2 is the following proposition
which is a specialization of~\cite[Prop.~7]{KVW15:CAV}:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:srep-ex}
Let $\textsf{TA} = ({\mathcal L}, {\mathcal I}, \Gamma,
\Pi, {\mathcal R},{\ident{RC}}} \newcommand{\abst}{\alpha)$ be a threshold automaton.
For every configuration~$\gst$ and every steady
schedule~$\tau$ applicable to~$\gst$, there exists a steady schedule
$\xrep{\gst}{\tau}$ with the following properties:
$\xrep{\gst}{\tau}$ is applicable
to $\gst$, $\xrep{\gst}{\tau}(\gst) = \tau(\gst)$, and
$|\xrep{\gst}{\tau}| \le 2 \cdot |{\mathcal R}|$.
\end{proposition}
We observe that the proposition talks about the first
configuration~$\sigma$ and the last one $\tau(\sigma)$, while it
ignores intermediate configurations.
However, for $\ELTLTB{}$ formulas, one has to consider all
configurations in a schedule, and not just the first and the last
one.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\scalebox{1.}{\makeatletter{}\tikzstyle{trans}=[->,line width=0.5mm]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node at (-1.5, 0) { {\Large $\tau_{\mathrm{up}}$:} };
\node (s1) at (0,0) {$\gst_1$};
\node (s2) at (3,0) {$\gst_2$};
\node (s3) at (6,0) {$\gst_3$};
\draw[trans] (s1) to[]
node(k1)[align=center,anchor=south, midway]
{$\cpp{{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell]}$} (s2);
\draw[trans] (s2) to[]
node(k2)[align=center,anchor=south, midway]
{${\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell]\scriptsize{\texttt{-}\texttt{-}}$} (s3);
\node at (-1.5, -1.0) { {\Large $\tau_{\mathrm{down}}$:} };
\node (s1') at (0,-1.0) {$\gst_1$};
\node (s2') at (3,-1.0) {$\gst'_2$};
\node (s3') at (6,-1.0) {$\gst_3$};
\draw[trans] (s1') to[]
node(k3)[align=center,anchor=north, midway]
{${\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell]\scriptsize{\texttt{-}\texttt{-}}$} (s2');
\draw[trans] (s2') to[]
node(k4)[align=center,anchor=north, midway]
{$\cpp{{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell]}$} (s3');
\draw[->,dashed,line width=0.36mm] ($(0.1,-0.5)+(k1)$) -- ($(0.1,0.5)+(k4)$);
\draw[->,dashed,line width=0.36mm] ($(-0.1,-0.5)+(k2)$) -- ($(-0.1,0.5)+(k3)$);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{Changing the order of transitions can violate $\ELTLTB{}$ formulas. If $\sigma_1.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell]=1$, then for the upper
schedule~$\tau_{\text{up}}$ holds that
$\setconf{\gst_1}{\tau_{\text{up}}}\models
{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell] > 0$, while for the lower one this is not the case,
because $\gst_2'\not\models {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell] > 0$.}
\label{fig:swapping}
\end{figure}
\begin{example} \label{ex:swap}
Figure~\ref{fig:swapping} shows the result of swapping transitions.
The approaches by~\cite{Lipton75} and~\cite{KVW15:CAV} are only
concerned with the first and last configurations: they use the
property that after swapping transitions, $\gst_3$ is still
reached from~$\gst_1$.
The arguments used in~\cite{Lipton75,KVW15:CAV} do not care about the
fact that the resulting path visits a different intermediate
state ($\gst'_2$ instead of $\gst_2$).
However, if $\sigma_1.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell]=1$, then
$\gst_2.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell] > 0$, while $\gst'_2.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell] =
0$.
Hence, swapping transitions may change the evaluation of
$\ELTLTB{}$ formulas, e.g., $\ltlG ({\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell] > 0)$.
\end{example}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\makeatletter{} \tikzstyle{inx}=[circle,draw=black!90,fill=black!10,
thick,minimum size=4.8mm,inner sep=0.75mm,font=\normalsize]
\tikzstyle{outx}=[circle,draw=black!90,fill=white,
thick,minimum size=4.8mm,inner sep=0.5mm,font=\normalsize]
\tikzstyle{rule}=[->,thick]
\tikzstyle{post}=[->,thick,rounded corners,font=\normalsize]
\tikzstyle{comment}=[color=slateblue,font=\normalsize]
\tikzset{every loop/.style={min distance=5mm,in=140,out=113,looseness=2}}
\tikzstyle{token}=[draw,fill,circle,minimum size=0.8mm,inner sep=0.5mm, color=black!60]
\tikzstyle{box}=[rounded corners=.2cm,opacity=.9,very thick,fill=none]
\tikzstyle{trans}=[->,line width=0.4mm]
\tikzstyle{transt}=[->,line width=.8mm]
\tikzstyle{crit}=[draw=black!90,fill,diamond,minimum size=2mm, fill=black!10,
rounded corners=.02cm,text width=0.22cm]
\tikzstyle{translasso}=[->,thick]
\tikzstyle{state}=[fill,circle,minimum size=1mm,inner sep=0mm]
\tikzstyle{path}=[->,thick,dashed]
\tikzset{every loop/.style={min distance=5mm,in=140,out=113,looseness=2}}
\begin{tikzpicture}[=latex]
\begin{scope}[shift={(-7.3,0)}]
\node[] at (0,0) [outx,label=left:\textcolor{blue}{$\ell_0$}] (0) {};
\node[] at ($(0)+(0,-1.8)$) [outx,label=left:\textcolor{blue}{$\ell_1$}] (1) {};
\node[] at ($(1)+(1.7,0.9)$) [inx,label=below:\textcolor{blue}{$\ell_2$}] (2) {};
\node[] at ($(2)+(1.5,0)$) [outx,label=below right:\textcolor{blue}{$\ell_3$}] (3) {};
\draw[post] (0) to[]
node[align=center,anchor=east, midway,yshift=-.1cm]
{$r_2$} (2);
\draw[post] (1) to[] node[anchor=north,yshift=.3cm,xshift=-.3cm]
{$r_1$}(2);
\draw[post] (0) -| node[anchor=south, pos=.25] (xpp)
{$r_3$} (3);
\draw[post] (2)to[]
node[align=center,anchor=north, midway]
{$r_4$} (3);
\draw[post] (1) -| node[anchor=north, pos=.25,yshift=0cm,xshift=.3cm] (xget)
{$r_5$} (3);
\draw[rule] (0) to[out=225,in=270,looseness=8]
node[align=center,anchor=east,midway]{$r_6$} (0);
\draw[rule] (2) to[out=15,in=60,looseness=8]
node[align=center,anchor=north,midway,yshift=.4cm]{$r_7$} (2);
\draw[rule] (3) to[out=15,in=60,looseness=8]
node[align=center,anchor=north,midway,yshift=.4cm]{$r_8$} (3);
\fill[box,draw=black!25] ($(1)+(-1,-0.5)$) rectangle ($(3)+(0.9,1.4)$);
\node[token] at ($(2)+(0.08,-0.08)$) {};
\node[token] at ($(0)+(-0.08,-0.08)$) {};
\node[token] at ($(1)+(-0.08,0.08)$) {};
\node[] at ($(2)+(0,-1.7)$) {Configuration $\gst_1$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[shift={(4,0)}]
\node[] at (0,0) [outx,label=left:\textcolor{blue}{$\ell_0$}] (0) {};
\node[] at ($(0)+(0,-1.8)$) [outx,label=left:\textcolor{blue}{$\ell_1$}] (1) {};
\node[] at ($(1)+(1.7,0.9)$) [inx,label=below:\textcolor{blue}{$\ell_2$}] (2) {};
\node[] at ($(2)+(1.5,0)$) [outx,label=below right:\textcolor{blue}{$\ell_3$}] (3) {};
\draw[post] (0) to[]
node[align=center,anchor=east, midway,yshift=-.1cm]
{$r_2$} (2);
\draw[post] (1) to[] node[anchor=north,yshift=.3cm,xshift=-.3cm]
{$r_1$}(2);
\draw[post] (0) -| node[anchor=south, pos=.25] (xpp)
{$r_3$} (3);
\draw[post] (2)to[]
node[align=center,anchor=north, midway]
{$r_4$} (3);
\draw[post] (1) -| node[anchor=north, pos=.25,yshift=0cm,xshift=.3cm] (xget)
{$r_5$} (3);
\draw[rule] (0) to[out=225,in=270,looseness=8]
node[align=center,anchor=east,midway]{$r_6$} (0);
\draw[rule] (2) to[out=15,in=60,looseness=8]
node[align=center,anchor=north,midway,yshift=.4cm]{$r_7$} (2);
\draw[rule] (3) to[out=15,in=60,looseness=8]
node[align=center,anchor=north,midway,yshift=.4cm]{$r_8$} (3);
\fill[box,draw=black!25] ($(1)+(-1,-0.5)$) rectangle ($(3)+(0.9,1.4)$);
\node[token] at ($(3)+(0.08,-0.08)$) {};
\node[token] at ($(2)+(-0.08,-0.08)$) {};
\node[token] at ($(3)+(-0.08,0.08)$) {};
\node[] at ($(2)+(0,-1.7)$) (Cc) {Configuration $\gst_2$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[local bounding box=scope1]
\node[coordinate] (f1) at (-2.5,-0.15) {};
\node[coordinate] (f2) [right = 1cm of f1] {};
\node[coordinate] (f3) [right = 1cm of f2] {};
\node[coordinate] (f4) [right = 1cm of f3] {};
\node[coordinate] (f5) [right = 1cm of f4] {};
\node[coordinate] (f6) [right = 1cm of f5] {};
\node[coordinate] (s1) [below = 1.3cm of f1] {};
\node[coordinate] (s2) [right = 1cm of s1] {};
\node[coordinate] (s3) [right = 1cm of s2] {};
\node[coordinate] (s4) [right = 1cm of s3] {};
\node[coordinate] (s5) [right = 1cm of s4] {};
\node[coordinate] (s6) [right = 1cm of s5] {};
\draw[trans] (f1) to[]
node[align=center,anchor=south,midway]{{$r_1$}}(f2);
\draw[transt] (f2) to[]
node[align=center,anchor=south,midway]{{$r_6$}} (f3);
\draw[trans] (f3) to[]
node[align=center,anchor=south,midway]{{$r_4$}} (f4);
\draw[transt] (f4) to[]
node[align=center,anchor=south,midway]{{$r_2$}}(f5);
\draw[trans] (f5) to[]
node[align=center,anchor=south,midway]{{$r_4$}} (f6);
\draw[transt] (s1) to[]
node[align=center,anchor=north,midway]{{$r_6$}}(s2);
\draw[transt] (s2) to[]
node[align=center,anchor=north,midway]{{$r_2$}} (s3);
\draw[trans] (s3) to[]
node[align=center,anchor=north,midway]{{$r_1$}}(s4);
\draw[trans] (s4) to[]
node[align=center,anchor=north,midway]{{$r_4$}} (s5);
\draw[trans] (s5) to[]
node[align=center,anchor=north,midway]{{$r_4$}} (s6);
\draw[-,dashed] (f2) to[] (s1);
\draw[-,dashed] (f3) to[] (s2);
\draw[-,dashed] (f4) to[] (s2);
\draw[-,dashed] (f5) to[] (s3);
\draw [decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=9pt}]
($(s3)+(0,-0.5)$) -- ($(s1)+(0,-0.5)$) node (a) [black,midway,yshift=-17pt]
{One thread};
\draw [decorate,decoration={brace,amplitude=9pt}]
($(s6)+(0,-0.5)$) -- ($(s3)+(0,-0.5)$) node (b) [black,midway,yshift=-17pt]
{All other threads};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Example of constructing a representative schedule by moving a
thread to the beginning. The number of dots in the local states correspond to
counter values, i.e.,
$\sigma_1.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_0]= \sigma_1.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_1]=
\sigma_1.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_2] = 1$
and $\sigma_1.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_3] =0$.}
\label{fig:movingthread}
\end{figure*}
Another challenge in verification of $\ELTLTB{}$
formulas
is that counterexamples to liveness properties are infinite
paths.
As discussed in Section~\ref{sec:counterexamples}, we consider
infinite paths of lasso shape $\vartheta \cdot \rho^\omega$.
For a finite part of a schedule, $\vartheta \cdot \rho$, satisfying
an $\ELTLTB{}$ formula, we show the existence of a new schedule,
$\vartheta' \cdot \rho'$, of bounded length satisfying the
same formula as the original one.
Regarding the shortening, our approach uses a similar idea as the one
from~\cite{KVW15:CAV}.
We follow modified steps from reachability analysis:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We split $\vartheta\cdot\rho$ into several steady schedules,
using cut points introduced in Sections~\ref{sec:counterexamples}
and~\ref{sec:structguards}.
The cut points depend not only on threshold guards, but also on the
$\ELTLTB{}$ formula~$\varphi$ representing the negation of a specification
we want to check.
Given such a steady schedule~$\tau$, each configuration of~$\tau$
satisfies a set of propositional subformulas of~$\varphi$, which are
covered by the operator~$\ltlG$ in $\varphi$.
\item For each of these steady schedules we find a representative,
that is, an accelerated schedule of bounded length that satisfies
the necessary propositional subformulas as in the original schedule (i.e., not just
that starting and ending configurations coincide).
\item We concatenate the obtained representatives in the
original order.
\end{enumerate}
In \cite{KLVW16:arxiv}, we present the mathematical details for obtaining
these representative schedules, and prove different cases that
taken together establish our following main theorem:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
Let $\textsf{TA} = ({\mathcal L}, {\mathcal I}, \Gamma,
\Pi, {\mathcal R},{\ident{RC}}} \newcommand{\abst}{\alpha)$ be a threshold automaton, and
let $\mathit{Locs}\subseteq{\mathcal L}$ be a set of locations.
Let~$\gst$ be a confi\-gu\-ration, let~$\tau$ be a steady conventional schedule
applicable to~$\gst$, and let~$\psi$ be one of the following formulas:
$$\bigvee_{\ell\in \mathit{Locs}} {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell]\neq 0, \;\mbox{ or }\;
\bigwedge_{\ell\in \mathit{Locs}} {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell]= 0.$$
If all configurations visited by $\tau$ from $\sigma$
satisfy~$\psi$, i.e.,
$\setconf\gst\tau \models \psi$, then
there is a steady representative schedule~$\mathsf{repr}[\psi , \gst, \tau]$ with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[a)] The representative is applicable, and ends in the same final state:\\ $\mathsf{repr}[\psi , \gst, \tau]$ is applicable to~$\gst$,
and $\mathsf{repr}[\psi , \gst, \tau](\gst)=\tau(\gst)$,
\item[b)] The representative has bounded length: $|\mathsf{repr}[\psi , \gst, \tau]|\leq 6\cdot |{\mathcal R} |$,
\item[c)] The representative maintains the formula $\psi$. In
other words, $\setconf{\gst}{\mathsf{repr}[\psi , \gst, \tau]} \models \psi$,
\item[d)] The representative is a concatenation of
three representative schedules $\mathsf{srep}$ from Proposition~\ref{prop:srep-ex}:\\
there exist~$\tau_1$,~$\tau_2$ and~$\tau_3$, (possibly empty) subschedules of~$\tau$,
such that $\tau_1\cdot\tau_2\cdot\tau_3$ is applicable to~$\gst$, and it holds that
$(\tau_1\cdot\tau_2\cdot\tau_3)(\gst)=\tau(\gst)$,
and $\mathsf{repr}[\psi , \gst, \tau]=\sr\Omega{\gst}{\tau_1}\cdot \sr\Omega{\tau_1(\gst)}{\tau_2}\cdot
\sr\Omega{(\tau_1\cdot\tau_2)(\gst)}{\tau_3}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Our approach is slightly different in the case when the formula~$\psi$
has a more complex form: $\bigwedge_{1\lem\le
n} \bigvee_{\ell\in \mathit{Locs}_m}
{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell]\neq 0$, for $\mathit{Locs}_m \subseteq {\mathcal L}$,
where $1\le m\len$ and $n\in{\mathbb N}$.
In this case, our proof requires the schedule $\tau$ to have
sufficiently large counter values.
To ensure that there is an infinite schedule with sufficiently large
counter values, we first prove that if a counterexample exists
in a small system, there also exists one in a larger system, that
is, we consider configurations where each counter is multiplied
with a constant \emph{finite multiplier}~$\mu$.
For resilience conditions that do not correspond to parameterized
systems (i.e., fix the system size to, e.g., $n=4$) or
pathological threshold automata, such multipliers may not exist.
However, all our benchmarks have multipliers, and existence of
multipliers can easily be checked using simple queries to SMT
solvers in preprocessing.
This additional restriction leads to slightly smaller bounds on the
lengths of representative schedules:
\newcommand{\thmandor}{Fix a threshold automaton~$\textsf{TA} = ({\mathcal L}, {\mathcal I}, \Gamma,
\Pi, {\mathcal R},{\ident{RC}}} \newcommand{\abst}{\alpha)$ that has a finite multiplier~$\mu$, and a confi\-gu\-ration $\gst$.
For an $n\in{\mathbb N}$, fix sets of locations
$\mathit{Locs}_m \subseteq {\mathcal L}$ for $1\le m\len$.
If $\psi =
\bigwedge_{1\lem\le n} \bigvee_{\ell\in \mathit{Locs}_m} {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell]\neq 0,$
then for every steady conventional schedule $\tau$,
applicable to $\gst$,
with $\setconf \gst\tau \models \psi$,
there exists a schedule $\gsro \Ctx\gst\tau{\multipl}$ with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[a)] The representative is applicable and ends in the same final
state:\\
$\gsro \Ctx\gst\tau{\multipl}$ is a steady schedule applicable to $\multist{\gst}{\mu}$,
and $\gsro \Ctx\gst\tau{\multipl} (\multist{\gst}{\mu})=\multisch{\tau}{\mu}(\multist{\gst}{\mu})$,
\item[b)] The representative has bounded length: $|\gsro \Ctx\gst\tau{\multipl}|\leq 4\cdot |{\mathcal R} |$,
\item[c)] The representative maintains the formula
$\psi$. In other words, $\setconf{\multist{\gst}{\mu}}\gsro \Ctx\gst\tau{\multipl} \models \psi$,
\item[d)] The representative is a concatenation of
two representative schedules $\mathsf{srep}$ from Proposition~\ref{prop:srep-ex}:\\
$\gsro \Ctx\gst\tau{\multipl}=\sr\Omega{\mu\gst}{\tau}\cdot \sr\Omega{\tau(\mu\gst)}{\multisch{\tau}{(\mu-1)}}$.
\end{enumerate}}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:andor}
\thmandor
\end{theorem}
The main technical challenge for proving Theorems~\ref{thm:main}
and~\ref{thm:andor} is that we want to swap transitions and
maintain $\ELTLTB{}$ formulas at the same time.
As discussed in Example~\ref{ex:swap}, simply applying the ideas from
the reachability analysis in~\cite{Lipton75,KVW15:CAV} is not
sufficient.
We address this challenge by more refined swapping strategies
depending on the property $\psi$ of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.
For instance, the intuition behind $\bigvee_{\ell\in \mathit{Locs}}
{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell]\neq 0$ is that in a given distributed algorithm,
there should always be at least one process in one of the states
in $\mathit{Locs}$.
Hence, we would like to consider individual processes, but in the
context of counter systems.
Therefore, we introduce a mathematical notion we call a \emph{thread},
which is a schedule that can be executed by an individual
process.
A thread is then characterized depending on whether it starts in
$\mathit{Locs}$, ends in $\mathit{Locs}$, or visits
$\mathit{Locs}$ at some intermediate step.
Based on this characterization, we show that $\ELTLTB{}$ formulas are
preserved if we move carefully chosen threads to the beginning of
a steady schedule (intuitively, this corresponds to $\tau_1,$ and
$\tau_2$ from Theorem~\ref{thm:main}).
Then, we replace the threads, one by one, by their representative
schedules from Proposition~\ref{prop:srep-ex}, and append another
representative schedule for the remainder of the schedule.
In this way, we then obtain the representative schedules in
Theorem~\ref{thm:main}(d).
\begin{example}\label{ex:slides}
We
consider the~$\textsf{TA}$ in Figure~\ref{fig:stunningexample}, and show
how a schedule $\tau=(r_1,1),(r_6,1),(r_4,1),(r_2,1),(r_4,1)$
applicable to~$\gst_1$, with~$\tau(\gst_1) = \gst_2$ can be
shortened.
Figure~\ref{fig:movingthread} follows this example where $\tau$ is the
upper schedule.
Assume that $\setconf{\sigma_1}{\tau}\models{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_2]\ne 0$,
and that we want to construct a shorter schedule that produces a
path that satisfies the same formula.
In our theory, subschedule $(r_1,1),(r_4,1)$ is a thread of $\gst_1$
and~$\tau$ for two reasons: (1) the counter of the starting local
state of~$(r_1,1)$ is greater than~$0$, i.e.,
$\sigma_1.{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_0]=1$, and (2) it is a sequence of rules
in the control flow of the threshold automaton, i.e., it
starts from~$\ell_0$, then uses $(r_1,1)$ to go to local state
$\ell_2$ and then $(r_4,1)$ to arrive at $\ell_3$.
The intuition of (2) is that a thread corresponds to a process
that executes the threshold automaton.
Similarly, $(r_6,1),(r_2,1)$ and $(r_4,1)$ are also threads of
$\gst_1$ and~$\tau$.
In fact, we can show that each schedule can be decomposed into threads.
Based on this, we analyze which local states are visited when a thread
is executed.
Our formula $\setconf{\sigma_1}{\tau}\models{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_2]\ne 0$ talks about~$\ell_2$.
Thus, we are interested in a thread that ends at~$\ell_2$,
because after executing this thread, intuitively there will
always be at least one process in~$\ell_2$, i.e., the
counter~${\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_2]$ will be nonzero, as required.
Such a thread will be moved to the beginning.
We find that thread~$(r_6,1),(r_2,1)$ meets this requirement.
Similarly, we are also interested in a thread that starts from~$\ell_2$.
Before we execute such a thread, at least one process must always be
in~$\ell_2$, i.e.,~${\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_2]$ will be nonzero.
For this, we single out the thread~$(r_4,1)$, as it starts
from~$\ell_2$.
Independently of the actual positions of these threads within a
schedule, our condition ${\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_2]\ne 0$ is true
\emph{before}~$(r_4,1)$ starts, and \emph{after}~$(r_6,1),(r_2,1)$ ends.
Hence, we move the thread~$(r_6,1),(r_2,1)$ to the beginning,
and obtain a schedule that ensures our condition in all visited
configurations; cf.\ the lower schedule in Figure~\ref{fig:movingthread}.
Then we replace the thread~$(r_6,1),(r_2,1)$, by a representative schedule
from Proposition~\ref{prop:srep-ex}, and the remaining part~$(r_1,1)$,
$(r_4,1)$, $(r_4,1)$,
by another one.
Indeed in our example, we could merge $(r_4,1),(r_4,1)$ into one accelerated
transition $(r_4,2)$ and obtain a schedule which is shorter
than~$\tau$ while maintaining ${\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell_2]\ne 0$.
\end{example}
\makeatletter{}\section{Application of the Short Counterexample Property and
Experimental Evaluation}
\subsection{SMT Encoding}
\label{sec:smtencodings}
We use the theoretical results from the previous section to give an
efficient encoding of lasso-shaped executions in SMT with linear
integer arithmetic.
The definitions of counter systems in Section~\ref{sec:countsys}
directly tell us how to encode paths of the counter system.
Definition~\ref{def:config} describes a configuration $\sigma$ as
tuple $({\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}},\vec{g},\mathbf{p})$, where each component is encoded
as a vector of SMT integer variables.
Then, given a path $\gst_0, t_1, \gst_1, \dots, t_{k-1}, \gst_{k-1},
t_k, \dots \gst_{k}$ of length~$k$, by ${\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^i$,
$\vec{g}^i$, and $\mathbf{p}^i$ we denote the values of the vectors that
correspond to $\sigma_i$, for $0\le i \le k$.
As the parameter values do not change, we use one copy of the
variables $\mathbf{p}$ in our SMT encoding.
By ${\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^i_\ell$, for $1 \le \ell \le |{\mathcal L}|$, we denote the
$\ell$th component of ${\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^i$, that is, the counter
corresponding to the number of processes in local
state~$\ell$ after the $i$th iteration.
Definition~\ref{def:config} also gives us the constraint
on the initial states, namely:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:smt-init}
\mathrm{init}(0) \equiv \sum_{\ell \in {\mathcal I}}
{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^0_\ell = N(\mathbf{p}) \wedge
\sum_{\ell \not\in {\mathcal I}} {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^0_\ell = 0 \wedge
\vec{g}^0=\vec{0} \wedge RC(\mathbf{p})
\end{equation}
\begin{example}
\label{ex:init}
The TA from Figure~\ref{fig:stunningexample} has four
local states $\ell_0$, $\ell_1$, $\ell_2$, $\ell_3$ among which $\ell_0$ and
$\ell_1$ are the initial states.
In this example, $N(\mathbf{p})$ is $n-f$, and the resilience
condition requires that there are less than a third of the processes
faulty, i.e., $n>3t$. We obtain
$
\mathrm{init}(0) \equiv {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^0_0 +
{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^0_1 = n-f \wedge {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^0_2 +
{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^0_3 = 0 \wedge
x^0=0 \wedge n > 3t \wedge t\ge f \wedge f \ge 0
$.
The constraint is in linear integer arithmetic.
\end{example}
Further, Definition~\ref{def:TofSigma} encodes the transition
relation.
A transition is identified by a rule and an acceleration factor.
A rule is identified by threshold guards $\varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{\le}}$ and $\varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{>}}$,
local states $\mathit{from}$ and $\mathit{to}$ between which processes
are moved, and by $\vec{u}$, which defines the increase of shared
variables.
As according to Section~\ref{sec:structguards} only a fixed number of
transitions change the context and thus may change the evaluation
of $\varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{\le}}$ and $\varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{>}}$, we do not encode $\varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{\le}}$
and $\varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{>}}$ for each rule.
In fact, we check the guards $\varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{\le}}$ and $\varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{>}}$ against a
fixed number of configurations, which correspond to the cut
points defined by the threshold guards.
The acceleration factor~$\delta$ is indeed the only variable in a
transition, and the SMT solver has to find assignments of these
factors.
Then this transition from the $i$th to the $(i+1)$th configuration is
encoded using rule $r=({\mathit{from}}, {\mathit{to}}, \varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{\le}},
\varphi^{\scriptscriptstyle{>}},\vec{u})$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
T(i,r) &\equiv& \mathit{Move}(\mathit{from}, \mathit{to}, i)
\wedge \mathit{IncShd}(\vec{u}, i) \label{eq:smt-rule}\\
\mathit{Move}(\ell, \ell', i) &\equiv&
\ell \ne \ell'
\rightarrow {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^{i}_\ell - {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^{i+1}_\ell
= \delta^{i+1} = {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^{i+1}_{\ell'} - {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^{i}_{\ell'} \notag\\
&\wedge& \ell = \ell'
\rightarrow \big( {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^{i}_\ell = {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^{i+1}_\ell
\wedge {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^{i+1}_{\ell'} = {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^{i}_{\ell'} \big) \notag\\
&\wedge&
\bigwedge_{ s \in {\mathcal L} \setminus \{\ell, \ell'\}}
{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^{i}_s = {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^{i+1}_s \notag\\
\mathit{IncShd}(\vec{u}, i) &\equiv&\vec{g}^{i+1} - \vec{g}^i = \delta^{i+1} \cdot \vec{u} \notag
\end{eqnarray}
Given a schedule~$\tau$, we encode in linear integer arithmetic the paths that
follow this schedule from an initial state as follows: $$E(\tau) \equiv
\mathrm{init}(0) \wedge T(0,r_1) \wedge T(1,r_2) \wedge \dots$$ We can now
ask the SMT solver for assignments of the parameters as well as the factors
$\delta^1, \delta^2, \dots$ in order to check whether a path with this
sequence of rules exists.
Note that some factors can be equal to~0, which means that the corresponding
rule does not have any effect (because no process executes it).
If $\tau$ encodes a lasso shape, and the SMT solver reports a satisfying
assignment, this assignment is a counterexample.
If the SMT solver reports unsat on all lassos discussed in
Section~\ref{sec:structguards}, then there does not exists a counterexample
and the algorithm is verified.
\begin{example}
In Example~\ref{ex:fair} we have seen the fairness requirement
$\psi_\text{fair}$, which is a property of a configuration that can be
encoded as
$\mathrm{fair}(i) \equiv {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^i_1 = 0 \wedge
(x^i\ge t+1 \rightarrow {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^i_0 = 0 \wedge {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^i_1 = 0) \wedge
(x^i\ge n-t \rightarrow {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^i_0 = 0 \wedge
{\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^i_2 = 0)$, which is a formula in linear integer
arithmetic. Then, e.g., $\mathrm{fair}(5)$ encodes that the
fifth configuration satisfies the predicate. Such state
formulas can be added as conjunct to the formula $E(\tau)$
that encodes a path.
\end{example}
As discussed in Sections~\ref{sec:counterexamples}
and~\ref{sec:structguards} we have to encode
lassos of the form $\vartheta \cdot
\rho^\omega$ starting from an initial configuration~$\sigma$. We
immediately obtain a finite representation by encoding the
fixed length execution $E(\vartheta \cdot
\rho)$ as above, and adding the constraint that applying $\rho$
returns to the start of the lasso loop, that is,
$\vartheta(\sigma) = \rho(\vartheta(\sigma))$. In SMT this is
directly encoded as equality of integer variables.
\subsection{Generating the SMT Queries}\label{sec:one-order}
\begin{figure}[t]
\lstinputlisting[language=pseudo,numbers=left,numberstyle=\scriptsize,
columns=fullflexible]{smt-algo.tex}
\caption{Checking one topological order with SMT.}
\label{fig:pseudosmt}
\end{figure}
The high-level structure of the verification algorithm is given in
Figure~\ref{fig:pseudo} on page~\pageref{fig:pseudo}.
In this section, we give the details of the
procedure~\texttt{check\_one\_order}, whose pseudo code is given
in Figure~\ref{fig:pseudosmt}.
It receives as the input the following parameters: a threshold
automaton~$\Sk$, an $\ELTLTB$ formula~$\varphi$, a cut graph ${\cal G}$ of
$\varphi$, a threshold graph~${\cal H}$ of~$\Sk$, and a topological
order~$\prec$ on the vertices of the graph ${\cal G} \cup {\cal H}$.
The procedure~\texttt{check\_one\_order} constructs SMT assertions
about the configurations of the lassos that correspond to the
order~$\prec$.
As explained in Section~\ref{sec:smtencodings}, an ith configuration is defined
by the vectors of SMT variables $({\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^i, \vec{g}^i, \mathbf{p})$.
We use two global variables: the number~$\mathsf{fn}$ of the configuration
under construction, and the number~$\mathsf{fs}$ of the configuration that
corresponds to the loop start.
Thus, with the expressions ${\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^{\mathsf{fn}}$ and $\vec{g}^{\mathsf{fn}}$
we refer to the SMT variables of the configuration whose number is stored
in~$\mathsf{fn}$.
In the pseudocode in Figure~\ref{fig:pseudosmt}, we call
\texttt{SMT\_assert(${\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^{\mathsf{fn}}$,
$\vec{g}^{\mathsf{fn}}$, $\mathbf{p} \models \psi$)} to add an
assertion~$\psi$ about the configuration
$({\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}^{\mathsf{fn}}, \vec{g}^{\mathsf{fn}}, \mathbf{p})$ to the
SMT query.
Finally, the call \texttt{SMT\_sat()} returns true, only if there is a
satisfying assignment for the assertions collected so far.
Such an assignment can be accessed with \texttt{SMT\_model()} and
gives the values for the configurations and acceleration factors,
which together constitute a witness lasso.
The procedure~\texttt{check\_one\_order} creates the assertions about the
initial configurations.
The assertions consist of: the assumptions~$\mathsf{init}(0)$ about the initial
configurations of the threshold automaton, the top-level propositional
formula~$\psi_0$, and the invariant propositional formula~$\psi_{k+1}$ that
should hold from the initial configuration on.
By writing \texttt{assume($\psi = \psi_0 \wedge \ltlF \wedge \psi_1 \dots \ltlF
\psi_k \wedge \ltlG \psi_{k+1}$)}, we extract the subformulas of a
canonical formula~$\psi$ (see Section~\ref{sec:shapelasso}).
The procedure finds the minimal node in the order~$\prec$ on the nodes of the
graph~${\cal G} \cup {\cal H}$ and calls the procedure~\texttt{check\_node}
for the initial node, the initial invariant~$\psi_{k+1}$, and the empty
context~$\emptyset$.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{good-times}
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{good-mem}
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{good-nschemas}
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{good-popl17-vs-cav15-times}
\end{center}
\caption{The plots summarize the following results of running
our implementation on all benchmarks: used time in seconds (top left),
used memory in megabytes (top right),
the number of checked lassos (bottom left),
time used both by our implementation and~\cite{KVW15:CAV}
to check \emph{safety only} (bottom right).
Several occurrences
of the same benchmark correspond to different cases,
such as $f > 1$, $f=1$, and $f=0$.
Symbols $\blacksquare$ and $\square$ correspond to the safety properties of
each benchmark, while symbols $\blacklozenge$ and $\lozenge$ correspond to the liveness
properties.
}
\label{fig:plotsky}
\end{figure*}
The procedure \texttt{check\_node} is called with a node $v$ of the
graph ${\cal G} \cup {\cal H}$ as a parameter.
It adds assertions that encode a finite path and constraints on the
configurations of this path.
The finite path leads from the configuration that corresponds to the
node $v$ to the configuration that corresponds to $v$'s
successor in the order~$\prec$.
The constraints depend on $v$'s origin: (a)~$v$ labels a
formula~$\ltlF \psi$ in the syntax tree of~$\varphi$, (b)~$v$
carries a threshold guard from the set~$\Phi^{\mathrm{rise}} \cup
\Phi^{\mathrm{fall}}$, (c)~$v$ denotes the loop start, or (d)~$v$ denotes
the loop end.
In case~(a), we add an SMT assertion that the current configuration
satisfies the propositional formula $\mathit{prop}(\psi)$
(line~\ref{line:Fwitness}), and add a sequence of rules that
leads to $v$'s successor while maintaining the
invariants~$\psi_{\mathit{inv}}$ of the preceding nodes and the
$v$'s invariant~$\psi_{k+1}$ (line~\ref{line:FGinv}).
In case~(b), in line~\ref{line:guard-unlock}, we add a sequence of
rules, one of which should unlock (resp.
lock) the threshold guard in~$v \in \Phi^{\mathrm{rise}}$ (resp.
$v \in \Phi^{\mathrm{fall}}$).
Then, in line~\ref{line:guard-segment}, we add a sequence of rules
that leads to a configuration of $v$'s successor.
All added configurations are required to satisfy the current
invariant~$\psi_{\mathit{inv}}$.
As the threshold guard in~$v$ is now unlocked (resp.
locked), we include the guard (resp.
its negation) in the current context~$\Omega$.
In case~(c), we store the current configuration as the loop start in
the variable~$\mathrm{fs}$ and, as in~(a) and~(b), add a sequence
of rules leading to $v$'s successor.
Finally, in case~(d), we should have reached the ending configuration
that coincides with the loop start.
To this end, in line~\ref{line:close-loop}, we add the constraint that
forces the counters of both configurations to be equal.
At this point, all the necessary SMT constraints have been added, and
we call \texttt{SMT\_sat} to check whether there is an assignment
that satisfies the constraints.
If there is one, we report it as a lasso witnessing the
$\ELTLTB$-formula~$\varphi$ that consists of: the concrete
parameter values, the values of the counters and shared variables
for each configuration, and the acceleration factors.
Otherwise, we report that there is no witness lasso for the
formula~$\varphi$.
The procedure~\texttt{push\_segment} constructs a sequence of currently
unlocked rules, as in the case of reachability~\cite{KVW15:CAV}.
However, this sequence should be repeated several times, as required by
Theorems~\ref{thm:main} and~\ref{thm:andor}.
Moreover, the freshly added configurations are required to satisfy the current
invariant~$\psi_{\mathit{inv}}$.
\subsection{Experiments}
\label{sec:subexp}
We extended the tool ByMC~\cite{KVW15:CAV} with our technique and conducted
experiments\footnote{The details on the experiments and the artifact
are available at:\\
\url{http://forsyte.at/software/bymc/popl17-artifact}} with the freely
available benchmarks from~\cite{KVW15:CAV}: folklore reliable broadcast
(FRB)~\cite{CT96}, consistent broadcast (STRB)~\cite{ST87:abc}, asynchronous
Byzantine agreement (ABA)~\cite{BrachaT85}, condition-based consensus
(CBC)~\cite{MostefaouiMPR03}, non-blocking atomic commitment (NBAC and
NBACC~\cite{Raynal97} and NBACG~\cite{Gue02}), one-step consensus with zero
degradation (CF1S~\cite{DobreS06}), consensus in one communication step
(C1CS~\cite{BrasileiroGMR01}), and one-step Byzantine asynchronous consensus
(BOSCO~\cite{SongR08}).
These threshold-guarded fault-tolerant distributed algorithms are encoded in a
parametric extension of Promela.
Negations of the safety and liveness specifications of our benchmarks\dash---written in~$\ELTLTB$\dash---follow three patterns: unsafety
$\ltlE (p \wedge \ltlF q)$, non-termination $\ltlE (p \wedge \ltlG
\ltlF r \wedge \ltlG q)$, and non-response $\ltlE (\ltlG \ltlF r \wedge
\ltlF (p \wedge \ltlG q))$.
The propositions $p$, $q$, and $r$ follow the syntax of~$\mathit{pform}$ (cf. Table~\ref{table:eltlft-syntax}), e.g., $p \equiv \bigwedge_{\ell
\in \mathit{Locs}_1} \kappa[\ell] = 0$ and $q \equiv \bigvee_{\ell \in \mathit{Locs}_2} \kappa[\ell]
\ne 0$ for some sets of locations~$\mathit{Locs}_1$ and~$\mathit{Locs}_2$.
The results of our experiments are summarized in Figure~\ref{fig:plotsky}.
Given the properties of the distributed algorithms found in the literature, we
checked for each benchmark one or two safety properties (depicted
with~$\blacksquare$ and~$\square$) and one or two liveness properties
(depicted with~$\blacklozenge$ and~$\lozenge$).
For each benchmark, we display the running times and the memory used together
by~ByMC and the SMT solver~Z3~\cite{DeMouraB08}, as well as the number of
exercised lasso shapes as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:structguards}.
For safety properties, we compared our implementation against the
implementation of~\cite{KVW15:CAV}.
The results are summarized the bottom right plot
in Figure~\ref{fig:plotsky}, which shows that there is no clear winner.
For instance, our implementation is 170 times faster on BOSCO for the case $n >
5t$.
However, for the benchmark ABA we experienced a tenfold slowdown.
In our experiments, attempts to improve the SMT encoding for liveness
usually impaired safety results.
Our implementation has verified safety and liveness of all ten
parameterized algorithms in less than a day.
Moreover, the tool reports counterexamples to liveness of CF1S and
BOSCO exactly for the cases predicted by the distributed
algorithms literature, i.e., when there are not enough correct
processes to reach consensus in one communication step.
Noteworthy, liveness of only the two simplest benchmarks (STRB and
FRB) had been automatically verified
before~\cite{JohnKSVW13:fmcad}.
\makeatletter{}\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:concl}
Parameterized verification approaches the problem
of verifying systems of thousands of processes
by proving correctness for all system sizes.
Although the literature predominantly deals with safety,
parameterized verification for liveness is of growing
interest, and has been addressed mostly in the context of
programs that solve mutual exclusion or dining
philosophers~\cite{Atig2012,FarzanKP16,PXZ02,FPPZ06}.
These techniques do not apply to fault-tolerant distributed algorithms
that have arithmetic conditions on the fraction of faults,
threshold~guards, and typical specifications that evaluate
a global system state.
Parameterized verification is in general undecidable~\cite{AK86}.
As recently surveyed by Bloem et al.~\cite{2015Bloem}, one can escape
undecidability by restricting, e.g., communication semantics,
local state space, the local control flow, or the temporal logic
used for specifications.
Hence, we make explicit the required
restrictions.
On the one hand, these restrictions still allow us to model
fault-tolerant distributed algorithms and their specifications,
and on the other hand, they give rise to a practical verification method.
The restrictions are on the local control flow (loops) of processes
(Section~\ref{sec:TA}), as well as on the temporal operators and
propositional formulas (Section~\ref{sec:reach-and-live}).
We conjecture that lifting these restrictions quite quickly leads to
undecidability again.
In addition, we justify our restrictions with the considerable number
of benchmarks~\cite{CT96,ST87:abc,BrachaT85,MostefaouiMPR03,Raynal97,Gue02,DobreS06,BrasileiroGMR01,SongR08}\ that fit into our fragment, and with the
convincing experimental results from Figure~\ref{fig:plotsky}.
Our main technical contribution is to combine and extend several
important techniques: First, we extend the ideas by Etessami et
al.~\cite{EtessamiVW02} to reason about shapes of infinite
executions of lasso shape.
These executions are counterexample candidates.
Then we extend reductions introduced by Lipton~\cite{Lipton75}
to deal with $\ELTLTB{}$
formulas.
(Techniques that extend Lipton's in other directions can be found in~\cite{CohenL98,Doeppner77,Lamport89pretendingatomicity,Elmas09,Flanagan:2005,KVW16:IandC}.)
Our reduction is specific to threshold guards which are typical for
fault-tolerant distributed algorithms and are found in
domain-specific languages.
Using on our reduction we apply
acceleration~\cite{BardinFLP08,KVW16:IandC} in order to arrive at
our short counterexample property.
Our short counterexample property implies a completeness threshold,
that is, a bound $b$ that ensures that if no lasso
of length up to $b$ is
satisfying an~$\ELTLTB$ formula, then there is no
infinite path satisfying this formula.
For linear temporal logic with the $\ltlF$ and $\ltlG$ operators,
Kroening et al.~\cite{KroeningOSWW11} prove bounds on the
completeness thresholds on the level of B\"uchi automata.
Their bound involves the recurrence diameter of the transition
systems, which is prohibitively large for counter
systems.
Similarly, the general method to transfer liveness with fairness to
safety checking by Biere et al.~\cite{BIERE2002160} leads to an
exponential growth of the diameter, and thus to too
large values of~$b$.
Hence, we decided to conduct an analysis on the level of threshold
automata, accelerated counter systems, and a fragment of the
temporal logic, which allows us to exploit specifics of the
domain, and get bounds that can be used in practice.
Acceleration has been applied for parameterized verification
by means of regular model
checking~\cite{Pnueli2000,Bouajjani2004,Abdulla1998,SCHUPPAN200679}.
As noted by Fisman et al.~\cite{FismanKL08}, to verify
fault-tolerant distributed algorithms, one would have to intersect
the regular languages that describe sets of states with
context-free languages that enforce the resilience condition
(e.g., $n > 3t$).
Our approach of reducing to SMT handles resilience conditions
naturally in linear integer arithmetic.
There are two reasons for our restrictions in the temporal logic: On one hand,
in our benchmarks, there is no need to find counterexamples that contain a
configuration that satisfies ${\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell] = 0 \vee {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell'] =
0$ for some~$\ell, \ell' \in {\mathcal L}$.
One would only need such a formula to specify requirement that at least one
process is at location~$\ell$ and at least one process is at
location~$\ell'$ (the disjunction would be negated in the specification),
which is unnatural for fault-tolerant distributed algorithms.
On the other hand, enriching our logic with $\bigvee_{i \in \mathit{Locs}} {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[i] =
0$ allows one to express tests for zero in the counter system, which leads
to undecidability~\cite{2015Bloem}.
For the same reason, we avoid disjunction, as it would allow one to indirectly
express test for zero: ${\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell] = 0 \vee {\vec{\boldsymbol\kappa}}[\ell'] = 0$.
The restrictions we put on threshold automata are justified from
a practical viewpoint of our application domain, namely,
threshold-guarded fault-tolerant algorithms.
We assumed that all the cycles in threshold automata
are simple (while the benchmarks have only self-loops or cycles of length 2).
As our analysis already is quite involved, these restrictions allow us
to concentrate on our central results without obfuscating the
notation and theoretical results.
Still, from a theoretical viewpoint it might be interesting to relax
the restrictions on cycles in the future.
More generally, these restrictions allowed us to develop a completely
automated verification technique.
In general, there is a trade-off between degree of automation and
generality.
Our method is completely automatic, but our input language cannot
compete in generality with mechanized proof methods that rely
heavily on human expertise, e.g.,
IVY~\cite{PadonMPSS16}, Verdi~\cite{WilcoxWPTWEA15},
IronFleet~\cite{HawblitzelHKLPR15}, TLAPS~\cite{ChaudhuriDLM10}.
\bibliographystyle{abbrvnat}
|
\section{Fluorescence Dynamics}
We utilize a green laser ($\lambda = 532~nm$) to initialize and read out the spin state of NV centers.
Due to a two-photon absorption process this excitation can cause ionization of NV centers, resulting in an out-of-equilibrium charge distribution around the excitation spot.
This charge distribution relaxes even without illumination, as discussed in the main text.
In practice, such charge dynamics can affect the spin-state readout by changing the average fluorescence emission rates (NV$^0$ vs NV$^-$).
In this section, we explain how to avoid this problem.
The effect of charge dynamics on fluorescence emission rate is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:fluorescence}a.
Under green laser illumination (0-200~$\mu$s) the fluorescence emission rate initially increases as spins are polarized, but then quickly decreases as NV centers get ionized (due to preferential collection from the NV$^-$ phonon sideband).
Following the polarization of spins at varying laser power, we record the florescence after a variable time evolution $t$ with and without an extra microwave $\pi$-pulse at the end of the evolution (empty and full circles Fig.~\ref{fig:fluorescence}a).
We find that the observed fluorescence levels are asymmetric and for high power increase as a function of time.
This fluorescence increase is caused by previously ionized NV centers, relaxing back to equilibrium.
This effect is particularly dominant at high green excitation power, where ionization at the focal spot is increased.
However, as demonstrated in Fig~\ref{fig:fluorescence}b, the difference in fluorescence with and without the extra $\pi$-pulse is independent from the applied green laser power.
This result implies that one can use such a differential readout to mediate the contribution of charge dynamics and reliably extract the spin depolarization time scales.
Additionally, the use of a low power green laser ($\sim$10~$\mu$W) can help reduce the effects of charge dynamics during the experiment.
Note, that a similar technique has previously been used to robustly measure spin dynamics in high density NV samples~\cite{budker2015shortT1}.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{./s1.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Fluorescence Dynamics.}
\textbf{(a)} Fluorescence emission measurements for two different green laser powers, 10~$\mu$W (solid blue data) 40~$\mu$W (solid red data).
An initial green laser pulse with length $200~\mu$s is used to polarize the spin states of NV centers and reach a charge equilibrium state. After a wait time $t$, another green pulse is used to read out the spin state.
The fluorescence emission rate is measured for both the polarization pulse (green background) and the readout pulse (white background, as a function of $t$).
The emission rate is normalized by an equilibrium value obtained at sufficiently late time ($> 500~\mu$s).
Empty circles correspond to similar measurements with the addition of microwave $\pi$-pulse shortly before readout.
\textbf{(b)} Spin polarization decay as a function of time, extracted from the difference between filled and empty circles from (a) for both excitation powers.
} \label{fig:fluorescence}
\end{figure}
\section{Estimation of Dipolar Spin Diffusion Timescale}
One potential mechanism of spin-density dependent depolarization is that polarized spins diffuse out of the probing volume via dipolar interactions.
Here, we estimate the timescale of such spin diffusion using a classical diffusion equation.
In our experiments, the probing volume is determined by the confocal excitation spot size $w\sim 200~$nm. Note that this estimate assumes a bulk diamond excitation, approximated by a 2D model, due to the large extent of the excitation spot in the direction normal to the diamond surface. The effective diffusion coefficient $D$ can then be estimated from the average spacing among NV centers $a\sim5~$nm and the typical flip-flop time $\tau \sim 9.5~\mu$s (calculated from $J = (2\pi)~105$~kHz), $D \approx a^2 / \tau \sim 2.6~\textrm{nm}^2/\mu\textrm{s}$.
Assuming that the spin polarization initially follows a Gaussian distribution with spatial width $w$, the classical diffusion equation predicts the polarization profile at later time $t$
\begin{align}
P(t,\vec{r}) = \frac{e^{- \frac{r^2}{2 (w^2+Dt)}}}{2(w^2+Dt)\pi},
\end{align}
where one finds that the spin polarization density at $r=0$ is reduced by a factor of 2 at time $t \sim w^2/D \sim 15~$ms. This timescale is more than two orders of magnitude slower than experimentally measured depolarization times.
We note that our estimation ignores the effect of inhomogeneous distribution of NV transition frequencies arising from the presence of other magnetic impurities in diamond; such disorder in transition energies further suppresses resonant spin flip-flop dynamics.
For this reason, we rule out spin diffusion as the sole mechanism of ensemble depolarization.
\section{Rate Equation Model: Spin-state Dependent Depolarization}
In order to estimate the decay rates of two independent depolarization channels $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ (Fig.~1a, main text), we analyze the population changes in $|m_s=0\rangle$ and $|m_s=+1\rangle$ after initialization into $\ket{m_s=-1}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:rateeq}b).
For this we employ the following simple rate equation model
\[
\frac{d}{dt} \begin{bmatrix}
P^{\ket{-1}} \\
P^{\ket{0}} \\
P^{\ket{+1}}
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
-\gamma_1-\gamma_2 & \gamma_1 & \gamma_2 \\
\gamma_1 & -2\gamma_1 & \gamma_1 \\
\gamma_2 & \gamma_1 & -\gamma_1-\gamma_2
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
P^{\ket{-1}} \\
P^{\ket{0}} \\
P^{\ket{+1}}
\end{bmatrix},
\]
where $P^{\ket{-1}}, P^{\ket{0}}$, and $P^{\ket{+1}}$ are the normalized populations in each spin states. When spins are initialized into $\ket{m_s = -1}$ at $t = 0$, the solution of the rate equation model predicts
\begin{align}
P^{\ket{-1}}(t) - P^{\ket{0}}(t) &= \frac{1}{2} e^{-(\gamma_1 + 2\gamma_2) t} + \frac{1}{2}e^{-3\gamma_1 t} \label{eq:pop1_exp} \\
P^{\ket{0}}(t) - P^{\ket{+1}}(t) &= \frac{1}{2} e^{-(\gamma_1 + 2\gamma_2) t} - \frac{1}{2}e^{-3\gamma_1 t}. \label{eq:pop2_exp}
\end{align}
In our experiments, however, the decay rates $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ are random variables, giving rise to stretched exponential profiles.
Consequently, the measured population differences become
\begin{align}
P^{\ket{-1}}(t) - P^{\ket{0}}(t) &= \frac{1}{2} e^{-\sqrt{(\gamma_1 + 2\gamma_2)t}} + \frac{1}{2}e^{-\sqrt{3\gamma_1 t}} \label{eq:pop1} \\
P^{\ket{0}}(t) - P^{\ket{+1}}(t) &= \frac{1}{2} e^{-\sqrt{(\gamma_1 + 2\gamma_2)t}} - \frac{1}{2}e^{-\sqrt{3\gamma_1 t}} . \label{eq:pop2}
\end{align}
Fitting Eq. (\ref{eq:pop1}) and (\ref{eq:pop2}) to experimental data, we extract ${\gamma}_1 = 10.6 \pm 0.6$ kHz and ${\gamma}_2 = 1.1 \pm 0.7 $ kHz.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:rateeq}b, this simple theory prediction and the experiment data are in excellent agreement.
In particular, we notice that $\gamma_1 \gg \gamma_2$, implying that the spin state decay is induced by a local magnetic noise which changes only one unit of magnetization at a time, $\Delta m_s = \pm 1$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{./s3.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Magnetic Noise Model.}
\textbf{(a)} Schematic level diagram depicting population distribution at $\tau=0$ (after initialization into $|-1\rangle$) and at $\tau>>T_1$. Possible relaxation channels with rates $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ are indicated as red arrows.
\textbf{(b)} Population difference over time between $|-1\rangle$ and $|0\rangle$ (red data) as well as between $|+1\rangle$ and $|0\rangle$ (orange data) after initialization into $|-1\rangle$. Solid lines indicate the results of the rate equation model, fit to the data. Inset shows a zoom-in of the $|+1\rangle$ - $|0\rangle$ data for better visibility.
} \label{fig:rateeq}
\end{figure}
\section{Detailed Analysis of Spin-Fluctuator Model}
In this section, we provide a detailed analysis of our fluctuator model.
As described in the main text, we assume that a fraction of NV centers, with density $n_f$, undergo rapid depolarization at rate $\gamma_f$. Their positions and orientations are randomly distributed.
These fluctuators interact with normal spins via dipolar interactions, inducing depolarization.
Here, we derive four characteristic features of the observed depolarization dynamics presented in the main text: (a) spin-state dependent polarization rates and preferential decay, (b) stretched exponential decay of ensemble polarization, (c) the resonant feature of depolarization rates as two groups of NV centers become degenerate, and (d) the extension of spin lifetime via spin-locking.
Note that the quantitative analysis in (c) allows us to extract the values of $\gamma_f$ and $n_f$ from the experimental data presented in the main text (Fig. 2c main text).
We use those extracted parameters to predict the spin lifetime $T_1^\rho$ under spin-locking, which shows reasonable agreement with the data (Fig.~2d main text).
This section is organized in the following order.
First, we compute the effective depolarization rate of a normal spin induced by dipolar interaction with a single fluctuator. We will show that such a mechanism results in spin-state dependent $T_1$ and preferential decay.
Second, we show that interactions with multiple fluctuators located at random positions results in a distribution of effective decay rates $\rho(\gamma)$.
We will explicitly compute the ensemble depolarization $P(t) = \int_0^\infty \rho(\gamma) e^{-\gamma t} d\gamma = e^{-\sqrt{t/T_1}}$ and provide an analytic expression for $T_1$ in terms of microscopic parameters.
Finally, we will apply these results to various scenarios to predict the resonant features in Fig.~2c of the main text and the extension of spin lifetime in Fig.~2d of the main text.
\subsubsection*{Single Spin Interacting with a Single Fluctuator}
We begin our analysis by considering a system of a single spin and a single fluctuator that interact via Hamiltonian $H_\textrm{int}$.
The total Hamiltonian of such a system is given as
\begin{align}
H = H_1 + H_2 + H_\textrm{int}
\end{align}
where $H_1$ and $H_2$ are single particle Hamiltonians for a normal spin and a fluctuator, respectively. The details of $H_1$ and $H_2$ varies over different experiments. For example, in typical $T_1$ measurements where an external magnetic field is aligned along the quantization axis of NV centers, the single particle Hamiltonians are diagonal in the natural spin basis $H_{1/2} = \sum_{m_s\in \{0,\pm1\}} \omega_{m_s} \ket{m_s}\bra{m_s}$, where the energy eigenvalues $\omega_{m_s}$ in the rotating frame are random number of order $W\sim (2\pi)~9$~MHz, owing to inhomogeneous broadening of the system.
When strong spin-locking with Rabi frequency $\Omega$ is applied between $\ket{m_s=0}$ and $\ket{m_s=-1}$ transition, a dressed state basis is preferred, where
$H_{1/2} = \pm (\Omega/2) \ket{\pm}\bra{\pm} + \omega_0 \ket{m_s=0} \bra{m_s=0}$ with $\ket{\pm} = (\ket{m_s=0}\pm\ket{m_s=-1})/\sqrt{2}$ as defined in the main text.
Later, we will also consider a situation where $H_1$ and $H_2$ are diagonal in the different basis. Such a case arises when the normal spin and the fluctuator are oriented in different directions. Here, for simplicity, we assume a generic eigenbasis $\{\ket{i}\}$ and $\{\ket{\alpha}\}$ for $H_1$ and $H_2$, so that
\begin{align}
H_1 = \sum_{i\in\{1, 2, 3\}} \omega_i \ket{i}\bra{i} \;\; \textrm{and} \;\;
H_2 = \sum_{\alpha\in\{a,b,c\}} \omega_\alpha \ket{\alpha}\bra{\alpha},
\end{align}
where $\omega_i$ and $\omega_\alpha$ are corresponding energies in the rotating frame.
In addition to coherent dynamics, the fluctuator undergoes rapid incoherent dynamics. Hence, the dynamics of the system are governed by a quantum master equation
\begin{align}
\dot{\rho} &= -i [H, \rho ] + L[\rho] \\
L[\rho] &= \sum_k L_k \rho L_k^\dagger - \frac{1}{2} \left( L_k^\dagger L_k \rho + \rho L_k^\dagger L_k\right),
\end{align}
where $\rho$ is the density matrix of the system and $L_k$ are decay operators. In our model, we consider six decay processes as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:level_diagram}(a) with identical decay rates $\gamma_f$, i.e., $L_k = \sqrt{\gamma_f} \ket{m_s=\alpha} \bra{m_s=\beta}$ with $(\alpha,\beta) \in \{ (+1,-1),(-1,+1),(+1,0),(0,+1),(-1,0),(0,-1)\}$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{./levels.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Spin-Fluctuator interaction}
\textbf{(a)} Level diagram showing a single spin interacting with a single fluctuator.
The fluctuator undergoes rapid incoherent depolarization at a rate $\gamma_f$.
\textbf{(b)} Effective incoherent dynamics of a spin due to fluctuator interactions.
} \label{fig:level_diagram}
\end{figure}
In order to derive the effective master equation for a spin, we use the Born-Markov approximation together with secular approximations \cite{gardiner2004quantum}.
In such a description, the quantum state of the system is approximated by
$\rho = \rho_1 \otimes \rho_\textrm{thm}$, where $\rho_1$ is the reduced density matrix of the normal spin and $\rho_\textrm{thm}$
is the equilibrium state of the fluctuator, such that $L[\rho_1\otimes \rho_\textrm{rhm}]=0$.
In our model, the equilibrium state is a maximally mixed state $\rho_\textrm{thm} = \frac{1}{3} I$.
These approximations are well justified due to the hierarchy of the coupling strengths $J_{ij} \ll |\omega_{ij} | \ll \gamma_f$, where $\omega_{ij} =\omega_i -\omega_j$ are the energy difference between eigenstates and $J_{ij}$ are typical dipolar interaction strengths.
Under these approximations, the effective dynamics of a spin become
\begin{align}
\dot{\rho_1} = -i [H_1, \rho_1] + L^\textrm{eff}[\rho_1],
\end{align}
where the first and second terms describe the coherent dynamics by the Hamiltonian $H_1$ and the induced dynamics by interactions with the fluctuator, respectively. Following standard procedures \cite{gardiner2004quantum}, we obtain
\begin{align}
L^\textrm{eff}[\rho ]
\approx&
\sum_{i,j} \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }
C^{ij}_{\alpha \beta}C^{ji}_{\gamma \delta} S^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} (\omega_{ij})
\Big[\ketbra{j}{i} \rho \ketbra{i}{j} - \ketbra{i}{i} \rho \Big]+ h.c.
\label{eqn:003}\\
& + \sum_{i\neq k} \sum_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta}
C^{ii}_{\alpha \beta}
C^{kk}_{\gamma \delta }
S^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} (\omega_{ij})
\Big[
\ketbra{k}{k} \rho \ketbra{i}{i} - \ketbra{i}{i}\ketbra{k}{k} \rho
\Big] + h.c.
\label{eqn:005}
\end{align}
where $C^{ij}_{\alpha \beta}$ is a matrix element of the interaction defined as $C^{ij}_{\alpha \beta} \equiv \bra{i\alpha} H_\textrm{int} \ket{j \beta}$ with $i, j \in \{1,2, 3\}$ and $\alpha, \beta \in \{a, b, c\}$, and $S^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta}$ is the spectral response function of the fluctuator defined as
\begin{align}
S^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} (\omega) = \int_0^\infty e^{i \omega \tau} \bra{\beta} e^{ \tau \mathcal{L}_2} \Big[ \ket{\gamma} \bra{\delta} \rho_\textrm{thm}\Big] \ket{\alpha}.
\end{align}
where the superoperator $\mathcal{L}_2[\cdot] = -i[H_2, \cdot] + L[\cdot]$ describes the time evolution of the fluctuator. For the decay channels illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:level_diagram}, the spectral response function $S^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta}$ can be simplified by
\begin{align}
S^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta} (\omega) = \delta_{\beta \gamma } \delta_{\alpha \delta} S^{\alpha \beta} (\omega) \equiv \delta_{\beta \gamma } \delta_{\alpha \delta}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{1}{3} \cdot\frac{ 1 }{i (\omega +\omega_{\alpha \beta})- 2\gamma_f} & \textrm{ for } \alpha \neq \beta\\
\frac{1}{9} \cdot \left( \frac{1}{i\omega} + \frac{2}{ i\omega - 3\gamma_f}\right) & \textrm{ for } \alpha = \beta
\end{array}
\right.
.
\end{align}
Since $H_\textrm{int}$ is Hermitian, we can use the relation $C^{ij}_{\alpha \beta} = (C^{ji}_{\beta \alpha})^*$ to obtain
\begin{align}
L^\textrm{eff}[\rho ]
\approx&
\sum_{i,j} \sum_{\alpha \beta }
|C^{ij}_{\alpha \beta}|^2 S^{\alpha \beta } (\omega_{ij})
\Big[\ketbra{j}{i} \rho \ketbra{i}{j} - \ketbra{i}{i} \rho \Big]+ h.c.
\label{eqn:006}\\
& + \sum_{i\neq k} \sum_{\alpha \beta }
C^{ii}_{\alpha \beta}
C^{kk}_{\beta \alpha }
S^{\alpha \beta } (0)
\Big[
\ketbra{k}{k} \rho \ketbra{i}{i} - \ketbra{i}{i}\ketbra{k}{k} \rho
\Big] + h.c.
\label{eqn:009}
\end{align}
Finally, introducing
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:generic_decay_rate}
\Gamma_{ij} = 2
\sum_{\alpha \beta}
|C^{ij}_{\alpha \beta}|^2
\textrm{Re}\Big[S^{\alpha \beta} (\omega_{ij})\Big]\;\;\; \& \;\;\;
\Delta_{ij} = 2
\sum_{\alpha \beta}
|C^{ij}_{\alpha \beta}|^2
\textrm{Im}\Big[S^{\alpha \beta} (\omega_{ij})\Big],
\end{align}
the effective superoperator simply becomes
\begin{align}
L^\textrm{eff} [\rho]
=& \sum_{ij} \Gamma_{ij}
\Big [
\ketbra{j}{i} \rho \ketbra{i}{j}
- \frac{1}{2}
\left( \ketbra{i}{i} \rho
+ \rho \ketbra{j}{j} \right)
\Big ]\\
& -i \sum_{ij} \Delta_{ij} \big[ \ketbra{i}{i}, \rho \big] \\
& + \sum_{i\neq k} \sum_{\alpha \beta}
C^{ii}_{\alpha \beta}
C^{kk}_{\beta \alpha }
S^{\alpha \beta } (0)
\Big[
\ketbra{k}{k} \rho \ketbra{i}{i}
\Big] + h.c.
\end{align}
Here, we clearly see three types of terms: (i) depolarization or dephasing at rates $\Gamma_{ij}$, (ii) energy corrections $\Delta_{ij}$ to coherent dynamics, and (iii) additional dephasing from diagonal interactions. Here, we are most interested in the depolarization processes $\Gamma_{ij}$ under various conditions.
In particular, we note that the dipolar interaction under secular approximation is given by
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:secular_dipole_interaction}
H_{dd}\approx
- J_0 /r^3
\big[
\left( g + i h\right) \left( \ketbra{+1,0}{0,+1}
+ \ketbra{0,-1}{-1,0}\right)
+ h.c.
+ q S^z_i S^z_j
\big],
\end{align}
where $J_0 = (2\pi)~52~\text{MHz}\cdot\text{nm}^3$ is the dipolar interaction strength, $r$ is the distance, and $g$, $h$, and $q$ are coefficients of order unity that depend on the relative orientation of the spin and fluctuator:
\begin{align}
g =& \frac{1}{2}
\Big[
3\left(\hat{r}\cdot \hat{x}_s\right)\left(\hat{r}\cdot \hat{x}_f\right)
-
\hat{x}_s \cdot\hat{x}_f
+
3\left(\hat{r}\cdot \hat{y}_s\right)\left(\hat{r}\cdot \hat{y}_f\right)
-
\hat{y}_s \cdot\hat{y}_f
\Big]\\
h =& \frac{1}{2}
\Big[
3\left(\hat{r}\cdot \hat{x}_s\right)\left(\hat{r}\cdot \hat{y}_f\right)
-
\hat{x}_s \cdot\hat{y}_f
-
3\left(\hat{r}\cdot \hat{y}_s\right)\left(\hat{r}\cdot \hat{x}_f\right)
+
\hat{y}_s \cdot\hat{x}_f
\Big]\\
q = & 3\left(\hat{r}\cdot \hat{z}_s\right)\left(\hat{r}\cdot \hat{z}_f\right)
-
\hat{z}_s \cdot\hat{z}_f
\end{align}
with unit vectors $(\hat{x}_a,\hat{y}_a,\hat{z}_a)$ characterizing the quantization axis of the spin ($a=s$) or fluctuator ($a=f$) \cite{kucsko2016critical}.
Importantly, this interaction does not contain any transitions between $\ket{m_s=+1}$ to $\ket{m_s=-1}$, resulting in vanishing decay rates between the two states, i.e. $\Gamma_{+1,-1} = \Gamma_{-1,+1} = 0$.
Consequently, the interaction-induced dynamics of a spin can be modeled as in Fig.~\ref{fig:level_diagram}, which exhibit spin-state dependent depolarization rates as well as preferential decays described in the previous section.
More specifically, the induced decay rate is
\begin{align}
\gamma = \frac{J_0^2}{r^6} \left( |g^2| + |h|^2\right) \frac{2}{3} \frac{ 2\gamma_f }{(\delta\omega )^2 +4\gamma_f^2} \equiv \frac{J_0^2}{r^6} \frac{s^2}{\gamma_f},
\end{align}
where $\delta\omega$ is the energy difference (due to inhomogeneous broadening) between the spin and the fluctuator, and $s$ is a dimensionless number of order unity that characterizes the orientation dependent coefficients of the dipolar interaction as well as spectral responses
\begin{align}
s^2= \frac{2}{3} (|g|^2 + |h|^2)\frac{2\gamma_f^2}{ \delta\omega^2 + 4 \gamma_f^2}.
\end{align}
\subsubsection*{Derivation of the Stretched Exponential Decay}
In an ensemble, the net decay rate $\gamma_s^\textrm{eff}$ of a spin is given as the sum of rates induced by multiple nearby fluctuators. Consequently, the decay rates vary from one spin to another, and the ensemble polarization decays as sum of multiple simple exponentials, whose temporal profile depends on the probability distribution of effective decay rates $\rho(\gamma)$.
Here, we compute this distribution and show that the ensemble polarization decays as a stretched exponential
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:stretched_exp}
P(t) = e^{-\sqrt{t/T_1}}.
\end{align}
We will see that the exponent, $1/2$, arises as a consequence of incoherent dipole-dipole interaction in 3D. We start with a single spin located at the origin $\vec{r}=0$ and consider its effective depolarization rate induced by fluctuators at $\{ \vec{r}_1, \vec{r}_2, \dots, \vec{r}_N\}$. The polarization decays as a simple exponential with the rate given by $\gamma^\textrm{eff}_s = \sum_i \gamma_i$, where $\gamma_i$ is the decay rate induced by fluctuator $i$. From the previous section, we have shown that each $\gamma_i$ can be written as $\gamma_i = \frac{J_0^2}{r_i^6} \frac{ s_i^2}{\gamma_f}$.
The probability distribution $\rho(\gamma_s^\textrm{eff})$ is obtained by averaging $\delta \left( \sum_i \gamma_i - \gamma_s^\textrm{eff}\right) $ over all possible configurations of fluctuators: different number $N$, positions, and orientations
\begin{align}
\rho(\gamma_s^\textrm{eff}) = \int d \{ \vec{r}_i \} \; \textrm{Prob}( \{ \vec{r}_i \} )
\;
\delta \left( \sum_i \gamma_i - \gamma_s^\textrm{eff}\right).
\end{align}
When the positions of fluctuators are homogeneously distributed with density $n_f$, we can analytically compute $\rho(\gamma_s^\textrm{eff})$:
\begin{align}
\rho(\gamma_s^\textrm{eff}) =& \sum_N \int_\mathcal{D} dr_1 \dots dr_N
\left(
\prod_{i=1}^N e^{- \frac{4 \pi}{3} n_f (r_i^3 - r_{i-1}^3)} 4 \pi n_f r_i^2
\right)
e^{- \frac{4 \pi}{3} n_f (R^3 - r_{N}^3)}
\left\langle
\delta \left( \sum_i \gamma_i - \gamma_s^\textrm{eff}\right)\right\rangle_s \\
=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \frac{e^{i \gamma_s^\textrm{eff} z}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \sum_N \int_\mathcal{D} dr_1 \dots dr_N
\left(
\prod_{i=1}^N e^{- \frac{4 \pi}{3} n_f (r_i^3 - r_{i-1}^3)} 4 \pi n_f r_i^2
\left\langle
e^{- i \gamma_i z}
\right\rangle_s
\right)
e^{- \frac{4 \pi}{3} n_f (R^3 - r_{N}^3)}
\end{align}
where the domain of the integral is $\mathcal{D} = r_0 \leq r_1 \leq r_2 \dots \leq r_N \leq R$ with the shortest (largest) distance cut-off $r_0$ $(R)$, $z$ is a dummy variable introduced for $\delta(x) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz e^{ixz}/\sqrt{2\pi} $, and $\left \langle \cdot \right\rangle_s$ represents the averaging of all possible orientations of a fluctuator with fixed distance. We denote this distribution with $\textrm{Prob}(s)$. Now, we see that
\begin{align}
\rho(\gamma_s^\textrm{eff}) =& \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \frac{e^{i \gamma_s^\textrm{eff} z}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} e^{-\frac{4\pi}{3} n_f (R^3 - r_0^3)} \; \sum_N \frac{1}{N!}
\left[
\int_{r_0}^R 4 \pi n_f r^2 dr
\int \textrm{Prob}(s) \; ds \; e^{- i\frac{J_0^2}{\gamma_f r_i^6} s^2 z}
\right]^N\\
=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \frac{e^{i \gamma_s^\textrm{eff} z}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}
e^{-\frac{4\pi}{3} n_f (R^3 - r_0^3)} \; \sum_N \frac{1}{N!}
\left[
\int_{u_0}^U \frac{ 4 \pi n_f }{3} du
\int \textrm{Prob}(s) \; ds \; \sqrt{(J_0^2 s^2/\gamma_f)|z|} e^{-i \frac{\textrm{sgn}(z)}{u^2}}
\right]^N
\end{align}
where we introduced $u = r^3/\sqrt{(J_0^2 s^2/\gamma_f)|z|}$ and similarly $u_0$ and $U$ for $r=r_0$ and $r=R$.
Here, the integration over $u$ can be done analytically.
Note that we are interested in the limit of large $R$ and small $r_0$, which corresponds to $u_0 \ll 1$ (behavior at long enough time) and $U \gg 1$ (before the boundary effect becomes relevant).
\begin{align}
\int_{u_0}^U du e^{-i \; \textrm{sgn}(z)/u^2} \approx U - (1 + \textrm{sgn}(z) i ) \sqrt{\pi/2}.
\end{align}
Finally, we obtain
\begin{align}
\rho(\gamma) \approx& \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \frac{e^{i \gamma z}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}
e^{-\frac{4\pi n_f}{3} \sqrt{\pi/2}(1 + \textrm{sgn}(z) i ) \int \textrm{Prob}(s) \sqrt{(J_0^2 s^2/\gamma_f) |z|} ds}\\
=&\int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \frac{e^{i \gamma z}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} e^{(iz/T)^{1/2}}
= \frac{e^{-1/(4\gamma T)}
}{\sqrt{4\pi \gamma^3 T}} \; \end{align}
where we introduced the time scale
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{T} \equiv& \left(\frac{4\pi n_fJ_0 \eta }{3}\right)^2 \frac{\pi}{\gamma_f}
\label{eqn:Tstr}
\end{align}
with the orientation averaged $ \eta \equiv \int \textrm{Prob}(s) \; s\; ds$.
The ensemble depolarization profile $P(t)$ can be computed from $\rho(\gamma_s^\textrm{eff})$:
\begin{align}
P(t) = \int_0^\infty \rho(\gamma) e^{-\gamma t} d\gamma = e^{-\sqrt{t/T}}.
\end{align}
\subsubsection*{Enhanced Depolarization of Two Degenerate Groups of NV Centers}
When all four groups of NV centers with different quantization axes are spectrally separated, e.g. in Fig.~1b upper curve in the main text,
the spin exchange interactions between NV centers in distinct groups are strongly suppressed due to a large energy mismatch.
In such case, the depolarization dynamics of a spin are dominated by interactions with fluctuators within the same group.
When two groups of NV centers are brought onto resonance, e.g. Fig.~1b lower curve in the main text, the inter-group dipolar interactions cannot be neglected, resulting in an enhanced effective depolarization rate.
This effect can be quantitatively analyzed by modifying the probability distribution
\begin{align}
\textrm{Prob}(s) = \frac{1}{4}\; \textrm{Prob}^\textrm{same}(s) + \frac{1}{4} \;\textrm{Prob}^\textrm{diff}(s) + \frac{1}{2} \cdot 0,
\end{align}
where $\textrm{Prob}^\textrm{same}(s)$ and $\textrm{Prob}^\textrm{diff}(s)$ correspond to the probability distributions of $s$ for dipolar interactions within a group and between two near-resonant groups, respectively. The other two groups with probability $1/2$ do not induce resonant depolarization.
Crucially, the latter distribution depends on the spectral distance $\delta$ because $s$ is a function of energy mismatch between a spin and a fluctuator:
\begin{align}
s^2= \frac{2}{3} (|g|^2 + |h|^2)\frac{2\gamma_f^2}{ (\delta\omega+ \delta)^2 + 4 \gamma_f^2}.
\end{align}
Averaging over all orientations, we obtain
\begin{align}
\int \textrm{Prob}^\textrm{same} (s) \; s \; ds &=
\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}
\cdot
\frac{2}{3\sqrt{3}}
\cdot \sqrt{ \frac{ 2\gamma_f^2}{ \delta\omega^2 + 4 \gamma_f^2} }\\
\int \textrm{Prob}^\textrm{diff} (s) \; s \; ds &\simeq
\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}
\times 0.6507
\times
\sqrt{ \frac{ 2\gamma_f^2}{ (\delta\omega+\delta)^2 + 4 \gamma_f^2} },
\end{align}
where the middle factors arise from angular averaging of the matrix elements $g$ and $h$ of dipolar interactions.
Interestingly, the angle-averaged matrix element of flip-flop interaction is slightly larger for inter-group interaction than for intra-group interaction $0.6507 > 2/3\sqrt{3}$,
which explains the fact that the depolarization rate at the two-group resonance $\delta =0$ is slightly larger than four times that of a single group.
We note that for the theory curves presented in the main text we further average over the energy mismatch $\delta \omega$ arising from inhomogeneous broadening, which we model using a Gaussian distribution with full width at half maximum (FWHM) $W\sim (2\pi)~9$~MHz.
\subsubsection*{Extension of the Spin Lifetime via Spin-locking}
Under strong driving conditions of a spin-locking sequence, the preferred quantization axes of spins and fluctuators are re-defined by the microwave driving. Specifically, in the rotating frame the eigenstates of a single particle Hamiltonian become $\ket{\pm} = (\ket{m_s=0}\pm\ket{m_s=-1})/\sqrt{2}$ and $\ket{m_s=+1}$ with corresponding energy eigenvalues $\pm\Omega/2$ and $0$ (up to on-site disorder due to the inhomogeneous broadening).
Interestingly, the intra-group flip-flop interactions in this basis are strongly suppressed:
\begin{align}
\bra{+,-} H_{dd} \ket{-,+} & = 0\\
\bra{\pm,m_s=+1} H_{dd} \ket{m_s=+1,\pm} &=-J_0/r^3 ( g/2),
\end{align}
which implies that the spin lifetime $T_1^\rho$ along the $\ket{\pm}$ states is limited by resonant exchange with the third state $\ket{m_s=+1}$. The matrix element of such a process is suppressed by a factor of 2, which, together with the three level nature of the rate model in Eq.~\eqref{eq:pop1_exp}, leads to a factor of $2^2 \times 3=12$ improvement for $T_1^\rho$ compared to $T_1$.
For the theory curves presented in the main text (Fig.~4), we also include the effects of off-resonant interactions as well as interactions between different groups as in the previous section.
\section{Charge Diffusion Model}
To model the observed charge state dynamics, we consider a classical diffusion equation, $\partial_t \delta n = D (\partial_{xx} + \partial_{yy}) \delta n$, where $D$ is the diffusion constant and $\delta n$ is the normalized excess or depletion of the NV$^-$ charge state of NV centers compared to the equilibrium value (charge differential).
We note that these charge diffusion experiments have been performed on a bulk piece of diamond under confocal excitation. However, due to the increased size of the confocal excitation spot in the direction normal to the diamond surface, we assume an effective 2D system.
For a local electron tunneling process, the diffusion constant can be expressed as $D = a^2/T_{hop}$, where $a\sim 5$~nm is the typical NV separation, and $T_{hop}$ is the electron hopping time.
Figure \ref{fig:charge}a-d summarizes the prediction of the diffusion model for $T_{hop}=10$~ns as a function of time, after the system is initialized into an out-of-equilibrium charge state (modeled after Fig.~4c main text).
We calculate the expected rates of charge recovery at the center for various hopping rates, showing good agreement with the observed data when $T_{hop}\sim10$~ns.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{./s2.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Charge-state Dynamics.}
\textbf{(a)-(d)} Simulated two-dimensional charge distribution (relative increase of NV$^-$ population compared to equilibrium) at different times after initialization, (a) $\tau$ = 0, (b) $\tau$ = 100, (c) $\tau$ = 500 and (d) $\tau$ = 1000 $\mu s$. We assumed an electron hopping timescale, $T_{hop}$ = 10~ns, and typical hopping distance, $a$ = 5~nm.
\textbf{(e)} Charge differential at the center measured over time (grey data). Colored solid lines indicate the diffusion simulation results calculated for different hopping times $T_{hop}$.
} \label{fig:charge}
\end{figure}
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Magnetic chains composed of spin $S = 2$ ions have received considerable theoretical and numerical attention
\cite{Tonegawa2011,Tu2011,Pollmann2012,Tzeng2012,Hasebe2013,Kjall2013,Chen2015,Kshetrimayum2015}
due to their unique predicted behavior.
Even- and odd-integer spin chains are distinct, with the latter in a symmetry-protected
topological phase \cite{Pollmann2012,Pollmann2010}.
Whereas the $S=1$ Haldane phase \cite{Haldane1,Haldane2,Schulz1986,Affleck1989} has been
observed experimentally \cite{Renard,Hagiwara1990,Glarum1991,Avenel1,Avenel2,Yamashita,Affleck-staggered},
formation of the $S=2$ Haldane state has been prevented by long-range magnetic ordering due to interactions between the chains.
Although some aspects of $S=2$ chains have been observed in optical gasses \cite{Chen2015,Lewenstein2007},
the question remains whether a real chain can realize the $S=2$ Haldane phase
\cite{Matsuhita2003,Leone2004,CizmarJMMM,Stock2009,Stone2013,Cizmar2016}.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.375in]{Fig1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) The left side shows the crystal structure of MnCl$_3$(bpy) \cite{Perlepes} for two nearest-neighbor
chains in the $b-c$ plane. The staggered chains of Mn(III) $S=2$ ions are connected by Cl atoms, and the locations of the (bpy)
cause an alternating Cl$\cdot\cdot\cdot$H coupling indicated by the dotted lines. The right side shows only the Mn$-$Cl chains
and the interactions $J$ and $J^{\prime}$. The Mn magnetic moments are indicated by the dark arrows, while open arrows sketch
the net moments arising from the canted spins.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
Portrayed in Fig.~\ref{fig1}, our protagonist is the $S=2$ antiferromagnetic chain of ($2,2^{\prime}$-bipyridine)trichloroman- ganese(III),
MnCl$_3$(bpy), where (bpy) = ($2,2^{\prime}$-bipyridine) = C$_{10}$H$_8$N$_2$, \cite{Goodwin,Perlepes}.
Due to the (bpy) molecules
separating the chains, this material was believed to be an excellent candidate for observing the $S=2$ Haldane phase \cite{Granroth1996}.
However, weak signatures from randomly-arranged microcrystals hinted that long-range order might appear at low temperatures
\cite{Hagiwara2012,Hagiwara2013}. Recently, unambiguous long-range antiferromagnetic ordering
was identified at $T{_\mathrm{N}} = 11.5$~K \cite{Hagiwara2015,Shinozaki2016} in oriented single-crystals.
Although magnetic ordering appears in
single crystals, the recently published antiferromagnetic resonance (AFMR) spectra of
MnCl$_3$(bpy) \cite{Shinozaki2016} was not accurately described by a quasi-classical, two-sublattice calculation for isolated (non-interacting)
chains \cite{Kanamori,Date,Hagiwara-review}. Nevertheless, those results suggest that the classical Heisenberg model
is an appropriate starting point for the Hamiltonian, which needs to also include other important interactions
such as the Dzaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interaction between neighboring spins and the exchange coupling between adjacent
chains \cite{Huang2004,Herak2013}.
The forthcoming analysis provides an excellent description of the magnetic field dependences of the AFMR mode frequencies in the presence
of a sizable DM term. Strikingly, only an extremely weak interchain coupling is required to drive long-range
antiferromagnetic order. Consequently, the $S=2$ Haldane phase is unlikely to be detected in molecule-based magnets.
Our more sophisticated analysis of the AFMR spectrum includes both intrachain and interchain couplings $J$ and $J^{\prime}$,
respectively, as well as the DM interaction $D$ generated by broken inversion symmetry.
From Fig.~\ref{fig1}, the DM interaction vector lies along the $\pm \, {\bf a} ^* $ directions, alternating in sign along each chain. Our
description also includes the easy-axis anisotropy $K$, which favors spin alignment along the chain axis $c$ ($K >0$) or in the $a^*-b$ plane ($K < 0$),
and the easy-plane anisotropy $E$, which favors spin alignment along ${\bf b} $ ($E > 0$) or along ${\bf a}^*$ ($E < 0$).
As found earlier,
the $\underline{g}$ tensor will be taken to be slightly anisotropic with eigenvalues
$g_{a^*a^*} = 2.09$, $g_{bb} = 1.92$ and $g_{cc}=2.07$ \cite{Hagiwara2013,Shinozaki2016}.
Note that we have modified the previous notation \cite{Shinozaki2016}, where $D$ was used to represent
the single-ion anisotropy along $c$, now defined as $K$.
\section{Experimental details}
The high-field magnetization of some single crystal samples of MnCl$_3$(bpy) along the $c$ axis was measured again in pulsed magnetic fields up to 47~T using a standard induction
method with a pick-up coil arrangement. The signal response was calibrated by comparison with the data obtained with the SQUID magnetometer up to 7~T.
High-field, multi-frequency electron-spin resonance data were taken from Ref.[\onlinecite{Shinozaki2016}], where details of the sample preparation are given.
Due to sample deterioration, the extrinsic magnetization was subtracted from the raw data to get the intrinsic magnetization curve by assuming a $S=5/2$ Brillouin function
as in Ref.[\onlinecite{Hagiwara2012}].
The subtracted magnetization at 4.2 K and below 7 T then coincided with the magnetization measured previously with the SQUID magnetometer.
The maximum error bar in the magnetization at 40 T is $\pm$ 10 $\%$.
\section{Model}
With magnetic field ${\bf B} $ along ${\bf m} $, the Hamiltonian of {\rm MnCl$_3$(bpy)} can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}&=&-J\sum_{i, k} {\bf S}_i^{(k)} \cdot {\bf S}_{i+1}^{(k)} -J^{\prime} \sum_{i, k} {\bf S}_i^{(k)} \cdot {\bf S}_i^{(k+1)} \nonumber \\
&-& K \sum_{i,k} S_{iz}^{(k) 2} + E \sum_{i, k} \Bigl( S_{ix}^{(k) 2} -S_{iy}^{(k) 2} \Bigr) \nonumber \\
&-& D\sum_{i, k} (-1)^i\, {\bf a} ^* \cdot \Bigl({\bf S}_i ^{(k)}\times {\bf S}_{i+1}^{(k)} \Bigr) \nonumber \\
&-& \mu_{\rm B} B \sum_{i ,k} {\bf m} \cdot \underline{g} \cdot {\bf S}_i^{(k)}\,\,\,,
\label{eq1}
\end{eqnarray}
where the chain index is given by $k$ and the site index on each chain is given by $i$. The direction of the DM vector $\bf D$ along
${\bf a} ^*$ was chosen to conform with the symmetry rules provided by Moriya \cite{Moriya1960} for materials with broken inversion symmetry.
The factor $(-1)^i$ in front of the DM interaction reflects the alternation in the position of the (bpy) radical along the chain.
We take $J < 0$ and $J' < 0$ for antiferromagnetic couplings.
The magnetic ground state of this Hamiltonian is obtained by minimizing the energy $\langle \cal H \rangle $
for the 8~angles of the four classical spins that form the magnetic unit cell, and the excitation spectrum
is obtained by performing a $1/S$ expansion about the classical limit. Assuming a linear response for weak
perturbation from equilibrium, solving the equations-of-motion
requires the numerical diagonalization of a $8 \times 8$ matrix.
An earlier study of the AFMR excitation spectrum neglected both $J^{\prime}$ and $D$ \cite{Shinozaki2016},
while the value for the nearest-neighbor coupling $J$ $(-2.69$~meV = $-31.2$~K) was estimated from the peak
in temperature-dependence of the low-field magnetic susceptibility assuming $K = 0$ \cite{Hagiwara2013}. Using their
values for the parameters (Table~\ref{table1}), the caclulated mode frequencies in Fig.~\ref{fig2}(a) reproduce the ones reported by
Shinozaki \emph{et al.}~\cite{Shinozaki2016}. In general, the experimental spectra are satisfactorily represented
by those calculations, but the 10\% overestimation of the spin-flop field $B_{\mathrm{SF}}$ and
the error in the mode frequencies for ${\bf m} = {\bf c}$ and $B > B_{\mathrm{SF}}$ are troubling issues.
\begin{table}[t!]
\caption{Exchange and anisotropy parameters in meV (uncertainties discussed in text).}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
& $J$ & $J^{\prime }$ & $K$ & $E$ & $D$ & $\chi^2$
\\
\hline
Ref.[\onlinecite{Shinozaki2016}] & $-2.69$ & 0 & 0.129 & 0.015 & 0 & 0.211\\
This work & $-3.3$ & 0 & 0.102 & 0.018 & 0.12 & 0.035 \\
uncertainties & $\pm 0.4$ & $\pm 0.001$ & $\pm 0.014$ & $\pm 0.003$ & $\pm 0.04$ & \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\label{table1}
\end{table}
\section{Numerical Fits}
Due to the uncertainty in $J$, the other parameters in the Hamiltonian of Eq.(\ref{eq1}) are calculated by fitting the AFMR data with fixed $J$.
For $J < -2$~meV, the best fits are always obtained as $J^{\prime} \rightarrow 0$. Of course, a small negative
(antiferromagnetic) $J^{\prime}$ is required to cancel the moments on adjacent chains.
The result of this analysis over a range of $J$ values is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}(a), where
the DM coupling constant $D$ becomes markedly smaller as $\vert J\vert$ decreases.
For fixed $J$, the statistical uncertainties in $J'$, $K$, $D$, and $E$ are evaluated from the variation in $\chi^2$.
The anisotropies $K$ and $E$ are always positive, corresponding to one easy axis along ${\bf c} $ and a
second easy axis along ${\bf b}$. Both anisotropies grow as $\vert J \vert $ decreases.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig2.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The magnetic field dependences of the AFMR frequencies of MnCl$_3$(bpy) for $T \approx 1.3$~K
(${\bf m} || {\bf a}^*$ and ${\bf m} || {\bf b}$) or 1.3, 1.5, and 1.7~K (${\bf m} || {\bf c}$).
The data points are from the experimentally observed resonances \cite{Shinozaki2016} for magnetic field $B{\bf m} $ applied
parallel to ${\bf a}^*$ (red squares), ${\bf b} $ (blue triangles), and ${\bf c} $ (green circles).
(a) The lines are the results of the calculations reported by Shinozaki \emph{et al.}~\cite{Shinozaki2016} and
reproduced here with the values for the parameters listed in Table~\ref{table1}. (b) The results of this work
using Eq.(\ref{eq1}) and the analysis presented in Fig.~\ref{fig3} to determine the parameters given in
Table~\ref{table1}. Open circles are ``outlier" points for the field along the $c$-axis (see discussion in the text).}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
The $\chi^2$ value of the fits decreases from 0.0383 at $J=-5$~meV to a minimum of 0.0306 at $J=-2.3$~meV, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3}(a).
Because all $\chi^2$ values in this range of $J$ are acceptable, we use the magnetization as an additional constraint on $J$.
The $a^*$-axis, $b$-axis, and $c$-axis magnetizations at 40~T are calculated
as a function of $J$ and plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig3}(b). Since the magnetization is a function of $\mu_{\rm B} B /\vert J\vert $,
a smaller value of $\vert J\vert $ enhances both the effective field and the magnetization. Notice that the
predicted values of $M_{a^*}$ and $M_b$ are quite close and cross at $J=-2.8$ meV.
The experimental value for the magnetization $M_b^{\rm exp} \approx 0.68\, \mu_{\rm B}$ with field along
${\bf b} $ is also indicated in this figure \cite{Shinozaki2016}.
Figure~\ref{Mag_c} shows earlier magnetization curves~\cite{Shinozaki2016} at 1.7~K along the $a^*$ and $b$ directions.
The curve at 1.4~K along the $c$ axis was remeasured
to check the large deviation of the earlier measurements from the calculated magnetization.
As before~\cite{Shinozaki2016}, the magnetization curve for ${\bf m} || {\bf c} $ indicates a spin-flop transition at 22~T.
Above this spin-flop field, the slope of the magnetization curve is larger than previously reported because the sample allignment
along the $c$ axis has now been corrected.
Based on $M_b^{\rm exp}$, the best value for the nearest-neighbor interaction is $J \approx -3.60$~meV.
However, our new results indicate that $M_c^{\rm exp} \approx 0.9 \, \mu_{\rm B} $, suggesting that $J \approx -2.95$~meV.
It is important to recognize that these values reflect anisotropy contributions that were
neglected in the earlier estimate $J \approx -2.69$~meV \cite{Shinozaki2016}.
So comparison with the experimental magnetization suggests that $J = -3.3\pm 0.4$~meV.
The corresponding anisotropy and DM parameters from Fig.~\ref{fig3} are $K = 0.102 \pm 0.014$~meV, $E= 0.018 \pm 0.003$~meV,
and $D=0.12 \pm 0.04$~meV. Within an uncertainty of $\pm 1.3 \times 10^{-3}$~meV, $J'$ is zero.
All parameters and their uncertainties are given in Table~\ref{table1}.
Compared with earlier fits \cite{Shinozaki2016},
$K $ is smaller but $E$ is slightly larger.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig3.eps}
\caption{(Color online) (a) The anisotropy, DM interactions, $\chi^2$, and (b) the magnetizations at 40 T versus $J$.
Horizontal lines in (b) shows the experimental magnetizations for a 40 T field (see text) along ${\bf b} $ or ${\bf c} $.
}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
The value $D=0.12$~meV for the DM interaction corresponds to a tilt
of each spin at zero field by about 1$^{\circ}$ towards the $b$-axis. This canting is associated with a net moment
${\bf M}_{\rm net }\approx \pm 0.07 \, \mu_{\rm B} \, {\bf b} $, alternating in sign on neighboring chains.
The new fits provide a $\chi^2$ value about 6~times smaller than the fits in
Ref.[\onlinecite{Shinozaki2016}]. The five points indicated by open circles in
Fig.~\ref{fig2}, all obtained with field along ${\bf c} $, are not included in this analysis. These points seem to be ``outliers'' with respect to the main $c$-axis mode for
$B > B_{\mathrm{SF}}$ and may be associated with other flat branches due to a small misalignment of the crystal. Including these ``outliers"
would increase $\chi^2$ but would not change the fitting parameters in Table~\ref{table1}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Fig4.eps}
\caption{(Color online) The magnetization curves for field along the $a^*$, $b$, or $c$ crystalline axes.
The magnetization along the $c$ axis was remeasured and those along the other directions are taken from Ref.[\onlinecite{Shinozaki2016}].
}
\label{Mag_c}
\end{figure}
The resulting fits to the AFMR spectrum are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig2}(b), where excellent agreement now exists
between the calculated value for $B_{\mathrm{SF}} = 22.4$~T and the experimentally determined one.
In addition, the predicted mode frequencies are in much better agreement with the measured
mode frequencies when ${\bf m} = {\bf c} $. The lower predicted mode frequency reaches a minimum of about $3\times 10^{-3}$ THz
at $B_{\rm SF} $, and it is noteworthy that both branches of the excitation spectrum soften as $B$ approaches $B_{\rm SF}$.
Aside from ${\bf m} = {\bf a}^* $, the other predicted ``flat" modes are too weak to be observed, but
they are included in Fig.~\ref{fig2} for completeness.
\section{Conclusion}
Surprisingly, the expansion about the classical limit or linear spin-wave theory works very well for this putative quantum-spin system.
Since $J^{\prime} /J \lesssim 4 \times10^{-4}$, the coupling between chains is very weak in MnCl$_3$(bpy).
Nevertheless, the ordering temperature of MnCl$_3$(bpy) is about 11.5 K [\onlinecite{Hagiwara2015,Shinozaki2016}].
For a quasi-two-dimensional system with small exchange $J'$ between planes, the critical temperature scales like
$\vert J\vert {\rm{log} }(J'/J)$ \cite{Yasuda2005}. For a two-dimensional antiferromagnet with easy-axis anisotropy $K$, the critical temperature scales
like $\vert J\vert {\rm{log}} (K/\vert J\vert )$ \cite{Yosida1996}.
Since no long range order is possible in one dimension, even with anisotropy, it is unclear how the critical temperature scales with
$J^{\prime }/J $. If $T_N$ scales like $\vert J\vert {\rm{log} }( J'/J) $, then
even a very small value of $J^{\prime}$ can stabilize long-range magnetic order with a N\'eel temperature of 10 K.
If instead, $T_N$ scales like $\sqrt{J^{\prime }J}$, then $J'=4\times 10^{-4} J$ would correspond to a mean-field N\'eel temperature of about 6 K
in the absence of anisotropy. Either scaling may explain the magnetic ordering in MnCl$_3$(bpy).
To summarize, we have used linear spin wave theory to obtain an excellent description of the AFMR spectrum in MnCl$_3$(bpy).
Since an expansion about the classical limit works very well for MnCl$_3$(bpy), researchers searching for
an $S=2$ Haldane chain should explore other options.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We thank Sasha Chernyshev for useful conversations.
Research sponsored by the Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Sciences and Engineering Division (RSF),
by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Grants No.~24240590, No.~25246006, and No.~25220803) from the MEXT, Japan (MH), and by the
National Science Foundation through Grant No. DMR-1202033 (MWM). A part of this work was conducted under the foreign visiting professor
program of the Center for Advanced High Magnetic Field Science.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
Consider a two-layered medium which consists of a homogeneous compressible air
or fluid on top of a homogeneous isotropic elastic solid. The interface between
air/fluid and solid is assumed to be an unbounded rough surface. An unbounded
rough surface refers to a non-local perturbation of an infinite plane surface
such that the whole surface lies within a finite distance of the original plane.
As a source located in the solid, the external force generates an elastic
wave, which propagates towards the interface and further excites an acoustic
wave in the air/fluid. This process leads to an air/fluid-solid interaction
problem with an unbounded interface separating the acoustic and elastic waves
which are coupled on the interface through two continuity conditions. The
first kinematic interface condition is imposed to ensure that the normal
velocity of the air/fluid on one side of the boundary matches the accelerated
velocity of the solid on another side. The second one is the dynamic condition
which results from the balance of forces on two sides of the interface. The
model problem describes the seismic wave propagation in the air/fluid-solid
medium due to the excitation of an earthquake source which is located in the
crust between the lithosphere and the mantle of the Earth. The goal of this
paper is to carry the mathematical analysis of the time-domain acoustic-elastic
scattering problem in such an unbounded structure in three dimensions.
This problem falls into the class of unbounded rough surface scattering
problems, which have been of great interest to physicists, engineers, and
applied mathematicians for many years due to their wide range of applications in
optics, acoustics, radio-wave propagation, seismology, and radar techniques
\cite{Abubakar1962, Elfouhaily2004, Ogilvy191, Voronovich1998,
Warnick2001}. The elastic wave scattering by unbounded interfaces has many
important applications in geophysics and seismology. For instance, the problem
of elastic pulse transmission and reflection through the Earth is fundamental to
the investigation of earthquakes and the utility of controlled explosions in
search for oil and ore bodies \cite{fokkema1980reflection,
fokkema1977elastodynamic, sherwood1958elastic}. The unbounded rough
surface scattering problems are quite challenging due to the unbounded surfaces.
The usual Sommerfeld (for acoustic waves) or Silver--M\"{u}ller (for
electromagnetic waves) radiation condition is not valid any more
\cite{Arens2005, Zhang1998}. The Fredholm alternative theorem is not applicable
either due to the lack of compactness result. For the time-harmonic problems, we
refer to \cite{Chandler2006, Chandler2005, Chandler1999, Lechleiter2010,
LiShen2012} for some mathematical studies on the two-dimensional Helmholtz
equation and \cite{Haddar2011, LiWuZheng2011, LiZhengZheng2016} for the
three-dimensional Maxwell equations. The time-domain scattering problems have
recently attracted considerable attention due to their capability
of capturing wide-band signals and modeling more general material and
nonlinearity \cite{ChenMonk2014, jin2009finite, LiHuang2013, Riley2008,
Wang2012}, which motivates us to tune our focus from seeking the best possible
conditions for those physical parameters to the time-domain problem. Comparing
with the time-harmonic problems, the time-domain problems are less
studied due to the additional challenge of the temporal dependence.
The analysis can be found in \cite{Chen2008Maxwell, wang2014} for
the time-domain acoustic and electromagnetic obstacle scattering problems.
We refer to \cite{LiWangWood2015} and \cite{GaoLi2016} for the analysis of the
time-dependent electromagnetic scattering from an open cavity and a periodic
structure, respectively.
The acoustic-elastic interaction problems have received much attention in both
the mathematical and engineering communities
\cite{dallas1989, donea1982arbitrary, hamdi1986mixed, Hsiao1989, Hsiao1994,
LukeMartin1995}. There are also some numerical studies on the inverse problems
arising from the fluid-solid interaction such as reconstruction of surfaces of
periodic structures or obstacles \cite{HuKrish2016, TaoHu2016}. Many
approaches have been attempted to solve numerically the time-domain problems
such as coupling of boundary element and finite element with different time
quadratures \cite{estorff1991, soares2006dynamic, Flemisch2006}. However, the
rigorous mathematical study is still open at present.
In this work, we intend to answer the mathematical questions on well-posedness
and stability of the time-domain acoustic-elastic interaction problem in an
unbounded structure. The problem is reformulated as an initial-boundary value
problem by adopting an exact transparent boundary condition (TBC). Using the
Laplace transform and energy method, we show that the reduced variational
problem has a unique weak solution in the frequency domain. Meanwhile, we obtain
the stability estimate to show the existence of the solution in the
time-domain. In addition, we achieve a priori estimates with explicit
dependence on the time for the pressure of the acoustic wave and
the displacement of the elastic wave by considering directly the time-domain
variational problem and taking special test functions.
The paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{PF}, we introduce the model
equations and interface conditions for the acoustic-elastic interaction problem.
The time-domain TBC is presented and some trace results are proved. Section
\ref{srp} is devoted to the analysis of the reduced problem, where the
well-posdeness and stability are addressed in both the frequency and time
domains. We conclude the paper with some remarks in section \ref{cl}.
\section{Problem formulation}\label{PF}
In this section, we define some notation, introduce the model equations, and
present an initial-boundary value problem for the acoustic-elastic
scattering in an air/fluid-solid medium.
\subsection {Problem Geometry}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{pg}
\caption{Problem geometry of the acoustic-elastic interaction in an unbounded
structure.}
\label{pg}
\end{figure}
As shown in Figure \ref{pg}, we consider an active source which is embedded in
an elastic solid medium. It models an earthquake focus located in the crust
which lies between the lithosphere and the rigid mantle of the Earth. Due to the
excitation of the source, an elastic wave is generated in the solid and
propagates through to the medium of the air/fluid. Clearly, this process leads
to the air/fluid-solid interaction problem with the scattering interface
separating the domains where the acoustic and elastic waves travel.
Let $\boldsymbol{r}=(x, y)^\top\in\mathbb{R}^2$ and
$\boldsymbol{x}=(x, y, z)^\top\in\mathbb{R}^3$. Denote by $\Gamma_f=
\{\boldsymbol x\in \mathbb R^3: z= f(\boldsymbol r)\}$ the surface separating
the air/fluid and the solid, where $f$ is assumed to be a $W^{1, \infty}(\mathbb
R^2)$ function. Let $\Gamma_g =\{\boldsymbol x\in \mathbb R^3: z = g(\boldsymbol
r)\}$ be the surface separating the crust and the mantle, where $g$ is a
$L^\infty(\mathbb R^2)$ function satisfying $g (\boldsymbol r) <
f(\boldsymbol r), \boldsymbol{r}\in\mathbb R^2$. We assume that the open space
$\Omega^{+}_f =\{ \boldsymbol x \in \mathbb R^3: z > f(\boldsymbol r)\}$ is
filled with a homogeneous compressible air or a compressible inviscid fluid with
the constant density $\rho_1$. The space $ \Omega_2 =\left \{ \boldsymbol x \in
\mathbb R^3: g (\boldsymbol r) \leq z \leq f (\boldsymbol r) \right \}$
is assumed to be occupied by a homogeneous isotropic linear elastic solid
which is characterized by the constant mass density $\rho_2$ and Lam\'{e}
parameters $\mu, \lambda$. Define an artificial planar surface
$\Gamma_h=\{\boldsymbol x\in\mathbb{R}^3, z=h\}$, where
$h>\sup_{\boldsymbol r\in\mathbb{R}^2}f(\boldsymbol r)$ is a constant.
Let $\Omega_1= \left\{ \boldsymbol x \in \mathbb R^3: f (\boldsymbol r)< z <h
\right\}$ and $\Omega=\Omega_1 \cup \Omega_2.$
\subsection{Acoustic wave equation}
The acoustic wave field in air/fluid is governed by the conservation and the
dynamics equations in the time-domain:
\begin{align}\label{cde}
\nabla p (\boldsymbol x, t)= -\rho_1 \partial_t \boldsymbol v (\boldsymbol
x, t),\quad c^2 \rho_1 \nabla \cdot \boldsymbol v (\boldsymbol x, t) =
-\partial_t p (\boldsymbol x, t), \quad \boldsymbol x \in \Omega^{+}_f,\, t>0,
\end{align}
where $p$ is the pressure, $\boldsymbol v$ is the velocity, and the
constants $\rho_1 >0 $ and $c>0$ are the density and sound speed,
respectively. Eliminating the velocity $\boldsymbol v$ from
\eqref{cde}, we obtain the acoustic wave equation for the pressure $p$:
\begin{align*}
\Delta p (\boldsymbol x, t)- \frac{1}{c^2} \partial_t^2 p (\boldsymbol x, t)=0,
\quad \boldsymbol x \in \Omega^{+}_f,\, t>0.
\end{align*}
The equation is constrained by the homogeneous initial conditions:
\[
p|_{t=0}=0, \quad \partial_t p|_{t=0}=0, \quad \boldsymbol x\in\Omega^{+}_f.
\]
It follows from the conservation equation in \eqref{cde} that $\nabla \times
\boldsymbol v (\boldsymbol x, t)=0,$ i.e., the acoustic air/fluid
is irrotational. Thus there exists a scalar potential function $\varphi$ such
that $\boldsymbol v (\boldsymbol x, t) = \nabla \varphi (\boldsymbol x).$ It is
easy to note from \eqref{cde} that the corresponding dynamic component of
the pressure is given by
\[
p (\boldsymbol x, t) =- \rho_1 \partial_t \varphi (\boldsymbol x, t).
\]
\subsection{Elastic wave equation}
For the solid, the elastic wave field in a homogeneous isotropic solid material
satisfies the linear time-domain elasticity equation:
\begin{align}\label{ew}
\nabla \cdot \boldsymbol \sigma (\boldsymbol u (\boldsymbol x, t))
-\rho_2 \partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u (\boldsymbol x, t)= \boldsymbol j
(\boldsymbol x, t), \quad \boldsymbol x \in \Omega_2,\,t>0,
\end{align}
where $\boldsymbol u =(u_1, u_2, u_3)^\top$ is the displacement vector,
$\rho_2>0$ is the density of the elastic solid material, $\boldsymbol j$ is the
source which models the earthquake focus and is assumed to have a compact
support contained in $\Omega_2$, and the symmetric stress tensor $\boldsymbol
\sigma (\boldsymbol u)$ is given by the
generalized Hook law:
\begin{equation}\label{sig}
\boldsymbol \sigma (\boldsymbol u) = 2 \mu {\mathcal E} (\boldsymbol u)+\lambda
{\rm tr} \left({\mathcal E} (\boldsymbol u) \right) {\rm I},
\quad {\mathcal E} (\boldsymbol u) =\frac{1}{2} \big(\nabla \boldsymbol u
+(\nabla \boldsymbol u)^{\top} \big).
\end{equation}
Here $\mu, \lambda$ are the Lam\'{e} parameters satisfying $\mu>0, \lambda +\mu
>0$, $\rm I \in \mathbb R^{3\times 3}$ is the identity matrix,
${\rm tr}(\mathcal{E}(\boldsymbol u))$ is the trace of the matrix
$\mathcal{E}(\boldsymbol u)$, and $\nabla \boldsymbol u$ is the displacement
gradient tensor given by
\begin{align*}
\nabla \boldsymbol u=
\left[
\begin{matrix}
\partial_x u_1 & \partial_y u_1 & \partial_z u_1 \\
\partial_x u_2 & \partial_y u_2 & \partial_z u_2 \\
\partial_x u_3& \partial_y u_3 & \partial_z u_3
\end{matrix}
\right].
\end{align*}
Substituting \eqref{sig} into \eqref{ew}, we obtain the time-domain Navier
equation for the displacement $\boldsymbol u$:
\begin{equation}\label{ne}
\mu \Delta \boldsymbol u (\boldsymbol x, t)+ (\lambda + \mu ) \nabla \nabla
\cdot \boldsymbol u (\boldsymbol x, t) -\rho_2 \partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u
(\boldsymbol x, t) = \boldsymbol j (\boldsymbol x,t),
\quad \boldsymbol x \in \Omega_2,\, t>0.
\end{equation}
By assuming that the mantle is rigid, we have
\[
\boldsymbol u=0 \quad \text{on}~\Gamma_g,\, t>0.
\]
The elastic wave equation \eqref{ne} is constrained by the homogeneous initial
conditions:
\begin{align*}
\boldsymbol u|_{t=0}=0, \quad \partial_t \boldsymbol u|_{t=0}=0,
\quad \boldsymbol x \in \Omega_2.
\end{align*}
\subsection{Interface conditions}
To couple the acoustic wave equation in the air/fluid and the elastic wave
equation in the solid, the kinematic interface condition is imposed to ensure
the continuity of the normal component of the
velocity on $\Gamma_f$:
\begin{equation}\label{kic}
\boldsymbol n \cdot \boldsymbol v (\boldsymbol x, t) =\boldsymbol n \cdot
\partial_t \boldsymbol u (\boldsymbol x, t), \quad \boldsymbol x \in
\Gamma_f,\,t>0,
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol n$ is the unit normal on $\Gamma_f$
pointing from $\Omega_2$ to $\Omega_1$. Noting $\boldsymbol v (\boldsymbol x,
t) =\nabla \varphi (\boldsymbol x, t)$ and $p (\boldsymbol x, t)=-\rho_1
\partial_t \varphi (\boldsymbol x, t)$, we have from \eqref{kic} that
\[
\partial_{\boldsymbol n} p= \boldsymbol n \cdot \nabla p
=-\rho_1 \boldsymbol n \cdot \partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u
\quad \text {on}~\Gamma_f,\, t>0.
\]
In addition, the dynamic interface condition is required to ensure the
continuity of traction:
\[
- p \boldsymbol n = \boldsymbol \sigma (\boldsymbol u)\cdot \boldsymbol n,
\quad\boldsymbol x \in \Gamma_f,\, t>0,
\]
where $\boldsymbol \sigma (\boldsymbol u) \cdot \boldsymbol n$ is denoted as
the multiplication of the stress tensor $\boldsymbol \sigma (\boldsymbol u)$
with the normal vector $\boldsymbol n.$
\subsection{Laplace transform and some functional spaces}
We first introduce some properties of the Laplace transform. For any
$s=s_1+{\rm i} s_2$ with $s_1>0, s_2\in\mathbb{R}$, define $\breve
{\boldsymbol u}(s)$ to be the Laplace transform of the function $\boldsymbol
u(t)$, i.e.,
\[
\breve {\boldsymbol u}(s) =\mathscr L (\boldsymbol u) (s)= \int_0^{\infty} e^{-s
t} \boldsymbol u (t) {\rm d} t.
\]
It follows from the integration by parts that
\begin{align*}
\int_0^t \boldsymbol u (\tau) {\rm d} \tau =\mathscr L^{-1} (s^{-1} \breve
{\boldsymbol u} (s)),
\end{align*}
where $\mathscr L^{-1}$ is the inverse Laplace transform. It is easy to verify
from the inverse Laplace transform that
\begin{equation*}
\boldsymbol u(t)=\mathscr F^{-1} \big( e^{s_1 t} \mathscr L (\boldsymbol u)
(s_1+s_2)\big),
\end{equation*}
where $\mathscr F ^{-1}$ denotes the inverse Fourier transform with respect to
$s_2.$
Recall the Plancherel or Parseval identity for the Laplace transform (cf.
\cite[(2.46)]{Cohen2007}):
\begin{equation}\label{PI}
\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} \breve {\boldsymbol u} (s)\cdot
\breve{\boldsymbol v} (s) {\rm d} s_2= \int_0^{\infty} e^{- 2 s_1 t}
{\boldsymbol u} (t)\cdot{\boldsymbol v} (t) {\rm d} t,\quad\forall ~
s_1>\lambda,
\end{equation}
where $\breve {\boldsymbol u}= \mathscr L (\boldsymbol u), \breve {\boldsymbol
v}= \mathscr L (\boldsymbol v)$ and $\lambda$ is the abscissa of convergence for
the Laplace transform of $\boldsymbol u$ and $\boldsymbol v$.
The following lemma (cf. \cite[Theorem 43.1]{Treves1975}) is an analogue of
Paley--Wiener--Schwarz theorem for the Fourier transform of the distributions
with compact supports in the case of the Laplace transform.
\begin{lemma}\label {A2}
Let $\breve {\boldsymbol h} (s)$ be a holomorphic function in the half-plane
$s_1 > \sigma_0$ and be valued in the Banach space $\mathbb E$. The following
two conditions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item there is a distribution $\boldsymbol h \in \mathcal D_{+}'(\mathbb E)$
whose Laplace transform is equal to $\breve{\boldsymbol h}(s)$;
\item there is a real $\sigma_1$ with $\sigma_0 \leq \sigma_1 <\infty$ and an
integer $m \geq 0$ such that for all complex numbers $s$ with ${\rm Re} s =s_1 >
\sigma_1,$ we have $\| \breve {\boldsymbol h} (s)\|_{\mathbb E} \lesssim
(1+|s|)^{m}$,
\end{enumerate}
where $\mathcal D'_{+}(\mathbb E)$ is the space of distributions on the real
line which vanish identically in the open negative half line.
\end{lemma}
Next we introduce some Sobolev spaces. For any $u(\cdot, h) \in L^2(\Gamma_h)$
which is identified as $L^2(\mathbb{R}^2)$, we denote by $\hat{u}(\boldsymbol\xi, h)$
the Fourier transform of $u (\boldsymbol r, h)$:
\[
\hat u (\boldsymbol \xi, h)=\frac{1}{2 \pi}\int_{\mathbb R^2} u (\boldsymbol r,
h) e^{-{\rm i} \boldsymbol r \cdot \boldsymbol \xi} {\rm d}
\boldsymbol r,
\]
where $\boldsymbol \xi = (\xi_1, \xi_2)^\top \in \mathbb R^2.$ For any
$\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$, define the functional space
\[
H^\alpha(\Gamma_h)=\left\{ u (\boldsymbol r, h) \in L^2
(\mathbb R^2): \int_{\mathbb R^2} (1+ |\boldsymbol \xi|^2)^{\alpha} |\hat
u(\boldsymbol\xi, h)|^2{\rm d}\boldsymbol \xi < \infty \right\},
\]
which is a Sobolev space under the norm
\[
\|u\|_{H^{\alpha} (\Gamma_h)} =\left[ \int_{\mathbb R^2} (1+ |\boldsymbol
\xi|^2)^{\alpha} |\hat u(\boldsymbol\xi, h)|^2 {\rm d} \boldsymbol \xi
\right]^{1/2}.
\]
It is clear to note that the dual space associated with $H^{\alpha} (\Gamma_h)$
is the space $H^{- \alpha} (\Gamma_h)$ with respect to the scalar
product in $L^2 (\mathbb R^2)$ defined by
\[
\langle u, v \rangle_{\Gamma_h} =\int_{\Gamma_h}u(\boldsymbol r,
h)\bar{v}(\boldsymbol r, h){\rm d}\boldsymbol{r}=\int_{\mathbb R^2} \hat
u(\boldsymbol\xi, h) \bar {\hat v}(\boldsymbol\xi, h) {\rm d }\boldsymbol\xi.
\]
Denote by $H^{1/2}(\Gamma_f)$ the Sobolev trace space, the subspace of
$L^2(\Gamma_f)$ such that
\[
\int_{\Gamma_f}|u(\boldsymbol r, f(\boldsymbol r))|^2{\rm d}\boldsymbol r
+\int_{\Gamma_f}\int_{\Gamma_f}\frac{|u(\boldsymbol r_1,
f(\boldsymbol r_1))-u(\boldsymbol r_2, f(\boldsymbol r_2))|^2}{|\boldsymbol r_1
-\boldsymbol r_2|^3}{\rm d}\boldsymbol r_1{\rm d}\boldsymbol r_2<\infty.
\]
$H^{1/2}(\Gamma_f)$ is equipped with the norm
\[
\|u\|_{H^{1/2}(\Gamma_f)}=\left( \int_{\Gamma_f}|u(\boldsymbol r, f(\boldsymbol
r))|^2{\rm d}\boldsymbol r +\int_{\Gamma_f}\int_{\Gamma_f}\frac{|u(\boldsymbol
r_1, f(\boldsymbol r_1))-u(\boldsymbol r_2, f(\boldsymbol r_2))|^2}{|\boldsymbol
r_1 -\boldsymbol r_2|^3}{\rm d}\boldsymbol r_1{\rm d}\boldsymbol r_2
\right)^{1/2}.
\]
Denote by $H^{\nu} (\Omega)= \{D^{\alpha} u \in L^2 (\Omega)~\text {for all}~
|\alpha| \leq \nu\}$ the standard Sobolev space of square integrable
functions with the order of derivatives up to $\nu$. Let $H^1_{\Gamma_g}
(\Omega)=\{ u\in H^1 (\Omega): u =0 ~\text {on}~\Gamma_g\}$. Let $H^1_{\Gamma_g}
(\Omega)^3$ and $H^{1/2} (\Gamma_f)^3$ be the Cartesian product spaces
equipped with the corresponding 2-norms of $H^1_{\Gamma_g} (\Omega)$ and
$H^{1/2} (\Gamma_f)$, respectively. For any $\boldsymbol u=(u_1, u_2,
u_3)^\top \in H^1_{\Gamma_g} (\Omega_2)^3$, define the Frobenius norm:
\[
\|\nabla {\boldsymbol u}\|_{F (\Omega_2)}= \left ( \sum \limits_{j=1}^3
\int_{\Omega_2} |\nabla u_j |^2 {\rm d} \boldsymbol x \right)^{1/2}.
\]
It is easy to verify that
\begin{align}\label{f1}
\|\nabla \boldsymbol u\|^2_{F (\Omega_2)} +\|\nabla \cdot \boldsymbol
u\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)} \lesssim \|\boldsymbol u\|^2_{H^1 (\Omega_2)^3}.
\end{align}
Hereafter, the expression $a \lesssim b$ or $a\gtrsim c$ stands for $a \leq C
b$ or $a\geq C b$, where $C$ is a positive constant and its specific value is
not required but should be always clear from the context.
\subsection{Transparent boundary condition}
In this subsection, we will introduce an exact time-domain TBC to formulate the
acoustic-elastic wave interaction problem into the following coupled
initial-boundary value problem:
\begin{equation}\label{rp}
\begin{cases}
\Delta p - \frac{1}{c^2 } \partial_t^2 p =0 \quad &\text{in}~
\Omega_1,\,t>0\\
\mu \Delta \boldsymbol u + (\lambda+\mu) \nabla \nabla \cdot \boldsymbol u
-\rho_2 \partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u =\boldsymbol j
\quad & \text {in}~ \Omega_2 ,\,t>0,\\
p|_{t=0}=\partial_t p|_{t=0}=0,\quad \boldsymbol u|_{t=0}=\partial_{t}
\boldsymbol u|_{t=0}=0 \quad & \text {in}~\Omega,\\
\partial_{\boldsymbol n} p=-\rho_1 \boldsymbol n \cdot
\partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u, \quad -p \boldsymbol n = \boldsymbol \sigma
(\boldsymbol u) \cdot \boldsymbol n\quad & \text {on}~\Gamma_f,\,t>0,\\
\partial_{\boldsymbol \nu} p= \mathscr T p, \quad &\text
{on}~~\Gamma_h,\,t>0,\\
\boldsymbol u =0 \quad & \text {on}~ \Gamma_g,\,t>0,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $ \boldsymbol \nu=(0, 0, 1)^\top$ is the unit normal vector on $\Gamma_h$
pointing from $\Omega_1$ to $\Omega_h^+=\{\boldsymbol x\in\mathbb R^2: z>h\}$,
and $\mathscr T$ is the time-domain TBC operator on $\Gamma_h$. In
what follows, we shall derive the formulation of the operator $\mathscr T$ and
show some of its properties.
Let $\breve p (\boldsymbol x, s) = \mathscr L (p)$ and $\breve {\boldsymbol u}
(\boldsymbol x, s)=\mathscr L (\boldsymbol u)$ be the Laplace transform of
$p(\boldsymbol x, t)$ and $\boldsymbol u (\boldsymbol x, t)$ with respect to
$t$, respectively. Recall that
\begin{align*}
&\mathscr L (\partial_t p) = s \breve p (\cdot, s )- p (\cdot, 0),\quad
\mathscr L (\partial_t^2 p)= s^2 \breve {p} (\cdot, s)- s p (\cdot,
0)-\partial_t p (\cdot, 0),\\
& \mathscr L (\partial_t \boldsymbol u)= s \breve {\boldsymbol u} (\cdot, s)-
\boldsymbol u (\cdot, 0),
\quad \mathscr L (\partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u) = s^2 \breve {\boldsymbol u }
(\cdot, s) - s \boldsymbol u (\cdot, 0)- \partial_t \boldsymbol u (\cdot,0).
\end{align*}
Taking the Laplace transform of \eqref{rp} and using the initial conditions, we
obtain the acoustic-elastic wave interaction problem in the $s$-domain:
\[
\begin{cases}
\Delta \breve {p} - \frac{s^2}{c^2 } \breve p =0 \quad &\text{in}~
\Omega_1,\\
\mu \Delta \breve { \boldsymbol u } + (\lambda+\mu) \nabla \nabla \cdot
\breve { \boldsymbol u} -\rho_2 s^2 \breve {\boldsymbol u} = \breve
{\boldsymbol j}\quad & \text {in}~ \Omega_2,\\
\partial_{\boldsymbol n}\breve p=-\rho_1 s^2 \boldsymbol n
\cdot \breve {\boldsymbol u}, \quad - \breve {p} \boldsymbol n = \boldsymbol
\sigma ( \breve {\boldsymbol u}) \cdot \boldsymbol n \quad & \text
{on}~\Gamma_f,\\
\partial_{\boldsymbol \nu} \breve p= \mathscr{B} {\breve p}, \quad &\text
{on}~\Gamma_h, \\
\breve {\boldsymbol u} =0 \quad & \text {on}~ \Gamma_g,
\end{cases}
\]
where $\breve {\boldsymbol j}= \mathscr L (\boldsymbol j)$, $\mathscr{B}$ is
the Dirichlet-to-Neumann (DtN) operator on $\Gamma_h$ in $s$-domain and
satisfies $\mathscr T= \mathscr L^{-1}\circ\mathscr B \circ\mathscr L$.
In order to deduce the TBC, we consider the Helmholtz equation with a complex
wavenumber:
\begin{align}\label{pe}
\Delta \breve {p} -\frac{s^2 }{c^2} \breve p=0 \quad \text {in}~\Omega_h^+.
\end{align}
Taking the Fourier transform of \eqref{pe} with respect to $\boldsymbol r$
yields
\begin{align}\label{so}
\begin{cases}
\frac{{\rm d}^2 \hat {\breve p} (\boldsymbol \xi, z)}{ {\rm d} z^2}- \left(
\frac{s^2 }{c^2 } + |\boldsymbol \xi|^2\right) \hat {\breve p } (\boldsymbol\xi,
z)=0, \quad & z>h,\\
\hat {\breve p} ( \boldsymbol \xi, z) =\hat {\breve p} (\boldsymbol\xi, h),
\quad &z=h.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
Solving \eqref{so} and using the bounded outgoing wave condition, we get
\[
\hat {\breve p} (\boldsymbol\xi, z)= \hat{\breve p} (\boldsymbol\xi, h) e^{-
\beta (\boldsymbol\xi) (z-h)}, \quad z >h,
\]
where
\begin{align}\label{B1}
\beta^2(\boldsymbol \xi) = \frac{s^2 }{c^2 } +|\boldsymbol \xi|^2 \quad\text
{with}~{\rm Re}\beta (\boldsymbol \xi) >0.
\end{align}
Thus we obtain the solution of \eqref{pe}:
\begin{align}\label{sol}
\breve p (\boldsymbol r, z) = \int_{\mathbb R^2}
\hat{\breve p} (\boldsymbol \xi,h) e^{- \beta ( \boldsymbol \xi) (z-h)} e^{
{\rm i}\boldsymbol \xi \cdot \boldsymbol r} {\rm d} \boldsymbol\xi.
\end{align}
Taking the normal derivative of \eqref{sol} on $\Gamma_h$ and evaluating it at
$z=h$, we have
\begin{align*}
\partial_{\boldsymbol \nu} \breve p (\boldsymbol r, h) =\int_{\mathbb R^2} -
\beta ( \boldsymbol \xi ) \hat {\breve p}( \boldsymbol \xi, h) e^{{\rm i}
\boldsymbol \xi \cdot \boldsymbol r} {\rm d } \boldsymbol\xi.
\end{align*}
For any function $u (\boldsymbol r, h)$ defined on $\Gamma_h$, we defined
the DtN operator
\begin{align}\label{dtn}
\left(\mathscr{B} u \right) (\boldsymbol r, h)= \int_{\mathbb R^2} - \beta
(\boldsymbol \xi) \hat u ( \boldsymbol \xi, h) e^{{\rm i} \boldsymbol \xi \cdot
\boldsymbol r } {\rm d} \boldsymbol \xi.
\end{align}
Let $z_1, z_2$ be two constants satisfying $z_2<z_1$. Define
$\Gamma_j=\{\boldsymbol x\in\mathbb R^2: z=z_j\}$ and $R=\{\boldsymbol
x\in\mathbb{R}^3: \boldsymbol r\in\mathbb R^2, z_2<z<z_1\}$. The following
several trace results are useful in subsequent analysis.
\begin{lemma}\label{tr}
Let $\gamma_0=(1+(z_1 -z_2)^{-1})^{1/2}$. We have the estimate
\[
\|u\|_{H^{1/2}(\Gamma_j)}\leq \gamma_0 \| u\|_{H^1(R)},\quad\forall u\in
H^1(R).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First we have
\begin{align*}
(z_1 -z_2)|\zeta(z_j)|^2&=\int_{z_2}^{z_1}|\zeta(z)|^2
{\rm d}z+\int_{z_2}^{z_1}\int_z^{z_j}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}\tau}|\zeta(\tau)|^2
{\rm d}\tau{\rm d}z\\
&\leq\int_{z_2}^{z_1}|\zeta(z)|^2{\rm
d}z+(z_1 -z_2)\int_{z_2}^{z_1}2|\zeta(z)||\zeta'(z)|{\rm d}z,
\end{align*}
which implies by the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality that
\begin{equation}\label{cs1}
(1+|\boldsymbol\xi|^2)^{1/2}|\zeta(z_j)|^2\leq \gamma_0^2
(1+|\boldsymbol\xi|^2)\int_{z_2}^{z_1}|\zeta(z)|^2
{\rm d}z+\int_{z_2}^{z_1}|\zeta'(z)|^2 {\rm d}z.
\end{equation}
Given $u$ in $H^1(R)$, a simple calculation yields that
\begin{equation}\label{cs2}
\|u\|^2_{H^{1/2}(\Gamma_j)}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}(1+|\boldsymbol\xi|^2)^{1/2}
|\hat{u} (\boldsymbol\xi, z_j)|^2 {\rm d}\boldsymbol\xi
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{cs3}
\|u\|^2_{H^1(R)}=\int_{z_2}^{z_1}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\left[
\left(1+|\boldsymbol\xi|^2\right)|\hat{u}(\boldsymbol\xi,
z)|^2+|\hat{u}'(\boldsymbol\xi, z)|^2\right] {\rm d}\boldsymbol\xi {\rm d}z,
\end{equation}
where $\hat{u}'(\boldsymbol\xi, z)=\partial_z \hat{u}(\boldsymbol\xi, z)$.
Using \eqref{cs1}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
(1+|\boldsymbol\xi|^2)^{1/2}|\hat{u}(\boldsymbol\xi, z_j)|^2 &\leq\gamma_0^2
(1+|\boldsymbol\xi|^2)\int_{z_2}^{z_1}|\hat{u}(\boldsymbol\xi, z)|^2
{\rm d}z+\int_{z_2}^{z_1}|\hat{u}'(\boldsymbol\xi, z)|^2 {\rm d}z\\
&\leq\gamma_0^2\int_{z_2}^{z_1}\left[(1+|\boldsymbol\xi|^2)|\hat{u}
(\boldsymbol\xi, z)|^2+|\hat{u}'(\boldsymbol\xi, z)|^2\right]{\rm d}z,
\end{align*}
which completes the proof after combining \eqref{cs2} and \eqref{cs3}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{trf}
There exists a positive constant $C$ such that
\[
\|u\|_{H^{1/2}(\Gamma_f)}\leq C\|u\|_{H^1(\Omega_1)},\quad\forall u\in
H^1(\Omega_1).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider the change of variables:
\[
\tilde x =x, \quad \tilde y = y, \quad
\tilde z= h \left( \frac{z-f}{h-f}\right),
\]
which maps the domain $\Omega_1$ into the rectangular slab $D_1:=
\{\tilde{\boldsymbol x}=(\tilde x, \tilde y, \tilde z ) \in \mathbb R^3: 0<
\tilde z < h\}$. In particular, the surface $\Gamma_f$ is transformed to the
planar surface $\Gamma_0:=\left\{\tilde{\boldsymbol x}\in \mathbb R^3:
\tilde z =0 \right\}$. Let $J$ be the Jacobian matrix of the transformation. A
simple calculation yields that
\begin{align*}
|J|=\left|\frac{\partial(\tilde x, \tilde y, \tilde z) }{\partial (x, y,
z)}\right|=\left|
\begin{matrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1&0\\
\frac{h(z -h) \partial_x f}{(h -f)^2} & \frac{h(z -h) \partial_{y} f}{(h
-f)^2} &\frac{h}{h-f}
\end{matrix}
\right|=\frac{h}{h-f} \neq 0,
\end{align*}
which shows that the transformation is invertible. Denote by $J^{-1}$ the
inverse of the Jacobian matrix. It follows from Lemma \ref{tr} that we have
\begin{align}\label{l1}
\|u \|_{H^{1/2} (\Gamma_0) } \lesssim \|u \|_{H^1(D_1)}.
\end{align}
Using the usual Sobolev norm in $\Omega_1$ and the change of variables, we get
\begin{align}\label{l2}
\|u\|^2_{H^1 (\Omega_1)}
=&\int_{\Omega_1} \left( |u (\boldsymbol x)|^2 + | \nabla u (\boldsymbol x)|^2
\right) {\rm d} \boldsymbol x \nonumber\\
=&\int_{D_1} \bigg[ |u|^2 + \left|\partial_{\tilde x} u - \partial_{\tilde x}
f\Big(\frac {h-\tilde z}{h-f}\Big) \partial_{\tilde z} u \right|^2 \nonumber\\
&\qquad+\left|\partial_{\tilde y}u - \partial_{\tilde y} f \Big(\frac{h - \tilde
z}{h-f}\Big) \partial_{\tilde z} u\right|^2+ \left|\Big(\frac{h}{h-f}\Big)
\partial_{\tilde z} u \right|^2 \bigg] J^{-1} {\rm d} \tilde{\boldsymbol x}
\nonumber\\
\lesssim & \int_{D_1} \left( |u (\tilde{\boldsymbol x})|^2 + |\nabla u
(\tilde{\boldsymbol x})|^2 \right){\rm d} \tilde{\boldsymbol x}=\|u\|^2_{H^1
(D_1)},
\end{align}
where we have used the assumption that $f\in W^{1, \infty}(\mathbb{R}^2)$. On
the other hand, we have
\begin{align}\label{l3}
\|u \|^2_{H^1 (D_1)}
=& \int_{D_1} \left ( |u (\tilde{\boldsymbol x})|^2 + |\nabla u
(\tilde{\boldsymbol x})|^2 \right) {\rm d} \tilde{\boldsymbol x} \nonumber\\
=& \int_{\Omega_1 } \bigg[ |u|^2 + \left|\partial_x u
+\partial_x f\Big(\frac{h-z}{h-f}\Big) \partial_z u \right|^2\nonumber\\
&\qquad +\left| \partial_y u +\partial_y f\Big(\frac{h-z}{h-f}\Big) \partial_z u
\right|^2+ \left(\partial_z u \frac{h-f}{h} \right)^2\bigg]
J{\rm d}\boldsymbol x \nonumber \\
\lesssim & \int_{\Omega_1} \left( |u (\boldsymbol x)|^2 + |\nabla
u(\boldsymbol x)|^2\right) { \rm d}\boldsymbol x=\|u\|^2_{H^1(\Omega_1)}.
\end{align}
Combining \eqref{l2} and \eqref{l3}, we get that the norm
$\|u\|^2_{H^1(\Omega_1)}$ is equivalent to the norm $\|u\|^2_{H^1(D_1)}$.
Next, we prove the equivalence of the norm $\|u\|_{H^{1/2} (\Gamma_0)}$ and
the norm $\|u\|_{H^{1/2}(\Gamma_f)}$. First we have
\begin{align*}
\| u\|^2_{H^{1/2} (\Gamma_0)}
&= \int_{\Gamma_0} | u (\tilde{\boldsymbol r}, 0)|^2 {\rm d
}\tilde{\boldsymbol r}+\int_{\Gamma_0}\int_{\Gamma_0} \frac{ |u
(\tilde{\boldsymbol r}_1, 0) - u(\tilde{\boldsymbol r}_2,
0)|^2}{|\tilde{\boldsymbol r}_1 - \tilde{\boldsymbol
r}_2|^3}{\rm d}\tilde{\boldsymbol r}_1 {\rm d} \tilde{\boldsymbol r}_2.
\end{align*}
It follows from the change of variables that we have
\begin{align*}
\|u\|^2_{H^{1/2} (\Gamma_f)}=&
\int_{\Gamma_f} |u (\boldsymbol r, f (\boldsymbol r))|^2 {\rm d}\boldsymbol
r+\int_{\Gamma_f}\int_{\Gamma_f} \frac{ |u (\boldsymbol r_1, f (\boldsymbol
r_1)) - u(\boldsymbol r_2, f (\boldsymbol r_2))|^2}{|\boldsymbol r_1
- \boldsymbol r_2|^3}{\rm d} \boldsymbol r_1 {\rm d} \boldsymbol r_2\\
=&\int_{\Gamma_0}|u(\tilde{\boldsymbol r}, 0)|^2
(1+|\nabla_{\tilde{\boldsymbol r}} f|^2)^{1/2}{\rm
d}\tilde{\boldsymbol r}+\int_{\Gamma_0}\int_{\Gamma_0} \frac{ |u
(\tilde{\boldsymbol r}_1, 0) - u(\tilde{\boldsymbol r}_2,
0)|^2}{|\tilde{\boldsymbol r}_1 - \tilde{\boldsymbol
r}_2|^3}\\
&\times(1+|\nabla_{\tilde{\boldsymbol r}_1}f|^2)^{1/2}
(1+|\nabla_{\tilde{\boldsymbol r}_2}f|^2)^{1/2}
{\rm d}\tilde{\boldsymbol r}_1 {\rm d} \tilde{\boldsymbol r}_2.
\end{align*}
Hence we obtain
\[
\|u\|_{H^{1/2}(\Gamma_0)}\leq \|u\|_{H^{1/2}(\Gamma_f)}\lesssim
\|u\|_{H^{1/2}(\Gamma_0)}.
\]
The proof is completed by using \eqref{l1} and the equivalence of the norms.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{trg}
There exists a positive constant $C$ such that
\[
\|\boldsymbol u\|_{H^{1/2} (\Gamma_f)^3} \leq C\|\boldsymbol u\|_{H^1
(\Omega_2)^3}, \quad \forall \boldsymbol u \in H^1_{\Gamma_g}(\Omega_2)^3.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Denote $\tilde{\Omega}_2=\{\boldsymbol{x}\in\mathbb{R}^3:
\boldsymbol{r}\in\mathbb{R}^2,\, \inf_{{\boldsymbol
r}\in\mathbb{R}^2}g(\boldsymbol{r})<z<f(\boldsymbol r)\}$ which contains the
domain $\Omega_2$. For any $\boldsymbol{u}\in H^1_{\Gamma_g}(\Omega_2)^3$, we
consider the zero extension to $\tilde{\Omega}_2$:
\begin{align*}
\tilde{\boldsymbol u} (\boldsymbol x)=
\begin{cases}
\boldsymbol{u} (\boldsymbol x), \quad &\boldsymbol x \in
\Omega_2,\\
0, \quad & \boldsymbol x \in \tilde{\Omega}_2 \setminus \bar{\Omega}_2.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
It is clear to note that
\begin{equation}\label{trg_s1}
\|\boldsymbol{u}\|_{H^{1/2}(\Gamma_f)^3}=\|\tilde{\boldsymbol u}\|_{H^{1/2}
(\Gamma_f)^3},\quad \|\boldsymbol{u}\|_{H^1(\Omega_2)^3}=\|\tilde{\boldsymbol
u}\|_{H^1(\tilde{\Omega}_2)^3}.
\end{equation}
It follows from Lemmas \ref{tr} and \ref{trf} that there exists a positive
constant $C$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{trg_s2}
\|\tilde{\boldsymbol u}\|_{H^{1/2} (\Gamma_f)^3}\leq C\|\tilde{\boldsymbol
u}\|_{H^1(\tilde{\Omega}_2)^3}.
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{trg_s1} and \eqref{trg_s2} completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{cc}
The DtN operator $\mathscr{B}: H^{1/2} (\Gamma_h) \to H^{-1/2}
(\Gamma_h)$ is continuous, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\|\mathscr{B}u\|_{H^{-1/2} (\Gamma_h)} \lesssim \| u\|_{H^{1/2}
(\Gamma_h)},\quad\forall u\in H^{1/2} (\Gamma_h).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For any $u \in H^{1/2} (\Gamma_h)$, it follows from \eqref{dtn} and
\eqref{B1} that
\begin{align*}
\|\mathscr{B} u\|^2_{H^{-1/2} (\Gamma_h)}
=&\int_{\mathbb R^2} (1+|\boldsymbol \xi| ^2) ^{-1/2} | -\beta (\boldsymbol
\xi) \hat u ( \boldsymbol \xi, h) |^2 {\rm d} \boldsymbol \xi\\
= &\int_{\mathbb R^2} (1+|\boldsymbol \xi|^2)^{1/2}
(1+|\boldsymbol \xi|^2)^{-1} |\beta ( \boldsymbol \xi)|^2 |\hat u
(\boldsymbol\xi, h)|^2 {\rm d} \boldsymbol \xi
\lesssim \|u\|^2_{H^{1/2} (\Gamma_h)},
\end{align*}
where we have used
\[
|\beta (\boldsymbol \xi)|^2 = \left|\frac{s^2}{c^2} + |\boldsymbol \xi|^2
\right| \leq \frac{|s|^2}{c^2} + |\boldsymbol \xi|^2 \lesssim 1+ |\boldsymbol
\xi|^2,
\]
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{tp}
We have
\[
-{\rm Re} \langle s^{-1} \mathscr{B} u, u \rangle_{\Gamma_h} \geq 0, \quad
\forall u \in H^{1/2}(\Gamma_h).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
A simple calculation yields that
\[
- \langle s^{-1} \mathscr{B} u, u \rangle_{\Gamma_h}
= \int_{\mathbb R^2} s^{-1} \beta (\boldsymbol\xi) |\hat u (\boldsymbol
\xi, h)|^2 {\rm d}\boldsymbol \xi= \int_{\mathbb R^2} \frac{\bar s \beta
(\boldsymbol \xi)}{|s|^2} |\hat u
(\boldsymbol\xi, h)|^2 {\rm d} \boldsymbol \xi
\]
Let $\beta (\boldsymbol\xi) =a+{\rm i } b, s=s_1 +{\rm i} s_2$ with $a>0,
s_1>0$.
Taking the real part of the above equation gives
\begin{align}\label{i1}
- {\rm Re} \langle s^{-1}\mathscr{B} u, u \rangle_{\Gamma_h} = \int_{\mathbb
R^2} \frac{(s_1 a + s_2 b )}{|s|^2} |\hat u (\boldsymbol \xi, h)|^2 {\rm d}
\boldsymbol \xi.
\end{align}
Recalling $\beta^2 (\boldsymbol \xi) = \frac{s^2}{c^2 } + | \boldsymbol \xi|^2$,
we have
\begin{align}
a^2-b^2 = \frac{s_1^2 -s_2^2 }{c^2} +|\boldsymbol \xi|^2, \quad
a b=\frac{s_1 s_2}{c^2}. \label{I2}
\end{align}
Substituting \eqref{I2} into \eqref{i1} yields
\begin{align*}
- {\rm Re} \langle s^{-1}\mathscr{B} u, u \rangle_{\Gamma_h} =\int_{\mathbb
R^2} \frac{1}{|s|^2} \left( a s_1 + \frac{s_1}{a } \frac{s_2^2}{c^2} \right)
|\hat u ( \boldsymbol \xi, h)|^2 {\rm d}\boldsymbol \xi \geq 0,
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
For any function $ u (\boldsymbol r, h)$ defined on $\Gamma_h$,
using the DtN operator \eqref{dtn}, we can obtain the following TBC in the
$s$-domain:
\begin{align}\label{tbc1}
\partial_{\boldsymbol \nu } \breve p =\mathscr{B} \breve p \quad \text
{on}~\Gamma_h.
\end{align}
Taking the inverse Laplace transform of \eqref{tbc1} yields the TBC in the
time-domain:
\[
\partial_{\boldsymbol \nu} p = \mathscr T p \quad \text {on}~ \Gamma_h.
\]
\section{The reduced problem} \label{srp}
In this section, we present the main results of this paper, which include the
well-posedness and stability of the scattering problem and related a priori
estimates.
\subsection {Well-posedness in the $s$-domain}
Consider the reduced problem in the $s$-domain:
\begin{subequations}\label{saep}
\begin{numcases}{}
\label{rp1} \Delta \breve {p} - \frac{s^2}{c^2 } \breve p =0 & \quad
\text{in}~ $\Omega_1$,\\
\label{rp2} \mu \Delta \breve { \boldsymbol u } + (\lambda+\mu) \nabla \nabla
\cdot \breve { \boldsymbol u} -\rho_2 s^2 \breve {\boldsymbol u} = \breve
{\boldsymbol j} & \quad \text {in}~ $\Omega_2$,\\
\label{rp3}\partial_{\boldsymbol n}\breve{p}=-\rho_1 s^2 \boldsymbol n\cdot
\breve {\boldsymbol u}, \quad - \breve {p} \boldsymbol n = \boldsymbol \sigma (
\breve {\boldsymbol u}) \cdot \boldsymbol n & \quad \text{on}~$\Gamma_f$,\\
\label{rp5}\partial_{\boldsymbol \nu} \breve p= \mathscr{B} {\breve p}, &
\quad \text{on}~$\Gamma_h$,\\
\label{rp6}\breve {\boldsymbol u} =0 & \quad \text {on}~ $\Gamma_g$.
\end{numcases}
\end{subequations}
Multiplying \eqref{rp1} and \eqref{rp2} by the complex conjugate of a test
function $q \in H^1(\Omega_1)$ and a test function $\boldsymbol v \in
H^1_{\Gamma_g} (\Omega_2)^3 $, respectively, using the integration by parts and
boundary conditions, which include the TBC condition \eqref{rp5}, the
kinematic and dynamic interface conditions \eqref{rp3}, and the rigid
boundary condition \eqref{rp6}, we arrive at the variational problem: To find
$(\breve p, \breve {\boldsymbol u}) \in H^1(\Omega_1) \times H_{\Gamma_g}^1(\Omega_2)^3$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{iv1}
\int_{\Omega_1} \left( \frac{1}{s}\nabla \breve p \cdot \nabla {\bar q} +
\frac{s}{c^2} \breve p \bar q \right) {\rm d} \boldsymbol x-
\langle s^{-1}\mathscr{B} \breve p, q \rangle_{\Gamma_h} - \rho_1 s
\int_{\Gamma_f}(\boldsymbol n \cdot \breve {\boldsymbol u}) \bar q {\rm } {\rm
d} {\gamma}=0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{align} \label{iv2}
\int_{\Omega_2} & \frac{1}{s}\left(\left( \mu (\nabla {\breve {\boldsymbol
u}}: \nabla \bar {\boldsymbol v}) + (\lambda+\mu ) (\nabla \cdot \breve
{\boldsymbol u}) (\nabla \cdot \bar
{\boldsymbol v})\right) + \rho_2 s \breve {\boldsymbol u} \cdot \bar
{\boldsymbol v} \right) {\rm d} \boldsymbol x \notag\\
& +\frac{1}{s} \int_{\Gamma_f} \breve p (\boldsymbol n \cdot \bar {\boldsymbol
v}){\rm d} \gamma= - \int_{\Omega_2} \frac{1}{s} \breve {\boldsymbol j} \cdot
\bar {\boldsymbol v} {\rm d} \boldsymbol x,\quad\forall (q, \boldsymbol v)\in
H^1(\Omega_1)\times H^1_{\Gamma_g}(\Omega_2),
\end{align}
where $A:B= {\rm tr} \left( A B^{\top}\right)$ is the Frobenius inner product of
square matrices $A$ and $B$.
We multiply \eqref{iv2} by $\rho_1 |s|^2$ and add the obtained result to \eqref{iv1} to obtain an
equivalent variational problem: To find $(\breve p, \breve {\boldsymbol u}) \in
H^1(\Omega_1) \times H_{\Gamma_g}^1 (\Omega_2)^3$ such that
\begin{align}\label{ivp}
a\left( \breve p, \breve {\boldsymbol u}; q, \boldsymbol v \right) =
-\int_{\Omega_2} \rho_1 \bar s \breve {\boldsymbol j} \cdot \bar
{\boldsymbol v} {\rm d} \boldsymbol x, \quad \forall (q, \boldsymbol v) \in
H^1(\Omega_1) \times H_{\Gamma_g}^1
(\Omega_2)^3,
\end{align}
where the sesquilinear form
\begin{align}
a\left( \breve p, \breve {\boldsymbol u}; q, \boldsymbol v \right)=
& \int_{\Omega_1} \left( \frac{1}{s} \nabla \breve p \cdot \nabla {\bar q} +
\frac{s}{c^2} \breve p \bar q \right) {\rm d} \boldsymbol x + \int_{\Omega_2}
\Big( \rho_1 \bar s\big( \mu (\nabla {\breve {\boldsymbol
u}} : \nabla \bar {\boldsymbol v}) \notag\\
& + (\lambda+\mu ) (\nabla \cdot \breve {\boldsymbol u}) (\nabla \cdot \bar
{\boldsymbol v})\big) + \rho_1 \rho_2 s |s|^2 \breve {\boldsymbol u} \cdot \bar
{\boldsymbol v} \Big) {\rm d} \boldsymbol x -\langle s^{-1} \mathscr{B}\breve
p, q \rangle_{\Gamma_h}\notag\\
&+\rho_1 \int_{\Gamma_f} \left( \bar s \breve p (\boldsymbol n \cdot \bar
{\boldsymbol v}) -s \bar q (\boldsymbol n \cdot \breve {\boldsymbol u}) \right)
{\rm d} \gamma. \label{slf}
\end{align}
\begin{theorem}\label{wps}
The variational problem \eqref{ivp} has a unique weak solution $(\breve p,
\breve {\boldsymbol u}) \in H^1 (\Omega_1) \times H^1_{\Gamma_g}(\Omega_2)^3$,
which satisfies
\begin{align}
\label{sep} \|\nabla \breve {p}\|_{L^2 (\Omega_1)^3} +\|s \breve p\|_{L^2
(\Omega_1)}
&\lesssim \|\breve {\boldsymbol j}\|_{L^2(\Omega_2)^3},\\
\label{seu} \|\nabla \breve {{\boldsymbol u}}\|_{F(\Omega_2)}
+\|\nabla \cdot \breve {\boldsymbol u}\|_{L^2(\Omega_2)}+ \| s\breve
{\boldsymbol u}\|_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} &\lesssim \frac{1}{ |s|} \|\breve
{\boldsymbol j}\|_{L^2(\Omega_2)^3}.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We have from the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality and Lemmas
\ref{tr}--\ref{cc} that
\begin{align*}
|a\left( \breve p, \breve {\boldsymbol u}; q, \boldsymbol v \right)|
\leq&\frac{1}{|s|} \|\nabla \breve p\|_{L^2 (\Omega_1)^3} \|\nabla
{q}\|_{L^2(\Omega_1)^3} + \frac{|s|}{c^2} \|\breve p\|_{L^2 (\Omega_1)} \| q
\|_{L^2 (\Omega_1)}\\
&\quad + \rho_1 |s| \left( \mu \| \nabla \breve {\boldsymbol u}\|_{F
(\Omega_2)} \|\nabla {\boldsymbol v}\|_{F (\Omega_2)}
+ (\lambda+ \mu) \| \nabla \cdot \breve {\boldsymbol u}\|_{L^2 (\Omega)} \|
\nabla \cdot {\boldsymbol v}\|_{L^2 (\Omega)}\right) \\
&\quad + \rho_1 \rho_2 |s|^3 \| \breve {\boldsymbol u}\|_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3}
\|\boldsymbol v\|_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3}
+ \frac{1}{|s|} \|\mathscr{B} \breve p\|_{H^{-1/2} (\Gamma_h)} \|q\|_{H^{1/2}
(\Gamma_h)}\\
&\quad + \rho_1 |s| \left(\|p\|_{L^2 (\Gamma_f) }
\|\boldsymbol n\cdot\boldsymbol v\|_{L^2 (\Gamma_f)}
+\| q\|_{L^2 (\Gamma_f)} \| \boldsymbol n \cdot \breve {\boldsymbol
u}\|_{L^2 (\Gamma_f)} \right)\\
\lesssim & \| \breve p\|_{H^1 (\Omega_1)} \|q\|_{H^1 (\Omega_1)} +\| \breve
{\boldsymbol u}\|_{H^1 (\Omega_2)^3}
\| \boldsymbol v\|_{H^1 (\Omega_2)^3} +\|\breve
p\|_{H^{1/2}(\Gamma_h)}\|q\|_{H^{1/2}(\Gamma_h)}\\
&\quad + \|\breve p \|_{H^{1/2} (\Gamma_f)}
\| \boldsymbol v\|_{H^{1/2} (\Gamma_f)^3}+\|q\|_{H^{1/2}(\Gamma_f)}\|\breve
{\boldsymbol u}\|_{H^{1/2}(\Gamma_f)^3}\\
\lesssim & \| \breve p\|_{H^1 (\Omega_1)} \|q\|_{H^1 (\Omega_1)} +\| \breve
{\boldsymbol u}\|_{H^1 (\Omega_2)^3}
\| \boldsymbol v\|_{H^1 (\Omega_2)^3} +\|\breve
p\|_{H^1(\Omega_1)}\|q\|_{H^1(\Omega_1)}\\
&\quad +\|\breve p\|_{H^1(\Omega_1)}
\|\boldsymbol v\|_{H^1(\Omega_2)^3} +\|q\|_{H^1 (\Omega_1)}
\|\breve {\boldsymbol u}\|_{H^1(\Omega_2)^3},
\end{align*}
which shows that the sesquilinear form is bounded.
Letting $(q, \boldsymbol v) =(\breve p, \breve {\boldsymbol u})$ in \eqref{slf}
yields
\begin{align}
a(\breve p, \breve {\boldsymbol u};~ \breve p, \breve {\boldsymbol
u})=& \int_{\Omega_1} \left( \frac{1}{s} |\nabla \breve p|^2 + \frac{s}{c^2}
|\breve p|^2\right){\rm d} \boldsymbol x +
\int_{\Omega_2} \big( \rho_1 \bar s \left( \mu (\nabla \breve {\boldsymbol u}:
\nabla \bar {\breve {\boldsymbol u}})+
(\lambda+\mu) |\nabla \cdot \breve {\boldsymbol u}|^2\right) \nonumber\\
&+\rho_1 \rho_2 s |s|^2 |\breve {\boldsymbol u}|^2\big) {\rm d}
\boldsymbol x -\langle s^{-1}\mathscr{B} \breve p, \breve p \rangle_{\Gamma_h}
+\rho_1 \int_{\Gamma_f} \left( \bar s \breve p (\boldsymbol n \cdot \bar{
\breve{\boldsymbol u}}) - s \bar {\breve p}( \boldsymbol n \cdot \breve
{\boldsymbol u})\right) {\rm d}
\gamma. \label{pqu}
\end{align}
Taking the real part of \eqref{pqu} and using Lemma \ref{tp}, we obtain
\begin{align}
{\rm Re } ( a(\breve p, \breve {\boldsymbol u}; \breve p, \breve {\boldsymbol
u}) ) =&\int_{\Omega_1}\left( \frac{s_1}{|s|^2}|\nabla \breve p|^2
+\frac{s_1}{c^2 } |\breve p|^2\right) {\rm d} \boldsymbol x
+\rho_1 s_1 \Big( \|\nabla \breve {{\boldsymbol u}}\|^2_{F(\Omega_2)}\notag\\
&\quad +(\lambda+\mu) \|\nabla \cdot \breve {\boldsymbol u}\|^2_{L^2(\Omega_2)}
\Big)+\rho_1 \rho_2 s_1 |s|^2 |\breve {\boldsymbol u}|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} - {\rm Re } \langle s^{-1} \mathscr{B} \breve p, \breve p
\rangle_{\Gamma_h} \notag\\
\gtrsim & \frac{s_1}{|s|^2 }
\left( \|\nabla \breve {p}\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_1)^3} +\|s \breve p\|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_1)} \right) \notag\\
&\quad + s_1 \left( \|\nabla \breve {{\boldsymbol u}}\|^2_{F(\Omega_2)}
+\|\nabla \cdot \breve {\boldsymbol u}\|^2_{L^2(\Omega_2)}+ \| s\breve
{\boldsymbol u}\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} \right).\label{RP}
\end{align}
It follows from the Lax--Milgram lemma that the variational problem \eqref{ivp}
has a unique weak solution $(\breve p, \breve {\boldsymbol u}) \in H^1(\Omega_1)
\times H^1_{\Gamma_g} (\Omega_2)^3.$
Moreover, we have from \eqref{ivp} that
\begin{align}\label{RP2}
|a(\breve p, \breve {\boldsymbol u}; \breve p, \breve {\boldsymbol u}) |
\lesssim \frac{s_1}{|s|} \|\breve {\boldsymbol j}\|_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} \| s
\breve {\boldsymbol u}\|_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3 }.
\end{align}
Combing \eqref{RP} and \eqref{RP2} leads to
\begin{align*}
\|\nabla \breve {{\boldsymbol u}}\|^2_{F(\Omega_2)}
& +\|\nabla \cdot \breve {\boldsymbol u}\|^2_{L^2(\Omega_2)}+ \| s\breve
{\boldsymbol u}\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} \\
&\lesssim \frac{1}{s_1} |a(\breve p, \breve {\boldsymbol u}; \breve p, \breve
{\boldsymbol u}) | \lesssim \frac{1}{|s|} \|\breve {\boldsymbol j}\|_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} \| s \breve {\boldsymbol u}\|_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3 }
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{|s|^2} \Big( \|\nabla \breve {p}\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_1)^3} &+\|s \breve
p\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_1)} \Big) +|s \breve {\boldsymbol u}|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3}\\
&\lesssim \frac{1}{s_1} |a(\breve p, \breve {\boldsymbol u}; \breve p,
\breve {\boldsymbol u}) | \lesssim \frac{1}{|s|} \|\breve {\boldsymbol j}\|_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} \| s \breve {\boldsymbol u}\|_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3 }.
\end{align*}
Using the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\|\nabla \breve {{\boldsymbol u}}\|_{F(\Omega_2)}
+\|\nabla \cdot \breve {\boldsymbol u}\|_{L^2(\Omega_2)}+ \| s\breve
{\boldsymbol u}\|_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} \lesssim \frac{1}{ |s|} \|\breve
{\boldsymbol j}\|_{L^2(\Omega_2)^3}
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{|s|} \left( \|\nabla \breve {p}\|_{L^2 (\Omega_1)^3} +\|s \breve
p\|_{L^2 (\Omega_1)} \right)& \lesssim \frac{1}{|s|} \left( \|\nabla \breve
{p}\|_{L^2 (\Omega_1)^3} +\|s \breve p\|_{L^2 (\Omega_1)} \right) +\| s \breve
{\boldsymbol u}\|_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3 }\\
&\lesssim \frac{1}{ |s|} \|\breve {\boldsymbol j}\|_{L^2(\Omega_2)^3},
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Well-posedness in the time-domain}
We now consider the reduced problem in the time-domain:
\begin{subequations}\label{trp}
\begin{numcases}{}
\label{trp1} \Delta p - \frac{1}{c^2 } \partial_t^2 p =0 &\quad \text{in}~
$\Omega_1,\,t>0$ \\
\label{trp2} \mu \Delta \boldsymbol u + (\lambda+\mu) \nabla \nabla \cdot
\boldsymbol u -\rho_2 \partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u =\boldsymbol j
& \quad \text {in}~ $\Omega_2 ,\,t>0$, \\
\label{trp3} p|_{t=0}=\partial_t p|_{t=0}=0,\quad \boldsymbol
u|_{t=0}=\partial_{t} \boldsymbol u|_{t=0}=0 &\quad \text {in}~ $\Omega$,\\
\label{trp4}\partial_{\boldsymbol n} p=-\rho_1 \boldsymbol n
\cdot \partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u, \quad -p \boldsymbol n = \boldsymbol \sigma
(\boldsymbol u) \cdot \boldsymbol n &\quad \text{on}~ $\Gamma_f,\,t>0$,\\
\label{trp5} \partial_{\boldsymbol \nu} p= \mathscr T p &\quad
\text{on}~$\Gamma_h,\,t>0$,\\
\label{trp6} \boldsymbol u =0 &\quad \text {on}~ $\Gamma_g,\,t>0$.
\end{numcases}
\end{subequations}
To show the well-posedness of the reduced problem \eqref{trp}, we make the
following assumption for the source term $ \boldsymbol j:$
\begin{align}\label{ash}
\boldsymbol j \in H^1 (0, T; L^2 (\Omega_2)^3), \quad \boldsymbol j
\big|_{t=0}=0.
\end{align}
\begin{theorem}
The initial-boundary value problem \eqref{trp} has a unique solution
$\left(p, \boldsymbol u\right)$ which satisfies
\begin{align*}
& p (\boldsymbol x, t ) \in L^2 \left(0, T;~ H^1(\Omega_1) \right)\cap H^1
\left (0, T;~ L^2 (\Omega_1) \right),\\
& \boldsymbol u (\boldsymbol x, t) \in L^2 \big(0, T;~ H^1_{\Gamma_g}
(\Omega_2)^3\big) \cap H^1 \big( 0, T;~ L^2 (\Omega_2)^3 \big)
\end{align*}
and the stability estimates
\begin{align}
&\max \limits_{t\in [0, T]}
\left( \| \partial_t p\|_{L^2 (\Omega_1)} + \|\nabla p\|_{L^2 (\Omega_1)^3 }
\right) \lesssim \|\partial_t \boldsymbol j \|_{ L^1 (0, T;~ L^2
(\Omega_2)^3)}, \label{es1} \\
&\max \limits_{ t \in [0, T]}
\left( \| \partial_t \boldsymbol u\|_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} +\| \nabla \cdot
\boldsymbol u\|_{L^2 (\Omega_2)}
+\| \nabla \boldsymbol u\|_{F (\Omega_2)} \right) \lesssim \|\partial_t
\boldsymbol j \|_{ L^1 (0, T; ~L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)}. \label{es2}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For the air/fluid pressure $p$, we have
\begin{align*}
\int_0^T &\left( \|\nabla p\|_{L^2(\Omega_1)^3}^2+\|\partial_t
p\|^2_{L^2(\Omega_1)}\right) {\rm d} t\\
&\leq \int_0^T e^{- 2 s_1(t- T)}\left ( \|\nabla p\|_{L^2(\Omega_1)^3}^2+\|\partial_t p\|^2_{L^2(
\Omega_1)}\right) {\rm d} t\\
&= e^{2 s_1 T} \int_0^T e^{-2 s_1 t} \left ( \|\nabla p\|_{L^2(\Omega_1)^3}^2
+\|\partial_t p\|^2_{L^2(\Omega_1)}\right) {\rm d} t\\
&\lesssim \int_0^{\infty} e^{-2 s_1 t} \left ( \|\nabla
p\|_{L^2(\Omega_1)^2}^3+\|\partial_t p\|^2_{L^2(\Omega_1)}\right) {\rm d} t.
\end{align*}
Similarly, we have for the elastic displacement $\boldsymbol u$ that
\begin{align*}
\int_0^T &\left(\|\partial_t \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3}
+\| \nabla \boldsymbol u\|^2_{F (\Omega_2)} +\| \nabla \cdot \boldsymbol
u\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)} \right) {\rm d} t\\
&\leq \int_0^T e^{-2 s_1 (t-T)} \left( \|\partial_t \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} +\| \nabla \boldsymbol u\|^2_{F (\Omega_2)} +\| \nabla \cdot
\boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)} \right) {\rm d} t\\
&= e^{2s_1 T} \int_0^T e^{-2 s_1 t} \left( \|\partial_t \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} +\| \nabla \boldsymbol e\|^2_{F (\Omega_2)} +\| \nabla \cdot
\boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)} \right) {\rm d} t\\
&\lesssim\int_0^\infty e^{-2 s_1 t} \left( \|\partial_t \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} +\| \nabla \boldsymbol u\|^2_{F (\Omega_2)} +\| \nabla \cdot
\boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)} \right) {\rm d} t.
\end{align*}
Hence it suffices to estimate the integrals
\[
\int_0^{\infty} e^{-2 s_1 t} \big ( \|\nabla p\|_{L^2(\Omega_1)^3}^2
+\|\partial_t p\|^2_{L^2(\Omega_1)}\big) {\rm d} t
\]
and
\[
\int_0^\infty e^{-2 s_1 t} \left( \|\partial_t \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} +\| \nabla \boldsymbol u\|^2_{F (\Omega_2)} +\| \nabla \cdot
\boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)} \right) {\rm d} t.
\]
Taking the Laplace transform of \eqref{trp}, we obtain the reduced
acoustic-elastic interaction problem in the $s$-domain \eqref{saep}. It follows
from Theorem \ref{wps} that $\breve {p}$ and $\breve {\boldsymbol u}$ satisfy
the stability estimates \eqref{sep} and \eqref{seu}, respectively. It follows
from \cite[Lemma 44.1]{Treves1975} that $\breve p$ and $\breve{\boldsymbol u}$
are holomorphic functions of $s$ on the half plane $s_1 >\bar\gamma>0,$ where
$\bar \gamma$ is any positive constant. Hence we have from Lemma \ref{A2} that
the inverse Laplace transform of $\breve p$ and $\breve{\boldsymbol u}$ exist
and are supported in $[0, \infty].$
Using the Parseval identity \eqref{PI}, the assumptions \eqref{ash}, and the
stability estimate \eqref{sep}, we have
\begin{align*}
\int_0^{\infty} e^{-2s_1 t}
&\left(\|\nabla p\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_1)^3}+\|\partial_t p
\|^2_{L^2(\Omega_1)}\right){\rm d}t
=\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left( \|\nabla \breve
p\|^2_{L^2(\Omega_1)^3}+ \|s \breve p\|^2_{L^2(\Omega_1)}\right) {\rm d} s_2\\
\lesssim& s_1 ^{-2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \| |s|\breve {\boldsymbol
j}\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} {\rm d}s_2
=s_1^{-2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \|\mathscr L ( \partial_t \boldsymbol
j)\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} {\rm d} s_2\\
\lesssim &s_1^{-2} \int_0^{\infty} e^{-2 s_1 t} \| \partial_t \boldsymbol
j\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} {\rm d} t,
\end{align*}
which shows that
\begin{align*}
p (\boldsymbol x, t) \in L^2 \left(0, T; H^1(\Omega_1) \right)\cap H^1 \big(0,
T; L^2 (\Omega_1)\big).
\end{align*}
Since $\breve {\boldsymbol u} =\mathscr L (\boldsymbol u)= \mathscr F (e^{-s_1
t} \boldsymbol u)$, where $\mathscr F$ is the Fourier transform in $s_2$, we
have from the Parseval identity \eqref{PI} and the stability estimate
\eqref{seu} that
\begin{align*}
\int_{0}^{\infty} & e^{-2 s_1 t} \left( \|\partial_t \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} +\| \nabla \boldsymbol u\|^2_{F (\Omega_2)} +\| \nabla \cdot
\boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)} \right) {\rm d} t \\
&=\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left( \|s \breve {\boldsymbol
u}\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3}
+\|\nabla \breve {\boldsymbol u}\|^2_{F (\Omega_2)}+\|\nabla \cdot \breve
{\boldsymbol u}\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)} \right) {\rm d} s_2\\
&\lesssim s_1^{-2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \|\breve {\boldsymbol j}\|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} {\rm d} s_2
= s_1^{-2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \| \mathscr L (\boldsymbol j)\|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} {\rm d} s_2\\
&\lesssim s_1^{-2} \int_0^{\infty} e^{-2 s_1 t} \|\boldsymbol j\|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} {\rm d} t.
\end{align*}
It follows from \eqref{f1} that
\[
\boldsymbol u (\boldsymbol x, t)\in L^2 \big(0, T; H^1_{\Gamma_g}
(\Omega_2)^3\big) \cap H^1 \big( 0, T; L^2 (\Omega_2)^3 \big).
\]
Next we show the stability estimates. Let $\tilde p$ be the extension of $p$
with respect to $t$ in $\mathbb R$ such that $\breve p=0$ outside the interval
$[0, t].$ By the Parseval identity \eqref{PI} and Lemma \ref{tp}, we get
\begin{align*}
& {\rm Re} \int_{0}^{t} e^{-2 s_1 t} \langle \mathscr T p, {\partial_t \bar p}
\rangle_{\Gamma_h}{\rm d}t = {\rm Re} \int_0^t e^{-2 s_1 t} \int_{\Gamma_h}
(\mathscr T p) {\partial_t \bar p} {\rm d} \boldsymbol r {\rm d}t\\
=& {\rm Re} \int_{\Gamma_h} \int_0^{\infty} e^{-2 s_1 t} (\mathscr T \tilde p)
{\partial_t \bar { \tilde p}} {\rm d} t{\rm d} \boldsymbol r =\frac{1}{2 \pi}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm Re} \langle \mathscr{B} \breve {\tilde p},
~s \breve {\tilde p} \rangle_{\Gamma_h} {\rm d} s_2\\
=&\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} |s|^2 {\rm Re} \langle s^{-1}
\mathscr{B} \breve {\tilde p}, ~\breve {\tilde p} \rangle_{\Gamma_h} {\rm d}
s_2 \leq 0,
\end{align*}
which yields after taking $s_1 \rightarrow 0$ that
\begin{align}\label{tp1}
{\rm Re} \int_0^t \int_{\Gamma_h} (\mathscr T p){\partial_t \bar p}{\rm
d}\boldsymbol r {d}t \leq 0.
\end{align}
Taking the partial derivative of \eqref{trp2}--\eqref{trp4} and \eqref{trp6}
with respect to $t$, we get
\begin{align}\label{fdt}
\begin{cases}
\mu \Delta (\partial_t \boldsymbol u) + (\lambda +\mu ) \nabla \nabla \cdot
(\partial_t \boldsymbol u) - \rho_2 \partial_t^2 (\partial_t \boldsymbol u) =
\partial_t\boldsymbol j \quad & \text {in} ~\Omega_2,\,t >0,\\
\partial_t \boldsymbol u|_{t=0}=0 \quad &\text{in} ~ \Omega_2,\\
\partial_{t}^2 \boldsymbol u|_{t=0}= \rho_{2}^{-1 } \left(
\mu \Delta \boldsymbol u + (\lambda+\mu) \nabla \nabla \cdot \boldsymbol u
-\boldsymbol j \right)|_{t=0}=0 \quad & \text {in}~ \Omega_2,\\
-\partial_t p\,\boldsymbol n = \partial_t (\boldsymbol \sigma (\boldsymbol u))
\cdot \boldsymbol n = \boldsymbol \sigma (\partial_t \boldsymbol u) \cdot
\boldsymbol n \quad &\text {on}~\Gamma_f,\,t>0,\\
\partial_t \boldsymbol u =0 \quad & \text {on }~\Gamma_g,\,t>0.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
For any $0< t < T$, consider the energy function
\begin{align*}
\mathscr E (t)= e_1 (t) +e_2 (t),
\end{align*}
where
\[
e_1 (t)= \| \frac{1}{c} \partial_t p\|^2_{ L^2 (\Omega_1)} +\| \nabla
p\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_1)^3}
\]
and
\begin{align*}
e_2 (t)= \|(\rho_1 \rho_2)^{1/2} \partial_t ^2 \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} &+\| (\rho_1 (\lambda + \mu))^{1/2} \nabla \cdot (\partial_t
\boldsymbol u)\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)}\\
&+\|(\rho_1\mu)^{1/2}\nabla (\partial_t \boldsymbol u)\|^2_{F (\Omega_2)}.
\end{align*}
It is easy to note that
\begin{align} \label{e00}
\mathscr E (t) -\mathscr E (0)
=\int_0^t \mathscr E ' (\tau) {\rm d} \tau = \int_0^t \left ( e_1' (\tau)
+e_2'(\tau) \right) {\rm d} \tau.
\end{align}
It follows from \eqref{trp1}, \eqref{trp3}--\eqref{trp5} and the integration
by parts that
\begin{align}
\int_0^t e_1' (\tau) {\rm d} \tau
=& 2 {\rm Re } \int_0^t \int_{\Omega_1} \left (\frac{1}{c^2} \partial_t^2 p ~
\partial_t \bar p + \partial_t (\nabla p )\cdot \nabla \bar p \right) {\rm d}
\boldsymbol x {\rm d}\tau \nonumber\\
=& 2 {\rm Re} \int_0^t \int_{\Omega_1} \left ( \Delta p \partial_t \bar p +
\partial_t (\nabla p )\cdot \nabla \bar p \right) {\rm d} \boldsymbol x {\rm
d}\tau \nonumber\\
=& \int_0^{t} \int_{\Omega_1 } 2 {\rm Re} \left (- \nabla p \cdot \partial_t
(\nabla \bar {p}) + \partial_t (\nabla p) \cdot \nabla \bar p \right) {\rm d}
\boldsymbol x {\rm d} \tau \nonumber \\
&\quad+ 2 {\rm Re}\int_0^t \int_{\Gamma_h} (\mathscr T p) \partial_t \bar p
{\rm d} \boldsymbol r {\rm d} \tau
- 2 {\rm Re} \int_0^t \int_{\Gamma_f} \partial_{\boldsymbol n} p
\partial_t \bar p {\rm d}\gamma {\rm d} \tau\nonumber\\
=& 2 {\rm Re}\int_0^t \int_{\Gamma_h} (\mathscr T p) \partial_t \bar p {\rm
d} \boldsymbol r{\rm d} \tau + 2 {\rm Re} \int_0^t \int_{\Gamma_f}
\rho_1 \boldsymbol n\cdot \partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u \partial_t \bar p
{\rm d} \gamma {\rm d}\tau. \label{e11}
\end{align}
Similarly, we have from \eqref{fdt} and the integration by parts that
\begin{align}
\int_0^{t} e'_{2} (\tau ) {\rm d} \tau
=& \rho_1 2 {\rm Re} \int_0^t \int_{\Omega_2} \big(
\rho_2 \partial_t (\partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u ) \cdot \partial_t^2 \bar
{\boldsymbol u}
+ (\lambda +\mu) \nabla \cdot (\partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u) \nabla \cdot
(\partial_t \bar {\boldsymbol u})\notag\\
&+ \mu \nabla (\partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u) :\nabla (\partial_t \bar
{\boldsymbol u}) \big){\rm d} \boldsymbol x {\rm d} \tau \nonumber\\
=& {\rho_1} 2 {\rm Re} \int_0^ t\int_{\Omega_2} \big(
\left( \mu \Delta (\partial_t \boldsymbol u) + (\lambda +\mu ) \nabla \nabla
\cdot (\partial_t \boldsymbol u)
-\partial_t \boldsymbol j \right) \cdot \partial_t^2 \bar {\boldsymbol u}
\nonumber\\
&\quad+(\lambda +\mu) \nabla \cdot (\partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u) \nabla \cdot
(\partial_t \bar {\boldsymbol u}) + \mu \nabla (\partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u) :
\nabla (\partial_t \bar {\boldsymbol u})
\big){\rm d}\boldsymbol x {\rm d} \tau \nonumber \\
=& \rho_1 \int_0^t \int_{\Omega_2 }{\rm Re} \big( - \mu \nabla (\partial_t
\boldsymbol u) : \nabla (\partial_t^2 \bar {\boldsymbol u}) -
(\lambda+\mu) \nabla \cdot (\partial_t \boldsymbol u) \nabla \cdot
(\partial_t^2 \bar {\boldsymbol u})\nonumber\\
&\quad+ (\lambda +\mu) \nabla \cdot (\partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u) \nabla \cdot
(\partial_t \bar {\boldsymbol u})
+ \mu \nabla (\partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u) : \nabla (\partial_t \bar
{\boldsymbol u})\big) {\rm d} \boldsymbol x {\rm d} \tau \nonumber\\
&\quad- 2 {\rm Re} \rho_1\int_0^t \int_{\Omega_2} \partial_t \boldsymbol j
\cdot \partial_t^2 \bar {\boldsymbol u} {\rm d} \boldsymbol x {\rm d} \tau
+ 2 {\rm Re} {\rho_1 }\int_0^t \int_{\Gamma_f} (\boldsymbol \sigma (\partial_t
\boldsymbol u) \cdot \boldsymbol n) \cdot \partial_t^2 \bar {\boldsymbol u} {\rm
d} \gamma {\rm d} \tau \nonumber \\
=& - 2 {\rm Re} \rho_1\int_0^t \int_{\Omega_2} \partial_t \boldsymbol j \cdot
\partial_t^2 \bar {\boldsymbol u} {\rm d} \boldsymbol x {\rm d} \tau -
2 {\rm Re }\rho_1 \int_0^t \int_{\Gamma_f} \partial_t p \boldsymbol n \cdot
\partial_t^2 \bar {\boldsymbol u} {\rm d} \gamma {\rm d} \tau. \label{e22}
\end{align}
Since $\mathscr E (0)=0,$ combining \eqref{e00}-- \eqref{e22} and \eqref{tp1} gives
\begin{align*}
\mathscr E (t)
&= 2 {\rm Re} \int_0^t \int_{\Gamma_h} (\mathscr T p) \partial_t \bar p {\rm d}
\boldsymbol r {\rm d} \tau -2 {\rm Re} \rho_1 \int_0^t \int_{\Omega_2}
\partial_t \boldsymbol j \cdot
\partial_t^2 \bar {\boldsymbol u} {\rm d} \boldsymbol x {\rm d} \tau\\
& \leq - 2 {\rm Re} \rho_1\int_0^t \int_{\Omega_2} \partial_t \boldsymbol j
\cdot\partial_t^2 \bar {\boldsymbol u} {\rm d} \boldsymbol x {\rm d} \tau \\
& \leq 2 \rho_1 \max \limits_{t \in [0, T]} \|\partial_t^2 {\boldsymbol
u}\|_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} \|\partial_t \boldsymbol j \|_{ L^1 (0, T; L^2
(\Omega_2)^3)}.
\end{align*}
Thus, we can obtain the estimate for the air/fluid pressure $p$:
\begin{align*}
\max \limits_{t\in[0, T]}&
\left( \| \partial_t p\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_1)} + \|\nabla p\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_1)^3
} \right)\\
&\leq \max \limits_{t\in[0, T]} \left( \| \partial_t p\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_1)} +
\|\nabla p\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_1)^3 } + \|\partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u \|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} \right)\\
&\lesssim \max \limits_{t\in[0, T]} \mathscr E (t)
\lesssim \max \limits_{t \in [0, T]} \|\partial_t^2 {\boldsymbol u}\|_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} \|\partial_t \boldsymbol j \|_{L^1 (0, T; L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)}.
\end{align*}
It follows from Young's inequality that
\begin{align*}
\max \limits_{t\in[0, T]}
\left( \| \partial_t p\|_{L^2 (\Omega_1)} + \|\nabla p\|_{L^2 (\Omega_1)^3 }
\right) \lesssim \|\partial_t \boldsymbol j \|_{ L^1 (0, T; L^2(\Omega_2)^3)},
\end{align*}
which shows the stability estimate \eqref{es1}.
For the elastic displacement $\boldsymbol u$, we can also obtain
\begin{align*}
\max \limits_{ t \in [0, T]}
&\left( \| \partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} +\| \nabla \cdot
(\partial_t \boldsymbol u)\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)}
+\| \nabla (\partial_t \boldsymbol u)\|^2_{F (\Omega_2)} \right)\\
& \lesssim \max
\limits_{[0, T]} \mathscr E (t)\lesssim \max \limits_{t \in [0, T]}
\|\partial_t^2 {\boldsymbol u}\|_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} \|\partial_t \boldsymbol j \|_{ L^1 (0, T; L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)}.
\end{align*}
It follows from the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality that
\begin{align}\label{EP1}
\max \limits_{ t \in [0, T]}
\left( \| \partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} +\| \nabla \cdot
(\partial_t \boldsymbol u)\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)}
+\| \nabla (\partial_t \boldsymbol u)\|^2_{F (\Omega_2)} \right)\notag\\
\lesssim\|\partial_t \boldsymbol j\|^2_{L^1 (0, T; L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)}.
\end{align}
For any $0 <t \leq T$, using the epsilon inequality leads to
\begin{align*}
\|\partial_t \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} = \int_0^t \partial_\tau
\|\partial_\tau \boldsymbol u (\cdot, \tau)\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} {\rm d} \tau
\leq \epsilon T \|\partial_t \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} +
\frac{T}{\epsilon} \| \partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3}.
\end{align*}
Here we choose $\epsilon>0 $ small enough such that $ \epsilon T <1$,
e.g., $\epsilon =\frac{1}{2T}$. Hence we have
\begin{align}\label{ep1}
\|\partial_t \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} \lesssim \| \partial_t^2
\boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3}.
\end{align}
Similarly, we can obtain
\begin{align}\label{ep2}
\|\nabla \cdot \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)} \lesssim \| \nabla \cdot
(\partial_t \boldsymbol u)\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)}, \quad
\|\nabla \boldsymbol u\|^2_{F(\Omega_2)} \lesssim \| \nabla (\partial_t
\boldsymbol u)\|^2_{F (\Omega_2)}.
\end{align}
Combining \eqref{EP1}--\eqref{ep2} gives
\begin{align*}
\max \limits_{t\in [0, T]} \left( \|\partial_t \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} +\|\nabla \cdot \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_2)} + \|\nabla
\boldsymbol u\|^2_{F(\Omega_2)}\right)
\lesssim\|\partial_t\boldsymbol j\|^2_{L^1(0,T;L^2(\Omega_2)^3)},
\end{align*}
which shows the estimate \eqref{es2}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{A priori estimates}
In what follows, we derive a priori stability estimates for the air/fluid
pressure $p$ and the displacement $\boldsymbol u$ with a minimum regularity
requirement for the data and an explicit dependence on the time.
We shall consider the elastic wave equation for $\partial_t \boldsymbol u$ in
order to match the interface conditions when deducing the stability estimates.
Taking the partial derivative of \eqref{trp2}--\eqref{trp5} and \eqref{trp6}
with respect to $t$, we obtain a new reduced problem:
\begin{align}\label{TRP}
\begin{cases}
\Delta p - \frac{1}{c^2 } \partial_t^2 p =0 \quad
&\text{in}~\Omega_1,\,t>0\\
\partial_{\boldsymbol \nu} p= \mathscr T p \quad &\text
{on}~\Gamma_h,\,t>0,\\
\partial_{\boldsymbol n} p=-\rho_1 \boldsymbol n
\cdot\partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u \quad & \text {on}~\Gamma_f,\,t>0,\\
p|_{t=0}=\partial_t p|_{t=0}=0\quad & \text {in}~\Omega_1 \\
\mu \Delta (\partial_t \boldsymbol u) + (\lambda+\mu) \nabla \nabla \cdot
(\partial_t\boldsymbol u) -\rho_2 \partial_t^2 (\partial_t \boldsymbol u) =
\partial_t\boldsymbol j \quad & \text {in}~ \Omega_2,\,t>0,\\
\partial_t \boldsymbol u|_{t=0}=0\quad & \text {in}~\Omega_2,\\
\partial_{t}^2 \boldsymbol u|_{t=0}= \rho_2^{-1 } \left(
\mu \Delta \boldsymbol u + (\lambda+\mu) \nabla \nabla \cdot \boldsymbol u
-\boldsymbol j \right)|_{t=0}=0 \quad & \text {in}~ \Omega_2,\\
-\partial_t p \boldsymbol n = \partial_t (\boldsymbol \sigma (\boldsymbol
u)) \cdot \boldsymbol n = \boldsymbol \sigma (\partial_t \boldsymbol u) \cdot
\boldsymbol n \quad &\text {on}~\Gamma_f,\,t>0,\\
\partial_t \boldsymbol u =0 \quad & \text {on }~\Gamma_g,\,t>0.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
The variational problems of \eqref{TRP} is to find $(p, \boldsymbol u) \in
H^1(\Omega_1) \times \in H^1_{\Gamma_g} (\Omega_2)^3$ for all $t>0$ such that
\begin{align}
\int_{\Omega_1} \frac{1}{c^2}
\partial_t^2 p \bar q {\rm d} \boldsymbol x
=&-\int_{\Omega_1} \nabla p \cdot \nabla \bar q {\rm d} \boldsymbol x
+\int_{\Gamma_h} (\mathscr T p) \bar q {\rm d} \boldsymbol r
-\int_{\Gamma_f} \partial_{\boldsymbol n} p\, \bar q {\rm d}
\gamma \nonumber\\
=&-\int_{\Omega_1} \nabla p \cdot \nabla \bar q {\rm d} \boldsymbol x
+\int_{\Gamma_h} (\mathscr T p) \bar q {\rm d} \boldsymbol r +\int_{\Gamma_f}
\rho_1 (\boldsymbol n \cdot \partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u) \bar {q} {\rm d}\gamma,
\quad \forall q \in H^1 (\Omega_1) \label{v1}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\int_{\Omega_2}\rho_2 \partial_t^2 (\partial_t \boldsymbol u) \cdot \bar
{\boldsymbol v} {\rm d} \boldsymbol x
=& -\int_{\Omega_2} \left(\mu \nabla { (\partial_t \boldsymbol u)} : \nabla
{\bar{ \boldsymbol v}} + (\lambda+\mu) (\nabla \cdot (\partial_t \boldsymbol u))
(\nabla \cdot \bar {\boldsymbol v}) \right) {\rm d} \boldsymbol x \nonumber\\
&\quad-\int_{\Omega_2} \partial_t \boldsymbol j \cdot \bar {\boldsymbol v} {\rm
d} \boldsymbol x + \int_{\Gamma_f}\big(\boldsymbol \sigma (
\partial_t\boldsymbol
u) \cdot\boldsymbol n\big) \cdot \bar {\boldsymbol v} {\rm d} \gamma \nonumber\\
=&-\int_{\Omega_2} \left(\mu \nabla { (\partial_t\boldsymbol u)} : \nabla
{\bar{ \boldsymbol v}} + (\lambda+\mu) (\nabla \cdot (\partial_t \boldsymbol u))
(\nabla \cdot \bar {\boldsymbol v})
+ (\partial_t\boldsymbol j) \cdot \bar {\boldsymbol v} \right) {\rm d}
\boldsymbol x \nonumber\\
&\quad-\int_{\Gamma_f} (\partial_t p)( \boldsymbol n \cdot \bar {\boldsymbol
v}) {\rm d} \gamma, \quad \forall \boldsymbol v\in H^1_{\Gamma_g}(\Omega_2)^3.
\label{v2}
\end{align}
To show the stability of the solution, we follow the argument in
\cite{Treves1975} but with a careful study of the TBC. The following lemma is
useful for the subsequent analysis.
\begin{lemma}\label{ttp}
Given $\xi \geq 0$ and $p \in H^1 (\Omega_1),$ we have
\begin{align*}
{\rm Re} \int_{\Gamma_h} \int_0^{\xi} \left( \int_0^{t} \mathscr T p (\cdot,
\tau) {\rm d} \tau \right) \bar p (\cdot, t) {\rm d} t {\rm d} \boldsymbol r
\leq 0.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\tilde p$ be the extension of $p$ with respect to $t$ in $\mathbb R$ such
that $\tilde p =0$ outside the interval $[0, \xi].$ We obtain from the
Parseval identity \eqref{PI} and Lemma \ref{tp} that
\begin{align*}
{\rm Re} \int_{\Gamma_h} &\int_0^{\xi}
e^{-2 s_1 t} \left( \int_0^{\tau} \mathscr T p (\cdot, \tau) {\rm d} \tau
\right) \bar p (\cdot, t) {\rm d} t {\rm d} \boldsymbol r\\
& = {\rm Re} \int_{\Gamma_h} \int_0^{\infty} e^{- 2 s_1 t} \left( \int_0^{t}
\mathscr T \tilde p (\cdot, \tau) {\rm d} \tau \right) \bar {\tilde p} (\cdot,
t) {\rm d} t {\rm d} \boldsymbol r\\
&= {\rm Re} \int_{\Gamma_h} \int_0^{\infty} e^{-2 s_1 t} \left( \int_0^t
\mathscr L^{-1} \circ \mathscr{B} \circ \mathscr L
\tilde p (\cdot, \tau) {\rm d} \tau \right) \bar {\tilde p} (\cdot, t) {\rm
d} t{\rm d} \boldsymbol r\\
&={\rm Re} \int_{\Gamma_h} \int_0^{\infty} e^{- 2 s_1 t} \left( \mathscr
L^{-1} \circ (s^{-1} \mathscr{B})
\circ \mathscr L \tilde p (\cdot, t) ~\bar {\tilde p} (\cdot, t) \right)
{\rm d} t {\rm d} \boldsymbol r\\
&=\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm Re} \int_{\Gamma_h} s^{-1}
\mathscr{B}\breve {\tilde p} (\cdot, s) \bar {\breve {\tilde p}} (\cdot, s) {\rm
d} \boldsymbol r {\rm d} s_2\\
&=\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm Re} \langle s^{-1} \mathscr{B}
\breve{\tilde p}, \breve {\tilde p} \rangle_{\Gamma_h} {\rm d} s_2 \leq 0,
\end{align*}
where we have used the fact that
\[
\int_0^{t} p (\cdot, \tau){\rm d} \tau = \mathscr L^{-1} \left( s^{-1} \breve
{p} (\cdot, s) \right).
\]
The proof is completed after taking the limit $s_1 \to 0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
Let $ (p, \boldsymbol u) \in H^1 (\Omega_1) \times H^1_{\Gamma_g} (\Omega_2)^3$
be the solution of \eqref{v1}--\eqref{v2}. Given $ \partial_t \boldsymbol j
\in L^1 \left( 0, T; ~L^2 (\Omega_2)^3 \right),$ for any $T>0,$ we have
\begin{align}
\|p\|_{L^{\infty}\left(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_1) \right)}
&\lesssim T \|\partial_t \boldsymbol j\|_{L^1(0, T; ~L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)},
\label{ess1}\\
\|\boldsymbol u\|_{L^{\infty} (0, T; L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)}
&\lesssim T^2 \|\partial_t \boldsymbol j\|_{L^1(0, T; ~L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)}
\label{ess2}\\
\|p\|_{L^{2}\left(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_1) \right)}
&\lesssim T^{3/2} \|\partial_t \boldsymbol j\|_{L^1(0, T; ~L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)},
\label{ess}\\
\|\boldsymbol u\|_{L^2 (0, T; L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)}&\lesssim
T^{5/2}\|\partial_t \boldsymbol j\|_{L^1(0, T; ~L^2(\Omega_2)^3)}. \label{ess3}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $ 0< \theta < T$ and define an auxiliary function
\begin{align*}
\psi_1 (\boldsymbol x, t) =\int_t^{\theta} p (\boldsymbol x, \tau) {\rm d}
\tau, \quad \boldsymbol x \in \Omega_1, ~~~ 0 \leq t \leq \theta.
\end{align*}
It is clear to note that
\begin{align}\label{F1}
\psi_1(\boldsymbol x, \theta)=0, \quad \partial_t\psi_1(\boldsymbol x, t)=-p(\boldsymbol x, t).
\end{align}
For any $\phi (\boldsymbol x, t) \in L^2 \left( 0, \xi;~ L^2 (\Omega_1)
\right)$, we have
\begin{align}\label{F2}
\int_0^{\theta} \phi (\boldsymbol x, t) \bar {\psi_1} (\boldsymbol x, t) {\rm
d} t= \int_0^{\theta} \left( \int_0^t \phi (\boldsymbol x, \tau) {\rm d} \tau
\right) \bar p (\boldsymbol x, t) {\rm d} t.
\end{align}
Indeed, we have from the integration by parts and \eqref{F1} that
\begin{align*}
\int_0^{\theta}
&\phi (\boldsymbol x, t) \bar \psi_1 (\boldsymbol x, t) {\rm d} t
=\int_0^{\theta} \left( \phi (\boldsymbol x, t) \int_t^{\theta} \bar p
(\boldsymbol x, \tau) {\rm d} \tau \right) {\rm d} t\\
&=\int_0^{\theta}\int_t^{\theta} \bar p (\boldsymbol x, \tau) {\rm d} \tau {\rm
d} \left( \int_0^{t} \phi (\boldsymbol x, \varsigma) {\rm d}\varsigma\right)\\
&=\int_{t}^{\theta} \bar p (\boldsymbol x, \tau) {\rm d} \tau \int_0^{t} \phi
(\boldsymbol x, \varsigma) {\rm d} \varsigma \big|_0^{\theta}
+\int_0^{\theta} \left( \int_0^{t} \phi (\boldsymbol x,\varsigma) {\rm d}
\varsigma \right) \bar p (\boldsymbol x, t) {\rm d} t\\
&=\int_0^{\theta} \left( \int_0^t \phi (\boldsymbol x, \tau) {\rm d} \tau
\right) \bar p (\boldsymbol x, t) {\rm d} t.
\end{align*}
Next, we take the test function $q =\psi_1$ in \eqref{v1} and get
\begin{align}\label{tf}
\int_{\Omega_1} \frac{1}{c^2} \partial_t^2 p\, \bar \psi_1 {\rm d}
\boldsymbol x= -\int_{\Omega_1} \nabla p \cdot \nabla \bar {\psi_1} {\rm d}
\boldsymbol x +\int_{\Gamma_h} (\mathscr T p)\bar \psi_1 {\rm d} \boldsymbol
r\notag\\
+\int_{\Gamma_f} \rho_1(\boldsymbol n \cdot \partial_t^2 \boldsymbol
u) \bar{\psi}_1{\rm d} \gamma.
\end{align}
It follows from \eqref{F1} and the initial conditions \eqref{trp3}
that
\begin{align*}
{\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \int_{\Omega_1}
\frac{1}{c^2} \partial_t^2 p \,\bar \psi_1 {\rm d} \boldsymbol x {\rm d} t
&= {\rm Re} \int_{\Omega_1} \int_0^{\theta} \frac{1}{c^2} \left(\partial_t
\left( \partial_t p \,\bar \psi_1\right) +\partial_t p\, \bar p \right){\rm d}
t{\rm d} \boldsymbol x \\
&={\rm Re} \int_{\Omega_1} \frac{1}{c^2 } \left( \partial_t p \,\bar {\psi}_1
\big|_{0}^{\theta} +\frac{1}{2} |p |^2 \big|_{0} ^{\theta}\right) {\rm d}
\boldsymbol x\\
&= \frac{1}{ 2} \| \frac{1}{c } p (\cdot, \theta)\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_1)}.
\end{align*}
It is easy to verify that
\begin{align*}
{\rm Re} \int_0^{\theta} &\int_{\Gamma_f} \rho_1 ( \boldsymbol n \cdot
\partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u) \bar \psi_1 {\rm d} \gamma {\rm d}t
={\rm Re } \int_{\Gamma_f} \int_0^{\theta} \rho_1 \left( \partial_t (
\boldsymbol n \cdot \partial_t \boldsymbol u\, \bar \psi_1) +
(\boldsymbol n \cdot \partial_t \boldsymbol u) \bar p \right) {\rm d}t {\rm
d}\gamma \\
&={\rm Re}\int_{\Gamma_f} \rho_1 \left( \boldsymbol n \cdot \partial_t
\boldsymbol u\,\bar {\psi}_1 \big|_0^{\theta} \right){\rm d}\gamma
+{\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \int_{\Gamma_f} \rho_1 (\boldsymbol n \cdot \partial_t
\boldsymbol u) \bar p {\rm d} \gamma {\rm d} t\\
&={\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \int_{\Gamma_f} \rho_1 (\boldsymbol n \cdot
\partial_t \boldsymbol u) \bar p {\rm d} \gamma {\rm d} t.
\end{align*}
Integrating \eqref{tf} from $t=0$ to $t=\theta$ and taking the real parts yield
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{2}&\|\frac{1}{c} p (\cdot, \theta)\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_1)} +{\rm Re} \int_0^{\theta}
\int_{\Omega_1} \nabla p \cdot \bar {\psi}_1 {\rm d} \boldsymbol x {\rm d} t
\nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \|\frac{1}{c} p (\cdot, \theta)\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_1)}
+\frac{1}{2} \int_{\Omega_1} \left| \int_0^{\theta} \nabla p (\cdot, t) {\rm d}
t \right|^2 {\rm d} \boldsymbol x \nonumber\\
&={\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \langle \mathscr T p, \psi_1 \rangle_{\Gamma_h} {\rm
d }t +{\rm Re} \int_0^{\theta} \int_{\Gamma_f} \rho_1 (\boldsymbol n \cdot
\partial_t^2 \boldsymbol u)\bar {\psi}_1 {\rm d} \gamma {\rm d} t \nonumber\\
&= {\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \langle \mathscr T p, \psi_1 \rangle_{\Gamma_h} {\rm
d }t +{\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \int_{\Gamma_f} \rho_1 (\boldsymbol n \cdot
\partial_t \boldsymbol u) \bar p {\rm d} \gamma {\rm d} t.\label {en1}
\end{align}
We define another auxiliary function
\[
\boldsymbol \psi_2 (\boldsymbol x, t) = \int_t^{\theta}
\partial_{\tau}\boldsymbol u (\boldsymbol x, \tau) {\rm d} \tau, \quad
\boldsymbol x \in \Omega_2,~~~0 \leq t \leq \theta < T.
\]
Clearly, we have
\begin{align}\label{F3}
\boldsymbol \psi_2 (\boldsymbol x, \theta) =0, \quad \partial_t \boldsymbol
\psi_2 (\boldsymbol x, t) = -\partial_t\boldsymbol u (\boldsymbol x, t).
\end{align}
Using the similar proof as that for \eqref{F2}, for any $\boldsymbol \phi
(\boldsymbol x, t) \in L^2 \big(0, \xi;~ L^2 (\Omega_2)^2 \big)$, we may
show that
\begin{align}\label{F4}
\int_0^{\theta} \boldsymbol \phi (\boldsymbol x, t) \cdot \bar {\boldsymbol
\psi}_2 (\boldsymbol x, t) {\rm d} t=
\int_0^{\theta} \left( \int_0^t \boldsymbol \phi (\boldsymbol x, \tau) {\rm d}
\tau\right) \cdot \partial_t\bar { \boldsymbol u} (\boldsymbol x, t) {\rm d} t.
\end{align}
Taking the test function $\boldsymbol v = \boldsymbol \psi_2$ in \eqref{v2}, we
can get
\begin{align}\label{tf2}
\int_{\Omega_2} \rho_2 \partial_t^2 (\partial_t \boldsymbol u) \cdot \bar
{\boldsymbol \psi}_2 {\rm d} \boldsymbol x =
-\int_{\Omega_2} \big( \mu \nabla (\partial_t \boldsymbol u) : \nabla {\bar
{\boldsymbol \psi}}_2 + (\lambda + \mu) (\nabla \cdot (\partial_t\boldsymbol u))
(\nabla \cdot \bar {\boldsymbol \psi}_2)\notag\\
+ \partial_t \boldsymbol j \cdot \bar {\boldsymbol \psi}_2 \big) {\rm d}
\boldsymbol x-\int_{\Gamma_f} (\partial_t p) (\boldsymbol n \cdot \bar {
\boldsymbol \psi}_2) {\rm d} \gamma.
\end{align}
It follows from \eqref{F3} and the initial condition in \eqref {TRP} that
\begin{align*}
{\rm Re} \int_0^{\theta} \int_{\Omega_2}
\rho_2 \partial_t^2 ( \partial_t \boldsymbol u) \cdot \bar {\boldsymbol \psi
}_2 {\rm d} \boldsymbol x {\rm d} t
=&{\rm Re} \int_{\Omega_2} \int_0^{\theta} \rho_2 \left( \partial_t
(\partial^2_t \boldsymbol u \cdot \bar {\boldsymbol \psi}_2)
+\partial^2_t \boldsymbol u \cdot \partial_t\bar {\boldsymbol u} \right) {\rm
d} t{\rm d} \boldsymbol x \\
=& {\rm Re} \int_{\Omega_2} \rho_2\left( (\partial^2_t \boldsymbol u \cdot
\bar {\boldsymbol \psi}_2 ) \big|_{0}^{\theta}+
\frac{1}{2 } |\partial_t \boldsymbol u|^2 \big|_0^{\theta}\right) {\rm d}
\boldsymbol x \\
=& \frac{\rho_2}{2} \| \partial_t \boldsymbol u (\cdot,~ \theta)\|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
{\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \int_{\Gamma_f} (\partial_t p )( \boldsymbol n \cdot
\bar {\boldsymbol \psi}_2) {\rm d} \gamma {\rm d} t
&={\rm Re} \int_{\Gamma_f} \int_0^{\theta} \left( \partial_t \left( p
\boldsymbol n \cdot \bar {\boldsymbol \psi}_2 \right)
+ p (\boldsymbol n \cdot \partial_t \bar {\boldsymbol u}) \right){\rm d}
t{\rm d} \gamma\\
&={\rm Re}\int_{\Gamma_f} \left( p \boldsymbol n \cdot \bar {\boldsymbol
\psi}_2 \right) \big|_0^{\theta} {\rm d} \gamma +
{\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \int_{\Gamma_f} p (\boldsymbol n \cdot \partial_t \bar
{\boldsymbol u}) {\rm d} \gamma {\rm d} t\\
&={\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \int_{\Gamma_f} p (\boldsymbol n \cdot \partial_t
\bar {\boldsymbol u}) {\rm d} \gamma {\rm d} t.
\end{align*}
Integrating \eqref{tf2} from $t=0$ to $t=\theta$ and taking the real parts yield
\begin{align}
\frac{\rho_2}{2} &\| \partial_t \boldsymbol u (\cdot, \theta)\|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} +{\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta}\int_{\Omega_2} \big( \mu \nabla
(\partial_t \boldsymbol u (\cdot, t)) : \nabla \bar {\boldsymbol \psi}_2 (\cdot,
t)\notag\\
& +(\lambda+\mu) \left(\nabla \cdot (\partial_t \boldsymbol u (\cdot, t)))
(\nabla \cdot \bar {\boldsymbol \psi}_2 (\cdot, t) \right)\big) {\rm d}
\boldsymbol x{\rm d }t \nonumber\\
=&\frac{\rho_2}{2}\| \partial_t\boldsymbol u (\cdot, \theta)\|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^2}
+\frac{1}{2} \int_{\Omega_2} \bigg( \mu \left| \int_0^{\theta} \nabla
(\partial_t \boldsymbol u (\cdot, t)) {\rm d} t \right|^2_{F}\notag\\
&+ (\lambda+\mu) \left| \int_0^{\theta} \nabla \cdot (\partial_t \boldsymbol u
(\cdot, t)) {\rm d} t \right|^2\bigg) {\rm d} \boldsymbol x \nonumber\\
=& - {\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \int_{\Omega_2} \partial_t \boldsymbol j \cdot
\bar {\boldsymbol \psi}_2 {\rm d} \boldsymbol x {\rm d}t
-{\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \int_{\Gamma_f} p (\boldsymbol n \cdot \partial_t \bar
{\boldsymbol u}) {\rm d} \gamma {\rm d} t, \label{en2}
\end{align}
where
\[
\left| \int_0^{\theta} \nabla ( \partial_t \boldsymbol u (\cdot, t)) {\rm d}
t\right|^2_{F}: = \int_0^{\theta} \nabla (\partial_t \boldsymbol u (\cdot, t))
{\rm d }t :
\int_0^{\theta} \nabla (\partial_t \bar {\boldsymbol u} (\cdot, t)) {\rm d} t.
\]
Multiplying \eqref{en2} by $\rho_1$ and adding it to \eqref{en1} give
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{2}
&\|\frac{1}{c} p (\cdot, \theta)\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_1)} +\frac{1}{2}
\int_{\Omega_1} \left| \int_0^{\theta} \nabla p (\cdot, t) {\rm d} t \right|^2
{\rm d} \boldsymbol x
+ \frac{\rho_1 \rho_2}{2}\| \partial_t\boldsymbol u (\cdot, \theta)\|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{\rho_1}{2} \int_{\Omega_2} \left( \mu \left| \int_0^{\theta} \nabla
(\partial_t \boldsymbol u (\cdot, t)) {\rm d} t \right|^2_{F} +
(\lambda+\mu) \left| \int_0^{\theta} \nabla \cdot (\partial_t \boldsymbol u
(\cdot, t)) {\rm d} t \right|^2\right) {\rm d} \boldsymbol x \nonumber\\
=&{\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \langle \mathscr T p, \psi_1 \rangle_{\Gamma_h} {\rm
d }t +{\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \int_{\Gamma_f} \rho_1 (\boldsymbol n \cdot
\partial_t \boldsymbol u)\bar p {\rm d} \gamma {\rm d} t\nonumber\\
&- {\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \int_{\Omega_2} \rho_1(\partial_t \boldsymbol j
\cdot \bar {\boldsymbol \psi}_2) {\rm d} \boldsymbol x {\rm d}t
-{\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \int_{\Gamma_f} \rho_1 p (\boldsymbol n \cdot
\partial_t \bar {\boldsymbol u}) {\rm d} \gamma {\rm d} t \nonumber\\
=&{\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \langle \mathscr T p, \psi_1 \rangle_{\Gamma_h} {\rm
d }t - {\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \int_{\Omega_2} \rho_1(\partial_t \boldsymbol j
\cdot\bar {\boldsymbol \psi}_2) {\rm d} \boldsymbol x {\rm d}t.\label{int}
\end{align}
In what follows, we estimate the two terms on the right-hand side of \eqref{int}
separately. Using Lemma \ref{ttp} and \eqref{F2}, we obtain
\begin{align}
{\rm Re} \int_0^{\theta} \langle \mathscr T p, \psi_1 \rangle_{\Gamma_h} {\rm d
}t &= {\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta}\int_{\Gamma_h} (\mathscr T p) \bar {\psi}_1 {\rm
d}\boldsymbol r {\rm d} t \nonumber\\
&={\rm Re} \int_{\Gamma_h}\int_0^{\theta} \left( \int_0^t \mathscr T p (\cdot,
\tau) {\rm d} \tau \right) \bar p (\cdot, t) {\rm d} t{\rm d}\boldsymbol r
\leq 0.\label{p1}
\end{align}
For $0 \leq t \leq \theta \leq T$, we have from \eqref{F4} that
\begin{align}
{\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \int_{\Omega_2}& -\rho_1(\partial_t \boldsymbol j \cdot
\bar {\boldsymbol \psi}_2) {\rm d} \boldsymbol x {\rm d}t
= {\rho_1}{\rm Re}\int_{\Omega_2} \int_0^{\theta} \left( \int_0^t- \partial_t
\boldsymbol j (\cdot, \tau) {\rm d} \tau \right) \cdot
\partial_t \bar {\boldsymbol u} (\cdot, t) {\rm d}t {\rm d} \boldsymbol x
\nonumber\\
&= \rho_1 {\rm Re}\int_0^{\theta} \int_0^t \int_{\Omega_2} - \partial_t
\boldsymbol j (\cdot, \tau) \cdot \partial_t \bar {\boldsymbol u} (\cdot, t)
{\rm d} \boldsymbol x {\rm d}\tau {\rm d} t \nonumber\\
&\leq \rho_1 \int_0^{\theta} \left( \int_0^{t} \|\partial_t \boldsymbol j
(\cdot, \tau)\|_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} {\rm d }\tau\right)
\| \partial_t \boldsymbol u (\cdot, t)\|_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^2} {\rm d} t
\nonumber\\
&\leq \rho_1 \int_0^{\theta} \left( \int_0^{\theta} \|\partial_t \boldsymbol j
(\cdot, t)\|_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} {\rm d }t\right)
\| \partial_t \boldsymbol u (\cdot, t)\|_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} {\rm d} t
\nonumber\\
&\leq \rho_1 \left( \int_0^{\theta} \|\partial_t \boldsymbol j (\cdot,
t)\|_{L^2(\Omega_2)^3} {\rm d }t\right)
\left( \int_0^{\theta} \|\partial_t \boldsymbol u (\cdot, t)\|_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} {\rm d }t\right). \label{p2}
\end{align}
Substituting \eqref{p1} and \eqref{p2} into \eqref{int}, we have for any $\theta\in [0,T]$ that
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{2}&\|\frac{1}{c} p (\cdot, \theta)\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_1)}
+ \frac{\rho_1 \rho_2}{2}\| \partial_t\boldsymbol u (\cdot, \theta)\|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3} \nonumber\\
\leq &\frac{1}{2}
\|\frac{1}{c} p (\cdot, \theta)\|^2_{L^2 (\Omega_1)} +\frac{1}{2}
\int_{\Omega_1} \left| \int_0^{\theta} \nabla p (\cdot, t) {\rm d} t \right|^2
{\rm d} \boldsymbol x
+ \frac{\rho_1 \rho_2}{2}\| \partial_t\boldsymbol u (\cdot, \theta)\|^2_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^3}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{\rho_1}{2} \int_{\Omega_2} \left( \mu \left| \int_0^{\theta} \nabla
(\partial_t \boldsymbol u (\cdot, t)) {\rm d} t \right|^2_{F} +
(\lambda+\mu) \left| \int_0^{\theta} \nabla \cdot (\partial_t \boldsymbol u
(\cdot, t)) {\rm d} t \right|^2\right) {\rm d} \boldsymbol x \nonumber\\
\leq & \rho_1\left( \int_0^{\theta} \|\partial_t \boldsymbol j (\cdot,
t)\|_{L^2 (\Omega_2)^3} {\rm d }t\right)
\left( \int_0^{\theta} \|\partial_t \boldsymbol u (\cdot, t)\|_{L^2
(\Omega_2)^2} {\rm d }t\right).\label{p3}
\end{align}
Taking the $L^{\infty}$ norm with respect to $\theta$ on both sides of
\eqref{p3} yields
\begin{align*}
\|p\|^2_{L^{\infty}\left(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_1) \right)}& +\|\partial_t
\boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^{\infty}\left(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_2)^3 \right)}\\
&\lesssim T \left( \|\partial_t \boldsymbol j\|_{L^1(0, T; ~L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)}
\|\partial_t \boldsymbol u\|_{L^{\infty}\left(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_2)^3
\right)}\right)
\end{align*}
Applying the Young inequality to the above inequality, we get
\begin{align}\label{yi}
\|p\|^2_{L^{\infty}(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_1))} +\|\partial_t \boldsymbol
u\|^2_{L^{\infty}(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_2)^3 )}\lesssim T^2 \|\partial_t
\boldsymbol j\|^2_{L^1(0, T; ~L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)}.
\end{align}
It follows from the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality that
\begin{align*}
\|p\|_{L^{\infty} (0, T; L^2 (\Omega_1))} &\leq \|p\|_{L^{\infty}\left(0, T;~
L^2(\Omega_1) \right)} +\|\partial_t \boldsymbol u\|_{L^{\infty}\left(0, T;~
L^2(\Omega_2)^3 \right)}\\
&\lesssim T \|\partial_t \boldsymbol j\|_{L^1(0, T; ~L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)},
\end{align*}
which gives the estimate \eqref{ess1}.
For the elastic displacement $\boldsymbol u$, using the epsilon inequality
gives
\begin{align*}
\| \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^{\infty} (0, T; L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)}& =\int_0^{t}
\partial_{\tau} \| \boldsymbol u (\cdot, \tau)\|^2_{L^{\infty} (0, T; L^2
(\Omega_2)^3)} {\rm d \tau}\\
& \leq \epsilon T \| \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^{\infty} (0, T; L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)}+
\frac{T}{\epsilon}
\|\partial_t \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^{\infty}\left(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_2)^3
\right)}.
\end{align*}
Choosing $\epsilon =\frac{1}{2T}$, we have from \eqref{yi} that
\begin{align*}
\| \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^{\infty} (0, T; L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)}
&\lesssim T^2 \|\partial_t \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^{\infty}\left(0, T;~
L^2(\Omega_2)^3 \right)}\\
&\lesssim T^2 \left( \|p\|^2_{L^{\infty}\left(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_1) \right)}
+\|\partial_t \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^{\infty}\left(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_2)^3 \right)}
\right)\\
& \lesssim T^4 \|\partial_t \boldsymbol j\|^2_{L^1(0, T; ~L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)},
\end{align*}
which implies the estimate \eqref{ess2}.
Integrating \eqref{p3} with respect to $\theta$ from $0$ to $T$ and using the
Cauchy--Schwarz inequality, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\|p\|^2_{L^{2}\left(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_1) \right)}& +\|\partial_t \boldsymbol
u\|^2_{L^{2}\left(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_2)^3 \right)}\\
&\lesssim T^{3/2} \left( \|\partial_t \boldsymbol j\|_{L^1(0, T; ~L^2
(\Omega_2)^3)} \|\partial_t \boldsymbol u\|_{L^{2}\left(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_2)^3
\right)}\right).
\end{align*}
Using Young's inequality again to the above equation yields
\begin{align}\label{yi2}
\|p\|^2_{L^{2}\left(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_1) \right)} +\|\partial_t \boldsymbol
u\|^2_{L^{2}\left(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_2)^3 \right)}
\lesssim T^3 \|\partial_t \boldsymbol j\|^2_{L^1(0, T; ~L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)}.
\end{align}
It follows from the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality that
\begin{align*}
\|p\|_{L^{2}\left(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_1) \right)}
&\leq \|p\|_{L^{2}\left(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_1) \right)} +\|\partial_t
\boldsymbol u\|_{L^{2}\left(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_2)^3 \right)} \\
&\lesssim T^{3/2} \|\partial_t \boldsymbol j\|_{L^1(0, T; ~L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)},
\end{align*}
which shows the estimate \eqref{ess}.
Taking $\epsilon =\frac{1}{2T}$ and applying the epsilon inequality, we have
\begin{align*}
\| \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2 (0, T; L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)}& =\int_0^{t}
\partial_{\tau} \| \boldsymbol u (\cdot, \tau)\|^2_{L^2(0, T; L^2
(\Omega_2)^3)} {\rm d \tau}\\
& \leq \frac{1}{2} \| \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2 (0, T; L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)}+ 2T^2
\|\partial_t \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2\left(0, T;~ L^2(\Omega_2)^3
\right)},
\end{align*}
It follows from the above inequality and \eqref{yi2} that
\begin{align*}
\| \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2 (0, T; L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)}
\lesssim T^2 \|\partial_t \boldsymbol u\|^2_{L^2\left(0, T;~
L^2(\Omega_2)^3 \right)}\lesssim T^5
\|\partial_t \boldsymbol j\|^2_{L^1(0, T; ~L^2 (\Omega_2)^3)},
\end{align*}
which implies the estimate \eqref{ess3}.
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusion}\label{cl}
In this paper we have studied the time-domain acoustic-elastic interaction
problem in an unbounded structure in the three-dimensional space. The problem
models the wave propagation in a two-layered medium consisting of the air/fluid
and the solid due to an active source located in the solid. We reduce the
scattering problem into an initial-boundary value problem by using the exact
TBC. We establish the well-posedness and the stability for the variational
problem in the $s$-domain. In the time-domain, we show that the reduced
problem has a unique weak solution by using the energy method. The main
ingredients of the proofs are the Laplace transform, the Lax--Milgram lemma,
and the Parseval identity. We also obtain a priori estimates with explicit time
dependence for the quantities of acoustic wave pressure and elastic wave
displacement by taking special test functions to the time-domain variational
problem.
|
\section{Introduction}
In the long wave limit
there exists a zoo of amplitude equations which can be derived via multiple scaling analysis
for various dispersive wave systems with conserved quantities. Generically,
among these amplitude equations there are only three nonlinear ones which are
independent of the small perturbation parameter, namely the Korteweg-de Vries (KdV) equation,
the inviscid Burgers equation,
and the
Whitham system.
It is the purpose of this paper to discuss the validity of these approximations
for a spatially periodic Boussinesq model with non-small contrast.
\subsection{The formal approximations in the spatially homogenous situation}
The KdV equation occurs as an amplitude equation in the description of small spatially and temporally modulations
of long waves in various dispersive wave systems. Examples are the water wave problem or equations
from plasma physics, cf. \cite{CS98}.
For the Boussinesq equation
\begin{equation}
\label{const}
\partial_t^2 u(x,t)
=
\partial_x^2 u(x,t)
-\partial_x^4 u(x,t)
+\partial_x^2(u(x,t)^2),
\end{equation}
with $ x \in \mathbb{R} $, $ t \in \mathbb{R} $, and $ u(x,t) \in \mathbb{R} $, by the ansatz
\begin{equation}
\label{ansatz}
u(x,t) = \varepsilon^2 A(X,T) ,
\end{equation}
where $ X = \varepsilon(x-t) $, $T = \varepsilon^3 t $, $ A(X,T) \in \mathbb{R} $, and $ 0 < \varepsilon \ll 1 $ a small perturbation parameter, the KdV equation
\begin{equation}
\label{constkdv1}
\partial_T A =
\frac{1}{2}\partial_X^3 A
-\frac{1}{2}\partial_X(A^2)
\end{equation}
can be derived by inserting \eqref{ansatz} into \eqref{const} and by equating the coefficients
in front of $ \varepsilon^6 $ to zero.
This ansatz can be generalized to
\begin{equation}
u(x,t) = \varepsilon^{\alpha} A(X,T) ,
\end{equation}
where $ X = \varepsilon(x-t) $, $T = \varepsilon^{1+\alpha} t $, and $ A(X,T) \in \mathbb{R} $,
with $ \alpha > 0 $. For $ \alpha > 2 $ the Airy equation
$ \partial_T A = \frac{1}{2}\partial_X^3 A $ occurs. The KdV equation is recovered for $ \alpha = 2 $,
and for $ \alpha \in (0,2) $ the inviscid Burgers equation
\begin{equation}
\label{constburgers1}
\partial_T A =
-\frac{1}{2}\partial_X(A^2)
\end{equation}
is obtained.
There is another long wave limit which leads to an $ \varepsilon $-independent non-trivial amplitude equation.
With the ansatz
\begin{equation}
\label{ansatzwhit}
u(x,t) = U(X,T) ,
\end{equation}
where $ X = \varepsilon x $, $T = \varepsilon t $, and $ U(X,T) \in \mathbb{R} $, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{constwhit1}
\partial_T^2 U =
\partial_X^2 U
+\partial_X^2(U^2)
\end{equation}
which can be written as a system of conservation laws
\begin{equation}
\label{constwhit2}
\partial_T U = \partial_X V , \qquad \partial_T V =
\partial_X U
+\partial_X(U^2).
\end{equation}
In the following both, \eqref{constwhit1} and \eqref{constwhit2}, are called the Whitham system, cf. \cite{Wh74}.
\subsection{Justification by error estimates}
Estimates that the formal KdV approximation and true solutions of the original system stay close together over the natural KdV time scale
are a non-trivial task since solutions of order $ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^2) $ have to be shown to be existent on an $ \mathcal{O}(1/\varepsilon^3) $
time scale.
For \eqref{const} an approximation result is formulated as follows.
\begin{theorem} \label{th11}
Let $s\geq 0$ and let $A \in C([0,T_0],H^{5+s})$ be a solution of the KdV equation \eqref{constkdv1}. Then there exist $ \varepsilon_0 > 0 $ and $ C > 0 $ such that
for all $ \varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_0)$ we have solutions $ u $ of \eqref{const} with
$$
\sup_{t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^3]} \| u(\cdot,t) - \varepsilon^2 A(\varepsilon(\cdot-t), \varepsilon^3 t ) \|_{H^{1+s}} \leq C \varepsilon^{7/2}.
$$
\end{theorem}
There are two fundamentally different approaches
to prove such an approximation result.
For analytic initial conditions of the KdV equation a Cauchy-Kowalevskaya
based approach can be chosen, see \cite{KN86} with the comments given in \cite{Schn95ICIAM} for the water wave problem.
Working in spaces of analytic functions gives some artificial smoothing which allows to gain the
missing order w.r.t. $ \varepsilon $ between
the inverse of the amplitude of $ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^2)$ and the time scale
of $ \mathcal{O}(1/\varepsilon^3)$ via the derivative
in front of the nonlinear terms in the KdV equation.
This approach is very robust
and works without a detailed analysis of the underlying problem, cf. \cite{CDS14} for another example, but gives not optimal results.
For initial conditions in Sobolev spaces the
underying idea to gain such estimates is
conceptually rather simple,
namely the construction of a suitable chosen
energy which include the terms
of order $ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^2)$ in the
equation for the error, such that for the energy
finally $ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^3 t)$ growth rates
occur. However, the method is less robust
since for every single original system a
different energy occurs and the major difficulty is
the construction of this energy.
Estimates that the formal KdV approximation and true solutions of the different formulations
of the water wave problem stay close together over the natural KdV time scale have been shown for instance in \cite{Cr85,SW00,SW02,BCL05,Du12} using this approach.
Another example is the justification of the KdV
approximation for modulations of periodic waves
in the NLS equation, cf. \cite{CR10}.
For \eqref{const} the energy approach is rather short and very instructive for the subsequent analysis.
Therefore, we recall it in Section \ref{sec2}.
Interestingly, it turns out that the proofs given for the KdV approximations transfer more or less line for
line into proofs for the justification of the
inviscid Burgers equation and of the Whitham system.
Since only the scaling has to be adapted, whenever
a KdV approximation result holds also an
inviscid Burgers and Whitham
approximation result can be established.
This will be explained in detail in Section \ref{sec2}.
As above such approximation results are a non-trivial task since solutions of order $ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{\alpha}) $ have to be shown to be existent on an $ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{1+\alpha}) $
time scale. For the inviscid Burgers equation the
formulation of the approximation result
goes along the lines of Theorem \ref{th11}. However, due to the notational complexity in achieving in general
the estimates for the residual
(the terms which do not cancel
after inserting the approximation into \eqref{Boussinesq}),
in Remark \ref{alphaville} we restrict ourselves to the case $ \alpha = 1 $.
\begin{theorem} \label{th12}
Let $s\geq 0$, $\alpha = 1 $ and let $A \in C([0,T_0],H^{3+s})$ be a solution of the inviscid Burgers equation \eqref{constburgers1}. Then there exist $ \varepsilon_0 > 0 $ and $ C > 0 $ such that
for all $ \varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_0) $ we have solutions $ u $ of \eqref{const} with
$$
\sup_{t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^2]} \| u(\cdot,t) - \varepsilon A(\varepsilon(\cdot-t), \varepsilon^2 t ) \|_{H^{1+s}} \leq C \varepsilon^{(3+2 \alpha)/2}.
$$
\end{theorem}
Since for the Whitham approximation solutions of order
$ \mathcal{O}(1)$ are considered some smallness
condition is needed such that the used energy
allows us to estimate the associated Sobolev norm.
For \eqref{const} a possible Whitham approximation result is formulated as follows.
\begin{theorem} \label{th11whit}
Let $s\geq 0$. There exists a $ C_1 > 0 $ such that the
following holds. Let $U \in C([0,T_0],H^{3+s})$ be a solution of \eqref{constwhit1}
with
$$ \sup_{T \in [0,T_0]} \| U(\cdot,T) \|_{H^{3+s}} \leq C_1 .$$
Then there exist $ \varepsilon_0 > 0 $ and $ C > 0 $ such that
for all $ \varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_0)$ we have solutions $ u $ of \eqref{const} with
$$
\sup_{t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon]} \| u(\cdot,t) - U(\varepsilon \cdot, \varepsilon t ) \|_{H^{1+s}} \leq C \varepsilon^{3/2}.
$$
\end{theorem}
The Whitham system for the water wave problem
coincides with the shallow water wave equations
which have been justified for the water wave problem
without surface tension
in \cite{Ov76,Ig07}.
A Whitham approximation result
that the periodic wave trains of the NLS equation
are approximated by the Whitham system can be
found in \cite{DS09}.
\subsection{The spatially periodic situation}
The last years have seen some first attempts to justify the KdV equation in periodic media.
It has been justified in \cite{Ig07} for the water wave problem over a periodic bottom in the KdV scaling, i.e., with long wave oscillations of
the bottom of magnitude $ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^2) $ varying on a spatial scale of order
$ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{-1}) $.
The same result can be found in \cite{Ch09}
where general bottom topographies of small amplitude have been handled.
The result is based on \cite{Ch07}
where other amplitude systems have been justified.
This situation can be handled as perturbation
of the spatially homogeneous case.
In case of oscillations of the bottom of magnitude $ \mathcal{O}(1) $ varying on a spatial scale of order $ \mathcal{O}(1) $, no approximation result
can be found in the existing literature.
As a first attempt to solve this question for the water wave problem we consider
a spatially periodic Boussinesq equation
\begin{align}
\label{Boussinesq}
\partial_t^2 u(x,t)
= &
\partial_x(a(x)\partial_x u(x,t)) \\ &
-\partial_x^2(b(x)\partial_x^2u(x,t) )
+\partial_x(c(x)\partial_x(u(x,t)^2)), \nonumber
\end{align}
with $ x \in \mathbb{R} $, $ t \geq 0 $, $ u(x,t) \in \mathbb{R} $, and smooth $ x $-dependent
$ 2 \pi $-spatially periodic coefficients $ a $, $ b $, and $ c $ satisfying
$$
\inf_{x \in \mathbb{R}} a(x) > 0 \quad \textrm{and} \quad
\inf_{x \in \mathbb{R}} b(x)>0.
$$
For this equation we derive the KdV equation
by making a Bloch mode expansion of
\eqref{Boussinesq}. The KdV approximation describes
the modes which in Figure \ref{fig:example} are contained
in the circles.
We prove an approximation result which is formulated
in Theorem \ref{main_theorem}.
It guarantees that the KdV equation makes correct predictions about the dynamics of the spatially periodic Boussinesq model \eqref{Boussinesq}
over the natural KdV time scale.
The presented result is the first justification result of the KdV approximation
for a dispersive nonlinear PDE posed in a spatially periodic medium of non-small contrast.
For linear systems this limit has been considered independently in \cite{DLS14,DLS15}.
In order to make the residual small an improved approximation
has to be constructed.
Since this construction is not the main purpose of this paper
we additionally assume
{\bf (SYM)}
the coefficient functions
$$
a= a(x), \quad b= b(x) , \quad \textrm{and} \quad c= c(x) \quad \textrm{are even w.r.t. } x.
$$
As in the spatially homogeneous situation
it turns out that the proof given for the KdV approximation transfers more or less line for
line into proofs for the justification of the approximation via the
inviscid Burgers equation and of the Whitham system.
The associated approximation results are formulated in Theorem \ref{main_theoremburgers}
and Theorem \ref{main_theoremwhitham}.
The paper was originally intended as the next step in generalizing a method
which has been developed in \cite{CS11} for the justification of the KdV approximation
in situations when the KdV modes are resonant to other long wave modes.
The method had already successfully been
applied in justifying the KdV approximation for the poly-atomic FPU problem in \cite{CCPS12}.
The qualitative difference in justifying the KdV equation for the spatially periodic Boussinesq equation in contrast to \cite{CS11,CCPS12} is that
for fixed Bloch respectively Fourier wave number
the presented problem is infinite dimensional. \cite{CS11,CCPS12} corresponds to the middle panel of Figure \ref{fig:example} where the spatially periodic Boussinesq equation
corresponds to the right panel of Figure \ref{fig:example}.
As a consequence the normal form transform which is a major part
of the proofs of \cite{CS11,CCPS12} would be more demanding from an analytic point of view. In the justification of the Whitham system with the approach of \cite{CS11,CCPS12}
infinitely many normal form transform\textcolor{red}{s} have to be performed \cite{DSS16}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{figur1.pdf} \qquad
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{figur2.pdf}
\qquad
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{figur3.pdf}
\caption{The left panel shows the curves of eigenvalues over the Fourier wave numbers
as it appears for the water wave problem \cite{Cr85,SW00,SW02,BCL05,Ig07,Du12}.
The middle panel shows the finitely many curves of eigenvalues as they appear for instance for the poly-atomic
FPU system \cite{CS11,CCPS12}. The right panel shows the infinitely many curves of eigenvalues
over the Bloch wave numbers
as it appears for the spatially periodic Boussinesq model \eqref{Boussinesq},
the water wave problem over a periodic bottom topography, or for the linearization
around a periodic wave in dispersive systems.
Since the Fourier transform of $ \varepsilon^2 A(\varepsilon x) $ is given by
$ \varepsilon^2 \varepsilon^{-1} \widehat{A}( x/\varepsilon) $
the KdV equations describe the modes at the wave numbers $ k = 0 $
with the vanishing eigenvalues which are contained in the circles. One of the two curves in the circle describes wave packets moving to the left, the other curve
wave packets moving to the right.}
\label{fig:example}
\end{figure}
Interestingly, for the spatially periodic Boussinesq equation \eqref{Boussinesq} there exists
an energy in physical space
which allowed us
to incorporate the normal form transforms into the energy estimates.
This energy approach is presented in the following.
\medskip
{\bf Notation.} Constants which can be chosen independently of the small perturbation parameter $ 0 < \varepsilon \ll 1 $
are denoted with the same symbol $ C $.
We write $ \int $ for $ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} $. The Fourier transform of a function $ u $ is denoted with $ \widehat{u} $.
The Bloch transform of a function $ u $ is denoted with $ \widetilde{u} $ and this tool is recalled in Appendix \ref{leutkirch}.
We introduce the norm $ \| \cdot \|_{L^2_s} $ by
$$
\| \widehat{u} \|_{L^2_s}^2 = \int | \widehat{u}(k) |^2 (1+k^2)^s dk
$$
and define the Sobolev norm $ \| u \|_{H^s} = \| \widehat{u} \|_{L^2_s} $, but use also equivalent versions.
\medskip
{\bf Acknowledgement.}
The authors are grateful to Florent Chazel for helping us to understand the existing literature.
Moreover, we would like to thank Martina Chirilus-Bruckner for a number of helpful discussions.
The paper is partially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
under the grant Schn520/9-1.
\section{The spatially homogeneous case}
\label{sec2}
It is the goal of this section to give a simple proof for Theorem \ref{th11}, Theorem \ref{th12}, and Theorem \ref{th11whit} using the energy method.
The proof will be the basis of the subsequent analysis.
All three cases can be handled with the same approach.
The residual
$$
\mathrm{Res}(u) = -\partial_t^2 u(x,t)
+
\partial_x^2 u(x,t)
-\partial_x^4 u(x,t)
+\partial_x^2(u(x,t)^2)
$$
quantifies how much a function $ u $ fails to satisfy the Boussinesq model \eqref{const}.
For the KdV approximation \eqref{ansatz} abbreviated with $ \varepsilon^2 \Psi $
we find
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathrm{Res}(\varepsilon^2 \Psi) & = & - \varepsilon^4 c^2 \partial_X^2 A - 2 \varepsilon^6 \partial_T \partial_X A
- \varepsilon^8 \partial_T^2 A \\ && + \varepsilon^4 \partial_X^2 A - \varepsilon^6 \partial_X^4 A
+ \varepsilon^6 \partial_X^2 (A^2) \\ & = & - \varepsilon^8 \partial_T^2 A
\end{eqnarray*}
if we choose $ A $ to satisfy the KdV equation \eqref{constkdv1}.
Therefore, we have
\begin{lemma}
Let $s\geq 0$ and let $A \in C([0,T_0],H^{5+s})$
be a solution of the KdV equation \eqref{constkdv1}.
Then there exist $ \varepsilon_0 > 0 $, $ C_{\rm res} $ such that for all $ \varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_0) $ we have
$$
\sup_{t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^3]} \| \partial_x^{s-1} \mathrm{Res}( \varepsilon^2 \Psi(\cdot,t,\varepsilon) ) \|_{L^2}
\leq C_{\rm res} \varepsilon^{(13+2s)/2}.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using the KdV equation allows us to write
\begin{eqnarray*}
4 \partial_T^2 A & = & - 2 \partial_T ( \partial_X^3 A + \partial_X (A^2))
= - 2 ( \partial_X^3 \partial_T A + 2 \partial_X (A \partial_T A))\\
&=&\partial_X^3 (\partial_X^3 A + \partial_X (A^2)) +2 \partial_X (A (\partial_X^3 A + \partial_X (A^2))).
\end{eqnarray*}
This shows that
$A(\cdot,T) \in H^{6}$ is necessary to estimate the residual in $ L^2 $. The formal error of order $ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^8) $ is reduced by a factor $ \varepsilon^{-1/2} $ due to the scaling properties
of the $ L^2 $-norm. Moreover,
due to the representation of $ \partial_T^2 A $ as a spatial derivative, below,
we can apply $ \partial_x^{-1} = \varepsilon^{-1}\partial_X^{-1} $ to the residual terms which however loses another factor $ \varepsilon^{-1} $.
\end{proof}
Similarly, for the Whitham approximation \eqref{ansatzwhit} abbreviated with $ \varepsilon^2 \Psi $ we find
$
\textrm{Res}( \Psi) = - \varepsilon^4 \partial_X^4 U
$
if we choose $ U $ to satisfy the Whitham system \eqref{constwhit1}.
Hence, for an estimate in $ L^2 $
we need $U\in H^{4}$. Exactly as above we have
\begin{lemma}
Let $s\geq 0$ and let $A \in C([0,T_0],H^{3+s})$
be a solution of the Whitham system \eqref{constwhit1}.
Then there exist $ \varepsilon_0 > 0 $, $ C_{\rm res} $ such that for all $ \varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_0) $ we have
$$
\sup_{t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon]} \| \partial_x^{s-1} \mathrm{Res}( \Psi(\cdot,t,\varepsilon) ) \|_{L^2}
\leq C_{\rm res} \varepsilon^{(5+2s)/2}.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark} \label{alphaville} {\rm
For the inviscid Burgers equation the residual becomes too large with the simple ansatz \eqref{ansatz}. However,
by adding
higher order terms to the approximation \eqref{ansatz}, with a slight abuse of notation this approximation is again called $ \varepsilon^{\alpha} \Psi $, one can always achieve
$$
\sup_{t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^{1+\alpha}]} \| \mathrm{Res}( \varepsilon^{\alpha} \Psi(\cdot,t,\varepsilon) ) \|_{L^2}
\leq C_{\rm res} \varepsilon^{(7+4\alpha)/2}
$$
and
$$
\sup_{t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^{1+\alpha}]} \| \partial_x^{-1} \mathrm{Res}( \varepsilon^{\alpha} \Psi(\cdot,t,\varepsilon) ) \|_{L^2}
\leq C_{\rm res} \varepsilon^{(5+4\alpha)/2}.
$$
See Appendix \ref{appA} where we prove these estimates for $ \alpha = 1 $ and explain that
the number of additional terms goes to infinity for $ \alpha \to 0 $ and $ \alpha \to 2 $.
}\end{remark}
From this point on the remaining estimates can be handled exactly the same.
The case $ \alpha = 0 $ corresponds to the Whitham approximation and the case $ \alpha = 2 $ to the KdV approximation.
The difference $ \varepsilon^{(3+2 \alpha)/2} R = u - \varepsilon^{\alpha} \Psi $
satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{smitseq}
\partial_t^2 R
=
\partial_x^2 R
-\partial_x^4 R
+ 2 \varepsilon^{\alpha} \partial_x^2(\Psi R) + \varepsilon^{(3+2 \alpha)/2}\partial_x^2(R^2) + \varepsilon^{-(3+2 \alpha)/2} \mathrm{Res}( \varepsilon^2 \Psi).
\end{equation}
We multiply the error equation \eqref{smitseq} with $ -\partial_t \partial_x^{-2} R $ which is defined via its Fourier transform w.r.t. $ x$, namely via $ \widehat{\partial_x^{-1} R}(k) = \frac{1}{ik} \widehat{R}(k) $,
integrate it w.r.t. $ x $, and find
\begin{eqnarray*}
-\int (\partial_t \partial_x^{-2} R) \partial_t^2 R dx & = & \partial_t \int
(\partial_t \partial_x^{-1} R)^2 dx/2, \\
-\int (\partial_t \partial_x^{-2} R) \partial_x^2 R dx & = & - \partial_t \int
R^2 dx/2, \\
\int (\partial_t \partial_x^{-2} R) \partial_x^4 R dx & = & - \partial_t \int
(\partial_x R)^2 dx/2, \\
-\int (\partial_t \partial_x^{-2} R) \partial_x^2(\Psi R) dx & = &
-\int (\partial_t R) \Psi R dx \\&=&
- \partial_t \int \Psi R^2 dx/2
+\varepsilon \int (\partial_{\tau} \Psi) R^2 dx,\\
-\int (\partial_t \partial_x^{-2} R) \partial_x^2(R^2) dx & = & -
\int (\partial_t R) R^2 dx = - \frac{1}{3}\partial_t \int R^3 dx,\\
-\int (\partial_t \partial_x^{-2} R) \mathrm{Res}( \varepsilon^2 \Psi) dx
& = & \int (\partial_t \partial_x^{-1} R) \partial_x^{-1} \mathrm{Res}( \varepsilon^2 \Psi) dx.
\end{eqnarray*}
We can estimate
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\int (\partial_t \partial_x^{-1} R) \partial_x^{-1} \mathrm{Res}( \varepsilon^2 \Psi) dx | & \leq &
\| \partial_t \partial_x^{-1} R \|_{L^2} \| \partial_x^{-1} \mathrm{Res}( \varepsilon^2 \Psi) \|_{L^2},\\
|\int(\partial_{\tau} \Psi) R^2 dx| & \leq &\| \partial_{\tau} \Psi \|_{L^{\infty}}\| R \|_{L^2}^2 .
\end{eqnarray*}
For the energy
\begin{eqnarray*}
E&= & \int (\partial_t \partial_x^{-1} R)^2 +R^2 + (\partial_x R)^2 +2 \varepsilon^{\alpha} \Psi R^2 + 2 \varepsilon^{(3+2 \alpha)/2} R^3/3
dx \nonumber
\end{eqnarray*}
the following holds.
In case $ \alpha > 0 $ we have that for all $ M > 0 $ there exist $ C_1,\varepsilon_1 > 0 $ such that for all
$ \varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_1 ) $ we have
$$
\| R \|_{H^1} \leq C_1 E^{1/2}
$$
as long as $ E \leq M $. In case $ \alpha = 0 $ the energy $ E $ is an upper bound for the squared $ H^1 $-norm for $ \|\Psi \|_{L^{\infty}}$ sufficiently small, but independent of $ 0 < \varepsilon \ll 1 $.
Therefore, $ E $ satisfies the inequality
\begin{eqnarray} \label{smitseq4}
\frac{dE}{dt} & \leq & C \varepsilon^{1+\alpha} E + C \varepsilon^{(3+ 2\alpha)/2} E^{3/2} + C \varepsilon^{1+\alpha} E^{1/2}
\\�& \leq & 2 C \varepsilon^{1+\alpha} E + C \varepsilon^{(3+ 2\alpha)/2} E^{3/2} + C \varepsilon^{1+\alpha}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with a constant $ C $ independent of $ \varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_1 ) $.
Under the assumption that $ C \varepsilon^{1/2} E^{1/2} \leq 1 $ we obtain
$$
\frac{dE}{dt} \leq (2 C+1) \varepsilon^{1+\alpha} E + C \varepsilon^{1+\alpha}.
$$
Gronwall's inequality immediately gives the bound
$$
\sup_{t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^{1+\alpha}]} E(t) = C T_0 e^{ (2 C+1)T_0} =: M = \mathcal{O}(1).
$$
Finally choosing $ \varepsilon_2 > 0 $ so small that $ C \varepsilon_2^{1/2} M^{1/2} \leq 1 $ gives the required estimate for all $ \varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_0 ) $
with $ \varepsilon_0 = \min ( \varepsilon_1 , \varepsilon_2 )> 0 $ in all three cases.
\begin{remark}{\rm
The Boussinesq model \eqref{const} is a semilinear dispersive system
and so there is the local existence and uniqueness of solutions.
The variation of constant formula associated to the first order system for the variables
$ u $ and $ \partial_t (\partial_x^4-\partial_x^2)^{-1/2} u $ is a contraction in the space
$ C([-T_*,T_*],H^{\theta} \times H^{\theta}) $ for every $ \theta > 1/2 $ if $ T_* > 0 $ is sufficiently small.
The local existence and uniqueness of solutions combined with the previous estimates
for instance
yields the existence and uniqueness of solutions for all $ t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^3] $ in the
KdV case and all $ t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon] $ in the Whitham case.
}
\end{remark}
\section{Derivation of the amplitude equations}
In this section we come back to the spatially periodic situation.
The derivation of the amplitude equations is less obvious than in the spatially homogeneous
case. In order to derive the amplitude equations we expand \eqref{Boussinesq} into the
eigenfunctions of the linear problem. As in \cite{BSTU06} after this expansion we are back in the spatially homogeneous
set-up except that Fourier transform has been replaced by the Bloch transform.
\subsection{Spectral properties}
The linearized problem
\begin{align}
\label{Boussinesqlin}
\partial_t^2 u(x,t)
=
\partial_x(a(x)\partial_x u(x,t))
-\partial_x^2(b(x)\partial_x^2u(x,t) )
\end{align}
is solved by so called Bloch modes
$$
u(x,t)= w(x) e^{ilx} e^{i \omega t},
$$
with $ w $ being $ 2\pi $-periodic w.r.t. $ x $
satisfying
$$
-(\partial_x+ il)(a(x)(\partial_x+il) w(x))
+(\partial_x+il)^2(b(x)(\partial_x+il)^2 w(x) )
= \omega^2 w(x).
$$
The left hand side defines a self-adjoint elliptic operator
$ L_{l}(\partial_x):H^{\theta+4}\to H^{\theta}$.
Hence, for fixed $ l$ there exists a countable set of eigenvalues $ \lambda_n(l) $, with $ n \in \mathbb{N}$,
ordered such that $ \lambda_{n+1}(l) \geq \lambda_n(l) $,
with associated eigenfunctions $ w_n(x,l)$.
\begin{lemma}
For $ l = 0 $ the operator $ L_0(\partial_x)$
possesses the simple eigenvalue $ \lambda_1(0) =0 $
associated to the eigenfunction $ \widetilde{w}_1(0,x) = 1$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent
{\bf Proof.}
Obviously we have $ L_0(\partial_x) 1 = 0 $.
Moreover, we have
$$
(w,L_0(\partial_x) w )_{L^2} = \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} a(x) (\partial_x w(x))^2 dx + \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} b(x) (\partial_x^2 w(x))^2 dx \geq 0 .
$$
Hence $ L_0(\partial_x) w = 0 $ implies $ \partial_x w = 0 $. From the $ 2 \pi $-periodicity it follows $ w = const$.
Hence $ \lambda_1(0) = 0 $ is a simple eigenvalue.
\qed
\medskip
It is well known that the curves $ l \mapsto
\lambda_n(l) $ and $ l \mapsto \widetilde{w}_n(l,\cdot) $
are smooth w.r.t. $ l $ for simple eigenvalues.
Hence, there exists a $ \delta_0 > 0 $ such that
for $ l \in [-\delta_0,\delta_0] $ the smallest eigenvalue
$ \lambda_1(l) $ is separated from the rest of the spectrum.
Since $ L_l(\partial_x) $ is self-adjoint and positive-definite for all $ l $ we have
$ \lambda_1(l) \geq 0 $ for all $ l $.
In the KdV equation only odd and in the Whitham system only even spatial
derivatives occur. This is a consequence of the following lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{craven32}
The curve $ l \mapsto \lambda_1(l) $ for $ l \in [-\delta_0,\delta_0] $ is an even real-valued function. The associated eigenfunctions satisfy $ \widetilde{w}_1(l,x) = \overline{\widetilde{w}_1(-l,x)} $.
Under the assumption that the coefficient functions $ a $ and $ b $ are even, the eigenfunctions possess
an expansion
$$
\widetilde{w}_1(l,x) = \sum_{j= 0}^{\infty} (il)^j g_j(x) ,
$$
with $ g_0(x) = 1 $, $ \int_0^{2 \pi} g_j(x) dx = 0 $ for $ j \geq 1 $,
$$
g_{2j}(x) = g_{2j}(-x) \in \mathbb{R} \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad g_{2j+1}(x) = - g_{2j+1}(-x) \in \mathbb{R} .
$$
\end{lemma}
{\bf Proof.}
The first two statements follow from the fact that for fixed $ l $ the operator $ L_l(\partial_x) $ is self-adjoint
and from the fact that \eqref{Boussinesq} is a real problem. For $ (il)^0 $ we obtain
$$
-\partial_x(a(x)\partial_x g_0(x))
+\partial_x^2(b(x)\partial_x^2 g_0(x) )
= 0
$$
which is, as we already know, uniquely been solved by $ g_0(x) = 1 $. For $ (il)^1 $ we obtain
$$
-\partial_x(a(x)\partial_x g_1(x))
+\partial_x^2(b(x)\partial_x^2 g_1(x) )
- \partial_x a(x) = 0 .
$$
The term $ \partial_x a(x) $ is odd. The subspace of odd functions is invariant for the
differential operator $ L_0(\partial_x) = -\partial_x(a(x)(\partial_x \cdot)
+\partial_x^2(b(x)\partial_x^2 \cdot ) $. Moreover in this subspace its spectrum is bounded away from zero
such that this equation possesses a unique
odd solution $ g_1 = g_1(x) $.
For $ (il)^2 $ we obtain
$$
-\partial_x(a(x)\partial_x g_2(x))
+\partial_x^2(b(x)\partial_x^2 g_2(x) ) + 1 + f_2(x)
= 1
$$
with $ f_2(x) $ an even function depending on $ a $, $ b $, $ g_0 $, and $ g_1 $ and possessing vanishing mean value.
In the subspace of vanishing mean value the differential operator $ L_0(\partial_x) $ possesses spectrum which is bounded away from zero
such that this equation possesses a unique
even solution $ g_2 = g_2(x) $. With the same arguments the next orders with the stated properties can be computed. The convergence of the series in a neighborhood of $ l = 0 $
in $ H^{\theta} $ for every $ \theta \geq 0 $
follows from the smoothness
of the curve of simple eigenfunctions w.r.t. $ l $ and the smoothness of the coefficient functions
$ a $, $ b $, and $ c $ w.r.t. $ x $.
\qed
\medskip
The KdV equation, the inviscid
Burgers equation, and the Whitham system describe the modes associated to the curve $ \lambda_1 $
close to $ l = 0 $. Therefore, in order to derive these amplitude equations we consider the Bloch transform
$$
u(x,t) = \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} \widetilde{u}(l,x,t)e^{ilx}
dx
$$
of
\eqref{Boussinesq}, namely
\begin{equation} \label{ortloff}
\partial_t^2 \widetilde{u}(l,x,t)=
- L_l(\partial_x) \widetilde{u}(l,x,t) + N_l(\partial_x)(\widetilde{u})(l,x,t)
\end{equation}
where
$$
N_l(\partial_x)(\widetilde{u})(l,x,t) = (\partial_x+ il)(c(x)(\partial_x+il) \int_{-1/2}^{1/2}
\widetilde{u}(l-m,x,t) \widetilde{u}(m,x,t) dm.
$$
Then we make the ansatz
$$
\widetilde{u}(l,x,t) = \chi_{[-\delta_0/2,\delta_0/2]}(l) \widetilde{u}_1(l,t) \widetilde{w}_1(l,x) +\widetilde{v}(l,x,t)
$$
with
$$
\int_{0}^{2 \pi} \overline{\widetilde{w}_1(l,x)}
\widetilde{v}(l,x,t) dx= 0
$$
for $ l \in [-\delta_0/2,\delta_0/2] $
and find
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial_t^2 \widetilde{u}_1(l,t) & = & - \lambda_1(l) \widetilde{u}_1(l,t) + P_c(l) N_l(\partial_x)(\widetilde{u})(l,t) ,\\
\partial_t^2 \widetilde{v}(l,x,t)& = &
- L_l(\partial_x) \widetilde{v}(l,x,t) + P_s(l) N_l(\partial_x)(\widetilde{u})(l,x,t),
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
(P_c \widetilde{u})(l,t) & = & \frac{1}{2\pi}\chi_{[-\delta_0/2,\delta_0/2]}(l) \int_{0}^{2 \pi} \overline{\widetilde{w}_1(l,x)} \widetilde{u}(l,x,t) dx, \\
(P_s \widetilde{u})(l,x,t) & = & \widetilde{u}(l,x,t) - (P_c \widetilde{u})(l,t){w}_1(l,x).
\end{eqnarray*}
All amplitude equations which we have in mind can be derived in a very similar way.
They describe the evolution of the $ \widetilde{u}_1$
modes which are concentrated in an
$ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)$ neighborhood
of the Bloch wave number $ l = 0$.
In all three cases we make an ansatz
\begin{eqnarray} \label{blochansatz}
\widetilde{u}_1(l,t) = \varepsilon^{-1} \varepsilon^{\alpha} \chi_{[-\delta_0/4,\delta_0/4]}(\frac{l}{\varepsilon}) \widehat{A}(\frac{l}{\varepsilon},\varepsilon^{1+ \alpha} t) e^{i l c t}
\end{eqnarray}
with $ \alpha =2 $ and $ c >0 $ for the KdV approximation, $ \alpha \in (0,2) $ and $ c >0 $ for the
inviscid Burgers approximation, and $ \alpha =0 $ and $ c =0 $ for the Whitham approximation,
cf. the text below Figure \ref{fig:example}.
The amplitude $ \widehat{A} $ will be defined in Fourier space and the cut-off function $ \chi_{[-\delta_0/4,\delta_0/4]}(\frac{l}{\varepsilon}) $ allows to transfer $ \widehat{A} $ into Bloch space.
In the following we use the abbreviation
\begin{equation} \label{crew1}
\widetilde{A}(\frac{l}{\varepsilon},\varepsilon^{1+ \alpha} t) = \chi_{[-\delta_0/4,\delta_0/4]}(\frac{l}{\varepsilon}) \widehat{A}(\frac{l}{\varepsilon},\varepsilon^{1+ \alpha} t).
\end{equation}
For each of the three approximations we have to derive
the associated amplitude equation and to compute and estimate the residual terms
\begin{eqnarray*}
\textrm{Res}(\widetilde{u})(l,x,t) & = &
- \partial_t^2 \widetilde{u}(l,x,t) -
L_l(\partial_x) \widetilde{u}(l,x,t) + N_l(\partial_x)(\widetilde{u})(l,x,t).
\end{eqnarray*}
\subsection{Derivation of the KdV and the inviscid Burgers equation}
The amplitude equations which we have in mind have derivatives in front of the nonlinear terms.
Hence before deriving these equations we need to prove a number of properties about the
nonlinear terms.
We introduce kernels $ s_{11}^1(l,l-m,m), \ldots , s_{vv}^v(l,l-m,m) $ by
\begin{eqnarray*}
(P_c N_l(\partial_x)(\widetilde{u}))(l,t) & = & \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} s_{11}^1(l,l-m,m) \widetilde{u}_1(l-m,t)\widetilde{u}_1(m,t)dm \\
&& + \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} s_{1v}^1(l,l-m,m) \widetilde{u}_1(l-m,t)\widetilde{v}(m,x,t)dm
\\
&& + \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} s_{v1}^1(l,l-m,m) \widetilde{v}(l-m,x,t)\widetilde{u}_1(m,t)dm
\\
&& + \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} s_{vv}^1(l,l-m,m) \widetilde{v}(l-m,x,t)\widetilde{v}(m,x,t)dm
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
(P_s N_l(\partial_x)(\widetilde{u}))(l,x,t) & = & \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} s_{11}^v(l,l-m,m) \widetilde{u}_1(l-m,t)\widetilde{u}_1(m,t)dm \\
&& + \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} s_{1v}^v(l,l-m,m) \widetilde{u}_1(l-m,t)\widetilde{v}(m,x,t)dm
\\
&& + \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} s_{v1}^v(l,l-m,m) \widetilde{v}(l-m,x,t)\widetilde{u}_1(m,t)dm
\\
&& + \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} s_{vv}^v(l,l-m,m) \widetilde{v}(l-m,x,t)\widetilde{v}(m,x,t)dm.
\end{eqnarray*}
For the derivation of the KdV and the Burgers equation we need
\begin{lemma} \label{lem33}
We have
$$
|s_{11}^1(l,l-m,m) - \nu_2 l^2 | \leq C |l|(l^2 + (l-m)^2 + m^2),
$$
where
\begin{equation} \label{nu2}
\nu_2 = - \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{0}^{2 \pi} c(x) (1+ \partial_x g_1(x) )^2 dx.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\noindent
{\bf Proof.}
Due to Lemma \ref{craven32} we have
\begin{equation} \label{gmexpand}
\widetilde{w}_1(l,x) = 1 + il g_1(x) + \mathcal{O}(l^2)
\end{equation}
where $ g_1(x) \in \mathbb{R} $ with $ \int_0^{2\pi} g_1(x) dx = 0 $.
This expansion yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& 2 \pi s_{11}^1(l,l-m,m)
\\& = & \int_{0}^{2 \pi}\overline{\widetilde{w}_1(l,x)} (\partial_x+ il)(c(x)(\partial_x+il)
( \widetilde{w}_1(l-m,x) \widetilde{w}_1(m,x)) dx
\\& = & \int_{0}^{2 \pi} (1 - il g_1(x) + \mathcal{O}(l^2) )
(\partial_x+ il)(c(x)(\partial_x+il) \\ && \qquad \times ((1 + i(l-m) g_1(x) + \mathcal{O}((l-m)^2) )(1 + im g_1(x) + \mathcal{O}(m^2) )) dx
\\& = & - \int_{0}^{2 \pi} c(x) ( (\partial_x- il) (1 - il g_1(x) + \mathcal{O}(l^2) ) )
((\partial_x+il) \\&& \qquad \times ((1 + i(l-m) g_1(x) + \mathcal{O}((l-m)^2) )(1 + im g_1(x) + \mathcal{O}(m^2) )) dx
\\& = & - \int_{0}^{2 \pi} c(x) (-il - il \partial_x g_1(x) + \mathcal{O}(l^2) )\\ && \qquad \times
((\partial_x+il) ((1 + i l g_1(x) + \mathcal{O}((l-m)^2 + m^2) ) dx
\\& = & - \int_{0}^{2 \pi} c(x) (-il - il \partial_x g_1(x) + \mathcal{O}(l^2) )\\ && \qquad \times
( il + i l \partial_x g_1(x) + \mathcal{O}((l-m)^2 + m^2) ) dx
\\& = & \nu_2 l^2 + \mathcal{O}( |l| (l^2 + (l-m)^2 + m^2)).
\end{eqnarray*}
We remark already at this point that due to the fact that $ a $, $ b $, and $ c $ are assumed to be even we have for symmetry reasons that the
higher order terms are not only $ \mathcal{O}( |l| (l^2 + (l-m)^2 + m^2)) $, but $\mathcal{O}( l^4 + (l-m)^4 + m^4) $.
See below.\qed
\bigskip
The following derivation of amplitude equations in Fourier or Bloch space
is straightforward and documented in various papers. We refer to
\cite[Chapter 5]{Schn11OW} for an introduction.
\subsubsection{The KdV equation.}
We start with the KdV approximation $ \varepsilon^2 \Psi $ which is defined via
\eqref{blochansatz} for $ \alpha = 2 $ and which is inserted into $ \textrm{Res}(\widetilde{u}) $.
We find with $ \widetilde{u}_1(l,t) = \varepsilon \widetilde{A}(K,T) \mathbf{E} $,
$ \mathbf{E} = e^{i \varepsilon K c t} $,
$ T = \varepsilon^{3} t $, and $ l = \varepsilon K $ that
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_c (\textrm{Res}(\widetilde{u}))(l,t) & = &
- \partial_t^2 \widetilde{u}_1(l,t) - \lambda_1(l) \widetilde{u}_1(l,t) \\ && +
\int_{-1/2}^{1/2} s_{11}^1(l,l-m,m) \widetilde{u}_1(l-m,t)\widetilde{u}_1(m,t)dm
\\& = & \varepsilon^3 c^2 K^2 \widetilde{A}(K,T) \mathbf{E} - 2 \varepsilon^5 i c K (\partial_T \widetilde{A}(K,T) ) \mathbf{E} - \varepsilon^7 (\partial_T^2 \widetilde{A}(K,T) ) \mathbf{E}
\\&&
- \varepsilon^3 \lambda_1''(0) K^2 \widetilde{A} (K,T) \mathbf{E}/2
- \varepsilon^5 \lambda_1''''(0) K^4 \widetilde{A}(K,T) \mathbf{E}/24
+ \mathcal{O}( \varepsilon^7)
\\&&
+ \varepsilon^5 \int_{-1/(2 \varepsilon)}^{1/(2 \varepsilon)} \nu_2 K^2 \widetilde{A}(K-M,T)\widetilde{A}(M,T)
dM \mathbf{E}+ \mathcal{O}( \varepsilon^6).
\end{eqnarray*}
If $ \widehat{A}(\cdot,T) \in L^2_s $ then the error made by replacing
$ \int_{-1/(2 \varepsilon)}^{1/(2 \varepsilon)} \ldots dM $ by
$ \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} \ldots dM $ is $ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{s-1/2}) $.
Hence by equating the coefficients of $ \varepsilon^3 $ and $ \varepsilon^5 $
to zero we find
$ c^2= \lambda_1''(0)/2 $
and
$ \widehat{A} $ to satisfy
$$
- 2 i c \partial_T \widehat{A}(K,T) - \lambda_1''''(0) K^3 \widehat{A}(K,T)/24
+ \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} \nu_2 K \widehat{A}(K-M,T)\widehat{A}(M,T)
dM = 0,
$$
respectively, $ A $ to satisfy the KdV equation
\begin{equation} \label{main_KdV}
2 c \partial_T A(X,T) + \lambda_1''''(0) \partial_X^3 A(X,T)/24 +
\nu_2 \partial_X (A(X,T)^2)= 0.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{The inviscid Burgers equation}
Due to the explanations in the Appendix \ref{appA} we restrict to the case $ \alpha = 1 $.
We insert the inviscid Burgers approximation $ \varepsilon^{\alpha} \Psi $, which is defined via
\eqref{blochansatz} for $ \alpha = 1 $, into $ \textrm{Res}(\widetilde{u}) $.
We find with $ \widetilde{u}_1(l,t) = \widetilde{A}(K,T) \mathbf{E} $,
$ \mathbf{E} = e^{i \varepsilon K c t} $,
$ T = \varepsilon^{2} t $, and $ l = \varepsilon K $ that
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_c (\textrm{Res}(\widetilde{u}))(l,t) & = &
- \partial_t^2 \widetilde{u}_1(l,t) - \lambda_1(l) \widetilde{u}_1(l,t) \\�&& +
\int_{-1/2}^{1/2} s_{11}^1(l,l-m,m) \widetilde{u}_1(l-m,t)\widetilde{u}_1(m,t)dm
\\& = & \varepsilon^2 c^2 K^2 \widetilde{A}(K,T) \mathbf{E} - 2 \varepsilon^3 i c K (\partial_T \widetilde{A}(K,T) ) \mathbf{E} - \varepsilon^4 (\partial_T^2 \widetilde{A}(K,T) ) \mathbf{E}
\\&&
- \varepsilon^2 \lambda_1''(0) K^2 \widetilde{A} (K,T) \mathbf{E}/2
- \varepsilon^4 \lambda_1''''(0) K^4 \widetilde{A}(K,T) \mathbf{E}/24
+ \mathcal{O}( \varepsilon^4)
\\&&
+ \varepsilon^3 \int_{-1/(2 \varepsilon)}^{1/(2 \varepsilon)} \nu_2 K^2 \widetilde{A}(K-M,T)\widetilde{A}(M,T)
dM \mathbf{E}+ \mathcal{O}( \varepsilon^4).
\end{eqnarray*}
We proceed as above and
equate the coefficients of $ \varepsilon^2 $ and $ \varepsilon^3 $
to zero. We find
$ c^2= \lambda_1''(0)/2 $
and
$ \widehat{A} $ to satisfy
$$
- 2 i c \partial_T \widehat{A}(K,T)
+ \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} \nu_2 K \widehat{A}(K-M,T)\widehat{A}(M,T)
dM = 0
$$
respectively $ A $ to satisfy the inviscid Burgers equation
\begin{equation} \label{main_Burgers}
2 c \partial_T A(X,T) +
\nu_2 \partial_X (A(X,T)^2)= 0.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Derivation of the Whitham system}
The derivation of the Whitham system is much more involved since already in the derivation
the $ \widetilde{v} $ part has to be included.
Due to the symmetry assumption {\bf (SYM)} with $ u = u(x,t) $, also $ u = u(-x,t) $
is a solution of \eqref{Boussinesq}.
As a consequence in \eqref{Boussinesq} all terms must contain an even number of $ \partial_x $-derivatives.
Since in Bloch space
\begin{eqnarray*}
u(-x,t) & = & \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} \widetilde{u}(-x,l) e^{-ilx} dl \\
& = & - \int_{1/2}^{-1/2} \widetilde{u}(-x,-l) e^{ilx} dl
= \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} \widetilde{u}(-x,-l) e^{ilx} dl
\end{eqnarray*}
with $ \widetilde{u} = \widetilde{u}(l,x,t) $, also $ \widetilde{u} = \widetilde{u}(-l,-x,t) $ is a
solution of the Bloch wave transformed system \eqref{ortloff}. As a consequence in \eqref{ortloff} all terms must contain an even number of $ \partial_x $-derivatives or $ il $, $ i(l-m) $, or $ im $ factors, i.e., for instance $ il \partial_x $ can occur, but $ -l^2 \partial_x $ not.
Before we start with the derivation of the Whitham system we additional need
that in some of the kernel functions $ s_{j_1j_2}^j $ at least one $ l $ factor occurs.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem34}
We have
$$
|s_{vv}^1(l,l-m,m)| \leq C |l|
$$
and
$$
|s_{11}^v(l,l-m,m)| \leq C (|l| + (l-m)^2 + m^2).
$$
\end{lemma}
\noindent
{\bf Proof.}
a) Using again the expansion \eqref{gmexpand} yields after some integration by parts that
\begin{eqnarray*}
& & \int_{0}^{2 \pi} \overline{\widetilde{w}_1(l,x)} (\partial_x+ il)(c(x)(\partial_x+il)
\int_{-1/2}^{1/2}
\widetilde{v}(l-m,x,t) \widetilde{v}(m,x,t)dm dx
\\& = &\int_{-1/2}^{1/2} \int_{0}^{2 \pi} c(x) (-il + il \partial_x g_1(x) + \mathcal{O}(l^2) )
(\partial_x+il)(\widetilde{v}(l-m,x,t) \widetilde{v}(m,x,t)) dx dm
\\& = & \mathcal{O}(l)
\end{eqnarray*}
b) As above we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& s_{11}^v(l,l-m,m)
\\& = & \int_{0}^{2 \pi}\overline{\widetilde{v}(l,x)} (\partial_x+ il)(c(x)(\partial_x+il)
( \widetilde{w}_1(l-m,x) \widetilde{w}_1(m,x)) dx
\\& = & \int_{0}^{2 \pi} \overline{\widetilde{v}(l,x)}
(\partial_x+ il)(c(x)(\partial_x+il) \\&& \qquad \times ((1 + i(l-m) g_1(x) + \mathcal{O}((l-m)^2) )(1 + im g_1(x) + \mathcal{O}(m^2) )) dx
\\& = & \int_{0}^{2 \pi} \overline{\widetilde{v}(l,x)} (\partial_x+ il)(c(x)
( il + i l \partial_x g_1(x) + \mathcal{O}((l-m)^2 + m^2) ) dx
\\& = & \mathcal{O}(|l| + (l-m)^2 + m^2).
\end{eqnarray*}
\qed
For the derivation of the Whitham system
we make the ansatz
\begin{eqnarray} \label{blochansatzwhitham}
\widetilde{u}_1(l,t) = \varepsilon^{-1} \widetilde{A}(K,T)
\qquad \textrm{and} \qquad
\widetilde{v}(l,x,t) = \widetilde{B}(K,x,T).
\end{eqnarray}
where $ T = \varepsilon t $, and $ l = \varepsilon K $.
With $ \widetilde{u}(l,x,t) = \widetilde{u}_1(l,t) \widetilde{w}_1(l,x) +\widetilde{v}(l,x,t) $ we find that
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_c (\textrm{Res}(\widetilde{u}))(l,t) & = &
- \partial_t^2 \widetilde{u}_1(l,t) - \lambda_1(l) \widetilde{u}_1(l,t) + P_c(l) N_{l}(\partial_x)(\widetilde{u})(l,t)
\\
& = & - \varepsilon \partial_T^2 \widetilde{A}(K,T) - \varepsilon \lambda_1''(0) K^2
\widetilde{A}(K,T) /2
+ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^3)
\\ && \qquad+ P_c(\varepsilon K) N_{\varepsilon K}(\partial_x)(\widetilde{u})( \varepsilon K,T/\varepsilon)
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_s (\textrm{Res}(\widetilde{u}))(l,x,t)
& = &
- \partial_t^2 \widetilde{v}(l,x,t)
- L_l(\partial_x) \widetilde{v}(l,x,t) + P_s(l) N_l(\partial_x)(\widetilde{u})(l,x,t) \\
& = &
-\varepsilon^2\partial_T^2 \widetilde{B}(K,x,T) -\widetilde{L}_{\varepsilon K}(\partial_x)\widetilde{B}(K,x,T)
\\ && \qquad +P_s(l) N_{\varepsilon K}(\partial_x)(\widetilde{u})(\varepsilon K,x,T/\varepsilon).
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $ P_s(\varepsilon K) N_{\varepsilon K}(\partial_x)(\widetilde{u}) $ is quadratic w.r.t. $ \widetilde{u} $
and since $ \widetilde{L}_{\varepsilon K} $ is invertible on the range of $ P_s(\varepsilon K) $ we can use the implicit
function theorem to solve
$$
- \widetilde{L}_{\varepsilon K}(\partial_x)\widetilde{B}(K,x,T)
+P_s(\varepsilon K) N_{\varepsilon K}(\partial_x)(\widetilde{u})(\varepsilon K,x,T/\varepsilon) = 0
$$
w.r.t. $ \widetilde{B} = H(\widetilde{A})(K,x,T) $ for sufficiently small $ \widetilde{A} $.
Note that we kept our notation and still wrote $ T/\varepsilon $ in the arguments of $ N $
although in fact it only depends on $ T $.
We insert $ \widetilde{B} = H(\widetilde{A})(K,x,T) $ into the first equation and obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_c (\textrm{Res}(\widetilde{u}))(l,t) & = &
- \varepsilon \partial_T^2 \widetilde{A}(K,T) - \varepsilon \lambda_1''(0) K^2
\widetilde{A}(K,T) /2 + \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^3) \\ && + P_c(\varepsilon K) N_{\varepsilon K}(\partial_x)( \varepsilon^{-1} \widetilde{A}(K,T)\widetilde{w}_1(\varepsilon K,x)
\\ && \qquad + H(\widetilde{A}) (K,x,T) )(\varepsilon K,T/\varepsilon)
\end{eqnarray*}
The Whitham system occurs by expanding
the right hand side w.r.t. $ \varepsilon $
and by equating the coefficient in front of $ \varepsilon^1 $ to zero.
We obtain in a first step
$$
\partial_T^2 \widetilde{A}(K,T) + \lambda_1''(0) K^2
\widetilde{A}(K,T) /2 + \widetilde{G}(\widetilde{A})(K,T) = 0
$$
where $ \widetilde{G} $ is a nonlinear function that can be written as
$$
\widetilde{G}(\widetilde{A})(K,T) = - \chi_{[-\delta_0/4,\delta_0/4 ]}(\varepsilon K)\sum_{j=2}^{\infty} s_j iK \int_{-1/(2\varepsilon)}^{1/(2\varepsilon)}\widetilde{A}^{*(j-1)}(K-M) iM \widetilde{A}(M) dM
$$
with coefficients $ s_j $.
The factor $ iK $ comes from Lemma \ref{lem33} and Lemma \ref{lem34} a), the factor $ iM $ from the fact that due to the reflection symmetry we need an even number of such factors
and due to the long wave character of the approximation we have exactly two such factors at $ \varepsilon $.
Replacing via \eqref{crew1} the Bloch transform $ \widetilde{A}(K,T) $ by the Fourier transform $ \widetilde{A}(K,T) $ finally gives Whitham's system
\begin{equation} \label{crew2}
\partial_T^2 \widehat{A}(K,T) + \lambda_1''(0) K^2
\widehat{A}(K,T) /2 + \widehat{G}(\widehat{A})(K,T) = 0
\end{equation}
in Fourier space
where $ \widehat{G} $ is a nonlinear function that can be written as
$$
\widehat{G}(\widehat{A})(K,T) = - \sum_{j=2}^{\infty} s_j iK \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\widehat{A}^{*(j-1)}(K-M) iM \widehat{A}(M) dM.
$$
In physical space we have
$$
G(A)(X,T) = -\sum_{j=2}^{\infty} s_j \partial_X ( A^{j-1} \partial_X A) = -\partial_X^2
\sum_{j=2}^{\infty} s_j A^j /j
$$
such that Whitham's system finally can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{crew3}
\partial_T^2 A = \partial_X^2 \mathcal{H}(A) , \qquad \textrm{with} \qquad
\mathcal{H}(A) = - \lambda_1''(0) A /2 - \sum_{j=2}^{\infty} s_j A^j /j .
\end{equation}
\section{Estimates for the residual}
After the derivation of the amplitude equations we estimate the so called residual, the terms which do not cancel
after inserting the approximation into \eqref{Boussinesq}. In order to have estimates as in the spatially homogeneous case
for the residual terms in terms of $ \varepsilon $ we have to modify our approximations with higher order terms.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf The improved KdV approximation.}
For the construction of the improved KdV approximation we proceed as for the
derivation of the Whitham system.
With $ \mathbf{E} = e^{i \varepsilon K c t} $,
$ T = \varepsilon^{3} t $, and $ l = \varepsilon K $
we make the ansatz
\begin{eqnarray*}
\widetilde{u}_1(l,t) & = & \varepsilon \widetilde{A}(K,T) \mathbf{E} \\
\widetilde{v}(l,x,t) & = & \varepsilon^4 \widetilde{B}(K,x,T)\mathbf{E} + \varepsilon^5 \widetilde{B}_2(K,x,T)\mathbf{E} + \varepsilon^3 \widetilde{B}_3(K,x,T)\mathbf{E} .
\end{eqnarray*}
With $ \widetilde{u}(l,x,t) = \widetilde{u}_1(l,t) \widetilde{w}_1(l,x) +\widetilde{v}(l,x,t) $,
$ T = \varepsilon t $, and $ l = \varepsilon K $ we find that
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_c (\textrm{Res}(\widetilde{u}))(l,t) & = &
- \partial_t^2 \widetilde{u}_1(l,t) - \lambda_1(l) \widetilde{u}_1(l,t) + P_c(l) N_{l}(\partial_x)(\widetilde{u})(l,t)
\\ & = & \varepsilon^3 c^2 K^2 \widetilde{A}(K,T) \mathbf{E} - 2 \varepsilon^5 i c K (\partial_T \widetilde{A}(K,T) ) \mathbf{E} - \varepsilon^7 (\partial_T^2 \widetilde{A}(K,T) ) \mathbf{E}
\\&&
- \varepsilon^3 \lambda_1''(0) K^2 \widetilde{A} (K,T) \mathbf{E}/2
- \varepsilon^5 \lambda_1''''(0) K^4 \widetilde{A}(K,T) \mathbf{E}/24
+ \mathcal{O}( \varepsilon^7)
\\&&
+ \varepsilon^5 \int_{-1/(2 \varepsilon)}^{1/(2 \varepsilon)} \nu_2 K^2 \widetilde{A}(K-M,T)\widetilde{A}(M,T)
dM \mathbf{E}+ \mathcal{O}( \varepsilon^7) =\mathcal{O}( \varepsilon^7)
\end{eqnarray*}
if we choose $ c $ and $ \widetilde{A} $ as above. We have $ \mathcal{O}( \varepsilon^7) $ and not $ \mathcal{O}( \varepsilon^6) $ since
$ P_c (\textrm{Res}(\widetilde{u}))(l,t) $ does not depend on $ x $ and has to be even w.r.t. factors in $ l $, i.e., $ \varepsilon^5 K^4 \widetilde{A}(K,T) $ is allowed,
but not $ \varepsilon^6 K^5 \widetilde{A}(K,T) $.
Next we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_s (\textrm{Res}(\widetilde{u}))(l,x,t)
& = & - \partial_t^2 \widetilde{v}(l,x,t)
- L_l(\partial_x) \widetilde{v}(l,x,t) + P_s(l) N_l(\partial_x)(\widetilde{u})(l,x,t) \\
& = &
c^2 K^2 (\varepsilon^6 \widetilde{B}(K,x,T) + \varepsilon^7 \widetilde{B}_2(K,x,T) + \varepsilon^{8} \widetilde{B}_3(K,x,T) ) \mathbf{E}
\\
&& - 2 i c K (\varepsilon^8 \partial_T \widetilde{B}(K,x,T) +\varepsilon^{9} \partial_T \widetilde{B}_2(K,x,T)+\varepsilon^{10} \partial_T \widetilde{B}_3(K,x,T)) \mathbf{E}
\\ && -( \varepsilon^{10} \partial_T^2 \widetilde{B}(K,x,T) + \varepsilon^{11} \partial_T^2 \widetilde{B}_2(K,x,T)+ \varepsilon^{12} \partial_T^2 \widetilde{B}_3(K,x,T) ) \mathbf{E}
\\ && - (\varepsilon^4 \widetilde{L}_{\varepsilon K}(\partial_x)\widetilde{B}(K,x,T)+ \varepsilon^5 \widetilde{L}_{\varepsilon K}(\partial_x)\widetilde{B}_2(K,x,T)
\\ && + \varepsilon^6 \widetilde{L}_{\varepsilon K}(\partial_x)\widetilde{B}_3(K,x,T) ) \mathbf{E}+P_s(\varepsilon K) N_{\varepsilon K}(\partial_x)(\widetilde{u})(\varepsilon K,x,T/\varepsilon)
\end{eqnarray*}
where we expand
$$
P_s(l) N_{\varepsilon K}(\partial_x)(\widetilde{u})(\varepsilon K,x,T/\varepsilon) = (\varepsilon^4 F_4(\widetilde{A})+ \varepsilon^5 F_5(\widetilde{A})+ \varepsilon^6 F_6(\widetilde{A}, \widetilde{B})+ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^7)) (K,x,T) \mathbf{E} .
$$
If we set
\begin{eqnarray*}
0 & = & -\widetilde{L}_{\varepsilon K}(\partial_x)\widetilde{B}(K,x,T) + \varepsilon^4 F_4(\widetilde{A})(K,x,T) , \\
0 & = & -\widetilde{L}_{\varepsilon K}(\partial_x)\widetilde{B}_2(K,x,T)+ \varepsilon^4 F_5(\widetilde{A})(K,x,T) , \\
0 & = & -\widetilde{L}_{\varepsilon K}(\partial_x)\widetilde{B}_3(K,x,T) + \varepsilon^4 F_6(\widetilde{A}, \widetilde{B})(K,x,T) + c^2 K^2 \widetilde{B}(K,x,T) ,\\
\end{eqnarray*}
we finally have
$$
P_s (\textrm{Res}(\widetilde{u}))(l,x,t) = \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^7).
$$
The functions $ \widetilde{B} $, $ \widetilde{B}_2 $, and $ \widetilde{B}_3 $ are well-defined since $ \widetilde{L}_{\varepsilon K} $ can be inverted on the
range of $ P_s(\varepsilon K) $.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf The improved inciscid Burgers approximation.}
We leave this part to the reader. We refer to Appendix \ref{appA} where the modified approximation is discussed
for the spatially homogeneous situation.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf The improved Whitham approximation.} We need the residual formally to be of order $ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^3) $.
With the previous approximation we already have $ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^3) $ for the $ P_c $-part of the residual again due to
symmetry reasons, but we only have $ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^2) $ for the $ P_s $-part. As above we modify our ansatz into
\begin{eqnarray*}
\widetilde{u}_1(l,t) = \varepsilon^{-1} \widetilde{A}(K,T)
\qquad \textrm{and} \qquad
\widetilde{v}(l,x,t) = \widetilde{B}(K,x,T) + \varepsilon^{2} \widetilde{B}_2(K,x,T) .
\end{eqnarray*}
We define $ \widetilde{A} $ and $ \widetilde{B} $ exactly as above and $ \widetilde{B}_2 $ as solution of
$$
-\partial_T^2 \widetilde{B}(K,x,T)- \widetilde{L}_{\varepsilon K}(\partial_x)\widetilde{B}_2(K,x,T) = 0
$$
which is again well-defined due the fact that $ \widetilde{L}_{\varepsilon K} $ can be inverted on the
range of $ P_s(\varepsilon K) $.
\medskip
For all three approximations we gain a factor $ \varepsilon^{1/2} $ when we estimate the error in $ L^2 $-based spaces due to the scaling properties of the $ L^2 $ norm.
Since the error made by the various approximations will be estimated in physical space via energy estimates we conclude for the KdV approximation,
for the inviscid Burgers approximation, and for the Whitham approximation that
\begin{lemma} \label{lemkdvres}
Let $A \in C([0,T_0],H^{6})$
be a solution of the KdV equation \eqref{main_KdV}.
Then there exist $ \varepsilon_0 > 0 $, $ C_{\rm res} $ such that for all $ \varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_0) $ we have
$$
\sup_{t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^3]} \| \mathrm{Res}( \varepsilon^2 \Psi(\cdot,t,\varepsilon) ) \|_{H^1}
\leq C_{\rm res} \varepsilon^{15/2}
$$
and
$$
\sup_{t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^3]} \| \partial_x^{-1} \mathrm{Res}( \varepsilon^2 \Psi(\cdot,t,\varepsilon) ) \|_{H^1}
\leq C_{\rm res} \varepsilon^{13/2}.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
Let $ \alpha = 1 $ and let $A \in C([0,T_0],H^{4})$
be a solution of the inviscid Burgers equation \eqref{constkdv1}.
Then there exist $ \varepsilon_0 > 0 $, $ C_{\rm res} $ such that for all $ \varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_0) $ we have
$$
\sup_{t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^{1+\alpha}]} \| \mathrm{Res}( \varepsilon^{\alpha} \Psi(\cdot,t,\varepsilon) ) \|_{H^1}
\leq C_{\rm res} \varepsilon^{(7+4\alpha)/2}
$$
and
$$
\sup_{t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^{1+\alpha}]} \| \partial_x^{-1} \mathrm{Res}( \varepsilon^{\alpha} \Psi(\cdot,t,\varepsilon) ) \|_{H^1}
\leq C_{\rm res} \varepsilon^{(5+4\alpha)/2}.
$$
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemkdvres1}
Let $A \in C([0,T_0],H^{4})$
be a solution of the Whitham equation \eqref{constwhit1}.
Then there exist $ \varepsilon_0 > 0 $, $ C_{\rm res} $ such that for all $ \varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_0) $ we have
$$
\sup_{t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon]} \| \mathrm{Res}( \Psi(\cdot,t,\varepsilon) ) \|_{H^1}
\leq C_{\rm res} \varepsilon^{7/2}
$$
and
$$
\sup_{t \in [0,T_0/\varepsilon]} \| \partial_x^{-1} \mathrm{Res}( \Psi(\cdot,t,\varepsilon) ) \|_{H^1}
\leq C_{\rm res} \varepsilon^{5/2}.
$$
\end{lemma}
\section{The error estimates}
\label{sec9}
As for spatially homogeneous case the proofs given for the KdV approximations transfer more or less line for line into proofs for the justification of the inviscid Burgers equation and of the Whitham system.
Our approximation results are as follows
\begin{theorem}\label{main_theorem}
Let $A\in C([0,T_0],H^{6}(\mathbb R)) $
be a solution of the KdV equation \eqref{main_KdV}.
Then there exist $\varepsilon_0>0$, $C>0$ such that for all $\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_0)$ we have
solutions $ u \in C([0,T_0/\varepsilon^3],H^2)$ of the spatially periodic Boussinesq model \eqref{Boussinesq}
with
\begin{align*}
\sup_{t\in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^3]}\|u(\cdot,t)-\varepsilon^2 A(\varepsilon(\cdot-t),\varepsilon^3t)\|_{H^{2}}\leq C\varepsilon^{5/2}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{main_theoremburgers}
Let $ \alpha = 1 $ and let $A\in C([0,T_0],H^{4}(\mathbb R)) $
be a solution of the inviscid Burgers equation \eqref{main_KdV}.
Then there exist $\varepsilon_0>0$, $C>0$ such that for all $\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_0)$ we have
solutions $ u \in C([0,T_0/\varepsilon^3],H^2)$ of the spatially periodic Boussinesq model \eqref{Boussinesq}
with
\begin{align*}
\sup_{t\in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^{1+\alpha}]}\|u(\cdot,t)-\varepsilon^{\alpha} A(\varepsilon(\cdot-t),\varepsilon^{1+\alpha}t)\|_{H^{2}}\leq C\varepsilon^{(1+2\alpha)/2}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{main_theoremwhitham}
There exists a $ C_1 > 0 $ such that the
following holds. Let $U \in C([0,T_0],H^{4})$ be a solution of the Whitham system \eqref{constwhit1}
with
$$ \sup_{T \in [0,T_0]} \| U(\cdot,T) \|_{H^{4}} \leq C_1 .$$
Then there exist $ \varepsilon_0 > 0 $ and $ C > 0 $ such that
for all $ \varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_0) $ we have solutions
$ u \in C^0([0,T_0/\varepsilon^3],H^2)$ of our spatially periodic Boussinesq model (\ref{Boussinesq}), such that
\begin{align*}
\sup_{t\in [0,T_0/\varepsilon^3]}\|u(\cdot,t)-U(\varepsilon \cdot,\varepsilon t)\|_{H^2}\leq C_2\varepsilon^{1/2}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
{\bf Proof of the Theorems \ref{main_theorem}-\ref{main_theoremwhitham}.}
Since we already have the estimates for the residuals in the Lemmas
\ref{lemkdvres}-\ref{lemkdvres1}
from this point on the remaining estimates can be handled exactly the same.
The case $ \alpha = 0 $ corresponds to the Whitham approximation and the case $ \alpha = 2 $ to the KdV approximation.
The difference $ \varepsilon^{(3+2 \alpha)/2} R = u - \varepsilon^{\alpha} \Psi $
satisfies
\begin{eqnarray} \label{hagen3}
\partial^2_tR & = & \partial_x(a\partial_xR)-\partial_x^2(b\partial_x^2R)+2\partial_x(c\partial_x(\varepsilon^{\alpha}\Psi R)) \\ && \qquad +\varepsilon^{(3+2\alpha)/2}\partial_x(c\partial_x(R^2))+\varepsilon^{-(3+2\alpha)/2}\text{Res}(\varepsilon^{\alpha}\Psi). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The first three terms on the right hand side can be written as
$$
\partial_x(a\partial_xR)-\partial_x^2(b\partial_x^2R)+2\partial_x(c\varepsilon^{\alpha}\Psi\partial_xR)+2\partial_x(c(\partial_x\varepsilon^{\alpha}\Psi) R)
$$
The last term is of order $ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{1+\alpha}) $ due to the long wave character
of the approximation $\varepsilon^{\alpha}\Psi$. More essential the first three terms can be
written as
$\partial_x(B(\partial_xR)) $
where $ B $ is the self-adjoint operator
\begin{align*}
B =(a+2c\varepsilon^{\alpha}\Psi) -\partial_x(b \partial_x).
\end{align*}
In case $ \alpha > 0 $
for sufficiently small $\varepsilon> 0 $
and in case $ \alpha = 0 $ for sufficiently small $ \| \Psi \|_{C^0_b} $
the linear operator $ B $ is positive definite. Hence there exists a positive-definite self-adjoint operator $\mathcal{A}$ with $\mathcal{A}^2=B$.
The associated operator norm $\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{A}} = \| \mathcal{A} \cdot \|_{L^2} $
is then equivalent to the $H^1$-norm and $\mathcal{A}^{-1}$ is a bounded operator from $L^2 $
to $ H^1$.
Hence the equation for the error can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{error}
\partial^2_tR & = &\partial_x (\mathcal{A}^2(\partial_xR))+2\partial_x(c(\partial_x\varepsilon^{\alpha}\Psi) R)
\\ && \qquad +\varepsilon^{(3+2\alpha)/2}\partial_x(c\partial_x(R^2))
+\varepsilon^{-(3+2\alpha)/2}\text{Res}(\varepsilon^{\alpha}\Psi). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In order to bound the solutions of \eqref{error} we use energy estimates.
Therefore, we first multiply \eqref{error}
with $\partial_tR$ and integrate the obtained expression w.r.t. $x$.
We obtain
$$
\int (\partial_tR) \partial^2_tR dx = \partial_t \int (\partial_tR)^2 dx/2
$$
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \int (\partial_tR) \partial_x (\mathcal{A}^2(\partial_xR)) dx \\�& = & -\int (\partial_t \partial_x R) (\mathcal{A}^2
(\partial_xR)) dx = -\int (\mathcal{A} \partial_t \partial_x R) (\mathcal{A} \partial_xR) dx
\\& = & -\int ( \partial_t (\mathcal{A} \partial_x R)) (\mathcal{A} \partial_xR) dx - \int ( [\partial_t, \mathcal{A}] \partial_x R) (\mathcal{A} \partial_xR) dx
\\& = & - \partial_t \int (\mathcal{A} \partial_x R)^2 dx /2
- \int ( [\partial_t, \mathcal{A}] \partial_x R) (\mathcal{A} \partial_xR) dx.
\end{eqnarray*}
where
$$
[\partial_t, \mathcal{A}] \cdot = \partial_t (\mathcal{A} \cdot) - \mathcal{A} \partial_t \cdot
$$
is the commutator of the operators $ \mathcal{A} $ and $ \partial_t $. Moreover, we estimate
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\int (\partial_tR) 2\partial_x(c(\partial_x\varepsilon^{\alpha}\Psi) R)dx | & \leq & C \varepsilon^{1+\alpha} \| \partial_tR\|_{L^2} \| R \|_{H^1}, \\
|\int (\partial_tR) \varepsilon^{(3+ 2 \alpha)/2}\partial_x(c\partial_x(R^2))dx | & \leq & C \varepsilon^{(3+ 2 \alpha)/2} \| \partial_tR\|_{L^2} \| R \|_{H^2}^2, \\
|\int (\partial_tR) \varepsilon^{-(3+ 2 \alpha)/2}\text{Res}(\varepsilon^{\alpha} \Psi)dx | & \leq & C \varepsilon^{2+\alpha} \| \partial_tR\|_{L^2}
\end{eqnarray*}
where we used the Lemmas \ref{lemkdvres}-\ref{lemkdvres1}.
Finally we have
$$
[\partial_t, \mathcal{A}] \partial_x R = (\partial_t \mathcal{A}) \partial_x R
$$
such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int ( [\partial_t, \mathcal{A}] \partial_x R) (\mathcal{A} \partial_xR) dx & = & \int
((\partial_t \mathcal{A}) \partial_x R) (\mathcal{A} \partial_xR) dx.
\end{eqnarray*}
In order to control this term we first note that
\begin{align*}
(\partial_t \mathcal{A}) \mathcal{A} + \mathcal{A}\partial_t\mathcal{A}= \partial_t (\mathcal{A}^2)= 2c\partial_t(\varepsilon^{\alpha}\Psi)
\end{align*}
and
$$
((\partial_t \mathcal{A}) u,v)_{L^2} = ( u,(\partial_t \mathcal{A}) v)_{L^2}
$$
which follows from differentiating the associated formula for $ \mathcal{A} $ w.r.t. $ t $
such that
\begin{align*}
|2\int ((\partial_t\mathcal{A})\partial_xR)(\mathcal{A}\partial_xR) dx| =&
|\int ( \mathcal{A}(\partial_t\mathcal{A})\partial_xR) \partial_xR+\partial_xR (\partial_t\mathcal{A}( \mathcal{A}\partial_xR ))dx|\\
=& |\int \partial_xR ( \mathcal{A} \partial_t\mathcal{A}+(\partial_t\mathcal{A} )\mathcal{A})\partial_xRdx|\\
=& |\int 2c (\partial_t(\varepsilon^{\alpha}\Psi))(\partial_xR)^2dx|\\
\leq&2\sup_{x\in\mathbb R}|c(x)\partial_t(\varepsilon^{\alpha}\Psi(x,t))|\|\partial_xR\|^2_{L^2} = \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{1+\alpha}) \|\partial_xR\|^2_{L^2}.
\end{align*}
In order to get a bound for the $ L^2 $-norm of $ R $ and not only of its derivatives
we secondly multiply ''$\partial_x^{-1}$\eqref{error}''
with $\mathcal{A}^{-2} \partial_x^{-1}\partial_tR$ and integrate the expression obtained in this way w.r.t. $x$.
We find
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int (\mathcal{A}^{-2} \partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR) \partial_x^{-1} \partial^2_tR dx
& = & \int (\mathcal{A}^{-1} \partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR) \mathcal{A}^{-1}\partial_t\partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR dx
\\
& = & \partial_t \int (\mathcal{A}^{-1} \partial_x^{-1}\partial_tR)^2 dx/2 \\ &&
- \int (\mathcal{A}^{-1} \partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR) [\partial_t,\mathcal{A}^{-1}]\partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR dx
,\\
\int (\mathcal{A}^{-2} \partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR) \partial_x^{-1} \partial_x\mathcal{A}^2\partial_xR dx & = & - \partial_t \int R^2 dx /2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover, using $ \mathcal{A}^{-1}:L^2\to H^1 $ and the self-adjointness of $ \mathcal{A}^{-1} $ we estimate
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\int (\mathcal{A}^{-2} \partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR) 2\partial_x^{-1} \partial_x(c(\partial_x\varepsilon^{\alpha}\Psi) R)dx | & = & |\int (\mathcal{A}^{-1} \partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR) 2\mathcal{A}^{-1} (c(\partial_x\varepsilon^{\alpha}\Psi) R)dx |
\\
& \leq & C \varepsilon^{1+\alpha} \| \partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR\|_{L^2} \| R \|_{L^2}, \\
|\int (\mathcal{A}^{-2} \partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR) \varepsilon^{(3+2 \alpha)/2}\partial_x^{-1} \partial_x(c\partial_x(R^2))dx |
& = &
|\int (\mathcal{A}^{-1} \partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR) \varepsilon^{(3+2 \alpha)/2}\mathcal{A}^{-1} (c\partial_x(R^2))dx |
\\ & \leq & C \varepsilon^{(3+2 \alpha)/2} \|\partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR\|_{L^2} \| R \|_{H^1}^2, \\
|\int (\mathcal{A}^{-2} \partial_x^{-1}\partial_tR) \varepsilon^{-(3+2 \alpha)/2}\partial_x^{-1}\text{Res}(\varepsilon^{\alpha}\Psi)dx | & \leq & C \varepsilon^{1+\alpha} \| \partial_x^{-1}\partial_tR\|_{L^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
where we used again the Lemmas \ref{lemkdvres}-\ref{lemkdvres1}.
Finally we have
$$
[\partial_t, \mathcal{A}^{-1}] \partial_x R = (\partial_t \mathcal{A}^{-1}) \partial_x R
$$
such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int (\mathcal{A}^{-1} \partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR) [\partial_t,\mathcal{A}^{-1}]\partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR dx
& = & \int
(\mathcal{A}^{-1} \partial_x^{-1}\partial_t R) (\partial_t \mathcal{A}^{-1})\partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR dx.
\end{eqnarray*}
We write this as half of
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \int
((\partial_t \mathcal{A}^{-1})\partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR) (\mathcal{A}^{-1} \partial_x^{-1}\partial_t R) dx
+
\int
(\mathcal{A}^{-1} \partial_x^{-1}\partial_t R) (\partial_t \mathcal{A}^{-1})\partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR dx
\\�& = &
\int
( \partial_x^{-1}\partial_t R) ( (\partial_t \mathcal{A}^{-1})\mathcal{A}^{-1} + \mathcal{A}^{-1} \partial_t \mathcal{A}^{-1})\partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR dx
\\�& = &
\int
( \partial_x^{-1}\partial_t R) (\partial_t (\mathcal{A}^{-2}))\partial_x^{-1} \partial_tR dx =: s_1
\end{eqnarray*}
From
$$
\partial_t(\mathcal{A}^2 \mathcal{A}^{-2}) = ( \partial_t (\mathcal{A}^2))\mathcal{A}^{-2} + \mathcal{A}^2 \partial_t(\mathcal{A}^{-2}) = 0
$$
it follows that
$$
\partial_t(\mathcal{A}^{-2}) = -\mathcal{A}^{-2}( \partial_t (\mathcal{A}^2))\mathcal{A}^{-2}= -\mathcal{A}^{-2} (\partial_t(\varepsilon^{\alpha} \Psi)) \mathcal{A}^{-2}
$$
such that
$$
s_1 = \int
(\mathcal{A}^{-2} \partial_x^{-1}\partial_t R) (\partial_t(\varepsilon^{\alpha} \Psi))(\mathcal{A}^{-2} \partial_x^{-1}\partial_t R) dx
= \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{1+\alpha})\| \mathcal{A}^{-2} \partial_x^{-1}\partial_t R \|_{L^2}^2
$$
which can be bounded by $ \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{1+\alpha})\| \mathcal{A}^{-1} \partial_x^{-1}\partial_t R \|_{L^2}^2 $.
If we define
\begin{align*}
E(t)\,\,=\,\, \frac 1 2 \left(||\partial_tR||_{L^2}^2\,+||\mathcal{A}^{-1}\partial_x^{-1}\partial_tR||_{L^2}^2\,+\,||R||_{L^2}^2\,+\,||\mathcal{A}\partial_xR||_{L^2}^2\right).
\end{align*}
we find
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d}{dt}{E} & \leq & C_1 \varepsilon^{1+\alpha} E + C_2 \varepsilon^{(3+2\alpha)/2} E^{3/2} + C_3 \varepsilon^{1+\alpha} E^{1/2} \\
& \leq & C_1 \varepsilon^{1+\alpha} E + C_2 \varepsilon^{(3+2\alpha)/2} E^{3/2} + C_3 \varepsilon^{1+\alpha}
+ C_3 \varepsilon^{1+\alpha}
E,
\end{eqnarray*}
with constants $ C_1 $, $ C_2 $, and $ C_3 $ independent of $ 0 < \varepsilon \ll 1 $
since all the
$\|\partial_tR\|_{L^2} $, $ \|\mathcal{A}^{-1}\partial_x^{-1}\partial_tR\|_{L^2} $, etc. appearing above
can be estimated by $ E^{1/2} $.
Choosing $ \varepsilon^{1/2} E^{1/2} \leq 1 $ gives
$$
\frac{d}{dt}{E}(t) \leq (C_1+ C_2+C_3) \varepsilon^{1+\alpha} E + C_3 \varepsilon^{1+\alpha}
$$
which can be estimated with Gronwall's inequality and yields
$$
E(t) \leq C_3 T_0 e^{(C_1+ C_2+C_3) T_0} =: M
$$
for all $ 0 \leq \varepsilon^{1+\alpha} t \leq T_0 $.
Choosing $ \varepsilon_0 > 0 $ so small that $ \varepsilon_0^{1/2} M^{1/2} \leq 1 $
gives the required estimate first for $ E(t) $.
Since in case $ \alpha > 0 $
for sufficiently small $\varepsilon> 0 $
and case $ \alpha = 0 $ for sufficiently small $ \| \Psi \|_{C^2_b} $
the quantity $ E^{1/2} $ equivalent to the $ H^2 $-norm of $ R $ we are done
with the proof of the Theorems \ref{main_theorem}-\ref{main_theoremwhitham}.
\qed
\section{Discussion}
It is the purpose of this section to give some heuristic arguments why the previous
approach works and to put the approach in some larger framework.
The error equation \eqref{smitseq} to the spatially homogeneous Boussinesq equation \eqref{const}
can be written in lowest order in the form of a Hamiltonian system, namely
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial_t \left( \begin{array}{c} R \\ w \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{c}
w \\
\partial_x^2 R - \partial_x^4 R + \varepsilon^{\alpha} \Psi \partial_x^2 R + \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{1+\alpha})
\end{array}
\right) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{array} \right)\left( \begin{array}{c} \partial_R H \\ \partial_w H \end{array} \right),
\end{eqnarray*}
with the Hamiltonian
$$
H = \frac{1}{2} \int w^2 + (\partial_x R)^2+ (\partial_x^2 R)^2 + \varepsilon^{\alpha} \Psi (\partial_x R)^2 dx
$$
where for this presentation we used $ \partial_x \Psi = \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon) $.
This Hamiltonian is a part of our energy and it can be used to estimate parts of the $ H^2 $ norm.
Since $ \Psi $ depends on $ t $ the Hamiltonian is not conserved, but
we have
\begin{equation}\label{fjs23}
\frac{d}{dt} H = \nabla H \cdot \partial_t \left( \begin{array}{c} R \\ w \end{array} \right) + \partial_t H
= 0 + \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{1+\alpha})
\end{equation}
since $ \partial_t \Psi = \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon) $ due to the long wave character of the approximation.
In a similar way the spatially periodic case can be understood.
The error equation \eqref{error} to the spatially homogeneous Boussinesq equation \eqref{Boussinesq}
can be written in lowest order in the form of a Hamiltonian system, namely
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial_t \left( \begin{array}{c} R \\ w \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{c}
w \\
{\partial_x (\mathcal{A}^2 (\partial_x R)) + \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{1+\alpha})}
\end{array}
\right) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{array} \right)\left( \begin{array}{c} \partial_R H \\ \partial_w H \end{array} \right)+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{1+\alpha}),
\end{eqnarray*}
with the Hamiltonian
$$
H = \frac{1}{2} \int w^2 + (\mathcal{A} \partial_x R)^2 dx $$
where for this presentation we used $ \partial_x \Psi = \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon) $.
This Hamiltonian is a part of our energy and it can be used to estimate parts of the $ H^2 $ norm.
Since $ \mathcal{A}$ depends via $ \Psi $ on $ t $ the Hamiltonian is not conserved, but
again we have \eqref{fjs23}
since $ \partial_t \Psi = \mathcal{O}(\varepsilon) $ due to the long wave character of the approximation.
As already said the paper was originally intended as the next step in generalizing a method
which has been developed in \cite{CS11} for the justification of the KdV approximation
in situations when the KdV modes are resonant to other long wave modes respectively in \cite{DSS16}
for the justification of the Whitham approximation.
The normal form transforms which were used
in the proofs of \cite{CS11,DSS16} leave the energy surfaces invariant and can therefore be avoided by
our 'good' choice of energy.
Hence also the toy problem considered in \cite{CS11,DSS16} can be handled with the presented approach
if the nonlinear terms are modified in such a way that a Hamiltonian structure is observed.
|
\section{Introduction}
Magnetic flux ropes (MFRs) are one of the fundamental structures in plasma physics, space physics and astrophysics,
and may exist in different scales from as small as formed in reconnection regions to as large as appeared in
astrophysical jets. MFRs can be defined when a bunch of magnetic field lines demonstrate a
systematic and significant {\it twist} around an internal main axis. In mathematics, the quantity,
{\it twist} (in units of radians per unit length), is described as $T=\frac{B_{\varphi}}{rB_z}$ in local cylindrical coordinates $(r, \varphi, z)$
with the $z$-axis along the main axis. It is an important parameter characterizing a MFR. A
strong twisted MFR carries more magnetic free energy density than a weak twisted MFR, and may be subject
to various instabilities.
In solar physics, kink instability is one of the most common instabilities, frequently observed
during solar eruptions~\citep[e.g.,][]{Rust_Kumar_1996, DeVore_Antiochos_2000, Ji_etal_2003,
Williams_etal_2005, Rust_LaBonte_2005}.
Lots of theoretical and numerical simulation studies had shown that a MFR becomes unstable when the
twist exceeds a critical value~\citep[e.g.,][]{Dungey_Loughhead_1954, Kruskal_etal_1958, Hood_Priest_1979, Mikic_etal_1990,
Baty_2001, Fan_Gibson_2004,Torok_Kliem_2005}.
A well-known critical twist is that derived by~\citet{Hood_Priest_1981} for a line-tying force-free MFR with the
uniform-twist solution first proposed by \citet[][called GH model hereafter and see Sec.\ref{sec_model} for
the solution; For clarification, most acronyms and symbols used in this paper are summarized in Appendix A and Table~\ref{tb_par}]{Gold_Hoyle_1960}. They found that the MFR will become
kink unstable when the total twist angle, $\Phi_T$, exceeds $2.5\pi$ radians or the total number
of turns exceeds 1.25 (hereafter called HP critical twist). Here the total twist angle
is the angle of the magnetic field lines rotating around the main axis from one end of the MFR to the other
given by $\int_0^l Tdz$ where $l$ is the length of the main axis.
Actually, the value of critical twist depends on many factors, including the internal magnetic field
configuration~\citep{Dungey_Loughhead_1954, Hood_Priest_1979, Mikic_etal_1990, Bennett_etal_1999, Baty_2001},
the external field~\citep{Hood_Priest_1980, Bennett_etal_1999,
Torok_Kliem_2005}, the plasma $\beta$~\citep{Hood_Priest_1979}, the axial plasma flow~\citep{Zaqarashvili_etal_2010}, etc.
For example, some previous studies~\citep{Dungey_Loughhead_1954, Hood_Priest_1979, Bennett_etal_1999, Baty_2001}
demonstrated that the critical total twist angle, $\Phi_{c}$, is a function
of the aspect ratio (the ratio of the axial length $l$ to the radius $R$) of a MFR, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi_c=\omega_c\frac{l}{R}\label{eq_critical}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\omega_c$ is a parameter depending on detailed configuration of the MFR. For
another type of uniform-twist flux rope~\citep[first proposed by][]{Alfven_1950},
which has the uniform axial magnetic field and is in a non-force-free state, \citet{Dungey_Loughhead_1954}
and \citet{Bennett_etal_1999} found that $\omega_c$ is about 2, suggesting that a thin MFR has a higher critical twist.
Similar dependence was also investigated by~\citet{Hood_Priest_1979} and \citet{Baty_2001} for various types of flux ropes,
in which $\omega_c$ varies in a large range.
The core structures of solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs), the
largest eruptive phenomenon on the Sun, are believed to be MFRs, which form and
develop before and/or during the eruptions in the corona and evolve into interplanetary space. Thus
learning how strong the twist is in MFRs is extremely useful in understanding the eruption and dynamic
evolution of CMEs.
\subsection{Twist of solar MFRs}\label{sec_smfr}
So far there is no mean to directly observe MFRs on the Sun. All the information of the MFRs on the Sun
are obtained indirectly from multi-wavelength observations and modeling studies.
One of the earliest attempts of measuring the twists of solar MFRs was done to prominences~\citep[e.g.,][]{Vrsnak_etal_1991,
Vrsnak_etal_1993}, which were thought to be a good tracer of MFRs. \citet{Vrsnak_etal_1991} analyzed a set
of 28 prominences observed in $H\alpha$ passband with the focus on the helical-shaped threads in the prominences.
By assuming a reasonable flux rope model and that the $H\alpha$ material is frozen-in the magnetic field lines,
they measured the pitch angle of these threads and found that the total twist angles varied in a range roughly
from $5\pi$ to $15\pi$. Since the resolution of the $H\alpha$ images was not good enough at that time, the results
may suffer from large uncertainties. With higher-resolution imaging data, \citet{Romano_etal_2003} investigated
a prominence eruption. By using the same method, they derived that the total twist angle of one helical thread
of the prominence was about $10\pi$ and decreased to about $2\pi$ during the eruption.
More recently, with even higher-resolution imaging data, \citet{Srivastava_etal_2010}
successfully measured the twist of a coronal loop in active region (AR) 10960, which showed
bright-dark alternating streaks along the long axis of a loop in the TRACE 171\AA\ images, implying a highly
twisted structure. By combining the observations from SOHO/MDI,
Hinode/SOT and TRACE, the authors figured out that the aspect ratio of the loop was about 20 and the
total twist angle of the loop was about $12\pi$, and suggested that the kink instability was responsible for a small flare in the AR.
Another similar case could be found in the study of the 2002 July 15 flare by \citet{Gary_Moore_2004}, in which
an erupting four-turn helical structure was clearly observed in the TRACE 1600\AA\ images.
All of these measured twists significantly exceeded the HP critical twist, but might support the other theoretical
studies aforementioned that thin MFRs have higher critical twists for the kink instability~\citep{Dungey_Loughhead_1954, Bennett_etal_1999,
Hood_Priest_1979} as those observed structures did have large aspect ratios.
More efforts on the twists of solar MFRs are from modeling methods. With the aid of a non-linear force-free field
(NLFFF) extrapolation technique, for example, \citet{Yan_etal_2001} presented a MFR above the polarity inversion
line associated with an X5.7-class flare on 2000 July 14. They estimated that the total twist angle of the MFR
was about $3\pi$, and was maintained for about 10 hours before the flare. Similar studies could be found in, e.g.,
\citet{Regnier_etal_2002} and \citet{Guo_etal_2010}, in which they roughly estimated that the twist of MFRs varied from
about $2\pi$ to $3\pi$.
More precisely, \citet{Berger_Prior_2006} gave a general equation (Eq.12 in their paper) for the twist of a bunch of smooth
non-self-intersecting magnetic field lines. It was found that the total twist angle of a magnetic field line for
force-free fields can be approximated as $\frac{\alpha}{2}l_{line}$ (see Eq.16 in \citealt{Berger_Prior_2006} or
Eq.7 in \citealt{LiuR_etal_2016}), where $\alpha$ is the force-free parameter and $l_{line}$ is the length of the field line.
This method was later applied to the extrapolated three-dimensional (3D) magnetic field lines to
infer the twists of candidate MFRs~\citep[e.g.,][]{Inoue_etal_2011, Inoue_etal_2012, Guo_etal_2013,
Chintzoglou_etal_2015, LiuR_etal_2016}.
For example, \citet{Inoue_etal_2011} studied the magnetic field structure surrounding the sheared flare ribbons of an
X3.4-class flare on 2006 December 13, and inferred that the total twist angle varied from about $0.5\pi$ to $1.2\pi$.
\citet{LiuR_etal_2016} investigated the MFRs associated with a series of flares in AR 11817, and found that all of the
MFRs had a moderate twist angle less than $4\pi$. Particularly, from the twist maps in their paper, one may find that
the distribution of the twist was more or less flattened in the MFRs, implying a configuration closer to a uniform-twist
magnetic field structure. Besides, it should be noted that the inferred
twist angle by the \citet{Berger_Prior_2006} equation is not exactly equal to the traditional twist angle, $\Phi_T$,
defined at the beginning of the paper. It is very close to the traditional twist near the axis but deviates at other
places~\citep[see Appendix C of][]{LiuR_etal_2016}, and
should be treated as a local twist angle, labeled $\Phi_L$, contrasting to $\Phi_T$. As can be
seen from Eq.\ref{eq_alpha} and \ref{eq_length} below, for a uniform-twist flux rope with the GH model, there is
$\frac{\Phi_T}{\Phi_L}=\sqrt{1+T^2r^2}$, suggesting an under-estimation of $\Phi_T$.
An interesting thing here is that the inferred MFRs from NLFFF extrapolations have much less twists
than observed helical structures. There are two possible reasons. One is that the extrapolated twists are significantly
under-estimated as demonstrated above with the GH model; the other is that the observed
helical structures might not fully reflect the real twist of magnetic field lines. It is difficult to judge which one is
the case without direct detection of MFRs. Thus, it becomes necessary to investigate the twists
of interplanetary MFRs, most of which are believed to be evolved from the ejected MFRs on the Sun and may be directly
measured by in-situ instruments.
\subsection{Twist of interplanetary MFRs}
The large-scale MFRs in interplanetary space are usually termed magnetic clouds (MCs)~\citep{Burlaga_etal_1981}, a subset
of CMEs. The twists of magnetic field lines inside MCs can be estimated by using
energetic particles released during impulsive flares magnetically connecting to the in-situ detector.
It was often observed that energetic particles
demonstrate a velocity dispersion in the energy-time plot~\citep[e.g.,][]{Kutchko_etal_1982}.
This can be used to infer the lengths of magnetic field lines based on the facts that
energetic particles are fewly scattered during the propagation and particles with higher speeds will arrive
earlier when they are injected into interplanetary space at the same time~\citep{Larson_etal_1997, Mazur_etal_2000,
Kahler_Ragot_2006, Chollet_etal_2007, Ragot_Kahler_2008, Kahler_etal_2011, Kahler_etal_2011a, Tan_etal_2012}.
The desired energy range is above 1 keV for electrons or 20 keV for ions. Electrons are better than
ions because electrons have smaller gyroradii. As long as the length of the MC's main axis can
be determined or reasonably assumed, the twists of the magnetic field lines inside the MC can be deduced from the length.
Concretely speaking, by assuming that the energetic electrons released almost the same time and propagate
along the same bunch of magnetic field lines, the velocity dispersion at in-situ detector can be fitted by
the equation $l_{line}=v(t-t_0)$, where $v$ and $t$ are observed velocities and arrival times, to obtain
the release time, $t_0$, and the field line length $l_{line}$. However, this method often gets $l_{line}<1.2$ AU,
less than the typical length of Parker spiral field lines, due to the large uncertainty in the
measurements~\citep{Kahler_Ragot_2006}. Thus alternatively, people used the onset of the associated Type III radio burst as the release
time of the received energetic electrons, and derived the field line length based on the same equation with
the free parameter, $t_0$, fixed. By using this method,~\citet{Larson_etal_1997} inferred that the magnetic field
line length varied from about 3 AU near the edge to about 1.2 AU near the center of the magnetic cloud
detected by the Wind spacecraft during 1995 October 18--20. By using the electrons with higher energy than those
used in~\citet{Larson_etal_1997}, ~\citet{Kahler_etal_2011} got a similar result. Further, they
expanded the study to more MC events, and found that the field line lengths inside the MCs are ranged between
about 1.3 and 3.7 AU. It can be roughly inferred from the length range by using Eq.\ref{eq_length} below that the twists of the magnetic field
lines inside MCs actually do not vary too much. These inferred lengths are notably deviated from those predicted by the flux rope model
with Lundquist solution~\citep{Lundquist_1950}, in which the field line length becomes infinitely large
when approaching the edge of a MFR.
In addition to the probes of energetic particles, Grad-Shafranov (GS) reconstruction technique is another
approach to infer the twist of MCs. Different from other MC's flux rope models, it does not preset any magnetic
configuration of the MFR, and instead it can infer the magnetic field vector in the plane perpendicular to the MFR axis under
the magnetohydrostatic assumption~\citep{Hu_Sonnerup_2002}. By assuming $\frac{\partial}{\partial z}=0$ with
$\hat{\ve z}$ along the axis, \citet{Hu_etal_2014} drew out magnetic field lines from the plane for 18 MCs of
interest and studied the twists inside the MCs. They found that the twist changes in a small range from the
axis to the edge for most events, and the average twist or the number of turns per unit length, $\tau$ (refer to
Eq.\ref{eq_tau} in the next section for its definition), varies
between $\sim1.7$ to $\sim7.7$ turns per AU with one exceptional large $\tau$ of about $15$ turns per AU.
A similar case study can be found in an earlier paper by \citet{Mostl_etal_2009}, in which the authors used
multi-spacecraft measurements to reconstruct a MC and inferred a twist of about 1.5 -- 1.7 turns per AU.
Further,~\citet{Hu_etal_2015}
compared the deduced magnetic field line lengths with those estimated from the energetic electrons by \citet{Kahler_etal_2011},
and a good correlation was found. Since the flat change in twist from the axis to the edge of the MCs was found
through both electron probes and GS reconstructions, \citet{Hu_etal_2015}
also argued that the magnetic field lines of MCs are more likely to be uniformly twisted, and therefore the
uniform-twist flux rope with the GH solution,
rather than the Lundquist flux rope or others with a highly non-uniform twist should be used to model
the interplanetary MFRs.
These results are quite consistent with the studies of solar MFRs as introduced in Sec.\ref{sec_smfr}.
Although \citet{Hu_etal_2015} mentioned and applied the GH model, they only used it to
estimate the magnetic field line length based on GS fitting results. A full application of the GH model
in fitting of interplanetary MFRs was rarely reported. To our knowledge, the first study in such kind
is that by \citet{Farrugia_etal_1999}. They investigated a MFR during 1995 October 24--25 observed by Wind,
and inferred that the twist of the magnetic field lines in the MFR was about 8 turns per AU.
\citet{Dasso_etal_2006} also applied the GH model to study the helicity and fluxes of the MC
on 1995 October 18--20. It was suggested that the twist of the MC is about 2.4 turns per AU based on their
GH model. As will see below, this value is quite consistent with the inferred magnetic field line
lengths~\citep{Kahler_etal_2011} by assuming an axial length of about 2.57 AU.
Inspired by the studies of the twists of solar and interplanetary MFRs, in this paper we try to apply
the GH model to a large sample of interplanetary MCs, check how many and how well interplanetary
MCs can be fitted by the model, and seek some statistical properties of MFRs in terms of twist.
First, we develop the original GH model into the velocity-modified GH model, which will be introduced
in detail in the next section. Secondly in Section~\ref{sec_compare}, by applying the model to some MC events, we compare the deduced magnetic field
line lengths and twists to those reported in \citet{Kahler_etal_2011} and \citet{Hu_etal_2015}, respectively,
to justify the model. A statistical analysis of the twists of MCs are then presented in Sec.\ref{sec_statistics}.
We believe that the method established in this paper and the results obtained
will be a useful complement to the currently existing approaches and results for interplanetary MFRs and
also helpful to understand the properties and behaviors of MFRs on the Sun.
\section{Velocity-modified uniform-twist flux rope model with the GH solution}
\subsection{Description of the model}\label{sec_model}
The reason we incorporate
velocity into the model is that MCs are dynamically evolving and the measurements of
in-situ 3D velocity may provide additional
constraints on the fitting procedure.
The derivation of the model is similar to that of the velocity-modified
cylindrical flux rope model with Lundquist solution by~\citet{Wang_etal_2015}. The main
difference is that we here replace the Lundquist solution of the magnetic field with
the GH solution. The former is linear force-free and the latter is non-linear force-free.
For the completeness and clarification, the model and how to
evaluate the goodness-of-fit are briefly described below.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig01.eps}
\caption{(a) Schematic picture of an MC at the heliocentric distance of $L$ (adapted from \citet{Wang_etal_2009}).
The black line indicates the looped axis of the MC with a length of $l$. The blue dashed lines suggest the upper
and lower limits of $l$. (b) Illustration of the three types of global motions of an MC. The black, red and blue
arrows denote the linear propagating motion, expanding motion and poloidal motion, respectively.}\label{fg_coord}
\end{figure*}
We consider a loop-like global geometry of the interplanetary MFR as shown in Figure~\ref{fg_coord},
and investigate a segment of the MFR in the cylindrical coordinates $(r,\varphi,z)$. The
coordinates and symbols used in this study are exactly the same as those in~\citet{Wang_etal_2015}.
The uniform-twist magnetic field inside the MFR is described as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&B_r=0\\
&&B_\varphi=\frac{Tr}{1+T^2r^2}B_0\label{eq_b2i}\\
&&B_z=\frac{1}{1+T^2r^2}B_0\label{eq_b3i}
\end{eqnarray}
in which $B_0$ is the magnetic field at the MFR axis where $r=0$ and $T$ is the twist of the magnetic field
lines in units of radians per unit length as defined in Introduction.
A positive/negative value of $T$ means the handedness of the MFR is right/left.
Let the length of the MFR's axis be $l$, the number of turns of the field lines winding around
the axis from one end of the MFR to the other is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
n=\frac{T}{2\pi}l=\frac{\Phi_T}{2\pi}\label{eq_twist}
\end{eqnarray}
or the number of turns per unit length along the MFR axis by
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau=\frac{T}{2\pi}\label{eq_tau}
\end{eqnarray}
By assuming the self-similar evolution of the MFR, $l$ can be given by
\begin{eqnarray}
l=\lambda L\label{eq_l}
\end{eqnarray}
where $L$ is the heliocentric distance of the leading part of the MC as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fg_coord}, and $\lambda$
is a constant, named effective length factor here.
The axial length $l$ or the effective length factor $\lambda$ is of importance to estimate the total magnetic flux, helicity and
magnetic energy carried by the MFR. Here, we set $\lambda$ to be
$\frac{\pi+2}{2}\pm\frac{\pi-2}{2}\approx2.57\pm0.57$ following \citet{Wang_etal_2015} and summarized in Figure~\ref{fg_coord}a,
which is almost same to the value of $2.6\pm0.3 AU$ inferred by~\citet{Demoulin_etal_2016} and also
very close to $2.7\pm0.5$ assumed by~\citet{Kahler_etal_2011}.
By comparing the directly probed magnetic field line lengths from the energy electrons and the twists derived
from GS model, \citet{Hu_etal_2015} concluded that the effective axial length, $L_{eff}$, from the footpoint on the
Sun to the MC observed at 1 AU is ranged between 1 to 2 AU, corresponding to a $\lambda$ from 2 to 4, which is slightly
wider than the range of $\lambda$ we used here.
Further, the non-constant force-free parameter $\alpha$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha=\frac{2T}{1+T^2r^2}\label{eq_alpha}
\end{eqnarray}
the length of the magnetic field line on any torus by
\begin{eqnarray}
l_{line}=\int_0^{l}\sqrt{dz^2+(rd\varphi)^2}=l\sqrt{1+T^2r^2}\label{eq_length}
\end{eqnarray}
the axial and poloidal magnetic fluxes by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&F_z=\int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^R B_zrdrd\varphi=\frac{B_0l^2}{4\pi n^2}\ln\left(1+4\pi^2n^2\frac{R^2}{l^2}\right)\label{eq_flux_z} \\
&&F_\varphi=\int_0^l\int_0^R|B_\varphi| drdz=\frac{B_0l^2}{4\pi |n|}\ln\left(1+4\pi^2n^2\frac{R^2}{l^2}\right)\label{eq_flux_p}
\end{eqnarray}
where $R$ is the radius of the MFR, and the total magnetic helicity by~\citep{Berger_Field_1984}
\begin{eqnarray}
H_m=nF_z^2\label{eq_helicity}
\end{eqnarray}
It is interesting to discuss the invariance of some parameters. For a perfectly conducting plasma in a closed volume,
the total magnetic helicity is constant, which is believed to be a good approximation for MCs.
Together with the assumption of constant axial magnetic flux, one may infer from \ref{eq_helicity}
that $n$ is invariant, and the self-similar assumption used in this model implies that $\frac{R}{l}$ is invariant.
The invariance of $n$ could be illuminated from
another angle of view. One may imagine that for a given magnetic field line in a flux rope with finite length,
its value of $n$ is related to the positions of the fluid elements frozen onto the two ends of the field lines. These fluid
elements are supposed to locate on the surface of the Sun based on the picture that a magnetic cloud is a
looped structure with two ends rooted on the Sun~\citep{Kahler_Reames_1991, Larson_etal_1997}. As long as
the relative positions of the fluid elements do not change significantly during the MFR passing through
the in-situ observer, the configuration of the magnetic field lines as well as $n$ can be treated unchanged.
Then, as a consequence, the parameters $T$, $\tau$ and $\alpha$ are time- or distance-dependent. Concretely,
the twist of MCs decreases in such a way to keep $n$ being constant when they propagate and expand into interplanetary space.
Further, we may infer that
\begin{eqnarray}
B_0\propto L^{-2}
\end{eqnarray}
and the magnetic energy
\begin{eqnarray}
E_m&=&\int_0^l\int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^R\frac{B^2}{2\mu}rdrd\varphi dz=\frac{B_0^2l^3}{8\pi\mu n^2}\ln\left(1+4\pi^2n^2\frac{R^2}{l^2}\right) \nonumber \\
&\propto & L^{-1}\label{eq_energy}
\end{eqnarray}
These scaling laws are the same as those for the Lundquist flux ropes.
By defining a dimensionless parameter, $x=\frac{r}{R}$, to be the normalized distance from the axis of the MFR,
we can find that the twist, $T$, and the radius, $R$, cannot be distinguished in the GH solution (Eq.\ref{eq_b2i} and \ref{eq_b3i}).
In the Lundquist solution, the radius, i.e., the boundary, of a MFR is usually set at the first zero of the zero-order
Bessel function $J_0(r)$ where $B_z$ vanishes. However, the GH solution does not have such a
zero point along the $r$-axis. One potential special point locates at $r=\frac{1}{T}$, where $B_\varphi$ reaches the maximum.
This point was assumed to be the boundary of the MFR in a series of papers by \citeauthor{Hood_Priest_1979} in, e.g., 1979, 1980 and 1981.
\begin{table*
\linespread{1.5} \caption{Parameters involved in the
velocity-modified GH model}\label{tb_par}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|p{430px}}
\hline Parameter & Explanation \\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Free parameters in the model} \\
\hline
$B_0(t)$ & Magnetic field strength at the axis of the MFR.\\
$\omega$ & A parameter containing the information of the twist (Eq.\ref{eq_critical} or \ref{eq_r-omega}).\\
$\theta$ & Elevation angle of the axis of the MFR in GSE.\\
$\phi$ & Azimuthal angle of the axis of the MFR in GSE.\\
$d$ & The closest approach of the observational path to the axis of
the MFR.\\
$v_X$ & Propagation speed of the MFR in the direction of $\mathbf{\hat{X}}$.\\
$v_Y$ & Propagation speed of the MFR in the direction of $\mathbf{\hat{Y}}$.\\
$v_Z$ & Propagation speed of the MFR in the direction of $\mathbf{\hat{Z}}$.\\
$v_{e}$ & Expansion speed of the boundary of the MFR in the direction of $\mathbf{\hat{r}}$.\\
$v_{p}(t)$ & Poloidal speed at the boundary of the MFR in the direction of $\mathbf{\hat{\varphi}}$.\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Other derived parameters from the model} \\
\hline
$R(t)$ & Radius of the cross-section of the MFR.\\
$t_c$ & The time when the observer arrives at the closest approach.\\
$\Theta$ & Angle between the axis of the MFR and $\mathbf{\hat{X}}$-axis.\\
$\alpha(t)$ & Non-constant force-free parameter (Eq.\ref{eq_alpha}).\\
$l_{line}(t)$ & Lengths of the magnetic field lines from one end of the MFR to the other (Eq.\ref{eq_length}).\\
$T(t)$ & Twist per unit length along the MFR axis.\\
$\tau(t)$ & Number of the turns per unit length along the MFR axis, i.e., $\frac{T}{2\pi}$.\\
$\Phi_T$ & Total twist angle, i.e., integration of $T$ along the MFR's axis from one end to the other.
$\Phi_c$ and $\Phi_L$ refer to the critical and local total twist angles, respectively.\\
$n$ & Total number of turns of the magnetic field lines of the MFR, i.e., $\frac{\Phi_T}{2\pi}$.\\
$F_z$ & Axial magnetic flux of the MFR (Eq.\ref{eq_flux_z}).\\
$F_\varphi$ & Poloidal magnetic flux of the MFR (Eq.\ref{eq_flux_p}).\\
$H_m$ & Total magnetic helicity of the MFR (Eq.\ref{eq_helicity}).\\
$E_{m}(t)$ & Total magnetic energy of the MFR (Eq.\ref{eq_energy}).\\
$\chi_n$ & Normalized root mean square (rms) of the difference between the
modeled results and observations (Eq.\ref{eq_chi}).\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
Actually, the boundary of a GH flux rope can be freely chosen.
We may introduce a new parameter, $\omega$, to relate $R$ with $T$ as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
R=\frac{\omega}{T}\label{eq_r-omega}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\omega$ could be any non-zero value. It should be noted that $\omega=RT=\frac{R}{l}\Phi_T$ has the same dimension
as $\omega_c$ in Eq.\ref{eq_critical}, suggesting that searching the critical twist angle $\Phi_T$ is equivalent to searching
the critical value of $\omega$ for a GH flux rope. Since $\frac{R}{l}$ and $\Phi_T=2\pi n$ are constant as discussed above, $\omega$
is also constant and therefore time- or distance-independent.
Equations \ref{eq_b2i} and \ref{eq_b3i} are then rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&B_\varphi=\frac{\omega x}{1+\omega^2x^2}B_0\label{eq_b2}\\
&&B_z=\frac{1}{1+\omega^2x^2}B_0\label{eq_b3}
\end{eqnarray}
The determination of the value of $\omega$ is important, and will be introduced in the next section.
The three components of the global plasma motion of the MFR, which are the propagation motion,
expanding motion and the poloidal motion (ref. to Fig.\ref{fg_coord}b), are respectively given as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\ve v_c=(v_X,v_Y,v_Z) \label{eq_vc}\\
&&v_r(x)=xv_e \label{eq_ve}\\
&&v_\varphi(t,x)=v_p(t)=v_p(t_0)\frac{R(t_0)}{R(t)}\label{eq_vp}
\end{eqnarray}
where $v_e$ and $v_p$ are the expanding and poloidal speeds at the boundary of the MFR, respectively,
and $t_0$ is a reference time. Here, the propagation speed, $\ve v_c$, and the expansion speed, $v_e$, are
assumed constant during the passage of the MC. The expansion speed and poloidal speed given by Eq.\ref{eq_ve} and \ref{eq_vp}
are designed to satisfy the self-similar evolution assumption and the latter also satisfies the mass and angular momentum
conservations~\citep[see Sec.2.1.1 of][]{Wang_etal_2015}.
Consequently, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&R(t)=R(t_0)+v_e(t-t_0)\\
&&B_0(t)=B_0(t_0)\left[\frac{R(t_0)}{R(t)}\right]^2\label{eq_b0}
\end{eqnarray}
The latter is required by the magnetic flux conservation, and these two equations connect the equations of velocities
(Eq.\ref{eq_vc}--\ref{eq_vp}) with the equations of the magnetic field structure (Eq.\ref{eq_b2}--\ref{eq_b3}
or Eq.\ref{eq_b2i}--\ref{eq_b3i}).
Equations \ref{eq_b2}--\ref{eq_b0} form the model, in which a total of 10 free parameters, listed
in Table~\ref{tb_par}, need to be determined by fitting the model to the measurements
of the magnetic field and velocity.
Some derivable parameters are also listed in the table,
in which the values of $R$, $n$, $l_{line}$, $F_\varphi$, $H_m$ and $E_m$ depends on the axial length $l$.
It should be noted that the radius, $R$, is not a free parameter, because
it can be uniquely determined by the closest approach, $d$, and the propagation velocity, $\ve v_c$.
\subsection{Evaluation of the quality of fit}\label{sec_quality}
Starting from a series of initial values, all of the free parameters except
for $\omega$ are optimized by using a least squares fitting procedure, which
is the exactly same as that described in Sec.2.1.3 of~\citet{Wang_etal_2015}
and will not be repeated here. The parameter $\omega$ is estimated separately by
using
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega=RT=\frac{B_\varphi}{xB_z}\label{eq_omega}
\end{eqnarray}
in which $B_\varphi$ and $B_z$ are the measured magnetic field. This equation depends on
the axial orientation ($\theta$ and $\phi$) and the closest approach ($d$), which will be
changed during the fitting. Thus, we embed the estimation of $\omega$ into the fitting procedure to
make sure that the value of $\omega$ is re-calculated once the orientation and/or the closest approach change.
The reason to make the
estimate of $\omega$ standalone is to provide an
additional condition to constrain the value of $T$ and $R$, which are actually coupled
in the GH model, and also provide a method to evaluate the goodness of the uniform-twist
assumption.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig02.eps}
\caption{{\it Left column}: Interplanetary magnetic field and solar wind velocity recorded by Wind spacecraft
for the MC No.1. From the top to the bottom, the profiles show the total magnetic field strength,
elevation and azimuthal angles of magnetic field vector, three components of the velocity in GSE coordinates
and the magnetic field line lengths inferred by \citet{Kahler_etal_2011}. The red/blue dashed lines in the first six
panels are the fitting curves of the velocity-modified GH/Lundquist model. The red/blue lines in the last panel are the
magnetic field line length modeled by the corresponding models (the dashed lines indicate uncertainties).
{\it Right column}: The top panel
is the histogram of $\omega$, the middle panel shows the correlation between $\frac{B_\varphi}{B_z}$ and $x$
for all the measurements in the MC, and the bottom panel presents the correlation between the modeled and
measured $\frac{B_\varphi}{B_z}$. See the text in Sec.\ref{sec_quality} for details.}\label{fg_mc001}
\end{figure*}
To illustrate how to estimate the value of
$\omega$, we show an example in Figure~\ref{fg_mc001}. It is a well-known MC observed during 1995
October 18--19, which was investigated by~\citet{Larson_etal_1997} for its global configuration and
by~\citet{Kahler_etal_2011} and~\citet{Hu_etal_2015} for the twists of the magnetic field lines inside
the MC. The boundaries of the MC marked by two solid lines in the left panel of Figure~\ref{fg_mc001} are chosen from
Lepping's list~\citep{Lepping_etal_2006}, which are slightly different from those identified
by~\citet{Larson_etal_1997}.
First, we calculate $\omega_i=\frac{B_{i\varphi}}{x_iB_{iz}}$ for all
the data points in the MC interval based on Eq.\ref{eq_omega}. Due to the presence of the possible
random fluctuations and small-scale features in the measured magnetic field, the values of $\omega_i$ are
probably scattered in a large range though most of them may concentrate around a certain value (as illustrated
in the top two panels on the right column of Fig.\ref{fg_mc001}). Those minor data points near the two ends
of the $\omega_i$ range may bias the estimated value of $\omega$. To reduce the possible bias, we narrow down the range of $\omega_i$
to remove those minor data points until 10\% of the original data points are excluded. In other words, we select the
data points falling in the $\omega_i$ range at the significance of 90\%.
Second, we use a bin running through the range to count how many data points
fall in the bin, and generate a histogram from these counts for further analysis. The step used to move the bin
from one end of the $\omega_i$ range to the other is set to be 0.01, and the size of the running bin is determined by
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{rb}=\frac{\omega_{max}-\omega_{min}}{N}\times10
\end{eqnarray}
in which $\omega_{max}$ and $\omega_{min}$ define the range of $\omega_i$ at the significance of 90\%
and $N$ is the number
of the data points within the range. The above equation means that on average 10 data points will
fall in the bin. We use it to guarantee that the generated histogram is of statistical significance.
The top panel on the right
column of Figure~\ref{fg_mc001} shows the histogram of $\omega_i$ by using this method under the best-fit
condition of the 1995 October MC. An outstanding peak is found in the histogram. We
locate the positions of the half maximum, $\omega_l$ and $\omega_r$ (as indicated by the two vertical
dashed lines). The optimized value of $\omega$ is then determined by $\frac{\sum\omega_iN_i}{\sum N_i}$
between the two half-maximum locations, and $\omega_l$ and $\omega_r$ give the uncertainties. For this case,
$\omega=4.85_{-1.67}^{+1.69}$. The next panel shows the parameter $\frac{B_\varphi}{B_z}$ as a function of
$x$ under the best-fit condition. The solid line corresponds to $\omega=4.85$ with the two dashed lines for
the uncertainties, and the data points within the uncertainties are highlighted in blue. How close the
magnetic field lines are to the uniform-twist configuration is then assessed by (1) the percentage of
the selected data points which locate within the uncertainties in all the data points in the
MC interval, (2) the correlation between the modeled and measured $\frac{B_\varphi}{B_z}$ of the selected data points
and (3) the confidence level of the correlation under the permutation test.
Again for this case, the percentage (per) is 56\% and the coefficient of correlation (cc) is 0.74 with the confidence level (cl)
of nearly 100\% as shown in the bottom panel on the right column of Figure~\ref{fg_mc001}.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig03.eps}
\caption{The Wind data and fitting curves for the MC Nos.6 and 7 with the same arrangement as the
left panel of Fig.\ref{fg_mc001}.}\label{fg_mc006-7}
\end{figure*}
Meanwhile, the goodness-of-fit is evaluated by
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi_n&=&\sqrt{\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{i=1}^N\left[\left(\frac{\mathbf{B}_i^m-\mathbf{B}_i^o}{|\mathbf{B}_i^o|}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\mathbf{v}_i^m-\mathbf{v}_i^o}{|\mathbf{v}_i^o|-v_{\rm ref}}\right)^2\right]} \nonumber\\
&=&\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}(\chi_{Bn}^2+\chi_{vn}^2)} \label{eq_chi}
\end{eqnarray}
where the superscript $m$ and $o$ denote the modeled and observed values, respectively, $N$ is the number of measurements,
and $v_{\rm ref}$ is a reference velocity. $\chi_n$ gives the overall relative error between the modeled and
the observed values. A much more detailed explanation of the equation of $\chi_n$ can be found in~\citet{Wang_etal_2015}.
Since the goodness-of-fit and the goodness of the uniform-twist configuration are assessed by two independent approaches,
they may not be positive correlated. We then use the
following two conditions to classify the quality, $Q$, of the model fit:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathrm{per}\geq 50\%$, $\mathrm{cc}\geq0.5$ and $\mathrm{cl}\geq 90\%$
\item $\chi_n\leq0.5$
\end{itemize}
If both conditions are satisfied, $Q$ is 1, and if only the second condition is satisfied, $Q$ is 2. As long as the second condition
is not satisfied, the fitting is treated to be completely failed.
\section{Comparison of the twists derived from the model with those from other methods}\label{sec_compare}
\subsection{Comparison with the electron probe method}
First, we will compare the magnetic field line lengths estimated by our model with those inferred
from the energetic electron probes. \citet{Kahler_etal_2011} studied 30 type-III burst-associated energetic
electron events, of which 16 events located within 8 MCs. We then focus on these MCs and fit them with
our model. It is found that all but one of the MCs can be fitted with three of them having $Q=1$ and four $Q=2$ (see
Table~\ref{tb_parbv}, event Nos.1--7). It is noted that the field line length, $L_e$, listed in Table 1 of
\citet{Kahler_etal_2011} is not the length from one end of the MFR to the other but that from the Sun to the
Wind spacecraft. Thus, based on our picture shown in Figure~\ref{fg_coord}, we use
$\frac{l_{line}}{2}$ with $\lambda=2.57\pm0.57$ and $L=1$ AU (see Eq.\ref{eq_length} and \ref{eq_l}) for the comparison
by assuming that the MCs were crossed at their apexes.
Three events, Nos.1, 6 and 7, with $Q=1$ are presented in Figure~\ref{fg_mc001} and \ref{fg_mc006-7}.
The red dashed lines superimposed on the magnetic field and velocity profiles are the fitting curves.
For comparison, the fitting curves of the velocity-modified Lundquist model~\citep{Wang_etal_2015} are
also plotted in blue.
The modeled magnetic field line lengths are given in the last panels by the solid lines with the
uncertainty in dashed lines. The uncertainties in the lengths for the velocity-modified GH model
come from two main sources; one from the
uncertainty in the axial length $l$ and the other from the uncertainty in $\omega$ or $\tau$ (see Eq.\ref{eq_length} or \ref{eq_dl}).
Those for the velocity-modified Lundquist model are estimated only from the uncertainty in the axial length.
For the 1995 October 18 MC, the lengths probed by energetic electrons are almost all within the
GH model range of the lengths, but close to the lower boundary. The change trend of the modeled
length with the time is consistent with that of the probed length. It is similar for the 2004 July 24 MC,
in which the probed lengths are close to the lower boundary of the GH modeled lengths.
For the 2004 August 29 MC, the probed lengths are slightly longer than the GH modeled lengths.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.82\hsize]{fig04.eps}
\caption{The Wind data and fitting curves for the MC Nos.2--5.}\label{fg_mc002-5}
\end{figure*}
The other four events with $Q=2$ are shown in Figure~\ref{fg_mc002-5}. The best match of the
GH modeled length with the probed length happens to the 1998 May 2 MC. The other three events
show more or less significant deviations between the modeled and probed lengths. For the
2000 November 6 and 2001 July 10 MCs, the probed lengths locate around or even outside of
the lower boundary of the GH modeled length. Together with the 2004 August 29 MC, these
MCs are not typical. Their radial velocities show a generally declining profile, which indicate
an expansion and therefore may result in a decreasing magnetic field with time, but the measured
total magnetic field strength somehow increased with time (for the 2001 July 10 MC, its first half
shows the inconsistency). For the last event on 2002 September 30, the uncertainty of the GH modeled
length is too large to be useful though the probed lengths fall in the modeled length range.
This MC is also non-typical. Its radial velocity was continuous increasing, but the total magnetic
field did show a declining profile.
Comparing to the fitting results of the velocity-modified Lundquist model (the blue lines in
Fig.\ref{fg_mc001}--\ref{fg_mc002-5}),
we find that the GH model is generally better than the Lundquist model, particularly near the periphery
of the MCs where the Lundquist model predicts extremely long field lines, well exceeding the probed lengths.
It confirms the conclusion of \citet{Hu_etal_2015} that the magnetic field lines in MCs are more likely to be uniformly twisted.
However, we want to note that the uncertainty of the velocity-modified GH model in
modeling the field line length sometimes is quite large, which is due to the two error sources mentioned above. Based on the
error propagation theory for absolute errors, we may estimate
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta l_{line}&=&\frac{\partial l_{line}}{\partial l}\Delta l+\frac{\partial l_{line}}{\partial \tau}\Delta\tau\nonumber\\
&=&\sqrt{1+(Tr)^2}\Delta l+\frac{4\pi^2r^2l|\tau|}{\sqrt{1+(Tr)^2}}\Delta\tau \label{eq_dl}
\end{eqnarray}
according to Eq.\ref{eq_length}. As long as the observational path is not too close to the MFR axis, the variable $\sqrt{1+(Tr)^2}\approx|T|r$,
and the ratio of the first item on the right-hand side of Eq.\ref{eq_dl} to the second one is therefore approximately
$\frac{\Delta l/l}{\Delta\tau/|\tau|}$. Based on the discussion following Eq.\ref{eq_l}, we may infer that $\frac{\Delta l}{l}$
is about 0.22. Thus, for the MCs (Nos.1, 4--6) with $\frac{\Delta\tau}{|\tau|}$ larger than 0.22 (see column 16 of Table~\ref{tb_parbv}),
the uncertainty in the field line length mainly comes from the uncertainty
in the modeled twist. Particularly, the MC5 has an extremely large twist, which is unreliable (a stronger reason of its
unreliability can be seen in Fig.\ref{fg_tau_dis}a and Sec.\ref{sec_stat}).
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig05.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the number of turns per AU, $\tau$, derived by the velocity-modified GH model with (a) that by
the electron probe method and (b) that by the GS model. Each circle in the left panel indicates an
energetic electron event and each solid dot marks the mean value of the twists of a MC. The solid lines are the linear
fits to the solid dots in both panels. The dashed line in the left panel is the linear fit to the solid dots excluding MC7.
The numbers on the top of the panels give the slopes of the linear fitting lines.}\label{fg_twist_comp}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig06.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the derived handedness and orientation between the velocity-modified GH model and GS model. The
black histograms are for the MC events Nos.1, 3, 4, 6--12, 14 and 15, and the red histograms for the MC events Nos.8--12,
14 and 15.}\label{fg_utvsgs}
\end{figure*}
On the other hand, we convert the probed magnetic field line lengths to the twists based on the
configuration of the GH flux rope by using Eq.\ref{eq_length} with the assumption that
the axial lengths of the MCs are $2.57\pm0.57$ AU, and compare these electron-probe-based
twists, $\tau_e$, with the GH modeled twists, $\tau$. Figure~\ref{fg_twist_comp}a
exhibits the result. Hereafter we use the absolute values of $\tau$ and $\tau_e$ in the figures.
Each circle indicates an energetic electron event, and each solid dot is the mean value
of the twists for a MC event.
Note that MC5 is not included in the figure. It is found that except for MC7, the modeled twists of all the other MCs are larger
than the electron-probe-based twists. Since the electron probe method uses less assumptions than
the GH fitting technique, we think that the electron-probe-based twist is closer to the real twist than the modeled twist.
By fitting the solid dots with the formula of $\tau=a\tau_e$ without
considering the uncertainties, we find that the modeled twist
is over-estimated by a factor of 1.4 on average (as indicated by the solid line) and the
correlation coefficient between the two sets of the twists is 0.59. If ignoring the dot for MC7, we find that all the other
dots almost align with each other. By using the same formula to fit the dots (as indicated by the dashed line),
we get that the over-estimation factor of
the modeled twist is about 2.5 and the correlation coefficient increases to 0.9987.
We tend to believe that the overall over-estimation factor of the modeled twist is more likely to be 2.5. It is
worthwhile to refine the number by searching more energetic electron events in the future.
\subsection{Comparison with the Grad-Shafranov reconstruction technique}\label{sec_gs}
By using GS reconstruction technique, Hu and his co-authors~\citep{Hu_etal_2014, Hu_etal_2015}
have modeled the twists of 25 MCs, which is combined from three sets of MC events. The first set
consists of 9 MCs from~\citet{Qiu_etal_2007}, the second set consists of 9 MCs from~\citet{Hu_etal_2014},
and the last set of 7 MCs is from~\citet{Kahler_etal_2011}. We do not include the first set of MCs
in the comparison here, because there are large disparity in determination of boundaries of the MCs among
literatures as mentioned in~\citet{Qiu_etal_2007}. Moreover, two of the rest of the MCs cannot be successfully
fitted by our model, and thus a total of 14 MCs are finally put in the comparison, which are the
MC Nos.1 and 3--15 listed in Table~\ref{tb_parbv} (Note that MC2 is not in the Hu's list).
It should be noted that MC5 and MC13 have an extremely large fitted
twist, which is unreliable.
We think that a direct reason causing such an extremely
large twist is the rather small radius of the MFR, which is only 0.01 AU. However, the GS reconstruction
gives much reasonable twists for the two MCs, which are $\tau_{gs}=4.2\pm0.54$~\citep[see Table 1 in][]{Hu_etal_2015} and
$14.6\pm5.4$~\citep[see Table 2 in][]{Hu_etal_2014}, respectively.
The comparison of the twists from the two models is shown in Figure~\ref{fg_twist_comp}b, in which
the data points of MC5 and MC13 are not included. The coefficient of the correlation between the two
sets of twist is about 0.68, with our GH twist larger than the GS twist by a factor of 1.5 on average, which
is smaller than the over-estimation factor of 2.5 found in the last section but very close to the over-estimation
factor of 1.4 obtained by including MC7. These two correlations
shown in Figure~\ref{fg_twist_comp} suggest that (1) on average the GS technique is more accurate than the velocity-modified GH
model to infer the twist of magnetic field lines of MCs though it still probably over-estimates the twist by a factor
of 1.7, and (2) the correlation between the GH modeled and probed twists is better than that between the
GS modeled and probed twists if MC7 was excluded. Moreover, it should be noted that for individual cases,
both GS and GH models might give a twist deviated largely from the probed twist.
To have a complete view about the similarity and difference of the fitting results between the GH and GS models,
we compare the other two key parameters: the handedness and orientation of the MCs. The
handedness, i.e., the sign of the helicity, is a fundamental parameter characterizing the topology
of a magnetic field system, and the orientation determines the configuration of the MC in 3D space,
and may significantly influence the geoeffectiveness of the MC~\citep{Wang_etal_2007a}.
The differences in the handedness and orientation between the two models have been shown in Figure~\ref{fg_utvsgs}.
The black histograms are for the common events Nos.1 and 3--15 except for the events Nos.5 and 13 which have unreasonably large
twists from the velocity-modified GH model. It is found that there is one event (the event No.4) getting
an opposite handedness from the two models, and the angles between the two modeled orientations almost uniformly scatter between
$0^\circ$ and $75^\circ$. It should be noted that for the events Nos.1--7, the boundaries of the MCs used in
\citet{Hu_etal_2015} are slightly different from those in Lepping's list. If we exclude those events, the
two models get better consistent results in the two parameters as shown by the red histograms. The handednesses
are all the same. In 6 of 7 events the difference between the two modeled orientations is less than $45^\circ$ and
more than half of the 7 events have a difference less than $30^\circ$. The comparison suggests that the
velocity-modified GH model is roughly consistent with the GS model, and the identification of the boundaries
of a MC is of importance to the fitting results.
\section{Statistical results}\label{sec_statistics}
Although the twist estimated by the velocity-modified GH model is probably 2.5 times of the real twist on average as revealed
in the above sections, we still can investigate the statistical properties of the twists of interplanetary MFRs
based on the model because of the high correlation ($cc\approx0.9987$) with the probed twists.
We apply the velocity-modified GH model to all of the 121 MCs in Lepping's list (see
\url{http://lepmfi.gsfc.nasa.gov/mfi/mag_cloud_S1.html}, including the 7 MCs from \citealt{Kahler_etal_2011}).
The MC Nos.45 and 46 in their list are not included because of the data gaps in the published Wind data, and
the MC No.85 is also removed because it is believed to consist of two MCs~\citep{Dasso_etal_2009}.
After setting the same boundaries of the MCs as those given in Lepping's list and the time resolution
to 10 minutes, the entire fitting procedure is automated. Plus the 8 MCs from \citet{Hu_etal_2015}, we have
a total of 126 MCs. We find that there are 115 ($\sim91\%$) of
these MCs with the fit quality $Q$
of 1 or 2, and 52 MCs (occupying $\sim41\%$) having $Q=1$, which have been listed in Table~\ref{tb_parbv}.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\hsize]{fig07.eps}
\caption{Histograms showing the differences of the values of fitting parameters between the velocity-modified GH model and
the velocity-modified Lundquist model. From left to the right and top to the bottom, they are (a) the relative
difference, i.e., $\frac{f_{gh}-f_{lq}}{f_{lq}}$, of the magnetic field strength ($B_0$) at the MCs axis between the two models, (b) the relative difference of the
radius (R), (c) the difference of the closest approach |d|, (d) the acute angle between the MCs's orientations,
(e) the difference of the handedness, (f) the difference of the propagation speed, (g) the difference of the expansion speed
and (h) the difference of the poloidal speed. The black histograms are for the events with both $Q_0$ and $Q$
equal to 1 or 2, and the red histograms for the events with $Q_0$ equal to 1 or 2 and $Q$ equal to 1.}\label{fg_utvslq}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Comparison with the Lundquist model}\label{sec_lq}
Before analyzing the statistical properties of the twist, we compare the fitting results of the velocity-modified GH model with
those of the velocity-modified Lundquist model in \citet{Wang_etal_2015}. Figure~\ref{fg_utvslq} shows the
histograms of the differences in some parameters between the GH and Lundquist models. Since only the 72 MCs
with the quality $Q_0$ of 1 or 2 (listed in the last column of Table~\ref{tb_parbv}, an index used by~\citealt{Lepping_etal_2006}
to mark the fitting quality; $Q_0=1$ or 2 means good or fair) were studied in
\citet{Wang_etal_2015}, here we also only include those MCs with both $Q_0$ and $Q$ of 1 or 2 in the comparison,
which counts a total of 70 MCs. The black lines are drawn for all of these MCs and the red lines for those with $Q=1$.
First, the two sets of histograms look quite similar, suggesting that
the differences in the parameters between the two models do not depend on the quality of the fit. Second,
the fitting results of the two models are more or less different, and the difference may be significant for some parameters.
For the most of the MCs, the relative differences in
the total magnetic field strength, $B_0$, the radius, $R$, and the closest distance to the axis of the MC, $|d|$,
are between $\pm 0.5$ with the trend that the values derived from the GH model are slightly smaller than those from
the Lundquist model. There are a few cases showing an opposite handedness between the two models. The differences
in the modeled velocities are the most insignificant. The largest difference of the fitting results
appears in the orientation of the MC's axis. The black histogram reveals that the angle of between the two modeled
orientations is larger than $45^\circ$ for 36 of the 70 MCs. Even if only best-fitted MCs were considered,
there are 14 of the 32 MCs do not match well in the orientation (see the red histogram). But we still can
find that the two models got quite consistent orientations for $1/3$ to $1/2$ of the MCs.
Orientation is one of the most important parameter of interplanetary MFRs. \citet{Riley_etal_2004} performed
`blind tests' by applying five different fitting techniques to a MHD simulated MC. It was found that the deviation
in the orientation among these different models is quite significant, especially when the observational path
is far away from the axis of a MC, i.e., $|d|$ close to unity. There is so far no direct or indirect observations
to justify which model is better for a given MC. However, the tests by \citet{Riley_etal_2004} did show that the fitting technique based
on a force-free flux rope is a useful tool. Moreover, the comparison between the velocity-modified GH model and
the GS model in Sec.\ref{sec_gs} already implies that our model results are acceptable.
Besides, in our sample (see Table~\ref{tb_parbv}), there are 4 events
with $|d|>0.9$ or 8 events with $|d|>0.8$, two of which have a twist larger than 20 turns per AU and will be excluded in the statistical
analysis below. Thus even if the modeled parameters of the event with large $|d|$ are much unreliable, the influence of
the few events on the statistical result would be small.
\subsection{Statistical properties of the twist}\label{sec_stat}
Figure~\ref{fg_tau_dis}a shows the distribution of the twists of the 115 MCs listed in Table~\ref{tb_parbv}
in terms of $\tau$. The peak of the distribution locates between $\tau$ of
1 and 2. From the peak, the number of events decreases with increasing $\tau$,
and reaches zero before $\tau=15$ turns per AU. There are six events with $\tau>20$ turns per AU, which look clearly not following the trend
of the main part of the distribution, suggesting that these events are not successfully fitted by the
velocity-modified GH model though their qualities assessed based on the criteria listed in Sec.\ref{sec_quality}
are all equal to 2. This gives the reason why we excluded event Nos.5 and 13 in Figure~\ref{fg_twist_comp}.
For the rest of the events, the median value of $\tau$ is about 3.6. Besides, there are only five events with
$\tau<1$ turn per AU, occupying 4\% of the events.
If only considering the events with $Q=1$, which forms a sample of 52 events, we find that the distribution
is similar, as shown by the orange line in Figure~\ref{fg_tau_dis}a. The most probable value of $\tau$ is between
1 and 2 turns per AU, and the median value of $\tau$ slightly increases to 4.4 turns per AU. Only one event
locates in the bin of $\tau<1$ turn per AU.
Assuming that interplanetary MFRs still attach both ends to the Sun, which implies the shortest
axial length of 2 AU from its one end to the other, and considering that the over-estimation factor of $\tau$ is about
2.5, we may infer that the most probable value of the total twist angle, $\Phi_T$, of a MFR is between $1.6\pi$ and $3.2\pi$, and the
median value is about $5.7\pi-7.0\pi$. It implies that (1) a significant fraction ($>80\%$,
read from Fig.\ref{fg_tau_dis}a) of
the MFRs possess highly twisted magnetic field lines exceeding the HP critical twist, which is $2.5\pi$,
for the kink instability of a line-tying GH flux rope, and (2) a few MFRs almost did not carry twisted
magnetic field lines.
It was mentioned in Sec.\ref{sec_model} that \citet{Hood_Priest_1981} derived the HP critical twist
based on the GH flux rope with the assumption of $\omega=1$, i.e., the radius $R=\frac{1}{T}$. Thus, it is interesting to see how well
the assumption matches the observation-based model results. Figure~\ref{fg_tau_dis}b shows the distribution
of the absolute value of $\omega$ for the MCs (the over-estimation effect has been corrected by assuming the same over-estimation
factor of 2.5). The distribution has a peak around $\omega=0.5$ with a decrease
toward the larger-$\omega$ side and the median value is about 0.6. It could be estimated that
only about 20\% of the MCs have a modeled $\omega$ within the range of $1.0\pm0.2$.
Particularly, the value of 2 (0.2) seems to be an upper (a lower) limit of $\omega$ (see the next paragraph) .
Obviously, $\omega=1$ is not a good assumption for the most of the MCs.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig08.eps}
\caption{Distributions of the derived (a) $\tau$ and (b) $\omega$ for all of the events
(in gray color) and for the events with $Q=1$ (in orange color). The arrows mark the median values. The events with
$\tau > 15$ turns per AU are not counted in Panel (b). The over-estimation effect is corrected in only Panel (b).}\label{fg_tau_dis}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig09.eps}
\caption{Scatter plots showing $\tau$ as a function of $R$ and $1/R$, respectively. The events with
$\tau > 15$ turns per AU are not included. The colors have the same meaning as that in Fig.\ref{fg_tau_dis}.
The dashed lines in both panels give $\tau=\frac{\omega}{2\pi R}$, equivalent to $\Phi_T=\omega\frac{l}{R}$, with $\omega=2.0$, 0.5 and 0.2.
Note, the over-estimation factor of 2.5 in the modeled $\tau$ has been considered in plotting these lines.
The dot-dashed line in panel (a) marks the HP critical twist by assuming the shortest axial length of 2 AU (a
correction of the factor of 2.5 is also considered), and the dotted lines in panel (b) are the linear fits to the data points}\label{fg_tau-r}
\end{figure*}
According to Eq.\ref{eq_tau} and \ref{eq_r-omega}, we may get $\tau=\frac{\omega}{2\pi R}$ or $\Phi_T=\omega\frac{l}{R}$, which
has the same form of Eq.\ref{eq_critical}. The above formula implies that
$\tau$ is perhaps proportional to $1/R$, as the value of $\omega$ is unimodal distributed with a relatively narrow
width. Figure~\ref{fg_tau-r} shows the relations between $\tau$ and $R$ and between $\tau$ and $1/R$ for all the events with $\tau<15$ turns
per AU (the high-quality events of $Q=1$ are in orange). The patterns
of the total events look similar to those of the high-quality events.
The correlation between $\tau$ and $R$ is clear; a thinner MC tends to have
more turns of magnetic field lines. The linear fitting to the ($\tau$, $1/R$) data points suggests a
slope of 0.6 (the dotted lines in Fig.\ref{fg_tau-r}b), which is the same as the median value of $\omega$.
The correlation coefficient is above 0.62. Besides,
according to the $\omega$ distribution given in Figure~\ref{fg_tau_dis}b,
we plot three dashed lines for the characteristic $\omega$ values of 2.0, 0.5 and 0.2, respectively, in Figure~\ref{fg_tau-r}
(the over-estimation factor of 2.5 has been taken into account).
The three lines do demonstrate the upper and lower boundaries and the spine of these data points.
It is noteworthy that the upper limit, $\tau_c=\frac{1}{\pi R}$, is the same as the theoretical results
of \citet{Dungey_Loughhead_1954} and \citet{Bennett_etal_1999}, which predicted that the total
critical twist angle is two times of the aspect ratio of the MFR, i.e., Eq.\ref{eq_critical} with $\omega_c=2$.
No MC exceeding $\tau_c$ suggests that Eq.\ref{eq_critical} with $\omega_c=2$ is probably a sufficient condition
for the unstableness of MFRs, i.e., a MFR becomes absolutely unstable when $\tau_c$ or $\Phi_c$ is satisfied.
In contrast, most of the modeled twists exceed the HP critical twist (the dot-dashed line in Fig.\ref{fg_tau-r}a)
even if we only chose the MCs with $\omega$ around the unity. It might suggest that the HP critical twist
is more likely to be a special condition for the kink instability, which is only applied for a certain
configuration of MFRs. More discussions of this result will be given in Sec.\ref{sec_discussion}.
The relations between $\tau$ and other characteristic parameters of the MCs are shown in Figure~\ref{fg_tau_corr}.
There are no obvious correlations with $\tau$ except for the expansion speed and axial orientation.
One can find that the values of $\tau$
of the MCs with the larger expansion speed are not too large (Fig.\ref{fg_tau_corr}e).
Concretely speaking, there is no MC with $\tau>10$
turns per AU or there is only one MC with $\tau>5$ turns per AU among 15 MCs whose expansion speeds are
larger than 50 km s$^{-1}$. This phenomenon could be interpreted as that the twisted magnetic field lines constrain the expansion
of a MFR, then the size of a MFR; a MFR possessing a strong twist cannot be too thick. This does provide an alternative interpretation for
the dependence of the twist on the radius presented before in Figure~\ref{fg_tau-r}.
Although the result here suggests that the twist has effect on the size and expansion of interplanetary MFRs, it should be noted
that the ambient solar wind might play an even more important role in controlling their size and
expansion~\citep[e.g.,][]{Demoulin_Dasso_2009, Gulisano_etal_2010}. For those MCs with significantly
negative expansion speeds, \citet{Wang_etal_2015} have
shown that they were compressed by following fast solar wind streams.
The other possible correlation is between $\tau$ and $\Theta$ (Fig.\ref{fg_tau_corr}b). The parameter
$\Theta$ is the angle between the MC's axis and the Sun-Earth line. It is roughly revealed that the larger $\Theta$
is the smaller is the value of $\tau$. Based on the picture that a MC is a loop-like structure with two ends rooted
on the Sun, we may infer that $\Theta=0^\circ$ means that the leg of the MC is crossed by the spacecraft and
$\Theta=90^\circ$ that the leading part of the MC is crossed. Thus, the above result implies that the magnetic field
lines in the legs are more twisted than those near the apex. \citet{Demoulin_etal_2016} got a similar
result based on the Lundquist model. They argued that it could be a result of an observational bias. However,
it is still possible that such a non-uniform distribution of the twist along the MFR's axis is real. Observations
and modeling of solar MFRs may provide useful information to solve this puzzle, which is worth to be done in the future.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig10.eps}
\caption{Similar to Fig.\ref{fg_tau-r}, but for (a) the magnetic field strength, $B_0$,
at the MC's axis, (b) the orientation, $\Theta$, of the MC's axis, (c) the closest
approach, $|d|$, between the observational path and the MC's axis, (d) the propagation speed, $v_c$,
(e) the expansion speed, $v_e$, and (f) the poloidal speed, $|v_p|$, of the MC.}\label{fg_tau_corr}
\end{figure*}
\section{Summary and conclusions}
In this study, we established a velocity-modified GH model.
By applying this model to previously studied MC events and comparing the modeled results with
those by the electron probe method and the GS reconstruction technique, we have shown that the model
can provide useful information of the length and twist of magnetic field lines in MCs, but
the modeled values of them are probably over-estimated by a factor of about 2.5.
We also showed that the modeled results of the velocity-modified GH model are comparable to those by
the GS technique and the cylindrical flux rope model with the Lundquist solution
though large differences can be found in some parameters for some cases.
Further, by applying the velocity-modified GH model to 115 MCs, consisting of the MC events in
Lepping's list and those studied in \citet{Hu_etal_2015}, we investigated the statistical
properties of the twists of MCs. The following interesting results are found:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Based on the criteria used in this work, about 91\% of MCs can be roughly fitted by the velocity-modified GH model,
among which half events can be fitted fairly well. The fitting results are close to the GS model results.
\item The distribution of the twist, $\tau$, i.e., the number of turns per AU, decreases from its peak
locating between $\tau$ of 1 and 2 to zero before $\tau$ reaching 15 with a median value of about 5 (Fig.\ref{fg_tau_dis}a).
This distribution reveals that all of the interplanetary MFRs possess a twist $T<12\pi$ rad AU$^{-1}$
or $\tau<6$ turns per AU with the over-estimation factor of 2.5 taken into account.
\item Most ($>80\%$) of the MCs have a total twist angle larger than the HP critical twist, $2.5\pi$.
The modeled twists generally follow the function $\tau=\frac{0.6}{2\pi R}$, equivalent to $\Phi_T=0.6\frac{l}{R}$, and
are bounded by $\Phi_T=2\frac{l}{R}$ and $0.2\frac{l}{R}$, which apparently
define the upper and lower limits of the twists (Fig.\ref{fg_tau-r}). These results
suggest that (1) Eq.\ref{eq_critical} with $\omega_c=2$ gives the sufficient condition for
the unstableness of MFRs, above which MFRs becomes absolutely unstable, (2) thinner MFRs have a higher instability threshold than
thicker MFRs, and (3) most CME flux ropes probably erupt before the sufficient condition is satisfied.
\item The MFRs with large expansion speeds are unlikely to have a large twist (Fig.\ref{fg_tau_corr}e).
Together with the dependence between $\tau$ and $R$,
it is implied that strongly twisted magnetic field lines probably limit the expansion and size of a MFR.
\item A weak correlation (Fig.\ref{fg_tau_corr}b) is found between $\tau$ and the angle between the
MFR's axis and the Sun-Earth line, $\Theta$. Roughly,
the larger $\Theta$ is, the smaller is the value of $\tau$, implying that the magnetic field lines in the legs wind around
the main axis more tightly than those in the leading parts of MFRs.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Discussion}\label{sec_discussion}
Interplanetary MCs come from the Sun and belong to post-eruption MFRs. The twist information derived from the interplanetary
MFRs more or less reflects the twist of solar MFRs, which are in pre-eruption stage.
In the light of the findings listed above, two points raised in Introduction are further discussed
below.
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\it The critical twist for unstableness.} The most interesting finding of our study is that the modeled twists of MCs significantly
exceed the HP critical value and are apparently bounded by Eq.\ref{eq_critical} with $\omega_c=2$.
First, the modeled twists of MCs are based on GH fitting technique,
which assumes that the MFR is in force-free state, whereas Eq.\ref{eq_critical} is derived for a non-force-free
flux rope. Why do the twists from the
two different methods and configurations have such an apparently connection? We do not have the answer at present
but it deserves a further study in future work.
Second, why is the HP critical twist much smaller than the modeled twists of MCs? In theory, the HP critical twist
was derived based on the GH flux rope with the assumption $\omega=1$. However, about 80\% of the MCs
have the value of $\omega$ other than 1, i.e., less than 0.8 or larger than 1.2 (see Fig.\ref{fg_tau_dis}b).
Moreover, considering $\Phi_T=\omega\frac{l}{R}$, the HP
critical twist does imply that a GH flux rope becomes unstable when the aspect ratio exceeds $2.5\pi$, which seems
to be away from the observed solar MFRs. Thus, these inconsistencies suggest that
the assumption is not good enough. However, as mentioned before, even if we only considered the MCs with $\omega\approx 1$, there
are still many MCs with the
modeled twists larger than the HP critical twist. This probably implies that most MCs are not exactly in the GH
configuration though the GH model can recover some useful information. Since all the theoretical analyses of the
instability were for MFRs in a stable initial state, the above discussion is valid only when
the modeled twist of the MCs are roughly the same as that before the MCs erupted from the Sun.
Actually, it was argued before that a significant fraction of the magnetic flux of a MC can be resulted from the magnetic
reconnection beneath the MFR during the eruption~\citep[e.g.,][]{Qiu_etal_2007}. This process may convert ambient
overlying fields either to the both poloidal and toroidal fluxes of the erupting MFR, adding a small or insignificant twist into
the MFR after the eruption~\citep{vanBallegooijen_Martens_1989}, or mainly to the poloidal flux, adding a large
twist~\citep{Longcope_Beveridge_2007, Qiu_2009, Aulanier_etal_2012}. Thus, it is possible that the eruption of a MFR
is firstly triggered by the kink instability at the HP critical twist~\citep[as suggested by, e.g.,][]{Fan_2005, Kliem_etal_2010},
and then the following reconnection process increases the twist to a much high level. If
the high twists found in the most MCs in this study were indeed mainly formed during the eruption, the newly-formed twist seems
obey Eq.\ref{eq_critical}, implying that the reconnection process will be interrupted when the total twist angle reaches $2\frac{l}{R}$
if it had not stopped earlier.
On the other hand, erosion process may occur to MCs during their propagation~\citep[e.g.,][]{Dasso_etal_2006, Ruffenach_etal_2012,
Manchester_etal_2014}, which progressively peels off the periphery of MCs from the front or rear
and is believed to cause on average about 40\% imbalance in the poloidal magnetic flux between the first and second half of a MC~\citep{Ruffenach_etal_2015}. This effect will make the modeled total flux underestimated, but might do little to the twist
for a uniform-twist flux rope. However, in practice, the erosion will more or less affect the values of fitting parameters including
the twist, but it is unclear how significantly the modeled twist is affected. The reconnection process during the
eruptions of MFRs and the erosion process during their propagations make the connection between the interplanetary MFRs and
the solar MFRs much loose.
\item {\it The inconsistency between the inferred twists of solar MFRs from imaging observations and those from modeling.}
Apparently, the modeled results of interplanetary MFRs are close to the twists estimated from the imaging data
but larger than those by using NLFFF extrapolation. As pointed out in Sec.\ref{sec_smfr}
the twist calculated based on the force-free parameter $\alpha$ is under-estimated for the uniform-twist flux ropes. Since the twist
of solar MFRs is more or less uniformly distributed as revealed by many studies~\citep[e.g.,][]{Inoue_etal_2011, Inoue_etal_2012,
Guo_etal_2013, Chintzoglou_etal_2015, LiuR_etal_2016}, it might be true that in these studies, the inferred twist is
significantly under-estimated. But it is not clear if the NLFFF extrapolation techniques applied in these studies
cause any under-estimation effects.
However, on the other hand, if most part of twist were resulted from the magnetic field
reconnection during eruptions as discussed in the previous point, the twist inferred from modeling, e.g., NLFFF extrapolations,
may be reasonable before and after but not during the eruptions, and the twisted structures
observed in multi-wavelength images might not really reflect the twisted magnetic structures.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{acknowledgments}
We acknowledge the use of the data from Wind spacecraft. We thank Stephen Kahler from AFRL, USA for
providing the data about the magnetic field line lengths inferred from energetic electron events. We also thank
the anonymous referees for useful comments. The model
developed in this work can be run and tested online at \url{http://space.ustc.edu.cn/dreams/mc_fitting/}.
This work is supported by the grants from NSFC (41131065, 41574165, 41421063, 41274173, 41474151)
CAS (Key Research Program KZZD-EW-01-4), MOEC (20113402110001)
and the fundamental research funds for the central universities.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Methods}%
\subsection{Phonon calculations}
The phonon vibration frequencies are obtained by diagonalizing the dynamical matrix which was calculated using the frozen phonon approach. The second order force constants, which are required as an input for dynamical matrix, are obtained from the finite difference of Hellmann-Feynman forces obtained on a $2 \times 2 \times 2$ supercell consisting of 96 atoms from density functional theory package VASP. We employed electronic wavevector grid of $3 \times 3 \times 3$ and planewave energy cutoff of 520\,eV with PBEsol exchange correlation based projected augmented wave pseudopotential.
\subsection{Dynamical structure factor calculations}
We have explored the influence of a dynamical lattice on the measured x-ray scattering signal. The link between theory and experiments is provided by the dynamic structure factor (DSF) $ S \left( \mathbf{Q}, \omega \right) $, which can be evaluated from the output of molecular dynamics (MD) calculations of the atomic motion in a supercell of the compound CH$_3$NH$_3$PbI$_3$, and directly compared to the IXS data, whose associated observable is proportional to the DSF.
We performed our MD simulations in NVT ensemble using a Verlet algorithm to integrate Newton's equations of motion. We employed a $3 \times 3 \times 3$ supercell consisting of 324 atoms with a Gamma-point electronic wavevector grid and a time-step of 0.5 fs. We allowed the system to equilibrate for 10,000 timesteps before collecting trajectory data for subsequent 8000 timesteps at a temperature of 300\,K. All of our calculations are performed using a density functional theory package VASP. The output of the MD calculations consists in a full set of atomic positions as a function of time step, ${\mathbf{R}}_{i} \left( t \right) $ (the index $i$ labels the $i$-th atom in the selected supercell). From these time-dependent atomic coordinates, we can calculate the \textit{intermediate scattering function} $F \left( \mathbf{Q}, t \right) \!=\! \left\langle {\rho}_{\mathbf{-Q}} \cdot {\rho}_{\mathbf{Q}} \left( t \right) \right\rangle $, which encodes the time-dependent density-density correlations in reciprocal space. In the above definition, ${\rho}_{\mathbf{Q}}$ is the Fourier transform of the atomic density and can be expanded as ${\rho}_{\mathbf{Q}} \!=\! \int d \mathbf{r} {e}^{-i \mathbf{Q} \cdot \mathbf{r}} \rho \left( \mathbf{r} \right) \!=\! {\sum}_{i} {e}^{-i \mathbf{Q} \cdot {\mathbf{R}}_{i}} $, while $\left\langle \ldots \right\rangle $ is a thermodynamic ensemble average. Numerically, the calculation of $F \left( \mathbf{Q}, t \right)$ is performed using the atomic coordinates and replacing the thermodynamic average with a time average ${\left\langle \ldots \right\rangle}_{t} $:
\begin{equation}
F \left( \mathbf{Q}, t \right) = {\left\langle {\sum}_{i,j} {e}^{-i \mathbf{Q} \cdot \left[ {\mathbf{R}}_{j} \left( t \right) - {\mathbf{R}}_{i} \right]} \right\rangle}_{t} = \dfrac{1}{N(t)} \cdot {\sum}_{t'=0,N(t)} {\sum}_{i,j} {e}^{-i \mathbf{Q} \cdot \left[ {\mathbf{R}}_{j} \left( t + t' \right) - {\mathbf{R}}_{i} \left( t' \right) \right]}
\end{equation}
At each time step $t$ the intermediate scattering function is evaluated on a momentum grid via a double summation over atomic coordinate indexes $i$ and $j$, and by performing averaging over the maximal time window available $\left[ 0, N(t) \right]$ which depends on the time coordinate $t$. In Fig.\,\ref{SI_ISF}(a) we display representative traces of the squared modulus of $F \left( \mathbf{Q}, t \right)$ (which is, in general, a complex quantity) vs. time at a Bragg reflection and at the $R$-point. Inspection of these traces immediately shows the large amplitude and static nature of the Bragg scattering, whose intensity is concentrated at $\omega \!=\! 0$. In contrast, the scattering function at the $R$-point is suppressed by almost 3 orders of magnitude and it oscillates slowly, on a timescale of hundreds of femtoseconds.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{SI_ISF.pdf}
\caption{(a) Time traces of the intermediate scattering function $F \left( \mathbf{Q}, t \right)$ at a Bragg reciprocal lattice vector ${\mathbf{Q}}_{\mathrm{Bragg}} \!=\! \left(2,0,0 \right)$ and at the $R$-point ${\mathbf{Q}}_{R} \!=\! \left( 3/2, 1/2, 1/2 \right)$. Note the broken vertical axis and the logarithmic scale. (b) Corresponding traces of the dynamical structure factor $S \left(\mathbf{Q}, \omega \right)$ as a function of frequency $\omega$, for the same momentum vectors.}
\label{SI_ISF}
\end{figure}
The intermediate scattering function can be Fourier-transformed to obtain the DSF: $S \left(\mathbf{Q}, \omega \right) \!=\! \int d t {e}^{-i \omega t} F \left( \mathbf{Q}, t \right) $. Representative traces of the DSF at the same momenta as above are plotted in Fig.\,\ref{SI_ISF}(b). Note again the large difference in the scattering amplitude, as well as the vanishing of any DC ($\omega \!=\! 0$) component for $S \left( {\mathbf{Q}}_{R}, \omega \right)$, which signals the absence of any elastic scattering at the $R$-point. We find however a clear peak in $S \left( {\mathbf{Q}}_{R}, \omega \right)$ at $\omega \sim 1$\,THz ($\sim 4$\,meV), which likely reflects the presence of slow oscillations in $F \left( {\mathbf{Q}}_{R}, t \right)$. Interestingly, this energy scale matches the position of the side humps observed in the quasielastic scattering measurements performed in the cubic phase (see also Fig.\,\ref{SI_Fig3} and \ref{SI_Fig4} and corresponding discussion) . From these data, we can conclude that molecular dynamics calculations seem to indicate that the only scattering occurring at the $R$-point is dynamical in nature.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{SI_DSF.pdf}
\caption{(a,b) Dynamic structure factor $S \left(\mathbf{Q}, \omega \right)$ at $\omega \!=\! 0$, projected onto the $H-K$ plane at $L \!=\! 0$ (a) and $L \!=\! 1/2$ (b). (c) One-dimensional momentum cuts of $S \left(\mathbf{Q}, \omega \right)$ across the $R$-point ${\mathbf{Q}}_{R} \!=\! \left( 3/2, 1/2, 1/2 \right)$ along the three high-symmetry directions of the cubic lattice: $(100)$ (light blue); $(110)$ (blue); $(111)$ (dark blue).}
\label{SI_DSF}
\end{figure}
In Figure\,\ref{SI_DSF}(a,b) we additionally plot the momentum-resolved DSF at zero energy ($\omega \!=\! 0$) and in the $H-K$ plane (reciprocal lattice axes are indexed in the cubic structure) at $L \!=\! 0$ and $L \!=\! 1/2$, respectively. The $H-K$ momentum grid covers the range $0.5 < H < 2.5$ and $-0.5 < K < 1.5$; this is chosen so that the $L \!=\! 1/2$ slice is centered at the R-point ${\mathbf{Q}}_{R} \!=\! \left( 3/2, 1/2, 1/2 \right)$. As it is clearly visible, the strongest feature is the Bragg peak at $\left( 2, 0, 0 \right)$, which is also seen in the $L \!=\! 1/2$ slice due to tailing intensity along the $L$ axis (likely a consequence of the finite size of the supercell). We similarly observe large intensity at the $\left( 1, 0, 0 \right)$ and $\left( 2, 1, 0 \right)$ Bragg vectors. Notably, we find no intensity at the $M$- or $R$-points, whereas minor satellite peaks can be seen at some of the $X$-points [particularly those located around the strongest Bragg peak $(200)$], again likely due to fringe oscillations in momentum space that are induced by the finite size of the real space supercell. One-dimensional line profiles along the high-symmetry directions $(100)$ ($\Gamma \rightarrow X$), $(110)$ ($\Gamma \rightarrow M$), and $(111)$ ($\Gamma \rightarrow R$) are further displayed in Fig.\,\ref{SI_DSF}(c); the center point of all line cuts is the $R$-point ${\mathbf{Q}}_{R} \!=\! \left( 3/2, 1/2, 1/2 \right)$. The $(111)$ cut crosses the two Bragg vectors $\left( 1, 0, 0 \right)$ (left peak) and $\left( 2, 1, 1 \right)$ (right peak), whereas the other two cuts do not intersect any integer peaks, however a small bump can be seen in the $(110)$ cut at a wavevector $\left( 1, 0, 0.5 \right)$ which is explained as one of the fringe oscillations arising from Fourier-transforming a finite-sized support in real space. Most importantly, no intensity can be seen around the $M$- or $R$-points in the $(100)$ cut, which would be located at, respectively, $H \!=\! \pm 0.5$ and $H \!=\! 0$ on the horizontal scale. This is consistent with the color maps in Fig.\,\ref{SI_DSF}(a,b) and further confirms that there is no elastic scattering at $M$- or $R$-points to be expected from MD calculations performed in the cubic symmetry.
\subsection{Inelastic x-ray scattering measurements and analysis}
We performed inelastic x-ray scattering (IXS) measurements at Sector 30 of the Advanced Photon Source, on a four-circle diffractometer with a combined momentum resolution of 0.01 \AA${}^{-1}$ and using the HERIX spectrometer arm with an ultimate resolution of about 1.5\,meV at the incident photon energy of 23.7\,keV ($\lambda \!=\! 0.5226$\,\AA). The use of an X-ray probe is preferable over neutrons for hydrogenated samples (due to the large incoherent neutron cross-section from H) and is expected to be highly sensitive to the dynamics of the PbI$_3$ inorganic network because of the high electron densities of Pb and I (large atomic numbers). In order to perform measurements in transmission mode and thus gain access to a broader portion of reciprocal space, we selected a crystal thickness around one absorption length, which at the probing photon energy is approximately 100\,$\mu$m for both MAPbI$_3$ and MAPbBr$_3$. However, the size of I-based crystals could not be optimized to the desired thickness, therefore we measured MAPbI$_3$ in reflection mode, a geometry which imposes certain limitations and, unlike for MAPbBr$_3$, prevented the study of reciprocal space cuts along directions (${\hat{u}}_{\mathbf{Q}}$) that selectively probe longitudinal (${\hat{u}}_{\mathbf{Q}} \!\parallel\! \mathbf{Q}$) or transverse (${\hat{u}}_{\mathbf{Q}} \!\perp\! \mathbf{Q}$) modes. The samples have been mounted on a Cu sampleholder and installed on a Displex cryostat with a Be dome for temperature-dependent measurements.
The spectral resolution, or instrumental response function, for the spectrometer used in this study was measured by collecting the scattered signal from a Plexiglass\textsuperscript{\textregistered} slab. The corresponding energy scan is shown in Fig.\,\ref{SI_Resolution} on a linear scale, with the resolution is calculated as the full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) and amounting to 1.5\,meV. The experimental resolution profile $R \left( \omega \right)$ has been directly used in the convolution with the model function ${I}_{\mathrm{DHO}} \left( \mathrm{Q}, \omega \right)$ introduced in the main text (Eq.\,1), yielding the generalized fit function:
\begin{equation}
{I}_{\mathrm{fit}} = \int d {\omega}^{\prime} \left[ {I}_{\mathrm{DHO}} \left( \mathrm{Q}, {\omega}^{\prime} \right) \cdot \left( n \left( {\omega}^{\prime} \right) + 1 \right) \right] \times R \left( \omega - {\omega}^{\prime} \right)
\end{equation}
where the Stokes/anti-Stokes asymmetry is accounted for via the factor $\left[ n \left( \omega \right) +1 \right]$ where $ n \left( \omega \right) = {\left( {e}^{\beta \omega} -1 \right)}^{-1} $ is the Bose-Einstein function ($\beta = 1 / KT$).
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=0.35\linewidth]{SI_Resolution.pdf}
\caption{Experimental IXS spectral resolution profile, measured from the elastic scattering off a Plexiglass\textsuperscript{\textregistered} slab, with a FWHM (full-width-at-half-maximum) of around 1.5\,meV.}
\label{SI_Resolution}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[b!]
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{SI_Fig1.pdf}
\caption{(a) Temperature-dependent momentum scans across the $R$-point [${\mathbf{Q}}_{R} \!=\! \left( 3/2, 1/2, 5/2 \right)$] of MAPbI$_3$ below and around the phase transition temperature ${T}_{\mathrm{c}}$ (a) and above ${T}_{\mathrm{c}}$, in the nominally cubic phase (b). Note the very different angular scales in (a) and (b), owing to the short-ranged nature of the remnant tetragonal correlations above ${T}_{\mathrm{c}}$. (c) Corresponding integrated area (dark blue, left axis) and peak FWHM linewidth (light blue, right axis) as a function of temperature.}
\label{SI_Fig1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Extended momentum- and energy-dependent scans in MAPbI$_3$}
Figure\,\ref{SI_Fig1} shows additional momentum scans of MAPbI$_3$ on a more extended temperature range around the $R$-point [${\mathbf{Q}}_{R} \!=\! \left( 3/2, 1/2, 5/2 \right)$] and across the cubic-to-tetragonal phase transition ${T}_{\mathrm{c}}$. These profiles have been acquired by scanning the detector angle ($2 \theta$) at fixed sample position, and by selecting only the elastic scattering ($\omega \!=\! 0$) portion of the IXS spectrum. The momentum scans below or near ${T}_{\mathrm{c}}$ [Fig.\,\ref{SI_Fig1}(a), also shown in Fig.\,3(a) of the main text] exhibit a lineshape with sharp tails, which represents the projection, at the photon detector, of the exit slits of the HERIX spectrometer, and in general cannot be fitted as a Gaussian or Lorentzian profile. These scans suggest that the intrinsic momentum linewidth is much smaller than the momentum resolution of the spectrometer and are therefore indicative of the presence of long-ranged crystalline order with tetragonal symmetry (the Bragg peak intensity at the $R$-point is a \textit{bona fide} order parameter for the tetragonal structure). Above the phase transition [Fig.\,\ref{SI_Fig1}(b)] the momentum scans become increasingly broader and weaker in amplitude, however a broad Bragg reflection can be still seen at the highest temperature (350\,K), suggesting the persistence of tetragonal domains with short-ranged order well above the thermodynamic transition point. The peak area and momentum linewidth $\Delta Q$ (evaluated as FWHM and dimensioned in ${\mathrm{nm}}^{-1}$) are shown in Fig.\,\ref{SI_Fig1}(c). However we point out that the FWHM should be regarded as an overestimate, or upper boundary, of the real values, due to the tradeoff between momentum resolution and counting statistics. In any case, and besides the presence of a clear singularity at ${T}_{\mathrm{c}}$ for both the peak area and FWHM, we observe that tetragonal nanopuddles are still present up to 20\,K above the transition temperature, with an average size or local coherence length of at least $\xi = {\Delta Q}^{-1} \sim 3$\,nm. Furthermore, the temperature dependence suggest an asymptotic behavior for the FWHM, which seems to stabilize around an average length scale, possibly reflecting the spatial extent of the local perturbation of cubic symmetry around a symmetry-breaking defect.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{SI_Fig2.pdf}
\caption{(a) Temperature-dependent momentum scans around the $M$-point [${\mathbf{Q}}_{M} \!=\! \left( 3/2, 1/2, 3 \right)$] of MAPbI$_3$ across the phase transition temperature ${T}_{\mathrm{c}}$. (b) Corresponding integrated area (dark blue, left axis) and peak FWHM linewidth (light blue, right axis) as a function of temperature.}
\label{SI_Fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[b!]
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{SI_Fig3.pdf}
\caption{(a,b) Series of inelastic scans at the $R$-point across the cubic-to-tetragonal phase transition in MAPbI$_3$ (a) and MAPbBr$_3$ (b). (c,d) Detailed comparison of low- and high-temperature scans in MAPbI$_3$ (c) and MAPbBr$_3$ (d), highlighting the emergence of spectral weight at finite energy transfer in the cubic phase, revealing a regime of nanoscale dynamical fluctuations and coexisting structural orders even well above the phase transition.}
\label{SI_Fig3}
\end{figure}
Momentum scans at the $M$-point [${\mathbf{Q}}_{M} \!=\! \left( 3/2, 1/2, 3 \right)$] have been measured under the same conditions as for the $R$-point, and are plotted in Fig.\,\ref{SI_Fig2}(a) for a few temperature values across ${T}_{\mathrm{c}}$. While no scattered intensity should be expected at this location in reciprocal space (it is a forbidden reflection for the tetragonal space group $I 4 / m c m$), we observe a weak but detectable peak which is however very broad [see peak area and momentum linewidth in Fig.\,\ref{SI_Fig2}(b)]. We interpret this finding with the possibility that small nanoregions breaking locally breaking tetragonal symmetry are nucleated around defects and persist over an extended temperature range. Since the spontaneous symmetry lowering of the cubic structure favours a transition to a tetragonal symmetry at ${T}_{\mathrm{c}}$, these local nanoregions deviating from tetragonal order never become long-ranged, as they do not represent a generalized instability of the lattice (unlike at $R$-point, where phonon condensation occurs), thereby explaining the temperature-independent FWHM as shown in Fig.\,\ref{SI_Fig2}(b).
We further explored the energy-dependence of the low-energy scattering around the $R$-point, across the phase transition. The corresponding IXS scans data are shown in Figs.\,\ref{SI_Fig3}(a) and (b) for MAPbI$_3$ and MAPbBr$_3$, respectively, with corresponding low- and high-temperature profiles in Figs.\,\ref{SI_Fig3}(c) and (d). These scans are fitted with an elastic component (resolution-limited) and a quasielastic component (with finite broadening). We find that the in the low-temperature scans the scattering is purely elastic (i.e., arising from static order, possibly quenched by local defect), while the high-temperature scans exhibit a quasielastic component with an energy scale of a few meV which could reflect the presence of an overdamped soft phonon, or dynamical domain fluctuations with a corresponding timescale of order ps. In any case, our temperature-dependent scattering seem to confirm the tendency of the lattice to deviate from its idealized structure with sub-ps timescale as proposed by Quarti \textit{et al.} \cite{quarti_interplay_2014}. However, we cannot determine whether these dynamical effects simply correspond to overdamped lattice vibrations at the $R$-point or to some other mechanism.
Lastly, we show the quasielastic IXS scans at the $M$-point in Fig.\,\ref{SI_Fig3}(a), again for selected temperatures spanning the cubic-to-tetragonal phase transition. At a first inspection, no ostensible changes would be apparent, however when contrasting the high- to low-temperature scans [Fig.\,\ref{SI_Fig3}(b)] we notice (similar to the case of the $R$-point discussed in the main text) an increase in the quasielastic intensity on top of the main (resolution-limited) elastic line. This quasielastic intensity, which is manifested in the appearance of additional spectral weight on the tails of the peak around 5\,meV, may reflect the increase in phonon population or it might be indicative of dynamical processes involving the breaking of tetragonal symmetry (thereby producing scattered intensity at the $M$-point) on a timescale of $\hbar / 5\,\mathrm{meV} \sim 0.8$\,ps.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{SI_Fig4.pdf}
\caption{(a) Temperature-dependent IXS scans at the $M$-point of MAPbI$_3$ across the phase transition temperature ${T}_{\mathrm{c}}$. (b) Selected view of the highest- and lowest-temperature scans, showing the appearance of inelastic spectral weight for the scan above ${T}_{\mathrm{c}}$.}
\label{SI_Fig4}
\end{figure}
\subsection{X-ray Powder Diffraction}
X-ray powder diffraction measurements were performed on the bending magnet station at DND-CAT sector 5 of the Advanced Photon Source. The X-ray wavelength used was 0.4\,\AA, selected to reduce X-ray absorption by the sample. The sample data were collected in flat plate geometry, with the Cu plate installed in an Advanced Research Systems cryostat and collected over a temperature range of 12\,K to 350\,K. Data were collected using a 1-D solid state Cyberstar detector in Bragg-Brentano geometry. Typical step sizes in two-theta were 0.0015\,deg.
\subsection{Single-Crystal Neutron Diffraction}
Variable temperature experiment for MAPbI$_3$ was performed using the TOPAZ single crystal diffractometer at the Spallation Neutron Source, Oak Ridge National Laboratory \cite{Jogl_2011}. Sample temperature control in the range of 350\,K -- 190\,K used Oxford Cryosystems’ Cryostream Plus 700 with a LN$_2$-gasflow setup. A block-shaped deuterated crystal of d$_6$-MAPbI$_3$ with the dimensions of $0.86 \times 1.0 \times 1.5 $ mm$^3$ was mounted onto the tip of a MiTeGen loop with Super Glue, and transferred to the TOPAZ goniometer for data collection in neutron wavelength-resolved Laue mode, in which a continuous 3D volume of reciprocal space can be measured from a stationary crystal. Using the initial orientation matrix obtained at room temperature, the $\left( 3/2,1/2,1/2 \right)$ superlattice peak in the cubic $Pm\bar{3}m$ cell was placed on a forward scattering detector with the aid of CrystalPlan software \cite{Zikovsky_2011}. The single crystal sample was then heated to 350\,K at a ramp rate of 1\,K/min. The super lattice peak of the cubic phase dissipated at 350\,K, evidence by the very low $I/\sigma \left( I \right)$ ratio. The sample was then cooled stepwise from 350\,K to 340, 335, 330, 325, 320, 315, 310, 305, 300, 295, 270, 250, 230, 190\,K, respectively. Single crystal neutron diffraction pattern at each temperature was measured for approximately 2 hrs. Integrated raw Bragg intensities were obtained using the 3-D ellipsoidal Q-space integration method \cite{Schultz_TOPAZ}. Refinement of the lattice parameter at each temperature used intensity data with $I/\sigma \left( I \right) > 5$ to high resolution shells with ${d}_{\mathrm{min}}$ of 0.6\,\AA. Data reduction, including neutron TOF spectrum, detector efficiency, Lorentz and absorption corrections, was carried out with the ANVRED3 program \cite{Schultz_1984}. Table\,\ref{Neutron_data} lists the normalized Bragg peak intensities for the $\left( 3/2,1/2,1/2 \right)$ super lattice peak and corresponding $(c-a)/c$ ratios.
\begin{table}[t!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabularx}{0.6\textwidth}{c *{4}{Y}}
\toprule
\toprule
$T$ (K) & Intensity, $I$ & ${\sigma}_{I}$ & $ \left( c-a \right) / c $ & ${\sigma}_{\left( c-a \right) / c} $ \\
& & & & \\
\midrule
\midrule
190 & 217.1 & 25.7 & 0.01805 & 0.00014 \\
210 & 203.8 & 24.9 & 0.01676 & 0.00014 \\
230 & 187.8 & 23.8 & 0.01482 & 0.00015 \\
250 & 174.9 & 23.0 & 0.01332 & 0.00017 \\
270 & 146.6 & 21.0 & 0.01136 & 0.00016 \\
295 & 117.6 & 18.5 & 0.01015 & 0.00017 \\
300 & 108.6 & 18.0 & 0.01000 & 0.00011 \\
305 & 100.5 & 17.3 & 0.00686 & 0.00016 \\
310 & 84.7 & 15.9 & 0.00762 & 0.00016 \\
315 & 72.7 & 14.6 & 0.00636 & 0.00021 \\
320 & 58.1 & 13.1 & 0.00463 & 0.00019 \\
325 & 14.5 & 6.5 & 0.00081 & 0.00014 \\
330 & 2.8 & 5.0 & 0.00167 & 0.00019 \\
335 & 11.9 & 5.7 & 0.00078 & 0.00014 \\
340 & 2.0 & 5.3 & 0.00033 & 0.00018 \\
350 & 0.7 & 5.5 & 0.00086 & 0.00019 \\
\bottomrule
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\end{center}
\caption{Bragg peak intensity and (c-a)/c ratio from neutron single crystal diffraction.}
\label{Neutron_data}
\end{table}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{0sec}
The boundary conditions for supersymmetric field theory preserving a part of supersymmetries of the original bulk theory provide important new ingredients and insights to the original system,
for example, the description of branes in string/M-theory and in target space of the field theories, dualities or holography in the presence boundary conditions, mirror symmetry, and also Geometric Langlands Program.
The supersymmetric (SUSY) boundary conditions have been studied in a number of contexts such as
2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ theories,
\cite{Ooguri:1996ck,Hori:2000ck,Herbst:2008jq}
4d $\mathcal{N}=4$ theories,
\cite{Gaiotto:2008sa,Gaiotto:2008ak,Hashimoto:2014nwa,Hashimoto:2014vpa}
3d $\mathcal{N}=2$ theories,
\cite{Okazaki:2013kaa,Aprile:2016gvn}
and 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ theories,
\cite{Bullimore:2016nji}
and BLG and ABJM theories
\cite{Berman:2009xd,Hosomichi:2014rqa,Okazaki:2015fiq}.
In this paper, we study the half-BPS boundary conditions of 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ supersymmetric theories
preserving $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ and $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ supersymmetry at the boundary,
which we call A-type and B-type, respectively.
We explicitly calculate the boundary BPS equations
for the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ pure vector multiplet, pure hypermultiplet,
hypermultiplet coupled to vector multiplet such as SQCD,
and also its supersymmetric deformations by Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI) parameters and mass parameters.
For each A- and B-type boundary conditions for the vector multiplet
we have two sets of boundary conditions,
which we call ``electric-like" and ``magnetic-like".
Interestingly, the half-BPS boundary conditions preserving $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ for the vector multiplet include Nahm-like equation.
For the hypermultiplet coupled to vector multiplet,
we see that a certain types of Robin boundary conditions arise.
By studying the BPS equations, we read off the boundary degrees of freedom arising from the bulk 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet and hypermultiplet.
These are discussed in section \ref{sec3dn4a}.
In section \ref{secbrane},
we propose the brane configurations corresponding to the boundary conditions of 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ theories preserving $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ and $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ supersymmetry
by introducing additional branes to the brane configuration of Hanany and Witten in Type IIB string theory \cite{Hanany:1996ie} realizing 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ theories.
We give a remark on the map of the boundary degrees of freedom from the bulk supermultiplet under $S$-duality of Type IIB string theory.
In section \ref{seccon}, we summarize our results and discuss future directions.
\section{Half-BPS boundary conditions in 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ theories}
\label{sec3dn4a}
In this section, we consider the $(2,2)$ or $(0,4)$-preserving boundary conditions for pure vector multiplet, pure hypermultiplets, and hypermultiplets coupled to vector multiplet with FI and mass deformations.
We also see the decomposition of the bulk supermultiplet at the boundary as supermultiplets of preserved supersymmetries.
\subsection{Vector multiplet}
\label{secvm1}
In this subsection we study the half-BPS boundary conditions for the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet.
The 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet contains
a three-dimensional gauge field $A_{\mu}$, $\mu=0,1,2$,
three real scalar fields $\phi^{i}$, $i=3,4,5$,
an auxiliary field $F$,
and a fermionic field $\lambda$.
They are in the adjoint representation of the gauge group $G$
and transform as
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\label{3dn4vm1a}
A_{\mu}&: (\bm{3},\bm{1},\bm{1}) \\
\phi^{i}&: (\bm{1},\bm{3},\bm{1}) \\
F&: (\bm{1},\bm{1},\bm{3}) \\
\lambda&: (\bm{2},\bm{2},\bm{2})
\end{split}
\end{align}
under the $SO(1,2)\times SO(3)_{C}\times SO(3)_{H}$.
The 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ supersymmetric field theories have the R-symmetry group
$SO(4)_{R}\cong SU(2)_{C}\times SU(2)_{H}$
where the $SU(2)_{C}$ (resp. $SU(2)_{H}$) is the double cover of the $SO(3)_{C}$ (resp. $SO(3)_{H}$).
The 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet can be expressed as 3d $\mathcal{N}=2$ vector multiplet $V(A_{\mu},\sigma,\lambda,D)$ and adjoint chiral multiplet $\Phi(\phi,\psi_{\phi},F_\phi)$.
Our notations for the 3d $\mathcal{N}=2$ superspace and supermultiplet are summarized in the Appendix \ref{appss}.
The action of the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet in terms of 3d $\mathcal{N}=2$ supermultiplets is given by
\begin{align}
\label{3dn4vm1c}
S^{\mathcal{N}=4}_{V}&=S_{V}^{\mathcal{N}=2}+S_{\Phi}^{\mathcal{N}=2}
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
\label{3dn4vm1d}
S_{V}^{\mathcal{N}=2}&=\frac{1}{g_{\text{3d}}^{2}}
\int d^{3}x d^{4}\theta\ \mathrm{Tr} (\Sigma^{2}),
\\
\label{3dn4vm1e}
S_{\Phi}^{\mathcal{N}=2}&=-\frac{1}{g_{\text{3d}}^{2}}\int d^{3}x d^{4}\theta\ \mathrm{Tr} (\overline{\Phi} e^{-2V}\Phi e^{2V}).
\end{align}
where $\Sigma$ is a linear multiplet.
In component, they are
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
S_{V}^{\mathcal{N}=2} = \frac{1}{g_{\text{3d}}^2} \int d^3 x \ \text{Tr}
\Big[
&-\frac{1}{4} F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu} -\frac{1}{2} D^\mu \sigma D_\mu \sigma + \frac{1}{2} D^2
- i \overline{\lambda} \sigma^\mu D_\mu \lambda + i \lambda [\sigma, \overline{\lambda}]
\Big] \, ,
\end{split} \\
\begin{split}
S_{\Phi}^{\mathcal{N}=2} = \frac{1}{g_{\text{3d}}^2} \int d^3 x \ \text{Tr}
\Big[
&-D_\mu \overline{\phi} D^\mu \phi - i \overline{\psi} \sigma^\mu D_\mu \psi + \overline{F} _\phi F_\phi \\
&+ \overline{\phi} [\phi, D] - \sqrt{2} i \psi [\overline{\phi}, \lambda] + \sqrt{2} i \overline{\psi} [\phi, \overline{\lambda}]
+ i \overline{\psi} [\psi, \sigma] - \overline{\phi} [\sigma, [\sigma, \phi]]
\Big] \, ,
\end{split}
\end{align}
respectively.
The actions are invariant under the supersymmetry transformations
\begin{align}
\label{3dn2vmsusy1}
\delta A_{\mu}&=i\overline{\xi}\sigma_{\mu}\lambda
+i\xi \sigma_{\mu}\overline{\lambda},\\
\label{3dn2vmsusy2}
\delta \sigma&=\xi \overline{\lambda}
-\overline{\xi}\lambda,\\
\label{3dn2vmsusy3}
\delta \lambda&=i\xi D
-\frac12 \gamma^{\mu\nu}\xi F_{\mu\nu}
-i\gamma^{\mu}\xi D_{\mu}\sigma,\\
\label{3dn2vmsusy4}
\delta \overline{\lambda}
&=-i\overline{\xi}D-\frac12 \gamma^{\mu\nu}\overline{\xi}F_{\mu\nu}
+i\gamma^{\mu}\overline{\xi}D_{\mu}\sigma,\\
\label{3dn2vmsusy5}
\delta D&= -\xi \sigma^{\mu}D_{\mu}\overline{\lambda}
+\overline{\xi}\sigma^{\mu}D_{\mu}\lambda+
\xi[\sigma,\overline{\lambda}]+
\overline{\xi}[\sigma,\lambda]
\end{align}
for 3d $\mathcal{N}=2$ vector multiplet $V$ with the Wess-Zumino gauge, and
\begin{align}
\label{3dn2cmadj1}
\delta \phi&=\sqrt{2}\xi \psi_{\phi},\\
\label{3dn2cmadj2}
\delta \psi_{\phi}&=\sqrt{2}i\gamma^{\mu}\overline{\xi} D_{\mu}\phi
+\sqrt{2}\xi F-\sqrt{2}i\overline{\xi}[\sigma,\phi],\\
\label{3dn2cmadj3}
\delta F&=
\sqrt{2}i\overline{\xi}\sigma^{\mu}D_{\mu}\psi_{\phi}
+2i\overline{\xi}[\overline{\lambda},\phi]
-\sqrt{2}i\overline{\xi}[\psi_{\phi},\sigma] \, ,
\end{align}
for the 3d $\mathcal{N}=2$ adjoint chiral multiplets $\Phi$.
Suppose we have a boundary in $x^{2}$ direction, say at $x^{2}=0$.
Employing the Noether method,
we find the normal component $J^{2}$ of supercurrent
of the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet
in terms of 3d $\mathcal{N}=2$ language
from the action \eqref{3dn4vm1c}
and the supersymmetric transformations \eqref{3dn2vmsusy1}-\eqref{3dn2cmadj3},
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
J^{2}
&= J^{2}_{\text{vec}} + J^{2}_{\text{adj}} \\
&= -\frac{1}{4} i \xi^{2 {m}{n}} F_{{m}{n}} \lambda
+ \frac{1}{2} i F^{{m} 2} \sigma_{m} \lambda
-\frac{1}{2} D_{m} \sigma \sigma^{{m} 2} \lambda
+ \frac{1}{2} D^2 \sigma \lambda
\\
& \quad +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} D^2 \phi \overline{\psi}_{\phi}
- \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} D_{m} \phi \sigma^{{m} 2} \overline{\psi}_{\phi}
+ \frac{1}{2} [\overline{\phi}, \phi] \sigma^2 \lambda
- \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} [\sigma, \phi] \sigma^2 \overline{\psi}_{\phi}
\end{split} \label{susycurrent}
\end{align}
in the on-shell
where $m,n,\cdots=0,1$ are space-time indices of two-dimensional boundary.\footnote{
We can put the supercurrent of 3d $\mathcal{N}=2$ vector and adjoint chiral multiplet in $SU(2)_C \times SU(2)_H$ manifest expression, which leads to the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ manifest supercurrent for the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet. Denoting 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ fermions and scalars by
\begin{align}
\lambda^{\alpha A \dot{A}} = \left( \begin{matrix} \lambda^{\alpha} & -\psi^{\alpha}_\phi \\ \overline{\psi}^{\alpha}_\phi & \overline{\lambda}^{\alpha} \end{matrix} \right) \, , \quad
\phi^{A}_{\ B} = \left( \begin{matrix} \sigma & \sqrt{2}\phi \\ \sqrt{2}\overline{\phi} & -\sigma \end{matrix} \right) \, ,
\end{align}
respectively, the normal component of the supercurrent can be written as
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
J^2_{\text{vec}} + J^2_{\text{adj}}
= J^2 \ &= \ (J^{2})^{\alpha A \dot{A}} \\
&= \
\frac{1}{2} i F_{01} \lambda^{\alpha A \dot{A}}
-\frac{1}{2} D^2 \phi^{A}_{\ B} \lambda^{\alpha B \dot{A}}
+\frac{1}{2} i F^{2}_{\ m} (\gamma^{m})^{\alpha}_{\ \beta} \lambda^{\beta A \dot{A}} \\
& \quad +\frac{1}{4} [\phi^{A}_{\ C}, \phi^{C}_{\ B}] (\gamma^{m})^{\alpha}_{\ \beta} \lambda^{\beta B \dot{A}}
+\frac{1}{2} D_{m} \phi^{A}_{\ B} (\gamma^{m2})^{\alpha}_{\ \beta} \lambda^{\beta B \dot{A}} \, .
\end{split}
\end{align}
Here, $A$ and $\dot{A}$ are indices for $SU(2)_C$ and $SU(2)_H$, respectively.
}
In the presence of boundary, the translation invariance is broken, so the supersymmetry is broken in general.
However, some of supersymmetry can be preserved at the boundary by imposing specific boundary conditions, \textit{i.e.} the supersymmetric or BPS boundary conditions.
The BPS boundary conditions can be found by demanding that the normal component of the supercurrent at the boundary vanishes
\begin{align}
\label{susybc1a}
\begin{split}
0
=& \ \overline{\xi}J^{2}-\xi \overline{J}^{2} \\
=& \ -\frac{1}{4} i \xi^{2 {m}{n}} F_{{m}{n}} (\overline{\xi} \lambda)
+ \frac{1}{2} i F^{{m} 2} (\overline{\xi} \sigma_{m} \lambda)
-\frac{1}{2} D_{m} \sigma (\overline{\xi} \sigma^{{m} 2} \lambda)
+ \frac{1}{2} D^2 \sigma (\overline{\xi} \lambda)
\\
&-\frac{1}{4} i \xi^{2 {m}{n}} F_{{m}{n}} (\xi \overline{\lambda})
+ \frac{1}{2} i F^{{m} 2} (\xi \sigma_{m} \overline{\lambda})
+\frac{1}{2} D_{m} \sigma (\xi \sigma^{{m} 2} \overline{\lambda})
- \frac{1}{2} D^2 \sigma (\xi \overline{\lambda})
\\
&
+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} D^2 \phi (\overline{\xi} \overline{\psi}_{\phi})
- \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} D_{m} \phi (\overline{\xi} \sigma^{{m} 2} \overline{\psi}_{\phi})
+ \frac{1}{2} [\overline{\phi}, \phi] (\overline{\xi} \sigma^2 \lambda)
- \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} [\sigma, \phi] (\overline{\xi} \sigma^2 \overline{\psi}_{\phi}) \\
&- \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} D^2 \overline{\phi} (\xi \psi_{\phi})
+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} D_{m} \overline{\phi} (\xi \sigma^{{m} 2} \psi_{\phi})
- \frac{1}{2} [\overline{\phi}, \phi] (\xi \sigma^2 \overline{\lambda})
- \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} [\sigma, \overline{\phi}] (\xi \sigma^2 \psi_{\phi}) \, .
\end{split}
\end{align}
where we impose the boundary condition on fermions such that the bulk equations of motion are still satisfied.
Although there are various solutions to the supersymmetric boundary conditions (\ref{susybc1a}), in this paper we will focus on the half-BPS boundary conditions preserving $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ and $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ supersymmetry at the boundary,
which we call A- and B-type boundary conditions, respectively \cite{Ooguri:1996ck,Okazaki:2013kaa}.
\subsubsection{A-type boundary conditions}
\label{secvma}
For the A-type boundary conditions, the supersymmetric parameter $\xi$ satisfies the projection condition\footnote{
Since the projection condition \eqref{asusybc1} is written in terms of 3d $\mathcal{N}=2$ SUSY parameters, it leads to $\mathcal{N}=(1,1)$ SUSY parameters at the boundary. But with the supersymmetry enhancement to 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ in mind, as far as bosonic boundary BPS equations are concerned, it is okay to work with \eqref{asusybc1} for convenience.
}
\begin{align}
\gamma^2 \xi = \overline{\xi} \, .
\label{asusybc1}
\end{align}
To find the bosonic boundary conditions from (\ref{susybc1a}), we choose the fermionic boundary conditions
\begin{align}
\gamma^2 \lambda = e^{2i\theta} \overline{\lambda} \, \qquad \gamma^2 \psi_{\phi} = e^{2i\theta} \overline{\psi}_{\phi} \, .
\label{asusybc2}
\end{align}
where $\theta\in \mathbb{R}$ is a constant parameter.
Note that this form of fermionic boundary conditions is compatible with the bulk equations of motion for fermions $\lambda$
and $\psi_\phi$.
From (\ref{asusybc1}) and (\ref{asusybc2}), we obtain
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\overline{\xi}\lambda&= -e^{2i\theta}\xi \overline{\lambda} \, ,
\hspace{30mm} \overline{\xi} \sigma_{m} \lambda= e^{2i\theta}\xi \sigma_{m} \overline{\lambda} \, , \\
\overline{\xi} \sigma^{{m} 2} \lambda&= e^{2i\theta} \xi \sigma^{{m} 2} \overline{\lambda} \, ,
\hspace{27.5mm} \overline{\xi} \sigma^2 \lambda= - e^{2i\theta} \xi \sigma^2 \overline{\lambda} \, ;
\label{a1r1}
\end{split} \\
\begin{split}
\overline{\xi} \overline{\psi}_{\phi}&= -e^{-2i\theta}\xi \psi_{\phi} \, ,
\hspace{23mm} \overline{\xi} \sigma_{m} \overline{\psi}_{\phi}= e^{-2i\theta}\xi \sigma_{m} \psi_{\phi} \, , \\
\overline{\xi} \sigma^{{m} 2} \overline{\psi}_{\phi}&= e^{-2i\theta} \xi \sigma^{{m} 2} \psi_{\phi} \, ,
\hspace{20.5mm}\overline{\xi} \sigma^2 \overline{\psi}_{\phi} =- e^{-2i\theta} \xi \sigma^2 \psi_{\phi}
\label{a1r2}
\end{split}
\end{align}
With the above fermionic boundary conditions and the above formulae (\ref{a1r1})-(\ref{a1r2}), one can rewrite the general supersymmetric boundary conditions (\ref{susybc1a}) as
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
0&=
\frac{1}{4}
i \xi^{2mn} F_{mn} (e^{2i\theta} - 1) (\xi \overline{\lambda})
- \frac{1}{2} i F^{2m} (e^{2i\theta} + 1) (\xi \sigma_{m} \overline{\lambda}) \\
&-\frac{1}{2} D_{m} \sigma (e^{2i \theta} -1) (\xi \sigma^{m 2} \overline{\lambda})
-\frac{1}{2} D^2 \sigma (e^{2i\theta}+1) (\xi \overline{\lambda})
\\
&
-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (e^{-2i\theta} D^2 \phi + D^2 \overline{\phi}) (\xi \psi_{\phi}) - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (e^{-2i \theta} D_{m} \phi - D_{m} \overline{\phi}) (\xi \sigma^{m 2} \psi_{\phi}) \\
&
- \frac{1}{2} [\overline{\phi}, \phi] (e^{2 i \theta} +1) (\xi \sigma^2 \overline{\lambda})
+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ( [\sigma, \phi] e^{-2i\theta} - [\sigma, \overline{\phi}] ) (\xi \sigma^2 \psi_{\phi}) \, .
\end{split} \label{asusybc3}
\end{align}
Without further projection conditions, we can find supersymmetric bosonic configurations
as the non-trivial solutions to (\ref{asusybc3}) when $\theta=0$ and $\frac{\pi}{2}$.
From now on, we often identify the scalars $\sigma$ and $\phi, \overline{\phi}$ of 3d $\mathcal{N}=2$ vector and adjoint chiral multiplet with the scalars $\phi^i$, $i=3,4,5$ of the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet as
\begin{align}
\sigma = \phi^3 \, , \quad
\text{Re} \ \phi = \phi^4 \, , \quad
\text{Im} \ \phi = \phi^5 \, . \label{iden}
\end{align}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=5mm]
\item[i)] $\gamma^2 \lambda = \overline{\lambda}$ and $\gamma^2 \psi_\phi = \overline{\psi}_\phi$ ($\theta = 0$)
From \eqref{asusybc3} with $\theta=0$, we find the boundary conditions
\begin{align}
\label{asusybc3c}
F_{2m}&=0 \, ,\\
\label{asusybc3d}
D_{2}\phi^{a}&=0 \, ,\\
\label{asusybc3d0}
D_{m}\phi^{5}&=0 \, ,\\
\label{asusybc3e}
[\phi^{a},\phi^{5}]&=0 \, ,
\end{align}
where $a = 3, 4$.
The two-dimensional gauge field $A_{m}$ and the two scalar fields $\phi^{a}$ satisfy Neumann-like boundary conditions \eqref{asusybc3c} and \eqref{asusybc3d}, so can fluctuate at the boundary.
The condition \eqref{asusybc3c} can be thought as the Dirichlet-like condition for the scalar field $A_{2}$.
The scalar field $\phi^{5}$ satisfy the Dirichlet-like condition \eqref{asusybc3d0}.
In particular, (\ref{asusybc3d0}) and (\ref{asusybc3e}) can be solved by setting $\phi^{5}=0$.
We call the above set of boundary conditions (\ref{asusybc3c})-(\ref{asusybc3e}) the \textit{electric-like} A-type boundary conditions where the electric-like field $E_{m}=F_{2m}$ generated by scalar potential $A_{2}$ is required to be constant while the magnetic-like field $B=F_{01}$ can fluctuate at the boundary.
\item[ii)] $\gamma^2 \lambda = -\overline{\lambda}$ and $\gamma^2 \psi_\phi = -\overline{\psi}_\phi$ ($\theta= \frac{\pi}{2}$)
In this case, the boundary conditions read
\begin{align}
\label{asusybc3a1}
F_{01}&=0 \, ,\\
\label{asusybc3a2}
D_{2}\phi^{5}&=0 \, ,\\
\label{asusybc3b}
D_{m}\phi^{a}&=0 \, ,\\
\label{asusybc3b0}
[\phi^{a},\phi^{b}]&=0 \, .
\end{align}
where $a, b, \cdots = 3, 4$.
We obtain the Dirichlet-like boundary condition for the two-dimensional gauge field $A_{m}$ and the Neumann-like boundary condition for the scalar field $\phi^{5}$.
The third equation (\ref{asusybc3b}) is the Dirichlet-like condition on two scalar fields $\phi^{a}$.
The last constraint (\ref{asusybc3b0}) implies that the two scalar fields satisfying Dirichlet-like condition commute with each other.
So one possible solution is to set them zero at the boundary.
Meanwhile, as there is no constraint on $F_{m 2}$, the scalar field $A_{2}$ is unconstrained so can fluctuate at the boundary.
We will call the set of boundary conditions (\ref{asusybc3a1}) - (\ref{asusybc3b0}) \textit{magnetic-like} A-type boundary conditions.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection*{Boundary degree of freedom for the A-type from the bulk vector multiplet}
We see that two sets of the A-type boundary conditions,
(\ref{asusybc3c})-(\ref{asusybc3e}) and
(\ref{asusybc3a1})-(\ref{asusybc3b}),
provide decomposition of the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet $V_{\mathcal{N}=4}$ under $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ supersymmetry at the boundary.
The two-dimensional gauge field $A_m$
and the two real scalar fields $\phi^a$, $a=3,4$, which form a complex scalar field,
are naturally packaged into a 2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ vector multiplet $V^{(2,2)}$
or field strength multiplet $\Sigma^{(2,2)}$.
Meanwhile, from two real scalar fields $A_2$ and $\phi^5$,
one can form a 2d $\mathcal{N} = (2,2)$ twisted chiral multiplet $\widetilde{\Sigma}^{(2,2)}$,
which is charged under axial $U(1)_C$ R-symmetry group.
We let $\rho$ be the dual photons
defined by $\frac12 \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho}F^{\nu\rho}=\partial_{\mu}\rho$
for each of the Abelian factors of gauge group where $A_{2}$,
which is surviving degree of freedom when considering Dirichlet-like boundary condition,
appears in the LHS.
Then $\widetilde{\rho} = \phi^5 + i \rho$ is charged under $U(1)_C$
and becomes a scalar component of twisted chiral multiplet.
Therefore, 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet $V_{\mathcal{N}=4}$
can be decomposed into 2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ vector multiplet $V^{(2,2)}$,
or field strength multiplet, which is a twisted chiral multiplet $\Sigma^{(2,2)}$,
and 2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ twisted chiral multiplet
$\widetilde{\Sigma}^{(2,2)}$;
\begin{align}
\label{adec1}
V_{\mathcal{N}=4}
&\rightarrow (V^{(2,2)}, \widetilde{\Sigma}^{(2,2)}).
\end{align}
The 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ supersymmetric parameters consist of two copies of the 3d $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric parameters, $\xi_{1}$ and $\xi_{2}$.
The projection (\ref{asusybc1}) admits two right-moving supersymmetric parameters and two left-moving supersymmetric parameters.\footnote{
We denote the right-moving fermion by $\Psi^{+}$ and the left-moving fermion by $\Psi^{-}$,
\begin{align}
\label{2dfer1}
\gamma^{2}\Psi^{+}&=\Psi^{+},&
\gamma^{2}\Psi^{-}&=-\Psi^{-}.
\end{align}
One raises and lowers the spinor indices by the antisymmetric tensor
$\Psi_{\alpha}=
\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}
\Psi^{\beta}$ with $\epsilon_{+-}=1$ so that
$\Psi^{-}=\Psi_{+}$, $\Psi^{+}=-\Psi_{-}$. }
Denoting the complex supersymmetric parameters of 2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ supersymmetry as
\begin{align}
\label{22susy1a}
\xi^{+}&:=\frac12 (\xi_{1}^+ + \overline{\xi}_{1}^+) + \frac{i}{2}(\xi_{2}^+ + \overline{\xi}_{2}^+) \, , &
\xi^{-}&:=\frac{1}{2i} (\xi_{1}^- - \overline{\xi}_{1}^-) + \frac12(\xi_{2}^- - \overline{\xi}_{2}^-) \, ,
\end{align}
with
$\overline{\xi}^{+}=(\xi^{+})^{*}$ and $\overline{\xi}^{-}=(\xi^{-})^{*}$ at the boundary,
the axial $U(1)_A$ and the vector $U(1)_V$ of them may take
\begin{align}
\label{22susy1b}
\begin{array}{c|c|c|c}
&SO(1,1)&U(1)_{A}&U(1)_V\\ \hline
\xi^{+}&+&-&+\\
\xi^{-}&-&+&+\\
\overline{\xi}^{+}&+&+&-\\
\overline{\xi}^{-}&-&-&-\\
\end{array}
\end{align}
For the the electric-like A-type boundary conditions, which allow both left-moving and right-moving fermions,
we similarly denote the two-dimensional fermionic fields by
\begin{align}
\label{22susy2a}
\lambda^{+}&:=\frac12\left(\lambda+\overline{\lambda}\right)
+\frac{i}{2}\left(\psi_{\phi}+\overline{\psi}_{\phi}\right),&
\lambda^{-}&:=\frac{1}{2i}\left(\lambda-\overline{\lambda}\right)+\frac12\left(\psi_{\phi}-\overline{\psi}_{\phi}\right),
\end{align}
with
$\overline{\lambda}^{+}=(\lambda^+)^{\dag}$ and $\overline{\lambda}^{-}=(\lambda^{-})^{\dag}$ at the boundary.
Their R-charges would be
\begin{align}
\label{22susy2b}
\begin{array}{c|c|c|c}
&SO(1,1)&U(1)_{A}&U(1)_V\\ \hline
\lambda^{+}&+&+&+\\
\lambda^{-}&-&-&+\\
\overline{\lambda}^{+}&+&-&-\\
\overline{\lambda}^{-}&-&+&-\\
\end{array}
\end{align}
We write a complex scalar field as $\phi:=\phi^{1}+i\phi^{2}$.
Given the notation above, supersymmetric transformation laws of the component fields
$(A_{m}, \phi, \lambda^{+}, \lambda^{-}, \overline{\lambda}^{+}, \overline{\lambda}^{-})$,
which form an $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ vector multiplet, would be \cite{Witten:1993yc, Hori:2003ic}
\begin{align}
\label{22susyvm1}
\delta A_{\pm}&=i\overline{\xi}_{\pm}\lambda_{\pm}+i\xi_{\pm}\overline{\lambda}_{\pm},\\
\label{22susyvm2}
\delta \phi&=-i\overline{\xi}_{+}\lambda_{-}-i\xi_{-}\overline{\lambda}_{+},\\
\label{22susyvm3}
\delta \lambda_{+}&=2\partial_{+}\overline{\phi}\xi_{-}+(iD-v_{01})\xi_{+},\\
\label{22susyvm4}
\delta \lambda_{-}&=2\partial_{-}\overline{\phi}\xi_{+}+(iD+v_{01})\xi_{-},\\
\label{22susyvm5}
\delta D&=-\overline{\xi}_{+}D_{-}\lambda_{+}-\overline{\xi}_{-}D_{+}\lambda_{-}
+\xi_{+}D_{-}\overline{\lambda}_{+}+\xi_{-}D_{+}\overline{\lambda}_{-},
\end{align}
where $D$ is an auxiliary field, which is expressed as some function of $\phi$
where the detail form of it can be determined once the detail of coupling to the boundary fields is given.
The magnetic-like A-type boundary conditions
$\gamma^{2}\lambda=-\overline{\lambda}$, $\gamma^{2}\psi_{\phi}=-\overline{\psi}_{\phi}$ also yield
both left-moving and right-moving fermions.
We similarly denote the two-dimensional fermions by
\begin{align}
\label{22susy1c}
\chi^{+}&:=\frac{1}{2i}\left(\lambda-\overline{\lambda}\right)+\frac12\left(\psi_{\phi}-\overline{\phi}_{\phi}\right),&
\chi^{-}&:=\frac12\left(\lambda+\overline{\lambda}\right)+\frac{i}{2}\left(\psi_{\phi}+\overline{\phi}_{\phi}\right),
\end{align}
and their complex conjugate,
$\overline{\chi}^{+}=(\chi^{+})^{\dag}$, $\overline{\chi}^{-}=(\chi^{-})^{\dag}$.
They would carry the R-charges as
\begin{align}
\label{22susy1d}
\begin{array}{c|c|c|c}
&SO(1,1)&U(1)_{A}&U(1)_V\\ \hline
\chi^{+}&+&+&+\\
\chi^{-}&-&-&+\\
\overline{\chi}^{+}&+&-&-\\
\overline{\chi}^{-}&-&+&-\\
\end{array}
\end{align}
The twisted chiral multiplet $\widetilde{\Sigma}^{(2,2)}$ has the component fields
$(\widetilde{\rho}, \chi^{+}, \chi^{-}, \overline{\chi}^{+}, \overline{\chi}^{-})$.
The supersymmetry transformation laws would take the form \cite{Witten:1993yc, Hori:2003ic}
\begin{align}
\label{22susytcm1}
\delta \widetilde{\rho}&=\overline{\xi}_{+}\chi_{-}-\xi_{-}\overline{\chi}_{+},\\
\label{22susytcm2}
\delta \overline{\chi}_{+}&=2i\partial_{+}\widetilde{\rho}\overline{\xi}_{-}+G\overline{\xi}_{+},\\
\label{22susytcm3}
\delta \chi_{-}&=-2i\partial_{-}\widetilde{\rho}\overline{\xi}_{+}+G\overline{\xi}_{-},\\
\label{22susytcm4}
\delta G&=-2i\xi_{+}\partial_{-}\overline{\chi}_{+}-2i\overline{\xi}_{-}\partial_{+}\chi_{-},
\end{align}
where $G$ is some function of $\widetilde{\rho}$.
\subsubsection{B-type boundary conditions}
\label{secvmb}
Next we consider the B-type conditions where the projection condition on the supersymmetric parameter $\xi$ is
\begin{align}
\label{bsusybc1}
\gamma^{2}\xi&= -\xi \, .
\end{align}
Here and in the followings, we choose a convention that
this gives the right-moving supercharges,
which leads to the chiral $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ supersymmetry at the two-dimensional boundary.\footnote{In this convention, the projection condition for the supersymmetric parameter
$\gamma^2 \xi = \xi$ preserves $\mathcal{N}=(4,0)$ supersymmetry at the boundary.}
Applying the ansatz
\begin{align}
\label{bsusybc2}
\gamma^{2} \lambda = e^{2i\theta} \lambda \, , \qquad
\gamma^{2} \psi_\phi = e^{2i\theta} \psi_\phi
\end{align}
for the fermionic boundary conditions, which doesn't change the equations of motion when $\theta=0$ or $\frac{\pi}{2}$, we can find the bosonic boundary conditions.
These two boundary conditions for the fermionic fields determine their chiralities at the boundary.
When $\theta=0$ (resp. $\theta=\frac{\pi}{2}$), the associated two-dimensional fermions are right-moving (resp. left-moving).
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=5mm]
\item[i)] $\gamma^2 \lambda = - \lambda$ and $\gamma^2 \psi_{\phi} = - \psi_{\phi}$ ($\theta = \frac{\pi}{2}$)
With this choice of the fermionic boundary condition,
it follows that
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\overline{\xi} \lambda = 0 \, , \quad
\overline{\xi} \sigma^2 \lambda = 0 \, , \quad
\overline{\xi} \overline{\psi}_{\phi} = 0 \, , \quad
\overline{\xi} \sigma^2 \overline{\psi}_{\phi} = 0
\end{split} \label{b1r}
\end{align}
so the general boundary conditions (\ref{susybc1a}) turn into
\begin{align}
\label{bsusybc3aa}
\begin{split}
0&=\frac{1}{2} (i F_{{m} 2} - D_{m} \sigma) (\overline{\xi} \sigma^{{m}} \lambda)
+ \frac{1}{2} (i F^{{m} 2} + D_{m} \sigma) (\xi \sigma^{{m}} \overline{\lambda}) \\
&-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} D_{m} \phi (\overline{\xi} \sigma^{{m} 2} \overline{\psi}_{\phi})
+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} D_{m} \overline{\phi} (\xi \sigma^{{m} 2} \psi_{\phi}) \, .
\end{split}
\end{align}
Therefore, with identification \eqref{iden}, we find
\begin{align}
\label{bsusybc3a}
F_{2m}&=0 \, , \\
\label{bsusybc3b}
D_{m}\phi^{i}&=0 \, .
\end{align}
The first condition (\ref{bsusybc3a}) is the Neumann-like boundary condition for the two-dimensional gauge field $A_{m}$,
while the second condition (\ref{bsusybc3b}) is the Dirichlet-like boundary condition for the three scalar fields $\phi^{i}$.
The condition (\ref{bsusybc3a}) can be rephrased as the Dirichlet-like boundary conditions for the scalar field $A_{2}$.
We call this set of boundary conditions (\ref{bsusybc3a}) and (\ref{bsusybc3b}) the \textit{electric-like} B-type boundary conditions.
\item[ii)] $\gamma^2 \lambda = \lambda$ and $\gamma^2 \psi_{\phi} = \psi_{\phi}$ ($\theta = 0$)
Choosing $\theta=0$ for the fermionic boundary conditions in (\ref{bsusybc2}), we get
\begin{align}
\label{b2r}
\overline{\xi} \sigma_{m} \lambda = 0 \, , \quad
\overline{\xi} \sigma^{{m} 2} \lambda = 0 \, , \quad
\overline{\xi} \sigma^{{m} 2} \overline{\psi}_{\phi} = 0 \, .
\end{align}
The generic boundary conditions (\ref{susybc1a}) then reduce to
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
0&=
\frac{1}{2} (-i F_{01} + D^2 \sigma + [\phi, \overline{\phi}]) (\overline{\xi} \lambda)
+\frac{1}{2} (-i F_{01} - D^2 \sigma - [\phi, \overline{\phi}]) (\xi \overline{\lambda}) \\
&
\quad +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (D^2 \phi + [\sigma, \phi] ) (\overline{\xi} \overline{\psi}_{\phi})
- \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (D^2 \overline{\phi} - [\sigma, \overline{\phi}]) (\xi \psi_{\phi})
\end{split} \label{bsusybc3cc}
\end{align}
Thus,
with identification \eqref{iden},
one finds
\begin{align}
\label{bsusybc3c}
&F_{01}=0 \, ,\\
\label{bsusybc3d}
&D_2 \phi^i -\frac{1}{2} i \epsilon^{ijk} [\phi^j, \phi^k] = 0
\end{align}
where $\epsilon^{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol with $\epsilon^{345}=1$.
The first condition (\ref{bsusybc3c}) is the Dirichlet-like condition for the two-dimensional gauge field $A_{m}$.
The scalar field $A_{2}$ is unconstrained and can fluctuate at the boundary.
Note that the boundary condition for three scalar fields $\phi^{i}$ is not Neumann-like but rather they satisfy Nahm-like equations.
They originate from the existence of fluctuating $A_2$ at the boundary \cite{Gaiotto:2008sa}.
We will call this set of boundary conditions (\ref{bsusybc3c}) and (\ref{bsusybc3d}) the \textit{magnetic-like} B-type boundary conditions.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection*{Boundary degree of freedom for the B-type from the bulk vector multiplet}
We can also see
the two sets of the B-type conditions (\ref{bsusybc3a})-(\ref{bsusybc3b}) and (\ref{bsusybc3c})-(\ref{bsusybc3d})
provide the decomposition of the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet
under the preserved $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ supersymmetry at the boundary.
We observed that
for the electric-like B-type boundary conditions
the two-dimensional gauge field $A_{m}$ can fluctuate and
a pair of left-moving fermions transforming as $(\bm{2,}\bm{2})_{-}$ survive at the boundary.
They are part of the 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ vector multiplet $V^{(0,4)}$, which also contains
an auxiliary field transforming as $(\bm{1},\bm{3})_{0}$ that
originate from the auxiliary field $F$ in the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet (see (\ref{3dn4vm1a})).
On the other hand, for the magnetic-like B-type boundary conditions,
the scalar fields $\phi^{i}$ and $A_{2}$ can fluctuate at the boundary and can be combined into
the two complex scalar fields transforming as $(\bm{2},\bm{1})_{0}$.
Also a pair of right-moving fermions $(\bm{1},\bm{2})_{+}$ survive at the boundary.
Therefore, they form the $\mathcal{N} = (0,4)$ twisted hypermultiplets $\widetilde{H}^{(0,4)}$.
Hence for the B-type conditions, the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet $V_{\mathcal{N}=4}$ splits into two parts;
\begin{align}
\label{bdec1}
V_{\mathcal{N}=4}&\rightarrow
(V^{(0,4)}, \widetilde{H}^{(0,4)}).
\end{align}
The projection (\ref{bsusybc1}) reduces two copies $\xi_1$, $\xi_2$ of 3d $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric parameters to four real left-moving supersymmetric parameters.
We write them as $\xi^{A\dot{A}}$ where the indices $A,B,\cdots=1,2$ transform as a doublet under $SU(2)_C$ while the indices $\dot{A} ,\dot{B}, \cdots = \dot{1}, \dot{2}$ transform as a doublet under $SU(2)_H$.
We denote the four supersymmetric parameters of 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ supersymmetry by
\begin{align}
\label{04susy}
\xi^{-1\dot{1}} & := \xi_{1}^- \, , &
\xi^{-1\dot{2}} & := -\xi_{2}^- \, , &
\xi^{-2\dot{1}} & := \overline{\xi}_{2}^- \, , &
\xi^{-2\dot{2}} & := \overline{\xi}_{1} \, .
\end{align}
The electric-like B-type boundary conditions $\gamma^{2}\lambda=-\lambda$, $\gamma^{2}\psi_{\phi}=-\psi_{\phi}$ lead to left-moving fermions.
We take them as the doublets under the both $SU(2)_C$ and $SU(2)_H$ so that
\begin{align}
\label{04susyvm1}
\lambda^{-1\dot{1}} & := \lambda^- \, , &
\lambda^{-1\dot{2}} & := -\psi_\phi^- \, , &
\lambda^{-2\dot{1}} & := \overline{\psi}_{\phi}^- \, , &
\lambda^{-2\dot{2}} & := \overline{\lambda}^- \, .
\end{align}
Denoting the component fields for the vector multiplet $V^{(0,4)}$ by $(A_{m}, \lambda^{-A\dot{A}} )$, the supersymmetry transformation\footnote{From 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ supersymmetry transformation with projection and boundary conditions, we can see
\begin{align}
\delta (A_0 - A_1) &= 2 i \xi_{A\dot{A}}^{-} \lambda^{-A\dot{A}} \\
\delta (A_0 + A_1) &= 0 \\
\delta \lambda^{-A\dot{B}} &= i D^{A}_{\ C} \xi^{-C\dot{B}} + F_{01} \xi^{-A \dot{B}} \, ,
\end{align}
at the boundary.
Here, $D^{A}_{\ B} = \frac{1}{2} [ \widetilde{X}^{AY'}, \widetilde{X}_{BY'} ]$ with $\widetilde{X}^{AY'} = \begin{pmatrix} \sigma - i A_2 & -\sqrt{2}\phi \\ \sqrt{2}\overline{\phi} & \sigma + i A_2 \end{pmatrix}$, which is a scalar component of twisted hypermultiplet,
where indices $Y' =1',2'$ denote the doublet under $SU(2)^{'}_F$ global symmetry.
}
would be
\begin{align}
\label{04susyvm2}
\delta A_{-} &= 2 i \xi^{-}_{A\dot{A}} \lambda^{-A\dot{A}} \, , \\
\label{04susyvm3}
\delta \lambda^{-A\dot{B}} &= i D^{A}_{\ C} \xi^{-C\dot{B}} + F_{01} \xi^{-A \dot{B}} \, ,
\end{align}
where $D^{A}_{\ B}$ would be some function of scalar field $\widetilde{X}^{AY'}$ in the twisted hypermultiplet for generic coupling to boundary fields. We use the antisymmetric tensor $\epsilon_{AB}$ and $\epsilon_{\dot{A} \dot{B}}$ with $\epsilon_{+-} = \epsilon_{\dot{+}\dot{-}} = 1$ to raise or lower indices $A, B, \ldots$ and $\dot{A}, \dot{B}, \ldots$, respectively.
The magnetic-like B-type boundary conditions $\gamma^{2}\lambda=\lambda$, $\gamma^{2}\psi_{\phi}=\psi_{\phi}$ lead to right-moving fermions.
We can take them as a doublet under the $SU(2)_{H}$ and also a doublet under the additional global symmetry $SU(2)_{F}'$.
We write them as $\widetilde{\Psi}^{+\dot{A}Y'}$
\begin{align}
\widetilde{\Psi}^{+\dot{A}Y'} = \begin{pmatrix} \overline{\chi}^+ & \lambda^+ \\ \overline{\lambda}^+ & - \chi^+ \end{pmatrix}
\end{align}
where the indices $Y' = 1' , 2'$ represent the doublet under the $SU(2)_F'$.
The supersymmetry transformations of the component fields $(\widetilde{X}^{AY'},\widetilde{\Psi}^{+A'Y'})$, which form a twisted hypermultiplet, can also be obtained from 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ supersymmetry transformation with projection and boundary conditions,
\begin{align}
\label{04susythm1}
\delta \widetilde{X}^{AY'} &= -2 \xi^{-A\dot{B}} \epsilon_{\dot{B}\dot{C}} \widetilde{\Psi}^{+\dot{C} Y'} \, , \\
\label{04susythm2}
\delta \widetilde{\Psi}^{+\dot{A} Y'} &= -i \xi^{-B\dot{A}} \epsilon_{BC} (\partial_0 + \partial_1) \widetilde{X}^{CY'} \, ,
\end{align}
which is the supersymmetry transformation of the $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ twisted hypermultiplet
where Dirichlet-like condition $A_0=A_1=0$ is incorporated.
See also \cite{Witten:1994tz, Gates:1994bu}.
\subsubsection{Reduction from the extended Bogomolny equation}
\label{secextended}
The BPS equations of the topologically twisted 4d $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theories on a 4-manifold $M_{4}$
have been studied in \cite{Kapustin:2006pk}, which read
\begin{align}
\label{gltwist1a}
(F-\phi\wedge \phi+t d_{A}\phi)^{+}&=0,\\
\label{gltwist1b}
(F-\phi\wedge \phi-t^{-1}d_{A}\phi)^{-}&=0,\\
\label{gltwist1c}
d_{A}\star \phi&=0,
\end{align}
where $A$ is a four-dimensional anti-hermitian gauge field that is a connection
on a $G$-bundle $E\rightarrow M_{4}$,
and $\phi$ is a bosonic one-form field valued in anti-hermitian matrix given the adjoint representation of the Lie algebra of $G$.
$d_{A}=d+[A,\cdot]$ is the covariant exterior derivative,
$F=dA+A\wedge A$ is the field strength,
$\star$ is the Hodge star operator,
and $t$ is a real constant parametrizing a family of topological twisted theories.
Especially when $t=1$, the set of equations (\ref{gltwist1a})-(\ref{gltwist1c}) can be written as
\begin{align}
\label{gltwist1d}
F-\phi\wedge \phi+\star d_{A}\phi&=0,\\
\label{gltwist1e}
d_{A}\star \phi&=0.
\end{align}
Equation (\ref{gltwist1d}) is called the extended Bogomolny equation in \cite{Kapustin:2006pk}.
It has been argued that the BPS equations (\ref{gltwist1d}) together with (\ref{gltwist1e}) provide a various family of the BPS equations in lower dimensions by performing the reduction on a given $M_4$, \textit{e.g.} on $M_{4}=C\times \Sigma$ where $C$ and $\Sigma$ are Riemann surfaces \cite{Bershadsky:1995vm,Kapustin:2006pk}, and on $M_{4}=M_{3}\times \mathbb{R}_{+}$ where $M_{3}$ is a 3-manifold and $\mathbb{R}_{+}$ is a half line \cite{Gaiotto:2011nm,Witten:2011zz}.
Here, we would like to see our BPS boundary conditions for the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet in the reduction of the extended Bogomolny equation.
We consider the equations on a 4-manifold $M_{4}=\mathbb{R}_{+}\times M_{3}$.
We express the gauge field as $A=A_{0}dx^{0}+\widetilde{A}$, and the one-form as $\phi=\phi_{0}dx^{0}+\widetilde{\phi}$
where $x^{0}$ is the coordinate on the half line $\mathbb{R}_{+}$.
Taking the $x^{0}$ independent parts from (\ref{gltwist1d})-(\ref{gltwist1e}),
one obtains the BPS equations on $M_{3}$
\begin{align}
\label{gltwist2a}
\widetilde{F}-\widetilde{\phi}\wedge \widetilde{\phi}
&=\star\left(d_{\widetilde{A}}\phi_{0}-[A_{0},\widetilde{\phi}] \right),\\
\label{gltwist2b}
d_{\widetilde{A}}A_{0}+[\phi_{0},\widetilde{\phi}]&=\star d_{\widetilde{A}}\widetilde{\phi},\\
\label{gltwist2c}
d_{\widetilde{A}}^{*}\widetilde{\phi}+[A_{0},\phi_{0}]&=0,
\end{align}
where the exterior derivative $d_{\widetilde{A}}$,
the Hodge operator $\star$ and
$d_{\widetilde{A}}^*=\star d_{\widetilde{A}}\star$ are defined on the 3-manifold
$M_{3}$.
We further take $M_{3}=\mathbb{R}_{+}\times C$
and write $\widetilde{A}=A_{2}dx^{2}+A_{z}dz+A_{\overline{z}}d\overline{z}$,
$\widetilde{\phi}=\phi_{2}dx^{2}+\phi_{z}dz+\phi_{\overline{z}}d\overline{z}$
where $\mathbb{R}_{+}$ is the half line $x^{2}\ge 0$
and $z,\overline{z}$ are the local complex coordinates on the Riemann surface $C$.
By squaring (\ref{gltwist2a})-(\ref{gltwist2c}) and integrating by parts,
one finds that $A_{0}=\phi_{2}=0$.
Let us denote the metric on 3-manifold $M_{3}$
by $ds^{2}=(dx^{2})^{2}+2|dz|^{2}$
and choose a gauge in which $A_{2}=0$.
Then (\ref{gltwist2a})-(\ref{gltwist2c})
are now simplified
to \cite{Kapustin:2006pk}
\begin{align}
\label{gltwist3a}
F_{z\overline{z}}-[\phi_{z},\phi_{\overline{z}}]&=i\partial_{2}\phi_{0},\\
\label{gltwist3b}
\partial_{2}A_{\overline{z}}&=-iD_{\overline{z}}\phi_{0},\\
\label{gltwist3c}
i[\phi_{0},\phi_{z}]&=\partial_{2}\phi_{z},\\
\label{gltwist3d}
D_{z}\phi_{\overline{z}}&=0.
\end{align}
As a 4-manifold is now a product space $M_{4}=\mathbb{R}_{+}\times \mathbb{R}_{+}\times C$, the topological twisting is not performed on the 4-manifold but on the two-dimensional surface $C$.
When $C=\mathbb{R}^2$, which we will consider, the above configuration on a 3-manifold $M_{3}=\mathbb{R}_{+}\times C$ with a boundary at $x^{2}=0$ may admit maximally four supercharges.
Regarding boundary conditions, given a field, it is reasonable to expect that there is either normal derivative or tangential derivative of it but not both in the (BPS) boundary conditions or equations that the boundary fields should satisfy.
So by picking sets of equations among \eqref{gltwist3a}-\eqref{gltwist3d}, more precisely, one in \eqref{gltwist3a} or \eqref{gltwist3b} and one in \eqref{gltwist3c} or \eqref{gltwist3d}, and by taking terms in equations to be separately zero, we may be able to find four consistent sets of BPS boundary conditions we are interested in.
Meanwhile, we note that \eqref{gltwist3a} and \eqref{gltwist3b} have terms relevant to the Dirichlet-like and Neumann-like boundary conditions for the two-dimensional gauge fields $A_{z}$, $A_{\overline{z}}$, respectively, whereas (\ref{gltwist3c}) and (\ref{gltwist3d}) contain the Neumann-like and Dirichlet-like boundary conditions for the one-form fields $\phi_{z}$, $\phi_{\overline{z}}$, respectively.
In order to see our boundary conditions in the reduced extended Bogomolny equations \eqref{gltwist3a}-\eqref{gltwist3d},
we take $C=\mathbb{R}^{2}$ where the one-form fields $\phi_{z}$ and $\phi_{\overline{z}}$ reduce to the scalar fields
and we set
\begin{align}
\label{gltwist4a}
\partial_{z}&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
(\partial_{\hat{0}}-i\partial_{\hat{1}}),&
\partial_{\overline{z}}&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
(\partial_{\hat{0}}+i\partial_{\hat{1}}),\\
\label{gltwist4b}
A_{z}&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(A_{\hat{0}}-iA_{\hat{1}}),&
A_{\overline{z}}&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(A_{\hat{0}}+iA_{\hat{1}}),\\
\label{gltwist4c}
\phi_{0}&=\phi^{5}, &
\phi_{z}&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi^{3}-i\phi^{4}),&
\phi_{\overline{z}}&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
(\phi^{3}+i\phi^{4}),
\end{align}
where $m, n = \hat{0}, \hat{1}$ are space-time indices on $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ while $i,j,\cdots=3,4,5$ and $a,b,\cdots=3,4$ label the scalar fields.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=5mm]
\item[A-i)]
From \eqref{gltwist3b} and (\ref{gltwist3c})
By taking both of the LHS and the RHS of all the equations to be separately zero, we have
\begin{align}
F_{2 m} = 0 \, , \qquad
D_{m}\phi^{5} = 0 \, , \qquad
D_{2}\phi^{a} = 0 \, , \qquad
[\phi^{5},\phi^{a}] = 0 \, ,
\end{align}
and one can identify them with the electric-like A-type conditions (\ref{asusybc3c})-(\ref{asusybc3e}).
\item[A-ii)] From (\ref{gltwist3a}) and (\ref{gltwist3d})
We can obtain
\begin{align}
F_{\hat{0}\hat{1}} = 0 \, , \qquad
D_{2}\phi^{5} = 0 \, , \qquad
[\phi^{a},\phi^{b}] = 0 \, , \qquad
D_{m}\phi^{a} = 0 \,
\end{align}
by setting every term in (\ref{gltwist3a}) to be zero.
These are the magnetic-like A-type conditions (\ref{asusybc3a1})-(\ref{asusybc3b0}).
\item[B-i)] From (\ref{gltwist3b}) and (\ref{gltwist3d})
Similarly, by taking both the LHS and the RHS in (\ref{gltwist3b}) to be separately zero, we get
\begin{align}
F_{2 m} = 0 \, , \qquad
D_{m}\phi^{i} = 0 \, .
\end{align}
This set of equations are the electric-like B-type conditions (\ref{bsusybc3a})-(\ref{bsusybc3b}).
\item[B-ii)] From (\ref{gltwist3a}) and (\ref{gltwist3c})
We can obtain
\begin{align}
F_{mn} = 0 \, , \qquad
D_{2}\phi^{i}+\epsilon^{ijk}[\phi^{j},\phi^{k}] = 0 \,
\label{b-ii-eq}
\end{align}
by taking terms in \eqref{gltwist3a} to be zero after arrangement,
where we have restored the gauge fixed value $A_{2}=0$.
Taking into account that $\phi^i$'s are anti-hermitian here, we see that both equations are the magnetic-like B-type conditions (\ref{bsusybc3c})-(\ref{bsusybc3d}).\footnote{\eqref{bsusybc3d} can be recovered from \eqref{b-ii-eq} via $A_2 \rightarrow -i A_2$ and $\phi^j \rightarrow -\frac{1}{2} i \phi^j$.}
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Hypermultiplets}
\label{sechm}
The 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ hypermultiplets contain
complex scalar fields $\bm{q}$ and fermionic fields $\bm{\psi}$ transforming as
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\bm{q} &: (\bm{1},\bm{1},\bm{2}) \\
\bm{\psi} &: (\bm{2},\bm{2},\bm{1})
\end{split}\label{3dn4hm1a}
\end{align}
under the $SO(1,2)\times SU(2)_{C}\times SU(2)_{H}$.
Also, the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ hypermultiplets in representation $R$ of the gauge group can be expressed as a combination of the two 3d $\mathcal{N}=2$ chiral multiplets
$Q(q,\psi,F_{q})$ and $\widetilde{Q}(\widetilde{q},\widetilde{\psi},F_{\widetilde{q}})$
transforming in conjugate representations, $R$ and $\overline{R}$, of the gauge group.
The action of the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ hypermultiplets coupled to 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet is given by
\begin{align}
\label{3dn4hm1b}
S&=S_{K}^{\mathcal{N}=2}+S_{W}^{\mathcal{N}=2}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\label{3dn4hm1c}
S_{K}^{\mathcal{N}=2}
&=-\int d^{3}x d^{4}\theta\
\left(
\overline{Q}e^{-2V}Q
+\overline{\widetilde{Q}}e^{-2V} \widetilde{Q}
\right)
\end{align}
is the kinetic terms and
\begin{align}
\label{3dn4hm1d}
S_{W}^{\mathcal{N}=2}
= -\sqrt{2}i\int d^{3}x d^{2}\theta \left( \widetilde{Q}\Phi Q \right)
+c.c \, .
\end{align}
is the superpotential terms and $c.c.$ stands for the complex conjugate.
In terms of the component fields, the action (\ref{3dn4hm1c}) can be expressed as
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\label{3dn4hm1c1}
S_{K}^{\mathcal{N}=2}
=\int d^{3}x
\Biggl[
&-D_{\mu}\overline{q}D^{\mu}q
-i\overline{\psi}\sigma^{\mu}D_{\mu}\psi
+\overline{F}_{q}F_{q}
-i \overline{\psi} \sigma \psi
-\sqrt{2}i \overline{\psi} \overline{\lambda} q
-\sqrt{2}i \overline{q} \lambda \psi
-\overline{q} D q - \overline{q} \sigma^{2} q \\
&
-D^{\mu}\widetilde{q} D_{\mu}\overline{\widetilde{q}}
-i\widetilde{\psi}\sigma^{\mu}D_{\mu}\overline{\widetilde{\psi}}
+F_{\widetilde{q}} \overline{F}_{\widetilde{q}}
+i \widetilde{\psi} \sigma \overline{\widetilde{\psi}}
+\sqrt{2} i \widetilde{q} \overline{\lambda} \overline{\widetilde{\psi}}
+\sqrt{2} i \widetilde{\psi} \lambda \overline{\widetilde{q}}
+\overline{\widetilde{q}} D \widetilde{q}
-\widetilde{q} \sigma^{2} \overline{\widetilde{q}}
\Biggr]
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $\sigma = \sigma^a T^a_R, \, D = D^a T^a_R, \, \lambda = \lambda^a T^a_R, \, \overline{\lambda} = \overline{\lambda}^a T^a_R$
and the action (\ref{3dn4hm1d}) as
\begin{align}
\label{3dn4hm1c2}
S_{W}^{\mathcal{N}=2} =
\int d^{3}x\ \Biggl[
-\sqrt{2}i \left( F_{\widetilde{q}} \phi q + \widetilde{q} F_{\phi} q + \widetilde{q} \phi F_{q} \right)
+ i \sqrt{2} \left( \widetilde{\psi} \psi_{\phi} q + \widetilde{q} \psi_{\phi} \psi + \widetilde{\psi} \phi \psi \right)
\Biggr]
+c.c.
\end{align}
where the covariant derivatives are defined by
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
D_{\mu}q&=\partial_{\mu}q-iA_{\mu}q, \qquad D_{\mu}\overline{q}=\partial_{\mu}\overline{q}+i\overline{q}A_{\mu}, \\
D_{\mu}\widetilde{q}&=\partial_{\mu}\widetilde{q}+i\widetilde{q}A_{\mu}, \qquad D_{\mu}\overline{\widetilde{q}}=\partial_{\mu}\overline{\widetilde{q}}-iA_{\mu}\overline{\widetilde{q}} \, .
\end{split}\label{covderiv0}
\end{align}
The actions (\ref{3dn4hm1b}) is invariant under the supersymmetry transformations
\begin{align}
\label{3dn2s1a}
\delta q &= \sqrt{2}\xi \psi \, , \\
\label{3dn2s1b}
\delta \widetilde{q} &=\sqrt{2}\xi\widetilde{\psi} \, , \\
\label{3dn2s1c}
\delta\psi &=
\sqrt{2}i\gamma^{\mu}\overline{\xi} D_{\mu}q
+\sqrt{2}\xi F_{q}-\sqrt{2}i\overline{\xi}\sigma q \, , \\
\label{3dn2s1d}
\delta\widetilde{\psi} &=
\sqrt{2}i \gamma^{\mu}\overline{\xi} D_{\mu}\widetilde{q}
+\sqrt{2}\xi F_{\widetilde{q}}+\sqrt{2}i \overline{\xi}\sigma \widetilde{q} \, , \\
\label{3dn2s1e}
\delta F_{q} &=
\sqrt{2}i\overline{\xi}\sigma^{\mu}D_{\mu}\psi
+2i(\overline{\xi}\overline{\lambda})q+\sqrt{2}i(\overline{\xi}\psi)\sigma \, , \\
\label{3dn2s1f}
\delta F_{\widetilde{q}} &=
\sqrt{2}i \overline{\xi}\sigma^{\mu}D_{\mu}\widetilde{\psi}
-2i(\overline{\xi}\overline{\lambda})\widetilde{q}
-\sqrt{2}i(\overline{\xi}\widetilde{\psi})\sigma
\end{align}
for the 3d $\mathcal{N}=2$ chiral multiplets $Q$ and $\widetilde{Q}$
as well as the supersymmetry transformations
(\ref{3dn2vmsusy1})-(\ref{3dn2vmsusy5}) and (\ref{3dn2cmadj1})-(\ref{3dn2cmadj3}), respectively,
for the vector multiplet $V$ and the adjoint chiral multiplet $\Phi$.
From the action (\ref{3dn4hm1c}) and the supersymmetric transformation laws,
we obtain a supercurrent of the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ hypermultiplets
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
J^{\mu}=
&-\sqrt{2}D^{\mu}\overline{q}\psi
-\overline{q} \gamma^{\mu} \overline{\lambda} q
+\sqrt{2}D_{\nu}\overline{q}\gamma^{\mu\nu}\psi
-\sqrt{2} \overline{q} \sigma \gamma^{\mu}\psi \\
&-\sqrt{2} \widetilde{\psi} D^{\mu}\overline{\widetilde{q}}
+\widetilde{q}\gamma^{\mu}\overline{\lambda} \overline{\widetilde{q}}
+\sqrt{2} \gamma^{\mu\nu}\widetilde{\psi} D_{\nu}\overline{\widetilde{q}}
+\sqrt{2} \gamma^{\mu}\widetilde{\psi} \sigma\overline{\widetilde{q}} \\
&-2\gamma^{\mu}(
\overline{q} \overline{\phi} \overline{\widetilde{\psi}}
+\overline{q} \overline{\psi}_{\phi} \overline{\widetilde{q}}
+\overline{\psi} \overline{\phi} \overline{\widetilde{q}}) \, .
\end{split}
\end{align}
Using the 3d $\mathcal{N}=2$ notation,
we get the supersymmetric boundary conditions for the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ hypermultiplets
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
0=
&-\sqrt{2}D_{2}\overline{q}(\xi\psi)
-\sqrt{2} (\xi\widetilde{\psi}) D_{2}\overline{\widetilde{q}}
-\overline{q} (\xi\gamma^{2}\overline{\lambda}) q
+\widetilde{q}(\xi\gamma^{2}\overline{\lambda}) \overline{\widetilde{q}} \\
&+\sqrt{2}D_{\nu}\overline{q}(\xi\gamma^{2\nu}\psi)
+\sqrt{2} (\xi\gamma^{2\nu}\widetilde{\psi}) D_{\nu}\overline{\widetilde{q}}
-\sqrt{2} \overline{q} \sigma (\xi\gamma^{2}\psi)
+\sqrt{2} (\xi\gamma^{2}\widetilde{\psi}) \sigma\overline{\widetilde{q}} \\
&+2 \overline{q} \overline{\phi} (\xi\gamma^{2}\overline{\widetilde{\psi}})
+2\overline{q} (\xi\gamma^{2}\overline{\psi}_{\phi}) \overline{\widetilde{q}}
+2 (\xi\gamma^{2}\overline{\psi}) \overline{\phi} \overline{\widetilde{q}} \\
&+\sqrt{2} (\overline{\xi}\overline{\psi}) D_{2}q
+\sqrt{2}D_{2}\widetilde{q}(\overline{\xi}\overline{\widetilde{\psi}})
+\overline{q} (\overline{\xi}\gamma^{2}\lambda) q
-\widetilde{q}(\overline{\xi}\gamma^{2}\lambda) \overline{\widetilde{q}} \\
&-\sqrt{2} (\overline{\xi}\gamma^{2\nu}\overline{\psi}) D_{\nu}q
-\sqrt{2}D_{\nu}\widetilde{q}(\overline{\xi}\gamma^{2\nu}\overline{\widetilde{\psi}})
+\sqrt{2} (\overline{\xi}\gamma^{2}\overline{\psi}) \sigma q
-\sqrt{2} \widetilde{q} \sigma (\overline{\xi}\gamma^{2}\overline{\widetilde{\psi}}) \\
&-2 (\overline{\xi}\gamma^{2}\widetilde{\psi}) \phi q
-2 \widetilde{q}(\overline{\xi} \gamma^{2}\psi_{\phi}) q
-2\widetilde{q}\phi(\overline{\xi}\gamma^{2}\psi) \, .
\end{split} \label{susybc2a}
\end{align}
One can generalize the boundary conditions and their solutions by introducing additional boundary degrees of freedom.
Also, it would be intriguing to explore space of the solutions for given information.
We defer these to later work.
In this paper, we focus on the investigation of basic half-BPS boundary conditions for the hypermultiplets.
As in the previous discussion on the vector multiplet, we examine the half-BPS boundary conditions of the A- and B-types for the pure hypermultiplets in this subsection, and discuss the coupled hypermultiplets in next subsection.
\subsubsection{A-type boundary condition}
\label{sechma}
We are interested in A-type boundary conditions for bosonic fields given by $\gamma^2 \xi = \overline{\xi}$ and fermionic boundary conditions,
\begin{align}
\label{hasusybc1}
\gamma^{2}\psi&=e^{2i\varphi}\overline{\psi}, &
\gamma^{2}\lambda&=e^{2i\theta}\overline{\lambda},&
\gamma^{2}\psi_{\phi}&= e^{2i\theta}\overline{\psi}_{\phi}
\end{align}
where $\varphi,\theta\in \mathbb{R}$ are constant phase parameters.
Here and in the following, we consider the case $e^{2i\varphi} = - e^{2i \theta}$, \textit{i.e.}
\begin{align}
\label{hasusybc2}
\theta - \varphi&=\frac{\pi}{2}+\pi\mathbb{Z} \, ,
\end{align}
but for the A-type condition the case $e^{2i\varphi} = e^{2i \theta}$ provides equivalent results to the ones obtained from \eqref{hasusybc2}.
From (\ref{a1r1})-(\ref{a1r2})
the generic boundary conditions (\ref{susybc2a}) for the hypermultiplets become\footnote{
To see the general form of the supersymmetric boundary conditions
of the coupled hypermultiplets,
we obtained the condition (\ref{susybc2a0}) by using the component-wise projection condition (\ref{hasusybc1})
given fixed all the gauge and global symmetry indices.
Given the data of preserved gauge and global symmetries at the boundary,
a large family of the boundary conditions can be constructed from the results below by
restoring the form of representation.
}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\label{susybc2a0}
0=
e^{-i\varphi}
\Bigl[
&-\sqrt{2}(e^{i\varphi}D_{2} \cdot \overline{q}+e^{-i\varphi}D_{2} \cdot q)(\xi \psi)
-\sqrt{2}(e^{i\varphi}D_{2} \cdot \overline{\widetilde{q}}+e^{-i\varphi}D_{2} \cdot\widetilde{q})(\xi\widetilde{\psi}) \\
&+\sqrt{2}(e^{i\varphi}D_{m} \cdot \overline{q}-e^{-i\varphi}D_{m} \cdot q)(\xi \gamma^{2m}\psi)
+\sqrt{2}(e^{i\varphi}D_{m} \cdot \overline{\widetilde{q}}
-e^{-i\varphi}D_{m} \cdot \widetilde{q})(\xi \gamma^{2m}\widetilde{\psi}) \\ \
&-\sqrt{2}(e^{i\varphi}\sigma\cdot \overline{q}+e^{-i\varphi}\sigma\cdot q)(\xi\gamma^{2}\psi)
+\sqrt{2}(e^{i\varphi}\sigma\cdot \overline{\widetilde{q}}+e^{-i\varphi}\sigma\cdot \widetilde{q})
(\xi\gamma^{2}\widetilde{\psi}) \\
&+2(e^{-i\varphi}\overline{\phi}\cdot \overline{q}+e^{-i\varphi}\phi\cdot q)(\xi\widetilde{\psi})
+2(e^{i\varphi}\overline{\phi}\cdot \overline{\widetilde{q}}
+e^{-i\varphi}\phi\cdot \widetilde{q})(\xi\psi)
\Bigr] \\
+
e^{-i\theta}
\Bigl[&
-(q\overline{q}e^{-i\theta}+q\overline{q}e^{i\theta})(\xi\lambda)
+(\widetilde{q}\overline{\widetilde{q}}e^{-i\theta}+\widetilde{q}\overline{\widetilde{q}}e^{i\theta})(\xi\lambda)
+2(\overline{q}\overline{\widetilde{q}}e^{i\theta}+q\widetilde{q}e^{-i\theta})
(\xi\overline{\psi}_{\phi})
\Bigr]
\end{split}
\end{align}
where the dot $\cdot$ indicates the gauge and global symmetry action on the hypermultiplets.
Also, the generators for gauge group are implicit between the products of two scalars,
\textit{e.g.} $\overline{q} T^a_{R} q$.
We would like to find the solutions to the half-BPS boundary conditions of pure hypermultiplet for $\varphi=0$ and $\varphi=\frac{\pi}{2}$.\footnote{The half-BPS boundary conditions preserving $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ for hypermultiplet were also obtained in \cite{Dimofte:2012pd}.}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=5mm]
\item[i)] $\gamma^2 \psi = \overline{\psi}$ (when $\varphi=0$)
In the case with $\varphi=0$,
we find from (\ref{susybc2a0}) the following bosonic boundary conditions for the hypermultiplets
\begin{align}
\label{hasusybc1a}
\partial_{2}(\operatorname{Re} q)&=0, &\hspace{-20mm} \partial_{2}(\operatorname{Re} \widetilde{q})&=0,\\
\label{hasusybc1b}
\partial_{m}(\operatorname{Im} q)&=0, &\hspace{-20mm} \partial_{m}(\operatorname{Im} \widetilde{q})&=0.
\end{align}
\item[ii)] $\gamma^2 \psi = -\overline{\psi}$ (when $\varphi=\frac{\pi}{2}$)
For the other A-type boundary conditions with the fermionic boundary conditions $\varphi=\frac{\pi}{2}$,
the bosonic boundary conditions for the hypermultiplets read
\begin{align}
\label{hasusybc2a}
\partial_{m}(\operatorname{Re} q)&=0, &\hspace{-20mm} \partial_{m}(\operatorname{Re} \widetilde{q})&=0,\\
\label{hasusybc2b}
\partial_{2}(\operatorname{Im} q)&=0, &\hspace{-20mm} \partial_{2}(\operatorname{Im} \widetilde{q})&=0.
\end{align}
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection*{Boundary degree of freedom for the A-type from the pure bulk hypermultiplet}
The A-type conditions provide decomposition of
the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ hypermultiplets into
the boundary supermultiplets in such a way that
($\text{Re}q$, $\text{Re}\widetilde{q}$)
fluctuate at the boundary and ($\text{Im}q$, $\text{Im}\widetilde{q}$)
satisfy Dirichlet boundary conditions,
or the other way around.
Each of them
forms the 2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ chiral multiplets
$\Phi^{(2,2)}_{I}$ and ${\Phi}^{(2,2)}_{II}$
whose lowest components are the complex scalar fields,
which consists of
$(\text{Re}q, \text{Re}(\widetilde{q}))$ and $(\text{Im}q, \text{Im}(\widetilde{q}))$,
respectively;
\begin{align}
\label{adec2}
H_{\mathcal{N}=4}&\rightarrow
(\Phi^{(2,2)}_I, {\Phi}^{(2,2)}_{II}).
\end{align}
The A-type boundary conditions $\gamma^{2}\psi=\overline{\psi}$ give both left-moving and right-moving fermions.
We may denote the two-dimensional fermions by
\begin{align}
\label{22susycm1}
\psi^{+}&:=\frac12\left(\psi+\overline{\psi}\right)
+\frac{i}{2}\left(\widetilde{\psi}+\overline{\widetilde{\psi}}\right),&
\psi^{-}&:=\frac{1}{2i}\left(\psi-\overline{\psi}\right)+\frac12\left(\widetilde{\psi}-\overline{\widetilde{\psi}}_{\phi}\right),
\end{align}
and their complex conjugate; $\overline{\psi}^{+}=(\psi^{+})^{\dag}$, $\overline{\psi}^{-}=(\psi^{-})^{\dag}$.
They would carry the R-charges as
\begin{align}
\label{22susycm2}
\begin{array}{c|c|c|c}
&SO(1,1)&U(1)_{A}&U(1)_V\\ \hline
\psi^{+}&+&+&-\\
\psi^{-}&-&-&-\\
\overline{\psi}^{+}&+&-&+\\
\overline{\psi}^{-}&-&+&+\\
\end{array}
\end{align}
We also denote a two-dimensional complex scalar fields by
$\varphi:=\operatorname{Re} q+i\operatorname{Re} \widetilde{q}$.
The supersymmetry transformations of component fields $(\varphi, \psi^{+}, \psi^{-}, \overline{\psi}^{+}, \overline{\psi}^{-})$,
which form the chiral multiplet $\Phi^{(2,2)}_{I}$, would be given by
\begin{align}
\label{22susycm3}
\delta \varphi&=\xi_{+}\psi_{-}-\xi_{-}\psi_{+}\\
\label{22susycm4}
\delta \psi_{+}&=2i\partial_{+}\varphi\overline{\xi}_{-}+F\xi_{+}, \\
\label{22susycm5}
\delta \psi_{-}&=-2i\partial_{-}\varphi\overline{\xi}_{+}+F\xi_{-}, \\
\label{22susycm6}
\delta F&=-2i\overline{\xi}_{+}\partial_{-}\psi_{+}-2i\overline{\xi}_{-}\partial_{+}\psi_{-}.
\end{align}
where $F$ is an auxiliary field and \eqref{22susy1a} is used.
One can similarly realize the supersymmetric transformation laws of the other chiral superfield $\Phi^{(2,2)}_{II}$.
\subsubsection{B-type boundary conditions}
\label{sechmb}
The B-type conditions are characterized by the chiral projection (\ref{bsusybc1}) on supersymmetric parameter.
We can find the bosonic boundary conditions by considering the fermionic boundary conditions
\begin{align}
\label{hbsusybc1}
\gamma^{2}\psi = e^{2i\varphi}\psi, \qquad
\gamma^{2}\lambda = e^{2i\theta}\lambda, \qquad
\gamma^{2}\psi_{\phi} = e^{2i\theta}\psi_{\phi}
\end{align}
with $(\varphi,\theta)=(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$ and $(\frac{\pi}{2},0)$.
When $(\varphi,\theta)=(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$,
\textit{i.e.} $\gamma^2 \psi = \psi$, $\gamma^2 \lambda = -\lambda$, and $\gamma^{2}\psi_{\phi} = -\psi_{\phi}$
by using the formulae (\ref{b1r}) for $\lambda$, $\psi_{\phi}$ and (\ref{b2r}) for $\psi$, $\widetilde{\psi}$,
we obtain
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
0=&-\sqrt{2}(D_{2} \cdot \overline{q}+\sigma \cdot \overline{q})(\xi\psi)
-\sqrt{2}(D_{2} \cdot \overline{\widetilde{q}}-\sigma \cdot \overline{\widetilde{q}})(\xi\widetilde{\psi}) \\
&+2 \overline{\phi} \cdot \overline{q}(\xi\overline{\widetilde{\psi}})
+2\overline{\widetilde{q}} \cdot \overline{\phi}(\xi \overline{\psi}) \, .
\end{split} \label{hbsusybc3b1}
\end{align}
Similarly,
when $(\varphi,\theta)=(\frac{\pi}{2},0)$, \textit{i.e.}
$\gamma^2 \psi = -\psi$, $\gamma^2 \lambda = \lambda$, and $\gamma^{2}\psi_{\phi} = \psi_{\phi}$,
the boundary condition becomes
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
0=
&\sqrt{2}D_{m} \cdot \overline{q}(\xi\gamma^{m}\psi)
+\sqrt{2}D_{m} \cdot \overline{\widetilde{q}}(\xi\gamma^{m}\widetilde{\psi}) \\
&-\left(|q|^{2}-|\widetilde{q}|^{2}\right)(\xi\overline{\lambda})
+2\overline{q}\overline{\widetilde{q}}(\xi\overline{\psi}_{\phi}) \, .
\end{split} \label{hbsusybc3a1}
\end{align}
The chiralities of the fermionic fields at the boundary from the bulk 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ hypermultiplet are determined by the phase factor $\varphi\in \mathbb{R}$.
For $\varphi=0$ (resp. $\varphi=\frac{\pi}{2}$),
the right-moving (resp. left-moving)
fermions survive at the two-dimensional boundary.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=5mm]
\item[i)] $\gamma^{2}\psi = \psi$ (when $\varphi=0$)
This boundary conditions admit the right-moving fermions with $\varphi=0$ in the hypermultiplets.
For pure hypermultiplet, we turn off fields from the vector multiplet,
so the condition (\ref{hbsusybc3b1}) leads to the Neumann boundary conditions for the hypermultiplet scalars $q$ and $\widetilde{q}$
\begin{align}
\label{hbsusybc3b2}
\partial_{2}q = 0 \, , \qquad \partial_{2} \widetilde{q} = 0 \, .
\end{align}
\item[ii)] $\gamma^{2}\psi = -\psi$ (when $\varphi=\frac{\pi}{2}$)
In this case, the fermions in hypermultiplet at the boundary are the left-moving.
For the hypermultiplets without gauge coupling,
(\ref{hbsusybc3a1}) can be solved by requiring the Dirichlet boundary conditions
for the hypermultiplet scalars $q$ and $\widetilde{q}$
\begin{align}
\label{hbsusybc3a2}
\partial_{m}q = 0 \, , \qquad \partial_{m}\widetilde{q} = 0 \, .
\end{align}
Therefore the bosonic degrees of freedom in the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ hypermultiplets cannot survive at the boundary
while the left-moving fermions are free to fluctuate at the boundary.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection*{Boundary degree of freedom for the B-type from the pure bulk hypermultiplet}
We saw that there are two types of the B-type conditions
for the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ hypermultiplets.
For the boundary condition i) with $\varphi = 0$,
the full set of four bosonic fields as well as the right-moving fermions $(\bm{2},\bm{1})_{+}$ can fluctuate at the boundary.
They are packaged into the 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ hypermultiplets $H^{(0,4)}$.
On the other hand, for the second conditions ii) with $\varphi = \frac{\pi}{2}$,
the left-moving fermions $(\bm{1},\bm{1})_{-}$ can fluctuate but
all the bosonic degrees of freedom satisfy
Dirichlet condition at the boundary.
The fluctuating
degrees of freedom
can be packaged into the $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ Fermi multiplets
$\Lambda^{(0,4)}$.
Therefore, we have the decomposition
\begin{align}
\label{bdec2}
H_{\mathcal{N}=4}&\rightarrow
(H^{(0,4)}, \Lambda^{(0,4)}).
\end{align}
The B-type boundary conditions $\gamma^{2}\psi=\psi$ lead to the right-moving fermions.
We write them as $\Psi^{+AY}$ where the indices $Y=1,2$ represent the doublet under the additional $SU(2)_F$ global symmetry,
\begin{align}
\label{04susyhm1}
\Psi^{+11} := \overline{\widetilde{\psi}} \, , \qquad
\Psi^{+12} := \overline{\psi} \, , \qquad
\Psi^{+21} := \psi \, , \qquad
\Psi^{+22} := -\widetilde{\psi} \, .
\end{align}
Also, we denote the scalar component by
\begin{align}
\label{04susyhm2}
X^{\dot{1}1} := q \, , \qquad
X^{\dot{1}2} := -\widetilde{q} \, , \qquad
X^{\dot{2}1} := \overline{\widetilde{q}} \, , \qquad
X^{\dot{2}2} := \overline{q} \, ,
\end{align}
which transform as a doublet under the $SU(2)_H$ and a doublet under the $SU(2)_F$.
The supersymmetry transformation of component fields $(X^{\dot{A}Y}, \Psi^{+AY})$, which forms a hypermultiplet $H^{(0,4)}$, can be obtained from 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ supersymmetry transformation with projection and boundary conditions,
\begin{align}
\label{04susyhm3}
\delta X^{\dot{A}Y} &= -\sqrt{2} \xi^{-B\dot{A}} \epsilon_{BC} \Psi^{+CY} \, , \\
\label{04susyhm4}
\delta \Psi^{+AY} &= \xi^{+A\dot{B}} \epsilon_{\dot{B}\dot{C}} (\partial_0 + \partial_1) X^{\dot{C}Y} \, ,
\end{align}
which is a supersymmetry transformation of the $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ hypermultiplet.
Another B-type boundary condition $\gamma^{2}\psi=-\psi$ leads to four real left-moving fermions, which are singlet under the R-symmetry. These fermionic fields form a Fermi multiplet $\Lambda^{(0,4)}$.
We can take them as two complex fermions, which we denote as
\begin{align}
\zeta^{-}_{1} = \psi \, , \qquad \zeta^{-}_{2} = \overline{\widetilde{\psi}}
\end{align}
where hermitian conjugates are $\overline{\zeta}^{-}_{1} = \overline{\psi}$ and $\overline{\zeta}^{-}_{2} = \widetilde{\psi}$, respectively.
Then, the supersymmetry transformation of these fields can be obtained and they are
\begin{align}
\delta \zeta^{-}_{1} &= -\sqrt{2} i \xi^{-A \dot{A}} \epsilon_{AB} \epsilon_{\dot{A}\dot{B}} \widetilde{X}^{B1'} X^{\dot{B}} \\
\delta \zeta^{-}_{2} &= -\sqrt{2} i \xi^{-A \dot{A}} \epsilon_{AB} \epsilon_{\dot{A}\dot{B}} \widetilde{X}^{B2'} X^{\dot{B}} \, .
\end{align}
These can be organized into
\begin{align}
\delta \Theta^{-Y' Y} = -\sqrt{2} i \xi^{-A \dot{A}} \epsilon_{AB} \epsilon_{\dot{A}\dot{B}} \widetilde{X}^{BY'} X^{\dot{B}Y}
\end{align}
where $\Theta^{Y' Y} = \begin{pmatrix} \zeta^{-}_{1} & \overline{\zeta}^{-}_{2} \\ \zeta^{-}_{2} & -\overline{\zeta}^{-}_{1} \end{pmatrix}$, which is a supersymmetry transformation of the Fermi multiplet.
When considering generic interaction with boundary fields, the supersymmetry transformation would take a form
\begin{align}
\label{04susyfm2}
\delta \zeta^{-}_{a} = -\sqrt{2} i \xi^{-}_{A\dot{A}} C_{a}^{A\dot{A}}
\end{align}
where $\zeta^{-}_{a}, a=1,2,3,4$ denotes $\zeta^{-}_{1}, \zeta^{-}_{2}, \overline{\zeta}^{-}_{1}$, and $\overline{\zeta}^{-}_{1}$ and $C^{A\dot{A}}_{a}$ are some function of $X^{\dot{A}Y}$ and $\widetilde{X}^{AY'}$. See also \cite{Witten:1994tz, Gates:1994bu}.
\subsection{Gauge coupling and SUSY deformations}
\label{secgeneral}
We now discuss the half-BPS boundary conditions
for the vector multiplets and the hypermultiplets in the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ supersymmetric gauge theories
with the supersymmetric deformation by FI parameters and mass parameters.
\subsubsection{FI and mass deformations}
\label{secdef}
The 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ gauge theories can be deformed
by Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI) terms and mass terms
while keeping supersymmetry.
We consider the effects of the supersymmetric deformations on the half-BPS boundary conditions.
If the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ supersymmetric gauge theories involve the $U(1)$ factors of the gauge group,
they can be deformed in a supersymmetric way by introducing the BF coupling of
the topological currents for the $U(1)$ factors to a background Abelian $\mathcal{N}=4$ twisted vector multiplet
$(V_{r},\Phi_{r})$ \cite{Brooks:1994nn,Kapustin:1999ha}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\label{fidef1}
S_{FI}
&=\int d^{3}x d^{4}\theta\
\mathrm{Tr}'
\left(\Sigma V_{r}\right) \\
&+ \frac{i}{2} \int d^{3}x d^{2}\theta\
\mathrm{Tr}'
\left(\Phi\Phi_{r}\right) + c.c.
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $V_{r}=ir \bar{\theta}\theta$ and $\Phi_{r}=\phi_{r}$
with $r\in \mathbb{R}$, $\phi_{r}\in \mathbb{C}$.
The trace $\mathrm{Tr}'$ only takes the $U(1)$ factors of the gauge group.
Here
$r^{\hat{i}} = (r,\operatorname{Re}(\phi_{r}),\operatorname{Im}(\phi_{r}))$, $\hat{i}=7,8,9$,
forms a triplet under the $SU(2)_{H}$.
In terms of the component fields,
we can express the action (\ref{fidef1}) as
\begin{align}
\label{fidef2}
S_{FI}=&\int d^{3}x\
\left[
-\frac{1}{2} rD + \frac{i}{2} \phi_{r}F_{\phi} - \frac{i}{2} \overline{\phi}_{r}\overline{F}_{\phi}
\right]
\end{align}
where $r$ is a real FI parameter
and $\phi_{r}$ a complex FI parameter.
The conserved supercurrent is
\begin{align}
\label{fidefcur1}
J_{r}^{\mu}& = \frac{1}{2}r(\gamma^{\mu}\overline{\lambda})
+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} \overline{\phi}_{r}(\gamma^{\mu}\overline{\psi}_{\phi}).
\end{align}
One can also deform the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ supersymmetric gauge theories
in a supersymmetric way by introducing
mass terms for the hypermultiplets.
It can be achieved by coupling $Q$ and $\widetilde{Q}$
to a background Abelian $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet
$(V_{M},\Phi_{M})$
\begin{align}
\label{massdef1}
\begin{split}
S_{M}=&-\int d^{3}x d^{4}\theta
\left(
\overline{Q} e^{-2V_{M}}Q+\overline{\widetilde{Q}}e^{2V_{M}}\widetilde{Q}
\right) \\
&+\sqrt{2}i\int d^{3}x d^{2}\theta
\left(
\widetilde{Q}\Phi_{M}Q
\right)+c.c.
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $V_{M}=i{M}\bar{\theta}\theta$ and $\Phi_{M}=\phi_{M}$
and ${M}\in \mathbb{R}$ is real mass and $\phi_{M}\in \mathbb{C}$ is complex mass parameters.
Here $({M}, \operatorname{Re}(\phi_{M}),\operatorname{Im}(\phi_{M}))$
forms a triplet under the $SU(2)_{C}$.
In the component fields,
the action (\ref{massdef1}) can be expressed as
\begin{align}
\label{massdef2}
\begin{split}
S_{M}=&\int d^{3}x\
\Biggl[
-{M}^{2}\left(|q|^{2}+|\widetilde{q}|^{2} \right)
-i{M}\left(\overline{\psi}\psi-\overline{\widetilde{\psi}}\widetilde{\psi} \right)
-(2F_{q}\overline{F}_{q}-2F_{\widetilde{q}}\overline{F}_{\widetilde{q}}) \\
&
+\sqrt{2}i\phi_{M}\left(
F_{\widetilde{q}}q+F_{q}\widetilde{q}
\right)
-i \phi_{M}\widetilde{\psi}\psi
+\sqrt{2}i \overline{\phi}_{M}\left(
\overline{F}_{\widetilde{q}}\overline{q}+
\overline{F}_{q}\overline{\widetilde{q}}
\right)
+i \overline{\phi}_{M}
\overline{\widetilde{\psi}}\overline{\psi}
\Biggr] \; .
\end{split}
\end{align}
The conserved supercurrent is
\begin{align}
\label{masscur1}
\begin{split}
J_{M}^{\mu}
=&-\sqrt{2}{M} \overline{q}\gamma^{\mu}\psi
+\sqrt{2}{M} \overline{\widetilde{q}}\gamma^{\mu}\widetilde{\psi} \\
&
+2\overline{\phi}_{M}\overline{q}\gamma^{\mu}\overline{\widetilde{\psi}}
+2\overline{\phi}_{M}\overline{\widetilde{q}}\gamma^{\mu}\overline{\psi}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
The supercurrents (\ref{fidefcur1}) and (\ref{masscur1}) provide
additional contributions to the supercurrents we obtained in previous sections
and modify the supersymmetric boundary conditions.
\subsubsection{Coupled Hypermultiplets}
\label{secgenehm}
We consider the half-BPS boundary conditions for the coupled hypermultiplet with FI and mass
parameters turned on.
Due to the coupling, the half-BPS boundary conditions for the hypermultiplets
depends on the choice of the half-BPS boundary conditions for the vector multiplet
discussed in subsection \ref{secvm1} with condition \eqref{hasusybc2}.
This provides a large class of the half-BPS boundary conditions
specified by the preserved gauge and flavor symmetries at the boundary.
Here we want to find general structure of deformed boundary conditions
for the hypermultiplets due to gauge coupling, FI parameters, and mass parameters.
\subsubsection*{$\bullet$ \textnormal{\textit{A-type boundary conditions}}}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=5mm]
\item[i)] $\gamma^2 \psi = \overline{\psi}$, $\gamma^2 \lambda = -\overline{\lambda}$, and $\gamma^2 \psi_\phi = -\overline{\psi}_\phi$
(when $\varphi=0$, $\theta=\frac{\pi}{2}$)
For the A-type conditions with
$(\varphi,\theta)=(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$,
we find from \eqref{susybc2a0} the generic half of supersymmetric boundary conditions for the hypermultiplets
\begin{align}
\label{dhasusybc1a}
&D_{2} \cdot (\operatorname{Re} q)=
\sqrt{2}\operatorname{Re}
\left[(\phi+\phi_{M})\cdot \widetilde{q}\right],&
&D_{2} \cdot (\operatorname{Re} \widetilde{q})=
\sqrt{2}\operatorname{Re}
\left[(\phi+\phi_{M})\cdot q\right],\\
\label{dhasusybc1b}
&D_{m} \cdot (\operatorname{Im} q)=0,&
&D_{m} \cdot (\operatorname{Im} \widetilde{q})=0,\\
\label{dhasusybc1c0}
&(\sigma+{M})\cdot (\operatorname{Re} q)=0,&
&(\sigma+{M})\cdot (\operatorname{Re} \widetilde{q})=0,\\
\label{dhasusybc2d}
&
\operatorname{Im} (\widetilde{q}q)
=\operatorname{Im} (\phi_{r}).
\end{align}
The conditions (\ref{dhasusybc1a}) say that
the real parts of the complex scalar fields
$q$ and $\widetilde{q}$ can fluctuate
while satisfying the Robin-type boundary conditions,
which specify a linear combination of the fields
and the normal components of their derivatives at the boundary.
The conditions (\ref{dhasusybc1b}) imply
that the imaginary parts of $q$ and $\widetilde{q}$ are subject to the Dirichlet-like boundary conditions.
The other set
(\ref{dhasusybc1c0}) and (\ref{dhasusybc2d})
are algebraic constraints which are responsible for the gauge coupling.
The precise forms of the boundary conditions and the possible solutions
depend on the detail of the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet and hypermultiplets
but these equations can be regarded as the basic building blocks of boundary conditions.
The real parts of $q$ and $\widetilde{q}$,
which are fluctuating degrees of freedom at the boundary, satisfy conditions (\ref{dhasusybc1c0}).
As a coupled vector multiplet satisfies the magnetic-like A-type boundary conditions when $\theta=\pi/2$,
the two vector multiplet scalars $\operatorname{Re} \phi$ and $\sigma$
obey the Dirichlet boundary conditions (\ref{asusybc3b}).
Thus the constraints (\ref{dhasusybc1c0}) can be solved by setting $\sigma$ to specific fixed values at the boundary.
The last condition \eqref{dhasusybc2d} doesn't involve any bosonic fields in the vector multiplet,
but it appears due to the gauge coupling and FI deformations as it is induced from the fermionic bilinear form involving $\psi_{\phi}$.
It is an imaginary part of the complex moment map $\mu_{\mathbb{C}}$ with fields restricted at the boundary.
\item[ii)] $\gamma^2 \psi = -\overline{\psi}$, $\gamma^2 \lambda = \overline{\lambda}$, and $\gamma^2 \psi_\phi = \overline{\psi}_\phi$
(when $\varphi=\frac{\pi}{2}$, $\theta=0$)
The A-type conditions with $(\varphi,\theta)=(\frac{\pi}{2},0)$ are
\begin{align}
\label{dhasusybc2c}
&D_{2} \cdot (\operatorname{Im} q) = \sqrt{2}\operatorname{Im} \Bigl[(\phi+\phi_{M})\cdot \widetilde{q}\Bigr], &
&D_{2} \cdot (\operatorname{Im} \widetilde{q}) = \sqrt{2}\operatorname{Im} \Bigl[(\phi+\phi_{M})\cdot q\Bigr], \\
\label{dhasusybc2b}
&D_{m} \cdot (\operatorname{Re} q)=0, &
&D_{m} \cdot (\operatorname{Re} \widetilde{q})=0,\\
\label{dhasusybc2c0}
&(\sigma+{M})\cdot (\operatorname{Im} q)=0,&
&(\sigma+{M})\cdot (\operatorname{Im} \widetilde{q})=0,
\\
\label{dhasusybc1d}
&
\operatorname{Re} (\widetilde{q} q)=
\operatorname{Re} (\phi_{r}),&
&
|q|^{2}-|\widetilde{q}|^{2}=r.
\end{align}
In this case, the real parts of $q$ and $\widetilde{q}$ satisfy Dirchlet-like boundary conditions \eqref{dhasusybc2b} and
the imaginary parts of $q$ and $\widetilde{q}$ can fluctuate while satisfying the Robin-type boundary conditions \eqref{dhasusybc2c}.
Again the remaining algebraic constraints (\ref{dhasusybc2c0}) and (\ref{dhasusybc1d})
arise from the coupling of the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ hypermultiplets to the vector multiplet.
For $\theta=0$,
the vector multiplet is subject to the electric A-type boundary conditions,
where only the vector multiplet scalar $\operatorname{Im} \phi$ satisfies the Dirichlet-like boundary condition
(\ref{asusybc3d0}) and other scalars satisfy the Neumann-like boundary condition \eqref{asusybc3d}.
As $\sigma$ can flucuate at the boundary, the constraint (\ref{dhasusybc2c0}) are the conditions for the coupling of the hypermultiplet scalar fields $q$, $\widetilde{q}$
and the vector multiplet scalar $\sigma$ in a supersymmetric way when considering a boundary superpotential.
Two conditions in (\ref{dhasusybc1d}) are the constraints on the bulk hypermultiplets
due to the gauge coupling and FI deformations,
which are a real part of the complex moment map $\mu_{\mathbb{C}}$ and the real moment map $\mu_{\mathbb{R}}$, respectively,
with fields restricted at the boundary.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection*{$\bullet$ \textnormal{\textit{B-type boundary conditions}}}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=5mm]
\item[i)] $\gamma^2 \psi = \psi$, $\gamma^2 \lambda = -\lambda$, and $\gamma^2 \psi_\phi = -\psi_\phi$ (when $\varphi=0$ and $\theta=\frac{\pi}{2}$)
As the full R-symmetry $SU(2)_{C}\times SU(2)_{H}$ is maintained for the B-type conditions,
a pair of fermionic fields $\psi$ and $\overline{\widetilde{\psi}}$ may form the supermultiplet.
For $(\varphi,\theta)=(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$,
we obtain, from (\ref{hbsusybc3b1}), (\ref{fidefcur1}) and (\ref{masscur1}),
\begin{align}
\label{dhbsusybc3b2}
D_{2} \cdot q + (\phi^{i}+{M}^{i})\cdot q&=0, & D_{2} \cdot \widetilde{q}-(\phi^{i}+{M}^{i})\cdot \widetilde{q}&=0
\end{align}
where we have defined the triplet
$\phi^{i}=(\sigma, \operatorname{Re}\phi,\operatorname{Im}\phi)$
and
${M}^{i}=({M}, \operatorname{Re}\phi_{M},\operatorname{Im}\phi_{M})$
of the $SU(2)_{C}$.
The bosonic degrees of freedom $q$ and $\widetilde{q}$ can fluctuate at the boundary
while satisfying Robin-type boundary conditions \eqref{dhbsusybc3b2}.
In this case, the vector multiplet obeys
the electric B-type conditions that admit the Dirichlet-like boundary condition (\ref{bsusybc3a}) for all the vector multiplet scalars.
Also,
the detail forms of boundary conditions depend on the specific data of the theories, however, (\ref{dhbsusybc3b2}) can be viewed as the
basic building blocks for the boundary conditions.
\item[ii)] $\gamma^2 \psi = -\psi$, $\gamma^2 \lambda = \lambda$, and $\gamma^2 \psi_\phi = \psi_\phi$ (when $\varphi= \frac{\pi}{2}$ and $\theta=0$)
From (\ref{hbsusybc3a1}), (\ref{fidefcur1}) and (\ref{masscur1}),
the general B-type conditions with
$(\varphi,\theta)=(\frac{\pi}{2},0)$ read
\begin{align}
\label{dhbsusybc3a2}
D_{m} \cdot q&=0,& D_{m} \cdot \widetilde{q}&=0,
\\ \label{dhbsusybc3a3}
|q|^{2}-|\widetilde{q}|^{2}&=r,& q\widetilde{q}&=\phi_{r}.
\end{align}
Similarly as before, the algebraic conditions (\ref{dhbsusybc3a3}) come from
the gauge coupling and FI deformation.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{BPS boundary conditions and 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vacua}
\label{secbpsvacua}
The classical moduli space of the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ supersymmetric gauge theory on $\mathbb{R}^{1,2}$
is determined by the set of equations
\begin{align}
\label{modsp1a1}
[\phi^{i},\phi^{j}]&=0,\\
\label{modsp1a2}
(\phi^{i}+{M}^{i})\cdot \left(q,\widetilde{q}\right)&=0,\\
\label{modsp1a3}
\mu^{\hat{i}}+r^{\hat{i}}&=0
\end{align}
where the dot $\cdot$ implies the action of the
gauge and flavor symmetry group on the hypermultiplet scalars $(q,\widetilde{q})$.
Here $\mu^{\hat{i}}$ are the three hyperk\"{a}hler moment maps
for the action of the gauge symmetry group on the hypermultiplets.
They split into the real and complex moment maps
$\mu_{\mathbb{R}}$ and $\mu_{\mathbb{C}}$ \cite{Bullimore:2016nji}.
They are respectively associated to the K\"{a}hler form
\begin{align}
\label{modsp1b}
\omega&=\sum_{I}\left(
dq^{I}\wedge d\overline{q}^{I}
+d\widetilde{q}^{I}\wedge d\overline{\widetilde{q}}^{I}
\right)
\end{align}
and the holomorphic symplectic form
\begin{align}
\label{modsp1c}
\Omega&=\sum_{I}
\left(
dq^{I}\wedge d\widetilde{q}^{I}
\right)
\end{align}
and given by
\begin{align}
\label{modsp1d1}
\mu_{\mathbb{R}}&=
|q|^{2}-|\widetilde{q}|^{2},\\
\label{modsp1d2}
\mu_{\mathbb{C}}&=
q\widetilde{q}.
\end{align}
We remark that
the half-BPS boundary conditions detect
the set of the defining equations (\ref{modsp1a1})-(\ref{modsp1a3})
of the vacua.
We have encountered the equation (\ref{modsp1a1})
in the vector multiplet boundary conditions
(\ref{asusybc3b0}) and (\ref{bsusybc3d}) where fields are restricted at the boundary,
which can be expected as it characterizes the Coulomb branch.
The second set of equations (\ref{modsp1a2})
specify the coupling between the vector multiplet scalars
and the hypermultiplet scalars.
We have met these equations with fields restricted on the boundary
in the boundary conditions constraining the fluctuation of hypermultiplet scalars.
As (\ref{modsp1a2}) suggests,
these conditions can be shifted by turning on the mass parameters
$\sigma \rightarrow \sigma+{M}, \phi \rightarrow \phi+\phi_{M}$.
We also saw that the moment maps \eqref{modsp1a3} with FI parameters
appear as algebraic constraints for the scalar component of hypermultiplets at the boundary.
\section{Brane construction}
\label{secbrane}
In this section, we propose the brane configurations in Type IIB string theory
corresponding to the half-BPS boundary conditions of the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ supersymmetric theories
discussed in section \ref{sec3dn4a}.
We also study map between boundary supermultiplets arising from 3d bulk supermultiplets for simplest examples
by considering $S$-duality of Type IIB theory.
\subsection{Type IIB configuration}
\label{sectypeiib}
We consider the brane realization of 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ theories in Type IIB string theory
on $\mathbb{R}^{1,9}$ \cite{Hanany:1996ie}.
Let $Q_{L}$ (resp. $Q_{R}$) be the supercharge
generated by the left- (resp. right-) moving
world-sheet degrees of freedom which
satisfies the chirality condition of Type IIB string theory
\begin{align}
\label{iib1}
\Gamma_{0123456789}Q_{L}=Q_{L} \, , \qquad \Gamma_{0123456789}Q_{R}=Q_{R} \, .
\end{align}
We consider D3-branes supported on $(x^{0},x^{1},x^{2},x^{6})$ and bounded along $x^6$ direction by two NS5-branes supported on $(x^{0},x^{1},x^{2},x^{3},x^{4},x^{5})$ or by two D5-branes supported on $(x^{0},x^{1},x^{2},x^{7},x^{8},x^{9})$
\begin{align}
\label{d3nsd5}
\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
&0&1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9\\
\textrm{D3}
&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&\circ&-&-&- \\
\textrm{NS5}
&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&- \\
\textrm{D5}
&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&-&\circ&\circ&\circ \\
\end{array}
\end{align}
where $\circ$ denotes the directions in which branes are supported
whereas $-$ stands for the directions at which branes are located.
The brane configuration (\ref{d3nsd5}) preserves
linear combination of supercharges
$\epsilon_{L}Q_{L}+\epsilon_{R}Q_{R}$
with
\begin{align}
\label{ns5p1}
\Gamma_{012345}\epsilon_{L}=\epsilon_{L} \, , \qquad \Gamma_{012345}\epsilon_{R} =-\epsilon_{R}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\label{d5p1}
\Gamma_{012789}\epsilon_{R}&=\epsilon_{L} \, , \\
\label{d3p1}
\Gamma_{0126}\epsilon_{R}&=\epsilon_{L} \, .
\end{align}
Here, the first condition (\ref{ns5p1}) is the projection condition
on spinors $\epsilon_{L}$ and $\epsilon_{R}$ imposed by the NS5-branes
while (\ref{d5p1}) and (\ref{d3p1})
are the conditions by the the D5-branes and the D3-branes, respectively.
From (\ref{ns5p1})-(\ref{d3p1}),
we can find two non-trivial conditions on the spinors.
So there remain 8 supercharges.
As D3-branes are bounded in $x^6$-direction,
the low-energy effective theory of worldvolume of D3 branes are described
by 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ supersymmetric theories after decoupling the gravity.
The above brane configuration breaks the Lorentz symmetry group $SO(1,9)$
into $SO(1,2)_{012}\times SO(3)_{345}\times SO(3)_{789}$
where $SO(1,2)$ is Lorentz symmetry and the double covers of
$SO(3)_{345} \times SO(3)_{789}$ give $SU(2)_{C}\times SU(2)_{H} \cong SO(4)_R$
R-symmetry of 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ theories.
\subsection{D3-NS5 branes}
\label{secd3nsns}
Let us first consider the case
where the $N$ coincident D3-branes are stretched
between the two parallel NS5-branes.
The low-energy effective theory is the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ $U(N)$ pure SYM theory \cite{Hanany:1996ie}.
The three-dimensional coupling constant $g_{3d}^{2}$ is classically given by
$\frac{1}{g_{3d}^{2}}
=\frac{\Delta x^{6}(\textrm{NS5})}{g_{4d}^{2}}
$
where $\Delta x^{6}(\textrm{NS5})$ is the interval of the stretched D3-branes along $x^{6}$
and $g_{4d}^{2}$ is the gauge coupling of 4d $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theory.
The bosonic massless modes of the worldvolume theory of D3-branes are
the fluctuations of the D3-branes in transverse directions $x^{3},x^{4},x^{5}$ and three-dimensional gauge fields.
The $U(N)$ gauge symmetry has a non-trivial center $U(1)$,
which parametrizes the motion of the center of mass of the $N$ D3-branes.
The FI parameters $\{ r, \text{Re}(\phi_r), \text{Im}(\phi_r) \}$ are described by
the relative positions of two NS5-branes along $x^{7}$, $x^{8}$, and $x^{9}$.
\subsubsection{A-type boundary conditions}
\label{secd3nsnsa}
The half-BPS boundary conditions for the pure 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet discussed in subsection \ref{secvm1}
can be realized in
D3-NS5 brane system by introducing additional branes.
We call such additional branes NS5$'$-brane and D5$'$-brane
where they are supported on $(x^{0},x^{1},x^{3},x^{4},x^{6},x^{9})$
and $(x^{0},x^{1},x^{5},x^{6},x^{7},x^{8})$, respectively. They are located at $x^{2}=0$
and D3-branes are extended in the half space $x^{2} \geq 0$.
\begin{align}
\label{nsnsbc1}
\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
&0&1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9\\
\textrm{D3}
&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&\circ&-&-&- \\
\textrm{NS5}
&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&- \\
\textrm{NS5$'$}
&\circ&\circ&-&\circ&\circ&-&\circ&-&-&\circ \\
\textrm{D5$'$}
&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&-\\
\end{array}
\end{align}
Therefore the additional 5-branes provide
the two-dimensional boundary at $x^2=0$ in the effective 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theories (see Figure \ref{fig10}).
Also, the original $SO(1,2) \times SO(3)_{345} \times SO(3)_{789}$ symmetry is broken to $SO(1,1) \times SO(2)_{34} \times SO(2)_{78}$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{fig11.pdf}&\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{fig12.pdf}\\
(a)NS5$'$-brane&(b)D5$'$-brane
\end{tabular}
\caption{D3-NS5 system with NS5$'$-brane or D5$'$-brane.
NS5$'$-(D5$'$-)brane provides the electric-(magnetic-)like A-type boundary conditions for the vector multiplet where 2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ vector multiplet (twisted chiral multiplet) can fluctuate at the boundary.
}
\label{fig10}
\end{figure}
The NS5$'$-brane and D5$'$-brane provide additional projection conditions, respectively,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\Gamma_{013469}\epsilon_{L}=\epsilon_{L}, \quad &
\Gamma_{013469}\epsilon_{R}=-\epsilon_{R} \, ,
\end{split} \label{nsns1p2} \\
\begin{split}
\Gamma_{015678}\epsilon_{R}&=\epsilon_{L} \, .
\end{split} \label{nsns1p1}
\end{align}
From the conditions
(\ref{ns5p1}), (\ref{d3p1}), (\ref{nsns1p1}) and (\ref{nsns1p2}),
there are three non-trivial projection conditions,
so 4 supercharges are preserved in the brane configuration (\ref{nsnsbc1}).
In order to see the chirality of the two-dimensional supersymmetry,
we note the conditions
\begin{align}
\label{aproj1a}
\Gamma_{26}\epsilon_{L}=-\Gamma_{59}\epsilon_{L} \, , \qquad \Gamma_{26}\epsilon_{R}=-\Gamma_{59}\epsilon_{R}
\end{align}
from above brane configurations.
Since the four-dimensional world-volume of the D3-branes is finite along $x^{6}$
and the effective field theory is three-dimensional,
we may treat $\Gamma_{6}$ essentially proportional to the identity matrix.
Here $\Gamma_{2}$ plays the role of the
two-dimensional chirality matrix for the two-dimensional boundary
of the three-dimensional field theory
while $\Gamma_{5}$ (resp. $\Gamma_{9}$) is chirality matrix for the $SO(2)_{34}$ (resp. $SO(2)_{78}$).
Let $(\pm,\pm,\pm)$ be the representation under
the $SO(1,1)\times SO(2)_{34}\times SO(2)_{78}$
where $\pm$ denote the two-dimensional chiralities.
Suppose that chiral supersymmetry is preserved at the two-dimensional boundary,
say the right-moving $(+,\cdot,\cdot)$ supersymmetry.
As the $SO(2)_{34}$ charge and the $SO(2)_{78}$ charge are constrained via \eqref{aproj1a},
we would only have 2 supercharges with $(+,+,-)$ and $(+,-,+)$
if we choose positive multiplicative constant for $\Gamma_6$, which we treated as the identity matrix.
However, since we have 4 supercharges in the brane setup (\ref{nsnsbc1}),
this implies that there should also be left-moving supersymmetry.
Therefore the additional NS5$'$- and D5$'$-branes preserve
the non-chiral $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ supersymmetry where $SO(2)_{34}\times SO(2)_{78} \cong U(1)_{\text{axial}} \times U(1)_{\text{vector}}$ are axial and vector R-symmetry of the 2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ supersymmetry.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=5mm]
\item[i)] NS5$'$-brane
The D3-branes ending on the NS5$'$-brane can fluctuate along $x^{3},x^{4}$
and the two-dimensional gauge field $A_{m}$ can fluctuate
at the boundary.
On the other hand,
the NS5$'$-brane gives Dirichlet boundary condition for $A_2$ also for $\phi^5$ as it is localized at $x^5$.
These boundary conditions are consistent with
the electric-like A-type boundary conditions
(\ref{asusybc3c})-(\ref{asusybc3e})
\begin{align}
\label{bc1nsa1}
\begin{array}{ll}
F_{2m}=0&\textrm{(Neumann-like)} \\
D_{2}\phi^{a}=0&\textrm{(Neumann-like)} \\
D_{m}\phi^{5}=0&\textrm{(Dirichlet-like)} \, .\\
\end{array}
\end{align}
\item[ii)] D5$'$-brane
As $x^3$ and $x^4$ position of the D3-branes are fixed by the D5$'$-brane
but the motion of the D3-brane along $x^5$ is unconstrained,
$\phi^3$ and $\phi^4$ satisfy Dirichlet-like condition but $\phi^5$ would satisfy Neumann-like condition.
The boundary condition for the two-dimensional gauge field $A_{m}$
imposed by the D5$'$-brane is the Dirichlet-like boundary condition.
Therefore inserting D5$'$-brane would give
\begin{align}
\label{bc1d5a1}
\begin{array}{ll}
F_{01}=0&\textrm{(Dirichlet-like)} \\
D_{2}\phi^{5}=0&\textrm{(Neumann-like)} \\
D_{m}\phi^{a}=0&\textrm{(Dirichlet-like)} \, .
\end{array}
\end{align}
In addition, the attached D5$'$-brane can leave $A_{2}$ unconstrained. This is consistent with field theoretic analysis in section \ref{secvm1}.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{B-type boundary conditions}
\label{secd3nsnsb}
There are other additional 5-branes which can preserve
$\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ supersymmetry at the two-dimensional boundary of the 3d effective theories.
We consider the NS5$''$-brane with world-volume $(x^{0},x^{1},x^{6},x^{7},x^{8},x^{9})$
or the D5$''$-brane with world-volume $(x^{0},x^{1},x^{3},x^{4}, x^5, x^{6})$ located at $x^{2}=0$
where D3-branes are extended on the half-space $x^2 \geq 0$ (see Figure \ref{fig30});
\begin{align}
\label{nsnsbc2}
\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
&0&1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9\\
\textrm{D3}
&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&\circ&-&-&- \\
\textrm{NS5}
&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&- \\
\textrm{NS5$''$}
&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&-&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ \\
\textrm{D5$''$}
&\circ&\circ&-&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&- \\
\end{array}
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{fig31.pdf}&\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{fig32.pdf}\\
(a)NS5$''$-brane&(b)D5$''$-brane
\end{tabular}
\caption{D3-NS5 system with NS5$''$-brane or D5$''$-brane.
NS5$''$-(D5$''$-)brane provides the electric-(magnetic-)like B-type boundary conditions for the vector multiplet where 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ vector multiplet (twisted hypermultiplet) can fluctuate at the boundary.
}
\label{fig30}
\end{figure}
These additional NS5$''$ and D5$''$ give constraints, respectively,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\Gamma_{016789}\epsilon_{L} =\epsilon_{L}, \quad &
\Gamma_{016789}\epsilon_{R} =-\epsilon_{R}
\end{split} \label{nsns2p1}
\\
\begin{split}
\Gamma_{013456}\epsilon_{R}&=\epsilon_{L}.
\end{split} \label{nsns2p2}
\end{align}
From the conditions (\ref{nsns2p1}), (\ref{nsns2p2}),
(\ref{ns5p1}), and (\ref{d3p1}),
we have three non-trivial projection conditions,
so there are 4 supercharges in the brane system (\ref{nsnsbc2}).
Also, the set of conditions lead to
\begin{align}
\label{bproj1a}
\Gamma_{01}\epsilon_{L} = \epsilon_{L} \, , \qquad \Gamma_{01}\epsilon_{R} = \epsilon_{R} \, ,
\end{align}
which implies that we have chiral $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ supersymmetry at the two-dimensional boundary.
The inclusion of these additional 5-branes doesn't break the symmetry
$SO(3)_{345} \times SO(3)_{789} \cong SU(2)_{C}\times SU(2)_{H} \cong SO(4)_{R}$, which is
the R-symmetry
of 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ supersymmetry.
Under the $SO(1,1)\times SU(2)_{C}\times SU(2)_{H}$,
the preserved right-moving supercharges transform as $(\bm{2},\bm{2})_{+}$.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=5mm]
\item[i)] NS5$''$-brane
The NS5$''$-brane fixes the motion of the D3-branes in $x^{3}, x^{4},x^{5}$,
so three scalar fields $\phi^{i}$ obey the Dirichlet-like boundary conditions.
On the other hand,
the two-dimensional gauge field $A_{m}$ can fluctuate at the boundary, and $A_2$ satisfy Dirichlet-like condition.
Therefore the NS5$''$-brane imposes the boundary conditions
\begin{align}
\label{bc1nsb1}
\begin{array}{ll}
F_{2m}=0&\textrm{(Neumann-like)}\\
D_{m}\phi^{i}=0&\textrm{(Dirichlet-like)} \; ,\\
\end{array}
\end{align}
which are consistent with NS5$''$-like B-type boundary conditions
(\ref{bsusybc3a}) and (\ref{bsusybc3b}).
\item[ii)] D5$''$-brane
Since D5$''$-brane is extended along $x^{3},x^{4},x^{5}$,
the three scalar fields $\phi^{i}$ can free to move at the boundary.
They transform as $(\bm{3,\bm{1}})$ under $SO(3)_{345}\times SO(3)_{789}$.
Meanwhile, the two-dimensional gauge field $A_{m}$ satisfies Dirichlet condition
because it is tangent to the D5$''$-brane,
but the scalar field $A_{2}$ can fluctuate at the boundary.
Thus, for a single D3-brane, the D5$''$-brane would give the boundary conditions
\begin{align}
\label{bc1d5b0}
\begin{array}{ll}
F_{01}=0&\textrm{(Dirichlet-like)}\\
D_{2}\phi^{i}=0&\textrm{(Neumann-like)}.\\
\end{array}
\end{align}
However, considering the field theory result discussed in section \ref{secvm1},
we expect that the above boundary condition is generalized to
\begin{align}
\label{bc1d5b1}
\begin{array}{ll}
F_{01}=0&\textrm{(Dirichlet-like)} \\
D_{2}\phi^{i} -\frac{1}{2} i \epsilon^{ijk}[\phi^{j},\phi^{k}]
=0&\textrm{(Nahm-like)} \, .
\end{array}
\end{align}
That is, we expect that D3-NS5-D5$''$ realize the magnetic-like B-type boundary conditions, which are described by \eqref{bc1d5b1} including Nahm-like equation.
This is reminiscent of appearance of Nahm equation
in half-BPS boundary conditions of 4d $\mathcal{N}=4$ theories
discussed in \cite{Gaiotto:2008sa}
where the nontrivial boundary conditions for multiple stack of D3-branes provided by D5-brane are described
by Nahm equation due to the existence of the fluctuating scalar fields $A_2$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{D3-D5 branes}
\label{secd3d5d5}
Next we consider the $N$ D3-branes suspended between the two parallel D5-branes.
In the low-energy limit, the world-volume theory of the D3-branes is
a theory of $N$ massless 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ hypermultiplets \cite{Hanany:1996ie}.
The bosonic massless modes in the theories
are the fluctuations of the D3-branes in transverse positions $x^{7},x^{8},x^{9}$
which we will denote by $X^{\hat{7}},X^{\hat{8}},X^{\hat{9}}$
and the scalar field $A_{6}$.
They combine into two complex scalar fields
transforming as $(\bm{1},\bm{2})$ under $SU(2)_{C}\times SU(2)_{H}$.
The mass parameters, $\left\{ {M}, \phi_{M} \right\}$,
are given by the relative position of the D5-branes along $\{x^3,x^4, x^5\}$.
\subsubsection{A-type boundary conditions}
\label{secd3d5d5a}
As discussed in subsection \ref{secd3nsns},
we can realize the two-dimensional non-chiral $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ supersymmetry
by the introduction of the NS5$'$- or D5$'$-branes
\begin{align}
\label{d5d5nsa}
\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
&0&1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9\\
\textrm{D3}
&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&\circ&-&-&- \\
\textrm{D5}
&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&-&\circ&\circ&\circ \\
\textrm{NS5$'$}
&\circ&\circ&-&\circ&\circ&-&\circ&-&-&\circ \\
\textrm{D5$'$}
&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&-\\
\end{array}
\end{align}
as in the configuration (\ref{nsnsbc1}) (see Figure \ref{fig20}).
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{fig21.pdf}&\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{fig22.pdf}\\
(a)NS5$'$-brane&(b)D5$'$-brane
\end{tabular}
\caption{D3-D5 system with NS5$'$-brane or D5$'$-brane.
NS5$'$ and D5$'$-brane provide the A-type boundary conditions for the pure hypermultiplet where 2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ chiral multiplets can fluctuate at the boundary.
}
\label{fig20}
\end{figure}
Under the space-time symmetry $SO(1,1)\times SO(2)_{34}\times SO(2)_{78}$
$\cong$ $SO(1,1)\times U(1)_{C}\times U(1)_{H}$,
the three scalar fields $X^{\hat{i}}$, $\hat{i}=7,8,9$ are divided into
the two scalar fields $X^{\hat{a}}$, $\hat{a}=7,8$
and the scalar field $X^{\hat{9}}$.
As $SU(2)_{H}$ is broken to $U(1)_{H}$,
these scalar fields are charged under the vector R-symmetry
of 2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ theories.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=5mm]
\item[i)] NS5$'$-brane
As the D3-branes can move along $x^9$ in the presence of NS5$'$,
the scalar field $X^{\hat{9}}$, which describes the position of the D3-branes along $x^9$, can fluctuate at the boundary.
In addition,
the massless modes of the scalar field $A_{6}$
can also fluctuate as the NS5$'$-brane is extended along $x^{6}$.
Thus the additional NS5$'$-brane keeps the half of the bosonic degrees of freedom of
the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ hypermultiplet at the boundary,
\begin{align}
\label{bc2nsa0}
\begin{array}{lll}
\partial_{m}X^{\hat{7}}=0,
&\partial_{m}X^{\hat{8}}=0&\textrm{(Dirichlet-like)}\\
\partial_{2}X^{\hat{9}}=0,
&\partial_{2}A_{6}=0&\textrm{(Neumann-like)} \, .\\
\end{array}
\end{align}
Let $q = X^{\hat{7}}+iA_{6}$ and $\widetilde{q}=X^{\hat{8}}+iX^{\hat{9}}$ be two complex scalar fields.
Then we have
\begin{align}
\label{bc2nsa01}
\begin{array}{lll}
\partial_{m}(\operatorname{Re}q)=0, &\partial_{m}(\operatorname{Re}\widetilde{q})=0 &\textrm{(Dirichlet-like)}\\
\partial_{2}(\operatorname{Im}q)=0, &\partial_{2}(\operatorname{Im}\widetilde{q})=0 &\textrm{(Neumann-like)} \, .\\
\end{array}
\end{align}
\item[ii)] D5$'$-brane
As D3-branes can move along $x^7$ and $x^8$ directions, scalar fields $X^{\hat{7}}$ and $X^{\hat{8}}$ corresponding to directions $x^7$ and $x^8$ can fluctuate at the boundary.
On the other hand, the scalar field $X^{\hat{9}}$ corresponding to $x^9$ cannot fluctuate at the boundary.
Also, the massless modes associated to $A_{6}$
cannot fluctuate at the boundary since D5$'$ is extended along $x^6$.
Similarly to the case with the NS5$'$-brane, the half of the bosonic degrees of freedom of
the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ hypermultiplet can survive at the boundary.
Therefore we have
\begin{align}
\label{bc2d5a0}
\begin{array}{lll}
\partial_{2}X^{\hat{7}}=0,
&\partial_{2}X^{\hat{8}}=0&\textrm{(Neumann-like)}\\
\partial_{m}X^{\hat{9}}=0,
&\partial_{m}A_{6}=0&\textrm{(Dirichlet-like)} \, .\\
\end{array}
\end{align}
Again, in terms of $q$ and $\widetilde{q}$ we have
\begin{align}
\label{bc2d5a01}
\begin{array}{lll}
\partial_{2}(\operatorname{Re}q)=0, &\partial_{2}(\operatorname{Re}\widetilde{q})=0 &\textrm{(Neumann-like)}\\
\partial_{m}(\operatorname{Im}q)=0, &\partial_{m}(\operatorname{Im}\tilde{q})=0 &\textrm{(Dirichlet-like)} \, .\\
\end{array}
\end{align}
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{B-type boundary conditions}
\label{secbbrane1a}
Following the arguments for the D3-NS5 brane system,
$\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ supersymmetry can be preserved at the boundary
by adding the NS5$''$- or D5$''$-branes at $x^2=0$ to the D3-D5 brane configuration
where D3-branes are extended along $x^2 \geq 0$ (see Figure \ref{fig40}) as
\begin{align}
\label{d5d5d5b}
\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
&0&1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9\\
\textrm{D3}
&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&\circ&-&-&- \\
\textrm{D5}
&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&-&\circ&\circ&\circ \\
\textrm{NS5$''$}
&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&-&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ \\
\textrm{D5$''$}
&\circ&\circ&-&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&- \\
\end{array}
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{fig41.pdf}&\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{fig42.pdf}\\
(a)NS5$''$-brane&(b)D5$''$-brane
\end{tabular}
\caption{D3-D5 system with NS5$''$-brane or D5$''$-brane.
NS5$''$-(D5$''$-)brane provides the B-type boundary conditions for the pure hypermultiplet where 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ hypermultiplet ($\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ Fermi multiplet) can fluctuate at the boundary.
}
\label{fig40}
\end{figure}
The brane configuration (\ref{d5d5d5b}) preserves
R-symmetry $SO(4)_R = SU(2)_C \times SU(2)_H \cong SO(3)_{345} \times SO(3)_{789}$ of 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ theories and
the three scalar fields $X^{\hat{i}}$ transform
as a triplet under $SO(3)_{789}$.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=5mm]
\item[i)] NS5$''$-brane
Since NS5$''$-brane is supported on $x^6, x^{7}, x^{8}$, and $x^{9}$ directions,
scalar field $A_{6}$ and three scalar fields $X^{\hat{i}}$ can fluctuate at the boundary.
The NS5$''$-brane would lead to the Neumann conditions for these scalar fields
\begin{align}
\label{bc2nsb0}
\partial_{2}X^{\hat{i}} = 0 \, , \qquad \partial_{2}A_{6} = 0 \, .
\end{align}
These conditions correspond to Neumann boundary conditions (\ref{hbsusybc3b2})
for the pure hypermultiplets
\begin{align}
\label{bc2nsb01}
\begin{array}{lll}
\partial_{2}q = 0 \, , \qquad \partial_{2}\widetilde{q}=0 \qquad \textrm{(Neumann-like)}
\end{array}
\end{align}
\item[ii)] D5$''$-brane
Since the D5$''$-brane is extended in $x^{6}$ and located at $x^{7}, x^{8}, x^{9}$,
the scalar field $A_{6}$ and the three scalar fields describing the position of the D3-branes
all satisfy Dirichlet condition at the boundary,
\begin{align}
\label{bc2d5b0}
\partial_{m}X^{\hat{i}} = 0 \, , \qquad \partial_{m}A_{6} = 0 \, .
\end{align}
We see that
the above conditions (\ref{bc2d5b0}) are equivalent to the conditions (\ref{hbsusybc3a2}).
Hence, in terms of $q$ and $\widetilde{q}$, the conditions read
\begin{align}
\label{bc2d5b1}
\begin{array}{lll}
\partial_{m}q = 0 \, , \qquad \partial_{m}\widetilde{q} = 0 \qquad \textrm{(Dirichlet-like)}.
\end{array}
\end{align}
\end{itemize}
\subsection{D3-NS5-D5 branes}
\label{secd3nsd5}
We consider A- and B-type boundary conditions for SQCD in the context of brane configuration \eqref{d3nsd5}.
\subsubsection{A-type boundary conditions}
\label{secd3nsd5a}
Similarly as before, we consider the extra NS5$'$- or D5$'$-branes at $x^2=0$ in the following brane configurations,
\begin{align}
\label{d3ns5d5A}
\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
&0&1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9\\
\textrm{D3}
&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&\circ&-&-&- \\
\textrm{NS5}
&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&- \\
\textrm{D5}
&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&-&\circ&\circ&\circ \\
\textrm{NS5$'$}
&\circ&\circ&-&\circ&\circ&-&\circ&-&-&\circ \\
\textrm{D5$'$}
&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&-\\
\end{array}
\end{align}
As usual, 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet is realized in the world-volume of D3-branes.
Also the hypermultiplet is realized as strings connecting D3-branes and D5-branes.
We expect that when NS5$'$-(D5$'$-)brane is added,
it provides Neumann-(Dirichlet-)like condition
for $\{A_{m}, \phi^5 \}$ and $\{ \text{Im}(q), \text{Im}(\widetilde{q}) \}$,
but Dirichlet-(Neumann-)like condition
for $\{ A_2, \phi^a \}$ and $\{ \text{Re}(q), \text{Re}(\widetilde{q}) \}$ where ${m}=0,1$, $a=3,4$.
Since NS5$'$-brane is located at $x^{7}$, $x^{8}$,
two of the FI parameters of 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ theory would arise in the boundary conditions
as the relative positions of NS5 branes in $x^{7}$, $x^{8}$ directions.
This brane picture is consistent to the result that
the deformed A-type boundary conditions (\ref{dhasusybc1d}) for the coupled hypermultiplets
involve the two FI parameters $r$ and $\operatorname{Re} \phi_{r}$.
In this brane configuration, mass parameters of 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ theory are given by
the relative distance between D3 and D5 branes in $x^{3}$, $x^{4}$, $x^{5}$ directions.
The mass parameter $\operatorname{Im} \phi_{M}$, which generalizes
the hypermultiplet Neumann boundary conditions (\ref{hasusybc2b})
to the Robin-type boundary conditions (\ref{dhasusybc2c}) is given by
the relative distance between D3-branes and D5-branes along $x^5$ direction where the position of D3-branes along $x^5$ direction is fixed by NS5$'$-brane.
Meanwhile, the mass parameter ${M}$, which is related to the vev of $\phi^3$ of background vector multiplet, has different nature from $\text{Im}\phi_{M}$ above.
Given the position of D5 brane at fixed location of $x^3$ and $x^4$ directions, since NS5$'$ brane is supported on $x^3$ and $x^4$ directions, D3 brane can still move along those directions. This is compatible with the BPS equations (\ref{dhasusybc2c0}) that mass parameter $M$ appears in boundary coupling rather than boundary conditions.
For the D5$'$-brane, since it is located at $x^9$ direction,
the boundary conditions would be deformed by one of the FI parameters of 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ theory
as the relative position of NS5 branes in $x^9$ direction.
In field theory analysis, we see that a single FI parameter $\operatorname{Im} \phi_{r}$ appears
in the deformed A-type boundary conditions (\ref{dhasusybc2d}) for the coupled hypermultiplets.
As D5$'$-brane is located at $x^{3}$, $x^{4}$ directions, in a similar manner discussed above,
two mass parameters would generalize the hypermultiplet boundary conditions.
Those corresponding two mass parameters $M$ and $\operatorname{Im} \phi_{M}$
appear in the deformed hypermultiplet boundary conditions (\ref{dhasusybc1a}) and (\ref{dhasusybc1c0}).
\subsubsection{B-type boundary conditions}
\label{secd3nsd5b}
Also, we consider the extra NS5$''$- or D5$''$-branes at $x^2=0$ to the following brane configurations,
\begin{align}
\label{d3ns5d5B}
\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
&0&1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9\\
\textrm{D3}
&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&\circ&-&-&- \\
\textrm{NS5}
&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&- \\
\textrm{D5}
&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&-&\circ&\circ&\circ \\
\textrm{NS5$''$}
&\circ&\circ&-&-&-&-&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ \\
\textrm{D5$''$}
&\circ&\circ&-&\circ&\circ&\circ&\circ&-&-&- \\
\end{array}
\end{align}
Similarly as before, we expect that when NS5$''$-(D5$''$-)brane is added,
it provides Neumann-(Dirichlet-)like condition for $\{A_{m} \}$ and $\{q, \widetilde{q} \}$,
but Dirichlet-(Neumann-)like condition for $\{ A_6, \phi^i \}$.
As NS5$''$-brane is supported on $x^{7}$, $x^{8}$, $x^{9}$ directions,
none of the FI parameters of 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ theory would deform the boundary conditions.
This brane perspective is consistent with the result that
the deformed B-type boundary conditions (\ref{dhbsusybc3b2}) for the coupled hypermultiplets involve no FI parameters in the boundary conditions.
As NS5$''$-brane is located at $x^{3}$, $x^{4}$, and $x^{5}$ directions, in a similar manner discussed above,
three mass parameters (${M}, \phi_{M}$) would appear in boundary conditions.
In field theory analysis, we see that the hypermultiplet Neumann boundary conditions (\ref{hbsusybc3b2})
is generalized to the Robin-type boundary conditions (\ref{dhbsusybc3b2})
by all the three mass parameters ${M}^{i}$.
In the case of the D5$''$-brane, which is located at $x^{7}$, $x^{8}$, $x^{9}$ directions,
all the three FI parameters $r^{\hat{i}}$ would deform the boundary conditions.
This can be seen from
the deformed B-type boundary conditions (\ref{dhbsusybc3a3}) for the coupled hypermultiplets.
Since the D5$''$-brane is supported in $x^{3}$, $x^{4}$, $x^{5}$ directions,
mass parameters would not appear in boundary conditions.
In fact, the deformed B-type hypermultiplet boundary conditions (\ref{dhbsusybc3a2}) and (\ref{dhbsusybc3a3})
are not affected by mass parameters.
\subsection{$S$-duality}
\label{secsdual}
From the analysis on the half-BPS boundary condition of 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ theory,
we saw that which 2d supermultiplet of $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ and $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ from bulk 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ multiplet arise at the boundary.
We also found that such boundary condition can be consistently understood in terms of brane configurations of Type IIB string theory.
Upon $S$-duality of Type IIB string theory, the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ theory
arising from a given brane configuration enjoy the mirror symmetry \cite{Hanany:1996ie}.
With additional branes that provide the half-BPS boundary condition discussed in previous sections, it is interesting to see the relation between the boundary degrees of freedom arising from a particular brane configuration and those arising from $S$-dual configuration of the original brane configuration.
In general, this could be nontrivial task, but here we just take the simplest cases, pure vector multiplet and pure hypermultiplet, discussed in previous section, and would like to see how the boundary degree of freedom from the bulk 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ multiplet are mapped to each other.
\subsubsection{A-type}
In this case, we have $U(1)_C \times U(1)_H$ R-symmetry of 2d
$\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ theory, which is the axial and vector R-symmetry,
from original $SU(2)_C \times SU(2)_H$ R-symmetry of 3d
$\mathcal{N}=4$. As $SU(2)_C$ and $SU(2)_H$ are exchanged under $RS$
map\footnote{
In brane configuration of Type IIB string theory,
$R$ of $RS$ map denotes the the map
$x^{i}$ to $x^{i+4}$ where $i=3,4,5$ and $S$ denotes $S$-duality
\cite{Hanany:1996ie}.
In the followings, we mean $S$-duality by $RS$-duality.},
so $U(1)_C$ and $U(1)_H$ are exchanged.
Hence it is expected that
3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ mirror symmetry is closely related to
2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ mirror symmetry through $S$-duality in Type IIB string theory.
In fact, it has been argued that
3d mirror symmetry decends to 2d mirror symmetry
via compactification \cite{Aganagic:2001uw} and also that 2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ interface theory between 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ mirror pairs
produce mirror map of 2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$
chiral and twisted chiral operators \cite{Bullimore:2016nji}.
We see for
the following simplest example
that the 2d mirror map is realized as $S$-duality in Type IIB string theory.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=5mm]
\item[i)] D3-NS5-NS5$'$ $\stackrel{S\text{-dual}}{\longleftrightarrow}$ D3-D5-D5$'$
The boundary degree of freedom from the bulk 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet arising in D3-NS5-NS5$'$ system is
2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ vector multiplet or field strength multiplet, which is a twisted chiral multiplet.
On the other hand, the one from the bulk 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ hypermultiplet arising in D3-D5-D5$'$ system is
2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ chiral multiplet in the adjoint representation.
As two brane configurations are $S$-dual, which gives rise to mirror pair between the pure vector multiplet and the pure hypermultiplet in the bulk,
we see that the twisted chiral multiplet and chiral multiplet at the boundary $x^2=0$ are exchanged under $S$-duality of Type IIB string theory
or 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ mirror symmetry.
This is consistent with 2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ mirror symmetry.
\item[ii)] D3-NS5-D5$'$ $\stackrel{S\text{-dual}}{\longleftrightarrow}$ D3-D5-NS5$'$
Similarly, in this case, the boundary degree of freedom from the bulk vector multiplet arising in D3-NS5-D5$'$ system is
2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ twisted chiral multiplet, and the one from the bulk hypermultiplet arising in D3-D5-NS5$'$ is 2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ chiral multiplet. Under $S$-duality of the brane configuration, those two 2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ supermultiplet are mapped each other, which is consistent with 2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ mirror symmetry.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{B-type}
The 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ mirror symmetry has not been studied much in literature.\footnote{The 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ mirror symmetry could be understood
as the special case of 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ mirror symmetry \cite{Adams:2003zy}.}
We expect that
the $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ theory arising from (more general or complicated version of)
our brane configuration and the theory arising from the corresponding $S$-dual configuration
give rise to the $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ mirror pair.
In 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ gauge theory may receive the anomaly
from massless charged chiral fermions running in one-loop \cite{AlvarezGaume:1983ig}
and we should take into account the cancelation of gauge anomaly to obtain the effective theories.
We hope to revisit this issue in the context of brane configuration.
Here, we only consider
the map between the 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ supermultiplets at the boundary arising from the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ pure vector multiplet and the pure hypermultiplet discussed in previous section.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=5mm]
\item[i)] D3-NS5-NS5$''$ $\stackrel{S\text{-dual}}{\longleftrightarrow}$ D3-D5-D5$''$
The boundary degree of freedom from 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet arising in D3-NS5-NS5$''$ system is 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ vector multiplet, and the one from 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ hypermultiplet arising in D3-D5-D5$''$ system is 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ Fermi multiplet.
The 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ vector multiplet is made of $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ vector multiplet
and Fermi multiplet in adjoint representation where the $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ vector multiplet
can be expressed as $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ field strength multiplet, which is $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ Fermi multiplet.
The fermions in $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ vector multiplet is charged
under $SO(1,1) \times SU(2)_C \times SU(2)_H$ as $(\mathbf{2},\mathbf{2})_-$.
Meanwhile, the $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ Fermi multiplet is made of
two $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ Fermi multiplet in conjugate representation of gauge group $G$,
and it is charged under $SU(2)_C \times SU(2)_H$ as $(\mathbf{1},\mathbf{1})_-$.
Since there are four real fermions in the vector multiplet, under the $S$-duality of IIB theory,
the number of fermions is matched with the number of them in Fermi multiplet
though it is not quite sure to explain the relation of their R-charges in the scope of this paper.
It seems that better understanding is needed for this case.
\item[ii)] D3-NS5-D5$''$ $\stackrel{S\text{-dual}}{\longleftrightarrow}$ D3-D5-NS5$''$
The boundary degree of freedom from the bulk 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ vector multiplet arising in D3-NS5-D5$''$ system is
2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ twisted hypermultiplet,
and the one from the 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ hypermultiplet arising in D3-D5-NS5$''$ system
is 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ hypermultiplet.
Upon $S$-duality, $SU(2)_C$ and $SU(2)_H$ are exchanged, so twisted hypermultiplet are mapped hypermultiplet, vice versa.
\end{itemize}
\section{Conclusion and discussion}
\label{seccon}
In this paper, we studied the half-BPS boundary conditions in 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ gauge theories
preserving $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ and $(0,4)$ supersymmetries at the boundary, which we call A-type and B-type, respectively.
We calculated the BPS boundary equations for vector multiplet
and hypermultiplet involving gauge coupling, FI and mass deformations.
We also saw that 3d bulk supermultiplets are decomposed to the boundary
supermultiplet of preserved supersymmetry.
We found that the boundary BPS equations for the vector multiplet,
in particular,
give rise to Nahm-like equation in the magnetic-like B-type boundary conditions.
For the hypermultiplet we saw that the Neumann-like boundary conditions for scalar components of hypermultiplet
are generalized to Robin-type boundary condition upon turning on gauge coupling and mass deformation.
We proposed brane configurations in Type IIB string theory
realizing such $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ and $(0,4)$ BPS boundary conditions in 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ theories,
and checked that they are consistent with the analysis in field theory.
We also saw how the boundary supermultiplets from the bulk supermultiplets are mapped under $S$-duality of Type IIB theory.
\\
In order to study the supersymmetric vacua of 3d $\mathcal{N}=4$ gauge theory on half-space,
it is necessary to study the BPS boundary conditions in detail.
A notable consequence is that we get Nahm-like equation in vector multiplet boundary conditions of B-type.
It is interesting to analyze these BPS equations in a similar way discussed in \cite{Gaiotto:2008sa} for 4d $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theories.
Brane realization of 2d gauge theories with $(2,2)$ and $(0,4)$ supersymmetries is one of interesting subjects.\footnote{Other brane realizations for 2d $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ and $(0,4)$ have been discussed in \cite{Hanany:1997vm, Tong:2014yna}, respectively.}
In particular, there is an anomaly issue in 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ theories and
it would be interesting to know how such anomaly condition can arise in Type IIB string theory.
Also, as we briefly discussed for the boundary degrees of freedom from the bulk supermultiplets, realization of 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ theories in the brane configuration will tell us, via $S$-duality of Type IIB theory, a \textit{mirror} dual theory of a given 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ theory from the corresponding brane configurations.
With anomaly issue taken into account, study of mirror symmetry of 2d $\mathcal{N}=(0,4)$ theory via Type IIB $S$-duality would be one of intriguing directions.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Yutaka Yoshida for collaboration at the early stage of this work.
We also thank Tudor Dimofte, Kazuo Hosomichi, Rak-Kyeong Seong, Satoshi Yamaguchi, and Piljin Yi for interesting discussion.
H.J.C appreciate the IBS Center for Geometry and Physics, the Department of Mathematics at Postech, the Institut Henri Poincar\'e, and the Simons Center for Geometry and Physics (Simons Summer Workshop 2016) for hospitality where part of this work was performed.
T.O. is grateful to NCTS Summer Workshop on Strings and Quantum Field Theory for hospitality during the completion of this work.
Research of T.O. is supported by MOST under the Grant No.105-2811-066.
|
\section*{Introduction}
The notion of soficity for groups was introduced by Gromov \cite{MR1694588} in his work of symbolic dynamics. In 2010, Elek and Lippner \cite{eleklippner2010} introduced the notion of soficity for equivalence relations in the same spirit as Gromov's original definition, i.e., an equivalence relation $R$, induced by some action of the free group $\mathbb{F}_\infty$, is sofic if the Schreier graph of the $\mathbb{F}_\infty$-space $X$ can be approximated, in a suitable sense, by Schreier graphs of finite $\mathbb{F}_\infty$-spaces.
Alternative definitions by Ozawa and P\v{a}unescu describe soficity at the level of the so-called full semigroup of $R$, or in terms of the action of the full group on the measure algebra. We describe general elementary techniques to deal with (abstract) sofic relations, in particular showing that these definitions are equivalent, and use them to prove that soficity is well-behaved with respect to countable decompositions of the space, finite-index extensions and products, as well as to some operations on the measure, namely direct integrals and substituting the measure by an equivalent one (so soficity can be seen as a property of a measure-class, instead of a specific measure)
\section{Definitions and notation}
A \emph{countable Borel} equivalence relation on a standard Borel space $X$ is an equivalence relation $R$ on $X$ which is Borel as a subset of the product space $X\times X$, and for each $x\in X$, the $R$-class $R(x)=\left\{y\in X:(x,y)\in R\right\}$ is countable. The \emph{Borel full semigroup} of $R$ is the set $[[R]]_B$ of partial Borel isomorphisms $g:\operatorname{dom}g\to\operatorname{ran}g$, where $\operatorname{dom}g$ and $\operatorname{ran}g$ are Borel subsets of $X$, for which $(x,gx)\in R$ for all $x\in\operatorname{dom}g$. $[[R]]_B$ is an inverse monoid\footnote{An \emph{inverse monoid} is a set $M$ with an associative binary operation $(x,y)\mapsto xy$, which has a neutral element $1$ and such that for each element $g\in M$ there is an unique element $h\in M$ satisfying $g=ghg$ and $h=hgh$, called the \emph{inverse} of $g$ and denoted $h=g^{-1}$.} with the usual composition of partial functions, i.e., for $g,h\in[[R]]_B$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $\operatorname{dom}(hg)=g^{-1}(\operatorname{ran}g\cap\operatorname{dom}h)$, $\operatorname{ran}(hg)=h(\operatorname{dom}h\cap\operatorname{ran}g)$
\item[(ii)] $(hg)(x)=h(g(x))$ for all $x\in\operatorname{dom}(hg)$.
\end{enumerate}
Now let $X$ be a standard Borel space and $\mu$ a Borel probability measure on $X$, in which case we call $(X,\mu)$ a \emph{standard probability space}. Let $R$ be a countable Borel equivalence relation on $X$. We say that $\mu$ is \emph{$R$-invariant}, or that $R$ is \emph{measure($\mu$)-preserving} if $\mu(g(A))=\mu(A)$ for all $g\in[[R]]_B$ and $A\subseteq\operatorname{dom}(g)$.
If $G$ is a countable group acting by measure-preserving Borel automorphisms on a standard probability space $(X,\mu)$, then the orbit equivalence relation $R_G=\left\{(x,gx):x\in X, g\in G\right\}$ is countable, Borel and probability measure-preserving. It is standard fact \cite{MR0578656} that every countable Borel probability measure-preserving relation $R$ is of the form $R=R_G$ for a certain countable group $G$ acting on $(X,\mu)$.
Throughout this paper, we will only consider stardard probability spaces, countable Borel measure-preserving equivalence relations, measure-preserving actions and countable groups, even when no explicit mention of these hypotheses is done.
An $R$-invariant measure $\mu$ induces a pseudometric $d_\mu$ on $[[R]]_B$ by
\[d_\mu(g,h)=\mu(\operatorname{dom}g\triangle\operatorname{dom}h)+\mu\left\{x\in\operatorname{dom}g\cap\operatorname{dom}h:gx\neq hx\right\}.\]
The metric quotient is denoted $[[R]]_\mu$, or simply $[[R]]$ when $\mu$ is implicit, and is called the (measured) \emph{full semigroup} of $R$. It is a complete, separable inverse monoid with the naturally defined structure.
The \emph{trace} of an element $g\in[[R]]$ is $\operatorname{tr}g=\mu\left\{x\in\operatorname{dom}(g):gx=x\right\}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{propositionfullsemigroupisinverse}
Given $g,h,g',h'\in[[R]]_B$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $d_\mu(gh,g'h')\leq d_\mu(g,g')+d_\mu(h,h')$.
\item $d_\mu(g,h^{-1})\leq d_\mu(g,ghg)+d_\mu(h,hgh)$.
\item $d_\mu(g,h)=d_\mu(g^{-1},h^{-1})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
The \emph{Borel full group} $[R]_B$ of a countable Borel equivalence relation $R$ on $X$ is the set of those $g\in[[R]]_B$ with $\operatorname{dom}g=\operatorname{ran}g=X$. If $\mu$ is an $R$-invariant probability measure, the image of $[R]_B$ in $[[R]]$ is called the (measured) \emph{full group} $R$ and is denoted $[R]$.
The \emph{measure algebra} of a standard probability space $(X,\mu)$ is the set $\operatorname{MAlg}(X,\mu)$ of Borel subsets of $X$ modulo $\mu$-null sets, i.e., we identify Borel subsets $A,B\subseteq X$ when $\mu(A\triangle B)=0$, and this is also an inverse monoid under intersection. Given a $\mu$-preserving relation $R$, we can identify $\operatorname{MAlg}(X,\mu)$ as the set of idempotent of $[[R]]$, by sending (the class of) each $A\subseteq X$ to (the class of) the identity $1_A:A\to A$ of $A$.
Given $n\in\mathbb{N}$, denote $[n]=\left\{0,\ldots,n-1\right\}$ a set with $n$ elements, and consider the normalized counting measure $\mu_{\#,n}(A)=\#A/n$ on $[n]$. When no confusion arises, we simply write $\mu_\#$. By considering the full equivalence relation $R_n=[n]^2$ on $[n]$, its full semigroup is the set $[[n]]$ of all partial bijections of $[n]$, and the full group is simply the permutation group $\mathfrak{S}_n$. The metric associated with $\mu_\#$ is denoted $d_\#$, and called the normalized \emph{Hamming distance}, and the measure algebra (which consists of subsets of $[n]$) is denoted $\operatorname{MAlg}(n)$.
The language of metric ultraproducts is useful for soficity, and we'll describe them briefly here. We refer to \cite{pk12} and \cite{MR3408561} for the details. Let $(M_k,d_k)$ be a sequence of metric spaces of diameter $\leq 1$, and $\mathcal{U}$ a free ultrafilter on $\mathbb{N}$. The \emph{metric ultraproduct} of $(M_k,d_k)$ along $\mathcal{U}$ is the metric quotient of $\prod_k M_k$ under the pseudometric $d_\mathcal{U}((x_k),(y_k))=\lim_{n\to\mathcal{U}}d_k(x_k,y_k)$, and we denote it $\prod_{\mathcal{U}}M_k$. We denote the class of a sequence $(x_k)_k\in\prod_k M_k$ by $(x_k)_\mathcal{U}$.
We will be interested in ultraproducts of the semigroups $[[n]]$, $\operatorname{MAlg}(n)$ and $\mathfrak{S}_n$. We also extend the notion of domain, range, etc... to these ultraproducts, i.e., we consider maps
\[\operatorname{dom}:\prod_{\mathcal{U}}[[n_k]]\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\operatorname{MAlg}(n_k),\quad\operatorname{dom}(g_n)_\mathcal{U}=(\operatorname{dom}g_n)_\mathcal{U}\]
and similarly for $\operatorname{ran},\operatorname{supp},\operatorname{Fix}:\prod_{\mathcal{U}}[[n_k]]\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\operatorname{MAlg}(n_k)$ (respectively, range, support, and fixed points). The \emph{trace} on $\prod_{\mathcal{U}}[[n_k]]$ is given by
\[\operatorname{tr}(g_n)_\mathcal{U}=\lim_{n\to\mathcal{U}}\operatorname{tr}(g_n).\]
Moreover, by \ref{propositionfullsemigroupisinverse} $\prod_{\mathcal{U}}[[n_k]]$ is an inverse monoid with respect to the canonical product, namely $(g_n)_\mathcal{U}(h_n)_{\mathcal{U}}=(g_nh_n)_{\mathcal{U}}$. Also, the group $\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\mathfrak{S}_{n_k}$ acts on $\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\operatorname{MAlg}(n_k)$ via $(\sigma_k)_{\mathcal{U}}\cdot (A_k)_{\mathcal{U}}=(\sigma_k(A_k))_{\mathcal{U}}$.
If $f,g\in[[R]]$ coincide on the intersection of their domains, or equivalently $f^{-1}g,fg^{-1}$ are idempotents, we denote by $f\lor g\in[[R]]$ the map with $\operatorname{dom}(f\lor g)=\operatorname{dom}(f)\cup\operatorname{dom}(g)$, and which restricts to $f$ and $g$ on their respective domains. The same can also be defined in ultraproducts.
For a given $n$, we can identify $\mathfrak{S}_n$ with the group $P_n$ of permutation matrices, or more generally $[[n]]$ with the semigroup $Q_n$ of matrices formed by $0$'s and $1'$s, with at most one $1$ in each row and each column. These semigroups are respected by tensors and direct sums, i.e., if $A\in Q_n$ and $B\in Q_m$, then $A\otimes B\in Q_{n\times m}$ and $A\oplus B\in Q_{n+m}$. We translate these operations to $[[n]]$ and $[[m]]$: Given $f\in[[n]]$ and $g\in[[m]]$, $f\otimes g\in[[n\times m]]$ is given by $(f\otimes g)(i,j)=(f(i),g(j))$ for all $i,j$ for which this makes sense, and $f\oplus g\in[[n+m]]$ is given by $(f\oplus g)(i)=f(i)$ if $i\leq n$, and $(f\oplus g)(i)=g(i-n)+n$ if $n<i\leq n+m$.
One can avoid talking about ultraproducts as follows: Let $\prod[[n]]$ be endowed with the supremum metric and define an equivalence relation $\sim$ on $\prod[[n]]$ by setting $(x_n)\sim (y_n)$ if $\lim_{n\to\infty}d_\#(x_n,y_n)=0$. Denote by $\prod^{\ell^\infty/c_0}[[n]]=\prod_n[[n]]/\sim$ the quotient. Proposition \ref{propositionfullsemigroupisinverse} also implies that $\prod^{\ell^\infty/c_0}[[n]]$ is an inverse monoid with the obvious operations.
Each $[[n]]$ embeds into $[[n+1]]$ via $f\mapsto f\oplus 1$, and this changes the metric by at most $\frac{1}{n+1}$, and also $[[n]]$ embeds isometrically into $[[kn]]$ via $f\mapsto f\otimes 1_{[k]}$. This way, we can embed $[[n]]$ into any $p\geq n$ as follows: if $p=qn+r$, with $0\leq r<n$, embed $[[n]]$ into $[[qn]]$ and then into $[[qn+1]],[[qn+2]],\ldots,[[qn+r]$. The metric changes by at most $\frac{1}{qn+r}+\cdots+\frac{1}{qn+1}\leq\frac{n}{qn}=\frac{n}{p-r}\leq\frac{n}{p-n}$, and this goes to $0$ as $p\to\infty$. With these embeddings and a couple of diagonal arguments, one easily proves the following:
\begin{theorem}
A separable metric space (semigroup) $M$ embeds into $\prod_{\mathcal{U}} [[n_k]]$ if and only if $M$ embeds into $\prod^{\ell^\infty/c_0}[[n]]$.
\end{theorem}
In particular, the choice of free ultrafilter $\mathcal{U}$ or of sequence $(n_k)$ does not matter for the existence of an embedding into $\prod_{\mathcal{U}}[[n_k]]$.
\section{Sofic equivalence relations}
We use a description of soficity by Ozawa.
\begin{definition}[{\cite{ozawasoficnotes}; \cite{MR3035288}}]
$R$ is \emph{sofic} if for each finite subset $K\subseteq[[R]]$ and each $\epsilon>0$, there exists $N\in\mathbb{N}$ and $\pi:[[R]]\to[[N]]$ satisfying:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $\pi(\operatorname{id}_X)=1_{[N]}$; $\pi(\varnothing)=\varnothing$;
\item[(ii)] For all $\varphi,\psi\in K$, $d_\#(\pi(\varphi\psi),\pi(\varphi)\pi(\psi))<\epsilon$;
\item[(iii)] For all $\varphi\in K$, $|\mu(\left\{x:\varphi(x)=x\right\})-\mu_\#(\left\{m:\pi(\varphi)(m)=m\right\})|<\epsilon$.
\end{enumerate}
$\pi$ is called a \emph{$(K,\epsilon)$-almost morphism}.
\end{definition}
It is standard procedure to write this in terms of ultraproducts. In fact, condition (i) above is unnecessary.
\begin{theorem}
$R$ is sofic if and only if $[[R]]$ embeds isometrically in $\prod_{\mathcal{U}}[[n_k]]$. In fact, an embedding $\Phi:M\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}}[[n_k]]$ from any sub-inverse semigroup $M$ of $[[R]]$ containing $1_X$ is isometric if and only if it preserves the trace.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Sketch of proof]
The second assertion follows if we write the distance in terms of the trace and vice versa. First one verifies that if $\Phi$ is isometric then $\Phi(1_X)=1$, and then that
\[\operatorname{tr}(f)=1-d_\mu(1_{\operatorname{dom}(f)},1_X)-d_\mu(1_{\operatorname{dom}(f)},f).\]
Conversely,
\[d_\mu(f,g)=\operatorname{tr}(1_{\operatorname{dom}(f)})+\operatorname{tr}(1_{\operatorname{dom}(g)})-\operatorname{tr}(1_{\operatorname{dom}(f)}1_{\operatorname{dom}(g)})-\operatorname{tr}(f^{-1}g1_{\operatorname{dom}(f)}),\]
and analogous formulas hold in $\prod_{\mathcal{U}}[[n_k]]$.
For the first part, the definition of soficity allows us to isometrically embed a dense countable inverse semigroup of $[[R]]$ in $\prod_{\mathcal{U}}[[n_k]]$, and this extends to an embedding of $[[R]]$.\qedhere
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{increasingunionofsoficequivalencerelations}
If $\left\{R_n\right\}_n$ is an increasing sequence of sofic equivalence relations, then $R=\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty R_n$ is also sofic. Indeed, $\left\{[[R_n]]\right\}_n$ is an increasing sequence of semigroups of $[[R]]$ with dense union, so almost morphisms of each $[[R_n]]$ give us the necessary almost morphisms of $[[R]]$.
\end{remark}
Next, we describe soficity in terms of the natural action of $[R]$ on $\operatorname{MAlg}(X,\mu)$. If $G$ and $H$ are groups acting on sets $X$ and $Y$, respectively, $\theta:G\to H$ is a homomorphism and $\phi:X\to Y$ is a function, we say that the pair $(\theta,\phi)$ is \emph{covariant} if it respects the respective group actions, i.e., if $\phi(g(x))=\theta(g)(\phi(x))$ for all $g\in G$ and $x\in X$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemmacovariantembeddings}
Suppose $\phi:\operatorname{MAlg}(X,\mu)\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\operatorname{MAlg}(n_k)$ is an isometric embedding, $g\in[R]$ and $\sigma\in\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\mathfrak{S}_{n_k}$ satisfy $\sigma\cdot \phi(A)=\phi(g(A))$ for all $A\in\operatorname{MAlg}(X,\mu)$. Then $\operatorname{tr}(\sigma1_{\phi(A)})\leq\operatorname{tr}(g1_A)$ for all $A\in\operatorname{MAlg}(X,\mu)$. If $\operatorname{tr}(g)=\operatorname{tr}(\sigma)$ then we have equality.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $A\in\operatorname{MAlg}(X,\mu)$. Given $\epsilon>0$, we can take a finite partition $\left\{B_1,\ldots, B_{n+1}\right\}$ of $A\cap\operatorname{supp}(g)$ for which $\mu(B_{n+1})<\epsilon$ and $g(B_i)\cap B_i=\varnothing$ for $1\leq i\leq n$. We then have $\sigma\cdot\phi(B_i)\cap\phi(B_i)=\varnothing$, so
\[\mu_\#(\phi(A)\cap\operatorname{supp}(\sigma))\geq\sum_{i=1}^n\mu_\#(B_i)>\mu(A\cap\operatorname{supp}(g))-\epsilon,\]
or equivalently $\operatorname{tr}(\sigma1_{\phi(A)})<\operatorname{tr}(g1_A)+\epsilon$. Letting $\epsilon\to 0$ gives us the desired inequality.
For the last assertion, apply the first part to $A$ and $X\setminus A$.\qedhere
\end{proof}
If $G$ is a countable group acting on $(X,\mu)$ and inducing a relation $R$, we identify each element of $G$ with its image in $[R]$. The trace of an element $g\in G$ is then $\operatorname{tr}(g)=\mu\left\{x\in X:gx=x\right\}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{propositionequivalencesofdefinitionofsoficity}
Let $R$ be a countable, Borel, probability measure-preserving equivalence relation on the standard probability space $(X,\mu)$. Let $G$ be a countable group acting on $X$ and inducing $R$. The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] $R$ is sofic;
\item[(2)] There exist isometric embeddings $\theta:[R]\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\mathfrak{S}_{n_k}$ and $\phi:\operatorname{MAlg}(X,\mu)\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\operatorname{MAlg}(n_k)$ which form a covariant pair.
\item[(3)] There exist a trace-preserving homomorphism $\theta:G\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\mathfrak{S}_{n_k}$ and an isometric embedding $\phi:\operatorname{MAlg}(X,\mu)\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\operatorname{MAlg}(n_k)$ which form a covariant pair.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, if $G$ acts freely ($\mu$-a.e.) on $X$, then $\theta$ in item 3.\ does not need to be trace-preserving in principle.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The last assertion follows from \ref{lemmacovariantembeddings}. Given an inverse semigroup $S$, denote by $E(S)$ the set of idempotents of $S$.
(1)$\Rightarrow$(2): If $R$ is sofic, consider an isometric embedding $\Phi:[[R]]\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}}[[n_k]]$, which we restrict to obtain isometric embeddings
\[\phi:\operatorname{MAlg}(X,\mu)=E([[R]])\to E(\prod_{\mathcal{U}}[[n_k]])=\prod_{\mathcal{U}}E([[n_k]])=\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\operatorname{MAlg}(n_k).\]
The actions of full groups on measure algebras are given by conjugation in full semigroups, from which follows that $(\theta,\phi)$ is covariant.
(2)$\Rightarrow$(3) is clear, by composing $\theta$ with the natural homomorphism from $G$ to $[R]$.
(3)$\Rightarrow$(1): Assume $(\theta,\phi)$ as in (3).
Suppose that $g\in[[R]]$ can be decomposed as a finite disjoint union $g=\bigvee_{n=1}^Ng_n1_{A_n}$, where $g_n\in G$ and the $A_n$ form a partition of $\operatorname{dom}(g)$. We define $\Phi(g)=\bigvee_{n=1}^N\theta(g_n)\phi(1_{A_n})\in\prod_{\mathcal{U}}[[n]]$.
We show that $\Phi(g)$ does not depend on the decomposition $g=\bigvee_ng_n1_{A_n}$. Indeed, suppose $\bigvee_ng_n1_{A_n}=\bigvee_mh_m1_{B_m}$. Then $\bigvee_{n,m}g_n1_{A_n\cap B_m}=\bigvee_{n,m}h_m1_{A_n\cap B_m}$. For a fixed $n$, it is clear that $\theta(g)1_{\phi(A_n)}=\theta(g)\bigvee_m1_{\phi(A_n)\cap\phi(B_m)}=\bigvee_m\theta(g)1_{\phi(A_n)\cap\phi(B_m)}$, and similarly for $h$ and a fixed $m$.
Since $g_n1_{A_n\cap B_m}=h_m1_{A_n\cap B_m}$, in fact it suffices to prove that, for a given $g\in G$ and $A\in\operatorname{MAlg}(X,\mu)$, $g|_A=1_A$ implies $\theta(g)1_{\phi(A)}=1_{\phi(A)}$. Indeed, in this situation $\theta(g)1_{\phi(A)}$ has domain $\phi(A)$, and $\operatorname{tr}(\theta(g)1_{\phi(A)})=\operatorname{tr}(g1_A)=\mu(A)=\mu_\#(\phi(A))$ by Lemma \ref{lemmacovariantembeddings}, and this yields the result.
Moreover, the previous Lemma also readily implies that $\Phi$ is trace-preserving. It is easy enough to see that $\Phi$ preserves products, so $\Phi$ is a trace-preserving, hence isometric, morphism on the semigroup of those $g\in[[R]]$ which can be decomposed as $g=\bigvee_{n=1}^Ng_n1_{A_n}$ for $g_n\in G$, which is dense in $[[R]]$ and hence extends to an isometric embedding of $[[R]]$.\qedhere
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The description of soficity above is equivalent to the existence of a sofic embedding of the von Neumann algebra $vN(R)$ of $R$, as defined in \cite{paunescu2011}, in which it is proven that this coincides with the original definition of soficity by Elek and Lippner.
\end{remark}
\section{Permanence properties}
In this section we will be concerned with permanence properties of the class of sofic equivalence relations. When we need to specify the measure space $(X,\mu)$ for which an equivalence relation $R$ is sofic in the previously described sense, we will instead say that the \emph{system} $(X,\mu,R)$ is \emph{sofic}.
\begin{theorem}
Let $(X,\mu)$ be a standard probability space with a measure-preserving countable Borel equivalence relation $R$. Suppose $\mu$ has a disintegration of the form $\mu=\int_X p_xd\nu(x)$, where $\nu$-a.e. $p_x$ are $R$-invariant probability measures for which $(X,p_x,R)$ is sofic. Then $(X,\mu,R)$ is also sofic.
In particular, if a.e.\ ergodic component of $R$ is sofic, so is $(X,\mu,R)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let's denote by $\operatorname{tr}_\mu$ the trace on $[[R]]_B$ with respect to $\mu$, and $\operatorname{tr}_x$ the trace with respect to $p_x$. For each $g\in[[R]]_B$,
\[\operatorname{tr}_\mu(g)=\int_X\operatorname{tr}_x(g)d\nu(x).\]
Let $K$ be a finite subset of $[[R]]_B$ and $\epsilon>0$. The maps $x\mapsto\operatorname{tr}_x(g)$, $g\in K$, take values in $[0,1]$, so by partitioning $[0,1]$ and taking preimages, we can find a finite partition $\left\{A_j\right\}_{j=1}^N$ of $X$ for which $|\operatorname{tr}_x(g)-\operatorname{tr}_y(g)|<\epsilon$ for all $g\in K$ whenever $x$ and $y$ belong to the same $A_j$. Now consider positive integers $M,p_1,\ldots,p_N$ such that
\[\sum_{j=1}^Np_j=M\qquad\text{and}\qquad|\nu(A_j)-\frac{p_j}{M}|<\frac{\epsilon}{N}\qquad\text{for all }j.\]
Fix elements $y_j\in A_j$ with $(X,p_{y_j},R)$ sofic, so we can take $(K,\epsilon)$-almost morphisms $\theta_j:[[R]]_B\to [[n_j]]$ for each $p_{y_j}$. Moreover, embedding all $[[n_j]]$ in the common semigroup $[[\prod_j n_j]]$, we can assume that all $n_j$ are equal to a unique $n$. Define $\theta(g)\in[[\sum_j n\times p_j]]=[[n\times M]]$ by
\[\theta(g)=\bigoplus_{j=1}^N(\theta_j(g)\otimes 1_{[p_j]})\]
Then for all $g\in K$,
\[\operatorname{tr}_{\#,nM}(\theta(g))=\frac{1}{Mn}\sum_{j=1}^Np_jn\operatorname{tr}_{\#,n}(\theta_j(g))=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{j=1}^N p_j\operatorname{tr}_{\#,n}(\theta_j(g)),\quad\text{and}\]
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{tr}_\mu(g)&=\sum_{j=1}^N\int_{A_j}\operatorname{tr}_x(g)d\nu(x)=\left(\sum_{j=1}^N\int_{A_j}\operatorname{tr}_{y_j}(g)d\nu(x)\right)\pm\epsilon=\left(\sum_{j=1}^N\nu(A_j)\operatorname{tr}_{y_j}(g)\right)\pm\epsilon\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^N(\frac{p_j}{M}\pm\frac{\epsilon}{N})\operatorname{tr}_{y_j}(g)\pm\epsilon=\sum_{j=1}^N\frac{p_j}{M}\operatorname{tr}_{y_j}(g)\pm 2\epsilon=\sum_{j=1}^N\frac{p_j}{M}\operatorname{tr}_{\#,n}(\theta_j(g))\pm3\epsilon\\
&=\operatorname{tr}_{\#,n}(\theta(g))\pm3\epsilon
\end{align*}
and for all $g,h\in K$,
\begin{align*}
d_{\#,nM}(\theta(g)\theta(h),\theta(gh))&=d_{\#,nM}(\bigoplus_{j=1}^N(\theta_j(g)\theta_j(h)\otimes 1_{p_j}),\bigoplus_{j=1}^N(\theta_j(gh)\otimes 1_{p_j}))\\
&=\frac{1}{Mn}\sum_{j=1}^n p_j nd_{\#,n}(\theta_j(g)\theta_j(h),\theta_j(gh))\\
&\leq\max_{1\leq j\leq N}d_{\#,n}(\theta_j(g)\theta_j(h),\theta_j(gh))<\epsilon.\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Given a non-null Borel subset $A$ of $X$, we denote by $\mu_A$ the normalized measure on $A$, i.e., $\mu_A(B)=\mu(B)/\mu(A)$ for $B\subseteq A$, by $R|_A=R\cap (A\times A)$ the restriction of $R$ to $(A,\mu_A)$, and by $\operatorname{tr}_A$ for the corresponding trace on $[[R|_A]]$.
\begin{proposition}\label{propositionsoficityforsubsets}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] If $R$ is sofic and $A\subseteq X$ is any (non-null) subset, then $R|_A$ is sofic.
\item[(b)] If $\left\{A_n\right\}$ is a countable Borel partition of $X$ by (non-null) $R$-invariant subsets, then $R$ is sofic if and only if each $R|_{A_n}$ is sofic.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] Let $K\subseteq[[R|_A]]$ be a finite subset and $\epsilon>0$. Since $[[R|_A]]$ is contained in $[[R]]$ (as a semigroup, but with a different metric), there exists a $(K,\epsilon)$-almost morphism $\theta:[[R]]\to[[n]]$ for some $n\in\mathbb{N}$. We may assume that $1_A\in K$, and that $\theta(1_A)$ is an idempotent in $[[n]]$. For $g\in[[R|_A]]$, we have $1_Ag1_A=g$, so switching $\theta(g)$ by $\theta(1_A)\theta(g)\theta(1_A)$ if necessary, we can assume the range and domain of $\theta(g)$ are contained in $Y:=\operatorname{dom}(\theta(1_A))$. This defines a map $\theta_A:[[R|_A]]\to[[Y]]$.
To see that $\theta_A$ approximately preserves the trace, note that the trace on $[[R|_A]]$ and the trace on $[[Y]]$ are given respectively by
\[\operatorname{tr}_{A}(g)=\frac{\operatorname{tr}_{\mu}(g)}{\operatorname{tr}_{\mu}(1_A)}\qquad\text{and}\qquad\operatorname{tr}_{\#,Y}(\theta_A(g))=\frac{\operatorname{tr}_{\#,n}(\theta(g))}{\operatorname{tr}_{\#,n}(\theta(1_A))},\]
and these numbers are as close as necessary if $\epsilon$ is small enough. The distances are dealt with similarly, so $\theta_A$ approximately preserves products.
\item[(b)] Use the previous theorem with $\nu=\mu$ and $p_x(B)=\mu_{A_j}(B\cap A_j)$, where $A_j$ is the only element of the partition with $x\in A_j$.\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
Now we will deal with finite-index subrelations, as defined in \cite{MR1007409}. Let $R$ and $S$ be countable Borel probability measure-preserving equivalence relations on $(X,\mu)$ with $R\subseteq S$. Then each $S$-class can be decomposed in (at most) countably many $R$-classes. For $x\in X$, we denote by $J(x)$ the number of $R$-classes contained in $S(x)$, and note that $J:X\to\left\{1,2,\ldots,\infty\right\}$ is measurable and $S$-invariant.
\begin{definition}
$R$ is said to have \emph{finite index} in $S$ if $J(x)<\infty$ $\mu$-a.e.
\end{definition}
Let $Y$ be an $S$-invariant subset of $X$ on which $J$ is constant, say $J(x)=n$ a.e.\ on $Y$. Then there exist measurable maps $\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_n:Y\to Y$ such that for $\mu$-a.e.\ $x\in Y$, $\left\{R(\psi_i(x)):1\leq i\leq n\right\}$ is a partition of $S(x)$. The maps $\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_n$ are called \emph{choice functions} for $R\subseteq S$ (inside $Y$). Define a map $\sigma:S|_Y\to\mathfrak{S}_{n_k}$ by setting $\sigma(y,x)(i)=j$ if $\psi_i(x)R\psi_j(y)$. Then $\sigma$ is a 1-cocycle (i.e., a groupoid morphism).
We will say that $R\subseteq S$ admits \emph{invertible choice functions in $Y$} if there exists choice functions $\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_n$ for $R\subseteq S$ in $Y$ which are automorphisms. This is the case, for example, when $R|_Y$ is ergodic (\cite{MR1007409}, Lemma 1.3). Moreover, in this case we have $\psi_i\in[S]$.
Finally, we will say that $R\subseteq S$ admits invertible choice functions if it admits invertible choice functions in each set $Y_n=\left\{x\in X:J(x)=n\right\}$.
\begin{theorem}
Suppose $R\subseteq S$ is of finite index and admits invertible choice functions (e.g.\ $R$ is ergodic). If $R$ is sofic, so is $S$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The sets $\left\{x\in X:J(x)=n\right\}$ are $S$-invariant and partition $X$, so \ref{propositionsoficityforsubsets} allows us to restrict to the case when the index is constant. Suppose that $\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_N$ are invertible choice functions for $R\subseteq S$ with associated cocycle $\sigma:S\to\mathfrak{S}_N$.
For each $f\in [[S]]$ and each pair $(i,j)\in[N]^2$, let $A_{f;j,i}=\left\{x\in\operatorname{dom}f:\sigma(f(x),x)(i)=j\right\}$. If $x\in A_j$, then $(\psi_i(x),\psi_j(f(x)))\in R$, which implies that $\psi_jf\psi_i^{-1}|_{\psi_i(A_{f;j,i})}\in[[S]]$.
Let $\Phi:[[R]]\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}}[[n_k]]$ be a sofic embedding. Denote by $E_{j,i}$ the usual matrix unit with $1$ in the $(i,j)$-th entry and 0 everywhere else (or rather the element of $[[n]]$ associated to it). Define $\Xi:[[S]]\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}}[[n_k\times N]]$ by
\[\Xi(f)=\bigvee_{i,j}\Phi(\psi_j f\psi_i^{-1}|_{\psi_i(A_{f;j,i})})\otimes E_{j,i}\]
First let's show that $\Xi$ is well-defined, i.e., that the terms in the right-hand side have disjoint domains and images: Suppose $(i,j)\neq(k,l)$. Then
\begin{align*}
&(\Phi(\psi_j f\psi_i^{-1}|_{\psi_i(A_{f;j,i})})\otimes E_{j,i})(\Phi(\psi_l f\psi_k^{-1}|_{\psi_k(A_{f;l,k})})\otimes E_{l,k})^{-1}\\
&\hspace{60pt}=\Phi(\psi_j f\psi_i^{-1}\psi_k f^{-1}\psi_l^{-1}|_{\left\{x\in\psi_l(f(A_{f;l,k})):\psi_k(f^{-1}(\psi_l^{-1}(x)))\in\psi_i(A_{f;j,i})\right\}})\otimes(E_{j,i}E_{k,l})
\end{align*}
If $i\neq k$, the second term above is zero. If $i=k$ but $j\neq l$, the domain of the map on which we are applying $\Phi$ becomes
\[\left\{x\in\psi_l(f(A_{f;l,i})):f^{-1}\psi_l^{-1}(x)\in A_{f;j,i}\right\}=\psi_l(f(A_{f;l,i}\cap A_{f;j,i}))=\varnothing.\]
This proves that the domains of the maps in the definition of $\Xi(f)$ are disjoint. The images are dealt with similarly, and so $\Xi$ is well-defined.
Now we need to show that $\Xi$ is a morphism. Suppose $f,g\in[[R]]$. We have
\begin{align*}
\Xi(f)\Xi(g)&=\bigvee_{i,j,k,l}\Phi(\psi_j f\psi_i^{-1}\psi_l g\psi_k^{-1}|_{\left\{x\in\psi_k(A_{g;l,k}):\psi_l g\psi_k^{-1}(x)\in\psi_i(A_{f;j,i})\right\}})\otimes E_{j,i}E_{l,k}\\
&=\bigvee_{i,j,k}\Phi(\psi_j fg\psi_k^{-1}|_{\left\{x\in\psi_k(A_{g;i,k}):g\psi_k^{-1}(x)\in A_{f;j,i}\right\}})\otimes E_{j,k}.
\end{align*}
This should be equal to $\Xi(fg)=\bigvee_{k,j}\Phi(\psi_j(fg)\psi_k^{-1}|_{\psi_k(A_{fg;j,k})})\otimes E_{j,k}$, so we need simply to show that for each $j$ and $k$,
\[\bigvee_i\left\{x\in\psi_k(A_{g;i,k}):g\psi_k^{-1}(x)\in A_{f;j,i}\right\}=\psi_k(A_{fg;j,k})\]
Let $x$ in the left-hand side, and let $y=\psi_k^{-1}(x)$, so for some $i$, $\sigma(gy,y)(k)=i$ and $\sigma(fgy,gy)(i)=j$, so
\[\sigma(fg y,y)(k)=\sigma(fgy,gy)\sigma(gy,y)(k)=\sigma(fgy,gy)(i)=j,\]
thus $y\in A_{gy;j,k}$, and $x=\psi_k(y)\in\psi_k(A_{fg;j,k}$.
For the converse inclusion, simply take $y=\psi_k^{-1}(x)$ again and $i=\sigma(gy,y)(k)$. Thus we've proved $\Xi$ is a morphism.
Finally, we need to show that $\Xi$ is trace-preserving. Note that
\[\operatorname{tr}\Xi(f)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\operatorname{tr}(\psi_i f\psi_i^{-1}|_{\psi_i(A_{f;i,i})}),\]
so we are done if we prove that $\operatorname{tr}(\psi_i f\psi_i^{-1}|_{\psi_i(A_{f;i,i})})=\operatorname{tr}(f)$. More specifically, let's show that $\left\{x\in\psi_i(A_{f;i,i}):\psi_i f\psi_i^{-1}(x)=x\right\}=\psi_i(\left\{y\in\operatorname{dom}f: fy=y\right\}$.
Let $x$ in the left-hand side, and let $y=\psi_i^{-1}x$. Then $fy=\psi_i^{-1} f\psi_i^{-1}x=\psi_i^{-1}x=y$. Conversely, suppose $y\in\operatorname{dom}f$ with $fy=y$, and let $x=\psi_i(y)$. $fy=y$ implies $\psi_i fy=\psi_i y$, i.e., $y\in A_{f;i,i}$, and also implies $\psi_i f\psi_i^{-1}(x)=x$, so $x$ is in the left-hand-side.
Finally, since $\psi_i\in[S]$ and $S$ is measure-preserving, we are done.\qedhere
\end{proof}
Recall that $R$ is \emph{periodic} if a.e.\ class of $R$ is finite, and \emph{aperiodic} is a.e.\ class of $R$ is infinite.
\begin{corollary}\label{periodicequivalencerelationsaresofic}
Each hyperfinite (amenable) equivalence relation $R$ is sofic.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
If $R$ is periodic, the equality relation $I=\left\{(x,x):x\in X\right\}$ is sofic, has finite index in $R$, and it is easy to show that it admits invertible choice functions. For general hyperfinite relations, apply the previous case and the remark above Lemma \ref{lemmacovariantembeddings}.\qedhere
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
$(X,\mu,R)$ and $(Y,\nu,S)$ are sofic if and only if $(X\times Y,\mu\times\nu,R\times S)$ is sofic.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $G$ and $H$ be countable groups acting in a pmp way on $X$ and $Y$, respectively, and inducing the respective equivalence relations. Then $G\times H$ acts on $X\times Y$, via $(g,h)(x,y)=(gx,hy)$, and this action induces $R\times S$.
Take covariant sofic pairs $(\iota_R,\phi_R):(G,\operatorname{MAlg}(X,\mu))\to(\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\mathfrak{S}_{n_k},\operatorname{MAlg}(n_k))$ and $(\iota_S,\phi_S):(H,\operatorname{MAlg}(S,\nu))\to(\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\mathfrak{S}_{m_k},\operatorname{MAlg}(m_k))$.
We define $\kappa:G\times H\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\mathfrak{S}_{n_k\times m_k}$ by $\kappa(g,h)=\iota_R(g)\otimes\iota_S(h)$ and $\psi:\operatorname{MAlg}(X\times Y,\mu\times\nu)\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\operatorname{MAlg}(n_k\times m_k)$, defined on rectangles by $\psi(A\times B)=\phi_R(A)\times\phi_S(B)$, which extends uniquely to a semigroup embedding. Then $(\kappa,\psi)$ is tracial and covariant for $R\times S$.
For the converse, simply note that there is a canonical tracial embedding $T:[[R]]\to[[R\times S]]$, namely $T(g)(x,y)=(g(x),y)$, and similarly for $S$. Simply compose any sofic embedding of $[[R\times S]]$ with these to obtain sofic embeddings of $[[R]]$ and $[[S]]$.\qedhere
\end{proof}
\section{Soficity and full groups}
A well-known theorem of Dye \cite{MR0158048} states that when $R$ is aperiodic the full group $[R]$ completely determines $R$. With this in mind, we prove that $R$ is sofic if and only if $[R]$ embeds isometrically into $\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\mathfrak{S}_{n_k}$ in ``almost all cases'', namely when $R$ does not have singleton classes. This solves a question posed by Conley--Kechris--Tucker-Drob \cite{MR3035288} in this case.
\begin{lemma}
Let $\theta:[R]\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\mathfrak{S}_{n_k}$ be an isometric embedding. If $g,h\in[R]$ with $\operatorname{supp}g=\operatorname{Fix}h$, then $\operatorname{supp}(\theta(g))=\operatorname{Fix}(\theta(h))$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $\operatorname{supp}(g)=\operatorname{Fix} h$. Then $d_\mu(g,h)=\operatorname{tr}(g)+\operatorname{tr}(h)=1$, so $d_\#(\theta(g),\theta(h))=\operatorname{tr}(\theta(g))+\operatorname{tr}(\theta(h))=1$, which implies
\[\mu_\#(\operatorname{Fix}(\theta(g))\cap\operatorname{Fix}(\theta(h))= 0\qquad\text{and}\qquad\mu_\#(\operatorname{Fix}(\theta(g)))+\mu_\#(\operatorname{Fix}(\theta(h))=1,\]
and this means that $\operatorname{Fix}(\theta(h))$ is the complement of $\operatorname{Fix}(\theta(g))$, i.e., $\operatorname{supp}(\theta(g))$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
An aperiodic, countable measure-preserving equivalence relation $R$ is sofic if and only if the full group $[R]$ embeds isometrically into an ultraproduct $\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\mathfrak{S}_{n_k}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\theta:[R]\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\mathfrak{S}_{n_k}$ be an isometric embedding. We need to construct an embedding $\phi:\operatorname{MAlg}(X,\mu)\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\operatorname{MAlg}(n_k)$ for which the pair $(\phi,\theta)$ is covariant.
Given $A\in\operatorname{MAlg}(X,\mu)$, choose $g\in[R]$ with $\operatorname{supp}(g)=A$ (\cite{MR2583950}, Lemma 4.10). Consider a representative $\theta(g)=(g_k)_\mathcal{U}$, and define $\phi(A)=\operatorname{supp}(\theta(g))=(\operatorname{supp}(g_k))_\mathcal{U}$. We will show that $(\theta,\phi)$ satisfies the conditions of Proposition \ref{propositionequivalencesofdefinitionofsoficity}. We do this in steps, namely:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\phi$ is well-defined, i.e., it does not depend on the choice of $g$ with $\operatorname{supp}(g)=A$;
\item $\phi$ preserves disjointness;
\item $\phi$ preserves intersections;
\item $\phi$ is covariant;
\item $\phi$ is isometric.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{itemwelldefined} Suppose $g,h\in[R]$ with $\operatorname{supp}g=\operatorname{supp}h=A$. Consider any $r\in[R]$ with $\operatorname{supp}r=X\setminus A$. By the Lemma above, $\operatorname{supp}(\theta(g))=\operatorname{Fix}(\theta(r))=\operatorname{supp}(\theta(h))$.
\item\label{itempreservesdisjointness} Suppose $A\cap B=\varnothing$. Choose $g,h,r\in[R]$ with $\operatorname{supp}(g)=A$, $\operatorname{supp}(h)=B$, $\operatorname{supp}(r)=X\setminus(A\cup B)$. Here we consider representatives $\theta(g)=(g_k)_\mathcal{U}$, $\theta(h)=(h_k)_\mathcal{U}$, $\theta(r)=(r_k)_\mathcal{U}$. By the previous Lemma again, we can approximate, for $\mathcal{U}$-a.e.\ $k$, $\mu_\#(\operatorname{supp}(r_kh_k)\triangle\operatorname{Fix}(g_k))\sim 0$, so $h_k=r_k^{-1}$ in $\operatorname{supp}(g_k)\cap\operatorname{supp}(h_k)$ up to a set of measure $\sim 0$, and similarly $g_k=r_k^{-1}$ in $\operatorname{supp}(g_k)\cap\operatorname{supp}(h_k)$ up to a set of measure $\sim 0$. Thus
\begin{align*}
d_\#(g_k,h_k)&\sim\mu_\#(\operatorname{supp}(g_k)\triangle\operatorname{supp}(h_k))\\
&=\mu_\#(\operatorname{supp}(g_k))+\mu_\#(\operatorname{supp}(h_k))-2\mu_\#(\operatorname{supp}(g_k)\cap\operatorname{supp}(h_k))\\
&=d_\#(g_k,1)+d_\#(h_k,1)-2\mu_\#(\operatorname{supp}(g_k)\cap\operatorname{supp}(h_k).
\end{align*}
Taking the limit over $\mathcal{U}$, we have $d_\#(\theta(g),\theta(h))=d_\#(\theta(g),1)+d_\#(\theta(h),1)-2\mu_{\#}(\phi(A)\cap\phi(B))$, that is,
\[d_\mu(g,1)+d_\mu(h,1)=d_\mu(g,h)=d_\mu(g,1)+d_\mu(h,1)-2\mu_\#(\phi(A)\cap\phi(B)),\]
thus $\mu_\#(\phi(A)\cap\phi(B))=0$, which means that $\phi(A)\cap\phi(B)=\varnothing$.
\item Now, let's show that $\phi$ preserves intersections. Take $A,B\in\operatorname{MAlg}(X,\mu)$, and consider $g,h,k\in[R]$ with $\operatorname{supp}(g)=A\cap B$, $\operatorname{supp}(h)=A\setminus B$ and $\operatorname{supp}(k)=B\setminus A$. By item \ref{itempreservesdisjointness}, the supports of $\theta(g)$ and $\theta(h)$ are disjoint, so $\operatorname{supp}(\theta(gh))=\operatorname{supp}(\theta(g)\theta(h))=\operatorname{supp}(\theta(g))\cup\operatorname{supp}(\theta(h))$, and similarly for $g$ and $k$. Also, $\operatorname{supp}(gh)=A$, $\operatorname{supp}(gk)=B$, so by item \ref{itempreservesdisjointness} again,
\begin{align*}
\phi(A)\cap\phi(B)&=\operatorname{supp}(\theta(gh))\cap\operatorname{supp}(\theta(gk))\\
&=(\operatorname{supp}(\theta(g))\cup\operatorname{supp}(\theta(h)))\cap(\operatorname{supp}(\theta(g))\cup\operatorname{supp}(\theta(k)))\\
&=\operatorname{supp}(g)=\phi(A\cap B).
\end{align*}
\item To prove covariantness, let $A\in\operatorname{MAlg}(X,\mu)$ and $g\in[R]$. Take $h\in[R]$ with $\operatorname{supp}(h)=A$. Then $\operatorname{supp}(ghg^{-1})=g(A)$, and
\[\phi(g(A))=\operatorname{supp}(\theta(ghg^{-1}))=\operatorname{supp}(\theta(g)\theta(h)\theta(g)^{-1})=\theta(g)\cdot\operatorname{supp}(h)=\theta(g)\cdot\phi(A).\]
\item For the last property we simply need to show that $\phi$ preserves measure. Given $A=\operatorname{supp}(g)\in\operatorname{MAlg}(X,\mu)$, with $g\in[R]$, we have
\[\mu_\#(\phi(A))=\mu_\#(\operatorname{supp}(\theta(g)))=d_\#(\theta(g),1)=d_\mu(1,g)=\mu(\operatorname{supp}(g))=\mu(A).\qedhere\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
Now we extend this result to when $R$ has periodic points, but no singleton classes. Set $\operatorname{Per}_{\geq 2}(R)=\left\{x\in X:|R(x)|\geq 2\right\}$.
\begin{lemma}
There exists $\alpha\in [R]$ with $\operatorname{supp}\alpha=\operatorname{Per}_{\geq 2}(R)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows easily from the existence of a transversal for periodic relations (\cite{kechrisclassicaldescriptivesettheory}, Theorem 12.16).\qedhere
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Let $\theta:[R]\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\mathfrak{S}_{n_k}$ be an isometric embedding and $g,h\in [R]$. Then $\operatorname{supp}g\cap\operatorname{supp}h=\varnothing$ if and only if $\operatorname{supp}\theta(g) \cap\operatorname{supp}\theta(h)=\varnothing$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
$\operatorname{supp}g\cap\operatorname{supp}h=\varnothing$ if and only if $d_\mu(g,h)=d_\mu(1,g)+d_\mu(1,h)$, and this condition is preserved by $\theta$.\qedhere
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
Suppose $R$ does not contain singleton classes. Then $R$ is sofic if and only if $[R]$ is metrically sofic.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $P=\operatorname{Per}_{\geq 2}(R)$ and $\operatorname{Aper}=X\setminus P$. By previous results, it is sufficient to show that $[R|_{\operatorname{Aper}}]$ is metrically sofic. Fix any $\alpha\in[R]$ with $\operatorname{supp}\alpha=P$. Let $\theta:[R]\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}}\mathfrak{S}_{n_k}$ be a tracial embedding. Let $(A_k)_\mathcal{U}=\operatorname{supp}\theta(\alpha)$.
For each $f\in[R|_{\operatorname{Aper}}]$, let $\widetilde{f}=f\lor 1_P$ be the natural extension of $f$ to $X$. By the previous Lemma, $\operatorname{supp}\theta(\widetilde{f})\cap\operatorname{supp}(\theta(\alpha))$ for all $f\in[R|_{\operatorname{Aper}}]$, so we can find a representative $\theta(\widetilde{f})=(\theta_k(f))_\mathcal{U}$ such that $\operatorname{supp}\theta_k(f)\cap A_k=\varnothing$ for all $n$, that is, $\operatorname{supp}\theta_k(f)\subseteq[n_k]\setminus A_k$.
Define $\eta:[R|_{\operatorname{Aper}}]\to\prod_{\mathcal{U}} \mathfrak{S}_{[n_k]\setminus A_k}$ by $\eta(f)=(\theta_k(f)|_{[n_k]\setminus A_k})_\mathcal{U}$. It is easy enough to see that this map is multiplicative, so it remains only to check that it is tracial. Given $f\in[R|_{\operatorname{Aper}}]$, one readily checks that
\[\operatorname{tr}f=(\operatorname{tr}\widetilde{f}-\mu(P))\mu(\operatorname{Aper}),\]
and similarly,
\[\operatorname{tr}_{[n_k]\setminus A_k}\theta_k(f)|_{[n_k]\setminus A_k}=\left(\operatorname{tr}\theta_k(f)-\frac{\# A_k}{n_k}\right)\left(1-\frac{\#A_k}{n_k}\right).\]
Now $\operatorname{tr}\theta_k(f)$ converges (along $\mathcal{U}$) to $\operatorname{tr}\widetilde{f}$, and $\#A_k/n_k$ converges to $\mu(\operatorname{supp}\alpha)=\mu(P)=1-\mu(\operatorname{Aper})$. Therefore $\eta$ is tracial.\qedhere
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Humans read text by making a sequence of fixations and saccades.
During a fixation, the eyes land on a word and remain fairly static
for 200--250~ms. Saccades are the rapid jumps that occur between
fixations, typically lasting 20--40~ms and spanning 7--9~characters
\citep{rayner_eye_1998}. Readers, however, do not simply fixate one
word after another; some saccades go in reverse direction, and some
words are fixated more than once or skipped altogether.
A range of computational models have been developed to account for
human eye-movements in reading \citep{rayner_models_2010-1}, including
models of saccade generation in cognitive psychology, such as
EZ-Reader \citep{reichle_toward_1998, reichle_ez_2003,
reichle_using_2009}, SWIFT \citep{engbert_dynamical_2002,
engbert_swift:_2005}, or the Bayesian Model of
\citet{bicknell_rational_2010-1}. More recent approaches use machine
learning models trained on eye-tracking data to predict human reading
patterns \citep{nilsson_learning_2009, nilsson_towards_2010,
hara_predicting_2012, matthies_blinkers_2013}. Both types of models
involve theoretical assumptions about human eye-movements, or at least
require the selection of relevant eye-movement features. Model
parameters have to be estimated in a supervised way from eye-tracking
corpora.
Unsupervised approaches, that do not involve training the model on
eye-tracking data, have also been proposed. A key example is
\emph{surprisal}, which measures the predictability of a word in
context, defined as the negative logarithm of the conditional probability of
the current word given the preceding words
\citep{hale_probabilistic_2001, levy_expectation-based_2008}.
Surprisal is computed by a language model, which can take the form of
a probabilistic grammar, an n-gram model, or a recurrent neural
network. While surprisal has been shown to correlate with word-by-word
reading times \citep{mcdonald_eye_2003, mcdonald_low-level_2003,
demberg_data_2008, frank:bod:11, smith_effect_2013}, it cannot
explain other aspects of human reading, such as reverse saccades,
re-fixations, or skipping. Skipping is a particularly intriguing
phenomenon: about 40\% of all words are skipped (in the Dundee corpus,
see below), without apparent detriment to text understanding.
In this paper, we propose a novel model architecture that is able to
explain which words are skipped and which ones are fixated, while also
predicting reading times for fixated words. Our approach is completely
unsupervised and requires only unlabeled text for training.
Compared to language as a whole, reading is a recent innovation in
evolutionary terms, and people learning to read do not have access to
competent readers' eye-movement patterns as training data. This
suggests that human eye-movement patterns emerge from general
principles of language processing that are independent of reading.
Our starting point is the \emph{Tradeoff Hypothesis}: Human reading
optimizes a tradeoff between \emph{precision} of language
understanding (encoding the input accurately) and \emph{economy} of
attention (fixating as few words as possible). Based on the Tradeoff
Hypothesis, we expect that humans only fixate words to the extent
necessary for language understanding, while skipping words whose
contribution to the overall meaning can be inferred from context.
In order to test these assumptions, this paper investigates the
following questions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Can the Tradeoff Hypothesis be implemented in an unsupervised
model that predicts skipping and reading times in
\emph{quantitative} terms? In particular, can we compute surprisal
based only on the words that are actually fixated?
\item Can the Tradeoff Hypothesis explain known \emph{qualitative}
features of human fixation patterns? These include dependence on
word frequency, word length, predictability in context, a contrast
between content and function words, and the statistical dependence
of the current fixation on previous fixations.
\end{enumerate}
To investigate these questions, we develop a generic architecture that
combines neural language modeling with recent ideas on integrating
recurrent neural networks with mechanisms of attention, which have
shown promise both in NLP and in computer vision. We train our model
end-to-end on a large text corpus to optimize a tradeoff between
minimizing input reconstruction error and minimizing the number of
words fixated. We evaluate the model's reading behavior against a
corpus of human eye-tracking data. Apart from the unlabeled training
corpus and the generic architecture, no further assumptions about
language structure are made -- in particular, no lexicon or grammar or
otherwise labeled data is required.
Our unsupervised model is able to predict human skips and fixations
with an accuracy of $63.7\%$. This compares to a baseline of $52.6\%$
and a supervised accuracy of $69.9\%$. For fixated words, the model
significantly predicts human reading times in a linear mixed effects
analysis. The performance of our model is comparable to surprisal,
even though it only fixates 60.4\% of all input words. Furthermore, we
show that known qualitative features of human fixation sequences
emerge in our model without additional assumptions.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related}
A range of attention-based neural network architectures have recently
been proposed in the literature, showing promise in both NLP and
computer vision \citep[e.g.,][]{mnih_recurrent_2014,
bahdanau_neural_2015}. Such architectures incorporate a mechanism
that allows the network to dynamically focus on a restricted part of
the input. Attention is also a central concept in cognitive science,
where it denotes the focus of cognitive processing. In both
language processing and visual processing, attention is known to be
limited to a restricted area of the visual field, and shifts rapidly
through eye-movements \citep{Henderson:03}.
Attention-based neural architectures either employ \emph{soft
attention} or \emph{hard attention}. Soft attention distributes
real-valued attention values over the input, making end-to-end
training with gradient descent possible. Hard attention mechanisms
make discrete choices about which parts of the input to focus on, and
can be trained with reinforcement learning
\citep{mnih_recurrent_2014}. In NLP, soft attention can mitigate the
difficulty of compressing long sequences into fixed-dimensional
vectors, with applications in machine translation
\citep{bahdanau_neural_2015} and question answering
\citep{hermann_teaching_2015}. In computer vision, both types of
attention can be used for selecting regions in an image
\citep{ba_learning_2015,xu_show_2015}.
\section{The NEAT Reading Model}
\label{sec:model}
The point of departure for our model is the Tradeoff Hypothesis (see
Section~\ref{sec:intro}): Reading optimizes a tradeoff between
precision of language understanding and economy of attention. We make
this idea explicit by proposing NEAT (NEural Attention Tradeoff), a
model that reads text and attempts to reconstruct it afterwards.
While reading, the network chooses which words to process and which
words to skip. The Tradeoff Hypothesis is formalized using a training
objective that combines accuracy of reconstruction with economy of
attention, encouraging the network to only look at words to the extent
that is necessary for reconstructing the sentence.
\subsection{Architecture}
We use a neural sequence-to-sequence architecture
\citep{sutskever_sequence_2014} with a hard attention mechanism.
We illustrate the model in Figure~\ref{fig:architecture}, operating on
a three-word sequence $\boldsymbol w$. The most basic components are
the \emph{reader}, labeled $R$, and the \emph{decoder}. Both of them
are recurrent neural networks with Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM,
\citealp{hochreiter_long_1997}) units. The recurrent reader network
is expanded into time steps $R_0, \dots, R_3$ in the figure. It goes
over the input sequence, reading one word $w_i$ at a time, and
converts the word sequence into a sequence of vectors $h_0, \dots,
h_3$. Each vector $h_i$ acts as a fixed-dimensionality encoding of
the word sequence $w_1, \dots, w_i$ that has been read so far. The
last vector $h_3$ (more generally $h_N$ for sequence length $N$),
which encodes the entire input sequence, is then fed into the input
layer of the decoder network, which attempts to reconstruct the input
sequence $\boldsymbol w$. It is also realized as a recurrent neural
network, collapsed into a single box in the figure. It models a
probability distribution over word sequences, outputting a probability
distribution $P_{Decoder}(w_i|\boldsymbol{w}_{1,\dots,i-1}, h_N)$ over
the vocabulary in the $i$-th step, as is common in neural language
modeling \citep{mikolov_recurrent_2010}. As the decoder has access to
the vector representation created by the reader network, it ideally is
able to assign the highest probability to the word sequence
$\boldsymbol{w}$ that was actually read. Up to this point, the model
is a standard sequence-to-sequence architecture reconstructing the
input sequence, that is, performing autoencoding.
As a basic model of human processing, NEAT contains two further
components. First, experimental evidence shows that during reading,
humans constantly make predictions about the upcoming input (e.g.,
\citealp{van_gompel_syntactic_2007}). As a model of this behavior,
the reader network at each time step outputs a probability
distribution $P_{R}$ over the lexicon. This distribution describes
which words are likely to come next (i.e.,~the reader network performs
language modeling). Unlike the modeling performed by the decoder, $P_R$,
via its recurrent connections, has access to the previous context only.
Second, we model skipping by stipulating that only some of the input
words $w_i$ are fed into the reader network $R$, while $R$ receives a
special vector representation, containing no information about the input word,
in other cases. These are the
words that are skipped. In NEAT, at each time step during reading, the
\emph{attention module} $A$ decides whether the next word is shown to
the reader network or not. When humans skip a word, they are able to
identify it using \emph{parafoveal preview} \citep{rayner_eye_2009}.
Thus, we can assume that the choice of which words to skip takes into
account not only the prior context but also a preview of the word
itself. We therefore allow the attention module to take the input word
into account when making its decision. In addition, the attention
module has access to the previous state $h_{i-1}$ of the reader network,
which summarizes what has been read so far. To allow for interaction
between skipping and prediction, we also give the attention module
access to the probability of the input word according to the
prediction $P_R$ made at the last time step. If we write the decision made
by $A$ as $\omega_i \in \{0, 1\}$, where $\omega_i = 1$ means that
word $w_i$ is shown to the reader and $0$ means that it is not, we can
write the probability of showing word $w_i$ as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:att-prob}
\begin{split}
P(\omega_{i}=1|\boldsymbol\omega_{1\dots i-1}, \boldsymbol w) \\
= P_A(w_i, h_{i-1}, P_{R}(w_i|\boldsymbol w_{1\dots i-1}, \boldsymbol\omega_{1\dots i-1}))
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We implement $A$ as a feed-forward network, followed by taking a
binary sample $\omega_i$.
We obtain the \emph{surprisal} of an input word by taking the negative
logarithm of the conditional probability of this word given the
context words that precede it:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:surp}
\begin{split}
\operatorname{Surp}(w_i|\boldsymbol w_{1\dots i-1}) = -\log P_{R}(w_i|\boldsymbol w_{1\dots i-1}, \boldsymbol\omega_{1\dots i-1})
\end{split}
\end{equation}
As a consequence of skipping, not all input words are accessible to
the reader network. Therefore, the probability and surprisal
estimates it computes crucially only take into account the words that
have actually been fixated. We will refer to this quantity as the
\emph{restricted surprisal}, as opposed to \emph{full surprisal},
which is computed based on all prior context words.
The key quantities for predicting human reading are the fixation
probabilities in equation~(\ref{eq:att-prob}), which model fixations
and skips, and restricted surprisal in equation~(\ref{eq:surp}), which
models the reading times of the words that are fixated.
\def-7.7{-7.7}
\def-4.0{-4.0}
\def-0.3{-0.3}
\def3.4{3.4}
\def5.3{5.3}
\def-5.5{-5.5}
\def-2.0{-2.0}
\def1.7{1.7}
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[%
block/.style = {draw, fill=blue!30, align=center, anchor=west,
minimum height=0.65cm, inner sep=0},
ball/.style = {circle, draw, align=center, anchor=north, inner sep=0}]
\node[rectangle,draw=none,text width=0.3cm,anchor=base] (W1) at (-5.5,-1) {$w_1$};
\node[rectangle,draw=none,text width=0.3cm,anchor=base] (W2) at (-2.0,-1) {$w_2$};
\node[rectangle,draw=none,text width=0.3cm,anchor=base] (W3) at (1.7,-1) {$w_3$};
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=0.3cm,anchor=base] (A1) at (-4.0,-1) {A};
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=0.3cm,anchor=base] (A2) at (-0.3,-1) {A};
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=0.3cm,anchor=base] (A3) at (3.4,-1) {A};
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=0.3cm,anchor=base] (R0) at (-7.7,-3) {$R_0$};
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=0.3cm,anchor=base] (R1) at (-4.0,-3) {$R_1$};
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=0.3cm,anchor=base] (R2) at (-0.3,-3) {$R_2$};
\node[rectangle,draw,text width=0.3cm,anchor=base] (R3) at (3.4,-3) {$R_3$};
\node[rectangle,draw,anchor=base] (Task) at (5.3,-3) {Decoder};
\draw[->] (R0.east) to [out=0,in=180] (R1.west);
\draw[->] (R1.east) to [out=0,in=180] (R2.west);
\draw[->] (R2.east) to [out=0,in=180] (R3.west);
\draw[->] (R3.east) to [out=0,in=180] (Task.182);
\draw[->] (R0.east) to [out=10,in=250] node[pos=0.65]{$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ h_0$} (A1.225);
\draw[->] (R1.east) to [out=10,in=250] node[pos=0.65]{$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ h_1$} (A2.225);
\draw[->] (R2.east) to [out=10,in=250] node[pos=0.65]{$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ h_2$} (A3.225);
\draw[->] (W1.10) to [out=0,in=180] (A1.west);
\draw[->] (W2.10) to [out=0,in=180] (A2.west);
\draw[->] (W3.10) to [out=0,in=180] (A3.west);
\draw[->] (A1.south) to [out=270,in=90] (R1.north);
\draw[->] (A2.south) to [out=270,in=90] (R2.north);
\draw[->] (A3.south) to [out=270,in=90] (R3.north);
\node[rectangle,draw=none,text width=0.3cm,anchor=base] (S1) at (-5.5,-1.7) {$P_{R_1}$};
\node[rectangle,draw=none,text width=0.3cm,anchor=base] (S2) at (-2.0,-1.7) {$P_{R_2}$};
\node[rectangle,draw=none,text width=0.3cm,anchor=base] (S3) at (1.7,-1.7) {$P_{R_3}$};
\draw[->] (R0.east) to [out=2,in=200] (S1.west);
\draw[->] (R1.east) to [out=2,in=200] (S2.west);
\draw[->] (R2.east) to [out=2,in=200] (S3.west);
\draw[->] (S1.east) to [out=0,in=180] (A1.west);
\draw[->] (S2.east) to [out=0,in=180] (A2.west);
\draw[->] (S3.east) to [out=0,in=180] (A3.west);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The architecture of the proposed model, reading a three-word
input sequence $w_1, w_2, w_3$. $R$ is the reader network and $P_R$
the probability distribution it computes in each time step. $A$ is
the attention network. At each time step, the input, its probability
according to $P_R$, and the previous state $h_{i-1}$ of $R$ are fed
into $A$, which then decides whether the word is read or skipped.}
\label{fig:architecture}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Model Objective}
Given network parameters $\theta$ and a sequence $\boldsymbol w$ of
words, the network stochastically chooses a sequence
$\boldsymbol\omega$ according to~(\ref{eq:att-prob}) and incurs a loss
$L(\boldsymbol \omega|\boldsymbol w,\theta)$ for language modeling and
reconstruction:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
L(\boldsymbol\omega|\boldsymbol w, \theta) = - \sum_i \log
P_R(w_i|\boldsymbol{w}_{1,\dots,i-1}, \boldsymbol\omega_{1,\dots,i-1}; \theta) \\
- \sum_i \log P_\mathit{Decoder}(w_i|\boldsymbol{w}_{1,\dots,i-1}; h_N; \theta)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $P_R(w_i,\dots)$ denotes the output of the reader after reading $w_{i-1}$, and
$P_\mathit{Decoder}(w_i|\dots;h_N)$ is the
output of the decoder at time $i-1$, with $h_N$ being the vector representation created by
the reader network for the entire input sequence.
To implement the Tradeoff Hypothesis, we train NEAT to solve
language modeling and reconstruction with minimal attention, i.e., the
network minimizes the expected loss:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:objective}
Q(\theta) := \operatorname{E}_{\boldsymbol w, \boldsymbol\omega}\left[L(\boldsymbol{\omega}|\boldsymbol w, \theta) + \alpha \cdot \|\boldsymbol\omega\|_{\ell_1}\right]
\end{equation}
where word sequences $\boldsymbol
w$ are drawn from a corpus, and $\boldsymbol
\omega$ is distributed according to
$P({\boldsymbol\omega}|{\boldsymbol
w},
\theta)$ as defined in~(\ref{eq:att-prob}). In (\ref{eq:objective}),
$\|\boldsymbol\omega\|_{\ell_1}$
is the number of words shown to the reader, and $\alpha
> 0$ is a hyperparameter. The term $\alpha \cdot
\|\boldsymbol\omega\|_{\ell_1}$ encourages NEAT to attend to as few
words as possible.
Note that we make no assumption about linguistic structure -- the only
ingredients of NEAT are the neural architecture, the
objective~(\ref{eq:objective}), and the corpus from which the
sequences $\boldsymbol w$ are drawn.
\subsection{Training}
We follow previous approaches to hard attention in using a combination
of gradient descent and reinforcement learning, and separate the
training of the recurrent networks from the training of $A$. To train
the reader $R$ and the decoder, we temporarily remove the
attention network $A$, set $\boldsymbol\omega \sim
\mathrm{Binom}(n,p)$ ($n$ sequence length, $p$ a hyperparameter), and
minimize
$\operatorname{E}[L(\boldsymbol{w}|\theta,\boldsymbol\omega)]$ using
stochastic gradient descent, sampling a sequence $\boldsymbol\omega$
for each input sequence. In effect, NEAT is trained to perform
reconstruction
and language modeling when there is noise in the input.
After $R$ and the decoder have been trained, we fix their
parameters and train $A$ using the REINFORCE rule
\citep{williams_simple_1992}, which performs stochastic gradient
descent using the estimate
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{|B|} \sum_{\boldsymbol{w} \in
B;\boldsymbol\omega} \left( L(\boldsymbol \omega|\boldsymbol w, \theta) + \alpha \cdot \|\boldsymbol\omega\|_{\ell_1}\right) \partial_{\theta_A} \left(\log
P(\boldsymbol\omega|\boldsymbol{w}, \theta)\right)
\end{equation}
for the gradient $\partial_{\theta_A} Q$. Here, $B$ is a minibatch, $\boldsymbol\omega$ is sampled from
$P(\boldsymbol\omega|\boldsymbol{w}, \theta)$, and $\theta_A \subset
\theta$ is the set of parameters of $A$.
For reducing the variance of
this estimator, we subtract in the $i$-th step an estimate of the
expected loss:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
U(\boldsymbol w, \boldsymbol \omega_{1 \dots i-1}) :=
\operatorname{E}_{\boldsymbol\omega_{i \dots N}}[
L(\boldsymbol\omega_{1 \dots i-1} \boldsymbol\omega_{i \dots N}|{\boldsymbol w}, \theta) \\
+\ \alpha \cdot \|\boldsymbol\omega\|_{\ell_1}]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We compute the expected loss using an LSTM
that we train simultaneously with $A$ to predict $L + \alpha \|\boldsymbol\omega\|_{\ell_1}$ based on $\boldsymbol w$ and $\boldsymbol\omega_{1\dots i-1}$. To make learning more stable, we add
an entropy term encouraging the distribution to be smooth, following
\cite{xu_show_2015}. The parameter updates to $A$ are thus:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\sum_{\boldsymbol{w}, \boldsymbol\omega} \sum_i
\left(L(\boldsymbol{\omega}|\boldsymbol{w}, \theta) + \alpha
\|\boldsymbol\omega\|_{\ell_1} - U(\boldsymbol w, \boldsymbol\omega_{1 \dots i-1}) \right)\\
\cdot\ \partial_{\theta_A} \left(log\ P(\omega_i|\boldsymbol\omega_{1 \dots i-1}, \boldsymbol{w}, \theta)\right) \\
- \gamma\ \partial_{\theta_A} \left(\sum_{\boldsymbol{w},
\boldsymbol\omega} \sum_i
\operatorname{H}[P(\omega_i|\boldsymbol\omega_{1,\dots,i-1},\boldsymbol{w},\theta)] \right)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is a hyperparameter, and $\operatorname{H}$ the entropy.
\section{Methods}
\label{sec:methods}
Our aim is to evaluate how well NEAT predicts human fixation behavior
and reading times. Furthermore, we want show that known
qualitative properties emerge from the Tradeoff Hypothesis, even
though no prior knowledge about useful features is hard-wired in
NEAT.
\subsection{Training Setup}
For both the reader and the decoder networks, we choose a one-layer
LSTM network with 1,000 memory cells. The attention network is a
one-layer feedforward network. For the loss estimator $U$, we use a
bidirectional LSTM with 20 memory cells. Input data is split into
sequences of 50 tokens, which are used as the input sequences for
NEAT, disregarding sentence boundaries. Word embeddings have 100
dimensions, are shared between the reader and the attention network,
and are only trained during the training of the reader. The
vocabulary consists of the 10,000 most frequent words from the
training corpus. We trained NEAT on the training set of the
\emph{Daily Mail} section of the corpus described by
\citet{hermann_teaching_2015}, which consists of 195,462 articles from
the \emph{Daily Mail} newspaper, containing approximately 200 million
tokens. The recurrent networks and the attention network were each
trained for one epoch. For initialization, weights are drawn from the
uniform distribution. We set $\alpha = 5.0$, $\gamma = 5.0$, and used
a constant learning rate of $0.01$ for $A$.
\subsection{Corpus}
For evaluation, we use the English section of the Dundee corpus
\citep{kennedy_parafoveal--foveal_2005}, which consists of 20~texts
from \emph{The Independent}, annotated with eye-movement data from ten
English native speakers. Each native speakers read all 20~texts and
answered a comprehension question after each text. We split the
Dundee corpus into a development and a test set, with texts 1--3
constituting the development set. The development set consists of
78,300 tokens, and the test set of 281,911 tokens.
For evaluation, we removed the datapoints removed by
\cite{demberg_data_2008}, mainly consisting of words at the beginning
or end of lines, outliers, and cases of track loss. Furthermore, we
removed datapoints where the word was outside of the vocabulary of the
model, and those datapoints mapped to positions 1--3 or 48--50 of a
sequence when splitting the data. After preprocessing, 62.9\% of the
development tokens and 64.7\% of the test tokens remained. To obtain
the number of fixations on a token and reading times, we used the
eye-tracking measures computed by \cite{demberg_data_2008}. The
overall fixation rate was 62.1\% on the development set, and 61.3\% on
the test set.
The development set was used to run preliminary versions of the human evaluation
studies, and to determine the human skipping rate (see Section~\ref{sec:results}).
All the results reported in this paper were computed
on the test set, which remained unseen until the model was final.
\section{Results and Discussion}
\label{sec:results}
Throughout this section, we consider the following baselines for the
attention network: \emph{random attention} is defined by
$\boldsymbol\omega \sim \mathrm{Binom}(n,p)$, with $p = 0.62$, the
human fixation rate in the development set. For \emph{full
attention}, we take $\boldsymbol\omega = 1$, i.e., all words are
fixated. We also derive fixation predictions from \emph{full
surprisal}, \emph{word frequency}, and \emph{word length} by
choosing a threshold such that the resulting fixation rate matches the
human fixation rate on the development set.
\subsection{Quantitative Properties}
By averaging over all possible fixation sequences, NEAT defines for
each word in a sequence a probability that it will be fixated. This
probability is not efficiently computable, so we approximate it by
sampling a sequence $\boldsymbol\omega$ and taking the probabilities
$P(\omega_{i} = 1| \omega_{1 \dots i-1}, \boldsymbol{w})$ for $i = 1, \dots,
50$. These simulated fixation probabilities can be interpreted as
defining a distribution of attention over the input sequence.
Figure~\ref{fig:heatmaps} shows heatmaps of the simulated and human
fixation probabilities, respectively, for the beginning of a text from
the Dundee corpus. While some differences between simulated and human
fixation probabilities can be noticed, there are similarities in the
general qualitative features of the two heatmaps. In particular,
function words and short words are less likely to be fixated than
content words and longer words in both the simulated and the human
data.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
{\tiny\input{heatmap-human.tex}}
\vspace{2ex}
{\tiny\input{heatmap-model.tex}}
\caption{Top: Heatmap showing human fixation probabilities, as
estimated from the ten readers in the Dundee corpus. In cases of
track loss, we replaced the missing value with the corresponding
reader's overall fixation rate. Bottom: Heatmap showing fixation
probabilities simulated by NEAT. Color gradient ranges from blue
(low probability) to red (high probability); words without color are
at the beginning or end of a sequence, or out of vocabulary.}
\label{fig:heatmaps}
\end{figure*}
\paragraph{Reconstruction and Language Modeling}
We first evaluate NEAT intrinsically by measuring how successful the
network is at predicting the next word and reconstructing the input
while minimizing the number of fixations. We compare perplexity on
reconstruction and language modeling for
$\boldsymbol\omega \sim P(\boldsymbol\omega | \boldsymbol w, \theta)$.
In addition to the baselines, we run NEAT on the fixations generated
by the human readers of the Dundee corpus, i.e., we use the human
fixation sequence as $\boldsymbol \omega$ instead of the fixation
sequence generated by $A$ to compute perplexity. This will tell us to
what extent the human behavior minimizes the NEAT
objective~(\ref{eq:objective}).
The results are given in Table~\ref{fig:intrinsic}. In all settings,
the fixation rates are similar ($60.4\%$ to $62.1\%$)
which makes the perplexity figures directly comparable. While NEAT
has a higher perplexity on both tasks compared to full attention, it
considerably outperforms random attention. It also outperforms the
word length, word frequency, and full surprisal baselines.
The perplexity on human fixation sequences is similar to that achieved
using word frequency. Based on these results, we conclude that
REINFORCE successfully optimizes the objective~(\ref{eq:objective}).
\begin{table*}[tb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l@{\hspace{1ex}~}l@{\hspace{1ex}~}l@{\hspace{1ex}~}l@{\hspace{1ex}~}l@{\hspace{1ex}~}l@{\hspace{1ex}~}l@{\hspace{1ex}~}l}
\hline
& NEAT & Rand. Att. & Word Len. & Word Freq.& Full Surp. & Human & Full Att. \\ \hline
Language Modeling & 180 & 333 & 230 & 219 & 211 & 218/170 & 107 \\
Reconstruction & 4.5 & 56 & 40 & 39 & 34 & 39/31 & 1.6 \\
Fixation Rate & 60.4\% & 62.1\% & 62.1\% & 62.1\% & 62.1\% & 61.3\%/72.0\% & 100\%\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Performance on language modeling and reconstruction as measured
by perplexity. Random attention is an upper bound on perplexity,
while full attention is a lower bound. For the human baseline, we
give two figures, which differ in the treatment of missing data. The
first figure is obtained when replacing missing values with a random
variable $\omega \sim \mathrm{Binom}(n,0.61)$; the second results
from replacing missing values with $1$.
}\label{fig:intrinsic}
\end{table*}
\paragraph{Likelihood of Fixation Data}
Human reading behavior is stochastic in the sense that different runs
of eye-tracking experiments such as the ones recorded in the Dundee
corpus yield different eye-movement sequences. NEAT is also
stochastic, in the sense that, given a word sequence ${\bf w}$, it
defines a probability distribution over fixation sequences
{$\boldsymbol\omega$}. Ideally, this distribution should be close to
the actual distribution of fixation sequences produced by humans
reading the sequence, as measured by perplexity.
We find that the perplexity of the fixation sequences produced by the
ten readers in the Dundee corpus under NEAT is 1.84. A perplexity of
2.0 corresponds to the random baseline $\mathrm{Binom}(n,0.5)$, and a
perplexity of 1.96 to random attention $\mathrm{Binom}(n,0.62)$.
As a lower bound on what can achieved with models disregarding the
context, using the human fixation rates for each word as
probabilities, we obtain a perplexity of 1.68.
\begin{table}[tb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l@{\hspace{1ex}}lll}
\hline
& Acc & F1$_{\mathrm{fix}}$ & F1$_{\mathrm{skip}}$ \\ \hline
NEAT & 63.7 & 70.4 & 53.0 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Supervised Models} \\ \hline
{\small\cite{nilsson_learning_2009}}
& 69.5 & 75.2 & 62.6 \\
{\small\cite{matthies_blinkers_2013}}
& 69.9 & 72.3 & 66.1 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Human Performance and Baselines} \\ \hline
Random Baseline & 52.6 & 62.1 & 37.9 \\
Full Surprisal & 64.1 & 70.7 & 53.6 \\
Word Frequency & 67.9 & 74.0 & 58.3 \\
Word Length & 68.4 & 77.1 & 49.0 \\
Human & 69.5 & 76.6 & 53.6 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Evaluation of fixation sequence predictions against human
data. For the human baseline, we predicted the $n$-th reader's fixations
by taking the fixations of the $n+1$-th reader (with missing
values replaced by reader average), averaging the resulting scores
over the ten readers.
}\label{fig:disc-eval}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Accuracy of Fixation Sequences}
\label{sec:fixation_seq_accuracy}
Previous work on supervised models for modeling fixations
\citep{nilsson_learning_2009,matthies_blinkers_2013} has been
evaluated by measuring the overlap of the fixation sequences produced
by the models with those in the Dundee corpus. For NEAT, this method
of evaluation is problematic as differences between model predictions
and human data may be due to differences in the rate of skipping, and
due to the inherently stochastic nature of fixations. We therefore
derive model predictions by rescaling the simulated fixation
probabilities so that their average equals the fixation rate in the
development set, and then greedily take the maximum-likelihood
sequence. That is, we predict a fixation if the rescaled probability
is greater than $0.5$, and a skip otherwise. As in previous work, we
report the accuracy of fixations and skips, and also separate F1
scores for fixations and skips. As lower and upper bounds, we use the
random baseline $\boldsymbol\omega \sim \mathrm{Binom}(n, 0.62)$ and
the agreement of the ten human readers, respectively. The results are
shown in Table~\ref{fig:disc-eval}. NEAT clearly outperforms the
random baseline and shows results close to full surprisal (where we
apply the same rescaling and thresholding as for NEAT). This is
remarkable given that NEAT has access to only $60.4\%$ of the words in
the corpus in order to predict skipping, while full surprisal has
access to all the words.
Word frequency and word length perform well, almost reaching the
performance of supervised models. This shows that the bulk of
skipping behavior is already explained by word frequency and word
length effects. Note, however, that NEAT is completely unsupervised,
and does not know that it has to pay attention to word frequency; this
is something the model is able to infer.
\paragraph{Restricted Surprisal and Reading Times}
To evaluate the predictions NEAT makes for reading times, we use
linear mixed-effects models containing restricted surprisal derived
from NEAT for the Dundee test set. The mixed models also include a set
of standard baseline predictors, viz., word length, log word
frequency, log frequency of the previous word, launch distance,
landing position, and the position of the word in the sentence. We
treat participants and items as random factors. As the dependent
variable, we take first pass duration, which is the sum of the
durations of all fixations from first entering the word to first
leaving it. We compare against \emph{full surprisal} as an upper
bound and against \emph{random surprisal} as a lower bound. Random
surprisal is surprisal computed by a model with random attention; this
allows us to assess how much surprisal degrades when only 60.4\% of
all words are fixated, but no information is available as to which
words should be fixated. The results in Table~\ref{fig:mixed} show
that restricted surprisal as computed by NEAT, full surprisal, and
random surprisal are all significant predictors of reading time.
In order to compare the three surprisal estimates, we therefore need a
measure of effect size. For this, we compare the model fit of the
three mixed effects models using deviance, which is defined as the
difference between the log likelihood of the model under consideration
minus the log likelihood of the baseline model, multiplied by $-2$.
Higher deviance indicates greater improvement in model fit over the
baseline model. We find that the mixed model that includes restricted
surprisal achieves a deviance of~867, compared to the model containing
only the baseline features. With full surprisal, we obtain a deviance
of~980. On the other hand, the model including random surprisal
achieves a lower deviance of~832.
This shows that restricted surprisal as computed by NEAT not only
significantly predicts reading times, it also provides an improvement
in model fit compared to the baseline predictors. Such an improvement
is also observed with random surprisal, but restricted surprisal
achieves a greater improvement in model fit. Full surprisal achieves an
even greater improvement, but this is not unexpected, as full
surprisal has access to all words, unlike NEAT or random surprisal,
which only have access to 60.4$\%$ of the words.
\begin{table}[tb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l@{}rr@{~~}r@{}l}
\hline
& $\beta$ & SE & $t$ \\ \hline
(Intercept) & 247.43 & 7.14 & 34.68&* \\% & 254.39 & 10.12 & 25.13 \\
Word Length & 12.92 & 0.21 & 60.62&* \\% & 14.58 & 0.46 & 31.64 \\
Previous Word Freq. & $-$5.28 & 0.28 & $-$18.34&* \\% & $-$6.65 & 0.56 & $-$11.84 \\
Prev. Word Fixated &$-$24.67 & 0.81 & $-$30.55&* \\% & $-$27.64 & 1.64 & $-$16.89 \\
Launch Distance & $$-0.01 & 0.01 & $-$0.37& \\% & 0.088 & 0.026 & 3.34 \\
Obj. Landing Pos. & $-$8.07 & 0.20 & $-$41.25&* \\% & $-$9.34 & 0.40 & $-$23.64 \\
Word Pos. in Sent. & $-$0.10 & 0.03 & $-$2.98&* \\
Log Word Freq. & $-$1.59 & 0.21 & $-$7.73&* \\ \hline
Resid. Random Surprisal& 2.69 & 0.10 & 29.27&* \\
Resid. Restr. Surprisal& 2.75 & 0.12 & 23.66&* \\% & 3.89 & 0.30 & 12.81
Resid. Full Surprisal & 2.99 & 0.12 & 25.23&* \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Linear mixed effects models for first pass duration. The
first part of the table shows the coefficients, standard errors, and $t$ values for
the predictors in the baseline model. The second part of the table gives
the corresponding values for random surprisal, restricted surprisal
computed by NEAT, and full surprisal, residualized against the baseline predictors, in
three models obtained by adding these predictors.}\label{fig:mixed}
\end{table}
\subsection{Qualitative Properties}
We now examine the second key question we defined in
Section~\ref{sec:intro}, investigating the qualitative features of the
simulated fixation sequences. We will focus on comparing the
predictions of NEAT with that of word frequency, which performs
comparably at the task of predicting fixation sequences (see
Section~\ref{sec:fixation_seq_accuracy}). We show NEAT nevertheless
makes relevant predictions that go beyond frequency.
\paragraph{Fixations of Successive Words}
While predictors derived from word frequency treat the decision
whether to fixate or skip words as independent, humans are more likely
to fixate a word when the previous word was
skipped~\citep{rayner_eye_1998}. This effect is also seen in NEAT.
More precisely, both in the human data and in the simulated fixation
data, the conditional fixation probability $P(\omega_i =
1|\omega_{i-1} = 1)$ is lower than the marginal probability $P(\omega_i =
1)$. The ratio of these probabilities is $0.85$ in the human data,
and $0.81$ in NEAT. The threshold predictor derived from word
frequency also shows this effect (as the frequencies of successive
words are not independent), but it is weaker (ratio $0.91$).
To further test the context dependence of NEAT's fixation behavior, we
ran a mixed model predicting the fixation probabilities simulated by
NEAT, with items as random factor and the log frequency of word $i$ as
predictor. Adding $\omega_{i-1}$ as a predictor results in a
significant improvement in model fit (deviance = 4,798, $t = 71.3$).
This shows that NEAT captures the context dependence of fixation
sequences to an extend that goes beyond word frequency alone.
\begin{table}[tb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{llllllllll}
\hline
& Human & NEAT & Word Freq. \\ \hline
ADJ & 78.9 (2) & 72.8 (1) & 98.4 (3) \\
ADP & 46.1 (8) & 53.8 (8) & 21.6 (9) \\
ADV & 70.4 (3) & 67.2 (4) & 96.4 (4) \\
CONJ & 36.7 (11) & 50.7 (9) & 14.6 (10) \\
DET & 45.2 (9) & 44.8 (11) & 22.9 (8) \\
NOUN & 80.3 (1) & 69.8 (2) & 98.7 (2) \\
NUM & 63.3 (6) & 71.5 (3) & 99.5 (1) \\
PRON & 49.2 (7) & 57.0 (7) & 42.6 (7) \\
PRT & 37.4 (10) & 46.7 (10) & 13.9 (11) \\
VERB & 66.7 (5) & 64.7 (5) & 74.4 (5) \\
X & 68.6 (4) & 67.8 (3) & 69.0 (6) \\ \hline
Spearman's $\rho$ & & 0.85 & 0.84 \\
Pearson's $r$ & & 0.92 & 0.94 \\
MSE & & 57 & 450 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Actual and simulated fixation probabilities (in $\%$) by PoS
tag, with the ranks given in brackets, and correlations and mean
squared error relative to human data.}\label{fig:pos}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Parts of Speech}
Part of speech categories are known to be a predictor of fixation
probabilities, with content words being more likely to be fixated than
function words \citep{carpenter_what_1983}. In Table~\ref{fig:pos},
we give the simulated fixation probabilities and the human fixation
probabilities estimated from the Dundee corpus for the tags of the
Universal PoS tagset \citep{petrov_universal_2012}, using the PoS
annotation of~\cite{barrett_dundee_2015}. We again compare with the
probabilities of a threshold predictor derived from word
frequency.\footnote{We omit the tag ``.'' for punctuation, as
punctuation characters are not treated as separate tokens in
Dundee.}
NEAT captures the differences between PoS categories well, as
evidenced by the high correlation coefficients. The content word
categories ADJ, ADV, NOUN, VERB and X consistently show higher
probabilities than the function word categories. While the
correlation coefficients for word frequency are very similar, the
numerical values of the simulated probabilities are closer to the
human ones than those derived from word frequency, which tend towards
more extreme values. This difference can be seen clearly if we compare
the mean squared error, rather than the correlation, with the human
fixation probabilities (last row of Table~\ref{fig:pos}).
\paragraph{Correlations with Known Predictors}
In the literature, it has been observed that skipping correlates with
predictability (surprisal), word frequency, and word length
\citep[p.\,387]{rayner_eye_1998}. These correlations are also observed
in the human skipping data derived from Dundee, as shown in
Table~\ref{fig:correlations}. (Human fixation probabilities were
obtained by averaging over the ten readers in Dundee.)
Comparing the known predictors of skipping with NEAT's simulated
fixation probabilities, similar correlations as in the human data are
observed. We observe that the correlations with surprisal are stronger
in NEAT, considering both restricted surprisal and full surprisal as
measures of predictability.
\begin{table}[tb]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lrr}
\hline
& Human & NEAT \\
\hline
Restricted Surprisal& 0.465 & 0.762 \\
Full Surprisal & 0.512 & 0.720 \\
Log Word Freq. & $-$0.608 & $-$0.760 \\
Word Length & 0.663 & 0.521 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Correlations between human and NEAT fixation probabilities and
known predictors}\label{fig:correlations}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:concl}
We investigated the hypothesis that human reading strategies optimize
a tradeoff between precision of language understanding and economy of
attention. We made this idea explicit in NEAT, a neural reading
architecture with hard attention that can be trained end-to-end to
optimize this tradeoff. Experiments on the Dundee corpus show that
NEAT provides accurate predictions for human skipping behavior. It
also predicts reading time
, even though
it only has access to 60.4\% of the words in the corpus in order to
estimate surprisal. Finally, we found that known qualitative
properties of skipping emerge in our model, even though they were not
explicitly included in the architecture, such as context dependence of
fixations, differential skipping rates across parts of speech, and
correlations with other known predictors of human reading behavior.
\bibliographystyle{acl}
|
\section{Introduction}
Given a point $p$ on a smooth curve $C$ of genus $g$, there is an associated numerical semigroup
$$
S(C,p) = \left\{ - \val_p(f):\ f \in \Gamma(C \backslash \{p\}, \mathcal{O}_C ) \right\},
$$
given by the pole orders of rational functions with no poles away from $p$. Weierstrass's \emph{L\"uckensatz} (now an easy consequence of the Riemann-Roch formula) states that there are exactly $g$ gaps in $S(C,p)$\footnote{The author has heard conflicting stories about whether the number of gaps in a numerical semigroup is called the ``genus'' due to this fact from geometry, or as a joking reference to the ``number of holes'' in the semigroup.}.
In reverse, any numerical semigroup $S$ with $g$ gaps defines a (not necessarily closed) subvariety $\cM^S_{g,1} \subseteq \mathcal{M}_{g,1}$ of the moduli space of curves with a marked point. These loci stratify $\mathcal{M}_{g,1}$, with the locus defined by the \emph{ordinary} semigroup $H_g = \{0,g+1,g+2,\cdots\}$ dense and open, and the value of the $i$th gap ($i=1,2,\cdots,g$) an upper semicontinuous function.
The link between the combinatorics of these numerical semigroups and the geometry of curves and their moduli is a wide and fascinating story that remains largely mysterious, though many intriguing special cases (specific types of semigroups) are well-understood. The core of the difficulty (and excitement) in this story lies in the fact that $S(C,p)$ is not an arbitrary sequence of integers, but a semigroup; this combinatorial restriction reflects itself in the geometry of the stratification.
Our objective is to propose a partial answer to a basic question: given a semigroup $S$, what is the codimension of $\cM^S_{g,1}$ in $\mathcal{M}_{g,1}$?
\begin{defn}
The \emph{effective weight} of a numerical semigroup $S$ is
$$
\ew(S) = \sum_{\textrm{gaps } b} \left( \# \mbox{ generators $a < b$} \right).
$$
Alternatively, $\ew(S)$ is the number of pairs $(a,b)$, where $0 < a < b$, $a$ is a generator, and $b$ is a gap.
\end{defn}
In almost every situation where $\codim \cM^S_{g,1}$ is known for an explicit family of semigroups (as well as for all semigroups of genus up to $6$), it is equal to $\ew(S)$; we summarize a number of these cases in Section \ref{s_background}. The first genus in which the author is aware of a semigroup with $\codim \cM^S_{g,1} < \ew(S)$ is $g=9$ (the example is discussed in Section \ref{ss_notew}).
Our main results are the following, which give much stronger evidence for the utility of $\ew(S)$ in the study of this stratification of $\mathcal{M}_{g,1}$.
\begin{thm} \label{t_ewbound}
If $\cM^S_{g,1}$ is nonempty, and $X$ is any irreducible component of it, then $$\dim X \geq \dim \mathcal{M}_{g,1} - \ew(S).$$
\end{thm}
We call a point or irreducible component of $\cM^S_{g,1}$ \emph{effectively proper} if the local dimension of $\cM^S_{g,1}$ is exactly $\dim \mathcal{M}_{g,1} - \ew(S)$.
\begin{thm} \label{t_ewexist}
If $S$ is a genus $g$ numerical semigroup with $\ew(S) \leq g-2$, then $\cM^S_{g,1}$ has an effectively proper component. If $\chr k = 0$, then the same is true for all numerical semigroups with $\ew(S) \leq g-1$.
\end{thm}
The effective weight is a refinement of a more naive quantity, the \emph{weight} of a semigroup, and the two quantities are equal for $S$ if and only if $S$ is \emph{primitive}, meaning that the sum of any two nonzero elements is less than the largest gap (see Section \ref{ss_ehk}).
Theorems \ref{t_ewbound} and \ref{t_ewexist} were originally proved, with a characteristic $0$ hypothesis, for primitive semigroups (using the weight) by Eisenbud, Harris, and Komeda \cite{eh87,kom91}. Our proofs are based on theirs, using the theory of limit linear series as the central technical tool. Our primary innovation is to apply the machinery of limit linear series to produce \emph{incomplete} linear series with specified vanishing data on smooth curves. The basic technique is the same: curves with Weierstrass semigroups of genus $g$ are constructed by choosing a suitable genus $g-1$ semigroup and a marked curve realizing it, attaching an elliptic curve at the Weierstrass point, marking a second point on the elliptic curve differing by torsion, and deforming the resulting nodal curve.
\begin{rem} \label{r_st}
The choice of terminology ``effective weight'' was made in reference to terminology from the numerical semigroup literature. The set of all numerical semigroups can be arranged in a rooted tree, with each level corresponding to a different genus, where the parent of a semigroup $S$ is given by adding the largest gap back into $S$. The children of a given semigroup $S$ correspond to the ``effective generators'' of $S$, which are defined to be the generators that are larger than the largest gap. For details, and a study of the structure of this tree, see \cite{bras}. The effective weight of $S$ is determined by examining, in the path from the root (genus $0$ semigroup) to $S$, the index of the effective generator removed at each step (when the effective generators are listed in increasing order). If a similar procedure were followed, arranging all cofinite subsets of $\textbf{N}$ into a tree (not just semigroups), then the quantity constructed in the same way would be the weight, rather than the effective weight.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Speculation and conjectures}
While there are examples of semigroups $S$ for which $\codim \cM^S_{g,1} < \ew(S)$, to the author's knowledge all such examples fall in the range $g \leq \codim \cM^S_{g,1} \leq 2g$. Therefore, we (somewhat speculatively) conjecture that no such semigroups exist in codimension less than $g$.
\begin{conj}
If $\cM^S_{g,1}$ has a component of codimension less than $g$ in $\mathcal{M}_{g,1}$, then all components of $\cM^S_{g,1}$ have codimension exactly $\ew(S)$.
\end{conj}
Curiously, we are not aware of any numerical semigroups of any genus for which $\codim \cM^S_{g,1} > 2g$. Therefore we also make the following (equally speculative) conjecture.
\begin{conj}
For any numerical semigroup such that $\cM^S_{g,1} \neq \emptyset$, all components of $\cM^S_{g,1}$ have codimension at most $2g$.
\end{conj}
Note that in the above conjectures, $g$ and $2g$ perhaps ought to be replaced with $g+C_1$ and $2g+C_2$ for some constants $C_1,C_2$, the value of which we have no strong beliefs about. We have stated the conjectures as above merely to make them specific.
Although not relevant to the present paper, we also mention a purely combinatorial conjecture about the effective weight that arose during this work. We have verified this conjecture by a computer search up to genus $50$ (source code is available upon request).
\begin{conj} \label{conj_maxew}
For any numerical semigroup of genus $g$, $$\ew(S) \leq \left\lfloor \frac{(g+1)^2}{8} \right\rfloor.$$
\end{conj}
\begin{rem}
If true, this conjecture is sharp. For $g \geq 5$, this follows from case analysis. For $g \geq 6$, this follows from a general construction. Let $\eta$ be an integer between $-2$ and $2$ inclusive such that $\eta \equiv g+1 \pmod{4}$ (there are two choices if $g \equiv 1 \pmod{4}$, and one otherwise). Let $c = \frac14 (3g+3+\eta)$ and $d = \frac14(5g+1+3\eta)$. Then the semigroup
\begin{eqnarray*}
S &=& \langle c,c+1,\cdots,d-1,d \rangle\\
&=& \textbf{N} \backslash \left\{ 1,2,\cdots,c-1,\ d+1,d+2,\cdots, 2c-1 \right\}
\end{eqnarray*}
has genus $g$ and effective weight $\frac18 (g+1)^2 - \frac18 \eta^2 = \left\lfloor \frac18 (g+1)^2 \right\rfloor$. For $10 \leq g \leq 50$, a computer search shows that these are the only semigroups of this effective weight, while for $g \leq 9$ there are some additional sporadic examples achieving the same maximum.
\end{rem}
The semigroups above (that appear, empirically, to maximize $\ew(S)$ in a given genus) also provide examples where $\codim \cM^S_{g,1} < \ew(S)$; we prove this in a forthcoming paper.
\section*{Outline of the paper}
We summarize several known cases $\codim \cM^S_{g,1}$ from the literature in Section \ref{s_background}, including the simplest case where strict inequality $\codim \cM^S_{g,1} < \ew(S)$ occurs. Section \ref{s_dp} summarizes background on linear series and limit linear series needed for the proofs of the main theorems. Theorem \ref{t_ewbound} is proved in Section \ref{s_bound}. Section \ref{s_secundive} is purely combinatorial, and provides some preliminary results on the structure of numerical semigroups of low effective weight. Section \ref{s_exist} gives the proof of Theorem \ref{t_ewexist}.
\section*{Conventions}
Throughout this paper, we work over an algebraically closed field $k$. In Section \ref{s_background}, we assume $\chr k = 0$. A \emph{point} of a scheme will always refer to a closed point, and when we say that a \emph{general point} of a scheme satisfies a property, we mean that there exists a dense open subset in which all points satisfy the property. A \emph{curve} is always reduced, connected, and complete. A \emph{marked curve} is a pair $(C,p)$ of a curve $C$ and a point $p \in C$.
We denote by $\textbf{N}$ the set of nonnegative integers; a \emph{numerical semigroup} is a cofinite subset $S \subseteq \textbf{N}$ containing $0$ and closed under addition. The elements of $\textbf{N} \backslash S$ are called the \emph{gaps} of $S$, and the number of gaps is called the \emph{genus}. A positive element of $S$ that is not equal to the sum of two positive elements of $S$ is called a \emph{generator}, and a sum of two positive elements is called \emph{composite}.
We denote by the set $\{0,g+1,g+2,\cdots\}$ by $H_g$, which we call the \emph{ordinary semigroup of genus $g$}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Most of this paper was developed from part of my thesis at Harvard University, and I owe Joe Harris a great debt for suggesting the questions and providing several key insights. I also thank Nathan Kaplan for a number of helpful conversations on numerical semigroups.
\section{Background} \label{s_background}
The classification question of Weierstrass points can be asked on various levels. Hurwitz \cite{hur} first raised the simple existence question, while we are concerned with the more geometric dimension question.
\begin{qu} \label{q_exist}
For which $S$ is $\cM^S_{g,1} \neq \emptyset$?
\end{qu}
\begin{qu} \label{q_allcd}
Given $S$, how many irreducible components does $\cM^S_{g,1}$ have, and what are their codimensions?
\end{qu}
\begin{qu} \label{q_maxcd}
Given $S$, what is the maximum codimension of an irreducible component of $\cM^S_{g,1}$?
\end{qu}
The number of semigroups of genus $g$ grows exponentially with $g$ with limiting ratio $\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$ \cite{zhai}, and present knowledge, even about Question \ref{q_exist}, becomes quite sparse for large genus if all semigroups are considered (see \cite{kaplanye}). This is one reason we prefer to focus on Questions \ref{q_allcd} and \ref{q_maxcd}: if one hopes for general results, matters become much more tractable upon restricting to the more plentiful sorts of semigroups, i.e. those for which $\codim \cM^S_{g,1}$ is small compared to $g$.
This restriction, to semigroups expected to appear in low codimension, is what allowed Eisenbud and Harris to prove their rather strong results, later extended by Komeda. The downside of their results is that they needed to impose not just a quantitative restriction (weight being less than $g$) but a qualitative one: that the semigroup is primitive.
In the remainder of this section, we summarize some known results and simple cases of answers to these questions, in order to highlight the extent to which the effective weight brings many known cases under one umbrella. We conclude in \ref{ss_notew}, however, with the first example we know in which the effective weight does not given the correct codimension.
Throughout this background section, we will assume that $\chr k = 0$, as much of the literature makes this assumption.
\subsection{The work of Eisenbud, Harris, and Komeda} \label{ss_ehk}
The \emph{weight} of a numerical semigroup is most simply defined as the sum of the gaps minus $\binom{g+1}{2}$. An alternate description, more suggestive of the link to the effective weight, is that $\wt(S)$ is the number of pairs $(a,b)$ where $0<a<b$, $a \in S$, and $b \not\in S$. This description shows that $\wt(S) - \ew(S)$ is equal to the number of pairs $(a,b)$ where $a<b$, $a$ is \emph{composite}, and $b$ is a gap; hence $\wt(S) = \ew(S)$ if and only if $S$ is primitive.
All semigroups satisfy $\codim \cM^S_{g,1} \leq \wt(S)$ (see Remark \ref{rem_wtbound} for one argument), and a point of $\cM^S_{g,1}$ at which equality holds locally is called \emph{dimensionally proper}. Eisenbud and Harris \cite{eh87} proved that if $S$ is primitive and $\wt(S) \leq g-2$, then $\cM^S_{g,1}$ has dimensionally proper points. Their proof made a characteristic $0$ assumption, since this assumption was built into their theory of limit linear series developed in \cite{eh86}, but modern treatments of limit linear series (e.g. \cite{oss06} or \cite{ossBook}) make no such assumption. The proofs of \cite{eh87} can therefore be carried to characteristic $p$ with no modification.
The argument of \cite{eh87} proceeds by induction on $g$. It nearly succeeds in proving the same result for primitive semigroups with $\wt(S) \leq g-1$ (rather than $g-2$), except that the inductive step fails for one very specific class of semigroups of weight $g-1$. Komeda's contribution \cite{kom91} is to prove the theorem in this special case by a different argument, without limit linear series (and with a characteristic $0$ hypothesis), thus extending the results of \cite{eh87} to the case $\wt(S) = g-1$. A second argument for this special case appears in \cite{ck}.
Eisenbud and Harris observe \cite[Corollary on p. 497]{eh87} that the primitivity hypothesis is necessary, i.e. $\codim \cM^S_{g,1} < \wt(S)$ if $S$ is non-primitive. This fact of course also now follows from our Theorem \ref{t_ewbound}. This is no minor difficulty, as many semigroups, including those that appear with low codimension in the Weierstrass stratification of $\mathcal{M}_{g,1}$, are not primitive. The main example, which provided substantial motivation regarding how to refine $\wt(S)$, is the following.
\begin{eg}
A hyperelliptic curve of genus $g$ has $2g+2$ points with semigroup $\{2,4,6,\cdots,2g-2\} \cup H_{2g} = \langle 2,2g+1 \rangle$ (the ramification points of the double-cover of $\textbf{P}^1$), while the rest of the points have the ordinary semigroup (see e.g. \cite[exercise I.E-3]{acgh}). Furthermore, if $2 \in S(C,p)$ then $C$ is necessarily hyperelliptic. Hence $S = \langle 2, 2g+1 \rangle$ is called the \emph{hyperelliptic semigroup}, and $\codim \cM^S_{g,1} = g-1$ (the codimension of the hyperelliptic locus in $\mathcal{M}_{g}$ plus $1$).
The hyperelliptic semigroup has the distinction of having the maximum weight of all genus $g$ semigroups, namely $\binom{g}{2}$. So the weight bound is spectacularly off in this case. However $\ew(S) = g-1$.
\end{eg}
\begin{rem}
Since the semigroups of maximum weight provide a nice example where the weight bound fails to be exact (and suggested the definition of the effective weight), it seems reasonable to try to find cases where the effective weight bound fails to be exact in the semigroups of maximum effective weight. Indeed, these semigroups provide such examples, which we will discuss in a forthcoming paper. See also Conjecture \ref{conj_maxew} and the remark following it.
\end{rem}
One notable extension of Eisenbud and Harris's result, and method of proof, was given by Bullock \cite{bullock}. Using a variation on Eisenbud and Harris's inductive argument, Bullock proves that for the non-primitive semigroup
$$S = \{0,g-1,g+1,g+2,\cdots,2g-2\} \cup H_{2g}$$
of weight $g$, the locus $\cM^S_{g,1}$ is irreducible of codimension $g-1$. The manner in which Bullock treated a non-primitive semigroup with Eisenbud and Harris's basic method provided inspiration for our method in proving the more general Theorem \ref{t_ewexist}. Note that $S$ is ``barely non-primitive,'' as there is only one gap exceeding one composite element. See Remark \ref{r_ngsym} for more about Bullock's work.
\subsection{The Deligne bound and negatively graded semigroups} \label{ss_deligne}
The best general-purpose \textit{upper} bound on $\codim \cM^S_{g,1}$ is the Deligne bound, defined below.
\begin{defn}
For any numerical semigroup $S$, let $\lambda(S)$ be the number of gaps $b \not\in S$ such that $b + a \in S$ for all positive elements $a \in S$.
\end{defn}
\begin{prop}
Let $S$ be a numerical semigroup of genus $g$. If $\cM^S_{g,1}$ is nonempty, then $\codim \cM^S_{g,1} \geq g - \lambda(S)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This bound follows from results of Deligne \cite{deligne}, first applied to the the moduli of Weierstrass points by Pinkham \cite[Theorems 10.3, 13.9]{pinkham}. For a discussion of the bound in this form, see \cite[Corollary 6.3]{rv}.
\end{proof}
In most cases, the Deligne bound and the effective weight bound do not coincide. Interestingly, the cases where they do coincide are semigroups of a particular structure: they are the ``negatively graded semigroups'' studied by Rim and Vitulli. Rim and Vitulli prove that a semigroup is negatively graded (a deformation-theoretic condition) if and only if it is one of the following \cite[Theorem 4.7]{rv}.
\begin{defn}
Let $g$ be a positive integer. For each integer $e$ between $1$ and $g-1$ inclusive, define:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\NGS^1_{g,e} &=& (g-e+1) \cdot \textbf{Z} \cup H_c\\
&& \mbox{where } c = g+1+\left\lfloor \frac{g}{g-e} \right\rfloor.\\
\NGS^2_{g,e} &=& \{0,g,g+1,\cdots,g+e-1\} \cup H_{g+e+1}.\\
\end{eqnarray*}
and also define
$$\NGS^3_{g} = \{0,g-1,g+1,g+2,\cdots,2g-2\} \cup H_{2g}.$$
\end{defn}
Observe that $\ew(\NGS^1_{g,e}) = \ew(\NGS^2_{g,e}) = e$, and $\ew(\NGS^3_g) = g-1$. So there are two negatively graded semigroups of effective weight $e$ for $1 \leq e \leq g-2$, and three negatively graded semigroups of effective weight $g-1$. Half of the semigroups $\NGS^1_{g,e}$ (those for which $e \leq \frac{g}{2}$), and all of the semigroups $\NGS^2_{g,e}$ are primitive, while $\NGS^3_g$ and the other half of the $\NGS^1_{g,e}$ are not.
\begin{rem} \label{r_ngsym}
The three semigroups $\NGS^1_{g,g-1}, \NGS^2_{g,g-1}, \NGS^3_g$ of effective weight $g-1$ were studied by Bullock in \cite{bullock}; they correspond to the three irreducible components of the locus $\{(C,p) \in \mathcal{M}_{g,1}:\ (2g-2)p \sim K_C \}$ of ``subcanonical points;'' see \cite{kz} for further background about this locus. All three are called \emph{symmetric} semigroups, since a positive integer $n$ is a gap if and only if $2g-1-n$ is not a gap; this condition is equivalent to the condition that $2g-1$ is a gap.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
The semigroups $\NGS^2_{g,e}$ are among the first semigroups for which $\cM^S_{g,1}$ was studied in detail; see \cite[Theorem 14.7]{pinkham}.
\end{rem}
In fact, the negatively graded semigroups are precisely the semigroups for which the Deligne lower bound (on codimension) and the effective weight upper bound coincide.
\begin{prop}
For any numerical semigroup $S$ of genus $g$, $$\ew(S) \geq g - \lambda(S),$$ with equality if and only if $S$ is either ordinary or one of the semigroups $\NGS^1_{g,e}, \NGS^2_{g,e}$, or $\NGS^3_g$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $E$ denote the set of pairs $(a,b) \in \textbf{N}^2$ such that $a<b$, $a$ is a generator of $S$, and $b$ is a gap. Let $\Lambda$ denote the set of gaps $b$ such that $b + a \in S$ for all positive elements $a \in S$. By definition, $\ew(S) = |E|$ and $\lambda(S) = |\Lambda|$.
For all $(a,b) \in E$, $b-a$ is necessarily a gap that is not in $\Lambda$. Conversely, any gap $b'$ that is not an element of $\Lambda$ must be equal to $b-a$ for some $(a,b) \in E$. This shows that the complement of $\Lambda$ in $\textbf{N} \backslash S$ has at most $|E|$ elements, hence $\ew(S) \geq g - \lambda(S)$. Furthermore, this argument shows that equality holds if and only if each $(a,b) \in E$ gives a \emph{distinct} difference $b-a$. Assume now that $S$ satisfies $\ew(S) = g - \lambda(S)$; we will show that $S$ is of one of the three forms stated. The case where $S$ is ordinary is immediate, so assume that $S$ is non-ordinary. Denote by $m,n$ the first two generators of $S$.
\textit{Case 1:} Suppose there are no gaps above $n$. In this case $S = \NGS^1_{g,g-m+1}$.
\textit{Case 2:} Suppose that $n = m+1$. There can be no two consecutive gaps $b,b+1$ of $S$, since otherwise $(m,b)$ and $(m+1,b+1)$ both lie in $E$. There is at most one gap $b$ such that $b-1$ is a generator. Since all elements of $S$ less than $2m$ are generators, these two facts show that there is at most one gap $b$ of $S$ less than $2m$. If there are no gaps between $m$ and $2m$, then $S$ is ordinary. If there is one gap $b$ between $m$ and $2m$, then $S$ contains $\{m,m+1,\cdots,m+b-1,m+b+1,m+b+2,\cdots,2m-1\}$, which generate all integers greater than $2m$ (recall that $b > n = m+1$ by assumption), so in fact $b$ is the only gap greater than $m$. Hence $S = \NGS^2_{g,b-g}$.
\textit{Case 3:} Suppose that $n \geq m+2$ and there is some gap $b > n$. Assume that $b$ is the smallest such gap. The gap $b$ is less than $m+n$, since otherwise $b-m$ would be an element of $S$ and $b$ could not be a gap. Since $(n,b) \in E$ and $1 \leq b-n \leq m-1$, it follows that not all of $(m,m+1),\cdots,(m,2m-1)$ can lie in $E$; this implies that $n \leq 2m-1$, hence $m+3 \leq b \leq 3m-1$. The pair $(m,m+1)$ lies in $E$, so $(b-1,b)$ cannot lie in $E$, hence $b-1$ is a composite element of $S$. The only possibility is that $b = 2m+1$. Therefore $(2m-1,2m+1) \in E$. This shows that $(m,m+2) \not\in E$, so $n = m+2$. Therefore $m+2,m+3,\cdots,2m \in S$ and $2m+1 \not\in S$. The numbers $m,m+2,m+3,\cdots,2m$ generate all integers greater than $2m+1$, so $2m+1$ is the largest gap of $S$. Therefore $m = g-1$ and $S = \NGS^3_g$ in this case.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
It would be interesting to find a more direct connection between negative grading the the equality of the Deligne and effective weight bounds. It seems improbable that the fact that the same list of semigroups is found in both contexts is merely a combinatorial coincidence.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Semigroups of low genus}
The exact codimension of $\cM^S_{g,1}$ is known for all semigroups of genus less than or equal to $6$; in all of these cases, $\ew(S) = \codim \cM^S_{g,1}$. We now summarize where these results can be found in the literature.
Most of these loci $\cM^S_{g,1}$ have been described by Nakano; see Table 2 of \cite{nakano}\footnote{There is a typographical error in that table: the semigroup $\langle 5,6,7 \rangle$ is stated in one column to be $11$-dimensional, while the following column indicates that $\cM^S_{g,1}$ is an open subset of a $10$-dimensional weighted projective space. The second column is correct.}. Of the rows in Nakano's table where $\dim \cM^S_{g,1}$ is not known, all but one are in fact one of the negatively graded semigroups discussed in Section \ref{ss_deligne}, hence $\codim \cM^S_{g,1}$ is equal to $\ew(S)$ in those cases. The remaining semigroup is $S = \langle 5,7,9,11,13\rangle$ ($N(6)_{12}$, in the naming system of \cite{nakano}). The discussion in \cite[Section 2.2]{bullock2014} shows that for this semigroup, $\cM^S_{g,1}$ has a component of codimension $\ew(S)$ (equal to $\wt(S)$ in this case since $S$ is primitive), and the main theorem of \cite{bullock2014} shows that this is the only component.
\subsection{Two-generator semigroups} We now show a calculation showing that any numerical semigroup $S$ with only two generators exists as a Weierstrass semigroup, and that $\cM^S_{g,1}$ is irreducible of codimension $\ew(S)$ in $\mathcal{M}_{g,1}$. This furnishes an infinite family of non-primitive semigroups of effective weight larger than $g$ for which the effective weight gives the correct codimension.
Let $1 < e < d$ be relatively prime integers, and let $S = \langle e,d \rangle$. The genus of $S$ is $\frac12 (e-1)(d-1)$, as a short combinatorial argument shows.
The effective weight is the number of gaps greater than $e$ plus the number of gaps greater that $d$, which can be expressed as:
$$
\ew(S) = 2g - d - e + \left\lfloor \frac{d}{e} \right\rfloor + 2.
$$
To analyze $\cM^S_{g,1}$, we use the following description.
\begin{prop}
Let $S,g,d,e$ be as above, and let $P$ denote the set $\{ (i,j) \in \textbf{N}^2:\ ei + dj \leq ed \}$. Let $(c_{i,j})_{(i,j) \in P}$ be coeffecients such that the affine curve $\widetilde{C}$ defined by $$0 \ = \sum_{(i,j) \in P} c_{i,j} x^i y^j$$ is smooth, and such that both coefficients $c_{d,0}$ and $c_{0,e}$ are nonzero. Then the completion $C$ of $\widetilde{C}$ has only one additional point $p$, which has Weierstrass semigroup $S$. Viewing the coordinates $x$ and $y$ as rational functions on $C$ regular on $\widetilde{C}$, the pole orders of $x$ and $y$ at $p$ are $d$ and $e$, respectively.
Conversely, given any $(C,p) \in \cM^S_{g,1}$ and rational functions $f,g$ of pole orders $e,d$ at $p$ and regular elsewhere, the map $(f,g)$ embeds $\widetilde{C} = C \backslash \{p\}$ as an affine curve of the form above.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Embed the affine plane as the set $U = \{ (x,y,1) \}$ in the weighted projective plane $\textbf{P}(e,d,1)$, and let $C$ denote the closure of $\widetilde{C}$ in $\textbf{P}(e,d,1)$. Denote by $X,Y,Z$ the weighted homogeneous coordinates on $\textbf{P}(e,d,1)$. The equation of $C$ is $$0 = \sum_{(i,j) \in P} c_{i,j} X^i Y^j Z^{de-ei-dj}.$$
Neither of the points $(1,0,0)$ nor $(0,1,0)$ lie on $C$ since $c_{d,0}$ and $c_{0,e}$ are nonzero. Therefore any points of $C \backslash \widetilde{C}$ lie on $\{(x,y,0):\ x,y \neq 0 \} \cong \Spec k [ u,u^{-1}]$, where $u = X^d Y^{-e}$. The scheme-theoretic intersection of $C$ with this curve is given by the equation $c_{d,0} u + c_{0,e} = 0$. Hence $C$ meets the boundary transversely in a single point; it follows that $C$ is smooth, hence it is the completion of $\widetilde{C}$, and has exactly one additional point on the boundary; denote this point by $p$.
The rational functions $x$ and $y$ are regular on $\widetilde{C}$ and their divisors of zeros are degree $e$ and $d$, respectively, hence they have poles of orders $e$ and $d$ at $p$. It follows that the Weierstrass semigroup of $p$ contains $e$ and $d$, hence it contains all of $S$. Applying the genus formula for curves on surfaces and intersection theory on a toric surface (see e.g. \cite[Chapter 5]{fulton}), the genus of $C$ is equal to the number of interior vertices of the Newton polygon $P$; a short calculation with Pick's theorem shows that this is equal to $\frac12 (d-1)(e-1)$, which is the genus of $S$. Hence the Weierstrass semigroup of $p$ must be exactly $S$.
For the converse, suppose that $f,g$ are rational functions on $C$ as in the Proposition statement, and let $\widetilde{C}$ be $C \backslash \{p\}$. Then $(f,g)$ defines a map from $\widetilde{C}$ to the affine plane. The ring generated by $f$ and $g$ includes functions of every possible pole order at $p$, hence this ring includes all regular functions on $\widetilde{C}$, and $(f,g)$ is an embedding. Both $f^d$ and $g^e$ have pole order $de$ at $p$, so some linear combination of them has a strictly smaller pole order, hence is expressible as a linear combination of functions $f^i g^j$, where $ei+dj \leq de$. In other words, $\widetilde{C}$ satisfies a relation of the form $0 = \sum_{(i,j) \in P} c_{i,j} x^i y^j$. Since there can be no relations of smaller degree, this must be the generator of the ideal of (the image in the affine plane of) $\widetilde{C}$.
\end{proof}
We can use this description to determine the dimension of $\cM^S_{g,1}$. The dimension of the space of embedded smooth curves with the given Newton polygon $P$ is one less than the number of vertices in $P$, i.e. $\frac12 (d+1)(e+1)$. This exceeds $\dim \cM^S_{g,1}$ by the dimension of the set of ways to embed a given $(C,p) \in \cM^S_{g,1}$ in this manner, which is equal to $h^0 ( \mathcal{O}_C(e \cdot p)) + h^0(\mathcal{O}_C(d \cdot p))$, which in turn is equal to $4 + \lfloor \frac{d}{e} \rfloor$. Therefore
\begin{eqnarray*}
\dim \cM^S_{g,1} &=& \frac12(d+1)(e+1) - 4- \left\lfloor \frac{d}{e} \right\rfloor\\
&=& g + d + e - 4 - \left\lfloor \frac{d}{e} \right\rfloor.
\end{eqnarray*}
Combining with the earlier calculation of $\ew(S)$, we have proved:
\begin{prop}
Let $S = \langle e,d \rangle$ be a numerical semigroup with two generators. Then $\cM^S_{g,1}$ is irreducible of codimension $\ew(S)$ in $\mathcal{M}_{g,1}$.
\end{prop}
\subsection{Total inflection points of nodal plane curves}
Another naturally arising class of semigroups for which the effective weight bound is exact are those arising from nodal plane curves. These have investigated by Coppens and Kato \cite{ck}. Although they do not explicitly analyze the dimension of $\cM^S_{g,1}$, their results readily give its value, which coincides with the value that the effective weight would predict.
\begin{defn} \label{d_nddelta}
Let $d \geq 3$ be an integer, and $\delta$ an integer less than $\binom{d-1}{2}$. Let $$N_{d,\delta} = \langle d-1,d \rangle \cup H_c,$$
where $g = \binom{d-1}{2} - \delta$ and $c$ is the $(g+1)$th gap in $\langle d-1,d \rangle$.\end{defn}
\begin{rem}
The genus of the semigroup $\langle d-1,d \rangle$ is $\binom{d-1}{2}$, so this is well-defined. The semigroup $N_{d,\delta}$ can be thought of as the ``simplest'' (e.g. the lowest-effective-weight) semigroup of genus $g$ containing both $d$ and $d-1$. It can also be described as the genus $g$ ancestor of $\langle d-1,d\rangle$ in the semigroup tree (see Remark \ref{r_st}).
\end{rem}
\begin{thm}[{\cite[Theorem 2.3]{ck}}] \label{t_ck}
Let $L$ be a fixed line in $\textbf{P}^2$. Let $X$ denote the variety of degree $d$ plane curves $C$ with $\delta$ simple nodes and smooth at all other points, such that $C$ intersects $L$ at a smooth point of $C$ to multiplicity $d$. Then for a general point in $[C] \in X$, the Weierstrass semigroup of $(C,p)$ is $N_{d,\delta}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{prop}
For $S = N_{d,\delta}$, with $d,\delta$ as in Definition \ref{d_nddelta}, $\cM^S_{g,1}$ is irreducible of codimension $\ew(S)$ in $\mathcal{M}_{g,1}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The genus of $S$ is $g = \binom{d-1}{2} - \delta$ by definition, and its only generators that are below any gaps are $d-1$ and $d$, which lie below all gaps of $S$ except $1,2,\cdots,d-2$. Therefore $$\ew(S) = 2g-2d+4.$$
Let $X$ be the variety in the statement of Theorem \ref{t_ck}. It has a dense open subset $U$ consisting of curves $C$ such that $(C,p) \in \cM^S_{g,1}$, and the induced map $U \rightarrow \cM^S_{g,1}$ is surjective with irreducible fibers of dimension $6$, since there is a $6$-dimensional space of automorphisms of $\textbf{P}^2$ fixing a line. Therefore $\dim X = \dim \cM^S_{g,1} + 6$. It suffices to show that $X$ is irreducible of dimension $g + 2d$. The dimension of $X$ is equal to $g+2d$ by \cite[Lemma 2.4]{harrisSeveri}, and the irreducibility of $X$ follows from \cite[Irreducibility Theorem (bis)]{ran}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{A case where $\codim \cM^S_{g,1} \neq \ew(S)$} \label{ss_notew}
The smallest genus in which we are aware of a semigroup $S$ for which $\codim \cM^S_{g,1} \neq \ew(S)$ is $g=9$.
The example is
\begin{eqnarray*}
S &=& \langle 6,7,8 \rangle\\
&=& \textbf{N} \backslash \{1,2,3,4,5,9,10,11,17\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
For this semigroup, $\ew(S) = 12$, but we claim that $\codim \cM^S_{g,1} =11$. We will sketch a proof of this fact, omitting the full details. In a forthcoming paper, we will completely describe $\cM^S_{g,1}$ for all semigroups of the form $\langle d-r+1,d-r+2,\cdots,d\rangle$. These semigroups furnish a large collection of cases where $\codim \cM^S_{g,1} < \ew(S)$.
If $(C,p) \in \cM^S_{g,1}$, then one can show that the complete linear series $|8p|$ embeds $C$ in $\textbf{P}^3$ as the complete intersection of a quadric $Q$ and a quartic $R$, and in this embedding the osculating plane $H$ at $p$ meets $C$ at $p$ only. Hence we can study $\cM^S_{g,1}$ via the variety of triples $(C,H,p)$ of a smooth complete intersections $C$ of a quadric and quartic, a hyperplane $H$, and a point $p$ such that $C$ and $H$ meet at $p$ only. One can calculate that the dimension of this variety is $29$, and verify that for a general point of this variety, $(C,p)$ does indeed have Weierstrass semigroup $S$. Since a point $(C,p) \in \cM^S_{g,1}$ determines the triple $(C,H,p)$ up to automorphisms of $\textbf{P}^3$, this shows that $\dim \cM^S_{g,1} = 29 - \dim \textrm{Aut} \textbf{P}^3 = 14$, hence $\codim \cM^S_{g,1} = 25 - 14 = 11$.
\section{Dimensionally proper linear series} \label{s_dp}
This section collects several key facts and definitions about families of linear series on marked algebraic curves, including a ``regeneration lemma'' from the theory of limit linear series. The regeneration lemma is the basic inductive tool in the proof of Theorem \ref{t_ewexist}.
Our discussion will be brief, and a number of proofs and precise definitions are omitted where they are not necessary for the application in this paper. A complete discussion of these matters can be found in \cite[chapter 4]{ossBook}; other useful references are \cite[chapter IV]{acgh}, \cite[chapter 5]{hm} and \cite[chapter XXI]{gac2}.
\subsection{Varieties of linear series with specified ramification}
\begin{defn}
Let $C$ be a smooth curve. A \emph{linear series of rank $r$ and degree $d$} on $C$, or ``a $g^r_d$,'' is a pair $(L,V)$ consisting of a degree $d$ line bundle on $C$ and an $(r+1)$-dimensional vector space $V$ of global sections of $L$. We will sometimes refer to the linear series simple as $V$.
Let $p$ be a point of $C$. The \emph{vanishing sequence} $a_0^V(p), \cdots, a_r^V(p)$ of $V$ consists of the $r+1$ distinct orders of vanshing of elements $s \in V$ at the point $p$, in (strictly) increasing order.
\end{defn}
We will often use the phrase \emph{vanishing sequence} to refer to a set of $r+1$ nonnegative integers between $0$ and $d$ inclusive (when the values of $r,d$ are clear from context). Vanishing sequences will be denoted by capital roman letters, while the individual elements of a vanishing sequence will be denoted by the corresponding lowercase letter, with a subscript. For example, the elements of a vanishing sequence $A$ will be denoted $a_0,a_1,\cdots, a_r$, in increasing order.
In the following two definitions, we describe the set of closed points of a scheme without specifying the scheme structure. We hope the reader will forgive this, as the scheme structure is not relevant to our application. Full details, including the functors that these schemes represent, can be found in \cite[Section 4.1]{ossBook}. Although we only need the following two definitions in the cases $n=1$ and $n=2$, we state them in fuller generality.
\begin{defn}
Let $C$ be a smooth curve, $p_1,\cdots,p_n$ be distinct points of $C$, and $A^1,\cdots,A^n$ be vanishing sequences. Denote by $$G^r_d(C;\ (p_1,A^1), \cdots, (p_n,A^n))$$ a scheme whose closed points correspond to the $g^r_d$s $(L,V)$ on $C$ such that for $i=1,\cdots,n$ and $j=0,\cdots,r$, the inequality $a^V_j(p_i) \geq a^i_j$ holds (recall that we write $a^i_j$ to denote the $j$th element of the set $A^i$). Denote by $$\widetilde{G}^r_d(C;\ (p_1,A^1), \cdots, (p_n,A^n) )$$ the open subscheme where equality $a^V_j(p_i) = a^i_j$ holds for all $i,j$.
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}
In this definition and those that follow, our notation differs slightly from that of, for example, \cite{ossBook}. In particular, we specify the \emph{vanishing} sequence at each marked point, whereas most authors specify the \emph{ramification} sequence, defined by $\alpha_i(p) = a_i(p)-i$. We have chosen to work exclusively with vanishing orders, as it significantly reduces clutter in several parts of the present paper.
\end{rem}
\begin{defn}
Let $\mathcal{C} \rightarrow B$ be a smooth, proper family of curves and $s_1,\cdots,s_n$ be disjoint sections. In case $n=0$, assume that the family has at least one section. Denote by $$G^r_d(\mathcal{C}/B;\ (s_1,A^1),\cdots,(s_n,A^n) ) \rightarrow B$$ a scheme whose fiber over $b \in B$ is $G^r_d(\mathcal{C}_b;\ (s_1(b),A^1),\cdots,(s_n(b),A^n) )$.
Denote by $\mathcal{G}^r_{g,d}(A^1,\cdots,A^n) \rightarrow \mathcal{M}_{g,n}$ the scheme formed by gluing these schemes together.
The notation $\widetilde{G}^r_d$ or $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^r_{g,d}$ will refer to the open subscheme where the vanishing sequences match the prescribed sequences exactly.
\end{defn}
Here, $\mathcal{M}_{g,n}$ denotes the coarse moduli space of smooth curves with $n$ distinct marked points. We omit the details of the gluing process; it suffices for our purposes that a scheme $\mathcal{G}^r_{g,d}(A^1,\cdots,A^n)$ exists, whose fibers over $\mathcal{M}_{g,n}$ are isomorphic to the varieties $G^r_d(C;\ (p_1,A^1), \cdots, (p_n,A^n) )$.
\subsection{Dimensionally proper points}
\begin{defn} \label{d_rho}
For integers $g,r,d$ and vanishing sequences $A^1,\cdots,A^n$, define $$\rho_g(r,d;\ A^1,\cdots,A^n) = (r+1)(d-r) - rg - \sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{j=0}^r (a^i_j-j).$$
When $g,r,d,A^1,\cdots,A^n$ are clear from context, we will denote this number simply by $\rho$.
\end{defn}
\begin{lemma} \label{l_bndimbound}
If $G^r_d(\mathcal{C}/B;\ (s_1,A^1),\cdots,(s_n,A^n))$ is nonempty, its local dimension at any point is greater than or equal to $\dim B + \rho$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See, for example, \cite[Theorem 4.1.3]{ossBook} for full details; what follows is a brief summary. First, describe $G^r_d(\mathcal{C}/B)$ (where we must assume that $\mathcal{C} \rightarrow B$ has a section) as a degeneracy locus of a map of vector bundles over the relative Picard scheme $\Pic^d(\mathcal{C}/B)$, and bound its dimension with this description. Then impose the vanishing conditions by intersecting the pullback of $n$ Schubert cells under $n$ maps of Grassmannian bundles; this imposes at most a number of conditions equal to the double summation in the formula for $\rho$.
\end{proof}
\begin{defn} \label{d_dp}
A linear series $(L,V) \in G^r_d(C;\ (p_1,A^1),\cdots,(p_n,A^n))$ is called \emph{dimensionally proper} (with respect to the choice of $A^1,\cdots,A^n$) if there exists a deformation $(\mathcal{C}/B,s_1,\cdots,s_n)$ of $(C,p_1,\cdots,p_n)$ such that $$\dim G^r_d(\mathcal{C}/B;\ (s_1,A^1),\cdots,(s_n,A^n) ) = \dim B + \rho,$$ locally at $(L,V)$.
Equivalently, $(L,V)$ is dimensionally proper if the local dimension of $\mathcal{G}^r_{g,d}(A^1,\cdots,A^n)$ at $(L,V)$ is equal to $3g + n -3 + \rho$.
\end{defn}
\subsection{Regeneration}
We will reduce the proof of Theorem \ref{t_ewexist} to the existence of dimensionally proper points of a suitable variety of linear series. The existence results will come from an induction on genus, made possible by the following ``regeneration lemma.''
\begin{lemma} \label{l_reg}
Fix positive integers $g_1,g_2,d,r$ and two vanishing sequences $A,A'$. Denote by $d-A$ the vanishing sequence $\{d-a_r,d-a_{r-1},\cdots,d-a_0\}$.
If $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^r_{g_1,d}(A)$ and $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^r_{g_2,d}(d-A,A')$ both have dimensionally proper points, then $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^r_{g_1+g_2,d}(A')$ also has dimensionally proper points.
\end{lemma}
This lemma is a standard application of the theory of \emph{limit linear series}, pioneered by Eisenbud and Harris \cite{eh86}. It is essentially a special case of the ``smoothing theorem'' \cite[Theorem 3.4]{eh86}, which is referred to as the ``regeneration theorem'' in the expository account \cite[Theorem 5.41]{hm}. Both of these sources work over the complex numbers and work locally in the complex-analytic setting. We give a proof of Lemma \ref{l_reg} below based on the more recent \cite{oss06}, which is therefore valid in characteristic $p$. The theory of limit linear series has subsequently been expanded (for example, to include curves not of compact type) in various ways (e.g. \cite{oss2014,oss2014b,aminibaker}), but for our purposes the theory developed in \cite{oss06} is sufficient.
Limit linear series, as their name suggests, provide a way to construct, from a family of smooth algebraic curves degenerating to a nodal curve and a family of linear series on a the smooth curves, an object over the nodal curve that serves as a well-defined limit of the the linear series on smooth curves. For the purpose of Lemma \ref{l_reg}, we need only consider particularly simple nodal curves.
\begin{sit} \label{sit_twocomp}
Fix positive integers $g_1,g_2$. Let $C_1,C_2$ be smooth curves of genus $g_1,g_2$ respectively, let $p_1$ be a point of $C_1$ and let $p_2,q$ be distinct points of $C_2$, and let $q$ be another point on $C_2$, distinct from $p_2$. Denote by $X$ the nodal curve obtained by gluing $p_1$ to $p_2$, and denote the attachment point by $p \in X$. See Figure \ref{fig_twocomp}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw plot[smooth, tension=0.8] coordinates {(-5,1) (-4,0) (-2,-0.4) (0,0) (1,1)};
\draw plot[smooth, tension=0.8] coordinates {(-1,1) (0,0) (2,-0.4) (4,0) (5,1)};
\draw (-2,-0.5) node[below] {$C_1$};
\draw (2,-0.5) node[below] {$C_2$};
\draw[fill] (0,0) circle(2pt) node[below] {$p$};
\draw[fill] (4,0) circle(2pt) node[below] {$q$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The nodal curve $X$ of Situation \ref{sit_twocomp}.} \label{fig_twocomp}
\end{figure}
\end{sit}
We will only require a specific type of limit linear series, namely \emph{refined} series. In general, the refined series from an open subset of all limit linear series. We do not require non-refined series (called \emph{coarse} series in the Eisenbud and Harris theory) for our application, so we will not discuss them.
\begin{defn}
In Situation \ref{sit_twocomp}, a \emph{refined limit linear series} of rank $r$ and degree $d$ on $X$ (or a \emph{limit $g^r_d$ on $X$}), is a pair $((L_1,V_1),(L_2,V_2))$ of $g^r_d$s on $C_1$ and $C_2$ respectively, such that for $i=0,1,\cdots,r$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq_compat}
a^{V_1}_i(p_1) = d-a^{V_2}_{r-i}(p_2).
\end{equation}
Equation \ref{eq_compat} is called the compatibility condition. The linear series $(L_i,V_i)$ is called the \emph{$C_i$-aspect} of the limit linear series.
\end{defn}
Another way to view a refined limit linear series on $X$ is that it consists of a choice of vanishing sequence $A$ (with respect to the data $r,d$) and a point in $$\widetilde{G}^r_d(C_1;\ (p_1,A)) \times \widetilde{G}^r_d(C_2;\ (p_2,d-A)).$$
Therefore a natural way to define a scheme structure for the set of refined limit linear series is as follows.
\begin{defn} \label{d_llsspaceX}
In Situation \ref{sit_twocomp}, the scheme of refined limit $g^r_d$s on $X$ is
$$
G^{r,\rf}_d(X) = \bigcup_{A} \widetilde{G}^r_d(C_1;\ (p_1,A)) \times \widetilde{G}^r_d(C_2;\ (p_2,d-A)),
$$
where the union is taken within the scheme $G^r_d(C_1) \times G^r_d(C_2)$.
\end{defn}
Definition \ref{d_llsspaceX} extends in an obvious way to families $\mathcal{X} \rightarrow B$ of two-component curves. What is less obvious is that it can also be extended to certain families of curves in which some members are smooth and some are singular. For our purposes, we require the following facts.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There is a special type of family $\mathcal{X} \rightarrow B$ of nodal curves, called a \emph{smoothing family} \cite[Definition 3.1]{oss06}. For every flat, proper family $\mathcal{X} \rightarrow B$ of genus $g$ curves, all either smooth curves or two-component curves with one node, with $\mathcal{X}$ smooth and $B$ regular and connected, and every choice of point $b \in B$, there is an \'etale neighborhood $B' \rightarrow B$ of $b$ such that the fiber product $\mathcal{X}' \rightarrow B'$ is a smoothing family \cite[Lemma 3.3]{oss06}.
\item If $\mathcal{X} \rightarrow B$ is a smoothing family of curves, all either either smooth or two-component, there is a scheme $G^{r,\rf}_d(\mathcal{X}/B) \rightarrow B$, whose fiber over any $b \in B$ is either $G^r_d(\mathcal{X}_b)$ (if $\mathcal{X}_b$ is smooth) or $G^{r,\rf}_d(\mathcal{X}_b)$ (if $\mathcal{X}_b$ is a two-component curve) \cite[Proposition 6.6]{oss06}.
\item For such a smoothing family, the dimension bound $$\dim G^{r,\rf}_d(\mathcal{X}/B) \geq \dim B + \rho_g(r,d)$$ holds locally at every point \cite[Theorem 5.3]{oss06}.
\item With a family $\mathcal{X} \rightarrow B$ as above, given a section $s$ whose image lies in the smooth locus of every fiber, and a vanishing sequence $A$, there also exists a scheme $$\widetilde{G}^{r,\rf}_d(\mathcal{X}/B;\ (s,A)) \rightarrow B,$$ whose fiber over a point $b \in B$ such that $\mathcal{X}_b$ is smooth is isomorphic to $\widetilde{G}^r_d(\mathcal{X}_b;\ (s(b),A))$, and whose fiber over a point $b \in B$ such that $\mathcal{X}_b$ is singular consists (set-theoretically) of those refined limit linear series such that that the aspect of the component on which $s(b)$ lies has vanishing sequence equal to $A$ at $s(b)$ \cite[Corollary 6.10]{oss06}.
\item In the previous situation, the dimension bound $$\dim G^{r,\rf}_d(\mathcal{X}/B;\ (s,A)) \geq \dim B + \rho_g(r,d;\ A)$$ holds locally at every point \cite[Theorem 4.4.10]{ossBook}.
\end{enumerate}
With this machinery in place, we can prove the regeneration lemma.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{l_reg}]
Suppose that there are two dimensionally proper linear series
\begin{eqnarray*}
(L_1,V_1) &\in& \widetilde{G}^r_d(C_1;\ (p_1,A))\\
(L_2,V_2) &\in& \widetilde{G}^r_d(C_2;\ (p_2,d-A), (q,A')),\\
\end{eqnarray*}
where $C_1,C_2$ are smooth curves of genus $g_1$ and $g_2$, respectively. Form from $(C_1,p_1)$ and $(C_2,p_2,q)$ a nodal two-component marked curve $(X,q)$ as in Situation \ref{sit_twocomp}. Let $(\mathcal{X}/B,s)$ be a versal deformation of $(X,q)$, and let $\Delta \subset B$ denote the locus of singular curves, which is of codimension $1$ in $B$. We may assume (perhaps after taking a base change to an \'etale neighborhood) that $\mathcal{X} /B$ is a smoothing family, and hence form the scheme $\widetilde{G}^{r,\rf}_d(\mathcal{X}/B;\ (s,A'))$ of refined limit linear series. The two linear series $(L_1,V_1)$ and $(L_2,V_2)$ constitute the aspects of a refined limit linear series on $X$. Since both of these aspects are dimensionally proper, the local dimension, at this point, of the preimage of $\Delta$ in $\widetilde{G}^{r,\rf}_d(\mathcal{X}/B;\ (s,A'))$ must be equal to exactly $\dim \Delta + \rho_{g_1}(r,d;\ A) + \rho_{g_2}(r,d;\ d-A,A')$. A bit of algebra shows that this is equal to $\dim \Delta + \rho_g(r,d;\ A')$ (this bit of algebra is sometimes referred to as ``the additivity of the Brill-Noether number''). On the other hand, the local dimension, at this same point, of the entire space $\widetilde{G}^{r,\rf}_d(\mathcal{X}/B;\ (s,A'))$ is \emph{at most} $\dim B + \rho_g(r,d;\ A')$; since $\Delta$ has codimension one, it follows that the local dimension of $\widetilde{G}^{r,\rf}_d(\mathcal{X}/B;\ (s,A'))$ is in fact exactly equal to $\dim B + \rho_g(r,d;\ A')$. Taking any irreducible component and restricting it to the complement of $\Delta$ in $B$, we obtain a dimensionally proper family of $g^r_d$s on \emph{smooth} marked curves of genus $g$, with imposed vanishing sequence $A'$ at the marked point. Hence $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^r_{g,d}(A')$ has dimensionally proper points.
\end{proof}
\section{The effective weight bound} \label{s_bound}
We will prove Theorem \ref{t_ewbound} in this section. The proof comes from the dimension bound of Lemma \ref{l_bndimbound}, applied to carefully chosen vanishing data at the marked point. Our main point of departure from previous work on this subject (e.g. \cite{eh87,bullock}) is that we consider \emph{incomplete} linear series (that is, $(L,V)$ where $V$ is a strict subspace of the space of global sections of $L$), which nonetheless determine the Weierstrass semigroup. This innovation allows the weight bound to be improved to the effective weight bound.
\begin{defn} \label{d_effsubseq}
Let $S \subset \textbf{N}$ be a numerical semigroup of genus $g$. An \emph{effective subsequence for $S$} is a finite subset $T \subset S$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $T$ contains $0$,
\item $T$ contains all generators of $S$, and
\item $T$ does not contain any composite elements of $S$ that are less than the largest gap of $S$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
In the statement below and elsewhere, we will write $d-T$ to denote the set $\{d-t:\ t \in T\}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{l_dimGT}
Let $T$ be an effective subsequence for a numerical semigroup $S$ of genus $g$, and $d \geq \max T$ an integer. For any smooth marked curve $(C,p)$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If the Weierstrass semigroup of $(C,p)$ is not $S$, then $$\widetilde{G}^r_d(C;\ (p,d-T)) = \emptyset.$$
\item If the Weierstrass semigroup of $(C,p)$ is $S$, then the reduced structure of $\widetilde{G}^r_d(C;\ (p,d-T))$ is isomorphic to affine space of dimension $$\rho_g(r,d;\ d-T) + \ew(S).$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $(L,V) \in \widetilde{G}^r_d(C;\ (p,d-T))$. Since $0 \in T$, one of the vanishing orders of $V$ must be $d$ itself. Therefore $L$ must be $\mathcal{O}_C(d \cdot p)$, and $V$ may be regarded as a vector space of rational functions on $C$, regular away from $p$, including functions of pole orders $t \in T$ and no others. In particular, $T$ is a subset of the Weierstrass semigroup of $p$. Hence $S(C,p)$ contains $S$, and hence is precisely equal to $S$ since both semigroups have the same genus. This proves part (1).
Now suppose that the Weierstrass semigroup of $(C,p)$ is $S$. Let $W$ be the vector space of global sections of $\mathcal{O}_C(d \cdot p)$; regard the elements of $W$ as rational functions on $C$. This space has a complete flag $\{0\} = W_0 \subset W_1 \subset \cdots \subset W_{\ell} = W$, where $W_i$ consists of those rational functions of pole order less than or equal to $s_i$, where $S = \{0=s_0, s_1, s_2, \cdots \}$ (written in increasing order). Then the reduced structure of $\widetilde{G}^r_d(C;\ (p,d-T))$ may be identified with an open Schubert cell in the Grassmannian of $(r+1)$-dimensional subspaces of $W$ with respect to this flag, hence it is isomorphic to an affine space. If we write $T = \{s_{j_i}:\ i = 0,\cdots,r\}$ ($j_i$ increasing with $i$), then the dimension of this Schubert cell is equal to $\sum_{i=0}^r (j_i - i)$. For $i=0,1,2,\cdots,r$, $s_{j_i}-j_i$ is equal to the number of gaps below $s_{i_j}$, and therefore $$j_i - i = (s_{j_i} - i) - g + (\# \textrm{gaps of $S$ greater than $s_{j_i}$} ).$$
Summing over all $i$ and performing some algebra, we obtain $$\dim \widetilde{G}^r_d(C;\ (p,d-T)) = \rho_g(r,d;\ d-T) - g + \sum_{t \in T} \left( \# \textrm{gaps of $S$ greater than $t$} \right).$$ Now, the value $0 \in T$ contributes $g$ to the sum on the right side of this equation, the set of generators of $S$ contribute $\ew(S)$ total to the sum, and all elements of $T$ that are composite in $S$ have no gaps of $S$ above them, thus contribute $0$. Therefore $\dim \widetilde{G}^r_d(C;\ (p,d-T)) = \rho_g(T) + \ew(S)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem} \label{rem_wtbound}
If $T$ were selected to be $S \cap \{n \in \textbf{N}:\ n \leq 2g-1\}$ (that is, if we include many composite elements), then the same proof would show that $\widetilde{G}^r_d(C;\ (p,d-T))$ is either empty or a single point, and the following corollary would prove the ordinary weight bound $\codim \cM^S_{g,1} \leq \wt(S)$. Omitting the composite elements is precisely what strengthens the bound from $\wt(S)$ to $\ew(S)$.
\end{rem}
\begin{cor} \label{c_ewboundfam}
Let $(\mathcal{C}/B, s)$ be a smooth, proper family of genus $g$ curves with a section, and consider the subvariety $$B^S = \{b \in B:\ (\mathcal{C}_b, s(b)) \in \cM^S_{g,1} \}$$ of marked curves with Weierstrass semigroup $S$. If $B^S$ is nonempty, then $\dim B^S \geq \dim B - \ew(S)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The morphism $\widetilde{G}^r_d(\mathcal{C}/B;\ (s,d-T)) \rightarrow B$ has image equal to $B^S$, and all fibers of dimension $\rho_g(T) + \ew(S)$. Hence $$\dim B_S = \dim \widetilde{G}^r_d(\mathcal{C}/B;\ (s,d-T)) - \rho_g(T) - \ew(S).$$ Lemma \ref{l_bndimbound} now gives the result.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor} \label{c_epdp}
Let $S$ be a numerical semigroup, and let $T$ be an effective subsequence for $S$. Let $d$ be any integer greater than or equal to $\max T$. The map $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^r_{g,d}(d-T) \rightarrow \mathcal{M}_{g,1}$ gives a bijection between the irreducible components of $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^r_d(d-T)$ and $\cM^S_{g,1}$. Under this bijection, the effectively proper components of $\cM^S_{g,1}$ correspond to the dimensionally proper components of $\mathcal{G}^r_{g,d}(d-T)$.
In particular, $\cM^S_{g,1}$ has effectively proper points if and only if $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^r_d(d-T)$ has dimensionally proper points.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The fiber of this morphism over the point corresponding to a marked curve $(C,p)$ is equal to $\widetilde{G}^r_d(C;\ (p,d-T))$. By Lemma \ref{l_dimGT}, this fiber is either irreducible of dimension $\rho_g(r,d;\ d-T) + \ew(S)$ (if $(C,p) \in \cM^S_{g,1}$), or empty (otherwise). From this it follows that the irreducible components are in bijection, and that a component of $\cM^S_{g,1}$ has dimension $\dim \mathcal{M}_{g,1} - \ew(S)$ if and only if the corresponding component of $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^r_{g,d}(d-T)$ has dimension $\dim \mathcal{M}_{g,1} + \rho_g(r,d;\ d-T)$.
\end{proof}
We can now prove Theorem \ref{t_ewbound}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{t_ewbound}]
Let $(C,p)$ be any marked smooth curve with Weierstrass semigroup $S$. Let $(\mathcal{C} /B,s)$ be a versal deformation of $(C,p)$. Corollary \ref{c_ewboundfam}, applied to $(\mathcal{C}/B,s)$, implies that the local dimension of $\cM^S_{g,1}$ at $(C,p)$ is at least $\dim \mathcal{M}_{g,1} - \ew(S)$. For any irreducible component $X$ of $\cM^S_{g,1}$, a general point of $X$ lies on no other irreducible components, hence $\dim X \geq \dim \mathcal{M}_{g,1} - \ew(S)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Secundive semigroups} \label{s_secundive}
This section collects several purely combinatorial ingredients needed to perform the inductive proof of Theorem \ref{t_ewexist}.
\begin{defn}
A numerical semigroup $S$ is called \emph{secundive} if the largest gap is smaller than the sum of the two smallest generators.
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}
The author has chosen ``secundive'' as a weaker form of ``primitive'' (``primus'' and ``secundus'' meaning, respectively, ``first'' and ``second'' in Latin).
\end{rem}
\begin{lemma} \label{l_secundive}
If $S$ is a semigroup with $\ew(S) \leq g-1$, then $S$ is secundive.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $S$ be a semigroup that is not secundive; we will show that $\ew(S) \geq g$. Let $m,n$ be the smallest and second-smallest generators of $S$, and let $f$ be the largest gap of $S$. Since $S$ is secundive, $f > m+n$.
Consider the following three subsets of $\textbf{N} \times \textbf{N}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\{ (m,a):\ m < a \mbox{ and } a \not\in S \}$
\item $\{ (n,a):\ n \leq a < m+n \mbox{ and } a \not\in S \}$
\item $\{ (a,f):\ n \leq a < m+n,\ m \nmid a, \mbox{ and } a \in S \}$
\end{enumerate}
These three sets are disjoint, and every pair $(x,y)$ in one of the three sets consists of a generator $x$ and a gap $y$, with $x < y$. Therefore the sum of the sizes of the three sets is less than or equal to $\ew(S)$.
The size of the first set is $g-m+1$. The sum of the sizes of the second and third sets is equal to the number of integers $a \in \{n,n+1,\cdots,m+n-1\}$ that are not divisible by $m$. There is exactly one $a$ such that $m | a$ and $n \leq a < m+n$, hence the sum of the sizes of the second and third sets is equal to $m-1$. It follows that $\ew(S) \geq g$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The method of the proof above, with slight modification, shows that the inequality $\ew(S) \geq g$ is sharp (for non-secundive semigroups), and provides a method to enumerate the equality cases. In fact, there exist non-secundive semigroups with $\ew(S) = g$ for all $g \geq 6$. On the other hand, all semigroups of genus $g \leq 5$ are secundive.
\end{rem}
Our inductive argument requires reducing the study of one secundive semigroup to another, which must be smaller both in genus and in effective weight. This is accomplished with the following operation.
\begin{defn}
For two integers $s,k$, with $k \geq 2$, define
\begin{equation*}
\slide_k(s) = \begin{cases}
s & \mbox{ if $s \equiv 0\mod k$ }\\
s-2 & \mbox{ if $s \equiv 1\mod k$}\\
s-1 & \mbox{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
For a set $S$ of integers and an integer $k \geq 2$, define $$\slide_k(S) = \{ \slide_k(s):\ s \in S \}$$
\end{defn}
In other words, $\slide_k$ fixes all multiples of $k$ in place, and replaces all non-multiples with the preceding non-multiple. In particular, this function is order-preserving when restricted to non-multiples of $k$; this is the feature which makes it interact well with the effective weight.
\begin{defn} \label{d_goodslider}
Let $S$ be a secundive numerical semigroup of genus $g$. Call an element $k \in S$ a \emph{good slider} if the following three conditions are met.
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $S' = \slide_k(S)$ is a secundive numerical semigroup of genus $g-1$.
\item $\ew(S') = \ew(S) -1$.
\item There exists an effective subsequence (Definition \ref{d_effsubseq}) $T$ for $S$ such that $\slide_k(T)$ is an effective subsequence for $S'$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
\begin{lemma} \label{l_slidercriteria}
Let $S$ be a secundive numerical semigroup, and let $m$ be the smallest generator of $S$.\begin{enumerate}
\item If $m+1 \not\in S$, then $m$ is a good slider.
\item If the largest gap of $S$ is less than $2m-1$, then any $k \in S$ such that $k+1 \not\in S$ is a good slider.
\item If $m \geq 3$, $2m-2 \in S$ and $2m-1$ is the largest gap of $S$, then $2m-2$ is a good slider.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\emph{Part (1).} Suppose that $m+1 \not\in S$, and let $S' = \slide_m(S)$. Let $n$ be the second-smallest generator of $S$, and let $f$ be the largest gap of $S$; note that neither is divisible by $m$. Then $m$ is the smallest positive element of $S'$ (this is where we use the hypothesis that $m+1 \not\in S$), the smallest element of $S'$ that isn't a multiple of $m$ is $n' = \slide_m(n)$, and the largest integer that is not in $S'$ is $f' = \slide_m(f)$.
Since $S$ is secundive, $f-n \leq m-1$. Equivalently, there are fewer than $m-1$ non-multiples of $m$ between $n$ and $f$ inclusive. The same is true of $n'$ and $f'$ since sliding preserves order among non-multiples of $m$, hence $f'-n' \leq m-1$ as well.
The sum of any two elements of $S'$ is either a multiple of $m$ or exceeds $m+n'$, which exceeds $f'$, hence this sum lies in $S'$. So $S'$ is indeed a numerical semigroup. Since $m+n' > f'$, $S$ is secundive. The gaps of $S'$ are precisely $\{ \slide_m(a):\ a \not\in S,\ a \geq 2\}$, so the genus of $S'$ is $g-1$.
To compare $\ew(S)$ and $\ew(S')$, observe first that in a secundive semigroup, an element $a$ smaller than the largest gap is a generator if and only if it is either equal to $m$ or not divisible by $m$. All other generators (those larger than the largest gap) do not contribute to the effective weight. Next observe that $m$ has one fewer gap above it in $S'$ than in $S$. Finally, note that $\slide_m$ establishes a bijection between the generators of $S$ between $m$ and $f$ exclusive and the generators of $S'$ between $m$ and $f'$ exclusive, and that the number of gaps above a given generator is preserved by this bijection. This shows that $\ew(S') = \ew(S)-1$.
For part (c) of Definition \ref{d_goodslider}, let $T$ consist of $0$ and also the smallest positive element of $S$ in each congruence class modulo $m$. This set necessarily includes all generators of $S$, and the fact that $S$ is secundive implies that any composite elements of $S$ in $T$ exceeds the largest gap, hence $T$ is an effective subsequence of $S$. The set $T' = \slide_m(T)$ is precisely equal to the set containing $0$ and the smallest positive element of $S'$ in each congruence class modulo $m$, so since $S'$ is also a secundive semigroup, $T'$ is an effective subsequence of $S'$ by the same reasoning. This completes the proof that $m$ is a good slider when $m+1 \not\in S$.
\emph{Part (2).} Now assume that the largest gap of $S$ is less than $2m-1$, and that $k \in S$ is an element with $k+1 \not\in S$. Then $S$ is primitive. The smallest positive element of $S'$ is either $m-1$ or $m$, and the largest gap of $S'$ is less than $2m-2$, hence $S'$ is in fact a \emph{primitive} semigroup as well. The operation $\slide_k$ preserves the number of gaps above every element of $S$, except in one case: the number of gaps of $S'$ above $\slide_k(k) = k$ is one less than the number of gaps above $k$ in $S$. So $\ew(S') = \ew(S) -1$. Finally, the set $T$ can be constructed in a manner similar to in Part (1): let $T$ consist of $0$ and the smallest positive element of $S$ in each congruence class modulo $k$. Then $T' = \slide_k(T)$ is the result of an identical construction applied to $S'$, and a set constructed this way contains all generators of the semigroup. Since $S$ and $S'$ are primitive, the sets $T$ and $T'$ are effective subsequences, since the condition of containing no composite elements less than the largest gap is vacuous.
\emph{Part (3).} Now assume that $2m-2 \in S$, $2m-1 \not\in S$, and all integers larger than $2m$ are in $S$. Then again, $S$ is primitive. The largest gap of $S' = \slide_{2m-2}(S)$ is $2m-3$, and the smallest element of $S'$ is $m-1$ (note that $m \neq 2m-2$ since we are assuming $m \geq 3$), so $S'$ is also a primitive semigroup. The rest of the argument is now analogous to the proof of Part (2).
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{l_slidersexist}
Let $S$ be a secundive numerical semigroup, and let $m$ be the smallest generator of $S$. If $m+1 \in S, 2m-2 \not\in S$, and $2m-1 \not\in S$, then $\ew(S) \geq g-1$. Furthermore, equality $\ew(S) = g-1$ occurs if and only if $S = \{0,m,m+1\} \cup H_{2m}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that the hypotheses imply that $m \geq 4$, so $m+1 < 2m-2$. Also note that since $S$ is secundive and contains $m+1$, in fact $S$ is primitive and the largest gap is $2m-1$.
Since all elements of $S$ less than the largest gap are generators, the effective weight (which is equal to the weight) is equal to the size of the set $E = \{(a,b) \in \textbf{N}^2:\ 0<a<b,\ a\in S,\ b \not\in S\}$.
The elements of $E$ can be partitioned into four types.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The pairs $(m,2m-2),(m,2m-1),(m+1,2m-2)$, and $(m+1,2m-1)$.
\item Pairs of the form $(m,a)$ or $(m+1,a)$, where $m+2 \leq a \leq 2m-3$ and $a \not\in S$.
\item Pairs of the form $(a,2m-2)$ or $(a,2m-1)$, where $m+2 \leq a \leq 2m-3$ and $a \in S$.
\item Pairs of the form $(a,b)$, where $m+2 \leq a < b \leq 2m-3$, $a \in S$, and $b \not\in S$.
\end{enumerate}
There are four pairs of the first type. Since every element $a$ between $m+2$ and $2m-3$ inclusive appears in either two pairs of the second type or two pairs of the third type (depending on whether or not $a \in S$), the total number of pairs of either the second or third type is exactly $2(m-4)$. Therefore, adding the four pairs of the first type, $\ew(S)$ is equal to $2m-4$ plus the number of pairs of the fourth type. On the other hand, the genus of $S$ is at most $(m-1) + (m-2) = 2m-3$, with equality if and only if $S$ contains no elements between $m+2$ and $2m-3$ inclusive. Hence $g-1 \leq 2m-4 \leq \ew(S)$, with equality throughout if and only if $S$ constists precisely of $0,m,m+1$ and all integers greater than or equal to $2m$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor} \label{c_slidersexist}
If $S$ is a numerical semigroup with $1 \leq \ew(S) \leq g-2$, then $S$ has a good slider. If $\ew(S) = g-1$, then $S$ has a good slider unless $S = \{0,m,m+1\} \cup H_{2m}$ for some $m \geq 4$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Combine Lemmas \ref{l_slidercriteria} and \ref{l_slidersexist}.
\end{proof}
\section{Existence of effectively proper points} \label{s_exist}
We can now prove Theorem \ref{t_ewexist} by assembling the ingredients of the previous sections and the following statement about elliptic curves. This lemma is similar to \cite[Proposition 5.2]{eh87}, and plays an analogous role in our argument.
\begin{lemma} \label{l_ellipticbridge}
Fix integers $d,r$, and let $T,T'$ be two vanishing sequences. As usual, denote the elements of these, in increasing order, by $t_i$ and $t_i'$. Suppose that there exists an integer $k$, $1 \leq k \leq r$, such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $t_0 = t'_0 = 0$ and $t_k = t'_k$;
\item for all $i \not\in \{0,k\}$, neither $t_i$ nor $t'_i$ is divisible by $t_k$;
\item for all $i \not\in \{0,k\}$, the inequalities $t_{i-1} \leq t'_i < t_i$ hold.
\end{enumerate}
Then $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^r_{1,d}(T',d-T)$ has dimensionally proper points.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Denote the number $t_k = t'_k$ by $m$. Fix an elliptic curve $E$ with a point $p$. Consider the trivial family $E \times E \rightarrow E$ given by projection to the second coordinate, with two sections $s_1(q) = (p,q)$ and $s_2(q) = (q,q)$. Fix a point $q_0 \in E$ differing from $p$ by torsion of order exactly $m$. Let $B$ be the open subset of $E$ given by removing $p$ and all points $q'$ differing from $p$ by torsion of order dividing $m$, except the point $q_0$ itself. We can now regard $(E \times B, s_1, s_2)$ as a family of twice-marked elliptic curves $\{(E,p,q)\}_{q \in B}$, with the property that exactly one member $(E,p,q_0)$ of this family has $p-q$ of torsion order $m$, and all others have $p-q$ either non-torsion or torsion of order not dividing $m$. We will show that $\widetilde{G}^r_d(E \times B / B;\ (s_1,T'),(s_2,d-T))$ is nonempty of dimension $\rho_1(r,d;\ T',d-T) + 1$, which will prove the result.
More specifically, we will show that if $p,q$ are points not differing by torsion of order dividing $m$ (which is the case for all but one member of the family), $\widetilde{G}^r_d(E;\ (p,T'),(q,d-T))$ is empty, while if $p,q$ differ by torsion of order exactly $m$ (the case for one member of the family), then $\widetilde{G}^r_d(E;\ (p,T'),(q,d-T))$ is nonempty of dimension $\rho_1(r,d;\ T',d-T)+1$.
Suppose that $(E,p,q)$ is a twice-marked elliptic curve, and $(L,V)$ is some linear series with vanishing orders exactly $T'$ at $p$ and $d-T$ at $q$.
The key observation is that for any $i \in \{0,1,\cdots,r\}$, the subspace $$V_i = V(-t'_{i}p - (d-t_i)q)$$ of $V$ consisting of sections vanishing to order at least $t'_{i}$ at $p$ and order at least $d-t_i$ at $q$ must be at least $1$-dimensional.
In particular, for $i = 0$ and $i=k$ it follows that the divisors $d\cdot q$ and $m \cdot p + (d-m) \cdot q$ are both in the divisor class defined by the line bundle $L$. Hence $L$ must be the line bundle $\mathcal{O}_E(d \cdot q)$, and the points $p$ and $q$ must differ by an element of $\Pic^0(E)$ of order dividing $m$. This shows that $G^r_d(E;\ (p,T'),(q,d-T))$ is indeed empty whenever $p,q$ do not differ by torsion of order dividing $m$.
\emph{We will now assume that $p$ and $q$ differ by torsion of order exactly $m$.}
\emph{Claim 1.} For $i=0,1,\cdots,r-1$, there exist no sections $s \in V$ whose divisor of zeros contains $t'_{i+1} p + (d-t_i)q$.
\emph{Proof of claim 1.} If $i = 0,k-1$, or $k$, then the divisor $t'_{i+1} p + (d-t_i)q$ has degree greater than $d$, so it certainly cannot be contained in the divisor of zeros of $s$. Otherwise, $t'_{i+1} + (d-t_i) \geq d$, so the only way for $s$ to have such a divisor is if $t'_{i+1} = t_i$ and the divisor of $s$ is exactly $t_i p + (d-t_i) q$. But this implies that $p-q$ is $t_i$-torsion, which is impossible since $m \nmid t_i$ when $i \neq 0,k$.
\emph{Claim 2.} The space $V_i$ is exactly $1$-dimensional, and a nonzero section of $V_i$ vanishes to order exactly $t'_i$ at $p$ and $d-t_i$ at $q$.
\emph{Proof of claim 2.} The second statement follows from claim 1. The first part follows from the second: in a 2-dimensional space of sections, there must be $2$ distinct orders of vanising at any given point.
Therefore we see that $(L,V)$ has a very simple form: $L = \mathcal{O}_E(d \cdot p)$ and $V$ is the span of $r+1$ disjoint $1$-dimensional subspaces $V_i$, each of which is spanned by a section of $L$ vanishing along the divisor $t'_i p + (d-t_i) q$. Conversely, it is clear that any choice of these $r+1$ spaces $V_i$ gives rise to a point of $\widetilde{G}^r_d(E;\ (p,T'),(q,d-T))$. From this description, we can calculate from Riemann-Roch:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\dim \widetilde{G}^r_d(E;\ (p,T'),(q,d-T)) &=& \sum_{i=0}^r \dim \textbf{P} H^0(\mathcal{O}_E(-t'_i p + (d-t_i) q))\\
&=& 2 + \sum_{i=0}^r (d - t_i - t'_i - 1).
\end{eqnarray*}
In the second line, we use the fact that for all $i \not\in \{0,k\}$, $d-t_i-t'_i > 0$, hence $h^1(E,\mathcal{O}_E(-t'_ip+(d-t_i)q)) = 0$, while for $i=0$ and $i=k$, $h^1( \mathcal{O}_E(-t'_i p + (d-t_i) q) ) = h^1( \mathcal{O}_E ) = 1$.
On the other hand, a bit of algebra shows that $$\rho_1(r,d;\ T',d-T) = 1 + \sum_{i=0}^r (d-t_i -t'_i - 1).$$ So we have established that, in the case where $p-q$ differ by torsion of order $m$,
$$\dim G^r_d(E;\ (p,T'),(q,d-T)) = 1 + \rho_1(r,d;\ T', d-T).$$
By the remarks in the first paragraph, this proves that $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^r_{1,d}(T',d-T)$ has dimensionally proper points.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor} \label{c_induction}
If $S$ is a secundive numerical semigroup, $k$ is a good slider for $S$, and $\mathcal{M}^{\slide_k(S)}_{g-1,1}$ has effectively proper points, then $\cM^S_{g,1}$ has effectively proper points.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let $T$ be an effective subsequence of $S$ such that $T' = \slide_k(T)$ is an effective subsequence of $S' = \slide_k(S)$. Removing some elements if necessary, we may assume that $T$ and $T'$ contain no multiples of $k$ other than $0$ and $k$. Let $r = |T|-1$ and let $d = \max T$. By Lemma \ref{c_epdp}, $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^r_{g-1,d}(d-T')$ has dimensionally proper points, so by Lemma \ref{l_ellipticbridge}, so does $\widetilde{\mathcal{G}}^r_{g,d}(d-T)$. Lemma \ref{c_epdp} now implies that $\cM^S_{g,1}$ has an effectively proper component.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{t_ewexist}]
Let $S$ be a numerical semigroup of genus $g$, such that $\ew(S) \leq g-2$. We will prove that $\cM^S_{g,1}$ has effectively proper components by induction on $g$. For $g=1$ the only semigroup if $H_1$, and there is nothing to prove.
Suppose that $g \geq 2$ and the result holds for genus $g-1$. If $\ew(S) = 0$, then $S = H_g$ and $\cM^S_{g,1}$ is a dense open subset of $\mathcal{M}_{g,1}$, so the result follows. Otherwise, Corollaries \ref{c_slidersexist} and \ref{c_induction} show that the existence of an effectively proper point of $\cM^S_{g,1}$ follows from the existence of an effectively proper point of $\mathcal{M}^{S'}_{g-1,1}$ for some semigroup $S'$ of genus $g-1$ and effective weight $\ew(S)-1 \leq g-3$. This completes the induction.
Now suppose that $\chr k = 0$ and $S$ is a numerical semigroup of genus $g$ such that $\ew(S) = g-1$. The argument above works without modification, except in one case: $g$ is odd and $S = \{ 0, \frac12g + \frac32, \frac12g+\frac52 \} \cup H_{g+3}$ (this is the exception in Corollary \ref{c_slidersexist}). The main theorem of \cite{kom91} is that for this specific semigroup, in characteristic $0$, $\cM^S_{g,1}$ has dimensionally proper points (which are the same as effectively proper points, since $S$ is primitive). With this possibility accounted for, the induction is complete in the case $\ew(S) = g-1$ as well.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Understanding the distribution of physical quantities by advection--diffusion
is of fundamental importance in many scientific disciplines,
including turbulent (geophysical) fluid dynamics and molecular dynamics. Of particular
interest are \emph{coherent structures}, for which there exist many
phenomenological descriptions, visual diagnostics and mathematical
approaches; see \cite{Hadjighasem2017} for a recent review.
In fluid dynamics, coherent structures are often thought
of as rotating islands of particles with regular motion, which move
in an otherwise turbulent background \cite{McWilliams1984,FazleHussain1986,Provenzale1999,Haller2013a}.
In molecular dynamics, coherent (or almost-invariant) structures are
thought of as conformations, i.e., sets of configurations of the molecule which
are stable on time scales much larger than those of molecular oscillations \cite{Schutte1999,Schutte2003}.
In the last years there has been an explosion of coherent structure detection
methods based on
flow information. Relying on flow information appears to be a necessary step in non\-auto\-no\-mous/\-un\-stea\-dy
velocity fields, since instantaneous velocity snapshots and their streamlines are no longer
conclusive for material motion as they are in the autonomous/steady case.
Nevertheless, the appearance of these methods is very different at
first sight: in the category of variational approaches some methods
require preservation of boundary length \cite{Haller2013a}, minimization of mixing under the flow
\cite{Froyland2010a,Froyland2013} or surface-to-volume
ratio \cite{Froyland2015a,Froyland2015b}. A different class of methods considers
averages of observables along trajectories
\cite{Mezic2010,Budisic2012,Mancho2013,Mundel2014,Haller2016} and
seeks coherent structures as sets with similar statistics. Recent clustering
approaches \cite{Froyland2015,Hadjighasem2016,Banisch2017} assess coherence based on
mutual trajectory distances.
Comparison studies of methods within this category have been restricted
exclusively to simulation case studies \cite{Allshouse2015,Ma2015,Hadjighasem2017}.
In this work, we discover for the first time strong mathematical similarities between
the variational geometric methods developed by Haller and co-workers
on the one hand \cite{Haller2012,Haller2013a,Farazmand2014a}, and variational
transfer-operator-based methods developed
by Froyland and co-workers on the other hand \cite{Froyland2010,Froyland2013,Froyland2014};
see \Cref{fig:methods} and the references therein.
Notably, we manage to relate our work and the methods mentioned in \Cref{fig:methods}
to earlier approaches developed in the geophysical fluid dynamics community,
namely Nakamura's \emph{effective diffusivity} framework \cite{Nakamura1996,Shuckburgh2003}.
\begin{figure}
\centerin
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=0.15\textwidth]
\node[draw, text centered, text width =0.13\textwidth] (A) at (0,0) {
Variational geometric methods};
\node[draw, text centered] (B) at (5.5,1.5) {
Geometric heat flow}
\node[draw, text centered] (C) at (5.5,-1.5) {
Dynamic Laplacian}
\node[draw, text centered, text width =0.145\textwidth] (D) at (11.7,-1.5){
Probabilistic transfer operator};
\node[draw, text centered] (E) at (11.7,1.5){Effective diffusivity};
\draw [<->, color=black, line width=2pt] (A) edge (C) (C) edge (D)
\draw [<->, color=black, line width=2pt] (A) -- (B) node [pos=0.4, above] {\rotatebox{13.5}{\small \Cref{sec:Haller_methods}}};
\draw [<->, color=black, line width=2pt] (A) -- (C) node [pos=0.55, above] {\rotatebox{-13.5}{\small \Cref{sec:Haller_methods}}};
\draw [<->, color=black, line width=2pt] (B) -- (C) node [pos=0.5, right=1pt] {\small \Cref{sec:The-harmonic-mean}};
\draw [<->, color=black, line width=2pt] (C) -- (D) node [pos=0.5, above] {\small \Cref{sec:averaging}};
\draw [<->, color=black, line width=2pt] (B) -- (E) node [pos=0.48, above] {\small \Cref{sec:gfd}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Schematic representation of the connections between different methods
for coherent set detection with references to the relevant sections.}
\label{fig:methods}
\end{figure}
Even though the appearance of many of the above-mentioned approaches is different,
often the underlying idea is—more or less explicit—that coherent
structures are expected to be maximal material sets which are the
least vulnerable to (weak) diffusion, often modeled through some requirement on
boundary deformation under the flow. This intuition is our starting
point, and leads us to the Fokker–Planck equation (FPE) in Lagrangian coordinates,
which is of diffusion-only type; see also \cite{Press1981,Knobloch1992,Thiffeault2003,Fyrillas2007} for earlier related approaches.
In the Lagrangian frame, we view \emph{Lagrangian coherent structures (LCSs)} as
metastable/almost-invariant sets under the Lagrangian FPE.
It turns out that the deformation by advection
is equivalent to a deformation of the geometry of the (initial) material manifold, i.e.,
the flow domain. This change of perspective from space (Eulerian coordinates) to material
(Lagrangian coordinates) solves, by the way,
the longstanding problem in physical oceanography of separating the reversible effects
of pure advection from the irreversible effects of advection and diffusion acting together, see, for instance,
\cite{Nakamura1996,Shuckburgh2003}. Time-averaging of the Lagrangian FPE yields
an autonomous diffusion-type equation, whose generator is Froyland's recently
introduced \emph{dynamic Laplacian} \cite{Froyland2015a,Froyland2017}.
Froyland's approach is motivated by a dynamic
analogue to the isoperimetry problem, i.e., the optimal bisection of a manifold, where
optimality is measured with respect to the ratio between the area of the bisection
surface and the volume of the smaller of the two parts. Our independent and physical
advection-diffusion derivation of the dynamic Laplacians \cite{Froyland2015a,Froyland2017}
establishes a link to Markov processes and their metastable decomposition of state
space \cite{Davies1982,Deuflhard2000}. This, in turn, provides a transparent framework for the
detection of multiple coherent structures through spectral analysis.
Looking at the Lagrangian averaged diffusion-type equation generated by the dynamic Laplacian, the natural
question arises whether this diffusion is related to some intrinsic Riemannian geometry
on the material manifold. Our main contribution is to derive such a geometry, which we
interpret as the \emph{geometry of mixing}; cf.~also \cite{Giona2000,Thiffeault2001} for
the use of this terminology, however, not in an averaging sense. The
self-adjoint Laplace–Beltrami operator induced by the geometry of mixing can be
directly investigated in detail by methods from semigroup and operator theory \cite{Davies1982,Davies1996},
Riemannian and spectral geometry \cite{Cheeger1970,Lablee2015} and visualization.
The technical requirements on the flow and the original material manifold consist
of smoothness alone. Similar to Froyland's \emph{dynamic Laplacian}
\cite{Froyland2015a,Froyland2017},
one nice and important feature of our Laplace–Beltrami operator
is its inherent self-adjointness. Additionally, since working in a classic Riemannian
geometry setting, we benefit from the rich intuition about the role of eigenfunctions
gathered in applied and computational harmonic analysis, and probably most strongly
in the diffusion map methodology \cite{Coifman2006,Dsilva2015}. Equipped with this
knowledge, we are able to interpret the Laplace--Beltrami eigenfunctions in the light of
Lagrangian coherent structure detection much more transparent than is the
current state-of-the-art in operator-based LCS approaches.
While our theory as presented in the current paper is of continuous type and
theoretically requires arbitrary fine dynamic information, it is strongly related to the
Diffusion Map methodology \cite{Coifman2006}. The classic, albeit not exclusive,
application case there is that of \emph{manifold learning}, i.e., the computation of topological
and geometric features (such as intrinsic coordinates) of manifolds embedded in a
Euclidean, usually high-dimensional space. The situation is thus one of a static
manifold. Recently, these ideas have been extended towards including dynamics
\cite{Giannakis2012,Marshall2016,Shnitzer2017}, none of which, however, use the
dynamics to define a Riemannian geometry and thereby get back to the ``static'' setting as we
do here.
Another major contribution is the following conceptual clarification.
Lagrangian coherent structures (LCSs) are commonly referred to as \emph{transport barriers}.
With its reference to \emph{advection} through the term ``transport'', this translates then to
sets with (near-)zero advective flux.
It has been pointed out earlier \cite{Nakamura1996,Haller2012} that in purely advective flows any
material surface constitutes a transport barrier by flow invariance. Our approach,
and its consistency with many existing LCS methods, clarifies the role of LCSs
as \emph{diffusion} or \emph{mixing barriers}; cf.~also \cite{Froyland2013,Froyland2015a}.
The paper is organized as follows. \Cref{sec:Lagrangian_FP}
is devoted to the derivation and discussion of the Lagrangian version
of the well-known Fokker–Planck equation (FPE) and its approximation by
a time-averaged diffusion equation. We derive and study the Riemannian
geometry of this underlying equation, the geometry of mixing, in \cref{sec:Dynamic-Laplace-Beltrami}. In \cref{sec:detection} we provide a thorough discussion on the different roles of eigenfunctions and show numerical results. We close with
a discussion of related aspects and future directions in \cref{sec:discussion}.
In particular, readers interested in applications in atmospheric and oceanic fluid dynamics
may find the discussion of connections to the effective diffusivity
framework in \cref{sec:gfd} of particular interest.
For the convenience of the reader, in \cref{sec:Preliminaries} we recall
some fundamental notions and concepts from Riemannian geometry, elliptic
differential operators and their induced heat flows.
\paragraph*{Notation}
Throughout this paper, we use the following notations.
First, for the positive
definite matrix representation $G\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ of a
Riemannian metric $g$ on $M$ (in some coordinates), we denote its
ordered eigenvalues by $0<\mu_{\min}(G)\leq\hdots\leq\mu_{\max}(G),$
and the corresponding eigenvectors (in those coordinates) by $v_{\min}(G),\hdots,$$v_{\max}(G)$.
Second, for any time-dependent map $[0,T]\ni t\mapsto\gamma(t)\in X$,
with $X$ some linear space, we define the time average of $\gamma$
by
\[
\fint_{0}^T\gamma(t)\,\mathrm{d}t\coloneqq\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\gamma(t)\,\mathrm{d}t.
\]
\section{Advection--diffusion in Eulerian and Lagrangian coordinates\label{sec:Lagrangian_FP}}
Let $\left(\mathcal{M},g\right)$ be a Riemannian $d$-manifold and
$M\subset\mathcal{M}$, the fluid domain/material manifold, an embedded $d$-dimensional submanifold equipped
with the induced metric, again denoted by $g$. We consider the transport equation/conservation law
for the scalar quantity $\phi$ associated to the (in general non-autonomous) vector field $V$ on $\mathcal{M}$:
\begin{align*}
\partial_t\phi + \divergence(\phi V) &= 0, & \phi(0,\cdot) &= \phi_0.
\end{align*}
As is well-known, this equation may be solved for $\phi$ by means of the \emph{flow map}, i.e., the solution to the ordinary differential equation
\[
\dot{x} = V(t,x),
\]
a smooth one-parametric family of diffeomorphisms $\Phi^{t}$, $t\in[0,T]$
over $M$,
\begin{align*}
\Phi^{t}\colon M & \to\Phi^{t}[M]\subseteqq\mathcal{M}, & t & \in[0,T], & \Phi^{0} & =\id_{M}.
\end{align*}
As mentioned in the Introduction, we are interested in the detection of LCSs as maximal
material subsets which defy dispersion under the action of advection and diffusion.
\subsection{Eulerian Fokker--Planck equation}
As a starting point, consider the spatial evolution of a scalar density $\phi$ as it is
carried by a (compressible) fluid with conserved mass density $\rho$ and subject to
diffusion, the classic Eulerian Fokker–Planck equation (FPE)
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:EFPE}
\begin{align}
\frac{D\phi}{Dt}=\partial_{t}\phi+\mathrm{d}\phi(V) &=\varepsilon\Delta_{g,\nu(t)}\phi, & \phi(0,\cdot) &= \phi_0, \label{eq:euler_FokkerPlank}\\
\frac{D\rho}{Dt}=\partial_t\rho+\mathrm{d}\rho(V) &= -\rho\divergence(V), & \rho(0,\cdot) &= \rho_0. \label{eq:continuity}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Here, the measure $\nu$ corresponds to the fluid's mass $\mathrm{d}\nu(t)=\rho(t)\omega_g$, and $D/Dt$ denotes the \emph{material/substantial/advective time derivative} used in the fluid dynamics literature.
Note that for a homogeneous initial fluid density $\rho_0=1$ ($\mathrm{d}\rho=0$ at any time)
and divergence-free velocity field ($\divergence(V)=0$), we recover the usual incompressible FPE
\begin{gather*}
\partial_{t}\phi+\mathrm{d}\phi(V) =\varepsilon\Delta_{g}\phi,\\
\partial_t\rho = \partial_t\rho +\mathrm{d}\rho(V) = -\rho\divergence(V) = 0.
\end{gather*}
In \cref{eq:euler_FokkerPlank}, the metric $g$ (via its dual $g^{-1}$) models the molecular/turbulent/numerical
diffusivity of $\phi$ and therefore determines the gradient, whereas the evolution of the fluid density
$\rho$ determines the volume form and therefore the divergence; cf.~\cref{sec:Laplace-Beltrami} for intrinsic
definitions of divergence and gradient. In particular, $g$
contains physical information, including the diffusivity in each direction.
Finally, $\varepsilon>0$ can be interpreted as the inverse of the dimensionless Péclet number,
which quantifies the strength of advection relative to the strength of diffusion.
The problem of LCS detection is typically considered
in advection-dominated flow regimes, i.e., associated with a large Péclet number.
The Eulerian perspective comes with a couple of drawbacks. First, if one is interested
in the evolution of material localized in some non-invariant region $M$, one needs to
solve \cref{eq:EFPE} on a sufficiently large spatial domain in $\mathcal{M}$ in order
to cover the entire evolution $\Phi^{t}(M)$ of material initialized
in $M$. This can be problematic in applications to open dynamical
systems such as ocean surface flows. Second, coherent sets computed in this
framework---as done in \cite{Denner2016}---are inevitably of
Eulerian, i.e., spacetime, kind, and do not admit a material interpretation. In particular,
such Eulerian structures generally have both diffusive and advective flux through their
boundaries. It is therefore of interest to study weakly diffusive flows in Lagrangian
coordinates, which is the purpose of the next section.
\subsection{Lagrangian Fokker--Planck equation}
Let us take a look at \cref{eq:EFPE} from the Lagrangian viewpoint;
cf.~\cite{Press1981,Knobloch1992,Thiffeault2003,Fyrillas2007}. Formally, this means
that we interpret the scalar and the fluid densities
as functions of particles by pulling them back to time $t=0$ through composition with
the flow map $\Phi$, which is equivalent to applying the \emph{Koopman operator}
associated to $\Phi$ to the densities. This yields Lagrangian scalar and fluid densities
$\varphi=\Phi^*\phi = \phi\circ\Phi$ and $\varrho=\Phi^*\rho = \rho\circ\Phi$,
respectively. Additionally, we need to pull back \cref{eq:EFPE} to the material manifold,
and thus arrive at its Lagrangian form
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:lagr_FokkerPlanck}
\begin{align}
\partial_t\varphi &= \varepsilon\Delta_{g(t),\mu(t)}\varphi, & \varphi(0,\cdot) = \phi_0,\label{eq:lagr_FPE}\\
\partial_t\varrho &= -\varrho\Phi^*(\divergence(V)) & \varrho(0,\cdot) = \rho_0.\label{eq:cons_mass}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Here, a material point is no longer subjected to a drift---in the Lagrangian perspective,
we are following trajectories---but its carried scalar density $\varphi$ is subject to diffusion
generated by the time-dependent family of (generalized) Laplace--Beltrami operators
$\left(\Delta_{g(t),\mu(t)}\right)_t$, with $g(t)\coloneqq(\Phi^t)^*g$ the pullback metric, and
$\mathrm{d}\mu(t)=\varrho(t)\omega_{g(t)}=(\Phi^t)^*\mathrm{d}\nu(t)$; see
\cref{sec:Laplace-Beltrami,sec:weighted_manifolds} for technical background.
Conservation of mass yields
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{d}\mu(t)=\mathrm{d}\mu(0)=\rho_0\omega_g\eqqcolon\mathrm{d}\mu_0.\label{eq:conservation_mass}
\end{equation}
For incompressible flows and homogeneous initial fluid density, one has
$\Delta_{g(t),\mu(t)}=\Delta_{g(t)}$, i.e., the classic Laplace--Beltrami operator induced
by the pullback metric. \Cref{eq:lagr_FPE} can thus be viewed as an inhomogeneous, i.e., time-dependent, diffusion equation for
Lagrangian scalar densities $\varphi$ on $M$.
\begin{rem}[Pullback metrics]\label{rem:pullbackmetric}
The pullback metric $g(t)$ is well-known in the theory of kinematics of deforming continua by the name \emph{(right) Cauchy--Green strain tensor}; see, for instance, \cite[p.~356]{Abraham1988}. In the typical case when the space $\mathcal{M}$ is Euclidean and parametrized by the canonical coordinates $x^1,\ldots,x^d$, the pullback metric $g(t)$ has the matrix representation $C(t) = \left(D\Phi(t)\right)^\top D\Phi(t)$, where $D\Phi(t)$ is the linearized flow map, with entries $(\partial_j\Phi^i)_{ij}$. In general coordinates, one has $C(t)=\left(D\Phi(t)\right)^\top G D\Phi(t)$, where $G$ is the matrix representation of $g$ in local coordinates on $\Phi^t(M)$.
\end{rem}
The metric $g(t)$ is different from $g=g(0)$ unless $\Phi^{t}$ is an
isometry, or, in physical terms, unless $\Phi^{t}$ corresponds to
a solid body motion. Therefore, the Lagrangian diffusion is no longer
isotropic with respect to $g$. This reflects the fact that
the flow deformation may have pushed two
particles apart or together, and thus their material exchange by diffusion
at some later time point is, respectively, less and more likely; see
\Cref{fig:diffusion_types}. These intuitive heuristics have been formalized and exploited in \cite{Thiffeault2003} to reduce the full-dimensional FPE to a one-dimensional FPE along the most contracting direction.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{pullback_geometry.tex}
\caption{Schematic visualization of the pullback geometry and the induced diffusion.
The spatial Euclidean geometry (right) is pulled back to the material manifold
from time $t=0.05$ (left) by the flow map $\Phi_0^{0.05}$ for the rotating double gyre, \Cref{exa:transient1}.
A spatial diffusion with variance $\varepsilon=0.1$ (red circle on the right) is pulled back to the red curve on the left, visualizing diffusion in the pullback metric $g(0.05)$ on the material manifold of equal variance.
As can be seen, the red curve reaches further out than material diffusion with same variance in the original metric $g(0)$ (visualized by the green circle) in some directions, while it does not reach as far in others.
This is due to the deformation by the flow.
Note also the duality to the Eulerian deformation perspective presented in
Welander's classic work on two-dimensional turbulence \cite[Fig.~2]{Welander1955}.
}
\label{fig:diffusion_types}
\end{figure}
Since $-\Delta_{g(t),\mu(t)}$ is elliptic for all $t\in[0,T]$, the solution
of \cref{eq:lagr_FPE} in some space $L^{p}(M)$ is given
by the generalized heat flow $U_{\varepsilon\Delta_{g(t),\mu(t)}}$
associated with $\left(\varepsilon\Delta_{g(t),\mu(t)}\right)_t$, cf.~\cref{sec:Heat-flow}.
In this framework, finding
\emph{Lagrangian} coherent structures as maximal material sets maximally
defying diffusion amounts to identifying subsets $L\subset M$, whose
characteristic function $1_{L}\in L^{2}(M)$ is \emph{metastable} or \emph{almost invariant} \cite{Davies1982,Dellnitz1999}
under the evolution induced by \cref{eq:lagr_FokkerPlanck}, cf.~\cite{Schutte1999,Schutte2003}.
\begin{rem}
We stress that—according to our Lagrangian viewpoint—\cref{eq:lagr_FokkerPlanck}
is an evolution equation on $M$, even if the flow does not keep
$M$ invariant, i.e., $\Phi^{t}(M)\neq M$.
\end{rem}
Next, we show an important property of the elements of the one-parameter
family of operators $\left(\Delta_{g(t),\mu(t)}\right)_t$ involved in \cref{eq:lagr_FokkerPlanck}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:time_dep_LB}
For each $t\in[0,T]$, the operator $-\Delta_{g(t),\mu(t)}$ is self-adjoint on $L^{2}(M,\mu_0)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to show that $\langle w,-\Delta_{g(t),\mu(t)}w\rangle_{0,\mu_0}$ is a nonnegative
closed quadratic form on $H^{1}(M,\mu_0)$. To this end, we compute
\begin{equation}\label{eq:selfadjoint}
-\int_{M}v\Delta_{g(t),\mu(t)}w\,\mathrm{d}\mu_0=-\int_{M}v\Delta_{g(t),\mu(t)}w\,\mathrm{d}\mu(t)
=\int_{M}g(t)^{-1}(\mathrm{d}v,\mathrm{d}w)\,\mathrm{d}\mu(t),
\end{equation}
where we have used conservation of mass, \cref{eq:conservation_mass}, and the weak
formulations \cref{eq:weak_Laplace,eq:weak_form_weighted}.
By the Friedrich's extension, $-\Delta_{g(t),\mu(t)}$ defines a self-adjoint operator on $L^{2}(M,\mu_0)$;
see, e.g., \cite[Thm.~VI.2.6]{Kato1995}.
\end{proof}
\Cref{eq:selfadjoint} shows that time-dependence enters the weak formulation of
$\Delta_{g(t),\mu(t)}$ only through the dual metric/diffusion tensor $g(t)^{-1}$, and
not through the measure $\mu$; cf.~also \cite[Eq.~(3)]{Thiffeault2003}. For this reason, we henceforth omit the measure in the
notation of the generalized Laplace--Beltrami operator.
\subsection{Autonomization by time-averaging\label{sec:Time-pert}}
Our next goal is to approximate the one-parameter family of operators
$\left(\Delta_{g(t)}\right)_{t\in[0,T]}$ by a time-independent operator $L$. A natural
choice is to consider the time-averaged operator
\begin{equation}
L=\overline{\Delta}:=\fint_{0}^{T}\Delta_{g(t)}\,\mathrm{d}t,\label{eq:average_lapl-1}
\end{equation}
as has been done in \cite{Press1981,Krol1991,Knobloch1992,Fyrillas2007}.
Denote the heat flows of \cref{eq:lagr_FPE} and $\partial_t\varphi = \varepsilon\overline{\Delta}$ by $U_{\varepsilon\left(\Delta_{g(t)}\right)_t}$ and $U_{\varepsilon\overline{\Delta}}$, respectively. Then the arguments of \cite{Krol1991} indicate that
\[
U_{\varepsilon\left(\Delta_{g(t)}\right)_t}(T,0) - U_{\varepsilon\overline{\Delta}}(T) = O(\varepsilon^2),\qquad \varepsilon\to 0.
\]
Note that we do not assume periodicity as usual in averaging theory \cite{Krol1991},
but also that we do not compare the two heat flows at time instances beyond the
averaging time interval, i.e., no asymptotics in $T$ are considered. In any case, the
approximation quality is---in practice with some finite $\varepsilon$---certainly a
matter of concern, especially for long time intervals; cf.~\cite[Sect.~6.4]{Krol1991}, and
\cite{Knobloch1992} for studies including time-asymptotic considerations.
With the time-average of the dual metrics\footnote{Dual metrics may be naturally interpreted as \emph{diffusion tensors}; cf., for instance, \cite{Lara1995}.}
\[
\bar{g}^{-1}\coloneqq\fint_0^T g(t)^{-1}\,\mathrm{d}t,
\]
the weak formulation of $\overline{\Delta}$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
\int_{M}\bar{g}^{-1}(\mathrm{d}v,\mathrm{d}w)\,\mathrm{d}\mu_0.\label{eq:weak_dyn_Laplace}
\end{equation}
Following an independent line of reasoning, Froyland introduced the
operator $\overline{\Delta}$ recently in \cite{Froyland2015a,Froyland2017} and
coined it \emph{dynamic Laplacian}. Froyland considered both the time-continuous
average as well as its two-point trapezoidal time discretization
\[
\overline{\Delta}\approx\tfrac{1}{2}\left(\Delta_{g}+\Delta_{g(T)}\right).
\]
The following lemma summarizes key properties of $\overline{\Delta}$.
\begin{lem}[{cf.~\cite[Thm.~4.1]{Froyland2015a}, \cite[Thm.~4.4]{Froyland2017}}]
\label{lem:properties_dyn-lapl} The dynamic Laplacian $\text{-}\overline{\Delta}$
is a second-order, elliptic, nonnegative and self-adjoint differential operator on $L^{2}(M,\mu_0)$.
Its real eigenvalues form a monotone sequence $0=\lambda_{1}\geq\lambda_{2}\geq\hdots$
that only accumulates at $-\infty$, and the corresponding eigenfunctions $(u_{i})_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ are
smooth and $L^{2}$-orthogonal if they belong to distinct eigenvalues.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The statements follow directly from the construction, \Cref{prop:elliptic_ops} and \Cref{lem:time_dep_LB}.
\end{proof}
Notably, self-adjointness follows from the fact that the dynamic Laplacian is an integral/sum of operators $\Delta_{g(t)}$, all of which are
self-adjoint on the same Hilbert space $L^{2}(M,\mu_0)$, see \Cref{lem:time_dep_LB}.
Ultimately, this is a direct consequence of conservation of mass (volume) in the
(in)compressible case. The origin of the self-adjointness of the dynamic Laplacian,
which is not explicitly asserted, is difficult to trace back in \cite{Froyland2015a,Froyland2017}.
In the case when $M$ has nonempty boundary, the operator is equipped
with a boundary condition that can be read as the average of pullbacks
of zero Neumann boundary conditions, see \cite[Thm.~3.2]{Froyland2015a}, \cite[Thm.~4.4]{Froyland2017}.
Due to the intimate relation between Riemannian geometries and the
corresponding Laplace--Beltrami operators, the following natural question arises:
\begin{quote}
Is there an intrinsic geometry on $M$, given by a Riemannian metric $\bar{g}$, such
that $\overline{\Delta}$ equals the associated Laplace--Beltrami operator $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$?
\end{quote}
Such a geometric footing is of great interest, since this would allow for the application
of many well-established techniques and tools from geometric spectral
analysis and spectral geometry \cite{Jost2011,Lablee2015}, harmonic analysis as well
as intuitive visualization techniques.
\section{The geometry of mixing}
\label{sec:Dynamic-Laplace-Beltrami}
The aim of this section is the derivation and extensive exploration of a Riemannian
geometry that is most consistent with Lagrangian averaged diffusion modelled by the
dynamic Laplacian $\overline{\Delta}$. We will refer to this geometry as the \emph{geometry of mixing},
thereby picking up and extending earlier related approaches
\cite{Giona2000,Thiffeault2001} developed under the same terminology, but referring to
the (single) pullback geometry under one flow map of (typically chaotic) flows.
\subsection{The symbol of the dynamic Laplacian}
To answer the above question, we study the dynamic Laplacian $\varepsilon\overline{\Delta}$ through its
phase space representation as a semiclassical pseudodifferential operator on $M$.
In this context, $\varepsilon$ plays the role of the (small) semiclassical parameter.
For a brief review of technical background see \cref{sec:Semiclassical-analysis} and
the references given therein.
We start with the spatial Laplace–Beltrami operator $-\varepsilon\Delta_{g}$. By using its local representation and \cref{eq:quantization}, one can show that its symbol is---in local coordinates---of
the form $p=p_{0}+\sqrt{\varepsilon} p_{1}$, where the principal and subprincipal symbols are given by \cite[p.\ 287]{Lebeau2010}
\begin{equation}
p_{0}(x,\xi)=g_{x}^{mn}\xi_{m}\xi_{n}\quad\text{and}\quad p_{1}(x,\xi)=-i\xi_{n}(\partial_{x_{m}}g_{x}^{mn}+\tfrac{1}{2\det(g_{x})}g_{x}^{mn}\partial_{x_{m}}\det(g_{x})),\label{eq:symbols_LB}
\end{equation}
respectively. Hence, $-\varepsilon\Delta_{g}$
is a second-order pseudodifferential operator. The above expressions
can be used to compute the symbol of the dynamic Laplacian.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:semiclassical_dyn_lap}
The dynamic Laplacian $-\varepsilon\overline{\Delta}$
is a second-order pseudodifferential operator on $M$. Its symbol
is given in local coordinates by $\ell=\ell_{0}+\sqrt{\varepsilon}\ell_{1}$,
where
\begin{align*}
\ell_{0}(x,\xi)= & \fint_{0}^{T}g_{x}^{mn}(t)\,\mathrm{d}t\,\xi_{m}\xi_{n},\\
\ell_{1}(x,\xi)= & -i\xi_{n}\left(\fint_{0}^{T}\partial_{x_{m}}g_{x}^{mn}(t)\,\mathrm{d}t\,+\fint_{0}^{T}\tfrac{1}{2\det(g_{x}(t))}g_{x}^{mn}(t)\partial_{x_{m}}\det(g_{x}(t))\,\mathrm{d}t\right).
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $-\varepsilon\overline{\Delta}$ is the average of the time-parametrized
family of Laplace–Beltrami operators $-\varepsilon\Delta_{g(t)},$
it is again a second-order pseudodifferential operator. The formula
for its symbol is a consequence of \cref{eq:symbols_LB}, as the quantization
rule \cref{eq:quantization} is linear in the symbol. Specifically,
let $\psi\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ be a Schwartz function (the general manifold case follows by localization in charts, cf.~\cref{sec:Semiclassical-analysis}), and denote by
$p_t$ the symbol of $\Delta_{g(t)}$. Then,
\begin{align*}
\left(-\varepsilon\overline{\Delta}\psi\right)(x) &= (2\pi\varepsilon)^{-d}\fint_0^T\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2d}}e^{i(x-y)\cdot\xi/\varepsilon}p_t(x,\xi,\varepsilon)\psi(y)\,\mathrm{d}y\,\mathrm{d}\xi\,\mathrm{d}t\\
&=(2\pi\varepsilon)^{-d}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2d}}e^{i(x-y)\cdot\xi/\varepsilon}\fint_0^Tp_t(x,\xi,\varepsilon)\,\mathrm{d}t\,\psi(y)\,\mathrm{d}y\,\mathrm{d}\xi,
\end{align*}
which states that the symbol $\ell$ can be computed by time-averaging of the symbols $p_t$ as claimed.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The harmonic mean metric and its Laplace–Beltrami operator\label{sec:The-harmonic-mean}}
A careful comparison of the weak formulation of (generalized) Laplace--Beltrami operators with that of the dynamic Laplacian, \cref{eq:weak_dyn_Laplace}, reveals a ``mismatch'' between
the diffusion tensor, $\bar{g}^{-1}$, and the measure $\mathrm{d}\mu_0=\rho_0\omega_g$.
In the same spirit, the subprincipal symbol $\ell_{1}$ depends nonlinearly on the metric, which does not allow to shift time-averaging to where $g(t)$-terms occur.
\Cref{lem:semiclassical_dyn_lap}, however, confirms that the principal symbol $\ell_0$ of the dynamic Laplacian is a positive definite quadratic form,
that coincides with the principal symbol of the Laplace–Beltrami operator $-\varepsilon\Delta_{\bar{g}}$ associated with the harmonic mean $\bar{g}$ of the metrics $g(t)$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\bar{g}\coloneqq\left(\fint_{0}^{T}g(t)^{-1}\,\mathrm{d}t\right)^{-1}.\label{eq:harmonic_mean_metric}
\end{equation}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:metric_tensor}
In two-dimensional flows, the harmonic mean metric tensor $\overline{G}$ may be computed without matrix inversion as
\begin{align*}
\overline{C} &= \fint_0^T \frac{1}{\left\lvert C(t)\right\rvert}C(t)\,\mathrm{d}t, &
\overline{G} &= \frac{1}{\left\lvert\overline{C}\right\rvert}\overline{C}.
\end{align*}
Here, $\lvert M \rvert$ denotes the determinant of $M$.
\end{rem}
Due to their common principal symbol, the dynamic Laplacian $\varepsilon\overline{\Delta}$ and the harmonic mean Laplace–Beltrami operator $\varepsilon\Delta_{\bar{g}}$
are expected to have a similar spectral structure in the limit $\varepsilon\to 0$.
By \cref{eq:symbols_LB}, the symbol $\bar{\ell}$ of $-\varepsilon\Delta_{\bar{g}}$ is given in local coordinates by $\bar{\ell} = \bar{\ell}_0+\sqrt{\varepsilon}\bar{\ell}_1$, where
\[
\bar{\ell}_0(x,\xi) = \ell_{0}(x,\xi)=\bar{g}_{x}^{mn}\xi_{m}\xi_{n}\quad\text{and}\quad \bar{\ell}_{1}(x,\xi)=-i\xi_{n}(\partial_{x_{m}}\bar{g}_{x}^{mn}+\tfrac{1}{2\det(\bar{g}_{x})}g_{x}^{mn}\partial_{x_{m}}\det(\bar{g}_{x})).
\]
In fact, in the one-dimensional
flat case with time-discrete flow, $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$ and $\overline{\Delta}$
even coincide.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:1d_ident}
Consider $M=[0,1]$ with the standard metric and the corresponding Laplace–Beltrami
operator $\Delta_{g}=\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}}{\mathrm{d}x^{2}}$. Let $\Phi$ be a diffeomorphism of $M$. Then,
\begin{align*}
\overline{\Delta} & =\Delta_{\bar{g}}.
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
See \cref{sec:1D-case}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Unfortunately, the calculation in \cref{sec:1D-case} does not seem to offer a structural insight as to
how to extend this equality to several time instances or a time interval, and whether
this is possible at all.
\end{rem}
When equipping $M$ with the Riemannian metric $\bar{g}$ (and measure $\mathrm{d}\bar{\mu}=\rho_0\omega_{\bar{g}}$), the time-average of diffusion tensors $\bar{g}^{-1}$ indeed is the
natural diffusion tensor in that geometry \cite{Lara1995}, and the induced Laplace–Beltrami
operator takes the weak form
\[
\int_{M}\bar{g}^{-1}(\mathrm{d}v,\mathrm{d}w)\,\mathrm{d}\bar{\mu}.
\]
In summary, we propose to approximate Lagrangian coherent structures, i.e., almost-invariant sets of the
nonautonomous Lagrangian FPE \eqref{eq:lagr_FokkerPlanck}, by almost-invariant sets for the
autonomous Lagrangian evolution equation
\begin{equation}
\partial_{t}\varphi=\varepsilon\Delta_{\bar{g}}\varphi.\label{eq:averaged_FP_eq}
\end{equation}
By the spectral relation between heat flow and generator,
cf.~\cref{sec:Heat-flow}, this boils down to a spectral analysis of
the generating Laplace–Beltrami operator $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$.
\begin{rem}
The operators $\overline{\Delta}$ and $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$ act on
different Hilbert spaces. Correspondingly, different spectral problems
are considered.
\end{rem}
In the remainder of this section, we study the geometry of the Riemannian manifold
$(M,\bar{g})$, i.e., the initial flow domain $M$ equipped with the
harmonic mean metric $\bar{g}$, as well as the properties of the
induced dynamic Laplace–Beltrami operator $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$ and
its heat flow. Our aim is to find signatures of coherent and incoherent
dynamics—and of the boundary between them—in the static geometry of
$\left(M,\bar{g}\right)$. We do so by comparing characteristics of
the metric tensor field, the volume form and the induced surface area
form relative to the physical geometry $\left(M,g\right)$ and in
$g$–orthonormal coordinates $x$. In the Euclidean setting these
are the canonical $x_{i}$-coordinates. For simplicity, we assume $\rho_0=1$
henceforth.
By choosing a reference geometry relative to which we study the deformed
$\bar{g}$–geometry our analysis appears to be somewhat reference--dependent.
An analogous approach, however, is common in continuum mechanics, where
deformed configurations are analyzed relative to a reference configuration
\cite{Truesdell2004}. Eventually, the spectrum and the eigenprojections
of $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$—the basis of our coherent structure detection
method—are intrinsic and independent of representations w.r.t.~the reference
configuration, see \Cref{prop:LB_spectrum}. Notably, our geometric construction is
observer-independent, or, equivalently, objective.
\subsection{The Laplace–Beltrami operator and averaging}
\label{sec:averaging}
In order to develop a finer intuition on the action of the mean metric
Laplace–Beltrami operator and its associated heat flow, we compare it to the operator of averaging
over geodesic balls. To this end, consider an arbitrary Riemannian
metric $g$ on $M$ (without boundary) and denote the diffusion operator defined by averaging
over $g$–geodesic balls $B_{\varepsilon}^{g}(x)=\lbrace y\in M;\,\dist_{g}(x,y)\leq\varepsilon\rbrace$
of radius $\varepsilon$ by $T_{\varepsilon}^{g}$, i.e.,
\[
\left(T_{\varepsilon}^{g}u\right)(x)=\frac{\int_{B_{\varepsilon}^g(x)}u\,\omega_{g}}{\int_{B_{\varepsilon}^g(x)}\,\omega_{g}}=\frac{1}{\Vol_g\left(B_{\varepsilon}^g(x)\right)}\int_{B_{\varepsilon}^g(x)}u\,\omega_{g}.
\]
Then the results from \cite[Thms.~1 and 2]{Lebeau2010} show that
\begin{align}\label{eq:expansion}
T_{\varepsilon}^{g} & =\id_{L^{2}(M,g)}+\tfrac{\varepsilon^{2}}{2(d+2)}\Delta_{g}+O\left(\varepsilon^{4}\right), & \text{for } & \varepsilon\to 0,
\end{align}
(almost) in the norm resolvent sense; see \cite{Lebeau2010} for technical details. In particular, the dominant eigenvalues and their eigenprojections
of $\varepsilon^2\Delta_{g}$ converge to the eigenvalues and eigenprojections
of $2(d+2)(T_{\varepsilon}^{g}-\id)$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$, respecting
multiplicity. This strong result can be usefully interpreted in two ways in our context, by reading \cref{eq:expansion} from right to left and vice versa.
\paragraph{Spectral approximation of the short-time heat flow}
Typically, almost-invariant sets for \cref{eq:averaged_FP_eq} are detected by eigenfunctions of the heat flow $U_{\varepsilon\Delta_g}$.
Now, the right-hand side of \cref{eq:expansion} can be read as the second-order
operator expansion of the heat flow $U_{\varepsilon\Delta_g}\left(\frac{\varepsilon}{2(d+2)}\right)$,
i.e., for short time intervals of length $O(\varepsilon)$. An understanding of this short-time heat flow
is already instructive for the general heat flow, since \cref{eq:averaged_FP_eq} is
autonomous and the long-time heat flow is nothing but an iteration of the short-time
heat flow. \Cref{eq:expansion} now states that not only may we understand the
pointwise action of the short-time heat flow through studying the shape of geodesic
balls locally, but also build a macroscopic intuition as reflected through
eigenfunctions. We explore this viewpoint further in the next section, including numerical case studies.
\paragraph{Approximation of local averaging by advection--diffusion}
Alternatively, \cref{eq:expansion} may be interpreted from left to right. On the
left-hand side, we have the compact integral smoothing operator $T^g_\varepsilon$.
This operator is expanded in (non-compact) differential smoothing operators. To
zeroth order, i.e., sending $\varepsilon\to 0$, the integral kernel of $T^g$ becomes
the Dirac delta-distribution, whose action is given simply by point evaluation, or, on
the operator level, by the identity operator. In the context of the classic heat equation
induced by $\Delta_g$, i.e., the FPE with vanishing advection, one may thus interpret
the identity as the representation of the (absent) advection, and the Laplace operator
$\varepsilon\Delta_g$ as the second-order differential operator representing the classic diffusion part of $T^g$.
These static considerations may now be translated to a dynamic context as done in
\cite{Froyland2013}. As in \cite{Froyland2013}, we use
the notation\footnote{Since $\Phi^{t}$ is a diffeomorphism for any $t$, the
pushforward $(\Phi^{t})_{*}$ of functions by the flow map coincides---in this case---with the
``normalized transfer operator'' often used in the recent transfer operator literature.}
\[
\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}^t=T_{\varepsilon}^{g}(\Phi^{t})_{*}T_{\varepsilon}^{g}
\]
for the probabilistic transfer operator, where the second averaging
is done in the image of $M$ under the flow. Froyland \cite[Thm.~5.1]{Froyland2015a,Froyland2017} has shown that
\[
\left(\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}^t\right)^{*}\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}^t=\id_{L^{2}}+\frac{2\varepsilon^{2}}{d+2}\overline{\Delta}+O(\varepsilon^{4})
\]
with strong convergence, that does not imply convergence of spectra. Our hypothesis is, however, that this
convergence analysis can be strengthened towards convergence of spectra, using
the results from \cite{Lebeau2010}. In the advection--diffusion ``decomposition''
discussed above, the identity reflects the purely advective part of diffusive
forward-backward motion as modeled by $\left(\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}^t\right)^{*}\mathcal{L}_{\varepsilon}^t$, and $\overline{\Delta}$ represents the second-order
differential diffusion. This, together with our derivation of the dynamic Laplacian in a
Lagrangian-diffusion context, is in contrast to the interpretation of $\overline{\Delta}$
in a ``purely advective'' context in \cite{Froyland2015a,Froyland2015b,Froyland2017,Froyland2017a}.
\subsection{Diffusion barriers\label{sec:tensor-field}}
In local coordinates, the Riemannian metric $\bar{g}$ has a second-order
matrix field representation by the Gram matrix field $\overline{G}$.
At each point, $\overline{G}$ is symmetric, positive definite, and
hence invertible. Its inverse $\overline{D}\coloneqq\overline{G}^{-1}$ is the matrix representation
of the dual metric $\bar{g}^{-1}$ with respect to the dual coordinates,
and for that reason again symmetric positive definite.
Physically speaking, $\overline{D}$ is the natural/isotropic diffusion tensor associated with $\overline{G}$, or the \emph{Lagrangian averaged diffusion tensor}.
We are now looking for a canonical, i.e., diagonalized, coordinate
representation of the bilinear form $\overline{D}$ with respect
to cotangent-space bases which are orthonormal with respect to $g^{-1}$.
This can be achieved by computing the eigendecomposition of $\overline{D}$. The eigenvalues of $\overline{D}$
can then be viewed as the diffusion coefficients in the characteristic
directions corresponding to the eigenvectors. In the corresponding
tangent space basis, the Laplace–Beltrami operator takes the following
leading-order form:
\[
\Delta_{\bar{g}}f=\sum_{i}\mu_{i}\left(\overline{D}\right)\frac{\partial^{2}f}{\partial\left(v_{i}\left(\overline{D}\right)\right)^{2}}.
\]
In other words, the direction $v_{\max}\left(\overline{D}\right)$
associated with $\mu_{\max}\left(\overline{D}\right)$ corresponds
to the direction of strongest (or fastest) diffusion. The direction
spanned by $v_{\max}\left(\overline{D}\right)$ corresponds to
$v_{\min}\left(\overline{G}\right)$, i.e., the direction which is
most strongly compressed under the change of metric from $g$ to $\bar{g}$,
see \Cref{fig:geoballs}.
Equivalently, we may pass to a $\bar{g}$–orthonormal basis $\tilde{v}_{i}$
by rescaling, $\tilde{v}_{i}=\sqrt{\mu_{i}}v_{i}$. In the $\tilde{v}_{i}$–basis,
the Laplace-Beltrami operator takes the canonical leading-order form
\[
\Delta_{\bar{g}}f=\sum_{i}\frac{\partial^{2}f}{\partial\tilde{v}_{i}^{2}}.
\]
The rescaling therefore shows how the $\bar{g}$–unit sphere looks
relative to the $g$–unit sphere, and this relative deformation transfers
to geodesic balls under the diffeomorphic exponential maps.
\begin{figure}
\centerin
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=0.5cm, y=0.5cm]
\draw [color=black, line width=1.5pt] (0,0) circle [radius=6];
\draw[color=red, line width=1.5pt] (0,0) ellipse [rotate=45, x radius=7, y radius=3];
\draw [color=red, ->,line width=1.5pt,>=stealth] (0,0) -- (-2.12,2.12) node [pos=0.47,below=2pt, sloped,fill=white] {$\scriptstyle\mu_{\min}\left(\overline{G}\right)$};
\draw [color=red, ->,line width=1.5pt,>=stealth] (0,0) -- (4.95,4.95) node [pos=0.6,above, sloped] {$\scriptstyle\mu_{\max}\left(\overline{G}\right)$};
\node [color=red] at (6.6,5.4) {$v_{\max}\left(\overline{G}\right)$};
\node [color=red] at (-3.45,2.75) {$v_{\min}\left(\overline{G}\right)$};
\draw [->,line width=1.5pt,>=stealth] (0,0) -- (6,0) node [pos=0.42,below,fill=white] {$\scriptstyle\mu_{\max}(G)=\mu_{\min}(G)=1$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Schematic visualization of the $g$– and $\bar{g}$–unit circles (black
and red, resp.) in $g$–orthonormal coordinates, cf.\ \Cref{fig:diffusion_types}. Note that $\bar{g}$–diffusion
is fastest in the direction of $v_{\min}\left(\overline{G}\right)$
because the $\bar{g}$–distance is the shortest on $g$–circles.
The corresponding diffusion coefficient in that direction is $\mu_{\max}\left(\overline{D}\right)=1/\mu_{\min}\left(\overline{G}\right)$.
Note also that $\bar{g}$–unit spheres have typically much smaller volume
than $g$–unit spheres because $\mu_{\min}\left(\overline{G}\right)\leq\mu_{\max}\left(\overline{G}\right)<1$ in large regions of $M$, and consequently $g$–unit volumes have $\bar{g}$–volume
smaller than one there, see \cref{sec:volume_form}.}
\label{fig:geoballs}
\end{figure}
It is of interest to look at the ratio between the maximal and the minimal eigenvalues.
This ratio is commonly referred to as \emph{anisotropy
ratio} and indicates the separation of diffusion time scales. Note
that the anisotropy ratio is not an intrinsic quantity of $\bar{g}$,
but is determined here by viewing the $\bar{g}$--diffusion tensor from the $g$--perspective.
In \Cref{fig:meiss_tensor,fig:cylinder_tensor,fig:bickley_tensor} we visualize
the Lagrangian averaged diffusion tensor field $\overline{D}$ for three
model examples that are commonly considered in the LCS community.
Here, the scalar field corresponds to the difference in order of magnitude between
the dominant $\mu_{\max}=\mu_{\max}\left(\overline{D}\right)$
and the subdominant eigenvalue $\mu_{\min}=\mu_{\min}\left(\overline{D}\right)$,
i.e., $\log_{10}(\mu_{\max}/\mu_{\min})$. On top, a grey-scale texture
is shown, whose features are aligned with the dominant diffusion direction
field $v_{\max}\left(\overline{D}\right)$.
A coarser visualization of related matters can also be found in \cite[Fig.~5]{Krol1991}.
\begin{example}[Rotating double gyre flow]
\label{exa:transient1}We consider the transient double gyre flow
on the unit square $[0,1]\times[0,1]$ introduced in \cite{Mosovsky2011},
which is given by a time-dependent stream function $\Psi(t,x,y)=(1-s(t))\sin(2\pi x)\sin(\pi y)+s(t)\sin(\pi x)\sin(2\pi y)$,
$s(t)=t^{2}(3-2t)$, defining the velocity field through
\begin{align*}
\dot{x} & =-\frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial y}, & \dot{y} & =\frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial x}.
\end{align*}
The integration time interval is $[0,1]$. The flow is designed to
interpolate in time an instantaneously horizontal (at $t=0$) and
an instantaneously vertical (at $t=1$) double gyre vector field.
For our metric computations we average over 21 pullback metrics from
equidistant time instances with time step $0.05$.
In \Cref{fig:meiss_tensor}, two phenomena are
clearly visible. First, the $\bar{g}$—diffusion gets closest to
isotropic diffusion (low $\log_{10}(\mu_{\max}/\mu_{\min})$–values)
around the cores of the two coherent structures at roughly $\left(0.5\pm0.25,0.5\right)$.
The further away from the structure centers, the more quasi-one-dimensional
the diffusion becomes (high $\log_{10}(\mu_{\max}/\mu_{\min})$–values), cf.\ also \cite{Thiffeault2001,Thiffeault2003}.
In particular, there are thin yellowish filaments almost fully enclosing
the blueish regions. Second, diffusion across the anticipated boundary
of the coherent regions corresponds to the subdominant diffusion direction,
which is several orders of magnitudes weaker than the dominant diffusion
and therefore much slower.
In other words, a uniform heat distribution localized close to the
vortex core will diffuse both radially and circularly on comparable
time scales. A uniform heat distribution localized on the whole vortex
will diffuse to the exterior on very long time scales and is therefore
expected to be extremely slowly decaying, or, in other words, almost-invariant.
\end{example}
\begin{figure}
\centerin
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.33\textwidth,
height=.33\textwidth,
at={(1.267in,0.642in)},
xtick={0,0.5,1},
ytick={0,0.5,1},
scale only axis,
point meta min=0,
point meta max=7.25467832205814,
axis on top,
xmin=0,
xmax=1,
xlabel={$x$},
ymin=0,
ymax=1,
ylabel={$y$},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
colormap={mymap}{[1pt] rgb(0pt)=(0.2081,0.1663,0.5292); rgb(1pt)=(0.211624,0.189781,0.577676); rgb(2pt)=(0.212252,0.213771,0.626971); rgb(3pt)=(0.2081,0.2386,0.677086); rgb(4pt)=(0.195905,0.264457,0.7279); rgb(5pt)=(0.170729,0.291938,0.779248); rgb(6pt)=(0.125271,0.324243,0.830271); rgb(7pt)=(0.0591333,0.359833,0.868333); rgb(8pt)=(0.0116952,0.38751,0.881957); rgb(9pt)=(0.00595714,0.408614,0.882843); rgb(10pt)=(0.0165143,0.4266,0.878633); rgb(11pt)=(0.0328524,0.443043,0.871957); rgb(12pt)=(0.0498143,0.458571,0.864057); rgb(13pt)=(0.0629333,0.47369,0.855438); rgb(14pt)=(0.0722667,0.488667,0.8467); rgb(15pt)=(0.0779429,0.503986,0.838371); rgb(16pt)=(0.0793476,0.520024,0.831181); rgb(17pt)=(0.0749429,0.537543,0.826271); rgb(18pt)=(0.0640571,0.556986,0.823957); rgb(19pt)=(0.0487714,0.577224,0.822829); rgb(20pt)=(0.0343429,0.596581,0.819852); rgb(21pt)=(0.0265,0.6137,0.8135); rgb(22pt)=(0.0238905,0.628662,0.803762); rgb(23pt)=(0.0230905,0.641786,0.791267); rgb(24pt)=(0.0227714,0.653486,0.776757); rgb(25pt)=(0.0266619,0.664195,0.760719); rgb(26pt)=(0.0383714,0.674271,0.743552); rgb(27pt)=(0.0589714,0.683757,0.725386); rgb(28pt)=(0.0843,0.692833,0.706167); rgb(29pt)=(0.113295,0.7015,0.685857); rgb(30pt)=(0.145271,0.709757,0.664629); rgb(31pt)=(0.180133,0.717657,0.642433); rgb(32pt)=(0.217829,0.725043,0.619262); rgb(33pt)=(0.258643,0.731714,0.595429); rgb(34pt)=(0.302171,0.737605,0.571186); rgb(35pt)=(0.348167,0.742433,0.547267); rgb(36pt)=(0.395257,0.7459,0.524443); rgb(37pt)=(0.44201,0.748081,0.503314); rgb(38pt)=(0.487124,0.749062,0.483976); rgb(39pt)=(0.530029,0.749114,0.466114); rgb(40pt)=(0.570857,0.748519,0.44939); rgb(41pt)=(0.609852,0.747314,0.433686); rgb(42pt)=(0.6473,0.7456,0.4188); rgb(43pt)=(0.683419,0.743476,0.404433); rgb(44pt)=(0.71841,0.741133,0.390476); rgb(45pt)=(0.752486,0.7384,0.376814); rgb(46pt)=(0.785843,0.735567,0.363271); rgb(47pt)=(0.818505,0.732733,0.34979); rgb(48pt)=(0.850657,0.7299,0.336029); rgb(49pt)=(0.882433,0.727433,0.3217); rgb(50pt)=(0.913933,0.725786,0.306276); rgb(51pt)=(0.944957,0.726114,0.288643); rgb(52pt)=(0.973895,0.731395,0.266648); rgb(53pt)=(0.993771,0.745457,0.240348); rgb(54pt)=(0.999043,0.765314,0.216414); rgb(55pt)=(0.995533,0.786057,0.196652); rgb(56pt)=(0.988,0.8066,0.179367); rgb(57pt)=(0.978857,0.827143,0.163314); rgb(58pt)=(0.9697,0.848138,0.147452); rgb(59pt)=(0.962586,0.870514,0.1309); rgb(60pt)=(0.958871,0.8949,0.113243); rgb(61pt)=(0.959824,0.921833,0.0948381); rgb(62pt)=(0.9661,0.951443,0.0755333); rgb(63pt)=(0.9763,0.9831,0.0538)},
colorbar,
colorbar style={ylabel={$\log_{10}(\mu_{\max}/\mu_{\min})$}, ylabel near ticks}
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.000977471624266145,xmax=1.00097747162427,ymin=-0.000977471624266145,ymax=1.00097747162427] {meiss_tensor-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\caption{Metric tensor field for the transient double gyre flow, cut off above for visualization purposes.}
\label{fig:meiss_tensor}
\end{figure}
Next, we consider a non-volume preserving flow with two known coherent structures.
\begin{example}[Cylinder flow, non-volume preserving]
\label{exa:cylinder1} We consider the flow on the cylinder $S^{1}\times[0,\pi]$,
introduced in \cite{Froyland2010} and generated by the vector field
\begin{align*}
\dot{x} & =c-A(t)\sin(x-\nu t)\cos(y)+\epsilon G(g(x,y,t))\sin(t/2),\\
\dot{y} & =A(t)\cos(x-\nu t)\sin(y).
\end{align*}
The functions and parameters are chosen as in the computations in
\cite{Froyland2015b}: $A(t)=1+0.125\sin(2\sqrt{5}t)$, $G(\psi)=1/(\psi^{2}+1)^{2}$,
$g(x,y,t)=\sin(x-\nu t)\sin(y)+y/2-\pi/4$, $c=0.5$, $\nu=0.5$,
$\epsilon=0.25$. As in \cite{Froyland2015b}, we choose an integration
time of $T=40$ and approximate the harmonic mean metric by $41$
pullback metrics at integer time instances.
The resulting metric tensor field is shown in \Cref{fig:cylinder_tensor}.
As in the previous example, we find a low anisotropy ratio in the
anticipated cores of the vortex at roughly $\left(\pi\pm\pi/2,\pi/2\right)$,
which corresponds to almost isotropic $\bar{g}$–diffusion there.
Also, the dominant diffusion direction field circulates around the
vortices, which are eventually surrounded by regions of quasi-one-dimensional
diffusion in the yellowish region, separating the two gyres.
\begin{figure}
\centerin
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.6\textwidth,
height=.3\textwidth,
at={(0.921in,1.646in)},
scale only axis,
point meta min=0,
point meta max=13.4699286351337,
axis on top,
xmin=0,
xmax=6.28318530717959,
xlabel={$x$},
xtick={0,3.14159265358979,6.28318530717959},
xticklabels={$0$, $\pi$, $2\pi$},
ymin=0,
ymax=3.14159265358979,
ylabel={$y$},
ytick={0,1.570796326794895,3.1415},
yticklabels={0,$\frac{\pi}{2}$,$\pi$},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
colormap={mymap}{[1pt] rgb(0pt)=(0.2081,0.1663,0.5292); rgb(1pt)=(0.211624,0.189781,0.577676); rgb(2pt)=(0.212252,0.213771,0.626971); rgb(3pt)=(0.2081,0.2386,0.677086); rgb(4pt)=(0.195905,0.264457,0.7279); rgb(5pt)=(0.170729,0.291938,0.779248); rgb(6pt)=(0.125271,0.324243,0.830271); rgb(7pt)=(0.0591333,0.359833,0.868333); rgb(8pt)=(0.0116952,0.38751,0.881957); rgb(9pt)=(0.00595714,0.408614,0.882843); rgb(10pt)=(0.0165143,0.4266,0.878633); rgb(11pt)=(0.0328524,0.443043,0.871957); rgb(12pt)=(0.0498143,0.458571,0.864057); rgb(13pt)=(0.0629333,0.47369,0.855438); rgb(14pt)=(0.0722667,0.488667,0.8467); rgb(15pt)=(0.0779429,0.503986,0.838371); rgb(16pt)=(0.0793476,0.520024,0.831181); rgb(17pt)=(0.0749429,0.537543,0.826271); rgb(18pt)=(0.0640571,0.556986,0.823957); rgb(19pt)=(0.0487714,0.577224,0.822829); rgb(20pt)=(0.0343429,0.596581,0.819852); rgb(21pt)=(0.0265,0.6137,0.8135); rgb(22pt)=(0.0238905,0.628662,0.803762); rgb(23pt)=(0.0230905,0.641786,0.791267); rgb(24pt)=(0.0227714,0.653486,0.776757); rgb(25pt)=(0.0266619,0.664195,0.760719); rgb(26pt)=(0.0383714,0.674271,0.743552); rgb(27pt)=(0.0589714,0.683757,0.725386); rgb(28pt)=(0.0843,0.692833,0.706167); rgb(29pt)=(0.113295,0.7015,0.685857); rgb(30pt)=(0.145271,0.709757,0.664629); rgb(31pt)=(0.180133,0.717657,0.642433); rgb(32pt)=(0.217829,0.725043,0.619262); rgb(33pt)=(0.258643,0.731714,0.595429); rgb(34pt)=(0.302171,0.737605,0.571186); rgb(35pt)=(0.348167,0.742433,0.547267); rgb(36pt)=(0.395257,0.7459,0.524443); rgb(37pt)=(0.44201,0.748081,0.503314); rgb(38pt)=(0.487124,0.749062,0.483976); rgb(39pt)=(0.530029,0.749114,0.466114); rgb(40pt)=(0.570857,0.748519,0.44939); rgb(41pt)=(0.609852,0.747314,0.433686); rgb(42pt)=(0.6473,0.7456,0.4188); rgb(43pt)=(0.683419,0.743476,0.404433); rgb(44pt)=(0.71841,0.741133,0.390476); rgb(45pt)=(0.752486,0.7384,0.376814); rgb(46pt)=(0.785843,0.735567,0.363271); rgb(47pt)=(0.818505,0.732733,0.34979); rgb(48pt)=(0.850657,0.7299,0.336029); rgb(49pt)=(0.882433,0.727433,0.3217); rgb(50pt)=(0.913933,0.725786,0.306276); rgb(51pt)=(0.944957,0.726114,0.288643); rgb(52pt)=(0.973895,0.731395,0.266648); rgb(53pt)=(0.993771,0.745457,0.240348); rgb(54pt)=(0.999043,0.765314,0.216414); rgb(55pt)=(0.995533,0.786057,0.196652); rgb(56pt)=(0.988,0.8066,0.179367); rgb(57pt)=(0.978857,0.827143,0.163314); rgb(58pt)=(0.9697,0.848138,0.147452); rgb(59pt)=(0.962586,0.870514,0.1309); rgb(60pt)=(0.958871,0.8949,0.113243); rgb(61pt)=(0.959824,0.921833,0.0948381); rgb(62pt)=(0.9661,0.951443,0.0755333); rgb(63pt)=(0.9763,0.9831,0.0538)},
colorbar,
colorbar style={ylabel={$\log_{10}(\mu_{\max}/\mu_{\min})$}, ylabel near ticks}
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.00614793082894284,xmax=6.28933323800853,ymin=0.00387923009100041,ymax=3.13771342349879] {cylinder_tensor-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\caption{Metric tensor field for the cylinder flow.}
\label{fig:cylinder_tensor}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Bickley jet flow]
\label{exa:bickley1}
We consider the Bickley jet flow \cite{Rypina2007}, which is determined by the stream function $\psi(t,x,y) =\psi_{0}(y)+\psi_{1}(t,x,y)$, where
\begin{align*}
\psi_{0}(y) & =-U_{0}L_{0}\tanh\left(y/L_{0}\right), &
\psi_{1}(t,x,y) & =U_{0}L_{0}\sech^{2}(y/L_{0})\Re\left(\sum_{n=1}^{3}f_{n}(t)\exp\left(ik_{n}x\right)\right).
\end{align*}
with functions and parameters as in \cite{Rypina2007,Hadjighasem2016}: $f_{n}(t)=\epsilon_{n}\exp\left(-ik_{n}c_{n}t\right)$,
$U_{0}=\SI{62.66}{\meter\per\second}$, $L_{0}=\SI{1770}{\kilo\meter}$, $k_{n}=2n/r_{0}$, $r_{0}=\SI{6.371}{\kilo\meter}$,
$c_{1}=0.1446U_{0}$, $c_{2}=0.205U_{0}$, $c_{3}=0.461U_{0}$, $\epsilon_{1}=0.0075$,
$\epsilon_{2}=0.15$, $\epsilon_{3}=0.3$; $x$ and $y$ have units of \SI{1000}{\kilo\meter} and $t$ has unit \si{\second}. We approximate the harmonic
mean metric by 81 pullback metrics from equidistant time instances
with time step $0.5$ days. Again, we find a low anisotropy ratio
in the anticipated cores of the vortex, and a dominant diffusion direction
field circulating around the vortices. The regions of quasi-one-dimensional
diffusion separate the gyres from the jet. Note the singular behavior of the
$v_{\max}\left(\overline{D}\right)$-integral curves along the jet core,
especially on the right half, and in the vortex centers;
cf.~\cref{sec:Haller_methods} for more details on the singularity aspect.
\end{example}
\begin{figure}
\centerin
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.75\textwidth,
height=0.225\textwidth,
at={(2.499in,2.969in)},
scale only axis,
point meta min=0,
point meta max=13.6391610790367,
axis on top,
xmin=0,
xmax=20,
xtick={0,5,10,15,20},
xlabel={$x\, [\si{Mm}]$},
ymin=-3,
ymax=3,
ylabel={$y\, [\si{Mm}]$},
ytick={-3,0,3},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
colormap={mymap}{[1pt] rgb(0pt)=(0.2081,0.1663,0.5292); rgb(1pt)=(0.211624,0.189781,0.577676); rgb(2pt)=(0.212252,0.213771,0.626971); rgb(3pt)=(0.2081,0.2386,0.677086); rgb(4pt)=(0.195905,0.264457,0.7279); rgb(5pt)=(0.170729,0.291938,0.779248); rgb(6pt)=(0.125271,0.324243,0.830271); rgb(7pt)=(0.0591333,0.359833,0.868333); rgb(8pt)=(0.0116952,0.38751,0.881957); rgb(9pt)=(0.00595714,0.408614,0.882843); rgb(10pt)=(0.0165143,0.4266,0.878633); rgb(11pt)=(0.0328524,0.443043,0.871957); rgb(12pt)=(0.0498143,0.458571,0.864057); rgb(13pt)=(0.0629333,0.47369,0.855438); rgb(14pt)=(0.0722667,0.488667,0.8467); rgb(15pt)=(0.0779429,0.503986,0.838371); rgb(16pt)=(0.0793476,0.520024,0.831181); rgb(17pt)=(0.0749429,0.537543,0.826271); rgb(18pt)=(0.0640571,0.556986,0.823957); rgb(19pt)=(0.0487714,0.577224,0.822829); rgb(20pt)=(0.0343429,0.596581,0.819852); rgb(21pt)=(0.0265,0.6137,0.8135); rgb(22pt)=(0.0238905,0.628662,0.803762); rgb(23pt)=(0.0230905,0.641786,0.791267); rgb(24pt)=(0.0227714,0.653486,0.776757); rgb(25pt)=(0.0266619,0.664195,0.760719); rgb(26pt)=(0.0383714,0.674271,0.743552); rgb(27pt)=(0.0589714,0.683757,0.725386); rgb(28pt)=(0.0843,0.692833,0.706167); rgb(29pt)=(0.113295,0.7015,0.685857); rgb(30pt)=(0.145271,0.709757,0.664629); rgb(31pt)=(0.180133,0.717657,0.642433); rgb(32pt)=(0.217829,0.725043,0.619262); rgb(33pt)=(0.258643,0.731714,0.595429); rgb(34pt)=(0.302171,0.737605,0.571186); rgb(35pt)=(0.348167,0.742433,0.547267); rgb(36pt)=(0.395257,0.7459,0.524443); rgb(37pt)=(0.44201,0.748081,0.503314); rgb(38pt)=(0.487124,0.749062,0.483976); rgb(39pt)=(0.530029,0.749114,0.466114); rgb(40pt)=(0.570857,0.748519,0.44939); rgb(41pt)=(0.609852,0.747314,0.433686); rgb(42pt)=(0.6473,0.7456,0.4188); rgb(43pt)=(0.683419,0.743476,0.404433); rgb(44pt)=(0.71841,0.741133,0.390476); rgb(45pt)=(0.752486,0.7384,0.376814); rgb(46pt)=(0.785843,0.735567,0.363271); rgb(47pt)=(0.818505,0.732733,0.34979); rgb(48pt)=(0.850657,0.7299,0.336029); rgb(49pt)=(0.882433,0.727433,0.3217); rgb(50pt)=(0.913933,0.725786,0.306276); rgb(51pt)=(0.944957,0.726114,0.288643); rgb(52pt)=(0.973895,0.731395,0.266648); rgb(53pt)=(0.993771,0.745457,0.240348); rgb(54pt)=(0.999043,0.765314,0.216414); rgb(55pt)=(0.995533,0.786057,0.196652); rgb(56pt)=(0.988,0.8066,0.179367); rgb(57pt)=(0.978857,0.827143,0.163314); rgb(58pt)=(0.9697,0.848138,0.147452); rgb(59pt)=(0.962586,0.870514,0.1309); rgb(60pt)=(0.958871,0.8949,0.113243); rgb(61pt)=(0.959824,0.921833,0.0948381); rgb(62pt)=(0.9661,0.951443,0.0755333); rgb(63pt)=(0.9763,0.9831,0.0538)},
colorbar,
colorbar style={ylabel={$\log_{10}(\mu_{\max}/\mu_{\min})$}, ylabel near ticks}
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.0125156445556946,xmax=20.0125156445557,ymin=-3.01255230125523,ymax=3.01255230125523] {bickley_tensor-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\caption{Metric tensor field for the Bickley jet flow, cut off above for visualization purposes.}
\label{fig:bickley_tensor}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Likelihood of membership to an LCS/Lagrangian effective diffusivity}\label{sec:volume_form}
The Riemannian volume form of the original metric $g$ reads in local
coordinates as
\[
\omega_{g}=|g|^{1/2}\mathrm{d}x = \left(\det\left(g\right)\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{d}x,
\]
which simplifies in our chosen normal coordinates to $g_{ij}=\delta_{ij}$,
and therefore $\omega_{g}=\mathrm{d}x$.
For the harmonic mean metric, the associated Riemannian volume form
then reads
\[
\omega_{\bar{g}}=\sqrt{|\bar{g}|}\ \omega_g=\left(\det\left(\fint_{0}^{T}g_{t}^{-1}\,\mathrm{d}t\right)\right)^{-1/2}\ \mathrm{d}x.
\]
\begin{rem}\label{rem:R_density}
In two-dimensional flows, the coefficient $\sqrt{|\bar{g}|}$ can be computed
as $1/\sqrt{\det\overline{C}}$, where $\overline{C}$ is a weighted average of Cauchy--Green strain tensors, see \Cref{rem:metric_tensor}.
\end{rem}
Thus, relative to the reference volume form, the factor $\sqrt{\bar{g}}=\left(\det\left(\fint_{0}^{T}g_{t}^{-1}\,\mathrm{d}t\right)\right)^{-1/2}$
can be interpreted as the density of $\omega_{\bar{g}}$ with respect
to the volume form $\mathrm{d}x$. In other words, the value of $\sqrt{\bar{g}}$
at some point in $M$ answers the following question:
given a $d$-parallelepiped in the tangent space with unit $g$–volume, what is its $\bar{g}$–volume?
If the density $\sqrt{\bar{g}}=\prod_i \mu_i\left(\overline{G}\right)$
is very small in some region,
this implies that $1/\sqrt{\bar{g}}=\sqrt{\bar{g}^{-1}}=\prod_i \mu_i\left(\overline{D}\right)$
is large there. Necessarily, $\mu_{\max}\left(\overline{D}\right)$
must be large, and consequently, diffusion in the associated direction
$v_{\max}\left(\overline{D}\right)$ is (extremely) fast.
Conversely, regions of high density must have low diffusivity in any direction.
Alternatively, the inverse density, i.e., $\det\overline{D}$, can be considered as a Lagrangian scalar
``effective diffusivity'', reducing the direction-dependent
information contained in $\overline{D}$ to a single scalar quantity.
In simple terms, we may regard points with low density as \emph{leaky},
points with high density as \emph{sticky} with regard to keeping scalar quantities under the heat flow.
As an alternative description for the low density case we have that a $g$–unit reference set (like parallelepiped or a ball)
has large $\bar{g}$–volume. Conversely, the corresponding $\bar{g}$–unit reference set
appears small in $g$–normal coordinates, and therefore captures a smaller neighborhood
compared to the $g$–reference set; see \Cref{fig:geoballs}.
This in turn means that on average neighboring points have a larger geodesic distance with respect to
$\bar{g}$ than with respect to $g$. The discrete graph analogue to measuring
the connectivity of points to its neighborhood or the entire manifold is the \emph{degree} of
graph nodes. For that reason, it does not come as a surprise that our density plots below
show striking similarity with corresponding degree field plots in \cite{Hadjighasem2016}.
\begin{example}[Volume-preserving diffeomorphism]
\label{exa:stretching_density}
Suppose the dynamics is given by a single volume-preserving diffeomorphism
$\Phi$, acting on a domain in the two-dimensional Euclidean space.
By virtue of \Cref{rem:R_density}, we have
\[
\sqrt{|\bar{g}|} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\det\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(I+C\right)\right)}}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{(1+\mu)\left(1+1/\mu\right)}}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{2+\mu+1/\mu}}\eqqcolon h(\mu),
\]
where $\mu=\mu_{\max}(C)>1$ is the larger eigenvalue of $C$ and $1/\mu$ is its smaller eigenvalue.
By the symmetry of $h$ in $\mu$ around $1$, it is clear that $h$
attains its maximum $1$ at $\mu=1$. At points of maximal density, the deformation
by $D\Phi$ is isotropic, and the flow map $\Phi$ represents an infinitesimal
solid body motion. In infinitesimal terms, this means that the flow
map does not distort an initial circle, thereby keeping its optimal
circumference–to–area ratio. Another interpretation is that all neighbors
keep their distance under the flow map, and the infinitesimal neighborhood
of such a point stays together uniformly, i.e., independent of direction.
In contrast, low density values are induced by strong stretching and
compression, which turns an infinitesimal circle into an elongated
ellipse with large surface area for diffusion to act on.
\end{example}
This example is additionally interesting as it shows that we may distinguish
hyperbolic dynamics with strong stretching and compression from
elliptic dynamics without significant stretching and compression via the density
of $\omega_{\bar{g}}$ w.r.t.\ $\omega_g$. This cannot be achieved by
the analogous density of $\omega_{\Phi^*g}$, which is constantly 1
in the volume-preserving case.
\setcounter{example}{0}
\begin{example}[Rotating double gyre flow, continued]
We show the density of the transient double gyre flow
in \Cref{fig:meiss_density}. One can see two regions of high density,
surrounded by structures of smaller scale and embedded in a region
of very low (several orders of magnitude compared to the global maximum)
density. On a coarse scale, i.e., ignoring the smaller structures,
we find two structures with significant $\omega_{\bar{g}}$–volume
embedded in a region of almost negligible such volume. From the volume
perspective, we may consider the $\bar{g}$–geometry as a small perturbation
from the setting with two connected components.
\begin{figure}
\centerin
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.33\textwidth,
height=.33\textwidth,
at={(1.267in,0.642in)},
xtick={0,0.5,1},
ytick={0,0.5,1},
scale only axis,
point meta min=1.32895474792832e-07,
point meta max=0.912257951750063,
axis on top,
xmin=0,
xmax=1,
xlabel={$x$},
ymin=0,
ymax=1,
ylabel={$y$},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
colormap/jet,
colorbar,
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.000977471624266145,xmax=1.00097747162427,ymin=-0.000977471624266145,ymax=1.00097747162427] {meiss_density-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\caption{Volume density for the rotating double gyre flow.}
\label{fig:meiss_density}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Cylinder flow, continued]
In \Cref{fig:cylinder_density} one can see roughly two high-density
components with densities of order 1, which are embedded in a large
low-density region, in which the density may drop below $10^{-7}$.
As in the previous example, we may consider the $\bar{g}$–geometry
as a small perturbation from the two-components setting.
To support the intuition of leaky versus sticky points, we provide video
animations of the heat flow for different heat distributions initialized in the leacky
and the sticky region, respectively; see Supplementary Material 4 and 5
and a more detailed description in \cref{sec:gfd}.
\begin{figure}
\centerin
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.6\textwidth,
height=.3\textwidth,
at={(0.921in,1.646in)},
scale only axis,
point meta min=1.75183818049337e-07,
point meta max=1.04453978537441,
axis on top,
xmin=0,
xmax=6.28318530717959,
xlabel={$x$},
xtick={0,3.14159265358979,6.28318530717959},
xticklabels={$0$, $\pi$, $2\pi$},
ymin=0,
ymax=3.14159265358979,
ylabel={$y$},
ytick={0,1.570796326794895,3.1415},
yticklabels={0,$\frac{\pi}{2}$,$\pi$},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
colormap/jet,
colorbar,
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.00614793082894284,xmax=6.28933323800853,ymin=0.00387923009100041,ymax=3.13771342349879] {cylinder_density-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\caption{Volume density for the non-volume preserving cylinder flow.}
\label{fig:cylinder_density}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Bickley jet flow, continued]
We show the density of the Bickley jet flow in \Cref{fig:bickley_density}.
Analogously to the previous examples, we find six vortex structures,
the meandering jet and structures of smaller scales, embedded in a
region with very low density. From the volume perspective, we may
therefore consider the $\bar{g}$–geometry as a small perturbation
from the setting with six connected components and a yet unclear role
of the jet. Note that the jet has a much smaller $\omega_{\bar{g}}$–volume
compared to the vortices.
\begin{figure}
\centerin
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.75\textwidth,
height=0.225\textwidth,
at={(2.499in,2.969in)},
scale only axis,
point meta min=8.02072779714928e-08,
point meta max=0.994821701535397,
axis on top,
xmin=0,
xmax=20,
xtick={0,5,10,15,20},
xlabel={$x$},
ymin=-3,
ymax=3,
ylabel={$y$},
ytick={-3,0,3},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
colormap/jet,
colorbar
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.0125156445556946,xmax=20.0125156445557,ymin=-3.01255230125523,ymax=3.01255230125523] {bickley_density-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\caption{Volume density for the Bickley jet flow.}
\label{fig:bickley_density}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\subsection{Diffusive flux form\label{sec:surface-area-form}}
Besides the volume form, we are also interested in the induced
(hyper-)surface area form. Such forms assign a $(d-1)$–volume, which
we will simply refer to as \emph{area}, to $(d-1)$–dimensional parallelepipeds
in tangent space. We restrict our attention to parallelepipeds with
unit $g$–area, whose corresponding $\bar{g}$–area can be interpreted
as the '$\bar{g}$–diffusive flux'. To compute the $\bar{g}$–area
of parallelepipeds of interest we recall a result from linear algebra
\cite[App.~A, Lemma 1]{Froyland2015a}: for an invertible matrix $A\in GL\left(\mathbb{R}^{d}\right)$
and an orthonormal basis $\left(v_{1},\ldots,v_{d}\right)$ one has
\begin{equation}
\left\lVert A\left(v_{1}\wedge\ldots\wedge v_{d-1}\right)\right\rVert =\det(A)\left\lVert A^{-\top}v_{d}\right\rVert .\label{eq:surface_area}
\end{equation}
In our context, given some tangent space $T_{p}M$, $\left(v_{1},\ldots,v_{d}\right)$
shall be an orthonormal basis with respect to $g$. The transformation given by $A\coloneqq\overline{G}^{1/2}$ corresponds to the basis transformation in $T_{p}M$ to Riemannian
normal coordinates, cf.~\cite[Appendix]{Karrasch2015c}. Therefore,
in the new coordinates, $\overline{G}$ takes the canonic Euclidean
form, and area, determinant as well as volume are computed
as in the Euclidean case. In other words, on the left-hand side we
have the $\bar{g}$–area of the parallelepiped spanned by $\left(v_{1},\ldots,v_{d-1}\right)$—our
object of interest— and on the right-hand side we have the density
$\det\left(\overline{G}\right)^{1/2}=\sqrt{\bar{g}}$ studied
in \cref{sec:volume_form} and the $\bar{g}^{-1}$–norm of the normal
(co-)vector $v_{d}$.
Given a point $p$ in $M$, what is the orientation of a $\left(d-1\right)$-parallelepiped
of unit $g$–area in the tangent space $T_{p}M$ with the least $\bar{g}$–area?
Physically speaking, what is the orientation of a surface element attached to $p$ that admits
the least diffusive flux?
Looking at the left-hand side, we find directly that the parallelepiped
spanned by the eigenvectors of $\overline{G}$ corresponding to the
lowest eigenvalues has minimal $\bar{g}$–area. This is consistent
with the right-hand side in that the normal vector $v_{d}$ is the
eigenvector corresponding to $v_{\min}\left(\overline{D}\right)$
in that case, and therefore has minimal dual norm. Furthermore, this
is also consistent with our analysis in \cref{sec:tensor-field} about
directions of slowest and fastest diffusion.
In summary (and not surprisingly), surface elements oriented normally to the direction of weakest diffusion
are locally optimal 'diffusion barriers'. From a global viewpoint, surfaces located
at the boundary of a high density/low effective diffusivity region, which are pointwise
(near-)optimal diffusion barriers, are expected to be good delineations of coherent from
mixing regions, or, in other words, boundaries of coherent structures.
\subsection{No-flux boundary conditions for Lagrangian averaged diffusion\label{sec:normal_vf}}
We would like to find an expression for the normal vector field $\nu_{\bar{g}}$
of $\bar{g}$ in terms of $\nu_{g}$, the normal vector field with
respect to the original metric $g$. Choose a point $x\in\partial M$
and an orthonormal tangent space basis $\mathcal{B}$ such that taking
inner products in these coordinates is performed by an Euclidean vector
product, i.e.:
\[
g(v,\nu_{g})=v_{\mathcal{B}}^{\top}\left(\nu_{g}\right)_{\mathcal{B}}=0,\qquad\text{for any }v\in T_{x}\partial M,
\]
by definition of the normal vector field. In the same coordinates,
let $\overline{G}$ be the matrix representing the metric $\bar{g}$
. Now, we want to express $\nu_{\bar{g}}$ as $A\nu_{g}$, where $A$
is some invertible linear transformation. By definition, we must have
for all $v\in T_{x}\partial M$
\[
v_{\mathcal{B}}^{\top}\overline{G}A\left(\nu_{g}\right)_{\mathcal{B}}=0,
\]
which holds if and only if $A=\overline{D}$. This transformation,
however, corresponds to the dual metric of $\bar{g}$, or in other
words, to the arithmetic average of the dual metrics $g(t)^{-1}$.
Our natural Neumann boundary condition for $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$
thus corresponds exactly to the boundary condition posed in \cite{Froyland2015a},
which is a natural, but not necessarily a Neumann boundary condition
there.
\subsection{Variational characterization of eigenvalues}
We conclude our study of the geometry of mixing by interpreting
the eigenvalues of the Laplace--Beltrami operator from the variational viewpoint. According to the Cou\-rant\-–Fischer\-–Weyl
min-max principle the eigenvalues of any Laplace–Beltrami operator
can be characterized as follows: for $k\in\mathbb{N}$ let $W_{k}=\linhull\{w_{1},\ldots,w_{k}\}\subset L^{2}(M,\bar{g})$
be the $k$-dimensional subspace spanned by the eigenfunctions corresponding
to the $k$ dominant eigenvalues and $W_{k}^{\bot}$ its orthogonal
complement. Then the $k$-th eigenvalue is given by
\[
\lambda_{k}=-\inf_{w\in W_{k-1}^{\bot}}\frac{\left\Vert \mathrm{d}w\right\Vert _{2,\bar{g}}^{2}}{\left\Vert w\right\Vert _{2,\bar{g}}^{2}}=-\inf_{w\in V_{k-1}^{\bot}}\frac{\int_{M}\lVert\mathrm{d}w\rVert_{\bar{g}}^{2}\,\omega_{\bar{g}}}{\int_{M}w^{2}\,\omega_{\bar{g}}}.
\]
The infimum is attained exactly by the eigenfunctions corresponding
to $\lambda_{k}$. For a smooth function $w$, the simplest way to
minimize the Rayleigh quotient is to be non-vanishing and constant.
On connected manifolds, globally constant functions are captured by
the eigenspace of the zero eigenvalue, and functions in the orthogonal
complement must necessarily have variation globally. From the perspective of an eigenfunction with low index $k$ two questions occur: (i) where to change values
and where to remain (almost) constant, and (ii) if changing values locally
then in which direction the most?
Clearly, if changing values—and therefore generating a non-vanishing
$\mathrm{d}w$—is necessary, then this effort is best done in a region
of little $\omega_{\bar{g}}$–weight. Conversely, it is a good strategy
to remain close to a constant value on regions of relatively high
$\omega_{\bar{g}}$–weight. Moreover, if changing values it is efficient
to have strongest variation in the direction of $v_{\min}\left(\overline{D}\right)$;
note the consistency with the alignment of diffusive barrier elements
discussed in \cref{sec:surface-area-form}. As the examples in \cref{sec:tensor-field}
show, this indicates that dominant eigenfunctions should change the
most in the radial direction of coherent structures, and vary very
little in the circular direction.
\section{LCS detection by Laplacian spectral analysis\label{sec:detection}}
Our previous analysis led us to the task of identifying sets or material
distributions that are almost invariant under the heat flow induced
by the harmonic mean metric Laplace–Beltrami operator $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$,
see \cref{eq:averaged_FP_eq}. This is done by examining the spectrum and the
eigenfunctions of the heat flow operator. Since its generator $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$ is
autonomous, the spectrum and the eigenfunctions of the heat flow can be deduced
from the spectrum and the eigenfunctions of $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$ by the spectral mapping theorem; cf.~\cref{sec:Heat-flow}.
\subsection{Spectral analysis \& the role of eigenfunctions}
\label{sec:Spectrum-eigenfunctions}
In order to determine the number and location of LCSs, we study the spectrum and eigenfunctions of $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$.
That is, we look at the solutions of the self-adjoint eigenproblem
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{\bar{g}}w_{n}=\lambda_{n}w_{n},\quad w_{n}\in L^{2}(M,\bar{g}),\label{eq:eigenproblem}
\end{equation}
possibly with natural Neumann boundary conditions on $\partial M$.
Before we come to the actual LCS extraction based on eigenfunctions of the harmonic mean Laplace--Beltrami operator $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$,
we would like to develop some intuition on eigenfunctions of Laplace--Beltrami operators. As a starting point, we recall the discussion in \cite{Dsilva2015}, before we point out important differences to the problems considered there.
We start by looking at the well-studied example of a Euclidean strip $\mathcal{R}\coloneqq[0,\ell_1]\times[0,\ell_2]$.
The (Neumann) spectrum and eigenfunctions of the classic Laplace operator on $\mathcal{R}$ are given by $-\pi^2(k_1^2/\ell_1^2+k_2^2/\ell_2^2)$ and $\cos(k_1\pi x/\ell_1)\cos(k_2\pi y/\ell_2)$,
$k_1,k_2=0,1,2,\ldots$, respectively. In particular, we have the following special cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item for $k_1=k_2=0$, the eigenfunction is flat and non-vanishing;
\item for $k_1=1$, $k_2=0$, the eigenfunction is $\cos(\pi x/\ell_1)$, i.e., a function depending only on the $x$-coordinate and changing strictly monotonically from $+1$ to $-1$ w.r.t.\ $x$ going from $0$ to $\ell_1$;
\item for $k_1=0$, $k_2=1$, the eigenfunction is $\cos(\pi y/\ell_2)$, i.e., a function depending only on the $y$-coordinate and changing strictly monotonically from $+1$ to $-1$ w.r.t.\ $y$ going from $0$ to $\ell_2$.
\end{itemize}
The last two facts are commonly interpreted as follows: the values of the $(k_1,k_2)=(1,0)$-eigenfunction $\cos(\pi x/\ell_1)$ can be used to parametrize or ``recover'' the $x$-coordinate, the values of the $(k_1,k_2)=(0,1)$-eigenfunction $\cos(\pi y/\ell_2)$ can be used to parametrize or ``recover'' the $y$-coordinate. When aiming for an intrinsic parametrization of the manifold of interest, the constant $(0,0)$-eigenfunction is not useful at all, obviously. Its constancy and the simplicity of the corresponding $0$-eigenvalue tells us that we are dealing with a connected manifold.
For $k_1+k_2\geq 2$, the corresponding eigenfunctions are often referred to as
\emph{higher harmonics}, they are oscillating at higher frequencies along the two
coordinates that can be obtained intrinsically as the values of the $(1,0)$- and $(0,1)$-eigenfunctions.
Again, when aiming for intrinsic parametrizations these higher harmonics are not
useful; the purpose of \cite{Dsilva2015} is exactly to propose an algorithm that distinguishes the \emph{unique eigendirections} given by the $(1,0)$- and $(0,1)$-eigenfunctions from \emph{repeated eigendirections} (in the terminology of \cite{Dsilva2015}). An unavoidable challenge in this eigenfunction distinction is
that the eigenvalues corresponding to the $(1,0)$- and $(0,1)$-eigenfunctions need not
be dominant---their position in the spectrum depends on the aspect ratio of $\ell_1$ and
$\ell_2$---neither need they be followed by a gap in the spectrum.
We argue, however, that the problem of coherent structure detection is of a different nature. First of all, the material manifold/fluid domain as a subset of space at the initial time is fully known, and there is no need to learn intrinsic coordinates from operator-eigenfunctions.
Second, as we have shown in \cref{sec:volume_form}, it is much more natural to think of our material manifold $M$---equipped with the
geometry of mixing---as consisting of \emph{nearly-decoupled} components, which then constitute the almost-invariant sets or coherent
structures\footnote{This has been understood in the Markov chain context some time ago \cite{Davies1982,Deuflhard2000,Deuflhard2005},
but got out of sight in recent operator-based LCS approaches.}. Back in our initial strip example, we should think of $M$ being the union of
several disjoint full-dimensional sets, say, strips or discs, which are weakly coupled by thin bridges. With this picture in mind, the
eigenfunctions of interest are now those which are nearly constant on each ``piece''. In other words, in the simple strip example, the most interesting eigenfunction in our context is the flat one, since this would correspond to the structure-indicating function in a multi-structure case. Therefore, one would need to identify component-indicating eigenfunctions, and filter out \emph{both} coordinate-inducing eigenfunctions \emph{and} higher harmonics.
This is in strong contrast to the coordinate-recovery problem in manifold learning described above.
In summary, we are interested in weakly-coupled components of full material manifold dimension. It is a classic heuristic to view the weak coupling as a small perturbation of the manifold, to which spectrum and eigenfunctions of the Laplace--Beltrami operator are expected to respond to continuously. One would therefore expect to see as many near-zero eigenvalues as one has components in the ideal decoupled case (or weakly-coupled components), followed by a gap often referred to as \emph{eigengap}.
It is exactly the non-dominant eigenfunctions---ideally \emph{after} the first significant
spectral gap---which can be used to parametrize each component in the
diffusion-map fashion, discarding possibly interweaved higher harmonics.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[]{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1,very thick]
\draw[-triangle 45] (0.5,0) -- (-6,0);
\draw (0,0) +(0,1mm) -- ++(0,-1mm) node[below]{$0$};
\node[below=28pt] (O) {components};
\path (0,0)coordinate(O) (-2,0)coordinate(G1) (-5.8,0)coordinate(G2);
\path plot[mark options={black}, mark=x, mark size=2mm] coordinates {
(0,0)
};
\path plot[mark options={blue}, mark=x, mark size=1.5mm] coordinates {
(-3.5,0) (-4.8,0) (-5.5,0)
};
\path plot[mark options={olive}, mark=x, mark size=1.5mm] coordinates {
(G1) (-2.3,0) (-2.8,0) (-4.0,0)
};
\draw[red,decorate,decoration={brace,mirror,raise=16pt}] (O) -- (G1)
node[pos=0.5,above=20pt]{eigengap};
\draw[blue] ([yshift=-12pt]G1) +(0,1mm) -- ++(0,-1mm);
\draw[blue,-triangle 45] ([yshift=-12pt]G1) -- ([yshift=-12pt]G2)
node[pos=0.5,below]{higher harmonics}
node[black,pos=0.5, below=15pt]{ \& }
node[olive,pos=0.5, below=30]{coordinates};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\subfloat[]{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1,very thick]
\draw[-triangle 45] (0.5,0) -- (-6,0);
\draw (0,0) +(0,1mm) -- ++(0,-1mm) node[below]{$0$};
\node[below=28pt] (O) {component};
\path (0,0)coordinate(O) (-0.3,0)coordinate(R) (-0.9,0)coordinate(L) (-2,0)coordinate(G1) (-5.8,0)coordinate(G2);
\path plot[mark options={black}, mark=x, mark size=1.5mm] coordinates {
(0,0)
};
\path plot[mark options={blue}, mark=x, mark size=1.5mm] coordinates {
(-3.5,0) (-4.8,0) (-5.5,0)
};
\path plot[mark options={olive}, mark=x, mark size=1.5mm] coordinates {
(G1) (-2.3,0) (-2.8,0) (-4.0,0)
};
\path plot[mark options={red}, mark=x, mark size=1.5mm] coordinates {
(R) (-0.5,0) (-0.7,0) (L)
};
\draw[red] ([yshift=12pt]R) +(0,1mm) -- ++(0,-1mm)
([yshift=12pt]L) +(0,1mm) -- ++(0,-1mm);
\draw[red] ([yshift=12pt]R) -- ([yshift=12pt]L)
node[pos=0.5,above=3pt]{quasi-components};
\draw[blue] ([yshift=-12pt]G1) +(0,1mm) -- ++(0,-1mm);
\draw[blue,-triangle 45] ([yshift=-12pt]G1) -- ([yshift=-12pt]G2)
node[pos=0.5,below]{higher harmonics}
node[black,pos=0.5, below=15pt]{ \& }
node[olive,pos=0.5, below=30pt]{coordinates};
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{Spectral structure in the decoupled (a) and perturbed (b) cases. The quasi-components indicate connected coherent sets corresponding to almost invariant sets, and
arise from the unperturbed zero eigenvalues associated with connected components.
The coordinates and higher harmonics correspond to first and higher order Laplace--Beltrami eigenfunctions associated with one or a superposition
of the components or quasi-components.}
\label{fig:spectral_decomposition}
\end{figure}
\Cref{fig:spectral_decomposition} schematically illustrates the role of different eigenfunctions. The relevant eigengap in the perturbed case lies below
the eigenvalues indicating quasi-components, which in turn are separated from the simple
zero eigenvalue associated with the connected manifold $M$ by Cheeger's constant.
We note, however, that in practice the quasi-component eigenvalues indicating very small coherent structures might
be embedded within a spectral region containing higher harmonics of larger structures. It is important that size and geometric shape need to be interpreted within the $\bar{g}$-geometry, both for $\overline{\Delta}$ and $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$, and not within the (typically Euclidean) $g$-geometry; cf.~\cref{sec:tensor-field} and recall that both share the same diffusion tensor.
\subsection{Spectral analysis of the examples}\label{sec:example-analysis}
After solving the eigenproblem for eigenpairs $\left(\lambda,w\right)$ by the finite-element method, cf.~\cite{Froyland2017a},
we proceed as is well-es\-tab\-lished in the (computational) spectral
geometry community \cite{Davies1982,Meila2001,Lafon2006}.
We check the spectrum for the first significant gap, say, after the
$k$-th eigenvalue. Then we apply the \textsc{k-means} clustering
algorithm to the leading $k$ eigenfunctions, cf.~\Cref{fig:meiss_coordinates}
for the second and third eigenfunction in the rotating double gyre flow example.
Alternatively, other heuristic methods may
be applied here \cite{Luxburg2007,Dellnitz1999,Deuflhard2000}.
Note that the \textsc{k-means}
clustering algorithm does not optimize any dynamical quantity, but
only the classic \textsc{k-means}–objective function based on Euclidean
distances in the eigenfunction space, which is highly consistent with the original clustering goal; cf.~\cite{Lafon2006}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{Meiss_coordinates.pdf}
\caption{Dominant diffusion coordinates for the rotating double gyre flow.
Shown are the second and third eigenfunctions, the flat first eigenfunction
has been omitted. Each point corresponds to a sample point in the
flow domain. The coloring corresponds to the coloring of the \textsc{k-means}
clustering result in \Cref{fig:meiss_clustering}.}
\label{fig:meiss_coordinates}
\end{figure}
Since the first eigenfunction is flat, it can actually be omitted from the
\textsc{k-means} clustering. The second up to the $k$-th eigenfunction
are indicating the almost-invariant structures in a combinatorial
way, since all eigenfunctions are pairwise orthogonal. In particular,
all but the harmonic first eigenfunction have mixed signs and cannot
be of pure indicator function type. Nevertheless, they span a subspace
which is very close to the one spanned by the indicator functions
supported on the respective coherent structures; cf.~\cite{Davies1982}.
In \Cref{fig:meiss_coordinates},
adding a constant to $w_{3}$ and rotating $(w_{2},w_{3})$ by roughly
$-\pi/4$, say, by passing to $w_{2}+w_{3}$ and $w_{2}-w_{3}$, yields
almost-indicator type functions supported on the blue and yellow structures,
see the following examples for more details.
\setcounter{example}{0}
\begin{example}[Rotating double gyre flow, continued, cf.~\cite{Froyland2014}]
In \Cref{fig:meiss_spectrum} we show the 21 first eigenvalues of
the spectrum of $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$. We find a first larger gap after
the third eigenvalue, which indicates the presence of two coherent
structures embedded in an incoherent connecting background. A look
at the first nontrivial eigenfunctions in \Cref{fig:meiss_ev} reveals
that the two most relevant coherent structures are in the initial
gyre centers, which are highlighted by the second and third eigenfunctions.
The following eigenfunctions $w_{4}$ to $w_{9}$ show features only
on the support of $w_{2}$, their value on the flat background is
set to satisfy the $L^{2}(M,\bar{g})$–orthogonality to the flat eigenfunction
$w_{1}$. These eigenfunctions can be interpreted as coordinate-functions and their
higher harmonics on the weakly-connected components. Only after the second larger gap, eigenfunctions like $w_{10}$ occur which highlight
new structures like the yellowish finger-like one on the top right in \Cref{fig:w10}, which is formed by the stable
manifold of the lower hyperbolic trajectory. \Cref{fig:meiss_clustering}
shows the result of the 3-clustering of the first three eigenfunctions. For comparison,
in \cite{Froyland2014} only the left coherent structure has been detected (as necessary
in the bisection problem treated there), which appears to be larger than ours obtained
from the clustering.
For a visual proof of coherence, we provide an advection movie showing the
evolution of the detected sets as Supplementary Material 1.
\begin{figure}
\centerin
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.6\textwidth,
height=.17\textheight,
at={(1.011in,0.642in)},
scale only axis,
xmin=1,
xmax=21,
xlabel={Eigenvalues},
ymin=-0.03314396437501,
ymax=6.25314461939786e-07,
axis background/.style={fill=white}
]
\addplot [color=blue,solid,line width=2.0pt,mark size=3.5pt,mark=square*,mark options={solid,fill=red},forget plot]
table[row sep=crcr]{%
1 6.25314461939786e-07\\
2 -0.000791519141031645\\
3 -0.00294898287931922\\
4 -0.00798237172979935\\
5 -0.00851138017192943\\
6 -0.00867813714076515\\
7 -0.00966665412163511\\
8 -0.00968438220316769\\
9 -0.0114348602123311\\
10 -0.017830852679289\\
11 -0.019721462162813\\
12 -0.0212662236796118\\
13 -0.0223480046940051\\
14 -0.0231930093723665\\
15 -0.0244289510877029\\
16 -0.0276446753057207\\
17 -0.0277264870460961\\
18 -0.0283880783348172\\
19 -0.0317460105069451\\
20 -0.0323774810443352\\
21 -0.03314396437501\\
};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\caption{Spectrum of $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$ for the rotating double gyre flow.}
\label{fig:meiss_spectrum}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[$w_{2}$]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.18\textwidth,
height=.18\textwidth,
at={(1.269in,0.642in)},
scale only axis,
point meta min=-1.87286827598893,
point meta max=1.97139671212468,
axis on top,
xmin=-0.000978473581213307,
xmax=1.00097847358121,
xtick={0,1},
ymin=-0.000978473581213307,
ymax=1.00097847358121,
ytick={0,1},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
colormap={mymap}{[1pt] rgb(0pt)=(0.2081,0.1663,0.5292); rgb(1pt)=(0.211624,0.189781,0.577676); rgb(2pt)=(0.212252,0.213771,0.626971); rgb(3pt)=(0.2081,0.2386,0.677086); rgb(4pt)=(0.195905,0.264457,0.7279); rgb(5pt)=(0.170729,0.291938,0.779248); rgb(6pt)=(0.125271,0.324243,0.830271); rgb(7pt)=(0.0591333,0.359833,0.868333); rgb(8pt)=(0.0116952,0.38751,0.881957); rgb(9pt)=(0.00595714,0.408614,0.882843); rgb(10pt)=(0.0165143,0.4266,0.878633); rgb(11pt)=(0.0328524,0.443043,0.871957); rgb(12pt)=(0.0498143,0.458571,0.864057); rgb(13pt)=(0.0629333,0.47369,0.855438); rgb(14pt)=(0.0722667,0.488667,0.8467); rgb(15pt)=(0.0779429,0.503986,0.838371); rgb(16pt)=(0.0793476,0.520024,0.831181); rgb(17pt)=(0.0749429,0.537543,0.826271); rgb(18pt)=(0.0640571,0.556986,0.823957); rgb(19pt)=(0.0487714,0.577224,0.822829); rgb(20pt)=(0.0343429,0.596581,0.819852); rgb(21pt)=(0.0265,0.6137,0.8135); rgb(22pt)=(0.0238905,0.628662,0.803762); rgb(23pt)=(0.0230905,0.641786,0.791267); rgb(24pt)=(0.0227714,0.653486,0.776757); rgb(25pt)=(0.0266619,0.664195,0.760719); rgb(26pt)=(0.0383714,0.674271,0.743552); rgb(27pt)=(0.0589714,0.683757,0.725386); rgb(28pt)=(0.0843,0.692833,0.706167); rgb(29pt)=(0.113295,0.7015,0.685857); rgb(30pt)=(0.145271,0.709757,0.664629); rgb(31pt)=(0.180133,0.717657,0.642433); rgb(32pt)=(0.217829,0.725043,0.619262); rgb(33pt)=(0.258643,0.731714,0.595429); rgb(34pt)=(0.302171,0.737605,0.571186); rgb(35pt)=(0.348167,0.742433,0.547267); rgb(36pt)=(0.395257,0.7459,0.524443); rgb(37pt)=(0.44201,0.748081,0.503314); rgb(38pt)=(0.487124,0.749062,0.483976); rgb(39pt)=(0.530029,0.749114,0.466114); rgb(40pt)=(0.570857,0.748519,0.44939); rgb(41pt)=(0.609852,0.747314,0.433686); rgb(42pt)=(0.6473,0.7456,0.4188); rgb(43pt)=(0.683419,0.743476,0.404433); rgb(44pt)=(0.71841,0.741133,0.390476); rgb(45pt)=(0.752486,0.7384,0.376814); rgb(46pt)=(0.785843,0.735567,0.363271); rgb(47pt)=(0.818505,0.732733,0.34979); rgb(48pt)=(0.850657,0.7299,0.336029); rgb(49pt)=(0.882433,0.727433,0.3217); rgb(50pt)=(0.913933,0.725786,0.306276); rgb(51pt)=(0.944957,0.726114,0.288643); rgb(52pt)=(0.973895,0.731395,0.266648); rgb(53pt)=(0.993771,0.745457,0.240348); rgb(54pt)=(0.999043,0.765314,0.216414); rgb(55pt)=(0.995533,0.786057,0.196652); rgb(56pt)=(0.988,0.8066,0.179367); rgb(57pt)=(0.978857,0.827143,0.163314); rgb(58pt)=(0.9697,0.848138,0.147452); rgb(59pt)=(0.962586,0.870514,0.1309); rgb(60pt)=(0.958871,0.8949,0.113243); rgb(61pt)=(0.959824,0.921833,0.0948381); rgb(62pt)=(0.9661,0.951443,0.0755333); rgb(63pt)=(0.9763,0.9831,0.0538)},
colorbar
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.000978473581213307,xmax=1.00097847358121,ymin=-0.000978473581213307,ymax=1.00097847358121] {meiss_ev_2-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
}\subfloat[$w_{3}$]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.18\textwidth,
height=.18\textwidth,
at={(1.269in,0.642in)},
scale only axis,
point meta min=-1.66264087530494,
point meta max=1.12604070194301,
axis on top,
xmin=-0.000978473581213307,
xmax=1.00097847358121,
xtick={0,1},
ymin=-0.000978473581213307,
ymax=1.00097847358121,
ytick={0,1},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
colormap={mymap}{[1pt] rgb(0pt)=(0.2081,0.1663,0.5292); rgb(1pt)=(0.211624,0.189781,0.577676); rgb(2pt)=(0.212252,0.213771,0.626971); rgb(3pt)=(0.2081,0.2386,0.677086); rgb(4pt)=(0.195905,0.264457,0.7279); rgb(5pt)=(0.170729,0.291938,0.779248); rgb(6pt)=(0.125271,0.324243,0.830271); rgb(7pt)=(0.0591333,0.359833,0.868333); rgb(8pt)=(0.0116952,0.38751,0.881957); rgb(9pt)=(0.00595714,0.408614,0.882843); rgb(10pt)=(0.0165143,0.4266,0.878633); rgb(11pt)=(0.0328524,0.443043,0.871957); rgb(12pt)=(0.0498143,0.458571,0.864057); rgb(13pt)=(0.0629333,0.47369,0.855438); rgb(14pt)=(0.0722667,0.488667,0.8467); rgb(15pt)=(0.0779429,0.503986,0.838371); rgb(16pt)=(0.0793476,0.520024,0.831181); rgb(17pt)=(0.0749429,0.537543,0.826271); rgb(18pt)=(0.0640571,0.556986,0.823957); rgb(19pt)=(0.0487714,0.577224,0.822829); rgb(20pt)=(0.0343429,0.596581,0.819852); rgb(21pt)=(0.0265,0.6137,0.8135); rgb(22pt)=(0.0238905,0.628662,0.803762); rgb(23pt)=(0.0230905,0.641786,0.791267); rgb(24pt)=(0.0227714,0.653486,0.776757); rgb(25pt)=(0.0266619,0.664195,0.760719); rgb(26pt)=(0.0383714,0.674271,0.743552); rgb(27pt)=(0.0589714,0.683757,0.725386); rgb(28pt)=(0.0843,0.692833,0.706167); rgb(29pt)=(0.113295,0.7015,0.685857); rgb(30pt)=(0.145271,0.709757,0.664629); rgb(31pt)=(0.180133,0.717657,0.642433); rgb(32pt)=(0.217829,0.725043,0.619262); rgb(33pt)=(0.258643,0.731714,0.595429); rgb(34pt)=(0.302171,0.737605,0.571186); rgb(35pt)=(0.348167,0.742433,0.547267); rgb(36pt)=(0.395257,0.7459,0.524443); rgb(37pt)=(0.44201,0.748081,0.503314); rgb(38pt)=(0.487124,0.749062,0.483976); rgb(39pt)=(0.530029,0.749114,0.466114); rgb(40pt)=(0.570857,0.748519,0.44939); rgb(41pt)=(0.609852,0.747314,0.433686); rgb(42pt)=(0.6473,0.7456,0.4188); rgb(43pt)=(0.683419,0.743476,0.404433); rgb(44pt)=(0.71841,0.741133,0.390476); rgb(45pt)=(0.752486,0.7384,0.376814); rgb(46pt)=(0.785843,0.735567,0.363271); rgb(47pt)=(0.818505,0.732733,0.34979); rgb(48pt)=(0.850657,0.7299,0.336029); rgb(49pt)=(0.882433,0.727433,0.3217); rgb(50pt)=(0.913933,0.725786,0.306276); rgb(51pt)=(0.944957,0.726114,0.288643); rgb(52pt)=(0.973895,0.731395,0.266648); rgb(53pt)=(0.993771,0.745457,0.240348); rgb(54pt)=(0.999043,0.765314,0.216414); rgb(55pt)=(0.995533,0.786057,0.196652); rgb(56pt)=(0.988,0.8066,0.179367); rgb(57pt)=(0.978857,0.827143,0.163314); rgb(58pt)=(0.9697,0.848138,0.147452); rgb(59pt)=(0.962586,0.870514,0.1309); rgb(60pt)=(0.958871,0.8949,0.113243); rgb(61pt)=(0.959824,0.921833,0.0948381); rgb(62pt)=(0.9661,0.951443,0.0755333); rgb(63pt)=(0.9763,0.9831,0.0538)},
colorbar
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.000978473581213307,xmax=1.00097847358121,ymin=-0.000978473581213307,ymax=1.00097847358121] {meiss_ev_3-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
}\subfloat[$w_{4}$]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.18\textwidth,
height=.18\textwidth,
at={(1.269in,0.642in)},
scale only axis,
point meta min=-2.30486085695156,
point meta max=2.52405221024548,
axis on top,
xmin=-0.000978473581213307,
xmax=1.00097847358121,
xtick={0,1},
ymin=-0.000978473581213307,
ymax=1.00097847358121,
ytick={0,1},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
colormap={mymap}{[1pt] rgb(0pt)=(0.2081,0.1663,0.5292); rgb(1pt)=(0.211624,0.189781,0.577676); rgb(2pt)=(0.212252,0.213771,0.626971); rgb(3pt)=(0.2081,0.2386,0.677086); rgb(4pt)=(0.195905,0.264457,0.7279); rgb(5pt)=(0.170729,0.291938,0.779248); rgb(6pt)=(0.125271,0.324243,0.830271); rgb(7pt)=(0.0591333,0.359833,0.868333); rgb(8pt)=(0.0116952,0.38751,0.881957); rgb(9pt)=(0.00595714,0.408614,0.882843); rgb(10pt)=(0.0165143,0.4266,0.878633); rgb(11pt)=(0.0328524,0.443043,0.871957); rgb(12pt)=(0.0498143,0.458571,0.864057); rgb(13pt)=(0.0629333,0.47369,0.855438); rgb(14pt)=(0.0722667,0.488667,0.8467); rgb(15pt)=(0.0779429,0.503986,0.838371); rgb(16pt)=(0.0793476,0.520024,0.831181); rgb(17pt)=(0.0749429,0.537543,0.826271); rgb(18pt)=(0.0640571,0.556986,0.823957); rgb(19pt)=(0.0487714,0.577224,0.822829); rgb(20pt)=(0.0343429,0.596581,0.819852); rgb(21pt)=(0.0265,0.6137,0.8135); rgb(22pt)=(0.0238905,0.628662,0.803762); rgb(23pt)=(0.0230905,0.641786,0.791267); rgb(24pt)=(0.0227714,0.653486,0.776757); rgb(25pt)=(0.0266619,0.664195,0.760719); rgb(26pt)=(0.0383714,0.674271,0.743552); rgb(27pt)=(0.0589714,0.683757,0.725386); rgb(28pt)=(0.0843,0.692833,0.706167); rgb(29pt)=(0.113295,0.7015,0.685857); rgb(30pt)=(0.145271,0.709757,0.664629); rgb(31pt)=(0.180133,0.717657,0.642433); rgb(32pt)=(0.217829,0.725043,0.619262); rgb(33pt)=(0.258643,0.731714,0.595429); rgb(34pt)=(0.302171,0.737605,0.571186); rgb(35pt)=(0.348167,0.742433,0.547267); rgb(36pt)=(0.395257,0.7459,0.524443); rgb(37pt)=(0.44201,0.748081,0.503314); rgb(38pt)=(0.487124,0.749062,0.483976); rgb(39pt)=(0.530029,0.749114,0.466114); rgb(40pt)=(0.570857,0.748519,0.44939); rgb(41pt)=(0.609852,0.747314,0.433686); rgb(42pt)=(0.6473,0.7456,0.4188); rgb(43pt)=(0.683419,0.743476,0.404433); rgb(44pt)=(0.71841,0.741133,0.390476); rgb(45pt)=(0.752486,0.7384,0.376814); rgb(46pt)=(0.785843,0.735567,0.363271); rgb(47pt)=(0.818505,0.732733,0.34979); rgb(48pt)=(0.850657,0.7299,0.336029); rgb(49pt)=(0.882433,0.727433,0.3217); rgb(50pt)=(0.913933,0.725786,0.306276); rgb(51pt)=(0.944957,0.726114,0.288643); rgb(52pt)=(0.973895,0.731395,0.266648); rgb(53pt)=(0.993771,0.745457,0.240348); rgb(54pt)=(0.999043,0.765314,0.216414); rgb(55pt)=(0.995533,0.786057,0.196652); rgb(56pt)=(0.988,0.8066,0.179367); rgb(57pt)=(0.978857,0.827143,0.163314); rgb(58pt)=(0.9697,0.848138,0.147452); rgb(59pt)=(0.962586,0.870514,0.1309); rgb(60pt)=(0.958871,0.8949,0.113243); rgb(61pt)=(0.959824,0.921833,0.0948381); rgb(62pt)=(0.9661,0.951443,0.0755333); rgb(63pt)=(0.9763,0.9831,0.0538)},
colorbar
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.000978473581213307,xmax=1.00097847358121,ymin=-0.000978473581213307,ymax=1.00097847358121] {meiss_ev_4-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
}\\
\subfloat[$w_{5}$]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.18\textwidth,
height=.18\textwidth,
at={(1.269in,0.642in)},
scale only axis,
point meta min=-3.69381607541707,
point meta max=3.64780684562301,
axis on top,
xmin=-0.000978473581213307,
xmax=1.00097847358121,
xtick={0,1},
ymin=-0.000978473581213307,
ymax=1.00097847358121,
ytick={0,1},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
colormap={mymap}{[1pt] rgb(0pt)=(0.2081,0.1663,0.5292); rgb(1pt)=(0.211624,0.189781,0.577676); rgb(2pt)=(0.212252,0.213771,0.626971); rgb(3pt)=(0.2081,0.2386,0.677086); rgb(4pt)=(0.195905,0.264457,0.7279); rgb(5pt)=(0.170729,0.291938,0.779248); rgb(6pt)=(0.125271,0.324243,0.830271); rgb(7pt)=(0.0591333,0.359833,0.868333); rgb(8pt)=(0.0116952,0.38751,0.881957); rgb(9pt)=(0.00595714,0.408614,0.882843); rgb(10pt)=(0.0165143,0.4266,0.878633); rgb(11pt)=(0.0328524,0.443043,0.871957); rgb(12pt)=(0.0498143,0.458571,0.864057); rgb(13pt)=(0.0629333,0.47369,0.855438); rgb(14pt)=(0.0722667,0.488667,0.8467); rgb(15pt)=(0.0779429,0.503986,0.838371); rgb(16pt)=(0.0793476,0.520024,0.831181); rgb(17pt)=(0.0749429,0.537543,0.826271); rgb(18pt)=(0.0640571,0.556986,0.823957); rgb(19pt)=(0.0487714,0.577224,0.822829); rgb(20pt)=(0.0343429,0.596581,0.819852); rgb(21pt)=(0.0265,0.6137,0.8135); rgb(22pt)=(0.0238905,0.628662,0.803762); rgb(23pt)=(0.0230905,0.641786,0.791267); rgb(24pt)=(0.0227714,0.653486,0.776757); rgb(25pt)=(0.0266619,0.664195,0.760719); rgb(26pt)=(0.0383714,0.674271,0.743552); rgb(27pt)=(0.0589714,0.683757,0.725386); rgb(28pt)=(0.0843,0.692833,0.706167); rgb(29pt)=(0.113295,0.7015,0.685857); rgb(30pt)=(0.145271,0.709757,0.664629); rgb(31pt)=(0.180133,0.717657,0.642433); rgb(32pt)=(0.217829,0.725043,0.619262); rgb(33pt)=(0.258643,0.731714,0.595429); rgb(34pt)=(0.302171,0.737605,0.571186); rgb(35pt)=(0.348167,0.742433,0.547267); rgb(36pt)=(0.395257,0.7459,0.524443); rgb(37pt)=(0.44201,0.748081,0.503314); rgb(38pt)=(0.487124,0.749062,0.483976); rgb(39pt)=(0.530029,0.749114,0.466114); rgb(40pt)=(0.570857,0.748519,0.44939); rgb(41pt)=(0.609852,0.747314,0.433686); rgb(42pt)=(0.6473,0.7456,0.4188); rgb(43pt)=(0.683419,0.743476,0.404433); rgb(44pt)=(0.71841,0.741133,0.390476); rgb(45pt)=(0.752486,0.7384,0.376814); rgb(46pt)=(0.785843,0.735567,0.363271); rgb(47pt)=(0.818505,0.732733,0.34979); rgb(48pt)=(0.850657,0.7299,0.336029); rgb(49pt)=(0.882433,0.727433,0.3217); rgb(50pt)=(0.913933,0.725786,0.306276); rgb(51pt)=(0.944957,0.726114,0.288643); rgb(52pt)=(0.973895,0.731395,0.266648); rgb(53pt)=(0.993771,0.745457,0.240348); rgb(54pt)=(0.999043,0.765314,0.216414); rgb(55pt)=(0.995533,0.786057,0.196652); rgb(56pt)=(0.988,0.8066,0.179367); rgb(57pt)=(0.978857,0.827143,0.163314); rgb(58pt)=(0.9697,0.848138,0.147452); rgb(59pt)=(0.962586,0.870514,0.1309); rgb(60pt)=(0.958871,0.8949,0.113243); rgb(61pt)=(0.959824,0.921833,0.0948381); rgb(62pt)=(0.9661,0.951443,0.0755333); rgb(63pt)=(0.9763,0.9831,0.0538)},
colorbar
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.000978473581213307,xmax=1.00097847358121,ymin=-0.000978473581213307,ymax=1.00097847358121] {meiss_ev_5-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
}\subfloat[$w_{6}$]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.18\textwidth,
height=.18\textwidth,
at={(1.269in,0.642in)},
scale only axis,
point meta min=-2.78537277687546,
point meta max=2.90264126510316,
axis on top,
xmin=-0.000978473581213307,
xmax=1.00097847358121,
xtick={0,1},
ymin=-0.000978473581213307,
ymax=1.00097847358121,
ytick={0,1},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
colormap={mymap}{[1pt] rgb(0pt)=(0.2081,0.1663,0.5292); rgb(1pt)=(0.211624,0.189781,0.577676); rgb(2pt)=(0.212252,0.213771,0.626971); rgb(3pt)=(0.2081,0.2386,0.677086); rgb(4pt)=(0.195905,0.264457,0.7279); rgb(5pt)=(0.170729,0.291938,0.779248); rgb(6pt)=(0.125271,0.324243,0.830271); rgb(7pt)=(0.0591333,0.359833,0.868333); rgb(8pt)=(0.0116952,0.38751,0.881957); rgb(9pt)=(0.00595714,0.408614,0.882843); rgb(10pt)=(0.0165143,0.4266,0.878633); rgb(11pt)=(0.0328524,0.443043,0.871957); rgb(12pt)=(0.0498143,0.458571,0.864057); rgb(13pt)=(0.0629333,0.47369,0.855438); rgb(14pt)=(0.0722667,0.488667,0.8467); rgb(15pt)=(0.0779429,0.503986,0.838371); rgb(16pt)=(0.0793476,0.520024,0.831181); rgb(17pt)=(0.0749429,0.537543,0.826271); rgb(18pt)=(0.0640571,0.556986,0.823957); rgb(19pt)=(0.0487714,0.577224,0.822829); rgb(20pt)=(0.0343429,0.596581,0.819852); rgb(21pt)=(0.0265,0.6137,0.8135); rgb(22pt)=(0.0238905,0.628662,0.803762); rgb(23pt)=(0.0230905,0.641786,0.791267); rgb(24pt)=(0.0227714,0.653486,0.776757); rgb(25pt)=(0.0266619,0.664195,0.760719); rgb(26pt)=(0.0383714,0.674271,0.743552); rgb(27pt)=(0.0589714,0.683757,0.725386); rgb(28pt)=(0.0843,0.692833,0.706167); rgb(29pt)=(0.113295,0.7015,0.685857); rgb(30pt)=(0.145271,0.709757,0.664629); rgb(31pt)=(0.180133,0.717657,0.642433); rgb(32pt)=(0.217829,0.725043,0.619262); rgb(33pt)=(0.258643,0.731714,0.595429); rgb(34pt)=(0.302171,0.737605,0.571186); rgb(35pt)=(0.348167,0.742433,0.547267); rgb(36pt)=(0.395257,0.7459,0.524443); rgb(37pt)=(0.44201,0.748081,0.503314); rgb(38pt)=(0.487124,0.749062,0.483976); rgb(39pt)=(0.530029,0.749114,0.466114); rgb(40pt)=(0.570857,0.748519,0.44939); rgb(41pt)=(0.609852,0.747314,0.433686); rgb(42pt)=(0.6473,0.7456,0.4188); rgb(43pt)=(0.683419,0.743476,0.404433); rgb(44pt)=(0.71841,0.741133,0.390476); rgb(45pt)=(0.752486,0.7384,0.376814); rgb(46pt)=(0.785843,0.735567,0.363271); rgb(47pt)=(0.818505,0.732733,0.34979); rgb(48pt)=(0.850657,0.7299,0.336029); rgb(49pt)=(0.882433,0.727433,0.3217); rgb(50pt)=(0.913933,0.725786,0.306276); rgb(51pt)=(0.944957,0.726114,0.288643); rgb(52pt)=(0.973895,0.731395,0.266648); rgb(53pt)=(0.993771,0.745457,0.240348); rgb(54pt)=(0.999043,0.765314,0.216414); rgb(55pt)=(0.995533,0.786057,0.196652); rgb(56pt)=(0.988,0.8066,0.179367); rgb(57pt)=(0.978857,0.827143,0.163314); rgb(58pt)=(0.9697,0.848138,0.147452); rgb(59pt)=(0.962586,0.870514,0.1309); rgb(60pt)=(0.958871,0.8949,0.113243); rgb(61pt)=(0.959824,0.921833,0.0948381); rgb(62pt)=(0.9661,0.951443,0.0755333); rgb(63pt)=(0.9763,0.9831,0.0538)},
colorbar
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.000978473581213307,xmax=1.00097847358121,ymin=-0.000978473581213307,ymax=1.00097847358121] {meiss_ev_6-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
}\subfloat[$w_{7}$]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.18\textwidth,
height=.18\textwidth,
at={(1.269in,0.642in)},
scale only axis,
point meta min=-2.27766136627232,
point meta max=2.29980128398804,
axis on top,
xmin=-0.000978473581213307,
xmax=1.00097847358121,
xtick={0,1},
ymin=-0.000978473581213307,
ymax=1.00097847358121,
ytick={0,1},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
colormap={mymap}{[1pt] rgb(0pt)=(0.2081,0.1663,0.5292); rgb(1pt)=(0.211624,0.189781,0.577676); rgb(2pt)=(0.212252,0.213771,0.626971); rgb(3pt)=(0.2081,0.2386,0.677086); rgb(4pt)=(0.195905,0.264457,0.7279); rgb(5pt)=(0.170729,0.291938,0.779248); rgb(6pt)=(0.125271,0.324243,0.830271); rgb(7pt)=(0.0591333,0.359833,0.868333); rgb(8pt)=(0.0116952,0.38751,0.881957); rgb(9pt)=(0.00595714,0.408614,0.882843); rgb(10pt)=(0.0165143,0.4266,0.878633); rgb(11pt)=(0.0328524,0.443043,0.871957); rgb(12pt)=(0.0498143,0.458571,0.864057); rgb(13pt)=(0.0629333,0.47369,0.855438); rgb(14pt)=(0.0722667,0.488667,0.8467); rgb(15pt)=(0.0779429,0.503986,0.838371); rgb(16pt)=(0.0793476,0.520024,0.831181); rgb(17pt)=(0.0749429,0.537543,0.826271); rgb(18pt)=(0.0640571,0.556986,0.823957); rgb(19pt)=(0.0487714,0.577224,0.822829); rgb(20pt)=(0.0343429,0.596581,0.819852); rgb(21pt)=(0.0265,0.6137,0.8135); rgb(22pt)=(0.0238905,0.628662,0.803762); rgb(23pt)=(0.0230905,0.641786,0.791267); rgb(24pt)=(0.0227714,0.653486,0.776757); rgb(25pt)=(0.0266619,0.664195,0.760719); rgb(26pt)=(0.0383714,0.674271,0.743552); rgb(27pt)=(0.0589714,0.683757,0.725386); rgb(28pt)=(0.0843,0.692833,0.706167); rgb(29pt)=(0.113295,0.7015,0.685857); rgb(30pt)=(0.145271,0.709757,0.664629); rgb(31pt)=(0.180133,0.717657,0.642433); rgb(32pt)=(0.217829,0.725043,0.619262); rgb(33pt)=(0.258643,0.731714,0.595429); rgb(34pt)=(0.302171,0.737605,0.571186); rgb(35pt)=(0.348167,0.742433,0.547267); rgb(36pt)=(0.395257,0.7459,0.524443); rgb(37pt)=(0.44201,0.748081,0.503314); rgb(38pt)=(0.487124,0.749062,0.483976); rgb(39pt)=(0.530029,0.749114,0.466114); rgb(40pt)=(0.570857,0.748519,0.44939); rgb(41pt)=(0.609852,0.747314,0.433686); rgb(42pt)=(0.6473,0.7456,0.4188); rgb(43pt)=(0.683419,0.743476,0.404433); rgb(44pt)=(0.71841,0.741133,0.390476); rgb(45pt)=(0.752486,0.7384,0.376814); rgb(46pt)=(0.785843,0.735567,0.363271); rgb(47pt)=(0.818505,0.732733,0.34979); rgb(48pt)=(0.850657,0.7299,0.336029); rgb(49pt)=(0.882433,0.727433,0.3217); rgb(50pt)=(0.913933,0.725786,0.306276); rgb(51pt)=(0.944957,0.726114,0.288643); rgb(52pt)=(0.973895,0.731395,0.266648); rgb(53pt)=(0.993771,0.745457,0.240348); rgb(54pt)=(0.999043,0.765314,0.216414); rgb(55pt)=(0.995533,0.786057,0.196652); rgb(56pt)=(0.988,0.8066,0.179367); rgb(57pt)=(0.978857,0.827143,0.163314); rgb(58pt)=(0.9697,0.848138,0.147452); rgb(59pt)=(0.962586,0.870514,0.1309); rgb(60pt)=(0.958871,0.8949,0.113243); rgb(61pt)=(0.959824,0.921833,0.0948381); rgb(62pt)=(0.9661,0.951443,0.0755333); rgb(63pt)=(0.9763,0.9831,0.0538)},
colorbar
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.000978473581213307,xmax=1.00097847358121,ymin=-0.000978473581213307,ymax=1.00097847358121] {meiss_ev_7-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
}\\
\subfloat[$w_{8}$]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.18\textwidth,
height=.18\textwidth,
at={(1.269in,0.642in)},
scale only axis,
point meta min=-3.7659625241245,
point meta max=3.89309511146691,
axis on top,
xmin=-0.000978473581213307,
xmax=1.00097847358121,
xtick={0,1},
ymin=-0.000978473581213307,
ymax=1.00097847358121,
ytick={0,1},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
colormap={mymap}{[1pt] rgb(0pt)=(0.2081,0.1663,0.5292); rgb(1pt)=(0.211624,0.189781,0.577676); rgb(2pt)=(0.212252,0.213771,0.626971); rgb(3pt)=(0.2081,0.2386,0.677086); rgb(4pt)=(0.195905,0.264457,0.7279); rgb(5pt)=(0.170729,0.291938,0.779248); rgb(6pt)=(0.125271,0.324243,0.830271); rgb(7pt)=(0.0591333,0.359833,0.868333); rgb(8pt)=(0.0116952,0.38751,0.881957); rgb(9pt)=(0.00595714,0.408614,0.882843); rgb(10pt)=(0.0165143,0.4266,0.878633); rgb(11pt)=(0.0328524,0.443043,0.871957); rgb(12pt)=(0.0498143,0.458571,0.864057); rgb(13pt)=(0.0629333,0.47369,0.855438); rgb(14pt)=(0.0722667,0.488667,0.8467); rgb(15pt)=(0.0779429,0.503986,0.838371); rgb(16pt)=(0.0793476,0.520024,0.831181); rgb(17pt)=(0.0749429,0.537543,0.826271); rgb(18pt)=(0.0640571,0.556986,0.823957); rgb(19pt)=(0.0487714,0.577224,0.822829); rgb(20pt)=(0.0343429,0.596581,0.819852); rgb(21pt)=(0.0265,0.6137,0.8135); rgb(22pt)=(0.0238905,0.628662,0.803762); rgb(23pt)=(0.0230905,0.641786,0.791267); rgb(24pt)=(0.0227714,0.653486,0.776757); rgb(25pt)=(0.0266619,0.664195,0.760719); rgb(26pt)=(0.0383714,0.674271,0.743552); rgb(27pt)=(0.0589714,0.683757,0.725386); rgb(28pt)=(0.0843,0.692833,0.706167); rgb(29pt)=(0.113295,0.7015,0.685857); rgb(30pt)=(0.145271,0.709757,0.664629); rgb(31pt)=(0.180133,0.717657,0.642433); rgb(32pt)=(0.217829,0.725043,0.619262); rgb(33pt)=(0.258643,0.731714,0.595429); rgb(34pt)=(0.302171,0.737605,0.571186); rgb(35pt)=(0.348167,0.742433,0.547267); rgb(36pt)=(0.395257,0.7459,0.524443); rgb(37pt)=(0.44201,0.748081,0.503314); rgb(38pt)=(0.487124,0.749062,0.483976); rgb(39pt)=(0.530029,0.749114,0.466114); rgb(40pt)=(0.570857,0.748519,0.44939); rgb(41pt)=(0.609852,0.747314,0.433686); rgb(42pt)=(0.6473,0.7456,0.4188); rgb(43pt)=(0.683419,0.743476,0.404433); rgb(44pt)=(0.71841,0.741133,0.390476); rgb(45pt)=(0.752486,0.7384,0.376814); rgb(46pt)=(0.785843,0.735567,0.363271); rgb(47pt)=(0.818505,0.732733,0.34979); rgb(48pt)=(0.850657,0.7299,0.336029); rgb(49pt)=(0.882433,0.727433,0.3217); rgb(50pt)=(0.913933,0.725786,0.306276); rgb(51pt)=(0.944957,0.726114,0.288643); rgb(52pt)=(0.973895,0.731395,0.266648); rgb(53pt)=(0.993771,0.745457,0.240348); rgb(54pt)=(0.999043,0.765314,0.216414); rgb(55pt)=(0.995533,0.786057,0.196652); rgb(56pt)=(0.988,0.8066,0.179367); rgb(57pt)=(0.978857,0.827143,0.163314); rgb(58pt)=(0.9697,0.848138,0.147452); rgb(59pt)=(0.962586,0.870514,0.1309); rgb(60pt)=(0.958871,0.8949,0.113243); rgb(61pt)=(0.959824,0.921833,0.0948381); rgb(62pt)=(0.9661,0.951443,0.0755333); rgb(63pt)=(0.9763,0.9831,0.0538)},
colorbar
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.000978473581213307,xmax=1.00097847358121,ymin=-0.000978473581213307,ymax=1.00097847358121] {meiss_ev_8-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
}\subfloat[$w_{9}$]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.18\textwidth,
height=.18\textwidth,
at={(1.269in,0.642in)},
scale only axis,
point meta min=-3.0309063908648,
point meta max=2.46726502834592,
axis on top,
xmin=-0.000978473581213307,
xmax=1.00097847358121,
xtick={0,1},
ymin=-0.000978473581213307,
ymax=1.00097847358121,
ytick={0,1},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
colormap={mymap}{[1pt] rgb(0pt)=(0.2081,0.1663,0.5292); rgb(1pt)=(0.211624,0.189781,0.577676); rgb(2pt)=(0.212252,0.213771,0.626971); rgb(3pt)=(0.2081,0.2386,0.677086); rgb(4pt)=(0.195905,0.264457,0.7279); rgb(5pt)=(0.170729,0.291938,0.779248); rgb(6pt)=(0.125271,0.324243,0.830271); rgb(7pt)=(0.0591333,0.359833,0.868333); rgb(8pt)=(0.0116952,0.38751,0.881957); rgb(9pt)=(0.00595714,0.408614,0.882843); rgb(10pt)=(0.0165143,0.4266,0.878633); rgb(11pt)=(0.0328524,0.443043,0.871957); rgb(12pt)=(0.0498143,0.458571,0.864057); rgb(13pt)=(0.0629333,0.47369,0.855438); rgb(14pt)=(0.0722667,0.488667,0.8467); rgb(15pt)=(0.0779429,0.503986,0.838371); rgb(16pt)=(0.0793476,0.520024,0.831181); rgb(17pt)=(0.0749429,0.537543,0.826271); rgb(18pt)=(0.0640571,0.556986,0.823957); rgb(19pt)=(0.0487714,0.577224,0.822829); rgb(20pt)=(0.0343429,0.596581,0.819852); rgb(21pt)=(0.0265,0.6137,0.8135); rgb(22pt)=(0.0238905,0.628662,0.803762); rgb(23pt)=(0.0230905,0.641786,0.791267); rgb(24pt)=(0.0227714,0.653486,0.776757); rgb(25pt)=(0.0266619,0.664195,0.760719); rgb(26pt)=(0.0383714,0.674271,0.743552); rgb(27pt)=(0.0589714,0.683757,0.725386); rgb(28pt)=(0.0843,0.692833,0.706167); rgb(29pt)=(0.113295,0.7015,0.685857); rgb(30pt)=(0.145271,0.709757,0.664629); rgb(31pt)=(0.180133,0.717657,0.642433); rgb(32pt)=(0.217829,0.725043,0.619262); rgb(33pt)=(0.258643,0.731714,0.595429); rgb(34pt)=(0.302171,0.737605,0.571186); rgb(35pt)=(0.348167,0.742433,0.547267); rgb(36pt)=(0.395257,0.7459,0.524443); rgb(37pt)=(0.44201,0.748081,0.503314); rgb(38pt)=(0.487124,0.749062,0.483976); rgb(39pt)=(0.530029,0.749114,0.466114); rgb(40pt)=(0.570857,0.748519,0.44939); rgb(41pt)=(0.609852,0.747314,0.433686); rgb(42pt)=(0.6473,0.7456,0.4188); rgb(43pt)=(0.683419,0.743476,0.404433); rgb(44pt)=(0.71841,0.741133,0.390476); rgb(45pt)=(0.752486,0.7384,0.376814); rgb(46pt)=(0.785843,0.735567,0.363271); rgb(47pt)=(0.818505,0.732733,0.34979); rgb(48pt)=(0.850657,0.7299,0.336029); rgb(49pt)=(0.882433,0.727433,0.3217); rgb(50pt)=(0.913933,0.725786,0.306276); rgb(51pt)=(0.944957,0.726114,0.288643); rgb(52pt)=(0.973895,0.731395,0.266648); rgb(53pt)=(0.993771,0.745457,0.240348); rgb(54pt)=(0.999043,0.765314,0.216414); rgb(55pt)=(0.995533,0.786057,0.196652); rgb(56pt)=(0.988,0.8066,0.179367); rgb(57pt)=(0.978857,0.827143,0.163314); rgb(58pt)=(0.9697,0.848138,0.147452); rgb(59pt)=(0.962586,0.870514,0.1309); rgb(60pt)=(0.958871,0.8949,0.113243); rgb(61pt)=(0.959824,0.921833,0.0948381); rgb(62pt)=(0.9661,0.951443,0.0755333); rgb(63pt)=(0.9763,0.9831,0.0538)},
colorbar
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.000978473581213307,xmax=1.00097847358121,ymin=-0.000978473581213307,ymax=1.00097847358121] {meiss_ev_9-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
}\subfloat[$w_{10}$]{\label{fig:w10
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.18\textwidth,
height=.18\textwidth,
at={(1.269in,0.642in)},
scale only axis,
point meta min=-2.66461853697444,
point meta max=2.07604169930978,
axis on top,
xmin=-0.000978473581213307,
xmax=1.00097847358121,
xtick={0,1},
ymin=-0.000978473581213307,
ymax=1.00097847358121,
ytick={0,1},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
colormap={mymap}{[1pt] rgb(0pt)=(0.2081,0.1663,0.5292); rgb(1pt)=(0.211624,0.189781,0.577676); rgb(2pt)=(0.212252,0.213771,0.626971); rgb(3pt)=(0.2081,0.2386,0.677086); rgb(4pt)=(0.195905,0.264457,0.7279); rgb(5pt)=(0.170729,0.291938,0.779248); rgb(6pt)=(0.125271,0.324243,0.830271); rgb(7pt)=(0.0591333,0.359833,0.868333); rgb(8pt)=(0.0116952,0.38751,0.881957); rgb(9pt)=(0.00595714,0.408614,0.882843); rgb(10pt)=(0.0165143,0.4266,0.878633); rgb(11pt)=(0.0328524,0.443043,0.871957); rgb(12pt)=(0.0498143,0.458571,0.864057); rgb(13pt)=(0.0629333,0.47369,0.855438); rgb(14pt)=(0.0722667,0.488667,0.8467); rgb(15pt)=(0.0779429,0.503986,0.838371); rgb(16pt)=(0.0793476,0.520024,0.831181); rgb(17pt)=(0.0749429,0.537543,0.826271); rgb(18pt)=(0.0640571,0.556986,0.823957); rgb(19pt)=(0.0487714,0.577224,0.822829); rgb(20pt)=(0.0343429,0.596581,0.819852); rgb(21pt)=(0.0265,0.6137,0.8135); rgb(22pt)=(0.0238905,0.628662,0.803762); rgb(23pt)=(0.0230905,0.641786,0.791267); rgb(24pt)=(0.0227714,0.653486,0.776757); rgb(25pt)=(0.0266619,0.664195,0.760719); rgb(26pt)=(0.0383714,0.674271,0.743552); rgb(27pt)=(0.0589714,0.683757,0.725386); rgb(28pt)=(0.0843,0.692833,0.706167); rgb(29pt)=(0.113295,0.7015,0.685857); rgb(30pt)=(0.145271,0.709757,0.664629); rgb(31pt)=(0.180133,0.717657,0.642433); rgb(32pt)=(0.217829,0.725043,0.619262); rgb(33pt)=(0.258643,0.731714,0.595429); rgb(34pt)=(0.302171,0.737605,0.571186); rgb(35pt)=(0.348167,0.742433,0.547267); rgb(36pt)=(0.395257,0.7459,0.524443); rgb(37pt)=(0.44201,0.748081,0.503314); rgb(38pt)=(0.487124,0.749062,0.483976); rgb(39pt)=(0.530029,0.749114,0.466114); rgb(40pt)=(0.570857,0.748519,0.44939); rgb(41pt)=(0.609852,0.747314,0.433686); rgb(42pt)=(0.6473,0.7456,0.4188); rgb(43pt)=(0.683419,0.743476,0.404433); rgb(44pt)=(0.71841,0.741133,0.390476); rgb(45pt)=(0.752486,0.7384,0.376814); rgb(46pt)=(0.785843,0.735567,0.363271); rgb(47pt)=(0.818505,0.732733,0.34979); rgb(48pt)=(0.850657,0.7299,0.336029); rgb(49pt)=(0.882433,0.727433,0.3217); rgb(50pt)=(0.913933,0.725786,0.306276); rgb(51pt)=(0.944957,0.726114,0.288643); rgb(52pt)=(0.973895,0.731395,0.266648); rgb(53pt)=(0.993771,0.745457,0.240348); rgb(54pt)=(0.999043,0.765314,0.216414); rgb(55pt)=(0.995533,0.786057,0.196652); rgb(56pt)=(0.988,0.8066,0.179367); rgb(57pt)=(0.978857,0.827143,0.163314); rgb(58pt)=(0.9697,0.848138,0.147452); rgb(59pt)=(0.962586,0.870514,0.1309); rgb(60pt)=(0.958871,0.8949,0.113243); rgb(61pt)=(0.959824,0.921833,0.0948381); rgb(62pt)=(0.9661,0.951443,0.0755333); rgb(63pt)=(0.9763,0.9831,0.0538)},
colorbar
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.000978473581213307,xmax=1.00097847358121,ymin=-0.000978473581213307,ymax=1.00097847358121] {meiss_ev_10-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
}
\caption{Rotating double gyre flow. (a)–(i): eigenfunctions $w_{2}$ to $w_{10}$
of $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$. The first eigenfunction $w_{1}$ (not shown)
is flat. The second (b) and third (c) eigenfunctions distinguish between
the dominant two gyres. The following eigenfunctions $w_{4}$ to $w_{9}$
can be interpreted as higher harmonics, they localize essentially
on the regions detected by the second and third eigenfunctions. It
is only in the tenth eigenfunction (i) that the lobe (on the right
in bright yellow) spanned by the stable manifold of the lower hyperbolic
trajectory is signaled.}
\label{fig:meiss_ev}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centerin
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.33\textwidth,
height=.33\textwidth,
at={(1.648in,0.642in)},
scale only axis,
axis on top,
xtick={0,0.5,1},
ytick={0,0.5,1},
xmin=-0.000978473581213307,
xmax=1.00097847358121,
ymin=-0.000978473581213307,
ymax=1.00097847358121,
axis background/.style={fill=white},
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.000978473581213307,xmax=1.00097847358121,ymin=-0.000978473581213307,ymax=1.00097847358121] {Meiss_final-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\caption{Rotating double gyre flow: the 3-clustering obtained from $w_2$ and $w_3$.}
\label{fig:meiss_clustering}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Cylinder flow, continued, cf.~\cite{Froyland2015b}]
In \Cref{fig:cylinder_spectrum} we show the 21 first eigenvalues
of the spectrum of $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$. In this case, the eigengap
is less obvious, and we merely observe an eigenvalue plateau from
$\lambda_{4}$ to $\lambda_{7}$. A look at the first two nontrivial
eigenfunctions $w_{2}$ and $w_{3}$ in \Cref{fig:cylinder_ev2} and
\Cref{fig:cylinder_ev3} reveals that the two most relevant coherent
structures are again in the initial gyre centers. All eigenfunctions from $w_{4}$
to $w_{20}$ have common visual support with $w_{2}$, and can be
interpreted as coordinates-inducing or higher harmonics on these two
components. If we neglect the corresponding eigenvalues in line with our
reasoning in \cref{sec:Spectrum-eigenfunctions}, we are left with the
problem of finding two coherent structures with some background. The final
clustering result is shown in \Cref{fig:cylinder_final}.
For comparison,
in \cite{Froyland2015b} only the left coherent structure has been detected (as necessary
in the bisection problem treated there), which appears to be visually indistinguishable
from ours. As for the previous example, we provide an advection movie showing the
evolution of the detected sets as Supplementary Material 2 for a visual proof of coherence.
\begin{figure}
\centerin
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.6\textwidth,
height=.17\textheight,
at={(1.011in,0.642in)},
scale only axis,
xmin=1,
xmax=21,
xlabel={Eigenvalues},
ymin=-0.124350949776854,
ymax=7.02429061835575e-09,
axis background/.style={fill=white},
]
\addplot [color=blue,solid,line width=2.0pt,mark size=3.5pt,mark=square*,mark options={solid,fill=red},forget plot]
table[row sep=crcr]{%
1 7.02429061835575e-09\\
2 -0.00434998372619074\\
3 -0.0143516786009796\\
4 -0.0225170720683041\\
5 -0.0228718766506527\\
6 -0.0256885491552459\\
7 -0.0270560340684313\\
8 -0.0376747953434587\\
9 -0.0483550004754689\\
10 -0.0637502370768492\\
11 -0.0643501849494084\\
12 -0.0649492900404874\\
13 -0.0680993082752056\\
14 -0.0744373490044\\
15 -0.0766802620052469\\
16 -0.0813805109875817\\
17 -0.0846438148603484\\
18 -0.103281669009002\\
19 -0.116166626557094\\
20 -0.121700811211003\\
21 -0.124350949776854\\
};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\caption{Spectrum of $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$ for the cylinder flow.}
\label{fig:cylinder_spectrum}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering\subfloat[Second eigenfunction $w_{2}$.]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.3\textwidth,
height=.15\textwidth,
at={(0.921in,1.644in)},
scale only axis,
point meta min=-2.99725070337903,
point meta max=2.92850627805743,
axis on top,
xmin=-0.00614793082894284,
xmax=6.28933323800853,
xtick={0,3.14159265358979,6.28318530717959},
xticklabels={$0$, $\pi$, $2\pi$},
ymin=-0.0061599855952741,
ymax=3.14775263918507,
ytick={0,1.570796326794895,3.1415},
yticklabels={0,$\frac{\pi}{2}$,$\pi$},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
colormap={mymap}{[1pt] rgb(0pt)=(0.2081,0.1663,0.5292); rgb(1pt)=(0.211624,0.189781,0.577676); rgb(2pt)=(0.212252,0.213771,0.626971); rgb(3pt)=(0.2081,0.2386,0.677086); rgb(4pt)=(0.195905,0.264457,0.7279); rgb(5pt)=(0.170729,0.291938,0.779248); rgb(6pt)=(0.125271,0.324243,0.830271); rgb(7pt)=(0.0591333,0.359833,0.868333); rgb(8pt)=(0.0116952,0.38751,0.881957); rgb(9pt)=(0.00595714,0.408614,0.882843); rgb(10pt)=(0.0165143,0.4266,0.878633); rgb(11pt)=(0.0328524,0.443043,0.871957); rgb(12pt)=(0.0498143,0.458571,0.864057); rgb(13pt)=(0.0629333,0.47369,0.855438); rgb(14pt)=(0.0722667,0.488667,0.8467); rgb(15pt)=(0.0779429,0.503986,0.838371); rgb(16pt)=(0.0793476,0.520024,0.831181); rgb(17pt)=(0.0749429,0.537543,0.826271); rgb(18pt)=(0.0640571,0.556986,0.823957); rgb(19pt)=(0.0487714,0.577224,0.822829); rgb(20pt)=(0.0343429,0.596581,0.819852); rgb(21pt)=(0.0265,0.6137,0.8135); rgb(22pt)=(0.0238905,0.628662,0.803762); rgb(23pt)=(0.0230905,0.641786,0.791267); rgb(24pt)=(0.0227714,0.653486,0.776757); rgb(25pt)=(0.0266619,0.664195,0.760719); rgb(26pt)=(0.0383714,0.674271,0.743552); rgb(27pt)=(0.0589714,0.683757,0.725386); rgb(28pt)=(0.0843,0.692833,0.706167); rgb(29pt)=(0.113295,0.7015,0.685857); rgb(30pt)=(0.145271,0.709757,0.664629); rgb(31pt)=(0.180133,0.717657,0.642433); rgb(32pt)=(0.217829,0.725043,0.619262); rgb(33pt)=(0.258643,0.731714,0.595429); rgb(34pt)=(0.302171,0.737605,0.571186); rgb(35pt)=(0.348167,0.742433,0.547267); rgb(36pt)=(0.395257,0.7459,0.524443); rgb(37pt)=(0.44201,0.748081,0.503314); rgb(38pt)=(0.487124,0.749062,0.483976); rgb(39pt)=(0.530029,0.749114,0.466114); rgb(40pt)=(0.570857,0.748519,0.44939); rgb(41pt)=(0.609852,0.747314,0.433686); rgb(42pt)=(0.6473,0.7456,0.4188); rgb(43pt)=(0.683419,0.743476,0.404433); rgb(44pt)=(0.71841,0.741133,0.390476); rgb(45pt)=(0.752486,0.7384,0.376814); rgb(46pt)=(0.785843,0.735567,0.363271); rgb(47pt)=(0.818505,0.732733,0.34979); rgb(48pt)=(0.850657,0.7299,0.336029); rgb(49pt)=(0.882433,0.727433,0.3217); rgb(50pt)=(0.913933,0.725786,0.306276); rgb(51pt)=(0.944957,0.726114,0.288643); rgb(52pt)=(0.973895,0.731395,0.266648); rgb(53pt)=(0.993771,0.745457,0.240348); rgb(54pt)=(0.999043,0.765314,0.216414); rgb(55pt)=(0.995533,0.786057,0.196652); rgb(56pt)=(0.988,0.8066,0.179367); rgb(57pt)=(0.978857,0.827143,0.163314); rgb(58pt)=(0.9697,0.848138,0.147452); rgb(59pt)=(0.962586,0.870514,0.1309); rgb(60pt)=(0.958871,0.8949,0.113243); rgb(61pt)=(0.959824,0.921833,0.0948381); rgb(62pt)=(0.9661,0.951443,0.0755333); rgb(63pt)=(0.9763,0.9831,0.0538)},
colorbar
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.00614793082894284,xmax=6.28933323800853,ymin=-0.0061599855952741,ymax=3.14775263918507] {cylinder_ev_2-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\label{fig:cylinder_ev2}}
\subfloat[Third eigenfunction $w_{3}$.]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.3\textwidth,
height=.15\textwidth,
at={(0.921in,1.644in)},
scale only axis,
point meta min=-1.14622761496295,
point meta max=1.36339873051773,
axis on top,
xmin=-0.00614793082894284,
xmax=6.28933323800853,
xtick={0,3.14159265358979,6.28318530717959},
xticklabels={$0$, $\pi$, $2\pi$},
ymin=-0.0061599855952741,
ymax=3.14775263918507,
ytick={0,1.570796326794895,3.1415},
yticklabels={0,$\frac{\pi}{2}$,$\pi$},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
colormap={mymap}{[1pt] rgb(0pt)=(0.2081,0.1663,0.5292); rgb(1pt)=(0.211624,0.189781,0.577676); rgb(2pt)=(0.212252,0.213771,0.626971); rgb(3pt)=(0.2081,0.2386,0.677086); rgb(4pt)=(0.195905,0.264457,0.7279); rgb(5pt)=(0.170729,0.291938,0.779248); rgb(6pt)=(0.125271,0.324243,0.830271); rgb(7pt)=(0.0591333,0.359833,0.868333); rgb(8pt)=(0.0116952,0.38751,0.881957); rgb(9pt)=(0.00595714,0.408614,0.882843); rgb(10pt)=(0.0165143,0.4266,0.878633); rgb(11pt)=(0.0328524,0.443043,0.871957); rgb(12pt)=(0.0498143,0.458571,0.864057); rgb(13pt)=(0.0629333,0.47369,0.855438); rgb(14pt)=(0.0722667,0.488667,0.8467); rgb(15pt)=(0.0779429,0.503986,0.838371); rgb(16pt)=(0.0793476,0.520024,0.831181); rgb(17pt)=(0.0749429,0.537543,0.826271); rgb(18pt)=(0.0640571,0.556986,0.823957); rgb(19pt)=(0.0487714,0.577224,0.822829); rgb(20pt)=(0.0343429,0.596581,0.819852); rgb(21pt)=(0.0265,0.6137,0.8135); rgb(22pt)=(0.0238905,0.628662,0.803762); rgb(23pt)=(0.0230905,0.641786,0.791267); rgb(24pt)=(0.0227714,0.653486,0.776757); rgb(25pt)=(0.0266619,0.664195,0.760719); rgb(26pt)=(0.0383714,0.674271,0.743552); rgb(27pt)=(0.0589714,0.683757,0.725386); rgb(28pt)=(0.0843,0.692833,0.706167); rgb(29pt)=(0.113295,0.7015,0.685857); rgb(30pt)=(0.145271,0.709757,0.664629); rgb(31pt)=(0.180133,0.717657,0.642433); rgb(32pt)=(0.217829,0.725043,0.619262); rgb(33pt)=(0.258643,0.731714,0.595429); rgb(34pt)=(0.302171,0.737605,0.571186); rgb(35pt)=(0.348167,0.742433,0.547267); rgb(36pt)=(0.395257,0.7459,0.524443); rgb(37pt)=(0.44201,0.748081,0.503314); rgb(38pt)=(0.487124,0.749062,0.483976); rgb(39pt)=(0.530029,0.749114,0.466114); rgb(40pt)=(0.570857,0.748519,0.44939); rgb(41pt)=(0.609852,0.747314,0.433686); rgb(42pt)=(0.6473,0.7456,0.4188); rgb(43pt)=(0.683419,0.743476,0.404433); rgb(44pt)=(0.71841,0.741133,0.390476); rgb(45pt)=(0.752486,0.7384,0.376814); rgb(46pt)=(0.785843,0.735567,0.363271); rgb(47pt)=(0.818505,0.732733,0.34979); rgb(48pt)=(0.850657,0.7299,0.336029); rgb(49pt)=(0.882433,0.727433,0.3217); rgb(50pt)=(0.913933,0.725786,0.306276); rgb(51pt)=(0.944957,0.726114,0.288643); rgb(52pt)=(0.973895,0.731395,0.266648); rgb(53pt)=(0.993771,0.745457,0.240348); rgb(54pt)=(0.999043,0.765314,0.216414); rgb(55pt)=(0.995533,0.786057,0.196652); rgb(56pt)=(0.988,0.8066,0.179367); rgb(57pt)=(0.978857,0.827143,0.163314); rgb(58pt)=(0.9697,0.848138,0.147452); rgb(59pt)=(0.962586,0.870514,0.1309); rgb(60pt)=(0.958871,0.8949,0.113243); rgb(61pt)=(0.959824,0.921833,0.0948381); rgb(62pt)=(0.9661,0.951443,0.0755333); rgb(63pt)=(0.9763,0.9831,0.0538)},
colorbar
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.00614793082894284,xmax=6.28933323800853,ymin=-0.0061599855952741,ymax=3.14775263918507] {cylinder_ev_3-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\label{fig:cylinder_ev3}}\\
\subfloat[Final clustering result.]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.3\textwidth,
height=.15\textwidth,
at={(1.011in,1.509in)},
scale only axis,
axis on top,
xmin=-0.00614793082894284,
xmax=6.28933323800853,
xtick={0,3.14159265358979,6.28318530717959},
xticklabels={$0$, $\pi$, $2\pi$},
ymin=-0.0061599855952741,
ymax=3.14775263918507,
ytick={0,1.570796326794895,3.1415},
yticklabels={0,$\frac{\pi}{2}$,$\pi$},
axis background/.style={fill=white}
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.00614793082894284,xmax=6.28933323800853,ymin=-0.0061599855952741,ymax=3.14775263918507] {cylinder_final_extended-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\label{fig:cylinder_final}}
\caption{Cylinder flow. (a)-(b): Leading two eigenfunctions $w_{2}$ and $w_{3}$
of $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$. (c): The 3-clustering obtained from $w_2$ and $w_3$.}
\label{fig:cylinder_ev}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Bickley jet flow, continued, cf.~\cite{Hadjighasem2016}]
In \Cref{fig:bickley_spectrum} we show the 21 first eigenvalues of
the spectrum of $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$. We find a first bigger gap after
the seventh eigenvalue, which indicates the presence of six coherent
structures embedded in an incoherent connecting background. A look
at the first nontrivial eigenfunctions such as the second one in \Cref{fig:bickley_ev2}
reveals that the six most relevant coherent structures are the gyres
flanking the jet. All eigenfunctions corresponding to the dominant eigenvalues
look conceptually the same, i.e., they distinguish the different vortices as does
$w_2$ for some of them. The final 7-clustering result obtained from the dominant
seven eigenfunctions is shown in \Cref{fig:bickley_final}. For comparison,
in \cite{Hadjighasem2016} very similar spectrum and LCS have been found, apparently
larger than ours obtained from the clustering.
Of particular interest in this model is the presence or absence
of a north-south division in the first nontrivial eigenfunction
$w_{2}$. Such a division is reported for the related probabilistic transfer operator method,
in \cite{Froyland2010a,Froyland2013} for different parameters, and in \cite{Hadjighasem2016} for the parameters used here, as well as in \cite{Froyland2017a} in the transfer-operator-based FEM-discretization of $\overline{\Delta}$.
We have not observed the horizontal division in the dominant eigenfunctions neither
with $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$, nor with the dynamic Laplacian $\overline{\Delta}$,
cf.~the Cauchy--Green-based FEM-discretization of $\overline{\Delta}$ in \cite{Froyland2017a}.
The occurence of the north-south division is related to a strong ``numerical''
diffusivity introduced through the discretization, both in the classic box discretization
of the transfer operator and the transfer-operator-based FEM-discretizations
in \cite{Froyland2017a}. These aspects will be discussed in more depth in a
forthcoming publication.
As for the previous examples, we provide an advection movie showing the
evolution of the detected sets as Supplementary Material 3 for a visual confirmation of the coherent motion.
\begin{figure}
\centerin
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.6\textwidth,
height=.17\textheight,
at={(1.011in,0.642in)},
scale only axis,
xmin=1,
xmax=21,
xlabel={Eigenvalues},
ymin=-0.371741582424641,
ymax=3.18084484270208e-07,
axis background/.style={fill=white}
]
\addplot [color=blue,solid,line width=2.0pt,mark size=3.5pt,mark=square*,mark options={solid,fill=red},forget plot]
table[row sep=crcr]{%
1 3.18084484270208e-07\\
2 -0.0164949110833838\\
3 -0.0181483667073456\\
4 -0.0191000493105286\\
5 -0.0223102727667336\\
6 -0.0257089748504386\\
7 -0.0399799370203706\\
8 -0.137415399056968\\
9 -0.184163793545059\\
10 -0.193344527949735\\
11 -0.204778605183407\\
12 -0.225182979970761\\
13 -0.227838263956257\\
14 -0.281948091535397\\
15 -0.337595775852147\\
16 -0.355679828548663\\
17 -0.358242468079062\\
18 -0.362892770454108\\
19 -0.367122581730263\\
20 -0.367991798824932\\
21 -0.371741582424641\\
};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\caption{Spectrum of $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$ for the Bickley jet flow.}
\label{fig:bickley_spectrum}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering\subfloat[]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.375\textwidth,
height=0.1125\textwidth,
at={(0.91in,2.202in)},
scale only axis,
point meta min=-5.90243288551271,
point meta max=5.93268581948882,
axis on top,
xmin=-0.0125786163522013,
xmax=20.0125786163522,
xtick={0,5,10,15,20},
ymin=-3.01255230125523,
ymax=3.01255230125523,
ytick={-3,0,3},
axis background/.style={fill=white},
colormap={mymap}{[1pt] rgb(0pt)=(0.2081,0.1663,0.5292); rgb(1pt)=(0.211624,0.189781,0.577676); rgb(2pt)=(0.212252,0.213771,0.626971); rgb(3pt)=(0.2081,0.2386,0.677086); rgb(4pt)=(0.195905,0.264457,0.7279); rgb(5pt)=(0.170729,0.291938,0.779248); rgb(6pt)=(0.125271,0.324243,0.830271); rgb(7pt)=(0.0591333,0.359833,0.868333); rgb(8pt)=(0.0116952,0.38751,0.881957); rgb(9pt)=(0.00595714,0.408614,0.882843); rgb(10pt)=(0.0165143,0.4266,0.878633); rgb(11pt)=(0.0328524,0.443043,0.871957); rgb(12pt)=(0.0498143,0.458571,0.864057); rgb(13pt)=(0.0629333,0.47369,0.855438); rgb(14pt)=(0.0722667,0.488667,0.8467); rgb(15pt)=(0.0779429,0.503986,0.838371); rgb(16pt)=(0.0793476,0.520024,0.831181); rgb(17pt)=(0.0749429,0.537543,0.826271); rgb(18pt)=(0.0640571,0.556986,0.823957); rgb(19pt)=(0.0487714,0.577224,0.822829); rgb(20pt)=(0.0343429,0.596581,0.819852); rgb(21pt)=(0.0265,0.6137,0.8135); rgb(22pt)=(0.0238905,0.628662,0.803762); rgb(23pt)=(0.0230905,0.641786,0.791267); rgb(24pt)=(0.0227714,0.653486,0.776757); rgb(25pt)=(0.0266619,0.664195,0.760719); rgb(26pt)=(0.0383714,0.674271,0.743552); rgb(27pt)=(0.0589714,0.683757,0.725386); rgb(28pt)=(0.0843,0.692833,0.706167); rgb(29pt)=(0.113295,0.7015,0.685857); rgb(30pt)=(0.145271,0.709757,0.664629); rgb(31pt)=(0.180133,0.717657,0.642433); rgb(32pt)=(0.217829,0.725043,0.619262); rgb(33pt)=(0.258643,0.731714,0.595429); rgb(34pt)=(0.302171,0.737605,0.571186); rgb(35pt)=(0.348167,0.742433,0.547267); rgb(36pt)=(0.395257,0.7459,0.524443); rgb(37pt)=(0.44201,0.748081,0.503314); rgb(38pt)=(0.487124,0.749062,0.483976); rgb(39pt)=(0.530029,0.749114,0.466114); rgb(40pt)=(0.570857,0.748519,0.44939); rgb(41pt)=(0.609852,0.747314,0.433686); rgb(42pt)=(0.6473,0.7456,0.4188); rgb(43pt)=(0.683419,0.743476,0.404433); rgb(44pt)=(0.71841,0.741133,0.390476); rgb(45pt)=(0.752486,0.7384,0.376814); rgb(46pt)=(0.785843,0.735567,0.363271); rgb(47pt)=(0.818505,0.732733,0.34979); rgb(48pt)=(0.850657,0.7299,0.336029); rgb(49pt)=(0.882433,0.727433,0.3217); rgb(50pt)=(0.913933,0.725786,0.306276); rgb(51pt)=(0.944957,0.726114,0.288643); rgb(52pt)=(0.973895,0.731395,0.266648); rgb(53pt)=(0.993771,0.745457,0.240348); rgb(54pt)=(0.999043,0.765314,0.216414); rgb(55pt)=(0.995533,0.786057,0.196652); rgb(56pt)=(0.988,0.8066,0.179367); rgb(57pt)=(0.978857,0.827143,0.163314); rgb(58pt)=(0.9697,0.848138,0.147452); rgb(59pt)=(0.962586,0.870514,0.1309); rgb(60pt)=(0.958871,0.8949,0.113243); rgb(61pt)=(0.959824,0.921833,0.0948381); rgb(62pt)=(0.9661,0.951443,0.0755333); rgb(63pt)=(0.9763,0.9831,0.0538)},
colorbar
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.0125786163522013,xmax=20.0125786163522,ymin=-3.01255230125523,ymax=3.01255230125523] {bickley_ev_2-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\label{fig:bickley_ev2}}%
\subfloat[]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[%
width=.375\textwidth,
height=0.1125\textwidth,
at={(1.011in,2.112in)},
scale only axis,
axis on top,
xmin=-0.0125786163522013,
xmax=20.0125786163522,
xtick={0,5,10,15,20},
ymin=-3.01255230125523,
ymax=3.01255230125523,
ytick={-3,0,3},
axis background/.style={fill=white}
]
\addplot [forget plot] graphics [xmin=-0.0125786163522013,xmax=20.0125786163522,ymin=-3.01255230125523,ymax=3.01255230125523] {bickley_final-1.png};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}%
\label{fig:bickley_final}}
\caption{Bickley jet flow. (a): Second eigenfunction. (b): The 7-clustering
obtained from $w_2$ to $w_7$.}
\label{fig:bickley_ev}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\section{Discussion\label{sec:discussion}}
\subsection{What to average?\label{sec:What-to-average?}}
Including our approach developed here, there are now three coherent
structure detection methods which average different, but related,
geometric objects.
As a first category, we have the averaged Laplacian approach: for
the (spatially) continuous version, this is the dynamic Laplacian $\overline{\Delta}$
\cite{Froyland2015a,Froyland2017}, for the discrete version, this is the Spacetime
Diffusion Map transition matrix $Q_{\varepsilon}$ \cite{Banisch2017}.
As we have seen, $\overline{\Delta}$ is an average of Laplace–Beltrami
operators with respect to pullback metrics, and $Q_{\varepsilon}$
is an average of the graph Laplacians $B_{\varepsilon,t}$ of those
Laplace–Beltrami operators $\Delta_{g(t)}$, built on the respective
locations of a given set of trajectories. For each time instant $t$,
the pointwise or even uniform convergence of the graph Laplacian towards
the respective Laplace–Beltrami operator for increasing data samples,
see \cite[Thm.~3, Rem.~4]{Banisch2017}, follows from the results
in \cite{Belkin2003,Singer2006,Coifman2006,Belkin2008}, see also
\cite[Appendix A]{Berry2016} for a historic account and sufficient
conditions for convergence of spectra. In summary, averaging (pullback)
Laplace operators yields an elliptic operator on the physical manifold
$(M,g)$ (possibly weighted by the initial fluid density)
As a second category, we have the spectral-clustering method put forward
in \cite{Hadjighasem2016}. There, geodesic distances with respect
to the pullback metrics are averaged. These new distances are then
used to build a normalized graph Laplacian on that new metric space. Spectral
convergence of the resulting normalized graph Laplacian for infinite samples
towards a continuous operator can still be guaranteed when replacing the
distance-dependent kernel function $r\mapsto 1/r$ by the often
used Gaussian kernel $r\mapsto\exp(-r^2/\sigma^2)$, see
\cite[Thm.~15]{Luxburg2008}. The metric space lacks a generating
Riemannian structure, but is very accessible from real-world data
sets, and is guaranteed to give a self-adjoint matrix, in contrast to the spacetime
diffusion map approach, see \cite[III.C.2, p.~8]{Banisch2017}.
Thirdly, we have our current method, which builds on averages of dual
metrics/diffusion tensors, and equips the material manifold
with the corresponding natural metric as Riemannian metric. This procedure
yields the richest mathematical
structure, i.e., both a Riemannian manifold and consequently a metric
space, and is guaranteed to give a self-adjoint operator. On the downside,
its discretization in terms of a graph Laplacian is not straightforward
anymore, see \cref{sec:discrete_data}.
We expect, however, that for material points which are close in all
pullback metrics $g(t)$ the average of geodesic distances used in
\cite{Hadjighasem2016} is a good approximation for the $\bar{g}$–geodesic
distance.
All of these three methods have in common that they consider local
neighborhood information, either through considering (second) derivatives
of ``test functions'', or through geodesic distance information.
This is in contrast to an independent set of coherent structure detection
methods, for instance \cite{Mezic2010,Budisic2012,Mancho2013,Mundel2014,Haller2016},
which retrieve information from time averages of observables along
``isolated'' trajectories. The expectation then is that coherent structures reveal
themselves as sets of material points showing similar statistics within
the structure, and different statistics compared to the exterior.
\subsection{Connections to geodesic LCS approaches\label{sec:Haller_methods}}
There is another group of methods for finding boundaries of coherent
structures in purely advective flows, developed by Haller and co-workers
\cite{Haller2015,Haller2013a,Karrasch2015,Farazmand2014a}. These
build on global variational principles involving the Cauchy–Green
(CG) strain tensor field $C\coloneqq D\Phi(T)^{\top}D\Phi(T)$, which
we interpret here as the pullback metric $\Phi(T)^{*}g$; see \Cref{rem:pullbackmetric}. These methods evaluate the dynamics
at two time instances, an initial $t=0$ and a final one $t=T$. Earlier
``finite-time'' methods have only used the logarithm of the maximal
eigenvalue of $C$, well-known as the \emph{finite-time Lyapunov exponent
(FTLE)}, for visual inference of coherent structures.
Previously, it has been unclear how to extend these two-point variational
methods towards using also intermediate dynamic information, and,
more importantly, how these Cauchy–Green-based methods relate to the
probabilistic transfer operator-based methods. In the following, we
will clarify these two questions and thereby provide the long-sought
link between the two prominent coherent structure approaches.
To this end, observe the following tight relation between the Cauchy–Green
strain tensor $C$ and the two-point harmonic mean metric tensor $\overline{G}$
in physical $g$–normal coordinates at some point $p\in M$. Then
$\overline{G}$ has the coordinate representation $\overline{G}=2\left(G(0)^{-1}+G(T)^{-1}\right)^{-1}=2\left(I+C^{-1}\right)^{-1}$,
where $I$ is the identity matrix. Clearly, $C$ has eigenvalues $\mu_{\min}=\mu_{\min}(C)\leq\mu_{\max}(C)=\mu_{\max}$
with eigenvectors\footnote{Haller and co-workers usually employ the notation $(\lambda_{i},\xi_{i})$
for eigenpairs.} $v_{\min}(C)$ and $v_{\max}(C)$ if and only if $\overline{D}=\overline{G}^{-1}$
has eigenvalues $\mu_{\min}\left(\overline{D}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{\mu_{\max}}\right)\leq\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{\mu_{\min}}\right)=\mu_{\max}\left(\overline{D}\right)$
with eigenvectors $v_{\min}\left(\overline{D}\right)=v_{\max}(C)$
and $v_{\max}\left(\overline{D}\right)=v_{\min}(C)$. In other
words, the minor CG–eigendirection $v_{\min}(C)$ corresponds to the
dominant $\overline{G}$–diffusion direction.
Moreover, in the volume-preserving case, one has $\mu_{\min}=\mu_{\max}^{-1}$,
and therefore the anisotropy ratio for $\overline{D}$
\[
\frac{1+\mu_{\max}}{1+\frac{1}{\mu_{\max}}}=\mu_{\max}
\]
is equal to the dominant CG-eigenvalue. From these considerations
we see that our harmonic mean metric is a consistent way of including
intermediate deformation information in quantities like the FTLE or
the characteristic direction fields $v_{i}(C)$. Thus, the logarithm
of the anisotropy ratio shown in the figures in \cref{sec:tensor-field}
corresponds to an accordingly defined multiple time step FTLE up to rescaling.
Next, let us briefly recall the variational formulations for elliptic
(coherent vortex boundaries) and parabolic (jet cores) Lagrangian
coherent structures (LCSs) in two-dimensional flows, using our notation.
Following \cite{Haller2013a}, boundaries of elliptic LCSs are sought
as the outermost \emph{closed} stationary curves of the averaged strain
functional
\[
Q(\gamma)=\int_{0}^{b}\frac{\lvert r'(s)\rvert_{\Phi(T)^{*}g}}{\lvert r'(s)\rvert_{g}}\mathrm{d}s,
\]
where $r$ is a parametrization of a material curve $\gamma\subset M$.
The integrand compares pointwise the magnitude of curve velocity
$r'(s)$ after push forward by $D\Phi$ with its original magnitude.
Equivalently, by equipping $M$ with the pullback metric $C=\Phi(T)^{*}g$,
the domain $M$ is geometrically deformed, in principle as we do in
our approach here with $\bar{g}$. In these terms, the length of $r'(s)$
in the deformed geometry $(M,C)$ is compared with its length in the
original geometry $(M,g)$. By applying Noether's theorem, one obtains
that stationary curves necessarily obey a conservation law, which
corresponds exactly to the integrand, i.e.,
\[
\frac{\lvert r'(s)\rvert_{\Phi(T)^{*}g}}{\lvert r'(s)\rvert_{g}}=\frac{\lvert r'(s)\rvert_{g(T)}}{\lvert r'(s)\rvert_{g(0)}}=\lambda=\text{const}.,
\]
from which one may deduce tangent line fields $\eta_{\lambda}$. Among
the orbits of these line fields one looks for closed ones. Closed
orbits typically come in continuous one-parameter families, out of
which one picks the outermost. Analogously to index theory for vector
fields, one may employ index theory for line fields to deduce that
any closed orbit of a piecewise differentiable line field must necessarily
enclose at least two singularities\footnote{Singularities of line fields are points
at which the line field is not continuously defined; see
\cite[Ch.~4, Addendum 2]{Spivak1999} and \cite{Delmarcelle1994}. Wedge-type
singularities are characterized by a sector of integral curves running into the
singularity, complemented by a sector of integral curves flowing around the singularity.} of the line fields,
and all enclosed
singularities obey a topological rule, see \cite{Karrasch2015} for
more details. In most cases, relevant closed orbits have been found
to enclose exactly two singularities of wedge type \cite{Karrasch2015}.
These singularities
can be visualized (and numerically detected) by phase portraits of
the eigendirections of the pullback metric $C$, or, as shown above,
equally well by the dominant diffusion direction field of $\overline{D}$
as in \cref{sec:tensor-field}.
In practice, the outermost closed stationary curve travels through
regions of high FTLE/anisotropy values. There, the tangent direction
field is almost collinear with $v_{\min}(C)$. From the discussion
in \cref{sec:surface-area-form} we conclude that such closed curves
are pointwise very close to the optimal direction for blocking $\bar{g}$–diffusion.
Their deviation from the optimal direction is not very costly in terms
of diffusive flux, but still allows them to close up smoothly under
the conditions of the variational principle.
For a simple numerical test, we have overlaid the final clustering
result as well as the second eigenfunction of $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$ for a two
time point-approximation of $\bar{g}$ with all closed $\eta_{\lambda}$–orbits in \Cref{fig:Laplace_CG}. We find a striking similarity especially of the
right elliptic LCS (black) with the right structure found from the
$\Delta_{\bar{g}}$–analysis (blue set in \Cref{fig:meiss_lambdakmeans}). A
close inspection of the level sets of the second eigenfunction, see
\Cref{fig:meiss_lambda}, shows that even the kink at the bottom of the right LCS
is captured, even though smoothed out by the \textsc{k-means} clustering.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[\label{fig:meiss_lambdakmeans}]{\input{Meiss2_final.tex}}%
\subfloat[\label{fig:meiss_lambda}]{%
\includegraphics{meiss2_ev_2.pdf}}
\caption{Rotating double gyre flow (evaluated at initial
and final time points only). Closed $\eta_{\lambda}$–lines (black) on top of
(a) the final clustering result from the $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$–analysis,
and (b) the second eigenfunction $w_{2}$ of $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$. }
\label{fig:Laplace_CG}
\end{figure}
Regarding parabolic LCSs, there exists a similar mathematical formulation
to the one for elliptic LCSs, including a variational principle, which
admits a conserved quantity from which one may deduce tangent line
fields for stationary curves \cite{Farazmand2014a}. Eventually, parabolic
LCSs, or shearless jet cores, are defined as alternating chains of
$v_{\min}(C)$ and $v_{\max}(C)$ integral curves, which connect to
each other in tensor singularities. Interestingly, this feature can
again be well observed in the Bickley jet example, compare \Cref{fig:bickley_tensor}
to \cite[Sec.~9.3]{Farazmand2014a}.
In summary, its dimension-independent formulation and its high degree
of consistency with the two-dimensional variational principles suggest
our methodology as a natural extension of these approaches to higher
dimensions. It has proven to be notoriously challenging to extend the variational
ideas to three dimensions by restricting oneself to variational principles
on curves \cite{Blazevski2014,Oettinger2016}.
\subsection{Perturbation of topology\label{sec:Perturbation-of-topology}}
We have argued in \cref{sec:tensor-field} that the manifold $(M,\overline{g})$
with the coherent islands of large metric density and a surrounding
sea of small metric density can be regarded as a perturbation of a
virtual limit case in which the density actually vanishes in the small-density region. In
this case, however, the manifold would change its topology by disintegrating
into several connected components. Due to the small density, the omission
of the region with small $\bar{g}$–volume may be regarded as a small
perturbation. As all examples in \cref{sec:example-analysis} show,
the dominant part of the spectrum and the corresponding eigenfunctions
behave exactly as expected in such a perturbative setting.
In the following, we want to examine how much of an error one
introduces in the heat flow by omitting regions of small $\bar{g}$–volume.
To this end, suppose that $N\subset M$ is the region where the metric
density
\[
\left(\det\left(\fint_{0}^{T}g_{t}^{-1}(x)\,\mathrm{d}t\right)\right)^{-1/2}\eqqcolon h(x)
\]
of $\omega_{\overline{g}}$ is larger than some small $0<\delta\ll1$
in normal coordinates $x$ with respect to the physical metric $g$.
We denote by $u_{t}^{\varepsilon}(x,y)$ the heat kernel of $-\varepsilon\Delta_{\overline{g}}$,
see \cref{eq:averaged_FP_eq}. Then, the characteristic function of
$N$ evolves according to
\[
\left(U_{-\varepsilon\Delta_{\overline{g}}}(t,0)1_{N}\right)(x)=\int_{M}u_{t}^{\varepsilon}(x,y)1_{N}(y)h(y)\mathrm{\,d}y.
\]
Hence, for the (heat) transition from $N$ to $M\setminus N$ we observe that
\begin{align*}
\left\Vert \left(U_{-\varepsilon\Delta_{\overline{g}}}(t,0)1_{N}\right)1_{M\setminus N}\right\Vert _{1,\bar{g}} & =\int_{M}\int_{M}u_{t}^{\varepsilon}(x,y)1_{N}(y)1_{M\setminus N}(x)h(x)h(y)\,\mathrm{d}y\,\mathrm{d}x\\
& \leq\delta\int_{M}1_{M\setminus N}(x)\,\int_{M}u_{t}^{\varepsilon}(x,y)h(y)\,\mathrm{d}y\,\mathrm{d}x\\
& =\delta\Vol{}_{g}(M\setminus N),
\end{align*}
which implies that the set $N$ is almost invariant under the flow
if $M$ is compact and $\delta$ is sufficiently small. In other words,
if the volume of $M\setminus N$ with respect to the metric $\overline{g}$
is small, there is only little diffusion from $N$ into $M\setminus N$.
Hence, setting $u_{t}^{\varepsilon}(x,y)=0$ whenever $x\notin N$
or $y\notin N$ introduces only small errors but decouples the manifold
into a region $M\setminus N$ in which no diffusion happens and the
connected components of $N$ in which diffusion still takes place.
This is similar to a manifold-disintegration approach based on transition-kernels
as proposed in \cite{Fischer2002}.
\subsection{Discrete data case}\label{sec:discrete_data}
The analogue to a finite-difference discretization of $\Delta_{\bar{g}}$
on an irregular grid is—to leading order—computing its graph Laplacian.
Due to the geometric distortion by the metric $\bar{g}$, a regular
Euclidean grid on an initially Euclidean domain is no longer equidistant,
since all grid points may have different geodesic distances, similar
to \cite{Hadjighasem2016}. And so, a consistent finite-difference
discretization boils down to computing—or approximating—geodesic distances
between neighboring points. In the continuous data case, this can
be done classically by computing the geodesic vector field and solve
the corresponding two-point boundary value problem. Alternatively,
one can solve the anisotropic eikonal equation locally for the \emph{first
arrival time function}, say, by the efficient fast
marching method, to obtain geodesic distances to points in the topological
neighborhood. Both methods require metric evaluation at subgrid points.
Given a discrete trajectory data set, such subgrid information is not available.
It is therefore of interest to estimate the $\bar{g}$–geodesic
distance with less knowledge by using metric information only at the
irregularly placed trajectories or avoiding the computation of the
pullback metrics altogether. For the latter, one may resort to the
spectral-clustering approach \cite{Hadjighasem2016} discussed
in \cref{sec:What-to-average?}; for the first, work is in progress.
\subsection{Applications to geophysical fluid dynamics}\label{sec:gfd}
In this section, we compare our methodology to Nakamura's ``effective diffusivity''
framework \cite{Nakamura1996,Shuckburgh2003}, which is widely used in the geophysical fluid dynamics community.
Both methods consider advection--diffusion processes in possibly turbulent fluid flows,
i.e., the Fokker--Planck equation (FPE) in the physical domain with a ``constant diffusion coefficient'' $\kappa$\footnote{The assumption of constant diffusion coefficient is delicate in a differential geometry context.
We view it as an assumption on the chosen coordinate system.}. In a second step,
the FPE is transformed to a different set of coordinates: in \cite{Nakamura1996} a
quasi-Lagrangian coordinate system based on the area inside concentration level sets of a
given tracer density $\phi$ of interest is constructed.
This transformation is considered as advantageous, for it separates ``the reversible
effects of advection from the irreversible effects of advection and diffusion acting together''
\cite{Shuckburgh2003}. In our context, this is achieved by passing
to Lagrangian coordinates as in \cite{Press1981,Thiffeault2003,Fyrillas2007}---and therefore literally to a ``tracer-based coordinate system''---which
factors out the advective motion, but keeps the joint action of advection and diffusion through
tracking deformation and its effect on diffusion in the form of the pullback metric.
In the Nakamura framework, the coordinates are then given by the one-dimensional area-coordinate
$A$ and some $(d-1)$-dimensional coordinates within concentration level sets.
Clearly, the local action of diffusion on the concentration is in the $A$-direction only,
since there is no $\phi$-gradient along the level set coordinates. Averaging over contours
allows to reduce the $d$-dimensional advection--diffusion equation to
a one-dimensional (along the area coordinate) pure diffusion equation \cite{Nakamura1996}:
\begin{equation}
\partial_t\phi = \partial_A(K_{\textnormal{eff}}(A,t)\partial_A\phi),\label{eq:effective_diffusion}
\end{equation}
and the scalar $K_\textnormal{eff}$ is coined \emph{effective diffusivity}.
In our context, the Eulerian FPE is turned into a pure diffusion equation as well, \cref{eq:lagr_FokkerPlanck},
however, of full dimension $d$ again. Moreover, we arrive at a diffusion \emph{tensor} induced by the pullback metric.
We comment on the reason and the benefit of this increased complexity later.
The next important concept in Nakamura's framework is that of \emph{equivalent length} $L_{\textnormal{eq}}$ (in 2D)
and \emph{equivalent area} $A_{\textnormal{eq}}$ (in 3D). For convenience, we focus on $L_{\textnormal{eq}}$ henceforth, but all arguments apply analogously to higher-dimensional flows.
And so, the equivalent length of a concentration level set corresponding to the area coordinate $A$ can be obtained from a comparison of the spatial scalar diffusivity $\kappa$ (from the Eulerian FPE) and the effective diffusivity $K_{\textnormal{eff}}$ (from \cref{eq:effective_diffusion}), cf.\ \cite[eq.~(6)]{Shuckburgh2003}:
\begin{equation}
K_{\textnormal{eff}}(A,t) = \kappa L_{\textnormal{eq}}^2(A,t), \qquad\text{or equivalently}\qquad \frac{K_{\textnormal{eff}}(A,t)}{L_{\textnormal{eq}}^2(A,t)} = \kappa.\label{eq:equilength}
\end{equation}
It can be shown that $L_{\textnormal{eq}}^2$ is at least (the square of) the physical length of the corresponding concentration level set.
\Cref{eq:equilength} can be interpreted as answering the following question: how would one have to rescale units or, more generally, deform the local geometry in order to observe---in the new units/deformed geometry---the original diffusivity $\kappa$?
Essentially, this is the perspective that we took throughout \cref{sec:Dynamic-Laplace-Beltrami}: how do length, surface area, and volume in the diffusion geometry relate to the corresponding entities in the original spatial geometry?
How do we see in the geometry of mixing whether diffusion is effectively enhanced or suppressed
(relative to the pure spatial diffusion) via its interaction with advection?
As an early indicator of mixing efficiency, Nakamura \cite{Nakamura1996}
suggested to look at the equivalent length, for a large $L_\textnormal{eq}$
implies a large effective diffusivity, which is then related to the \emph{mixing region}.
By perfect analogy, comparing the ``effective diffusion volume'' $\omega_{\bar{g}^{-1}}$
to the original spatial diffusion volume $\omega_{g^{-1}}$, which play the roles of
$K_{\textnormal{eff}}$ and $\kappa$, respectively, the relating factor becomes the
determinant of the effective diffusion tensor $\lvert\overline{D}\rvert^{1/2}$, i.e.,
the inverse of the densities shown in \cref{sec:volume_form}.
In support of the decomposition of the fluid domain $M$ into regular/coherent
and mixing regions, we provide two video animations of the geometric
heat flow in the Supplementary Material 4 and 5.
In the fourth Supplementary Material, we consider the geometry of mixing related to \cref{exa:cylinder1}, and
initialize a scalar quantity in the interior of the left coherent structure.
Initially, the heat distribution follows the subdivision pattern determined by the fifth eigenvector, until it roughly homogenizes over
the coherent structure. Conversely, the leaked heat perfectly homogenizes in the mixing region.
Moreover, leakage of heat into the right coherent structure is---just as leakage out of the left coherent structure---extremely slow,
such that there remains a significant heat gradient across the boundary of the coherent structures.
In the fifth Supplementary Material, we initialize the same amount of heat in the mixing region.
Under the heat flow, the heat homogenizes almost instantly across the mixing region,
and again keeps a gradient across the boundaries of the coherent structures.
The SM5 animation was produced on a timescale which is 1000 times faster than the one in the SM4 animation,
and still scalar homogenization appears to be instantly in the mixing region.
The shape of the ``metastable'' configurations matches
the predictions based on a visual study of the geometry of mixing in
\cref{sec:Dynamic-Laplace-Beltrami} remarkably well.
The effective diffusivity framework is tied to a specific tracer concentration field. For instance,
the fact that diffusion is one-dimensional and the orientation of that single coordinate in physical
space is determined by the concrete concentration field at hand. A concentration field with a different initial
level set topology may yield different results. To obtain physically relevant mixing information,
it is assumed that a ``suitable tracer field'' is considered; cf.\ the effort taken in \cite{Nakamura1996,Shuckburgh2003} to generate suitable initial tracer fields.
Suitability then means, roughly speaking, that its level set topology is already
reasonably ``equilibrated'' w.r.t.\ the mixing geometry induced by the flow, but at the
same time has sufficiently strong gradients to allow for a computationally robust
transformation to area coordinates. In other words, concentration gradients are roughly
aligned with the direction of slowest diffusion, which is of largest interest.
In contrast, our geometry of mixing provides information about the
``mixing ability'' \cite{Shuckburgh2003} or ``mixing potential'' \cite{Rypina2017} of the flow,
irrespective and independently of a concrete concentration field.
In this spirit, we view the recent \emph{trajectory encounter volume} diagnostic \cite{Rypina2017} as a consistent approach
to estimating our effective diffusivity $\lvert\overline{D}\rvert^{1/2}$ based on discrete
trajectory information. The Lagrangian FPE remains of full dimension and invokes an
effective diffusion tensor to account for all possible level set topologies. This generality
offers the opportunity to quantify, for instance, mixing of non-equilibrated concentration
fields, or of fronts. Moreover, our Lagrangian heat-flow-based framework offers both
intrinsic visual diagnostics and a global operator-based approach for computer-supported distinction of mixing regions from LCSs, both fully consistent with each other.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
The Authors are grateful to Ulrich Pinkall for a useful discussion
which triggered this collaboration.
For the vector field visualization we used a line integral convolution (LIC) code
which is based on a Matlab-interface
by Sonja Rank and Folkmar Bornemann for \texttt{C}-code developed by Tobias Preusser \cite{Preusser1999}.
We gratefully acknowledge technical help with the TikZ figures by
Christian Ludwig and Georg Wechslberger.
D.K.~would like to thank the organizers of the workshop on \href{http://www.birs.ca/events/2017/5-day-workshops/17w5048}{``Transport in Unsteady
Flows: from Deterministic Structures to Stochastic Models and Back Again''} at the BIRS in Banff, Canada,
for the invitation and an opportunity to present parts of this work. Very inspiring discussions
there have culminated in \cref{sec:gfd}.
D.K.~acknowledges support
by the Priority Programme SPP 1881 ``Turbulent Superstructures''
of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).
J.K.~acknowledges support by the German Research Foundation (DFG),
Collaborative Research Center SFB-TRR 109.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Intro}
The interaction of fluid flow with deformable structures is of great interest in science and engineering. Especially in the case of incompressible fluid flow and finite deformation solid mechanics, it becomes very challenging to solve such coupled problems computationally. This type of problem occurs frequently in real-world physics, most notably in biomechanical or biomedical engineering.
One can distinguish between two classes of solution procedures. Solution schemes that necessitate a sequence of single field solutions and the exchange of coupling information between the fields are often referred to as \emph{partitioned} schemes (see e.g.\@ } \newcommand{\cf}{cf.\@ ~\cite{Farhat2004,LeTallec2001}). Stability issues are discussed in~\cite{Causin2005,Foerster2007a,Joosten2010,Mok2001a}. Various acceleration techniques have been proposed in~\cite{Badia2008,Badia2008b,Kuettler2008,Kuettler2009,Nobile2008}.
Opposingly, \emph{monolithic} procedures solve both the fluid and the structural equations simultaneously within one global system of nonlinear equations. For some challenging numerical problems like channels with flexible walls~\cite{Heil2004}, thin-walled structures in the human respiratory or hemodynamic system~\cite{Kuettler2010} or for balloon-type problems like human red blood cells~\cite{Kloeppel2011}, monolithic schemes outperform partitioned procedures by far in terms of computational costs or are even the only feasible schemes to address such problems. In a monolithic framework, one looses some of the modularity of partitioned schemes but might gain great improvements in robustness and performance. Detailed performance analyses and comparisons have been carried out in~\cite{Heil2008,Kuettler2010}. Preconditioners based on block-triangular approximations of the Jacobian matrix have been introduced in~\cite{Heil2004} and extended in~\cite{Muddle2012}. In~\cite{Gee2011}, efficient preconditioners based on algebraic multigrid techniques have been developed successfully. Further preconditioning strategies can be found in~\cite{Barker2010a,Crosetto2011a}. Various techniques for the coupling of fluid and structure discretizations, where nodes do not spatially coincide at the interface, have been introduced in~\cite{Bazilevs2012,Farhat1998,Kloeppel2011,Ross2008,Ross2009}.
In opposite to space-time finite element methods, e.g. \cite{Tezduyar2006}, we discretize in time with finite difference based time integration schemes, namely with fully implicit, single-step, and single-stage time integration schemes such as the generalized-$\alpha$ method~\cite{Chung1993} in the structure field and the generalized-$\alpha$~\cite{Jansen2000} or the one-step-$\theta$ scheme in the fluid field.
In this contribution, a temporally consistent monolithic solution procedure for the interaction of incompressible fluid flow with deformable structures undergoing large deformations is presented. We allow freedom of choice for single-step, single-stage and fully implicit time integration schemes in the structure and fluid field such that the respective schemes can be tailored to the needs of the individual fields. Furthermore, individual single-field predictors are incorporated into the monolithic system leading to savings in computational costs. The predictor framework within the monolithic solver naturally enables inhomogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions at the fluid-structure interface. For spatial discretization, finite elements for both fields are employed, whereby the interface discretizations do not need to be conforming. Exemplarily, we realize the coupling with a mortar approach that allows for complete condensation of Lagrange multipliers.
A key aspect of this paper is the temporal interpolation of tractions at the fluid-structure interface in order to consistently allow for free choice of the single field time integration schemes with non-matching time instances for the evaluation of the individual field's momentum equation.
The derivations start with the governing equations of all fields and the coupling conditions. After discretization, a monolithic FSI residual is formulated and linearized in order to demonstrate how to build and implement a monolithic solver based on available single field codes. We discuss the discrete coupling conditions in detail with respect to meshtying of the non-matching grids at the interface and with respect to temporal consistent momentum equations of the fluid and structure field.
Selected numerical examples are used to demonstrate and discuss important properties of the proposed solution scheme. Through comparison to a FSI test case with analytical solution we report optimal temporal convergence rates. Further examples address the computational cost savings through predictors and show a thorough comparison of various combinations of different time integration schemes in fluid and structure field and their effect on the overall solution of the FSI problem.
This contribution is organized as follows. In~\S\ref{sec:Problem}, the mechanical problem at hand is introduced by means of the governing equations of both fluid and structure field as well as the coupling conditions at the fluid-structure interface. Spatial and temporal discretization is performed in~\S\ref{sec:disc} where special focus is put on the discrete interface coupling conditions. In~\S\ref{sec:monolithicsystem}, the global monolithic system of equations is assembled from all contributions derived in~\S\ref{sec:disc}. Furthermore, the condensation of the discrete \names{Lagrange}\@ multipliers as well as the slave interface degrees of freedom is presented for both possible choices of slave and master side. For these two algorithmic variants, we report the final set of equations to be implemented in order to obtain a monolithic FSI solver. In~\S\ref{sec:examples}, we apply the proposed solution scheme to a variety of numerical examples. Finally, we close with some concluding remarks.
\section{Problem definition}
\label{sec:Problem}
In this section, we briefly present the governing equations for the fluid field, that is described on a deformable domain~$\flu{\Omega}$ by an \emph{Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE)} observer, and the structure field~$\str{\Omega}$. Both fields interact with each other at the fluid-structure interface~$\FSII$ as depicted in figure~\ref{fig:problem}, where kinematic and dynamic coupling conditions have to be satisfied. In the following, fluid quantities are denoted by the superscript~$\flu{\left(\bullet\right)}$, quantities of the ALE mesh by~$\grid{\left(\bullet\right)}$, and, finally, quantities that belong to the structure field by~$\str{\left(\bullet\right)}$. The subscript~$\left(\bullet\right)_{\FSII}$ indicates that a quantity is located at the fluid-structure interface~$\FSII$. In contrast, quantities that are located in the interior of individual field domains are marked by the subscript~$\left(\bullet\right)_{\IntI}$. To simplify notation, we often omit to state the time dependence of quantities in the sequel.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{problem.eps}
\caption{Problem statement --- The domain~$\Omega$ is subdivided into a fluid domain~$\flu{\Omega}$ and a structural domain~$\str{\Omega}$ by the fluid-structure interface~$\FSII$. Both subdomains are bounded by Dirichlet boundaries~$\flusub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{\mr{D}}$ and~$\strsub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{\mr{D}}$, Neumann boundaries~$\flusub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{\mr{N}}$ and~$\strsub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{\mr{N}}$, and the common fluid-structure interface~$\FSII$. At the interface~$\FSII$, kinematic continuity as well as equilibrium of the interface traction fields~$\flusub{\teo h}{\FSII}$ and~$\strsub{\teo h}{\FSII}$ are required.}
\label{fig:problem}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Fluid field}
\label{ssec:FCont}
The fluid field is assumed to be governed by the instationary, incompressible \names{Navier-Stokes}\@ equations for a Newtonian fluid on a deformable domain~$\flu{\Omega}$ using an ALE description. Using an underline to indicate continuum vector or tensor valued quantities, the unknown deformation~$\grid{\teo d}(\teo x,t)$ of the deformable fluid domain~$\flu{\Omega}$ is defined by the unique mapping~$\teo\mbs\varphi$ given as
\begin{alignat}{2}
\label{eq:ALEdisp}
\grid{\teo d}(\teo x,t)
= \teo\mbs\varphi\left(\gridsub{\teo d}{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}},\teo x,t\right)
& \quad\mbox{ in } & \flu{\Omega}\times(0,T)\,.
\end{alignat}
The mesh deformation in the interior of the fluid domain is calculated by a mesh moving algorithm based on the boundary deformation~$\gridsub{\teo d}{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}$. Then, the domain velocity~$\grid{\teo u}\left(\teo x,t\right)$ is given by
\begin{alignat}{2}
\label{eq:ALEvel}
\grid{\teo u}\left(\teo x,t\right)
= \pDer{\teo\mbs\varphi\left(\gridsub{\teo d}{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}},\teo x,t\right)}{t}
& \quad\mbox{ in } & \flu{\Omega}\times(0,T)\,.
\end{alignat}
In order to prevent fluid flow across the interface, it has to match the fluid velocity~$\flusub{\teo u}{\FSII}$ at the fluid-structure interface~$\FSII$
\begin{alignat}{2}
\label{eq:ALEBdr}
\flusub{\teo u}{\FSII} = \gridsub{\teo u}{\FSII} = \pDer{\gridsub{\teo d}{\FSII}}{t}
& \quad\mbox{ on } & \FSII\times(0,T)\,.
\end{alignat}
The velocity of the fluid relative to the moving background mesh is given by the ALE convective velocity~$\teo c = \flu{\teo u} - \grid{\teo u}$. Using the ALE time derivative, the incompressible \names{Navier-Stokes}\@ equations governing the fluid field on a deforming domain then read
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:NSeq}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:NSAle}
\flu{\rho}\pDer{\flu{\teo u}}{t}
+ \flu{\rho}\teo c\cdot\boldsymbol{\nabla}\flu{\teo u}
- 2\flu{\viscdyn}\boldsymbol{\nabla}\cdot\teo{\mbs{\varepsilon}}\left(\flu{\teo u}\right)
+ \nabla \flu p
& = \flu{\rho}\flu{\teo b},\\
\label{eq:ALEdivu}
\boldsymbol{\nabla}\cdot\flu{\teo u}
& = 0\,,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
both valid in~$\flu{\Omega}\times(0,T)$, where fluid velocity~$\flu{\teo u}$ and dynamic fluid pressure~$\flu p$ are unknown. The body force is denoted by~$\flu{\teo b}$, the strain rate tensor by~$\teo{\mbs{\varepsilon}}\left(\flu{\teo u}\right) = \frac{1}{2}\left(\boldsymbol{\nabla}\flu{\teo u} + \trans{\left(\boldsymbol{\nabla}\flu{\teo u}\right)}\right)$, and the constant dynamic viscosity by~$\flu{\viscdyn}$, respectively. The fluid density~$\flu{\rho}$ is assumed to be constant.
Given velocities~$\bar{\teo u}$ are prescribed at the Dirichlet boundary~$\flusub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{\mr D}$. At the Neumann boundary~$\flusub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{\mr N}$ the fluid domain is loaded with external tractions~$\flu{\bar{\teo h}}$. Additional tractions~$\flusub{\teo h}{\FSII}$ arising from the fluid-structure coupling act onto the interface portion~$\FSII$ of the boundary of the fluid subdomain~$\flu{\Omega}$. These boundary conditions read
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:BCsFluid}
\begin{alignat}{2}
\label{eq:BCsFluidD}
\flu{\teo u}
& = \bar{\teo u} & \quad\mbox{ on }&\flusub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{\mr D}\times(0,T)\,,\\
\label{eq:BCsFluidN}
\flu{\teo{\mbs{\sigma}}}\cdot \flu{\teo n}
& = \flu{\bar{\teo h}} & \quad\mbox{ on }&\flusub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{\mr N}\times(0,T)\,,\\
\label{eq:BCsFluidInt}
\flu{\teo{\mbs{\sigma}}}\cdot \flu{\teo n}
& = \flusub{\teo h}{\FSII} & \quad\mbox{ on }&\FSII\times(0,T)\,,
\end{alignat}
\end{subequations}
where the Cauchy stress tensor~$\flu{\teo{\mbs{\sigma}}}$ is defined as $\flu{\teo{\mbs{\sigma}}} = -\flu{p}\tet I + 2 \flu{\viscdyn} \teo{\mbs{\varepsilon}}\left(\flu{\teo u}\right)$ with the second order identity tensor~$\tet I$. The role of the interface traction~$\flusub{\teo h}{\FSII}$ in~\eqref{eq:BCsFluidInt} will be detailed in~\S\ref{ssec:FSICont}, when the coupling conditions will be discussed. As initial condition, a divergence free velocity field~$\flu{\teo u}\left(\teo x,0\right) = \flusub{\teo u}{0}\left(\teo x\right)$ with $\boldsymbol{\nabla}\cdot\flusub{\teo u}{0}\left(\teo x\right) = 0$ for $\teo x\in\flu{\Omega}$ has to be given.
Testing these equations with test functions~$\delta\flu{\teo u}$ for the momentum equation~\eqref{eq:NSAle} and~$\delta\flu p$ for the continuity equation~\eqref{eq:ALEdivu} and subsequent integration by parts gives rise to the weak for
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:ALEwf}
0
= & \left(\delta \flu{\teo u}, \flu{\rho}\pDer{\flu{\teo u}}{t}\right)_{\flu{\Omega}}
+ \left(\delta \flu{\teo u}, \flu{\rho}\teo c\cdot\mbs{\nabla}\flu{\teo u}\right)_{\flu{\Omega}}
- \left(\mbs{\nabla}\cdot\delta \flu{\teo u}, \flu{p}\right)_{\flu{\Omega}}\\
& + \left(\mbs{\nabla}\delta \flu{\teo u}, 2\flu{\viscdyn}\teo{\mbs{\varepsilon}}(\flu{\teo u})\right)_{\flu{\Omega}}
- \left(\delta \flu{p},\mbs{\nabla}\cdot\flu{\teo u}\right)_{\flu{\Omega}}
- \left(\delta \flu{\teo u}, \flu{\rho}\flu{\teo b}\right)_{\flu{\Omega}}\\
& - \left(\delta \flu{\teo u}, \flu{\bar{\teo h}}\right)_{\flusub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{\mr N}}
- \delta \flusub{W}{\FSII}\,,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where the term
\begin{align}
\delta \flusub{W}{\FSII}
& = \left(\delta \teo{u},\flusub{\teo h}{\FSII}\right)_{\FSII}
\end{align}
accounts for the interface coupling and will be discussed in detail in~\S\ref{ssec:FSICont}.
\subsection{Structure field}
\label{ssec:SCont}
Without loss of generality, the structure is assumed to have a nonlinear elastic behavior. The dynamic equilibrium of forces of inertia, internal forces, and an external body force~$\str{\teo b}$ per unit undeformed volume in the undeformed structural domain~$\str{\Omega}$ is given by the nonlinear elastodynamics equation
\begin{alignat}{2}
\label{eq:StruEqui}
\str{\rho}\frac{\mr{d}^2 \str{\teo d}}{\mr{d}t^2}
& = \mbs{\nabla}\cdot\left(\tet F\,\tet S\right)
+ \str{\rho}\str{\teo b}
& \quad\mbox{ in } & \str{\Omega}\times(0,T)
\end{alignat}
with the structural displacement field~$\str{\teo d}$ as the primary unknown. The structural density is denoted as~$\str{\rho}$. The internal forces are expressed in terms of the deformation gradient~$\tet F$ and the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor~$\tet S$.
For the sake of simplicity we restrict ourselves to a hyperelastic material behavior. The second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor~$\tet S$ is then defined as $\tet S=2\cdot\pDerText{\varPsi}{\tet C}$, using the strain energy function~$\varPsi$ and the right Cauchy-Green tensor~$\tet C = \trans{\tet F}\tet F$.
The traction~$\strsub{\teo{h}}{\FSII}$ acts onto the interface portion~$\FSII$ of the boundary of the structural subdomain~$\str{\Omega}$ as shown in figure~\ref{fig:problem}. Proper Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions have to be prescribed on~$\strsub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{\mr{D}}$ and~$\strsub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{\mr{N}}$, respectively, reading
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:BCsStr}
\begin{alignat}{2}
\label{eq:BCsStrD}
\str{\teo d}
& = \str{\bar{\teo d}} & \quad\mbox{ on } & \strsub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{\mr{D}}\times(0,T)\,,\\
\label{eq:BCsStrN}
\left(\tet F\,\tet S\right)\cdot \teo N
& = \str{\bar{\teo h}} & \quad\mbox{ on } & \strsub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{\mr{N}}\times(0,T)\,,\\
\label{eq:BCsStrInt}
\left(\tet F\,\tet S\right)\cdot \teo N
& = \strsub{\teo{h}}{\FSII} & \quad\mbox{ on } & \FSII\times(0,T)\,.
\end{alignat}
\end{subequations}
In addition, initial conditions~$\str{\teo d}\left(\teo x, 0\right) = \strsub{\teo d}{0}\left(\teo x\right)$ and~$\tDerText{\str{\teo d}}{t}\left(\teo x, 0\right) = \strsub{\dot{\teo d}}{0}\left(\teo x\right)$ have to be satisfied for~$\teo x\in\str{\Omega}$ for given initial displacement and velocity fields~$\strsub{\teo d}{0}\left(\teo x\right)$ and $\strsub{\dot{\teo d}}{0}\left(\teo x\right)$, respectively.
By multiplication of~\eqref{eq:StruEqui} with virtual displacements~$\str{\delta\teo d}$ and subsequent integration by parts one obtains the weak form
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Struwf}
\begin{split}
& \left(\str{\delta \teo d},
\str{\rho}\frac{\str{\mr{d}^2 \teo d}}{\mr{d}t^2}\right)_{\str{\Omega}}
+ \left(\mbs \nabla \str{\delta \teo d},\tet F\,\tet S \right)_{\str{\Omega}}
- \left(\str{\delta \teo d}, \str{\rho}\str{\teo b}\right)_{\str{\Omega}}\\
& - \left(\str{\delta \teo d}, \str{\bar{\teo h}}\right)_{\strsub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{N}}
- \strsub{\delta W}{\FSII}
= 0
\end{split}
\end{align}
as the starting point for the finite element discretization. The term
\begin{align}
\strsub{\delta W}{\FSII}
& = \left(\delta \teo{d},\strsub{\teo h}{\FSII}\right)_{\FSII}
\end{align}
accounts for the influence of the interface coupling and will be discussed in the following subsection.
\subsection{Fluid-structure interface}
\label{ssec:FSICont}
Fluid field and structure field are coupled through enforcing kinematic and dynamic continuity conditions at the fluid-structure interface~$\FSII$. Physically motivated, the no-slip condition~\eqref{eq:FSInoslip_vel} is assumed that prohibits fluid flow across the fluid-structure interface and relative tangential movement of fluid and structure at the fluid-structure interface. It couples the physical fields, i.e.\@ fluid velocity field and structural displacement field. From~\eqref{eq:ALEBdr} one knows that fluid velocity and grid velocity coincide at the fluid-structure interface, yielding~\eqref{eq:FSInoslip_dis}. Integration with respect to time finally leads to the equivalent coupling condition~\eqref{eq:StrAleCoupling}. Finally, dynamic equilibrium of interface tractions is stated in~\eqref{eq:FSIforceeq}. The coupling conditions are expressed as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:FSInoslip_vel}
\pDer{\strsub{\teo d}{\FSII}}{t} & = \flusub{\teo u}{\FSII},\\
\label{eq:FSInoslip_dis}
\pDer{\strsub{\teo d}{\FSII}}{t} & = \pDer{\gridsub{\teo d}{\FSII}}{t},\\
\label{eq:StrAleCoupling}
\strsub{\teo d}{\FSII} & = \gridsub{\teo d}{\FSII},\\
\label{eq:FSIforceeq}
\strsub{\teo h}{\FSII} & = - \flusub{\teo h}{\FSII},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
all valid on~$\FSII \times(0,T)$. Traction vectors~$\strsub{\teo h}{\FSII}$ and~$\flusub{\teo h}{\FSII}$ denote the traction at the fluid-structure interface onto structure and fluid field, respectively (see figure~\ref{fig:problem}).
\begin{remark}
We note that all three conditions~\eqref{eq:FSInoslip_vel}, \eqref{eq:FSInoslip_dis}, and~\eqref{eq:StrAleCoupling} are totally equivalent in the continuous regime. After temporal discretization they might differ, depending on the choice of time integration schemes in fluid and structure field.
\end{remark}
Kinematic continuity~\eqref{eq:StrAleCoupling} is imposed by a \names{Lagrange}\@ multiplier field~$\teo\mbs\lambda$ introducing an additional field of unknowns in the coupled FSI problem. After multiplication of~\eqref{eq:StrAleCoupling} with the corresponding test function~$\delta \teo\mbs\lambda$ and a subsequent integration over the fluid-structure interface~$\FSII$ one obtains the weak form of the kinematic constraint
\begin{align}
\label{eq:FSIweakformkinem}
\left(\delta \teo\mbs\lambda,\strsub{\teo d}{\FSII} - \gridsub{\teo d}{\FSII} \right)_{\FSII}
= 0\,.
\end{align}
By identifying the interface traction~$\strsub{\teo h}{\FSII}$ onto the structure field with the \names{Lagrange}\@ multiplier field~$\teo\mbs\lambda$ and using the dynamic equilibrium~\eqref{eq:FSIforceeq}, we can specify the interface coupling contributions~$\delta\flusub{W}{\FSII}$ and~$\delta\strsub{W}{\FSII}$ in~\eqref{eq:ALEwf} and~\eqref{eq:Struwf} as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:FSIweakform}
\delta\flusub{W}{\FSII}
= - \left(\delta\flu{\teo u},\teo\mbs\lambda\right)_{\FSII},
\quad
\delta\strsub{W}{\FSII}
= \left(\delta\str{\teo d}, \teo\mbs\lambda\right)_{\FSII}.
\end{align}
\subsection{Weak form of coupled FSI system}
\label{ssec:WeakFSISystem}
We define the following solution spaces:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\TrSp{\str{\teo d}}
& := \left\{\str{\teo d}\in\SobSp{\str\Omega}~|~\str{\teo d}=\str{\bar{\teo d}}
\text{ on }\strsub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{D}\right\}\\
\TrSp{\flu{\teo u}}
& := \left\{\flu{\teo u}\in\SobSp{\flu\Omega}~|~\flu{\teo u}=\flu{\bar{\teo u}}
\text{ on }\flusub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{D}\right\}\\
\TrSp{\flu{p}}
& := \left\{\flu{p}\in\LSp{\flu\Omega}\right\}\\
\TrSp{\grid{\teo d}}
& := \left\{\grid{\teo d}\in\SobSp{\grid\Omega}~|~\grid{\teo d}=\grid{\bar{\teo d}}
\text{ on }\gridsub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{D}\right\}\\
\TrSp{\teo\mbs\lambda}
& := \left\{\teo\mbs\lambda\in\mathcal{H}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left(\FSII\right)\right\}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The test function spaces~$\TeSp{\str{\teo d}}$, $\TeSp{\flu{\teo u}}$, $\TeSp{\flu p}$, $\TeSp{\grid{\teo d}}$ and~$\TeSp{\teo\mbs\lambda}$ are defined as the corresponding spaces with homogeneous Dirichlet boundaries.
We finally state the overall weak problem as a combination of the weak forms~\eqref{eq:ALEwf}, \eqref{eq:Struwf}, and~\eqref{eq:FSIweakformkinem}: Find~$\str{\teo d}\in\TrSp{\str{\teo d}}$, $\flu{\teo u}\in\TrSp{\flu{\teo u}}$, $\flu p\in\TrSp{\flu p}$, $\grid{\teo d}\in\TrSp{\grid{\teo d}}$ and~$\teo\mbs\lambda\in\TrSp{\teo\mbs\lambda}$ such that
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:FSIWF}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
0 & =
\left(\delta \flu{\teo u}, \flu{\rho}\pDer{\flu{\teo u}}{t}\right)_{\flu{\Omega}}
+ \left(\delta \flu{\teo u}, \flu{\rho}\teo c\cdot\mbs{\nabla}\flu{\teo u}\right)_{\flu{\Omega}}
- \left(\mbs{\nabla}\cdot\delta \flu{\teo u}, \flu{p}\right)_{\flu{\Omega}}\\
& + \left(\mbs{\nabla}\delta \flu{\teo u}, 2\flu{\viscdyn}\teo{\mbs{\varepsilon}}(\flu{\teo u})\right)_{\flu{\Omega}}
- \left(\delta \flu{p},\mbs{\nabla}\cdot\flu{\teo u}\right)_{\flu{\Omega}}
- \left(\delta \flu{\teo u}, \flu{\rho}\flu{\teo b}\right)_{\flu{\Omega}}\\
& - \left(\delta \flu{\teo u}, \flu{\bar{\teo h}}\right)_{\flusub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{\mr N}}
+ \left(\delta\flu{\teo u},\teo\mbs\lambda\right)_{\FSII},
\label{eq:FSIFluidWF}
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
0 & =
\left(\str{\delta \teo d},
\str{\rho}\frac{\str{\mr{d}^2 \teo d}}{\mr{d}t^2}\right)_{\str{\Omega}}
+ \left(\mbs \nabla \str{\delta \teo d},\tet F\tet S \right)_{\str{\Omega}}
- \left(\str{\delta \teo d}, \str{\rho}\str{\teo b}\right)_{\str{\Omega}}\\
& - \left(\str{\delta \teo d}, \str{\bar{\teo h}}\right)_{\strsub{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}{N}}
- \left(\delta\str{\teo d}, \teo\mbs\lambda\right)_{\FSII},
\label{eq:FSIStruWF}\\
\end{split}\\
0 & =
\left(\delta \teo\mbs\lambda,
\strsub{\teo d}{\FSII} - \gridsub{\teo d}{\FSII} \right)_{\FSII}
\label{eq:FSICouplWF}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for all~$\delta\str{\teo d}\in\TeSp{\str{\teo d}}$, $\delta\flu{\teo u}\in\TeSp{\flu{\teo u}}$, $\delta\flu p\in\TeSp{\flu p}$, $\delta\grid{\teo d}\in\TeSp{\grid{\teo d}}$ and~$\delta\teo\mbs\lambda\in\TeSp{\teo\mbs\lambda}$.
\section{Discretization and mortar coupling}
\label{sec:disc}
The weak form~\eqref{eq:FSIWF} has to be discretized in space and time. For the monolithic approach presented here, the spatial discretization for fluid, ALE, and structure field is done with finite elements. The constraints at the interface are enforced using a \emph{dual} mortar method where the nodes of the fluid and structure mesh do not have to match at the interface~\cite{Kloeppel2011}. This results in a great freedom during mesh generation to tailor the meshes to the needs of the individual fields.
For temporal discretization, fully implicit, single-step, and single-stage time integration schemes are used for all fields. Depending on the actual choices of time integration schemes and their parameters the dynamic equilibrium is formulated at an intermediate time instant~$t^{m}\in\left]t^n, t^{n+1}\right]$. In general, the actual time instants for equilibrium in the fluid and structure field do not coincide, i.e.\@ ~$\flusup{t}{m}\neq\strsup{t}{m}$. A main contribution of this work is the freedom of choosing the time integration schemes for the fluid and structure field independently and still maintaining temporal consistency between both fields, which is shown in~\S\ref{ssec:IntDisc}.
Another new aspect in time integration is that field specific predictors are allowed within the monolithic FSI framework. Due to possible predictors in the structure and fluid field, the solution at the beginning of the nonlinear iteration loop differs from the converged solution of the previous time step by additional increments
\begin{align}
\strsupsub{\mao d}{n+1}{0}
= \strsup{\mao d}{n} + \Delta\strsub{\mao d}{p},
\quad
\flusupsub{\mao u}{n+1}{0}
= \flusup{\mao u}{n} + \Delta\flusub{\mao u}{p}
\end{align}
with the subscript~$(\bullet)_p$ indicating the predictor step. Within the predictors, both fields can evolve independently, leading to a possible violation of the kinematic continuity requirement at the fluid-structure interface, i.e.\@ possibly incompatible initial guesses for structure and fluid field. This violation can be measured and will be accounted for, when the discrete kinematic coupling conditions are derived in~\S\ref{sssec:StrAleCoupling}. Without any predictor, these additional increments vanish, i.e.\@ ~$\strsub{\Delta \mao d}{p}=\mao 0$ and~$\flusub{\Delta \mao u}{p}=\mao 0$.
Discretization of the weak form~\eqref{eq:FSIWF} of the coupled FSI problem can be performed in a separated manner. Discretization of the fluid contribution~\eqref{eq:FSIFluidWF} results in the fluid residual
\begin{align}
\flu{\mao r}
& = \flusub{\mao r}{\flu{\mao u}
+ \flusub{\mao r}{\mao{\mbs\lambda}}
= \left[\begin{array}{c}
\flusub{\mao r}{I}\\
\flusub{\mao r}{\FSII}\\
\gridsub{\mao r}{I}\\
\gridsub{\mao r}{\FSII}
\end{array}\right]
+ \left[\begin{array}{c}
\mao 0\\
\flusub{\mao r}{\mao\mbs\lambda,\FSII}\\
\mao 0\\
\mao 0
\end{array}\right]
\end{align}
where the first term on the right hand side contains the standard fluid residual and only the second term accounts for the coupling of the fluid and structure field. Accordingly, the discretization of the structural contribution~\eqref{eq:FSIStruWF} is written as
\begin{align}
\str{\mao r}
& = \strsub{\mao r}{\str{\mao d}
+ \strsub{\mao r}{\mao{\mbs\lambda}}
= \left[\begin{array}{c}
\strsub{\mao r}{I}\\
\strsub{\mao r}{\FSII}
\end{array}\right]
+ \left[\begin{array}{c}
\mao 0\\
\strsub{\mao r}{\mao\mbs\lambda,\FSII}
\end{array}\right]
\end{align}
with the first term accounting for the pure structural problem and the second term again being responsible for the fluid-structure coupling.
Finally, the weak coupling condition~\eqref{eq:FSICouplWF} is discretized yielding a residual contribution~$\mao r^{coupl}$. Using these single field residuals, one obtains the solution of the nonlinear coupled FSI problem by solving for
\begin{align}
\label{eq:FSIResidual}
\mao r^{FSI}
& = \left[\begin{array}{c}
\str{\mao r}\\
\flu{\mao r}\\
\mao r^{coupl}
\end{array}\right]
= \mao 0\,,
\end{align}
where the residual~$\mao r^{FSI}$ depends on the structural unknowns, the fluid unknowns, and the unknown \names{Lagrange}\@ multipliers. To solve~\eqref{eq:FSIResidual}, a Newton-type method is applied requiring the full linearization of~$\mao r^{FSI}$ and, thus, of all single field residuals. After summarizing all unknowns of the structure field in~$\str{\mao x}$ and those of the fluid field in~$\flu{\mao x}$, respectively, the resulting linear system in Newton iteration step~$i\geq 0$ reads
\begin{align}
\label{eq:FSILinSysSchematic}
\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
\pDer{\strsub{\mao r}{\str{\mao d}}}{\str{\mao x}} & \mao 0 & \pDer{\strsub{\mao r}{\mao\mbs\lambda}}{\mao\mbs\lambda}\\
\mao 0 & \pDer{\flusub{\mao r}{\flu{\mao u}}}{\flu{\mao x}} & \pDer{\flusub{\mao r}{\mao\mbs\lambda}}{\mao\mbs\lambda}\\
\pDer{\mao r^{coupl}}{\strsub{\mao d}{\Gamma}} & \pDer{\mao r^{coupl}}{\flusub{\mao u}{\Gamma}} &\mao 0
\end{array}\right]_{i}^{n+1}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
\Delta\str{\mao x}\\
\Delta\flu{\mao x}\\
\Delta\mao\mbs\lambda
\end{array}\right]_{i+1}^{n+1}
= - \left[\begin{array}{c}
\str{\mao r}\\
\flu{\mao r}\\
\mao r^{coupl}
\end{array}\right]_{i}^{n+1}\,,
\end{align}
where the subscript~$\left(\bullet\right)_{\FSII}$ denoting the fluid-structure interface has been replaced by~$\left(\bullet\right)_{\Gamma}$ to shorten the notation.
In~\eqref{eq:FSILinSysSchematic}, the splitting into degrees of freedom that belong to the interior of~$\str{\Omega}$ or~$\flu{\Omega}$ and those located at the fluid-structure interface~$\FSII$ is omitted for clarity of presentation. It will be re-introduced when the single field contributions to~\eqref{eq:FSILinSysSchematic} will be derived in the following subsections. The matrix contribution~$\pDerText{\strsub{\mao r}{\str{\mao d}}}{\str{\mao x}}$ will be discussed in detail in~\S\ref{ssec:SDisc}. Subsection~\S\ref{ssec:FDisc} deals with the fluid discretization and will specify the matrix contribution~$\pDerText{\flusub{\mao r}{\flu{\mao u}}}{\flu{\mao x}}$. The remaining matrix contributions that are related to the interface coupling will be addressed in~\S\ref{ssec:IntDisc}.
After solving the linear system~\eqref{eq:FSILinSysSchematic}, the update procedure is
\begin{align}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
\str{\mao x}\\
\flu{\mao x}\\
\mao\mbs\lambda
\end{array}\right]_{i+1}^{n+1}
& = \left[\begin{array}{c}
\str{\mao x}\\
\flu{\mao x}\\
\mao\mbs\lambda
\end{array}\right]_{i}^{n+1}
+ \left[\begin{array}{c}
\Delta\str{\mao x}\\
\Delta\flu{\mao x}\\
\Delta\mao\mbs\lambda
\end{array}\right]_{i+1}^{n+1}.
\end{align}
We stress that due to possible predictors in the single fields $\mao x_0^{n+1} \neq \mao x^{n}$.
In order to obtain the full linearization of the coupled FSI problem, we first briefly present the time discretization and linearization of the fluid, ALE, and structure field equations. A brief introduction to the mortar method will be given in~\S\ref{ssec:LagrDisc}. Afterwards, the coupling at the interface via the dual mortar method is illustrated. Furthermore, temporal consistent coupling of fluid and structure field is introduced. The assembly of the global monolithic system will then be shown in~\S\ref{sec:monolithicsystem}.
\subsection{Fluid field}
\label{ssec:FDisc}
Without loss of generality, stabilized equal-order interpolated finite elements are used for spatial discretization of the fluid field~\cite{Gresho2000}. Spatial discretization of ALE displacement, fluid velocity and fluid pressure field read
\begin{align}
\label{eq:FDiscAnsatz}
\grid{\teo d} \approx \sum_{k=1}^{\flu{n}} \gridsub{N}{k} \gridsub{\mao d}{k},\quad
\flu{\teo u} \approx \sum_{k=1}^{\flu{n}} \flusub{N}{k} \flusub{\mao u}{k},\quad
\flu{p} \approx \sum_{k=1}^{\flu{n}} \flusub{N}{k} \flusub{p}{k}
\end{align}
with~$\flu{n}$ denoting the number of fluid nodes and~$\gridsub{N}{k}$ and~$\flusub{N}{k}$ being the finite element ansatz functions.
Temporal discretization of the fluid field is done by one-step-$\theta$ or generalized-$\alpha$ schemes, \cf~\cite{Jansen2000}.
In order to apply a Newton-type nonlinear solver, a linearization of the fluid residual~$\flusub{\mao r}{\flu{\mao u}}(\flu{\mao u},\flu{\mao p},\grid{\mao d})$ has to be evaluated in every nonlinear iteration step~$i$.
In order to prepare the coupling at the interface the nodal fluid velocities are separated: velocities of nodes on the interface are denoted by the vector~$\flusub{\mao u}{\Gamma}$; the remaining velocity degrees of freedom are collected in a vector~$\flusub{\hat{\mao u}}{\IntI}$. We merge the vector~$\flu{\mao p}$ of nodal pressure values into the vector of inner velocities~$\flusub{\mao u}{I}
=\trans{\left[\flusub{\hat{\mao u}}{I},~\flu{\mao p}\right]}$ to simplify the notation without loosing any insight into further derivations. The introduced split into quantities belonging either to the interior or the fluid-structure interface of the fluid domain yields the matrix representation of the fluid tangent matrix contributions~$\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\alpha\beta} = \pDerText{\flusub{\mao r}{\alpha}}{\flusub{\mao u}{\beta}}$ and~$\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\alpha\beta} = \pDerText{\flusub{\mao r}{\alpha}}{\gridsub{\mao d}{\beta}}$
with $\alpha,\beta \in\{\IntI,\Gamma\}$. In order to compute the solution increment~$\Delta\flusupsub{\mao x}{n+1}{i+1}$, the linear system
\begin{align}
\label{eq:FluidLinSys}
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\IntI\IntI}&\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\IntI\Gamma}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\IntI\IntI}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\IntI\Gamma}\\
\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\IntI}&\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma\IntI}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma\FSIIs}
\end{array}\right]_{i}^{n+1}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
\mbs\Delta \flusub{\mao u}{\IntI}\\
\mbs\Delta \flusub{\mao u}{\Gamma}\\
\mbs\Delta \gridsub{\mao d}{\IntI}\\
\mbs\Delta \gridsub{\mao d}{\Gamma}
\end{array}\right]_{i+1}^{n+1}
= - \left[\begin{array}{c}
\flusub{\mao r}{\IntI}\\
\flusub{\mao r}{\Gamma}
\end{array}\right]_{i}^{n+1}
\end{align}
has to be solved in every nonlinear iteration step~$i\ge 0$. Considering the mesh motion of the ALE mesh, we assume that discretization and linearization of~\eqref{eq:ALEdisp} result in an ALE system matrix~$\mbs{\mathscr A}$. The linearized version of~\eqref{eq:ALEdisp} reads
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ALELinSys}
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\mbs{\mathscr A}_{\IntI\IntI} & \mbs{\mathscr A}_{\IntI\Gamma}
\end{array}\right]_{i}^{n+1}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
\mbs\Delta\gridsub{\mao d}{\IntI}\\
\mbs\Delta\gridsub{\mao d}{\Gamma}
\end{array}\right]_{i+1}^{n+1}
= -\gridsub{\mao r}{\Gamma}\,.
\end{align}
Note that the vectors of unknowns in~\eqref{eq:FluidLinSys} and~\eqref{eq:ALELinSys} both contain the mesh displacements and, thus, both systems can be combined to
\begin{align}
\label{eq:FluidALELinSys}
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\IntI\IntI}&\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\IntI\Gamma}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\IntI\IntI}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\IntI\Gamma}\\
\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\IntI}&\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma\IntI}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma\FSIIs}\\
\mao 0 & \mao 0 & \mbs{\mathscr A}_{\IntI\IntI} & \mbs{\mathscr A}_{\IntI\Gamma}
\end{array}\right]_{i}^{n+1}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
\mbs\Delta \flusub{\mao u}{\IntI}\\
\mbs\Delta \flusub{\mao u}{\Gamma}\\
\mbs\Delta \gridsub{\mao d}{\IntI}\\
\mbs\Delta \gridsub{\mao d}{\Gamma}
\end{array}\right]_{i+1}^{n+1}
= - \left[\begin{array}{c}
\flusub{\mao r}{\IntI}\\
\flusub{\mao r}{\Gamma}\\
\gridsub{\mao r}{\Gamma}
\end{array}\right]_{i}^{n+1}\,.
\end{align}
Let us remember that the interface deformation~$\gridsub{\mao d}{\Gamma}$ cannot evolve freely, but has to follow the fluid field or structure field interface motion. To close the fluid linear system~\eqref{eq:FluidALELinSys} a discrete coupling condition that relates fluid interface velocities~$\flusub{\mao u}{\Gamma}$ to ALE interface displacements~$\gridsub{\mao d}{\Gamma}$ is necessary. It will be discussed in detail in~\S\ref{ssec:IntDisc} where the discrete coupling conditions at the fluid-structure interface will be shown.
\subsection{Structure field}
\label{ssec:SDisc}
For spatial discretization of the structure field, finite elements are used. The spatial discretization of the displacement field reads
\begin{align}
\label{eq:SDiscAnsatz}
\str{\teo d}\approx \sum_{k=1}^{\str{n}} \strsub{N}{k} \strsub{\mao d}{k}
\end{align}
with~$\str{n}$ denoting the number of structural nodes and~$\strsub{N}{k}$ being the finite element ansatz functions. The actual choice of shape functions, element shape, and possible element technology is not of importance for the presented method. Regarding the application of additional element technology, we refer to the numerical examples in~\S\ref{sec:examples}.
Due to its efficiency and robustness, the generalized-$\alpha$ time integration scheme~\cite{Chung1993} is applied. Additionally, it offers second-order accuracy as well as the possibility of user-controlled numerical damping.
Linearization of the structural residual~$\strsub{\mao r}{\str{\mao d}}(\str{\mao d})$ leads to the structural stiffness matrix~$\mbs{\mathscr S}$. Similar to the fluid discretization, the structural degrees of freedom are split into inner and interface degrees of freedom, yielding a block representation of the structural stiffness matrix~$\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\alpha\beta} = \pDerText{\strsub{\mao r}{\alpha}}{\strsub{\mao d}{\beta}}$, given~$\alpha,\beta\in\{\IntI, \Gamma\}$. Putting these blocks together, the linear system
\begin{align}
\label{eq:StruLinSys}
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\IntI\IntI} & \mbs{\mathscr S}_{\IntI\Gamma}\\
\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\Gamma\IntI} & \mbs{\mathscr S}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}
\end{array}\right]_{i}^{n+1}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
\mbs\Delta\strsub{\mao d}{\IntI}\\
\mbs\Delta\strsub{\mao d}{\Gamma}
\end{array}\right]_{i+1}^{n+1}
= - \left[\begin{array}{c}
\strsub{\mao r}{\IntI}\\
\strsub{\mao r}{\Gamma}
\end{array}\right]_{i}^{n+1}
\end{align}
has to be solved in every Newton iteration~$i\ge 0$ in time step~$n+1$.
\subsection{\names{Lagrange}\@ multiplier field}
\label{ssec:LagrDisc}
The \names{Lagrange}\@ multiplier field that enforces the interface coupling conditions~\eqref{eq:StrAleCoupling} and~\eqref{eq:FSIforceeq} is discretized using the \emph{dual} mortar method. A very brief introduction to some basics of the dual mortar method is given. For detailed derivations and theoretical background and analysis we refer to literature, e.g.\@ } \newcommand{\cf}{cf.\@ ~\cite{Flemisch2007,Wohlmuth2000,Wohlmuth2001} and references therein.
In a mortar setup, one distinguishes between \emph{master} and \emph{slave} side~$\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}^{\MoMaster}$ and~$\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}^{\MoSlave}$ of the interface. The \names{Lagrange}\@ multiplier field is discretized on the \emph{slave} side. Numerical integration takes also place on the \emph{slave} side of the interface and results in the mortar coupling matrices~$\MoD$, belonging to the slave side, and~$\MoM$, belonging to the master side, that will be introduced later.
In opposite to classical \names{Lagrange}\@ multiplier choices the discretization of the \names{Lagrange}\@ multiplier field~$\mbs\lambda$ with the \emph{dual} mortar method is based on so-called \emph{dual} shape functions~$\varPhi_j$ leading to the discretization
\begin{align}
\label{eq:MortarLagMult}
\teo{\mbs\lambda} \approx \sum_{j=1}^{n^\MoSlave} \varPhi_j \mao{\mbs\lambda}_j \, ,
\end{align}
with discrete nodal \names{Lagrange}\@ multipliers $\mao{\mbs\lambda}_j$ and~$n^\MoSlave$ slave nodes. A careful construction of the \emph{dual} shape functions~$\varPhi_j$ ensures that the biorthogonality condition
\begin{align}
\label{eq:MortarBiortho}
\int_{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}^\MoSlave} \varPhi_j N^\MoSlave_k \mathrm{d} \ensuremath{{\Gamma}} = \delta_{jk} \int_{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}^\MoSlave} N^\MoSlave_k \mathrm{d} \ensuremath{{\Gamma}} ,
\end{align}
with the Kronecker delta~$\delta_{jk}$ is satisfied~\cite{Wohlmuth2000}. This condition plays a major role in the evaluation of the mortar coupling matrices~$\MoD$ and~$\MoM$ since it leads to a purely diagonal form of~$\MoD$. Hence, the inversion of~$\MoD$ will be computationally cheap enabling the condensation of the \names{Lagrange}\@ multiplier field from the global system of equations as will be shown in~\S\ref{ssec:StruSplit} and~\S\ref{ssec:FluidSplit}. For further details on the application of dual mortar methods to fluid-structure interaction problems with non-conforming meshes at the fluid-structure interface the reader is referred to~\cite{Kloeppel2011}.
\subsection{Fluid-structure interface}
\label{ssec:IntDisc}
When discretizing the kinematic coupling conditions, one has to deal with the kinematic coupling of structure, fluid, and ALE degrees of freedom resulting in two separate discrete kinematic coupling conditions (see figure~\ref{fig:coupling}). On the one hand, the evolution of the fluid interface motion, described by~$\gridsub{\mao d}{\Gamma}$, has to be related to the fluid velocity~$\flusub{\mao u}{\Gamma}$ at the interface as already mentioned in~\S\ref{ssec:FDisc}. This coupling between fluid and ALE degrees of freedom takes place purely in the fluid domain and does not involve any structural degrees of freedom. On the other hand, a discrete version of the kinematic continuity constraint~\eqref{eq:StrAleCoupling} has to be provided for the 'meshtying' problem at the interface in order to associate the ALE deformation~$\gridsub{\mao d}{\Gamma}$ with the structural deformation~$\strsub{\mao d}{\Gamma}$ at the interface. Therefore, two sets of degrees of freedom which are separated by the interface are coupled and, thus, the mortar coupling will play an important role. Both discrete kinematic coupling conditions can finally be combined to relate fluid interface velocities~$\flusub{\mao u}{\Gamma}$ with structural interface displacements~$\strsub{\mao d}{\Gamma}$ leading to the discrete representation of the no-slip condition~\eqref{eq:FSInoslip_vel}. The connections and dependencies of these kinematic coupling conditions are illustrated in figure~\ref{fig:coupling} and will be discussed in~\S\ref{sssec:FluAleCoupling},~\S\ref{sssec:StrAleCoupling} and~\S\ref{sssec:FluStrCoupling}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{coupling.eps}
\caption{Illustration of kinematic interface coupling conditions --- The conversion of interface fluid velocity degrees of freedom~$\flusub{\mao u}{\FSII}$ into ALE displacement degrees of freedom~$\gridsub{\mao d}{\FSII}$ happens inside the fluid field only and does not include the mortar coupling across the fluid-structure interface. The mortar coupling itself involves structure and ALE displacement degrees of freedom~$\strsub{\mao d}{\FSII}$ and~$\gridsub{\mao d}{\FSII}$, respectively. By combination of these two couplings that are illustrated by solid arrows we obtain the FSI coupling of interface fluid velocity degrees of freedom~$\flusub{\mao u}{\FSII}$ and interface structure displacement degrees of freedom~$\strsub{\mao d}{\FSII}$ that is indicated by the dashed arrow.}
\label{fig:coupling}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
Discretization of the dynamic constraint~\eqref{eq:FSIforceeq} will be detailed in~\S\ref{sssec:BalLinMomCoupling}.
\subsubsection{Conversion of fluid velocity and ALE displacement}
\label{sssec:FluAleCoupling}
In order to guarantee exact conservation of the volume of the fluid domain~$\flu{\Omega}$, the conversion of interface fluid velocities and interface ALE displacements has to be consistent with the fluid time integration scheme~\cite{Foerster2007}. Doing so, one can extend the geometric conservation law towards the interface. As a result of~\cite{Foerster2007}, the trapezoidal rule
\begin{align}
\label{eq:trapezoidal}
\gridsupsub{\mao d}{n+1}{\Gamma} - \gridsupsub{\mao d}{n}{\Gamma}
& = \frac{\Delta t \,}{2}\left(\flusupsub{\mao u}{n+1}{\Gamma} + \flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma}\right)
\end{align}
is used for the conversion of interface fluid velocities and interface ALE displacements. It is sometimes replaced by the dissipative backward Euler scheme~\cite{Foerster2007}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:backwardeuler}
\gridsupsub{\mao d}{n+1}{\Gamma} - \gridsupsub{\mao d}{n}{\Gamma}
& = \Delta t \,\flusupsub{\mao u}{n+1}{\Gamma}.
\end{align}
To enable the inclusion of~\eqref{eq:trapezoidal} or~\eqref{eq:backwardeuler} into the global monolithic system, they have to be expressed in incremental form. Both can be cast into the form
\begin{align}
\label{eq:FluAleConversion}
\Delta \gridsupsub{\mao d}{n+1}{\Gamma,i+1}
& = \ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}} \Delta \flusupsub{\mao u}{n+1}{\Gamma,i+1}
+ \delta_{i0}\,\Delta t \, \flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma}\,,
\end{align}
where the parameter~$\ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}$ switches between trapezoidal rule and backward Euler scheme:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:DefinitionTau}
\ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}
& = \begin{cases}
\frac{\Delta t \,}{2} & \text{for trapezoidal rule~\eqref{eq:trapezoidal}}\\
\Delta t \, & \text{for backward Euler scheme~\eqref{eq:backwardeuler}}
\end{cases}
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Discrete coupling condition for structural and ALE displacements}
\label{sssec:StrAleCoupling}
Inserting the spatial discretizations~\eqref{eq:FDiscAnsatz}, \eqref{eq:SDiscAnsatz}, and~\eqref{eq:MortarLagMult} for ALE displacement, structural displacement, and \names{Lagrange}\@ multiplier field into the weak coupling condition~\eqref{eq:FSICouplWF} yields
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:FSICouplDisc1}
& \left(\sum_{j=1}^{n^\MoSlave} \varPhi_j \delta\mao{\mbs\lambda}_j,
\sum_{k=1}^{n^{\gamma}} N^{\gamma}_{k} \strsupsub{\mao d}{\gamma}{k} - \sum_{l=1}^{n^{\varepsilon}} N^{\varepsilon}_{l} \gridsupsub{\mao d}{\varepsilon}{l} \right)_{\Gamma} \\
& = \sum_{j=1}^{n^\MoSlave} \delta\mao{\mbs\lambda}_j \cdot
\left[
\sum_{k=1}^{n^{\gamma}}\int_{\Gamma} \varPhi_j N^{\gamma}_{k} \mr{d}\ensuremath{{\Gamma}} \,
\strsupsub{\mao d}{\gamma}{k}
- \sum_{l=1}^{n^{\varepsilon}}\int_{\Gamma} \varPhi_j N^{\varepsilon}_{l}\mr{d}\ensuremath{{\Gamma}} \,
\gridsupsub{\mao d}{\varepsilon}{l}
\right]\\
& = \sum_{j=1}^{n^\MoSlave} \delta\mao{\mbs\lambda}_j \cdot
\left[\CMatS[j,k] \, \strsupsub{\mao d}{\gamma}{k} - \CMatF[j,l] \, \gridsupsub{\mao d}{\varepsilon}{l} \right]
= 0 \quad \forall \, \delta\mao{\mbs\lambda}_j \neq \mao 0
\end{split}
\end{align}
with~$\gamma,\varepsilon\in\{\MoMaster,\MoSlave\}$, $\gamma\neq\varepsilon$ and~$n^\MoSlave$ being the number of slave nodes. Furthermore, the nodal coupling matrices
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\CMatS[j,k]
& = \CMatS^{jk} \IMat_{n^\mr{dim}}
= \int_{\Gamma}\varPhi_j N_{k}^{\gamma}\,\mr{d}\ensuremath{{\Gamma}} \, \IMat_{n^\mr{dim}},\,\\
\CMatF[j,l]
& = \CMatF^{jl} \IMat_{n^\mr{dim}}
= \int_{\Gamma}\varPhi_j N_{l}^{\varepsilon}\,\mr{d}\ensuremath{{\Gamma}} \, \IMat_{n^\mr{dim}}\,.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
have been introduced using an identity matrix~$\IMat_{n^\mr{dim}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n^\mr{dim}\timesn^\mr{dim}}$ with~$n^\mr{dim}$ being the spatial dimension, i.e.\@ ~$n^\mr{dim}\in\{2,3\}$. For example, if the structure field is chosen as the slave field, i.e.\@ ~$\gamma=\MoSlave$, the biorthogonality condition~\eqref{eq:MortarBiortho} can be employed to write:
\begin{align}
\CMatS
& = \sum_{k=1}^{n^{\gamma}}\int_{\Gamma} \varPhi_j N^{\MoSlave}_{k} \mr{d}\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}
= \sum_{k=1}^{n^{\gamma}}\delta_{jk}\int_{\Gamma} N^{\MoSlave}_{k} \mr{d}\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}
\end{align}
When choosing the fluid field as the slave field, the coupling matrix~$\CMatF$ takes a diagonal form in an analogous way. Full details on the numerical evaluation of the mortar integrals are given in~\cite{Puso2004,Puso2004a,Puso2004b}.
Assembling the nodal coupling matrices leads to global coupling matrices~$\CMatS$ and~$\CMatF$, which are used to formulate the kinematic coupling residual
\begin{align}
\mao r^{coupl}
& = \CMatS\strsub{\mao d}{\Gamma} - \CMatF\gridsub{\mao d}{\Gamma}
= \mao 0.
\end{align}
Its linearization yields the kinematic coupling constraint
\begin{align}
\label{eq:MortarLinSys1}
\CMatS \mbs\Delta \strsupsub{\mao d}{n+1}{\Gamma,i+1}
- \CMatF \mbs\Delta \gridsupsub{\mao d}{n+1}{\Gamma,i+1}
& = - \delta_{i0}\,\CMatS\Delta\strsub{\mao d}{\Gamma,p}
\end{align}
formulated in incremental form. The violation of the interface continuity requirement due to possible non-constant predictors is measured by~$\Delta\strsub{\mao d}{\Gamma,p}$ and accounted for by the right hand side term, which is necessary only in the first nonlinear iteration step~$i=0$. Due to the linearity of the kinematic coupling condition, the kinematic interface continuity requirement is guaranteed to be satisfied for all nonlinear iteration steps~$i>0$. In the case of conforming interface discretizations, all mortar projection operators reduce to diagonal matrices with area weights on the main diagonal as well as the interface constraints collapse to the trivial case of condensable point-wise constraints. Furthermore, note that~\eqref{eq:MortarLinSys1} guarantees exact kinematic continuity in the discrete setting, even if different time integrations schemes are employed.
\subsubsection{Discrete coupling condition for structural displacements and fluid velocities}
\label{sssec:FluStrCoupling}
With the discrete coupling conditions~\eqref{eq:FluAleConversion} and~\eqref{eq:MortarLinSys1}, all necessary conditions are at hand to assemble the global monolithic system. However, a direct conversion of fluid velocities and structural displacements at the fluid-structure interface can be derived by replacing the interface ALE displacements. On the one hand, this emphasizes the fact that the ALE field is not a physical field but rather an auxiliary field to describe the fluid motion. On the other hand, this eases the notation of the global monolithic system when it comes to choosing master and slave side in the context of the dual mortar method.
Combining~\eqref{eq:FluAleConversion} and~\eqref{eq:MortarLinSys1} results in
\begin{align}
\label{eq:DisVelConversion}
\CMatS \Delta \strsupsub{\mao d}{n+1}{\Gamma,i+1}
+ \delta_{i0}\,\CMatS \Delta \strsub{\mao d}{\Gamma,p}
& = \ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}\, \CMatF \Delta \flusupsub{\mao u}{n+1}{\Gamma,i+1}
+ \delta_{i0}\,\Delta t \, \CMatF \flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma}
\end{align}
Note that~\eqref{eq:DisVelConversion} does not take the role of an additional coupling condition. It is just a redundant reformulation of~\eqref{eq:FluAleConversion} and~\eqref{eq:MortarLinSys1}.
\subsubsection{Contributions to the balances of linear momentum}
\label{sssec:BalLinMomCoupling}
Discretization of the fluid contribution~$\delta\flusub{W}{\FSII}$ in~\eqref{eq:FSIweakform} yields:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:FSIFluCouplDisc}
\begin{split}
\left(
\sum_{l=1}^{n^{\varepsilon}} N_l^\varepsilon \delta\flusupsub{\mao u}{\varepsilon}{l},
\sum_{j=1}^{n^\MoSlave} \varPhi_j \mao{\mbs\lambda}_j
\right)_{\Gamma}
& = \sum_{l=1}^{n^{\varepsilon}}\delta\flusupsub{\mao u}{\varepsilon}{l} \cdot
\left[
\sum_{j=1}^{n^\MoSlave} \int_{\Gamma} N_l^\varepsilon \varPhi_j\,\mr{d}\ensuremath{{\Gamma}} \,\mao{\mbs\lambda}_j
\right]\\
& = \sum_{l=1}^{n^{\varepsilon}}\delta\flusupsub{\mao u}{\varepsilon}{l} \cdot
\trans{\CMatF}[j,l] \mao{\mbs\lambda}_j.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Discretizing the structural contribution~$\delta\strsub{W}{\FSII}$ in~\eqref{eq:FSIweakform} results in
\begin{align}
\label{eq:FSIStrCouplDisc}
\begin{split}
- \left(
\sum_{k=1}^{n^{\gamma}} N_k^\gamma \delta\strsupsub{\mao d}{\gamma}{k},
\sum_{j=1}^{n^\MoSlave} \varPhi_j \mao{\mbs\lambda}_j
\right)_{\Gamma}
& = - \sum_{k=1}^{n^{\gamma}}\delta\strsupsub{\mao d}{\gamma}{k} \cdot
\left[
\sum_{j=1}^{n^\MoSlave} \int_{\Gamma} N_k^\gamma \varPhi_j\,\mr{d}\ensuremath{{\Gamma}} \,\mao{\mbs\lambda}_j
\right]\\
& = - \sum_{k=1}^{n^{\gamma}}\delta\strsupsub{\mao d}{\gamma}{k} \cdot
\trans{\CMatS}[j,k] \mao{\mbs\lambda}_j.
\end{split}
\end{align}
In both expressions~\eqref{eq:FSIFluCouplDisc} and~\eqref{eq:FSIStrCouplDisc} one can identify the transposes of the coupling matrices~$\CMatF$ and~$\CMatS$ which have been already introduced in~\S\ref{sssec:StrAleCoupling}. Note that the coupling matrices depend on the initial mesh configuration, only.
In the following, we assume that time integration schemes in both fluid and structure field evaluate the single field dynamic equilibrium at intermediate time instances~$\flusup{t}{m}$ and~$\strsup{t}{m}$, respectively. The intermediate time instances will be indicated by the superscript~$(\bullet)^m$. In general, these time instances do not coincide, i.e. $\flusup{t}{m}\neq\strsup{t}{m}$. Based on the discretized weak forms~\eqref{eq:FSIFluCouplDisc} and~\eqref{eq:FSIStrCouplDisc} and using linear interpolations as usual for fully implicit, single-step, single-stage time integration schemes, one can write the residual contributions~$\flusupsub{\mao r}{m}{\mbs\lambda}$ and~$\strsupsub{\mao r}{m}{\mbs\lambda}$ as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:CoupResConsistent}
\flusupsub{\mao r}{m}{\mao\mbs\lambda,i}
= \trans{\CMatF}\left(b\mao\mbs\lambda^{n}+(1-b)\mao\mbs\lambda^{n+1}_i\right),
\quad
\strsupsub{\mao r}{m}{\mao\mbs\lambda,i}
= - \trans{\CMatS}\left(a\mao\mbs\lambda^{n}+(1-a)\mao\mbs\lambda^{n+1}_i\right)
\end{align}
with time interpolation factors~$a$ and~$b$ chosen depending on the specific field time integrators.
\begin{remark}
Factors~$a$ and~$b$ are always chosen equal to the weighting of the previous solution in~\eqref{eq:CoupResConsistent}. For example, when using generalized-$\alpha$ time integration~\cite{Chung1993} for the structure field and generalized-$\alpha$ time integration~\cite{Jansen2000} for the fluid field, time interpolation factors have to be chosen as $a = \strsub{\alpha}{f}$ and $b = 1 - \flusub{\alpha}{f}$.
\end{remark}
Since the weak forms~\eqref{eq:FSIweakform} are linear in the displacement field~$\str{\teo d}$ and the velocity field~$\flu{\teo u}$, the linearizations of the residual terms~\eqref{eq:CoupResConsistent} are just the coupling matrices themselves wherein the temporal interpolation factors occur, too:
\begin{align}
\pDer{\flusupsub{\mao r}{m}{\mao\mbs\lambda,i}}{\mao{\mbs\lambda}^{n+1}_{i}}
= \left(1-b\right) \trans{\CMatF},
\quad
\pDer{\strsupsub{\mao r}{m}{\mao\mbs\lambda,i}}{\mao{\mbs\lambda}^{n+1}_{i}}
= - \left(1-a\right) \trans{\CMatS}.
\end{align}
With these linearizations, we have finally specified all contributions to the linear system~\eqref{eq:FSILinSysSchematic}.
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:InterfaceEnergy}
We can calculate the amount of energy production per time step at the fluid-structure interface due to differences in temporal discretization of the individual fields as
\begin{align*}
& \Delta E_{\Gamma}^{n\rightarrow n+1}
= \strsupsub{E}{n\rightarrow n+1}{\Gamma} + \flusupsub{E}{n\rightarrow n+1}{\Gamma}\\
& = \left(a\mbs\lambda^n+(1-a)\mbs\lambda^{n+1}\right)\left(\strsupsub{\mao{d}}{n+1}{\Gamma}-\strsupsub{\mao{d}}{n}{\Gamma}\right)
- \left(b\mbs\lambda^n+(1-b)\mbs\lambda^{n+1}\right)\left(\gridsupsub{\mao{d}}{n+1}{\Gamma}-\gridsupsub{\mao{d}}{n}{\Gamma}\right)\\
& = \left((a-b)\mbs\lambda^{n}+(b-a)\mbs\lambda^{n+1}\right)\left(\strsupsub{\mao{d}}{n+1}{\Gamma}-\strsupsub{\mao{d}}{n}{\Gamma}\right)
\end{align*}
where the discrete kinematic coupling constraint~\eqref{eq:MortarLinSys1} has been exploited. We make the following observations:
\begin{itemize}
\item The energy production per step vanishes for~$a-b\rightarrow 0$, i.e.\@ as time instances of evaluating structure and fluid coupling tractions coincide: $\strsup{t}{m}-\flusup{t}{m}\rightarrow 0$.
\item Since~$\strsupsub{\mao{d}}{n+1}{\Gamma}-\strsupsub{\mao{d}}{n}{\Gamma}\propto\Delta t \,$, the energy production per step reduces as~$\Delta t \,\rightarrow 0$. Thus, we call the scheme \emph{temporal consistent}.
\end{itemize}
These observations can be reproduced in numerical studies (see {\S}5.2).
\end{remark}
\section{Monolithic FSI system}
\label{sec:monolithicsystem}
We can now put all linearized single field systems together to the global monolithic linear system
\begin{align}
\mbs{\mathscr J}^{n+1}_{i}\Delta\mao x_{i+1}^{n+1} = -\mao r_i^{FSI,n+1}
\end{align}
that has to be solved in the $i^{th}$ iteration step of the Newton-type nonlinear solution algorithm in time step~$n+1$. The Jacobian matrix of the coupled FSI system reads
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:MFSI3System}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:MFSI3fJac}
\mbs{\mathscr J}^{n+1}_{i}
& = \left[\begin{array}{ccccccc}
\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\IntI\IntI} & \mbs{\mathscr S}_{\IntI \Gamma}\\
\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\Gamma\IntI} & \mbs{\mathscr S}_{\Gamma\FSIIs} &&&&&-(1-a)\trans{\CMatS}\\
&&\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\IntI\IntI}&\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\IntI\Gamma}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\IntI\IntI}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\IntI\Gamma}\\
&&\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\IntI}&\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma \IntI}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma\FSIIs}&(1-b)\trans{\CMatF}\\
&&&&\mbs{\mathscr A}_{\IntI\IntI}&\mbs{\mathscr A}_{\IntI\Gamma}\\
&-\CMatS&&\ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}\CMatF
\end{array}\right]_i^{n+1},
\end{align}
where $\mao 0$-blocks are omitted for the sake of clarity. The global solution increment vector
\begin{align}
\label{eq:MFSI3fInc}
\trans{{\Delta\mao x_{i+1}^{n+1}}}
& = \left[\begin{array}{ccccccc}
\trans{{\strsub{\Delta \mao d}{\IntI}}}&
\trans{{\strsub{\Delta \mao d}{\Gamma}}}&
\trans{{\flusub{\Delta \mao u}{\IntI}}}&
\trans{{\flusub{\Delta \mao u}{\Gamma}}}&
\trans{{\gridsub{\Delta \mao d}{\IntI}}}&
\trans{{\gridsub{\Delta \mao d}{\Gamma}}}&
\trans{{\mao\mbs\lambda}}
\end{array}\right]_{i+1}^{n+1}
\end{align}
contains the primary unknowns of each field as well as the \names{Lagrange}\@ multiplier field. Using the Kronecker delta~$\delta_{i0}$, the corresponding residual vector is given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:MFSI3fRHS}
\mao r_i^{FSI,n+1}
= \left[\begin{array}{c}
\strsub{\mao r}{\IntI}\\
\strsub{\mao r}{\Gamma}\\
\flusub{\mao r}{\IntI}\\
\flusub{\mao r}{\Gamma}\\
\gridsub{\mao r}{\Gamma}\\
\mao 0
\end{array}\right]_i^{n+1}
+ \left[\begin{array}{c}
\mao 0\\
-a\trans{\CMatS}\mao\mbs\lambda^n\\
\mao 0\\
b\trans{\CMatF}\mao\mbs\lambda^n\\
\mao 0\\
\mao 0
\end{array}\right]
+ \delta_{i0}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
\mao 0\\
\mao 0\\
\mao 0\\
\mao 0\\
\mao 0\\
\Delta t \,\CMatF\flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma} - \CMatS\strsub{\Delta \mao d}{\Gamma,p}.
\end{array}\right].
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
To close system~\eqref{eq:MFSI3System} still a coupling of interface ALE degrees of freedom to the motion of the fluid-structure interface~$\FSII$ is required. The missing equation will be added after master and slave side have been chosen. Doing so, one can formulate the description of the interface motion in terms of master degrees of freedom, which will be a good starting point for condensation of \names{Lagrange}\@ multipliers and interface slave degrees of freedom. The missing coupling equation as well as the process of condensation will be detailed in~\S\ref{ssec:StruSplit} and~\S\ref{ssec:FluidSplit}.
Due to the $\mao 0$-block on the main diagonal, the global monolithic linear system~\eqref{eq:MFSI3System} is of saddle-point type. In order to circumvent the saddle-point like system to be able to use efficient FSI specific linear solvers~\cite{Gee2011} designed for the case of conforming discretizations, the unknown \names{Lagrange}\@ multipliers~$\mao\mbs\lambda^{n+1}$ will be condensed, yielding a problem with structural displacement, fluid velocity and pressure as well as ALE grid displacement degrees of freedom as the only unknowns. Employing the kinematic coupling conditions that were derived in~\S\ref{ssec:IntDisc} one can condense the interface degrees of freedom of the slave side from the global system of equations. Depending on the choice of master and slave side, the balance of linear momentum either of the structure or of the fluid field is used to condense the discrete \names{Lagrange}\@ multipliers. For the process of condensation we exploit the biorthogonality property~\eqref{eq:MortarBiortho} of the dual mortar method since it allows a computationally cheap inversion of the slave side's mortar matrix~$\MoD$.
After complete condensation, the interface motion is purely described and handled in terms of unknowns of the master field. Thus, we distinguish two algorithmic variants, namely \emph{fluid-handled interface motion} and \emph{structure-handled interface motion}. In the following, the two possible choices of master and slave side are discussed and the condensation process as well as the final linear systems of equations will be shown.
\begin{remark}
In case, one wants to use standard shape functions for the \names{Lagrange}\@ multipliers, the condensation is numerically very costly or even unfeasable. Then, the saddle-point type system~\eqref{eq:MFSI3System} can be solved with appropriate saddle-point solvers.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Fluid-handled interface motion}
\label{ssec:StruSplit}
Let us first consider the variant where the interface motion is expressed in terms of fluid velocity degrees of freedom, i.e.\@ the fluid field is chosen as the master field and the structure field as the slave field, respectively. Since the fluid field has been chosen as master, we can identify the mortar matrices as~$\MoD=\CMatS$ and~$\MoM=\CMatF$. The coupling of the interface ALE displacement to the interface motion is expressed in terms of the master's side interface degrees of freedom, i.e.\@ in terms of interface fluid velocities. This coupling has already been stated in~\eqref{eq:FluAleConversion} and will be used to close the monolithic system of equations yielding the Jacobian matrix
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:SystemSSfull}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:JacSSfull}
\mbs{\mathscr J}^{n+1}_i
& = \left[\begin{array}{ccccccc}
\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\IntI\IntI} & \mbs{\mathscr S}_{\IntI \Gamma}\\
\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\Gamma\IntI} & \mbs{\mathscr S}_{\Gamma\FSIIs} &&&&&-(1-a)\trans{\MoD}\\
&&\mbs{\mathscr F}_\mr{II}&\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\IntI\Gamma}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\IntI\IntI}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\IntI\Gamma}\\
&&\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\IntI}&\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma \IntI}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma\FSIIs}&(1-b)\trans{\MoM}\\
&&&&\mbs{\mathscr A}_{\IntI\IntI}&\mbs{\mathscr A}_{\IntI\Gamma}\\
&-\MoD&&\ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}\MoM\\
&&&\ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}\IMat&&-\IMat
\end{array}\right]_{i}^{n+1}
\end{align}
and the residual vector
\begin{align}
\label{eq:rhsSSfull}
\mao r_i^{n+1}
= \left[\begin{array}{c}
\strsub{\mao r}{\IntI}\\
\strsub{\mao r}{\Gamma}\\
\flusub{\mao r}{\IntI}\\
\flusub{\mao r}{\Gamma}\\
\gridsub{\mao r}{\Gamma}\\
\mao 0\\
\mao 0
\end{array}\right]_i^{n+1}
+ \left[\begin{array}{c}
\mao 0\\
-a\trans{\MoD}\mao\mbs\lambda^{n}\\
\mao 0\\
b\trans{\MoM}\mao\mbs\lambda^{n}\\
\mao 0\\
\mao 0\\
\mao 0
\end{array}\right]
+ \delta_{i0}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
\mao 0\\
\mao 0\\
\mao 0\\
\mao 0\\
\mao 0\\
\Delta t \,\MoM\,\flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma} - \MoD\strsub{\Delta \mao d}{\Gamma,p}\\
\Delta t \,\flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma}
\end{array}\right].
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The sixth row that brings the discrete kinematic constraint~\eqref{eq:DisVelConversion} into the system can be resolved for the structural interface displacement increment
\begin{align}
\label{eq:KinemConstrSS}
\strsupsub{\Delta \mao d}{n+1}{\Gamma}
& = \ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}\MoP\,\flusupsub{\Delta\mao u}{n+1}{\Gamma}
+ \delta_{i0}\,\Delta t \,\MoP\,\flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma}
- \delta_{i0}\,\strsub{\Delta\mao d}{\Gamma,p}
\end{align}
with the mortar projection matrix
\begin{align}
\label{eq:MortarP}
\MoP = \inv\MoD\MoM
\end{align}
that can be efficiently computed due to the diagonal form of~$\MoD$ (\cf~\cite{Wohlmuth2000}). The coupling of fluid velocities and ALE displacements at the fluid-structure interface is given by the last row in~\eqref{eq:SystemSSfull} and reads
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ALEConstrSS}
\Delta\gridsupsub{\mao d}{n+1}{\Gamma,i+1}
& = \ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}\Delta\flusupsub{\mao u}{n+1}{\Gamma,i+1}
+ \delta_{i0}\,\Delta t \,\flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma}.
\end{align}
From the balance of linear momentum of the structural interface degrees of freedom together with~\eqref{eq:KinemConstrSS}, the unknown \names{Lagrange}\@ multipliers are expressed by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:RecoverLambdaSS}
\begin{split}
\mbs\lambda^{n+1}
= -\frac{a}{1-a}\mbs\lambda^{n}
& + \frac{1}{1-a}\itra{\MoD}
\left(\strsupsub{\mao r}{n+1}{\Gamma}
+ \mbs{\mathscr S}_{\Gamma\IntI}\strsupsub{\Delta \mao d}{n+1}{\IntI,i+1}
+ \ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}\MoP\Delta\flusupsub{\mao u}{n+1}{\Gamma,i+1}\right)\\
& + \delta_{i0} \frac{1}{1-a}\itra{\MoD}
\left(\Delta t \,\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}\MoP\flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma}
- \mbs{\mathscr S}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}\strsub{\Delta \mao d}{\Gamma,p}\right).
\end{split}
\end{align}
Equation~\eqref{eq:RecoverLambdaSS} is used to recover the \names{Lagrange}\@ multiplier solution at the end of each time step as a postprocessing step.
Using~\eqref{eq:KinemConstrSS}, \eqref{eq:ALEConstrSS}, and~\eqref{eq:RecoverLambdaSS}, we are able to condense the system of equations. The condensed linear system with fluid-handled interface motion consists of the Jacobian matrix
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:SystemSScond}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:JacSScond}
\mbs{\mathscr J}^{n+1}_i
& = \left[\begin{array}{cccc}
\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\IntI\IntI} && \ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\IntI\Gamma}\MoP\\
&\mbs{\mathscr F}_\mr{II}&\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\IntI\Gamma}+\ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\IntI\Gamma}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\mr{II}}\\
\frac{1-b}{1-a}\trans{\MoP}\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\Gamma \IntI}&\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\IntI}&\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}+\ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma\FSIIs}+\frac{1-b}{1-a}\ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}\trans{\MoP}\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}\MoP&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma\IntI}\\
&&\ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}\mbs{\mathscr A}_{\IntI\Gamma}&\mbs{\mathscr A}_{\IntI\IntI}\\
\end{array}\right]_{i}^{n+1},
\end{align}
the solution increment vector
\begin{align}
\label{eq:SolSScond}
\trans{{\Delta\mao x_{i+1}^{n+1}}}
& = \left[\begin{array}{cccc}
\trans{{\strsub{\Delta \mao d}{\IntI}}}&
\trans{{\flusub{\Delta \mao u}{\IntI}}}&
\trans{{\flusub{\Delta \mao u}{\Gamma}}}&
\trans{{\gridsub{\Delta \mao d}{\IntI}}}
\end{array}\right]_{i+1}^{n+1},
\end{align}
and the residual vector
\begin{align}
\label{eq:rhsSScond}
\begin{split}
\mao r_i^{n+1}
& = \left[\begin{array}{c}
\strsub{\mao r}{\IntI}\\
\flusub{\mao r}{\IntI}\\
\flusub{\mao r}{\Gamma} + \frac{1-b}{1-a}\trans{\MoP}\strsub{\mao r}{\Gamma}\\
\gridsub{\mao r}{\Gamma}
\end{array}\right]_i^{n+1}
+ \left[\begin{array}{c}
\mao 0\\
\mao 0\\
\left(b-\frac{a(1-b)}{1-a}\right)\trans{\MoM}\mao\mbs\lambda^n\\
\mao 0
\end{array}\right]\\
& + \delta_{i0}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
\Delta t \,\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\IntI \Gamma}\MoP\flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma} - \mbs{\mathscr S}_{\IntI \Gamma}\strsub{\Delta \mao d}{\Gamma,p}\\
\Delta t \,\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\IntI\Gamma} \flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma}\\
\Delta t \,\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma\FSIIs} \flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma} + \frac{1-b}{1-a}\Delta t \,\trans{\MoP}\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}\MoP\flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma} - \frac{1-b}{1-a}\trans{\MoP}\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}\strsub{\Delta \mao d}{\Gamma,p}\\
\Delta t \,\mbs{\mathscr A}_{\IntI\Gamma} \flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma}
\end{array}\right].
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:InterfaceDBCsSS}
When parts of the mortar interface are subject to essential boundary conditions, \cite{Puso2003} suggests to apply them only on the master side of the interface in order to avoid stability problems. For the fluid-handled interface motion, this means that at the interface only the fluid field is allowed to carry Dirichlet boundary conditions. They will be imposed on the structure field weakly via the mortar coupling.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Structure-handled interface motion}
\label{ssec:FluidSplit}
The other possibility is to describe the interface motion in terms of structural displacements, i.e.\@ the structure field is the master field and the fluid field the slave field, respectively. It is obtained by choosing the mortar matrices as~$\MoD = \CMatF$ and~$\MoM = \CMatS$. The coupling of interface ALE degrees of freedom is still governed by~\eqref{eq:FluAleConversion}. However, the fluid interface velocities will be condensed from the global system of equations and, thus, this coupling is expressed in terms of structural displacements:
\begin{align}
\Delta\gridsupsub{\mao d}{n+1}{\Gamma,i+1}
& = \MoP\Delta\strsupsub{\mao d}{n+1}{\Gamma,i+1}
+ \delta_{i0}\,\MoP\Delta\strsub{\mao d}{\Gamma,p}\,.
\end{align}
In this case, the global monolithic linear system consists of the Jacobian matrix
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:SystemFSfull}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:JacFSfull}
\mbs{\mathscr J}^{n+1}_i
& = \left[\begin{array}{ccccccc}
\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\IntI\IntI} & \mbs{\mathscr S}_{\IntI \Gamma}\\
\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\Gamma\IntI} & \mbs{\mathscr S}_{\Gamma\FSIIs} &&&&&-(1-a)\trans{\MoM}\\
&&\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\IntI\IntI}&\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\IntI\Gamma}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\IntI\IntI}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\IntI\Gamma}\\
&&\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\IntI}&\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma \IntI}&\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma\FSIIs}&(1-b)\trans{\MoD}\\
&&&&\mbs{\mathscr A}_{\IntI\IntI}&\mbs{\mathscr A}_{\IntI\Gamma}\\
&-\MoM&&\ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}\MoD\\
&\MoM&&&&-\MoD
\end{array}\right]_{i}^{n+1}
\end{align}
and the residual vector
\begin{align}
\label{eq:rhsFSfull}
\mao r_i^{n+1}
= \left[\begin{array}{c}
\strsub{\mao r}{\IntI}\\
\strsub{\mao r}{\Gamma}\\
\flusub{\mao r}{\IntI}\\
\flusub{\mao r}{\Gamma}\\
\gridsub{\mao r}{\Gamma}\\
\mao 0\\
\mao 0
\end{array}\right]_i^{n+1}
+ \left[\begin{array}{c}
\mao 0\\
-a\trans{\MoM}\mao\mbs\lambda^n\\
\mao 0\\
b\trans{\MoD}\mao\mbs\lambda^n\\
\mao 0\\
\mao 0\\
\mao 0
\end{array}\right]
+ \delta_{i0}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
\mao 0\\
\mao 0\\
\mao 0\\
\mao 0\\
\mao 0\\
\Delta t \,\MoD\,\flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma} - \MoM\strsub{\Delta \mao d}{\Gamma,p}\\
\MoM\strsub{\Delta \mao d}{\Gamma,p}\\
\end{array}\right].
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The sixth row that brings the discrete kinematic constraint~\eqref{eq:DisVelConversion} into the system can be resolved for the fluid interface velocity increment
\begin{align}
\label{eq:KinemConstrFS}
\flusupsub{\Delta \mao u}{n+1}{\Gamma}
& = \ensuremath{\frac{1}{\FlAle}} \MoP \strsupsub{\Delta \mao d}{n+1}{\Gamma}
+ \delta_{i0}\ensuremath{\frac{1}{\FlAle}} \MoP \strsub{\Delta \mao d}{\Gamma,p}
- \delta_{i0} \frac{\Delta t \,}{\ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}}\flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma}
\end{align}
with the mortar projection matrix~$\MoP$ defined in~\eqref{eq:MortarP}. The coupling of structure displacements and ALE displacements at the fluid-structure interface is given by the last row in~\eqref{eq:SystemFSfull} and reads
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ALEConstrFS}
\Delta\gridsupsub{\mao d}{n+1}{\Gamma,i+1}
& = \MoP\Delta\strsupsub{\mao d}{n+1}{\Gamma,i+1}
+ \delta_{i0}\,\MoP\Delta\strsub{\mao d}{\Gamma,p}.
\end{align}
From the balance of linear momentum of the fluid interface degrees of freedom together with~\eqref{eq:KinemConstrFS} and~\eqref{eq:ALEConstrFS}, the unknown \names{Lagrange}\@ multipliers are expressed by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:RecoverLambdaFS}
\begin{split}
\mbs\lambda^{n+1}
& = - \frac{b}{1-b}\mao\mbs\lambda^{n}
- \frac{1}{1-b}\itra{\MoD}
\left(\flusupsub{\mao r}{n+1}{\Gamma}
+ \left(\ensuremath{\frac{1}{\FlAle}}\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}+\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma\FSIIs}\right)\MoP\Delta\strsupsub{\mao d}{n+1}{\Gamma,i+1}\right)\\
& - \frac{1}{1-b}\itra{\MoD}
\left(\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\IntI}\Delta\flusupsub{\mao u}{n+1}{\IntI,i+1}
+ \gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma\IntI}\Delta\gridsupsub{\mao d}{n+1}{\IntI,i+1}\right)\\
& - \delta_{i0}\,\frac{1}{1-b}\itra{\MoD}
\left(\left(\ensuremath{\frac{1}{\FlAle}}\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}+\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma\FSIIs}\right)\MoP\Delta\strsub{\mao d}{\Gamma,p} - \frac{\Delta t \,}{\ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}}\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}\flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma}\right).
\end{split}
\end{align}
Equation~\eqref{eq:RecoverLambdaFS} is used to recover the \names{Lagrange}\@ multiplier solution at the end of each time step as a postprocessing step.
Using~\eqref{eq:KinemConstrFS}, \eqref{eq:ALEConstrFS}, and~\eqref{eq:RecoverLambdaFS}, we are able to condense the saddle-point type system of equations. Finally, the condensed linear system for the structure-handled interface motion consists of the Jacobian matrix
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:SystemFScond}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:JacFScond}
\mbs{\mathscr J}^{n+1}_i
& = \left[\begin{array}{cccc}
\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\IntI\IntI} & \mbs{\mathscr S}_{\IntI\Gamma}\\
\mbs{\mathscr S}_{\Gamma\IntI} & \mbs{\mathscr S}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}+\frac{1-a}{1-b}\ensuremath{\frac{1}{\FlAle}}\trans{\MoP} \mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}\MoP + \frac{1-a}{1-b}\trans{\MoP}\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma\FSIIs}\MoP & \frac{1-a}{1-b}\trans{\MoP}\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma \IntI} & \frac{1-a}{1-b}\trans{\MoP}\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma \IntI}\\
&\ensuremath{\frac{1}{\FlAle}}\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\IntI\Gamma}\MoP+\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\IntI\Gamma}\MoP & \mbs{\mathscr F}_{\IntI\IntI} & \gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\IntI\IntI}\\
&\mbs{\mathscr A}_{\IntI\Gamma}\MoP && \mbs{\mathscr A}_{\IntI\IntI}
\end{array}\right]_{i}^{n+1},
\end{align}
the solution increment vector
\begin{align}
\label{eq:SolFScond}
\trans{{\Delta\mao x_{i+1}^{n+1}}}
& = \left[\begin{array}{ccccc}
\trans{{\strsub{\Delta \mao d}{\IntI}}}&
\trans{{\strsub{\Delta \mao d}{\Gamma}}}&
\trans{{\flusub{\Delta \mao u}{\IntI}}}&
\trans{{\gridsub{\Delta \mao d}{\IntI}}}
\end{array}\right]_{i+1}^{n+1},
\end{align}
and the residual vector
\begin{align}
\label{eq:rhsFScond}
\begin{split}
\mao r_i^{n+1}
& = \left[\begin{array}{c}
\strsub{\mao r}{\IntI}\\
\strsub{\mao r}{\Gamma} + \frac{1-a}{1-b}\trans{\MoP}\flusub{\mao r}{\Gamma}\\
\flusub{\mao r}{\IntI}\\
\gridsub{\mao r}{\Gamma}
\end{array}\right]_i^{n+1}
+ \left[\begin{array}{c}
\mao 0\\
\left(-a+\frac{b(1-a)}{1-b}\right)\trans{\MoM}\mao\mbs\lambda^n\\
\mao 0\\
\mao 0
\end{array}\right]
\\
& + \delta_{i0}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
\mao 0\\
\frac{1-a}{1-b}\ensuremath{\frac{1}{\FlAle}}\trans{\MoP}\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}\MoP\Delta\strsub{\mao d}{\Gamma,p} + \frac{1-a}{1-b}\trans{\MoP}\gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\Gamma\FSIIs}\MoP\Delta\strsub{\mao d}{\Gamma,p} - \frac{1-a}{1-b}\frac{\Delta t \,}{\ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}}\trans{\MoP}\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\Gamma\FSIIs}\flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma}\\
\ensuremath{\frac{1}{\FlAle}}\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\IntI\Gamma}\MoP\Delta\strsub{\mao d}{\Gamma,p} + \gridsub{\mbs{\mathscr F}}{\IntI\Gamma}\MoP\Delta\strsub{\mao d}{\Gamma,p} - \frac{\Delta t \,}{\ensuremath{\tau}} %\tfrac{\Delta t}{2}}}\mbs{\mathscr F}_{\IntI\Gamma}\flusupsub{\mao u}{n}{\Gamma}\\
\mbs{\mathscr A}_{\IntI\Gamma}\MoP\Delta\strsub{\mao d}{\Gamma,p}
\end{array}\right].
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:InterfaceDBCsFS}
As already indicated in remark~\ref{rem:InterfaceDBCsSS}, one has to be careful with essential boundary conditions at the fluid-structure interface~$\FSII$. Following the same arguments as before, now, only the structure side of the interface is allowed to carry Dirichlet boundary conditions. They will be imposed on the fluid side weakly via the mortar coupling.
\end{remark}
\section{Numerical examples}
\label{sec:examples}
Three numerical examples are used to demonstrate and discuss some properties of the presented solution schemes. First, a very simple test case is proposed, where an analytical solution is known, and used to study temporal convergence as well as some aspects of Dirichlet boundary conditions at the fluid-structure interface in~\S\ref{ssec:fp}. In~\S\ref{ssec:dc}, the well-known 2D driven cavity with flexible bottom is utilized to demonstrate the effect of predictors on the overall computational costs. Finally, different combinations of time integration schemes are compared to each other using the 3D pressure wave example mimicking hemodynamic conditions in~\S\ref{ssec:pw}.
In all three examples, equal-order interpolated linear finite elements with residual-based stabilization are used for spatial discretization of the fluid field. The structure field is discretized with mixed/hybrid finite elements. Enhanced assumed strains (EAS) are utilized to deal with locking phenomena.
\subsection{Pseudo 1D FSI}
\label{ssec:fp}
As a very simple example, we first consider a pseudo one-dimensional FSI problem as sketched in figure~\ref{fig:fp}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\subfigure[problem setup]{\label{fig:fp}\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{fp2.eps}}
\hfill
\subfigure[solution of~$\flu{p}$ and~$\mbs\lambda$]{\label{fig:fp_lambda}\includegraphics[width=0.56\textwidth]{fp_lambda.eps}}
\caption{Geometry an solution of pseudo 1D FSI example with analytical solution --- \emph{Left:} The structural block~$\str{\Omega}$ moves in $x$-direction due to a time dependent Dirichlet boundary condition at~$x=\flu{\ell}+\str{\ell}$. Thus, fluid is pushed out or sucked in across the Neumann boundary at~$x=0$. All movement in $y$- and $z$-direction is suppressed, leaving a pseudo 1D problem. \emph{Right:} Pressure field in fluid domain~$\flu{\Omega}$ and \names{Lagrange}\@ multiplier field~$\mao{\mbs\lambda}$: The \names{Lagrange}\@ multiplier field represents the interface traction onto the structure. The $x$-components represent the fluid pressure exerted onto the structure. The lateral components in $y$- and $z$-direction constrain the $y$- and $z$-components of the fluid velocity.}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
It is used to demonstrate temporal convergence properties of the proposed monolithic solution scheme employing the comparison to an analytical solution. Additionally, the special role of Dirichlet boundary conditions at the fluid-structure interface as discussed in remarks~\ref{rem:InterfaceDBCsSS} and~\ref{rem:InterfaceDBCsFS} is illustrated by a visualization of the \names{Lagrange}\@ multiplier field.
The example is set up as a real 3D problem, but is constrained to one dimension via Dirichlet boundary conditions, i.e.\@ all displacement and velocity degrees of freedom are forced to zero in $y$- and $z$-direction. Hence, movement is possible only in $x$-direction. The problem is driven by a time dependent Dirichlet boundary condition on the dry side of the solid domain~$\str{\Omega}$, i.e.\@ at~$x=\flu{\ell}+\str{\ell}$. When moving the structural block~$\str{\Omega}$, the size of the fluid volume~$\flu{\Omega}$ changes and fluid is pushed out or sucked in across the fluid Neumann boundary at~$x=0$. Assuming a time dependent Dirichlet boundary condition~$\strsub{\bar{\teo d}}{\mr{D}}(t)$ for the displacement of the dry side of the structure at~$x=\flu{\ell}+\str{\ell}$ as well as incompressible solid and fluid domains, the analytical solution for velocity field~$\teo u(x,t)$, acceleration field~$\teo a(x,t)$ and fluid pressure field~$\flu{p}(x,t)$ reads:
\label{eq:AnalyticalSolution}
\begin{align}
\teo u(x,t) = \pDer{\strsub{\bar{\teo d}}{\mr{D}}}{t},\quad
\teo a(x,t) = \spDer{\strsub{\bar{\teo d}}{\mr{D}}}{t},\quad
\flu{p}(x,t) = - \flu{\rho}\flusub{\teo a}{x}\cdot x + \left.\flusub{p}{\infty}\right\vert_{x=0}
\end{align}
In this example, the structure field is chosen as master field (\cf~\S\ref{ssec:FluidSplit}). Hence, at the interface, only the structural degrees of freedom are subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions. According to remark~\ref{rem:InterfaceDBCsFS}, the fluid side is not allowed to carry Dirichlet boundary conditions.
Due to the spatially constant velocity field and the spatially linear pressure field, the finite element solution can capture the spatial distribution of the analytical solution exactly.
When choosing the imposed time dependent Dirichlet boundary condition~$\strsub{\bar{\teo d}}{\mr{D}}(t)$ such that the analytical solution is also contained in the discrete temporal solution space, for example~$\strsub{\bar{\teo d}}{\mr{D}}(t) = -t^2$, the analytical solution is fully recovered by the numerical scheme up to machine precision.
For this reason, in order to study temporal convergence, a Dirichlet boundary condition~$\strsub{\bar{\teo d}}{\mr{D}}(t) = -t^5$ is prescribed on the structure. The spatial solution can still be fully recovered, but the involved time integration schemes are not able to capture the temporal evolution exactly. Hence, temporal refinement should lead to error reduction. For this study, we calculate the $\mathrm L_2$-error of the velocity and pressure field in the fluid volume~$\flu{\Omega}$ compared to the analytical solution~\eqref{eq:AnalyticalSolution}. The actual material parameters are of no importance. For temporal discretization of the structure field, generalized-$\alpha$ time integration with spectral radius~$\strsub{\rho}{\infty}=1.0$, i.e.\@ without numerical dissipation, is used. The fluid time integrator is either the generalized-$\alpha$ scheme with various spectral radii~$\flusub{\rho}{\infty}$ or the one-step-$\theta$ scheme with various choices for~$\flu{\theta}$. The conversion between ALE displacements and fluid velocities is varied between trapezoidal rule and backward Euler as indicated in~\eqref{eq:FluAleConversion} and~\eqref{eq:DefinitionTau}. When structure and fluid time integration scheme as well as the conversion between ALE displacements and fluid velocities are chosen to be second order accurate, the overall FSI scheme is expected to be second order accurate in time as well. As soon as one of them is only first order accurate in time, the order of temporal accuracy of the overall algorithm is expected to reduce to first order. Figure~\ref{fig:fp_timeconvergence} shows the temporal convergence plots for velocity field and pressure field in the fluid volume~$\flu{\Omega}$. Time step sizes and fluid time integration schemes with particular parameters are detailed in figure~\ref{fig:fp_timeconvergence}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\subfigure[$\mathrm L_2$-error in velocity field]{\label{fig:fp_velocity}\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fp_velocity_0.eps}}
\hfill
\subfigure[$\mathrm L_2$-error in pressure field]{\label{fig:fp_pressure}\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fp_pressure_0.eps}}
\caption{Temporal convergence study for pseudo 1D FSI example --- Comparison of temporal convergence for different fluid time integration schemes and different conversions of ALE interface displacements into fluid interface velocities. Temporal convergence is measured using $\mathrm L_2$-errors of velocity field and pressure field in the fluid volume~$\flu{\Omega}$. The computed convergence rates match theoretical expectations perfectly.}
\label{fig:fp_timeconvergence}
\end{center}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
Only the cases where the conversion of ALE displacements and fluid velocities is done with the backward Euler formula~\eqref{eq:backwardeuler} the temporal convergence order deteriorates to first order. In all other cases, where the overall algorithm is expected to be second order accurate, the temporal convergence is of second order. Altogether, the theoretically expected convergence rates are fully recovered by the proposed monolithic FSI scheme.
Looking at the Dirichlet boundary conditions at the fluid-structure interface, that have to preclude lateral motions, one has to consider that interface degrees of freedom on the slave side, i.e.\@ in the fluid field, are not allowed to carry Dirichlet boundary conditions (\cf remark~\ref{rem:InterfaceDBCsFS}). Thus, the fluid interface degrees of freedom are not constrained by Dirichlet boundary conditions at all. As such, the Dirichlet boundary conditions of the structural interface degrees of freedom are assigned to the fluid interface degrees of freedom weakly via the mortar coupling. The traction that forces the $y$- and $z$-components of the fluid velocity to zero is represented by the $y$- and $z$-components of the \names{Lagrange}\@ multiplier field. Figure~\ref{fig:fp_lambda} shows a visualization of the fluid domain and the \names{Lagrange}\@ multiplier field. The weak enforcement of Dirichlet boundary conditions across the fluid-structure interface is clearly observed, since the traction field exhibits components in lateral $y$- and $z$-direction.
\subsection{Driven cavity with flexible bottom}
\label{ssec:dc}
To demonstrate the effect of the predictors, a two-dimensional leaky driven cavity with flexible bottom as sketched in figure~\ref{fig:dc} is used (see also~\cite{Mok2001a}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\subfigure[geometry and boundary conditions]{\label{fig:dc}\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{dc.eps}}
\hfill
\subfigure[solution at time~$t=19.0$]{\label{fig:dc_solution}\includegraphics[width=0.53\textwidth]{dc_contourplot.eps}}
\caption{Geometry, boundary conditions, and solution for leaky driven cavity with flexible bottom --- \emph{Left:} The square fluid domain~$\flu{\Omega}$ is split into a cavity portion~$\flusub{\Omega}{\mr{cav}}$, covering the bottom part of~$\flu{\Omega}$, and a top portion~$\flusub{\Omega}{\mr{top}}$. On left and right walls of the cavity, \emph{no-slip} boundary conditions are imposed. On the top of~$\flusub{\Omega}{\mr{top}}$, the velocity in $x$-direction is prescribed by~$\flusub{\bar{\teo u}}{x}\left(t\right)$, whereas the velocity in $y$-direction is set to zero. The left side of the top region is subject to a linearily varying prescribed inflow velocity. The pressure level is determined by a do-nothing Neumann boundary condition on the right side of the top region. The structural domain~$\str{\Omega}$ is clamped on its left and right edges. \emph{Right:} The fluid domain is shown via a contour plot of the pressure field. Additionally, the fluid velocity field is visualized using a vector plot. At the interface, the \names{Lagrange}\@ multiplier field, i.e.\@ the coupling traction, is shown as traction vectors.}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
The structure is modelled with a St.-Venant-Kirchhoff material with Young's modulus~$\str{E}=250$, Poisson's ratio~$\str{\nu}=0$, and density~$\str{\rho}=500$. The incompressible Newtonian fluid has a dynamic viscosity of~$\flu{\viscdyn}=0.01$ and a density~$\flu{\rho}=1$. Geometry, dimensions, and boundary conditions are detailed in figure~\ref{fig:dc}.
Spatial discretization is performed with two different grids. For the coarser grid, the cavity volume~$\flusub{\Omega}{cav}$ is meshed with $64\times64$ bilinear quadrilateral elements, whereas the top volume~$\flusub{\Omega}{top}$ is meshed with $64\times8$ bilinear quadrilateral elements. In order to realize non-matching grids at the fluid-structure interface~$\FSII$, the structure is discretized with $72\times2$ bilinear quadrilateral elements. For the finer grid, the number of elements in each direction is doubled. For temporal discretization both fields employ generalized-$\alpha$ time integration without numerical dissipation and a time step size~$\Delta t \, = 0.01$. Figure~\ref{fig:dc_solution} depicts the solution at time~$t=19.0$.
This example was ran using different types of predictors in the structure field only to demonstrate their effect on computational costs. The fluid field is always treated without any predictor. The reference solution is computed without any predictors, i.e.\@ assuming constant displacements, velocities, and accelerations (referred to as \emph{ConstDis}). In the structure field, two types of predictors are used: First, a constant structural velocity is assumed, yielding a linear displacement prediction (referred to as \emph{ConstVel}). Secondly, the accelerations are assumed to be constant, resulting in a linear extrapolated velocity field and a quadratically extrapolated displacement field (referred to as \emph{ConstAcc}). All predictors require only simple and extremely cheap vector operations like multiplication with a scalar and addition of vectors. Hence, they are of negligible costs compared to the remaining operations, especially to the costs of the linear solver.
The costs are quantified by the number of linear solver iterations per time step, since in general these costs dominate, especially when it comes to large problem sizes. Hence, a reduction of the number of linear solver iterations has huge impact on the overall computational costs and, thus, is very desirable.
For comparison, the simulation parameters except for the mesh size have been held constant. The linear solver utilizes an ILU(0) preconditioner for each field and is solved using a GMRES procedure~\cite{Saad1986} where the Krylov space dimension is set to~$50$. The iterative linear solver stops, when the relative residual~$||\mao r||_2 / ||\mao r_0||_2$ is below~$10^{-5}$. The nonlinear iteration is stopped, as soon as the residuals as well as the nonlinear solution increments of the displacement field, the velocity field, and the pressure field measured in~$\mathrm L_2$- and~$\mathrm L_\infty$-norm are below~$10^{-8}$. In addition, the $\mathrm L_2$- and~$\mathrm L_\infty$-norm of the interface residual and increment were required to be smaller than~$10^{-9}$.
The number of linear iterations per time step for different choices of predictors is shown in figure~\ref{fig:dc_liniters}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\subfigure[$64\times 64$ mesh: reduction by 9.7\% on average]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{dc2d_liniters_64_0.eps}}\hfill
\subfigure[$128\times 128$ mesh: reduction by 3.1\% on average]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{dc2d_liniters_128_0.eps}}
\caption{Driven cavity with flexible bottom --- Comparison of number of linear iterations per time step for different choices of predictors. Using simple predictors like \emph{ConstVel} or \emph{ConstAcc} in the structure field reduces the number of linear iterations per time step and, thus, the actual computational costs compared to the case without predictor, i.e.\@ \emph{ConstDis}.}
\label{fig:dc_liniters}
\end{center}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{figure}
Just by employing the \emph{ConstVel} or the \emph{ConstAcc} predictor in the structure field, the average number of linear iterations per time step is reduced by 9.7\% on the coarser grid. On the fine grid, the reduction is 3.1\%.
\begin{remark}
In principle, the solution schemes proposed in~\S\ref{ssec:StruSplit} and~\S\ref{ssec:FluidSplit} are able to handle fluid predictors as well. However, if only the velocity field is predicted in a comparably simple way as in the structure field, the pressure field does not match the velocity field after the prediction. Hence, we recommend to just predict the structural solution unless sophisticated fluid predictors that include a pressure projection step are available. In our implementation, however, we only consider explicit predictors that come with only negligible additional cost and therefore refrain from using a non-constant fluid predictor step here.
\end{remark}
When looking at the interface energy production per step as discussed in remark~\ref{rem:InterfaceEnergy}, the amount of energy per step~$\Delta E_{\Gamma}^{n\rightarrow n+1}$ in the worst case scenario is at the order of~$10^{-6}$ whereas the kinetic energy of the system is at the order of~$10^{-1}$. Furthermore we keep in mind the physical dissipation due to fluid viscosity and further numerical dissipation stemming from time integration or fluid stabilization. Hence, the energy production per step can be considered as negligible. For~$a=b$, $\Delta E_{\Gamma}^{n\rightarrow n+1}$ vanishes up to machine precision. For this reason, the observations in remark~\ref{rem:InterfaceEnergy} are confirmed numerically.
\subsection{Pressure wave through collapsible tube}
\label{ssec:pw}
Finally, a pressure wave travelling through a collapsible tube (see e.g.\@ } \newcommand{\cf}{cf.\@ ~\cite{Gee2011,Gerbeau2003}) is examined mimicking hemodynamic conditions. The outstanding efficiency of a monolithic solution scheme compared to partitioned schemes has already been demonstrated in~\cite{Kuettler2010}. A more detailed analysis of the performance of the linear solvers has been performed in~\cite{Gee2011} for this example.
The geometry is depicted in figure~\ref{fig:pw}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{pw2.eps}
\caption{Geometry of pressure wave example --- A solid tube (Young's modulus~$\unit{E=3\cdot 10^6}{g/(cm\cdot s^2)})$, Poisson's ratio~$\str{\nu}=0.3$, density~$\str{\rho} = \unit{1.2}{g/cm^3}$, outer radius~$R_o=\unit{0.6}{cm}$, inner radius~$R_i=\unit{0.5}{cm}$, length~$\ell=\unit{5.0}{cm}$) is filled with an incompressible Newtonian fluid (dynamic viscosity~$\flu{\viscdyn}=\unit{0.03}{g/(cm\cdot s)}$, density~$\flu{\rho}=\unit{1.0}{g/cm^3}$) that is initially at rest.}
\label{fig:pw}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
The solid tube is clamped at both ends. The fluid is initially at rest. For the duration of~$\unit{3\cdot 10^{-3}}{s}$, it is loaded with a surface traction~$\flu{\bar{\teo h}}=\unit{1.3332\cdot 10^4}{g\cdot cm/s^2}$ in $z$-direction at~$z=0$. At~$z=\ell$, fluid velocities are prescribed to zero, meaning that the tube is closed at that end. As a result, a pressure wave travels along the tube's longitudinal axis and is reflected at the closed end of the tube. The constitutive behavior of the structure is modeled by a St.-Venant-Kirchhoff material, the fluid is assumed to be an incompressible Newtonian fluid. The actual material parameters are given in figure~\ref{fig:pw}.
The solid is discretized with trilinear hexahedral elements and utilizes \emph{enhanced assumed strains (EAS)} in order to circumvent possible locking phenomena. For the fluid discretization, trilinear stabilized equal-order hexahedral elements are used. The problem is solved on five different grids \emph{pw1}-\emph{pw5} with different levels of mesh refinement.
Table~\ref{tab:pw_dofs} provides the number of unknowns per field for each of the five meshes.
\begin{table}
\footnotesize
\caption{Pressure wave trough collapsible tube --- number of unknowns for five different meshes \emph{pw1}-\emph{pw5}}
\label{tab:pw_dofs}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccc}
\hline
Mesh & \# of structure DOFs & \# of fluid DOFs & \# of ALE DOFs & Total \# of DOFs\\
\hline
\emph{pw1} & $2016$ & $7476$ & $5607$ & $15099$\\
\emph{pw2} & $11808$ & $55268$ & $41451$ & $108527$\\
\emph{pw3} & $23424$ & $181780$ & $136335$ & $341539$\\
\emph{pw4} & $77760$ & $425412$ & $319059$ & $822231$\\
\emph{pw5} & $556416$ & $3339140$ & $2504355$ & $6399911$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Temporal discretization is performed with generalized-$\alpha$ time integration in the structure field and generalized-$\alpha$ or one-step-$\theta$ time integration in the fluid field. In all cases, the displacement-velocity conversion at the fluid-structure interface is done with the second order accurate trapezoidal rule~\eqref{eq:trapezoidal}.
Mesh independence is examined. In addition, the effect of different combinations of time integration schemes and time integration parameters~$\strsub{\rho}{\infty}$,~$\flusub{\rho}{\infty}$, and~$\flu{\theta}$ in both structure and fluid field is studied in detail. Furthermore, solutions obtained with different time step sizes~$\Delta t \,$ are compared to each other. For comparison, we monitor the temporal evolution of the radial displacement~$\strsub{\ensuremath{d}}{x}$ at point~$A(\unit{0.6}{cm},0,\unit{2.5}{cm})$ on the one hand. On the other hand, the temporal evolution of the fluid pressure~$\flu{p}$ at the center point~$B(0,0,\unit{2.5}{cm})$ is observed.
In figure~\ref{fig:pw_h}, the solutions for the different meshes \emph{pw1}-\emph{pw5} are reported.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\subfigure[radial displacement]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{pw_displacement_h_0.eps}}
\hfill
\subfigure[fluid pressure]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{pw_pressure_h_0.eps}}
\caption{Mesh refinement for pressure wave example --- It can be seen that the influence of the mesh on the overall behavior of the solution is small for the meshes \emph{pw2}-\emph{pw5}. Only the solution obtained on the coarsest grid~\emph{pw1} differs significantly.}
\label{fig:pw_h}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
Therefore, all computations have been carried out with a time step size~$\Delta t \,=\unit{1.0\cdot10^{-4}}{s}$ as it is usual in literature~\cite{Gee2011,Kloeppel2011,Kuettler2010} and generalized-$\alpha$ time integration in both fields. The spectral radii have been chosen to~$\strsub{\rho}{\infty}=0.8$ and~$\flusub{\rho}{\infty}=0.5$ for the structure and fluid time integrator, respectively.
The first peak occurs, when the pressure wave passes points~$A$ and~$B$ for the first time. After the reflection at the closed end of the tube, the pressure wave travels in negative $z$-direction and causes the second peaks in figure~\ref{fig:pw_h}. Only the solution on the coarsest grid~\emph{pw1} differs significantly from the other fine grid solutions. Thus, for all further comparisons, we use the medium-sized discretization~\emph{pw3}.
A comparison of different time step sizes has been performed and is reported in figure~\ref{fig:pw_t}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\subfigure[radial displacement]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{pw_displacement_t_0.eps}}
\hfill
\subfigure[fluid pressure]{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{pw_pressure_t_0.eps}}
\caption{Different time step sizes for pressure wave example --- Using~$\Delta t \,=\unit{1.0\cdot10^{-4}}{s}$ as reference solution, a larger time step size does not resolve the solution properly. }
\label{fig:pw_t}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
Again, both fields have been integrated with generalized-$\alpha$ time integration with spectral radii~$\strsub{\rho}{\infty}=0.8$ and~$\flusub{\rho}{\infty}=0.5$ for the structure and fluid time integrator, respectively. The larger time step~$\Delta t \,=\unit{5.0\cdot10^{-4}}{s}$ is not able to resolve the problem properly, leading to a shift of the displacement and pressure maxima to larger time values. The better solution is obtained with~$\Delta t \,=\unit{1.0\cdot10^{-4}}{s}$. Due to the small time step limit of the fluid stabilization~\cite{Bochev2004}, a further refinement of the time step size is not possible without loosing the stabilizing effects of the fluid stabilization. In accordance with the literature~\cite{Gee2011,Kloeppel2011,Kuettler2010}, all further computations are done with a time step size of~$\Delta t \,=\unit{1.0\cdot10^{-4}}{s}$.
The effect of different combinations of time integration schemes with various time integration parameters in both fluid and structure field is depicted in figure~\ref{fig:pw_params}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\subfigure[radial displacement]{\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{pw_displacement_params_0.eps}}\\
\subfigure[fluid pressure]{\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{pw_pressure_params_0.eps}}
\caption{Various combinations of time integration schemes for pressure wave example --- For the structure field, generalized-$\alpha$ time integration with its spectral radius~$\strsub{\rho}{\infty}$ has been utilized. In the fluid field, either generalized-$\alpha$ time integration or a one-step-$\theta$ scheme have been employed, denoted by their parameters~$\flusub{\rho}{\infty}$ and~$\flu{\theta}$, respectively. Close-ups for the first peak are shown.}
\label{fig:pw_params}
\end{center}
\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
When both fields are discretized with generalized-$\alpha$ schemes, the influence of the actual parameter choice is rather small. The pressure field shows some fluctuations, when no or only little numerical dissipation is imposed. These fluctuations vanish the better, the more numerical dissipation is introduced into the system. However, the overall behavior of the solution is not affected by numerical dissipation. This changes dramatically, when one-step-$\theta$ time integration is utilized in the fluid field. Then, only the choice~$\flu{\theta}=0.5$ is free of numerical dissipation. The larger the value of~$\flu{\theta}$, the more numerical dissipation is involved. Again, numerical dissipation reduces the fluctuations in the pressure field. Simultaneously, the amplitudes in the displacements as well as in the pressure are reduced significantly by a larger amount of numerical dissipation, i.e.\@ the solution changes a lot. To conclude the comparison of time integration schemes, we stress that numerical dissipation in the fluid field does not only affect the fluid solution, but the solution in the structure field is also highly affected due to the interface coupling.
\section{Concluding remarks}
\label{sec:conclusion}
A temporal consistent, mortar-based monolithic approach to large-deformation fluid-structure interaction has been proposed. It allows for both independent spatial and independent temporal discretization for both fluid and structure field. Regarding the spatial discretization, potentially non-matching grids at the fluid-structure interface are dealt with utilizing a dual mortar method. Of course, the presented framework also includes the case of conforming interface discretizations, where all mortar projection operators reduce to diagonal matrices as well as the interface constraints collapse to the trivial case of condensable point-wise constraints. For temporal discretization, both fields can be discretized using fully implicit, single-step, and single-stage time integration schemes. Thereby, the individual time integration schemes can be chosen depending on the needs of the individual fields since temporal consistency is guaranteed by the proposed method. Due to this generality, the proposed method does not impose any restrictions on the particular finite element formulations neither on fluid, ALE, nor structure field. Regarding the temporal discretization, the limitation to fully implicit, single-step, and single-stage time integration schemes does not seem harsh since they are pretty common to use. In addition, the incorporation of single-field predictors and inhomogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions at the fluid-structure interface has been discussed.
Optimal temporal convergence rates have been shown in a simple test case with analytical solution. Furthermore, the positive effect of simple single-field predictors on the reduction of computational costs has been demonstrated. The freedom of consistently choosing different time integration schemes in fluid and structure field has been used to discuss different damping properties of the resulting algorithms.
\bibliographystyle{siam}
|
\section{Introduction}
Boundary surface is a conceptual two-dimensional structure in which electromagnetic sources, induced by the external field, are related by some intrinsic mechanism. As sources we may assume electric and magnetic surface currents, $\#J_{es}, \#J_{ms}$, and electric and magnetic surface charges, $\varrho_{es}, \varrho_{ms}$.
When the unit vector normal to the boundary surface is denoted by $\#e_3$, the fields outside the boundary are related to the surface sources by the conditions \cite{EWT}
\e \#e_3\times\#E = -\#J_{ms},\ \ \ \ \#e_3\times\#H = \#J_{es}, \l{e3E}\f
\e \#e_3\.\#D = \varrho_{es},\ \ \ \ \#e_3\.\#B=\varrho_{ms}. \l{e3D}\f
For simplicity we assume a planar boundary and constant unit vectors $\#e_1,\#e_2,\#e_3$ making an orthonormal basis. Assuming time-harmonic fields with time dependence $\exp(j\omega t)$, the sources obey the continuity conditions
\e \nabla\.\#J_{es} = -j\omega\varrho_{es},\ \ \ \ \nabla\.\#J_{ms}=-j\omega\varrho_{ms}, \f
following from the Maxwell equations and \r{e3E}, \r{e3D}.
Let us assume that the relations between the source quantities, set by the boundary structure, are linear and local and can be expressed by linear algebraic equations. Because of the relations \r{e3E} and \r{e3D}, the fields at the boundary are related in a certain manner forming the boundary conditions which are linear and local. Considering the basic problem of a field incident to the boundary, due to the Huygens principle, the reflected field is uniquely determined when two scalar components of the field vectors tangential to the surface are known. Thus, the boundary conditions must be of the form of two scalar conditions between the fields at the surface. Under the assumption of linearity and locality, the most general boundary conditions can be assumed to have the form
\e \alpha\#e_3\.\#B+ \beta\#e_3\.\#D+\#a_t\.\#E + \#b_t\.\#H =0,\l{ximp1}\f
\e \gamma\#e_3\.\#B+ \delta\#e_3\.\#D+ \#c_t\.\#E+ \#d_t\.\#H=0, \l{ximp2}\f
relating the normal components of $\#D$ and $\#B$ vectors and tangential components of $\#E$ and $\#H$ vectors in terms of four vectors and four scalars. The vectors tangential to the boundary surface are denoted by the subscript $()_t$. The form of \r{ximp1} and \r{ximp2} can be simplified by eliminating $\#e_3\.\#B$ on one hand, and $\#e_3\.\#D$ on the other hand, whence the most general form can be written as
\e \alpha\#e_3\.\#B+ \#a_t\.\#E + \#b_t\.\#H =0,\l{ximpB}\f
\e \delta\#e_3\.\#D+ \#c_t\.\#E+ \#d_t\.\#H=0,. \l{ximpD}\f
\section{Boundary conditions}
Let us consider the boundary conditions \r{ximpB} and \r{ximpD} for some special choices of the two scalars and four tangential vectors.
\begin{itemize}
\item The perfect electric conductor (PEC) conditions, $\alpha=\delta=0$, $\#b_t=\#d_t=0$, $\#a_t=\#e_1$, $\#c_t=\#e_2$,
\e \#e_1\.\#E=0,\ \ \#e_2\.\#E=0,\ \ \ \ \Rightarrow\ \ \ \ \#e_3\times\#E=0. \f
\item The perfect magnetic conductor (PMC) conditions, $\alpha=\delta=0$, $\#a_t=\#c_t=0$, $\#b_t=\#e_1$, $\#d_t=\#e_2$,
\e \#e_1\.\#H=0,\ \ \#e_2\.\#H=0,\ \ \ \ \Rightarrow\ \ \ \ \#e_3\times\#H=0. \f
\item The perfect electromagnetic conductor (PEMC) conditions \cite{PEMC}, $\alpha=\delta=0$, $\#a_t=M\#b_t=M\#e_1$, $\#c_t=M\#d_t=M\#e_2$,
\e \#e_1\.\#(\#H+M\#E)=0,\ \ \#e_2\.\#(\#H+M\#E)=0,\ \ \ \ \Rightarrow\ \ \ \ \#e_3\times(\#H+M\#E)=0. \f
\item The DB conditions \cite{DB}, $\alpha=\delta=1$, $\#a_t=\#b_t=\#c_t=\#d_t=0$,
\e \#e_3\.\#D=0,\ \ \ \ \#e_3\.\#B=0. \f
\item The soft-and-hard (SH) conditions \cite{SHS1}, $\alpha=\delta=0$, $\#a_t=\#d_t=\#e_1$, $\#b_t=\#c_t=0$,
\e \#e_1\.\#E=0,\ \ \ \ \#e_1\.\#H=0. \f
\item The generalized soft-and-hard (GSH) conditions \cite{GSH}, $\alpha=\delta=0$, $\#b_t=\#c_t=0$,
\e \#a_t\.\#E=0,\ \ \ \ \#d_t\.\#H=0. \l{GSH}\f
\item The soft-and-hard/DB (SHDB) conditions \cite{SHDB}, $\alpha=\delta$, $\beta=\gamma=0$, $\#b_t=\#c_t=0$, $\#a_t=-\#d_t$,
\e \alpha\#e_3\.\#B + \#a_t\.\#E=0,\ \ \ \ \alpha\#e_3\.\#D - \#a_t\.\#H=0. \l{SHDB}\f
\item The generalized soft-and-hard/DB (GSHDB) conditions \cite{GSHDB}, $\#b_t=\#c_t=0$,
\e \alpha\#e_3\.\#B + \#a_t\.\#E=0,\ \ \ \ \delta\#e_3\.\#D +\#d_t\.\#H=0, \l{GSHDB}\f
\item The impedance conditions $\alpha=\delta=0$,
\e \#a_t\.\#E + \#b_t\.\#H =0,\ \ \ \ \#c_t\.\#E+ \#d_t\.\#H=0. \l{imp}\f
which can also be written as $\#e_3\times\#E = \=Z_s\.\#H$, with $\=Z_s=(\#a_t\#d_t-\#c_t\#b_t)/(\#e_3\.\#a_t\times\#c_t)$.
\end{itemize}
Comparing with \r{imp}, the form \r{ximpB}, \r{ximpD} can be called generalized impedance conditions. Because each tangential vector has two free parameters, the number of free parameters of the GSHDB boundary \r{GSHDB} is 4, for the impedance boundary \r{imp} it is 6 and for the generalized impedance boundary \r{ximpB}, \r{ximpD} it is 10.
One should note that non-local boundary conditions are not included in the definition \r{ximpB} and \r{ximpD}. For example the D'B' boundary defined by the conditions \cite{D'B'}
\e \#e_3\.\nabla(\#e_3\.\#D)=0,\ \ \ \ \ \#e_3\.\nabla(\#e_3\.\#B)=0, \l{D'B'}\f
would require operator-valued scalars $\alpha$ and $\delta$ in \r{ximpB} and \r{ximpD}.
\section{Plane-wave reflection}
Considering a time-harmonic plane wave incident to and reflecting from the boundary surface,
\e \#E^i(\#r)= \#E^i\exp(-j\#k^i\.\#r),\ \ \ \ \#E^r(\#r)= \#E^r\exp(-j\#k^r\.\#r), \f
with
\e \#k^i = \#k_t -k_3\#e_3,\ \ \ \ \#k^r=\#k_t + k_3\#e_3, \f
and applying the Maxwell equations, we can write the following relations for the total fields at the boundary surface,
\ea \omega\#e_3\.\#B &=&\omega\#e_3\.(\#B^i+\#B^r) = \#e_3\.\#k_t\times(\#E^i+\#E^r)= (\#e_3\times\#k_t)\.\#E, \\
\omega\#e_3\.\#D &=&\omega\#e_3\.(\#D^i+\#D^r) = -\#e_3\.\#k_t\times(\#H^i+\#H^r)= -(\#e_3\times\#k_t)\.\#H. \fa
Substituting $\#e_3\.\#B$ and $\#e_3\.\#D$ in the generalized impedance conditions \r{ximpB} and \r{ximpD}, they obtain the form of the impedance conditions \r{imp} if, in the latter, we substitute
\e \#a_t\rightarrow \#a_t + \alpha\#e_3\times\#k_t,\ \ \ \#d_t\rightarrow\#d_t- \delta\#e_3\times\#k_t. \l{gic}\f
Thus, if the vectors $\#a_t, \#d_t$ are allowed to have a similar linear dependence on the vector, $\#e_3\times\#k_t$, the impedance conditions \r{imp} represent the most general form of boundary conditions for a plane wave.
It has been previously shown that, for the generalized SHDB boundary \r{GSHDB}, there exist two eigenwaves, one of which is reflected from the boundary as from a PEC boundary and, the other one, as from a PMC boundary. This property is valid for all of its special cases, the SHDB boundary, the GSH boundary, the SH boundary and the DB boundary. Also, the PEMC boundary shares the same property whereas the most general impedance boundary doesn't. The property of PEC/PMC equivalence is most useful because, given any incident wave, the reflected wave can be easily found by decomposing the incident wave in its eigencomponents. The task is to find the restriction for the generalized impedance boundary which allows the boundary to be replaced by PEC and PMC boundaries for the respective eigenwaves.
Invoking the results of \cite{GSHDB}, the relations between tangential components of the electric and magnetic fields of incident and reflected plane waves in an isotropic medium with parameters $\epsilon_o,\mu_o$ can be written as
\e \eta_o\#H_t^i = -\=J_t\.\#E_t^i,\ \ \ \ \#E_t^i= \=J_t\.\eta_o\#H_t^i, \l{Hi}\f
\e \eta_o\#H_t^r = \=J_t\.\#E_t^r,\ \ \ \ \#E_t^r= -\=J_t\.\eta_o\#H_t^r, \l{Hr}\f
where the dyadic $\=J_t$ is defined by
\e \=J_t = \frac{1}{k_ok_3}((\#e_3\times\#k_t)\#k_t + k_3^2\#e_3\times\=I_t).\f
For an eigenfield the tangential field components are multiples of one another. Defining $\#E^r_t=\lambda\#E^i_t$, from \r{Hi} and \r{Hr} we obtain $\#H_t^r=-\lambda\#H_t^i$. Thus, the PEC and PMC boundaries correspond to the respective eigenvalues $\lambda=-1$ and $\lambda=+1$.
Let us first find under what restrictions to the four vectors $\#a_t, \#b_t, \#c_t$ and $\#d_t$ the eigenvalues corresponding to the impedance boundary \r{imp} are $+1$ and $-1$. Writing the conditions \r{imp} for the eigenfields as
\e ((1+\lambda)\eta_o\#a_t - (1-\lambda)\#b_t\.\=J_t)\.\#E_t^i = 0,\f
\e ((1+\lambda)\eta_o\#c_t - (1-\lambda)\#d_t\.\=J_t)\.\#E_t^i =0, \f
to have solutions other than $\#E_t^i=0$, the bracketed vector expressions must be parallel. Thus, the eigenvalue $\lambda$ must satisfy the equation
\e \#e_3\.((1+\lambda)\eta_o\#a_t - (1-\lambda)\#b_t\.\=J_t)\times((1+\lambda)\eta_o\#c_t- (1-\lambda)\#d_t\.\=J_t)=0. \f
Let us require that it be satisfied for $\lambda=+1$ and $\lambda=-1$, which yields the two conditions:
\e \#e_3\.(\#a_t\times\#c_t)=0 \l{eac}\f
\e \#e_3\.((\#b_t\.\=J_t)\times(\#d_t\.\=J_t))=\#e_3\.((\#b_t\times\#d_t)\.\=J{}_t^{(2)})=\#e_3\.(\#b_t\times\#d_t)=0. \l{ebd}\f
In the latter equation we use the property $\=J_t^{(2)} = \#e_3\#e_3$ and rules of dyadic algebra \cite{Methods}. \r{eac} and \r{ebd} show that, to obtain eigenvalues $\lambda=\pm1$, the tangential vectors $\#a_t$ and $\#c_t$ on one hand, and $\#b_t$ and $\#d_t$ on the other hand, must be linearly dependent, whence they must satisfy conditions of the form
\e A\#a_t+ C\#c_t=0,\ \ \ \ B\#b_t+ D\#d_t=0 \f
for some scalars $A - D$. Operating the impedance boundary conditions \r{imp} as
\e \left(\begin{array}{cc} A & C\\ B & D\end{array}\right) \left(\begin{array}{cc} \#a_t & \#b_t\\ \#c_t & \#d_t\end{array}\right)\.\left(\begin{array}{c} \#E\\ \#H\end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{c}(A\#b_t+C\#d_t)\.\#H\\ (B\#a_t+D\#c_t)\.\#E\end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{c} 0\\ 0\end{array}\right), \l{cond}\f
the required boundary conditions must reduce to the form $\#a_t'\.\#E=0$ and $\#b_t'\.\#H=0$, which can be recognized as the generalized soft-and-hard (GSH) boundary conditions \r{GSH}.
For the generalized impedance conditions \r{ximpB}, \r{ximpD}, we can make the substitutions \r{gic}, whence \r{cond} can be written as
\e \left(\begin{array}{c}(A\#b_t+C(\#d_t-\delta\#e_3\times\#k_t))\.\#H\\ (B(\#a_t+\alpha\#e_3\times\#k_t)+D\#c_t)\.\#E\end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{c} 0\\ 0\end{array}\right). \f
Applying plane-wave relations, these conditions can be expressed as
\e \left(\begin{array}{c}(A\#b_t+C\#d_t)\.\#H +\omega C\delta\#e_3\.\#D\\ (B\#a_t+D\#c_t)\.\#E + \omega B\alpha\#e_3\.\#B\end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{c} 0\\ 0\end{array}\right), \f
which have the form of the generalized soft-and-hard/DB conditions \r{GSHDB}.
\section{Conclusion}
The task taken in this paper was to find the most general linear and local boundary conditions which allow plane waves to be split in two components one of which is reflected as from the PEC boundary and, the other one, as from the PMC boundary. For this, the most general linear and local boundary conditions were first expressed in a form which can be called generalized impedance boundary conditions. Since PEC and PMC boundary conditions for a plane wave yield the reflection coefficients $\pm1$, the problem was reduced to finding out corresponding restrictions for the generalized impedance boundary. The outcome was that the generalized impedance conditions must actually be of the form of what have been called generalized soft-and-hard/DB conditions, previously studied by these authors. However, one should note that, because of the assumption of locality, there may exist other solutions as well. For example, the non-local D'B' boundary conditions \r{D'B'} are also known to share this PEC/PMC property \cite{D'B'}. While the result of this paper is mainly of theoretical interest, realizations of various boundary conditions as metasurfaces have been reported in \cite{Caloz} -- \cite{Frezza}, and applications have been pointed out in \cite{Kong08} -- \cite{Kildal09}.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:introduction}
Dark matter experiments using liquid noble detector media have placed the most stringent limits on the spin-independent WIMP-nucleon cross-section over the majority of the WIMP mass range spanning 1--1000~GeV/c$^{2}$~\cite{AkeribAraujoBaiEtAl2015}.
Calibration of the nuclear recoil signal response of the target media over the recoil energy range expected for WIMP interactions is required to understand detector efficiency for the observation of potential dark matter events.
The sensitivity of these experiments to low-mass WIMPs of mass $<$10~GeV/c$^{2}$ is strongly dependent upon the nuclear recoil response for low-energy nuclear recoils.
The low-mass WIMP signal interpretations of several recent dark matter experiments~\cite{Aalseth2013, Angloher2012, Bernabei2008} are in tension with recent exclusion limits placed by liquid xenon dark matter experiments~\cite{AkeribAraujoBaiEtAl2015, Aprile2012a}.
This tension reinforces the need for new low-energy, high-precision calibration of the nuclear recoil signal response in liquid noble detectors.
Dual-phase liquid noble time projection chambers (TPCs) detect both the scintillation and ionization resulting from a particle interaction in the target media.
The most common type of TPC used in the dark matter field uses photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) to record both the scintillation and ionization signals.
The scintillation signal (S1) is promptly detected by PMTs lining the top and bottom of the detector's active region.
The ionization signal is produced by electrons that drift to the liquid noble target surface under the influence of an applied electric field $E_{d}$.
The electrons are extracted into the gas phase via an electric field $E_{e}$, where they produce secondary scintillation light (S2) via electroluminescence.
We define the single quanta gain values relating the number of scintillation photons and ionization electrons to the corresponding observed number of detected photons as $g_1$ and $g_2$.
The variables $g_1$ and $g_2$ have units of detected-photons-per-scintillation-photon and detected-photons-per-ionization-electron, respectively.
Due to the difficulty associated with precisely calibrating the detector-specific $g_1$ value, the scintillation yield is traditionally reported in terms of \leff{}, the measured scintillation yield relative to a monoenergetic electron recoil standard candle often provided by $^{57}$Co or $^{83\textrm{m}}$Kr.
Recent large liquid noble detectors have precisely measured both $g_1$ and $g_2$ simultaneously using the anti-correlation of S1 and S2 signals~\cite{AkeribAraujoBaiEtAl2015, Akeribothers2016}.
This allows the \textit{in situ}{} calibration of both the light (\ly{}) and charge (\qy{}) yields for nuclear recoils in the absolute units of photons/\kevnr{} and electrons/\kevnr{}, respectively.
In this paper, we use the units \kevnr{} (\kevee{}) to indicate energy deposited in the form of nuclear (electronic) recoils.
Dark matter experiments have traditionally used a continuum neutron source placed adjacent to the detector's active region to obtain an \textit{in situ}{} nuclear recoil calibration.
Frequently used calibration sources include $^{252}$Cf and $^{241}$Am/Be, which are spontaneous fission and ($\alpha$,\,n) sources, respectively.
These sources emit a continuous spectrum of neutrons with energies extending up to $\sim$10~MeV, and produce a relatively featureless recoil spectrum in the energy region of interest for WIMP searches.
The large, high-energy gamma ray to neutron ratio of these sources creates unwanted electromagnetic contamination during TPC calibrations.
The emitted gamma ray to neutron ratio is ${\sim} 2$ and 0.6 for $^{252}$Cf and $^{241}$Am/Be, respectively~\cite{Knoll2000, Liu2007}.
The energy of these gamma rays is typically in the range 1--10~MeV~\cite{Hotzel1996, Murata2014}.
In the case of $^{241}$Am/Be, the ratio here is calculated for the 4.4~MeV gamma rays that are produced by the excited $^{12}$C state remaining after the $^{9}$Be($\alpha$,\,n)$^{12}$C reaction.\footnote{The rate of 60~keV gamma rays is much higher relative to the $^{241}$Am/Be neutron output: for 10$^{6}$ primary alpha particles from the $^{241}$Am decays, only 70~neutrons are emitted~\cite{Knoll2000}. The dominant gamma ray emission from $^{241}$Am alpha decays is this coincident 60~keV gamma ray; these can be more easily screened out in practice due to their low energy.}
Recently, photoneutron sources such as $^{88}$Y/Be have been used for low-energy nuclear recoil calibrations in various dark matter search technologies using the feature presented by the recoil spectrum endpoint~\cite{Collar2013}.
The ratio of gamma rays to neutrons produced by a typical $^{88}$Y/Be source is $\sim$4$\times10^{5}$ to 1~\cite{Knoll2000}.
High-Z shielding several 10~cm thick surrounding such a source is required to reduce the gamma ray rate to manageable levels for a nuclear recoil calibration.
Extracting the signal yields using such a source requires a Monte Carlo simulation, which includes a model of the initial neutron energy spectrum produced by the source and calculation of neutron energy loss in passive shielding and detector materials.
Extraction of the nuclear recoil signal yields using these sources requires precise modeling of the source neutron spectrum and scattering inside passive detector materials to create a best-fit Monte Carlo simulation comparison to the observed recoil spectrum~\cite{Sorensen2009, Horn2011, AprileAlfonsiArisakaEtAl2013}.
The energy scale in these methods is often left as a free parameter in the overall fit to the observed signal spectra.
Existing calibrations using a fixed scattering angle to set an absolute energy scale have focused on \textit{ex situ}{} calibrations using liquid noble test cells~\cite{AprileBaudisChoiEtAl2009, Manzur2010, Plante2011, CaoAlexanderAprahamianEtAl2015}.
In these experiments monoenergetic neutrons with a known direction interact in a small liquid noble detector.
Coincident pulses in a far secondary detector are used to tag valid events.
The neutron source and detector geometry is arranged to enforce a known fixed scattering angle in the liquid noble target media.
The recoil energy $E_{\textrm{nr},A}$ is determined by Eq.~\ref{eq:recoil_energy_equation}, where $m_{A}$ is atomic mass of the target element, $E_{n}$ is the incident energy of the neutron, $m_{n}$ is the mass of the neutron, and $\theta_{\textrm{CM}}$ is the scattering angle in the center-of-mass frame:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:recoil_energy_equation}
E_{\textrm{nr},A} = \zeta E_{n} \, \text{,}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where
\begin{equation} \label{eq:tof_zeta}
\zeta = \frac{4 m_{n} m_{A}}{\left(m_{n} + m_{A}\right)^{2}} \frac{\left(1 - \cos{\theta_{\textrm{CM}}}\right)}{2} \, \text{.}
\end{equation}
\noindent
The relationship between $\theta_{\textrm{CM}}$ and the scattering angle in the laboratory frame, $\theta_{\textrm{lab}}$, is given by:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:recoil_angle_cm_to_lab}
\tan{\theta_{\textrm{lab}}} = \frac{\sin{\theta_{\textrm{CM}}}}{m_{n}/m_{A} + \cos{\theta_{\textrm{CM}}}} \, \text{.}
\end{equation}
\noindent
For target elements with large atomic mass, the approximation $\theta_{\textrm{CM}} \approx \theta_{\textrm{lab}}$ is often made, and Eq.~\ref{eq:recoil_energy_equation} can be used directly.
The maximum error in recoil energy when using approximation for argon and xenon target nuclei is 5\% and 1.5\%, respectively.
This error is determined by comparing the recoil energy in Eq.~\ref{eq:recoil_energy_equation} when using the exact value of $\theta_{\textrm{CM}}$ to that calculated using the approximation $\theta_{\textrm{CM}} \approx \theta_{\textrm{lab}}$.
These \textit{ex situ}{} calibrations can suffer from several undesirable background contributions.
First, neutrons can scatter in passive materials either before or after interacting in the liquid noble test cell, and then subsequently complete the journey to the far detector.
These neutrons lose an undetermined amount of energy during their scatters in passive material and have a poorly defined scattering angle in the liquid noble test chamber.
These effects make inference of the deposited nuclear recoil energy in the target medium difficult.
Neutrons that scatter in passive materials during their journey between the liquid xenon cell and the far detector provide a similar source of background events.
Second, it is difficult to differentiate events consisting of multiple elastic scatters in the liquid noble target during single-phase operation as is typically used for \textit{ex situ}{} \ly{} studies.
These multiple elastic scatter events will have a systematic increase in the observed scintillation signal and a measured scattering angle that is no longer directly related to the path taken through the liquid noble target.
Finally, due to the physical size of the detectors, there is a systematic uncertainty associated with the range of allowed scattering angles.
It is possible to attempt to accommodate these effects on average and estimate the associated systematic uncertainties using a neutron transport Monte Carlo simulation with a model of the experimental setup, but a more direct calibration technique can eliminate these systematic uncertainties entirely.
We present a new scattering-angle-based technique for an \textit{in situ}{}, absolute nuclear recoil calibration in modern, large, liquid-noble-based TPCs used for rare event searches~\cite{Aprile2012, AlexanderAltonArisakaEtAl2013, Akerib2014, AkeribAkerlofAkimovEtAl2015}.
In this technique, neutrons of known energy and direction are fired into a large liquid noble TPC~\cite{Gaitskell2008}.
The detector's position reconstruction capabilities provide the ($x$,\,$y$,\,$z$) coordinates of each interaction in multiple-scatter events.
The calculated scattering angle provides a direct measurement of the recoil energy at each scattering vertex according to Eq.~\ref{eq:recoil_energy_equation}.
An ideal neutron source for this type of measurement should have the following characteristics:
\begin{itemize}
\item The neutron source should be compact and portable to allow deployment in deep underground laboratory space.
\item In order to precisely define $E_{n}$, the neutron source source must produce a monoenergetic energy spectrum, ideally with a width ($\sigma/\mu$) subdominant to other systematic effects contributing to spectrum broadening described in Sec.~\ref{sec:dd_proposal}.
\item To calibrate noble gas detectors in the nuclear recoil energy region of interest, the techniques described in this paper require an incident neutron beam with a mean energy between 100~keV and several MeV.
\item The total flux into $4\pi$ solid angle of the neutron source should be greater than $\sim$10$^{7}$~n/s to achieve useful calibration rates using the technique described in Sec.~\ref{sec:dd_proposal}.
A flux of $\sim$10$^{9}$~n/s or greater is advantageous for the creation of a 272~keV neutron reflector source as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:d_backscatter}.
\item The ability to pulse the neutron beam provides several advantages.
First, controlling the duty cycle provides a precise tuning mechanism for the neutron yield.
Second, the known ``beam on'' time during low duty cycle operation can provide a powerful reduction in calibration backgrounds.
Third, if neutron bunch widths of $\lesssim$10~$\mu$s are achievable, then more sensitive measurement techniques described in Sec.~\ref{sec:advanced_dd_techniques} become feasible.
\end{itemize}
Several candidate monoenergetic neutron sources are available that provide required energy, flux, and pulsing characteristics.
The endothermic $^{7}$Li(p,\,n)$^{7}$Be reaction has a Q value of $-1.644$~MeV~\cite{Csikai1987}.
This reaction can provide a source of monoenergetic neutrons of tunable mean energy by accelerating the incident protons to a fixed energy above the reaction threshold.
A dedicated proton accelerator facility is required to generate the $\sim$2~MeV protons used for this reaction.
A number of recent \textit{ex situ}{} nuclear recoil calibrations have made use of such facilities~\cite{Joshi2014, JoshiSangiorgioBernsteinEtAl2014, CaoAlexanderAprahamianEtAl2015}.
The exothermic $^{2}$H(d,\,n)$^{3}$He (\dd{}) and $^{3}$H(d,\,n)$^{4}$He (\dt{}) reactions have Q values of 3.269~MeV and 17.590~MeV, respectively~\cite{Csikai1987}.
The modest 100~kV potential typically used to accelerate deuterium ions used for these reactions can be easily generated via compact, commercially available high-voltage supplies.
It is typically possible to achieve higher neutron yields using \dt{}, due to the larger reaction cross-section for 100~keV deuterium ions; however, the 14~MeV neutrons produced by the \dt{} reaction are higher in energy than desired for low-energy nuclear recoil calibrations.
The \dd{} reaction provides neutrons with an average energy of 2.45~MeV, which is more appropriate for generating low-energy nuclear recoils with a measurable scattering angle in liquid noble targets.
We will focus on the use of a \dd{} source in the following sections.
The content is arranged as follows:
in Sec.~\ref{sec:dd_proposal} we propose a new neutron-scattering-angle-based nuclear recoil calibration technique for large liquid noble TPCs;
several potential enhancements to the newly proposed technique are described in Sec.~\ref{sec:advanced_dd_techniques}, including the creation of a monoenergetic 272~keV neutron source in Sec~\ref{sec:d_backscatter};
the neutron energy spectrum of a commercially available Adelphi Technology, Inc.\ DD108 neutron generator is measured in Sec.~\ref{sec:brown_dd_neutron_energy_spectrum_measurement} to demonstrate its suitability for the proposed nuclear recoil calibration techniques.
\section{Proposed nuclear recoil calibration using neutron scattering kinematics in a large liquid noble TPC} \label{sec:dd_proposal}
The current generation of liquid noble TPCs are commonly located at the center of large ($\mathcal{O}$(10~m) diameter) water tanks used to shield the TPC from unwanted external radioactive backgrounds during rare event searches~\cite{Agnes2015, AkeribAraujoBaiEtAl2015, AkeribAkerlofAkimovEtAl2015}.
A collimated beam of neutrons with known direction can be created by positioning a gas-filled (or evacuated) conduit inside the water tank spanning the space from the TPC cryostat to the wall of the water tank.
A monoenergetic neutron source, such as a commercially available \dd{} neutron generator, placed outside the water tank in line with the conduit can be used to provide neutrons of fixed energy and direction into the TPC.
Using a 4m-long, 5~cm diameter neutron conduit with a neutron generator producing $10^{8}$~n/s into $4\pi$ solid angle, we expect $\sim$10$^{3}$~n/s incident upon the detector.
This incident neutron rate can be finely tuned by adjusting the duty cycle using available \dd{} generator pulsing capability.
This technique exploits the self-shielding properties of large TPCs to avoid contamination due to neutron scatters in passive materials that contribute to background events in more traditional \textit{ex situ}{} scattering-angle-based measurements.
Monte Carlo simulation studies of neutron transport in a realistic experimental setup indicate that the application of simple fiducial volume cuts in line with the neutron beam projection inside the TPC can ensure that 95\% of accepted events are produced by neutrons with energies within 6\% of the initial energy at the source~\cite{Malling2014}.
The collimated \dd{} neutron beam can also function as a very effective calibration source for the distribution of S2 vs.\ S1 for nuclear recoils.
The ratio of S2 to S1 is frequently used as a discriminant between nuclear and electronic recoils in liquid noble TPCs.
The neutron conduit can be aligned near the liquid noble target surface to provide a well-collimated beam of neutrons far from the reverse field region below the detector cathode---a common source of multiple scintillation, single ionization type event contamination in nuclear recoil band calibrations~\cite{Angle2007, LebedenkoAraujoBarnesEtAl2009}.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
%
\includegraphics[width=0.480\textwidth]{conceptual_dd_scatter_diagram.pdf}
\vskip -0.1cm
\caption{
Diagram of a monoenergetic neutron scattering twice in a large TPC.
The ($x$,\,$y$,\,$z$) position of both interactions can be reconstructed to provide a measurement of the scattering angle at the first vertex, $\theta_{\textrm{lab}}$.
The prompt scintillation signals from each vertex typically overlap in the event record, but may be separately resolvable in some cases.
The ionization signal from each vertex can be individually resolved in the event record for interactions separated in $z$ by a few mm.
The signal generation and reconstruction parameters for liquid argon and xenon are listed in Table~\ref{tab:noble_liquid_tpc_parameters}.
The nuclear recoil energy at the first scattering vertex can be reconstructed using the measured $\theta_{\textrm{lab}}$.
The observed signals and measured energy at the first vertex provide a direct measurement of the signal yields.
}
\vskip -0.5cm
\label{fig:conceptual_dd_scatter_diagram}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\medskip
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\begin{threeparttable}
\centering
\caption{
Relevant dual-phase liquid noble TPC parameters for liquid argon and xenon.
}
\label{tab:noble_liquid_tpc_parameters}
\begin{tabular*}{\linewidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} lcc}
\toprule
{Noble Target Characteristic} & {Ar \tnote{a}} & {Xe \tnote{b}} \\
\midrule
2.45~MeV total mean free path [cm] & 15 & 13 \\
2.45~MeV elastic mean free path [cm] & 19 & 20 \\
272~keV total mean free path [cm] & 18 & 14 \\
272~keV elastic mean free path [cm] & 18 & 15 \\
singlet lifetime [ns] & 6 \tnote{c} & 3.1 \tnote{d} \\
triplet lifetime [ns] & $1.6 \times 10^{3}$ \tnote{c} & 24 \tnote{d} \\
e$^{-}$ drift velocity in large TPCs [mm/$\mu$s] & $0.93 \pm 0.01$ (200~V/cm) \tnote{e} & $1.51 \pm 0.01$ (180~V/cm) \tnote{f} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular*}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[a] Mean free paths calculated for $^{40}$Ar (99.6\% relative abundance) using Ref.~\cite{ShibataIwamotoNakagawaEtAl2011}.
\item[b] Mean free paths calculated for natural Xe using Ref.~\cite{ShibataIwamotoNakagawaEtAl2011}.
\item[c]~\cite{Hitachi1983}
\item[d]~\cite{MockBarryKazkazEtAl2014}
\item[e]~\cite{Agnes2015}
\item[f]~\cite{Akerib2014}
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
\medskip
The direct extraction of the signal yields depends upon the time structure of the S1 and S2 signals from each scattering vertex in the event record.
For scattering vertices separated by several mm in $z$, the S2 signal from each scattering vertex can be individually resolved in noble targets given the typically-achieved electron drift velocities of 1--2~mm/$\mu$s reported in Table~\ref{tab:noble_liquid_tpc_parameters}.
The ionization yield, \qy{}, of the target medium can be directly probed with an absolute measurement of nuclear recoil energy by fully reconstructing the scattering angle for multiple-vertex events and using the corresponding S2 information from each individual vertex.
Recent large TPCs using argon and xenon as the target media have achieved ($x$,\,$y$) position reconstruction uncertainties of $\mathcal{O}$(1~cm)~\cite{Brodsky2015, Faham2014} using the position reconstruction algorithm described in Ref.~\cite{SolovovBelovAkimovEtAl2012}.
The short timescale of the prompt S1 light makes direct extraction of the scintillation yield, \ly{}, more involved for some target media.
The 2.45~MeV neutrons produced by the \dd{} reaction have a velocity of 2.2~cm/ns.
In the case of liquid xenon, the similar singlet and triplet lifetimes in Table~\ref{tab:noble_liquid_tpc_parameters} combine to produce an S1 pulse envelope with a decay time of 20--30~ns.
The 45~ns time constant for electron-ion recombination in xenon is suppressed due to the drift field~\cite{Doke1999}.
Even the longest path lengths available in the current generation of liquid noble TPCs of $\sim$1~m provide a time separation between interactions that competes with the characteristic time constant of the S1 pulses themselves, leading to S1 pulse overlap in the event record.
Due to the large time difference between the singlet (6~ns) and triplet (1.6~$\mu$s) lifetimes for argon, the time structure of the prompt S1 light is dominated by photons produced by the singlet state; it may be possible to separate the singlet S1 contribution from each vertex in multiple-scatter events in that target media.
A direct, absolute calibration of \ly{} in multiple-scatter data using the observed neutron scattering angles can be achieved via a comparison of the S1 photon arrival times to the expected S1 pulse time structure given the location of the multiple neutron scattering vertices.
The measured S1 photon contribution from each vertex of known energy can be extracted via a maximum-likelihood-based comparison.
This pulse envelope time structure analysis promises to be more powerful when combined with the techniques described in Sec.~\ref{sec:advanced_dd_techniques}.
Alternatively, the scintillation yield can be extracted from the sample of single neutron scatters in line with the neutron beam projection in the TPC.
The absolutely calibrated S2 yield from the multiple-scatter \dd{} technique can be used to set the energy scale for observed single-scatter (1x S1, 1x S2) events, which allows for a precise extraction of the light yield via comparison with Monte Carlo simulation.
\section{Extension of the technique providing lower measured recoil energies and reduced calibration uncertainties} \label{sec:advanced_dd_techniques}
\subsection{Reduction of neutron bunch time structure} \label{sec:dd_short_pulse}
The neutron output of many commercially available \dd{} neutron generators can be pulsed.
The duration and frequency of the neutron pulses can be controlled using an external pulse generator.
The neutron generator model used in Sec.~\ref{sec:brown_dd_neutron_energy_spectrum_measurement} supports a nominal minimum pulse width of 100~$\mu$s.
Alternative pulsing solutions exist to provide neutron pulses with a duration as short as 1~ns to 1~$\mu$s~\cite{Csikai1987}.
Reducing the neutron bunch width time structure provides two powerful improvements over the technique described in Sec.~\ref{sec:dd_proposal}.
First, narrowing the time envelope of the neutron pulse improves background rejection proportionally to the duty cycle.
Only events with prompt signals consistent with the generator pulse time and neutron propagation time to the detector are valid nuclear recoil candidates.
This allows rejection of backgrounds due to accidental coincidences and other spurious signals, which become increasingly prevalent when working close to threshold during the analysis of small nuclear recoil signals.
This delivers a lower energy threshold and reduced systematics for the calibration signal event set.
Second, when the neutron pulse width becomes sufficiently narrow, it can be used to establish the $t_{0}$ for the electron drift of a scattering event.
This $t_{0}$ information is traditionally provided by the S1 in dual-phase TPCs.
Establishing the $t_{0}$ independently of the observation of an S1 signal permits the investigation of the S2 associated with neutron scatter events that are so low in recoil energy that the associated S1 signal is typically undetected.
In liquid xenon, we expect this to potentially extend the S2 signal yield studies down to $\mathcal{O}$(100~\evnr{}).
This ultra-low-energy charge yield calibration technique is significant for determining the sensitivity of TPC experiments to low-mass WIMPs using S2-only searches.
The $z$ position of a particle interaction in these detectors is typically determined by measuring the electron drift time using the pulse timing information provided by the S1 and S2 signals.
The known electron drift velocity (Table~\ref{tab:noble_liquid_tpc_parameters}) for a given electric drift field $\vec{E_{d}}$ applied across the target media allows the reconstruction of the $z$ position with a precision of ${\sim} 1$~mm.
A reduction in the neutron bunch width time structure to 10~$\mu$s will provide position reconstruction of S2-only events in the $z$ dimension with a resolution of roughly 2~cm, similar to the ($x$,\,$y$) reconstruction precision provided by PMT top array hit-pattern analysis of S2 signals.
The ability to reconstruct S2-only events to high precision in three dimensions allows for the identification of candidate S2-only events that are consistent with a neutron interaction in the detector given the expected drift time for events in line with the beam pipe.
It is then possible to determine the number of single-scatter events with zero detected photons for a given observed S2 pulse size.
This allows for an additional \ly{} calibration technique providing stronger statistical constraints on the S1 yield.
Further narrowing the neutron bunch to a width of \ensuremath{\mathcal{O}}{(100~ns)} or shorter may be possible.
This improved time definition of the neutron pulse would permit the use of time-of-flight (ToF) energy tagging for neutrons generated by the \dd{} source.
The neutrons of interest for this type of calibration scatter in a deliberately positioned hydrogenous moderator outside of the water tank near the neutron generator, yielding a sample of neutrons with a broad spectrum of kinetic energies traveling down the beam pipe to the TPC.
The measured ToF would then provide the neutron kinetic energy on a per-event basis.
The calculated ToF for neutrons from 1--2450~keV is shown in Table~\ref{tab:neutron_tof_energy_dependence}.
Assuming a 4~m beam path from the hydrogenous moderator to the TPC active region, moderated neutrons ranging from 1--2450~keV would have an expected ToF between 200~ns and 10~$\mu$s.
It may be possible to use a fast organic scintillator such as BC501A as the hydrogenous moderator, and establish the neutron ToF $t_{0}$ using the organic scintillator pulse.
\medskip
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{
The time-of-flight (ToF) dependence upon neutron energy.
The corresponding nuclear recoil spectrum endpoint energy in argon and xenon is given in columns three and four, respectively.
}
\label{tab:neutron_tof_energy_dependence}
\begin{tabular*}{\columnwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} SSSS}
\toprule
{$E_{n}$ [keV]} & {ToF [ns/m]} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Maximum Recoil [\kevnr{}]} \\
\cmidrule{3-4}
& & {Ar} & {Xe} \\
\midrule
1 & 2286 & 0.1 & 0.03 \\
10 & 723 & 1 & 0.3 \\
100 & 229 & 10 & 3 \\
272 & 139 & 26 & 8 \\
1000 & 72 & 96 & 30 \\
2450 & 46 & 235 & 74 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular*}
\end{table}
\medskip
\subsection{Reduction in neutron energy using a deuterium-loaded reflector} \label{sec:d_backscatter}
The technique described in this section can provide an inexpensive and portable quasi-monoenergetic source 272~keV neutrons that can be used to extend the kinematic calibration (described in Sec.~\ref{sec:dd_proposal}) nearly an order of magnitude lower in energy.
This lower-energy source is well matched to the nuclear recoil energy region used for low-mass WIMP searches and the expected coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (CENNS) signal in upcoming large liquid noble dark matter detectors~\cite{Strigari2009, BillardFigueroa-FelicianoStrigari2014}.
\subsubsection{A monoenergetic 272~keV neutron source}
A beam of quasi-monoenergetic 272~keV neutrons can be obtained by positioning a deuterium-loaded material (the ``reflector'') behind the \dd{} neutron generator, directly in line with the neutron collimation conduit leading to the TPC (see Fig.~\ref{fig:deuterium_backscatter_reflector_sim_geometry}).
The limited solid angle presented by the neutron conduit is used to collect neutrons that scatter in the deuterium-loaded reflector with a scattering angle of $\sim$180$^{\circ}$.
Deuterium is an optimal reflector material; its low atomic mass provides the most significant reduction in neutron energy possible for $\sim$180$^{\circ}$ elastic scatters~\cite{Gaitskell2015}---larger energy reductions from neutron scatters on $^{1}$H are discussed addressed below.
These reflected neutrons have a minimum kinetic energy of 272~keV.
In addition, a double-scatter (both scatters must be neutron-deuteron) elastic scattering event with a summed scattering angle of 180$^{\circ}$ within the deuterium-loaded reflector also provides an outgoing 272~keV neutron.
Although neutron-hydrogen scattering can result in neutron energies below 272~keV, all neutron scatters when using hydrogen are in the forward direction with a scattering angle of 0--90$^{\circ}$ in the lab frame.
With a hydrogen reflector, small variations in the neutron scattering angle produce large fluctuations in reflected neutron energy.
In contrast, using direct backscatters provided by deuterium's significant differential scattering cross-section at 180$^{\circ}$ suppresses the effects of variations in scattering angle, and provides a better defined quasi-monoenergetic neutron beam.
Deuterium has the largest cross-section for 180$^{\circ}$ scatters of all potential reflector materials.
The $\times 9$ reduction in the neutron beam energy provided by the deuterium reflector has several advantages for low-energy nuclear recoil calibration.
The use of 272~keV neutrons provides a reduction in the uncertainty associated with kinematic energy reconstruction for low-energy events.
A 1~\kevnr{} nuclear recoil produced by a 2.45~MeV neutron in liquid xenon corresponds to a neutron scattering angle of 13$^{\circ}$, which is a 4.6~cm deflection over a length of 20~cm.
By comparison, a 1~\kevnr{} nuclear recoil produced by a 272~keV neutron in liquid xenon has a scattering angle of 41$^{\circ}$, which is a 14~cm deflection over the same vertex separation.
In large liquid xenon TPCs, the typical uncertainty associated with ($x$,\,$y$) position reconstruction of each vertex in events of this nuclear recoil is 1--3~cm~\cite{Verbus2016}.
We estimate that in the 1--4~\kevnr{} range, the ($\sigma/\mu$) resolution for angle-based recoil energy reconstruction may be improved by a factor of $\times 2$ due to this increase in the average scattering angle for a given recoil energy.
The increased scattering angle for nuclear recoils of a given energy improves the efficiency of the detection of calibration events below 1~\kevnr{}.
This improved efficiency allows the technique to directly measure recoil energies of $\mathcal{O}$(100~\evnr{}) in liquid xenon, where the expectation is $\sim$1 ionization electrons at 180~V/cm~\cite{Verbus2016}.
This neutron reflection technique reduces the neutron flux incident on the TPC by $\times 1/450$ compared to the direct \dd{} source calibration described in Sec.~\ref{sec:dd_proposal} when using similar neutron generator operating parameters and experimental geometry.
The reduction of the relative event rate in the TPC can be more than compensated for by the use of the following techniques:
\begin{enumerate}[i.]
\item Increase the \dd{} source neutron flux from $10^{7}$~n/s to $10^{9}$~n/s.
\item Expand the neutron conduit diameter from 5~cm to 15~cm.
For a typical experimental configuration, this larger neutron conduit diameter increases the angular acceptance from ${\pm} 0.4^{\circ}$ to ${\pm} 1^{\circ}$, which provides $\times 9$ greater neutron flux.
The diameter of the reflector can also be correspondingly increased by a factor of $\times 3$.
The combination of these effects provides a $\times 60$ increase in the neutron flux entering the TPC for the dimensions shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:deuterium_backscatter_reflector_sim_geometry}.
\item The larger differential scattering cross-section in xenon for 272~keV neutrons compared to 2.45~MeV neutrons provides a $\times2.5$ increase in the low-energy recoil rate.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Simulation of the deuterium-loaded neutron reflector}
In order to optimize the technique and select the best type of deuterium-based reflector, a series of Geant4-based~\cite{AgostinelliAllisonAmakoEtAl2003} (Geant4 version 4.9.4.p04 using G4NDL3.14) simulations using the geometry shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:deuterium_backscatter_reflector_sim_geometry} were performed.
To eliminate contamination at the TPC from 2.45~MeV neutrons, the \dd{} neutron generator must have a non-zero offset from the center of the calibration conduit leading to the TPC.
Given the dimensions in Fig.~\ref{fig:deuterium_backscatter_reflector_sim_geometry} and a generator head offset of 5~cm from the beam line, reflected neutrons collected by the neutron conduit have a mean energy of 290~keV.
The neutron generator offset, reflector length, reflector size, and reflector type were varied to study the effects on the resultant neutron energy spectrum at the TPC.
Each simulated reflector configuration was evaluated based on both the number of reflected neutrons reaching the TPC within a usable energy band and the beam contamination from neutrons of other energies.
The figure of merit for the energy contamination study was the ratio of the number of neutrons entering the TPC with energies within $\pm$10\% of the reflected neutron peak to the number with energies $<$1~MeV, henceforth referred to as ``beam purity.''
Nuclear recoils from neutrons entering the TPC with energies $>$1~MeV can be rejected in analysis based upon the size of the ionization signal relative to the measured scattering angle.
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{deuterium_backscatter_reflector_sim_geometry.pdf}
\vskip -0.1cm
\caption{
Simulation geometry setup for neutron reflector studies.
Neutrons produced by the \dd{} source elastically scatter through an angle $\sim$180$^{\circ}$ in the deuterium reflector and are selected by the solid angle of the neutron conduit.
The reflector material type, length, and radius as well as the generator head offset were individually varied to determine the optimal configuration.
The neutron generator must be placed out of line with the neutron conduit to eliminate line-of-sight 2.45 MeV neutrons from the \dd{} source entering the TPC.
}
\vskip -0.5cm
\label{fig:deuterium_backscatter_reflector_sim_geometry}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Three potential reflector types were considered in this study: gaseous D$_{2}$, liquid D$_{2}$, and heavy water (D$_{2}$O).
The gaseous D$_{2}$ reflector was simulated with a gas pressure achievable in existing cylinders (340~bar, density of 0.047~g/cm$^{3}$) and with the surrounding container materials from an available commercial product (the Luxfer T45J, a carbon-fiber-based cylinder).
The impact of varying container thicknesses for a gaseous D$_{2}$ reflector was studied.
The liquid D$_{2}$ reflector (density of 0.16~g/cm$^{3}$) was simulated without containment to demonstrate the highest achievable performance.
Simulations of pure (gaseous or liquid) D$_{2}$ reflectors were used to independently vary aspects of the geometry (such as reflector radius, length, orientation, end cap shape, density, generator offset and conduit radius) to determine the impact of each parameter on the resulting neutron spectrum at the TPC.
The heavy water reflector (D$_{2}$O) was simulated without containment; its container can be negligibly thin-walled in practice.
The effects due to the oxygen atoms in the D$_{2}$O were studied.
Representative simulation results comparing gaseous D$_{2}$ and D$_{2}$O reflector media with a 5~cm offset neutron generator head are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:gD2_vs_D2O_comparison}.
The gaseous D$_{2}$ and D$_{2}$O reflectors were set to have an identical orientation and position for both simulation trials.
The low-energy neutron peak produced by both types of reflector media is visible at $\sim$300~keV.
The two peaks observed at higher energy in the gaseous D$_{2}$ and D$_{2}$O simulations are produced by neutrons that interact with passive container materials and neutron-oxygen scatters in the reflector, respectively.
The energy purity figure of merit is nearly identical for gaseous D$_{2}$ and D$_{2}$O (57\% purity in D$_{2}$ compared to 60\% in D$_{2}$O); however, the use of the D$_{2}$O results in a $\times 2.3$ increase in the reflected neutron flux over gaseous D$_{2}$ within $\pm$10\% of the reflected neutron peak after collimation.
D$_{2}$O is a more favorable reflector material based upon the defined energy purity and neutron flux criteria when compared to a gaseous D$_{2}$ reflector at the pressures achievable using thin-walled commercially available containment (Luxfer's T45J cylinder).
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{gD2_vs_D2O_comparison.pdf}
\vskip -0.1cm
\caption{
Gaseous D$_{2}$ cylinder vs.\ D$_{2}$O reflected neutron spectrum comparison.
The simulated energy spectra of neutrons incident upon the TPC are shown after scattering in either the gaseous D$_{2}$ (blue dashed-dotted) or D$_{2}$O (gray solid) reflectors.
The gaseous D$_{2}$ reflector used a container geometry based upon the Luxfer T45J carbon fiber cylinder.
}
\vskip -0.5cm
\label{fig:gD2_vs_D2O_comparison}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Representative simulation results comparing the D$_{2}$O and liquid D$_{2}$ reflector media are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:D2O_vs_LD2_comparison}.
The liquid D$_{2}$ reflector modestly outperformed both the gaseous D$_{2}$ and D$_{2}$O reflectors in terms of energy purity (67\%).
The liquid D$_{2}$ also provided the largest low-energy neutron flux incident upon the TPC.
In addition, the liquid D$_{2}$ can better scale to larger reflector sizes---with correspondingly larger low-energy quasi-monoenergetic neutron fluxes incident on the TPC---than the D$_{2}$O reflector for which the useful size is limited due to off-energy neutron contamination from neutron interactions with oxygen atoms in the reflector media.
These results indicate that a liquid D$_{2}$ reflector could potentially exceed the performance of a D$_{2}$O reflector; however, pure D$_{2}$ targets require a significantly more complex experimental setup.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{D2O_vs_LD2_comparison.pdf}
\vskip -0.1cm
\caption{
Liquid D$_{2}$ vs.\ D$_{2}$O reflected neutron spectrum comparison.
The simulated energy spectra of neutrons incident upon the TPC are shown after scattering in either the liquid D$_{2}$ (red dotted) or D$_{2}$O (gray solid) reflectors.
}
\vskip -0.5cm
\label{fig:D2O_vs_LD2_comparison}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{TPC calibration backgrounds when using the deuterium neutron reflector}
Neutrons interacting with materials other than deuterium in the reflector setup provide a source of high-energy neutron contamination in the neutron energy spectrum at the TPC.
Secondary oxygen recoils in the D$_{2}$O reflector create a high-energy neutron background that scales with the reflector mass.
A size restriction on effective D$_{2}$O based reflector is set by the neutron mean free path between oxygen recoils in the reflector media.
Increasing both the D$_{2}$O reflector diameter and the neutron conduit diameter from 5~cm to 15~cm results in a $\times 60$ increase in flux.
This increase in flux comes at the cost of neutron energy purity; there is more than a $\times 2.1$ drop in the beam purity due to oxygen recoils in the reflector.
For comparison, a liquid D$_{2}$ reflector enlarged in the same way results in an equivalent proportional flux increase, but only a $\times 1.6$ reduction in beam purity.
It was found that the performance of the gaseous D$_{2}$ reflector can also be improved by increasing the D$_{2}$ density and by reducing the containment wall thicknesses.
While a D$_{2}$O reflector is currently the most effective and easily deployable option, the scaling properties and lack of oxygen in the reflector media make pure D$_{2}$ reflectors a compelling topic for further study.
A simulation of the water shielding surrounding the neutron conduit was used to estimate the relative magnitude of contaminating background effects due to neutrons scattering in the water.
For a \dd{} source with a 5~cm offset from the neutron conduit, 13\% of the neutrons entering the TPC have lost energy in the water shield.
The simulation indicates that 90\% of the neutrons entering the TPC after losing energy in the water are either substantially above ($>$1000~keV) or substantially below ($<$1~keV) the energy region of interest for reflected neutrons and would not interfere with TPC calibration.
The result is that 98\% of neutrons entering the TPC in the energy range 1--1000~keV are direct neutrons from the deuterium reflector.
Additional possible contamination from neutrons that have scattered in the D-D source hardware can be suppressed by ensuring the neutron generator assembly is sufficiently out of line with the neutron conduit.
A notch in the $^{56}$Fe neutron scattering cross-section at 274 keV suggests a method for improving the energy distribution of reflected neutrons.
The notch is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fe56_total_neutron_cross_section}.
A similar neutron energy filter technique was used in Ref.~\cite{Joshi2014}.
By placing a 2.5~cm radius iron cylinder in line between the generator and the neutron conduit, all neutrons except those at the desired low-energy peak can be eliminated at the cost of neutron beam intensity.
This effect can be used to reduce contamination from off-energy neutrons and improve the width of the energy distribution of neutrons entering the TPC.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fe56_total_neutron_cross_section.pdf}
\vskip -0.1cm
\caption{
The total neutron cross-section for $^{56}$Fe evaluated using the ENDF/B-VII.1 nuclear database~\cite{ChadwickHermanOblozinskyEtAl2011}.
}
\vskip -0.5cm
\label{fig:fe56_total_neutron_cross_section}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Direct scintillation yield measurement using the S1 photon arrival time structure} \label{sec:direct_s1_yield_photon_time_structure}
Analysis of the S1 pulse envelope time structure can provide a direct \ly{} calibration using the measured scattering angle between neutron interactions.
For double-scatter events in the TPC with a given vertex separation, the time separation between the S1 signals from each scatter in the event record is ${\propto} 1 / \sqrt{E_{n}}$ as determined by the neutron travel time between interactions in the target media.
The ToF for a variety of neutron energies is shown in Table~\ref{tab:neutron_tof_energy_dependence}.
We will use a 50~cm path between neutron interactions as a benchmark value---a length comfortably contained within the liquid noble target of upcoming TPCs~\cite{AkeribAkerlofAkimovEtAl2015}.
For the direct 2.45~MeV neutrons from the \dd{} source, a double-scatter event with 50~cm of separation between neutron interactions in the TPC has a 23~ns difference between the time of the first and second scatters.
After scattering once, the probability of a 2.45~MeV neutron traveling $\geq 50$~cm before scattering again in the target media is 2\% for xenon and 4\% for argon, based upon the total mean free path values in Table~\ref{tab:noble_liquid_tpc_parameters}.
Given the time constants for S1 signal generation in Table~\ref{tab:noble_liquid_tpc_parameters}, it is possible to perform a likelihood-based analysis on the pulse shape envelope of the scintillation signal to determine the photon contribution from the first scatter.
As mentioned in Sec.~\ref{sec:dd_proposal}, argon scintillation lends itself particularly well to this technique due to the short lifetime of the singlet S1 component.
A more clear identification of the S1 contributions from the first and second scatters is made possible when using 272~keV neutrons produced by the reflector source described in Sec.~\ref{sec:d_backscatter}.
The corresponding time difference over the same 50~cm path length between scatters when using 272~keV neutrons is 70~ns.
This $\times 3$ reduction in neutron velocity compared to the direct 2.45~MeV neutrons from the \dd{} source provides sufficient time separation to clearly identify the S1 photons from each individual interaction in a liquid noble TPC.
After scattering once, the probability of a 272~keV neutron traveling $\geq 50$~cm before scattering again in the target media is 3\% for xenon and 5\% for argon, based upon the total mean free path values in Table~\ref{tab:noble_liquid_tpc_parameters}.
The scattering-angle-based measurement of the recoil energy at the first scattering vertex can be compared to the observed number of S1 photons from that interaction to provide a direct measurement of the \ly{} similar to the \qy{} measurement described in Sec.~\ref{sec:dd_proposal}.
\section{D-D neutron generator energy spectrum measurement} \label{sec:brown_dd_neutron_energy_spectrum_measurement}
A monoenergetic source of neutrons is required to perform the absolute calibrations described in Sec.~\ref{sec:dd_proposal} and Sec.~\ref{sec:advanced_dd_techniques}.
Commercially available \dd{} neutron generators meet all of the criteria outlined in Sec.~\ref{sec:introduction}.
In this section, we characterize the neutron energy spectrum produced by an Adelphi Technology, Inc.\ DD108 neutron generator using neutron ToF over a known distance to determine its suitability as a neutron source for the proposed kinematics-based TPC calibrations~\cite{Vainionpaa2013, Vainionpaa2014}.
\subsection{Adelphi Technology, Inc.\ DD108 neutron generator}
The DD108 is a beam-on-target \dd{} neutron generator with a nominal maximum neutron output of $10^8$~n/s.
Inside the DD108, deuterium ions are accelerated across a $\sim$100~kV potential difference into a titanium-coated copper target as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dd108_beam_target.pdf}.
The incident deuterium ions chemically bond with the titanium coating.
Subsequent incident deuterium ions fuse with the captured deuterium in the target and produce neutrons into 4$\pi$ solid angle via the $^{2}$H(d,\,n)He$^{3}$ reaction.
The mean outgoing neutron energy and flux are functions of the incident deuterium ion energy.
The neutron energy and flux are also dependent upon the angle between the deuterium ion beam and the outgoing neutron direction~\cite{Csikai1987}.
The neutron flux varies by about a factor of $\times 2$ as a function of polar angle relative to the \dd{} generator beam target.
The neutron energy as a function of angle relative to the deuterium ion beam is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dd_neutron_energy_vs_angle} for a range of acceleration potentials.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.480\textwidth]{dd108_beam_target.pdf}
\vskip -0.1cm
\caption{
A conceptual diagram of the copper V-shaped beam target of the DD108 neutron generator.
The deuterium ion beam is incident upon the target from the top of the figure.
The ToF energy spectrum measurements were made at $\theta = \pi/2$.
The ToF measurement at Target Orientation A ($\phi = 0$) was off-axis with the target V, and Target Orientation B ($\phi = -\pi/2$) was on-axis with the target V.
This $\pi/2$ variation in $\phi$ between the off-axis and on-axis measurements was used to quantify any variation in the neutron spectrum due to the asymmetry of the neutron production surface.
}
\vskip -0.5cm
\label{fig:dd108_beam_target.pdf}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
%
\includegraphics[width=0.480\textwidth]{dd_neutron_energy_vs_angle.pdf}
\vskip -0.1cm
\caption{
The neutron energy produced by the $^2$H(d,\,n)$^3$He fusion reaction as a function of angle.
We show this function for several incident deuterium ion energies.
The dependence of the neutron energy on the acceleration potential can be reduced by using neutrons produced at $\pi/2$ relative to the deuterium ion beam.
Figure produced using information from Ref.~\cite{Csikai1987}.
}
\vskip -0.5cm
\label{fig:dd_neutron_energy_vs_angle}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The physical size and shape of the deuterium ion beam target can have an effect on the mean energy and width ($\sigma$/$\mu$) of the neutron spectrum produced due in part to deuterium ion straggling in the target material before neutron production~\cite{Csikai1987}.
The DD108 target is V-shaped, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dd108_beam_target.pdf}, to present an increased surface area to the incident deuterium ion beam for heat dissipation purposes.
The dependence of the observed neutron spectrum upon the kinetic energy of the accelerated deuterium ion can be reduced by using outgoing neutrons at $\theta = \pi/2$ relative to the generator ion beam for nuclear recoil calibration purposes.
The neutron spectrum was measured using two separate DD108 target orientations to quantify any effects due to target asymmetry, and determine if there is an optimal configuration for the nuclear recoil calibrations described in Sec.~\ref{sec:dd_proposal} and Sec.~\ref{sec:advanced_dd_techniques}.
Target Orientation A ($\theta = \pi/2$, $\phi = 0$) measured the ToF spectrum of neutrons escaping perpendicular to the axis of the V-target, and Target Orientation B ($\theta = \pi/2$, $\phi = -\pi/2$) did the same for neutrons escaping parallel to the axis of the V-target.
The only gamma rays produced in the generator are via the $^2$H(d,\,$\gamma$)$^4$He reaction with an energy of 23.84~MeV, which is suppressed by a factor of ${\sim} 10^{-7}$ relative to the neutron production rate~\cite{Wilkinson1985}.
This corresponds to roughly 10 $\gamma$/s when operating at the nominal maximum DD108 neutron yield of $10^{8}$~n/s.
Electrons liberated by ion impacts on the target can back-stream across the 125~kV potential in the neutron generator and produce bremsstrahlung x-rays upon interaction with structural materials~\cite{IAEA2012}.
The V-shaped beam target is surrounded by a shroud electrode biased to a slightly higher voltage in order to prevent x-ray production or hardware damage by collecting the back-streaming electrons.
The neutron output of the Brown DD108 was measured over a wide range of operating parameters by the vendor.
The measured neutron yield as a function of acceleration voltage is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:brown_dd108_params_yield_vs_accel_voltage} for three different levels of power delivered to the deuterium plasma by the magnetron.
An order of magnitude of dynamic range in neutron yield can be obtained by adjusting the acceleration high voltage.
The increase in neutron flux is due to the increasing cross-section of the \dd{} reaction with deuterium ion energy.
The acceleration current, a measure of the number of deuterium ions on target, remains constant as the acceleration voltage is increased.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
%
\includegraphics[width=0.480\textwidth]{brown_dd108_params_yield_vs_accel_voltage.pdf}
\vskip -0.1cm
\caption{
The measured neutron yield vs.\ acceleration voltage for the Brown DD108 neutron generator.
The blue ($\bigcirc$), red ($\bigtriangledown$), and black ($\bigtriangleup$) curves represent data collected with the magnetron delivering 274~W, 376~W, and 496~W, respectively, to the deuterium plasma.
The neutron rate shown in blue drops off scale at 40~kV in the top frame to 0~n/s.
The neutron generator was operating continuously (duty cycle of 1).
The plasma pressure was measured to be 4.3--4.4~mTorr for all three measurements.
Data provided by Adelphi Technology, Inc.\ and produced here with permission~\cite{AdelphiTechnologyPrivate}.
We estimate a factor of $\sim$2 uncertainty on the total neutron rate.
}
\vskip -0.5cm
\label{fig:brown_dd108_params_yield_vs_accel_voltage}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Pulsing of the neutron output is achieved by deuterium ion source control.
Magnetron operation is pulsed for fine adjustment of neutron bunch width using a TTL control signal.
The pulse width and frequency can be arbitrarily varied to achieve the desired yield and time profile subject to the nominal minimum pulse width of 100~$\mu$s.
The measured neutron yield and acceleration current is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:brown_dd108_params_yield_vs_duty_cycle} as a function of duty cycle for three distinct pulse width modes.
In contrast to Fig.~\ref{fig:brown_dd108_params_yield_vs_accel_voltage}, the acceleration current scales linearly with increasing duty cycle tracking the measured neutron flux.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
%
\includegraphics[width=0.480\textwidth]{brown_dd108_params_yield_vs_duty_cycle.pdf}
\vskip -0.1cm
\caption{
The measured neutron yield vs.\ duty cycle during pulsed operation for the Brown DD108 neutron generator.
The blue ($\bigcirc$), red ($\bigtriangledown$), and black ($\bigtriangleup$) curves represent magnetron pulse widths of 5~ms, 1~ms, and 100~us, respectively.
The other operating parameters were held approximately constant: $V_{\textrm{HV}} = 100$~kV, $I_{m} = 70$~mA.
The power delivered to the deuterium plasma by the magnetron was measured to be 320--330~W during these measurements.
The plasma pressure for each of the three measurements was measured to be in the range 4.2--4.5~mTorr.
Data provided by Adelphi Technology, Inc.\ and produced here with permission~\cite{AdelphiTechnologyPrivate}.
We estimate a factor of $\sim$2 uncertainty on the total neutron rate.
}
\vskip -0.5cm
\label{fig:brown_dd108_params_yield_vs_duty_cycle}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The neutron flux and acceleration current are shown as a function of deuterium plasma pressure in Fig.~\ref{fig:brown_dd108_params_yield_vs_plasma_pressure}.
The maximum neutron yield is achieved at a plasma pressure of $\sim$5~mTorr.
There are fewer available deuterium ions at lower plasma pressures, which reduces the neutron flux.
At higher plasma pressures, the fraction of singly ionized molecular deuterium molecules (primarily D$_{2}^{+}$ and D$_{3}^{+}$) increases.
The energy provided by the acceleration potential is split between the atoms in molecular deuterium projectiles incident upon the target~\cite{IAEA2012}.
On average, the reduced energy per deuterium atom provides a lower cross-section for the nuclear \dd{} reaction and results in a lower neutron flux.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
%
\includegraphics[width=0.480\textwidth]{brown_dd108_params_yield_vs_plasma_pressure.pdf}
\vskip -0.1cm
\caption{
The measured neutron yield vs.\ plasma pressure for the Brown DD108 neutron generator.
The black ($\bigtriangleup$) curve in the top frame shows the measured neutron flux as a function of plasma pressure.
The red ($\bigtriangledown$) curve in the bottom frame shows the corresponding acceleration current.
The neutron generator was operating continuously (duty cycle of 1).
The other operating parameters were held constant: $V_{\textrm{HV}} = 110$~kV, $I_{m} = 69$~mA.
The power delivered to the deuterium plasma by the magnetron was 320~W.
Data provided by Adelphi Technology, Inc.\ and produced here with permission~\cite{AdelphiTechnologyPrivate}.
We estimate a factor of $\sim$2 uncertainty on the total neutron rate.
}
\vskip -0.5cm
\label{fig:brown_dd108_params_yield_vs_plasma_pressure}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Time-of-flight experimental setup}
The ToF experimental setup shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:20150306_brown_neutron_generator_spectrum_experiment_diagram} was used to assay the energy spectrum of neutrons produced by the DD108 neutron generator.
A similar experimental configuration has been used by others for studies of the NaI(Tl) nuclear recoil quenching factor~\cite{Chagani2008, Collar2013a}.
\begin{figure*}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{brown_neutron_generator_spectrum_experiment_diagram.pdf}
\vskip -0.1cm
\caption{
The experimental setup for the neutron ToF measurement performed at Brown University.
The DD108 is shown at right encapsulated in borated polyethylene (green).
The angled neutron collimation tube is depicted in gray inside the 2~m diameter water tank, with the 7.6~cm NaI(Tl) detector at the vertex (yellow circle).
The far BC501A detector is shown in purple with surrounding Pb and borated polyethylene shielding.
The incident neutrons from the generator accepted by the collimation path are represented by the black dotted line, and the 3~m ToF measurement path is shown by the red dashed line.
}
\vskip -0.5cm
\label{fig:20150306_brown_neutron_generator_spectrum_experiment_diagram}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
The neutron generator was encapsulated in $\sim$10~cm of borated polyethylene shielding with an opening to provide a beam of unmoderated neutrons.
A 4~mm-thick Pb sheet was used to suppress bremsstrahlung x-rays produced by the device.
A 10~cm diameter air-filled conduit was submerged in a 2~m diameter water tank to provide a kinked collimation path subtending an angle of 114$^{\circ}$.
This angled air-filled conduit enforced a scattering angle of $66^{\circ} \pm 4^{\circ}$ for neutrons following the collimation path through the water tank.
A 7.6~cm diameter, 7.6~cm tall NaI(Tl) detector (Ludlum 44-20) was installed inside the vertex of the air-filled conduit to provide a $t_{0}$ for the ToF measurement.
The water tank also functioned to reduce accidental coincidence backgrounds by shielding the NaI(Tl) detector from ambient gamma rays.
A Bicron 501A (BC501A) liquid scintillator (12.7~cm diameter, 12.7~cm height) detector was placed outside the water tank in line with the second leg of the collimation path.
The average ToF path was measured to be $309 \pm 4$~cm from the center of the NaI(Tl) detector to the center of the BC501A.
Coincident events in the NaI(Tl) and BC501A detectors were used to characterize the energy spectrum of neutrons produced by the DD108 by measuring the particle ToF between the two detectors.
The BC501A was positioned to ensure $>$1~m of water shielding between the DD108 and BC501A to suppress accidental coincidences due to line-of-sight neutrons from the generator interacting in the far detector.
The face of the BC501A detector in line with the beam path was left unshielded to increase the efficiency of detection of neutrons from the true ToF path.
All other sides of the BC501A detector were shielded by $\sim$5 cm of Pb to reduce the accidental coincidence rate from ambient gamma rays interacting in the BC501A.
A $\sim$5 cm layer of borated polyethylene was constructed outside of the BC501A Pb shield to reduce the false coincidence rate produced by unwanted neutron shine off passive surfaces in the room.
The ideal signal events consist of a neutron leaving the neutron generator, scattering once in the NaI(Tl) detector, and then scattering in the far BC501A detector without scattering in passive materials during the journey.
The deposited energy $E_{\textrm{nr},\textrm{Na}}$ from neutron scatters off Na in the NaI(Tl) detector is given by Eq.~\ref{eq:recoil_energy_equation}, where $m_{A}$ is the atomic mass of Na.
The neutron velocity is obtained by measuring the ToF between the NaI(Tl) and BC501A detectors.
The energy of each neutron can be directly determined from its velocity as $E_{n,\textrm{meas}} = 1/2mv^{2}$.
Neutrons with the nominal expected mean energy for our experimental setup of 2.45~MeV are non-relativistic, traveling at ~7\% the speed of light.
It takes these neutrons 46~ns to travel 1~m.
The measured neutron energy using ToF between the two detectors, $E_{n,\textrm{meas}}$, is lower than the energy of the neutron incident on the NaI(Tl) detector, $E_{n}$, due to the energy deposited in the NaI(Tl).
Eq.~\ref{eq:tof_energy} and Eq.~\ref{eq:tof_inc_energy} are used to account for the lost recoil energy assuming Na recoils, $E_{\textrm{nr},\textrm{Na}}$, and reconstruct $E_{n}$ given $E_{n,\textrm{meas}}$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:tof_energy}
E_{n} = E_{n,\textrm{meas}} + E_{\textrm{nr},\textrm{Na}} \, \text{.}
\end{equation}
The true measured incident energy is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:tof_inc_energy}
E_{n} = \frac{E_{n,\textrm{meas}}}{1-\zeta} \, \text{,}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $m_{A}$ is the atomic mass of Na and $\zeta$ is given in Eq.~\ref{eq:tof_zeta}.
Events due to neutrons that scatter multiple times in the NaI(Tl) crystal contribute to a featureless ToF background that does not affect the determination of the single-scatter peak parameters~\cite{Chagani2008, Collar2013a}.
The experimental setup was not sensitive to elastic iodine recoils in the NaI(Tl) detector due to the lower energy transfer to these nuclei as expected from Eq.~\ref{eq:recoil_energy_equation} and the lower nuclear recoil signal yield for iodine.
There are several inelastic recoil modes for iodine, only one of which remains after the analysis cuts described in Sec.~\ref{sec:n_tof_measurement_analysis}.
The remaining mode is $^{127}$I(n,\,n$^{\prime} \gamma$) producing a 57.6~keV gamma ray also seen in Ref.~\cite{Collar2013a}.
After $\times$10 amplification, the NaI(Tl) and BC501A signals were digitized at 1~GHz in Ch1 and Ch2 of an 8~bit Lecroy LT583 oscilloscope in sequence mode.
The scope was externally triggered based upon the overlap coincidence of a 400 ns gate pulse from the NaI(Tl) and a 200 ns gate pulse from the BC501A.
A discriminator was used to set hardware thresholds of $\sim$20~mV and $\sim$150~mV for the NaI(Tl) and BC501A signals, respectively, for the signal heights as measured at the digitizer.
Each sequence of 50~triggers was pulled from the oscilloscope to a control computer via Ethernet and saved to disk.
This coincidence setup provides a trigger regardless of signal arrival order from the two detectors, which allows verification of the expected flat accidental coincidence background.
\subsection{Measurement of the neutron time-of-flight spectrum} \label{sec:n_tof_measurement_analysis}
We provide a detailed overview of the analysis process and report results for Target Orientation A in Sec.~\ref{sec:tof_orientation_a}.
The same analysis process was repeated for Target Orientation B, and the results are summarized in Sec.~\ref{sec:tof_orientation_b}.
Identical cuts and algorithms were used for the analysis of datasets for both DD108 target orientations.
More detail is available in Ref.~\cite{Verbus2016}.
\subsubsection{DD108 target orientation A} \label{sec:tof_orientation_a}
A total of $2.5\times10^{5}$ coincidence triggers were acquired in this configuration and used for the analysis.
The $t_{0}$ of every NaI(Tl) and BC501A pulse was determined by the point where the pulse rose to 10\% of its maximum value.
The time difference between the $t_{0}$ of the pulses in each coincident event was used to measure the ToF.
This is referred to as ``raw ToF'' in the text.
The offset due to pulse shape differences in NaI(Tl) and BC501A was calibrated out using the raw ToF location of the gamma ray coincidence peak.
The calibrated time scale is referred to as ``corrected ToF.''
Basic data quality cuts were applied.
The data quality cuts have a total combined acceptance of 84.5\% of all acquired events.
A pulse height cut was applied to ensure pulses from the NaI(Tl) detector were between 30--140~mV, as measured at the oscilloscope.
The limits on NaI(Tl) pulse size reduce contamination from background gamma rays while maintaining high efficiency for neutron scatters producing coincident events in both detectors as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_tof_vs_nai_height_scatter}.
Neutrons produced by the \dd{} source that scatter in both the NaI(Tl) and BC501A detectors are visible in the horizontal band at $\sim$115~ns.
Residual background gamma ray events that produce signals in both the NaI(Tl) and BC501A detectors are represented in the horizontal band at roughly -20~ns.
The vertical band of accidental coincidences at $\sim$20~mV is just above the discriminator threshold.
The vertical band observed between 80 and 100~mV is produced by 57.6~keV gamma rays from $^{127}$I(n,\,n$^{\prime} \gamma$) inelastic scatters.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.480\textwidth]{dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_tof_vs_nai_height_scatter.pdf}
\vskip -0.1cm
\caption{
Target Orientation A.
The raw ToF vs.\ NaI(Tl) pulse height distribution is shown for events passing the area and data quality cuts.
The lower and upper analysis thresholds at 30 and 140~mV, respectively, are represented by the vertical dashed magenta lines.
This figure is produced before correcting the ToF based upon the known gamma ray propagation time between detectors.
}
\vskip -0.5cm
\label{fig:dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_tof_vs_nai_height_scatter}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
A pulse height cut was applied to ensure pulses from the BC501A detector were between 500 and 3600 mV, as measured at the scope.
The cut bounds the BC501A pulse height in Ch2 were set to ensure effective discrimination on the low end while avoiding the saturation on the high end.
The raw ToF vs.\ BC501A pulse pulse height in Ch2 is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_tof_vs_bc501_height_scatter_ch2}.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.480\textwidth]{dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_tof_vs_bc501_height_scatter_ch2.pdf}
\vskip -0.1cm
\caption{
Target Orientation A.
The raw ToF vs.\ BC501A pulse height distribution for events passing the area and data quality cuts.
The lower and upper analysis thresholds at 500 and 3600~mV, respectively, are represented by the vertical dashed magenta lines.
This figure is produced before correcting the ToF based upon the known gamma ray propagation time between detectors.
}
\vskip -0.5cm
\label{fig:dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_tof_vs_bc501_height_scatter_ch2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The pulse-shape discrimination (PSD) capabilities of the BC501A detector were used to differentiate between neutron and gamma ray events passing all other cuts, with the results shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_bc501_area_vs_height_discrimination}.
The event traces were smoothed using a low-pass Butterworth filter with a cutoff frequency of 50 MHz before determining the area and height of each pulse.
The resulting quantities are referred to as filtered area and filtered height.
The filtered quantities are used for PSD only.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.480\textwidth]{dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_bc501_area_vs_height_discrimination.pdf}
\vskip -0.1cm
\caption{
Target Orientation A.
The BC501A discrimination decision boundary in the area vs.\ height parameter space for events passing all cuts is represented by the dashed magenta line.
Gamma ray events are depicted in blue while neutron events are depicted in black.
The decision boundary is given by $y = 33 x^{0.955}$.
}
\vskip -0.5cm
\label{fig:dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_bc501_area_vs_height_discrimination}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.480\textwidth]{dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_histogram_gamma_peak_fit_zoom.pdf}
\vskip -0.1cm
\caption{
Target Orientation A.
The Gaussian fit to the gamma ray ToF spectrum is indicated by the solid red line.
The gamma ray ToF was measured to be -19.3 $\pm$ 0.3~ns with a measured sigma of 3.1 $\pm$ 0.3~ns.
Uncertainties are statistical.
The fit region has $\chi^{2}$/dof = 83.9/95 yielding a p-value of 0.78.
Bins at the extremes of the fit domain with an expectation of fewer than 10 counts were combined when calculating $\chi^{2}$.
}
\vskip -0.5cm
\label{fig:dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_histogram_gamma_peak_fit_zoom}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
A Gaussian was fit to the gamma ray coincidence peak obtained after selecting electron recoil events in the BC501A to obtain the $t_{0}$ calibration, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_histogram_gamma_peak_fit_zoom}.
The measured raw ToF values are corrected using this calibration of the location of the gamma ray peak and the expected 10.3~ns gamma ray ToF between the NaI and BC501A.
The calibration of the ToF scale using gamma ray coincidences corrects for any unwanted time offset between the NaI(Tl) and BC501A channels due to cable lengths, signal delays in electronics, and, most significantly, the variation in the algorithmic determination of pulse start time $t_{0}$ for the signals provided by the NaI(Tl) and BC501A detectors.
To reduce the systematic uncertainty due to the different pulse shapes for neutron and gamma ray interactions the algorithm used to determine $t_{0}$ for each pulse is based upon the identification of a constant fraction of the pulse height.
This is algorithm is primarily sensitive to the rise time of the pulse, while particle type primarily influences the long tail after the prompt scintillation component~\cite{Knoll2000}.
The measured variance of the gamma ray coincidence peak provides an estimate of the contribution to the intrinsic ToF resolution from detector size, angular acceptance, electronics, and analysis algorithms.
The corrected ToF distributions for neutron and gamma ray events are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_histogram_of_individual_tof_spectra}.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.480\textwidth]{dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_histogram_of_individual_tof_spectra.pdf}
\vskip -0.1cm
\caption{
Target Orientation A.
The individual ToF spectra for gamma ray (blue) and neutron (black) events passing all cuts are shown as selected in Fig.~\ref{fig:dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_histogram_gamma_peak_fit_zoom}.
The ToF axis has been calibrated using the Gaussian fit to the gamma ray peak and the known gamma ray propagation time of 10.3~ns between detectors.
}
\vskip -0.5cm
\label{fig:dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_histogram_of_individual_tof_spectra}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
A non-Gaussian tail at high ToF due neutron energy loss in passive material has been noted in other similar neutron scattering experiments~\cite{Chagani2008, Collar2013a}.
To accommodate the expected high ToF tail, the modified Crystal Ball function in Eq.~\ref{eq:crystal_ball_function} was fit to the observed neutron corrected ToF spectrum~\cite{Oreglia1980, Gaiser1982, Skwarnicki1986, Santos2014}.
The Crystal Ball function is a smooth function composed of a Gaussian stitched together with a power law tail:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:crystal_ball_function}
y =
\begin{cases}
N \exp{\left[ \frac{-(x - \mu)^{2}}{2 \sigma^{2}} \right]} + C \, \text{,} & \text{if } \frac{x - \mu}{\sigma} < -\alpha \, \text{,} \hfill \\ \\
N \frac{ \left( \frac{n}{\lvert \alpha \rvert} \right)^{n} \exp{\left( \frac{-\alpha^{2}}{2} \right)} }{ \left( \frac{n}{\lvert \alpha \rvert} - \lvert \alpha \rvert + \frac{x - \mu}{\sigma} \right)^{n} } + C \, \text{,} & \text{if } \frac{x - \mu}{\sigma} \geq -\alpha \, \text{.} \hfill
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\noindent
We modified the signs and inequalities to produce a tail at high ToF, rather than low ToF.
The Gaussian mean and width are given by $\mu$ and $\sigma$, respectively.
The parameter $\alpha$ controls location of transition from the Gaussian to the power law tail.
The parameter $n$ controls the slope of the power law, and $N$ is an arbitrary overall scaling factor.
We accommodate the flat accidental coincidence background with the parameter $C$.
This functional form provides a reproducible, algorithmic determination of the location of the transition between underlying Gaussian neutron energy spectrum produced by the DD108 and the lossy tail of events at higher corrected ToF.
The Gaussian mean and variance parameters in the Crystal Ball function fit shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_histogram_neutron_peak_fit_zoom} were used to characterize the underlying neutron energy spectrum from the \dd{} neutron generator.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.480\textwidth]{dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_histogram_neutron_peak_fit_zoom.pdf}
\vskip -0.1cm
\caption{
Target Orientation A.
The Crystal Ball function fit to the neutron ToF spectrum is indicated by the solid red line.
The fit region has $\chi^{2}$/dof = 23.7/25 yielding a p-value of 0.54.
Bins at the extremes of the fit domain with an expectation of fewer than 10 counts were combined when calculating $\chi^{2}$.
}
\vskip -0.5cm
\label{fig:dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_histogram_neutron_peak_fit_zoom}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The mean neutron corrected ToF was measured to be $148.2 \pm 0.4$~ns with a resolution ($\sigma/\mu$) of 3\%.
Eq.~\ref{eq:tof_inc_energy} combined with $E_{n,\textrm{meas}} = 1/2 m v^{2}$ provides a mean neutron energy produced by the \dd{} source of 2.401~$\pm$~0.012~(stat)~$\pm$~0.060~(sys)~MeV.
The total systematic uncertainty has contributions from the uncertainties in the propagation distance between the detectors, the fixed angle of scatter, the angular acceptance of the collimation tubes, and most significantly the finite detector size and position.
The systematic uncertainty due to the choice of several analysis parameters was estimated by varying these parameters and repeating the analysis.
The systematic uncertainty due to the choice histogram bin width was estimated by repeating the analysis using 2~ns wide bins instead of the default 1~ns wide bins.
The systematic uncertainty due to the choice of fit region was estimated by expanding the neutron ToF fit region from 100--250~ns to 50--300~ns.
The systematic uncertainty due to position of the 140~mV NaI(Tl) pulse height cut was estimated by repeating the analysis using an upper pulse height cut of 80~mV/ns.
This alternative upper NaI(Tl) pulse height cut was chosen to remove the majority of $^{127}$I(n,\,n$^{\prime} \gamma$) events.
All uncertainties are reported in Table~\ref{tab:target_orientation_a_uncertainties_mean}.
\medskip
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{
Target Orientation A.
The statistical and systematic uncertainties on the mean energy of neutrons produced by the DD108 neutron generator are shown in columns two and three, respectively.
}
\label{tab:target_orientation_a_uncertainties_mean}
\begin{tabular*}{\columnwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} lSS}
\toprule
Source of Uncertainty & {Statistical} & {Systematic} \\
& {[\%]} & {[\%]} \\
\midrule
n and $\gamma$ peak fits & 0.5 & {-} \\
Detector position & {-} & 2.4 \\
Scattering angle & {-} & 0.5 \\
Choice of bin width & {-} & 0.6 \\
Choice of fit region & {-} & 0.02 \\
NaI(Tl) upper area cut & {-} & 0.04 \\
\midrule
Total & 0.5 & 2.5 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular*}
\end{table}
\medskip
\medskip
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{
Target Orientation A.
The statistical and systematic uncertainties on the standard deviation of the neutron energy distribution produced by the DD108 neutron generator are shown in columns two and three, respectively.
}
\label{tab:target_orientation_a_uncertainties_sigma}
\begin{tabular*}{\columnwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} lSS}
\toprule
Source of Uncertainty & {Statistical} & {Systematic} \\
& {[\%]} & {[\%]} \\
\midrule
n and $\gamma$ peak fits & 13 & {-} \\
Detector position & {-} & 2.4 \\
Scattering angle & {-} & 0.5 \\
Choice of bin width & {-} & 7 \\
Choice of fit region & {-} & 1.0 \\
NaI(Tl) upper area cut & {-} & 18 \\
\midrule
Total & 13 & 19 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular*}
\end{table}
\medskip
The measured variance of the gamma ray ToF distribution shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dd_neutron_tof_orientation_a_histogram_gamma_peak_fit_zoom} provides an estimate of the contribution from our our experimental setup to the observed resolution.
This experimental contribution was subtracted from the neutron ToF distribution variance to provide the most accurate determination of the intrinsic variance of the neutron energy distribution produced by the DD108.
The fit determination of $\alpha$, the transition between Gaussian and power law tail, in the Crystal Ball function is correlated with the parameter estimate of $\sigma$, the standard deviation of the Gaussian component.
The additional uncertainty due to this correlation is included in the reported statistical uncertainty for $\sigma$.
The standard deviation of the energy distribution of neutrons produced by the DD108 was measured to be 0.105~$\pm$~0.014~(stat)~$\pm$~0.020~(sys)~MeV after subtraction of the gamma ray peak variance.
The uncertainties are reported in Table~\ref{tab:target_orientation_a_uncertainties_sigma}.
The corresponding $\sigma/\mu$ of the neutrons produced by the \dd{} generator is 4.4\%~$\pm$~0.6\%~(stat)~$\pm$~0.8\%~(sys).
\subsubsection{DD108 target orientation B} \label{sec:tof_orientation_b}
A total of $5\times10^{5}$ coincidence triggers were acquired in this configuration and used for the analysis.
The cuts and analysis steps are identical to those in Sec.~\ref{sec:tof_orientation_a}.
The same data quality cuts were applied to the data as used in Sec.~\ref{sec:tof_orientation_a}.
The data quality cuts have a total combined acceptance of 89.7\% of all acquired events.
A more detailed account of the Target Orientation B results (similar to those presented here for Target Orientation A) is available in Ref.~\cite{Verbus2016}.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.480\textwidth]{dd_neutron_tof_orientation_b_histogram_neutron_peak_fit_zoom.pdf}
\vskip -0.1cm
\caption{
Target Orientation B.
The Crystal Ball function fit to the neutron ToF spectrum is indicated by the solid red line.
The fit region has $\chi^{2}$/dof = 159.3/143 yielding a p-value of 0.17.
Bins at the extremes of the fit domain with an expectation of fewer than 10 counts were combined when calculating $\chi^{2}$.
}
\vskip -0.5cm
\label{fig:dd_neutron_tof_orientation_b_histogram_neutron_peak_fit_zoom}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The final corrected ToF spectrum for neutron events passing all cuts is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dd_neutron_tof_orientation_b_histogram_neutron_peak_fit_zoom}.
The mean neutron corrected ToF was measured to be $147.4 \pm 0.4$~ns with a resolution of 2.5\%.
This corresponds to a measured neutron energy of 2.426~$\pm$~0.013~(stat)~$\pm$~0.08~(sys)~MeV incident on the NaI(Tl) detector.
The systematic uncertainties are calculated identically to Sec.~\ref{sec:tof_orientation_a} and are shown in Table~\ref{tab:target_orientation_b_uncertainties_mean}.
The measured mean of the neutron energy spectrum produced using Target orientation B is in agreement with the value measured using Target orientation A.
\medskip
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{
Target Orientation B.
The statistical and systematic uncertainties on mean energy of neutrons produced by the DD108 neutron generator are shown in columns two and three, respectively.
}
\label{tab:target_orientation_b_uncertainties_mean}
\begin{tabular*}{\columnwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} lSS}
\toprule
Source of Uncertainty & {Statistical} & {Systematic} \\
& {[\%]} & {[\%]} \\
\midrule
n and $\gamma$ peak fits & 0.5 & {-} \\
Detector position & {-} & 2.4 \\
Scattering angle & {-} & 0.5 \\
Choice of bin width & {-} & 0.8 \\
Choice of fit region & {-} & 0.02 \\
NaI(Tl) upper area cut & {-} & 1.8 \\
\midrule
Total & 0.5 & 3 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular*}
\end{table}
\medskip
The standard deviation of the underlying neutron energy spectrum was again calculated identically as in Sec.~\ref{sec:tof_orientation_a}.
The standard deviation of the energy distribution of neutrons produced by the DD108 was measured to be 0.067~$\pm$~0.020~(stat)~$\pm$~0.019~(sys)~MeV after subtraction of the gamma ray peak variance.
The uncertainties are listed in Table~\ref{tab:target_orientation_b_uncertainties_sigma}.
This corresponds to a $\sigma/\mu$ of the neutron energies produced by the \dd{} generator of 2.7\%~$\pm$~0.8\%~(stat)~$\pm$~0.8\%~(sys).
The measured width of the neutron energy spectrum produced using Target orientation B is in agreement with the value measured using Target orientation A.
\medskip
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{
Target Orientation B.
The statistical and systematic uncertainties on the standard deviation of the neutron energy distribution produced by the DD108 neutron generator are shown in columns two and three, respectively.
}
\label{tab:target_orientation_b_uncertainties_sigma}
\begin{tabular*}{\columnwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} lSS}
\toprule
Source of Uncertainty & {Statistical} & {Systematic} \\
& {[\%]} & {[\%]} \\
\midrule
n and $\gamma$ peak fits & 30 & {-} \\
Detector position & {-} & 2.4 \\
Scattering angle & {-} & 0.5 \\
Choice of bin width & {-} & 13 \\
Choice of fit region & {-} & 0.5 \\
NaI(Tl) upper area cut & {-} & 25 \\
\midrule
Total & 30 & 28 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular*}
\end{table}
\medskip
\section{Conclusions}
We have proposed a new type of \textit{in situ}{} neutron calibration for large dual-phase noble liquid/gas TPCs.
This calibration technique exploits the 3D position reconstruction capabilities of these detectors to measure the scattering angle between multiple interactions in the detector from a single incident neutron and thus absolutely determine the nuclear recoil energy on a per-event basis.
This technique promises to provide a measurement of the charge and light yields of ultra-low-energy nuclear recoils in liquid noble TPCs with reduced experimental uncertainties compared to previous measurements in the field.
This type of \textit{in situ}{} neutron calibration can be used to provide a clear confirmation of the WIMP signal response at low masses in the current generation of large TPC dark matter detectors.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:advanced_dd_techniques}, we described several advanced strategies to enhance the physics reach of the neutron scattering kinematics-based calibration.
First, using the pulsing capabilities of existing commercially available neutron generators to provide a well defined $\mathcal{O}$(10~$\mu$s) neutron bunch width allows for $z$ position reconstruction in the TPC without the traditionally required S1 to provide a $t_{0}$.
This allows the rejection of up to $>$99\% of accidental coincidence-based backgrounds simply from the reduction in duty cycle.
The additional statistical leverage due to the measured number of (no-S1, 1+~S2) events and (1~detected~photon~S1, 1+~S2) events can be used to measure \ly{} lower in energy with a better handle on systematic uncertainties due to threshold effects such as those described in Ref.~\cite{Manalaysay2010}.
Second, a quasi-monoenergetic 272~keV neutron source can be created using a passive deuterium loaded target to reflect neutrons from the \dd{} generator.
This technique provides a $\times$9 reduction in neutron energy.
The reflector neutron source provides an alternative set of calibration systematics and the potential to separate the S1 signals from multiple-scatter vertices due to the $\times$3 reduction in neutron velocity.
These techniques could be exploited in a range of dark matter direct detection experiments including Ge and Si ZIP detectors, semiconductor ionization detectors, noble element single-phase, and dual-phase TPC detectors.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:brown_dd_neutron_energy_spectrum_measurement}, we measured the neutron energy spectrum of an Adelphi Technology, Inc.\ DD108 neutron generator at 90$^{\circ}$ relative to the deuterium ion beam direction.
We characterized the outgoing neutron energy spectrum in two directions relative to the asymmetrical neutron production surface to determine the optimal orientation for the proposed nuclear recoil calibration.
In both cases, the measured mean neutron energy is in agreement with the theoretical expectation of 2.45~MeV for this experimental setup.
We also report the intrinsic width ($\sigma/\mu$) of the outgoing neutron energy distribution.
The width of the distribution of neutron energies for Target Orientation A and Target Orientation B was measured to be 4.4\%~$\pm$~0.6\%~(stat)~$\pm$~0.8\%~(sys) and 2.8\%~$\pm$~0.8\%~(stat)~$\pm$~0.8\%~(sys), respectively.
The measured mean and width of the neutron energy distribution for Target Orientation A and Target Orientation B are in agreement within quoted uncertainties, indicating negligible dependence on rotation along the azimuthal direction.
This characterization of the DD108 neutron spectrum confirms the suitability of the device for the calibrations described in Sec.~\ref{sec:dd_proposal} and Sec.~\ref{sec:advanced_dd_techniques}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was partially supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under award number DE-SC0010010.
This research was conducted using computational resources and services at the Center for Computation and Visualization, Brown University.
We thank Adelphi Technology, Inc.\ for providing data on the Brown DD108 hardware, and for lending their expertise during neutron generator operation.
|
\section*{Results}
\subsection*{Tunneling spectroscopy in the normal state}
Figure 1E plots the measured differential conductance ($\sigma = di/dv$) in the positive bias regime (electron extraction from SrTiO$_3$) for several characteristic doping concentrations, with $E_F \approx$ 13, 23, and 61 meV \cite{supplement}.
Complete details on the sample preparation and measurement are provided in the methods and supplemental information \cite{supplement}.
The asymmetry in bias polarity is due to the highly unequal DOS of the semiconducting and metallic electrodes, producing a global minimum set by the SrTiO$_3$ Fermi level.
Additionally, we observe clear features of enhanced conductance at 36.0, 60.5, and 98.8 meV, corresponding with the energies of bulk SrTiO$_3$ polar LO2, LO3, and LO4 phonon modes, respectively, and not barrier LaAlO$_3$ modes \cite{supplement,Petzelt:2001, Vogt:1981}.
To examine these features with higher sensitivity, we directly measure $d^2i$/$dv^2$ as shown in Fig. 2A.
The data clearly indicate phonon interactions at energies above the highest energy LO phonon branch ($eV > 0.1$ V).
For all doping concentrations examined here, the dominant spectral features appear at regular intervals of energy $\hbar\omega_{\textrm{LO4}}$.
In the low density limit ($E_F$ = 13 meV), additional structure is found up to fourth order in LO4 (i.e. $2\hbar\omega_{\textrm{LO4}}$, $3\hbar\omega_{\textrm{LO4}}$, and $4\hbar\omega_{\textrm{LO4}}$).
At higher density ($E_F$ = 61 meV), the higher-order structure arising from LO4 is suppressed, indicating that the $e$-ph coupling is larger at low doping.
Qualitatively, the observation of interactions involving up to four phonon processes indicates strong $e$-ph coupling.
For instance, the second-order acoustic phonon structure has been observed for Pb ($\lambda$ = 1.3) \cite{Parks:1969, Schackert:2015}.
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[width=85mm]{fig2.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig2}
Second-harmonic tunneling spectroscopy of $e$-ph coupling in Nb:SrTiO$_3$. A, Measured $d^2i/dv^2$ raw data ($T = 2$ K) for three samples with the following doping concentrations: 1.6 $\times$ 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$, 3.2 $\times$ 10$^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$, and 1.6 $\times$ 10$^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$. Dashed lines indicate the transverse optic (TO) and LO phonon modes from infrared reflectivity and Raman spectroscopy on bulk crystals (Refs. 39 and 40), as well as some of their higher harmonics.
B, Extracted LO4 $e$-ph linewidth (defined as twice the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the LO4 feature in $di/dv$ (38)) vs. bulk $E_F$. The lineshape evolves as $\hbar \omega_{\textrm{LO4}}/E_F \rightarrow 1$, increasing the uncertainty towards larger linewidth values (38).
}
\end{figure}
In general, tunneling spectroscopy can exhibit features arising from both elastic (DOS renormalizations via virtual phonons) and inelastic (real phonon emission) processes \cite{Wolf:2012, Adkins:1985, McMillan:1965, Conley:1967, Jaklevic:1966}.
Parsing the contributions is a subtle issue and depends upon on the material system, quality of the junction, and experimental probe (i.e. scanning tunneling microscopy, point contact, or planar junction). Here, the observation of peaks, rather than steps in the conductance, rules out threshold inelastic processes \cite{Wolf:2012, Adkins:1985}.
Further, the lineshape of the $e$-ph spectral features seen in Figs. 1E and 2A evolve monotonically as a function of doping, depending upon the ratio $ \hbar\omega_\textrm{{LO4}} / E_F $.
One of the key findings here is the observation of a quantitative correspondence between the LO4 phonon spectral linewidth and the bulk Fermi level, as shown in Fig. 2B. This result demonstrates that the $e$-ph linewidth provides an independent spectroscopic measure of the interfacial $E_F$. Further, Fig. 2B indicates that the interface reflects the intended bulk carrier density and is incompatible with surface accumulation layers.
The quantitative agreement with SrTiO$_3$ bulk phonons, sharp bandwidth-limited ($E_F$) spectra at low densities, and evolution as a function of doping indicate the importance of the $e$-ph coupling within SrTiO$_3$. While we cannot rule out the presence of inelastic processes, as a first attempt to estimate the $e$-ph coupling, we consider that similar LO4 features have been observed by ARPES \cite{Chen:2015,Wang:2016a}, and examine this problem in terms of the many-body interactions within SrTiO$_3$.
\subsection*{Modeling the electron-phonon coupling in the normal state}
To elucidate the impact that the $e$-ph coupling can have on the electronic bands and tunneling spectra, we calculate the normal state spectral function for non-interacting electrons in a single parabolic band coupled to an Einstein mode of $\hbar \omega_{ph}$ = 100 meV.
LO modes in ionic crystals generate long range dipole fields which can interact strongly with charged carriers, leading to an interaction with matrix element $M(\boldsymbol{q}) \propto 1/q$ that is highly momentum dependent \cite{Giustino:2017}.
In the real system, the coupling is screened such that $|M({\bf q})|^2 \rightarrow |M({\bf q})|^2/\epsilon({\bf q},\omega)$, where $\epsilon({\bf q},\omega)$ is the dielectric function arising from all sources.
To calculate the electronic self-energy in the normal state, we consider dynamic screening in the long-wavelength limit such that $\epsilon({\bf q} = 0,\omega)\approx 1 - \Omega_{pl}^2 / \omega_{ph}^2$, where $\Omega_{pl}$ is the plasma frequency. Therefore, $|M({\bf q})|^2 = M_0^2/q^2$, where $M_0$ contains all of the momentum independent factors and is adjusted to set the value of $\lambda$. Full details of the self-energy calculations are provided in the supplemental information \cite{supplement}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=85mm]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig3}
Renormalization of the electron band structure due to a polar $e$-ph interaction. A, Calculated density of states at several values of $\lambda$ for a single parabolic band ($E_F = 40$ meV and $m^* = 1.79m_0$, where $m^*$ is the effective mass and $m_0$ is the bare electron mass) coupled to a single dispersionless phonon mode ($\hbar \omega_{ph} = 100$ meV). The momentum dependence of the polar interaction generates replicas of the main electronic band, which are offset from the main band by multiples of the phonon energy. Further details are provided in the Supplemental Information (38). B, Schematic depicting tunneling including the $e$-ph induced structure in the density of states.
}
\end{figure}
Figure 3A shows the calculated DOS at several values of coupling strength, indicating renormalized spectral weight appearing at intervals of $\hbar \omega_{ph}$. Second-order phonon structure appears in the calculated self-energy for $\lambda$ > 0.5. The formation of the replicated DOS peaks is primarily due to the forward focusing nature of the polar coupling and is distinct from $q$-linear coupling to acoustic modes or momentum independent Holstein-like couplings \cite{Carbotte:1990,supplement,Lee:2014}.
As shown conceptually in Fig. 3B in the anti-adiabatic limit ($E_F < \hbar\omega_{ph}$), the replicated DOS with narrow bandwidth generates peaks in the differential conductance as the phonon modes are traversed as a function of bias, enabling a bandwidth-limited resolution of the phonon contributions consistent with the experimental observations.
We estimate the strength of the $e$-ph interaction ($\lambda$) by comparing the {\it relative} multi-phonon intensities of the measured tunneling spectra with the self-energy calculations.
This approach relies on the appearance of multi-phonon modes and is distinct from the McMillan and Rowell ``inversion'' method only applicable for $E_F > \hbar\omega_{ph}$ and below the superconducting transition temperature \cite{McMillan:1965,supplement,Boschker:2015}.
Figure 4A plots the measured $d^2i$/$dv^2$ for $E_F$ = 13 meV (same as Fig. 2A bottom curve), where the largest number of phonon replicas are observed.
Due to the narrow bandwidth, modes are visible at $m \hbar\omega_{\textrm{LO4}}$ and $\hbar\omega_{\textrm{LO3}} + m \hbar\omega_{\textrm{LO4}}$, where $m$ is an integer (Fig. 4B).
Here we focus solely on estimating $\lambda$ for LO4 which dominates the tunneling spectra at all dopings.
A relative increase in the spectral weight of multi-phonon processes is observed with decreasing carrier density (Fig. 4C).
Figure 4D shows the measured intensity ratios, $I_2/I_1$, for the LO4 mode together with the DOS calculations of Fig. 3.
We have restricted the self-energy calculation to $\lambda < 1$ where a perturbative expansion is a more controlled approximation \cite{supplement}.
In the absence of an exact strong coupling theory, an estimate for the $e$-ph coupling can be obtained by extrapolating to larger $\lambda$ values.
Estimated in this way, $\lambda$ ranges from 0.9 to 1.4, where the highest doping concentration ($n = 1.6\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$) exhibits $\lambda \approx 0.9$, similar to other experiments at the same carrier density \cite{Meevasana:2010,Van:2008}.
We conclude that more dilute samples exhibit stronger coupling to LO4.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=17cm]{fig4.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig4}
Doping dependence of the electron-phonon coupling in Nb:SrTiO$_3$. A, Second harmonic $d^2i/dv^2$ spectra for $n$$\,=\,$$1.6\times10^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$ measured at $T$$\,=\,$2 K (black line, top panel). A smoothly varying background has been subtracted from the raw data (Fig. 2A bottom curve) by a spline fit. The contribution from interactions corresponding to $m\hbar\omega_\textrm{{LO4}}$ ($m$ is an integer) are fit with the derivative of an asymmetric Lorentzian (red line, top panel) for which the integrated $e$-ph contribution to $di/dv$ is shown in the bottom panel (grey curve). B, Extracted energies for multi-phonon processes identified as $\hbar\omega_\textrm{{LO3}} + m\hbar\omega_\textrm{{LO4}}$ and $m\hbar\omega_\textrm{{LO4}}$, demonstrating that LO3 exhibits repeat structure at intervals of LO4.
C, Amplitude of the phonon contribution (LO4 only) as a function of bias for three different doping concentrations. D, Black squares show the intensity ratios for one phonon ($I_1$) and two phonon ($I_2$) processes calculated from the renormalized DOS (Fig. 3A). We linearly extrapolate out of the perturbative regime of $e$-ph coupling strength in the self-energy calculations (black dashed line) and plot the experimental $I_2$/$I_1$ ratios (open circles) to obtain $\lambda$.
}
\end{figure*}
The tunneling results presented thus far clearly indicate that the LO modes significantly modify the electronic properties in SrTiO$_3$ over a wide range of carrier density. This conclusion is consistent with a growing body of experimental evidence for polaron formation in this system. Our results are strikingly similar to recent photoemission measurements of the electronic spectral function $A(\textbf{k},\omega)$ at the surface of SrTiO$_3$, where replica bands were observed at regular intervals of the LO4 phonon mode \cite{Chen:2015,Wang:2016a}.
In particular, the ratio of the photoemission replica intensities (analogous to $I_2$/$I_1$) are remarkably close to those found here, indicating comparable regimes for the $e$-ph coupling strength.
These observations are also consistent with magnetotransport, optical conductivity, and heat capacity experiments indicating large polaron formation in SrTiO$_3$ \cite{Ahrens:2007,Van:2008,Mazin:2011}.
Despite the strong $e$-ph coupling, the momentum dependence of the interaction produces relatively modest mass renormalizations, and rather than self-trapped small polarons, highly mobile carriers are found even in the extremely dilute limit \cite{Lin:2014,Kozuka:2008}.
\subsection*{Superconducting tunneling spectroscopy}
Figure 5A shows a wide-scan $di$/$dv$ spectrum measured below $T_\mathrm{c}$ for $n$ = 2.5$\times$10$^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$ ($E_F$ $\approx$ 70 meV), corresponding to the overdoped side of the Nb:SrTiO$_3$ superconducting dome. Conductivity steps due to $e$-ph interactions are clearly evident, as well as the superconducting gap at low bias. A high-resolution scan (Fig. 5B) shows a single gap which is well fit by the BCS gap function,
$\sigma_S / \sigma_N = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \nu(E)\frac{\partial f(E+eV)}{\partial E} dE$,
where $f(E)$ is the Fermi function and
$\nu(E) = \textrm{Re}[\frac{E-i\Gamma}{\sqrt{(E-i\Gamma)^2-\Delta^2}}]$
is the Bogoliubov quasiparticle DOS with a quasiparticle broadening factor $\Gamma$.
Best fits to the lowest temperature data yield $\Delta$ = 41.9 $\pm$ 0.1 $\mu$eV and $\Gamma$ = 2.2 $\pm$ 0.3 $\mu$eV \cite{Dynes:1978}. The $>90 \%$ suppression of the DOS in the superconducting gap and the low broadening indicates the very high quality of the junction.
For all samples measured we have observed only a single gap, indicating that while at least two $d$-orbital bands are populated for these carrier densities, they are not spectroscopically distinct.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=17cm]{fig5.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig5}
Superconducting tunneling spectroscopy of Nb-doped SrTiO$_3$. A, Wide scan $di/dv$ measured at $T = 40$ mK showing the interaction with the high energy phonon modes, as well as the superconducting gap at low bias (near $V$$\,=\,$$0$ V). B, High resolution measurements of the superconducting gap for several temperatures. Dashed curve is the best fit for the 40 mK data to the BCS gap equation.
For A and B, $n$$\,=\,$$2.5\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$, corresponding with the overdoped side of the Nb:SrTiO$_3$ superconducting dome.
C, Temperature dependence of the superconducting gap ($\Delta$) (left axis) and resistivity ($\rho$) (right axis), normalized to the normal state value ($\rho_N$) measured at $T$$\,=\,$$400$ mK. Overdoped: $n$$\,=\,$$2.5\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$ (black data), underdoped: $n$$\,=\,$$3.0\times10^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$ (blue data). D, Comparison of the electron-phonon coupling ($\lambda$) estimated from the normal-state spectra with the extracted superconducting pairing strength ($\lambda_{\textrm{BCS}}$) from the superconducting gap. This unconventional regime is evident when compared with conventional superconductors over a broad range of $e$-ph coupling (data compiled from Refs. 20, 21, 42, and 52).
}
\end{figure*}
For conventional phonon-mediated superconductors, the strength of the pairing interaction can be determined by deviations from the universal thermodynamic relations of BCS theory.
In particular, weak-coupling BCS predicts an exact ratio between the zero temperature gap ($\Delta(T=0) \equiv \Delta_0$) and $T_{\mathrm{c}}$ of $2\Delta_0/k_BT_\mathrm{c} = 3.53$, where $k_B$ is Boltzmann's constant.
In contrast, strong-coupling superconductors deviate from this value (i.e. Pb with $2\Delta_0/k_BT_\mathrm{c}$ = 4.5 and $\lambda$ = 1.3), which is accounted for by including retardation corrections within ME \cite{Carbotte:1990,Schackert:2015}.
Due to the signatures of strong $e$-ph coupling observed in the normal state, one might expect SrTiO$_3$ to exhibit significant departures from weak-coupling BCS theory, particularly in the underdoped region where large phonon renormalizations are found. This, however, is not what we observe.
Figure 5C plots $\Delta(T)$ (open circles, left axis) and the normalized resistivity ($\rho(T)/\rho_N$) (solid lines, right axis) for two characteristic samples corresponding to the overdoped and underdoped side of the Nb-doped superconducting dome.
The temperature dependence is accurately described by $\Delta(T) = \Delta_0 \tanh{[\frac{\pi}{1.76}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}1.43(\frac{T_\mathrm{c}}{T}-1)}]}$ \cite{Devereaux:1995}.
We find that the gap closes ($\Delta \rightarrow 0$) with the onset of the resistive $T_\mathrm{c}$, indicating the absence of a pseudogap in the bulk limit.
Surprisingly, we find $2\Delta_0/k_BT_\mathrm{c} = 3.56$$\,\pm\,$$.03$ and $3.59$$\,\pm\,$$.05$ for the overdoped and underdoped samples, respectively. These values are remarkably close to the universal weak-coupling limit predicted by BCS theory, even compared to the vast majority of conventional superconductors \cite{Carbotte:1990}.
Such precise agreement is a surprise for a system that clearly violates key assumptions upon which the theory was derived, but suggests that some of the conclusions apply more generally.
In this context, as the simplest estimation for the pairing strength, the BCS equation for $T_\mathrm{c}$ indicates a coupling strength of $\lambda_{\textrm{BCS}}$ $\approx$ 0.1 \cite{supplement}.
\section*{Discussion}
Taken together, these results reveal an order of magnitude discrepancy between the strength of the $e$-ph coupling that modifies the normal state properties ($\lambda$) and the superconducting pairing strength ($\lambda_{\textrm{BCS}}$), placing SrTiO$_3$ in an unusual regime (Fig. 5D).
For conventional $e$-ph mediated superconductors, the $e$-ph coupling that renormalizes the band structure is in close quantitative correspondence to the superconducting pairing strength needed to fully account for the superconducting $T_\mathrm{c}$ within ME \cite{McMillan:1965,Allen:1987,Carbotte:1990,Schackert:2015}. This one-to-one correlation is shown in Fig. 5D, and it should be noted that remarkably few (conventional or unconventional) superconductors lie in the extreme weak-coupling regime. Considering the strong $e$-ph coupling, occupation of multiple $t_{2g}$ bands, proximity to a ferroelectric quantum critical point, and low carrier density, it would be natural to expect SrTiO$_3$ to exhibit deviations from the BCS limit. Figure 5D shows that while the normal state properties certainly exhibit strong phonon renormalizations, the superconducting state appears conventional and captured by a weak coupling theory.
In light of this result, it is reasonable to ask whether or not LO4 contributes to pairing and, if so, whether the discrepancy between $\lambda$ and $\lambda_{\textrm{BCS}}$ could be explained by invoking the repulsive Coulomb interaction.
A conventional Coulomb pseudo-potential ($\mu$*) approach (questionable in the dilute limit) would require a large $\mu$* ($>$ 0.5), far in excess of canonical values ($< 0.25$) and that varies dramatically with density.
This, however, is unphysical for SrTiO$_3$ considering the non-interacting behavior found in the dilute limit \cite{Kozuka:2008,Lin:2014}, where the highly polarizable lattice is very effective in dynamically screening the electrons.
We can infer that the LO4 mode is not effective in mediating an attractive pairing potential, consistent with proposals for other pairing mechanisms which consider exchanging the available low energy modes (i.e. acoustic modes, the TO soft-mode, plasmons, or quantum critical fluctuations) \cite{Appel:1969,Ruhman:2016,Edge:2015a, Klimin:2017}.
While we cannot distinguish between these possible pairing mechanisms, the results presented here offer further perspective.
A perturbative treatment of the phonon interactions in semiconductors is typically a reasonable approximation, and a natural consequence of the high-energy LO modes is to simply screen both the Coulomb repulsion and the pairing vertex, promoting superconductivity at lower carrier densities than originally considered by BCS.
However, in most superconducting semiconductors the adiabatic (Migdal) ratio ($\hbar\omega_{ph}/E_\mathrm{F}$) is close to but typically less than 1 \cite{Bustarret:2015}.
It appears essential that in SrTiO$_3$ almost all of the superconducting dome corresponds to $\hbar\omega_\textrm{{LO4}}/E_\mathrm{F} > 1$, and unity ratio corresponds to the loss of superconductivity in the overdoped regime.
Therefore, while large coupling to high energy modes leads to strongly dressed quasiparticles, this interaction does not lead to a comparable contribution to pairing, leaving low-energy phonons (or other bosonic excitations) to give rise to superconductivity out of these polarons, surprisingly well beyond the Migdal limit.
A comprehensive theory of superconductivity here should realize a weak-coupling superconducting state out of strongly dressed quasiparticles over a wide range of coupling strength and adiabatic parameter.
\section*{Methods}
Nb-doped SrTiO$_3$ films were deposited on TiO$_2$ terminated SrTiO$_3$(001) substrates by pulsed laser deposition as described elsewhere \cite{Kozuka:2010b}.
Subsequently, 0 - 4 unit cells (u.c.) single crystal LaAlO$_3$ epitaxial layers were grown at $T$ = 650 $^\circ$C with $P$ = $1\times10^{-6}$ torr of O$_2$ with a fluence of 0.43 J/cm$^2$. During growth, the LaAlO$_3$ thickness was monitored by reflection high-energy electron diffraction (RHEED) intensity oscillations. Except where indicated, 3 u.c. thick LaAlO$_3$ tunneling barriers were used throughout this study.
The oxide heterostructure was then post annealed at $T$ = 400 $^\circ$C in 0.4 atm of O$_2$ for 45 min. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) measurements identified that the resulting surface was atomically flat over large areas ($>$ 50 x 50 $\mu$m$^2$) with step-and-terrace morphology. Nb-doped SrTiO$_3$ films grown in this regime exhibit bulk-like mobility values and full carrier activation \cite{Kozuka:2010b}.
The samples were transferred $ex$ $situ$ to an adjacent chamber for the deposition of metallic electrodes at room temperature through a shadow mask. Just prior to deposition, the films were pre-annealed at 500 $^\circ$C in $1\times10^{-5}$ torr of O$_2$ to remove adsorbates \cite{Inoue:2015}.
For the superconducting gap measurements, we employed Ag electrodes contacted by Au wire and Ag paint. Ohmic contacts were made to the Nb-doped SrTiO$_3$ film by wire bonding with Al wire. Details regarding the electronic measurements, data analysis, and DOS calculations are provided in the Supplemental Information \cite{supplement}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We acknowledge S. A. Kivelson, P. A. Lee, P. B. Littlewood, D. J. Scalapino, A. V. Maharaj, A. Edelman, A. J. Millis, L. Rademaker, Z.-X. Shen, and Y. Wang for useful discussions. AGS and HI contributed equally.
This work was supported by the Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering, under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515; FAME, one of six centers of STARnet, a Semiconductor Research Corporation program sponsored by MARCO and DARPA (development of polar tunnel barriers); and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation's EPiQS Initiative through Grant GBMF4415 (dilution refrigerator experiments).
S. J. acknowledges support from the University of Tennessee's Science Alliance Joint Directed Research and Development program, a collaboration with Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
\section*{Author Contributions}
AGS and HI prepared the samples, performed the experiments, and analyzed the tunneling data. SJ developed and performed the theoretical calculations. TAM and YH assisted with measurements and sample growth. SJ, TPD, and SR provided theoretical insight and analysis. AGS, HI, and HYH conceived and designed the experiment. All authors contributed to the discussion and writing of the manuscript. AGS and HI contributed equally to this work.
|
\section{Introduction}
Most of the baryonic matter in galaxy clusters resides in
the form of virialized hot gas \citep{2003Lin,2013Gonzalez} that emits in the X-ray band
via thermal bremsstrahlung. The short cooling
time associated with the high-density regions in cluster cores, immediately led to the
conclusion that a massive cooling flow was developing in the ICM of most
clusters \citep{1976Silk,1977Cowie,1977Fabian,1978Mathews}.
On the basis of the isobaric cooling flow model \citep{1977Fabian,1994Fabian}, it was estimated that typical
cooling flows could develop mass cooling rates in the range $ 100 - 1000 M_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$.
However, the lack of massive star formation events and of large reservoirs of cold gas
at the center of galaxy clusters
has cast some doubts on the hypothesis of a complete cooling of the ICM in cluster cores.
Indeed, if a significant fraction of the ICM is deposited, it should cool
through all the phases and, in a quasi-stationary scenario, a noticeable amount of cooling gas
should be observed at all temperatures in the X-ray range, from the ambient temperature down to
the lowest detectable temperature (about $0.15$ keV).
The perspective changed radically fifteen years ago when
XMM-Newton observations, carried out with EPIC and with RGS, revealed a lack of cool gas at
temperatures lower than about one-third of the cluster virial temperature
\citep{2001Molendi,2001Tamura,2003Peterson}. As a consequence, the mass cooling rates have been
revised towards values more than one order of magnitude lower \citep[see][]{2006Peterson}.
These observations necessarily imply the existence of some process that heats
the gas and suppresses its cooling. Among the many mechanisms investigated so far,
AGN feedback is considered the most plausible \citep[see][]{2012Fabian}. Although the
detailed underlying physics is not fully understood, AGN outbursts can inject sufficient
amounts of energy into the ICM to
offset cooling \citep[e.g.,][]{2005McNamara,2015Gaspari}.
The relativistic electrons in jets associated with the
central cluster galaxy are able to carve large cavities into the ICM. The free energy associated
with these ``bubbles,, is plausibly transferred into the ICM and thermalized through turbulence
\citep[see][]{2012McNamara}.
This feedback mechanism has been observed in its full complexity in a few nearby clusters like
Perseus \citep{2003aFabian,2006Fabian,2011Fabian}, Hydra A \citep{2000McNamara},
and a few others at large distances \citep[see][]{2011Blanton}.
In addition, some of the large elliptical galaxies often found at the minimum of the cluster
potential well (BCG) contain significant amounts of cold gas \citep[among the most recent
results, see][]{2014McNamara} and exhibit signs of ongoing star formation at a level
of $10-100 M_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$ \citep{2012Hoffer}.
The star formation rate (SFR) of BCGs has been found to
be generally consistent with the mass cooling rate $\dot M$ measured with X-ray spectroscopy in cool cores
\citep{2006Rafferty}; we note, however, that \citet{2008Odea} have found that cooling rates are in excess
of star formation rates by a factor of a few. A correlation between cool cluster cores and IR measured
SFR in BCGs has recently been confirmed \citep{2012Rawle}. These results have generally been interpreted
as evidence that star formation is driven and fueled by the cooling of the ICM.
In this paper we revisit this relation by improving the measurement of the mass
cooling rates in cool cores. We start from the fact that
the emission measure of the coldest gas ($<1 $ keV) in cooling flow models is a few percent
of the total X-ray emission in the core region, so that the measurement of mass cooling rate
based on X-ray spectroscopy is dominated by the emission of
gas at relatively high temperatures (about 2 keV). The presence of gas in the range $0.5$-$1$
keV is mostly associated with the Fe XVII emission lines, which is the most
reliable diagnostic for gas in this temperature range. Although Fe XVII emission
lines have been detected in some cases, the amount of cold gas associated with that emission
is still quite uncertain owing to the strong continuum produced by much hotter gas which
unavoidably overwhelms the line emission.
In this paper we address a specific issue: Is the amount of gas cooling
in the region where star formation is occurring sufficient to fuel this process?
Within this framework, angular resolution becomes a critical factor in order to ascertain the presence of the
coldest components of a cooling flow; in several cases it is more relevant than spectral resolution,
and CCD data can be as effective as grating data despite its modest
spectral resolution.
In this work we exploit the angular resolution of {\sl Chandra} ACIS-S and ACIS-I to avoid
as much as possible the hot gas surrounding the core region.
We consider six nearby ($z<0.35$) cool core clusters observed
with {\sl Chandra}, whose BCG exhibit the highest SFR. For all these clusters, the mass cooling rates
have been previously estimated from X-ray spectral analysis, but
in all cases within regions much larger than those considered here (10-40 kpc
centered on the BCG). Our goal is to robustly estimate the mass cooling rate
$\dot M$ or, alternatively, to put a robust upper limit to $\dot M$, and finally to compare this to the
observed SFR in the same region.
The paper is organized as follows. In \S 2 we describe the sample selection.
In \S 3 we describe the data reduction and analysis, and in
\S 4 we provide the measurements of the mass cooling rate in each cluster of our sample.
In \S 5 we go through a detailed evaluation of possible systematic effects that can
potentially hide the presence of cooling gas or interfere with its measurement.
The final result is a robust evaluation of mass cooling rates $\dot M$
which includes systematic effects.
In \S 6 we discuss our results, and finally, in \S 7 we summarize our conclusions.
Throughout the paper, we adopt a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology
with $\Omega_0=0.3, \Omega_\Lambda=0.7$, and $H_0=70$.
Quoted errors always correspond to a 1 $\sigma$ confidence level.
\section{Sample selection}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{\label{tab:zobs}Galaxy clusters selected in our sample, ranked from the highest to the
lowest measured SFR in the BCG.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Name & $z$ & SFR & SFR Orig.$\mathrm{^a}$ & SFR Ref.$\mathrm{^b}$ &$M_{\rm mol}\,^\mathrm{^c}$ & $M_{\rm mol}$ Ref.$\mathrm{^d}$ \\
& &$M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ & & & $10^{10}M_\odot$ & \\
\hline
A1835 & 0.252 & 146 & IR SED & Ra12 & 5.0 & Mn14\\
RXCJ1504.1 & 0.215 & 140 & H$_\alpha$& Og10 & - & - \\
RX J1532.9+3021 & 0.345 & 110 & 70 $\mu$m & Ho12 & 12.5$^\mathrm{^e}$ & Ed01\\
A1068 & 0.139 & 99.3 & IR SED & Ra12 & 3.7$^\mathrm{^f}$ & Sa03\\
ZW 3146 & 0.291 & 93.1 & IR SED & Ra12 & 8.0$^\mathrm{^e}$ & Ed01\\
Z0348 & 0.254 & 32.6 & IR SED & Ra12 & - & - \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{list}{}{}
\item[Notes:]
$\mathrm{^a}$~band or method employed to measure SFR;
$\mathrm{^b}$~reference for SFR: Ra12 = \citet{2012Rawle}; Og10 = \citet{2010Ogrean}; Ho12 = \citet{2012Hoffer};
$\mathrm{^c}$~molecular gas mass, $M_{\rm mol}$;
$\mathrm{^d}$~reference for $M_{\rm mol}$: Mn14 = \citet{2014McNamara}; Ed01 = \citet{2001Edge};
Sa03 = \citet{2003Salome};
$^\mathrm{^e}$ molecular gas masses originally reported in \citet{2001Edge} have been recomputed using the cosmological parameters described in \S 1 and assuming an average Galactic value for the CO to molecular hydrogen conversion factor \citep{2013Bolatto}, i.e., $X_{\rm CO}=2\times 10^{20}$cm$^{-2}$(K km s$^{-1}$)$^{-1}$;
$^\mathrm{^f}$ molecular gas mass originally reported in \citet{2003Salome} has been recomputed assuming an average Galactic value for the CO to molecular hydrogen conversion factor \citep{2013Bolatto}, i.e., $X_{\rm CO}=2\times 10^{20}$cm$^{-2}$(K km s$^{-1}$)$^{-1}$.
\end{list}
\end{table*}
Our goal is to investigate the relation between the
mass cooling rate and star formation rate in cool core (CC) clusters.
We selected those CC clusters with high-quality X-ray data and the
highest measured SFR. This choice allows us to investigate the relation between BCG SFR and $\dot M$
starting from the clusters where the expected $\dot M$ should be highest\footnote{see \S\ref{sec:dis} for
a discussion of possible delays between X-ray cooling and star formation events.}.
We search in the Chandra archive as of June 2014 for clusters with ACIS-I or ACIS-S
observations longer than 9 ks. We then select those clusters that have published
SFR in excess of 30 $M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. When there is more than one measurement of the SFR,
we prefer measurements that are based on infrared data, whenever available, since UV and
optical measures can significantly underestimate obscured star formation \citep[see][]{2012Rawle}.
We also favor estimates based on infrared spectral energy distribution
(IR SED) fitting, rather than on single-band measurements, as they can properly account for the
contribution from the central AGN which, in many cases, can be relevant.
For systems where this method has been used,
the uncertainties on the star formation rates are expected to be modest, below $\sim 20\%$
\citep[see][]{2012Rawle}.
We finally apply a cut in redshift, choosing systems with $ z < 0.35$.
The upper limit is chosen in order to avoid clusters where a large part of the cold gas emission
is redshifted out of the {\sl Chandra} energy range used for this analysis ($0.5-8$ keV).
We note that one of the strongest candidates that harbors a massive cooling flow,
SPT-CL J2344-4243 \citep[the Phoenix cluster, see][]{2012McDonald},
is excluded from this sample owing to its high redshift $z\sim 0.6$. A dedicated paper,
based on a deep XMM-Newton observation, has recently been published by our group
\citep{2015bTozzi}.
Our final sample is rather small, and consists of six systems, most of which are well known.
In Table~\ref{tab:zobs} we list our objects and include redshift, measured SFR in the BCG,
the method used to measure the SFR, and measured cold molecular gas, when available. This sample
is not meant to be complete or representative, but simply satisfies the requirements needed to
perform our analysis: {\sl Chandra} ACIS data, presence of a cool core, and a reliable measurement of
SFR in the BCG larger than 30 $M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{\label{tab:obsid} Summary of {\sl Chandra} observations used in this work}
\label{tab:data}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Name & Obsid & Instrument & Effective exptime$^a$ & Observing Mode \\
& & & s & \\
\hline
& 6880 & ACIS-I & 117700 & VFAINT\\
A1835 & 6881 & ACIS-I & 36200 & VFAINT \\
& 7379 & ACIS-I & 39300 & VFAINT\\
\hline
RXCJ1504 & 5793 & ACIS-I & 39000 & VFAINT \\
& 4935 & ACIS-I & 13300 & FAINT \\
\hline
RX J1532 & 14009 & ACIS-S & 88000 & VFAINT\\
\hline
A1068 & 1652 & ACIS-S & 26600 & FAINT \\
\hline
ZW3146 & 909 & ACIS-I & 45600 & FAINT \\
& 9371 & ACIS-I & 39800 & VFAINT \\
\hline
Z0348 & 10465 & ACIS-S & 47800 & VFAINT \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{list}{}{}
\item[Notes:]
$\mathrm{^a}$~effective exposure time after data reduction.
\end{list}
\end{table*}
\section{Data reduction and analysis}
\subsection{Data reduction}
We performed a standard data reduction starting from the level 1 event
files, using the {\tt CIAO 4.6} software package, with
version ({\tt CALDB 4.6.3}) of the {\sl Chandra} Calibration Database.
All the observation ID numbers (Obsid) and with the corresponding instruments, effective exposure times after data reduction,
and the data acquisition modes are listed in Table \ref{tab:data}. When
observations are taken in the VFAINT mode, we run the task {\tt
acis$\_$process$\_$events} to flag background events that are most
likely associated with cosmic rays and remove them. With this procedure, the ACIS particle background can be
significantly reduced compared to the standard grade selection. The
data is filtered to include only the standard event grades 0, 2, 3, 4,
and 6. We checked visually for hot columns left after the standard
reduction. For exposures taken in VFAINT mode, there are practically
no hot columns or flickering pixels left after filtering out bad events.
We also apply CTI correction to the ACIS-I data. We finally filter time intervals with high background by performing a
$3\sigma$ clipping of the background level using the script {\tt
analyze\_ltcrv}. The final effective exposure times are generally very close to the
original observing time. We note that our data reduction is not
affected by possible undetected flare since we are able to compute
the background in the same observation from a large source-free region around the cluster, thus
taking into account any possible spectral distortion of the background
itself induced by the flares. However, given the small source extraction regions and the high
surface brightness of the core, the background correction is always negligible.
We select regions from which X-ray spectra are extracted in such a way to include the entire star
forming region. Indeed, choosing regions that do not fully encompass the SF region
may introduce a bias and lower the cooling rate, while in the opposite case the sensitivity to the cooler X-ray emitting gas will
be significantly reduced owing to the presence of larger amounts of ambient gas. However, in several cases the
star forming region is not precisely identified.
Therefore,
to show that our results are not sensitive to the size of the extraction regions,
we always analyze the X-ray emission within two different regions selected from a suite of four circles
with radii of 10, 20, 30, and 40 kpc.
All the circular regions are centered on the position of the BCG or of the main starburst, when not coincident with the BCG,
as obtained from optical data. Details on the specific selections are provided in the subsections describing
the analysis of individual systems. We exclude the inner 2 arcsec when an unresolved X-ray AGN is found in the BCG.
When a merged spectrum from multiple exposures is extracted, the response matrix files and ancillary
response files are computed for each Obsid and then added together weighted by the corresponding exposure
time. However, three of our clusters are observed in single exposures. Finally,
the results for ZW3146 and RXCJ1504 are obtained by performing the combined fit of the spectra from
two different Obsid without merging them due to the different observing modes (FAINT and VFAINT).
\subsection{Fitting method}
Our goal is to constrain the mass cooling rate in the projected regions 10-40 kpc in size centered
on the BCG or on the star forming regions.
We use the model {\tt mkcflow} \citep{1988Mushotzki}, which is based on a combination of
single-temperature {\tt mekal} models \citep{1985Mewe,1986Mewe,1992Kaastra,1995Liedahl}
according to the expectation of the isobaric cooling flow model. This model assumes a unique
mass cooling rate throughout the entire temperature range probed by the data.
The actual situation may be more complex; some of the gas above a given
temperature threshold may cool at a relatively high rate, consistent with the isobaric
cooling assumption. Instead, mass cooling associated with colder gas may be much lower.
Indeed, grating spectra of cool cores are traditionally fitted with an isobaric cooling flow
model with a cutoff temperature below which there is no gas \citep{2006Peterson}.
Therefore, to explore more complex scenarios, we also measure the cooling rate in several
temperature intervals by using a set of {\tt mkcflow} models in contiguous temperature bins.
In practice, we measure the spectral mass deposition rate in
two different ways:
\begin{itemize}
\item a cooling flow model {\tt mkcflow} coupled to one single-temperature {\tt mekal}
component. The upper temperature of the {\tt mkcflow} component is frozen to $3$ keV, while the
temperature of the {\tt mekal} component is left free. The lowest temperature of the {\tt mkcflow} component
it frozen to $0.15$ keV. By setting the minimum temperature to $0.15$ keV, we can interpret
the normalization of the {\tt mkcflow} model as the maximum cooling rate allowed
for an isobaric cooling flow across the entire temperature range (from $3$ to $0.15$ keV).
By setting the maximum temperature of the {\tt mkcflow} model to 3 keV, we include in this
component all the phases that contribute significantly to the Fe-Lshell emission.
A minimum temperature of 4 keV is set for the {\tt mekal} component to avoid superposition
with the {\tt mkcflow} component.
The metal abundance of the {\tt mkcflow} and {\tt mekal} models are tied together.
\item A set of {\tt mkcflow} models whose lower and upper temperatures are tied
together in order to avoid overlap. Here the normalization of each component provides
the mass cooling rate of the gas in the corresponding temperature interval.
The upper and lower temperatures are frozen to the following values:
$0.15-0.25$, $0.25-0.45$, $0.45-0.9$, $0.9-1.8$, and $1.8-3.0$.
As for the single {\tt mkcflow} model, by setting the maximum temperature to 3 keV we include in the
{\tt mkcflow} components all the phases that contribute significantly to the Fe-Lshell emission.
A {\tt mekal} component accounts for the hotter gas; a minimum temperature of 4 keV is set to avoid superposition
with the {\tt mkcflow} components.
The metal abundance values of the various {\tt mkcflow} components
are tied to one another, while the metal abundance of the {\tt mekal} component is left free.
\end{itemize}
It is worth noting that
above $3$ keV, a single {\tt mekal} model can account for the presence of several hot components
since it is not possible to identify them in the spectral analysis \citep[see][]{2004Mazzotta}.
Another possible approach would be to link the highest temperature of the
last {\tt mkcflow} model to that of the {\tt mekal} model. However, whenever
we repeat our fits linking the highest {\tt mkcflow} temperature to the {\tt mekal} component,
we find only negligible changes in the best-fit values of the mass cooling rate.
The Galactic absorption, $N_H$, is frozen to the value obtained from the radio map of
\citet{2005LAB} at the position of the cluster. We will discuss in \S 5 the effect
of leaving the $N_H$ value free to vary under reasonable assumptions.
Finally, the redshift is frozen to the best-fit value obtained by fitting the K$\alpha$ line
emission complex from H-like and He-like Fe after checking that this value is in
agreement with the optical value.
Typically, in the soft energy range (0.5-2 keV), the fraction of the signal
associated with the cold ($kT < 3$ keV) components in our models is below 10\%,
and in several instances below 1\%. Clearly at these very low levels systematic
effects associated with our limited knowledge of the Chandra effective areas
can play an important role. In \S 5 we will present a simple method to
derive estimates of the systematic uncertainties on mass cooling rates.
The use of the {\tt mkcflow} model allows us to directly obtain the best-fit mass cooling rate
$\dot M$.
Finally, the quoted error bars correspond to a $1 \sigma$ confidence level.
\section{Measurement of mass cooling rate in individual systems}
In this section we describe the analysis of the cool core regions at different radii
in each cluster. We provide full details for A1835, and refer to this analysis for the
remaining clusters.
\subsection{Abell 1835}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{mdot_A1835_10kpc.ps}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{mdot_A1835_20kpc.ps}
\caption{\label{A1835mdot}Measured cooling rate as a function of temperature range. {\sl Left}: Red circles show the values of $\dot M$ measured in different temperature bins in the inner 10 kpc of A1835. Error bars correspond to $1 \sigma$,
arrows indicate 95\% confidence upper limits. The shaded area is the $ 1 \sigma$ uncertainty or the 95\% upper limit
interval of the global mass cooling rate obtained with a single {\tt mkcflow} model in the temperature
range $0.15-3.0$ keV.
{\sl Right}: Same as left panel for the inner 20 kpc.}
\end{figure*}
A1835 is one of the first clusters in which the lack of cold gas below $\sim$ 1 keV was unambiguously observed
thanks to CCD \citep{2001Molendi} and grating \citep{2001Peterson} spectroscopy with XMM-Newton. In the latter work,
an upper limit of $200 M_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$ at the 90\% confidence level was obtained.
A1835 also harbors a radio AGN, which is responsible for cavities clearly seen in the X-ray surface brightness near
the center. For these reasons, A1835 is considered an archetypical cool core cluster regulated by radio-mode
feedback \citep{2014McNamara}.
Abell 1835 was observed with ACIS-S for a total of 30 ks of effective exposure in 1999/2000, and with ACIS-I
for a total of 193 ks in 2005/2006. The ACIS-S data were taken in the FAINT mode, and date back
to the early epochs of {\sl Chandra} operation. Here we focus only on the deeper ACIS-I exposures
taken in the VFAINT mode, and which contain most of the information. The redshift of the cluster
is measured with the X-ray spectral analysis of the global emission, and is found to be
$z_X=0.251_{-0.002}^{+0.001}$. This value is in good agreement with the
optical value $z_{opt}=0.2523$ \citep{1999Crawford}. At this redshift the angular diameter scale corresponds
to $3.91$ kpc/arcsec. Therefore, 10 kpc corresponds to 5.2 physical pixels on ACIS-I
(one pixel corresponds to $0.492$ arcsec) and
$20$ kpc to $10.4$ pixels. Given the exquisite resolution of
{\sl Chandra} at the aimpoint, we neglect effects due to the point spread function.
We choose the center to be on the optical position of the BCG, which is
$RA_{BCG}=14$:$01$:$02.0$, $DEC_{BCG}=+2$:$52$:$43.0$. The position of the BCG
nucleus appears to be $\sim 2^{\prime\prime}$ away from the peak in the X-ray surface brightness,
corresponding to one of the two bright spots in the cluster core \citep[see Figure 9 in ][]{2006McNamara}.
According to Figure 2 in \citet{2006McNamara}, the bulk of the star formation, as measured from optical colours, occurs within $\simeq$ 10 kpc. In particular, the central blue colors associated with the starburst
are found at radii smaller than $7^{\prime\prime}$ (corresponding to $\sim 27$ kpc) from the BCG center
(see also their Figure 3).
Furthermore, recent ALMA observations \citep{2014McNamara} provide evidence of large amounts
of molecular gas at the level of $\simeq 5\times10^{10}$M$_\odot$ within a few kpc of the center.
However, the position of the molecular gas does not overlap with the position of the two X-ray bright regions,
where the gas is expected to cool most rapidly.
These two regions are partially included in the 10 kpc circle, and fully included in the 20 kpc circle.
Therefore, our choice of extracting two spectra in the inner 10 and 20 kpc nicely matches the central
starburst region and the maximum region encompassing all possible star formation events.
We find about 7500 and 26400 net counts (0.5-7 keV band)
in the inner 10 and 20 kpc, respectively. The background is sampled from the
ACIS-I CCD3 in a region far from the cluster. Given the extent of this massive cluster,
the background may be contaminated by some emission from the cluster itself. However, given the
small size of the regions under investigation, the background contribution is minimal and always below
0.1\% of the total emission. We fit each region with our two methods (see \S 3.2 for details).
The redshift parameter is frozen; however, we verified that leaving it free does not have any noticeable
effect on the fit. The Galactic hydrogen column density is frozen to the value
$N_{H} = 2.04 \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$, derived by \citet{2005LAB} through radio observations.
With our first model ({\tt mkcflow + mekal}) we measure a 95\% one-sided confidence level,
i.e., upper limits (corresponding to $\Delta C_{stat} = 2.71$), of
$\dot M = 23 M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ in the inner 10 kpc
and $22 M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ for 20 kpc (see Figure \ref{A1835mdot} and Table \ref{tab:spec_fits}).
The temperature of the {\tt mekal} component is rather stable, with best-fit values of $4.4\pm 0.2$
and $4.3\pm 0.1$ keV for the 10 and 20 kpc, respectively.
We find that in the 0.5-2 keV band, the contribution to the signal from gas below 3 keV is 6\% and 2\%
within 10 and 20 kpc, respectively. This will be relevant in \S 5 when discussing possible
systematics associated with a global $\sim 3$\% uncertainty in the effective area of {\sl Chandra}.
We also postpone to \S 5 the discussion on the effects of a larger $N_{H}$.
Next we fit our spectra with composite models consisting of five {\tt mkcflow} components in fixed temperature bins
and a {\tt mekal} component with free temperature (see \S 3.2 for details). Our results for the two regions are
summarized in the two panels of Figure \ref{A1835mdot}, where the 95\% confidence level upper limit range from the single
{\tt mkcflow} model is shown by the shaded area (see also Table \ref{tab:spec_fits}).
As we can see, irrespective of the extraction radius, emission from gas below 1.8 keV is not
detected. The lowest temperature range we investigate,
here and in other clusters, is characterized by a significantly less constraining upper limit
for the simple reason that emission from gas in this temperature range contributes only
in a modest way to the spectrum above 0.5 keV where we perform our measurements.
Above 1.8 keV, the gas seems to cool at a rate of $\sim 200-300 M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$.
Our analysis suggests that the ICM in A1835 cools down to a temperature that is
approximately 2.4 keV, which is roughly $1\over 4$ of the ambient temperature, $9.7\pm 0.14$ keV, measured from the
circular ring defined by 40 kpc $< r < $400 kpc.
Below this temperature, there is no clear evidence of significant cooling.
If we require the four {\tt mkcflow} components covering the 0.15-1.8 keV range to have the same mass deposition
rate, we find that $\dot M \leqslant 17.5 M_\odot $ yr$^{-1}$ and $10 M_\odot $ yr$^{-1}$
at a $95\%$ confidence level (corresponding to
$\Delta C_{stat} = 2.71$) for the 10 and 20 kpc regions, respectively.
We conclude that the spectral mass cooling rate $\dot M$ in the starburst region is lower by about one order of magnitude than the star formation rate in the BCG (see Table 1).
Finally, we compare our results based on low-resolution spectra with previous results
based on grating spectra and published in the literature \citep{2003Peterson,2010Sanders}.
The advantage of RGS spectra over CCD spectra is that it affords direct detection of
emission lines associated with plasma of different temperatures. As pointed out by
\citet{2010Sanders}, the RGS spectrum of A1835 shows no evidence of emission lines from plasma
with temperatures below $\sim 3$ keV. Under these circumstances, the breakup of the spectrum in different
components relies mostly on its overall shape, and RGS data is no better suited for this purpose
than CCD data. Actually, under the assumption that the mass cooling occurs
in the same region where the star formation is taking place, i.e., roughly within
$20$ kpc of the center \citep{2006McNamara}, the limited spatial resolution of the
RGS, $\sim 30$ arcsec corresponding to $\sim 120$ kpc, results in a
significant disadvantage as any emission from cool thermal components coming from within
$\sim 30$ kpc will be swamped by the emission from the much larger RGS extraction region.
This is likely the reason for the order of magnitude large upper limit to the mass cooling rate,
$\dot M < 200 M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ \citep[][]{2010Sanders} and $\dot M < 140 M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ \citep[][]{2003Peterson},
both at a 90\% confidence level, found in A1835 with XMM-Newton gratings data.
\subsection{RXCJ1504}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{mdot_RXCJ1504_20kpc.ps}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{mdot_RXCJ1504_40kpc.ps}
\caption{\label{RXCJ1504mdot} Measured cooling rate in RXCJ1504 in the inner 20 kpc (left panel)
and 40 kpc (right panel). Symbols as in Figure \ref{A1835mdot}.}
\end{figure*}
RXCJ1504 was observed with ACIS-I for a total of 13.2 ks of effective exposure
in the FAINT mode and for 39 ks in the VFAINT mode.
We measure the redshift of the cluster from the global X-ray spectrum finding
$z_X=0.2126_{-0.0023}^{+0.0029}$, in agreement, within $1 \sigma$, with the optical value
$z_{opt}=0.2153$ \citep{2010Ogrean}. We prefer to use the value of $z_X$ which makes the
fit more sensitive to the presence of line blends from cool gas.
At this redshift the angular diameter scale is $3.45$ kpc/arcsec. Therefore
20 kpc corresponds to 11.6 physical pixels and 40 kpc
to 23.2 pixels. We choose the center to be on the center of the BCG
galaxy, $RA_{BCG}=15$:$04$:$07.490$, $DEC_{BCG}=-2$:$48$:$15.97$,
which is within $\sim 5 $ kpc from the peak in the X-ray surface brightness.
Most star formation occurs in the core of the BCG and in a 42-kpc-long filament of
blue continuum, line emission and X-ray emission, that extends southwest of the galaxy and that
is entirely included in a circle with a 40 kpc radius centered on the BCG \citep[see Fig. 9 in][]{2010Ogrean}.
Therefore, for this cluster we perform our analysis in two circles with radii of 20 and 40 kpc.
We find $\sim$ 16600 ($5700$) and $39400$ ($13600$)
net counts ($0.5$-$7$ keV band) within 20 and 40 kpc of the center of the BCG, respectively,
in the ACIS-I VFAINT (FAINT) observation.
The background is sampled from the ACIS-I CCD3, in a region far from the cluster. Also in this case,
given the extent of this nearby massive cluster,
the background is contaminated by some emission from the cluster itself. However, given the
small size of the region we are investigating, the background contribution is minimal and always below
0.2 \% of the total emission. The value of the Galactic hydrogen column density is
$N_{H} = 5.94 \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ according to \citet{2005LAB}.
With the single {\tt mkcflow} model in the 0.15-3.0 keV temperature range, we find
very low 95\% confidence level upper limits on the order of 10 $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$
irrespective of the extraction radius (see Fig. \ref{RXCJ1504mdot} and Table \ref{tab:spec_fits}).
The results from the multi-component models, show that the two lowest temperature bins (energies
below 0.5 keV) are almost unconstrained owing to the large Galactic absorption, which removes a
large part of the signal at the lowest energies. As shown in Figure \ref{RXCJ1504mdot} (see also Table \ref{tab:spec_fits})
the $95\%$ upper limit on $\dot M$ in the range $0.5$-$1.8$ keV is $\sim 30 \, M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$,
irrespective of the extraction radius. It grows to $\sim 180 M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$
in the temperature range $1.8-3.0$ keV.
If we require the four {\tt mkcflow} components covering the 0.15-1.8 keV range to have the same mass deposition
rate, we find that $\dot M \leqslant 10 M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ and $\dot M \leqslant 8 M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ at
a $95\%$ confidence level (corresponding to $\Delta C_{stat} = 2.71$)
for the 20 and 40 kpc regions, respectively, which are, within the errors, consistent with those from
the single {\tt mkcflow} model.
These values are more than an order of magnitude smaller than the SFR in the BCG.
Our results can be compared to those reported by \citet{2010Ogrean}, who find $3\sigma$ upper limits of
156$\, M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ and 239$\, M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ from the analysis of EPIC and RGS spectra respectively.
As in the case of A1835 the far less constraining XMM-Newton limits likely follow from the
much larger extraction regions chosen by these authors: namely 0.67 arcminutes (140 kpc)
for EPIC and 2 arcminutes (414 kpc) for RGS.
\subsection{RXJ1532}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{mdot_RXJ1532_10kpc.ps}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{mdot_RXJ1532_20kpc.ps}
\caption{\label{RXJ1532mdot}Measured cooling rate in RXCJ1532
in the inner 10 kpc (left panel) and 20 kpc (right panel).
Symbols as in Figure \ref{A1835mdot}. }
\end{figure*}
RXJ1532 was observed with ACIS-I and ACIS-S in 2001 for about 10 ks for both exposures.
However, in 2011, a much deeper exposure of 88 effective ks with ACIS-S, VFAINT mode,
has been acquired. Therefore, we use this last ACIS-S observation for our analysis.
We measure the redshift of the cluster from the global X-ray spectrum finding
$z_X=0.361_{-0.0015}^{+0.0014}$, this is the value that will be used in the X-ray analysis.
We verified that when the redshift is left free during the fits,
its best-fit value does not change significantly.
The star formation observed in the BCG has been measured to be $110 M_\odot $ yr$^{-1}$
by \citet{2012Hoffer}. Recently, \citet{2013Hlavacek-Larrondo}, using HST data, has derived the total SFR
associated with the BCG within a circular region centered on the galaxy with a radius of 3.5 arcsec ($\sim 18$
kpc), while beyond this region they detected no significant UV emission\footnote{The UV SFR measured
by \citet{2013Hlavacek-Larrondo} is $76\pm38$ M$_\odot$/yr, consistent with the IR measure by \citet{2012Hoffer}.}.
Therefore, we choose to extract spectra from two circular regions of 10 and 20 kpc in radius centered
on the BCG at $RA_{BCG} = 15$:$32$:$53.796$, $DEC_{BCG}=+30$:$20$:$58.97$.
The angular diameter scale for RXJ1532 is $5.04$ kpc/arcsec,
10 kpc corresponds to 4 physical pixels on ACIS-S and 20 kpc to 8 pixels.
We find 2500, 7900 net counts (0.5-7 keV band) within 10 and 20 kpc of the center, respectively.
The background is sampled from the ACIS-S CCD7, and as for our other systems, the background contribution
is low, always below 0.2 \% of the total emission.
The value of the Galactic hydrogen column density is
$N_{H} = 2.3 \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ according to \citet{2005LAB}.
For the single {\tt mkcflow} model we have a marginal detection (about $2\sigma$) of a non-negligible
mass cooling rate within 10 kpc, $38 \pm 20 M_\odot $ yr$^{-1}$, while for 20 kpc we derive an upper
limit of about 100$M_\odot $ yr$^{-1}$ (see Fig. \ref{RXJ1532mdot} and Table \ref{tab:spec_fits}).
The temperature of the {\tt mekal}
component is $kT = 4.5\pm 0.4$ and $4.2\pm 0.2$ keV for 10 and 20 kpc, respectively.
The multi-component analysis shows, as for A1835, no evidence of emission below 1.8 keV
(see Fig. \ref{RXJ1532mdot} and Table \ref{tab:spec_fits}).
If we require the four {\tt mkcflow} components covering the 0.15-1.8 keV range to have the same mass deposition
rate, we find that $\dot M \leqslant 49 M_\odot $ yr$^{-1}$ at a 95\% confidence level, corresponding to $\Delta C_{stat} = 2.71$,
for the 10 kpc region. A somewhat less constraining upper limit, $\dot M \leqslant 67 M_\odot $ yr$^{-1}$, is found
for the 20 kpc region that presumably encompasses the entire star formation region.
We conclude that the currently available data is of insufficient statistical quality to provide
constraints for a useful comparison with the SFR.
\subsection{Abell 1068}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{mdot_A1068_20kpc.ps}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{mdot_A1068_40kpc.ps}
\caption{\label{A1068mdot}Measured cooling rate in A1068
in the inner 20 kpc (left panel) and 40 kpc (right panel).
Symbols as in Figure \ref{A1835mdot}. }
\end{figure*}
The {\sl Chandra} data on A1068 consist of 30 ks with ACIS-S in the FAINT mode.
The total exposure time amounts to 26.6 ks after the standard
data reduction procedure. A1068 is also observed in other ACIS-I and ACIS-S
pointings, but always at large off-axis angles, therefore
we do not consider further data for our analysis. The spectral analysis of the ACIS-S data
published in \citet{2004Wise}
found a total mass cooling rate of $\sim 150 M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ from the total emission,
while only $\sim 40 M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ within the inner 30 kpc.
In the same paper the authors discuss the possibility that the observed starburst may also be triggered by
interactions between the BCG and a group of companion galaxies rather than by a
cooling flow. According to \citet[][see their Figure 2]{2004Wise} the bulk of the starburst is contained
within $\simeq 4^{\prime\prime}$ ($\sim 10$ kpc) of the center and is fully contained within
$\simeq 6^{\prime\prime}$ (15 kpc). A secondary starburst is located approximately
15$^{\prime\prime}$ (35 kpc) SE of the core, and one anomalous blue region is seen up to 35$^{\prime\prime}$ from the optical center (see their Figure 3). Finally, according to Figure 1 in \citet{2004Wise}, the optical peak
is offset west with respect to the X-ray peak by about 3$^{\prime\prime}$.
Conversely, according to \citet{2010Edge} the IR emission is on scales $< 5^{\prime\prime}$.
To include all possible cooling sites, we center our extraction regions on the optical position of the BCG
($RA_{BCG}= 0$:$40$:$44.508$; $DEC_{BCG} =+39$:$57$:$11.23 $) and consider extraction radii of 20 and 40 kpc.
At the cluster redshift the angular diameter scale is $2.44$ kpc/arcsec. Therefore, on ACIS-S,
20 kpc corresponds to 16.7 physical pixels and 40 kpc
to 33.3 pixels. We fix the redshift to the value obtained from the best fit to the total spectrum
$z_X = 0.1374_{-0.003}^{+0.001}$.
We identify the presence of a weak AGN in the hard 2-7 keV image, and therefore
remove the inner 2.2 kpc to exclude its emission.
We find 9160 and 17500 net counts (0.5-7 keV band) within
20 and 40 kpc, respectively. The background is sampled from the
ACIS-S CCD7 as in the previous cases, and the background contribution
is always below 0.2 \% of the total emission. The value of the Galactic hydrogen column density is
$N_{H} = 1.69 \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ according to \citet{2005LAB}.
For the single {\tt mkcflow} model we obtain $\dot M <15$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ and
$\dot M <13$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ for 20 and 40 kpc, respectively (see Fig. \ref{A1068mdot} and Table \ref{tab:spec_fits}).
The multi-component {\tt mkcflow} model highlights tight upper limits on emission from gas with temperature in the range 0.25-0.9 keV (see Fig. \ref{A1068mdot} and Table \ref{tab:spec_fits}). Emission could be present in the energy range 0.9 to 1.8 keV, albeit at a low statistical significance of $ \sim 2\sigma$.
If we require the four {\tt mkcflow} components covering the 0.15-1.8 keV range to have the same mass deposition
rate, we find that $\dot M \leqslant 10 M_\odot $ yr$^{-1}$ and $\dot M \leqslant 5 M_\odot $ yr$^{-1}$ at a 95\% confidence level, corresponding to $\Delta C_{stat} = 2.71$ for the 20 and 40 kpc region, respectively.
Thus, for A1068, our upper limit is lower by an order of magnitude or more with respect to the SFR reported by \citet{2012Rawle}.
\subsection{ZW3146}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{mdot_ZW3146_20kpc.ps}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{mdot_ZW3146_30kpc.ps}
\caption{\label{ZW3146mdot}Measured cooling rate in ZW3146
in the inner 20 kpc (left panel) and 30 kpc (right panel).
Symbols as in Figure \ref{A1835mdot}. }
\end{figure*}
ZW3146 was observed with ACIS-I for a total of 45.6 ks of effective exposure
in the FAINT mode and for 40 ks in the VFAINT mode.
We measure the redshift of the cluster from the global X-ray spectrum finding
$z_X=0.2897_{-0.0029}^{+0.0026}$, and we keep this value frozen in the spectral fits.
At this redshift the angular diameter scale is $4.36$ kpc/arcsec. Therefore,
20 kpc corresponds to 9.3 physical pixels on ACIS-I and 30 kpc to 14 pixels.
ZW3146 hosts a significant amount of star formation in the BCG. According to Table 4 in \citet{1999Crawford}
the $H_\alpha$ flux comes from a slit with a
size of $\sim 6^{\prime\prime}$ corresponding to a width of 26 kpc. Moreover, according to \citet{2010Edge},
the dust emission has an extent comparable to the bulk of the CO emitting gas and optical
emission lines (less than $5^{\prime\prime}$). Finally, the X-ray center is offset from the peak of UV starburst
\citep[see][]{2010Odea}. Therefore, we choose the center to be on the center of the BCG
galaxy, $RA_{BCG}=10$:$23$:$39.6$, $DEC_{BCG}=+04$:$11$:$10.8$,
which is within $\sim 10 $ kpc of the centroid of the X-ray surface brightness.
We perform extractions within 20 and 30 kpc radii to encompass any possible region with significant star formation.
We find $\sim 4140$ ($4650$) and $6820$ ($7800$)
net counts ($0.5-7$ keV band) within 20 and 30 kpc, respectively, in the ACIS-I VFAINT (FAINT) observation.
The background is sampled from the ACIS-I CCD3 in a region far from the cluster core. Also in this case,
given the extent of this nearby and massive system,
the background is contaminated by some outer emission of the cluster itself. However, given the
small size of the region we investigate, the background contribution is minimal and always below
0.1\% of the total emission. The value of the Galactic hydrogen column density is
$N_{H} = 2.46 \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ according to \citet{2005LAB}.
With the single {\tt mkcflow} model in the 0.15-3.0 keV temperature range, we find
$\dot M < 94\, M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ and $\dot M < 56 \, M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ for 20 and 30 kpc, respectively (see Fig. \ref{ZW3146mdot}
and Table \ref{tab:spec_fits}).
The temperature of the {\tt mekal} component is around 4 keV ( $4.1\pm 0.2$ and $4.2\pm 0.1$
keV for 20 and 30 kpc, respectively).
From the results obtained with the multi-component {\tt mkcflow} models, shown in Figure \ref{ZW3146mdot} and Table \ref{tab:spec_fits},
we find that the tightest constraints on emission come from the 0.45-0.9 keV temperature interval.
If we link the four {\tt mkcflow} components covering the range 0.15-1.8 keV we find
an upper limit of $\dot M \leqslant 45 M_\odot $ yr$^{-1}$ and $\dot M \leqslant 34 M_\odot $ yr$^{-1}$ at a 95\% confidence level, corresponding to $\Delta C_{stat} = 2.71$ for the 20 and 30 kpc region, respectively.
Despite these rather loose constraints, the cooling rates are a factor of 2-3 smaller than the measured star formation rate
(see Table \ref{tab:zobs}).
A previous estimate of the spectroscopic mass cooling rate was performed in Rafferty et al. (2006),
using Chandra ACIS spectra; however, the extraction region was significantly larger, namely 186 kpc.
These authors found a cooling rate of $\dot M \leqslant 590^{+190}_{-170} M_\odot $ yr$^{-1}$.
\subsection{Z0348}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{mdot_Z0348_10kpc.ps}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{mdot_Z0348_20kpc.ps}
\caption{\label{Z0348mdot}Measured cooling rate in Z0348
in the inner 10 kpc (left panel) and 20 kpc (right panel).
Symbols as in Figure \ref{A1835mdot}. }
\end{figure*}
The {\sl Chandra} data on Z0348 consist of 47.8 ks, after the standard
data reduction procedure, with ACIS-S in the VFAINT mode.
We detect an AGN in the center of the cluster, and we remove it
for the sake of our spectral analysis. As in the case of the Phoenix cluster \citep{2012McDonald}
the X-ray emission of this active nucleus in the middle of a bright cool core appears to be strongly absorbed.
We fix the redshift to the value obtained from the best fit to the total spectrum,
which gives $z_X = 0.256 \pm 0.002$, in very good agreement with the optical
value $z=0.254$. At the cluster redshift the angular diameter scale is $3.97$ kpc/arcsec.
Therefore, 10 kpc corresponds to $5.1$ physical pixels and 20 kpc
to $10.2$ pixels.
We choose the center to be on the X-ray peak, which coincides with the position of the AGN and
with the center of the BCG at $RA_{BCG}=1$:$06$:$49.410$, $DEC_{BCG}=+1$:$03$:$22.55$
\citep[see][]{2010Odea}. The BCG in Z0348 features diffuse Ly$_\alpha$
emission extending out to some 5$^{\prime\prime}$ (20 kpc) from the position
of the unresolved VLA radio source, coincident with the X-ray AGN. Beyond this value, the Ly$_\alpha$
emission is negligible \citep{2010Odea}. We extract spectra from two regions with bounding radii
of 10 kpc and 20 kpc, encompassing all star forming sites.
We measure 1100 and 4150 net counts (0.5-7 keV band) within 10 and 20 kpc, respectively,
after removing the inner 2$^{\prime\prime}$, contaminated by the AGN. The background is sampled from the
ACIS-S CCD7, as it was in previous cases, and the background correction
is always below 0.1\% of the total emission. The value of the Galactic hydrogen column density is
$N_{H} = 2.5 \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ according to \citet{2005LAB}.
For the single {\tt mkcflow} model we obtain an upper limit of
$\dot M < 26.4 $ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ and $ \dot M < 56.1 $ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$
for 10 and 20 kpc, respectively (see Figure \ref{Z0348mdot}
and Table \ref{tab:spec_fits}).
We note that for Z0348 the ambient temperature is rather low,
leaving little room to constrain the mass cooling rate.
The analysis with the multi-component models shown in Figure \ref{Z0348mdot} and Table \ref{tab:spec_fits}
confirms that the upper limits allow for a significant cooling rate.
If we consider the 0.45-0.95 keV range where constraints are tightest,
we find upper limits of $38 M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ and $ 72 M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ at a 95\% confidence level for 10 and 20 kpc, respectively.
By linking the four {\tt mkcflow} components covering the range 0.15-1.8 keV,
we find upper limits of $21.3 M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ and $ 47.9 M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ for 10 and 20 kpc, respectively.
These values are broadly consistent with the SFR in the BCG. We conclude that in Z0348
there is no substantial disagreement between star formation and mass cooling rate.
A deeper exposure on this cluster should allow us to put stronger constraints on the mass cooling rate.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{\label{tab:spec_fits}Best-fit values for $\dot M$ obtained from single and multi {\tt mkcflow}
models. Upper limits are at the 95\% confidence level while errors are 1$\sigma$.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Name & region & single {\tt mkcflow} &multi {\tt mkcflow}&multi {\tt mkcflow} &multi {\tt mkcflow}&multi {\tt mkcflow} & multi {\tt mkcflow} \\
& & & 0.15-0.25 keV & 0.25-0.45 keV & 0.45-0.9 keV & 0.9-1.8 keV & 1.8-3.0 keV \\
& kpc & $M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ &$M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ &$M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ &$M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ & $M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ & $M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ \\
\hline
A1835 & 10 & 23.3 & 190 & 34 & 28 & 73 & $167^{+40}_{-60}$ \\
& 20 & 21.7 & 209 & 36 & 21 & 41 & $367\pm 176 $ \\
\hline
RXCJ1504.1 & 20 & 10.0 & 380 & 48 & 19 & 32 & 189 \\
& 40 & 8.0 & 376 & 46 & 18 & 28 & 172 \\
\hline
RX J1532.9+3021 & 10 & $ 38.2 \pm 20$ & 2253 & 267 & 89 & 123 & $322 \pm 130$ \\
& 20 & 95.0 & 3500 & 450 & 122 & 138 & $665 \pm 250$ \\
\hline
A1068 & 20 & 15 & 51 & 11 & 10 & $33 \pm 15$ & $263 \pm 47$ \\
& 40 & 13 & 78 & 20 & 19 & $36 \pm 20$ & $303 \pm 50$ \\
\hline
ZW3146 & 20 & 94.1 & 950 & 185 & 90 & 153 & $817.2 \pm 250$ \\
& 30 & 55.8 & 890 & 140 & 68 & 148 & 1118 \\
\hline
Z0348 & 10 & 26.4 & 210 & 51 & 38 & 78 & $120 \pm 60$ \\
& 20 & 56.1 & 820 & 115 & 72 & 179 & $466 \pm 111$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Summary of measures on individual systems}
For all our systems, once emission above a given threshold is excluded, we find no significant evidence of cooling gas. The threshold is found to be 1.8 keV for all systems but A1068 and RXJ1504, whose emission is detected down to 0.9 keV and 3.0 keV, respectively.
In Table \ref{tab:systematics} we report, for all our systems, the 95\% upper limit on the mass cooling rate obtained by linking all cooling components below the threshold value.
\section{Systematics}\label{sec:sys}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{\label{tab:systematics}Best-fit upper limits at the 95\% confidence level for $\dot M$ obtained from a modified multi {\tt mkcflow}
model (see text for details) compared to estimates of systematic effects on $\dot M$.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Name & region & E$_{\rm thr}$ & $\dot M$ best fit & $\dot M$ free $N_{H}$ & $\dot M$ 3\% eff Area \\
& kpc & keV & $M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ & $M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ & $M_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ \\
\hline
A1835 & 10 & 1.8 & 17.5 & 23.3 & $2.1$ \\
& 20 & 1.8 & 9.9 & 15.6 & $7.1$ \\
\hline
RXCJ1504.1 & 20 & 3.0 & 10.0 & 19.0 & $11.4$ \\
& 40 & 3.0 & 8.0 & 15.5 & $27.0$\\
\hline
RX J1532.9+3021 & 10 & 1.8 & 49.2 & 63.2 & $3.8$ \\
& 20 & 1.8 & 67.3 & 105.9 & $11.3$\\
\hline
A1068 & 20 & 0.9 & 10.0 & 14.1 & 1.9 \\
& 40 & 0.9 & 4.8 & 7.4 & 5.8\\
\hline
ZW3146 & 20 & 1.8 & 45.0 & 48.5 & $9.0$ \\
& 30 & 1.8 & 34.0 & 58.7 & $14.0$\\
\hline
Z0348 & 10 & 1.8 & 21.3 & 28.2 & $1.1$\\
& 20 & 1.8 & 47.9 & 74.8 & $4.8$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
Even in presence of a significant mass cooling rate of several tens $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$,
the emission associated with the cold gas contributes about 10-20\% of the total emission
in the soft band. Clearly, our measurements are critically dependent on any effect that may
alter the signal in this energy range.
In this section we discuss several aspects that may affect our results, showing in detail how our estimates or
upper limits on the mass cooling rates change with relevant parameters.
\subsection{Statistical uncertainties in the Galactic absorption}
The first parameter that can affect the soft emission is the Galactic absorption $N_{H}$. In our
fitting method we keep $N_{H}$ frozen to the value found in \citet{2005LAB} at the position of the cluster.
To investigate the effect of a different value of $N_{H}$ on our results, we repeat some of our fits with a varying
Galactic absorption. This is motivated by the possible presence of unnoticed fluctuations in
the Galactic neutral hydrogen column densities on scales smaller than the resolution of
\citet{2005LAB}. The typical fluctuations expected on scales of $\sim $ 1 arcmin are on the order of
10-40\% \citep{2003Barnes}. Clearly, the absorption is too weak to be measured independently during
the fit. Generally, the effect of leaving the Galactic absorption free to vary is that of pushing $N_{H}$ towards
high values to accommodate more soft emission.
Therefore, the best-fit values or the upper limits on $\dot M$
will generally increase whenever $N_{H}$ is a free parameter. In order to achieve a very conservative
upper limit to the amount of cold gas, we assume a maximum positive variation of 40\% in $N_{H}$.
In Table \ref{tab:systematics} we list the $\dot M$ values obtained in each cluster with a multi {\tt mkcflow} model
where all components up to a threshold value of E$_{\rm thr}$, also reported in the table, are linked.
For comparison we also report values of $\dot M$ obtained by performing the same fit with $N_{H}$ fixed to the
value found in \citet{2005LAB}.
For A1835 the largest admissible value for the Galactic
absorption is $N_{H} = 2.86 \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$. The new upper limits are somewhat higher
reaching $\dot M \sim 23 M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ and $\dot M \sim 16 M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ respectively
for the 10 kpc and 20 kpc regions. Even in this case, the
upper limits on the mass cooling rate are almost an order of magnitude lower than the SFR in the BCG.
For RXCJ1504, the maximum value of $N_{H} = 8.3 \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ provides mass cooling rates
twice as large as in the case with $N_{H}$ frozen to its nominal values. As for A1835, this upper limit is
about an order of magnitude lower than the SFR in the BCG.
For RXJ1532, allowing $N_{H}$ to vary leads to a mass cooling rate of about 100$M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$,
which is comparable to the SFR.
For A1068, $N_{H}$ is allowed to range up to $2.35 \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$, and in this case the mass
cooling rates increase by less than a factor of 2, leaving the upper limit to
less than a tenth of the SFR.
For ZW3146, the values of $\dot M$ are roughly twice as large as when $N_{H}$ is fixed, and the discrepancy with the
SFR is relatively modest.
Finally, in the case of Z0348, $N_{H}$ is allowed
to range up to $3.5 \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$, bringing the new $\dot M$ upper limits in agreement with the SFR.
Therefore, while the value of $N_{H}$ clearly affects the measurement of $\dot M$, our results
change only moderately if we allow $N_{H}$ to increase up to a maximum of 40\% of its value measured by \citet{2005LAB}.
In addition, it is clearly very unlikely that all the measurements of $N_{H}$ for our clusters are systematically
underestimated by this amount. We conclude that our results are not significantly affected by uncertainties
in $N_{H}$.
\subsection{Systematic uncertainties in the effective areas}
A robust characterization of weak and cool components in a hot environment requires
that systematic effects on the effective areas be properly taken into account. Indeed,
these components emerge only in a restricted low-energy range, below
1 keV, where their contribution to the total flux may be quite
small. Clearly, when the relative intensity of the component becomes comparable to the
systematic uncertainties in the effective areas, any detection based on our
maximum-likelihood analysis of the data is not reliable.
Since a fully self-consistent treatment of systematic uncertainties in the analysis of X-ray
spectra has yet to be devised \citep[see however the relevant work by][]{2006Drake},
we resort to a rather crude but
effective ad hoc technique. For each spectrum we take as a systematic uncertainty
in the reconstruction of the spectral shape in the 0.5-0.9 keV band,
a value of 3\% of the total count rate in that band. Thus, the systematic error on
$\dot M$ is defined as the value that the normalization of the {\tt mkcflow} model
assumes when its 0.5-0.9 keV count rate equals 3\% of the total count rate.
We apply this only to the single {\tt mkcflow} model since it would be unrealistic to
apply the entire 3\% uncertainty to a limited temperature range, and leave the other components unaffected.
We report the $\dot M$ associated with a 3\% uncertainty in the normalization of the {\tt mkcflow} model
in Table \ref{tab:systematics}.
Clearly the effect rises rapidly with the size of the extraction region, since
it is proportional to the absolute emission in the 0.5-0.9 energy range.
This is found to be lower than our upper limits in most cases,
the exceptions are the 20 and 40 kpc regions of RXJ1504 and the 40 kpc region of A1068.
We also note that if we include the systematics on $N_{H}$ in our comparison, the only
region to be dominated by the effective area systematics is the 40 kpc region of RXJ1504.
In this case the difference between a cooling rate upper limit and SFR is reduced to a factor of
roughly 5.
We conclude that systematic effects on the effective area 1) do not
affect the main conclusion of this work and 2) are in most instances subdominant, implying that
further accumulation of data will lead to stronger constraints on the mass cooling rate.
\subsection{Best estimates and comparison with SFR}
Having evaluated what we consider to be the most relevant systematics, we are now in a
position to provide a final estimate on mass cooling rates for our systems.
We do this by considering for each system the cooling rate coming from the larger of
the two regions we have considered, these have been chosen to include all known star formation regions and,
in general, to provide more conservative upper limits.
A statistics only estimate is provided by the values reported in the
fourth column of Table \ref{tab:systematics}. An estimate including systematic effects is
obtained by taking the largest between the values reported in columns 5 and 6.
We note that in only one instance, namely RXCJ1504.1, is the dominant systematic associated with
the effective area. Finally, a comparison of both estimates (i.e., excluding and including
systematic effects) with SFR measures is provided in Fig \ref{sfr_mdot_nh}.
As shown, in some cases, the upper limits are comparable with the star formation rate; however, in
two instances, the mass cooling rate is well below the SFR. Indeed, in the case of A1835 and A1068,
the upper limits, even allowing for systematic uncertainties, are a factor of ten lower than the
SFR. If we consider only statistical uncertainties the number of such systems goes up to 3
(i.e., half of our sample). It is also worth bearing in mind that we do not have a cooling
rate detection for any of the systems in our
sample, all well-known extreme star forming objects.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{mdot_vs_sfr.ps}
\caption{\label{sfr_mdot_nh}Mass cooling rate vs star formation rate. Filled red circles refer to the statistical 95\% confidence upper limits on mass cooling rates. Empty blue circles refer to upper limits on cooling rates that include systematic errors. Dashed and solid lines show the relations $\dot M =$ SFR and
$\dot M = 0.1$ SFR, respectively.}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\section{Discussion} \label{sec:dis}
Over the past decade, a widely accepted picture has
emerged where the cooling of the bulk of the gas in cores is prevented by some form of
heating related to feedback from the
massive black hole residing at the center of these systems.
The general idea is that small amounts of gas do manage to cool down;
one part of this gas ends up forming stars, while the other part accretes
onto the black hole, thereby producing feedback effects. In this scenario when, occasionally, feedback
effects completely shut down accretion onto the black hole, the hot gas experiences
a rapid cooling, a sort of short-lived cooling flow phase, which is immediately
followed by vigorous star formation and refueling of the black hole,
thereby restarting the cycle. We note that the cooling flow phase must be short-lived, otherwise
the spectroscopic signature of the cooling gas would have been detected in some of the
many systems where it has been searched.
In this framework, the systems we have selected, i.e., those experiencing the most
significant star formation events, should also be those undergoing
the most intense cooling in soft X-rays.
Regrettably, this is not what we find: none of our systems show evidence of gas cooling below
a threshold temperature. Moreover, in several instances -- four or five out of six, depending on whether we include systematic effects in our estimates -- our upper limits are significantly below the
star formation rates. In two or three cases -- depending on whether we include systematic
effects in our estimates -- we have upper limits on cooling rates that are an order of magnitude below the SFR.
Two kinds of solutions to this problem can be considered. In the first, the
gas is provided by some source which is not the ICM. \citet{2011Voit}, for instance,
proposed stellar mass-loss from the old stellar population; however, in this case the
expected rate is only on the order of $10 M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ \citep[see also criticism in][]{2012Rawle},
which is significantly smaller than the SFR in all the systems we are considering here.
In the second class of solutions it is postulated that the
gas is supplied from the hot phase.
In this context, one way to explain the mismatch, is to assume there is a delay between the cooling
and the star formation. If this is the case, the systems
we have chosen may have already concluded their most significant cooling phase. We now investigate
this possibility in some detail.
The hot X-ray gas must first cool down to $\sim 10^4$ K, which is the first thermally stable region.
This takes $\sim t_{cool}$, which is several 100 Myr for the X-ray gas. Second, the warm gas must
condense to 10-20 K, i.e., the molecular cloud regime. This is relatively fast ($< $ 1 Myr)
if there are some significant perturbations. Third, at the molecular stage,
the gas will start forming stars at a given rate that depends on the dynamical timescale,
$t_{dyn} = (3\pi /32 G \rho)^{1/2}$, which, in our case, should be on the order of 10-50 Myr.
It is true that $t_{dyn}$ is quite short; however, in many astrophysical environments,
the efficiency with which stars are formed is observed to be quite small, i.e., only a few percent
of what might be expected if $t_{dyn}$ were the relevant timescale \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{2015Federrath}.
If these small efficiencies apply to the core regions of BCGs, there might be a latency time of
roughly 1 Gyr and objects with very high star formation rates, such as the ones considered
in this paper, may not be the ones currently undergoing the most intense cooling in X-rays.
To address this issue, we estimate directly from existing data the depletion timescale, $t_{dep}$,
i.e., the timescale over which the molecular gas is turned into stars. We define
$t_{dep} \equiv M_{\rm mol}/{\rm SFR}$, where $M_{\rm mol}$ is the mass of molecular gas and SFR
is the star formation rate. We have measures of the molecular gas for a few of our systems
(A1835, RXJ1532, A1068, and ZW3146; see Table 1 for details) and for one system that has purposely been
left out of our study: the Phoenix Cluster \citep{2015bTozzi}. For the four systems in our study we find depletion timescales of roughly 350 Myr for A1835 and A1068
and 1 Gyr for ZW3146 and RXJ1532, showing that the latency time for at least two of these systems is
relatively short. Interestingly, for the Phoenix Cluster, the depletion timescale is only 30 Myr, i.e., about a factor of 10 smaller than for A1835 and A1068. The reason for much of this difference lies in the different CO to H$_2$ conversion factor adopted by different authors. As pointed out in \citet{2014McDonald}, all these systems harbor similar amounts of molecular gas. If the CO measurements of A1835 and A1068 are converted into H$_2$ mass estimates using the same conversion factor adopted for the Phoenix Cluster, the depletion timescales drops below 100 Myr, leaving essentially no latency time between X-ray cooling and star formation.
While a detailed discussion on what conversion factor should be adopted for our systems is
beyond the scope of this paper, we do wish to note that according to several recent works
\citep[see][for a review]{2013Bolatto}, the conversion factor anti-correlates with
the surface density of gas and stars. In general in BCGs the surface density is high; for instance, in the case of A1835,
in the innermost kpcs, it is on the order of 2000$M_\odot$pc$^{-2}$ \citep{2014McNamara}. This suggest that,
for our systems, a low conversion factor, such as the one adopted for the Phoenix Cluster, may indeed be appropriate.
It therefore seems that the two systems for which the upper limit on the cooling rate is a factor of 10
smaller than the star formation, namely A1068 and A1835, are also those for which the delay time
argument does not provide an adequate explanation for this discrepancy.
Of course, although it is unlikely, we might be observing A1835 and A1068 in the short time interval between the shutting off of the cooling and the consequent depletion of the molecular gas.
Another possibility is that the gas that is forming stars in our systems originates in
a significantly larger volume than the one where it currently resides.
If we assume that within a region where the cooling time is relatively short, e.g., several Gyr,
corresponding to scales of several tens of kpc, and some of the gas does indeed manage to cool down to a cold phase, it will increase its density significantly as it contracts and, in the absence of countering forces, fall towards the center of the cluster under its own weight.
Over the last few years, several high-resolution 3D simulations have been carried out to study in
detail the multi-phase condensation mechanism we have sketched here
\citep[e.g.,][]{2012Gaspari,2013Gaspari,2015bGaspari} which is known as “chaotic cold accretion” (CCA).
Such a precipitation mechanism has been corroborated by independent observational evidence
\citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{2015Voit}. Within this scenario, our X-ray cooling rates
might be reconciled with star formation rates if we increase the size of the regions over which
we search for the cooling gas.
We have tested this possibility on the two systems where the upper limits on the cooling rates
are most constraining, namely A1835 and A1068 (see Table \ref{tab:systematics}). We extended our
spectral analysis for both to 100 kpc, where the cooling time is roughly 5 Gyrs.
In neither case did we find evidence of emission of gas cooling below 1.8 keV. We estimated
upper limits of roughly $60 M_\odot $ yr$^{-1}$ for A1835 and $40 M_\odot $ yr$^{-1}$ for A1068;
in both cases a dominant contribution to the upper limit comes from systematic errors (see \S\ref{sec:sys}),
more specifically the error associated with the effective area for A1835 and a combination of effective area and galactic absorption for A1068. These limits are still a factor of 2 below the star formation rates. Thus,
extending our search out to large radii alleviates the tension between cooling and star formation rates, but does not dissolve it entirely.
A further possibility, along these lines, is that gas with very short
cooling time, $<$ 1Gyr, exist out to significantly larger radii or perhaps throughout the cluster.
Indeed, given the limited efficiency of mechanism such as thermal conduction and mixing, a moderate degree of multi-phaseness or ``clumping'' as it is sometimes called, cannot be ruled out in the ICM at large \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]{2016Molendi}.
We also note that emission from the infalling cold gas may well be below the detection threshold of available instrumentation.
Finally, we should not dismiss the possibility that, for some unknown reason, the cooling
through the soft X-ray band is either hidden from us or simply does not occur. Solutions
along these lines were proposed more than a decade ago \citep{2001Fabian}. More recently
\citep{2012Fabian} has pointed out that cold gas could be rapidly growing by mixing with the hot gas.
\section{Summary}
We computed the isobaric mass cooling rate for a small sample of X-ray clusters observed with
{\sl Chandra}, whose BCGs are observed to host among the most significant episodes of star formation
with SFR in the range $30-150 M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$.
To this end, at variance with several previous studies, we considered primarily regions
close to where star formation is known to occur.
Our results are summarized as follows.
All our measurements are upper limits: in no instance do we detect gas cooling all through the soft X-ray band. In two cases, the upper limit on the cooling rates are comparable to the SFR; in two more they are significantly below.
In the last two cases, namely A1835 and A1068, even allowing for systematic uncertainties, they are a factor of ten lower than the SFR.
Possible systematic effects related to poor knowledge of the Galactic column density or to uncertainties
in the {\sl Chandra} calibration may affect our measurement of $\dot M$ by about a factor of 2. However,
in most of our systems, their magnitude is too modest to reconcile the discrepancy between the upper limit on the mass cooling rate and the SFR.
We have examined several possible solutions to the cooling vs star formation rate
discrepancy.
\begin{itemize}
\item An origin of the gas other than the ICM appears implausible as there is no obvious source.
\item In two of our systems a delay between cooling and star formation could explain the mismatch between
rates; however, for the two systems showing an order of magnitude discrepancy between star formation and cooling rates, namely A1835 and A1068, this seems unlikely.
\item A solution can be found for A1835 and A1068, if we accept that gas is
cooling out of the X-ray phase in regions that are much larger than those
on which we observe the starburst. These regions need to extend beyond the
cores of our clusters possibly encompassing significant fractions of these systems.
\end{itemize}
Finally we would like to point out that
since systematics affecting many of our measurements are not severe, a wider investigation on a
larger sample of clusters, possibly with deeper data, could provide further insight into the
relation between cooling flows and star formation events in the BCGs.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We acknowledge financial contribution from contract PRIN INAF 2012 (``A unique dataset
to address the most compelling open questions about X-ray galaxy clusters”).
M.G. is supported by NASA through Einstein Postdoctoral Fellowship Award Number PF-160137
issued by the Chandra X-ray Observatory Center, which is operated by the SAO for and on behalf
of NASA under contract NAS8-03060.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:concl}
We consider a new problem called the shortest unique palindromic substring problem.
We proposed an optimal linear time preprocessing algorithm so that all $\mathit{SUPS}\mbox{s}$ for any given query interval
can be answered in linear time w.r.t. the number of outputs.
The key idea was to use palindromic properties in order to obtain a characterization of $\mathit{SUPS}$,
more precisely,
that a palindromic substring cannot contain a unique palindromic substring with a different center.
\section{Introduction}
A substring $S[i..j]$ of a string $S$ is called a \emph{shortest unique substring} ($\mathit{SUS}$) for a position $p$
if $S[i..j]$ is the shortest substring
s.t. $S[i..j]$ is unique in $S$ (i.e., $S[i..j]$ occurs exactly once in $S$),
and $[i..j]$ contains $p$ (i.e., $i \leq p \leq j$).
Recently, Pei et al.~\cite{Pei} proposed the \emph{point SUS problem},
preprocessing a given string $S$ of length $n$ so that we can return a $\mathit{SUS}$ for any given query position efficiently.
This problem was considered for some applications in bioinformatics,
e.g., polymerase chain reaction (PCR) primer design in molecular biology.
Pei et al.~\cite{Pei} proposed an algorithm which returns a $\mathit{SUS}$ for any given position
in constant time after $O(n^2)$-time preprocessing.
After that, Tsuruta et al.~\cite{Tsuruta} and Ileri et al.~\cite{ileri14:_short_unique_subst_query_revis}
independently showed optimal $O(n)$-time preprocessing and constant query time algorithms.
They also showed optimal $O(n)$-time preprocessing and $O(k)$ query time algorithms
which return all $\mathit{SUS}\mbox{s}$ for any given position
where $k$ is the number of outputs.
Moreover, Hon et al.~\cite{HonTX15} proposed an in-place algorithm which returns a $\mathit{SUS}$.
A more general problem called \emph{interval SUS problem},
where a query is an interval, was considered by Hu et al.~\cite{Hu}.
They proposed an optimal $O(n)$-time preprocessing and $O(k)$ query time algorithm
which returns all $\mathit{SUS}\mbox{s}$ containing a given query interval.
Most recently, Mieno et al.~\cite{MienoIBT16} proposed an efficient algorithm
for interval $\mathit{SUS}$ problem when the input string is represented by \emph{run-length encoding}.
In this paper, we consider a new variant of interval $\mathit{SUS}$ problems concerning palindromes.
A substring $S[i..j]$ is called a palindromic substring of $S$
if $S[i..j]$ and the reversed string of $S[i..j]$ is the same string.
The study of combinatorial properties and structures on palindromes is still an important and
well studied topic in stringology~\cite{DBLP:conf/dlt/BannaiGIKKPPS15,DBLP:journals/tcs/DroubayJP01,DBLP:journals/jda/FiciGKK14,DBLP:journals/ipl/GroultPR10,DBLP:conf/cpm/ISIBT14,eertree}.
Droubay et al.~\cite{DBLP:journals/tcs/DroubayJP01} showed a string of length $n$ can contain
at most $n+1$ distinct palindromes.
Moreover, Groult et al.~\cite{DBLP:journals/ipl/GroultPR10} proposed a linear time algorithm
for computing all distinct palindromes in a string.
Our new problem can be described as follows.
A substring $S[i..j]$ of a string $S$ is called a \emph{shortest unique palindromic substring} ($\mathit{SUPS}$) for an interval $[s, t]$
if $S[i..j]$ is the shortest substring
s.t. $S[i..j]$ is unique in $S$, $[i..j]$ contains $[s, t]$, and $S[i..j]$ is a palindromic substring.
The \emph{interval SUPS problem} is to preprocess a given string $S$ of length $n$
so that we can return all $\mathit{SUPS}\mbox{s}$ for any query interval efficiently.
For this problem, we propose an optimal $O(n)$-time preprocessing and $O(\alpha+1)$-time query algorithm,
where $\alpha$ is the number of outputs.
Potential applications of our algorithm are in bioinformatics;
It is known that the presence of particular (e.g., unique) palindromic sequences can affect
immunostimulatory activities of oligonucleotides~\cite{kuramoto1992oligonucleotide,yamamoto1992unique}.
The size and the number of palindromes also influence the activity.
Since any unique palindromic sequence can be obtained easily from a shorter unique palindromic sequences,
we can focus on the shortest unique palindromic substrings.
The contents of our paper are as follows.
In Section~\ref{sec:preliminaries}, we state some definitions and properties on strings.
In Section~\ref{sec:sups}, we explain properties on $\mathit{SUPS}$ and our query algorithm.
In Section~\ref{sec:mups}, we show the main part of the preprocessing phase of our algorithm.
Finally, we conclude.
\section{Computing $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$} \label{sec:mups}
In this section, we show how to compute $\mathcal{M}_S$ in $O(n)$ time and space.
Let $\mathit{DP}_S$ be the set of \emph{distinct palindromic substrings} in $S$,
and $\mathit{strM}_S = \{ S[i, j] \mid [i, j] \in \mathcal{M}_S \}$.
Our idea of computing $\mathcal{M}_S$ is based on the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
$\mathit{strM}_S \subseteq \mathit{DP}_S$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that any string in $\mathit{strM}_S$ is a palindromic substring of $S$.
\end{proof}
An algorithm for computing all distinct palindromic substrings in string in linear time and space
was proposed by Groult et al.~\cite{DBLP:journals/ipl/GroultPR10}.
We show a linear time and space algorithm which computes $\mathcal{M}_S$
by modifying Groult et al.'s algorithm.
\subsection{Tools}
We show some tools for computing $\mathcal{M}_S$ below.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Longest previous factor array (LPF)}
We denote the longest previous factor array of $S$ by $\mathit{LPF}_S$.
The $i$-th entry $(1 \leq i \leq n)$ is the length of the longest prefix of $S[i..n]$
which occurs at a position less than $i$.
\item {\bf Inverse suffix array (ISA)}
We denote the inverse suffix array of $S$ by $\mathit{ISA}_S$.
The $i$-th entry $(1 \leq i \leq n)$ is the lexicographic order of $S[i..n]$
in all suffixes of $S$.
\item {\bf Longest common prefix array (LCP)}
We denote the longest common prefix array of $S$ by $\mathit{LCP}_S$.
The $i$-th entry $(2 \leq i \leq n)$ is the length of the longest common prefix
of the lexicographically $i$-th suffix of $S$ and the $(i-1)$-th suffix of $S$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Computing distinct palindromes}
Here, we show a summary of Groult et al.'s algorithm.
The following lemma states the main idea.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{DBLP:journals/tcs/DroubayJP01}]
The number of distinct palindromic substrings in $S$
is equal to the number of prefixes of $S$
s.t. its longest palindromic suffix is unique in the prefix.
\end{lemma}
Since counting suffixes that uniquely occur in a prefix implies that only
the leftmost occurrences of substrings, and thus distinct substrings are counted,
their algorithm finds all the distinct palindromic substrings by:
\begin{itemize}
\item computing the longest palindromic suffix of each prefix of $S$, and
\item checking whether each longest palindromic suffix occurs uniquely in the prefix or not.
\end{itemize}
They first propose an algorithm which computes all the longest palindromic suffixes in linear time.
They then check, in constant time, the uniqueness of the occurrence in the prefix by using the LPF array, thus
computing $\mathit{DP}_S$ in linear time and space.
\subsection{Computing all $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$}
Finally, we show how to modify Groult et al.'s algorithm.
As mentioned, they compute the leftmost occurrence of each distinct palindromic substring.
We call such a palindromic substring, the leftmost palindromic substring.
It is clear that if a leftmost palindromic substring $w$ is unique in $S$
and is a minimal palindromic substring, then $w$ is a $\mathit{MUPS}$.
Thus, we add operations to check the uniqueness and minimality of each leftmost palindromic substring.
We can do these operations by using $\mathit{ISA}$ and $\mathit{LCP}$ array.
Let $S[i..j]$ be a leftmost palindromic substring in $S$.
First, we check whether $S[i..j]$ is unique or not in $S$.
If $\mathit{ISA}[i] = k$, $S[i..n]$ is the lexicographically $k$-th suffix of $S$.
$S[i..j]$ is unique in $S$ iff $\mathit{LCP}[k] < j-i+1$ and $\mathit{LCP}[k+1] < j-i+1$.
Thus we can check whether $S[i..j]$ is unique or not in constant time.
Finally, we check whether $S[i..j]$ is a minimal palindromic substring or not.
By definition, $S[i..j]$ is minimal palindromic substring if $j-i+1 \leq 2$,
i.e., $S[i..j]$ has no shorter unique palindromic substring.
If $j-i+1 > 2$, then we check whether $S[i+1..j-1]$ is unique or not
by using $\mathit{ISA}$ and $\mathit{LCP}$ in a similar way.
Thus we can also check whether $S[i..j]$ is minimal or not in constant time.
By the above arguments, we can compute all $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ in linear time and space.
\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:preliminaries}
\subsection{Strings}
Let $\Sigma$ be an integer {\em alphabet}.
An element of $\Sigma^*$ is called a {\em string}.
The length of a string $S$ is denoted by $|S|$.
The empty string $\varepsilon$ is a string of length 0,
namely, $|\varepsilon| = 0$.
Let $\Sigma^+$ be the set of non-empty strings,
i.e., $\Sigma^+ = \Sigma^* - \{\varepsilon\}$.
For a string $S = xyz$, $x$, $y$ and $z$ are called
a \emph{prefix}, \emph{substring}, and \emph{suffix} of $S$, respectively.
A prefix $x$ and a suffix $z$ of $S$ are respectively
called a \emph{proper prefix} and \emph{proper suffix} of $S$,
if $x \neq S$ and $z \neq S$.
The $i$-th character of a string $S$ is denoted by $S[i]$, where $1 \leq i \leq |S|$.
For a string $S$ and two integers $1 \leq i \leq j \leq |S|$,
let $S[i..j]$ denote the substring of $S$ that begins at position $i$ and ends at position $j$.
For convenience, let $S[i..j] = \varepsilon$ when $i > j$.
\subsection{Palindromes}
Let $\rev{S}$ denote the reversed string of $S$,
that is, $\rev{S} = S[|S|] \cdots S[1]$.
A string $S$ is called a palindrome if $S = \rev{S}$.
Let $P \subset \Sigma^*$ be the set of palindromes.
A substring $S[i..j]$ of $S$ is said to be a palindromic substring of $S$, if $S[i..j] \in P$.
The center of a palindromic substring $S[i..j]$ of $S$ is $\frac{i+j}{2}$.
Thus a string $S$ of length $n \geq 1$ has $2n-1$ centers
($1, 1.5, \ldots, n-0.5, n$).
The following lemma can be easily obtained by the definition of palindromes.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:rev_in_pal}
Let $S$ be a palindrome.
For any integers $i, j$ s.t. $1 \leq i \leq j \leq |S|$,
$S[|S|-j+1..|S|-i+1] = \rev{S[i..j]}$ holds.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{$\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}, \mathit{SUPS}\mbox{s}$ and our problem}
For any non-empty strings $S$ and $w$,
let $\mathit{occ}_S(w)$ denote the set of occurrences of $w$ in $S$,
namely, $\mathit{occ}_S(w) = \{i \mid 1 \leq i \leq |S|-|w|+1, w = S[i..i+|w|-1]\}$.
A substring $w$ of a string $S$ is called a \emph{unique substring}
(resp. a \emph{repeat}) of $S$
if $|\mathit{occ}_S(w)| = 1$ (resp. $|\mathit{occ}_S(w)| \geq 2$).
In the sequel, we will identify each unique substring $w$ of $S$
with its corresponding (unique) interval
$[i, j]$ in $S$ such that $w = S[i..j]$.
A substring $S[i..j]$ is said to be \emph{unique palindromic substring}
if $S[i..j]$ is a unique substring in $S$ and a palindromic substring.
We will say that an interval $[i_1, j_1]$ contains an interval $[i_2, j_2]$
if $i_1 \leq i_2 \leq j_2 \leq j_1$ holds.
The following notation is useful in our algorithm.
\begin{definition}[Minimal Unique Palindromic Substring($\mathit{MUPS}$)]
A string $S[i..j]$ is a $\mathit{MUPS}$ in $S$
if $S[i..j]$ satisfies all the following conditions;
\begin{itemize}
\item $S[i..j]$ is a unique palindromic substring in $S$,
\item $S[i+1..j-1]$ is a repeat in $S$ or $1 \leq |S[i..j]| \leq 2$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
Let $\mathcal{M}_S$ denote the set of intervals of all $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ in $S$
and let $\mathit{mups}_i = [b_i, e_i]$ denote the $i$-th $\mathit{MUPS}$ in $\mathcal{M}_S$
where $1 \leq i \leq m$ and $m$ is the number of $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ in $S$.
We assume that $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ in $\mathcal{M}_S$ are sorted in increasing order of beginning positions.
For convenience, we define $\mathit{mups}_0 = [-1, -1], \mathit{mups}_{m+1} = [n+1, n+1]$.
\begin{example}[$\mathit{MUPS}$]
For $S = \mathtt{acbaaabcbcbcbaab}$, $\mathcal{M}_S = \{ [4, 6], [8, 12], [13, 16] \}$
(see also Fig.~\ref{fig:example}).
\end{example}
\begin{definition}[Shortest Unique Palindromic Substring($\mathit{SUPS}$)]
A string $S[i..j]$ is a $\mathit{SUPS}$ for an interval $[s, t]$ in $S$
if $S[i..j]$ satisfies all the following conditions;
\begin{itemize}
\item $S[i..j]$ is a unique palindromic substring in $S$,
\item $[i, j]$ contains $[s, t]$,
\item no unique palindromic substring $S[i'..j']$ containing $[s, t]$
with $j'-i' < j-i$ exists.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{example}[$\mathit{SUPS}$]\label{exp:sups}
Let $S = \mathtt{acbaaabcbcbcbaab}$.
$\mathit{SUPS}$ for interval $[6, 7]$ is the $S[3..7] = \mathtt{baaab}$.
$\mathit{SUPS}$ for interval $[7, 8]$ are $S[2..8] = \mathtt{cbaaabc}$ and $S[7..13] = \mathtt{bcbcbcb}$.
$\mathit{SUPS}$ for interval $[4, 13]$ does not exist.
(see also Fig.~\ref{fig:example}).
\end{example}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width = 1.0\textwidth]{example.eps}
}
\caption{
This figure shows all $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ for $S = \mathtt{acbaaabcbcbcbaab}$
and some $\mathit{SUPS}$ described in Example~\ref{exp:sups}.
}
\label{fig:example}
\end{figure}
In this paper, we tackle the following problem.
\begin{problem}[$\mathit{SUPS}$ problem]
\leavevmode \par
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Preprocess} : String $S$ of length $n$.
\item {\bf Query} : An interval $[s, t] (1 \leq s \leq t \leq n)$.
\item {\bf Return} : All the $\mathit{SUPS}\mbox{s}$ for interval $[s, t]$.
\end{itemize}
\end{problem}
\subsection{Computation Model}
Our model of computation is the word RAM:
We shall assume that the computer word size is at least $\lceil \log_2 n \rceil$,
and hence, standard operations on
values representing lengths and positions of strings
can be manipulated in constant time.
Space complexities will be determined by the number of computer words (not bits).
\section{Solution to the $\mathit{SUPS}$ problem} \label{sec:sups}
In this section, we show how to compute all $\mathit{SUPS}\mbox{s}$ for any query interval $[s, t]$.
\subsection{Properties on $\mathit{SUPS}$ and $\mathit{MUPS}$} \label{subsec:property}
In our algorithm, we compute $\mathit{SUPS}\mbox{s}$ by using $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$.
Firstly, we show the following lemma.
Lemma~\ref{lem:non_nesting} states that $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ cannot nest in each other.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:non_nesting}
For any pair of distinct $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$, one cannot contain the other.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider two $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ $u,v$ such that $u$ contains $v$.
If $u$ and $v$ have the same center, then $u$ is not a $\mathit{MUPS}$.
On the other hand, if $u$ and $v$ have a different center,
we have from Lemma~\ref{lem:rev_in_pal} and that $v$ is a palindromic substring,
$v$ occurs in $u$ at least twice.
This contradicts that $v$ is unique.
\end{proof}
From this lemma, we can see that no pair of distinct $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ begin nor end at the same position.
This fact implies that the number of $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ is at most $n$ for any string of length $n$.
The following lemma states a characterization of $\mathit{SUPS}\mbox{s}$ by $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:unimups_in_sups}
For any $\mathit{SUPS}$ $S[i..j]$ for some interval,
there exists exactly one $\mathit{MUPS}$ that is contained in $[i,j]$.
Furthermore, the $\mathit{MUPS}$ has the same center as $S[i..j]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $S[i..j]$ be a $\mathit{SUPS}$ for some interval.
$S[i..j]$ contains a $\mathit{MUPS}$ $S[x_1..y_1]$ of the same center,
i.e., $\frac{i+j}{2} = \frac{x_1+y_1}{2}$, s.t. $j-i \geq y_1-x_1$.
Suppose that there exists another $\mathit{MUPS}$ $S[x_2..y_2]$ contained in $[i, j]$.
From Lemma~\ref{lem:non_nesting}, $S[x_1..y_1]$ and $S[x_2..y_2]$ do not have the same center.
On the other hand, if $S[x_1..y_1]$ and $S[x_2..y_2]$ have different centers,
then $S[x_2..y_2]$ occurs at least two times in $S[i..j]$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:rev_in_pal},
since $S[x_2..y_2] = \rev{S[x_2..y_2]}$.
This contradicts that $S[x_2..y_2]$ is a $\mathit{MUPS}$.
\end{proof}
From the above lemma,
any $\mathit{SUPS}$ contains exactly one $\mathit{MUPS}$ which has the same center
(see also Fig.~\ref{fig:example}).
Below, we will describe the relationship
between a query interval $[s, t]$ and the $\mathit{MUPS}$ contained in a $\mathit{SUPS}$ for $[s, t]$.
Before explaining this, we define the following notations.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{M}([s, t])$ : the set of $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ containing $[s, t]$.
\item $\mathit{predMUPS}[t] = i$ s.t. $i = \max \{ k \mid e_k \leq t \}$.
\item $\mathit{succMUPS}[s] = i$ s.t. $i = \min \{ k \mid s \leq b_k \}$.
\end{itemize}
In other words, $\mathit{mups}_{\mathit{predMUPS}[t]}$ is the rightmost $\mathit{MUPS}$
which ends before position $t+1$,
and $\mathit{mups}_{\mathit{succMUPS}[s]}$ is the leftmost $\mathit{MUPS}$
which begins after position $s-1$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:candidates}
Let $S[i..j]$ be a $\mathit{SUPS}$ for an interval $[s, t]$.
Then, the unique $\mathit{MUPS}$ $S[x..y]$
contained in $[i,j]$ is in
$\{ \mathit{predMUPS}[t] \} \cup \mathcal{M}([s, t]) \cup \{\mathit{succMUPS}[s] \}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume to the contrary that there exists a $\mathit{SUPS}$ $S[i..j]$ that contains a
$\mathit{MUPS}$ $S[x..y] \notin \{\mathit{predMUPS}[t]\} \cup \mathcal{M}([s, t]) \cup \{\mathit{succMUPS}[s]\}$.
Since $S[x..y]\not\in\mathcal{M}([s,t])$, $[x,y]$ does not contain $[s,t]$. Thus, there can be the following two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $y < t$, there must exist $\mathit{MUPS}$ $[x', y']$ s.t. $y < y' \leq t$, since $S[x,y] \neq \mathit{predMUPS}[t]$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:non_nesting}, $x < x'$.
Thus $i \leq x < x' \leq y' \leq t \leq j$ holds.
However, this contradicts Lemma~\ref{lem:unimups_in_sups}.
\item If $s < x$, there must exist $\mathit{MUPS}$ $[x', y']$ s.t. $s \leq x' < x$, since $S[x,y] \neq \mathit{succMUPS}[s]$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:non_nesting}, $y' \leq y$.
Thus $i \leq s \leq x' \leq y' \leq y \leq j$ holds,
However, this contradicts Lemma~\ref{lem:unimups_in_sups}.
\end{itemize}
Therefore the lemma holds.
\end{proof}
Next, we want to explain how $\mathit{SUPS}\mbox{s}$ are related to $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$.
It is easy to see that there may not be a $\mathit{SUPS}$ for some query interval.
We first show a case where there are no $\mathit{SUPS}\mbox{s}$ for a given query.
The following corollary is obtained from Lemma~\ref{lem:unimups_in_sups}.
\begin{corollary} \label{coro:no_answer}
Let $S[x_1..y_1]$ and $S[x_2..y_2]$ be $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ contained in a query interval $[s, t]$.
There is no $\mathit{SUPS}$ for an interval $[s, t]$.
\end{corollary}
From this corollary, a $\mathit{SUPS}$ for an interval $[s, t]$ can exist
if the number of $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ contained in $[s, t]$ is less than or equal to 1.
The following two lemmas show what the $\mathit{SUPS}$ for $[s, t]$ is, when $[s, t]$ contains only one $\mathit{MUPS}$,
and when $[s, t]$ does not contain any $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{contain_one_mups}
Let $S[x..y]$ be the only $\mathit{MUPS}$ contained in the query interval $[s, t]$.
If $S[x-z, y+z]$ is a palindromic substring where $z = \max \{ x-s, t-y \}$,
then $S[x-z, y+z]$ is the $\mathit{SUPS}$ for $[s, t]$.
Otherwise, there is no $\mathit{SUPS}$ for $[s, t]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume that there exists a $\mathit{SUPS}$ $u$ for $[s, t]$
which has the same center with a $\mathit{MUPS}$ other than $S[x..y]$.
By the definition of $\mathit{SUPS}$, $u$ should contain $[s, t]$.
Since $[s, t]$ contains $[x, y]$,
$u$ contains two $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$, a contradiction.
Thus, there can be no $\mathit{SUPS}$ s.t. the center is not $\frac{x+y}{2}$.
It is clear that $S[x-z, y+z]$ is a unique palindromic substring
if $S[x-z, y+z]$ is a palindromic substring where $z = \max \{ x-s, t-y \}$.
Therefore the lemma holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:answers}
Let $[s, t]$ be the query interval.
Then $\mathit{SUPS}\mbox{s}$ for $[s, t]$ are the shortest of the following candidates.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $S[x..y]$ s.t. $[x, y] \in \mathcal{M}([s, t])$,
\item $S[x-t+y..t]$ s.t. $[x, y] = \mathit{predMUPS}([s, t])$, if it is a palindromic substring,
\item $S[s..y+x-s]$ s.t. $[x, y] = \mathit{succMUPS}([s, t])$, if it is a palindromic substring.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is clear that $S[x..y]$ is a unique palindromic substring containing $[s, t]$
if $[x, y] \in \mathcal{M}([s, t])$ exists.
It is also clear that
if $[x, y] = \mathit{predMUPS}([s, t])$ or $[x, y] = \mathit{succMUPS}([s, t])$,
then $S[x-t+y..t]$ or $[s..y+x-s]$, respectively, are unique palindromic substrings,
if they are palindromic substrings.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:candidates}, we do not need to consider palindromic substrings which
have the same center as $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ other than the candidates considered above.
Thus the shortest of the candidates is $\mathit{SUPS}$ for $[s, t]$
(see also Fig.~\ref{fig:sups_candidate}).
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[tbh]
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width = 1.0\textwidth]{sups_candidate.eps}
}
\caption{
Double arrows represent the candidates of $\mathit{SUPS}$ for $[s, t]$.
The shortest of the candidates is $\mathit{SUPS}$ for $[s, t]$.
}
\label{fig:sups_candidate}
\end{figure}
From the above arguments,
the number of $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ is useful to compute $\mathit{SUPS}\mbox{s}$ for a query interval.
The following lemma shows how to compute the number of $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ contained in a given interval.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:catching_mups}
For any interval $[s, t]$,
\begin{itemize}
\item if $\mathit{R}[s] > \mathit{L}[t]$, $[s, t]$ contains no $\mathit{MUPS}$,
\item if $\mathit{R}[s] = \mathit{L}[t]$, $[s, t]$ contains only one $\mathit{MUPS}$, \\$\mathit{mups}_{\mathit{R}[s]} = \mathit{mups}_{\mathit{L}[t]}$, and
\item if $\mathit{R}[s] < \mathit{L}[t]$, $[s, t]$ contains at least two $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\leavevmode \par
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $j = \mathit{R}[s] > \mathit{L}[t] = i$.
Then $b_i < s \leq b_j$ and $e_i \leq t < e_j$ hold,
and thus neither of $\mathit{mups}_i$ and $\mathit{mups}_j$ are contained in $[s, t]$.
If we assume that $[s, t]$ contains a $\mathit{MUPS}$ $\mathit{mups}_k$ for some $k$,
it should be that $i < k < j$, $b_i < s \leq b_k < b_j$.
However, this contradicts that $j = \mathit{R}[s]$
(see also the top in Fig.~\ref{fig:mups_num.eps}).
\item Let $\mathit{R}[s] = \mathit{L}[t] = i$.
Since $\mathit{R}[s] = i$, $b_{i-1}$ should be less than $s$, and $b_i$ at least $s$.
Since $\mathit{L}[t] = i$, $e_{i+1}$ should be larger than $t$, and $e_i$ at most $t$.
Thus $[s, t]$ only contains $\mathit{mups}_i$
(see also the middle in Fig.~\ref{fig:mups_num.eps}).
\item Let $i = \mathit{R}[s] < \mathit{L}[t] = j$.
Then $s \leq b_i < b_j$ and $e_i < e_j \leq t$ hold,
which implies $s \leq b_i \leq e_i < t$ and $s < b_j \leq e_j \leq t$.
Thus, both $\mathit{mups}_i$ and $\mathit{mups}_j$ are contained in $[s, t]$
(see also the bottom in Fig.~\ref{fig:mups_num.eps}).
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width = 1.0\textwidth]{mups_num_0.eps}
}
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width = 1.0\textwidth]{mups_num_1.eps}
}
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width = 1.0\textwidth]{mups_num_2.eps}
}
\caption{
Illustrations for proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:catching_mups}.
}
\label{fig:mups_num.eps}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Tools}
\label{subsec:tools}
Here, we show some tools for our algorithm.
\begin{lemma}[e.g.,~\cite{eertree}] \label{lem:palindromic_checking}
For any interval $[i, j]$ in $S$ of length $n$, we can check whether $S[i..j]$
is a palindromic substring or not in $O(n)$ preprocessing time and constant query time
with $O(n)$ space.
\end{lemma}
Manacher's algorithm~\cite{Manacher75} can compute all maximal palindromic substrings in linear time.
If we have the array of radiuses of maximal palindromic substrings for all $2n-1$ centers,
we can check whether a given substring $S[i..j]$ is a palindromic substring or not in constant time.
\subsubsection{Range minimum queries (RmQ)}
Let $A$ be an integer array of size $n$.
A \emph{range minimum query} $\mathit{RmQ}_A(i, j)$ returns
the index of a minimum element in the subarray $A[i, j]$
for given a query interval $[i, j] (1 \leq i \leq j \leq n)$,
i.e., it returns one of $\arg \min_{i \leq k \leq j}\{A[k]\}$.
It is well-known (see e.g.,~\cite{rmqspace}) that
after an $O(n)$-time preprocessing over the input array $A$,
$\mathit{RmQ}_A(i, j)$ can be answered in $O(1)$ time
for any query interval $[i, j]$, using $O(n)$ space.
\subsection{Algorithm}
Due to the arguments in Section~\ref{subsec:property},
if we can compute $\mathit{predMUPS}$, the shortest $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ in $\mathcal{M}([s, t])$ and $\mathit{succMUPS}$ for a query interval $[s, t]$,
then, we can compute $\mathit{SUPS}\mbox{s}$ for $[s, t]$.
Below, we will describe our solution to the $\mathit{SUPS}$ problem.
\subsubsection{Preprocessing phase}
First, we compute $\mathcal{M}_S$ for a given string $S$ of length $n$ in increasing order of beginning positions.
We show, in the next section, that this can be done in $O(n)$ time and space.
After computing $\mathcal{M}_S$, we compute the arrays $\mathit{L}$ and $\mathit{R}$.
It is easy to see that we can also compute these arrays in $O(n)$ time by using $\mathcal{M}_S$.
In the query phase, we are required to compute the shortest $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ that contain the query interval $[s, t]$.
To do so efficiently, we prepare the following array.
Let $\mathit{Mlen}$ be an array of length $m = |\mathcal{M}_S|$,
and the $i$-th entry $\mathit{Mlen}[i]$ holds the length of $\mathit{mups}_i$, i.e., $\mathit{Mlen}[i] = |\mathit{mups}_i| = e_i-b_i+1$.
We also preprocess $\mathit{Mlen}$ for $\mathit{RmQ}$ queries.
This can be done in $O(m)$ time and space as noted in Section~\ref{subsec:tools}.
Thus, since $m = O(n)$, the total preprocessing is $O(n)$ time and space.
\subsubsection{Query phase}
First, we compute how many $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ are contained in a query interval $[s, t]$
by using Lemma~\ref{lem:catching_mups}, which we denote by $\mathit{num}$.
This can be done in $O(1)$ time given arrays $\mathit{L}$ and $\mathit{R}$.
\begin{itemize}
\item
If $\mathit{num} = 0$,
let $\mathit{mups}_i = \mathit{predMUPS}([s, t])$ and $\mathit{mups}_j = \mathit{succMUPS}([s, t])$, i.e.,
$i = \mathit{L}[s]$ and $j = \mathit{R}[t]$.
We check whether $S[b_i-t+e_i..t]$ and $S[s..e_j+b_j-s]$ are palindromic substrings or not.
If so, then they are candidates of $\mathit{SUPS}\mbox{s}$ for $[s, t]$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:answers}.
Let $q$ be the length of the shortest candidates which can be found in the above.
Second, we compute the shortest $\mathit{MUPS}$ in $\mathcal{M}([s, t])$,
if their lengths are at most $q$.
In other words, we compute the smallest values in $\mathit{Mlen}[i+1..j-1]$, if they are at most $q$.
We can compute all such $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$ in linear time w.r.t. the number of such $\mathit{MUPS}\mbox{s}$
by using $\mathit{RmQ}$ queries on $\mathit{Mlen}[i+1, j-1]$;
if $k = \mathit{RmQ}_\mathit{Mlen}(i+1,j-1)$ and $\mathit{Mlen}[k] \leq q$, then we consider the range
$\mathit{Mlen}[i+1..k-1]$ and $\mathit{Mlen}[k+1,j-1]$ and recurse. Otherwise, we stop the recursion.
Finally, we return the shortest candidates as $\mathit{SUPS}$.
\item If $\mathit{num} = 1$, let $\mathit{mups}_i$ be the $\mathit{MUPS}$ contained in $[s, t]$.
First, we check whether $S[b_i-z, e_i+z]$ is a palindromic substring or not
by using Lemma~\ref{lem:palindromic_checking} where $z = \max \{ b_i-s, t-e_i \}$.
If so, then return $[b_i-z, e_i+z]$,
otherwise $\mathit{SUPS}$ for $[s, t]$ does not exist.
\item If $\mathit{num} \geq 2$,
then, from Corollary~\ref{coro:no_answer}, $\mathit{SUPS}$ for $[s, t]$ does not exist.
\end{itemize}
Therefore, we obtain the following.
\begin{theorem}
After constructing an $O(n)$-space data structure of a given string of length $n$ in $O(n)$ time,
we can compute all $\mathit{SUPS}\mbox{s}$ for a given query interval $[s, t]$
in $O(\alpha+1)$ time where $\alpha$ is the number of outputs.
\end{theorem} |
\section{Introduction}
Let $(M,\mathrm{g}_M)$ and $(N,\mathrm{g}_N)$ be complete Riemannian manifolds,
and consider a
smooth
map $f:M\to N$.
Then $f$ is called \emph{strictly length-decreasing}, if
there is $\delta\in(0,1]$, such that $\|\dd f(v)\|_{\mathrm{g}_N}\le(1-\delta)\|v\|_{\mathrm{g}_M}$
for all $v\in\Gamma(TM)$.
The map $f$ is called
\emph{strictly area-decreasing} if there is $\delta\in(0,1]$, such that
\[
\bigl\| \dd f(v) \wedge \dd f(w) \bigr\|_{\mathrm{g}_N} \le (1-\delta) \| v \wedge w \|_{\mathrm{g}_M}
\]
for all $v,w\in \Gamma(TM)$. In this paper, we
deform the map $f$ by deforming its corresponding graph
\[
\Gamma(f) \coloneqq \big\{ (x,f(x)) \in M\times N : x\in M \big\}
\]
via the mean curvature flow in the product
space $M\times N$. That is, we consider
the system
\[
\partial_t F_t(x) = \Hv(x,t) \,, \qquad F_0(x) = \bigl( x, f(x) \bigr) \,,
\]
where $\Hv(x,t)$ denotes the mean curvature vector of the submanifold $F_t(M)$ in $M\times N$
at $F_t(x)$. A smooth solution to the mean curvature flow for which $F_t(M)$ is a graph for $t\in[0,T_g)$
can be described completely in terms of a smooth
family of maps $f_t:M\to N$ with $f_0=f$,
where $0<T_g\le \infty$ is the maximal time for which the graphical solution exists.
In the case of long-time existence of the graphical solution (i.\,e.\ $T_g=\infty$) and convergence, we
obtain a smooth homotopy from $f$ to a minimal map $f_{\infty}:M\to N$.
Recall that a map between $M$ and $N$ is called \emph{minimal}, if its graph is a minimal submanifold
of the product space $M\times N$ \cite{Sch93}. \\
For a compact domain and arbitrary dimensions, several results for length- and area-decreasing maps are known
(see e.\,g.\ \cites{LL11,SHS13,SHS14,SHS15,Smo04,Wan01a,Wan01b,Wan01c} and references therein).
For example,
if $f:M\to N$ is strictly area-decreasing,
$M$ and $N$ are space forms with $\dim M\ge 2$,
and their sectional curvatures satisfy
\[
\sec_M \ge |\sec_N| \,, \qquad \sec_M + \sec_N > 0 \,,
\]
Wang and Tsui proved long-time existence of the graphical mean curvature flow
and convergence of $f$ to a constant map \cite{TW04}. Subsequently, the curvature assumptions
on the manifolds were relaxed by Lee and Lee \cite{LL11} and recently by
Savas-Halilaj and Smoczyk \cite{SHS14}.
In the non-compact setting, Ecker and Huisken considered the flow of entire graphs, that is,
graphs generated by maps $f:\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}$. The quantity which plays an
important role is essentially given
by the Jacobian of the projection map from the graph $\Gamma(f)$ to $\mathbb{R}^n$ and it satisfies a nice evolution equation.
They provided conditions under which the mean curvature flow
of the graph exists for all time and asymptotically approaches self-expanding solutions.
\cites{EH89,EH91}.
Unfortunately, their methods cannot easily be adapted to the general higher-codimensional setting, since
the analysis gets considerably more involved due to the complexity of the normal bundle of the graph.
Nevertheless, several results in the higher-codimensional case were obtained by
considering the Gau{\ss} map of the immersion (see e.\,g.\ \cites{Wan03b,Wan05}).
In the case of two-dimensional graphs, Chen, Li and Tian established long-time existence and convergence
results by evaluating certain angle functions on the tangent bundle \cite{CLT02}.
Another possibility is to impose suitable smallness conditions on the differential of the defining map.
In these cases, one can show long-time existence and convergence of the mean curvature flow \cites{CCH12,CCY13,SHS15}.
Considering maps between Euclidean spaces of the same dimension,
Chau, Chen and He obtained results for strictly length-decreasing
Lipschitz continuous maps
$f:\mathbb{R}^m\to\mathbb{R}^m$ with graphs $\Gamma(f)$ being
Lagrangian submanifolds of $\mathbb{R}^m\times\mathbb{R}^m$.
In particular, they showed short-time existence of
solutions with bounded geometry, as well as decay estimates for the mean
curvature vector and all higher-order derivatives of the defining map, which
in turn imply the long-time existence of the solution
\cite{CCH12}. Recently, the estimates were generalized by the author to Euclidean spaces of arbitrary dimension \cite{Lub16}. \\
The aim of the article at hand is to relax the length-decreasing
assumption for maps between some Euclidean spaces.
Namely, if both domain and target are
of dimension two, we are able to show the following result.
\begin{mainthm}
\label{thm:ThmA}
Suppose $f:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}^2$ is a smooth strictly area-decreasing
function.
Then the mean curvature flow with initial condition $F(x)\coloneqq\bigl(x,f(x)\bigr)$
has a long-time smooth solution for all $t>0$
such that the following statements hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Along the flow, the evolving surface stays the graph of a strictly area-decreasing
map $f_t:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}^2$ for all $t>0$.
\item The mean curvature vector of the graph satisfies the estimate
\[
t\|\Hv\|^2 \le C
\]
for some constant $C\ge 0$.
\item All spatial derivatives of $f_t$ of order $k\ge 2$ satisfy the estimate
\[
t^{k-1} \sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^2} \|\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^k f_t(x)\|^2 \le C_{k,\delta} \quad \text{for all} \quad k\ge 2
\]
and for some constants $C_{k,\delta}\ge 0$ depending only on $k$ and $\delta$. Moreover,
\[
\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^2} \| f_t(x)\|^2 \le \sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^2} \| f(x) \|^2
\]
for all $t>0$.
\end{enumerate}
If in addition $f$ satisfies $\|f(x)\|\to 0$ as $\|x\|\to\infty$, then $\|f_t(x)\|\to 0$ smoothly
on compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}^2$ as $t\to\infty$.
\end{mainthm}
\begin{remark}
In terms of the second fundamental form of the graph,
Theorem \ref{thm:ThmA} implies
the decay estimate
\[
t \|\mathrm{A}\|^2 \le C
\]
for some constant $C\ge 0$ depending only on $\delta$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Note that any
strictly length-decreasing map is also strictly area-decreasing.
Accordingly, for
smooth maps between two-dimensional Euclidean spaces
the statement of \cite{Lub16}*{Theorem A}
follows from Theorem \ref{thm:ThmA}.
\item In the recent paper \cite{SHS16}, the case of area-decreasing maps
between complete Riemann surfaces with bounded geometry $M$ and $N$ is treated, where $M$ is compact
and the sectional curvatures satisfy $\min_{x\in M} \sec_M(x) \ge \sup_{x\in N} \sec_N(x)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
If one considers graphs generated by functions $f:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}$, the same
strategy as in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:ThmA} can be applied.
To draw the conclusions of the theorem in this case, one only has to assume
that the differential $\dd f$ of $f$ is bounded,
i.\,e.\ there is a constant $C\ge 0$ with
\[
|\dd f(v)| \le C \|v\|
\]
for any $v\in\Gamma(T\mathbb{R}^2)$.
In particular,
the function has at most linear growth, so that it belongs to the class of functions studied in \cite{EH89}.
\end{remark}
The outline of the paper is as follows.
In Section \ref{sec:Maps}, we
introduce the main quantities in the graphical case which then will be deformed by
the mean curvature flow described in Section \ref{sec:MCF}.
To obtain the statements of the following sections, we would like to apply
a maximum principle. For this, we follow an idea from \cite{CCH12} to
adapt the usual scalar maximum principle to the non-compact case.
Then, in Section \ref{sec:Pres} we establish the preservation of
the area-decreasing condition. In Section \ref{sec:APriori} we obtain estimates on $\Hv$
and all derivatives of the map defining the graph by considering functions
constructed similar to those in \cite{STW16}.
The main theorem is proven in Section \ref{sec:Proof} and some applications
to self-similar solutions of the mean curvature flow are given in Section \ref{sec:Appl}.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
The author would like to thank Andreas Savas-Halilaj for stimulating discussions.
\section{Maps between two-dimensional Euclidean spaces}
\label{sec:Maps}
\subsection{Geometry of graphs}
\label{sec:GeomOfGraphs}
We recall the geometric quantities in a graphical
setting adopted to two-dimensional Euclidean spaces. For the setup in generic
Euclidean spaces, see e.\,g.\ \cite{Lub16}*{Section 2} and for the general setup, see e.\,g.\ \cite{SHS15}*{Section 2}.
Let $(\RM,\RgM)$ be the two-dimensional Euclidean space equipped with its usual flat metric.
On the product manifold $(\RM\times \RN,\<\cdot,\cdot\>\coloneqq\RgM\times\RgN)$,
the projections onto the first and second factor
\[
\pi_1, \pi_2 : \RM\times \RN \to \RM
\]
are submersions, that is they are smooth and have maximal rank.
A smooth map $f:\RM\to \RN$ defines an embedding $F:\RM\to \RM\times \RN$ via
\[
F(x) \coloneqq \bigl(x,f(x)\bigr)\,,\qquad x\in \RM\,.
\]
The \emph{graph of $f$} is defined to be the submanifold
\[
\Gamma(f) \coloneqq F(\RM) = \left\{ \bigl(x,f(x)\bigr) : x\in \RM \right\} \subset \RM\times \RN \,.
\]
Since $F$ is an embedding, it induces another Riemannian metric on $\RM$, given by
\[
\gMetric \coloneqq F^{*}\<\cdot,\cdot\> \,.
\]
The metrics $\RgM,\<\cdot,\cdot\>$ and $\gMetric$ are related by
\begin{align*}
\<\cdot,\cdot\> &= \RpiM^{*} \RgM + \RpiN^{*}\RgN \,, \\
\gMetric &= F^{*}\<\cdot,\cdot\> = \RgM + f^{*}\RgN \,.
\end{align*}
As in \cites{SHS13,SHS14}, let us introduce the symmetric $2$-tensors
\begin{align*}
\RsMN &\coloneqq \RpiM^{*}\RgM - \RpiN^{*}\RgN\,, \\
\sTensor &\coloneqq F^{*}\RsMN = \RgM - f^{*}\RgN \,.
\end{align*}
We remark that $\RsMN$ is a semi-Riemannian metric of signature $(2,2)$ on
$\RM\times \RN$. \\
The Levi-Civita connection on $\RM$ with respect to the induced
metric $\gMetric$ is denoted by $\nabla$ and the corresponding curvature
tensor by $\Rm$.
\subsection{Second fundamental form}
The \emph{second fundamental tensor} of the graph $\Gamma(f)$ is the section
$\mathrm{A}\in\Gamma\bigl(T^{\perp}\RM \otimes \mathrm{Sym}(T^*\RM\otimes T^*\RM)\bigr)$
defined as
\[
\mathrm{A}(v,w) \coloneqq \bigl( \nabla \dd F\bigr)(v,w) \coloneqq \mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu_{\dd F(v)} \dd F(w) - \dd F(\nabla_v w) \,,
\]
where $v,w\in \Gamma(T\RM)$ and where we denote the connection on
$F^{*}T(\RM\times \RN)\otimes T^{*}\RM$ induced by the Levi-Civita connection also by $\nabla$.
The trace of $\mathrm{A}$ with respect to the metric $\gMetric$ is called the
\emph{mean curvature vector field} of $\Gamma(f)$ and it will be denoted by
\[
\Hv \coloneqq \tr \mathrm{A} \,.
\]
Let us denote the evaluation of the second fundamental
form (resp.\ mean curvature vector) in the direction of a vector $\xi\in\Gamma\bigl(F^*T(\RM\times\RN)\bigr)$ by
\[
\mathrm{A}_{\xi}(v,w) \coloneqq \bigl\<\mathrm{A}(v,w),\xi\bigr\> \qquad \text{resp.} \qquad \Hv_{\xi} \coloneqq \bigl\<\Hv, \xi\bigr\> \,.
\]
Note that $\Hv$ is a section in the normal bundle of the graph.
If $\Hv$ vanishes identically, the graph is said to be minimal.
A smooth map $f:\RM\to \RN$ is called \emph{minimal},
if its graph $\Gamma(f)$ is a minimal submanifold of the product
space $(\RM\times \RN,\<\cdot,\cdot\>)$. \\
On the submanifold, the \emph{Gau{\ss} equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Gauss}
\Rm(u_1,v_1,u_2,v_2) = \bigl\< \mathrm{A}(u_1,u_2), \mathrm{A}(v_1,v_2) \bigr\> - \bigl\< \mathrm{A}(u_1,v_2), \mathrm{A}(v_1,u_2) \bigr\>
\end{equation}
and the \emph{Codazzi equation}
\[
(\nabla_u \mathrm{A})(v,w) - (\nabla_v \mathrm{A})(u,w) = - \dd F\bigl(\Rm(u,v)w\bigr)
\]
hold, where the induced connection on the bundle $F^*T(\RM\times \RN)\otimes T^*\RM \otimes T^*\RM$
is defined as
\[
(\nabla_u \mathrm{A})(v,w) \coloneqq \mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu_{\dd F(u)}(\mathrm{A}(v,w)) - \mathrm{A}(\nabla_uv,w) - \mathrm{A}(v,\nabla_uw) \,.
\]
\subsection{Singular value decomposition}
\label{sec:SVD}
We recall the singular value decomposition theorem for the two-dimensional case (see e.\,g.\ \cite{SHS13}*{Section 3.2} for the general setup). \\
Fix a point $x\in \RM$, and let
\[
\sv_1^2(x) \le \sv_2^2(x)
\]
be the eigenvalues of $f^{*}\RgN$ with respect to $\RgM$. The
values
$0\le \sv_1(x)\le \sv_2(x)$ are called the
\emph{singular values} of the differential $\dd f$ of $f$ and give rise
to continuous functions on $\RM$.
At the
point $x$ consider an orthonormal basis $\{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}\}$
with respect to $\RgM$ which diagonalizes $f^{*}\RgN$. Moreover, at $f(x)$
consider a basis $\{\beta_{1},\beta_{2}\}$ that is
orthonormal
with respect to $\RgN$, such that
\[
\dd f(\alpha_{1}) = \sv_1(x) \beta_{1} \,, \qquad \dd f(\alpha_{2}) = \sv_2(x) \beta_{2}
\]
This procedure is called the \emph{singular value decomposition} of the differential $\dd f$. \\
Now let us construct a special basis for the tangent and the normal
space of the graph in terms of the singular values. The vectors
\[
\widetilde{e}_{1} \coloneqq \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\sv_{1}^{2}(x)}}\bigl( \alpha_{1} \oplus \sv_{1}(x)\beta_{1} \bigr) \quad \text{and} \quad \widetilde{e}_{2} \coloneqq \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\sv_{2}^{2}(x)}}\bigl( \alpha_{2} \oplus \sv_{2}(x)\beta_{2} \bigr)
\]
form an orthonormal basis with respect to the metric $\<\cdot,\cdot\>$ of
the tangent space $\dd F(T_{x}\RM)$ of the graph $\Gamma(f)$ at $x$. It follows
that with respect to the induced metric $\gMetric$, the vectors
\[
e_1 \coloneqq \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\sv_1^2(x)}} \alpha_1 \qquad \text{and} \qquad e_2 \coloneqq \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\sv_2^2(x)}} \alpha_2
\]
form an orthonormal basis of $T_x\RM$.
Moreover,
the vectors
\[
\xi_{1} \coloneqq \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\sv_{1}^{2}(x)}}\bigl(-\sv_{1}(x)\alpha_{1} \oplus \beta_{1}\bigr) \quad \text{and} \quad
\xi_{2} \coloneqq \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\sv_{2}^{2}(x)}}\bigl(-\sv_{2}(x)\alpha_{2} \oplus \beta_{2}\bigr)
\]
form an orthonormal basis with respect to $\<\cdot,\cdot\>$ of the
normal space $T^{\perp}_{x}\RM$ of the graph $\Gamma(f)$ at the point
$x$. From the formulae above, we deduce that
\[
\RsMN\bigl(\widetilde{e}_{i},\widetilde{e}_{j}\bigr) = \sTensor(e_i,e_j) = \frac{1-\sv_{i}^{2}(x)}{1+\sv_{i}^{2}(x)}\delta_{ij} \,, \qquad 1\le i,j\le 2 \,.
\]
Therefore, the eigenvalues of the $2$-tensor $\sTensor$ with respect to $\gMetric$
are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sSV}
\frac{1-\sv_{1}^{2}(x)}{1+\sv_{1}^{2}(x)} \ge \frac{1-\sv_{2}^{2}(x)}{1+\sv_{2}^{2}(x)} \,.
\end{equation}
Moreover,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sOnNormalBdl}
\RsMN(\xi_{i},\xi_{j}) = - \frac{1-\sv_{i}^{2}(x)}{1+\sv_{i}^{2}(x)}\delta_{ij} \,,\qquad 1\le i,j\le 2\,,
\end{equation}
and
\[
\RsMN(\widetilde{e}_{i},\xi_{j}) = - \frac{2\sv_{i}(x)}{1+\sv_{i}^{2}(x)} \delta_{ij} \,,\qquad 1\le i,j\le 2 \,.
\]
\section{Mean curvature flow in Euclidean space}
\label{sec:MCF}
Let $I\coloneqq[0,T)$ for some $T>0$ and assume $f_0:\Rb^2\to \Rb^2$ to be a smooth map. We say that a family
of maps $F:\Rb^2\times I \to \Rb^2\times \Rb^2$ evolves under the mean curvature flow, if for all $x\in \Rb^2$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:MCF}
\begin{cases} \partial_t F(x,t) = \Hv(x,t) \,, \\ F(x,0) = \bigl(x,f_0(x)\bigr) \,. \end{cases}
\end{equation}
This system can also be described as follows. As in \cite{CCH12}*{Section 5}, let us consider the non-parametric
mean curvature flow equation for $f:\Rb^2\times[0,T)\to\Rb^2$, given by the quasilinear system
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pMCF}
\begin{cases} \partial_t f(x,t) = \sum_{i,j=1}^2 \widetilde{\gind}^{ij} \partial^2_{ij} f(x,t) \,, \\ f(x,0) = f_0(x) \,, \end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\widetilde{\gind}^{ij}$ are the components of the inverse of $\widetilde{\gind} \coloneqq \gMetric_{\RM} + f_t^*\gMetric_{\RN}$, where
here we have set $f_t(x)\coloneqq f(x,t)$.
If
\eqref{eq:pMCF} has a smooth solution $f:\Rb^2\times[0,T)\to\Rb^2$, then the mean curvature flow \eqref{eq:MCF}
has a smooth solution $F:\Rb^2\times[0,T)\to\Rb^2\times\Rb^2$ given by the family of graphs
\[
\Gamma\bigl(f(\cdot,t)\bigr) = \bigl\{ \bigl(x,f(x,t)\bigr) : x\in\Rb^2 \bigr\} \,,
\]
up to tangential diffeomorphisms (see e.\,g.\ \cite{Bra78}*{Chapter 3.1}).
In the sequel, if there is no confusion, we will also use the notation $F_t(x)\coloneqq F(x,t)$ as
well as $f_t(x)\coloneqq f(x,t)$. \\
For \eqref{eq:pMCF}, we have the following short-time existence result.
\begin{theorem}[{\cite{CCH12}*{Proposition 5.1 for $m=n=2$}}]
\label{thm:ShortTimeEx}
Suppose $f_0:\Rb^2\to\Rb^2$ is a smooth function, such that for each $l\ge 1$ we have
$\sup_{x\in\Rb^2}\|\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^l f_0(x)\|\le C_l$ for some finite constants $C_l$.
Then \eqref{eq:pMCF} has a short-time smooth solution $f$ on $\Rb^2\times[0,T)$
for some $T>0$ with initial condition $f_0$,
such that $\sup_{x\in\Rb^2}\|\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^lf_t(x)\| < \infty$ for every $l\ge 1$ and $t\in[0,T)$.
\end{theorem}
In this paper, we will consider a special kind of solution to \eqref{eq:MCF}.
\begin{definition}
Let $F_t(x)$ be a smooth solution to the system \eqref{eq:MCF} on $\Rb^2\times[0,T)$ for some
$0<T\le\infty$, such that for each $t\in[0,T)$ and non-negative integer $k$,
the submanifold $F_t(\Rb^2)\subset\Rb^2\times\Rb^2$ satisfies
\begin{gather}
\label{eq:BddGeom1}
\sup_{x\in\Rb^2} \|\nabla^k \mathrm{A}(x,t) \| < \infty \,, \\
\label{eq:BddGeom2}
C_1(t) \gMetric_{\RM} \le \gMetric \le C_2(t) \gMetric_{\RM} \,,
\end{gather}
where $C_1(t)$ and $C_2(t)$ for each $t\in[0,T)$ are finite, positive constants
depending only on $t$. Then we will say that the family of embeddings
$\{F_t\}_{t\in I}$
has \emph{bounded geometry}.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
Let $f_t(x)$ be a smooth solution to the system \eqref{eq:pMCF} on $\Rb^2\times[0,T)$ for
some $0<T\le\infty$, such that for each $t\in[0,T)$ and positive integer $k$ the estimate
\[
\sup_{x\in\Rb^2} \| \mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^k f_t(x) \| < \infty
\]
holds. Then we will say that $f_t(x)$ has \emph{bounded geometry} for every $t\in[0,T)$.
\end{definition}
\subsection{Graphs}
We recall some important notions in the graphic case, where we follow the presentation in \cite{SHS14}*{Section 3.1}.
Let $f_0:\Rb^2\to\Rb^2$ denote a smooth map, such that
$ \sup_{x\in\Rb^2}\| \mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^l f_0(x) \| \le C_l$ for some finite constants $C_l$, $l\ge 1$.
Then Theorem \ref{thm:ShortTimeEx} ensures that the system
\eqref{eq:pMCF} has a short-time solution with initial data $f_0(x)$
on a time interval $[0,T)$ for some positive maximal time $T>0$. Further, there
is a diffeomorphism $\phi_t:\Rb^2\to\Rb^2$, such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:DiffeoRel}
F_t\circ \phi_t(x)=(x,f_t(x)) \,,
\end{equation}
where $F_t(x)$ is a solution of \eqref{eq:MCF}.
To obtain the converse of this statement,
let $\Omega_{\Rb^2}$ be the volume form on $\Rb^2$ and extend it to a parallel $2$-form on $\Rb^2\times\Rb^2$
by pulling it back via the natural projection onto the first factor $\pi_1:\Rb^2\times\Rb^2\to\Rb^2$, that is, consider
the $2$-form $\pi_1^*\Omega_{\Rb^2}$. Define the time-dependent smooth function $u:\Rb^2\times[0,T)\to\mathbb{R}$,
given by
\[
u \coloneqq \star \Omega_t \,,
\]
where $\star$ is the Hodge star operator with respect to the induced metric $\gMetric$ and
\[
\Omega_t \coloneqq F_t^*\bigl( \pi_1^*\Omega_{\Rb^2} \bigr) = (\pi_1 \circ F_t)^* \Omega_{\Rb^2}\,.
\]
The function $u$ is the Jacobian of the projection map from $F_t(\Rb^2)$ to $\Rb^2$. From
the implicit mapping theorem it follows that $u>0$ if and only if there is a diffeomorphism
$\phi_t:\Rb^2\to\Rb^2$ and a map $f_t:\Rb^2\to\Rb^2$, such that \eqref{eq:DiffeoRel} holds,
i.\,e.\ $u$ is positive precisely if the solution of the mean curvature flow remains a graph.
By Theorem \ref{thm:ShortTimeEx},
the solution will stay a graph at least in a short time
interval $[0,T)$.
\subsection{Parabolic scaling}
For any $\tau>0$ and $(x_0,t_0)\in\Rb^2\times[0,T)$, consider the change of variables
\[
y \coloneqq \tau (x-x_0) \,, \qquad r \coloneqq \tau^2(t-t_0) \,, \qquad \fys{\tau} \coloneqq \tau \bigl( f(x,t) - f(x_0,t_0) \bigr) \,,
\]
which we call the \emph{parabolic scaling by $\tau$ at $(x_0,t_0)$}. Let us denote the derivative with
respect to $y$ by $\widetilde{\mathrm{D}}\mkern 1mu$, and let $\widetilde{\gind}_{\tau}$ be the scaled metric as well as
$\mathrm{A}_{\tau}$ be the scaled second fundamental form. We calculate
\[
(\widetilde{\mathrm{D}}\mkern 1mu^k \fScaled{\tau})(y,r) = \tau^{1-k}(\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^kf)(x,t) \,,
\]
which implies
\[
\widetilde{\gind}_{\tau\,|(y,r)} = \widetilde{\gind}_{|(x,t)} \qquad \text{and} \qquad \mathrm{A}_{\tau\,|(y,r)} = \frac{1}{\tau} \mathrm{A}_{|(x,t)} \,,
\]
so that $\fys{\tau}$ satisfies equation \eqref{eq:pMCF} in the sense that
\[
\frac{\partial \fScaled{\tau}}{\partial r}(y,r) = \sum_{i,j=1}^2 \widetilde{\gind}_{\tau}^{ij} \frac{\partial^2 \fScaled{\tau}}{\partial y^i \partial y^j}(y,r) \,.
\]
\subsection{Evolution equations}
Let us recall the evolution equation of the tensor $\sTensor$ in the two-dimensional
setting (which is basically calculated in \cite{SHS14}*{Lemma 3.1}),
as well as the evolution equation for its trace.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:sEvolEq}
Under the mean curvature flow, the evolution of the tensor $\sTensor$ for
$t\in[0,T)$ is given by the formula
\begin{align*}
\left( \nabla_{\partial_t} \sTensor - \Delta \sTensor\right)(v,w) = & - \sTensor (\Ric v, w ) - \sTensor( v, \Ric w ) \\
& - 2 \sum_{k=1}^2 \sTensor_{\RM\times\RN}\bigl( \mathrm{A}(e_k,v), \mathrm{A}(e_k,w) \bigr) \,,
\end{align*}
where $\{e_1,e_2\}$ is any orthonormal frame with respect to $\gMetric$
and where the \emph{Ricci operator} is given by
\[
\Ric v \coloneqq - \sum_{k=1}^2 \Rm(e_k,v) e_k \,.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:TrEvol}
Under the mean curvature flow, the evolution equation of the trace of the tensor $\sTensor$
is given by
\[
\left( \partial_t - \Delta \right) \tr(\sTensor) = - 2 \sum_{k,l=1}^2 \left( \sTensor_{\RM\times\RN} - \frac{1-\sv_k^2}{1+\sv_k^2} \gMetric_{\RM\times\RN} \right)\bigl( \mathrm{A}(e_k,e_l), \mathrm{A}(e_k,e_l) \bigr) \,,
\]
where $\{e_1,e_2\}$ denotes the orthonormal frame field with respect to $\gMetric$
constructed in Section \ref{sec:SVD}.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
From the Gau{\ss} Equation \eqref{eq:Gauss} we obtain
\begin{align*}
\sTensor (\Ric e_k, e_k) ={} &- \sTensor(e_k,e_k) \sum_{l=1}^2 \gMetric_{\RM\times\RN}\bigl( \mathrm{A}(e_k,e_l), \mathrm{A}(e_k,e_l) \bigr) \\
& + \sTensor(e_k,e_k) \gMetric_{\RM\times\RN}\bigl( \Hv, \mathrm{A}(e_k,e_k) \bigr) \,.
\end{align*}
Further, since
\[
\partial_t \tr(\sTensor) = 2 \sum_{k=1}^2 \gMetric_{\RM\times\RN}\bigl( \Hv, \mathrm{A}(e_k,e_k) \bigr) \sTensor(e_k,e_k) + \sum_{k=1}^2 (\nabla_{\partial_t}\sTensor)(e_k,e_k) \,,
\]
the claim follows from Lemma \ref{lem:sEvolEq}.
\end{proof}
In the two-dimensional setting at hand, we can rewrite the evolution equation for the trace.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:TrEvol}
Under the mean curvature flow, the trace of the tensor $\sTensor$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
\left( \partial_t - \Delta \right) \tr(\sTensor) = 2 \|\mathrm{A}\|^2 \tr(\sTensor) &- \frac{1}{2} \frac{\|\nabla\tr(\sTensor)\|^2}{\tr(\sTensor)} \\
& + \frac{2}{\tr(\sTensor)} \sum_{k=1}^2 \left( \frac{2\sv_2}{1+\sv_2^2} \mathrm{A}_{1k}^1 + \frac{2\sv_1}{1+\sv_1^2} \mathrm{A}_{2k}^2 \right)^2 \,.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is \cite{STW16}*{Eqs.\ (3.17) and (3.18)}.
\end{proof}
\section{Evolution of submanifold geometry}
\subsection{Preserved quantities}
\label{sec:Pres}
Consider a smooth map $f:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}^2$. The property of $f$ being strictly area-decreasing
can be expressed in terms of the singular values $\sv_1,\sv_2$ of the differential $\dd f$ as
\[
\sv_1^2 \sv_2^2 \le 1-\delta \,.
\]
for some $\delta\in(0,1]$.
Consequently, by Equation \eqref{eq:sSV}, this can also be rephrased in terms of the tensor $\sTensor$ as follows.
If $f$ is strictly area-decreasing, there is $\varepsilon>0$, such that
the inequality
\[
\tr(\sTensor) = \frac{2(1-\sv_1^2\sv_2^2)}{(1+\sv_1^2)(1+\sv_2^2)} \ge \varepsilon
\]
holds. We will now modify $\tr(\sTensor)-\varepsilon$ using
the function
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:PhiDef}
\phi_R(x) \coloneqq 1 + \frac{\|x\|^2_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} \,,
\end{equation}
where $\|\cdot\|_{\mathbb{R}^2}$ is the Euclidean norm on $\mathbb{R}^2$ and $R>0$ is a constant
which will be chosen later.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:phiEst}
Let $F(x,t)$ be a smooth solution to \eqref{eq:MCF} with bounded geometry and assume
there is $\varepsilon>0$, such that $\tr(\sTensor) \ge \varepsilon$ for any $t\in[0,T)$.
Fix any $T'\in[0,T)$ and $(x_0,t_0)\in\mathbb{R}^2\times[0,T']$. Then the following estimates hold,
\begin{align*}
- c(T') \frac{\|x_0\|_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} \tr(\sTensor) &\le \< \nabla \phi_R, \nabla \tr(\sTensor) \> \le c(T') \frac{\|x_0\|_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} \tr(\sTensor) \,, \\
| \Delta \phi_R | &\le c(T') \left( \frac{1}{R^2} + \frac{\|x_0\|_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} \right) \,,
\end{align*}
where $c(T')\ge 0$ is a constant depending only on $T'$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that
\[
\nabla_u \tr(\sTensor) = \sum_{k=1}^2 (\nabla_u\sTensor)(e_k,e_k) = 2 \sum_{k=1}^2 \sTensor_{\mathbb{R}^2\times\mathbb{R}^2}\bigl( \mathrm{A}(u,e_k), \dd F(e_k) \bigr) \,.
\]
The bounded geometry assumptions \eqref{eq:BddGeom1} and \eqref{eq:BddGeom2} imply that $\sTensor$, $\nabla \sTensor$
and therefore $\nabla \tr(\sTensor)$ are uniformly bounded on $\mathbb{R}^2\times[0,T']$ by a constant $c(T')$ depending only on $T'$.
Thus, also using $\tr(\sTensor)\ge \varepsilon$, at $(x_0,t_0)$ we have
\[
-c(T') \frac{\|x_0\|_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} \tr(\sTensor) \le \< \nabla \phi_R, \nabla \tr(\sTensor) \> \le c(T') \frac{\|x_0\|_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} \tr(\sTensor) \,.
\]
The statement for $|\Delta\phi_R|$ is given in \cite{CCH12}*{Eq.\ 3.4}.
\end{proof}
Let us define
\[
\uppsi(x,t) \coloneqq \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t} \phi_R(x) \tr(\sTensor)_{|(x,t)} - \varepsilon \,.
\]
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:AreaDecrEpsilon}
Let $F(x,t)$ be a smooth solution to \eqref{eq:MCF} with bounded geometry. Assume there
is $\varepsilon>0$ with $\tr(\sTensor)\ge \varepsilon$ at $t=0$, and
$\tr(\sTensor)\ge \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$ for all $t\in[0,T)$. Then it is
$\tr(\sTensor)\ge \varepsilon$ for all $t\in[0,T)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof closely follows the strategy in \cites{CCH12,Lub16}.
We will show that for any fixed $T'\in[0,T)$ and $\sigma>0$, there is $R_0>0$ depending
only on $\sigma$ and $T'$, such that $\uppsi>0$ on $\mathbb{R}^2\times[0,T']$ for all
$R\ge R_0$.
On the contrary, suppose $\uppsi$ is not positive on $\mathbb{R}^2\times[0,T']$
for some $R\ge R_0$. Then as $\psi>0$ on $\mathbb{R}^2\times\{0\}$, $\tr(\sTensor)\ge \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$
on $\mathbb{R}^2\times[0,T)$ and $\phi_R(x)\to\infty$ as $\|x\|\to\infty$, it follows
that $\uppsi>0$ outside some compact set $K\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ for all $t\in[0,T)$.
We conclude that there is $(x_0,t_0)\in K\times[0,T']$ such that
$\uppsi(x_0,t_0)=0$ at $(x_0,t_0)$ and that $t_0$ is the first such time.
According to the second derivative criterion, at the point $(x_0,t_0)$
we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:PsiCond}
\partial_t \uppsi \le 0 \,, \qquad \nabla \uppsi = 0 \qquad \text{and} \qquad \Delta \uppsi \ge 0 \,.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, using Lemma \ref{lem:TrEvol}, we estimate the terms in the evolution equation for $\uppsi$,
as given by
\begin{align*}
(\partial_t - \Delta) \uppsi &= \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t} \phi_R \bigg\{ 2 \|\mathrm{A}\|^2 \tr(\sTensor) - \frac{1}{2} \frac{\|\nabla \tr(\sTensor)\|^2}{\tr(\sTensor)} \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad + \frac{2}{\tr(\sTensor)} \sum_{k=1}^2 \left( \frac{2\sv_2}{1+\sv_2^2} \mathrm{A}_{1k}^1 + \frac{2\sv_1}{1+\sv_1^2} \mathrm{A}_{2k}^2 \right)^2 \bigg\} \\
& \qquad - \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t} \Bigl\{ (\Delta\phi_R) \tr(\sTensor) + 2 \< \nabla \phi_R, \nabla \tr(\sTensor) \> - \sigma \phi_R\tr(\sTensor) \Bigr\} \\
& \eqqcolon \mathcal{A} + \mathcal{B} \,,
\end{align*}
where we collect all terms coming from the evolution equation of $\tr(\sTensor)$ (i.\,e.\ the first two lines)
in $\mathcal{A}$ and the remaining terms (i.\,e.\ the third line) in $\mathcal{B}$.
To estimate the terms in $\mathcal{A}$ at $(x_0,t_0)$,
note that the vanishing of the first derivative in \eqref{eq:PsiCond} implies the equality
\[
(\nabla \phi_R)\tr(\sTensor) = - \phi_R \nabla \tr(\sTensor) \,.
\]
Consequently, since $\tr(\sTensor)\ge\frac{\varepsilon}{2}$ by assumption, at $(x_0,t_0)$ we derive the estimate
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{A} &\stackrel{\hphantom{\text{Lem.\ \ref{lem:phiEst}}}}{=} \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \phi_R \bigg\{ \underbrace{2 \|\mathrm{A}\|^2 \tr(\sTensor)}_{\ge \|\mathrm{A}\|^2\varepsilon \ge 0} - \frac{1}{2} \frac{\|\nabla \tr(\sTensor)\|^2}{\tr(\sTensor)} \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad + \underbrace{\frac{2}{\tr(\sTensor)} \sum_{k=1}^2 \left( \frac{2\sv_2}{1+\sv_2^2} \mathrm{A}_{1k}^1 + \frac{2\sv_1}{1+\sv_1^2} \mathrm{A}_{2k}^2 \right)^2}_{\ge 0} \bigg\} \\
& \stackrel{\hphantom{\text{Lem.\ \ref{lem:phiEst}}}}{\ge} - \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \phi_R}{2} \frac{\|\nabla\tr(\sTensor)\|^2}{\tr(\sTensor)} = \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0}}{2} \< \nabla \phi_R, \nabla \tr(\sTensor) \> \\
& \stackrel{\text{Lem.\ \ref{lem:phiEst}}}{\ge} - \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0}}{2} \frac{\|x_0\|_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} c(T') \tr(\sTensor) \,.
\end{align*}
Lemma \ref{lem:phiEst} and further evaluation yields
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{A} + \mathcal{B} &\ge - \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0}}{2} \frac{\|x_0\|_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} c(T') \tr(\sTensor) \\
& \quad - \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0}\left\{ c(T') \left( \frac{1}{R^2} + \frac{\|x_0\|_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} \right) + 2 c(T') \frac{\|x_0\|_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} \right. \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad\qquad\qquad \left.{} - \sigma - \sigma \frac{\|x_0\|^2_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} \right\} \tr(\sTensor) \\
&= \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0}\left\{ \sigma + \sigma \frac{\|x_0\|^2_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} - \frac{7}{2} c(T') \frac{\|x_0\|_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} - \frac{c(T')}{R^2} \right\} \tr(\sTensor) \,.
\end{align*}
Note that by choosing $R_0>0$ (depending on $\sigma$ and $T'$) large enough, the term
\[
\frac{\sigma}{2} + \sigma \frac{\|x_0\|^2_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} - \frac{7}{2} c(T') \frac{\|x_0\|_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} - \frac{c(T')}{R^2}
\]
is strictly positive for any $R\ge R_0$ and any $\|x_0\|_{\mathbb{R}^2}$. Continuing with the above
calculation, we obtain
\[
\left( \partial_t - \Delta \right) \uppsi_{|(x_0,t_0)} \ge \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \frac{\sigma}{2} \tr(\sTensor) \ge \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \frac{\sigma}{2} \frac{\varepsilon}{2} > 0 \,.
\]
But this
is a contradiction to \eqref{eq:PsiCond}, which shows the claim.
The statement of the Lemma follows by first letting $R\to\infty$, then $\sigma\to 0$ and finally
$T'\to T$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:AreaDecrPres}
Let $F(x,t)$ be a smooth solution to \eqref{eq:MCF} for $t\in[0,T)$ with bounded geometry.
If there is $\varepsilon>0$ with $\tr(\sTensor)\ge\varepsilon$ at $t=0$, then
$\tr(\sTensor)\ge\varepsilon$ for all $t\in[0,T)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{lem:AreaDecrEpsilon}, we only need to remove the assumption $\tr(\sTensor)\ge\frac{\varepsilon}{2}$
in $[0,T)$. By the bounded geometry assumption on $F(x,t)$, the right
hand side of the evolution equation of $\tr(\sTensor)$ is bounded, so that
\[
\|\partial_t \tr(\sTensor)\| \le C(t) \,,
\]
where $C(t)$ is a constant only depending on $t$. Since $\tr(\sTensor)\ge \varepsilon$ at
$t=0$, it follows that there is a maximal time $T_0>0$, such that $\tr(\sTensor)>\frac{\varepsilon}{2}$
holds in $[0,T_0)$. From Lemma \ref{lem:AreaDecrEpsilon} we know that $\tr(\sTensor)\ge\varepsilon$
on $\mathbb{R}^2\times[0,T_0)$. If $T_0\ne T$, by continuity, we also know that $\tr(\sTensor)\ge \varepsilon$
on $\mathbb{R}^2\times[0,T_0]$. By the same argument for finding $T_0$ above, we can find
some positive $T_0'$, such that $\tr(\sTensor)\ge \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$ in $\mathbb{R}^2\times[T_0,T_0+T_0')$,
where $[T_0,T_0+T_0')\subset [T_0,T)$. But this contradicts the choice of $T_0$, so that $T_0=T$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:GraphPres}
Let $f:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}^2$ be a smooth strictly area-decreasing map and evolve it by
the mean curvature flow. Then each $F_t(\mathbb{R}^2)$ is the graph of a strictly area-decreasing
map for $t\in[0,T)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is the same as \cite{SHS14}*{Proof of Proposition 3.3}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{A priori estimates}
\label{sec:APriori}
To obtain estimates for the mean curvature vector, let us define the function
\[
\upchi(x,t) \coloneqq \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t}\phi_R(x) \tr(\sTensor)_{|(x,t)} - \varepsilon_2 \bigl( t \|\Hv\|^2_{|(x,t)} + 1 \bigr) \,.
\]
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:chiEvol}
The evolution equation for $\upchi$ under the mean curvature flow is given by
\begin{align*}
\bigl( \partial_t - \Delta \bigr) \upchi &= \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t}\phi_R \left\{ 2 \|\mathrm{A}\|^2\tr(\sTensor) + \frac{2}{\tr(\sTensor)} \sum_{k=1}^2 \left( \frac{2\sv_2}{1+\sv_2^2} \mathrm{A}_{1k}^1 + \frac{2\sv_1}{1+\sv_1^2} \mathrm{A}_{2k}^2 \right)^2 \right\} \\
& \quad - \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t} \phi_R \frac{\|\nabla \tr(\sTensor)\|^2}{\tr(\sTensor)} \\
& \quad - \varepsilon_2 t \left\{ - 2 \|\nabla^{\perp} \Hv\|^2 + 2 \sum_{i,j=1}^2 \mathrm{A}_{\Hv}^2(e_i,e_j) \right\} - \varepsilon_2 \|\Hv\|^2 \\
& \quad + \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t} \Bigl\{ \sigma \phi_R \tr(\sTensor) - (\Delta \phi_R)\tr(\sTensor) - 2 \<\nabla \phi_R, \nabla \tr(\sTensor)\> \Bigr\} \,.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We calculate
\begin{align*}
\bigl( \partial_t - \Delta \bigr) \upchi &= \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t}\phi_R\bigl( \partial_t - \Delta \bigr) \tr(\sTensor) - \varepsilon_2 t \bigl( \partial_t - \Delta \bigr) \|\Hv\|^2 \\
&\quad - \varepsilon_2 \|\Hv\|^2 \\
&\quad + \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t} \Bigl\{ \sigma \phi_R \tr(\sTensor) - (\Delta\phi_R)\tr(\sTensor) - 2 \<\nabla\phi_R,\nabla \tr(\sTensor)\> \Bigr\} \,.
\end{align*}
Now, recall (see e.\,g.\ \cite{Smo12}*{Corollary 3.8}) that the square norm of the mean curvature vector evolves by
\begin{align*}
\bigl( \partial_t - \Delta \bigr) \|\Hv\|^2 &= -2 \|\nabla^{\perp} \Hv\|^2 + 2 \sum_{i,j=1}^2 \mathrm{A}_{\Hv}^2(e_i,e_j) \,,
\end{align*}
which together with Lemma \ref{lem:TrEvol} implies the claim.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:HDecay}
Let $F(x,t)$ be a smooth, graphic solution to \eqref{eq:MCF} with bounded geometry and
suppose $\tr(\sTensor)\ge \varepsilon_1$ on $[0,T)$ for some $\varepsilon_1>0$. Then there
is a constant $C\ge 0$ depending only on $\varepsilon_1$, such that
\[
t \|\Hv\|^2 \le C
\]
on $\mathbb{R}^2\times[0,T)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix $0<\varepsilon_2 < \varepsilon_1$, so that $\upchi$ is positive
on $\mathbb{R}^2\times\{0\}$. Further, fix any $T'\in[0,T)$. We will first show that we can choose $R_0>0$, such that $\upchi\ge 0$ on $\mathbb{R}^2\times[0,T']$
for all $R\ge R_0$.
Suppose $\upchi$ is not positive on $\mathbb{R}^2\times[0,T']$ for some $R\ge R_0$. Then, as $\upchi>0$ on
$\mathbb{R}^2\times\{0\}$, $\tr(\sTensor)\ge\varepsilon_1$ on $[0,T)$, $\phi_R(x)\to\infty$ as $\|x\|\to\infty$ and
by the bounded geometry condition \eqref{eq:BddGeom1}, it follows that $\upchi>0$ outside some compact set
$K\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ for all $t\in[0,T']$. We conclude that there is $(x_0,t_0)\in K\times[0,T']$, such that
$\upchi(x_0,t_0)=0$ and that $t_0$ is the first such time. By the second derivative criterion, at $(x_0,t_0)$
we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ChiSDC}
\upchi = 0 \,, \quad \nabla \upchi = 0 \,, \quad \partial_t \upchi \le 0 \quad \text{and} \quad \Delta \upchi \ge 0 \,.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, we estimate the terms in the evolution equation for $\upchi$ from Lemma \ref{lem:chiEvol}
at $(x_0,t_0)$.
Using
\[
\sum_{i,j=1}^2 \mathrm{A}^2_{\Hv}(e_i,e_j) \le \|\mathrm{A}\|^2 \|\Hv\|^2
\]
and $\phi_R\ge 1$ yields the estimate
\begin{align*}
\bigl( \partial_t - \Delta \bigr) \upchi &\ge \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0}\phi_R \Biggl\{ 2 \|\mathrm{A}\|^2 \tr(\sTensor) + \underbrace{\frac{2}{\tr(\sTensor)} \sum_{k=1}^2 \left( \frac{2\sv_2}{1+\sv_2^2} \mathrm{A}_{1k}^1 + \frac{2\sv_1}{1+\sv_1^2} \mathrm{A}_{2k}^2 \right)^2}_{\ge 0} \Biggr\} \\
& \quad - \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \phi_R \frac{\|\nabla \tr(\sTensor)\|^2}{\tr(\sTensor)} \\
& \quad + 2 \varepsilon_2 t_0 \bigl\| \nabla^{\perp} \Hv\bigr\|^2 - 2 \varepsilon_2 t_0 \|\mathrm{A}\|^2 \|\Hv\|^2 - \varepsilon_2 \|\Hv\|^2 \\
& \quad + \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0}\Bigl\{ \sigma \phi_R \tr(\sTensor) - (\Delta \phi_R)\tr(\sTensor) - 2 \<\nabla \phi_R, \nabla\tr(\sTensor)\> \Bigr\} \\
& \ge 2 \|\mathrm{A}\|^2 \left( \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \phi_R \tr(\sTensor) - \varepsilon_2 \bigl( t_0 \|\Hv\|^2 + 1 \bigr) \right) + 2 \varepsilon_2 \|\mathrm{A}\|^2 - \varepsilon_2 \|\Hv\|^2 \\
& \quad - \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0}\phi_R \frac{\|\nabla \tr(\sTensor)\|^2}{\tr(\sTensor)} + 2 \varepsilon_2 t_0 \|\nabla^{\perp}\Hv\|^2 \\
& \quad + \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0}\Bigl\{ \sigma \phi_R \tr(\sTensor) - (\Delta \phi_R)\tr(\sTensor) - 2 \<\nabla \phi_R, \nabla\tr(\sTensor)\> \Bigr\} \\
& \eqqcolon 2 \|\mathrm{A}\|^2 \upchi + \mathcal{A} + \mathcal{G} \\
& \quad + \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0}\Bigl\{ \sigma \phi_R \tr(\sTensor) - (\Delta \phi_R)\tr(\sTensor) - 2 \<\nabla \phi_R, \nabla\tr(\sTensor)\> \Bigr\} \,,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{A} &\coloneqq 2 \varepsilon_2 \|\mathrm{A}\|^2 - \varepsilon_2 \|\Hv\|^2 \,, \\
\mathcal{G} &\coloneqq - \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0}\phi_R \frac{\|\nabla \tr(\sTensor)\|^2}{\tr(\sTensor)} + 2 \varepsilon_2 t_0 \|\nabla^{\perp}\Hv\|^2 \,.
\end{align*}
Since $\|\Hv\|^2\le 2 \|\mathrm{A}\|^2$, we derive
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:AEst}
\mathcal{A}\ge 0 \,.
\end{equation}
To estimate the terms in $\mathcal{G}$, we want to exploit
$\nabla\upchi=0$ at $(x_0,t_0)$. This yields
\[
\mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \bigl\{ (\nabla\phi_R) \tr(\sTensor) + \phi_R (\nabla\tr(\sTensor)) \bigr\} = \varepsilon_2 t_0 \nabla \| \Hv\|^2
\]
and consequently
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma t_0} \bigl\| (\nabla \phi_R)\tr(\sTensor) + \phi_R(\nabla \tr(\sTensor)) \bigr\|^2 &= \varepsilon_2^2 t_0^2 \bigl\| \nabla \|\Hv\|^2 \bigr\|^2 \\
& \le 4 \varepsilon_2^2 t_0^2 \|\nabla^{\perp}\Hv\|^2 \|\Hv\|^2 \\
& \le 4 \varepsilon_2^2 t_0^2 \|\nabla^{\perp}\Hv\|^2 \bigl( \|\Hv\|^2+1 \bigr) \,.
\end{align*}
From $\upchi(x_0,t_0)=0$ we get $ \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \phi_R \tr(\sTensor) = \varepsilon_2 t_0 \bigl( \|\Hv\|^2 + 1 \bigr)$,
so that
\[
\mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \bigl\| (\nabla \phi_R)\tr(\sTensor) + \phi_R(\nabla \tr(\sTensor)) \bigr\|^2 \le 4 \varepsilon_2 t_0 \phi_R \|\nabla^{\perp}\Hv\|^2 \tr(\sTensor) \,.
\]
Noting $\phi_R\ge 1$ and sorting the expression, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \phi_R \|\nabla\tr(\sTensor)\|^2 &\le 4 \varepsilon_2 t_0 \|\nabla^{\perp}\Hv\|^2 \tr(\sTensor) \\
& \quad - \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \left\{ \frac{\|\nabla\phi_R\|^2}{\phi_R} \bigl(\tr(\sTensor)\bigr)^2 + 2 \tr(\sTensor) \< \nabla \phi_R, \nabla \tr(\sTensor) \> \right\} \\
& \le 4 \varepsilon_2 t_0 \|\nabla^{\perp}\Hv\|^2 \tr(\sTensor) - 2 \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \tr(\sTensor) \<\nabla \phi_R, \nabla\tr(\sTensor)\> \,.
\end{align*}
Thus, the gradient terms satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:GEst}
\mathcal{G} = - \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \phi_R \frac{\|\nabla\tr(\sTensor)\|^2}{\tr(\sTensor)} + 2 \varepsilon_2 t_0 \|\nabla^{\perp} \Hv\|^2 \ge \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \< \nabla \phi_R, \nabla \tr(\sTensor) \> \,.
\end{equation}
Collecting the previous calculations and using $\tr(\sTensor)\ge\varepsilon_1>0$ as well as $\upchi(x_0,t_0)=0$,
we estimate the evolution equation of $\upchi$ at $(x_0,t_0)$ by
\begin{align*}
(\partial_t - \Delta) \upchi &\stackrel{\text{Eqs.\ \eqref{eq:AEst}, \eqref{eq:GEst}}}{\ge} \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \Bigl\{ \sigma \phi_R \tr(\sTensor) - (\Delta \phi_R)\tr(\sTensor) - \< \nabla \phi_R, \nabla \tr(\sTensor)\> \Bigr\} \\
& \stackrel{\substack{\hphantom{\text{Eqs.\ \eqref{eq:AEst}, \eqref{eq:GEst}}}\\\text{Lem.\ \ref{lem:phiEst}}}}{\ge} \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \left\{ \sigma\left(1 + \frac{\|x_0\|^2_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} \right) - c(T') \left(\frac{1}{R^2} + \frac{\|x_0\|_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} \right) \right. \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \left. - c(T') \frac{\|x_0\|_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} \right\} \tr(\sTensor) \\
& \stackrel{\hphantom{\text{Eqs.\ \eqref{eq:AEst}, \eqref{eq:GEst}}}}{=} \!\!\! \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \left\{ \sigma + \sigma \frac{\|x_0\|^2_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} - 2 c(T') \frac{\|x_0\|_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} - \frac{c(T')}{R^2} \right\} \tr(\sTensor) \,.
\end{align*}
Now we choose $R_0>0$ (depending on $\sigma$ and $T'$) large enough, so that the term
\[
\frac{\sigma}{2} + \sigma \frac{\|x_0\|^2_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} - 2 c(T') \frac{\|x_0\|_{\mathbb{R}^2}}{R^2} - \frac{c(T')}{R^2}
\]
is strictly positive for any $R\ge R_0$ and any $\|x_0\|_{\mathbb{R}^2}$. Continuing with the above
calculation, we obtain
\[
(\partial_t - \Delta) \upchi_{|(x_0,t_0)} \ge \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \frac{\sigma}{2} \tr(\sTensor) \ge \mathrm{e}^{\sigma t_0} \frac{\sigma}{2} \varepsilon_1 > 0 \,.
\]
But this is a contradiction to \eqref{eq:ChiSDC}, which shows the claim.
By first letting $R\to\infty$, then $\sigma\to 0$ and finally $T'\to T$, we have shown
that
\[
\tr(\sTensor) - \varepsilon_2 \bigl( t\|\Hv\|^2 + 1 \bigr) \ge 0
\]
holds for all $t\in[0,T)$.
The statement of the Lemma follows by noting $\tr(\sTensor)\le 2$,
setting $C\coloneqq \frac{2}{\varepsilon_2} - 1$ and recalling that $\varepsilon_2$ only depends
on $\varepsilon_1$.
\end{proof}
As in \cites{CCH12,Lub16}, we go on by analyzing the non-parametric version of the mean curvature flow
to obtain estimates on all higher derivatives of the map which defines the graph. Note that
most proofs are very similar to the ones in the articles cited, but nevertheless
need to be slightly modified to account for the weaker assumptions in the two-dimensional case.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:HigherOrderEst1}
Let $F:\mathbb{R}^2\times[0,T)\to\mathbb{R}^2\times\mathbb{R}^2$ be a smooth, graphic solution to \eqref{eq:MCF}
with bounded geometry. Suppose the corresponding maps $f_t:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}^2$ satisfy $\|\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu f_t\|\le C_1$
and $\|\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^2 f_t\|\le C_2$ on $\mathbb{R}^2\times[0,T)$ for some constants $C_1,C_2\ge 0$. Then
for every $l\ge 3$, there is a constant $C_l$, such that
\[
\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^2} \|\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^l f_t(x)\|^2 \le C_l
\]
for all $t\in[0,T)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is essentially the same as \cite{CCH12}*{Proof of Lemma 4.2} (see also \cite{Lub16}*{Lemma 5.4} with $m=n=2$).
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:HigherOrderEst2}
Let $F:\mathbb{R}^2\times[0,T)\to\mathbb{R}^2\times\mathbb{R}^2$ be a smooth, graphic solution to \eqref{eq:MCF} with
bounded geometry and denote by $f_t:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}^2$ the corresponding maps. Assume the condition
$\tr(\sTensor)\ge \varepsilon$ holds for a fixed $\varepsilon>0$ at time $t=0$. Further assume that
$\|\Hv\|\le C$ on $\mathbb{R}^2\times[0,T)$ for some constant $C\ge 0$. Then for every $l\ge 1$, there is
a constant $C_l\ge 0$, such that
\[
\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^2} \|\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^l f_t(x)\|^2 \le C_l
\]
for all $t\in [0,T)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{lem:AreaDecrPres}, the area-decreasing condition is preserved in $[0,T)$, so that the relation
$\tr(\sTensor)\ge \varepsilon$ holds in $[0,T)$. Since $\varepsilon$ is strictly positive, from
\[
\tr(\sTensor) = \frac{2(1-\sv_1^2\sv_2^2)}{(1+\sv_1^2)(1+\sv_2^2)} \ge \varepsilon > 0
\]
we infer
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SVBound}
\varepsilon (1 + \sv_i^2) \le \frac{2(1-\sv_1^2\sv_2^2)}{1+\sv_j^2} \le 2 \,, \qquad (i,j) \in\bigl\{ (1,2), (2,1) \bigr\} \,,
\end{equation}
so that the singular values $\sv_1,\sv_2$ of $\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu f_t$ are bounded. This also means that $\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu f_t$
itself is bounded, thus showing the claim for $l=1$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:HigherOrderEst1}, we now only need to prove the case $l=2$. Suppose the claim was false
for $l=2$. Let
\[
\eta(t) \coloneqq \sup_{\substack{x\in\mathbb{R}^2\\t'\le t}} \|\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^2 f(x,t')\| \,.
\]
Then there is a sequence $(x_k,t_k)$ along which we have $\|\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^2 f(x_k,t_k)\|\ge \eta(t_k)/2$ while
$\eta(t_k)\to\infty$ as $t_k\to T$. Let $\tau_k\coloneqq \eta(t_k)$. For each $k$, let $(y,\fys{\tau_k})$
be the parabolic scaling of the graph $(x,f(x,t))$ by $\tau_k$ at $(x_k,t_k)$. Then $\fys{\tau_k}$ is a
smooth solution to \eqref{eq:pMCF} on $\mathbb{R}^2\times[-\tau_k^2 t_k,0]$. Note that by the definition $\tau_k=\eta(t_k)$,
it is
\begin{align*}
\|\widetilde{\mathrm{D}}\mkern 1mu \fScaled{\tau_k}\| &= \|\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu f\| \le C_1 \,, \\
\|\widetilde{\mathrm{D}}\mkern 1mu^2 \fScaled{\tau_k}\| &= \tau_k^{-1} \|\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^2 f\| \le 1
\end{align*}
on $\mathbb{R}^2\times[-\tau_k^2 t_k,0]$. Moreover, by the definition of the sequence $(x_k,t_k)$, the estimate
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fScaleEst1}
\|\widetilde{\mathrm{D}}\mkern 1mu^2 \fScaled{\tau_k}(0,0)\| = \frac{\| \mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^2 f(x_k,t_k)\|}{\tau_k} = \frac{ \|\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^2 f(x_k,t_k)\|}{\eta(t_k)} \ge \frac{1}{2}
\end{equation}
holds. By Lemma \ref{lem:HigherOrderEst1}, we conclude that all the higher derivatives of $\fScaled{\tau_k}$
are uniformly bounded on $\mathbb{R}^2\times[-\tau_k^2 t_k,0]$. Thus, the theorem of Arzel\`{a}-Ascoli implies
the existence of a subsequence of $\fScaled{\tau_k}$ converging smoothly and uniformly on compact subsets
of $\mathbb{R}^2\times(-\infty,0]$ to a smooth solution $\fScaled{\infty}$ to \eqref{eq:pMCF}. Since
$\|\Hv\|\le C$ for the graphs $\bigl(x,f(x,t)\bigr)$ by assumption, after rescaling
we have
\[
\bigl\|\Hv_{\tau_k}\bigr\| \le \frac{C}{\tau_k}
\]
for the graphs $\bigl( y, \fys{\tau_k} \bigr)$. It follows that for each $r$ the limiting
graph $\bigl( y, \fys{\infty} \bigr)$ must have $\|\Hv_{\infty}\|=0$ everywhere, as well as
$\tr(\sTensor)\ge \varepsilon$. Note that by Equation \eqref{eq:SVBound}, this implies bounds
for the singular values $\widetilde{\sv}_1,\widetilde{\sv}_2$ of the limiting graph,
\[
1+\widetilde{\sv}_k^2 \le \frac{2}{\varepsilon} \,, \qquad k=1,2 \,.
\]
It follows that we can estimate the Jacobian
of the projection $\pi_1$ from the graph $\bigl( y, \fys{\infty} \bigr)$ to $\mathbb{R}^2$,
\[
0 < \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \le \star \Omega_{\infty} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{(1+\widetilde{\sv}_1^2)(1+\widetilde{\sv}_2^2)}} \le 1 \,.
\]
Thus, we can apply a Bernstein-type theorem of Wang \cite{Wan03a}*{Theorem 1.1} to conclude
that the graph $\bigl(y,\fys{\infty}\bigr)$ is an affine subspace of $\mathbb{R}^2\times\mathbb{R}^2$. Therefore,
$\fys{\infty}$ has to be a linear map, but this contradicts \eqref{eq:fScaleEst1}, which (taking the
limit $k\to\infty$) implies the estimate $\|\widetilde{\mathrm{D}}\mkern 1mu^2 \fys{\infty}(0,0)\| \ge 1/2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:HeightEst}
Suppose $f(x,t)$ is a smooth solution to \eqref{eq:pMCF} on $[0,T)$ that satisfies the bounded geometry
condition. Then
\[
\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^2} \| f(x,t)\|^2 \le \sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^2} \|f(x,0)\|^2
\]
holds for all $t\in [0,T']$, where $T'\in[0,T)$ is arbitrary.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is \cite{Lub16}*{Lemma 5.6} with $m=n=2$.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:ThmA}}
\label{sec:Proof}
Using Lemma \ref{lem:AreaDecrPres} and the estimates from
the Lemmas \ref{lem:HDecay}, \ref{lem:HigherOrderEst1} and \ref{lem:HigherOrderEst2},
the proof of the long-time existence of the solution
is the same as in \cite{CCH12}*{Lemma 5.2}.
By Lemma \ref{lem:GraphPres}, the evolving surface stays a graph of an
area-decreasing map $f_t:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}^2$.
The decay estimate for $\Hv$ is given in Lemma \ref{lem:HDecay}.
Employing the Lemmas \ref{lem:AreaDecrPres},
the bounds on the singular values from Equation \eqref{eq:SVBound}
and the decay estimates from Lemmas \ref{lem:HDecay},
\ref{lem:HigherOrderEst1} and \ref{lem:HigherOrderEst2},
the proof of the decay estimates for the higher-order derivatives of $f_t$
follows in the same way as in \cite{Lub16}*{Lemma 6.3}.
The height estimate is provided by Lemma \ref{lem:HeightEst}. \\
If we assume $\|f_0\|\to 0$ for $\|x\|\to\infty$, we know by Lemma \ref{lem:HeightEst} that $\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^2}\|f(x,t)\|$
stays bounded. As the singular values $\sv_1,\sv_2\ge 0$ are uniformly bounded, so is $\widetilde{\gMetric}$, which
means the equation
\[
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}(x,t) = \sum_{i,j=1}^2 \widetilde{\gMetric}^{ij} \frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x^i \partial x^j}(x,t)
\]
is uniformly parabolic. Then, by the theorem in \cite{Ili61}, $f(x,t)\to 0$ as $t\to\infty$, uniformly
with respect to $x$. This shows the convergence part of Theorem \ref{thm:ThmA} and concludes the proof. \hfill $\Box$
\section{Applications}
\label{sec:Appl}
We demonstrate how to apply Theorem \ref{thm:ThmA} to the examples considered in \cite{Lub16}*{Section 9}.
Note that both proofs are formally the same as \cite{Lub16}*{Proofs of Examples 9.3 and 9.4}, and
we state them here for completeness.
Let $F_t:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}^2\times\mathbb{R}^2$ be a graphical self-shrinking solution to the mean curvature flow, and
denote by $f_t:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}^2$ the corresponding map. Then $f_1$ satisfies the equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ShrSol}
\sum_{i,j=1}^2 \widetilde{\gind}^{ij} \frac{\partial^2 f_1^k(x)}{\partial x^i \partial x^j} = - \frac{1}{2} f^k_1(x) + \frac{1}{2} \< \mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu f_1^k(x), x \> \,, \quad k=1,2 \,.
\end{equation}
If $F_t$ is a translating solution to the mean curvature flow, then there is $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^2\times\mathbb{R}^2$, such
that $\Hv = \mathrm{pr}^{\perp}(\xi)$. If the initial data is given by $F_0(x) = (x,f(x))$, then for $F_t$ to be a translating solution
the function $f$ has to satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TransSol}
\sum_{i,j=1}^2 \widetilde{\gind}^{ij} \frac{\partial^2 f(x)}{\partial x^i \partial x^j} = \mathrm{d} \pi_2(\xi) - \< \mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu f(x), \mathrm{d} \pi_1(\xi) \> \,.
\end{equation}
\begin{example}[A Bernstein Theorem for Self-Shrinking Solutions]
Let $v:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}^2$ be a strictly area-decreasing map with bounded second fundamental form and satisfying \eqref{eq:ShrSol}.
Then $v$ is a linear function.
\end{example}
\begin{proof}
Since $v$ is a smooth solution to \eqref{eq:ShrSol}, the function
\[
f_t(x) \coloneqq \sqrt{-t} v\left( \frac{x}{\sqrt{-t}} \right)
\]
is a solution to \eqref{eq:pMCF} for $t\in(-\infty,0]$ and $f_{-1}(x) = v(x)$. Since this solution is unique
by \cite{CY07}*{Theorem 1.1}, we can apply Theorem \ref{thm:ThmA}. In particular, $\|\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^2 f_t(x)\|\le C$
for some constant $C$ for $t\ge -1$ and any $x$. Since also
\[
\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^2 f_t(x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{-t}} \mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^2 v\left( \frac{x}{\sqrt{-t}} \right) \,,
\]
we obtain the estimate
\[
\|\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^2v(x)\| \le C\sqrt{-t}
\]
for any $x$. Letting $t\to 0$, this implies $\mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^2v(x) = 0$, so that $v$ is a linear function.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}[A Bernstein Theorem for Translating Solutions]
Let $v:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}^2$ be a strictly area-decreasing map with bounded second fundamental form and satisfying \eqref{eq:TransSol}.
Then $v$ is a linear function.
\end{example}
\begin{proof}
If $v$ solves \eqref{eq:TransSol}, then
there is a constant vector $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^2\times\mathbb{R}^2$, such that
\[
f_t(x) \coloneqq v\bigl( x - \mathrm{d} \pi_1(\xi)t \bigr) + \mathrm{d} \pi_2(\xi)t
\]
solves \eqref{eq:pMCF} with initial condition $f_0(x) = v(x)$.
On the other hand, by Theorem \ref{thm:ThmA} there is a long-time solution $f_t(x)$ to \eqref{eq:pMCF} with
initial condition $f_0$ which satisfies $\|\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^2} \mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^2f_t(x) \| \to 0$ as $t\to\infty$. By
the uniqueness result \cite{CY07}*{Theorem 1.1},
\[
\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^2} \bigl\| \mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^2 v\bigl( x - \mathrm{d} \pi_1(\xi)t \bigr) \bigr\| = \sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^2} \bigl\| \mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^2 f_t(x) \bigr\| \to 0
\]
as $t\to\infty$. We conclude that $\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^2} \| \mathrm{D}\mkern 1mu^2v(x)\| = 0$, so $v$ must be linear.
\end{proof}
\begin{bibdiv}
\begin{biblist}
\bib{Bra78}{book}{
title = {The motion of a surface by its mean curvature},
publisher = {Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.},
year = {1978},
author = {Brakke, Kenneth A.},
volume = {20},
pages = {i+252},
series = {Mathematical Notes},
isbn = {0-691-08204-9},
}
\bib{CCH12}{article}{
author = {Chau, Albert},
author = {Chen, Jingyi},
author = {He, Weiyong},
title = {Lagrangian mean curvature flow for entire {L}ipschitz graphs},
journal = {Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations},
year = {2012},
volume = {44},
pages = {199--220},
number = {1-2},
doi = {\doi{10.1007/s00526-011-0431-x}},
issn = {0944-2669},
}
\bib{CCY13}{article}{
author = {Chau, Albert},
author = {Chen, Jingyi},
author = {Yuan, Yu},
title = {Lagrangian mean curvature flow for entire {L}ipschitz graphs {II}},
journal = {Math. Ann.},
year = {2013},
volume = {357},
pages = {165--183},
number = {1},
doi = {\doi{10.1007/s00208-013-0897-2}},
issn = {0025-5831},
}
\bib{CY07}{article}{
author = {Chen, Bing-Long},
author = {Yin, Le},
title = {Uniqueness and pseudolocality theorems of the mean curvature flow},
journal = {Comm. Anal. Geom.},
year = {2007},
volume = {15},
pages = {435--490},
number = {3},
issn = {1019-8385},
url = {http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cag/1201269325}
}
\bib{CLT02}{article}{
author = {Chen, Jing Yi},
author = {Li, Jia Yu},
author = {Tian, Gang},
title = {Two-dimensional graphs moving by mean curvature flow},
journal = {Acta Math. Sin. (Engl. Ser.)},
year = {2002},
volume = {18},
pages = {209--224},
number = {2},
doi = {\doi{10.1007/s101140200163}},
issn = {1439-8516},
}
\bib{EH91}{article}{
author = {Ecker, Klaus},
author = {Huisken, Gerhard},
title = {Interior estimates for hypersurfaces moving by mean curvature},
journal = {Invent. Math.},
year = {1991},
volume = {105},
pages = {547--569},
number = {3},
doi = {\doi{10.1007/BF01232278}},
issn = {0020-9910},
}
\bib{EH89}{article}{
author = {Ecker, Klaus},
author = {Huisken, Gerhard},
title = {Mean curvature evolution of entire graphs},
journal = {Ann. of Math. (2)},
year = {1989},
volume = {130},
pages = {453--471},
number = {3},
doi = {\doi{10.2307/1971452}},
issn = {0003-486X},
}
\bib{Ili61}{article}{
author = {Il{\cprime}in, A. M.},
title = {On the behavior of the solution of the {C}auchy problem for a parabolic
equation under unrestricted growth of time},
journal = {Uspehi Mat. Nauk},
year = {1961},
volume = {16},
pages = {115--121},
number = {2 (98)},
issn = {0042-1316},
}
\bib{LL11}{article}{
author = {Lee, Kuo-Wei},
author = {Lee, Yng-Ing},
title = {Mean curvature flow of the graphs of maps between compact manifolds},
journal = {Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.},
year = {2011},
volume = {363},
pages = {5745--5759},
number = {11},
doi = {\doi{10.1090/S0002-9947-2011-05204-9}},
issn = {0002-9947},
}
\bib{Lub16}{article}{
author = {Lubbe, Felix},
title = {Mean curvature flow of contractions between Euclidean spaces},
journal = {Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations},
year = {2016},
volume = {55},
pages = {1--28},
number = {4},
doi = {\doi{10.1007/s00526-016-1043-2}},
issn = {1432-0835},
}
\bib{Sch93}{article}{
author={Schoen, Richard M.},
title={The role of harmonic mappings in rigidity and deformation
problems},
conference={
title={Complex geometry},
address={Osaka},
date={1990},
},
book={
series={Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math.},
volume={143},
publisher={Dekker, New York},
},
date={1993},
pages={179--200},
}
\bib{SHS16}{article}{
author = {Savas-Halilaj, Andreas},
author = {Smoczyk, Knut},
title = {Mean curvature flow of area decreasing maps between Riemann surfaces},
note = {\texttt{\arxiv{1602.07595}}},
}
\bib{SHS15}{article}{
author = {Savas-Halilaj, Andreas},
author = {Smoczyk, Knut},
title = {Evolution of contractions by mean curvature flow},
journal = {Math. Ann.},
year = {2015},
volume = {361},
pages = {725--740},
number = {3-4},
doi = {\doi{10.1007/s00208-014-1090-y}},
issn = {0025-5831},
}
\bib{SHS13}{article}{
author = {Savas-Halilaj, Andreas},
author = {Smoczyk, Knut},
title = {Bernstein theorems for length and area decreasing minimal maps},
journal = {Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations},
year = {2014},
volume = {50},
pages = {549--577},
number = {3-4},
doi = {\doi{10.1007/s00526-013-0646-0}},
issn = {0944-2669},
}
\bib{SHS14}{article}{
author = {Savas-Halilaj, Andreas},
author = {Smoczyk, Knut},
title = {Homotopy of area decreasing maps by mean curvature flow},
journal = {Adv. Math.},
year = {2014},
volume = {255},
pages = {455--473},
doi = {\doi{10.1016/j.aim.2014.01.014}},
issn = {0001-8708},
}
\bib{Smo12}{incollection}{
author = {Smoczyk, Knut},
title = {Mean curvature flow in higher codimension: introduction and survey},
booktitle = {Global differential geometry},
publisher = {Springer, Heidelberg},
year = {2012},
volume = {17},
series = {Springer Proc. Math.},
pages = {231--274},
doi = {\doi{10.1007/978-3-642-22842-1\_9}},
}
\bib{Smo04}{article}{
author = {Smoczyk, Knut},
title = {Longtime existence of the {L}agrangian mean curvature flow},
journal = {Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations},
year = {2004},
volume = {20},
pages = {25--46},
number = {1},
doi = {\doi{10.1007/s00526-003-0226-9}},
issn = {0944-2669},
}
\bib{STW16}{article}{
author = {Smoczyk, Knut},
author = {Tsui, Mao-Pei},
author = {Wang, Mu-Tao},
title = {Curvature decay estimates of graphical mean curvature flow in higher
codimensions},
journal = {Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.},
year = {2016},
note = {(to appear in print)},
doi = {\doi{10.1090/tran/6624}}
}
\bib{TW04}{article}{
author = {Tsui, Mao-Pei},
author = {Wang, Mu-Tao},
title = {Mean curvature flows and isotopy of maps between spheres},
journal = {Comm. Pure Appl. Math.},
year = {2004},
volume = {57},
pages = {1110--1126},
number = {8},
doi = {\doi{10.1002/cpa.20022}},
issn = {0010-3640},
}
\bib{Wan05}{article}{
author = {Wang, Mu-Tao},
title = {Subsets of {G}rassmannians preserved by mean curvature flows},
journal = {Comm. Anal. Geom.},
year = {2005},
volume = {13},
pages = {981--998},
number = {5},
issn = {1019-8385},
url = {http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cag/1144438304}
}
\bib{Wan03a}{article}{
author = {Wang, Mu-Tao},
title = {On graphic {B}ernstein type results in higher codimension},
journal = {Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.},
year = {2003},
volume = {355},
pages = {265--271},
number = {1},
doi = {\doi{10.1090/S0002-9947-02-03108-2}},
issn = {0002-9947},
}
\bib{Wan03b}{article}{
author = {Wang, Mu-Tao},
title = {Gauss maps of the mean curvature flow},
journal = {Math. Res. Lett.},
year = {2003},
volume = {10},
pages = {287--299},
number = {2-3},
doi = {\doi{10.4310/MRL.2003.v10.n3.a2}},
issn = {1073-2780},
}
\bib{Wan01b}{article}{
author = {Wang, Mu-Tao},
title = {Long-time existence and convergence of graphic mean curvature flow
in arbitrary codimension},
journal = {Invent. Math.},
year = {2002},
volume = {148},
pages = {525--543},
number = {3},
doi = {\doi{10.1007/s002220100201}},
issn = {0020-9910},
}
\bib{Wan01a}{article}{
author = {Wang, Mu-Tao},
title = {Deforming area preserving diffeomorphism of surfaces by mean curvature
flow},
journal = {Math. Res. Lett.},
year = {2001},
volume = {8},
pages = {651--661},
number = {5-6},
doi = {\doi{10.4310/MRL.2001.v8.n5.a7}},
issn = {1073-2780},
}
\bib{Wan01c}{article}{
Title = {Mean Curvature Flow of Surfaces in {E}instein Four-Manifolds},
Author = {Wang, Mu-Tao},
Journal = {J. Differential Geom.},
Year = {2001},
Number = {2},
Pages = {301--338},
Volume = {57},
Publisher = {Lehigh University},
Url = {http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.jdg/1090348113}
}
\end{biblist}
\end{bibdiv}
\vskip 5\baselineskip
\hypersetup{
hidelinks
}
\begin{flushleft}
\textsc{Felix Lubbe} \\
\textsc{Mathematisches Institut} \\
\textsc{Georg-August-Universit\"{a}t G\"{o}ttingen} \\
\textsc{Bunsenstra{\ss}e 3--5}\\
\textsc{37073 G\"{o}ttingen, Germany} \\
\textsl{E-mail address:} \textbf{\href{mailto:<EMAIL>@mathematik.uni-goettingen.de}}
\end{flushleft}
\end{document} |
\subsection{Figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
Calibrating martingales to given option prices is a central topic of mathematical finance,
and it is thus a natural question which sets of option prices admit such a fit, and which do not.
Note that we are not interested in \emph{approximate} model calibration, but in the consistency
of option prices, and thus in arbitrage-free models that fit the given prices \emph{exactly}.
Put differently, we want to detect arbitrage in given prices.
We do not consider continuous call price surfaces, but restrict to the
(practically more relevant) case of finitely many strikes and maturities.
Therefore, consider a financial asset with finitely many European call options written on it.
In a frictionless setting, the consistency problem is well understood:
Carr and Madan~\cite{CaMa05} assume that interest rates, dividends and bid-ask spreads are zero,
and derive necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of arbitrage free models.
Essentially, the given call prices must not admit calendar or butterfly arbitrage.
Davis and Hobson~\cite{DaHo07} include interest rates and dividends and give similar results.
They also describe explicit arbitrage strategies, whenever arbitrage exists.
Concurrent related work has been done by Buehler~\cite{Bu06}.
Going beyond existence, Carr and Cousot~\cite{CaCo12} present practically appealing explicit constructions
of calibrated martingales.
More recently,
Tavin~\cite{Ta15} considers options on multiple assets and studies the existence of arbitrage strategies in this setting. Spoida~\cite{Sp14} gives conditions for the consistency of a set of prices
that contains not only vanillas, but also digital barrier options. See~\cite{HeObSpTo16}
for many related references.
As with virtually any result in mathematical finance, robustness with respect to market frictions
is an important issue in assessing the practical appeal of these findings. Somewhat surprisingly,
not much seems to be known about the consistency problem in this direction, the single exception being a paper
by Cousot~\cite{Co07}. He allows positive bid-ask spreads on the options, but not on the underlying,
and finds conditions on the prices that determine the existence of an arbitrage-free
model explaining them.
The novelty of our paper is that we allow a bid-ask spread on the underlying.
Without any further
assumptions on the size of this spread, it turns out that there is no connection between
the quoted price of the underlying and those of the calls: Any strategy trying to
exploit unreasonable prices can be made impossible by a sufficiently large bid-ask spread
on the underlying (see Example~\ref{ex:motivate} and Proposition~\ref{prop:nobound}).
In this respect, the problem
is \emph{not} robust w.r.t.\ the introduction of a spread on the underlying. However,
an arbitrarily large spread seems questionable, given that spreads are usually tight
for liquid underlyings. We thus enunciate
that the appropriate question is not ``when are the given prices consistent'',
but rather ``how large a bid-ask spread on the underlying is needed to explain them?''
We thus put a bound $\epsilon\geq0$ on the (discounted) spread of the underlying and want to determine the
smallest such $\epsilon$ that leads to a model explaining the given prices.
We then refer to the call prices as $\epsilon$-consistent (with the absence of arbitrage).
We assume discrete trading times and finite probability spaces throughout;
no gain in tractability or realism is to be expected by not doing so.
In the case of a single maturity, we obtain necessary and sufficient conditions
for $\epsilon$-consistency. The multi-period problem, on the other hand, seems to be
challenging. We provide two partial results: necessary (but presumably not sufficient) conditions for
$\epsilon$-consistency, and necessary and sufficient conditions under simplifying
assumptions. The latter, in particular, drop the bid-ask spread on the options,
retaining only the spread on the underlying.
Recall that the main technical tool used in the papers~\cite{CaMa05,Co07,DaHo07} mentioned above
to construct arbitrage-free models
is Strassen's theorem~\cite{St65}, or modifications thereof.
In the financial context, this theorem essentially states that option prices have to increase with maturity.
This property breaks down if a spread on the underlying is allowed.
We will therefore employ a recent generalization of Strassen's theorem, obtained in~\cite{GeGu15A}.
It gives necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of martingales within a prescribed distance, measured in terms of the infinity Wasserstein distance. This generalized Strassen theorem
will be the key to obtain the $\epsilon$-consistency conditions under simplified assumptions
mentioned above.
The structure of the paper is as follows.
In Section~\ref{sec:notation} we will describe our setting and give a precise formulation of our problem.
Then, in Section~\ref{sec:sing} we will present
necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of arbitrage
free models with bounded bid-ask spreads for a single maturity. Necessary conditions for
multiple maturities are found in Section~\ref{sec:mult}, while Section~\ref{sec:simp}
contains necessary and sufficient conditions under simplifying assumptions.
There, we invoke the main result from~\cite{GeGu15A}.
In Section~\ref{sec:nobound} we will discuss the case where models with unbounded spread are allowed;
again, this gives an opportunity to apply results from~\cite{GeGu15A}. We argue, though,
that studying the consistency problem with unbounded spread seems to be unnatural.
Section~\ref{sec:conc} concludes.
\section{Notation and Preliminaries}\label{sec:notation}
Our time index set will be $\mathcal{T}=\{0, \dots, T\}$ throughout, where $1\leq T\in\mathbb{N}$.
Whenever we talk about ``the given prices'' or similarly,
we mean the following data:
\begin{align}
&\text{A positive deterministic bank account}\
(B(t))_{t \in \mathcal{T}}\ \text{with}\ B(0)=1, \label{eq:data1} \\
&\text{strikes}\quad 0< K_{t,1} < K_{t,2}< \dots <K_{t,N_t}, \quad N_t\geq1,\ t\in\mathcal{T}, \label{eq:data2}\\
& \text{corresponding call option bid and ask prices (at time zero)} \notag \\
& \qquad 0<\underline{r}_{t,i} \quad \text{resp.} \quad 0<\overline{r}_{t,i}, \quad 1\leq i\leq N_t,\ t\in\mathcal{T}, \label{eq:data3}\\
& \text{and the current bid and ask price of the underlying} \quad 0<\underline{S}_0 \leq \overline{S}_0.
\label{eq:data4}
\end{align}
We write $D(t)=B(t)^{-1}$ for the time zero price of a zero-coupon bond maturing at~$t$,
and $k_{t,i}=D(t)K_{t,i}$ for the discounted strikes. The symbol $C_t(K)$ denotes
a call option with maturity~$t$ and strike~$K$.
In the presence of a bid-ask spread on the underlying,
it is not obvious how to define the payoff of an option; this issue seems to have been
somewhat neglected in the transaction costs literature. Indeed, suppose that an agent
holds a call option with strike $\$100$, and that at maturity $T=1$ bid and ask are $\underline{S}_1=\$99$ resp.\
$\overline{S}_1=\$101$. Then, the agent might wish to exercise the option to obtain a security that would cost
him $\$1$ more in the market, or he may forfeit the option on the grounds that spending $\$100$
would earn him a position whose liquidation value is only $\$99$. The exercise decision
cannot be nailed down without making further assumptions.
In the literature on option pricing under transaction costs,
it is usually assumed that bid and ask of the underlying are {constant multiples
of a mid-price (often assumed to be geometric Brownian motion). This mid-price
is then used as trigger to decide whether an option should be exercised, followed by
physical delivery \cite{Bi14,DaPaZa93,WhWi97}. The assumption that such a constant-proportion
mid-price triggers exercise
seems to be rather ad-hoc, though.
To deal with this problem in a parsimonious way, we assume that call options are cash-settled,
using a reference price process~$S^C$. This process
evolves within the bid-ask spread. It is not a traded asset by itself, but just
serves to fix the call option payoff $(S_{t}^C -K)^+$ for strike~$K$ and maturity~$t$.
This payoff is immediately transferred to the bank account without any costs.
\begin{definition}\label{def:model}
A \emph{model} consists of a finite probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P})$ with a discrete
filtration $(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\in\mathcal{T}}$ and three adapted stochastic processes
$\underline{S}$, $\overline{S}$, and $S^C$, satisfying\footnote{Equations
and inequalities among random variables are always understood to hold
almost surely.}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:scbound}
0<\underline{S}_t \leq S_t^C \leq \overline{S}_t, \quad t\in\mathcal{T} .
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
Clearly, $\underline{S}_t$ and $\overline{S}_t$ denote the bid resp.\ ask price
of the underlying at time~$t$. As for the reference price process~$S^C$, we
do not insist on a specific definition (such as, e.g., $S^C=\tfrac12(\underline{S}+\overline{S})$), but allow
\emph{any} adapted process inside the bid-ask spread.
We now give a definition for consistency of option prices, allowing for
(arbitrarily large) bid-ask
spreads on both the underlying and the options.
\begin{definition}\label{def:cons}
The prices~\eqref{eq:data1}-\eqref{eq:data4} are \emph{consistent with the absence of arbitrage,}
if there is a model (in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:model}) such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathbb{E}[(D(t)S_t^C-k_{t,i})^+] \in [\underline{r}_{t,i}, \overline{r}_{t,i}], \quad
1\leq i\leq N_t, \ t\in\mathcal{T}$,
\item There is a consistent price system for the underlying, i.e.,
a process $S^*$ such that $\underline{S}_t\leq S_t^* \leq \overline{S}_t$ for $t \in \mathcal{T}$
and such that $(D(t)S_t^*)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ is a
$\mathbb{P}$-martingale.\footnote{Note that we do not mention the physical probability
measure, as it is of no relevance to our study.}
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
The process~$S^*$ is also called a shadow price.
According to Kabanov and Stricker~\cite{KaSt01} (see also~\cite{Sc04}),
these requirements yield an arbitrage free model comprising
bid and ask price processes for the underlying and each call option. Indeed, for the call
with maturity~$t$ and strike $K_{t,i}$, one may take $\big(\underline{r}_{t,i}\mathbf{1}_{\{s=0\}}
+B(s)\mathbb{E}[(D(t)S_t^C-k_{t,i})^+|\mathcal{F}_s] \mathbf{1}_{\{s>0\}}\big)_{s\in\mathcal{T}}$
as bid price process (and similarly for the ask price), and
$\big(B(s)\mathbb{E}[(D(t)S_t^C-k_{t,i})^+|\mathcal{F}_s]\big)_{s\in\mathcal{T}}$ as consistent price system.
As mentioned in the introduction, if consistency is defined according to Definition~\ref{def:cons},
then there is no interplay between the current prices of the underlying and the options,
which seems to make little sense. As an illustration,
the following example shows how frictionless arbitrage strategies may fail in the presence
of a sufficiently large spread;
a general result is given in Section~\ref{sec:nobound} below.
\begin{exa} \label{ex:motivate}
Let $c>0$ be arbitrary. We set $k:=k_{1,1}=k_{2,1}=1$ and assume
\[
B(1)=B(2)=1, \quad \underline{S}_0=\overline{S}_0=2, \quad r_1:=\underline{r}_{1,1}=\overline{r}_{1,1} =c+ 1, \quad r_2:=\underline{r}_{2,1}=\overline{r}_{2,1}= 1.
\]
Thus $C_1(k)$ is ``too expensive'', and without frictions,
buying $C_2(k)-C_1(k)$ would be an arbitrage opportunity (upon selling one unit of stock if $C_1(k)$ expires in the money).
In particular, the first condition from Corollary 4.2 in~\cite{DaHo07} and equation (5) in~\cite{Co07}
are violated: they both state that $r_1 \leq r_2$ is necessary for the absence of arbitrage strategies.
But with spreads we can choose $c$ as large as we want and still the above prices would be consistent with no-arbitrage.
Indeed, we can define a deterministic model as follows:
\[
\underline{S}_1=\underline{S}_2=2, \quad \overline{S}_1=2c+2, \quad \overline{S}_2=2, \quad S^C= \frac12 (\underline{S}+\overline{S}).
\]
Note that
\[
(S_2^C-k)^+= 1 \quad \text{and} \quad (S_1^C-k)^+= c + 1.
\]
This model is free of arbitrage (see Proposition~\ref{prop:nobound} below).
In particular, consider the portfolio $C_2(k)-C_1(k)$: the short call $-C_1(k)$ finishes in the money with payoff $-(c+1)$.
This cannot be compensated by going short in the stock, because its bid price stays at~2.
The payoff at time $t=2$ of this strategy, with shorting the stock at time~$t=1$, is
\[
(S_2^C-k)^+-(S_1^C-k)^+- (\overline{S}_2-\underline{S}_1)=-c <0.
\]
\end{exa}
\medskip
Our focus will thus be on a stronger notion of consistency, where the discounted spread
on the underlying is bounded. Hence, our goal becomes to determine how large a spread
is needed to explain given option prices.
\begin{definition}\label{def:eps}
Let $\epsilon\geq0$. Then the prices~\eqref{eq:data1}-\eqref{eq:data4} are
\emph{$\epsilon$-consistent with the absence of arbitrage,} or simply \emph{$\epsilon$-consistent,}
if they are consistent (Definition~\ref{def:cons}) and the following conditions hold:
\begin{align}
\overline{S}_t - \underline{S}_t &\leq \epsilon B(t), \quad t\in\mathcal{T}, \label{eq:bound eps} \\
S_t^C &\geq \epsilon B(t), \quad t\in\mathcal{T}. \label{eq:bd SC}
\end{align}
\end{definition}
The bound~\eqref{eq:bd SC} is an additional mild assumption on the reference
price~$S^C$, made for tractability, and makes sense given
the actual size of market prices and spreads (recall that $\underline{S}\leq S^C$).
With the same justification, in our main results on $\epsilon$-consistency we will assume that all
discounted strikes~$k_{t,i}$ are larger than~$\epsilon$.
If $\epsilon=0$ and the bid and ask prices in~\eqref{eq:data3}
and~\eqref{eq:data4} agree, then we recover the frictionless
consistency definition from~\cite{DaHo07}.
As mentioned above, we do not insist on any specific definition of the reference price~$S^C$.
However, it is not hard to show that choosing $S^C=\tfrac12(\underline{S}+\overline{S})$ yields
almost the same notion of $\epsilon$-consistency:
\begin{prop}\label{prop:ar}
Assume that we are only interested in arbitrage free models where, in addition to the requirements of Definition~\ref{def:eps},
we have that
\begin{align} \label{eq:midprice}
S_t^C= \frac{\underline{S}_t+\overline{S}_t}2, \quad t \in \mathcal{T}.
\end{align}
Let us then call the prices~\eqref{eq:data1}-\eqref{eq:data4} \emph{arithmetically
$\epsilon$-consistent}.
For $\epsilon \geq 0$, the prices are arithmetically $2\epsilon$-consistent if and only
if they are $\epsilon$-consistent.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
First, assume that there exists an arithmetically $2\epsilon$-consistent model with corresponding stochastic processes $(\underline{S}_t, \overline{S}_t, S_t^C, S_t^*)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$.
We define new bid and ask prices $\underline{S}_t':= S_t^C \wedge S_t^*$ and $\overline{S}_t':= S_t^C \vee S_t^*$.
Then~\eqref{eq:midprice} implies that $\overline{S}_t'-\underline{S}_t' \leq B(t) \epsilon$.
Therefore, the model consisting of $(\underline{S}_t', \overline{S}_t', S_t^C, S_t^*)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ is $\epsilon$-consistent.
Conversely, assume that the given prices are $\epsilon$-consistent.
Then there exist processes $(S_t^C)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ and $(S_t^*)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$
on a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},{\mathbb P})$ such that $|S_t^C-S_t^*|\leq B(t)\epsilon$ a.s.
We then simply set $\underline{S}_t=S_t^C-B(t)\epsilon$ and $\overline{S}_t=S_t^C+B(t)\epsilon$, and have thus constructed an arithmetically $2\epsilon$-consistent model.
\end{proof}
Note that the statement of Proposition~\ref{prop:ar}
does not hold for consistency (instead of $\epsilon$-consistency), nor does it
hold if we replace~\eqref{eq:midprice} with
\begin{align*} \label{eq:midprice_p}
S_t^C= p \underline{S}_t+(1-p)\overline{S}_t, \quad t \in \mathcal{T},
\end{align*}
where $p\in [0,1]$ and $p \neq\frac 12$.
We now define semi-static trading strategies in the bank account, the underlying asset,
and the call options. Here, semi-static means that the position in the call
options is fixed at time zero. The definition is model-independent; as soon
as a model (in the sense of Definition~\ref{def:model}) is chosen, the number of
risky shares at time~$t$, e.g., becomes
\begin{equation}\label{eq:shares}
\phi_t^1\big((\underline{S}_u)_{u\leq t} , (S_u^C)_{u\leq t} , (\overline{S}_u)_{u\leq t}\big).
\end{equation}
\begin{definition}\label{def:semistatic}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
A \emph{semi-static portfolio}, or \emph{semi-static trading strategy}, is a triple
\[
\Phi=\Bigl((\phi^0_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}, (\phi^1_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}, (\phi^{t,i})_{t \in \mathcal{T}, i \in \{1, \dots, N_t\}}\Bigr),
\]
where $\phi^0_0\in\mathbb{R}$, $\phi^0_t:(0,\infty)^{3t}\to\mathbb{R}$ is Borel measurable
for $1\leq t \leq T$, analogously for $\phi^1$,
and $\phi^{t,i}\in\mathbb{R}$ for $t \in \mathcal{T}, i \in \{1, \dots, N_t\}$.
Here, $\phi^0_t$ denotes the investment in the bank account,
$\phi^1_t$ denotes the number of stocks held at time $t \in \mathcal{T}$,
and $\phi^{t,i}\in \field{R}$ is the number of options with maturity $t \in \mathcal{T}$ and strike $K_{t,i}$ which the investor buys at time zero.
\item A semi-static portfolio is called \emph{self-financing,} if
\begin{multline*}
\phi_t^0(\boldsymbol{s}_t) = \phi_{t-1}^0(\boldsymbol{s}_{t-1})
+ \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} \phi^{t,i}(s_t^C-K_{t,i})^+ \\
-\big(\phi^1_t(\boldsymbol{s}_t)-\phi^1_{t-1}(\boldsymbol{s}_{t-1})\big)^+ \overline{s}_t
+\big(\phi^1_t(\boldsymbol{s}_t)-\phi^1_{t-1}(\boldsymbol{s}_{t-1})\big)^- \underline{s}_t
\end{multline*}
holds for $1\leq t\leq T$ and $\underline{s}_u,s_u^C,\overline{s}_u\in(0,\infty)$,
$1\leq u\leq t$, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bold s}
\boldsymbol{s}_t := \big( (\underline{s}_u)_{1\leq u\leq t},(s^C_u)_{1\leq u\leq t},
(\overline{s}_u)_{1\leq u\leq t} \big).
\end{equation}
Recall that the call options are cash-settled. Therefore,
$\phi^0_t$ includes the payoffs of all options with maturity~$t$.
\item For prices~\eqref{eq:data1}-\eqref{eq:data4}, the \emph{initial portfolio value}
of a semi-static portfolio~$\Phi$ is given by
\[
r_{\Phi}:=\phi_{0}^0 + \bigl((\phi_0^{1})^+\overline{S}_0- (\phi_0^{1})^-\underline{S}_0 \bigr)+ \sum_{\substack{t \in \mathcal{T}\\ t>0}} \sum_{i=1}^{N_t} \bigl( (\phi^{t,i})^+\overline{r}_{t,i}- (\phi^{t,i})^-\underline{r}_{t,i} \bigr).
\]
This is the cost of setting up the portfolio~$\Phi$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Having defined semi-static portfolios, we can now formulate two useful notions of arbitrage.
\begin{definition}\label{def:mNA}
Let $\epsilon \geq 0$.
The prices \eqref{eq:data1}-\eqref{eq:data4} admit
\emph{model-independent arbitrage with respect to spread-bound~$\epsilon$}, if we can form a
self-financing semi-static portfolio~$\Phi$
in the bank account, the underlying asset and the options, such that the initial
portfolio value~$r_\Phi$ is negative
and the following holds: For all real numbers $\underline{s}_t,s_t^C,\overline{s}_t\in(0,\infty)$,
$1\leq t\leq T$, that satisfy
\begin{align*}
0 < \underline{s}_t \leq s_t^C \leq \overline{s}_t,& \quad 1\leq t\leq T, \\
\overline{s}_t - \underline{s}_t \leq \epsilon B(t),& \quad 1\leq t\leq T, \\
s_t^C \geq \epsilon B(t), & \quad 1\leq t\leq T,
\end{align*}
(cf.~\eqref{eq:scbound}, \eqref{eq:bound eps}, and~\eqref{eq:bd SC}),
we have
\begin{align*}
\phi^0_T(\boldsymbol{s}_T) &\geq 0, \\
\phi_T^1(\boldsymbol{s}_T) &= 0,
\end{align*}
where~$\boldsymbol{s}$ is defined in~\eqref{eq:bold s}.
\end{definition}
In particular, if~$\Phi$ is such a strategy, then for any model satisfying~\eqref{eq:bound eps} and~\eqref{eq:bd SC}, we have
\begin{align*}
\phi^0_T\big( (\underline{S}_u)_{1\leq u\leq T} , (S_u^C)_{1\leq u\leq T} , (\overline{S}_u)_{1\leq u\leq T}\big) &\geq 0, \\
\phi_T^1\big( (\underline{S}_u)_{1\leq u\leq T} , (S_u^C)_{1\leq u\leq T} , (\overline{S}_u)_{1\leq u\leq T}\big) &= 0.
\end{align*}
\begin{definition}\label{def:wNA}
Let $\epsilon \geq 0$.
The prices \eqref{eq:data1}-\eqref{eq:data4} admit
a \emph{weak arbitrage opportunity with respect to spread-bound~$\epsilon$}
if there is no model-independent arbitrage strategy (with respect to spread-bound $\epsilon$),
but for any model satisfying~\eqref{eq:bound eps} and~\eqref{eq:bd SC},
there is a semi-static portfolio~$\Phi$ such that the initial portfolio value~$r_\Phi$ is non-positive,
\begin{align*}
&\phi_T^0\big( (\underline{S}_u)_{1\leq u\leq T} , (S_u^C)_{1\leq u\leq T} , (\overline{S}_u)_{1\leq u\leq T}\big) \geq0, \\
&{\mathbb P}\big(\phi_T^0\big( (\underline{S}_u)_{1\leq u\leq T} , (S_u^C)_{1\leq u\leq T} , (\overline{S}_u)_{1\leq u\leq T}\big)>0\big)>0,
\end{align*}
and
\[
\phi_T^1\big( (\underline{S}_u)_{1\leq u\leq T} , (S_u^C)_{1\leq u\leq T} , (\overline{S}_u)_{1\leq u\leq T}\big) = 0.
\]
\end{definition}
Most of the time we will fix $\epsilon \geq 0$ and write only \emph{model-independent arbitrage,} meaning model-independent arbitrage with respect to spread-bound $\epsilon$, and similarly for weak arbitrage.
The notion of weak, i.e.\ model-dependent, arbitrage was first used in~\cite{DaHo07}, where the authors give examples to highlight the distinction between
weak arbitrage and model-independent arbitrage. The crucial difference is that a weak arbitrage
opportunity may depend on the null sets of the model. E.g., suppose that we would like to use two different
arbitrage strategies according to whether a certain call will expire
in the money with positive probability or not.
Such portfolios could serve to exhibit weak arbitrage (Definition~\ref{def:wNA}),
but will not show model-independent arbitrage (Definition~\ref{def:mNA}).
Note that the process $(D(t)S_t^{C})_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ does not have to be a martingale,
since~$S^C$ is not traded on the market.
The option prices give us some information about the marginals of the process~$S^C$, though.
On the other hand, the process $(D(t)S_t^{*})_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$
has to be a martingale, but we have no information about its marginals,
except that $|S^*_t-S_t^C| \leq \epsilon B(t)$. This is equivalent to
\begin{equation} \label{Winfappl}
W^\infty\Bigl( \mathcal{L}\bigl(D(t)S_t^C\bigr),\mathcal{L}\bigl(D(t)S_t^*\bigr) \Bigr)
\leq \epsilon, \quad t\in\mathcal{T},
\end{equation}
where $W^\infty$ denotes the infinity Wasserstein distance, and $\mathcal{L}$
the law of a random variable. We define $W^\infty$ on~$\mathcal{M}$,
the set of probability measures on~$\field{R}$ with finite mean, by
\begin{equation*}
W^\infty (\mu,\nu) = \inf \left\|X-Y \right\|_\infty, \quad \mu,\nu \in\mathcal{M}.
\end{equation*}
The infimum is taken over all probability spaces $(\Omega,\mathcal{F}, {\mathbb P})$
and random pairs $(X,Y)$ with marginals given by $\mu$ and $\nu$. Clearly, for $\epsilon\geq0$
and random variables~$X$ and~$Y$, we have that
\[
\mathbb{P}(|X-Y|>\epsilon) = 0 \quad
\Longleftrightarrow \quad W^\infty(\mathcal{L}X,\mathcal{L}Y)\leq \epsilon.
\]
See~\cite{GeGu15A} for some references on~$W^\infty$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:conv}
Let $\mu, \nu$ be two measures in $\mathcal{M}$. Then we say that $\mu$ is smaller in \emph{convex order} than $\nu$, in symbols $\mu \leq_{\mathrm{c}} \nu$, if for every convex function $\phi: \field{R} \rightarrow \field{R}$ we have that $\int \phi \; d \mu \leq \int \phi \; d \nu$, as long as both integrals are well-defined.
A family of measures $(\mu_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ in $\mathcal{M}$ is called a \emph{peacock}, if $\mu_s \leq_{\mathrm{c}} \mu_t$ for all $s \leq t$ in~$\mathcal{T}$ (see Definition~1.3 in~\cite{HiPrRoYo11}).
\end{definition}
For $\mu \in \mathcal{M}$ and $x \in \field{R}$ we define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cf}
R_\mu(x)= \int\nolimits_\field{R} (y-x)^+ \mu(dy),
\end{equation}
the call function of~$\mu$.
The mean of a measure~$\mu$ will be denoted by $\mathbb{E} \mu = \int y\, \mu(dy)$.
These notions are useful for constructing models for $\epsilon$-consistent prices,
as made explicit by the following lemma. As is evident from its proof,
the sequence~$(\mu_t)$ consists of the marginals of a (discounted) reference price,
whereas~$(\nu_t)$ gives the marginals of a (discounted) consistent price system.
\begin{lem} \label{lem:overview}
For $\epsilon \geq 0$ the prices \eqref{eq:data1}-\eqref{eq:data4}
are~$\epsilon$-consistent with the absence of arbitrage,
if there are sequences of measures $(\mu_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$
and $(\nu_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ in $\mathcal{M}$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $R_{\mu_t}(k_{t,i}) \in [\underline{r}_{t,i}, \overline{r}_{t,i}]$ for all $t \in \mathcal{T}$ and $i \in \{1,\dots, N_t\}$, and $\mu_t([\epsilon,\infty))=1$,
\item $(\nu_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ is a peacock and its mean satisfies $\mathbb{E}\nu \in [\underline{S}_0,\overline{S}_0]$, and
\item $W^\infty(\mu_t, \nu_t) \leq \epsilon$ for all $t \in \mathcal{T}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $(\mu_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ and $(\nu_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ be as above.
Recall that Strassen's theorem~\cite{GeGu15A,St65} asserts that any peacock
is the sequence of marginals of a martingale.
Therefore, there is a finite probability space
$(\Omega,\mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P})$ with a martingale $(\widetilde{S}_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ such that $\nu_t$ is the law of $\widetilde{S}_t$ for $t\in\mathcal{T}$.
Let $S^C$ be an adapted (to the filtration generated by~$\widetilde{S}$) process such that $D(t)S_t^C \sim \mu_t$
for $t\in\mathcal{T}$.
By the definition of the infinity Wasserstein distance, we then have
\[
{\mathbb P}\bigl(|D(t) S_t^C-\widetilde{S}_t|\leq \epsilon\bigr)=1.
\]
Defining
\[
S_t^*:=B(t)\widetilde{S}_t, \quad \underline{S}_t:=S_t^C\wedge S_t^*, \quad \overline{S}_t:=S_t^C\vee S_t^*
\]
for $t \in \mathcal{T}$ yields an arbitrage free model.
\end{proof}
\section{Single maturity: \texorpdfstring{$\epsilon$}{e}-consistency} \label{sec:sing}
In this section, we characterize $\epsilon$-consistency (according to Definition~\ref{def:eps})
in the special case that all option maturities agree.
The consistency conditions for a single maturity are similar to those derived in Theorem~3.1 of~\cite{DaHo07} and Proposition 3 of~\cite{Co07}.
In addition to the conditions given there, we have to assume that the mean of $S_t^C$ is ``close enough'' to~$S_0$.
We fix $t=1 \in \mathcal{T}$ and often drop the time index for notational convenience, i.e.\ we write $\overline{r}_{i}$ instead of $\overline{r}_{1,i}$ etc.
In the frictionless case the underlying can be identified with an option with strike $k=0$.
Here we will do something similar:
in the formulation of the next theorem we set $k_0=\epsilon$, as if we would introduce an option with strike
$\epsilon B(1)$, but we think of $C(\epsilon B(1))$ as the underlying.
The choices for $\underline{r}_0=\underline{S}_0-2\epsilon$ and $\overline{r}_0=\overline{S}_0$ made in Theorem~\ref{thm:single}
can be motivated as follows:
in every model which is $\epsilon$-consistent with the absence of arbitrage, \eqref{eq:bd SC} implies
that the discounted expected payoff of an option with strike $\epsilon B(1)$ has to satisfy
\[
D(1) \mathbb{E}[(S_1^C-\epsilon B(1))^+]= D(1)\mathbb{E}[S_1^C] -\epsilon.
\]
Furthermore, to guarantee the existence of a consistent price system, $D(1)\mathbb{E}[S_1^C]$ has to lie in the closed interval
$[\underline{S}_0-\epsilon, \overline{S}_0+\epsilon]$,
which implies that the price of an option with strike $B(1)\epsilon$ has to lie in the interval $[\underline{S}_0-2\epsilon, \overline{S}_0]$.
Therefore, in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:single}
(given in Appendix~\ref{app:proof single}) we will use the symbol~$C_t(\epsilon B(t))$
as a reference to the underlying
and $-C_t(\epsilon B(t))$ is a reference to a short position in the underlying plus an additional deposit of~$2\epsilon$ in the bank account.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:single}
Let $\epsilon\geq0$ and consider prices as at the beginning of Section~\ref{sec:notation},
with $T=1$ and $k_1> \epsilon$ (see the remarks after~\eqref{eq:bd SC}).
Moreover, for ease of notation (see the above remarks)
we set $k_{0}=\epsilon$, $\underline{r}_{0}=\underline{S}_0-2\epsilon$,
and $\overline{r}_{0}=\overline{S}_0$.
Then the prices are $\epsilon$-consistent (see Definition~\ref{def:eps}) if and only
if the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
\item \label{it:NAsing1} All butterfly spreads have non-negative time-0 price, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:NAsing1}
\frac{\overline{r}_{l}-\underline{r}_j}{k_{l}-k_j} \geq \frac{\underline{r}_j-\overline{r}_{i}}{k_{j}-k_{i}}, \quad
0\leq i<j<l \leq N.
\end{equation}
\item \label{it:NAsing2} Call-spreads must not be too expensive, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:NAsing2}
\frac{\overline{r}_{l}-\underline{r}_i}{k_{l}-k_i} \geq -1, \quad 0\leq i<l \leq N.
\end{equation}
\item \label{it:NAsing3} All call-spreads have non-negative time-0 price, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:NAsing3}
\underline{r}_j \leq \overline{r}_{i}, \quad 0\leq i<j \leq N.
\end{equation}
\item \label{it:NAsing4} If a call-spread is available for zero cost, then the involved options
have zero bid resp.\ ask price, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:NAsing4}
\underline{r}_j=\overline{r}_{i} \ \Rightarrow \ \underline{r}_j=\overline{r}_{i}=0, \quad 0\leq i<j\leq N.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, there is a model-independent arbitrage, as soon as any of the conditions
\ref{it:NAsing1}-\ref{it:NAsing3} is not satisfied.
\end{thm}
This theorem is proved in Appendix~\ref{app:proof single}.
Supplementing Theorem~\ref{thm:single}, we now show
that there is only weak arbitrage if~\eqref{eq:NAsing4} fails, i.e., no model-independent arbitrage.
This is the content of the following proposition; its proof is a modification
of the last part of the proof of Theorem~3.1 from~\cite{DaHo07}, and is presented
in Appendix~\ref{app:weaksing}.
We conclude that the trichotomy of consistency/weak arbitrage/model-independent arbitrage,
which was uncovered by Davis and Hobson~\cite{DaHo07} in the frictionless case,
persists under bid-ask spreads (at least in the one-period setting).
\begin{prop} \label{prop:weaksing}
Under the assumptions of Theorem~\ref{thm:single},
there is a weak arbitrage opportunity if~\eqref{eq:NAsing1}, \eqref{eq:NAsing2} and~\eqref{eq:NAsing3} hold,
but~\eqref{eq:NAsing4} fails, i.e.\ there exist $i < j$ such that $\overline{r}_i=\underline{r}_j>0$.
\end{prop}
For $\epsilon=0$ and $\underline{r}_i=\overline{r}_i=r_i$, the conditions from Theorem~\ref{thm:single} simplify to
\[
0 \geq \frac{r_{i+1}-r_i}{k_{i+1}-k_i} \geq \frac{r_i-r_{i-1}}{k_{i}-k_{i-1}} \geq -1, \quad \mbox{for} \ i \in \{1,\dots,N-1\},
\]
and
\[
r_i=r_{i-1} \quad \text{implies} \quad r_i=0, \quad \mbox{for} \ i \in \{1,\dots,N\}.
\]
These are exactly the conditions required in Theorem~3.1 of \cite{DaHo07}.
\begin{rem}
Note that in contrast to the frictionless case, we do not have to require that bid
or ask prices decrease as the strike increases,
in order to get models which are $\epsilon$-consistent with the absence of arbitrage.
This means that we do not have to require $\underline{r}_i \geq \underline{r}_j$ or $\overline{r}_i \geq \overline{r}_j$ for $i < j$,
as shown in the following example.
Consider two call options, where $\epsilon=0$ (no spread on the underlying), and the prices are given
by $\underline{S}_0=\overline{S}_0=4, \ \overline{r}_i=i+5, \ \underline{r}_i=1+\frac i2, k_i=i$ for $i=1,2$.
We assume that the bank account is constant until maturity.
The prices and a possible choice of shadow prices are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:wachsend}.
(Note that, in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:single} in Appendix~\ref{app:proof single},
$e_i$ denotes the shadow price of the option with strike~$k_i$.)
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{wachsend.pdf}
\caption{This example shows that it is not necessary that the ask-prices resp.\ bid-prices decrease w.r.t.\ strike.
The line represents the call function of $\delta_5$.}
\label{fig:wachsend}
\end{figure}
Clearly all conditions from Theorem~\ref{thm:single} are satisfied,
and therefore there exists an arbitrage free model.
For example we can choose $\mu=\delta_5$, where $\delta$ denotes the Dirac delta.
This example shows that, in our setting, prices which are admissible from a no-arbitrage point of view
do not necessarily make economic sense:
Since the payoff of $C(K_2)$ at maturity never exceeds the payoff of $C(K_1)$,
the utility indifference ask-price of $C(K_2)$ should not be higher than the utility indifference ask-price of $C(K_1)$.
\end{rem}
\section{Multiple maturities: necessary conditions for \texorpdfstring{$\epsilon$}{eps}-consistency} \label{sec:mult}
The $\epsilon$-consistency conditions for a single maturity (Theorem~\ref{thm:single})
are a generalisation of the frictionless conditions in~\cite{Co07,DaHo07}.
They guarantee that for each maturity $t \in \mathcal{T}$ the option prices
can be associated to a measure $\mu_t$, such that $\mathbb{E}\mu_t \in [\underline{S}_0,\overline{S}_0]$
(cf.\ Lemma~\ref{lem:overview}).
In this section we state \emph{necessary} conditions for multiple periods.
Our conditions (see Definition~\ref{def:CVB} and Theorem~\ref{thm:NACVB})
are fairly involved, and we thus expect that it might not be
easy to obtain tractable \emph{equivalent} conditions, instead of just necessary ones.
In the case where there is only a spread on the options, but not
on the underlying, it suffices to compare prices with only three or two different maturities
(see equations (4), (5) and (6) in~\cite{Co07} and Corollary 4.2 in~\cite{DaHo07})
to obtain suitable consistency conditions. These conditions ensure that the family of measures $(\mu_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ is a peacock.
If we consider a bid-ask spread on the underlying and
want to check for $\epsilon$-consistency according to
Definition~\ref{def:eps} ($\epsilon > 0$), it turns out that
we need conditions that involve all maturities simultaneously (this will become clear
by condition~\eqref{minklmaxwinf} below).
We thus introduce calendar vertical baskets (CVB), portfolios which consist of various long and short positions in the call options.
We first give a definition of CVBs.
Then, in Lemma~\ref{le:CVB} we will study a certain trading strategy involving a short position in a CVB:
this strategy will then serve as a base for the conditions in Theorem~\ref{thm:NACVB},
which is the main result of this section.
Note that our definition of a CVB depends on $\epsilon\geq 0$:
the contract defined in Definition~\ref{def:CVB} only provides necessary conditions in markets
where the bid-ask spread is bounded by $\epsilon\geq 0$.
\begin{definition} \label{def:CVB}
Fix $u \in \mathcal{T}$ and $\epsilon\geq 0$ and assume that vectors
$\boldsymbol{\sigma}=(\sigma_1,\dots,\sigma_u)$, $\boldsymbol{x}=(x_1,\dots,x_u)$, $\boldsymbol{I}=(i_1, \dots, i_{u-1})$ and $\boldsymbol{J}=(j_1, \dots, j_u)$
are given, such that
\begin{enumerate} [label=(\textit{\roman*})]
\item $x_t \in \field{R}$ for all $t \in \{1,\dots, u\}$,
\item $\sigma_1 \in \{-1,1\}$ and $\sigma_t=\sgn(x_{t-1}-x_t)$ for all $t \in \{2,\dots,u\}$,
\item $i_t \in \{0,\dots, N_{t+1}\}$ and $k_{t+1,i_t} \leq x_t+\epsilon\sigma_{t+1}$ for all $t \in \{1,\dots, u-1\}$,
\item $j_t \in \{0,\dots, N_{t}\}$ and $k_{t,j_t} = x_t+\epsilon\sigma_{t}$ for all $t \in \{1,\dots, u\}$.
\end{enumerate}
Then we define a \emph{calendar vertical basket} with these parameters as the contract
\begin{align} \label{eq:CVB1}
CVB_u(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{I},\boldsymbol{J}) =
C_1(K_{1,j_1}) + \sum_{t=2}^u \Bigl(C_t\bigl(K_{t,j_t}\bigr)- C_t\bigl(K_{t,i_{t-1}}\bigr)\Bigr)-2\epsilon \mathds{1}_{\{\sigma_1=-1\}}.
\end{align}
The market ask resp.\ bid-price of $CVB_u(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{I},\boldsymbol{J})$ are given by
\begin{align*}
\overline{r}^{CVB}_u(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{I},\boldsymbol{J}) &= \overline{r}_{1,j_1} + \sum_{t=2}^u \bigl(\overline{r}_{t,j_t}-\underline{r}_{t,i_{t-1}} \Bigr) -2\epsilon \mathds{1}_{\{\sigma_1=-1\}}, \\
\underline{r}^{CVB}_u(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{I},\boldsymbol{J}) &= \underline{r}_{1,j_1} + \sum_{t=2}^u \bigl(\underline{r}_{t,j_t}-\overline{r}_{t,i_{t-1}} \Bigr) +2\epsilon \mathds{1}_{\{\sigma_1=-1\}}.
\end{align*}
We will refer to~$u$ as the maturity of the CVB.
\end{definition}
\begin{lem} \label{le:CVB}
Fix $\epsilon\geq 0$.
For all parameters $u,\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{I},\boldsymbol{J}$ as in Definition~\ref{def:CVB},
there is a self-financing semi-static portfolio~$\Phi$ whose initial value is given by $r_\Phi=-\underline{r}^{CVB}_u(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{I},\boldsymbol{J})$,
such that for all models satisfying~\eqref{eq:bound eps} and~\eqref{eq:bd SC} and for all $t \in \mathcal{T}$ one of the following conditions holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\phi_t^0 \geq 0$ and $\phi_t^1=0$, or
\item $\phi_t^0 \geq k_{t,j}-\epsilon\sigma_t $ and $\phi_t^1=-1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
The arguments of $\phi_t^0,\phi_t^1$ are of course the
same as in~\eqref{eq:shares}, and are omitted for brevity.
In the proof of Lemma~\ref{le:CVB}, we define the functions $\phi_t^0,\phi_t^1$ inductively.
As we are defining a model-independent strategy, we could also use the real dummy
variables~\eqref{eq:bold s}
from Definition~\ref{def:semistatic} as arguments. It seems more natural to write
$(\underline{S}_u)_{u\leq t} , (S_u^C)_{u\leq t} , (\overline{S}_u)_{u\leq t}$,
though. We just have to keep in mind that $\phi_t^0,\phi_t^1$
have to be constructed as \emph{functions} of
$(\underline{S}_u)_{u\leq t} , (S_u^C)_{u\leq t} , (\overline{S}_u)_{u\leq t}$, without using the
\emph{distribution} of these random vectors.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{le:CVB}]
Assume that we buy the contract
\begin{align} \label{eq:CVB2}
-CVB_u(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{I},\boldsymbol{J})= -C_1(K_{1,j_1}) + \sum_{t=2}^u \Bigl( C_t\bigl(K_{t,i_{t-1}}\bigr)-C_t\bigl(K_{t,j_t}\bigr)\Bigr)+2\epsilon \mathds{1}_{\{\sigma_1=-1\}},
\end{align}
thus we are getting an initial payment of $\underline{r}^{CVB}_u(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{I},\boldsymbol{J})$.
We have to keep in mind that if $i_t=0$ for some $t \in \{1,\dots, u-1\}$, then the
corresponding expression in~\eqref{eq:CVB2} denotes a long position in the underlying, and if
$j_t=0$ for some $t \in \{1,\dots, u\}$, then the expression~$-C_t(K_{t,j_t})$ in~\eqref{eq:CVB2} denotes a short position in the underlying
plus an additional deposit of $2\epsilon$ in the bank account at time~0
(see the beginning of Section~\ref{sec:sing}).
To ease notation, we will write $K_{t,i}$ instead of $K_{t,i_{t-1}}$ and $K_{t,j}$ instead of $K_{t,j_t}$.
We will show inductively that at the end of each period $t \in \{1,\dots,u\}$ we can end up in one of two scenarios:
either the investor holds a non-negative amount of bank units (i.e.\ $\phi_t^0\geq 0$), we will call this scenario~A,
or we have one short position in the underlying (i.e.\ $\phi^1_t=-1$) and $\phi^0_t\geq k_{t,j}-\epsilon\sigma_t $; we will refer to this as scenario~B.
Note that scenarios~A and~B are not disjoint, but this will not be a problem.
We will first deal with the case where $\sigma_1=-1$ and afterwards with the case $\sigma_1=1$.
We start with $t=1$ and first assume that $j_1>0$.
If $C_1(K_{1,{j}})$ expires out of the money, then we do not trade at time~1 and obtain $\phi^0_1 = 2 \epsilon \geq 0$, so we are in scenario~A.
Otherwise we sell one unit of the underlying, and thus
\[
\phi^0_1=2\epsilon+k_{1,j} +D(1)\bigl(\underline{S}_1-S_1^C\bigr) \geq k_{1,j}+\epsilon =k_{1,{j}}-\sigma_1\epsilon,
\]
yielding scenario~B. Recall from Section~\ref{sec:notation} that $D(t)=B(t)^{-1}$.
If $j_1=0$ then $k_{1,j}=\epsilon$.
We do not close the short position in this case and
we get that $\phi^0 = 4\epsilon \geq k_{1,{j}}-\sigma_1\epsilon$, so we also get to scenario~B.
For the induction step we split the proof into two parts.
In part~A we will assume that at the end of period~$t$ we are in scenario~A,
and in part~B we will assume that at the end of period~$t$ we are in scenario~B.
\textbf{Part A}:
We will show that at the end of period~$t+1$
we can end up either in situation~A or~B.
First we assume that $j_{t},i_{t-1}>1$, and so both expressions in~\eqref{eq:CVB2} with maturity~$t$ denote options (and not the underlying).
Under these assumptions~$\phi_t^0$ satisfies
\[
\phi_t^0 \geq D(t)\bigl(S^C_{t}-K_{t,i}\bigr)^+-D(t)\bigl(S^C_{t}-K_{t,j}\bigr)^+.
\]
Clearly, if $K_{t,i} \leq K_{t,j}$ or if both options expire out of the money, then $\phi_t^0 \geq 0$,
and we are in situation~A at the end of period $t+1$.
So suppose that $K_{t,i} > K_{t,j}$ and that $S_t^C>K_{t,j}$. This also implies that $\sigma_{t}=1$.
If this is the case, we go short in one unit of the underlying, and~$\phi_t^0$ can be bounded from below as follows:
\begin{align*}
\phi_t^0 &\geq D(t)\bigl(S^C_{t}-K_{t,i}\bigr)^+-D(t)\bigl(S^C_{t}-K_{t,j}\bigr)+D(t)\underline{S}_{t} \\
& \geq k_{t,j}-\epsilon\sigma_{t}.
\end{align*}
This corresponds to situation~B.
Next assume that $j_t=0$ and $i_t>0$. Then we have that $k_{t,j}=\epsilon$.
At time~$t$ we end up in scenario~B:
\begin{align*}
\phi_t^0 &\geq D(t)\bigl(S^C_{t}-K_{t,j}\bigr)^+ +2\epsilon \geq k_{t,j}-\epsilon\sigma_{t}.
\end{align*}
We proceed with the case that $j_t>0$ and $i_{t-1}=0$.
Since $k_{t,j}>\epsilon$, we can close the long position in the underlying and end up in scenario~A at time~$t$:
\begin{align*}
\phi_t^0 \geq D(t)\underline{S}_t - D(t)\bigl(S^C_{t}-K_{t,j}\bigr)^+ \geq 0.
\end{align*}
The case where $j_t=i_{t-1}=0$ is easily handled since the long and the short position simply cancel out.
We are done with part~A.
\textbf{Part B:}
Assume that at the end of period~$t$ we are in scenario~B, and thus
$
\phi_{t-1}^0 =k_{t-1,j}- \epsilon\sigma_{t-1}
$
First we will consider the case where $j_{t},i_{t-1}>1$.
If at time~$t$ the option with strike $K_{t,j}$ expires in the money, we do not close the short position and have
\begin{align*}
\phi_t^0 & \geq \phi_{t-1}^0 + D(t)\bigl(S^C_{t}-K_{t,i}\bigr)^+-D(t)\bigl(S^C_{t}-K_{t,j}\bigr) \\
&= k_{t-1,j} -\epsilon\sigma_{t-1} + k_{t,j} - k_{t,i} \\
&\geq k_{t,j} -\epsilon\sigma_{t},
\end{align*}
which means that we end up in scenario~B.
Now we distinguish two cases according to $x_{t-1} \leq x_{t}$ and $x_{t-1} > x_{t}$,
and always assume that $C_t(K_{t,j})$ expires out of the money.
If $x_{t-1} \leq x_{t}$, then we also have that $k_{t,i} \leq k_{t,j}$ and that $\sigma_{t}=-1$.
We close the short position to end up in scenario~A:
\begin{align*}
\phi_t^0 & \geq \phi_{t-1}^0 + D(t)\bigl(S^C_{t}-K_{t,i}\bigr)^+-D(t)\overline{S}_{t} \\
& \geq k_{t,i}- \epsilon\sigma_{t} - k_{t,i} -\epsilon \geq 0.
\end{align*}
If on the other hand $x_{t-1} > x_{t}$ and $\sigma_{t}=1$, we do not trade at time~$t$ to stay in scenario~B:
\begin{align*}
\phi_t^0
& \geq \phi_{t-1}^0 + D(t)\bigl(S^C_{t}-K_{t,i}\bigr)^+ \\
& > k_{t,j}- \epsilon\sigma_{t}.
\end{align*}
We proceed with the case where~$j_t=0$ and~$i_t>0$.
As before, we have $k_{t,j}=\epsilon$, and we can close one short position to stay in scenario~B:
\begin{align*}
\phi_t^0 &=\phi_{t-1}^0 + D(t)\bigl(S^C_{t}-K_{t,i}\bigr)^+ + 2\epsilon-D(t)\overline{S}_{t}\\
&\geq k_{t-1,j} -\epsilon\sigma_{t-1} -k_{t,i}+ \epsilon\\
&\geq \epsilon - \epsilon\sigma_{t}= k_{t,j}- \epsilon\sigma_{t}.
\end{align*}
If $j_t>0$ and $i_{t-1}=0$, then we distinguish two cases:
either $C_t(K_{t,j})$ expires out of the money, in which case we cancel out the long and short position in the underlying and have:
\[
\phi_t^0 \geq \phi_{t-1}^0 \geq 0,
\]
which corresponds to scenario~A. Or, $C_t(K_{t,j})$ expires in the money.
Then we sell one unit of the underlying and hence we end up in scenario~B:
\begin{align*}
\phi_t^0 &\geq \phi_{t-1}^0 -D(t)\bigl(S_t^C-K_{t,j}\bigr)+ D(t) \underline{S}_t \\
&\geq k_{t-1,j} -\epsilon\sigma_{t-1} + k_{t,j} - \epsilon \\
&\geq k_{t,j}-\epsilon\sigma_{t}.
\end{align*}
In the last inequality we have used that $k_{t-1,j} -\epsilon\sigma_{t-1} = x_{t-1} \geq k_{t,i}-\epsilon\sigma_{t}$,
and that $k_{t,i} =\epsilon$.
The case where $j_t=i_{t-1}=0$ is again easy to handle, since the long and the short position cancel out
and we are in scenario~B at the end of the $(t+1)$-st period.
Thus at time~$u$ we are either in scenario~A or scenario~B, which proves the assertion if $\sigma_1=-1$.
The proof for $\sigma_1=1$ is similar.
We will first show that at the end of the second period we can either be in scenario~A or scenario~B, and the statement of the proposition then follows
by induction exactly as in the case $\sigma_1=-1$.
First we assume that $j_1>0$. Then, if the option $C_1(K_{1,j})$ expires out of the money, we are in scenario~A;
otherwise we go short in the underlying and have
\begin{align*}
\phi_1^0 & \geq -D(1)\bigl(S_1^C-K_{1,j}\bigr)+ D(1)\underline{S}_1 \geq k_{1,j}-\epsilon,
\end{align*}
which corresponds to scenario~B.
If $j_1=0$, then we also have that $k_{j,1} =\epsilon$, and hence we are in scenario~B.
\end{proof}
According to Lemma~\ref{le:CVB}, there is a semi-static, self-financing trading strategy~$\Phi$ for the buyer of the contract $-CVB_u(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{I},\boldsymbol{J})$,
such that~$(\phi_u^0,\phi^1_u)$ only depends on $\sigma_u, k_{u,j}$ (the investor might have some surplus in the bank account).
In the following we will use this strategy and only write $-CVB_u(\sigma_u, k_{u,j})$ resp.\ $\underline{r}_u^{CVB}(\sigma_u, k_{u,j})$
instead of $-CVB_u(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{I},\boldsymbol{J})$ resp.\ $\underline{r}_u^{CVB}(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{I},\boldsymbol{J})$.
In the case where $\phi_u^0\geq 0$ and $\phi_u^1=0$ we will say that the calendar vertical basket expires out of the money; otherwise we will say that it expires in the money.
The next theorem states necessary conditions for the absence of arbitrage in markets with spread-bound $\epsilon\geq 0$.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:NACVB}
Let $\epsilon\geq 0$, $s,t,u \in \mathcal{T}$ such that $s < t$ and $s < u$ and $i \in \{0,\dots,N_{t}\}$, $j \in \{0,\dots,N_{s}\}$, $l \in \{0,\dots,N_{u}\}$.
Fix prices as at the beginning of Section~\ref{sec:notation}, with $k_{t,1}>\epsilon$
for all $t\in\mathcal{T}$.
Then, for all calendar vertical baskets with maturity $s \in \mathcal{T}$ and parameters $k_{s,j}$ and $\sigma_{s}$,
the following conditions are necessary for $\epsilon$-consistency:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\textit{\roman*})]
\item \label{it:NACVB1}
\begin{align} \label{eq:NACVB1}
\frac{\underline{r}_s^{CVB}(\sigma_s,k_{s,j})-\overline{r}_{t,i}}{\bigl(k_{s,j}-\epsilon\sigma_{s}\bigr)-\bigl(k_{t,i}+\epsilon \bigr)} \leq
\frac{\overline{r}_{u,l}-\underline{r}_s^{CVB}(\sigma_s,k_{s,j})}{k_{u,l}+\epsilon-\bigl(k_{s,j}-\epsilon\sigma_{s}\bigr)},
\quad \text{if} \quad k_{t,i}+\epsilon < k_{s,j}- \epsilon\sigma_s < k_{u,l}+\epsilon,
\end{align}
\item \label{it:NACVB2}
\begin{align} \label{eq:NACVB2}
\frac{\overline{r}_{u,l}-\underline{r}_s^{CVB}(\sigma_s,k_{s,j})}{k_{u,l}+\epsilon-\bigl(k_{s,j}-\epsilon\sigma_{s}\bigr)} \geq -1, \quad \text{if} \quad k_{s,j}- \epsilon\sigma_s < k_{u,l}+\epsilon,
\end{align}
\item \label{it:NACVB3}
\begin{align} \label{eq:NACVB3}
\underline{r}_s^{CVB}(\sigma_s,k_{s,j})-\overline{r}_{t,i} &\leq 0, \quad \text{if} \quad k_{s,j}- \epsilon\sigma_s \geq k_{t,i}+\epsilon,
\end{align}
\item \label{it:NACVB4}
\begin{align} \label{eq:NACVB4}
\underline{r}_s^{CVB}(\sigma_s,k_{s,j})-\overline{r}_{t,i}=0 \ \Rightarrow \ \overline{r}_{t,i}=0, \quad \text{if} \quad k_{s,j}- \epsilon\sigma_s >k_{t,i}+\epsilon.
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We will assume that $s < t\leq u$ and that $i,l>0$. The other cases can be dealt with similarly.
In all four cases \ref{it:NACVB1}-\ref{it:NACVB4} we will assume that until time~$s$ we followed the trading strategy described in
Lemma~\ref{le:CVB}.
\ref{it:NACVB1}
If~\eqref{eq:NACVB1} fails we set
\[
\theta= \frac{k_{u,l}+\epsilon-\bigl(k_{s,j}-\epsilon\sigma_s\bigr)}{k_{u,l}-k_{t,i}} \in (0,1)
\]
and buy $\theta C_t(K_{t,i})+(1-\theta) C_u(K_{u,l})- CVB_s(\sigma_s, K_{s,j})$, making an initial profit.
If the calendar vertical basket $CVB_s(\sigma_s, K_{s,j})$ expires out of the money, then we have model-independent arbitrage.
Otherwise we have a short position in the underlying at time~$s$. In order to close the short position, we buy~$\theta$ units of the underlying at time~$t$,
and we buy $1-\theta$ units of the underlying at time~$u$.
The liquidation value of this strategy at time~$u$ is then non-negative:
\begin{align*}
(k_{s,j}-\epsilon\sigma_{s}+\epsilon)B(u) &+ \theta(S^C_{t}-K_{t,i})^+ \frac{B(u)}{B(t)}+ (1-\theta) (S^C_{u}-K_{u,l})^+ \\
&+(\underline{S}_s-S_s^C)\frac{B(u)}{B(s)}-\theta \overline{S}_{t}\frac{B(u)}{B(t)}-(1-\theta)\overline{S}_{u} \\[2mm]
\geq \ & (k_{s,j}-\epsilon\sigma_{s})B(u) + \theta \frac{B(u)}{B(t)} \Bigl(S^C_{t}-K_{t,i}-\overline{S}_{t} \Bigr) + (1-\theta) \Bigl(S^C_{u}-K_{u,l}- \overline{S}_{u}\Bigr)\\
\geq \ & \Bigl(k_{s,j}-\epsilon\sigma_{s}-\theta k_{t,i} -(1-\theta)k_{u,l} -\epsilon \Bigr) B(u)=0.
\end{align*}
\ref{it:NACVB2}
Next, assume that~\eqref{eq:NACVB2} fails. Then buying the contract
\[
C_u(K_{u,l})-CVB_s(\sigma_s, K_{s,j}) + k_{u,l}+\epsilon-(k_{s,j}-\epsilon\sigma_s)
\]
earns an initial profit.
If~$CVB_s(\sigma_s, K_{s,j})$ expires out of the money, then we leave the portfolio as it is. Otherwise we immediately enter a short position and close it
at time~$u$. The liquidation value is then non-negative:
\begin{align*}
(k_{s,j}-\epsilon\sigma_{s}+\epsilon)B(u)&+(\underline{S}_s-S_s^C)\frac{B(u)}{B(s)}+ (S^C_{u}-K_{u,l})^+-\overline{S}_u \\
&+ \Bigl(k_{u,l}+\epsilon-(k_{s,j}-\epsilon\sigma_s) \Bigr)B(u) \geq 0.
\end{align*}
\ref{it:NACVB3}
If \eqref{eq:NACVB3} fails, then we buy the contract $C_t(K_{t,i})-CVB_s(\sigma_s,k_{s,j})$ for negative cost.
Again we can focus on the case where $CVB_s(\sigma_s,k_{s,j})$ expires in the money.
We sell one unit of the underlying at time~$s$ and close the short position at time~$t$.
The liquidation value of this strategy at time~$t$ is non-negative:
\[
(k_{s,j}-\epsilon\sigma_{s}+\epsilon)B(t)+ (\underline{S}_s-S_s^C)\frac{B(t)}{B(s)}+ (S_t^C- K_{t,j})^+ - \overline{S}_t \geq 0.
\]
\ref{it:NACVB4}
We will show that there cannot exist an $\epsilon$-consistent model, if~\eqref{eq:NACVB4} fails.
In every model where the probability that $CVB_s(\sigma_s,k_{s,j})$ expires in the money is zero,
we could simply sell $CVB_s(\sigma_s,k_{s,j})$ and follow the trading strategy from
Lemma~\ref{le:CVB}, realising (model-dependent) arbitrage.
On the other hand, if $CVB_s(\sigma_s,k_{s,j})$ expires in the money with positive probability, then we can use the same strategy as
in the proof of~\ref{it:NACVB3}. At time~$t$ the liquidation value of the portfolio is positive with positive probability.
\end{proof}
Note that if $\epsilon=0$ then $CVB_s(\sigma_s, k_{s,j})$ has the same payoff as $-C_s(K_{s,j})$. Keeping this in mind,
it is easy to verify that the conditions from Theorem~\ref{thm:NACVB} are a generalisation of equations (4), (5) and (6) in~\cite{Co07}.
\section{Multiple maturities: Necessary and sufficient conditions under simplifying
assumptions}\label{sec:simp}
It remains open whether the conditions from Theorem~\ref{thm:NACVB}
together with the conditions for each single maturity (as given in Theorem~\ref{thm:single})
are sufficient for the existence of $\epsilon$-consistent models or not.
As a first step towards this problem,
in Theorem~\ref{thm:NAsuffsimp2} we will state necessary and sufficient conditions which guarantee the existence of $\epsilon$-consistent models
under simplifying assumptions:
\begin{ass}\label{ass:mult}
\begin{enumerate} [label=(\textit{\roman*})]
\item \label{it:suffass1} For all maturities $1\leq t \leq T$, options with all
(discounted) strikes $k \in \field{R}$ are traded.
\item \label{it:suffass2} For each option, bid and ask price agree. We will write $R_t(k)$ for the price of an option with strike $B(t)k$ and maturity $t$.
\item \label{it:suffass3} For all $t \in \mathcal{T}$ the function $k \mapsto R_t(k)$
is a call function and the associated measure $\mu_t$ has finite support which is contained in $[\epsilon, \infty)$.
\item \label{it:suffass4} The initial bid-ask spread on the underlying is zero, i.e.\ $\underline{S}_0=\overline{S}_0=S_0$ \\ and $\mathbb{E}\mu_t \in [S_0-\epsilon, S_0+\epsilon]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{ass}
Note that, for convenience, we have slightly changed the notation from Sections~\ref{sec:notation} and~\ref{sec:sing}: the option prices are now denoted by~$R_t(k)$ instead of~$r_{t,i}$.
If $k \mapsto R_t(k)$ is not a call function, then the prices cannot be consistent with the absence of arbitrage (see Theorem~\ref{thm:single}).
Semi-static portfolios are defined as in Section~\ref{sec:notation}, involving
finitely many call options.
In order to construct arbitrage-free models under Assumption~\ref{ass:mult},
we now recall the main result of~\cite{GeGu15A}, which gives a criterion
for the existence of the peacock~$(\nu_t)$ from Lemma~\ref{lem:overview}.
Recall also the notation $W^\infty,\mathcal{M}$ introduced before Definition~\ref{def:conv}.
According to Proposition~3.2 in~\cite{GeGu15A},
for $\epsilon>0$, a measure $\mu \in \mathcal{M}$, and $m \in [\mathbb{E}\mu-\epsilon,\mathbb{E}\mu+\epsilon]$,
the set
\[
\{\nu \in \mathcal{M} : W^\infty(\mu,\nu)\leq \epsilon,\ \mathbb{E}\nu = m \}
\]
has a smallest and a largest element, and their respective call functions can
be expressed by the call function~$R_\mu$ of~$\mu$ (see~\eqref{eq:cf}) as follows:
\begin{align*}
R^{\min}_\mu(x;m,\epsilon)&=\Bigl(m+R_\mu(x-\epsilon)-\bigl(\mathbb{E}\mu+\epsilon \bigr) \Bigr) \vee R_\mu(x+\epsilon), \\
R_\mu^{\max}(x;m,\epsilon)& = \mathrm{conv}\Bigl(m+R_\mu(\cdot +\epsilon)-\bigl(\mathbb{E}\mu-\epsilon \bigr) ,R_\mu(\cdot -\epsilon) \Bigr)(x),
\end{align*}
where $\mathrm{conv}$ denotes the convex hull.
The main theorem of~\cite{GeGu15A} gives an equivalent condition for the existence of a peacock
within $W^\infty$-distance $\epsilon$ of a given sequence of measures:
\begin{thm} \label{strassenwinf}
(Theorem~3.5 in~\cite{GeGu15A})
Let $\epsilon>0$ and $(\mu_n)_{n \in \field{N}}$ be a sequence in $\mathcal{M}$ such that
\[
I:= \bigcap_{n \in \field{N}}[\mathbb{E}\mu_n-\epsilon, \mathbb{E}\mu_n+\epsilon]
\]
is not empty. Denote by $(R_n)_{n \in \field{N}}$ the corresponding call functions.
Then there exists a peacock $(\nu_n)_{n \in \field{N}}$
such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Winf}
W^\infty(\mu_n, \nu_n) \leq \epsilon, \quad \mbox{for all} \ n \in \field{N},
\end{equation}
if and only if for some $m \in I$
and for all $N \in \field{N}$, $x_1, \dots, x_N \in \field{R}$,
we have
\begin{align} \label{minklmaxwinf}
R_1^{\min}(x_1; m, \epsilon)+ \sum_{n=2}^{N}\Big(R_n(x_n+\epsilon \sigma_n )-R_n(x_{n-1}+\epsilon \sigma_n )\Big) \leq R_{N+1}^{\max}(x_N; m, \epsilon).
\end{align}
Here, \textnormal{$\sigma_n= \sgn(x_{n-1}-x_n)$}
depends on~$x_{n-1}$ and~$x_n$.
In this case it is possible to choose $\mathbb{E}\nu_1=\mathbb{E}\nu_2=\dots=m$.
\end{thm}
Assumption~\ref{ass:mult} allow us to circumvent many problems,
as we only have to check whether the family $(\mu_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ satisfies the condition from Theorem~\ref{strassenwinf}.
The conditions in Theorem~\ref{thm:NAsuffsimp2} can be directly derived from~\eqref{minklmaxwinf}.
Note that in our case $m=S_0$ and $\mathbb{E}\mu_t=R_t(\epsilon)+\epsilon$.
\begin{thm} \label{thm:NAsuffsimp2}
Let $\epsilon \geq 0$.
Then, under Assumption~\ref{ass:mult}, the following conditions are necessary and sufficient for the the existence of $\epsilon$-consistent models:
for all $u\in \{2, \dots, T\}$ and for all real $k_1,\dots,k_{u-1}$,
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\textit{\roman*})]
\item \label{it:NAsuffsimp1}
\begin{align} \label{eq:NAsuffsimp1}
\sum_{t=1}^{u-1} \Bigl(R_{t+1}\bigl(k_t+\epsilon\sigma_{t+1}\bigr)-R_{t}\bigl(k_t+\epsilon\sigma_{t}\bigr) \Bigr) +R_1(\epsilon)-R_{u}(\epsilon)+2\epsilon \geq 0,
\end{align}
where $\sigma_1=-1$ and $\sigma_u=1$.
\item \label{it:NAsuffsimp2}
\begin{align} \label{eq:NAsuffsimp2}
\sum_{t=1}^{u-1} \Bigl(R_{t+1}\bigl(k_t+\epsilon\sigma_{t+1}\bigr)-R_{t}\bigl(k_t+\epsilon\sigma_{t}\bigr) \Bigr) +R_1(\epsilon)-S_0+2\epsilon \geq 0,
\end{align}
where $\sigma_1=-1$ and $\sigma_u=-1$.
\item \label{it:NAsuffsimp3}
\begin{align} \label{eq:NAsuffsimp3}
\sum_{t=1}^{u-1} \Bigl(R_{t+1}\bigl(k_t+\epsilon\sigma_{t+1}\bigr)-R_{t}\bigl(k_t+\epsilon\sigma_{t}\bigr) \Bigr) +S_0-R_{u}(\epsilon) \geq 0,
\end{align}
where $\sigma_1=1$ and $\sigma_u=1$.
\item \label{it:NAsuffsimp4}
\begin{align} \label{eq:NAsuffsimp4}
\sum_{t=1}^{u-1} \Bigl(R_{t+1}\bigl(k_t+\epsilon\sigma_{t+1}\bigr)-R_{t}\bigl(k_t+\epsilon\sigma_{t}\bigr) \Bigr) \geq 0,
\end{align}
where $\sigma_1=1$ and $\sigma_u=-1$.
\end{enumerate}
Here we set $\sigma_t= \sgn(k_{t-1}-k_t)$.%
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We will first show that there is model-independent arbitrage with respect to spread-bound~$\epsilon$ if any of the above conditions fail.
We will assume that $u=T$.
Throughout the first part of the proof we fix $k_1, \dots k_{T-1} \in \field{R}$ and set $K_{t}=B(t)k_{t}$ and $\epsilon_t = B(t)\epsilon$, for $t \in \mathcal{T}$.
\ref{it:NAsuffsimp1}
If \eqref{eq:NAsuffsimp1} fails, we buy the contract
\[
2\epsilon+ \sum_{t=1}^{T}\Bigl(C_t\bigl(k_{t-1}B(t)+\epsilon_t \sigma_t \bigr)-C_t\bigl(K_{t}+\epsilon_t \sigma_t \bigr)\Bigr),
\]
where $k_0=k_{T}=0$ and $\sigma_t= \sgn(k_{t-1}-k_t)$, making an initial profit.
Therefore, we will construct a semi-static trading strategy~$\Phi$, and~$\phi_t^0$ will again denote the number of bank account units held by the investor at time $t \in \mathcal{T}$.
We will show inductively that for all $t \in \{1,\dots,T\}$ we either have
that $\phi_t^0 \geq k_t$ -- which we will refer to as scenario~$\mathrm{A}'$ --
or we can have a long position
the underlying asset~$S$ and $\phi_t^0 \geq 0$, to which we will refer as scenario~$\mathrm{B}'$.
We start with $t=1$. If both options with maturity $t=1$ expire in the money, then we do not trade and hence
\[
\phi_1^0 = D(1)(S_1^C-\epsilon_1)-D(1)(S_1^C-K_1+\epsilon_1)+2\epsilon=k_1,
\]
which corresponds to scenario~$\mathrm{A}'$.
If on the other hand $S_1^C \leq K_1-\epsilon_1$, then we get the amount $S_1^C+\epsilon_1$ transferred to our bank account,
which is enough to buy the underlying asset for $\overline{S}_1 \leq S_1^C+\epsilon_1$.
Now suppose that at the end of the $t$-th period we are in scenario~$\mathrm{A}'$.
If both options with maturity~$t$ expire in the money, then $\phi_t^0 \geq k_t$, and we finish the $t+1$-th period in scenario~$\mathrm{A}'$.
So assume that $k_{t-1} \leq k_{t}$, and that at least one option is out of the money.
Then $S_{t}^C\leq K_{t}-\epsilon_{t}$, in which case we have enough money to buy the underlying for~$\overline{S}_{t}$ and end up in scenario~$\mathrm{B}'$:
\[
\phi_t^0 \geq k_{t-1}+D(t)\bigl(S_{t}^C-B(t)k_{t-1}+\epsilon_{t} \bigr)^+ - D(t) \overline{S}_t \geq 0.
\]
Next, if $k_{t-1} \geq k_{t}$ and both options with maturity~$t$ expire out of the money, then $\phi_t^0\geq k_{t-1}\geq k_t$.
So we only have to check the case where $k_{t-1}+\epsilon \leq D(t) S_t^C \leq k_{t}+ \epsilon$:
\[
\phi_t^0 \geq k_{t-1}-D(t) \bigl(S_{t}^C-K_{t}-\epsilon_{t} \bigr) \geq k_{t}.
\]
Now assume that at the end of the $t$-th period we are in situation~$\mathrm{B}'$.
If $k_{t-1} \leq k_{t}$, then the cashflow generated by the two options with maturity~$t$ is non-negative, and we stay in scenario~$\mathrm{B}'$.
If on the other hand $k_{t-1} > k_{t}$, then we sell the underlying for $\underline{S}_{t}$ and obtain $\phi_t^0 \geq k_t$,
which can be seen similarly as in the previous step by differentiating cases.
This completes the first part of the proof.
\ref{it:NAsuffsimp2}
If~\eqref{eq:NAsuffsimp2} is violated, then buying the contract
\[
2\epsilon+ \sum_{t=1}^{T-1}\Bigl(C_t\bigl(k_{t-1}B(t)+\epsilon_t \sigma_t \bigr)-C_t\bigl(K_{t}+\epsilon_t \sigma_t \bigr)\Bigr)+C_{T}\bigl(k_{T-1}B(T)-\epsilon_{T}\bigr)-S,
\]
where $k_0=0$, earns an initial profit.
Following the same strategy as in~\ref{it:NAsuffsimp1} yields a model-independent arbitrage strategy.
\ref{it:NAsuffsimp3}
If~\eqref{eq:NAsuffsimp3} fails, then we buy the contract
\[
S-C_1(K_1+\epsilon_1) + \sum_{t=2}^{T}\Bigl(C_t\bigl(k_{t-1}B(t)+\epsilon_t \sigma_t \bigr)-C_t\bigl(K_{t}+\epsilon_t \sigma_t \bigr)\Bigr),
\]
where $k_{T}=0$, making an initial profit.
Whenever~$C_1(K_1+\epsilon_1)$ expires out of the money, we still have the underlying,
whereas if $S_1^C \geq K_1+\epsilon_1$, then we sell one unit of the underlying,
yielding $\phi^0_1\geq k_1$.
The rest can be done by induction, as in part~\ref{it:NAsuffsimp1}.
\ref{it:NAsuffsimp4}
If \eqref{eq:NAsuffsimp4} fails, then buying the contract
\[
-C_1(K_1+\epsilon_1) + \sum_{t=2}^{T-1}\Bigl(C_t\bigl(k_{t-1}B(t)+\epsilon_t \sigma_t \bigr)-C_t\bigl(K_{t}+\epsilon_t \sigma_t \bigr)\Bigr) +C_{T}\bigl(k_{T-1} B(T)-\epsilon_{T}\bigr)
\]
earns an initial profit. We will show inductively that at the end of the $t+1$-th period, $t\in \{1,\dots,T\}$,
it is possible to have either $\phi_t^0 \geq 0$,
or to have $\phi_t^0 \geq k_t$ and be short one unit of the underlying asset.
These two scenarios are exactly scenario~A resp.\ scenario~B from the proof of Lemma~\ref{le:CVB}.
We start with $t=1$. If~$C_1(K_1+\epsilon_1)$ expires out of the money, then the former condition is satisfied; otherwise we short-sell one unit of the asset.
Thus, we get
\[
\phi_1^0= D(1)\underline{S}_1-D(1)(S_1^C-K_1-\epsilon_1) \geq k_1.
\]
Now suppose that at the end of the~$t$-th period we are in scenario~A.
If $k_{t-1} \leq k_{t}$, then the cashflow generated by the two options with maturity~$t$ is non-negative and we stay in scenario~$\mathrm{A}$.
If on the other hand $k_{t} \leq k_{t-1}$, we sell one unit of the underlying at the end of period~$t+1$. The corresponding trading strategy satisfies
\[
\phi_t^0 \geq D(t)\bigl(S_{t}^C-B(t)k_{t-1}-\epsilon_{t}\bigr)^+ - D(t)\bigl(S_{t}^C-K_{t}-\epsilon_{t} \bigr)^+ +D(t)\underline{S}_{t} \geq k_{t}.
\]
Now assume that at the end of the~$t$-th period we are in situation~B,
meaning that we have a short position in the underlying and hold at least~$k_{t-1}$ units of the bank account.
Then, if both options with maturity~$t$ are in the money, we do not trade, and $\phi_t^0 \geq k_t$.
Otherwise we close the short position and finish in scenario~A.
At time~$T$ we have model-independent arbitrage, which can be seen similarly as in the previous steps.
If all four conditions hold, then we can use the fact that $\mathbb{E}\mu_t=R_t(\epsilon)+\epsilon$ to conclude that
\begin{align*}
\max\Bigl\{& R_1(k_1-\epsilon)+S_0 -(\mathbb{E}\mu_1+\epsilon), R_1(k_1+\epsilon) \Bigr\} + \sum_{t=2}^{u-1}\Bigl(R_t(k_t+\epsilon\sigma_t)-R_t(k_{t-1}+\epsilon\sigma_t) \Bigr) \\
\leq & \min\Bigl\{R_u(k_{u-1}+\epsilon)+S_0 -(\mathbb{E}\mu_u-\epsilon), R_u(k_{u-1}-\epsilon) \Bigr\}.
\end{align*}
An inspection of the proof of Theorem~\ref{strassenwinf} (i.e., Theorem~3.5
in~\cite{GeGu15A}) easily shows that
there exists a peacock $(\nu_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ with mean~$S_0$ such that
\[
W^\infty(\mu_t,\nu_t) \leq \epsilon, \quad t \in \mathcal{T}.
\]
By Lemma~\ref{lem:overview} the prices are then $\epsilon$-consistent with the absence of arbitrage.
\end{proof}
\section{Multiple maturities: consistency} \label{sec:nobound}
As mentioned in the introduction, our main goal is to find the least bound on the underlying's
bid-ask spread that allows to reproduce given option prices.
The following result clarifies the situation if \emph{no} such bound is imposed
(see also Example~\ref{ex:motivate}). In our wording, we now seek conditions for
consistency (Definition~\ref{def:cons}) and not $\epsilon$-consistency
(Definition~\ref{def:eps}).
By enlarging the class of models, the no-arbitrage conditions become looser. In particular, we do not have any intertemporal conditions.
Recall the notation used in Theorem~\ref{thm:single}, where $i=0$ is allowed in
\eqref{eq:NAsing1}-\eqref{eq:NAsing4}, inducing a dependence of these conditions
on~$\underline{S}_0$ and~$\overline{S}_0$. In the following proposition, on the other hand, we require
$i,j,l \geq1$, and therefore the current bid and ask prices
of the underlying are irrelevant when checking consistency of option prices.
Thus, the notion of $\epsilon$-consistency seems to make
more sense than consistency.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:nobound}
The prices \eqref{eq:data1}-\eqref{eq:data4}
are consistent with the absence of arbitrage (see Definition~\ref{def:cons})
if and only if,
for all $t \in \mathcal{T}$, the conditions \eqref{eq:NAsing1}-\eqref{eq:NAsing4} from Theorem~\ref{thm:single} hold for $i,j,l \in \{1, \dots, N_t\}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:single} these conditions are necessary. Now fix $t \in \mathcal{T}$ and assume that the conditions hold.
Exactly as in the sufficiency proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:single}, we can construct $e_{t,1},e_{t,2}, \dots, e_{t,N_t}$ such that
$e_{t,i} \in [\underline{r}_{t,i}, \overline{r}_{t,i}]$.
The linear interpolation $L_t$ of the points $(k_{t,i},e_{t,i})_{i\in \{1,\dots,N_t\}}$ can
then be extended to a call function of a measure $\mu_t$ (see the final part of the sufficiency proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:single}).
We define random variables $S_t^C$ such that the law of $D(t)S_t^C$ is given by $\mu_t$.
Then we have that
\[
D(t)\mathbb{E}[(S_t^C-K_{t,i})^+]=e_{t,i} \in [\underline{r}_{t,i}, \overline{r}_{t,i}], \quad i \in \{1,\dots N_t\}.
\]
Furthermore, we pick $s \in [\underline{S}_0,\overline{S}_0]$ and set $\nu_t=\delta_s$
(Dirac delta) for all $t \in \mathcal{T}$.
Clearly, $(\nu_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ is a peacock, and we set $S_t^*=B(t)s$, which implies $D(t)S_t^* \sim \nu_t$.
Finally, we define $\underline{S}_t= S_t^* \wedge S_t^C$ and $\overline{S}_t=S_t^* \vee S_t^C$, and have thus constructed an arbitrage free model.
\end{proof}
It turns out that the conditions of Theorem~\ref{thm:single} are implied by an even weaker notion
of no-arbitrage, where the spread bound has to hold only with a certain probability:
\begin{thm} \label{thm:pbound}
Let $p \in (0,1]$ and $\epsilon \geq 0$.
For given prices \eqref{eq:data1}-\eqref{eq:data4} the following are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item The prices satisfy Definition~\ref{def:eps} ($\epsilon$-consistency), but
with~\eqref{eq:bound eps} replaced by the weaker condition
\[
\mathbb{P} \Bigl( \overline{S}_t-\underline{S}_t \geq \epsilon B(t)\Bigr) \leq p, \quad t \in \mathcal{T}.
\]
\item For all $t \in \mathcal{T}$ conditions \eqref{eq:NAsing1}-\eqref{eq:NAsing4}
from Theorem~\ref{thm:single} hold for $i,j,l \in \{1, \dots, N_t\}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
For the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:pbound} we employ a variant of Strassen's theorem for the modified Prokhorov distance.
\begin{definition}
For $p \in [0,1]$ and two probability measures $\mu,\nu$ on $\field{R}$,
we define the \emph{modified Prokhorov distance} as
\begin{align*}
d_p^\mathrm{P}(\mu,\nu):= \inf \Bigl\{h >0: \nu(A) \leq \mu(A^h)+p, \ \text{for all closed sets} \ A \subseteq \field{R} \Bigr\}.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
(To define the standard Prokhorov distance, replace~$p$ by~$h$ in the right-hand side.)
A well known result, which was first proved by Strassen, and was then extended by Dudley~\cite{Du68,St65}, explains the connection of $d_p^\mathrm{P}$ to minimal distance couplings:
\begin{prop} \label{prop:DudleyStrassen}
Given measures $\mu, \nu$ on $\field{R}$, $p \in [0,1]$, and $\epsilon>0$, there exists a probability space~$(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, {\mathbb P})$ with random variables $X\sim \mu$ and $Y \sim \nu$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{smalldist}
{\mathbb P}\big( \bigl|X-Y|> \epsilon \big) \leq p,
\end{equation}
if and only if
\begin{equation}
d^\mathrm{P}_p(\mu,\nu) \leq \epsilon.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
The following theorem (``Strassen's theorem for the modified Prokhorov distance'')
is proved in Section~8 of~\cite{GeGu15A}.
\begin{thm} \label{thm: dppstrassen}
Let $(\mu_n)_{n \in \field{N}}$ be a sequence in $\mathcal{M}$, $\epsilon>0$, and $p \in (0,1]$. Then, for all $m \in \field{R}$ there exists a peacock $(\nu_n)_{n \in \field{N}}$ with mean $m$ such that
\[
d_p^\mathrm{P}(\mu_n, \nu_n) \leq \epsilon.
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:pbound}]
By Theorem~\ref{thm:single}, the second assertion implies the first one.
To show the other implication,
we define probability measures $(\mu_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ as in
the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:nobound},
such that $R_{\mu_t}(k_{t,i}) \in [\underline{r}_{t,i}, \overline{r}_{t,i}]$ for $i \in \{1,\dots N_t\}$ and $t \in \mathcal{T}$.
Now we pick $s \in [\underline{S}_0,\overline{S}_0]$. Then by Theorem~\ref{thm: dppstrassen}
there exists a peacock $(\nu_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ with mean $s$
such that $d_p^\mathrm{P}(\mu_t,\nu_t)\leq \epsilon$ for all $t \in \mathcal{T}$.
We can then use Proposition~\ref{prop:DudleyStrassen} to conclude that there exist stochastic processes
$(\widetilde{S}^C_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ and $(\widetilde{S}^*_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ whose marginal distributions
are given by $(\mu_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ resp.\ $(\nu_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$, such that $(\widetilde{S}^*_t)_{t \in \mathcal{T}}$ is a martingale and such that
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P} \Bigl( \bigl|\widetilde{S}^*_t-\widetilde{S}^C_t \bigr| \geq \epsilon \Bigr) \leq p, \quad t \in \mathcal{T}.
\end{align*}
We then simply put
\[
S^*_t=B(t)\widetilde{S}^*_t, \quad S_t^C=B(t)\widetilde{S}^C_t, \quad \underline{S}_t= S_t^* \wedge S_t^C, \quad \mbox{and} \ \overline{S}_t=S_t^* \vee S_t^C.
\]
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conc}
We define the notion of $\epsilon$-consistent prices, meaning that a set of bid and ask prices for call options
and the underlying can be explained by a model with bid-ask spread bounded by~$\epsilon$.
For a single maturity, we solve the $\epsilon$-consistency problem, recovering the
trichotomy consistency/weak arbitrage/model-independent arbitrage from the frictionless
case~\cite{DaHo07}. The multi-period problem seems to be rather difficult. As a first
step, we provide two results: Necessary conditions, and equivalent conditions
under simplified assumptions. The latter result (Section~\ref{sec:simp}) is
of some mathematical appeal, as it invokes a recent generalization of a classical probabilistic
theorem due to Strassen~\cite{GeGu15A}. We leave the general multi-period problem, with a spread
on both the options and the underlying, to future research.
|
\section{Introduction}
Multi person tracking is a problem studied intensively in computer vision.
While continuous progress has been made, false positive detections,
long-term occlusions and camera motion remain challenging,
especially for people tracking in crowded scenes.
Tracking-by-detection is commonly used for multi person tracking
where a state-of-the-art person detector is employed to generate detection hypotheses for
a video sequence. In this case tracking essentially reduces to an association task between
detection hypotheses across video frames.
This detection association task is often formulated as an optimization problem with respect to a graph:
every detection is represented by a node; edges connect detections across time frames.
The most commonly employed algorithms aim to find disjoint paths in such a graph \cite{Pirsiavash:2011:GOG,Segal_2013_ICCV,Andriluka:2008:PTD,Zhang:2008:GDA}.
The feasible solutions of such problems are sets of disjoint paths which do not branch or merge.
While being intuitive, such formulations cannot handle the multiple plausible detections per person,
which are generated from typical person detectors.
Therefore, pre- and/or post-processing such as non maximum suppression (NMS) on the detections and/or the final tracks is performed, which often requires careful fine-tuning of parameters.
The minimum cost subgraph multicut problem proposed in \cite{tang2015subgraph}
is an abstraction of the tracking problem that differs conceptually from disjoint path methods.
It has two main advantages:
{\it 1)} Instead of finding a path for each person in the graph,
it links and clusters multiple plausible person hypotheses (detections) jointly over time and space.
The feasible solutions of this formulation are components of the graph instead of paths.
All detections that correspond to the same person are clustered jointly within and across frames.
No NMS is required, neither on the level of detections nor on the level of tracks.
{\it 2)} For the multicut formulation,
the costs assigned to edges can be positive, to encourage the incident nodes to be in the same track,
or negative, to encourage the incident nodes to be in distinct tracks.
Thus, the number and size of tracks does not need to be specified, constrained or penalized and is instead defined by the solution.
This is fundamentally different also from distance-based clustering approaches, e.g.~\cite{6909563} where the cost of joining two detections is non-negative and thus, a non-uniform prior on the number or size of tracks is required to avoid a trivial solution.
Defining or estimating this prior is a well-known difficulty.
We illustrate these advantages in the example depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:example}:
We build a graph based on the detections on three consecutive frames, where detection hypotheses within and between frames are all connected.
The costs assigned to the edges encourage the incident node to be in the same or distinct clusters.
For simplicity, we only visualize the graph built on the detections of two persons instead of all.
By solving the minimum cost subgraph multicut problem, a multicut of the edges is found (depicted as dotted lines).
It partitions the graph into distinct components (depicted in yellow and magenta, resp.), each representing one person's track.
Note that multiple plausible detections of the same person are clustered jointly, within and across frames.
\enlargethispage{0.5ex}
The effectiveness of the multicut formulation for the multi person tracking task is driven by different factors:
computing reliable affinity measures for pairs of detections;
handling noisy input detections and
utilizing efficient optimization methods.
In this work, we extend \cite{tang2015subgraph} on those fronts.
First, for a pair of detections, we propose a reliable affinity measure that is based an effective image matching method DeepMatching \cite{weinzaepfelhal00873592}.
As this
method matches appearance of local image regions, it is robust to camera motion and partial occlusion.
In contrast, the pairwise feature proposed in \cite{tang2015subgraph} relies heavily on the spatio-temporal relations of tracklets (a short-term tracklet is used to estimate the speed of a person) which works well only for a static camera and when people walk with constant speed.
By introducing the DeepMatching pairwise feature, we make the multicut formulation applicable to more general moving-camera videos with arbitrary motion of persons.
Secondly, we eliminate the unary variables which are introduced in \cite{tang2015subgraph} to integrate the detection confidence into the multicut formulation.
By doing so, we simplify the optimization problem and make it amenable to the fast Kernighan-Lin-type algorithm of \cite{keuper-2015a}.
The efficiency of this algorithm eliminates the need for an intermediate tracklet representation, which greatly simplifies the tracking pipeline.
Thirdly, we integrate the detection confidence into the pairwise terms such that detections with low confidence simply have a low probability to be clustered with any other detection, most likely ending up as singletons that we remove in a post-processing step.
With the above mentioned extensions, we are able to achieve competitive performance on the challenging MOT16 benchmark.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=110mm]{graph-example.pdf}
\caption{An example for tracking by multicut. A graph (bottom) is built based on the detections in three frames (top).
The connected components that are obtained by solving the multicut problem indicate the number of tracks (there are two tracks, depicted in yellow and magenta respectively) as well as the membership of every detection.}
\label{fig:example}
\end{figure*}
\section{Related Work}
Recent work on multi-person tracking primarily focuses on tracking-by-detection. Tracking
operates either by directly linking people detections over time \cite{kim_ICCV2015_MHTR,Choi15}, or
by first grouping detections into tracklets and then combining those into tracks
\cite{Wang2015arxiv}. A number of approaches rely on data association methods
such as the Hungarian algorithm \cite{xiang2015learning,Bewley16arxiv}, network flow optimization
\cite{Zhang:2008:GDA,Zamir:2012:GMC,Wang2015arxiv,li2009learning}, and multiple hypotheses tracking
\cite{kim_ICCV2015_MHTR}, and combine them with novel ways to learn the appearance of
tracked targets.
\cite{kim_ICCV2015_MHTR} proposed to estimate a target-specific appearance model online and used a
generic CNN representation to represent person
appearance. In \cite{xiang2015learning} it is proposed to formulate tracking as a Markov decision process
with a policy estimated on the labeled training data. \cite{yang2015temporal} proposes novel appearance
representations that rely on the temporal evolution in appearance of the tracked
target.
In this paper we propose a pairwise feature that similarly to \cite{Choi_2015_ICCV} is based on
local image patch matching. Our model is inspired by \cite{weinzaepfelhal00873592}
and it operates on pairs of hypotheses which
allows to directly utilize its output as costs of edges on the hypothesis graph. Our pairwise potential
is particularly suitable to our tracking formulation that finds tracks by optimizing a global
objective function. This is in contrast to target-specific appearance methods that are trained
online and require iterative assembly of tracks over time, which precludes globally solving for all
trajectories in an image sequence.
Perhaps closest to our work are methods that aim to recover people tracks by
optimizing a global objective function \cite{Zamir:2012:GMC,Milan:2014:CEM,tang2015subgraph}.
\cite{Milan:2014:CEM} proposes a continuous
formulation that analytically models effects such as mutual occlusions, dynamics and trajectory
continuity, but utilizes a simple color appearance model. \cite{Zamir:2012:GMC} finds tracks by
solving instances of a generalized minimum clique problem, but due to model complexity resorts to
a greedy iterative optimization scheme that finds one track at a time whereas we jointly recover
solutions for all tracks. We build on the multi-cut formulation proposed in \cite{tang2015subgraph}
and generalize it to large scale sequences based on the extensions discussed below.
\section{Multi-Person Tracking as a Multicut Problem}
\label{section:problem-formulation}
In Section~\ref{section:mc}, we recall the minimum cost multicut problem that we employ as a mathematical abstraction for multi person tracking.
We emphasize differences compared to the minimum cost subgraph multicut problem proposed in \cite{tang2015subgraph}.
In Section~\ref{section:pairwise}, we define the novel DeepMatching feature and its incorporation into the objective function.
In Section~\ref{ClustersToTracks}, we present implementation details.
\subsection{Minimum Cost Multicut Problem}
\label{section:mc}
In this work, multi person tracking is cast as a minimum cost multicut problem
\cite{chopra-1993}
w.r.t.~a graph $G = (V, E)$ whose node $V$ are a finite set of \emph{detections}, i.e., bounding boxes that possibly identify people in a video sequence.
Edges within and across frames connect detections that possibly identify the same person.
For every edge $vw \in E$, a cost or reward $c_{vw} \in \mathbb{R}$ is to be payed if and only if the detections $v$ and $w$ are assigned to distinct tracks.
Multi person tracking is then cast as an the binary linear program
\begin{align}
\min_{x \in \{0,1\}^E} \quad
& \sum_{e \in E} c_e x_e \label{eq:mc-objective} \\
\textnormal{subject to} \quad
& \forall C \in \textnormal{cycles}(G)\ \forall e \in C:\ x_e \leq \sum_{e' \in C \setminus \{e\}} x_{e'}
\enspace .
\label{eq:mc-cycle}
\end{align}
Note that the costs $c_e$ can be both positive or negative.
For detections $v,w \in V$ connected by an edge $e = \{v,w\}$, the assignment $x_e = 0$ indicates that $v$ and $w$ belong to the same track.
Thus, the constraints \eqref{eq:mc-cycle} can be understood as follows:
If, for any neighboring nodes $v$ and $w$, there exists a path in $G$ from $v$ to $w$ along which all edges are labeled 0 (indicating that $v$ and $w$ belong to the same track), then the edge $vw$ cannot be labeled 1 (which would indicate the opposite).
In fact, \eqref{eq:mc-cycle} are generalized transitivity constraints which guarantee that a feasible solution $x$ well-defines a decomposition of the graph $G$ into tracks.
We construct the graph $G$ such that edges connect detections not only between neighboring frames but also across longer distances in time.
Such edges $vw \in E$ allow to assign the detections $v$ and $w$ to the same track even if there would otherwise not exist a $vw$-path of detections, one in each frame.
This is essential for tracking people correctly in the presence of occlusion and missing detections.
\textbf{Differences compared to \cite{tang2015subgraph}}.
The minimum cost multicut problem
\eqref{eq:mc-objective}--\eqref{eq:mc-cycle},
we consider here differs from
the minimum cost subgraph multicut problem of \cite{tang2015subgraph}.
In order to handle false positive detections, \cite{tang2015subgraph} introduces additional binary variables at the nodes, switching detections on or off.
A cost of switching a dectection on is defined w.r.t.~a confidence score of that detection.
Here, we do not consider binary variables at nodes and incorporate a detection confidence into the costs of edges.
In order to remove false positive detections, we remove small clusters from the solution in a post-processing step.
A major advantage of this modification is that our minimum cost multicut problem
\eqref{eq:mc-objective}--\eqref{eq:mc-cycle},
unlike the minimum cost subgraph multicut problem of
\cite{tang2015subgraph},
is amenable to efficient approximate optimization by means of the KLj-algorithm of \cite{keuper-2015a}, without any modification.
This algorithm, unlike the branch-and-cut algorithm of
\cite{tang2015subgraph},
can be applied in practice directly to the graph of detections defined above, thus eliminating the need for the smaller intermediate representation of \cite{tang2015subgraph} by tracklets.
\textbf{Optimization}.
Here, we solve instances of the minimum cost multicut problem approximatively
by means of the algorithm KLj of \cite{keuper-2015a}.
This algorithm iteratively updates bipartitions of a subgraph.
The worst-case time complexity of any such update is $O(|V||E|)$.
The number of updates is not known to be polynomially bounded but is small in practice (less than 30 in our experiments).
Moreover, the bound $O(|V||E|)$ is almost never attained in practice,
as shown by the more detailed analysis in \cite{keuper-2015a}.
\subsection{Deep Matching based Pairwise Costs}
\label{section:pairwise}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cc cc}
\includegraphics[height=45mm]{dm-example-1.pdf} \hspace{2em}
&\includegraphics[height=45mm]{dm-example-2.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Visualization of the DeepMatching results on the MOT16 sequences }
\label{fig:dm-example}
\end{figure*}
In order to specify the costs of the optimization problem introduced above for tracking, we need to define, for any pair of detection bounding boxes, a cost or reward to be payed if these bounding boxes are assigned to the same person.
For that, we wish to quantify how likely it is that a pair of bounding boxes identify the same person.
In \cite{tang2015subgraph}, this is done w.r.t.~an estimation of velocity that requires an intermediate tracklet representation and is not robust to camera motion.
Here, we define these costs exclusively w.r.t.~image content.
More specifically, we build on the significant improvements in image matching made by DeepMatching \cite{weinzaepfelhal00873592}.
DeepMatching applies a multi-layer deep convolutional architecture to yield possibly non-rigid matchings between a pair of images.
Fig.~\ref{fig:dm-example} shows results of DeepMatching for two pairs of images from the MOT16 sequences\footnote{We use the visualization code provided by the authors of \cite{weinzaepfelhal00873592}}.
The first pair of images is taken by a moving camera; the second pair of images is taken by a static camera.
Between both pairs of images, matched points (blue arrows) relate a person visible in one image to the same person in the second image.
Next, we describe our features defined w.r.t.~a matching of points between a pair of detection bounding boxes.
Each detection bounding box $v \in V$ has the following properties: its spatio-temporal location $(t_v, x_v, y_v)$, scale $h_v$, detection confidence $\xi_v$ and, finally, a set of keypoints $M_v$ inside $v$.
Given two detection bounding boxes $v$ and $w$ connected by the edge $\{v,w\} = e \in E$,
we define $MU = |M_v \cup M_w|$ and $MI = |M_v \cap M_w|$ and the five features
\begin{align}
f^{(e)}_1 & := MI/MU \\
f^{(e)}_2 & := \min \{\xi_v, \xi_w\} \\
f^{(e)}_3 & := f^{(e)}_1 f^{(e)}_2 \\
f^{(e)}_4 & := (f^{(e)}_1)^2 \\
f^{(e)}_5 & := (f^{(e)}_2)^2
\end{align}
Given, for any edge $e = \{v,w\} \in E$ between two detection bounding boxes $v$ and $w$,
the feature vector $f^{(e)}$ for this pair,
we learn a probability $p_e \in (0,1)$ of these detection bounding boxes to identify distinct persons.
More specifically, we assume that $p_e$ depends on the features $f^{(e)}$ by a logistic form
\begin{align}
p_e := \frac{1}{1 + \exp(-\langle \theta, f^{(e)} \rangle)}
\end{align}
with parameters $\theta$.
We estimate these parameters from training data by means of logistic regression.
Finally, we define the cost $c_e$ in the objective function
\eqref{eq:mc-objective}
as
\begin{align}
c_e := \log\frac{p_e}{1-p_e} = \langle \theta, f^{(e)} \rangle
\enspace .
\end{align}
Two remarks are in order:
Firstly, the feature $f^{(e)}_2$ incorporates the detection confidences of $v$ and $w$ that defined unary costs in
\cite{tang2015subgraph}
into the feature $f^{(e)}$ of the pair $\{v,w\}$ here.
Consequently, detections with low confidence will be assigned with low probability to any other detection.
Secondly, the features $f^{(e)}_3, f^{(e)}_4, f^{(e)}_5$ are to learn a non-linear map from features $f^{(e)}_1, f^{(e)}_2$ to edge probabilities by means of linear logistic regression.
\subsection{Implementation Details}
\label{ClustersToTracks}
\textbf{Clusters to tracks.}
The multicut formulation clusters detections jointly over space and time for each target.
It is straight-forward to generate tracks from such clusters:
In each frame, we obtain a representative location $(x, y)$ and scale $h$ by averaging all detections that belong to the same person (cluster).
A smooth track of the person is thus obtained by connecting these averages across all frames.
Thanks to the pairwise potential incorporating a detection confidence, low confidence detections typically end up as singletons or in small clusters which are deleted from the final solution.
Specifically, we eliminate all clusters of size less than 5 in all experiments.
\textbf{Maximum temporal connection.}
Introducing edges that connect detections across longer distance in time is essential to track people in the presence of occlusion.
However, with the increase of the distance in time, the pairwise feature becomes less reliable.
Thus, when we construct the graph, it is necessary to set a maximum distance in time.
In all the experiments, we introduce edges for the detections that are at most 10 frames apart.
This parameter is based on the experimental analysis on the training sequences and is explained in more detail in Section~\ref{subsection-comparison-pairwise}.
\section{Experiments and Results}
We analyze our approach experimentally and compare to prior work on the MOT16
Benchmark \cite{MilanL0RS16}. The benchmark includes training and test sets composed of 7 sequences each.
We learn the model parameters for the test sequences based on the corresponding training sequences.
We first conduct an experimental analysis that validates the effectiveness of the DeepMatching based affinity measure in
Sec.~\ref{subsection-comparison-pairwise}.
In Sec.~\ref{robustness-to-detections} we demonstrate that the multicut formulation is robust to detection noise.
In Sec.~\ref{subsection-MOT-result} we compare our method with the best published results on the MOT16 Benchmark.
\subsection{Comparison of Pairwise Potentials}
\label{subsection-comparison-pairwise}
\myparagraph{Setup.} In this section we compare the DeepMatching (DM) based pairwise potential with
a conventional spatio-temporal relation (ST) based pairwise potential.
More concretely, given two detections $v$ and $w$, each has the following properties: spatio-temporal location $(t, x, y)$, scale $h$, detection confidence $\xi$.
Based on these properties the following auxiliary variables are introduced to capture geometric relations between the bounding boxes:
$\Delta x = \frac{|x_v-x_w|}{\bar{h}}, \Delta y = \frac{|y_v-y_w|}{\bar{h}} ,\Delta h = \frac{|h_v-h_w|}{\bar{h}},y = \frac{|y_v-y_w|}{\bar{h}},IOU = \frac{|B_v \cap B_w|}{|B_v \cup B_w|}
,t = {t_v-t_w}$,
where $\bar{h} = \frac{(h_v + h_w)}{2}$, $IOU$ is the intersection over union of the two detection bounding box areas
and $\xi_{min}$ is the minimum detection score between $\xi_v$ and $\xi_w$.
The pairwise feature $f^{(e)}$ for the spatio-temporal relations (ST) is then defined as $(\Delta t, \Delta x, \Delta y, \Delta h, IOU, \xi_{min})$.
Intuitively, the ST features are able to provide useful information within a short temporal window, because they only model the geometric relations between bounding boxes.
DM is built upon matching of local image features that is reliable for camera motion and partial occlusion in longer temporal window.
We collect test examples from the MOT16-09 and MOT16-10 sequences which are recorded with a static camera and a moving camera respectively.
They can be considered as repretentives of the MOT16 sequences in terms of motion, density and imaging conditions.
The positive (negative) pairs of test examples are the detections that are matched to the same (different) persons' ground truth track over time.
The negative pairs also include the false positive detections on the background.
\myparagraph{Metric.}
The metric is the verification accuracy, the accuracy or rate of correctly classified pairs.
For a pair of images belong to the same (different) person,
if the estimated joint probability is larger (smaller) than 0.5, the estimation is considered as correct.
Otherwise, it is a false prediction.
\myparagraph{Results.} We conduct a comparison between the accuracy of the DM feature
and the accuracy of the ST feature as a function of distance in time.
It can be seen from Tab.~\ref{tab:pairwise-accuracy} that the
ST feature achieves comparable accuracy only up to 2 frames distance.
Its performance deteriorates rapidly for connections at longer time.
In contrast, the DM feature is effective and maintains superior accuracy over time.
For example on the MOT16-10 sequence which contains rapid camera motion,
the DM feature improves over the ST feature by a large margin after 10 frames
and it provides stable affinity measure even at 20 frames distance (accuracy = 0.925).
On the MOT16-09 sequence, the DM feature again shows superior accuracy
than the ST feature starting from $\bigtriangleup t = 2$.
However, the accuracy of the DM feature on the MOT16-09 is worse than the one on MOT16-10,
suggesting the quite different statistic among the sequences from the MOT16 benchmark.
As discussed in Sec.~\ref{ClustersToTracks},
it is necessary to set a maximum distance in time to exclude unreliable pairwise costs.
Aiming at a unique setting for all sequences,
we introduce edges for the detections that are maximumly 10 frames apart in the rest experiments of this paper.
\begin{table*} [t]
\centering
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{ c| c |c| c| c |c |c }
\toprule
\multicolumn{7}{c}{MOT16-09: Static camera }\\
\hline
\!\!\! Feature & $\bigtriangleup t =1$ & $\bigtriangleup t = 2$ & $\bigtriangleup t =5$ & $\bigtriangleup t = 10$ & $\bigtriangleup t =15$ & $\bigtriangleup t =20$ \\
\hline
\!\!\! ST & 0.972 & 0.961 &0.926 & 0.856 &0.807 &0.781 \\
\hline
\!\!\! DM & 0.970 (\textcolor{red}{-0.2\%}) & 0.963 (\textcolor{blue}{+0.2\%}) &0.946 (\textcolor{blue}{+2\%}) &0.906 (\textcolor{blue}{+5\%}) &0.867 (\textcolor{blue}{+6\%}) &0.820 (\textcolor{blue}{+3.9\%}) \\
\toprule
\multicolumn{7}{c}{MOT16-10: Moving camera }\\
\hline
\!\!\! Feature & $\bigtriangleup t =1$ & $\bigtriangleup t = 2$ & $\bigtriangleup t =5$ & $\bigtriangleup t = 10$ & $\bigtriangleup t =15$ & $\bigtriangleup t =20$ \\
\hline
\!\!\! ST & 0.985 & 0.977 & 0.942 &0.903 &0.872 &0.828 \\
\hline
\!\!\! DM & 0.985 & 0.984 (\textcolor{blue}{+0.7\%}) &0.975 (\textcolor{blue}{+3.3\%}) &0.957 (\textcolor{blue}{+5.4\%}) &0.939 (\textcolor{blue}{+6.7\%}) &0.925 (\textcolor{blue}{+9.7\%}) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5em}
\caption{Comparison of tracking results based on the DM and the ST feature. The metic is the accuracy or rate of correctly classified pairs on the MOT16-09 and the MOT16-10 sequences.}
\label{tab:pairwise-accuracy}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Robustness to Input Detections}
\label{robustness-to-detections}
Handling noisy detection is a well-known difficulty for tracking algorithms.
To assess the impact of the input detections on the tracking result,
we conduct tracking experiments based on different sets of input detections that are obtained by varying a minimum detection score threshold ($Score_{min}$).
For example, in Tab.~\ref{tab:robustness}, $Score_{min} = -\infty$ indicates that all the detections are used as tracking input;
whereas $Score_{min} = 1$ means that only the detections whose score are equal or larger than 1 are considered.
Given the fact that the input detections are obtained from a DPM detector \cite{Felzenszwalb2010PAMI},
$Score_{min} = -\infty$ and $Score_{min} = 1$ are the two extreme cases, where the recall is maximized for the former one and high precision is obtained for the latter one.
\myparagraph{Metric.}
We evaluate the tracking performance of the multicut model that operates on different sets of input detections.
We use the standard CLEAR MOT metrics.
For simplicity, in Tab.~\ref{tab:robustness} we report the Multiple Object
Tracking Accuracy (MOTA) that is a cumulative measure that combines the
number of False Positives (FP), the number of False
Negatives (FN) and the number of ID Switches (IDs).
\myparagraph{Results.}
On the MOT16-09 sequence, when the minimum detection score threshold ($Score_{min}$) is changed from $0.1$ to $-0.3$,
the number of detection is largely increased (from $3405$ to $4636$), however the MOTA is only decreased by 1 percent (from $44.1\%$ to $43.1\%$).
Even for the extreme cases, where the detections are either rather noisy ($Score_{min} = -\infty$) or sparse ($Score_{min} = 1$ ),
the MOTAs are still in the reasonable range. The same results are found on the MOT16-10 sequence as well.
Note that, for all the experiments, we use the same parameters, we delete the clusters whose size is smaller than 5 and no further tracks splitting/merging is performed.
These experiments suggest that the multicut formulation is very robust to the noisy detection input.
This nice property is driven by the fact that the multicut formulation allows us to jointly cluster
multiple plausible detections that belong to the same target over time and space.
We also report run time in Tab.~\ref{tab:robustness}.
The Kernighan-Lin multicut solver provides arguably fast solution for our tracking problem.
E.g. for the problem with more than one million edges, the solution is obtained in 88.34 second.
Detailed run time analysis of KL solver are shown in \cite{keuper-2015a}.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c@{\hskip 0.2in} c@{\hskip 0.12in}c@{\hskip 0.12in}c@{\hskip 0.12in}c@{\hskip 0.12in}c@{\hskip 0.12in}c@{\hskip 0.12in}c@{\hskip 0.12in}}
\toprule
\multicolumn{8}{c}{MOT16-09} \\
\hline
\!\!\! $Score_{\min} $ & $-\infty$ & -0.3 & -0.2 & -0.1 & 0 & 0.1 & 1 \\
\hline
\!\!\! $|V|$ & 5377 & 4636 & 4320 & 3985 & 3658 & 3405 & 1713\\
\!\!\! $|E|$ & 565979 & 422725 & 367998 & 314320 & 265174& 229845& 61440\\
\!\!\! Run time (s) & 30.48 & 19.28 & 13.46 & 11.88 & 8.39 & 6.76 & 1.71 \\
\!\!\! MOTA & 37.9 & 43.1 & 43.1 & 44.9 & 45.8 & 44.1 & 34.1\\
\toprule
\multicolumn{8}{c}{MOT16-10}\\
\hline
\!\!\! $Score_{\min} $ & $-\infty$ & -0.3 & -0.2 & -0.1 & 0 & 0.1& 1 \\
\hline
\!\!\! $|V|$ & 8769 & 6959 & 6299 &5710 &5221 & 4823 &2349\\
\!\!\! $|E|$ & 1190074 & 755678 & 621024 &511790 &427847& 365949&88673\\
\!\!\! Run time (s) & 88.34 & 39.28 & 30.08 & 21.99& 16.13 & 13.66& 1.94\\
\!\!\! MOTA & 26.8 & 32.4 & 34.4 & 34.5 & 34.5 &33.9 &23.3\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5em}
\caption{Tracking performance on different sets of input detections. $Score_{\min}$ indicates the minimum detection score threshold.
$|V|$ and $|E|$ are the number of nodes (detections) and edges respectively.}
\label{tab:robustness}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c }
\toprule
\!\!\! Method & MOTA & MOTP & FAF & MT & ML & FP & FN & ID Sw & Frag & Hz & Detector \\
\midrule
\!\!\! NOMT\cite{Choi_2015_ICCV} & 46.4 & 76.6 & 1.6 & 18.3\% & 41.4\% & 9753 & 87565 & 359 & 504 & 2.6 & Public \\
\!\!\! MHT \cite{kim_ICCV2015_MHTR} & 42.8 & 76.4 & 1.2 & 14.6\% & 49.0\% & 7278 & 96607 & 462 & 625 & 0.8 & Public \\
\!\!\! CEM \cite{Milan:2014:CEM} & 33.2 & 75.8 & 1.2 & 7.8\% & 54.4\% & 6837 & 114322 & 642 & 731 & 0.3 & Public \\
\!\!\! TBD \cite{Geiger2014PAMI} & 33.7 & 76.5 & 1.0 & 7.2\% & 54.2\% & 5804 & 112587 & 2418 & 2252 & 1.3 & Public \\
\midrule
\!\!\! Ours & 46.3 & 75.7 & 1.09 & 15.5\% & 39.7\% & 6449 & 90713 & 663 & 1115 & 0.8 & Public \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.5em}
\caption{Tracking Performance on MOT16. }
\label{tab:mot-result}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{0pt}
\centering
\subfigure[MOT16-06]{\includegraphics[height=20mm]{imgidx0066.jpg}}
\subfigure[MOT16-12]{\includegraphics[height=20mm]{imgidx0058.jpg}}
\subfigure[MOT16-03]{\includegraphics[height=20mm]{imgidx0408.jpg}}
\subfigure[MOT16-08]{\includegraphics[height=20mm]{imgidx0193.jpg}}
\subfigure[MOT16-07]{\includegraphics[height=20mm]{imgidx0254.jpg}}
\subfigure[MOT16-01]{\includegraphics[height=20mm]{imgidx0284.jpg}}
\subfigure[MOT16-09 {\scriptsize (frame 290)}]{\includegraphics[height=20mm]{imgidx0290.jpg}}
\subfigure[MOT16-09 {\scriptsize (frame 360)}]{\includegraphics[height=20mm]{imgidx0360.jpg}}
\subfigure[MOT16-09 {\scriptsize (frame 390)}]{\includegraphics[height=20mm]{imgidx0390.jpg}}
\caption{Qualitative results for all the sequences from the MOT16 Benchmark.
The first and second rows are the results from the MOT16-01,MOT16-03,MOT16-06, MOT16-07, MOT16-08 and MOT16-12 sequence.
The third row is the result from the MOT16-14 sequence when the camera that is carried by a bus is turning fast at an intersection of two streets.}
\label{fig:mot-example}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Results on MOT16}
\label{subsection-MOT-result}
We test our tracking model on all the MOT16 sequences and submitted our results to the ECCV 2016 MOT Challenge
\footnote{https://motchallenge.net/workshops/bmtt2016/eccvchallenge.html} for evaluation.
The performance is shown in Tab.~\ref{tab:mot-result}.
The detailed performance and comparison on each sequence will be revealed at the ECCV 2016 MOT Challenge Workshop.
We compare our method with the best reported results including NOMT\cite{Choi_2015_ICCV}, MHT-DAM \cite{kim_ICCV2015_MHTR}, TBD \cite{Geiger2014PAMI} and CEM \cite{Milan:2014:CEM}.
Overall, we achieve the second best performance in terms of MOTA
with $0.1$ point below the best performed one \cite{Choi_2015_ICCV}.
We visualize our results in Fig.~\ref{fig:mot-example}.
On the MOT16-12 and MOT16-07 sequences, the camera motion is irregular; whereas on the MOT16-03 and MOT16-08
sequences, scenes are crowded. Despite these challenges,
we are still able to link people through occlusions and produce long-lived tracks.
The third row of Fig.~\ref{fig:mot-example} show images that are captured by a fast moving camera that is mounted in a bus which is turning at an intersection of two streets.
Under such extreme circumstance, our model is able to track people in a stable and persistent way, demonstrating the reliability of the multicut formulation for multi-person tracking task.
\clearpage
\bibliographystyle{splncs}
|
\section{Introduction}
Non-coding RNA (ncRNA) has emerged in recent years as a major player in the molecular
biology of the cell. The vast majority of transcripts in the cell produce long
(greater than 200 nucleotides) non-coding RNA, and many of their functions have
been studied~\cite{ENCODEpilot,Kapranov2007,MercerDingerMattick,ENCODE}. A recent
paper~\cite{Deutsch14} proposed that a function of much of the non-coding
RNA thought not to be under evolutionary constraint, was to act collectively to
regulate protein transcription. Instead of individual genes being controlled by
a few regulatory elements, ncRNA acts collectively to control transcription. If
we assume weak binding of many species of ncRNA to each other, the amount of
unbound ncRNA depends on all of the other species collectively. This free ncRNA
can then act to regulate mRNA in a variety of possible ways. The important
distinction between this behavior and other regulatory mechanisms, such as {\em cis}-regulation,
is the collective nature of regulation.
In computer science, it has been known for many decades, that it is possible to make intelligent
computational decisions using {\em distributed} networks, and these form the
bulk of models for artificial and real neural network~\cite{HertzKroghPalmer}. This differs from
most digital circuitry in that the output is computed
using network elements that interact with many others in a robust way. This
means that even if connection strengths are varied or even eliminated entirely, the network will
still keep much of its original function. This is an advantage over traditional
computer circuitry which has a much sparser connectivity. Furthermore this
architecture is well suited to learning new tasks.
In this paper, we devise a ncRNA system that will behave as an {\em associative memory}. The model behaves in a
similar manner to associative memory neural networks~\cite{LittleShaw,Hopfield,AmitGutFreundSompolinsky}.
There are two ingredients to this system: {(\em i)} A regulated mechanism to produce many
species of ncRNA molecules, that will degrade at some rate over time, {(\em ii)}
The ncRNA molecules bind and unbind with equilibrium constants that can be
varied by changing the sequence of them. We assume that the regulation will
depend on the total concentration of ncRNA, and the amount of unbound ncRNA. We
find a specific functional form for the regulation of ncRNA that leads to
nonlinear self-consistent equations for unbound ncRNA concentrations. These
equations are essentially the same as what is used in associative memory models.
There are three caveats to this scenario however. The first is that the
relaxation time for the chemical equilibration of the ncRNA is much shorter
than the time it takes to degrade ncRNA
molecules. The second, is that we have given the mathematical form for the
regulation of ncRNA that depends on different ncRNA concentrations, but we have
not provided a physical or chemical model that can implement this precisely.
Similar regulation takes place but its precise form is still not understood well
quantitatively. Finally, it requires that we have complete freedom to choose the
equilibrium constants between different species.
As with many neural network and statistical mechanical models, the
precise form of a model often does not matter~\cite{HertzKroghPalmer}, and we expect that a range of models
will have similar behavior. This model does not imply that precisely
this biochemical mechanism exists, but rather it shows the existence of
mechanisms that are relatively simple, and can result in collective regulation
of the genome in a manner quite unlike the ones that have already been discovered.
This work makes such a paradigm more plausible.
\section{The model}
Here we study how regulating the transcription of $N$ species of non-coding RNA (ncRNA), combined with the
promiscuous binding of ncRNA species to each other, can lead to an associative
memory. We denote the total concentration of of the $N$ species by $C_1, C_2, \dots, C_N$, and the unbound concentrations
$\rho_1, \rho_2,\dots,\rho_N$.
\subsection{Model Assumptions}
\subsubsection{Assumptions about binding}
We assume that the standard form for chemical reactions between different
species, $i$, and $j$
\begin{equation}
i + j \rightleftharpoons ij
\end{equation}
We are assuming here that these are the only kinds of reaction present. There
are no higher order reactions involving three or more species.
We can define an equilibrium constant~\cite{Reif} $K_{i,j} = \rho_{ij}/\rho_i\rho_j$.
Here $\rho_{ij}$ is the concentration of bound molecules $ij$. This leads
to~\cite{Deutsch14}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ConcentrationModification}
\rho_i =\frac{C_i}{1+\sum_j\rho_j K_{i,j}}
\end{equation}
for $i=1,\dots,N$.
We further assume that we have complete freedom to choose the equilibrium
constants. That is, there is enough choice in the sequences and binding
positions of the RNA molecules that the equilibrium constant of one pair does
not influence another one.
\subsubsection{Assumptions about molecular regulation}
The concentration of an individual species of ncRNA needs to be regulated for the
mechanism described here to work. Regulation is expected for biochemical
processes, however we require more specifically that the regulation should depend on
the current total concentration $C$, {\em as well as} the concentration of unbound ncRNA
$\rho$. $\rho$ can be measured with the assumption that only the unbound
molecules will be able to bind to a particular RNA binding biomolecule (such as
a protein) involved in the regulation of this kind of ncRNA. The total concentration $C$, can be measured
with the assumption that there is another biomolecule that binds to a different
portion on the ncRNA which is normally not associated with another RNA molecule,
for example because it is in a stem loop. An example of such a protein is a
stem-loop binding protein (SLBP).
If both unbound and bound ncRNA concentrations are directly related to the concentrations of certain proteins
that bind to them as suggested above,
it would appear feasible that a complex of such proteins could evolve to
produce transcription machinery that allows regulation in the way
we hypothesize below. This seems
reasonable because well known genetic regulatory mechanisms are well tuned to both enhance and suppress
transcription. We are only requiring that individual components
enhancing and suppressing transcription can be combined to mimic the smooth
dependence on $\rho$ and $C$ that is used here.
\subsection{Dynamics of concentration and transcription rates}
Eq. \ref{eq:ConcentrationModification} relates the unbound concentration of one
species to its total concentration, and the unbound concentration of all the
other species. The system will start off out of equilibrium and we assume that
it approaches it with a simplified first order kinetic equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:FirstOrderRho}
\tau_\rho\frac{d\rho_i}{dt} = -\rho_i + \frac{C_i}{1+\sum_j\rho_j K_{i,j}}
\end{equation}
for $i=1,\dots,N$,
where $\tau_\rho$ is a relaxation time, giving the time scale for the relaxation of
the $\rho_i$'s to equilibrium.
As discussed above, the concentrations $C_i$ are regulated. We assume that
individual molecules degrade over a timescale $\tau_C$, but are also being
transcribed, leading to a non-zero steady state concentration. We assume that
the degradation is a first order process, and the transcription of new ncRNA
molecules is a function that depends on $C_i$ and all of the $\rho$'s.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:FirstOrderC}
\tau_C \frac{d C_i}{dt} = - C_i + f(C_i,\{\rho_k\})
\end{equation}
Physically we expect that $\tau_C \gg \tau_\rho$, that is, the degradation of
the RNA happens at a much slower rate than equilibration of the binding and
unbinding of RNA. $f$ represents the rate at which new transcripts are being
produced. This could be accomplished by regulating the transcription through
a variety of means, such as repressors or coactivators that can sense unbound
and bound concentrations as discussed above.
We now choose a specific form of the function $f$ that will lead to an
associative biochemical memory.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:FormOfF}
f(C_i,\{\rho_k\}) = \frac{C_i}{\rho_i} S(4\frac{C_i}{\rho_i} - 2\sum_j (K_{i,j} + \rho_j) -3N)
\end{equation}
for $i=1,\dots,N$.
The function $S(x)$ is a sigmoid function that could take a variety of forms,
such as a logit function
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Sigmoid}
S(x) = \frac{1}{2}[1+\tanh(\beta x/N)]
\end{equation}
where $\beta$ is a constant, that in analogy to spin systems, represents an
inverse temperature. We shall discuss its value below when we discuss the
numerical implementation of this model.
Eqs. \ref{eq:FirstOrderRho}, \ref{eq:FirstOrderC}, \ref{eq:FormOfF}, and \ref{eq:Sigmoid} define
the dynamics of the $2N$ concentrations given a set of equilibrium constants
$K_{i,j}$, and the initial conditions.
\section{Analysis}
In steady state, all time derivatives vanish, and Eqs \ref{eq:FirstOrderRho}
reduces to \ref{eq:ConcentrationModification}. It can be rearranged to yield:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:KP}
\sum_j K_{i,j} \rho_j = \frac{C_i}{\rho_i}-1
\end{equation}
Eq. \ref{eq:FirstOrderC} reduces to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SelfConsistentC}
C_i = f(C_i,\{\rho_k\})
\end{equation}
If we transform to symmetric variables $s_i$, $i=1,\dots,N$ so that $\rho_i = (1+s_i)/2$.
We will also choose symmetrized variables $J_{i,j}$ so that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:JtoK}
K_{i,j} = \frac{1+J_{i,j}}{2}.
\end{equation}
Substituting this into Eq. \ref{eq:FormOfF} and using Eq. \ref{eq:KP} gives
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:FTransformed}
C_i = f(C_i,\{s_k\}) = \frac{C_i}{1+s_i/2} S(\frac{1}{N}\sum_j J_{i,j} s_j)
\end{equation}
Canceling the $C_i$'s solving for $s_i$, and substituting Eq. \ref{eq:Sigmoid}
finally gives
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Hopfield}
s_i = \tanh(\frac{\beta}{N}\sum_j J_{i,j} s_j)
\end{equation}
Note that there is no guarantee that the dynamics of this system will lead to
these steady state solutions as some of these may be unstable. But for the physically
sensible requirement that we have imposed on the relaxation times, we will
see below that these solutions are achieved.
This self consistent equation is used in analyzing neural network associative
memories~\cite{LittleShaw,Hopfield,AmitGutFreundSompolinsky} and can have many
solutions, depending on the choice of the $J$'s. We will now focus on the most
common choice, that of Hebbian learning~\cite{Hebb,LittleShaw,Hopfield}.
\subsection{Hebbian coupling}
We can choose the $K$'s or equivalently the $J$'s in a manner that will allow
the network to retrieve $M$ patterns. The retrieval works best when the patterns
are uncorrelated. Let us denote the $\alpha$th pattern by $t_i^\alpha$,
$\alpha = 1,\dots,M$. We let each $t_i^\alpha = \pm 1$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Hebb}
J_{i,j} = \frac{1}{M} \sum_{\alpha=1}^M t_i^\alpha t_j^\alpha
\end{equation}
The number of patterns that can be reliably stored is proportional to
$N$~\cite{AmitGutFreundSompolinsky} but
this will also depend on the correlations between the patterns.
In order for this choice to be physically meaningful, the $K$'s must all be
positive. This is why we chose to relate the $K$'s to the $J$'s in the first
place through Eq. \ref{eq:JtoK}.
After choosing $M$ patterns and setting the $J$'s accordingly, they are shifted
and scaled to produce positive $K$'s. $K \rightarrow K-min(K)$, and $K \rightarrow K/max(K)$.
This produces equilibrium constants between zero and one.
\subsection{Numerical results}
The above model was implemented numerically. We chose $N=50$ ncRNA species, and
analyze the retrieval $M=3$ separate patterns using the Hebbian rule of Eq. \ref{eq:Hebb}.
The ratio of the two timescales $\tau_C/\tau_\rho$ was found to be important in
the convergence of this system. With $\tau_C/\tau_\rho = 100$ the system
always appeared to converge. However with $\tau_C/\tau_\rho = 10$, it sometimes
did not.
We tested out the basin of attraction of initial values of the $\rho_i$'s. We
considered each pattern $t^\alpha$ and then randomly altered its sequence by
varying amounts. For each ncRNA species, we chose a random number between zero and 1 flipped the value
of the density $\rho_i \rightarrow 1-\rho_i$, if the random number was below
some cutoff. We tried $5$ different mutations for each of the $M$ patterns, for
a fixed cutoff. We generated $10$ separate examples of the $M$ patterns, and
varied the cutoff. We plot the fraction of mistakes as a function of this
cutoff in Fig \ref{fig:mistakesvscutoff}. The three graphs represents three
different values of $\beta$: $6$, $7$, and $8$. It is evident that for $\beta$
equals $6$, or $7$, some patterns are not stable, because even with a cutoff of
zero leads in some cases to the system moving away to a different pattern.
However, with $\beta =8$, all patterns were stable.
Next we tested out the effects of mutating the equilibrium constants $K_{i,j}$. We chose
random $i$'s and $j's$ and mutated them by taking $K_{i,j} \rightarrow 1 - K_{i,j}$,
maintaining symmetry of the matrix. (Recall that
$0 <= K_{i,j} <= 1$). We measured how close the final fixed point was to the
original pattern, by measuring the Hamming distance between the two and dividing
by $N$. We varied the number of $K$'s that were mutated. We ran this for the
same number of times as above, and for the same values of $\beta$. The results
are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:hamming}. Even with $100$ mutations, most of a
pattern is correctly recalled. This illustrates that this architecture is robust
to mutations.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\hsize]{mistakes_vs_basin.eps}
\caption
{
The number of mistakes made as a function of the distance away from a pattern.
When the initial condition for the density is sufficiently different from the
pattern, the system will move away from it towards a different to a different
pattern. The red curve (stars) shows $\beta = 8$, the green (circles), $\beta = 7$, and
the blue (triangles) $\beta = 6$. The lines are a guide for the eye.
}
\label{fig:mistakesvscutoff}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\hsize]{hammingK.eps}
\caption
{
The effects of mutations to the equilibrium constants. The horizontal axis gives
the number of mutations that were made. The vertical axis is the average fraction of errors, measured by the
fractional Hamming distance of the desired pattern to the recalled pattern. This
represents the fraction of incorrect concentration levels.
The red curve (stars) shows $\beta = 8$, the green (circles), $\beta = 7$, and
the blue (triangles) $\beta = 6$. The lines are a guide for the eye.
}
\label{fig:hamming}.
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussion}
Here we have developed and analyzed a model for ncRNA that produces features of
an associative memory which assumes promiscuous binding of many species to each other.
We mapped the fixed points of this biochemical network onto a neural
network model. However the stability of these points
depends on two relaxation times, one for ncRNA equilibration, and the
other characterizing the degradation time of ncRNA molecules. Furthermore the switching on
of ncRNA transcription must be a sharp enough function of ncRNA concentrations,
that is, have high enough $\beta$ (see Eq. \ref{eq:Sigmoid}), for the fixed points to be stable.
Although an associative memory has been considered here mainly as a gross simplification
of a real genetic network, in order to elucidate, in detail,
how genetic networks could make use of collective regulation, it is possible that this kind of
behavior could be useful in an organism. In a neural network, if some fraction of a pattern is shown
to an associative memory, the rest of it will be reproduced. Similarly for a
genetic network, if some ncRNA species are presented to the network at given
concentrations, the network will recognize this sub-``pattern", and produce the
additional pattern of ncRNA molecules at desired concentrations. Multiple
patterns can be stored, meaning that the network can respond appropriately to different
environmental conditions.
There are many advantages to distributed network computation and one would
expect, as argued here, that these would carry over to networks used for genetic regulation.
The robustness to mutation is one such feature. This means that mutations of
ncRNA will have a much gentler effect than for sparse networks, but nevertheless
could confer evolutionary advantages. This is important
because much ncRNA is thought not to be under evolutionary constraint
but in light of the above, this may be an incorrect conclusion.
Much larger mutation rates for molecules utilizing collective regulation are
expected even if they are involved in important regulatory functions.
Therefore the mutation rate criteria for evolutionary pressure
should be questioned to take this kind of collective mechanism.
The robustness of collective regulations to changes also means that it is difficult to come
up with experimental means to find it, as each pairwise interactions between
species are small and removal of individual interactions will not be easily
noticed.
This model was not evolutionary, as this would make analysis intractable
analytically. However it is straightforward to see how evolution would give rise
to equilibrium constants that could store multiple patterns. Indeed, this is
the similar to what is done with ``Boltzmann machines"~\cite{HertzKroghPalmer},
where the network is trained with Monte Carlo on multiple patterns and eventually learns to
respond to all of them correctly. The couplings will not end up being precisely
those of Eq. \ref{eq:Hebb}, but they will achieve the same goal. Therefore we expect
that an architecture such as described here, that evolves by mutating the
$K_{i,j}$'s will produce similar behavior.
This work was supported by the Foundational Questions Institute \url{<http://fqxi.org>}.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Violation of the Bell inequality is an unmistakable signature of non-locality for any quantum system. This has been tested extensively and spectacularly in two qubit systems. Yet the formulation, though general enough to be applied to any bipartite quantum system, throws open the question of whether there could be non-local states which do {\it not} violate the Bell inequality. A definitive answer to this, in the negative, is available only for two qubit systems \cite{Fine82}.The question remains to be settled for $N \times N$ systems.
In an attempt to resolve this issue, two new formulations of non-locality have been proposed by Kaszlikowski et al \cite{Kasz00} and
Collins et al \cite{Coll02} (see \cite{FuLi04} for a general formulation, \cite{Durt01,Chen01,Kasz02} for discussions of special cases). The formulations are equivalent and involve new inequalities which, of course, reduce to the standard Bell-CHSH form for two qubits. Remarkably, the inequalities -- unlike in the Bell case -- are dimension dependent, and are not constrained by the Cirel'son bound \cite{Cirelson80}. When applied to the fully entangled states and their contamination by white noise, shown below,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:wer}
\vert \Psi_E\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_j\vert jj\rangle; \quad \rho = p\vert \Psi_E \rangle \langle \Psi_E\vert + (1-p) \frac{\mathbb{I}}{N^2},
\end{equation}
one is led to conclude that non-locality gets stronger with increasing dimensions, and that one can identify non-local states that evade the Bell analysis. The new inequalities are also verified experimentally \cite{Howe02,Vaziri02,Thew04,Dada11,Lo16}, the last one involving coupled systems upto $N=16$.
Thus the new inequalities hold the promise of generalising and subsuming the standard Bell analysis for identifying
and characterising non-local states in higher dimensions. It is, therefore, an opportune moment to examine, in a greater detail, the domain of applicability of the new inequalities. For, as mentioned, the new inequalities and their experimental tests have been applied only on the states described by Eq. \ref{eq:wer}.
This paper undertakes the task, for the specific case of two coupled 4-level systems, and examines whether the new inequalities are more discriminating of non-local states vis-a-vis the Bell-CHSH, or simply Bell, inequality. In this exercise, we consider the inequality proposed in \cite{Coll02}, which we shall call as CGLMP, after the authors, and apply them on Bell states, i.e., those that violate Bell inequality maximally.
\section{Formulation}
\label{sec:formulation}
\subsection{Bell and CGLMP inequalities}
For the sake of completeness, we describe the CGLMP inequality briefly, after mentioning the standard Bell inequality. Consider an $M \times N$ level system with two subsystems $A(B)$ of $M(N)$ levels.
The Bell operator $\mathcal{B}$ is defined by,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bell_function}
\mathcal{B} = A_1 B_1 - A_1 B_2 + A_2 B_1 + A_2 B_2
\end{equation}
where $A_{1,2}$ and $B_{1,2}$ are local observables for the two subsystems, subject to the conditions $-1 \leq \big< A_i \big> \leq 1$ and $-1 \leq \big< B_i \big> \leq 1$. Local hidden variables models constrain the Bell function to obey the inequality
$
\big| \big< \mathcal{B} \big> \big| \leq 2,
$
a violation of which implies non-locality. As a non-local theory, quantum mechanics pushes the upper bound to a value $2\sqrt{2}$ \cite{Cirelson80}. This bound is absolute and independent of $M$ and $N$.
CGLMP inequality has a more complicated structure. The analog of the Bell operator is the function $I_N$, defined for an $N \times N$ level system by
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}\label{eq:cglmp_inequality}
I_N = \sum_{k=0}^{[N/2]-1} \Big(1- \frac{2k}{N-1}\Big) \{ & [P(A_1 = B_1 + k) + P(B_1 = A_2 +k+1) + P(A_2 = B_2 +k) + P(B_2 = A_1 +k)] \nonumber \\ & - [P(A_1 = B_1 -k -1) +P(B_1 = A_2 -k) +P(A_2 = B_2 -k -1) + P(B_2 = A_1 -k -1) ]\}
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
where $P(A_i,B_i)$ are joint measurement probabilities for local observables $A_i,B_i$ belonging to the two subsystems. All the observables have integer eigenvalues $0,1, \cdots, N-1$.
The measurement prescription can be found in \cite{Durt01}, and involves two local observers, Alice and Bob, who fine tune variable phases $\alpha_i,\beta_i$ (see Eq. \ref{eq:basis}) of the states in their respective subsystems, depending on the measurements they wish to perform. The measurement bases for the observables $A_i$ and $B_i$; $i = 1,2$ are of the form
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:basis}
\ket{K}_{A,i} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_{j=0}^{N-1}{exp \Big(i\frac{2 \pi}{N} j (K + \alpha_i) \Big) \ket{j}_A} \nonumber \\
\ket{L}_{B,i} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}} \sum_{j=0}^{N-1}{exp \Big(i\frac{2 \pi}{N} j (-L + \beta_i) \Big) \ket{j}_B}.
\end{eqnarray}
Rules of classical probability impose the constraint $\vert I_N \vert \le 2$. This constraint is interpreted as a locality condition inasmuch as it arises in measurements involving joint probabilities.
On evaluating $I_N$ for the maximally entangled state, it is found that the maximum value of $I_N$ as allowed by quantum theory transcends the Cirel'son bound when $N \ge 3$. It takes a value 2.8962 when $N=4$, and approaches the limiting value of 2.9696 as $N \rightarrow \infty$. Since $I_4 > 2\sqrt{2}$ for the Bell state, it follows that some noisy states (defined in Eq.~\ref{eq:wer}), will obey Bell inequality but violate CGLMP, buttressing the claim that CGLMP prescription is more general and stronger than the Bell prescription. As remarked, experiments are also performed on maximally entangled states.
\section{Critique of CGLMP inequality}
We wish to contrast the CGLMP inequality with the Bell formulation for a broader class of states for a $4 \times 4$ level system. In this, we freely exploit the abundance of Bell states which are not restricted to be fully entangled, or even pure. We follow the analysis in \cite{Brau92} closely in the construction of Bell states.
\subsection{Bell states of $4 \times 4$ level systems}\label{sect:example}
It is known that the conditions on the local observables for attaining the Cirel'son bound are given by \cite{Pope92}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:maximal_condition}
\big< A_{1,2}^2 \big> &= & \big< B_{1,2}^2 \big> = 1 \nonumber \\
\big< \{A_1,A_2\} \big> & \rm{or} & \ \big< \{ B_1,B_2 \} \big> = 0.
\end{eqnarray}
The two conditions jointly constitute the definition of Clifford Algebra, the representations of which are essentially given by the standard Pauli matrices or their direct sums for each pair of observables. It follows thereof that maximally non-local Bell states are either coherent, or incoherent superpositions of Bell states in mutually orthogonal $2 \times 2$ sectors. This is a consequence of Jordan's theorem \cite{Pope92,Brau92}. This explains why there are no fully entangled Bell states when $N$ is odd.
Armed with this result we conveniently choose the observables to be
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:observables}
A_1 &= & \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}} \lambda_8 + \frac{\sqrt{6}}{3} \lambda_{15}; \ \ A_2 = (\lambda_4 + \lambda_{11}) \nonumber \\
B_1 &= & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (A_1 + A_2); \ \ B_2 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (A_2 - A_1)
\end{eqnarray}
where the $SU(4)$ generators (the $\lambda$ matrices) are taken in their standard form. The spectrum of the Bell operator is easily determined.
It has the eigen-resolution
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{B} = 2\sqrt{2}(\Pi_{\mathcal{H}_+} - \Pi_{\mathcal{H}_-})
\end{equation}
where $dim (\mathcal{H}_{\pm}) =4$. The bases for $\mathcal{H}_{\pm}$ may be chosen to be
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:states_maximal_p}
\ket{\eta_1}& = &\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ( \ket{11} + \ket{33}) ; \ \ \ket{\eta_2} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ( \ket{10} + \ket{32}) \nonumber \\
\ket{\eta_3} &= &\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ( \ket{01} + \ket{23}); \ \ \ket{\eta_4} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ( \ket{00} + \ket{22})
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:states_maximal_m}
\ket{\phi_1} &= &\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ( \ket{31} - \ket{13}) ; \ \ \ket{\phi_2} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ( \ket{30} - \ket{12}) \nonumber \\
\ket{\phi_3} &= & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ( \ket{21} - \ket{03}) ; \ \ \ket{\phi_4} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ( \ket{20} - \ket{02})
\end{eqnarray}
respectively. Within each sector, all states, both pure and mixed, violate the Bell inequality maximally. Thus, in contrast to the two qubit case, Bell states can have ranks ranging from $1-4$.
We consider states belonging to $\mathcal{H}_{+}$ henceforth. We examine the pure and mixed states separately in the next section.
\subsection{Comparison of Bell and CGLMP measures}
\subsubsection{Pure states}
The comparison requires a numerical study of the behaviour of $I_4$. It is convenient to represent a pure Bell state
in the form
\begin{equation}
\ket{\Psi}_{\mathcal{H}_+} = \sum_i{c_i \ket{\eta_i}} \ \ ; \ \ \sum_i {|c_i|^2} =1
\end{equation}
with the parametrisation
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:parameters}
c_1 &=& \cos{\theta_1} \nonumber \\
c_2 &=& \exp(i\gamma_1)\sin{\theta_1} \cos{\theta_2} \nonumber \\
c_3 &=& \exp(i\gamma_2)\sin{\theta_1} \sin{\theta_2} \cos{\theta_3} \nonumber \\
c_4 &=& \exp(i\gamma_3)\sin{\theta_1} \sin{\theta_2} \sin{\theta_3}.
\end{eqnarray}
The states constitute a six dimensional manifold $\mathcal{M}^6 \equiv \mathcal{S}^3 \times (\mathcal{S}^1)^{\otimes 3}$. The task consists of optimising the tunable phases $\alpha_i,\beta_i$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:basis}) in order to maximise $I_4$. For instance, numerical simulations performed in \cite{Durt01} determine the optimal values for the maximally entangled state $\ket{\Psi_E}$ to be
$ (\alpha_1, \alpha_2)=(0,1/2); ( \beta_1,\beta_2) =(1/4,-1/4)$.This configuration yields a value of $I_4 = 2.8962$, which is in excess of $2\sqrt{2}$.
\subsubsection*{The method}
In order find the maximum $I_4$ value for each state, we implement the Nelder-Mead optimization technique \cite{Neld65}, to search over the 4-dimensional phase parameter space spanned by $\{\alpha_{1,2},\beta_{1,2}\}$. The same technique was used in \cite{Kasz00,Durt01} to optimise the parameters for the fully entangled state. This method does not always guarantee convergence; the search stops when the `standard error' falls under a certain pre-defined value: $\sqrt{\frac{1}{n+1}\sum^{n}_{i=0}(f(x_1)-\overline{f(x_i)})^2}$ . Its success depends on the simplex not becoming too small in relation to the curvature of the surface. If the simplex is too small, chances of it being trapped in a local maxima are high. However, through selection of different initial test points across the parameter space to commence the search, one can avoid repeatedly falling into the same local maxima, and a global maxima can be obtained.
For each state in our simulations, a number of such searches were performed. Henceforth, we simply denote $I_4$ as the maximum value pertaining to each state across these multiple searches. 1000 pure states were sampled randomly from $\mathcal{M}^6$ through uniform distributions. The pre-defined error criterion was taken to be 0.0001. The results are given in the histogram in Fig.~\ref{fig:histogram_pure}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Histogram_pure.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:histogram_pure} (colour online) $I_{4}$ values for 1000 randomly sampled pure states, with a bin-width of 0.1. Red: Polynomial fit showing population decay. Black: $I_4=2$, demarcation between local and non-local states.}
\end{figure}
We see that most of the Bell states respect the CGLMP inequality. Out of the 1000 states, it is found that only 8.9\% violate the CGLMP inequality. A polynomial fit shows the population of the sampled states decreasing as a function of $I_4$, at a rate $(I_4)^{-x}$, where $x = 3.66 \pm 0.49$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:histogram_pure}). This reflects the sparsity of states that obey the CGLMP criterion for non-locality in contrast to the Bell criterion. In fact, there is only one state with $I_4 > 2\sqrt{2}$ from among the 1000 random states.
\subsubsection{Mixed states}
The space of mixed states is much larger, being of dimension 15. We examine the rather small subset of states which have the basis states $\vert \eta_i\rangle$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:states_maximal_p}) as their eigenstates.
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\mathcal{H}_+} = \sum_i p_i |\eta_i \rangle \langle \eta_i|. \label{eq:mixed}
\end{equation}
Once again, we find that the CGLMP prescription fails to identify non-locality, this time more dramatically. We sample 100 random mixed states, and implement the Nelder-Mead optimisation technique, in the same manner that was done for pure states. Fig.~\ref{fig:Histogram_mixed} shows the maximum $I_4$ values obtained for each state. All of these states have values of $I_4$ very close to zero, despite being maximally Bell non-local.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Histogram_mixed.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:Histogram_mixed} (colour online) $I_{4}$ values for 100 randomly sampled mixed states, with a bin width 0.002.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{entropy.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:ent_cglmp} (colour online) $I_{4}$ plotted as a function of entanglement, $(1- |P|)$.}
\end{figure}
It is clear from Figs. \ref{fig:histogram_pure}, \ref{fig:Histogram_mixed} that CGLMP is not necessarily stronger than Bell, and that it fails to identify a large family of non-local states, unless perhaps they are maximally entangled. Since it fares well for fully entangled states, we examine if $I_4$ is more sensitive to entanglement of the state.
\subsubsection{ CGLMP measure and entanglement}
We consider pure Bell states. The eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix are two fold degenerate and can be written as
\begin{equation}
\mu_{\pm} = \frac{1}{4} (1 \pm P); ~~ |P| \le 1.
\end{equation}
The quantity $1-|P|$ is a measure of entanglement, with $|P|=0$ representing a fully entangled state, and $|P|=1$,
a partially entangled state with the corresponding entropy of the reduced density matrix being $\log 2$.
Fig.~\ref{fig:ent_cglmp} shows the variation of $I_4$ with respect to $1-|P|$ for the 1000 states employed earlier.
The scatter in the plot clearly shows that $I_4$ bears no affinity to entanglement either, except in the limiting case of maximum entanglement.
\section{Discussion and conclusion}
The main result of this paper is that CGLMP inequality (and its equivalent formulation \cite{Kasz00}), as a measure of non-locality, fails to identify a large class of Bell states, both in pure and mixed sectors. It is also not sensitive to entanglement, except when the state is also fully entangled. There are many measures of non-classicality such as discord, entanglement and non-locality. Though undoubtedly a measure of non-classicality, it is not clear whether a CGLMP violation reflects some or all of these measures, or if it gives a new measure. Strictly speaking, Bell and CGLMP criteria are based on two independent notions of non-locality, even if they agree in the case of $2 \times 2$ systems. Therefore, it must be admitted that the precise non-classical nature of even those states which respect Bell but violate CGLMP still remains to be understood.
Notwithstanding these reservations, there is no doubt that the ingenious experiments which have verified CGLMP violation \cite{Howe02,Vaziri02,Thew04,Dada11,Lo16} have indeed detected a non-trivial non-classical feature
of quantum states in higher dimensions which is not available for two qubit states.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
Radha thanks the Department of Science and Technology (DST), India for funding her research under the WOS-A Women's Scientist Scheme. Soumik thanks Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India for funding his research.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{intro}
Let us consider that the operational semantics of a programming
language is specified by a state transition relation $R$ such that
$R(s,s')$ holds if the state $s'$ is reachable---in one step---from
state $s$. As it is common practice, we let $R^\ast$ denote the
reflexive and transitive closure of $R$. Then, we say that a
programming language (or formalism) is \emph{reversible} if there
exists a constructive
algorithm that can be used to, given a computation from state $s$ to
state $s'$, in symbols $R^\ast(s,s')$, obtain the state $s$ from
$s'$. In general, such a property does not hold for most programming
languages and formalisms.
We refer the interested reader to, e.g.,
\cite{Bennett00,Fra05,Yok10,YAG08} for a high level account of the
principles of reversible computation.
The notion of \emph{reversible computation} was first introduced in
Landauer's seminal work \cite{Lan61} and, then, further improved by
Bennett \cite{Ben73} in order to avoid the generation of ``garbage''
data. The idea underlying these works is that any programming
language or formalism can be made reversible by adding the
\emph{history} of the computation to each state, which is usually
called a \emph{Landauer's embedding}. Although carrying the history of
a computation might seem infeasible because of its size, there are
several successful proposals that are based on this idea. In
particular, one can restrict the original language or apply a number
of analysis in order to restrict the required information in the
history as much as possible, as in, e.g., \cite{MHNHT07,NPV16,TA15} in
the context of a functional language.
Alternatively, one can consider a restricted language where
computations are reversible without adding any additional
information to the states. This is the case, e.g., of the functional
language considered in \cite{YAG16} or the language Janus (see
\cite{Yok10} and references therein). Obviously, such languages are
not universal since there are functions that cannot be represented
(e.g., non-injective functions).
In this paper, we consider the former approach, the so-called
Landauer's embedding. In particular, we aim at introducing a form of
reversibility in the context of a programming language that follows
the actor model (concurrency based on message passing), and that can
be considered as a subset of the concurrent and functional language
Erlang \cite{AVW96}. Previous approaches have mainly considered
reversibility in---mostly synchronous---concurrent calculi like CCS
\cite{DK04,DK05}, a general framework for reversibility of algebraic
process calculi \cite{PU07}, or the recent approach to reversible
\emph{session-based} $\pi$-calculus \cite{TY15}. However, we can only
find a few approaches that considered the reversibility of
\emph{asynchronous} calculi, e.g., Cardelli and Laneve's reversible
structures \cite{CL11} or the approach based on a rollback construct
of \cite{GLM14,LMSS11,LMS16,LLMS12} for a higher-order asynchronous
$\pi$-calculus.
To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first one that considers
reversibility in the context of the functional, concurrent, and
distributed language Erlang. Here, given a running Erlang system
consisting of a pool of interacting processes, possibly distributed in
several computers, we aim at allowing a \emph{single} process to undo
its actions, including the interactions with other processes,
following a rollback fashion. In this context, we must ensure
\emph{causal consistency} \cite{DK04}, i.e., an action cannot be
undone until all the actions that depend on it have been already
undone. E.g., if a process spawns another process, we cannot undo this
process spawning until all the actions performed by the new process
are undone too. This is particularly challenging in our asynchronous
and distributed setting since there is no \emph{global} order for the
language events. In this paper, we introduce a rollback operator that
undoes the actions of a process until a \emph{checkpoint} is
reached. This could be considered as a promising basis for defining
\emph{safe} sessions in a language like Erlang.
In this paper, we consider a simple Erlang-like language that can be
considered a subset of \emph{Core Erlang} \cite{CGJLNPV04}.
We present the following contributions:
First, we introduce an appropriate standard semantics for the
language. In contrast to monolothic previous semantics like that in
\cite{CMRT13tr}, our semantics is more modular, which simplifies the
definition of a reversible extension. In contrast to \cite{SFB10},
although we follow some of the ideas in this approach (e.g., the use
of a global mailbox), we include the evaluation of expressions and,
moreover, our treatment of messages is more
deterministic.\footnote{E.g., in the semantics of \cite{SFB10}, at the
expression level, the transition semantics of an expression
containing a receive statement is, in principle, infinitely
branching, since their formulation allows for an infinite number of
possible queues and selected messages.}
We then introduce a reversible extension of the standard semantics
(basically, a Landauer's embedding). Here, we focus only on the
concurrent actions (namely, process spawning, message sending and
receiving) and, thus, do not consider the reversibilization of the
functional component of the language; rather, we assume that the state
of the process---the current expression and its environment---is
stored in the history after each execution step. This approach could
be improved following, e.g., the approaches from
\cite{MHNHT07,NPV16,TA15}.
Finally, we introduce a backward semantics that can be used to undo
the actions of a given process in a rollback fashion, until a
checkpoint---introduced by the programmer---is reached. Here, ensuring
causal consistency is essential and might propagate the rollback
action to other, dependent processes.
\section{Language Syntax} \label{syntax-sec}
In this section, we present the syntax of a first-order concurrent and
distributed functional language that follows the actor model. Our
language is basically equivalent to a subset of Core Erlang
\cite{CGJLNPV04}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
$
\begin{array}{rcl@{~~~~~~}l}
\mathit{Module} & ::= & \mathsf{module} ~ Atom =
\mathit{fun}_1,\ldots,\mathit{fun}_n\\
{\mathit{fun}} & ::= & \mathit{fname} = \mathsf{fun}~(X_1,\ldots,X_n) \to expr \\
{\mathit{fname}} & ::= & Atom/Integer \\
lit & ::= & Atom \mid Integer \mid Float \mid [\:] \\
expr & ::= & \mathit{Var} \mid lit \mid \mathit{fname} \mid [expr_1|expr_2]
\mid \{expr_1,\ldots,expr_n\} \\
& \mid & \mathsf{call}~expr~(expr_1,\ldots,expr_n)
\mid \mathsf{apply}~expr~(expr_1,\ldots,expr_n) \\
& \mid &
\mathsf{case}~expr~\mathsf{of}~clause_1;\ldots;clause_m~\mathsf{end}\\
& \mid & \mathsf{let}~\mathit{Var}=expr_1~\mathsf{in}~expr_2
\mid \mathsf{receive}~clause_1;\ldots;clause_n~\mathsf{end}\\
& \mid & \mathsf{spawn}(expr,[expr_1,\ldots,expr_n])
\mid expr_1 \:!\: expr_2 \mid \mathsf{self}()\\
clause & ::= & pat ~\mathsf{when}~expr_1 \to expr_2
\\
pat & ::= & \mathit{Var} \mid lit \mid [pat_1|pat_2] \mid
\{pat_1,\ldots,pat_n\} \\
\end{array}
$
\end{center}
\vspace{-2ex}
\caption{Language syntax rules} \label{ErlangSyntax}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}
The syntax of the language can be found in Figure~\ref{ErlangSyntax}.
Here, a module is a sequence of function definitions, where each
function name $f/n$ (atom/arity) has an associated definition of the
form $\mathsf{fun}~(X_1,\ldots,X_n) \to e$. We consider that a program
consists of a single module for simplicity. The body of a function is
an \emph{expression}, which can include variables, literals, function names,
lists, tuples, calls to built-in functions---mainly arithmetic and
relational operators---, function applications, case expressions, let
bindings, and receive expressions; furthermore, we also consider the
functions $\mathsf{spawn}$, ``$!$'' (for sending a message), and
$\mathsf{self}()$ that are usually considered built-in's in the Erlang
language.
Despite the general syntax in Figure~\ref{ErlangSyntax}, as mentioned
before, we only consider first order expressions. Therefore, the first
expression in calls, applications and spawns can only be function
names (instead of arbitrary expressions or closures).
In this language, we distinguish expressions, patterns, and values. As
mentioned before, expressions can include all constructs of the
language. In contrast, \emph{patterns} are built from variables,
literals, lists, and tuples. Finally, \emph{values} are built from
literals, lists, and tuples, i.e., they are \emph{ground}---without
variables---patterns. Expressions are denoted by
$e,e',e_1,e_2,\ldots$, patterns by $p,p',p_1,p_2,\ldots$ and values by
$v,v',v_1,v_2,\ldots$
As it is common practice, a \emph{substitution} $\theta$ is a mapping
from variables to expressions such that ${\cD}om(\theta) =
\{X\in\mathit{Var} \mid X \neq \theta(X)\}$ is its
domain. Substitutions are usually denoted by sets of mappings like,
e.g., $\{X_1\mapsto v_1,\ldots,X_n\mapsto v_n\}$.
Substitutions are extended to morphisms from expressions to
expressions in the natural way.
The identity substitution is denoted by $id$. Composition of
substitutions is denoted by juxtaposition, i.e., $\theta\theta'$
denotes a substitution $\theta''$ such that $\theta''(X) =
\theta'(\theta(X))$ for all $X\in\mathit{Var}$. Also, we denote by
$\theta[X_1\mapsto v_1,\ldots,X_n\mapsto v_n]$ the \emph{update} of
$\theta$ with the mapping $X_1\mapsto v_1,\ldots,X_n\mapsto v_n$,
i.e., it denotes a new substitution $\theta'$ such that $\theta'(X) =
v_i$ if $X = X_i$, for some $i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$, and $\theta'(X) =
\theta(X)$ otherwise.
In a case expression
``$
\mathsf{case}~e~\mathsf{of} ~ p_1~\mathsf{when}~e_1 \to
e'_1;
\ldots; ~
p_n~\mathsf{when}~e_n \to e'_n~~\mathsf{end}
$''\!\!,
we first evaluate
$e$ to a value, say $v$; then, we should find (if any) the first
clause $p_i ~\mathsf{when}~e_i\to e'_i$ such that $v$ matches
$p_i$ (i.e., there exists a substitution $\sigma$ for the variables
of $p_i$ such that $v=p_i\sigma$) and $e_i\sigma$---the
\emph{guard}---reduces to $\emph{true}$; then, the
case expression reduces to $e'_i\sigma$. Note that guards can only
contain calls to built-in functions (typically, arithmetic and
relational operators).
As for the concurrent features of the language, we consider that a
\emph{system} is of a pool of processes that can only interact through
message sending and receiving (i.e., there is no shared memory). Each
process has an associated \emph{pid} (process identifier), which is
unique in a system. For clarity, we often denote pids with roman
letters $\mathrm{p},\mathrm{p'},\mathrm{p_1},\ldots$, though they are
considered values in our language (i.e., atoms). By abuse of notation,
when no confusion can arise, we refer to a process with its pid.
An expression of the form $\mathsf{spawn}(f/n,[e_1,\ldots,e_n])$ has,
as a \emph{side effect}, the creation of a new process with a fresh
pid $\mathrm{p}$ which is initialized with the expression
$\mathsf{apply}~f/n~(e_1,\ldots,e_n)$; the expression
$\mathsf{spawn}(f/n,[e_1,\ldots,e_n])$ itself evaluates to the new pid
$\mathrm{p}$.
The function $\mathsf{self}()$ just returns the pid of the current
process.
An expression of the form $\mathrm{p}\:!\: v$ evaluates to the value
$v$ and, as a side effect, stores the value $v$---the
\emph{message}---in the queue or \emph{mailbox} of process
$\mathrm{p}$.
Finally, an expression
``$
\mathsf{receive}~p_1~\mathsf{when}~e_1\to
e'_1;\ldots;p_n~\mathsf{when}~e_n\to e'_n~~\mathsf{end}
$''
traverses the messages in the process' queue until one of them
matches a branch in the receive statement; i.e., it should
find the \emph{first} message $v$ in the process' queue (if any) such
that $\mathsf{case}~v~\mathsf{of}~p_1~\mathsf{when}~e_1\to
e'_1;\ldots;p_n~\mathsf{when}~e_n\to e'_n~\mathsf{end}$ can be reduced; then, the
receive expression evaluates to the same expression to which the above
case expression would be evaluated, with the additional side effect of
deleting the message $v$ from the process' queue.
If there is no matching message in the queue, the process suspends its
execution until a matching message arrives.
\begin{example} \label{ex1} Consider the program shown in
Figure~\ref{fig-ex1}, where the symbol ``$\_$'' is used to denote an
\emph{anonymous} variable, i.e., a variable whose name is not
relevant. The computation starts with
``$ \mathsf{apply}~main/0~() $.\!'' Then, this process, say $P1$, spawns
two new processes, say $P2$ and $P3$, and then sends the message
``$world$'' to process $P3$ and the message $\{P3,hello\}$ to
process $P2$, which then resends ``$hello$'' to $P3$.
In our language,
there is no guarantee regarding which message arrives first to $P3$,
i.e., ``$\mathsf{apply}~main/0~()$'' can evaluate
nondeterministically to either $\{hello,world\}$ or
$\{world,hello\}$. This is coherent with the semantics of Erlang,
where the only guarantee is that if two messages are sent from
process $\mathrm{p}$ to process $\mathrm{p'}$ and both are
delivered, then the order of these messages is kept.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}{.6\linewidth}
$
\begin{array}{r@{~}l@{~~}r@{~}l}
main/0 = \mathsf{fun}~()\to & \mathsf{let}~P2 =
\mathsf{spawn}(echo/0,[\:]) \\
& \mathsf{in}~\mathsf{let}~P3 = \mathsf{spawn}(target/0,[\:]) \\
& \mathsf{in}~\mathsf{let}~\_ = P3\:!\: world \\
& \mathsf{in}~\mathsf{let}~P2\:!\:\{P3,hello\}\\[1ex]
\end{array}
$
\end{minipage}
\hspace{5ex}
\begin{minipage}{.35\linewidth}
$ \fbox{\xymatrix@R=12pt{
P1 \ar[rd]_{\{P3,hello\}} \ar[rr]^{world} & & P3 \\
& P2 \ar[ur]_{hello} & \\
}}
$
\end{minipage}\\[1ex]
\begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
$
\begin{array}{r@{~}l@{~~}r@{~}l}
target/0 = \mathsf{fun}~()\to & \mathsf{receive}\\
& \hspace{3ex}A \to \mathsf{receive}~
& echo/0 = \mathsf{fun}~()\to & \mathsf{receive}\\
& \hspace{11ex}B\to \{A,B\}
& & \hspace{3ex}\{P,M\}\to P\:!\: M~\\
& \hspace{8.5ex}\mathsf{end}& &\mathsf{end} \\
&\mathsf{end}
\end{array}
$
\end{minipage}
\caption{A simple concurrent program} \label{fig-ex1}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\section{The Language Semantics} \label{semantics-sec}
In order to set precisely the framework for our proposal,
in this section we formalize the semantics of the considered
language.
\begin{definition}[process]
A process is denoted by a tuple of the form
$\tuple{\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}$ where $\mathrm{p}$ is the pid of
the process, $(\theta,e)$ is the control of the state---which
consists of an environment (a substitution) and an expression to be
evaluated---, and $q$ is the process' mailbox, a FIFO queue with the
sequence of messages that have been sent to the process.
\end{definition}
A running \emph{system} is then a pool of processes, which is formally
defined as follows:
\begin{definition}[system]
A system is denoted by $\Gamma;\Pi$, where $\Gamma$ is a global
mailbox of the system (see below) and $\Pi$ is a pool of processes,
denoted by an expression of the form
$\tuple{\mathrm{p_1},(\theta_1,e_1),q_1} ~\& \cdots
\&~\tuple{\mathrm{p_n},(\theta_n,e_n),q_n}$, where ``$\&$'' is an
associative and commutative operator.
%
We typically denote a system by an expression of the form
$
\Gamma; \tuple{\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\&\Pi
$
to point out that $\tuple{\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}$ is an arbitrary
process of the pool (thanks to the fact that ``$\&$'' is associative
and commutative).
\end{definition}
The role of $\Gamma$ (which is similar to the ``ether'' in
\cite{SFB10}) will be clarified later, but it is essential to
guarantee that all admissible interleavings can be modelled with the
semantics. Here, we define $\Gamma$ as a set of FIFO queues among all
(non-necessarily different) pids, i.e., $\Gamma$ is made of elements
of the form $(\mathrm{p},\mathrm{q},[v_1,\ldots,v_n])$, where
$\mathrm{p},\mathrm{q}$ are (not necessarily different) pids and
$[v_1,\ldots,v_n]$ is a (possibly empty) ordered list of messages such
that $v_1$ is the oldest message and $v_n$ is the most recent one. For
simplicity, we assume that $\Gamma$ is initialized as follows: $\{
(\mathrm{p},\mathrm{q},[\:]) \mid \mathrm{p},\mathrm{q}~\mbox{are
pids}\}$. Then, we use the following notation: $\Gamma\cup
(\mathrm{p},\mathrm{q},v)$ denotes
$\Gamma\setminus\{(\mathrm{p},\mathrm{q},vs)\} \cup
\{(\mathrm{p},\mathrm{q},vs\mathtt{+\!+}[v]\}$, while $\Gamma\setminus
(\mathrm{p},\mathrm{q},v)$ denotes
$\Gamma\setminus\{(\mathrm{p},\mathrm{q},v:vs)\} \cup
\{(\mathrm{p},\mathrm{q},vs)\}$, where $\mathtt{+\!+}$ is the list
concatenation operator.
In the following, we denote by $\ol{o_n}$ the sequence of syntactic
objects $o_1,\ldots,o_n$ for some $n$. We also write $\ol{o_{i,j}}$
for the sequence $o_i,\ldots,o_j$ when $i\leq j$ (and the empty
sequence otherwise). We write $\ol{o}$ when the number of elements is
not relevant.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
$
\begin{array}{c}
(\mathit{Var}) ~ {\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta,X
\stackrel{\tau}{\too} \theta,\theta(X)}}
\hspace{2ex}
(\mathit{Tuple}) ~ {\displaystyle
\frac{\theta,e_i \stackrel{\ell}{\too}
\theta',e'_i~~~i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}}{\theta,\{e_1,\ldots,e_n\}
\stackrel{\ell}{\too} \theta',
\{\ol{e_{1,{i-1}}},e'_i,\ol{e_{{i+1},n}}\}}}\\[4ex]
(\mathit{List1}) ~{\displaystyle
\frac{\theta,e_1 \stackrel{\ell}{\too}
\theta',e'_1}{\theta,[e_1|e_2]
\stackrel{\ell}{\too} \theta',
[e'_1|e_2]}}
\hspace{2ex}
(\mathit{List2}) ~ {\displaystyle
\frac{\theta,e_2 \stackrel{\ell}{\too}
\theta',e'_2}{\theta,[e_1|e_2]
\stackrel{\ell}{\too} \theta',
[e_1|e'_2]}} \\[4ex]
(\mathit{Let1}) ~ {\displaystyle \frac{\theta,e_1
\stackrel{\ell}{\too} \theta',e'_1 }{\theta,\mathsf{let}~
X=e_1~\mathsf{in}~e_2
\stackrel{\ell}{\too} \theta',\mathsf{let}~
X=e'_1~\mathsf{in}~e_2}}
\hspace{1ex}
(\mathit{Let2}) ~ {\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta,\mathsf{let}~
X=v~\mathsf{in}~e
\stackrel{\tau}{\too} \theta[X\mapsto v],e}} \\[4ex]
(\mathit{Case1}) ~ {\displaystyle
\frac{\theta,e\stackrel{\ell}{\too}
\theta',e'}{\begin{array}{l}
\theta,\mathsf{case}~e~\mathsf{of}~cl_1;\ldots;cl_n~\mathsf{end}\\
\stackrel{\ell}{\too}
\theta',\mathsf{case}~e'~\mathsf{of}~cl_1;\ldots;cl_n~\mathsf{end}\\
\end{array}}}
\hspace{1ex}
(\mathit{Case2}) ~ {\displaystyle
\frac{\mathsf{match}(v,cl_1,\ldots,cl_n) = \tuple{\theta_i,e_i}}{\theta,\mathsf{case}~v~\mathsf{of}~cl_1;\ldots;cl_n~\mathsf{end}
\stackrel{\tau}{\too} \theta\theta_i,e_i}} \\[7ex]
(\mathit{Call1}) ~ {\displaystyle
\frac{\theta,e_i\stackrel{\ell}{\too}
\theta',e'_i~~~i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}}{\theta,\mathsf{call}~op~(\ol{e_n})
\stackrel{\ell}{\too}
\theta',\mathsf{call}~op~(\ol{e_{1,i-1}},e'_i,\ol{e_{i+1,n}})}}
\hspace{1ex}
(\mathit{Call2}) ~ {\displaystyle
\frac{\mathsf{eval}(op,v_1,\ldots,v_n)=v}{\theta,\mathsf{call}~op~(v_1,\ldots,v_n)
\stackrel{\tau}{\too} \theta,v}} \\[4ex]
(\mathit{Apply1}) ~ {\displaystyle
\frac{\theta,e_i\stackrel{\ell}{\too}
\theta',e'_i~~~i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}}{\theta,\mathsf{apply}~a/n~(\ol{e_n})
\stackrel{\ell}{\too}
\theta',\mathsf{apply}~a/n~(\ol{e_{1,i-1}},e'_i,\ol{e_{i+1,n}})}}\\[5ex]
(\mathit{Apply2}) ~ {\displaystyle
\frac{\mu(a/n) = \mathsf{fun}~(X_1,\ldots,X_n)\to e}{\theta,\mathsf{apply}~a/n~(v_1,\ldots,v_n)
\stackrel{\tau}{\too} \{X_1\mapsto v_1,\ldots,X_n\mapsto v_n\},e}}
\end{array}
$
\caption{Standard semantics: evaluation of sequential expressions} \label{fig:seq-rules}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
$
\begin{array}{r@{~}c}
(\mathit{Send1}) & {\displaystyle
\frac{\theta,e_1 \stackrel{\ell}{\too} \theta',e'_1}{\theta,e_1\:!\: e_2 \stackrel{\ell}{\too}
\theta',e'_1\:!\: e_2} ~~~~ \frac{\theta,e_2 \stackrel{\ell}{\too} \theta',e'_2}{\theta,e_1\:!\: e_2 \stackrel{\ell}{\too}
\theta',e_1\:!\: e'_2}
}\\[4ex]
(\mathit{Send2}) & {\displaystyle
\frac{}{\theta,v_1\:!\: v_2 \stackrel{\mathsf{send}(v_1,v_2)}{\too} \theta,v_2}
}\\[4ex]
(\mathit{Receive}) & {\displaystyle
\frac{}{\theta,\mathsf{receive}~cl_1;\ldots;cl_n~\mathsf{end}
\stackrel{\mathsf{rec}(y,\ol{cl_n})}{\too}
\theta,y
}
}\\[4ex]
(\mathit{Spawn}) & {\displaystyle
\frac{}{\theta,\mathsf{spawn}(a/n,[e_1,\ldots,e_n])
\stackrel{\mathsf{spawn}(y,a/n,[\ol{e_n}])}{\too} \theta,y
}}\\[4ex]
(\mathit{Self}) & {\displaystyle
\frac{}{\theta,\mathsf{self}() \stackrel{\mathsf{self}(y)}{\too} \theta,y}}
\end{array}
$
\caption{Standard semantics: evaluation of concurrent expressions} \label{fig:concurrent-rules}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}
The semantics is defined by means of two transition relations: $\too$
for expressions and $\longmapsto$ for systems. Let us first consider
the labelled transition relation
\[
\too\; : (Env,Exp)\times Label\times(Env,Exp)
\]
where $Env$ and $Exp$ are the domains of environments (i.e.,
substitutions) and expressions, respectively, and $Label$ denotes an
element of the set
\[
\{\tau, \mathsf{send}(v_1,v_2),
\mathsf{rec}(y,\ol{cl_n}), \mathsf{spawn}(y,a/n,[\ol{e_n}]),
\mathsf{self}(y)\}
\]
whose meaning will be explained below.
For clarity, we divide the transition rules of the semantics for
expressions in two sets, depicted in Figures~\ref{fig:seq-rules} and
\ref{fig:concurrent-rules} for sequential and concurrent expressions,
respectively.
Most of the rules are self-explanatory. In the following, we only
discuss some subtle or complex issues. In principle, the transitions
are labelled either with $\tau$ (a sequential expression) or with a
label that identifies a concurrent action. Labels are used in the
system rules (Figure~\ref{fig:system-rules}) to perform the associated
side effects.
In some of the rules (e.g., for evaluating tuples, lists, etc) we
consider for simplicity that elements are evaluated in a
non-deterministic way. In an actual programming language the order of
evaluation of the arguments in the tuple or list is usually
fixed. E.g., in Erlang, reduction takes place from left to right.
For case evaluation, we assume an auxiliary function $\mathsf{match}$
which selects the first clause, $cl_i = (p_i~\mathsf{when}~e'_i\to
e_i)$, such that $v$ matches $p_i$, i.e., $v=\theta_i(p_i)$, and the
guard holds, i.e.,
$
\theta\theta_i,e'_i \too^\ast \theta',true
$. Note that, for simplicity, we do not consider here the case in which
the argument $v$ matches no clause.
Function calls can either be defined in the program ($\mathsf{apply}$)
or be a built-in ($\mathsf{call}$). In the latter case, they are
evaluated using the auxiliary function $\mathsf{eval}$.
In rule $\mathit{Apply2}$, we consider that the mapping $\mu$ stores
all function definitions, i.e., it maps every function name $a/n$ to
its definition $\mathsf{fun}~(X_1,\ldots,X_n)\to e$ in the program.
As for the applications, note that we only consider first-order
functions. In order to extend our semantics to also consider
higher-order functions, one should reduce the function name to a
\emph{closure} of the form $(\theta',\mathsf{fun}~(X_1,\ldots,X_n)\to
e)$ and, then, reduce $e$ in the environment $\theta'[X_1\mapsto
v_1,\ldots,X_n\mapsto v_n]$. We skip this extension since it is
orthogonal to our approach.
Let us now consider the evaluation of concurrent expressions that
produce some side effect (Figure~\ref{fig:concurrent-rules}). Here, we
can distinguish two kinds of rules. On the one hand, we have the rules
for ``$!$'', $\mathit{Send1}$ and $\mathit{Send2}$. In this case, we
know \emph{locally} what the expression should be reduced to (i.e.,
$v_2$ in rule $\mathit{Send2}$). For the remaining rules, this is not
known locally and, thus, we return a fresh distinguished symbol,
$y\not\in\mathit{Var}$ (by abuse, $y$ is dealt with as a variable), so
that the system rules will eventually bind $y$ to its correct
value. This \emph{trick} allows us to keep the rules for expressions
and systems separated (i.e., the semantics shown in
Figures~\ref{fig:seq-rules} and \ref{fig:concurrent-rules} is mostly
independent from the rules in Figure~\ref{fig:system-rules}), in
contrast to other calculi, e.g., \cite{CMRT13tr}, where they are
combined into a single transition relation.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
$
\begin{array}{r@{~~}c}
(\mathit{Exp}) & {\displaystyle
\frac{\theta,e\stackrel{\tau}{\to} \theta',e'
}{\Gamma;\tuple{\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\& \Pi \longmapsto
\Gamma;\tuple{\mathrm{p},(\theta',e'),q}\& \Pi}
}\\[4ex]
(\mathit{Send}) & {\displaystyle
\frac{\theta,e \stackrel{\mathsf{send}(\mathrm{p''},v)}{\to}
\theta',e'}{\Gamma;\tuple{\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}
\& \Pi \longmapsto \Gamma\cup (\mathrm{p},\mathrm{p''},v);\tuple{\mathrm{p},(\theta',e'),q}\& \Pi}
}\\[4ex]
(\mathit{Receive}) & {\displaystyle
\frac{\theta,e \stackrel{\mathsf{rec}(y,\ol{cl_n})}{\to}
\theta',e'~~~ \mathsf{matchrec}(\ol{cl_n},q) =
(\theta_i,e_i,q')
{\Gamma;\tuple{\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\& \Pi \longmapsto
\Gamma;\tuple{\mathrm{p},(\theta'\theta_i,e'\{y\mapsto e_i\}),q'}\& \Pi}
}\\[4ex]
(\mathit{Spawn}) & {\displaystyle
\frac{\theta,e \stackrel{\mathsf{spawn}(y,a/n,[\ol{e_n}])}{\to}
\theta',e'~~~ \mathrm{p'}~\mbox{is a fresh pid}
{\Gamma;\tuple{\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}
\& \Pi \longmapsto \Gamma;\tuple{\mathrm{p},(\theta',e'\{y\mapsto \mathrm{p'}\}),q}\& \tuple{\mathrm{p'},(\theta',\mathsf{apply}~a/n~(e_1,\ldots,e_n)),[\:]}
\& \Pi}
}\\[4ex]
(\mathit{Self}) & {\displaystyle
\frac{\theta,e \stackrel{\mathsf{self}(y)}{\to} \theta',e'
{\Gamma;\tuple{\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}
\& \Pi \longmapsto \Gamma;\tuple{\mathrm{p},(\theta',e'\{y\mapsto \mathrm{p}\}),q}
\& \Pi }
}\\[4ex]
(\mathit{Sched}) & {\displaystyle
\frac{\alpha(\Gamma)=(\mathrm{p'},\mathrm{p})~~~~\Pi=\tuple{\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\&\Pi'}{\Gamma;\Pi
\longmapsto \Gamma\setminus\{(\mathrm{p'},\mathrm{p},v)\};\tuple{\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),v\!:\! q}\&\Pi' }
}
\end{array}
$
\caption{Standard semantics: system rules} \label{fig:system-rules}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}
Let us finally consider the system rules, which are depicted in
Figure~\ref{fig:system-rules}. In most of the rules, we consider an
arbitrary system of the form
$
\Gamma;\tuple{\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\& \Pi
$,
where $\Gamma$ is the global mailbox and
$\tuple{\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\& \Pi$ is a pool of process that
contains at least one process $\tuple{\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}$.
Note that, in rule $\mathit{Send}$, we add the triple
$(\mathrm{p},\mathrm{p''},v)$ to $\Gamma$ instead of adding it to the
queue of process $\mathrm{p''}$. This is necessary to ensure that all
possible non-deterministic results can be obtained (as discussed in
Example~\ref{ex1}).
Observe that $e'$ is usually different from
$v$ since $e$ may have different nested operators. E.g., if $e$ has
the form ``$\mathsf{case}~\mathrm{p}\:!\:
v~\mathsf{of}~\{\ldots\}$,\!'' then $e'$ will be ``$\mathsf{case}~
v~\mathsf{of}~\{\ldots\}$'' with label $\mathsf{send}(\mathrm{p},v)$.
In rule $\mathit{Receive}$, we use the auxiliary function
$\mathsf{matchrec}$ to evaluate a receive expression. The main
difference with $\mathsf{match}$ is that $\mathsf{matchrec}$ also
takes a queue $q$ and returns the modified queue $q'$. Then, the
distinguished variable $y$ is bound to the expression in the selected
clause, $e_i$, and the environment is extended with the matching
substitution.
If no message in the queue $q$ matches any clause, then the rule is
not applicable and the selected process cannot be reduced (i.e., it
suspends).
With the rules presented so far, any system will soon reach a state in
which no reduction can be performed, since messages are stored in the
global mailbox, but they are not dispatched to the queues of the
processes. This is precisely the task of the scheduler, which is
modelled by rule $\mathit{Sched}$. The rule is non-deterministic, so
any scheduling policy can be modelled by the semantics. A message is
selected from the list of messages by the auxiliary function $\alpha$,
which can select any arbitrary pair of (non-necessarily different)
pids $(\mathrm{p'},\mathrm{p})$.
Note that we take the oldest message in the queue---the first one in
the list---, which is necessary to ensure that ``the messages
sent---directly---between two given processes arrive in the same order
they were sent'', as mentioned in the previous section.
\begin{example} \label{ex2} Let us consider the program shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:ex2-program} and a possible execution trace. This
trace is modelled by our semantics. For clarity, we only show in
Figure~\ref{fig:ex2-derivation} the transition steps that correspond
to the last two messages sent between $\mathit{client1}$ and
$\mathit{server}$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\scriptsize
\centering
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}\hspace{-8ex}
$
\begin{array}{r@{~}ll}
main/0 = \mathsf{fun}~()\to & \mathsf{let}~S =
\mathsf{spawn}(server/0,[\:])\\
& \mathsf{in}~\mathsf{let}~\_ = \mathsf{spawn}(client/1,[S]) \\
& \mathsf{in}~\mathsf{apply}~client/1~(S)\\[1ex]
server/0 = \mathsf{fun}~()\to & \mathsf{receive}\\
&\hspace{0ex}\{P,M\}\to \mathsf{let}~\_=P\:!\:
ack~\\
&\hspace{11ex}\mathsf{in}~\mathsf{apply}~server/0~()\\
&\mathsf{end}\\[1ex]
client/1 = \mathsf{fun}~(S)\to &
\mathsf{let}~\_=S\:!\:\{\mathsf{self}(),req\} \\
& \mathsf{in}~\mathsf{receive}\\
&\hspace{3ex} \mathsf{ack}\to \mathsf{ok}\\
& \mathsf{end} \\
\end{array}
$
\end{minipage}
\hspace{5ex}
\begin{minipage}{.4\linewidth}
$
\xymatrix@R=8pt@C=2pt{
main/0 \ar@{=}[d] & & \\
\underline{client1} \ar@{..}[ddd] \ar@/^/[r]_{\mathsf{spawn}}
\ar@/^{8mm}/[rr]_{\mathsf{spawn}}
& \underline{server} \ar@{..}[d] &
\underline{client2} \ar@{..}[d] \\
& \mathsf{receive}
\ar@{..}[d] & server\:!\:req \ar@{..}[d]
\ar[l]\\
& client2\:!\: ack \ar@{..}[d]
\ar[r] & \mathsf{receive}
\ar@{..}[d] \\
\blue{server\:!\: req} \ar@{..}[d] \ar@[blue][r] & \blue{\mathsf{receive}}
\ar@{..}[d] & ok \\
\blue{\mathsf{receive}} \ar@{..}[d] & \ar@[blue][l] \blue{client1\:!\:ack} \ar@{..}[d] & \\
\blue{ok} & \blue{\mathsf{receive}} & \\
}
$
\end{minipage}
\caption{A simple client-server} \label{fig:ex2-program}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\scriptsize
\centering
$
\begin{array}{l@{~}r@{~}l@{~}l@{~}l@{~}l@{~}l@{~}l@{~}l@{~}l@{~}}
& [\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(id,\underline{\mathsf{apply}~main/0~()}),[\:]} \\[0ex]
\comment
\longmapsto &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(id,\mathsf{let}~S =
\underline{\mathsf{spawn}(server/0,[\:])}~\mathsf{in}\ldots),[\:]} \\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(id,\underline{\mathsf{let}~S =
\mathrm{s}~\mathsf{in}\ldots}),[\:]} ~\&~ \tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{apply}~server/0~()),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\underline{\mathsf{spawn}(client/0,[S])}~\mathsf{in}\ldots),[\:]}
~ \& ~
\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{apply}~server/0~()),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\underline{\mathsf{let}~\_=\mathrm{c2}~\mathsf{in}\ldots}),[\:]}
~ \& ~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{apply}~server/0~()),[\:]}
~ \& \\
& & \tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,\mathsf{apply}~client/1~(S)),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{apply}~client/1~(S)),[\:]}
~ \& ~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\underline{\mathsf{apply}~server/0~()}),[\:]}
~ \& \\
& &\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,\mathsf{apply}~client/1~(S)),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{apply}~client/1~(S)),[\:]}
~ \& ~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \& \\
& &\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,\underline{\mathsf{apply}~client/1~(S)}),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{apply}~client/1~(S)),[\:]}
~ \& ~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \& \\
& &\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=S\:!\:\{\underline{\mathsf{self}()},req\}~\mathsf{in}\ldots),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{apply}~client/1~(S)),[\:]}
~ \& ~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\underline{S\:!\:\{\mathrm{c2},req\}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[(\mathrm{c2},\mathrm{s},\{\mathrm{c2},req\})]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{apply}~client/1~(S)),[\:]}
~ \& ~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,\underline{\mathsf{let}~\_=\{\mathrm{c2},req\}~\mathsf{in}\ldots}),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\underline{(\mathrm{c2},\mathrm{s},\{\mathrm{c2},req\})}]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{apply}~client/1~(S)),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{apply}~client/1~(S)),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\underline{\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots}),[\{\mathrm{c2},req\}]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{apply}~client/1~(S)),[\:]}
~ \& ~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(\theta_1,\mathsf{let}~\_=\underline{P\:!\:ack}~\mathsf{in}\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[(\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c2},ack)]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{apply}~client/1~(S)),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(\theta_1,\underline{\mathsf{let}~\_=ack~\mathsf{in}\ldots}),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[(\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c2},ack)]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{apply}~client/1~(S)),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(\theta_1,\underline{\mathsf{apply}~server/0~()}),[\:]}
~ \& \\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\underline{(\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c2},ack)}]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{apply}~client/1~(S)),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{apply}~client/1~(S)),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,\underline{\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots}),[ack]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\underline{\mathsf{apply}~client/1~(S)}),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=S\:!\: \{\underline{\mathsf{self}()},req\}~\mathsf{in}\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto & \ldots \\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\underline{S\:!\: \{\mathrm{c1},req\}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[(\mathrm{c1},\mathrm{s},[v_2])]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\underline{\mathsf{let}~\_=\{\mathrm{c1},req\}~\mathsf{in}\ldots}),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\underline{(\mathrm{c1},\mathrm{s},[v_2])}]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\underline{\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots}),[\{\mathrm{c1},req\}]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(\theta_2,\mathsf{let}~\_=\underline{P\:!\: ack}~\mathsf{in}~\ldots),[\{\mathrm{c1},req\}]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[(\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c1},[ack])]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(\theta_2,\underline{\mathsf{let}~\_=ack~\mathsf{in}~\ldots}),[\{\mathrm{c1},req\}]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[(\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c1},[ack])]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(\theta_2,\underline{\mathsf{apply}~server/0~()}),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\underline{(\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c1},[ack])}]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\underline{\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots}),[ack]}
~ \&~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\longmapsto &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\
\end{array}
$
\caption{A trace with $\sigma=\{S\mapsto \mathrm{s}\}$,
$\theta_2 = \{P\mapsto \mathrm{c1},M\mapsto req\}$, and $v_2 =
\{\mathrm{c1},req\}$.} \label{fig:ex2-derivation}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\section{Reversible Semantics}
In this section, we introduce a reversible extension of the semantics
defined so far.
Moreover, thanks to our modular design, the semantics for the language
expressions needs not be changed.
To be precise, in this section we introduce two transition relations:
$\rightharpoonup$ and $\leftharpoondown$. The first relation,
$\rightharpoonup$, is a conservative extension of the standard
semantics $\longmapsto$ (Figure~\ref{fig:system-rules}) to also
include some additional information in the states, following a typical
Landauer's embedding. We refer to $\rightharpoonup$ as the
\emph{forward} reversible semantics (or simply the forward
semantics). In contrast, the second relation, $\leftharpoondown$, proceeds in the backwards
direction, ``undoing'' the actions of a single process (and, by causal
consistency, possibly propagating it to other processes). We refer to
$\leftharpoondown$ as the backward (reversible) semantics. Finally,
we denote the union $\rightharpoonup\cup\leftharpoondown$ by
$\rightleftharpoons$. Then, in a computation modelled with
$\rightleftharpoons$ the system mainly evolves forwards, except for
some processes that can run backwards in order to undo some particular
actions (and, afterwards, will run forwards again).
Here, we will introduce a (non-deterministic) ``undo'' operation (cf.\
rules \textit{Undo1} and \textit{Undo2} in Figure~\ref{marking-rules})
which has some similarities to, e.g., the rollback operator of
\cite{GLM14}. In order to delimit the scope of this operation (i.e.,
to determine when to stop undoing the actions of a process), we allow
the programmer to introduce \emph{checkpoints} in a
program. Syntactically, they are denoted with the built-in function
\textsf{check}, which is used in a let expression as follows: ``$
\mathsf{let}~\_=\mathsf{check}~\mathsf{in}~expr $''\!\!. Function
$\mathsf{check}$ returns an identifier $\mathtt{t}$ associated to the
checkpoint (see below).
In the following, we consider that the rules to evaluate the language
expressions (Figures~\ref{fig:seq-rules} and
\ref{fig:concurrent-rules}) are extended with the following rule:
\[
\hspace{18ex}(\mathit{Check}) ~~ {\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta,\mathsf{{check}
\stackrel{\mathsf{check}(y)}{\too} \theta,y}}}
\]
In the next section, we will see that the only effect of a call to
function \textsf{check} is to add a checkpoint in the trace of a given
process.
\subsection{Forward Semantics}
First, we introduce the forward (reversible) semantics. Since the
expression rules are the same (except for the additional rule for
$\mathsf{check}$ mentioned above), we will only introduce the
reversible system rules, which are shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:system-rules-reversible}. Processes now include a
memory $\pi$ that records the intermediate states of a process. Note
that we could optimize this in order to follow a strategy similar to
that in \cite{MHNHT07,NPV16,TA15} for the reversibility of functional
expressions, but this is orthogonal to our purpose in this paper, so
we focus only on the concurrent actions.
The rules are mostly self-explanatory. Here, we use a special symbol
$\#_{k}^\mathtt{t}$ for checkpoints, where $k$ denotes the type of
checkpoint and $\mathtt{t}$ is a (unique) identifier for the
checkpoint. The checkpoints introduced by the programmer, denoted by
$\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathtt{t}$, represent a \emph{safe} point in the
program execution, i.e., if we are undoing the actions of a given
process, we can safely stop the backward computation at any
checkpoint. Rollback operations (i.e., rules \textit{Undo1} and
\textit{Undo2} in Figure~\ref{marking-rules}) and checkpoints
introduced by the programmer lay the ground for defining \emph{safe}
sessions whose actions can be undone if, e.g., an exception occurs
before they are completed.
In practice, we distinguish three types of checkpoints:
\begin{itemize}
\item Checkpoints introduced by the programmer. These checkpoints
correspond to the evaluation of function \textsf{check} and are
denoted with $\#_\mathsf{ch}$.
\item Checkpoints associated to
receiving a message ($\#_\alpha$) and spawning a process
($\#_\mathsf{sp}$). These checkpoints are internal and only used to
ensure causal consistency.
\end{itemize}
Also, we now assume that all messages $v$ are transformed into a tuple
$\{\mathtt{t},v\}$ where $\mathtt{t}$ is a unique identifier for this
message. Consequently, receive expressions should ignore this part of
the message when matching with the corresponding patterns.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
$
\begin{array}{r@{~~}c}
(\mathit{Internal}) & {\displaystyle
\frac{\theta,e\stackrel{\tau}{\to} \theta',e'
}{\Gamma;\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\& \Pi \rightharpoonup
\Gamma;\tuple{\tau(\theta,e)\!:\!\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta',e'),q}\& \Pi}
}\\[4ex]
(\mathit{Check}) & {\displaystyle
\frac{\theta,e \stackrel{\mathsf{check}(y)}{\to} \theta',e'
~~~\mbox{and $\mathtt{t}$ is fresh}}{\Gamma;\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}
\& \Pi \rightharpoonup \Gamma;\tuple{\mathsf{check}(\theta,e)\!:\!\#_{\mathsf{ch}}^\mathtt{t}\!:\!\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta',e'\{y\mapsto \mathtt{t}\}),q}
\& \Pi }
}\\[4ex]
(\mathit{Receive}) & {\displaystyle
\frac{\theta,e \stackrel{\mathsf{rec}(y,\ol{cl_n})}{\to}
\theta',e'~~~ \mathsf{matchrec}(\ol{cl_n},q) = (\theta_i,e_i,q',\mathtt{t})}{\Gamma;\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\& \Pi \rightharpoonup
\Gamma;\tuple{\mathsf{rec}(\theta,e,q)\!:\!\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta'\theta_i,e'\{y\mapsto e_i\}),q'}\& \Pi}
}\\[4ex]
(\mathit{Send}) & {\displaystyle
\frac{\theta,e \stackrel{\mathsf{send}(\mathrm{p''},v)}{\to}
\theta',e'~~~\mbox{and $\mathtt{t}$ is fresh}}{\Gamma;\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}
\& \Pi \rightharpoonup
\Gamma\cup (\mathrm{p},\mathrm{p''},\{\mathtt{t},v\});\tuple{\mathsf{send}(\mathrm{p''},\theta,e,\mathtt{t})\!:\!
\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta',e'),q}\& \Pi}
}\\[4ex]
(\mathit{Spawn}) & {\displaystyle
\frac{\theta,e \stackrel{\mathsf{spawn}(y,a/n,[e_1,\ldots,e_n])}{\to}
\theta',e'~~~ \mathrm{p'}~\mbox{is a fresh pid}~~~\mbox{and $\mathtt{t}$ is fresh}}{\begin{array}{ll}
\Gamma;\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}
\& \Pi \rightharpoonup &
\Gamma;\tuple{\mathsf{spawn}(\theta,e,\mathrm{p'})\!:\!\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta',e'\{y\mapsto
\mathrm{p'}\}),q} \\
& \& \tuple{[\:],\mathrm{p'},(\theta,(\mathsf{apply}~a/n~(e_1,\ldots,e_n)),[\:]}
\& \Pi
\end{array}}
}\\[6ex]
(\mathit{Self}) & {\displaystyle
\frac{\theta,e \stackrel{\mathsf{self}(y)}{\to} \theta',e'}{\Gamma;\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}
\& \Pi \rightharpoonup \Gamma;\tuple{\mathsf{self}(\theta,e)\!:\!\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta',e'\{y\mapsto \mathrm{p}\}),q}
\& \Pi }
}\\[4ex]
(\mathit{Sched}) & {\displaystyle
\frac{\alpha(\Gamma)=(\mathrm{p'},\mathrm{p})~~~~\Pi=\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\&\Pi'}{\Gamma;\Pi
\rightharpoonup
\Gamma\setminus (\mathrm{p'},\mathrm{p},\{\mathtt{t},v\});\tuple{\alpha(\mathrm{p'},\mathrm{p},\{\mathtt{t},v\})\!:\!\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),\{\mathtt{t},v\}\!:\! q}\&\Pi' }
}
\end{array}
$
\caption{Reversible semantics: system rules} \label{fig:system-rules-reversible}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}
\begin{example} \label{ex3} Consider again the program shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:ex2-program}, where the function $client/1$ is now
defined as follows:
\[
\begin{array}{r@{~}l@{~}l@{~}}
client/1 = \mathsf{fun}~(S)\to &
\mathsf{let}~\_=\mathsf{check}~\mathsf{in} & \mathsf{let}~\_=S\:!\:\{\mathsf{self}(),req\} \\
&& \mathsf{in}~\mathsf{receive}~\mathsf{ack}\to \mathsf{ok}~\mathsf{end} \\
\end{array}
\]
and the execution trace shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ex2-derivation}.
The corresponding forward (reversible) computation is
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ex3-derivation}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\scriptsize
\centering
$
\begin{array}{l@{~}r@{~}l@{~}l@{~}l@{~}l@{~}l@{~}l@{~}l@{~}l@{~}}
& [\:]; & \tuple{[\:],\mathrm{c1},(id,\underline{\mathsf{apply}~main/0~()}),[\:]} \\[0ex]
\rightharpoonup & \ldots \\[0ex]
\rightharpoonup &
[\:]; & \tuple{\pi_i,\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\underline{\mathsf{check}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~ \tuple{\pi'_i,\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[.5ex]
\rightharpoonup &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathsf{check}(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={\mathsf{check}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\!:\!\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathsf{t_1}\!:\!\pi_i,\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\underline{\mathsf{let}~\_=\mathsf{t_1}~\mathsf{in}\ldots}),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&& \tuple{\pi'_i,\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[.5ex]
\rightharpoonup &
[\:]; &
\tuple{\tau(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\mathsf{t_1}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\!:\! \mathsf{check}(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={\mathsf{check}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\!:\!\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathsf{t_1}\!:\!\pi_i,\\
&& ~\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\underline{S\:!\: \{\mathrm{c1},req\}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
& & \tuple{\pi'_i,\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[.5ex]
\rightharpoonup &
[(\mathrm{c1},\mathrm{s},[\{\mathtt{t}_2,v_2\}])];
&
\tuple{\mathsf{send}(\mathrm{s},\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={S\:!\:
\{\mathrm{c1},req\}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots,\mathtt{t}_2)\!:\!
\tau(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\mathsf{t_1}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\\
&&~\!:\! \mathsf{check}(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={\mathsf{check}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\!:\!\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathsf{t_1}\!:\!\pi_i,\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\underline{\mathsf{let}~\_=\{\mathrm{c1},req\}~\mathsf{in}\ldots}),[\:]}
~ \&~\\
&& \tuple{\pi'_i,\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[.5ex]
\rightharpoonup &
[\underline{(\mathrm{c1},\mathrm{s},[\{\mathsf{t_2},v_2\}])}];
& \tuple{\tau(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\{\mathrm{c1},req\}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\!:\! \mathsf{send}(\mathrm{s},\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={S\:!\:
\{\mathrm{c1},req\}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots,\mathtt{t}_2)\!:\!
\tau(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\mathsf{t_1}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\\
&&~\!:\! \mathsf{check}(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={\mathsf{check}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\!:\!\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathsf{t_1}\!:\!\pi_i,\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~\\
&& \tuple{\pi'_i,\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~\tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[.5ex]
\rightharpoonup &
[\:]; & \tuple{\tau(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\{\mathrm{c1},req\}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\!:\! \mathsf{send}(\mathrm{s},\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={S\:!\:
\{\mathrm{c1},req\}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots,\mathtt{t}_2)\!:\!
\tau(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\mathsf{t_1}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\\
&&~\!:\! \mathsf{check}(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={\mathsf{check}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\!:\!\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathsf{t_1}\!:\!\pi_i,\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~\\
&&\tuple{\alpha(\mathrm{c1},\mathrm{s},\{\mathsf{t_2},v_2\})\!:\!\pi'_i,\mathrm{s},(id,\underline{\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots}),[\{\mathtt{t}_2,\{\mathrm{c1},req\}\}]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[.5ex]
\rightharpoonup &
[\:]; & \tuple{\tau(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\{\mathrm{c1},req\}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\!:\! \mathsf{send}(\mathrm{s},\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={S\:!\:
\{\mathrm{c1},req\}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots,\mathtt{t}_2)\!:\!
\tau(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\mathsf{t_1}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\\
&&~\!:\! \mathsf{check}(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={\mathsf{check}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\!:\!\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathsf{t_1}\!:\!\pi_i,\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~\\
&&
\tuple{\mathsf{rec}(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots,[\{\mathtt{t}_2,\{\mathrm{c1},req\}\}])\!:\! \alpha(\mathrm{c1},\mathrm{s},\{\mathsf{t_2},v_2\})\!:\!\pi'_i,\\
&& ~\mathrm{s},(\theta_2,\mathsf{let}~\_=\underline{P\:!\: ack}~\mathsf{in}~\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~ \tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\comment
\rightharpoonup &
[(\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c1},ack,\mathtt{t}_3)];
& \tuple{\pi_{i+4},\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~\\
&& \tuple{\mathsf{send}(\mathrm{c1},\mathtt{t}_3)\!:\!\pi'_{i+2},\mathrm{s},(\theta_2,\underline{\mathsf{let}~\_=ack~\mathsf{in}~\ldots}),[\{\mathrm{c1},req\}]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\rightharpoonup &
[(\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c1},ack,\mathtt{t}_3)];
& \tuple{\pi_{i+4},\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~\\
&& \tuple{\tau\!:\!\pi'_{i+3},\mathrm{s},(\theta_2,\underline{\mathsf{apply}~server/0~()}),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\rightharpoonup &
[\underline{(\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c1},ack,\mathtt{t}_3)}];
& \tuple{\pi_{i+4},\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~\\
&& \tuple{\tau\!:\!\pi'_{i+4},\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\rightharpoonup &
[\:]; & \tuple{\alpha(\mathrm{s},\mathrm{c1},ack,\mathtt{t}_3)\!:\!\#_\alpha^{\mathtt{t}_3}\!:\!\pi_{i+4},\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\underline{\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots}),[\{\mathtt{t}_3,ack\}]}
~ \&~\\
&& \tuple{\pi'_{i+5},\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[0ex]
\rightharpoonup &
[\:]; & \tuple{\mathsf{rec}(\mathtt{t}_3)\!:\!\pi_{i+5},\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}
~ \&~\\
&& \tuple{\pi'_{i+5},\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\
\rightharpoonup & \ldots \\
\end{array}
$
\caption{A (partial) trace with the forward reversible semantics.
} \label{fig:ex3-derivation}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
\subsection{Backward Semantics}
Now, we present the backward semantics. The rules can be split into
two groups: the ones required to trigger, manage, and finish a rollback
operation, and the ones that actually perform the backward computation.
We denote a process running backwards with
$\lfloor\mathrm{p}\rfloor_\Psi$, where $\Psi$ is the set of
\emph{pending} checkpoints that the backward computation of
$\mathrm{p}$ has to go through before resuming its forward
computation.
For instance, a process of the form
$\lfloor\mathrm{p}\rfloor_{\{\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathtt{t}\}}$ should go
backwards until a checkpoint $\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathtt{t}$ is found in
its trace, a process
$\lfloor\mathrm{p}\rfloor_{\{\#_\alpha^\mathtt{t}\}}$ should go
backwards until an event of the form
$\alpha(\ldots,\{\mathtt{t},\_\})$ is found in its trace, and a
process $\lfloor\mathrm{p}\rfloor_{\{\#_\mathsf{sp}^\mathtt{t}\}}$
should go backwards until its initial state is reached (i.e., it
should be completely undone). Furthermore, a process may have a set
with several pending checkpoints coming from different rollback
operations.
Once a checkpoint is reached, it is removed from set $\Psi$. When
$\Psi = \emptyset$, the process $\mathrm{p}$ can resume its forward
computation (from the last checkpoint).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\[
\begin{array}{r@{~~}c}
(\mathit{Undo1}) & {\displaystyle
\Gamma;\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q} \:\&\: \Pi
\leftharpoondown
\Gamma;\lfloor \tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\rfloor_{\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathtt{t}} \:\&\: \Pi }
\\[2ex]
(\mathit{Undo2}) & {\displaystyle
\Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\rfloor_{\Psi} \:\&\: \Pi
\leftharpoondown
\Gamma;\lfloor
\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\rfloor_{\Psi\cup \#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathtt{t}}\: \&\: \Pi }
\\[2ex]
(\mathit{Stop1}) & {\displaystyle
\Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\rfloor_{\emptyset} \:\&\: \Pi
\leftharpoondown
\Gamma;\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\: \&\: \Pi }
\\[2ex]
(\mathit{Stop2}) & {\displaystyle
\Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{[\:],\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\rfloor_{\{\#_\mathsf{sp}^\mathtt{t}\}} \:\&\: \Pi
\leftharpoondown
\Gamma;\Pi }
\\[2ex]
(\mathit{Check}) & {\displaystyle
\Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathtt{t}\!:\!\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\rfloor_{\Psi\cup \#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathtt{t}} \:\&\: \Pi
\leftharpoondown
\Gamma;\lfloor \tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\rfloor_{\Psi}\: \&\: \Pi }
\\[2ex]
(\mathit{Discard}) & {\displaystyle
\Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathtt{t}\!:\!\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\rfloor_{\Psi}
\:\&\: \Pi \leftharpoondown
\Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\rfloor_{\Psi}
\:\&\: \Pi ~~~~
\mbox{if $\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathtt{t}\not\in\Psi$}
}
\end{array}
\]
\caption{Backward semantics: rules for dealing with rollbacks}
\label{marking-rules}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}
Let us now explain the rules shown in Figure~\ref{marking-rules},
whose purpose is to mark (or unmark) a process for backward
computation.
The first two rules, $\mathit{Undo1}$ and $\mathit{Undo2}$, are used
to introduce a new rollback for a checkpoint $\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathtt{t}$
for some $\mathtt{t}$.
A backward computation ends when there are no pending checkpoints in
the set (rule $\mathit{Stop1}$) or when we reach a process with an
empty trace and a spawn checkpoint $\#_\mathsf{sp}^\mathtt{t}$ in the
set of pending checkpoints, so that the process is removed from the
system (rule $\mathit{Stop2}$).
Finally, if we reach a checkpoint $\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathtt{t}$ in the
trace of a process running backwards, we can either remove it from the
set of pending checkpoints (rule $\mathit{Check}$) or just ignore it
when it was not in the set of pending checkpoints (rule
$\mathit{Discard}$).\footnote{Note that this may happen often since
the evaluation of each function \textsf{check} introduces a
checkpoint $\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathtt{t}$ no matter whether a rollback
operation is run or not.}
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering
\[
\begin{array}{r@{~~}c}
(\mathit{Internal}) & {\displaystyle
\Gamma;\lfloor
\tuple{\tau(\theta,e)\!:\!\pi,p,(\theta',e'),q}\rfloor_{\Psi}
\:\&\: \Pi
\leftharpoondown \Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\pi,p,(\theta,e),q}\rfloor_{\Psi}\:\&\: \Pi
}
\\[2ex]
(\mathit{Check}) & {\displaystyle
\Gamma;\lfloor
\tuple{\mathsf{check}(\theta,e)\!:\!\pi,p,(\theta',e'),q}\rfloor_{\Psi}
\:\&\: \Pi
\leftharpoondown \Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\pi,p,(\theta,e),q}\rfloor_{\Psi}\:\&\: \Pi
}
\\[2ex]
(\mathit{Receive}) & {\displaystyle
\Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\mathsf{rec}(\theta,e,q)\!:\!\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta',e'),q'}\rfloor_{\Psi}\:\&\: \Pi
\leftharpoondown \Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\rfloor_{\Psi}\:\&\: \Pi
}
\\[2ex]
(\mathit{Send1}) & {\displaystyle
\begin{array}{l}
\Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\mathsf{send}(\mathrm{p''},\theta,e,\mathtt{t})\!:\!\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta',e'),q}\rfloor_{\Psi}\:\&\:
\Pi
\leftharpoondown \Gamma';\lfloor\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\rfloor_{\Psi}
\:\&\: \Pi\\
\hspace{20ex}\mbox{if}~(\mathrm{p},\mathrm{p''},\{\mathtt{t},v\})~\mbox{occurs
in}~\Gamma,~\mbox{with}~\Gamma' =
\Gamma\setminus\!\!\!\setminus(\mathrm{p},\mathrm{p''},v,\mathtt{t})
\end{array}
}\\[3ex]
(\mathit{Send2}) & {\displaystyle
\begin{array}{l}
\Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\mathsf{send}(\mathrm{p''},\theta,e,\mathtt{t})\!:\!\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta',e'),q}\rfloor_{\Psi}\:\&\:
\tuple{\pi'',\mathrm{p''},(\theta'',e''),q''}\:\&\: \Pi\\
\hspace{15ex}\leftharpoondown
\Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\rfloor_{\Psi} \:\&\:
\lfloor\tuple{\pi'',\mathrm{p''},(\theta'',e''),q''}\rfloor_{\#_\alpha^\mathtt{t}}\:\&\:
\Pi \\
\hspace{20ex}\mbox{if}~(\mathrm{p},\mathrm{p''},\{\mathtt{t},v\})~\mbox{does
not occur in}~\Gamma
\end{array}
}\\[5ex]
(\mathit{Spawn}) & {\displaystyle
\begin{array}{l}
\Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\mathsf{spawn}(\theta,e,\mathrm{p''})\!:\!\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta',e'),q}\rfloor_{\Psi}
\:\&\:
\tuple{\pi'',\mathrm{p''},(\theta'',e''),q'')}
\:\&\: \Pi
\\
\hspace{10ex}\leftharpoondown
\Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\rfloor_{\Psi}
\:\&\:
\lfloor\tuple{\pi'',\mathrm{p''},(\theta'',e''),q'')}\rfloor_{\#_\mathsf{sp}^\mathrm{p''}}
\:\&\: \Pi
\end{array}
}\\[4ex]
(\mathit{Self}) & {\displaystyle
\Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\mathsf{self}(\theta,e)\!:\!\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta',e'),q}\rfloor_{\Psi}
\:\&\: \Pi \leftharpoondown
\Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\rfloor_{\Psi}
\:\&\: \Pi
}\\[2ex]
(\mathit{Sched1}) & {\displaystyle
\begin{array}{l}
\Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\alpha(\mathrm{p''},\mathrm{p},\{\mathtt{t},v\})\!:\!\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),\{\mathtt{t},v\}\!:\!
q}\rfloor_{\Psi\cup \#_\alpha^\mathtt{t}} \: \&\: \Pi
\leftharpoondown
\Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\rfloor_{\Psi}\:\&\:\Pi
\end{array}
}\\[2ex]
(\mathit{Sched2}) & {\displaystyle
\begin{array}{l}
\Gamma;\lfloor\tuple{\alpha(\mathrm{p''},\mathrm{p},\{\mathtt{t},v\})\!:\!\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),\{\mathtt{t},v\}\!:\!
q}\rfloor_{\Psi} \: \&\: \Pi \\
\hspace{15ex}\leftharpoondown
\Gamma\:\ol{\cup}\:(\mathrm{p''},\mathrm{p},\{\mathtt{t},v\});\lfloor\tuple{\pi,\mathrm{p},(\theta,e),q}\rfloor_{\Psi}\:\&\:\Pi
~~~~ \mbox{if $\#_\mathsf{\alpha}^\mathtt{t}\not\in\Psi$}
\end{array}
}
\end{array}
\]
\caption{Backward semantics: Rules for backward computation.} \label{concretesem4}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}
Let us now discuss the rules for performing backward computations,
which are shown in Figure~\ref{concretesem4}. In general, these rules
are applied whenever the term located at the top of the computation
history $\pi$ is an event associated to a sequential or concurrent
expression (i.e., when it is not a checkpoint). These terms are
deleted from the trace when any of these rules is applied.
In general, all rules restore the control (and sometimes also the
queue) of a process.
In order to reverse the creation of a process, rule $\mathit{Spawn}$
marks the child process with checkpoint $\#_\mathsf{sp}^\mathrm{p'}$.
The child process will then run backwards until, eventually, its trace
is empty and rule $\mathit{Stop2}$ removes it from the system.
For undoing the sending of a message, rule $\mathit{Send1}$ removes a
message from $\Gamma$ when the message has not been delivered
yet. Here, we use the operator ``$\setminus\!\setminus$'' to denote
the removal of a message no matter its position (in contrast to
``$\setminus$'' which always removes the oldest message of the list,
i.e., the first one).
Otherwise, rule $\mathit{Send2}$ propagates the backward
computation to the receiver process by adding $\#_\alpha^\mathtt{t}$
as a pending checkpoint of the receiver process ($\mathtt{t}$
identifies the message). This will cause the receiver process to undo
all the actions that it has performed since it received the message,
thus ensuring \emph{causal consistency}.
Observe that, at first glance, one may think rule $\mathit{Receive}$
should also introduce some new rollback operation for causal
consistency. However, if we take a closer look, we will realize that
receiving a message in our context is just about processing the
message, and not actually receiving it. In fact, the processed
message could have been delivered to the process mailbox a long time
ago, and triggering a backward computation on the sending process
would be unnecessary.
It is actually rules $\mathit{Sched1}$ and $\mathit{Sched2}$ that take
care of dealing with terms of the form
$\alpha(\mathrm{p}'',\mathrm{p},\{\mathtt{t},v\})$ in a trace. When the
rollback was introduced by another process (in rule $\mathit{Send2}$),
rule $\mathit{Sched1}$ removes the corresponding message
$\{\mathtt{t},v\}$ from the process queue and deletes the checkpoint
$\#_\alpha^\mathtt{t}$ from the set of pending checkpoints. No further
action is required; actually, when the process $\mathrm{p}''$ that
triggered rule $\mathit{Send2}$ resumes its forward computation, the
same message $v$ (with a different identifier $\mathtt{t}'$) will be
delivered again to process $\mathrm{p}$.
When the rollback was not introduced using rule $\mathit{Send2}$,
i.e., there is no checkpoint $\#_\alpha^\mathtt{t}$ in $\Psi$, then
$\mathit{Sched2}$ proceeds as before but also adds the message
$(\mathrm{p}'',\mathrm{p},\{\mathtt{t},v\})$ to the global mailbox
$\Gamma$. Then, when this process resumes its forward computation, the
same message will again be delivered by the scheduler. Here, the
operator $\ol{\cup}$ is used to add messages to the head of the
corresponding list instead of to its end, i.e., $\Gamma\:\ol{\cup}\:
(\mathrm{p},\mathrm{q},\{\mathtt{t},v\})$ denotes
$\Gamma\setminus\{(\mathrm{p},\mathrm{q},vs)\} \cup
\{(\mathrm{p},\mathrm{q},\{\mathtt{t},v\}:vs)\}$.
In both cases, we aim at eventually producing a system that could have
been obtained from the initial state using only forward steps.
\begin{example} \label{ex4} Consider the forward execution trace shown
in Figure~\ref{fig:ex3-derivation}. A corresponding backward
computation is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:ex4-derivation}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\scriptsize
\centering
$
\begin{array}{l@{~}r@{~}l@{~}l@{~}l@{~}l@{~}l@{~}l@{~}l@{~}l@{~}}
& [\:]; & \blue{\lfloor\langle \tau(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\{\mathrm{c1},req\}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\!:\! \mathsf{send}(\mathrm{s},\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={S\:!\:
\{\mathrm{c1},req\}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots,\mathtt{t}_2)\!:\!
\tau(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\mathsf{t_1}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)}\\
&&~\blue{\!:\! \mathsf{check}(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={\mathsf{check}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\!:\!\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathsf{t_1}\!:\!\pi_i,\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{receive}~ack\to\ldots),[\:]\rangle\rfloor_{\#_{\mathsf{ch}}^{\mathtt{t}_1}}}
~ \&~\\
&& \tuple{\mathsf{rec}(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots,[\{\mathtt{t}_2,\{\mathrm{c1},req\}\}])\!:\! \alpha(\mathrm{c1},\mathrm{s},\{\mathsf{t_2},v_2\})\!:\!\pi'_i,\\
&& ~\mathrm{s},(\theta_2,\mathsf{let}~\_={P\:!\: ack}~\mathsf{in}~\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~ \tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[.5ex]
\leftharpoondown
& [\:]; & \blue{\lfloor\langle \mathsf{send}(\mathrm{s},\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={S\:!\:
\{\mathrm{c1},req\}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots,\mathtt{t}_2)\!:\!
\tau(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\mathsf{t_1}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)}\\
&&~\blue{\!:\! \mathsf{check}(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={\mathsf{check}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\!:\!\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathsf{t_1}\!:\!\pi_i,\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\{\mathrm{c1},req\}~\mathsf{in}\ldots),[\:]\rangle\rfloor_{\#_{\mathsf{ch}}^{\mathtt{t}_1}}}
~ \&~\\
&& \tuple{\mathsf{rec}(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots,[\{\mathtt{t}_2,\{\mathrm{c1},req\}\}])\!:\! \alpha(\mathrm{c1},\mathrm{s},\{\mathsf{t_2},v_2\})\!:\!\pi'_i,\\
&& ~\mathrm{s},(\theta_2,\mathsf{let}~\_={P\:!\: ack}~\mathsf{in}~\ldots),[\:]}
~ \&~ \tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[.5ex]
\leftharpoondown
& [\:]; & \blue{\lfloor\langle
\tau(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\mathsf{t_1}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)}\\
&&~\blue{\!:\! \mathsf{check}(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={\mathsf{check}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\!:\!\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathsf{t_1}\!:\!\pi_i,\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={S\:!\:
\{\mathrm{c1},req\}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots,\mathtt{t}_2),[\:]\rangle\rfloor_{\#_{\mathsf{ch}}^{\mathtt{t}_1}}}
~ \&~\\
&& \blue{\lfloor\langle\mathsf{rec}(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots,[\{\mathtt{t}_2,\{\mathrm{c1},req\}\}])\!:\! \alpha(\mathrm{c1},\mathrm{s},\{\mathsf{t_2},v_2\})\!:\!\pi'_i,}\\
&& ~\blue{\mathrm{s},(\theta_2,\mathsf{let}~\_={P\:!\: ack}~\mathsf{in}~\ldots),[\:]\rangle\rfloor_{\#_\alpha^{\mathtt{t}_2}}}
~ \&~ \tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[.5ex]
\leftharpoondown
& [\:]; & \blue{\lfloor\langle
\mathsf{check}(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={\mathsf{check}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots)\!:\!\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathsf{t_1}\!:\!\pi_i,\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_=\mathsf{t_1}~\mathsf{in}\ldots),[\:]\rangle\rfloor_{\#_{\mathsf{ch}}^{\mathtt{t}_1}}}
~ \&~\\
&& \blue{\lfloor\langle\mathsf{rec}(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots,[\{\mathtt{t}_2,\{\mathrm{c1},req\}\}])\!:\! \alpha(\mathrm{c1},\mathrm{s},\{\mathsf{t_2},v_2\})\!:\!\pi'_i,}\\
&& ~\blue{\mathrm{s},(\theta_2,\mathsf{let}~\_={P\:!\: ack}~\mathsf{in}~\ldots),[\:]\rangle\rfloor_{\#_\alpha^{\mathtt{t}_2}}}
~ \&~ \tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[.5ex]
\leftharpoondown
& [\:]; & \blue{\lfloor\langle
\#_\mathsf{ch}^\mathsf{t_1}\!:\!\pi_i,\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={\mathsf{check}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots),[\:]\rangle\rfloor_{\#_{\mathsf{ch}}^{\mathtt{t}_1}}}
~ \&~\\
&& \blue{\lfloor\langle\mathsf{rec}(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots,[\{\mathtt{t}_2,\{\mathrm{c1},req\}\}])\!:\! \alpha(\mathrm{c1},\mathrm{s},\{\mathsf{t_2},v_2\})\!:\!\pi'_i,}\\
&& ~\blue{\mathrm{s},(\theta_2,\mathsf{let}~\_={P\:!\: ack}~\mathsf{in}~\ldots),[\:]\rangle\rfloor_{\#_\alpha^{\mathtt{t}_2}}}
~ \&~ \tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[.5ex]
\leftharpoondown
& [\:]; & \blue{\lfloor\langle
\pi_i,\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={\mathsf{check}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots),[\:]\rangle\rfloor_{\emptyset}}
~ \&~\\
&& \blue{\lfloor\langle\mathsf{rec}(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots,[\{\mathtt{t}_2,\{\mathrm{c1},req\}\}])\!:\! \alpha(\mathrm{c1},\mathrm{s},\{\mathsf{t_2},v_2\})\!:\!\pi'_i,}\\
&& ~\blue{\mathrm{s},(\theta_2,\mathsf{let}~\_={P\:!\: ack}~\mathsf{in}~\ldots),[\:]\rangle\rfloor_{\#_\alpha^{\mathtt{t}_2}}}
~ \&~ \tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[.5ex]
\leftharpoondown
& [\:]; & \langle
\pi_i,\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={\mathsf{check}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots),[\:]\rangle
~ \&~\\
&& \blue{\lfloor\langle\mathsf{rec}(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots,[\{\mathtt{t}_2,\{\mathrm{c1},req\}\}])\!:\! \alpha(\mathrm{c1},\mathrm{s},\{\mathsf{t_2},v_2\})\!:\!\pi'_i,}\\
&& ~\blue{\mathrm{s},(\theta_2,\mathsf{let}~\_={P\:!\: ack}~\mathsf{in}~\ldots),[\:]\rangle\rfloor_{\#_\alpha^{\mathtt{t}_2}}}
~ \&~ \tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[.5ex]
\leftharpoondown
& [\:]; & \langle
\pi_i,\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={\mathsf{check}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots),[\:]\rangle
~ \&~\\
&& \blue{\lfloor\langle\alpha(\mathrm{c1},\mathrm{s},\{\mathsf{t_2},v_2\})\!:\!\pi'_i,}
~\blue{\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\{\mathtt{t}_2,\{\mathrm{c1},req\}\}]\rangle\rfloor_{\#_\alpha^{\mathtt{t}_2}}}
~ \&\\
&&\tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[.5ex]
\leftharpoondown
& [\:]; & \langle
\pi_i,\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={\mathsf{check}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots),[\:]\rangle
~ \&~\\
&& \blue{\lfloor\langle\pi'_i,\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]\rangle\rfloor_{\emptyset}}
~ \&~\tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\[.5ex]
\leftharpoondown
& [\:]; & \langle
\pi_i,\mathrm{c1},(\sigma,\mathsf{let}~\_={\mathsf{check}}~\mathsf{in}\ldots),[\:]\rangle
~ \&~\\
&& \langle\pi'_i,\mathrm{s},(id,\mathsf{receive}~\{P,M\}\to\ldots),[\:]\rangle
~ \&~\tuple{\pi''_i,\mathrm{c2},(\sigma,ok),[\:]}\\
\end{array}
$
\caption{A (partial) trace with the backward reversible semantics.
} \label{fig:ex4-derivation}
\vspace{-2ex}
\end{figure}
\end{example}
The soundness of our reversible semantics can be stated as follows:
i) every forward step can be reversed;
ii) every system reached during a computation with
$\rightleftharpoons$, could have been reached with
$\rightharpoonup$ from the initial system.
\section{Discussion}
We have defined a reversible semantics for a first-order subset of
Erlang. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to
define a reversible semantics for Erlang.
As mentioned in the introduction, the closest to our work is the
debugging approach based on a rollback construct of
\cite{GLM14,LMSS11,LMS16,LLMS12}, but it is defined in the context of
a higher-order asynchronous $\pi$-calculus. Also, we share some
similarities with the checkpointing technique for fault-tolerant
distributed computing of \cite{FV05,KFV14}, although the aim is
different (they aim at defining a new language rather than extending
an existing one).
As future work, we plan to formally study the correctness of our
calculi, as claimed at the end of the previous section. Also, we would
like to extend the Erlang language with a new construct for \emph{safe
sessions} so that all the actions in a session can be undone when
the session aborts, which has a great potential to automate the
fault-tolerance capabilities of the language Erlang.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank Ivan Lanese and the anonymous reviewers for
many useful suggestions to improve this paper.
|
\section{Introduction}
\setlength{\parindent}{0.3cm}
\textnormal{\indent{Choosing} the right resource to get a recommendation on items is a critical component in human decision making. With the emergence of the web, consumers are being exposed to a huge number of choices. On the other side, sellers are challenged by of the diversity of users' interests. In addition to that, nowadays, it is easy to perform a large number of transactions in a small amount of time and as a result, the sale volume is increasingly growing. Recommender Systems (RS) are designed to address the natural dual need by both consumers and sellers. Current RS can be classified as Content Filtering and Collaborative Filtering approaches. RS generally use Collaborative Filtering because it uses the entire user-base information explicitly to recommend items. We will be focusing on Collaborative-Filtering and, for the rest of the paper, we will be referring to it as CF. The process of computing the similarity between users in CF requires that those users should share common rated items which is not practical in real life as systems generally process a large number of items. As a result, it is very likely to happen that two random users have no common items and the RS fail to predict a rating.\\
\indent{Inspired} by the work presented in \cite{Massa}, we propose a novel solution which uses trust network to achieve better rating prediction accuracy and a higher rating coverage.
Our key contributions are:\\
\textnormal{\indent{\textbf{Investigating factors effecting CF technique}}: We perform
extensive experimental evaluation of the CF algorithm performance on three real-world datasets (MovieLens, Epinions, Flixster) and show that CF performs differently on every dataset.
\\
\indent{\textbf{\emph{Trust-Aware Neighbourhood} Algorithm}}: We propose a novel approach to overcome the expensive execution time of \cite{Massa} by limiting the trusted neighbours involved in the rating prediction. We show a significant increase of the rating coverage and an improvement of the rating accuracy on Epinions and Flixster datasets.
\\
\indent{\textbf{\emph{Hybrid Trust-Aware Neighbourhood} Algorithm}}: Focusing on cold-start users, we propose an algorithm that incorporates user rating behaviour and trusted network to increase the neighbourhood and, as a results, increase the item rating coverage without the detriment to prediction accuracy. }}\vspace{-1.4em}
\section{Background and Related work}
\setlength{\parindent}{0.3cm}
\textnormal{\indent{The} basic idea behind CF technique is to recommend items for an active user by finding users who have similar rating behaviour as that active user.
The rating prediction for an item j by user a $P_{a,j}$ is calculated by
the following standard formula \cite{Su}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:weighted sum of others ratings}
P_{a,j}=\bar{r}_a+\frac{\sum_{u \in U}(r_{u,j}-\bar{r}_u)\cdot w_{a,u}}{\sum_{u \in U}|w_{a,u}|}
\end{equation}
Where {$\bar{r}_a$} and {$\bar{r}_u$} are the average ratings for user \emph{a} and \emph{u} on all other items and {$w_{a,u}$} is the weight between user \emph{a} and \emph{u}.}\\
\indent{Using} social information to improve RS is a recent active research field:
In \cite{Liu},
different approaches are implemented to select neighbours contributing to CF recommendation, with best rating accuracy achieved when nearest neighbours are aggregated with social friends. Even though authors proposed interesting approaches to incorporate social networks in RS, they used a laboratory environment to build the dataset (not an existing real life dataset).There are many example of trust-based models and SocialMF \cite{flixster} is one of them. \cite{flixster} uses Matrix Factorization technique and trust propagation mechanism for recommendation in social networks where social influence is injected in the recommendation model. Even though this model improved the rating prediction accuracy of the RS, the training phase execution time to learn the parameters of the model was expensive. Additionally, the authors did not consider the RS rating coverage evaluation metric. On the contrary, the main contribution in \cite{Hwang} was to improve the rating coverage by incorporating more users in the recommendation process by considering trustors as well as trustees as neighbours in the recommendation. While coverage was increased, the traditional techniques accuracy was preserved. In our work, we aim to increase the rating accuracy as well as the coverage. Similar results to \cite{Hwang} where achieved in \cite{Victor} where authors combined the best of traditional CF technique and trust-based recommendation techniques to present the \emph{EnsembleTrustCF}. While authors focused on a special type of items (controversial ones) ignoring other points (ex. scalability, execution time), our work covers all items and aims to increase the accuracy and coverage in an efficient manner. In \cite{Ma}, trust and distrust relationships are used separately to improve the recommendation prediction process. Authors suggest Matrix Factorization technique with regulations terms constraining the trust and distrust relationships between users and show a rating accuracy improvement. Even though this model is proven theoretically to be scalable over large datasets, it has only been tested on one relatively small dataset without studying the execution time of the model.
\vspace{-0.7em}
\section{Factors Affecting CF Technique}
\textnormal{\indent{Though} there is a huge commercial interest in CF technique, there is little published research on the relative performance of various factors including the similarity computation techniques and the dataset characteristics. User-based algorithm is a type of CF that computes the predicted rating $P_{a,j}$ based on rating information from neighbours defined as the set of users who rated the same item as active user $u_a$. This technique is a predominant type of CF algorithm that shows good prediction accuracy in practice \cite{Su}. One critical step in this algorithm is to compute the similarity between users $w_{a,u}$ which can be performed using various algorithms. In this work, we chose the following four standard similarity computation techniques: "Correlation",
"Vector-Similarity",
"Inverse-User-Frequency"
and "Case-Amplification"
that are used in \cite{MassaCode}.
To evaluate every technique, we use the following evaluation metrics: MAE, RMSE, MAUE (The average value of MAE for all users) and RMSUE (The average value of RMSE for all users)\cite{Su}. We will only be showing results of RMSUE due to space constraints.}
\vspace{-1.4em}
\subsection{Datasets}
\setlength{\parindent}{0.3cm}
\textnormal{\indent{We} experimented with three different real-world large datasets. The film recommendation MovieLens dataset,
Epinions dataset where products are reviewed by users
and Flixster dataset that comes from a social networking service where every user has
a list of friends coming from different social sites (e.g Facebook, Myspace). MovieLens and Epinions's ratings range from 1 to 5 while Flixster's ratings range from 1 to 10.
Table \ref{table:general statistics of datasets} summarizes the global statistics of the three used datasets:
\vspace{-1.5em}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\caption{MovieLens, Epinions and Flixster datasets Statistics}
\label{table:general statistics of datasets}
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
Name & Users & Items & Ratings & Spars. & Avg Rating \\ \hline
MovieLens & 943 & 1,682 & 100,000 & 93.67\% & 106.04 \\ \hline
Epinions & 49,290 & 139,738 & 664,824 & 99.99\% & 13.49 \\ \hline
Flixster & 1 million & 49,000 & 8.2 million & 99.98\% & 55.00 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\vspace{-3em}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\small
\caption{Percentage of different "cold-start" user types in the datasets}
\label{table:cold start in Flixster and Epinions}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
Users Types & \textit{MovieLens} &\textit{Flixster} & \textit{Epinions} \\ \hline
\textbf{"No-rating" }Users & 0 & 90.19 & 18.51 \\ \hline
\textbf{"Few-rating"} Users & 0 & 7.81 & 34.31 \\ \hline
\textbf{Total "Cold-start"} Users & 0 & 98.00 & 52.83 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\vspace{-1.5em}
\subsection{Similarity Computation Effect on CF}
\textnormal{\indent{Our} CF algorithm implementation is an extension to the "state of the art" RS library available in \cite{MassaCode}.}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\small
\includegraphics[width=2.6in] {EpinionsFixsterEpinions}
\caption{Similarity computation effect on MovieLens, Epinions and Flixster datasets}
\label{fig:EpinionsFixsterEpinions}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-1em}From Fig.\ref{fig:EpinionsFixsterEpinions} we notice that \emph{Case Amplification} generally is the worst among the other algorithms. This is because, unlike the others, this technique does not consider the weight value between users when computing the prediction. Next, MovieLens dataset has the lowest RMSUE value (0.9305 for "Correlation") compared to Epinions and Flixster datasets (1.2844 and 0.9762 respectively). We can further observe that CF algorithm performs better in Flixster dataset compared to Epinions.\\
\indent{From} those observations, our intuition is that (regardless of the similarity computation technique) the CF algorithm performs differently in the three datasets based on its characteristics. From Table \ref{table:cold start in Flixster and Epinions}, MovieLens dataset has 0\% of cold-start users (who have rated at least 20 items) and this may be the main reason behind its low RMSE values, which are statistically significantly better than the Flixster ones at the \emph{p} $<$ 0.01 level. The reason behind the fact that Flixster has better predictions compared to Epinions, even though more than half users are cold-start in both datasets (98.00\% and 52.83\% respectively), may be that every dataset has a different type of cold-start users. Cold-start users may either be users who have no ratings ("No-rating" users) or users with 1-5 ratings ("Few-rating" users). From Table \ref{table:cold start in Flixster and Epinions}, most cold start users in Flixster are "No-Rating" users (90.19\%) and, on the other hand, most cold-start users in Epinions are "Few-Rating" ones (34.31\%). "No-Rating" users do not effect the rating prediction because they do not contribute in the rating computation (they are not considered neighbours). On the contrary, "Few-Rating" users may badly effect the rating prediction because, even though few items are shared between the active user and those users, i.e. the rating behaviour is different, they still contribute in the prediction. Furthermore, the average rating in Flixster is 55.00 items per user but is 13.49 in Epinions (Table \ref{table:general statistics of datasets}). More ratings per user means more users contributing in the CF technique and leads to better rating prediction.
\section{Trust-Aware Neighbourhood}
\subsection{Overview}
\textnormal{\indent{It} is impossible to gather ratings from all users on all items. If we use "Trust network", we can overcome this limitation where trust network can be gathered from external social sites.
Motivated by this, we propose \emph{Trust-Aware Neighbourhood} (\emph{T-A Neighbourhood}) algorithm where we suggest a new definition of "neighbourhood". In \cite{Massa}, the distance for each user who rated item \emph{i} from user \emph{u} in the trust network needs to be computed. To void this expensive computation that we have tested and it took more than weeks to finish, we instead consider only the trusted users of \emph{u}. Our intuition is that there is a similar rating behaviour between users who trust each other. The method is not compared to baseline method because of computations limitation
Additionally, we expect the rating coverage to increase, especially with rich trust network datasets. Unlike \cite{Massa} where the weight in Eq.\ref{eq:weighted sum of others ratings} is considered an estimated trust value, the proposed algorithm uses the "Correlation" as the weight which is the key point to overcome the scalability issue in \cite{Massa} where we don't have to compute the minimum distance between the target user and all of its neighbours.\\}
\vspace{-2em}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]
{TrustAwareNeighbourhoodCF.jpg}
\caption{\emph{T-A Neighbourhood} Example}
\label{fig:Trust-Aware NeighbourhoodCF}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-1em}\\
\indent{Figure \ref{fig:Trust-Aware NeighbourhoodCF}} presents a demonstrative example of running \emph{T-A Neighbourhood} algorithm on an n$\times$m user-item rating matrix $\mathscr{A}$. For predicting $P_{5,13}$: First, we consider the list of neighbours of $u_5$ which is \{10,8,2\}, as opposed to \{8,2\} using \cite{Massa} technique ($P_{10,13}$ is not available) where d=1 or \{8,2,20,16\} where d=2. After computing the weights between users, Eq.\ref{eq:weighted sum of others ratings} is used to compute $P_{5,13}$. The demonstrative example shows how we can limit the neighbourhood list from \{8,2,20,16\} using \cite{Massa} to \{10,8,2\} using \emph{T-A Neighbourhood} in order to reduce the expensive execution time.
\vspace{-1em}
\subsection{Evaluation}
\textnormal{ \indent{The} datasets used for evaluation are: Epinions which contains 487,181 issued trust statements
and
7.2 direct neighbour per user
and Flixster dataset (users in Flixster can specify a list of friends so, for the context of trust networks, we assume a friend is a trusted user) which has 26.7 million social friendship relation and a 27 average friends per user.
Regarding the rating prediction accuracy (Fig.\ref{fig:Trust-Aware NeighbourhoodCF Results}), we can observe that, generally, \emph{T-A Neighbourhood} CF algorithm provides better rating prediction accuracy compared to traditional CF. For example, in Epinions dataset, the relative error was reduced from 1.2855 to 1.1509 on a random set containing 1,000 users. \emph{T-A Neighbourhood} is statistically significantly better than the traditional CF algorithm for both datasets Epinions and Flixster at the \emph{p} $<$ 0.01 level for all data samples. The difference in the results improvement in Epinions dataset is more obvious than in Flixster. Furthermore, the \emph{T-A Neighbourhood} performance is more substantial in smaller subsets of Epinions dataset where we used only 100, 500 and 1,000 users and we will later discuss the reason behind this behaviour.
\vspace{-1em}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.1in]{ResultsNeighbourhoodFlixsterEpinions-new}
\caption{\emph{T-A Neighbourhood} RMSUE/Rating Coverage on Flixster \& Epinions datasets for different user sets}
\label{fig:Trust-Aware NeighbourhoodCF Results}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-1em}
Fig. \ref{fig:Trust-Aware NeighbourhoodCF Results} also shows an increase of the rating coverage when using \emph{T-A Neighbourhood} algorithm compared to the traditional CF technique. For instance, in Flixster dataset, the rating coverage is almost doubled from 20.65\% to 53.98\% (1,000 user). Additionally, Flixster's rating coverage is higher than the Epinions's one (especially with 50,000 users).\\}
\textnormal{\indent{Results} showed a rating accuracy increase which may be a result of increasing the rating coverage. Our intuition is that the rating coverage increased in \emph{T-A Neighbourhood} compared to the traditional CF technique for two reasons: First, a user's average number of ratings is low compared to the average number users an active user trust. In Flixster, the average ratings per user is 8.2 (considering the "No Rating" cold-start users) compared to an average of 27.0 direct trusted user. Second, the amount of common items between neighbours in \emph{T-A Neighbourhood} technique is higher than the amount of those items in the traditional CF technique. This my be the main reason behind having an improvement of rating prediction accuracy in Epinions dataset (Fig \ref{fig:Trust-Aware NeighbourhoodCF Results}). Furthermore, experiments of having small subsets of the whole dataset presents the situation where we have a small item-rating matrix compared to a large trust network. Having a rich trust network does not only increase the number of neighbours for an active user, it also increase the amount of common items and, as a result, achieves a substantial improvement over the traditional CF algorithm. This behaviour is more obvious in Epinions subsets compared to Flixster subsets mainly because the average rating per user in Epinions is low compared to a higher user rating average in Flixster (13.49 and 55.00 respectively from Table \ref{table:general statistics of datasets}).
Note that running \emph{T-A Neighbourhood} algorithm on cold-starts, with fewer than 5 ratings, produces bad rating coverage (less than 1\% in Epinions dataset). Next, will present a solution to increase the rating coverage for such users.}
\textnormal{\\\indent{The} execution time of \emph{T-A Neighbourhood} takes {$O(m \times n \times t)$} steps in every prediction, where \emph{m} is the number of users, \emph{n} is the number of items and \emph{t} is the number of trust statements. This execution time depends on \emph{m} and \emph{t} values (as \emph{n} is usually small). \emph{T-A Neighbourhood} algorithm will be less expensive than \cite{Massa} if $t \times n$ value is smaller than $m^2$.
We observed from the experiments a drastic difference in execution time between the two algorithms where \cite{Massa} took 63 hours to run compared to 20 minutes of execution time of \emph{T-A Neighbourhood} technique. This is mainly because the number of items \emph{n} is small compared to the size of trust network \emph{t} and the product \emph{n}$\times$ \emph{t} is much less than $m^2$.}
\vspace{-1em}
\section{Hybrid Trust-Aware Neigh. }
\subsection{Overview}
\textnormal{\indent{To} overcome the low cold-start item rating coverage of \emph{T-A Neighbourhood} CF algorithm, we propose a new approach called \emph{Hybrid Trust-Aware Neighbourhood} (H T-A Neigh.). This novel technique suggests a new definition for "neighbourhood" suitable only for cold-starters users. According to the "Hybrid" approach, a neighbour is a user who rated an item \emph{i} or is a trusted user by the active user. We expect that the number of neighbours for an active cold-start user to increase and as a result, the rating coverage will increase.\vspace{-1.3em}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3in]{HybridTrustAwareNeighbourhoodCF.jpg}
\caption{\emph{H T-A neighbourhood} Example}
\protect
\label{fig:Hybrid trust-aware neighbourhood cf process}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-1.5em} \\}
\textnormal{\indent{Figure} \ref{fig:Hybrid trust-aware neighbourhood cf process} presents the process of \emph{H T-A Neigh.} algorithm on an \emph{n}$\times$\emph{m} user-item rating matrix. To compute $P_{5,13}$, for example, we first get the directly connected users to $u_5$ which are \{2,8,10\}. Next, we get users who rated $i_{13}$ \{2,8,11\}. The final list of neighbours is \{2,8,10\} $\cup$ \{2,8,11\} which is \{2,8,10,11\}. The "Correlation" between $u_5$ and any user $\in \{2,8,10,11\}$ is computed to predict $P_{5,13}$ using Eq.\ref{eq:weighted sum of others ratings}.}
\vspace{-2em}
\subsection{Evaluation}
\textnormal{\indent{Experiments} showed that Epinions cold-start user's RMSUE value was reduced from 1.49 with traditional CF to 1.47 with \emph{H T-A} approach and similar results were achieved for Flixster dataset. Furthermore, we achieved the same RMSUE values when using \emph{T-A Neigh.} and the \emph{Hybrid} approach. The rating accuracy was not further improved with the \emph{Hybrid} approach because few users are added to the recommendation (cold-start users have rated no more than 5 items) and this may not have an noticeable effect on the prediction accuracy.
Experiments also showed a jump in the rating coverage when using \emph{H T-A} over both traditional CF and \emph{T-A Neigh.}. Epinions's rating coverage increased from almost 0\% to 20.57\% while Flixster's coverage was almost doubled (59\% to 98\%). Flixster's item rating coverage was reduced from 59\% using traditional CF to 20\% using \emph{T-A Neighbourhood} algorithm because we used a random set of 5,000 trust statement (not the whole trust network) for memory space limitations. The rating coverage increase comes from the fact that we are incorporating more neighbours so the probability of having common items among users increases which means RS is able to rate more items. Additionally, Flixster dataset reached a rating coverage close to 100\% which means the RS can predict a rating for almost all items due to the high average user rating.}
\vspace{-1em}
\section{Conclusion}
\textnormal{\indent{We} proposed \emph{T-A Neigh.} algorithm that incorporates trust network in the rating prediction process and shows a substantial improvement in the item rating coverage and accuracy especially in Epinions dataset which has fewer ratings per user. Focussing on cold-start users, we proposed \emph{H T-A Neigh.} algorithm which reached a near complete rating coverage
for Flixster dataset while keeping the same \emph{T-A Neigh.} rating accuracy. We can further augment the work to an elastic cloud based environment implementation which takes as input a rating prediction to be computed $P_{u,i}$ and a specific budget limit. If the user has a large set of trusted users, then $P_{u,i}$ will be computed with a small value of the maximum propagation distance. If the user has few trusted users, then the algorithm increases the maximum propagation distance till reaching the budget limit. We expect this elastic algorithm to achieve high and efficient rating prediction accuracy value computation.}
\vspace{-1em}
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
Recall that an object $K$ is \textit{injective} to a morphism $f:A\to B$ in a category $\ck$ if, for every morphism $g:A\to K$, there is a morphism
$h:B\to K$ with $hf=g$. There is a well-developed theory of injectivity in locally presentable categories (see \cite{AR}), playing an important role
in both algebra and topology. This theory applies to Banach spaces, too, because the category $\Ban$ of (real or complex) Banach spaces and their linear operators
of norm at most 1 is locally $\aleph_1$-presentable (see \cite{AR}, 1.48). But in this category there is another --and probably more important-- concept, of so-called {\em approximate
injectivity} (see \cite{L}), which is based on the fact that $\Ban$ is enriched over metric spaces. The basic idea is to replace the commutativity of diagrams
by their $``$commutativity up to $\eps$". The aim of our paper is to develop a theory of approximate injectivity in metric enriched categories analogously
to that of injectivity in ordinary locally presentable categories, and apply it to $\Ban$. In particular, we present a largely categorical existence proof for the {\em Gurarii space}, which attracted renewed attention in several recent papers (see, for example,
\cite{ASCGM, GK, K2}).
Let us first clarify the categorical context of this paper in as concrete terms as possible. The category $\Met$ of metric spaces and non-expansive maps is neither complete nor complete, and the tensor product $X\otimes Y$, which for $X=(X,d), Y=(Y,d')$ puts the $+$-metric $d\otimes d'((x,y),(x',y'))=d(x,x')+d'(y,y')$ on $X\times Y$, fails to make $\Met$ monoidal closed. (Note that $X\otimes Y$ must not be confused with the Cartesian product $X\times Y$ in $\Met$, which is given by the max-metric.)
One therefore enlarges $\Met$ to the category $\Met_{\infty}$ of {\em generalized metric spaces}, by allowing distances to be $\infty$ while keeping all other requirements, including the type of morphisms. Then $\Met_{\infty}$ is complete and cocomplete and monoidal closed, with the internal hom
providing the hom-set $\Met_{\infty}(X,Y)$ with the sup-metric
$d''(f,g)=\sup\{d'(fx,gx)\;|\;x\in X\}$. In what follows, we will normally denote the (generalized) metric of a space by $d$, using annotations or variations only for the sake of clarity.
Throughout most of this paper, we will be considering a $\Met_{\infty}${\em -enriched category} $\ck$. Hence, $\ck$ has a class ${\rm ob}\ck$ of objects, and, for all $A,B,C\in{\rm ob}\ck$, there are hom-objects $\ck(A,B)$ in $\Met_{\infty}$ with non-expansive composition maps $\ck(B,C)\otimes\ck(A,B)\to\ck(A,C)$ and units $1\to \ck(A,A)$ (where 1 is a one-point metric space), satisfying the expected associativity and unity conditions. Interpretation of a $\Met_{\infty}$-arrow $1 \to \ck(A,B)$ as a morphism $A\to B$ defines the underlying ordinary category $\ck_0$ of $\ck$, which must be carefully distinguished from $\ck$ (see \cite{Kelly1} for details). Often we will nevertheless call a morphism in $\ck_0$ a morphism in $\ck$. Should all hom-objects $\ck(A,B)$ of the $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category $\ck$ happen to be ordinary metric spaces, we will allow ourselves to briefly call $\ck$ a $\Met$-{\em enriched category}.
Our principal examples of $\Met$-enriched categories arise from concrete categories $\ck$ over $\Met$, so that one has a faithful functor $U:\ck\to\Met$. Then the hom-set $\ck(A,B)$ can be considered a subspace of $\Met_{\infty}(UA,UB)$, and the composition maps of $\ck$ remain non-expansive.
The example of primary interest in this context is the category $\Ban$, to be considered as a concrete category over $\Met$ via the unit ball functor $U:\Ban\to\Met$, given by $\Ban(l_1(1),-)$,
where $l_1$ is the left adjoint to the unit ball functor $\Ban\to\Set$.
We have to carefully distinguish between limits in $\ck_0$ and \textit{(conical) limits} in $\ck$, the latter being limits of the former type ({\em i.e.}, limits in $\ck_0$) that are preserved by all representables $\ck(K,-):\ck_0\to\Met_{\infty}$ (see \cite{Kelly1}, section 3.8). For concrete $\Met$-categories, these are limits preserved by
$U:\ck\to\Met$. Likewise, \textit{conical colimits} in $\ck$ are colimits in $\ck_0$ preserved by the representables $\ck(-,K):\ck_0^{\op}\to\Met$, a property which,
for concrete $\Met$-categories, reduces to the preservation of colimits by $U$.
Recall that, for a regular cardinal $\lambda$, an object $K$ of the ordinary category $\ck_0$ is $\lambda$-{\em presentable} if its representable functor $\ck_0(K,-):\ck_0\to \Set$ preserves $\lambda$-directed colimits. $\ck_0$ is {\em $\lambda$-accessible} if it has all $\lambda$-directed colimits and a set $\ca$ of $\lambda$-presentable objects such that every object in $\ck_0$ is a $\lambda$-directed colimit of objects in $\ca$; if all small colimits exist, $\ck_0$ is {\em locally $\lambda$-presentable}. Accessible (locally presentable) means $\lambda$-accessible (locally $\lambda$-presentable, respectively) for some $\lambda$.
The underlying ordinary category of $\Met_{\infty}$ is locally $\aleph_1$-presentable (see \cite{LR}, 4.5(3)), and for $\lambda$ an uncountable regular cardinal, a generalized metric space $X$ is $\lambda$-presentable if, and only if, $|X|<\lambda$. An object $K$ in a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category $\ck$ is
$\lambda$-{\em presentable} (in the enriched sense) if $\ck(K,-):\ck\to\Met_{\infty}$ preserves $\lambda$-directed colimits. Again, the enriched notion must be distinguished from the ordinary notion of $K$ being $\lambda$-presentable in $\ck_0$,
which postulates only that the $\Set$-valued functor $\ck(K,-):\ck_0\to\Set$ preserve $\lambda$-directed colimits. Since, for $\lambda$ uncountable, the forgetful functor
$V:\Met_{\infty}\to\Set$ preserves $\lambda$-directed colimits, in this case $\lambda$-presentability of an object in $\ck$ implies its $\lambda$-presentability in $\ck_0$. But since $V$ does not create $\lambda$-directed colimits, the converse statement generally fails. However, following \cite{Kelly2} 5.5 and 7.4, it does hold for $\ck=\Met_{\infty}$, as well as in the case $\ck=\Ban$ when $\lambda$ is uncountable, as we confirm now with the following Lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{le1.1}
Let $\lambda$ be an uncountable regular cardinal. Then any Banach space $\lambda$-presentable in $\Ban_0$ is $\lambda$-presentable in $\Ban$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For an uncountable regular cardinal $\lambda$, a Banach space $A$ is $\lambda$-presentable in $\Ban_0$ if and only if it has a dense subset
of cardinality $<\lambda$. Consider a $\lambda$-directed colimit $(b_i:B_i\to B)_{i\in I}$ in $\Ban$ and a Banach space $A$ which is $\lambda$-presentable in $\Ban_0$.
We have to show that $\Ban(A,b_i):\Ban(A,B_i)\to\Ban(A,B)$ is a $\lambda$-directed colimit in $\Met$. Clearly, $V$ sends this cocone to a $\lambda$-directed colimit in $\Set$. Consider $f,g:A\to B$. It remains to be shown that $d(f,g)=\inf d(f_i,g_i)$, where $f=b_if_i$ and $g=b_ig_i$. Since $\lambda$ is uncountable,
for each $a\in A$ there is $i\in I$ such that $d(fa,ga)=d(f_ia,g_ia)$. Since $A$ has a dense subset of cardinality $<\lambda$, there is $i\in I$ such that
$d(f,g)=d(f_i,g_i)$.
\end{proof}
In the following section we briefly introduce the framework of $\eps$-commutativity (= ``commutativity up to $\eps$") in $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched categories, as well as the ensuing concept of $\eps$-(co)limit. Having presented $\eps$-versions of the notion of pure subobject in Section 3, we proceed to give sufficient conditions for a class of objects in a locally presentable $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched
category to be an $\eps$-injectivity class (Theorem \ref{th4.8}), which leads us to a full characterization of approximate injectivity (= $\eps$-injectivity, for all $\eps>0$) classes, in terms of their closure under products, directed colimits and appropriately generalized pure subobjects (Theorem \ref{th5.5}). The last section is devoted to presenting a categorical framework for constructing the Urysohn metric space and the Gurarii Banach space.
\section{$\varepsilon$-homotopy}
For any $\eps \in[0,\infty]$ and morphisms $f,g:A\to B$ in a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category $\ck$, we say that $f$ is $\eps${\em -homotopic} (or $\eps${\em -close} \cite{K}) to $g$, if $d(f,g)\leq\eps$ in the generalized metric $d$ of $\ck(A,B)$; we write
$$
f\sim_\eps g\Leftrightarrow d(f,g)\leq\eps.
$$
$f:A\to B$ is an $\varepsilon${\em -homotopy equivalence} if there exists $f':B\to A$ with $f'f\sim_\varepsilon\id_A$ and $ff'\sim_\varepsilon\id_B$.
(This concept is related to the Gromov-Hausdorff distance of $A$ and $B$; see \cite{L}, 2.4.)
The relation $\sim_\varepsilon$ is preserved by composition from either side, and it is reflexive and symmetric, but generally not transitive; rather, one has
the obvious {\em transitivity rule for $\eps$-homotopy}, which just rephrases the triangle inequality:
\[f\sim_\eps g \quad {\rm{and}} \quad g\sim_\delta h \Longrightarrow f\sim_{\eps+\delta} h.\]
$\eps${\em -commutativity} of diagrams in $\ck$ has the obvious meaning. For example, to say that
$$
\xymatrix@=4pc{
B \ar[r]^{\overline{g}} & D \\
A\ar [u]^{f} \ar [r]_{g} & C \ar[u]_{\overline{f}}
}
$$
is an $\eps$-commutative square simply means
$\overline{f}g\sim_\varepsilon\overline{g}f$.
\begin{rem}\label{re2.1}
{\em
Our motivation for using the homotopic terminology arises from the case $\ck=\Met_{\infty}$, as follows.
For $\eps>0$, let $2_\varepsilon$ be the space with two points whose distance is $\varepsilon$, and we put $2_0=1$.
Then $2_\eps$ is not finitely presentable because it is
a colimit of the chain formed by the spaces $2_{\eps+\frac{1}{n}}$.
With the injection
$$
i_\varepsilon: 1+1\to 2_\varepsilon
$$
we get the weak factorization system $(\cof(i_\varepsilon),i_\varepsilon^\square)$ (see \cite{AHRT}). Clearly, for any morphism $h$ in $\Met_{\infty}$, one has $i_\varepsilon\square h$ if, and only if, $d(hx,hy)\leq\varepsilon$
implies that $d(x,y)\leq\varepsilon$ for all $x,y$ in the domain of $h$, and since $h$ is non-expansive, we have the converse implication too.
Consequently, $2_\varepsilon$ is the induced cylinder object, {\em i.e}., it is given by a weak factorization of the codiagonal
$$
\nabla : 1+1 \xrightarrow{\quad c_\varepsilon\quad} 2_\varepsilon
\xrightarrow{\quad s_\varepsilon\quad} 1
$$
(see \cite{KR}). In general, for a space $K$, the cylinder object $C_K$ is given by a weak factorization
$$
\nabla : K+K \xrightarrow{\quad c_K\quad} C_K
\xrightarrow{\quad s_K\quad} K.
$$
Then, for morphisms $f,g:K\to L$ to admit a morphism $h: C_K \to L$ such that
$$
\xymatrix@=3pc{
K+K \ar[rr]^{(f,g)}
\ar[dr]_{c_K} && L\\
&C_K \ar[ur]_h
}
$$
commutes means precisely that $f$ and $g$ are $\varepsilon$-homotopic. Indeed, $K+K$ is obtained from $K$ by duplicating each $x\in K$ to $x'$ and $x''$ and putting $d(x',x'')=\infty$ while $d(x',x'')=\varepsilon$ in $C_K$.
We note that the sup-metric $d(f,g)=\sup\{d(fx,gx)\;|\;x\in K\}$ of $\Met(K,L))$ may be recovered from the $\eps$-homotopy relation, as
\[d(f,g)=\inf\{\eps\geq0\;|\; f\sim_\eps g\}.\]
}
\end{rem}
\begin{defi}\label{def2.2}
{
\em
An {\em $\varepsilon$-pushout} of morphisms $f:A\to B,\; g:A\to C$ in a
$\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category $\ck$
is given by an $\varepsilon$-commutative square
$$
\xymatrix@=4pc
{
B \ar[r]^{\overline{g}} & D \\
A\ar [u]^{f} \ar [r]_{g} & C \ar[u]_{\overline{f}}
}
$$
such that, for any $\varepsilon$-commutative square
$$
\xymatrix@=4pc{
B \ar[r]^{g'} & D' \\
A\ar [u]^{f} \ar [r]_{g} & C\,, \ar[u]_{f'}
}
$$
there is a unique morphism $t:D\to D'$ such that $t\overline{f}=f'$ and $t\overline{g}=g'$. An {\em $\eps$-coequalizer} of a pair of parallel morphisms is defined likewise. In the presence of coproducts we define the {\em $\eps$-colimit} of a diagram $D$ in $\ck$ as the $\eps$-coequalizer of the standard pair of morphisms between coproducts of the objects of the diagram that one uses to construct the (ordinary) colimit of $D$ from coproducts and coequalizers.
}
\end{defi}
Up to isomorphism, $\eps$-colimits are uniquely determined; we denote the $\eps$-colimit of $D$ by $\colim_\eps D$. 0-colimits are simply colimits.
In case of a discrete diagram, the $\eps$-notion of colimit coincides with the ordinary one, for every $\eps\in[0,\infty]$: $\eps$-coproducts are precisely coproducts.
\begin{lemma}\label{le2.3}
$\Met_{\infty}$ has $\varepsilon$-pushouts.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\Met_{\infty}$ has pushouts, there is nothing to be shown in case $\eps=0$. For $\eps>0$, consider $f:A\to B$ and $g:A\to C$. In the coproduct $B+ C$ we have $d(fx,gx)=\infty$ for all $x\in A$. Changing all distances $d(fx,gx)$
to $\varepsilon$ gives a distance function that satisfies all axioms of a generalized metric but the triangle inequality. Such structures are called semimetrics and, following \cite{LR} 4.5(3), $\Met_{\infty}$ is reflective in the corresponding category $\SMet_{\infty}$: the reflector provides a semimetric space $(X,d)$ with the metric $\overline{d}$ given by
$$\overline{d}(x,z)={\rm inf}\{\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}d(y_i,y_{i+1})\,|\, n\geq1, y_i\in X, y_0=x, y_n=z\}.$$
It now suffices to take the reflection $D$ of the resulting semimetric space to $\Met_{\infty}$ to obtain an $\varepsilon$-pushout in $\Met_{\infty}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{coro}\label{cor2.4}
$\Met_{\infty}$ has $\eps$-colimits.
\end{coro}
\begin{proof}
An $\eps$-coequalizer
$$
\xymatrix@1{
A\ \ar@<0.6ex>[r]^{f}\
\ar@<-0.6ex>[r]_g\ &\ B\ \ar [r]^h\ &\ D
}
$$
may be given by an $\eps$-pushout
$$
\xymatrix@C=3pc@R=3pc{
B \ar [r]^h & D\\
A+ B \ar [u]^{(f, \id_B)} \ar [r]_{(g, \id_B)} &
B,\ar [u]_h
}
$$
and $\eps$-colimits are constructed
with the help of coproducts and $\eps$-coequalizers.
\end{proof}
\begin{propo}\label{prop2.5}
$\Ban$ has $\eps$-colimits.
\end{propo}
\begin{proof}
Let $\cs$ be a representative full subcategory of separable Banach spaces. Consider the functor
$$
E:\Ban\to\Met^{\cs^{\op}}
$$
given by $(EK)(A)=\Ban(K,A)$. The functor $E$ preserves limits and, following \ref{le1.1}, it preserves $\aleph_1$-directed colimits.
Since $E$ is a full embedding, it makes $\Ban$ a reflective full subcategory of $\Met^{\cs^{\op}}$. Following \ref{cor2.4}, $\Met^{\cs^{\op}}$
has $\eps$-colimits calculated pointwise. Given an $\eps$-diagram $D:\cd\to\Ban$, its $\eps$-colimit is given by a reflection of the $\eps$-colimit
of $ED$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{re2.6}
{
\em
For a diagram
$D$ in a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category $\ck$ with the needed ($\eps$-)colimits one has canonical morphisms
$$
\coprod_{i\in\cd}Di\simeq\colim_{\infty}D\to\colim_{\eps}D\to\colim_0D\simeq\colim D,
$$
with the morphisms
$$
q_{\eps}:\colim_\eps D\to \colim D\quad(\eps>0)
$$
presenting $\colim D$ as a colimit of the chain $(\colim_{\eps}D\to\colim_{\delta}D)_{\eps\geq\delta>0}$.
}
\end{rem}
\section{$\varepsilon$-purity}
The notion of $\lambda$-pure morphism in a locally $\lambda$-presentable category as given in \cite{AR} allows for an obvious generalization in the case of a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category, as follows. The latter notion entails the former when one puts $\eps=0$.
\begin{defi}\label{def3.1}
{
\em
Let $\ck$ be a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category and $\lambda$ a regular cardinal.
We say that a morphism $f:K\to L$ is $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-\textit{pure} if for any $\varepsilon$-commutative square
$$
\xymatrix@=4pc{
K \ar[r]^{f} & L \\
A\ar [u]^{u} \ar [r]_{g} & B \ar[u]_{v}
}
$$
with $A$ and $B$ $\lambda$-presentable in $\ck$ there exists $t:B\to K$ such that $tg\sim_\varepsilon u$.
}
\end{defi}
\begin{rem}\label{re3.2}
{
\em
(1) A composite of $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-pure morphisms is $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-pure.
(2) If $f_2f_1$ is $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-pure, then $f_1$ is $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-pure.
(3) Every split monomorphism is $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-pure, for any $\lambda$. (Indeed, when $pf=\id_A$, consider the $\varepsilon$-commutative square of
\ref{def3.1}. Then $fu\sim_\eps vg$ implies $u=pfu\sim_\eps pvg$.),
(4) Every $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-pure morphism is $\lambda'$-$\varepsilon$-pure, for all $\lambda'\leq\lambda$.
(5) The $\lambda$-$0$-pure morphisms are precisely the $\lambda$-pure morphisms (as defined in \cite{AR}).
}
\end{rem}
Before discussing $\lambda$-$\eps$-purity further, let us also consider some variations of the notion.
\begin{defi}\label{def3.3}
{
\em
Let $f:K\to L$ be a morphism in the $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category $\ck$.
We say that a morphism $f:K\to L$ is \textit{weakly} (\textit{barely}) $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-\textit{pure} if for every $\eps$-commutative (commutative) square as in \ref{def3.1}, with $A$ and $B$ $\lambda$-presentable in $\ck$, there exists $t:B\to K$ such that $tg\sim_{2\varepsilon} u$ $(tg\sim_\eps u$, respectively). We also say that $f$ is $\eps$-{\em split} if there is $p:L\to K$ in $\ck$ with $pf\sim_\eps {\rm id}_K$. Finally, we say that $f$ is an $\eps$-monomorphism if $fg=fh$ implies $g\sim_\eps h$.
}
\end{defi}
The following easily verified statements all rely on the transitivity rule for $\eps$-homotopy:
\begin{lemma}\label{le3.4}
{\rm(1)} Every $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure morphism is weakly $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure and barely $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure.
{\rm(2)} Every weakly $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure morphism is barely $\lambda$-$2\varepsilon$-pure.
{\rm(3)} Every split monomorphism is $\eps$-split, and every $\eps$-split morphism is both, weakly and barely $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure, for any $\lambda$, and it is a $2\eps$-monomorphism.
\end{lemma}
\begin{rem}\label{re3.5}
{\em
(1) Note that an $\varepsilon$-split morphism does not need to be a monomorphism, not even an $\eps$-monomorphism: in $\Met_{\infty}$, for $0<\eps<\infty$, consider $\{a,b,c\}\to 1$ with $d(a,b)=d(b,c)=\eps$ and $d(a,c)=2\eps$.
}
{\rm (2)} For $\lambda$ uncountable, every barely $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure morphism in $\Met_{\infty}$ is $2\eps$-monomorphic. \em{ Indeed,
for $f:K\to L$ barely $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-pure, consider $a,b\in K$ with $fa=fb$.
With $\delta=d(a,b)$ we exploit the commutative square
$$
\xymatrix@=4pc{
K \ar[r]^{f} & L \\
2_\delta\ar [u]^{u} \ar [r]_{g} & 1, \ar[u]_{v}
}
$$
with $u$ mapping $2_\delta$ onto $\{a,b\}$. Since $2_\delta$ and $1$ are $\lambda$-presentable,
there is $t:1\to K$ such that $tg\sim_\varepsilon u$. With $c$ the image of $t$, this forces $d(a,b)\leq d(a,c)+d(b,c)\leq 2\varepsilon$.
}
\end{rem}
Let us also record to which extent $\lambda$-$\eps$-purity gets transported along $\eps$-homotopy:
\begin{lemma}\label{le3.6}
Let $f\sim_\eps f'$.
{\rm (1)} If $f$ is $\lambda$-$2\eps$-pure, then $f'$ is weakly $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure.
{\rm (2)} If $f$ is $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure, then $f'$ is barely $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure.
\end{lemma}
In conjunction with Remark \ref{re3.2} (2), Lemma \ref{le3.6} gives:
\begin{coro}\label{co3.7}
Let $gf\sim_\varepsilon h$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] If $h$ is $\lambda$-$2\varepsilon$-pure, then $f$ is weakly $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-pure.
\item[(2)] If $h$ is $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-pure, then $f$ is barely $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-pure.
\end{enumerate}
\end{coro}
We are now ready to prove an important stability property of $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure morphisms:
\begin{propo}\label{prop3.8}
Let $\ck$ be a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category and $\lambda$ be an uncountable regular cardinal. Then $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-pure morphisms in $\ck$ are closed under $\lambda$-directed colimits in $\ck$ .
\end{propo}
\begin{proof}
Let $E:\ce\to\ck^\to$ be a $\lambda$-directed diagram in the morphism category of $\ck$ with $Ee:K_e\to L_e$ $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-pure for all $e$
in $\ce$. For $f=\colim E:K\to L$ in $\ck$ with a colimit cocone $(k_e,l_e):Ee\to f$ we have that $k_e:K_e\to K$ and $l_e:L_e\to L$ are colimits
in $\ck$. Consider an $\eps$-commutative square
$$
\xymatrix@=4pc{
K \ar[r]^{f} & L \\
A\ar [u]^{u} \ar [r]_{g} & B \ar[u]_{v}
}
$$
with $A$ and $B$ $\lambda$-presentable in $\ck$.
We will show that there are $e_0$ in $\ce$ and $u_{e_0}:A\to K_{e_0}$, $v_{e_0}:B\to L_{e_0}$ in $\ck$, such that $u=k_{e_0}u_{e_0}$, $v=l_{e_0}v_{e_0}$ and $(Ee_0)u_{e_0}\sim_\eps v_{e_0}g$. As $Ee_0$ is $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure, there is then
$t:B\to K_{e_0}$ in $\ck$ with $tg\sim_\varepsilon u_{e_0}$. Hence, $u=k_{e_0}u_{e_0}\sim_\varepsilon k_{e_0}tg$, and the proof for $f$ to be $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-pure will be complete.
Indeed, since $A$ and $B$ are $\lambda$-presentable in $\ck_0$, first one finds $e$ in $\ce$ and $u_{e}:A\to K_{e}$ and $v_{e}:B\to L_{e}$ with $u=k_{e}u_{e}$
and $v=l_{e}v_{e}$.
Since $l_{e}(Ee)u_{e}=fk_{e}u_{e}=fu$ and $l_{e}v_{e}g=vg$,
$$
d(l_{e}(Ee)u_{e},l_{e}v_{e}g)\leq\eps,
$$
follows. Since $A$ is $\lambda$-presentable in $\ck$, $\ck(A,l_e):\ck(A,L_e)\to\ck(A,L)$ is a colimit in $\Met_{\infty}$.
By the construction of directed colimits in $\tilde{\Met}$, whereby
$$
d(l_{e}(Ee)u_{e},l_{e}v_{e}g)={\rm inf}_{e'\geq e}d(l_{e,e'}(Ee)u_e,l_{e,e'}v_eg),
$$
with $(k_{e,e'},l_{e,e'}):Ee\to Ee'$ given by the diagram $E$, for all $n=1,2,\dots,$
there are then $e_n\geq e$ in $\ce$ with $d(l_{e,e_n}(Ee)u_{e},l_{e,e_n}v_{e}g)\leq\eps+\frac{1}{n}$. Finally, since $\lambda$ is uncountable, we can find $e_0\geq e_n$ for all $n$
and obtain $u=k_{e_0}u_{e_0}$, $v=l_{e_0}v_{e_0}$ and $(Ee_0)u_{e_0}\sim_\eps v_{e_0}g$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{re3.9}
{
\em
As in Proposition \ref{prop3.8} one proves that the classes of weakly and barely $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure morphisms are both closed under $\lambda$-directed colimits in $\ck$, for $\lambda$ uncountable.
}
\end{rem}
\begin{coro}\label{cor3.10}
Let $\lambda$ be a regular uncountable cardinal and $\ck$ be a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category with $\lambda$-directed colimits such that $\ck_0$
is locally $\lambda$-presentable. Then every $\lambda$-pure morphism is $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-pure, for all $\eps\geq 0$.
\end{coro}
\begin{proof}
Since $\lambda$-pure morphisms are $\lambda$-directed colimits of split morphisms (see \cite{AR} 2.30), the result follows from Remark \ref{re3.2}(3)
and Proposition \ref{prop3.8}.
\end{proof}
We can finally give the following characterization of barely $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure morphisms in a large class of categories.
\begin{propo}\label{prop3.11}
Let $\lambda$ be an uncountable regular cardinal and $\ck$ be a $\tilde{\Met}$-enriched category with $\lambda$-directed colimits and $\eps$-pushouts
such that $\ck_0$ is locally $\lambda$-presentable. Then the following assertions are equivalent for a morphism $f$ in $\ck$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\rm (i)}] $f$ is barely $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-pure;
\item[{\rm (ii)}] there are $g, h$ such that $gf\sim_\varepsilon h$, with $h$ being $\lambda$-pure;
\item[{\rm (iii)}] there are $g, h$ such that $gf\sim_\varepsilon h$, with $h$ being $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure.
\end{enumerate}
\end{propo}
\begin{proof} (i)$\Rightarrow$(ii):
Assume that $f:A\to B$ is barely $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure. We proceed as in the proof of \cite{AR} 2.30(ii) and express $f$ as a $\lambda$-directed colimit
of morphisms $f_i:A_i\to B_i \;(i\in I)$, with $A_i$ and $B_i$ $\lambda$-presentable. Since $f$ is barely $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-pure, for every $i$ there is $t_i:B_i\to A$ such that $t_if_i\sim_\varepsilon u_i$.
Therefore, in the $\eps$-pushouts
$$
\xymatrix@=4pc{
A \ar[r]^{\overline{f}_i} & \overline{B_i} \\
A_i\ar [u]^{u_i} \ar [r]_{f_i} & B_i \ar[u]_{\overline{u}_i}
}
$$
every $\overline{f}_i$ is a split monomorphism. We get a $\lambda$-directed diagram $(\id_A,\overline{b}_{ij}):\overline{f}_i\to\overline{f}_j$.
Its colimit $\overline{f}:A\to\overline{B}$ is $\lambda$-pure (as a $\lambda$-directed colimit of of split monomorphisms), and it may be realized as the the $\varepsilon$-pushout
$$
\xymatrix@=4pc{
A \ar[r]^{\overline{f}} & \overline{B} \\
A\ar [u]^{\id_A} \ar [r]_{f} & B, \ar[u]_{g}
}
$$
so that we have $gf\sim_\varepsilon\overline{f}$.
(ii)$\Rightarrow$(iii): Corollary \ref{cor3.10}.
(iii)$\Rightarrow$(i): Corollary \ref{co3.7}(2).
\end{proof}
\section{$\varepsilon$-injectivity}
\begin{defi}\label{def4.1}
{
\em
Let $\ck$ be a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category. Given a morphism $f:A\to B$, we say that an object $K$ is $\varepsilon$-\textit{injective} to $f$ if,
for every $g:A\to K$, there exists $h:B\to K$ in $\ck$ with $hf\sim_\varepsilon g$.
}
\end{defi}
\begin{rem}\label{re4.2}
{
\em
(1) $0$-injectivity coincides with the ordinary injectivity notion.
(2) If $K$ is $\varepsilon$-injective to $f$, then $K$ is also $\eps'$-injective to $f$, for all $\eps'\geq \eps$.
(3) $K$ is $\infty$-injective to $f:A\to B$ precisely when $\ck(B,K)=\emptyset$ only if $\ck(A,K)=\emptyset$.
}
\end{rem}
For a class $\cf$ of morphisms in $\ck$, we denote by $$\Inj_\eps\cf$$ the class of objects $\eps$-injective to every $f\in\cf$. Trivially, following \ref{re4.2}(2), $\Inj_\eps\cf\subseteq\Inj_{\eps'}\cf$ whenever $\eps\leq\eps'$. A class of objects in $\ck$ is an $\varepsilon$-\textit{injectivity class} if, for some $\cf$, it is of the form $\Inj_\eps\cf$, and if $\cf$ is a set, then $\Inj_\eps\cf$ is called a \textit{small $\varepsilon$-injectivity class}. If the domains and codomains of morphisms in $\cf$ are all $\lambda$-presentable in $\ck$, $\Inj_\eps\cf$ is called a \textit{$\lambda$-$\eps$-injectivity class}. If $\ck_0$ is locally $\lambda$-presentable then every $\lambda$-$\eps$-injectivity class is a small $\eps$-injectivity class.
Compatibility of $\sim_\eps$ with the category composition immediately gives the expected closure properties of $\eps$-injectivity classes, as follows.
\begin{lemma}\label{le4.3}
Let $\cl$ be an $\varepsilon$-injectivity class in the $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category $\ck$ with products. Then $\cl$ is closed under retracts, and $\cl$ is also closed under products in $\ck$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Closure under retracts is obvious. For the product of of a family of $\eps$-injective objects $K_i$, since the canonical
$$
\ck(A,\prod_{i\in I}K_i)\to \prod_{i\in I}\ck(A,K_i),\quad g\mapsto (gp_i)_{i\in I},
$$
(with product projections $p_i$) is an isomorphism, one has
$$
\forall i\in I\;(p_i g\sim_\eps p_ig')\;\Longrightarrow\;g\sim_\eps g'
$$
whenever $g,g': A\to \prod_{i\in I}K_i$ in $\ck$, a property which is immediately seen to guarantee product stability of the $\eps$-injectivity class..
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{le4.4}
Let $\ck$ be a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category such that $\ck_0$ is locally presentable. Then every small $\varepsilon$-injectivity class in $\ck$ is closed under $\lambda$-directed colimits, for some regular cardinal $\lambda$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For any given set $\cf$ of morphisms in $\ck$ we can find $\lambda$ such that the domains of morphisms from $\cf$ are all $\lambda$-presentable. The proof that $\Inj_\eps\cf$ is closed
under $\lambda$-directed colimits is then straightforward.
\end{proof}
We say that a class $\cl$ of objects is \textit{closed under (weakly) $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure morphisms} in $\ck$ if, for every (weakly) $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure morphism $K\to L$, with
$L$ in $\cl$ one has also $K$ in $\cl$.
\begin{lemma}\label{le4.5}
Let $\ck$ be a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category having all objects presentable. Then every small $\varepsilon$-injectivity class in $\ck$ is closed under
$\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-pure morphisms, for some regular cardinal $\lambda$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Take $\lambda$ such that the domains and the codomains of morphisms in $\cf$ are all $\lambda$-presentable in $\ck$.
Let $p:K\to L$ be $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure with $L$ in $\Inj_\eps\cf$, and consider $f: A\to B$ in $\cf$ and any $g:A\to K$.
$\eps$-injectivity of $L$ gives $h:B\to L$ such that $gf\sim_\eps pg$, and then $\lambda$-$\eps$-purity of $p$ gives a morphism $t: B\to K$ with $tf\sim_\eps g$.
\end{proof}
We now have the tools enabling us to state:
\begin{propo}\label{prop4.6}
Let $\ck$ be a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category with products, such that all objects in $\ck$ are presentable and the ordinary category $\ck_0$ is locally presentable. Then every small
$\varepsilon$-injectivity class in $\ck$ is a small injectivity class.
\end{propo}
\begin{proof}
According to Theorem 4.8 in \cite{AR}, it suffices to show that a small $\eps$-injectivity class is accessible and accessibly embedded into the ambient locally presentable category, as well as closed under products. While the latter condition is satisfied by Lemma \ref{le4.3}, the former two conditions are guaranteed by Lemmas \ref{le4.4} and \ref{le4.5}, in conjunction with Corollary 2.36 in \cite{AR}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{re4.7}
{
\em
By Theorem 2.2 in \cite{RAB}, in a locally $\lambda$-presentable category, $\lambda$-injectivity (= $\lambda$-$0$-injectivity) classes are characterized by closure under products, $\lambda$-directed colimits and $\lambda$-pure subobjects. Consequently, every $\lambda$-$\varepsilon$-injectivity class in a category satisfying the hypotheses of Proposition \ref{prop4.6} is a $\lambda$-injectivity class.
}
\end{rem}
\begin{theo}\label{th4.8}
Let $\lambda$ be an uncountable regular cardinal and $\ck$ a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category with $\lambda$-directed colimits, such that $\ck_0$ is
locally $\lambda$-presentable and any $\lambda$-presentable object in $\ck_0$ is $\lambda$-presentable in $\ck$. Then every class
$\cl$ of objects in $\ck$ closed under products, $\lambda$-directed colimits and weakly $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure morphisms is a $\lambda$-$\eps$-injectivity class and, in particular, a small injectivity class.
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
Let $\cl$ be closed under products, $\lambda$-directed colimits and weakly $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure morphisms. We will follow the proof of \cite{RAB} 2.2.
According to \ref{cor3.10} and \cite{AR} 2.36 and 4.8, $\cl$ is weakly reflective. This means that every $K$ in $\ck$ comes with a morphism
$r_K:K\to K^\ast$, $K^\ast\in\cl$, such that every object of $\cl$ is injective to $r_K$. Let $\cf$ consist of all morphisms $f:A\to B$ such that $A$
and $B$ are $\lambda$-presentable and every object of $\cl$ is $\eps$-injective to $f$. By the definition of $\cf$ we have $\cl\subseteq\Inj_\eps\cf$, and the converse inclusion
$\Inj_\eps\cf\subseteq\cl$ will follow from the closure of $\cl$ under weakly $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure morphisms once we have shown
that, for $K\in\Inj_\eps\cf$, any weak reflection of $K$ into $\cl$ is weakly $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure.
Thus, given $K\in\Inj_\eps\cf$ and a weak reflection $r:K\to K^*$ in $\cl$, we are to prove that in any $\eps$-commutative square
\vskip 2 mm
$$
\xymatrix@C=3pc@R=3pc{
A \ar[r]^{h} \ar [d]_u &
B \ar [d]^{v}\\
K\ar[r]_{r} & K^*
}
$$
\vskip 2 mm\noindent
with $A$ and $B$ $\lambda$-presentable the morphism $u$ $2\eps$-factors through $h$. We will say that $(u,v) :h\to r$ is an $\eps$-morphism in this situation.
\vskip 2mm
\noindent {\it Claim}: There is a factorization $u=u_2\cdot u_1$ and an $\eps$-morphism $(u_1,v_1):h\to \bar r$ where $\bar r:\bar K\to\bar K^*$
is a weak reflection into $\cl$ of a $\lambda$-presentable $\bar K$.
\vskip2mm
\noindent {\it Proof of claim}. Consider all $\eps$-morphisms $(u_1,v_1):h\to\bar r$ where $\bar r:\bar K\to \bar K^*$ is a weak reflection of
$\bar K$ in $\cl$ and $u=u_2\cdot u_1$ for some $u_2$. Since $(u,v):h\to r$ is such an $\eps$-morphism, we can take the smallest $\alpha$ such that $\bar K$ is $\alpha$-presentable. We are to prove $\alpha\leq\lambda$. Assuming $\alpha >\lambda$ we will obtain a contradiction. As in \cite{RAB}, we express
$\bar K$ as a colimit of a smooth chain $k_{ij}:K_i\to K_j$ $(i\leq j<\alpha)$ of objects $K_i$ of presentability less that $\alpha$. This provides
weak reflections $r_i:K_i\to K_i^\ast$ into $\cl$ such that their colimit $r_\alpha:\bar K\to K_\alpha^\ast$ factorizes through $\bar r$, i.e.,
$r_\alpha=s\bar r$ for some $s:\bar K^\ast\to K_\alpha^\ast$. Since $\bar ru_1\sim_\eps v_1h$, we have $r_\alpha u_1=s\bar ru_1\sim_\eps sv_1h$, so that $(u_1,sv_1):h\to r_\alpha$ is an $\eps$-morphism. In the same way as in the proof of \ref{prop3.8}, this $\eps$-morphism $\eps$-factors
through some $r_i$, $i<\alpha$. This means that there is an $\eps$-morphism $h\to r_i$, which contradicts the minimality of $\alpha$ and proves the claim.
We are ready to prove that $u$ $2\eps$-factors through $h$. Let us consider a factorization $u=u_2\cdot u_1$ and a morphism $(u_1,v_1):h\to \bar r$
as in the above claim. Let us express $\bar K^*$ as a $\lambda$-directed colimit of $\lambda$-presentable objects $Q_t$, $t\in T$, with a
colimit cocone $q_t:Q_t\to\bar K^*$. Since both $\bar K$ and $B$ are $\lambda$-presentable, the morphisms $\bar r$ and $v_1$ both factor through $q_{t_0}$ for some $t_0\in T$. Since $A$ is $\lambda$-presentable, there then exists $t_1\geq t_0$ in $T$ with an $\eps$-commutative diagram, as follows:
\vskip 2 mm
$$
\xymatrix@C=3pc@R=3pc{
A \ar [dd]_{u_1}
\ar [rr]^{h} &&
B \ar[dd]^{v_1}
\ar [dl]_{\tilde v_1} \\
& Q_{t_1}\ar[dr]^{q_{t_1}} &\\
\bar K \ar[ur]^{\tilde r}
\ar[rr]_{\bar r} && \bar K^*
}
$$
\vskip 2 mm\noindent
Since all objects of $\cl$ are injective to $\bar r$, they are also injective to $\tilde r$; moreover, $\bar K$ and $Q_{t_1}$ are
both $\lambda$-presentable. Thus $\tilde r\in\cf$. This implies that $K$ is $\eps$-injective to $\tilde r$. Choosing $d:Q_{t_1}\to K$ with
$u_2\sim_\eps d\tilde r$ we obtain
$$
u=u_2u_1\sim_\eps d\tilde ru_1\sim_\eps d\tilde v_1h.
$$
Hence, $r$ is weakly $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure, and thus $K$ lies in $\cl$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{re4.9}
{
\em
(1) Let
$$
\xymatrix@=4pc{
B \ar[r]^{\overline{g}} & D \\
A\ar [u]^{f} \ar [r]_{g} & C \ar[u]_{\overline{f}}
}
$$
be an $\eps$-pushout and $K$ be $\eps$-injective to $f$. Then $K$ is injective to $\overline{f}$.
Indeed, considering $u:C\to K$ we obtain $v:B\to K$ such that $vf\sim_\eps u$. Thus there is $w:D\to K$ such that $w\overline{f}=u$.
(2) Let
$$
\xymatrix@=4pc{
A \ar[r]^{\overline{f}} & \overline{B} \\
A\ar [u]^{\id_A} \ar [r]_{f} & B \ar[u]_{p}
}
$$
be an $\eps$-pushout as in the proof of \ref{prop3.11} (which corresponds to the mapping cylinder in homotopy theory). Then an object $K$ is $\eps$-injective to $f$ if and only if it injective to $\overline{f}$. Indeed,
the ``if"-part of this statement follows from (1), and the converse is evident.
(3) If $\lambda$ is an uncountable regular cardinal and $A,B$ are $\lambda$-presentable, then $\overline{B}$ in (2) is $\lambda$-presentable.
The verification is analogous to that in the proof of \ref{prop3.8}.
This yields, under the presence of $\eps$-pushouts, a direct proof of \ref{th4.8}.
}
\end{rem}
\begin{pb}\label{pb4.10}
{
\em
Let $\lambda$ be an uncountable regular cardinal and $\ck$ a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category with $\lambda$-directed colimits, such that $\ck_0$ is
locally $\lambda$-presentable and any $\lambda$-presentable object in $\ck_0$ is $\lambda$-presentable in $\ck$. Are $\lambda$-$\eps$-injectivity classes
in $\ck$ precisely classes closed under products, $\lambda$-directed colimits and $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure morphisms?
}
\end{pb}
\section{Approximate injectivity}
The following definition is motivated by \cite{L} 3.2.
\begin{defi}\label{def5.1}
{
\em
Let $\ck$ be a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category.
We say that an object $K$ is \textit{approximately injective} to $f:A\to B$ in $\ck$ if it is $\varepsilon$-injective
to $f$ for every $\varepsilon>0$.
}
\end{defi}
The class of objects in $\ck$ approximately injective to a class $\cf$ of morphisms in $\ck$ will be denoted $\Inj_{\ap}\cf$. If $\cf$ is a set, then $\Inj_{\ap}\cf$ is called
an \textit{approximate small injectivity class}. If the domains and the codomains of all morphisms in $\cf$ are $\lambda$-presentable in $\ck$,
$\Inj_{\ap}\cf$ is called an \textit{approximate $\lambda$-injectivity class}. If $\ck_0$ is locally presentable, then any approximate $\lambda$-injectivity class is an approximate small injectivity class.
\begin{defi}\label{def5.2}
{
\em
A morphism in $\ck$ is \textit{(weakly, barely)} $\lambda$-$\ap$-\textit{pure} if it is (weakly, barely) $\lambda$-$\eps$-pure for every $\eps>0$.
}
\end{defi}
\begin{rem}\label{re5.3}
{
\em
(1) A composite of $\lambda$-$\ap$-pure morphisms is $\lambda$-$\ap$-pure.
(2) If the composite morphism $f_2f_1$ is $\lambda$-$\ap$-pure, then $f_1$ is also $\lambda$-$\ap$-pure.
(3) Let $\lambda$ be an uncountable regular cardinal and $\ck$ be a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category with $\lambda$-directed colimits and $\eps$-pushouts,
such that $\ck_0$ is locally $\lambda$-presentable. Then every barely $\lambda$-$\ap$-pure morphism is a monomorphism. Indeed,
considering the $\eps$-pushouts
$$
\xymatrix@=4pc{
A \ar[r]^{f_\eps} & B_\eps \\
A\ar [u]^{\id_A} \ar [r]_{f} & B, \ar[u]_{g}
}
$$
and applying the characterization \ref{prop3.11}(ii), since $\lambda$-pure morphisms in an accessible category are monomorphisms, we see that every $f_\eps$ is monic. Consequently, as a directed colimit of these morphisms, also $f$ is a monomorphism.
(4) It follows easily from Lemma \ref{le3.4}(2) that every weakly $\lambda$-ap-pure morphism is barely $\lambda$-ap-pure and, hence, a monomorphism, by (3). Consequently, rather than referring to its closure under weakly $\lambda$-$\ap$-pure morphisms
we may say that a class $\cl$ of objects be \textit{closed under weakly $\lambda$-$\ap$-pure subobjects}.
}
\end{rem}
\begin{lemma}\label{le5.4}
Let $\lambda$ be an uncountable regular cardinal and $\ck$ a $\tilde{\Met}$-enriched category with $\lambda$-directed colimits, such that $\ck_0$
is locally $\lambda$-presentable. Then every $\lambda$-pure morphism is
$\lambda$-$\ap$-pure.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The statement follows from Corollary \ref{cor3.10}.
\end{proof}
\begin{theo}\label{th5.5}
Let $\lambda$ be an uncountable regular cardinal and $\ck$ a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category with $\lambda$-directed colimits, such that $\ck_0$ is locally $\lambda$-presentable and every $\lambda$-presentable object in $\ck_0$ is $\lambda$-presentable in $\ck$. Then the approximate $\lambda$-injectivity classes in $\ck$ are precisely the full subcategories closed under products, $\lambda$-directed colimits and weakly $\lambda$-$\ap$-pure morphisms.
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
Since
$$
\Inj_{\ap}\cf=\bigcap\limits_{\eps>0}\Inj_\eps\cf,
$$
every approximate $\lambda$-injectivity class is closed under products and $\lambda$-directed colimits (see \ref{le4.3} and \ref{le4.4}).
We will show that $\Inj_{\ap}\cf$ is closed under weakly $\lambda$-$\ap$-pure subobjects. Let $p: K\to L$ be $\lambda$-$\ap$-pure and $L$
belong to $\Inj_{\ap}\cf$. Consider $f:A\to B$ in $\cf$, $\eps>0$ and $u:A\to K$. There is $v:B\to L$ such that $pu\sim_{\frac{\eps}{2}}vf$. Since
$p$ is weakly $\lambda$-$\frac{\eps}{2}$-pure, there exists $t:B\to K$ with $tf\sim_\eps u$. Thus $K$ is $\eps$-injective to $f$.
Let $\cl$ be closed under products, $\lambda$-directed colimits and weakly $\lambda$-$\ap$-pure subobjects. We will proceed in the same way as in \ref{th4.8}.
Let $\cf$ consist of all morphisms $f:A\to B$ such that $A$ and $B$ are $\lambda$-presentable and every object of $\cl$ is approximately injective to $f$. We have $\cl\subseteq\Inj_{\ap}\cf$, and the converse inclusion will follow from the fact that every weak reflection of $K\in\Inj_{\ap}\cf$ into $\cl$ is weakly $\lambda$-$\ap$-pure. Since $K\in\Inj_{\frac{\eps}{2}}\cf$, a weak reflection $r:K\to K^\ast$ is weakly
$\lambda$-$\eps$-pure. Hence $r$ is $\lambda$-$\ap$-pure.
\end{proof}
In the presence of $\eps$-pushouts, we can speak about the closure under weakly $\lambda$-$\ap$-pure subobjects (see \ref{re5.3}(4)).
\begin{coro}\label{cor5.6}
Under the hypotheses of Theorem \ref{th5.5}, every approximate $\lambda$-injectivity class in $\ck$ is a $\lambda$-injectivity class.
\end{coro}
\begin{proof}
The statement follows from \ref{le5.4}, \ref{th5.5} and \cite{RAB} 2.2.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{re5.7}
{
\em
Continuing to work under the hypotheses of Theorem \ref{th5.5}, we let $\cl$ be an approximate
$\lambda$-injectivity class in $\ck$. Then, following \ref{cor5.6} and \cite{AR} 4.8, $\cl$ is weakly reflective. We claim that every object $K$ that is approximately injective to its weak reflection $r:K\to K^\ast$ must lie in $\cl$. Indeed, $r$ $\eps$-splits for every $\eps>0$ and then, by \ref{le3.4}, must be weakly $\lambda$-$\ap$-pure, for any
$\lambda$. Hence, $K\in\cl$ follows.
}
\end{rem}
Recall that {\em Vop\v enka's Principle} is a large-cardinal principle which guarantees that injectivity classes in a locally presentable category are characterized by their closure under products and split subobjects (see \cite{AR} 6.26). We are now ready to conclude the validity of an ``ap-version" of this theorem. To state it, we say that $f$ is $\ap$-\textit{split} if it is $\eps$-split for every $\eps>0$.
\begin{theo}\label{th5.8}
Under Vop\v enka's Principle,
the following conditions are equivalent for a full subcategory $\cl$ of a category $\ck$ satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem \ref{th5.5}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\cl$ is closed under products and $\ap$-split subobjects,
\item $\cl$ is an $\ap$-injectivity class,
\item $\cl$ is weakly reflective and closed under $ap$-split subobjects.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
$(3)\Rightarrow(2)$: By Remark \ref{re5.7}, $\cl$ is an $\ap$-injectivity class w.r.t. weak reflections of $\ck$-objects to $\cl$.
\noindent
$(2)\Rightarrow(1)$ follows from \ref{le3.4} and \ref{th5.5}.
\noindent
$(1)\Rightarrow(3)$ follows from \cite{AR} 6.26, since closure under ap-split subobjects trivially entails closure under split subobjects.
\end{proof}
\section{The countable case}
Regular monomorphisms in $\Met_{\infty}$ are isometries, and these are stable under pushout. Every finite generalized metric space $A$ is $\aleph_0$-\textit{generated}, in the sense that $\Met_{\infty}(A,-):\Met_{\infty}\to\Set$ preserves directed colimits of isometries.
A generalized metric space $K$ is $\aleph_0$-\textit{saturated} if, for any isometry $f:A\to B$ between finite generalized metric spaces and any isometry $g:A\to K$, there is an isometry $h:B\to K$ with $hf=g$. This means that $K$ is injective to morphisms
between finite (i.e., $\aleph_0$-generated) objects in the category of generalized metric spaces and isometries.
A generalized metric space is called \textit{rational} if all of its distances are either rational or $\infty$. By an $\aleph_0$-saturated generalized rational metric space we mean a space which is injective to morphisms between finite spaces in the category of generalized rational metric spaces and isometries.
\begin{theo}\label{th6.1}
There is a countable $\aleph_0$-saturated generalized rational metric space.
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
Isometries in $\Met_{\infty}$ are stable under pushout; moreover, if the given spaces are rational, so is the pushout. Up to isomorphism, there
are only countably many finite generalized rational metric spaces. Let $\cs$ be the set of all isometries between them; $\cs$ is countable again. We express $\cs$ as a union of a countable chain of finite subsets $\cs_n$ and will construct a countable chain
$(k_{ij}:K_i\to K_j)_{i<j<\omega}$ of finite generalized rational metric spaces and isometries, as follows. Let $K_0=\emptyset$. Having $(k_{ij}:K_i\to K_j)_{i<j\leq n}$, we take the diagram consisting of all spans $(u,h)$ where $h\in\cs_n$. Then
$k_{n,n+1}:K_n\to K_{n+1}$ is given by the corresponding multiple pushout, i.e., by the pushout
$$
\xymatrix@=4pc{
K_n \ar[r]^{k_{n,n+1}} & K_{n+1} \\
\coprod_h X_h\ar [u]^{<u>} \ar [r]_{\coprod h} & \coprod_h Y_h \ar[u]_{}
}
$$
with $h:X_h\to Y_h$ running through $\cs_n$.
As the colimit of a chain of isometrically embedded rational generalized metric spaces, also $K=\colim K_n$ is rational. We claim that $K$ is $\aleph_0$-saturated. Indeed, consider $h:X\to Y$ in $\cs$ and $u:X\to K$. Since $X$ is $\aleph_0$-small,
there is $u':X\to K_n$ such that $k_nu'=u$; here $k_n:K_n\to K$ is a colimit injection. Without any loss of generality, we may assume $h\in\cs_n$. Thus $k_{n,n+1}u'=vh$ for some $v:Y\to K_{n,n+1}$. Hence $u=k_nu'=vh$, as desired.
\end{proof}
A countable $\aleph_0$-saturated generalized rational metric space $U_0$ is, in fact, uniquely determined, up to isomorphism: see, e.g., \cite{R} Theorem 2; it is the Fra\" iss\' e limit of finite generalized rational metric spaces (see \cite{K1}). Its completion $U$ is an
$\aleph_0$-saturated complete separable metric space, called \textit{Urysohn space} in the literature: see \cite{H} or \cite{K1} for a proof of its so-called universality and homogeneity, from which one easily concludes its $\aleph_0$-saturatedness in $\bf{Met}$.
In order for us to establish a corresponding result in $\Ban$, we introduce the needed definitions more generally at the level of $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched categories.
\begin{defi} \label{def6.2}
{
\em
Let $\ck$ be a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category. A morphism $f:A\to B$ is called an \textit{isometry} if, for every $\eps\geq 0$
and all $u,v:C\to A$, one has
$$
fu\sim_\eps fv\Rightarrow u\sim_\eps v.
$$
}
\end{defi}
\begin{exam}\label{ex6.3}
{
\em
Both in $\Met$ and $\Ban$, isometries have their usual meaning. In $\Met$, it suffices to test them on $u,v:1\to A$, and in $\Ban$ on $u,v:l_1(1)\to A$.
}
\end{exam}
\begin{defi}\label{def6.4}
{
\em
Let $\ck$ be a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category. An object $A$ in $\ck$ is $\lambda$-$\eps$-\textit{generated} if, for any $\lambda$-directed
diagram of isometries $(k_{ij}:K_i\to K_j)_{i\leq j\in I}$ with colimit cocone $k_i:K_i\to K$ and every morphism $f:A\to K$, there is $i\in I$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $f$ $\eps$-factorizes through $k_i$, {\em i.e.}, $f\sim_\eps k_ig$ for some $g:A\to K_i$,
\item the $\eps$-factorization is $\eps$-essentially unique, in the sense that, if $f\sim_\eps k_ig$ and $f\sim_\eps k_ig'$, then
$k_{ij}g\sim_\eps k_{ij}g'$ for some $j\geq i$.
\end{enumerate}
We say that $A$ is $\lambda$-$\ap$-\textit{generated} if it is $\lambda$-$\eps$
generated for every $\eps>0$.
}
\end{defi}
\begin{exam}\label{ex6.5}
{
\em
(1) In $\Ban$, every finite-dimensional space $A$ is $\aleph_0$-$\ap$-generated.
(2) Since every Banach space is a directed colimit of finite-dimensional Banach spaces and isometries, every $\aleph_0$-$\eps$-generated Banach space
admits an $\eps$-split morphism to a finite-dimensional Banach space, for any $\eps>0$.
(3) More generally, for every isometry $f:X\to Y$ between $\aleph_0$-$\ap$-generated Banach spaces and every $\eps>0$, there is a commutative square
$$
\xymatrix@=4pc{
X \ar[r]^{f} & Y \\
A\ar [u]^{u} \ar [r]_{g} & B \ar[u]_{v}
}
$$
in $\Ban$ with an isometry $g$ between finite-dimensional Banach spaces $A, B$, as well as morphisms
$s:X\to A$, $t:Y\to B$, such that $us\sim_\eps\id_X$, $vt\sim_\eps\id_Y$ and $gs\sim_\eps tf$.
}
\end{exam}
\begin{defi}\label{def6.6}
{
\em
Let $\ck$ be a $\Met_{\infty}$-enriched category. We say that an object $K$ is $\aleph_0$-$\ap$-\textit{saturated} if it is approximately injective to morphisms between $\ap$-$\aleph_0$-generated objects in the category of $\ck$-objects and isometries.
}
\end{defi}
\begin{theo}\label{th6.5}
There is a separable $\aleph_0$-$\ap$-saturated Banach space.
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
By \ref{ex6.5}(2), a Banach space is $\aleph_0$-ap-saturated if, and only if, it is approximately injective to isometries between finite-dimensional
Banach spaces. Now we proceed in the same way as in \ref{th6.1}. Isometries are pushout stable in $\Ban$ (see \cite{ASCGM}, 2.1) and, following \cite{GK} 2.7 and \cite{K2}, a Banach space is approximately injective to finite-dimensional Banach spaces if, and only if, it is approximately injective to rational
isometries between finite-dimensional rational Banach spaces. (For the meaning of ``rational" in the Banach space context, see \cite{GK}.) Up to isomorphism, there are only countably many such isometries. We will show that $K$, constructed analogously to the construction in \ref{th6.1}
from the countable set $\cs$ of relevant isometries as a colimit of separable spaces $K_n$ (with $K_0$ the null space), is
$\aleph_0$-$\ap$-saturated. For that, consider $h:X\to Y$ in $\cs$ and $u:X\to K$, and let $\eps>0$. Since $X$ is $\aleph_0$-$\ap$-generated, there is $u':X\to K_n$
such that $k_nu'\sim_\eps u$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $h\in\cs_n$. Consequently, $k_{n,n+1}u'=vh$ for some $v:Y\to K_{n,n+1}$ and, hence,
$$
u\sim_\eps k_nu'=k_{n+1}k_{n,n+1}u'=k_{n+1}vh,
$$
as desired.
\end{proof}
A separable $\aleph_0$-ap-saturated Banach space is in fact uniquely determined, up to isomorphism; it coincides with the {\em Gurarii space} (see \cite{K2}).
|
\section{Introduction}
In this note we consider a closed $n$-dimensional Riemannian manifold $M$ with smooth metric $g$, and the Laplacian (or the Laplace-Beltrami operator) $-\Delta$ on $M$\footnote{We use the analyst's sign convention, namely, $-\Delta$ is positive semidefinite.}. For an eigenvalue $\lambda$ of $-\Delta$ and a corresponding eigenfunction $\varphi_\lambda$, we
recall that a nodal domain $ \Omega_\lambda $ is a connected component of the complement of the nodal set $N_{\varphi_\lambda} := \{ x \in M : \varphi_\lambda (x) = 0\}$. We will denote $N_{\varphi_\lambda}$ by $N_\varphi$ via a slight abuse of notation.
Before we formulate our main questions, let us briefly remark on notation: throughout the paper, $|S|$ denotes the volume of the set $S$. The letters $c, C$ etc. are used to denote constants dependent on $(M, g)$ and independent of $\lambda$. The values of such $c, C$ etc. can vary from line to line. Lastly, the expression $X \lesssim Y$ means $X \leq CY$ for some positive constant $C$, with an analogous meaning for $\gtrsim$, and when $X$ and $Y$ are comparable up to constants (i.e., $X \lesssim Y \lesssim X$), we write $X \sim Y$.
\subsection{Tubular neighbourhoods}
Let $T_{\varphi, \delta} := \{x \in M : \text{dist}(x, N_\varphi) < \delta\}$, which is the $\delta$-tubular neighbourhood of the nodal set $N_\varphi$. We are interested in deriving upper and lower bounds on the volume of $T_{\varphi, \delta}$ in terms of $\lambda$ and $\delta$ in the setting of a smooth manifold. Before investigating the question further, let us begin with a brief overview and motivation.
We first recall the problem of estimating the size of the $ (n-1) $-Hausdorff measure of the nodal set - the question was raised by Yau (Problem \#74, [Yau82]) who conjectured that
\begin{equation}
C_1 \sqrt{\lambda} \leq \mathcal{H}^{n-1}(N_{\varphi_\lambda}) \leq C_2 \sqrt{\lambda},
\end{equation}
where $ C_1, C_2 $ are constants that depend on $ (M, g) $.
In a celebrated paper (cf. \cite{DF}), Donnelly and Fefferman were able to confirm Yau's conjecture when $ (M, g) $ is real-analytic. Roughly speaking, their techniques relied on analytic continuation and delicate estimates concerning growth of polynomials.
Later on, in the smooth case, the question of Yau was extensively investigated further: to name a few, we refer to the works by Sogge-Zelditch, Colding-Minicozzi, Mangoubi, Hezari-Sogge, Hezari-Riviere, etc (cf. \cite{SZ1}, \cite{SZ2}, \cite{CM}, \cite{Man4}, \cite{HS}, \cite{HR}) in terms of the lower bound, and Hardt-Simon, Dong, etc (cf. \cite{HaSi}, \cite{D}) in terms of the upper bound; we also refer to \cite{Z} for a far-reaching survey. As an outcome, non-sharp estimates were obtained. The corresponding methods of study were quite broad in nature, varying from local elliptic PDE estimates on balls of size $ \sim 1/\sqrt{\lambda} $ (also referred to as ``wavelength'' balls) to global techniques studying the wave equation.
Recently, in \cite{L1}, \cite{L2}, Logunov made a significant breakthrough which delivered the lower bound in Yau's conjecture for closed smooth manifolds $ (M, g) $ as well as a polynomial upper bound in terms of $ \lambda $. In a nutshell, his methods utilized delicate combinatorial estimates based on doubling numbers of harmonic functions - as pointed out in \cite{L1}-\cite{L2}, some of these techniques were also developed in collaboration with Malinnikova (cf. \cite{LM} as well).
Now, with the perspective of Yau's conjecture, one can ask about further ``stability'' properties of the nodal set - for example, how is the volume of the tubular neighbourhood $ T_{\varphi, \delta} $ of radius $\delta$ around the nodal set behaving in terms of $ \lambda $ and $ \delta $? According to Jakobson-Mangoubi (see Acknowledgments, \cite{JM}), it seems that initially such a question was posed by M. Sodin.
In the real analytic setting, the question about the volume of a tubular neighbourhood $ T_{\varphi, \delta} $ was studied by Jakobson and Mangoubi (cf. \cite{JM}). They were able to obtain the following sharp bounds:
\begin{theorem}[\cite{JM}]\label{JaMa_RA}
Let $M$ be a real analytic closed Riemannian manifold. Then we have
\beq\label{eq:JM-bound}
\sqrt{\lambda}\delta \lesssim |T_{\varphi, \delta}| \lesssim \sqrt{\lambda}\delta,\eeq
where $\delta \lesssim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}$.
\end{theorem}
As remarked by Jakobson and Mangoubi, such bounds describe a certain regularity property of the nodal set - the upper suggests that the nodal set does not have ``too many needles or very narrow branches''; the lower bound hints that the nodal set ``does not curve too much''.
Concerning the proof, Theorem \ref{JaMa_RA} extends the techniques of Donnelly and Fefferman from \cite{DF} by adding an extra parameter $\delta$ to the proofs of \cite{DF}, and verifying that the key arguments still hold.
With that said, it seems natural to ask the question of obtaining similar bounds on the tubular neighbourhood in the smooth case as well - in this setting one can no longer fully exploit the analytic continuation and polynomial approximation techniques in the spirit of Donnelly and Fefferman.
Our first result states that in the smooth setting we have the following:
\begin{theorem}\label{JaMa}
Let $ (M,g) $ be a smooth closed Riemannian manifold and let $ \epsilon > 0 $ be a given sufficiently small number. Then there exist constants $ r_0 = r_0(M, g) > 0 $ and $ C_1 = C_1(\epsilon, M, g) > 0 $ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{low} |T_{\varphi,\delta}| \geq C_1 \lambda^{1/2 - \epsilon}\delta,
\end{equation}
where $\delta \in (0, \frac{r_0}{\sqrt{\lambda}})$ is arbitrary.
On the other hand, there exist positive real numbers $\kappa = \kappa(M, g)$ and $ C_2 = C_2(M, g) $, such that
\begin{equation}\label{up}
|T_{\varphi, \delta}| \leq C_2 \lambda^{\kappa}\delta,
\end{equation}
where again $\delta $ can be any number in the interval $(0, \frac{r_0}{\sqrt{\lambda}})$.
\end{theorem}
Unfortunately, as one sees in the course of the proof of (\ref{low}), the constant $ C_1 $ goes to $0$ as $ \epsilon $ approaches $ 0 $.
Our methods for proving Theorem \ref{JaMa} involve a combination of the tools of ~\cite{DF}-~\cite{JM}, along with some new insights provided by ~\cite{L1}, ~\cite{L2} and ~\cite{LM}. Particularly, in view of the lower bound in Yau's conjecture and of the results in \cite{JM}, it seems that the bound (\ref{low}) is still not optimal. Of course, the upper bound in (\ref{up}) is just polynomial, and, as would be clear from the proof, improvement of the upper bound would be affected by the corresponding improvement of the upper bound in Yau's conjecture.
\subsection{Some remarks on the asymptotic geometry of nodal domains}
As mentioned in the Abstract, in this subsection, we state several remarks regarding some aspects of the asymptotic nodal geometry.
\subsubsection{Interior cone conditions} In dimension $n = 2$, a famous result of Cheng \cite{Ch} says the following (see also ~\cite{St} for a proof using Brownian motion):
\begin{theorem}
For a compact Riemannian surface $M$, the nodal set $N_\varphi$ satisfies an interior cone condition with opening angle $\alpha \gtrsim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}$.
\end{theorem}
Furthermore, in dim $2$, the nodal lines form an equiangular system at a singular point of the nodal set.
Setting $\dim M \geq 3$, we discuss the question whether at the singular points of the nodal set $N_\varphi$, the nodal set can have arbitrarily small opening angles, or even ``cusp''-like situations, or the nodal set has to self-intersect ``sufficiently transversally''.
We observe that in dimensions $n \geq 3$ the nodal sets satisfies an appropriate ``interior cone condition'', and give an estimate on the opening angle of such a cone in terms of the eigenvalue $\lambda$.
Now, in order to properly state or interpret such a result, one needs to define the concept of ``opening angle'' in dimensions $n \geq 3$. We start by defining precisely the notion of tangent directions in our setting.
\begin{definition}
Let $\Omega_\lambda$ be a nodal domain and $x \in \pa \Omega_\lambda$, which means that $\varphi_\lambda(x) = 0$. Consider a sequence $x_n \in N_\varphi$ such that $x_n \to x$. Let us assume that in normal coordinates around $x$, $x_n = \text{exp }(r_nv_n)$, where $r_n$ are positive real numbers, and $v_n \in S(T_xM)$, the unit sphere in $T_xM$. Then, we define the space of tangent directions at $x$, denoted by $\Cal{S}_xN_\varphi$ as
\beq
\Cal{S}_xN_\varphi = \{v \in S(T_xM) : v = \lim v_n, \text{ where }x_n \in N_\varphi, x_n \to x\}.\ee
\end{definition}
Observe that there are more well-studied variants of the above definition,
for example, as due to Clarke or Bouligand (for more details, see ~\cite{R}). With that in place, we now give the following definition of ``opening angle''.
\begin{definition}
We say that the nodal set $N_\varphi$ satisfies an interior cone condition with opening angle $\alpha$ at $x \in N_\varphi$, if any connected component of $S(T_xM) \setminus \Cal{S}_xN_\varphi$ has an inscribed ball of radius $\gtrsim \alpha$.
\end{definition}
Now we have the following:
\begin{theorem}\label{ICC}
When $\text{dim }M = 3$, the nodal set $N_\varphi$ satisfies an interior cone condition with angle $\gtrsim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}$. When $\text{dim }M = 4$, $N_\varphi$ satisfies an interior cone condition with angle $\gtrsim \frac{1}{\lambda^{7/8}}$. Lastly, when $\text{dim }M \geq 5$, $N_\varphi$ satisfies an interior cone condition with angle $\gtrsim \frac{1}{\lambda}$.
\end{theorem}
\subsubsection{Inscribed balls in a nodal domain}
Let us briefly overview some results related to the width of nodal domains.
Given a nodal domain $\Omega_\lambda$, the inradius $\text{inrad}(\Omega_\lambda)$ is the radius of the largest geodesic ball one can fully inscribe in $\Omega_\lambda$. Like the nodal set, it is also another natural object intrinsically tied to the nodal geometry of eigenfunctions, and it is natural to speculate about optimal inradius bounds. From considerations involving domain monotonicity, one can readily see that $\text{inrad}(\Omega_\lambda) \lesssim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}$. As regards lower bounds, it was proved in \cite{Man1}, based on ideas in \cite{NPS}, that any closed Riemannian surface satisfies $\text{inrad}(\Omega_\lambda) \gtrsim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}$. Moreover, Mangoubi showed (using complex analytic techniques) that such a ball can be centered at any point of maximum of the eigenfunction $\varphi_\lambda$ inside $\Omega_\lambda$.
In higher dimensions, nodal domains, particularly with regard to their inradius estimates, appear to be sensitive objects. A heuristic explanation is the following (also see ~\cite{H}). In dimensions $n \geq 3$, a curve has zero capacity, which means that there is virtually no difference in the first Dirichlet eigenvalue of a domain $\Omega$ and $\Omega \setminus \Gamma$, where $\Gamma \subset \Omega$ is a reasonably well-behaved curve. But deletion of a curve (or even a single point) can affect the inradius drastically. Still, in dimension $n \geq 3$, Mangoubi was able to show (\cite{Man2}) that every nodal domain $\Omega_\lambda$ satisfies $\text{inrad}(\Omega_\lambda) \gtrsim \frac{1}{\lambda^{\frac{n - 1}{4} + \frac{1}{2n}}}$. His arguments relied on certain ``asymmetry'' results that we briefly discuss below in Subsection \ref{subsubsec:Asymmetry}. Further, in \cite{GM}, we were able to recover the same bounds, but with the additional information that any such ball of radius $\sim \frac{1}{\lambda^{\frac{n - 1}{4} + \frac{1}{2n}}}$ can be centered at a point of maximum of $\varphi_\lambda$ inside $\Omega_\lambda$. This was derived as a Corollary of a quantitative improvement of a Lieb-type result regarding the ``almost inscribedness'' of a wavelength radius ball $B(x_0, \frac{r_0}{\sqrt{\lambda}})$ inside $\Omega_\lambda$ (for a formal statement, see Theorem \ref{alfulins} below). Moreover, as regards the inner radius of nodal domains in dimensions at least $3$, it seems that the lower bound is still not sharp. It is believed that the inner radius should be much more closer to the wavelength scale.
Now, having this discussion in mind, we also recall the following observation:
\begin{clm} \label{cl:large-ball}
If for a point $x_0 \in M$ we know that $ |\varphi_\lambda (x_0)| \geq \beta\Vert \varphi_\lambda\Vert_{L^\infty(M)}$, where $\beta$ is a constant independent of $\lambda$, then there exists a ball of radius $ \sim 1/\sqrt{\lambda}$ centered at $x_0$ where $\varphi_\lambda$ does not change sign.
\end{clm}
In other words, there exists a fully inscribed ball of wavelength size centered at $x_0$. This claim follows directly from elliptic bounds on the gradient $|\nabla \varphi_\lambda|$.
We address the question to seek quantitative generalizations of this fact under more relaxed lower bounds on $|\varphi_\lambda(x_0)|$. Theorem \ref{newres} below may be seen as one such quantitative generalization.
Due to Donnelly-Fefferman (~\cite{DF}), on any wavelength radius geodesic ball $B(x, \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}})$ in a closed Riemannian manifold $M$ with smooth metric, we have that $\sup_{B(x, \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}})} |\varphi_\lambda| \gtrsim e^{-C\sqrt{\lambda}}\Vert \varphi_\lambda\Vert_{L^\infty(M)}$. Moreover, it is also true that the exponential bounds given by ~\cite{DF} are rarely saturated (one of the rare counterexamples are Gaussian beams of highest weight spherical harmonics), and in most practical examples, much better bounds hold. Motivated by this, we investigate bounds on the size of inscribed balls which are centered at points $x_0$ for which $|\varphi_\lambda(x_0)|$ is at most ``exponentially'' small.
We have the following observation:
\begin{theorem}\label{newres}
Let $M$ be a closed Riemannian manifold of dimension $n \geq 3$ with smooth metric. Further, let $x_0 \in \Omega_\lambda$ be such that $\varphi_\lambda (x_0) = \Vert \varphi\Vert_{L^\infty(\Omega_\lambda)}$.
Suppose that
\beq\label{cond}
\varphi_\lambda(x_0) \geq 2^{-1/\eta}\Vert \varphi_\lambda\Vert_{L^\infty(M)}, \eeq
where $\eta > 0$ is smaller than a fixed constant $\eta_0$ ($\eta$ may be dependent on $\lambda$). Then there exists an inscribed ball $B(x_0, \rho) \subseteq \Omega_\lambda$ of radius
\beq\label{rad}
\rho \gtrsim
\text{max}\left( \frac{\eta^{\beta (n)}}{\sqrt{\lambda}}, \frac{1}{\lambda^{\alpha (n)}}\right),
\eeq
where $\beta (n) = \frac{(n - 1)(n - 2)}{2n}, \alpha (n) = \frac{n - 1}{4} + \frac{1}{2n}$. Furthermore, such a ball can be centered around any such max point $x_0$.
\end{theorem}
In particular, Theorem \ref{newres} implies the following remark (cf. Claim \ref{cl:large-ball}):
\begin{corollary}
If for $x_0$ as above, one has that $ |\varphi_\lambda (x_0)| \gtrsim e^{-\lambda^\mu} \Vert \varphi_\lambda\Vert_{L^\infty(M)}$, where $\mu := 2n\nu/((n-1)(n-2)), \nu > 0$ , then there exists a ball of radius $ \sim \frac{1}{\lambda^{1/2 + \nu}}$ centered at $x_0$ where $\varphi_\lambda$ does not change sign.
\end{corollary}
The proof of Theorem \ref{newres} is based on a combination of Mangoubi's result on rapid growth in narrow domains (reproduced below as Theorem \ref{rapgrow}), and Theorem 1.3 of \cite{GM} (reproduced below as Theorem \ref{alfulins}).
\subsection{Acknowledgements} We would especially like to thank Alexander Logunov for reading a draft version of this paper, and for advice regarding the modification of Proposition 6.4 of \cite{L1} which allowed us to improve the bound in (\ref{low}) from $\lambda^{1/4}\delta$ to $\lambda^{1/2 - \epsilon}\delta$. We also thank Werner Ballmann, Fanghua Lin, Henrik Matthiesen and Stefan Steinerberger for helpful comments. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics, Bonn for providing ideal working conditions.
\section{Auxiliary results about the frequency function and doubling exponents}\label{subsec:Prelim}
We start by recalling some general preliminaries.
Let $B_1$ denote the unit ball in $\RR^n$, and let $\varphi$ satisfy
\beq\label{ellip}
L\varphi = 0
\eeq
on $B_1$, where $L$ is a second order elliptic operator with smooth coefficients. $L$ is of the form
\[
L u = L_1u - \varepsilon qu,
\]
where
\[
L_1u = -\pa_i(a^{ij}\pa_j u).\]
and we make the following assumptions:\newline
(a) $a^{ij}$ is symmetric and satisfies the ellipticity bounds
\[
\kappa_1|\xi|^2 \leq a^{ij}\xi_i\xi_j \leq \kappa_2|\xi|^2.
\]
(b) $a^{ij}$, $q$ are bounded by $\Vert a^{ij}\Vert_{C^1(\overline{B_1})} \leq K, |q| \leq K$, and we assume that $\varepsilon < \varepsilon_0$, with $\varepsilon_0$ small.
Next, we recall and collect a few relevant facts about doubling exponents and different notions of frequency functions - these include scaling and monotonicity results.
For $\varphi$ satisfying (\ref{ellip}) in $B_1$, define for $r < 1$ the following $r$-growth exponent:
\beq\label{grow}
\beta_r(\varphi) = \text{log }\frac{\sup_{B_1}|\varphi|}{\sup_{B_r}|\varphi|},\eeq
A fundamental result of ~\cite{DF} says the following:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:DF-bounds}
There exist constants $ C = C(M, g) > 0 $ and $ r_0(M, g) > 0 $ such that for every point $ p $ in $ M $ and every $ 0 < r < r_0 $ the following growth exponent holds:
\begin{equation}
\sup_{B(p, r)} |\varphi_\lambda| \leq \left( \frac{r}{r'}\right)^{C\sqrt{\lambda}} \sup_{B(p, r')} |\varphi_\lambda|, \quad 0 < r' < r.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
In particular, for a rescaled eigenfunction $\varphi$, we have
\beq\label{df}
\frac{\beta_r(\varphi)}{\text{log}(1/r)} \lesssim \sqrt{\lambda}.
\eeq
In this context, we also recall the concept of frequency function (see ~\cite{GL1}, ~\cite{GL2}). For $u$ satisfying $L_1u = 0$ in $B_1$, define for $a \in B_1$, $r \in (0, 1]$ and $B(a, r) \subset B_1$,
\begin{align*}
D(a, r) & = \int_{B(a, r)}|\nabla u|^2dV, \\
H(a, r) & = \int_{\pa B(a, r)} u^2 dS.
\end{align*}
Then, define the generalized frequency of $\varphi$ by
\beq\label{def: freq-func}
\tilde{N}(a, r) = \frac{rD(a, r)}{H(a, r)}.
\eeq
We note that ~\cite{L1} and ~\cite{L2} use a variant of $\tilde{N}(a, r)$, defined as follows:
\beq\label{def: freq-Log}
N(a, r) = \frac{rH^{'}(a, r)}{2H(a, r)}.
\eeq
To pass between $\beta_r(\varphi), \tilde{N}(a, r)$ and $N(a, r)$, we record the following facts: from equation (3.1.22) of ~\cite{HL}, we have that
\beq\label{eq: HL}
H^{'}(a, r) = \left( \frac{n - 1}{r} + O(1)\right) H(a, r) + 2D(a, r),
\eeq
where $O(1)$ is a function of geodesic polar coordinates $(r, \theta)$ bounded in absolute value by a constant $C$ independent of $r$.
More precisely, in \cite{HL} a certain normalizing factor $\mu$ is introduced in the integrand in the definitions of $H(a,r)$ and $D(a,r)$. As it turns out by the construction, $C_1 \leq \mu \leq C_2$ where $C_1, C_2$ depend on the ellipticity constants of the PDE, the dimension $n$ and a bound on the coefficients (cf. 3.1.11, \cite{HL}).
This gives us that when $\tilde{N}(a, r)$ is large, we have,
\beq \label{13}
N(a, r) \sim \tilde{N}(a, r).
\eeq
Also, it is clear from the proof of Remark 3.1.4 of ~\cite{HL} that
\beq\label{14}
\tilde{N}(a, r) \gtrsim \beta_r(\varphi).
\eeq
We also remark that the frequency $N(a, r)$ is almost-monotonic in the following sense: for any $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists $R > 0$ such that if $r_1 < r_2 < R$, then
\beq\label{ineq:almost-mon}
N(a, r_1) \leq N(a, r_2)(1 + \varepsilon).
\eeq
This follows from (\ref{eq: HL}) above and standard properties of $\tilde{N}(a, r)$ derived in \cite{HL}.
As regards growth exponents $\beta$, of particular importance to us is the so-called doubling exponent of $\varphi_\lambda$ at a point, which corresponds to the case $r' = \frac{1}{2}r$ in Theorem \ref{thm:DF-bounds}, and is defined as
\beq\label{def:doubling-exp}
\Cal{N}(x, r) = \log \frac{\sup_{B(x, 2r} |\varphi_\lambda|}{\sup_{B(x, r} |\varphi_\lambda|}.
\eeq
Now, consider an eigenfunction $\varphi_\lambda$ on $M$. We convert $\varphi_\lambda$ into a harmonic function in the following standard way. Let us consider the Riemannian product manifold $\bar{M} := M \times \mathbb{R}$ - a cylinder over $M$, equipped with the standard product metric $\bar{g}$. By a direct check, the function
\begin{equation}\label{eq:harm_func}
u(x, t) := e^{\sqrt{\lambda} t} \varphi_\lambda (x)
\end{equation}
is harmonic.
Hence, by Theorem \ref{thm:DF-bounds}, the harmonic function $ u $ in (\ref{eq:harm_func}) has a doubling exponent which is also bounded by $ C \sqrt{\lambda} $ in balls whose radius is no greater than $ r_1= r_1(M,g) > 0$.
It is well-known that doubling conditions imply upper bounds on the frequency (cf. Lemma $ 6 $, \cite{BL}):
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:Frequency-Bound}
For each point $p = (x, t) \in \bar{M} $ the harmonic function $ u(p) $ satisfies the following frequency bound:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{N}(p, r) \leq C \sqrt{\lambda},
\end{equation}
where $ r $ is any number in the interval $ (0, r_2), r_2 = r_2(M, g) $ and $ C > 0 $ is a fixed constant depending only on $ M, g $.
\end{lemma}
For a proof of Lemma \ref{lem:Frequency-Bound} we refer to Lemma $ 6 $, \cite{BL}.
\section{Tubular neighbourhood of nodal set: Theorem \ref{JaMa}}\label{Sec:2}
\subsection{Idea of Proof}
We first focus on the proof of the lower bound. Since the proof is somewhat long and technical, we begin by giving a brief sketch of the overall idea of the proof.
It is well-known by a Harnack inequality argument (see ~\cite{Br} for example), that the nodal set of $ \varphi_\lambda $ is wavelength dense in $M$, which means that one can find $ \sim \lambda^{n/2}$ many disjoint balls $B^i_{\frac{r}{\sqrt{\lambda}}} := B(x_i, \frac{r}{\sqrt{\lambda}}) \subset M$ such that $\varphi_\lambda(x_i) = 0$. Now, to obtain a lower bound on $ |T_{\varphi, \delta}| $ we wish to estimate $ |T_{\varphi, \delta} \cap B(x_i, \frac{r}{\sqrt{\lambda}})|$ from below. The strategy is to consider separately those balls $B^i_{\frac{r}{\sqrt{\lambda}}}$ on which $\varphi_\lambda$ has controlled doubling exponent, which we deal with using the tools of \cite{DF, JM}, and those on which $\varphi_\lambda$ has high doubling exponent, for which we bring in the tools of \cite{L1, L2}. In other words we distinguish two options:
\begin{enumerate}
\item First, for a ball $B(x, \rho)$ of controlled doubling exponent (where $\rho \sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}$, and $\varphi_\lambda (x) = 0$), we show that
\beq\label{ineq:cont-grow}
\frac{|T_{\varphi, \delta} \cap B(x, \rho)|}{\rho^{n - 1}\delta} \geq c.
\eeq
To verify this, we essentially follow the argument of Jakobson and Mangoubi, \cite{JM} from the real-analytic case. The main observation is the fact that the volumes of positivity and negativity of $\varphi_\lambda$ inside such $B(x, \rho)$ are comparable. A further application of the Brunn-Minkowski inequality then yields (\ref{ineq:cont-grow}).
\item Now, to continue the idea of the proof, for a ball $B(x, \rho)$ of high doubling exponent $N$ (where $\rho \sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}$, and $\varphi_\lambda (x) = 0$), we prove that
\beq\label{ineq:uncont-grow}
\frac{|T_{\varphi, \delta} \cap B(x, \rho)|}{\rho^{n - 1}\delta} \geq \frac{1}{N^\varepsilon}, \text{ where } N \lesssim \sqrt{\lambda}.
\eeq
To prove this, we use the following sort of iteration procedure. Using the methods of Logunov, \cite{L1}, \cite{L2}, one first sees that in such a ball $B(x, \rho)$ of large doubling exponent one can find a large collection of smaller disjoint balls $ \{B^j\}_j$, whose centers are again zeros of $\varphi_\lambda$. We then focus on estimating $ |T_{\varphi, \delta} \cap B^j| $ and again distinguish the same two options - either the doubling exponent of $B^j$ is small, which brings us back to the previous case $(1)$ where we have appropriate estimates on the tube, or the doubling exponent of $B^j$ is large. Now, in case the doubling exponent of $B^j$ is large, we similarly discover another large subcollection of even smaller disjoint balls inside $B^j$, whose centers are zeros of $\varphi_\lambda$ and so forth.
We repeat this iteration either until the current small ball has a controlled doubling exponent, or until the current small ball is of radius comparable to the width $\delta$ of the tube $T_{\varphi, \delta} $. In both situations we have a lower estimate on the volume of the tube which brings us to $(\ref{ineq:uncont-grow})$.
\end{enumerate}
Once this is done, (\ref{low}) follows by adding (\ref{ineq:cont-grow}) and (\ref{ineq:uncont-grow}) over $\sim \lambda^{n/2}$ balls $B^i_{\frac{r}{\sqrt{\lambda}}}$, as mentioned above.
\begin{remark} We make a quick digression here and recall that in the real analytic setting, it is known that one can find $\sim \lambda^{n/2}$ many balls of wavelength (comparable) radius, as mentioned above, such that all of them have controlled doubling exponent - in other words, the first case above is the only one that needs to be considered. However, in the smooth setting, it is still a matter of investigation how large a proportion of the wavelength balls possesses controlled doubling exponent. For example, it is shown in ~\cite{CM}, that one can arrange that $\lambda^{\frac{n + 1}{4}}$ such balls possess controlled growth. More explicitly, the following question seems to be of interest and may also have substantial applications in the study of nodal geometry: given a closed smooth manifold $M$, how many disjoint balls $B(x^i_\lambda, \frac{r}{\sqrt{\lambda}})$ of controlled doubling exponent can one find inside $M$ such that $\varphi_\lambda(x^i_\lambda) = 0$, where $r$ is a suitably chosen constant depending only on the geometry of $(M, g)$?.
\end{remark}
The idea of proof of the upper bound (\ref{up}) is quite simple. We take a cube $Q$ inside $M$ of side-length $1$, say, and we chop it up into subcubes $Q_{k}$ of side-length $\delta$. Observe that due to Logunov's resolution of the Nadirashvili conjecture (\cite{L1}), for each subcube $Q_k$ which intersects the nodal set (which we call nodal subcubes following \cite{JM}), we have a local lower bound of the kind $\mathcal{H}^{n - 1}(N_\varphi \cap Q_k) \gtrsim \delta^{n - 1} $. Summing this up, we get an upper bound on the number of nodal subcubes, and in turn, an upper bound on the volume of all nodal subcubes in terms of $\Cal{H}^{n - 1}(N_\varphi)$.
Now, since $T_{\varphi, \delta}$ is contained inside the union of all such nodal subcubes, combined with the upper bound on $\Cal{H}^{n - 1}(N_\varphi)$ due to \cite{L2}, we have (\ref{up}).
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{JaMa}}
\begin{proof}[Proof of (\ref{low})]
We use the notation above and work in the product manifold $ \bar{M} $ with the harmonic function $u(x, t) = e^{\sqrt{\lambda} t} \varphi_\lambda (x)$. For the purpose of the proof of (\ref{low}), we will assume that $M$ is $n - 1$ dimensional. All this is strictly for notational convenience and ease of presentation, as we will now work with the tubular neighbourhood of $ u $, which then becomes $n$ dimensional. Considering the tubular neighbourhood of $u$ instead of $\varphi_\lambda$ does not create any problems because the nodal set of $ u $ is a product, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\{ u = 0 \} = \{ \varphi_\lambda = 0 \} \times \mathbb{R}.
\end{equation}
As the tubular neighbourhoods we are considering are of at most wavelength radius and at the this scale the Riemannian metric is almost the Euclidean one, we have
\begin{equation}
T_{u, \frac{\delta}{2}} \subseteq T_{\varphi, \delta} \times \mathbb{R}.
\end{equation}
Hence, to obtain a lower bound for $ |T_{\varphi, \delta}| $ it suffices to bound $ |T_{u, \frac{\delta}{2}}| $ below. To this end, we consider a strip $ S:=M \times [0, R_0] $ where $ R_0 > 0 $ is sufficiently large.
We will obtain lower bound on $ |B_{\frac{r}{\sqrt{\lambda}}}^i (p_i) \cap T_{u, \frac{\delta}{2}}| $, which will give the analogous statements for (\ref{ineq:cont-grow}) and (\ref{ineq:uncont-grow}) for the function $u$. As mentioned before, depending on the doubling exponent of $ u $ in the ball $ B_{\frac{r}{\sqrt{\lambda}}}^i (p_i) $ we distinguish two cases, and we will prove that $\frac{|T_{u, \frac{\delta}{2}} \cap B(x, \rho)|}{\rho^{n - 1}\delta} \geq c$ in the case of controlled doubling exponent, and $\frac{|T_{u, \frac{\delta}{2}} \cap B(x, \rho)|}{\rho^{n - 1}\delta} \geq \frac{1}{N^\varepsilon}, \text{ where } N \lesssim \sqrt{\lambda}$ in the case of high doubling exponent.
{\bf Case I : Controlled doubling exponent:}
In the regime of controlled doubling exponent, in which case it is classically known that the nodal geometry is well-behaved, we essentially follow the proof in ~\cite{JM}. Let $B := B(p, \rho)$ be a ball such that $u(p) = 0$ and $u$ has bounded doubling exponent on $B(p, \rho)$, that is, $\frac{\sup_{B(p, 2\rho)}|u|}{\sup_{B(p, \rho)}|u|} \leq C$ (ultimately we will set $\rho \sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}$). Then, by symmetry results (see (\ref{man}) below), we have that $C_1 < \frac{|B^+|}{|B^-|} < C_2 $, where $B^+ = \{ u > 0\} \cap B, B^- = \{ u < 0\} \cap B$.
Let $\delta := \tilde{c} \rho$, where $\tilde{c}$ is a small constant to be selected later. Denoting by $B^+_\delta$ the $\delta$-neighbourhood of $B^+$, and similarly for $B^-$, and $2B:= B(p, 2\rho)$, we have that since $T_{u, \delta} \supset B^{+}_\delta\cap B^{-}_\delta$,
\begin{equation}
|T_{u, \delta} \cap 2B| \geq |B^+_\delta| + |B^-_\delta| - |B(p, \rho + \delta)|.
\end{equation}
By the Brunn-Minkowski inequality, we see that $|B^+_\delta| \geq |B^+| + n\omega_n^{1/n}\delta|B^+|^{1 - 1/n}$, where $\omega_n$ is the volume of the $n$-dimensional unit ball. Setting $|B^+| = \alpha|B|, |B^-| = (1 - \alpha)|B|$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{bm}
|T_{u, \delta} \cap 2B| \geq \omega_n\left(\rho^n - (\rho + \delta)^n + n\rho^{n - 1}\delta(\alpha^{1 - 1/n} + (1 - \alpha)^{1 - 1/n})\right).
\end{equation}
By asymmetry, $\alpha$ is bounded away from $0$ and $1$, meaning that $\alpha^{1 - 1/n} + (1 - \alpha)^{1 - 1/n} > 1 + C$. Now, taking $\tilde{c}$ small enough, the right hand side of (\ref{bm}) is actually $\gtrsim \rho^{n - 1}\delta$, giving us
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:Step-I}
Let the tubular distance $ \delta $ and the radius of the ball $ \rho $ be in proportion $ \frac{\delta}{\rho} \leq \tilde{c} $ where $ \tilde{c} > 0$ is a small fixed number. Assume that the doubling index of $ u $ over the ball $ B_\rho $ is small. Then
\begin{equation} \label{rho}
|T_{u, \delta} \cap 2B| \gtrsim \rho^{n - 1}\delta.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
{\bf Case II: Large doubling exponent:}
Now, let us consider a ball $B(p, \rho)$ with radius $\rho$ comparable to the wavelength, and let $B^{'} = B(p, \frac{\rho}{2})$. Let us assume that initially we take $ \rho $ such that $ \frac{\delta}{\rho} \leq \tilde{c} $.
Suppose $\frac{\sup_{B^{'}}|u|}{\sup_{\frac{1}{2}B^{'}}|u|}$ is large. By \label{pp7}(\ref{13}) and (\ref{14}), the frequency function $ N(p, \frac{\rho}{2}) $ is also large. Recall also the almost monotonicity of the frequency function $N(x, r)$, given by (\ref{ineq:almost-mon}), which will be implicit in our calculations below.
We will make use of the following fact:
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:Number-of-Zeros}
Consider a harmonic function $u$ on $B(p, 2\rho)$. If $N(p, \rho)$ is sufficiently large, then there is a number $N$ with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Frequency-Comparison}
N(p, \rho)/10 < N < 2N(p, \frac{3}{2}\rho).
\end{equation} such that the following holds:
Suppose that $ \epsilon \in (0, 1) $ is fixed. Then there exists a constant $ C = C(\epsilon) > 0 $ and at least $ [ N^\epsilon]^{n-1} 2^{C \log N / \log \log N} $ disjoint balls $ B(x_i, \frac{\rho}{N^\epsilon \log^6 N}) \subset B(p, 2\rho) $ such that $ u(x_i) = 0 $. Here $ [.] $ denotes the integer part of a given number.
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{thm:Number-of-Zeros} is mentioned as a remark at the end of Section $6$ of \cite{L1} - for completeness and convenience, we
give full details of the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Number-of-Zeros} in this paper, but we relegate them to the Appendix below.
We will now use Theorem \ref{thm:Number-of-Zeros} in an iteration procedure. The first step of the iteration proceeds as follows.
Let us denote by $ \zeta_1 $ the radius of the small balls prescribed by Theorem \ref{thm:Number-of-Zeros}, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\zeta_1 := \frac{\rho}{N^\epsilon \log^6 N}.
\end{equation}
Further, let $\Cal{B}_1$ denote the collection of these small balls inside $B(p, 2\rho)$. Let $F_1 := \inf_{B \in \Cal{B}_1} \frac{|T_{u, \delta} \cap B|}{\zeta_1^{n-1 }\delta}$ and let us assume that it is attained on the ball $B^1 \in \Cal{B}_1$.
We then have that
\begin{align*}
|T_{u, \delta} \cap B(p, 2\rho)| & \geq \sum_{B_i \in \mathcal{B}_1} |T_{u, \delta} \cap B_i| \geq [N^\epsilon]^{n - 1}2^{C\log N /\log \log N} F_1\zeta_1^{n - 1}\delta \geq \\
& \geq [N^\epsilon]^{n - 1}2^{C\text{log }N /\log \log N}\frac{\rho^{n - 1} \delta}{(2 N^{\epsilon}\text{log}^6N)^{n - 1}} F_1,
\end{align*}
which implies that
\begin{equation}
\frac{|T_{u, \delta} \cap B(p, 2\rho)|}{\rho^{n - 1}\delta} \geq 2^{C\log N/\log \log N}F_1 \geq F_1,
\end{equation}
by reducing the constant $C$, if necessary, and assuming that $ N $ is large enough. Recalling that by assumption $ F_1 = \frac{|T_{u, \delta} \cap B^1|}{\zeta_1^{n-1}\delta} $, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{|T_{u, \delta} \cap B(p, 2\rho)|}{\rho^{n - 1}\delta} \geq 2^{C\log N/\log \log N} \frac{|T_{u, \delta} \cap B^1|}{\zeta_1^{n-1}\delta}.
\end{equation}
This concludes the first step of the iteration.
Now, the second step of the iteration process proceeds as follows. We inspect three sub-cases.
\begin{itemize}
\item First, suppose that $ \delta $ and $ \zeta_1 $ are comparable in the sense that
\begin{equation}
\frac{8\delta}{\zeta_1} > \tilde{c},
\end{equation}
where $ \tilde{c} $ is the constant from Lemma \ref{lem:Step-I}. As there is a ball of radius $ \delta $ centered at $ x_1 $ (the center of $ B^1 $) that is contained in the tubular neighbourhood, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{|T_{u, \delta} \cap B^1|}{\zeta_1^{n-1}\delta} \geq \frac{ C (\tilde{c} \zeta_1)^n }{\zeta_1^{n-1}\delta} \geq C \tilde{c}^n \frac{ \zeta_1}{\delta}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, initially we assumed that $ \frac{\delta}{\rho} \leq \tilde{c} $, hence
\begin{equation}
\frac{|T_{u, \delta} \cap B^1|}{\zeta_1^{n-1}\delta} \geq C_1 \tilde{c}^{n-1} \frac{\zeta_1}{\rho} = C_1 \tilde{c}^{n-1} \frac{1}{N^\epsilon \log^6 N} \geq C_2 \frac{1}{N^{\epsilon_1}},
\end{equation}
where $ \epsilon_1 > 0 $ is slightly larger than $ \epsilon $. In combination with the frequency bound of Lemma \ref{lem:Frequency-Bound} and the fact that $ N $ is comparable to the frequency by (\ref{eq:Frequency-Comparison}) we get
\begin{equation}
\frac{|T_{u, \delta} \cap B(p, 2\rho)|}{\rho^{n - 1}\delta} \geq \frac{|T_{u, \delta} \cap B^1|}{\zeta_1^{n-1}\delta} \geq \frac{C_3}{\lambda^{\epsilon_1 /2}}.
\end{equation}
The iteration process finishes.
\item Now suppose that the tubular radius is quite smaller in comparison to the radius of the ball, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\frac{8\delta}{\zeta_1} \leq \tilde{c}.
\end{equation}
Suppose further that the doubling exponent of $u$ in $ \frac{1}{8} B^1 $ is small. We can revert back to Case I and Lemma \ref{lem:Step-I} by which we deduce that
\begin{equation}
\frac{|T_{u, \delta} \cap B(p, 2\rho)|}{\rho^{n - 1}\delta} \geq \frac{|T_{u, \delta} \cap B^1|}{\zeta_1^{n-1}\delta} \geq \frac{|T_{u, \delta} \cap \frac{1}{8} B^1|}{\zeta_1^{n-1}\delta} \geq C,
\end{equation}
whence the iteration process stops.
\item Finally, let us suppose that
\begin{equation}
\frac{8\delta}{\zeta_1} \leq \tilde{c},
\end{equation}
and further that the doubling exponent of $u$ in $ B^1 $ is sufficiently large. We can now replace the initial starting ball $ B(p, 2\rho) $ by $ B^1 $ and then repeat the first step of the iteration process for $ \frac{1}{8} B^1 $. As above, we see that there has to be a ball $ \tilde{B}^1 $ of radius $ \tilde{\zeta}_1 \in (\frac{1}{4}\zeta_1, \frac{1}{2} \zeta_1) $ upon which the frequency is comparable to a sufficiently large number $ N_1 $.
Now, we apply Theorem \ref{thm:Number-of-Zeros} and within $ B^1 $ discover at least $ [N_1^\epsilon]^{n-1} 2^{C \log N_1 / \log \log N_1} $ balls of radius
\begin{equation}
\zeta_2 := \frac{\zeta_1}{N_1^\epsilon \log^6 N_1},
\end{equation}
such that $\varphi_\lambda$ vanishes at the center of these balls.
As before, we denote the collection of these balls by $ \mathcal{B}_2 $ and put $ F_2 := \inf_{B \in \Cal{B}_2} \frac{|T_{u, \delta} \cap B|}{\zeta_1^{n-1 }\delta}$. Analogously we also obtain
\begin{equation}
F_1 = \frac{|T_{u, \delta} \cap B^1|}{\zeta_1^{n - 1}\delta} \geq 2^{C\log N_1/\log \log N_1}F_2 \geq F_2.
\end{equation}
Again, we reach the three sub-cases. If either of the two first sub-cases holds, then we bound $ F_2 $ in the same way as $ F_1 $ - this yields a bound on $ \frac{|T_{u, \delta} \cap B_\rho|}{\rho^{n - 1}\delta} $. If the third sub-case holds, then we repeat the construction and eventually get $ F_3, F_4, \dots $.
\end{itemize}
Notice that the iteration procedure eventually stops. Indeed, it can only proceed if the third sub-case is constantly iterated. However, at each iteration the radius of the considered balls drops sufficiently fast and this ensures that either of the first two sub-cases is eventually reached.
This finally gives us
\begin{equation}\label{ineq:final_iteration}
\frac{|T_{u, \delta} \cap B(p, 2\rho)|}{\rho^{n - 1}\delta} \geq F_1 \geq F_2 \geq \dots \geq \frac{C_3}{\lambda^{\epsilon_1 /2}}.
\end{equation}
At last, we are done with the iteration, and this also brings us to the end of the discussion about Case I and Case II. To summarize what we have established, the most ``unfavourable'' situation is that scenario in Case II, where we at every level of the iteration we encounter balls of high doubling exponent, and we have to carry out the iteration all the way till the radius of the smaller balls (whose existence at every stage is guaranteed by Theorem \ref{thm:Number-of-Zeros}) drops below $\delta$. The lower bound for $\frac{|T_{u, \delta} \cap B(p, 2\rho)|}{\rho^{n - 1}\delta}$ in such a ``worst'' scenario is given by (\ref{ineq:final_iteration}).
We are now ready to finish the proof. Letting $\rho = \frac{r}{2\sqrt{\lambda}}$ and by summing (\ref{ineq:final_iteration}) over the $\sim \lambda^{n/2}$ many wavelength balls $B^i_{\frac{r}{\sqrt{\lambda}}}$ (as mentioned at the beginning of this Section), we have that
\begin{equation}
|T_{u, \delta}| \geq \frac{C_3}{\lambda^{\epsilon_1 /2}}\rho^{n - 1}\delta\lambda^{n/2} \gtrsim \lambda^{1/2 - \epsilon_1/2}\delta.
\end{equation}
Using the relationship between the nodal sets of $\varphi_\lambda$ and $u$, this yields (\ref{low}).
\end{proof}
Now we turn to the proof of the upper bound.
\begin{proof}[Proof of (\ref{up})]
We start by giving a formal statement of the main result of ~\cite{L2}:
\begin{theorem}\label{th: log-upp-bd}
Let $(M, g)$ be a compact smooth Riemannian manifold without boundary. Then there exists a number $\kappa$, depending only on $n = \text{dim } M$ and $C = C(M, g)$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Cal{H}^{n - 1}(N_\varphi) \leq C\lambda^\kappa.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
As remarked before, we assume that $M$ has sufficiently large injectivity radius. Consider a finite covering $Q_k$ of $M$ by cubes of side length $1$, say. Consider a subdivision of each cube $Q_k$ into subcubes $Q_{k, \nu}$ of side length $\delta,$ where $\delta \leq \frac{1}{3}$. Call a small subcube $Q_{k, \nu}$ a nodal cube if $N_\varphi \cap Q_{k, \nu} \neq \emptyset$. Also, denote by $Q_{k, \nu}^*$ the union of $Q_{k, \nu}$ with its $3^n - 1$ neighbouring subcubes. Then, it is clear that
\beq\label{Nod}
T_{\varphi, \delta} \subset \bigcup_{\text{Nod}} Q_{k, \nu}^*,
\eeq
where Nod denotes the set of all nodal subcubes $Q_{k,
\nu}$.
By Theorem 1.2 of \cite{L1}, we have that
\beq\label{hell}
\Cal{H}^{n - 1}(N_\varphi \cap Q^*_{k,\nu}) \gtrsim \delta^{n - 1}.
\eeq
Summing up (\ref{hell}),
we get that
\begin{align*}
3^n\Cal{H}^{n - 1}(N_\varphi)
& \geq \sum_{\text{Nod} } \Cal{H}^{n - 1}(N_\varphi \cap Q^*_{k,\nu}) \\& \gtrsim \#(\text{nodal } Q_{k,\nu})\delta^{n - 1},
\end{align*}
which means that the number of nodal subcubes is $\lesssim \Cal{H}^{n - 1}(N_\varphi)/\delta^{n - 1}$.
Using (\ref{Nod}), this means that
\[
|T_{\varphi, \delta}| \lesssim \Cal{H}^{n - 1}(N_\varphi)\delta.
\]
Finally, we invoke Theorem \ref{th: log-upp-bd} to finish our proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Some remarks on the asymptotic geometry of nodal domains: Theorems \ref{ICC} and \ref{newres}}\label{ICCsec}
\subsection{Internal cone condition}
\subsubsection{Preliminaries}\label{prel1}
We will use Bers scaling of eigenfunctions near zeros (see ~\cite{Be}). We quote the version as appears in ~\cite{Z}, Section 3.11.
\begin{theorem}[Bers]\label{Zildo}
Assume that $\varphi_\lambda$ vanishes to order $k$ at $x_0$. Let $\varphi_\lambda(x) = \varphi_k(x) + \varphi_{k + 1}(x) + ..... $ denote the Taylor expansion of $\varphi_\lambda$ into homogeneous terms in normal coordinates $x$ centered at $x_0$. Then $\varphi_\kappa(x)$ is a Euclidean harmonic homogeneous polynomial of degree $k$.
\end{theorem}
We also use the following inradius estimate for real analytic metrics (see ~\cite{G}).
\begin{theorem}\label{Zeldiev}
Let $(M, g)$ be a real-analytic closed manifold of dimension at
least $3$. If $\Omega_\lambda$ is a nodal domain corresponding to the eigenfunction $\varphi_\lambda$,
then there exist constants $\lambda_0, c_1$ and $c_2$ which depend only
on $(M, g)$, such that
\beq\label{ra_inrad}
\frac{c_1}{\lambda} \leq \text{inrad }(\Omega_\lambda) \leq \frac{c_2}{\sqrt{\lambda}}, \lambda \geq \lambda_0.\eeq
\end{theorem}
Since the statement of Theorem \ref{Zeldiev} is asymptotic in nature, we need to justify that if $\lambda < \lambda_0$, a nodal domain corresponding to $\lambda$ will still satisfy $\text{inrad }(\Omega_\lambda) \geq \frac{c_3}{\lambda}$ for some constant $c_3$. This follows from the inradius estimates of Mangoubi in \cite{Man2}, which hold for all frequencies. Consequently, we can assume that every nodal domain $\Omega$ on $S^n$ corresponding to the spherical harmonic $\varphi_k(x)$, as in Theorem \ref{Zildo}, has inradius $\gtrsim \frac{1}{\lambda}$.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{ICC}}
We observe that Theorem \ref{Zeldiev} applies to spherical harmonics, and in particular the function $\text{exp}^*(\varphi_k)$, restricted to $S(T_{x_0}M)$, where $\varphi_k(x)$ is the homogeneous harmonic polynomial given by Theorem \ref{Zildo}.
Also, a nodal domain for any spherical harmonic on $S^2$ (respectively, $S^3$) corresponding to eigenvalue $\lambda$ has inradius $\sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}$ (respectively, $\gtrsim \frac{1}{\lambda^{7/8}}$).
With that in place, it suffices to prove that
\beq\label{suff}
\Cal{S}_{x_0}N_\varphi \subseteq \Cal{S}_{x_0}N_{\varphi_k}.
\eeq
\begin{proof} By definition, $v \in \Cal{S}_{x_0}N_\varphi$ if there exists a sequence $x_n \in N_\varphi$ such that $x_n \to x_0$, $x_n = \text{exp} (r_nv_n)$, where $r_n$ are positive real numbers and $v_n \in S(T_{x_0}M)$, and $v_n \to v$.
This gives us,
\begin{align*}
0 & = \varphi_\lambda(x_n) = \varphi_\lambda(r_n\text{exp }v_n) \\
& = r_n^k\varphi_k(\text{exp }v_n) + \sum_{m > k}r_n^{m}\varphi_m(\text{exp }v_n)\\
& = \varphi_k(\text{exp }v_n) + \sum_{m > k}r_n^{m - k}\varphi_m(\text{exp }v_n)\\
& \to \varphi_k(\text{exp }v), \text{ as } n \to \infty.
\end{align*}
Observing that $\varphi_k(x)$ is homogeneous, this proves (\ref{suff}).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Inscribed balls in a nodal domain}
\subsubsection{Preliminaries} \label{prel}
We start again by collecting some auxiliary results that we need for the proof of Theorem \ref{newres}. These include
\begin{enumerate}
\item A maximum principle for solutions of elliptic PDE,
\item Comparison estimates on the volumes of positivity/negativity of eigenfunctions (i.e. local asymmetry of sign),
\item Growth of solutions of elliptic PDE in narrow domains,
\item Existence of almost inscribed balls.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Local elliptic maximum principle} We quote the following local maximum principle, which appears as Theorem 9.20 in ~\cite{GT}.
\begin{theorem}
Suppose $Lu \leq 0$ on $B_1$. Then
\beq\label{GT}
\sup_{B(y, r_1)} u \leq C(r_1/r_2, p)\left( \frac{1}{\operatorname{Vol} (B(y, r_2))}\int_{B(y, r_2)} (u^{+}(x))^p dx\right)^{1/p},
\eeq
for all $p > 0$, whenever $0 < r_1 < r_2$ and $B(y, r_2) \subseteq B_1$.
\end{theorem}
\subsubsection{Local asymmetry of nodal domains} \label{subsubsec:Asymmetry} Our proof also uses the concept of local asymmetry of nodal domains, which roughly means the following. Consider a manifold $M$ with smooth metric. If the nodal set of an eigenfunction $\varphi_\lambda$ enters sufficiently deeply into a geodesic ball $B$, then the volume ratio between the positivity and negativity set of $\varphi_\lambda$ in $B$ is controlled in terms of $\lambda$. More formally, we have the following result from ~\cite{Man2}:
\beq\label{man}
\frac{|\{\varphi_\lambda > 0\} \cap B|}{|B|} \gtrsim \frac{1}{\langle \beta_{1/2}(\varphi )\rangle^{n - 1}},
\eeq
where $\langle \beta_r\rangle = \text{max}\{\beta_r, 3\}$. In particular, when combined with the growth bound of Donnelly-Fefferman, this yields that
$$
\frac{|\{\varphi_\lambda > 0\} \cap B|}{|B|} \gtrsim \frac{1}{\lambda^{\frac{n - 1}{2}}}.
$$
This particular question about comparing the volumes of positivity and negativity seems to originate from \cite{ChMu}, \cite{DF1}, and then work of Nazarov, Polterovich and Sodin (cf. \cite{NPS}), where they also conjecture that the present bound is far from being optimal. Moreover, it is believed that the sets of positivity and negativity should have volumes which are comparable up to a factor of $1/\lambda^\epsilon$ for small $\epsilon > 0$.
\subsubsection{Rapid growth in narrow domains} Heuristically, this means that if $\varphi$ solves (\ref{ellip}), and has a deep and narrow positivity component, then $\varphi$ grows rapidly in the said component. In our paper, we use an iterated version of this principle, which appears as Theorem 3.2 in ~\cite{Man3}. Let $\varphi_\lambda$ satisfy (\ref{ellip}) on the rescaled ball $B_1$, as at the beginning of Section \ref{subsec:Prelim}.
\begin{theorem}\label{rapgrow}
Let $0 < r'< 1/2$. Let $\Omega$ be a connected component of $\{ \varphi > 0\}$ which intersects $B_{r'}$. Let $\eta > 0$ be small. If $|\Omega \cap B_r|/|B_r| \leq \eta^{n - 1}$ for all $r' < r < 1$, then
\[
\frac{\sup_\Omega \varphi}{\sup_{\Omega \cap B_{r'}}\varphi} \geq \left(\frac{1}{r'}\right)^{C^{'}/\eta},
\]
where $C^{'}$ is a constant depending only on the metric $(M, g)$.
\end{theorem}
\subsubsection{Almost inscribing wavelength ball}
We finally recall some results discussing ``almost'' inscribed balls inside a given domain. More precisely, we start by recalling a celebrated theorem of Lieb (see \cite{L}), which considers the case of a domain $\Omega \subset \RR^n$ and states that there exists a point $x \in \Omega$, and a ball $B:= B(x,\frac{r}{\sqrt{\lambda_1(\Omega)}})$ of radius $\frac{r}{\sqrt{\lambda_1(\Omega)}}, $ (here $r> 0$ is sufficiently small) which is ``almost'' inscribed in $\Omega$, that is
\begin{equation}
\frac{|B \cap \Omega |}{|B|} \geq 1 - \epsilon.
\end{equation}
Here $\lambda_1(\Omega)$ is the first Dirichlet eigenvalue of $\Omega$. Moreover, $\epsilon$ approaches $0$ as $r \rightarrow 0$.
A further related result was obtained in the paper \cite{MS} (see, in particular, Theorem 1.1 and Subsection 5.1 of \cite{MS}).
In ~\cite{GM}, a refinement of the above statement of Lieb was obtained stating that $x \in \Omega$ can be taken as any point where the first Dirichlet eigenfunction of $\Omega$ (assumed to be positive without loss of generality) reaches a maximum.
Specifying these statements to nodal domains, we have:
\begin{theorem}\label{alfulins}
Let $\dim M \geq 3, \epsilon_0 > 0 $ be fixed and $ x_0 \in \Omega_\lambda $ be such that $ |\varphi_\lambda(x_0)| = \text{max}_{\Omega_\lambda}|\varphi_\lambda| $. There exists $ r_0 = r_0 (\epsilon_0) $, such that
\begin{equation}\label{Vol}
\frac{|B_{r_0} \cap \Omega_\lambda |}{|B_{r_0}|} \geq 1 - \epsilon_0,
\end{equation}
where $ B_{r_0} $ denotes $ B\left(x_0, \frac{r_0}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\right) $.
\end{theorem}
It is also important for our discussion below to have a relation between $\epsilon_0$ and $r_0$. Referring to Corollary 1.4 in ~\cite{GM}, we have that they are related by
\beq\label{rel}
r_0 = C \epsilon_0^{\frac{n - 2}{2n}},
\eeq
where $C$ is a constant depending only on $(M, g)$.
\subsubsection{Idea of proof of Theorem \ref{newres}} Before going into the details of the proof, let us first outline the main ideas. Let us define $ B := B(x_0, \frac{r_0}{\sqrt{\lambda}})$ where $x_0$ is a point of maximum as stated in Theorem \ref{newres} and $r_0 > 0$ is a sufficiently small number. Also recall that $\varphi_\lambda(x_0)$ is assumed to be bounded below in terms of $\eta$.
Now, roughly speaking, we will see that if $r_0$ is sufficiently small in terms of $\eta$, then $\varphi_\lambda$ does not vanish in $\frac{1}{4} B$, a concentric ball of quarter radius. This will imply the claim of the Theorem.
To this end, we argue by contradiction (i.e. we assume that $\varphi_\lambda$ vanishes in $\frac{1}{4} B$) and follow the three steps below:
\begin{enumerate}
\item First, Theorem \ref{alfulins} above tells us that we can ``almost'' inscribe a ball $B = B(x_0,\frac{r_0}{\sqrt{\lambda}})$ inside $\Omega_\lambda$, up to the error of certain ``spikes'' of total volume $\epsilon_0 |B|$ entering the ball, where $\epsilon_0$ and $\rho$ are related by (\ref{rel}). In particular, if we assume w.l.o.g. that $\varphi_\lambda$ is positive on $\Omega_\lambda$, then the volume $|\{ \varphi_\lambda < 0 \} \cap B|$ is relatively small and does not exceed $\epsilon_0 |B|$.
\item The second step consists in showing that the sup norms of $\varphi^{-}$ and $\varphi^{+}$
in the spikes are comparable. More formally, observe that on each connected component of $\frac{1}{4}B \setminus \Omega_\lambda$ (i.e., on each spike in $\frac{1}{4}B$), $\varphi_\lambda$ can be positive or negative a priori. However, by a relatively simple argument involving the mean value property of harmonic functions and standard elliptic maximum principles, we show that on $\frac{1}{4}B \setminus \Omega_\lambda$, $\sup \varphi_\lambda^{-} \lesssim \sup\varphi_\lambda^{+}$.
\item
For the third step, we begin by noting that if we can show that the doubling exponent of $\varphi_\lambda$ in $\frac{1}{8}B$ is bounded above by a constant, then the asymmetry estimate (\ref{man}) will give us that the set $\{\varphi_\lambda < 0\} \cap \frac{1}{4}B$ has a large volume, which contradicts Step ($1$) above. This will be a contradiction to our assumption that $\varphi_\lambda$ vanishes somewhere in $\frac{1}{4} B$, and thus we finally conclude that $\frac{1}{4}B$ is fully inscribed inside $\Omega_\lambda$.
Now, the bounded doubling exponent will be ensured, if $\varphi_\lambda(x_0)$ controls (up to a constant) all the values of $\varphi_\lambda$ inside $\frac{1}{4}B$. Using the input from Step ($2$) above as well as the a priori assumption on $\varphi_\lambda(x_0)$, it suffices to ensure that $\varphi^{+}$ is suitably bounded. This is where we bring in the rapid growth in narrow domains result (Theorem \ref{rapgrow}).
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{newres}}\label{main}
\begin{proof}
{\bf Step $1$: An almost inscribed ball:}
As before, let $x_0$ denote the max point of $\varphi_\lambda$ in the nodal domain $\Omega_\lambda$. Let us assume the sup-norm bound (\ref{cond}) and let us set $B := B(x_0, \frac{r_0}{\sqrt{\lambda}})$ be a ball centered at $x_0$ and of radius $\frac{r_0}{\sqrt{\lambda}}$, where $r_0 > 0$ is sufficiently small and determined below. Further, let us denote the non-inscribed ``error-set'' by $X := B \setminus \Omega_\lambda$.
We start by making the following choice of parameters: we select $0 < \epsilon_0 \leq (\eta C^{'})^{n - 1} $ with a corresponding $r_0 := C \epsilon_0^{\frac{n-2}{2n}}$ (prescribed by (\ref{rel})), where $C^{'}$ is the constant coming from Theorem \ref{rapgrow}; moreover we assume that $0 < \eta \leq \eta_0$ for some fixed small positive number $\eta_0$, so that by Theorem \ref{alfulins}, the relative volume of the ``error'' set $X$ is sufficiently small, i.e.
\beq \label{err}
\frac{|X \cap \frac{1}{4}B|}{|\frac{1}{4}B|} \lesssim \frac{4^n|X \cap B|}{|B|} \leq 4^n \epsilon_0 =: C_2,
\eeq
where $C_2 > 0$ is appropriately chosen below.
We claim that in fact $\varphi_\lambda$ does not vanish in $\frac{1}{4} B $, the concentric ball of a quarter radius.
To prove this, we will argue by contradiction - that is, let us suppose that $\varphi_\lambda$ vanishes somewhere in $\frac{1}{4} B$.
{\bf Step $2$: Comparability of $\varphi_\lambda^+$ and $\varphi_\lambda^-$:}
By assuming the contrary, let $x$ be a point in $\overline{X} \cap \frac{1}{4}B$ lying on the boundary of a spike, that is, $\varphi_\lambda (x) = 0$.
Consider a ball $B^{'}$ around $x$ with radius $\frac{r_0}{2\sqrt{\lambda}}$.
Since $\varphi_\lambda (x) = 0$, we have that (up to constants depending on $(M, g)$),
\beq
\frac{1}{|B^{'}|}\int_{B^{'}} \varphi_\lambda^{-} \sim \frac{1}{|B^{'}|}\int_{B^{'}} \varphi_\lambda^{+}.
\eeq
This follows from mean value properties of harmonic functions; for a detailed proof, see Lemma 5 of ~\cite{CM}.
Now, let $B^{''}$ be a ball slightly smaller than and fully contained in $B^{'}$. Using the local maximum principle (\ref{GT}), we have that (up to constants depending on $(M, g)$),
\beq
\sup_{B^{''}} \varphi_\lambda^{-} \lesssim \frac{1}{|B^{'}|} \int_{B^{'}} \varphi_\lambda^{-} \lesssim \frac{1}{|B^{'}|}\int_{B^{'}} \varphi_\lambda^{+} \leq \sup_{B^{'}} \varphi_\lambda^{+}.
\eeq
This shows that in order to bound $\varphi_\lambda^{-}$, it suffices to bound $\varphi_\lambda^{+}$.
This finishes Step ($2$).
{\bf Step $3$: Controlled doubling exponent and conclusion:}
Our aim is to be able to bound $\sup_{\frac{1}{4} B}\varphi_\lambda^{+}$ in terms of $\varphi_\lambda (x_0)$, as that would give us control of the doubling exponent of $\varphi_\lambda$ on $\frac{1}{8}B$. In other words, we wish to
establish that
\beq\label{want}
\sup_{\frac{1}{4}B} \varphi_\lambda^{+} \leq C\varphi_\lambda (x_0),
\eeq
where $C$ is a constant independent of $\lambda$.
If $X \cap \frac{1}{2}B \cap \{\varphi > 0\} = \emptyset$,
then (\ref{want}) follows immediately by definition.
Otherwise, calling $X^{'} := X \cap \frac{1}{2}B$,
let $\Omega^{'}_\lambda$ represent another nodal domain on which $\varphi_\lambda$ is positive and which intersects $X^{'}$. In other words,
$\Omega^{'}_\lambda \cap \frac{1}{2}B$ gives us a spike entering
$\frac{1}{2}B$ which $\varphi_\lambda$ is positive, and our aim is to obtain bounds on this spike.
Observe that (\ref{err}) implies that the volume of the spike
$\Omega^{'}_\lambda \cap \frac{1}{2}B$ is small compared to
$\frac{1}{2}B$, and this allows us to invoke Theorem \ref{rapgrow}.
We see that
\begin{align*}
2^{1/\eta}\varphi_\lambda(x_0) & \gtrsim \Vert\varphi_\lambda\Vert_{L^\infty(M)} \text{ (by hypothesis (\ref{cond})})\\
& \geq \sup_{\Omega^{'}_\lambda} \varphi_\lambda \geq 2^{1/\eta}\sup_{\Omega^{'}_\lambda \cap \frac{1}{2}B} \varphi_\lambda
\geq 2^{1/\eta}\sup_{\Omega^{'}_\lambda \cap \frac{1}{4}B} \varphi_\lambda \text{ (by applying Theorem \ref{rapgrow}}).
\end{align*}
Now (\ref{want}) follows, which implies that the growth is controlled in the ball $\frac{1}{8}B$,
that is,
\beq\label{lab}
\beta_{1/8}(\varphi_\lambda) = \frac{\sup_{\frac{1}{4}B}|\varphi_\lambda|}{\sup_{\frac{1}{8}B}|\varphi_\lambda|} \leq c_1,
\eeq
where $c_1$ depends on $(M, g)$
and not on $\epsilon_0$ or $\lambda$ (in particular, not on $r_0, \eta$).
Now, we bring in the asymmetry estimate (\ref{man}), which, together with (\ref{lab}), tells us that
\beq\label{35}
\frac{|\{\varphi_\lambda < 0\} \cap \frac{1}{4}B|}{|\frac{1}{4}B|} \geq c_2,
\eeq
where $c_2$ is a constant depending only on $c_1$ and $(M, g)$. But selecting the constant $C_2$ to be smaller than $c_2$ we see that (\ref{35}) contradicts (\ref{err}). Hence, we obtain a contradiction with the fact that the function $\varphi_\lambda$ vanishes inside $\frac{1}{4} B$.
Finally, this proves that with the initial choice of parameters, there is an inscribed ball of radius $ \frac{r_0}{4 \sqrt{\lambda}}$ inside $\Omega_\lambda$. By construction, we had that $r_0 \sim \eta^{\frac{(n - 1)(n - 2)}{2n}} = \eta^{\beta(n)}$.
Combined with the inner radius estimates in \cite{Man2}, this proves the claim of Theorem \ref{newres}.
\end{proof}
\section{Appendix: number of zeros over balls with large doubling exponent}
We address the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Number-of-Zeros}. We will essentially just follow and adjust Section 6, \cite{L1} - there Theorem \ref{thm:Number-of-Zeros} was stated as a remark. For mere completeness, we will recall all the relevant statements.
Let us briefly give an overview of how the proof proceeds.
First, we consider a harmonic function in a ball and gather a few estimates on the way $ u $ grows near a point of maximum. The discussion here involves classical harmonic function estimates as well as scaling of the frequency function $ N(p, r) $ (cf. Subsection \ref{subsec:Prelim}) and the doubling numbers.
Second, let us consider a cube $ Q $ and divide it into small equal subcubes. We recall a combinatorial result (Theorem 5.2, \cite{L1}) which, roughly speaking, gives quantitative estimate on the number of small bad subcubes (i.e., subcubes with large doubling exponent) of a given cube $ Q $.
Third, we utilize the results in the first two steps to prove Theorem \ref{thm:Number-of-Zeros}.
A few words regarding notation: given a point $O \in M$, we take a small enough coordinate chart $(U, \psi)$ around $O$ such that the Riemannian metric $g$ on the chart is comparable to the Euclidean metric in the following sense: given $\nu > 0$, there is a sufficiently small $R_0 = R_0 (\nu, M, g, O)$ such that $(1 - \nu)d_g(x, y) < d_{\text{Euc}}(\psi(x),\psi (y)) < (1 + \nu)d_g(x, y)$ for any two distinct points $x, y \in B_g(O, R_0)$. Under this metric comparability, we will drop the subscript ``$g$'' henceforth, and will describe ``cubes'' and ``boxes'' and their partitions, and such combinatorial ideas directly on the manifold $M$.
\subsection{Growth of harmonic functions near a point of maximum}\label{subsec:Growth}
Let us start by recalling the following observation (Lemma 3.2, \cite{L1}). Let $ B(p, 2r) \subset B(O, R_0) $ where the frequency function satisfies $ N(p, \frac{r}{2}) > 10 $. Then there exists numbers $ s \in [r, \frac{3}{2}) $ and $ N \geq 5 $ so that
\begin{equation}
N \leq N(p, t) \leq 2e N,
\end{equation}
where the parameter $ t $ is any number within the interval $ I $ given by
\begin{equation}
I := \left( s(1 - \frac{1}{1000 \log^2 N}), s(1 + \frac{1}{1000 \log^2 N}) \right).
\end{equation}
In words, we find and work in a small spherical layer where the frequency is comparable to $ N $.
Recalling the function $ H(p, t) = \int_{\partial B(p,t)} u^2 dS$, it follows from the definition of the frequency function that
\begin{equation}
\frac{H(x, r_2)}{H(x, r_1)} = \exp \left( 2 \int_{r_1}^{r_2} \frac{N(x, r)}{r} dr \right).
\end{equation}
Combining this with the control over $ N $ in the interval $ I $, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\left( \frac{t_2}{t_1} \right)^{2N} \leq \frac{H(p, t_2)}{H(p, t_1)} \leq \left( \frac{t_2}{t_1} \right)^{4eN},
\end{equation}
where $ t_1 < t_2 $ and $ t_1, t_2 \in I $.
Now, let us consider a point of maximum $ x \in \partial B(p, s) $, such that
\begin{equation}
\sup_{y \in \bar{B}(p, s)} |u(y)| = |u(x)| =: K.
\end{equation}
We now look at concentric spheres of radii $ s^- := s(1-\delta) $ and $ s^+ := s(1 + \delta) $ where $ \delta $ is a small number in the interval $ [\frac{1}{10^6 \log^{100} N}, \frac{1}{10^6 \log^{2} N}] $. We can estimate $ \sup_{B(p, s^+)} |u| $ and $ \sup_{B(p, s^-)} |u| $ in terms of $ K $:
\begin{lemma} [Lemma 4.1, \cite{L1}]
There exist $ c, C > 0 $ depending on $ M, g, n, O, R_0 $, such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:9}
\sup_{B(p, s^-)} |u| \leq CK 2^{-c \delta N},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\sup_{B(p, s^+)} |u| \leq CK 2^{C \delta N}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Sketch of Proof]
The proof uses the above scaling for $ H(p, t) $ and classical estimates for harmonic functions. For a detailed discussion we refer to \cite{L1}.
\end{proof}
Let us recall the classical doubling number $ \mathcal{N}(x, r) $ (cf. Subsection \ref{subsec:Prelim}), which was defined as
\begin{equation}
2^{\mathcal{N}(x, r)} = \frac{\sup_{B(x, 2r)} |u|}{\sup_{B(x, r)} |u|}.
\end{equation}
Let us recall the following result (cf. Appendix, \cite{L2}):
\begin{lemma}
Let $ \epsilon > 0 $ be fixed. There exist numbers $ R_0 > 0, C > 0 $ such that for $ r_1, r_2 $ with $ 2r_1 \leq r_2 $ and $ B(x, r_2) \subset B(O, R_0) $, we have the following estimate
\begin{equation}
\left( \frac{r_2}{r_1} \right)^{\mathcal{N}(x, r_1)(1-\epsilon) - C} \leq \frac{\sup_{B(x, r_2)} |u|}{\sup_{B(x, r_1)} |u|} \leq \left( \frac{r_2}{r_1} \right)^{\mathcal{N}(x, r_2)(1+\epsilon) + C}.
\end{equation}
In particular,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{N}(x, r_1)(1-\epsilon) - C \leq \mathcal{N}(x, r_2)(1+\epsilon) + C.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
As a straightforward corollary of the above discussion we obtain
\begin{lemma}
There is a constant $ C = C(M, g, n) > 0 $ such that
\begin{equation}
\sup_{B(x, \delta s)} |u| \leq K 2^{C\delta N + C}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, for any $ \tilde{x} $ with $ d(x, \tilde{x}) \leq \frac{\delta s}{4} $, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:14}
\mathcal{N}(\tilde{x}, \frac{\delta s}{4}) \leq C \delta N + C,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:15}
\sup_{B(\tilde{x}, \frac{\delta s}{10 N})} |u| \geq K 2^{-C \delta N \log N - C}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
For a proof we refer to Lemma 4.2, \cite{L1}.
\subsection{An estimate on the number of bad cubes}
Let $ Q $ be a given cube. We define the doubling index $ N(Q) $ of the cube $ Q $ by
\begin{equation}
N(Q) := \sup_{x \in Q, r \leq \operatorname{diam}(Q)} \log \frac{\sup_{B(x, 10nr)} |u|}{\sup_{B(x, r)} |u|}.
\end{equation}
Clearly, $ N(Q) $ is monotonic in the sense that if a cube $ Q_1 $ is contained in the cube $ Q_2 $, then $ N(Q_1) \leq N(Q_2) $. Furthermore, if a cube $ Q $ is covered by a collection of cubes $ \{ Q_i \} $ with $ \operatorname{diam}(Q_i) \geq \operatorname{diam}(Q) $, then there exists a cube $ Q_i $ from the collection, such that $ N(Q_i) \geq N(Q)$.
The main result in this subsection is
\begin{theorem}[Theorem 5.3, \cite{L1}] \label{thm:5.2}
There exist constants $ c_1, c_2, C > 0 $ and a positive integer $ B_0 $, depending only on the dimension $ n $, and positive numbers $ N_0 = N_0(M, g, n, O), R = R(M, g, n, O) $ such that for any cube $ Q \subset B(O, R) $ the following holds:
If we partition $ Q $ into $ B^n $ equal subcubes, where $ B > B_0 $, then the number of subcubes with doubling exponent greater than $ \max(N(Q) 2^{-c_1 \log B / \log \log B}, N_0 ) $ is less than $ C B^{n-1-c_2} $.
\end{theorem}
The last theorem uses and refines a previous result (Theorem 5.1, \cite{L2}) where roughly speaking the dynamic relation between the size of the small cubes and their doubling index is not estimated with that precision. The discussion proceeds through an iteration argument.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Number-of-Zeros}}
\textbf{Step 1 - the set-up}. We consider the same setting as in Subsection \ref{subsec:Growth}: we have a ball $ B(p, 2r) \subset B(O, R_0) $, numbers $ s \in [r, \frac{3}{2}r ], N \geq 5 $, such that
\begin{equation}
N \leq N(p, t) \leq 2eN,
\end{equation}
for any $ t \in I $ where $ I $ is the interval defined above.
We also consider a point of maximum $ x \in \partial B(p, s), \sup_{\partial B(p,s)} |u| = |u(x)| =: K $ and a point $ \tilde{x} \in \partial B(p, s(1-\delta))$, such that $ d(x, \tilde{x}) = \delta s $. Here we have introduced the small number $ \delta := \frac{1}{10^8 n^2 \log^2 N} $ (we follow the notation in \cite{L1}, but to avoid confusion, we note that the $\delta$ chosen here is much smaller compared to the $\delta$ used in Subsection \ref{subsec:Growth}). By construction, we have that $ d(x, \tilde{x}) \sim \frac{r}{\log^2 N}$ up to constants depending only on dimension.
Let us denote by $ T $ a (rectangular) box, such that $ x $ and $ \tilde{x} $ are centers of the opposite faces of $ T $ - one side of $ T $ is $ d(x, \tilde{x}) $ and the other $ n-1 $ sides are equal to $ \frac{d(x, \tilde{x})}{[\log N]^4} $, where $ [.] $ denotes the integer part of a given number.
Now, let $ \epsilon \in (0, 1) $ be given. By cutting along the long side of $ T $, we subdivide $ T $ into equal subboxes (referred to as ``tunnels'') $ T_i, i = 1, \dots, [N^\epsilon]^{n-1} $, so that each $ T_i $ has one side of length $ d(x, \tilde{x}) $ and the other $ n-1 $ sides of length $ \frac{d(x, \tilde{x})}{[N^\epsilon][\log N]^4} $.
Further, by cutting perpendicularly to the long side, we divide $ T_i $ into equal cubes $ q_{i, t}, t = 1, \dots, [N^\epsilon][\log N]^4 $ all of which have side-length of $ \frac{d(x, \tilde{x})}{[N^\epsilon][\log N]^4} $ and whose centers are denoted by $ x_{i, t} $. We also arrange the parameter $ t $ so that $ d(q_{i,t}, x) \geq d(q_{i, t+1}, x) $.
We will assume that $ N $ is sufficiently large, i.e. bounded below by $ N_0(n, M, g) > 0 $.
\textbf{Step 2 - growth along a tunnel}. We wish to relate how large $ u $ is at the first and last cubes - $ q_{i, 1} $ and $ q_{i, [N^\epsilon] [\log N]^4} $. To this end we will use the lemmata from Subsection \ref{subsec:Growth}.
First, let us observe that $ q_{i, 1} \subset B (p, s(1 - \frac{\delta}{4})) $. Indeed, for sufficiently large $ N $ we have
\begin{equation}
d(p, q_{i, 1}) \leq d(p, \tilde{x}) + d(\tilde{x}, q_{i, 1}) \leq s(1 - \delta) + \frac{C \delta s \sqrt{n}}{[\log N]^4} \leq s \left( 1 - \frac{\delta}{2} \right).
\end{equation}
The estimate (\ref{eq:9}) yields
\begin{equation}
\sup_{q_{i, 1}} |u| \leq \sup_{B (p, s(1 - \frac{\delta}{4}))} |u| \leq K 2^{-c_1 \frac{N}{\log^2 N} + C_1}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, let us denote the last index along the tunnel by $ \tau $, i.e. $ \tau := [N^\epsilon][\log N]^4 $. As the cube $ q_{i, \tau} $ is of size comparable to $ \frac{1}{[N^\epsilon] [\log^6 N]} $ and $ N $ is assumed to be large enough, we can find an inscribed geodesic ball $ B_{i, \tau} \subset \frac{1}{2} q_{i, \tau} $, centered at $ x_{i, \tau} $ and of radius $ \frac{s}{N} $.
Now, by definition $ d(x_{i, \tau}, x) \leq \frac{Cs}{[\log N]^6} $. Hence, the inequality (\ref{eq:15}) implies (taking $ \tilde{x} $ there to be $ x_{i, \tau} $)
\begin{equation}
\sup_{q_{i, \tau}} |u| \geq \sup_{B_{i, \tau}} |u| \geq K 2^{-C_3 \frac{N}{\log^5 N} -C_3}.
\end{equation}
Putting the last two estimates together, we obtain
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:6.1}
There exist positive constants $ c, C $ such that
\begin{equation}
\sup_{\frac{1}{2} q_{i,[N^\epsilon][\log N]^4 }} |u| \geq \sup_{\frac{1}{2} q_{i, 1}} |u| 2^{cN / \log^2 N - C}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\textbf{Step 3 - bound on the number of good tunnels}. Next, we show that there are sufficiently many tunnels, such that the doubling exponents of the contained cubes are controlled (cf. Claim 6.2, \cite{L1}). More precisely,
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem:good-tunn}
There exist constants $ c = c(\epsilon) > 0, N_0 > 0 $ such that at least half of the tunnels $ T_i $ are ``good'' in the sense that they have the following property:
For each cube $ q_{i, t} \in T_i, t \in 1, \dots, [N^\epsilon][\log N]^4 $ we have
\begin{equation}
N(q_{i, t}) \leq \max \left( \frac{N}{2^{c \log N / \log \log N}}, N_0 \right).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We assume that $ N $ is sufficiently big. We focus on the cubes that fail to satisfy this condition, i.e. we consider the ``bad'' cubes $ q_{i, t} $ for which
\begin{equation}
N(q_{i,t}) > N 2^{-c \log N / \log \log N}.
\end{equation}
The constant $ c = c(\epsilon) $ stems from Theorem \ref{thm:5.2} and is addressed below. As the number of all tunnels is $ [N^\epsilon]^{n-1} $, by the pigeonhole principle, the claim of the lemma will follow if one shows that the number of bad cubes does not exceed $ \frac{1}{2} [N^\epsilon]^{n-1} $.
To this end, we apply Theorem \ref{thm:5.2} in the following way. We divide $ T $ into equal Euclidean cubes $ Q_t, t = 1, \dots, [\log N]^4 $ of side-length $ \frac{d(x, \tilde{x})}{[\log N]^4} $. We need to control $ N(Q_t) $ via $ N $. To do this, observe that
\begin{equation}
d(x, y) \leq 4 d(x, \tilde{x}) \leq \frac{s}{10^7 \log^2 N},
\end{equation}
that is $ y $ is not far from the maximum point. Hence, we can apply (\ref{eq:14}) and obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{\sup_{B(y, \frac{s}{10^7 \log^2 N})} |u|}{\sup_{B(y, \frac{1}{2} \frac{s}{10^7 \log^2 N})} |u|} \leq 2^{C \frac{N}{\log^2 N} + C}.
\end{equation}
The definition and monotonicity of $ N(Q_t) $ as well as the assumption that $ N > N_0 $ imply that
\begin{equation}
N(Q_t) \leq N, \quad t = 1, \dots, [\log N]^4.
\end{equation}
Now, the application of Theorem \ref{thm:5.2} with $ B = [N^\epsilon] $ gives that the number of bad cubes contained in $ Q_t $ (i.e., cubes whose doubling exponent is greater than $
\max \left( N(Q_t) 2^{-c_1 \log (N^\epsilon) / \log \log (N^\epsilon)}, N_0 \right) $) is less than $ C [N^\epsilon]^{n-1-c_2} $. Note that we can absorb the $ \epsilon $ term in the constant $ c_1 $ and deduce that the bad cubes have a doubling exponent greater than $ \max \left( N(Q_t) 2^{-c(\epsilon) \log N / \log \log N}, N_0 \right) $.
Summing over all cubes $ Q_t $ we obtain that the number of all bad cubes in $ T $ is no more than
\begin{equation}
C[N^\epsilon]^{n-1-c_2} [\log N]^4 \leq \frac{1}{2} [N^\epsilon]^{n-1}.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\textbf{Step 4 - zeros along a good tunnel}. Finally, we will count zeros of $ u $ along a good tunnel. Roughly, the harmonic function $ u $ has tame growth along a good tunnel. If $ u $ does not change sign, one could use the Harnack inequality to bound the growth of $ u $ in a suitable way. Summing up the growth over all cubes along a tunnel and using the estimate in Step $ 2 $ we obtain (cf. Claim 6.3, \cite{L1}):
\begin{lemma}
There exists a constant $ c_2 = c_2(\epsilon) > 0 $ such that if $ N $ is sufficiently large and $ T_i $ is a good tunnel, then there are at least $ 2^{c_2 \log N / \log \log N} $ closed cubes $ \bar{q}_{i,t} $ that contain a zero of $ u $.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
As the tunnel is good, Lemma \ref{Lem:good-tunn} gives that for every $ t = 1, \dots, [N^\epsilon][\log N]^4 - 1 $ we have
\begin{equation}
\log \frac{\sup_{\frac{1}{2} q_{i, t+1}} |u|}{\sup_{\frac{1}{2} q_{i, t}} |u|} \leq \log \frac{\sup_{4 q_{i, t}} |u|}{\sup_{\frac{1}{2} q_{i, t}} |u|} \leq \frac{N}{2^{c_1 \log N / \log \log N}}.
\end{equation}
We split the index set $ \{ 1, \dots, [N^\epsilon][\log N]^4 - 1 \} $ into two disjoint subsets $ S_1, S_2 $: an index $ t $ is in $ S_1 $ provided $ u $ does not change sign in $ \bar{q}_{i, t} \cup \bar{q}_{i, t+1} $. The advantage in $ S_1 $ is that one can use the Harnack inequality. For $ t \in S_1 $ we have
\begin{equation}
\log \frac{\sup_{\frac{1}{2} q_{i, t+1}} |u|}{\sup_{\frac{1}{2} q_{i, t}} |u|} \leq C_1.
\end{equation}
Using Lemma \ref{lem:6.1} and summing-up we obtain
\begin{align}
c\frac{N}{\log^2 N} - C & \leq \log \frac{\sup_{\frac{1}{2} q_{i, [N^\epsilon][\log N]^4}} |u|}{\sup_{\frac{1}{2} q_{i, 1}} |u|} = \sum_{S_1} \log \frac{\sup_{\frac{1}{2} q_{i, t+1}} |u|}{\sup_{\frac{1}{2} q_{i, t}} |u|} + \sum_{S_2} \log \frac{\sup_{\frac{1}{2} q_{i, t+1}} |u|}{\sup_{\frac{1}{2} q_{i, t}} |u|} \leq \\
& \leq C_1 |S_1| + \frac{N}{2^{c_1 \log N / \log \log N}} |S_2| \leq C_1 [N^\epsilon] \log^4 N + \frac{N}{2^{c_1 \log N / \log \log N}} |S_2| \leq \\
& \leq \frac{c}{2} \frac{N}{\log^2 N} - C + \frac{N}{2^{c_1 \log N / \log \log N}} |S_2|.
\end{align}
This shows that
\begin{equation}
|S_2| \geq 2^{\frac{c_1}{2} \log N / \log \log N}.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
We have already seen that there are at least $ \frac{1}{2} [N^\epsilon]^{n-1} $ good tunnels, which, by summing-up, means that the number of small cubes, where $ u $ changes sign is at least $ \frac{1}{2} [N^\epsilon]^{n-1} 2^{c_2 \log N / \log \log N} $.
Finally, in each cube $ \bar{q}_{i,t} $ let us fix a zero $ x_{i, t} \in \bar{q}_{i,t}, u(x_{i, t}) = 0 $ and note that
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{diam}(\bar{q}_{i,t}) \sim \frac{r}{N^\epsilon \log^6 N}.
\end{equation}
Each ball $ B(x_{i,t}, \frac{r}{N^\epsilon \log^6 N}) $ intersects at most $ \kappa = \kappa(n) $ other balls of this kind. By taking a maximal disjoint collection of such balls and reducing the constant $ c_2 $ to $ c_3 = c_3(\epsilon) $ we conclude the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Number-of-Zeros}.
|
\section{Numerical simulation of classical particle reservoirs}
\label{sec:numerics_c}
In classical systems, a standard model of a particle reservoir is given by the $d$-dimensional ideal gas system with temperature $T$ and electrochemical potential $\mu$. The ideal gas reservoir is attached to the system of interest via a surface with a finite area $A$. The velocity distribution inside the ideal gas reservoir is given by the Maxwell distribution
\begin{eqnarray}
f( {\bm v} ) &=&
\left( {m \over 2\pi k_B T}\right)^{d/2} \exp
\left(
- { m |{\bm v }|^2
\over 2 k_B T
}
\right) \, ,~~
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bm v}$ is a velocity vector ${\bm v}=(v_1 , \cdots , v_d)$ and $m$ is the mass of a particle. Suppose that the particles enter the system via a surface with a Poisson process and
the waiting time distribution of injection is parametrized only with the average injection rate $\nu$:
\begin{eqnarray}
P (\tau ) &=& {\nu} \, e^{-\nu \tau} \, . \label{poisson}
\end{eqnarray}
The average injection rate ${\nu}$ is estimated by
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu &=& A \langle v_1 \rangle n =
A n \int_{0}^{\infty} d v_1 \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d v_2 \cdots \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d v_d \,
v_1 f({\bm v} ) \, , ~~~~ \label{nu}
\end{eqnarray}
where the particles in the reservoir enter the system via an entrance located in the direction $(1,0,\ldots , 0)^T$;
$\langle v_1 \rangle$ is the average of the velocity $v_1$ and $n$ is the density of particles in the reservoir.
Then numerically, one inject particles according to the Poisson process
(\ref{poisson}) with a rate (\ref{nu}).
The velocity of the injected particles is chosen from the distribution
\begin{eqnarray}
p({\bm v}) &=& \sqrt{2\pi m \over k_B T} v_1 f({\bm v}) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $v_1 \in [0,\infty )$ and $\nu_2,...,\nu_d\in(-\infty , \infty )$.
Once a particle enters into the system, it starts interacting
with the other particles inside the system.
Whenever a particle of the system crosses the boundary which
separates the system from one reservoir, it is removed.
The electrochemical potential is related to the density $n$.
To show such a relationship,
it is convenient to write the grand partition function
\begin{equation}
\Xi=\sum_{N=0}^\infty \frac{1}{N !}
\left\{ \left(\frac{\Lambda}{h}\right)^d e^{\beta \mu}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d v_1 \cdots \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d v_d
\, m^d \exp \left[-\beta \left(
\frac{1}{2} m |{\bm v }|^2\right)\right]\right\}^N,
\label{eq:grandcanonical}
\end{equation}
with ${\Lambda}^d$ and $N$ volume and number of particles
of the reservoir, respectively~\footnote{It is of course understood
that ${\Lambda}$
is macroscopically large and that the thermodynamic limit is
eventually taken for the reservoir.}, $\beta= 1/k_B T$,
and $h$ the Planck's constant.
We then compute the average
number of particles as
\begin{equation}
\langle N \rangle = \frac{1}{\beta}\frac{\partial}{\partial
\mu} \ln \Xi,
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation}
n=\frac{\langle N \rangle}{{\Lambda}^d}=
\frac{e^{\beta \mu}({2\pi m k_B T})^{d/2}}{h^d}.
\label{eq:num5}
\end{equation}
Therefore, we can express the
electrochemical potential of the bath in terms
of the injection rate:
\begin{equation}
\mu = k_B T \ln (\lambda_{T}^d n),
\label{eq:num4}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{T}=\frac{h}{\sqrt{2\pi m k_B T}}
\end{equation}
is the \emph{de Broglie thermal wave length}.
Note that this relation, even though derived from the grand
partition function of a classical ideal gas, can only be justified
if particles are considered as indistinguishable. The
$1/N!$ term in the grand partition function (\ref{eq:grandcanonical})
is rooted in the above indistinguishability,
of purely quantum mechanical origin~\cite{huang}.
This ideal gas reservoir method is applicable to nonequilibrium situations by applying two particle reservoirs with different temperatures and electrochemical potentials. Coupled heat and matter transport for deterministic classical dynamical systems were discussed in Refs.~\cite{mm2001,mm2003}, which provided the first numerical measurements of the Onsager matrix for interacting chaotic classical gases. The figure of merit for thermoelectric transport was discussed with this method \cite{casati08}, and the divergence of the figure of merit at the thermodynamic limit in low-dimensional systems was reported \cite{casati09,Saito2010,Benenti2013,Benenti2014}. The concept of an ideal gas reservoir was applied to investigate the thermodynamical efficiency in the Nernst effect \cite{stark}.
\section{\green{Example of the many-body basis for a small quantum system}}
\label{Append:second-to-first-quantization}
\green{
As explained in section~\ref{Sect:transition-rates},
to get a rate equation of the type discussed in
chapters~\ref{Sect:Qu-Master-Eqn} and \ref{Sect:master-examples} from a system's microscopic Hamiltonian,
we must cast that Hamiltonian in terms of its many-body eigenstates.
Here we give an example in which we take a system whose Hamiltonian, ${\cal H}_{\rm s}$,
is written in terms of creation and annihilation operators, and recast it in terms of its
many-body eigenstates.
This is a transformation from second quantization to first quantization, when most textbooks on quantum mechanics only discuss the transformation in the opposite direction. We hope the simple example in this appendix will be enough for the reader to see that the transformation in the direction we need is no more difficult
than that in the textbook direction. }
\green{
Imagine a quantum machine similar to that in Table~\ref{Table:example-H},
with only two fermionic states, which we label state 1 and state 2.
Let us take its Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{\rm s}$ in second quantization to be
\begin{align}
\hat{H}_{\rm s} \ =\ \epsilon_1 \, \hat{N}_1+\epsilon_2 \, \hat{N}_2 \ -\ \Delta \ \left(\hat{d}^\dagger_1 \hat{d}_2 + \hat{d}^\dagger_2 \hat{d}_1\right) \ +\ U_{12}\,
\hat{N}_1\hat{N}_2\ ,
\label{Eq:H_s-example-appendix}
\end{align}
where $\hat{N}_i= \hat{d}_i^\dagger \hat{d}_i$ is the operator that counts the number of electrons in state $i$.
Here the $\Delta$ term corresponds to tunnelling between the two states,
and the $U_{12}$ term to Coulomb repulsion between electrons in the two states.
This Hamiltonian is slightly more complicated than that in Table~\ref{Table:example-H},
because the $\Delta$ term was absent there.
}
\green{
To write this $\hat{H}_{\rm s}$ in its many-body eigenbasis, we have to first write it is a basis
of many-body states. In principle one could choose any orthonormal basis, however it is extremely
natural to choose the basis of many-body states of the form
$| n_1,n_2\rangle$, where $n_i$ is the occupation of fermion state $i$;
the state can be empty ($n_i=0$) or full ($n_i=1$).
For $M$ fermionic states, there are $N=2^M$ many-body states,
so for two fermionic states, we have $N=4$ many-body states.
The nature of fermionic states means that this basis is orthonormal,
with $\langle m_1,m_2 | n_1,n_2\rangle = \delta_{m_1,n_1}\delta_{m_2,n_2}$.
Then an arbitrary many-body wavefunction takes the form
\begin{align}
|\Psi (t) \rangle = &
\psi_{00}(t)\, |0,0\rangle +
\psi_{10}(t)\, |1,0\rangle +
\psi_{01}(t)\, |0,1\rangle +
\psi_{11}(t)\, |1,1\rangle
\end{align}
Since we are dealing with fermions the order in which we add electrons to states is important
(changing the order will generate minus signs). Thus let us define
$|1,1\rangle = \hat{d}^\dagger_2 \hat{d}^\dagger_1 |0,0\rangle =
- \hat{d}^\dagger_1 \hat{d}^\dagger_2 |0,0\rangle$.
This means that
$\hat{d}^\dagger_2 |1,0\rangle = |1,1\rangle$
but
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{d}^\dagger_1 |0,1\rangle = -|1,1\rangle,
\label{Eq:minus-sign}
\end{eqnarray}
where the minus sign is a consequence of Fermi statistics.
Let us now write the system state as a vector of these many-body states
\begin{align}
\Psi (t) = \left(\begin{array}{c}
\psi_{00}(t) \\ \psi_{10}(t) \\ \psi_{01}(t) \\ \psi_{11}(t)
\end{array}\right)
\end{align}
Then system operators are $4 \times 4$ matrices
acting on this vector of many-body states.
So
\begin{align}
\hat{d}^\dagger_1 \ \to&\
\left( \begin{array}{ccrc} 0&0&0&0 \\ 1&0&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&0 \\ 0&0&-1&0 \end{array} \right),
\quad
\hat{d}_1 \ \to\
\left( \begin{array}{cccr} 0&1&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&-1 \\ 0&0&0&0 \end{array} \right),
\nonumber \\
\hat{d}^\dagger_2 \ \to&\
\left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0&0&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&0 \\ 1&0&0&0 \\ 0&1&0&0 \end{array} \right),
\quad
\hat{d}_2 \ \to\
\left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0&0&1&0 \\ 0&0&0&1 \\ 0&0&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&0 \end{array} \right).
\label{Eq:d_to_matrix}
\end{align}
Note that the minus signs in $\hat{d}^\dagger_1$ and
$\hat{d}_1$ originate in the minus sign in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:minus-sign}).
Then this Hamiltonian as a matrix acting on the above many-body states will read
\begin{align}
{H}_{\rm s}=
\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
0 \ &\ 0 \ & \ 0 & 0 \\
0 \ & \ \epsilon_1 \ & \ -\Delta \ & \ 0 \\
0 & \ -\Delta\ & \ \epsilon_2 \ &\ 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \ \epsilon_1+\epsilon_2+U_{12}\
\end{array} \right)
\end{align}
In the case where $\Delta=0$, this Hamiltonian is already diagonal, so the many-body eigenstates
are those given in Table~\ref{Table:example-H}, where we defined
\begin{align}
|0,0\rangle \ \hbox{ as }\, |0\rangle, \qquad
|1,0\rangle \ \hbox{ as }\, |1\rangle, \qquad
|0,1\rangle \ \hbox{ as }\, |2\rangle, \qquad \hbox{ and }
|1,1\rangle \ \hbox{ as }\, |{\rm d}\rangle,
\end{align}
}
\green{
However, here we consider the case where $\Delta$ is non-zero, so the matrix form of
${\cal H}_{\rm s}$ is not diagonal. In this case, it is not hard to see that it is diagonalized by the matrix
\begin{align}
{\cal U} =
\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
1 \ &\ 0 \ & \ 0 & 0 \\
0 \ & \ \cos (\phi/2) \ & \- \sin (\phi/2) \ & \ 0 \\
0 & \ -\sin (\phi/2)\ \ \ & \ \cos (\phi/2) \ &\ 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1\
\end{array} \right)
\end{align}
where we define $\phi = \arctan \left[2\Delta/(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2)\right]$.
This can be seen by the fact that
\begin{align}
{\cal H}_{\rm s} = {\cal U}^\dagger\
\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
0 \ &\ 0 \ & \ 0 & 0 \\
0 \ & \ \epsilon_+ \ & 0 & \ 0 \\
0 & 0 & \ \epsilon_- \ &\ 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \ \epsilon_1+\epsilon_2+U_{12}\
\end{array} \right)
\ {\cal U}
\label{Eq:H_s-appensix-diag}
\end{align}
where we define $\epsilon_\pm = {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} (\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2) \mp {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} \sqrt{(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2)^2 + 4\Delta^2}$.
Thus the four many-body eigenstates are given by
\begin{align}
|0,0\rangle \qquad\qquad\qquad \hbox{ with eigenenergy}&=0\ , \\
\cos (\phi/2)\,|1,0\rangle + \sin (\phi/2)\, |0,1\rangle\qquad \hbox{ with eigenenergy}&=\epsilon_+ \ , \\
\cos (\phi/2)\,|0,1\rangle - \sin (\phi/2)\, |1,0\rangle\qquad\hbox{ with eigenenergy}&=\epsilon_- \ , \\
|1,1\rangle \qquad\qquad\qquad \hbox{ with eigenenergy}&=\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2+U_{12}\ .
\end{align}
The eigenstate with energy $\epsilon_+$ is a weighted sum of $|1,0\rangle$ and $|0,1\rangle$,
while eigenstate with energy $\epsilon_-$ is a weighted difference of $|1,0\rangle$ and $|0,1\rangle$;
thus the former is a bonding state, and the latter is the anti-bonding state between the two sites (so $\epsilon_+ <\epsilon_-$).
}
\green{
We now wish to take a Hamiltonian which includes the coupling to the reservoirs,
such as ${\cal H}_{\rm total}$ in Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:H_total-1}-\ref{Eq:V_ph}),
and recast it in terms of the many-body eigenstates of ${\cal H}_{\rm s}$.
The first step is to rewrite ${\cal H}_{\rm total}$ in terms of many-body matrices,
replacing the system's creation and annihilation operators by the relevant many-body matrices, while leaving the reservoirs' creation and annihilation operators as they are.
If ${\cal H}_{\rm s}$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:H_s-example-appendix}), then this replacement is that
given in Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:d_to_matrix}).
The second step is the matrix transformation to the basis in which the matrix ${\cal H}_{\rm s}$ is diagonal.
We see from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:H_s-appensix-diag}) that this transformation
is done by acting on ${\cal H}_{\rm total}$ to the left with ${\cal U}$ and to the right with ${\cal U}^\dagger$;
this is equivalent to writing the system creation and annihilation operator's as matrices, and then acting on them to the left with ${\cal U}$ and to the right with ${\cal U}^\dagger$.
For the case where ${\cal H}_{\rm s}$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:H_s-example-appendix}),
we can do the two steps in one.
We can write ${\cal H}_{\rm total}$ directly in the basis of many-body eigenstates of ${\cal H}_{\rm s}$
by making the following substitutions in Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:H_total-1}-\ref{Eq:V_ph}),
\begin{align}
\hat{d}^\dagger_1 \ \ \to&\ \
{\cal U} \ \left( \begin{array}{ccrc} 0&0&0&0 \\ 1&0&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&0 \\ 0&0&-1&0 \end{array} \right)
\ {\cal U}^\dagger
\ = \
\left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0&0&0&0 \\ \cos (\phi/2)&0&0&0 \\ - \sin (\phi/2)&0&0&0 \\ 0&- \sin (\phi/2)&- \cos (\phi/2)&0 \end{array} \right) \ ,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\hat{d}_1 \ \ \to&\ \
{\cal U} \ \left( \begin{array}{cccr} 0&1&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&-1 \\ 0&0&0&0 \end{array} \right)
\ {\cal U}^\dagger
\ = \
\left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0&\cos (\phi/2) &- \sin (\phi/2) &0 \\ 0&0&0&- \sin (\phi/2) \\ 0&0&0&- \cos (\phi/2) \\ 0&0&0&0 \end{array} \right) \ ,
\\
\hat{d}^\dagger_2 \ \ \to&\ \
{\cal U}\ \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0&0&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&0 \\ 1&0&0&0 \\ 0&1&0&0 \end{array} \right)
\ {\cal U}^\dagger
\ = \
\left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0&0&0&0 \\ \sin (\phi/2)&0&0&0 \\ \cos (\phi/2)&0&0&0 \\ 0&\cos (\phi/2)&- \sin (\phi/2)&0 \end{array} \right) \ ,
\\
\hat{d}_2 \ \ \to&\ \
{\cal U} \ \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0&0&1&0 \\ 0&0&0&1 \\ 0&0&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&0 \end{array} \right)
\ {\cal U}^\dagger
\ = \
\left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0&\sin (\phi/2)&\cos (\phi/2)&0 \\ 0&0&0&\cos (\phi/2) \\ 0&0&0&- \sin (\phi/2)\ \ \ \\
0&0&0&0 \end{array} \right) \ .
\end{align}
}
\section{Evaluation of contributions to the weakly non-linear scattering theory}
\label{Appendix:weakly-nonlinear}
Here we provide technical details to supplement section~\ref{Sect:weakly-nonlinear-microscopic}.
In principle, one just needs to take a Hamiltonian (for the scatterer, its reservoirs and its gates)
and follow the recipe in this appendix to find all ${\cal L}_{\mu\nu\kappa,ijk}$s and hence
get all currents up to second-order in the thermodynamic forces (bias and temperature difference).
If one could do this exactly, the only approximation in the calculation would be the mean-field approximation that we needed to derive the scattering theory itself. However, we will see that the recipe is complicated,
and so one is forced to treat the problem numerically, or to make a set of simplifying assumptions that reduce the problem to one that can be solved analytically (as in Section~\ref{Sect:microsopic-nonlinear-simple}).
\subsection{Transmission functions as a function of the scatterer potential}
\label{Sect:T-as-function-of-U}
Here we consider calculating $\big({\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij} \big/ {\rm d} U_n \big)$, as required
in section~\ref{Sect:weakly-nonlinear-microscopic}.
This can be calculated with whatever theory one used
to calculate the transmission function in the first place.
In practice, this requires enormous work to do without approximation.
A reasonable approach is to use the relation between the scattering matrix and the underlying Hamiltonian
in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:S-from-H}),
with $\hat{\cal H}_{\rm dot}= {1 \over 2m}\hat{p}^2 + \sum_n U_n \hat{x}_n$,
where the position operator, $\hat{x}_n=|x_n\rangle \langle x_n|$,
does not commute with the momentum operator $\hat{p}$.
However in doing this, one must take the derivative of $\big[E-\hat{\cal H}_{\rm dot}+{\rm i} \pi \hat{W}\hat{W}^\dagger\big]^{-1}$.
One should not forget that in general ${{\rm d} \over {\rm d} U}\hat{M}^{-1}\neq\hat{M}^{-2} {{\rm d} \over {\rm d} U}\hat{M}$
if $\hat{M}$ is a matrix or operator; instead one must explicitly find $\hat{M}^{-1}$ and take its derivative. The $U_n$-dependence of $\big[E-\hat{H}_{\rm dot}+{\rm i} \pi \hat{W}\hat{W}^\dagger\big]^{-1}$ will typically be complicated, even though the $U_n$-dependence of $\big[E-\hat{\cal H}_{\rm dot}+{\rm i} \pi \hat{W}\hat{W}^\dagger\big]$ is trivial.
\subsection{Characteristic potentials}
\label{Sect:Characteristic-potentials}
Here we consider calculating $u_{\mu,k} (x)$, as defined in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:u_characteristic}), using the Poisson equation for the nanostructure and all nearby reservoirs, for example inside the region marked by the dashed red ellipse in Fig.~\ref{Fig:nonlinear-example}a. The Poisson equation reads
$\nabla^2 U(x) = -q(x)/\epsilon_0$ where $q(x)$ is the charge at position $x$, and $\epsilon_0$ is the permittivity of free space.
Taking the derivative with respect to $ \mathscr{F}_{\mu,k}$ of this Poisson equation gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\nabla^2 u_{\mu,k} (x) = -{1 \over \epsilon_0} \
\left[ \left({{\rm d} q_{\rm inj}(x) \over {\rm d} \mathscr{F}_{\mu,k}}\right)_{\mathscr{F}\to 0}
+ \left({{\rm d} q_{\rm pol}(x) \over {\rm d} \mathscr{F}_{\mu,k}} \right)_{\mathscr{F}\to 0} \right],
\label{Eq:Poisson1}
\end{eqnarray}
where the equilibrium charge distribution drops out upon taking the derivative,
and the remaining charge distribution can be split in two; $q_{\rm inj}(x)$ and $q_{\rm pol}(x)$.
Here $q_{\rm inj}(x)$ is the extra charge directly injected by the leads due to the biases or temperature differences (as represented by the $\mathscr{F}$s), while $q_{\rm pol}(x)$ is the polarization of the charge already in the nanostructure that is induced by the biases or temperature
differences.
The injected charge $q_{\rm inj}(x)$ is the integral over all energies of the local density of states
at $x$ for electrons arriving from reservoir $k$, multiplied by the occupation probability of that state for given
$\mathscr{F}_{\mu,k}$ of reservoir $k$, multiplied by $e$.
Hence one can define the so-called {\it injectivities} as
\begin{eqnarray}
D_{\mu,k}(x) \ \equiv \ \left({{\rm d} q_{\rm inj}(x) \over {\rm d} \mathscr{F}_{\mu,k}}\right)_{\mathscr{F}\to 0}
&=& eT \int {\rm d} E \ \big(\!-f'(E)\big)\ \left[ e\delta_{\mu { e}} + \delta_{\mu { h}} (E-\mu_1) \right]\ \nu_k (E,x)\, ,
\label{Eq:qinj}
\end{eqnarray}
where the Kronecker $\delta$-functions simply mean that the square bracket is
$e$ if $\mu={ e}$ (so the thermodynamic force is a bias)
and is
$(E-\mu_1)$ if $\mu={ h}$ (so the thermodynamic force is a temperature difference).
Here, the local density of states at $x$ for electrons arriving from reservoir $k$,
can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu_k (E,x) = - {1 \over 4 \pi i} \sum_j {\rm Tr} \left(
{\cal S}_{jk}^\dagger(E) {{\rm d} {\cal S}_{jk}(E) \over {\rm d} U(x)} -
{\cal S}_{jk}(E) {{\rm d} {\cal S}_{jk}^\dagger(E) \over {\rm d} U(x)} \right) \ .
\label{Eq:nu_k}
\end{eqnarray}
The functional derivatives, ${{\rm d} \big/ {\rm d} U(x)}$, can be evaluated on the grid in the manner discussed
in \ref{Sect:T-as-function-of-U}.
Next, the polarization charge is given by $q_{\rm pol}(x) = -e^2\int {\rm d}^3 y \ \Pi(x,y)\ U(y)$,
where $\Pi(x,y)$ is the Lindhard polarization.
Taking the derivative with respect to $\mathscr{F}_{\mu,k}$
gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\left({{\rm d} q_{\rm pol}(x) \over {\rm d} \mathscr{F}_{\mu,k}} \right)_{\mathscr{F}\to 0}
= -e^2 \int {\rm d}^3 y \ \Pi(x,y)\ u_{\mu,k}(y) \, ,
\label{Eq:qpol}
\end{eqnarray}
so that $\left({{\rm d} q_{\rm pol}(x) \big/ {\rm d} \mathscr{F}_{\mu,k}} \right)$ is directly related to $u_{\mu,k}(y)$.
\green{
One might naively guess that temperature changes in the reservoirs or gates do not change their charge
distribution, and so $ \left({{\rm d} q_{\rm pol}(x) \over {\rm d} \mathscr{F}_{\mu,k}} \right)$ would be zero for
$\mu=h$. In many cases this is a reasonable approximation, however it is rarely strictly true.
For example, whenever the confining potential that defines a gate (or a reservoir) is smooth, increasing the
temperature of the electrons in that gate (or reservoir) will give some of them the energy to climb that potential a little, and they will thus approach closer to the scatterer. Thus the scattering potential can be modified by
changes in gate (or reservoir) temperature.}
To calculate the Lindhard polarization (see for example \cite{Wang-Wang-Guo1999}), we can use
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi(x,y) = {1 \over 2\pi i} \int {\rm d} E f(E) \left(G^{\rm R}(x,y)G^{\rm R}(y,x) -G^{\rm A}(x,y)G^{\rm A}(y,x) \right) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the Green's functions $G^{\rm R,A}(x,y)$ are evaluated at equilibrium (${\mathscr{F}\to 0}$).
If we take the model in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:S-from-H}), then
\begin{eqnarray}
G^{\rm R}(x,y) = |x\rangle \left[{E-\hat{\cal H}_{\rm dot}+i \pi \hat{W}\hat{W}^\dagger} \right]^{-1} \langle y|,
\end{eqnarray}
with $G^{\rm A}(x,y)$ having the opposite sign in front of $ \pi \hat{W}\hat{W}^\dagger$.
If one calculated all the above quantities exactly, one could insert them into Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Poisson1})
to get an exact differential equation for $u_{\mu,k} (x)$, which could in turn be solved.
However, in general, one either finds this solution numerically, or one makes a set of simplifying assumptions that reduce the problem to one that can be solved analytically (as in section~\ref{Sect:microsopic-nonlinear-simple}).
In cases where the screening within the scatterer is good, a Thomas-Fermi approximation for the Lindhard function may be sufficient. Then
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Poisson1}) reduces to \cite{Levinson1989}
\begin{eqnarray}
\nabla^2 u_{\mu,k} (x) - {u_{\rm \mu,k} \over a^2} = -{1 \over \epsilon_0} \
\left({{\rm d} q_{\rm inj}(x) \over {\rm d} \mathscr{F}_{\mu,k}}\right)_{\mathscr{F}\to 0},
\label{Eq:Poisson2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a$ is the Thomas-Fermi screening length, given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{1 \over a^2} &=& {e^2 \over \epsilon_0} \int {\rm d} E \ \big(-f'(E)\big) \nu (E,x)\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\nu(E,x)=\sum_k \nu_k(E,x)$ is the local density of states at position $x$.
\subsection{Casting the result in terms of capacitances}
Most author's follow Christen and B\"uttiker \cite{Christen-Buttiker1996a} in presenting the results of such a discretized calculation in terms of capacitances. The idea is that once one has solved the discretized Poisson equation in the vicinity of the scatterer (e.g.~everywhere inside the dashed red ellipse in Fig.~\ref{Fig:nonlinear-example}a),
one has both the potential $U_n$ and the excess charge $\delta q_n\equiv q_{\rm inj}(x_n)+q_{\rm pol}(x_n)$
at all positions $x_n$ on the grid. Thus, one can always
define a capacitance matrix whose $nm$th element satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta q_n =\sum_m C_{nm} \ \delta U_m + \sum_{l \in {\rm res}} \tilde{C}_{n,l}\ eV_l,
\label{Eq:def-C-matrix}
\end{eqnarray}
where we define
$\delta U_m\equiv U_n-U_m^{\rm eq}$ as the change in potential compared to its equilibrium value,
$U_m^{\rm eq}$.
The first term on the right of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:def-C-matrix}) is the capacitance between site $n$ and $m$ on the grid,
the second term is the capacitance between site $n$ on the grid and all of reservoir $l$ that is not included within the grid. This second term is to account for the charge build up in the part of the reservoirs which are not included in the grid; in other words, the part of the reservoirs outside the dashed red ellipse in Fig.~\ref{Fig:nonlinear-example}a.
Hence, $\tilde{C}_{n,l}$ is the effect of the biasing of all of reservoir $l$ outside the dashed ellipse
upon the charge build up at position $x_n$ inside the dashed ellipse.
Taking the derivative with respect to $\mathscr{F}_{\mu,k}$ of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:def-C-matrix}),
and replacing $\big({\rm d} q_n \big/ {\rm d} \mathscr{F}_{\mu,k} \big)$ by the sum of Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:qinj}) and (\ref{Eq:qpol}) gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_m \left(C_{nm} + e^2\Pi_{nm}\right) \ u_{\mu,k}(x_m) = -\sum_{l \in {\rm res}} \tilde{C}_{n,l} \delta_{k,l}\delta_{\mu,{ e}}\ +\ {eT \over \epsilon_0} \int {\rm d} E \ \big(\!-f'(E)\big)\ \left[ e\delta_{\mu { e}} + \delta_{\mu { h}} (E-\mu_1) \right]\ \nu_k (E,x_n),
\label{Eq:u-in-terms-of-C-1}
\end{eqnarray}
where we define a discretized polarization matrix ${\bm \Pi}$ whose $nm$th element is $ \Pi_{nm} \equiv (\delta V)\,\Pi(x_n,x_m)$
with $\delta V$ being the volume of each cell in the grid.
The easiest way to solve for $u_{\mu,k}(x_m)$ is to write Eq.~(\ref{Eq:u-in-terms-of-C-1}) as a matrix equation.
For this we define a column vector ${\bm u}_{\mu,k}$ such that its $m$th element is $u_{\mu,k}(x_m)$,
we define a second column vector $\tilde{{\bm C}}_{\mu,k}$ such that its $m$th element is $\sum_l \tilde{C}_{m,l} \delta_{k,l}\delta_{\mu,{ e}}$,
and a third column vector ${\bm D}_{\mu k}$ such that its $n$th element is
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[{\bm D}_{\mu,k}\right]_n = {eT \over \epsilon_0} \int {\rm d} E \ \big(\!-f'(E)\big)\ \left[ e\delta_{\mu { e}} + \delta_{\mu { h}} (E-\mu_1) \right]\ \nu_k (E,x_n)\ .
\end{eqnarray}
Then Eq.~(\ref{Eq:u-in-terms-of-C-1}) can be written as $({\bm C}+e^2 {\bm \Pi}) {\bm u}_{\mu,k} = {\bm D}_{\mu,k}-\tilde{\bm C}_{\mu,k}$,
which means that
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{\mu,k}(x_m) = \left[\left({\bm C}+e^2 {\bm \Pi}\right)^{-1} \ \left({\bm D}_{\mu, k} - \tilde{\bm C}_{\mu, k} \right) \right]_m,
\end{eqnarray}
where $(\cdots)^{-1}$ is the matrix inverse, and $[\cdots]_m$ indicates that we take the $m$th element of the
vector that is inside the square-brackets. This gives a simple form for the characteristic potentials, $u_{\mu,k}(x_m)$,
however this simplicity is partially deceptive. On one hand, one should not forget that to find the matrix ${\bm C}$
from first principles we had to completely solve either the Poisson equation in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Poisson1}),
or a reasonable approximation of that equation, such as Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Poisson2}).
On the other hand, capacitances are quantities that can often be measured for a given nanostructure
by A.C. admittance measurements \cite{Christen-Buttiker-AC-PRL,Christen-Buttiker1996b},
thus it is very pretty to be able to write the quantities of importance for thermoelectric transport in terms of such experimental observables.
\subsection{Relations induced by gauge invariance}
\label{Sect:gauge-invariance}
We can use the concept of gauge-invariance (the idea that the physics depends on energy differences, but not the absolute value of energy) to make the following observations.
Since a uniform shift upwards of the potential at all grid points, $U_n$, is the same as a shifting the total energy $E$
downwards,
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
-{\cal A}'_{ij} &=& \int {\rm d}^d x\ \left({{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij} \over {\rm d} U(x)}\right)
\ \equiv \ \sum_{n} {{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij}\over {\rm d} U_n} \ ,
\label{Eq:Aprimed-to-functional-derivative}
\end{eqnarray}
where again we define the functional derivative as a sum over the sites on a grid.
Similarly, a shift of all reservoir's electrochemical potentials (including that of all gates)
by the same amount should not change the physics of any quantity beyond a trivial shift of energy.
Thus, whatever the details of the Poisson equation's solution, the characteristic potentials associated with a change of bias ($\mu={ e}$) on the reservoirs will obey
\cite{Christen-Buttiker1996a,sanchezprb13,Meair-Jacquod2013,Sanchez-Lopez2013,Lopez-Sanchez2014}
\begin{eqnarray}
{1 \over eT_0 }\sum_k u_{{ e},k}(x_m) = 1
\end{eqnarray}
where the sum is over all reservoirs, including those acting as gates.
Thus, summing Eq.~(\ref{Eq:u-in-terms-of-C-1}) over all reservoirs for $\mu = { e}$ tells
us that the solution of the Poisson equation will obey
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_m \left(C_{nm} + e^2\Pi_{nm}\right) = -\sum_{l \in {\rm res}} \tilde{C}_{n,l}\ +\ {e^2T_0 \over \epsilon_0} \int {\rm d} E \ \big(\!-f'(E)\big)\ \nu (E,x_n),
\label{Eq:C-relations}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\nu (E,x_n) = \sum_k \nu_k (E,x_n)$ is the local density of states at $x_n$.
In general, there is no similar relationship for the characteristic potentials associated with temperature differences ($\mu={ h}$), because the physics is not invariant under a shift of all temperatures by the same amount.
Finally, we note that sometimes Refs.~\cite{Sanchez-Buttiker2005,Buttiker-Sanchez2005,sanchezprb13,Meair-Jacquod2013,Sanchez-Lopez2013,Lopez-Sanchez2014} used Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Aprimed-to-functional-derivative}) to replace ${\cal A}'_{ij}$ by $-\big({{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij} \big/ {\rm d} U_n}\big)$
in Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:nonlinearLs}). This gives prettier formulas, but is arguably a step in the wrong direction, because
${\cal A}'_{ij}$ is trivial to get from the $E$-dependence of the transmission function,
while it is very hard work to calculate $\big({{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij} \big/ {\rm d} U(x)}\big)$ for all $x$
(as we saw in \ref{Sect:T-as-function-of-U}).
\section{Basic thermodynamics of non-equilibrium steady states}
\label{sec:nonequilibrium}
Thermoelectric transport can be conveniently discussed within the
model sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:scheme}. Two particle reservoirs of
respective temperatures $T_L > T_R$ and electrochemical
potentials $\mu_L < \mu_R$ are connected by a system $S$,
which allows for the exchange of heat and charged particles.
We choose the reference values for temperature and electrochemical potential
to be $T=T_R$ and $\mu=\mu_R$.
As soon as the \emph{steady state} is reached,
constant \emph{heat and electric currents}, $J_{h}$ and $J_{e}$,
flow \green{from the left reservoir to the right reservoir}.
We can also write $J_{e}=eJ_\rho$, where $e$ is the electron charge
and $J_\rho$ the \emph{particle current}, and
$J_{h}=T J_{\mathscr{S}}$, where $J_{\mathscr{S}}$ is the \emph{entropy current}
($\mathscr{S}$ being the entropy).
Moreover, the heat current is the difference between the
total \emph{energy current} $J_{u}$ and the electrochemical potential
energy current $\mu J_\rho$, \green{so that}
$J_{h}=J_{u}-\mu J_\rho=J_{u}-(\mu/e)J_{e}$ \cite{callen}.
Depending on the sign of the currents, the machine works either
as a power generator or a refrigerator.
\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.35\columnwidth]{fig-schematic.pdf}}
\caption{Schematic drawing of steady-state thermoelectric heat to work
conversion. A system $S$ is in touch with two reservoirs at temperatures
$T_L,T_R$ and electrochemical potentials $\mu_L,\mu_R$.
Note that, while currents are along the direction connecting
the two reservoirs, the motion of particles
inside the reservoirs can be two or
three dimensional, and the motion in the system can be one, two or three dimensional.}
\label{fig:scheme}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Linear response and Onsager reciprocal relations}
\label{sec:linear_response}
To be in the linear response regime, $\Delta T$ and $\Delta \mu$ must be small.
We assume that both the temperature difference $\Delta T\equiv T_L -T_R>0$
and the electrochemical potential difference $\Delta \mu \equiv \mu_L-\mu_R<0$
are small, that is, $|\Delta T|\ll T$ and $|\Delta \mu|\ll k_B T$,
where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant.
The \emph{thermodynamic forces} (also known as generalized forces
or affinities) driving the electric and heat currents are given by
$\mathcal{F}_e=\Delta V/T$ (where $\Delta V=\Delta \mu/e$ is the applied voltage)
and $\mathcal{F}_h=\Delta T/T^2$ and the relationship
between currents and generalized forces is linear \cite{callen,mazur},
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:coupledlinear}
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{e}=L_{ee} \mathcal{F}_e + L_{eh} \mathcal{F}_h,
\label{eq:coupledlinear-a}
\\
J_{h}=L_{he} \mathcal{F}_e + L_{hh} \mathcal{F}_h.
\label{eq:coupledlinear-b}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
These relations are referred to as phenomenological
\emph{coupled} transport equations or \emph{linear response} equations
or kinetic equations
and the coefficients $L_{ab}$ ($a,b=e,h$) are
known as \emph{Onsager coefficients}.
We will define the matrix of these coefficients as the \emph{Onsager matrix}, ${\bm L}$,
so
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bm L} = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
L_{ee} & L_{eh} \\
L_{he} & L_{hh}
\end{array}
\right) \ .
\label{Eq:L-matrix}
\end{eqnarray}
The \emph{entropy production rate} accompanying the coupled transport process
reads \cite{callen,mazur}
\begin{equation}
\dot{\mathscr{S}}=\mathcal{F}_e J_{e} + \mathcal{F}_h J_{h}=
L_{ee} \mathcal{F}_e^2 + L_{hh} \mathcal{F}_h^2 +
(L_{eh}+L_{he}) \mathcal{F}_e \mathcal{F}_h.
\label{eq:sprod}
\end{equation}
The Onsager coefficients are subject to constraints.
\green{
Firstly, if the device is to satisfy the second law of thermodynamics, then one requires that
$\dot{\mathscr{S}}\ge 0$ for all $\mathcal{F}_e$ and $\mathcal{F}_h$.
It is easy to see from Eq.~(\ref{eq:sprod}) that this requires
$L_{ee}\ge 0$ and $L_{hh}\ge 0$, however this alone is not sufficient.
For the entropy production rate to be non-negative for all $\mathcal{F}_e,\mathcal{F}_h$,
we need that $\mathcal{F}_e = \mathcal{F}_h = 0$
is a minimum of the function $\dot{\mathscr{S}}$, and not just a saddle-point.
To see when this is the case, we can look at $\dot{\mathscr{S}}$ as a function of $\mathcal{F}_e$ for given $\mathcal{F}_h$, and see that it is a quadratic function of $\mathcal{F}_e$, with a minimum at
$\mathcal{F}_e= -\big(L_{eh}+L_{he}\big)\mathcal{F}_h\big/(2L_{ee})$ for which $\dot{\mathscr{S}}$
takes the value $\big[4L_{ee}L_{hh} - \big(L_{eh}+L_{he}\big)^2 \big]\mathcal{F}_h^2\big/(4L_{ee})$.
This is only non-negative for all $\mathcal{F}_h$ if $4L_{ee}L_{hh} \ge \big(L_{eh}+L_{he}\big)^2$.
If this inequality were not satisfied, a more little algebra shows the function $\dot{\mathscr{S}}$ would be a saddle-point about $\mathcal{F}_e = \mathcal{F}_h = 0$.
Thus the conditions for satisfying the second law of thermodynamics are}
\begin{equation}
L_{ee}\ \ge\ 0,
\qquad
\hbox{ and } \
L_{hh}\ \geq\
\frac{(L_{eh}+L_{he})^2}{4 L_{ee}}\ \geq \ 0.
\label{dots}
\end{equation}
Second, assuming the property of time-reversal invariance of the
equations of motion, Onsager derived \cite{onsager}
fundamental relations, known
as \emph{Onsager reciprocal relations} for the cross coefficients
of the Onsager matrix: $L_{ab}=L_{ba}$.
When an external magnetic field
${\bm B}$ is applied to the system, the laws of physics remain
unchanged if time $t$ is replaced by $-t$, provided that simultaneously
the magnetic field ${\bm B}$ is replaced by $-{\bm B}$. In this
case, the Onsager-Casimir relations \cite{onsager,casimir} read
\begin{equation}
L_{ab}({\bm B})=L_{ba}(-{\bm B}).
\end{equation}
At zero magnetic field, we recover the Onsager reciprocal relations
$L_{ab}=L_{ba}$. Note that only the diagonal coefficients
are bound to be even functions of the magnetic field with
$L_{aa}({\bm B})=L_{aa}(-{\bm B})$. \green{For $a\ne b$,
one has $L_{ab}({\bm B})\ne L_{ab}(-{\bm B})$, so $L_{ab}({\bm B})$ can have any ${\bm B}$ dependence}.
The Onsager coefficients are related to the familiar
transport coefficients. We have
\begin{eqnarray}
G &=&\left(\frac{J_{e}}{\Delta V}\right)_{\Delta T=0}\ =\ \frac{L_{ee}}{T},
\label{eq:el_conductance}
\\
K &=& \left(\frac{J_{h}}{\Delta T}\right)_{J_{e}=0}
\green{\ =\ \frac{1}{T^2} \left (L_{hh} -{ L_{he}L_{eh} \over L_{ee}}\right)}
\ =\ \frac{1}{T^2}\frac{\det {\bm L}}{L_{ee}},
\label{eq:th_conductance}
\\
S&=&-\left(\frac{\Delta V}{\Delta T}\right)_{J_{e}=0} \ =\
\frac{1}{T}\frac{L_{eh}}{L_{ee}},
\label{eq:seebeck}
\end{eqnarray}
where $G$ is the (isothermal) \emph{electric conductance},
$K$ is the \emph{thermal conductance}\footnote{The definition of $K$ can confuse newcomers,
the idea is that $K$ is given by the heat flow through the sample when it is coupled between two {\it electrically insulating} reservoirs at different temperatures. In such a set-up the reservoirs impose $J_{e}=0$,
i.e.~the ``open circuit'' condition.
If the sample is a thermoelectric with non-zero $L_{eh}$ then Eq.~(\ref{eq:coupledlinear-a}) implies that
that a bias will build up across the sample proportional to the temperature difference, $\mathcal{F}_e = -L_{eh} \mathcal{F}_h\big/L_{ee}$. Substituting this into Eq.~(\ref{eq:coupledlinear-b}) gives Eq.~(\ref{eq:th_conductance}).}, and
$S$ is the \emph{thermopower} (or \emph{Seebeck coefficient}).
The \emph{Peltier coefficient}
\begin{equation}
\Pi=\left(\frac{J_{h}}{J_{e}}\right)_{\Delta T=0}
=\frac{L_{he}}{L_{ee}}
\label{eq:Peltier-from-Ls}
\end{equation}
is related to the thermopower $S$ via the Onsager reciprocal
relation: $ \Pi({\bm B})=TS(-{\bm B})$.
Note that the Onsager-Casimir relations imply
$G(-{\bm B})=G({\bm B})$ and $K(-{\bm B})=K({\bm B})$,
but in general do not
impose the symmetry of the Seebeck coefficient under the exchange
${\bm B}\to -{\bm B}$.
\green{Inverting the above relations we have
$L_{ee} = GT$, $L_{eh} = GST^2$, $L_{he}= G\Pi T$ and $L_{hh}=(K+G\Pi S)T^2$.
Then we see from Eq.~(\ref{dots}) that the system must have
\begin{eqnarray}
G \ \geq \ 0, \qquad \hbox{ and } \ K \ \geq\ G (ST-\Pi)^2\big/(4T) \ \geq \ 0,
\label{Eq:2nd-law-constraint-on-S-Pi-etc}
\end{eqnarray}
if it is to obey the second-law of thermodynamics.
It is worth noting that the second inequality implies that $K+G\Pi S \geq G(ST +\Pi)^2\big/(4T) \geq 0$.
Taking Eqs.~(\ref{eq:coupledlinear}), we can eliminate} the Onsager matrix elements in favor
of the transport coefficients $G,K,S,\Pi$, thus obtaining
\begin{subequations}
\label{Eq:currents-vs-DeltaV+DeltaT}
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{e} &=& G \Delta V + G S \Delta T,
\label{Eq:Je-vs-DeltaV+DeltaT}
\\
J_{h} &=& G\Pi\Delta V + (K+GS\Pi)\Delta T.
\label{Eq:Jh-vs-DeltaV+DeltaT}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
By eliminating $\Delta V$ from these two equations we obtain an interesting
interpretation of the Peltier coefficient. The entropy current reads
\begin{equation}
J_{\mathscr{S}} = \frac{J_{h}}{T}=
\frac{\Pi}{T}\,J_{e}+\frac{K}{T}\Delta T.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
The first term, $\Pi/T$, can be understood as the entropy transported
by the electron flow $J_{e}$. Since $J_{e}=e J_\rho$, each
electron carries an entropy of $e \Pi/T$.
\green{The second term, $K \Delta T/T$, is the entropy generated by a heat flow from hot to cold, in the absence of an electric current.}\footnote{For time-reversal symmetric systems, the same
interpretation applies to the Seebeck coefficient,
since in this case $S=\Pi/T$.}
Similarly, the heat flow $J_{h}=TJ_{\mathscr{S}}$ is the sum of two terms,
$\Pi J_{e}$ and $K \Delta T$.
It is then clear that two distinct processes contribute to
the thermal transport: the \emph{advective} term $\Pi J_{e}$
is due to the electrical current flow, while the \emph{open-circuit}
term $K \Delta T$ is due to thermal conduction (by both electrons
and phonons) when there is no current flowing.
While the last term is irreversible,
the first one is reversible, that is, it changes sign when
reversing the direction of the current.
It can be intuitively understood that efficient energy
conversion requires to minimize irreversible, dissipative processes
with respect to reversible processes.
The heat dissipation rate $\dot{Q}$ can be
computed from the entropy production rate
in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sprod}),
\begin{equation}
\dot{Q}=T \dot{\mathscr{S}}=
\frac{J_{e}^2}{G}
+\frac{K}{T}(\Delta T)^2
+J_{e}(\Pi-TS)\frac{\Delta T}{T},
\label{eq:qprod}
\end{equation}
where the first term is the \emph{Joule heating}, the
second term is the heat lost by thermal resistance
and the last term, which disappears for time-reversal
symmetric systems, can be negative when
$J_{e}(\Pi-TS)<0$, thus reducing the dissipated heat.
It is clear from
Eq.~(\ref{eq:qprod}) that to minimize dissipative effects
for a given electric current and thermal gradient, we
need a large electric conductance and low thermal conductance.
We conclude this section with two remarks.
First, under the assumption of \emph{local equilibrium},
we can write
coupled equations like Eq.~(\ref{eq:coupledlinear}),
connecting the charge and heat current densities $j_e$, $j_h$
to local forces, expressed
in terms of gradients $\nabla \mu$, $\nabla T$ rather
than $\Delta \mu$, $\Delta T$ (see, for instance Ref.~\cite{callen}),
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:coupledlocal}
\begin{eqnarray}
j_e&=&\lambda_{ee} (-\nabla\mu/eT) + \lambda_{eh} \nabla(1/T),
\\
j_h&=&\lambda_{he} (-\nabla\mu/eT) + \lambda_{hh} \nabla(1/T),
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
with $\lambda_{ab}$ ($a,b=e,h$) elements of the Onsager matrix
${\bm \lambda}$.
In this case,
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:el_conductance}) and (\ref{eq:th_conductance})
can be written with on the left-hand side the
\emph{electric conductivity} $\sigma$ and
the \emph{thermal conductivity} $\kappa$ rather than
the conductances $G$ and $K$ and on the right-hand side the
kinetic coefficients $\lambda_{ab}$ rather than $L_{ab}$.
As a second remark, notice that
we can equivalently express the coupled transport equations
in the ``energy representation'' rather than in the ``heat
representation''. That is, we consider the energy
flow $J_{u}=J_{h}+\mu J_\rho=J_{h}+(\mu/e)J_{e}$
instead of the heat flow
$J_{h}$. In this representation,
the entropy production rate is given by
$\dot{\mathscr{S}}=\tilde{\mathcal{F}}_e J_{e}
+ \tilde{\mathcal{F}}_u J_{u}$,
where the thermodynamic forces conjugated to the currents
$J_{e}$ and $J_{u}$ are
$\tilde{\mathcal{F}}_e=\Delta(V/T)=\mathcal{F}_e-(\mu/e)\mathcal{F}_h$
and $\tilde{\mathcal{F}}_u=\mathcal{F}_h$.
In the energy representation, the kinetic equations read as follows,
\begin{subequations}
\label{eq:tildeJ1J2}
\begin{eqnarray}
{J}_e &=&\tilde{L}_{ee} \tilde{\mathcal{F}}_e + \tilde{L}_{eu}
\tilde{\mathcal{F}}_u,
\\
{J}_u &=&\tilde{L}_{ue} \tilde{\mathcal{F}}_e + \tilde{L}_{uu}
\tilde{\mathcal{F}}_e.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
The elements $\tilde{L}_{ab}$ of the Onsager matrix
$\tilde{\bm L}$ are related to the matrix elements
$L_{ab}$ of ${\bm L}$ as follows,
\green{
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{ee}=\tilde{L}_{ee}, \qquad
L_{eh}=\tilde{L}_{eu}-(\mu/e) \tilde{L}_{ee}, \qquad
L_{he}=\tilde{L}_{ue}-(\mu/e) \tilde{L}_{ee}, \qquad
L_{hh}=\tilde{L}_{uu}- (\mu/e) (\tilde{L}_{eu}+\tilde{L}_{ue})+
(\mu/e)^2\tilde{L}_{ee}. \qquad \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
This means that $\det {\bm L}=\det \tilde{{\bm L}}$.}
The Onsager matrix $\tilde{\bm L}$ fulfills
reciprocity relations and obeys the same
conditions imposed by the positivity of entropy production
as the matrix ${\bm L}$.
\green{Above we defined $T=T_R$, however it is worth noting that
nothing changes if we take $T$ to be any typical system temperature, i.e. $T_L$, $T_R$ or an average of the two. Differences due to the choice of $T$ will be at next order in powers of temperature difference, $T_L-T_R$,
when the above analysis is only accurate at lowest order.}
\subsection{\green{Stopping voltage and power versus load resistance}}
\label{sec:stopping_voltage}
\green{
The power output of a thermoelectric system (or any other steady-state thermodynamic machine)
depends not just on the machine itself; it also depends on the load it is connected to.
To fix our ideas, imagine a steady-state heat-engine coupled to a load which is an ideal motor,
so it converts into mechanical work all the electrical work supplied by the heat-engine.
The machine sees this load as a resistance, whose resistance determines the relationship
between the bias across the heat-engine and the electrical current through the heat-engine.
The electrical power generated by the heat-engine and sent into the load will be $P_{\rm gen}=-\Delta V J_e$,
where the minus sign ensures power is generated when current is driven against a potential difference.
Now if the load's resistance is zero, there will be a current through the thermoelectric but no bias,
so the power output will be zero. In contrast, if this resistance is infinite,
there will be a large bias (known as the stopping voltage, discussed below),
but no current flow, so once again the power output is zero.
The maximal power output is at a resistance between the two, as sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:power-vs-bias}.
}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{fig-power-vs-bias.pdf}}
\caption{
\green{A sketch of the dependence of the power generated by a heat-engine, $P_{\rm gen}$,
as a function of the bias, $\Delta V$.
This parabolic curve comes from Eq.~\ref{Eq:Je-vs-DeltaV+DeltaT} under the assumption that $S>0$,
with $V_{\rm stop}$ given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:V_stop}).
The curve's maximum is at ${\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} V_{\rm stop}$, at which $P_{\rm gen}=P^{\rm max}_{\rm gen}$ is given Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P_gen_max}).
The load conductance $G_{\rm load}$ is then given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:G_load}).
For the bias to be outside the window between $ V_{\rm stop}$ and zero, the bias must be applied to the system via a power supply, see for example Fig.~\ref{Fig:energy-filter-thermocouples}b. For $\Pi >0$,
the device acts as a refrigerator (using the applied bias to drive heat from cold to hot) if
$\Delta V < \Delta V_{\rm fri}$ given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:V_fri}). In the regimes marked ``dissipation'' heat flow is from hot to cold and charge flow is from high bias to low bias (like in a resistor), so the system is dissipating
both heat and work. The cases where $S$ and $P$ are not positive are mentioned in sections~\ref{sec:stopping_voltage} and \ref{sec:stopping_temp}.
}}
\label{fig:power-vs-bias}
\end{figure}
\green{In general, engineers are capable of matching the load resistance to the heat-engine, with the objective of maximizing the power generation. For example, if the load is an electric motor, changing its resistance may just be a question of adding or removing turns in the coils in the motor. Thus, what really matters is to calculate the power the heat-engine can generate under optimal conditions; i.e.~when the load resistance is chosen to maximize the power or the efficiency.
To be more quantitative, let us assume the load is electrically in-series with the heat-engine, and its
resistance is $R_{\rm load} = 1/G_{\rm load}$. If the heat-engine is described by
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Je-vs-DeltaV+DeltaT}),
then current conservation gives
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{\rm e}= -G_{\rm load} \Delta V
\label{Eq:G_load}
\end{eqnarray}
where the minus sign is because the bias across the load is opposite to across the heat-engine.
Now we know from the above argument that the power the heat-engine gives to the load will be zero at
$G_{\rm load}=0$ and $G_{\rm load}=\infty$ and will be maximal somewhere between the two,
see Fig.~\ref{fig:power-vs-bias}.
In the first case, the bias $\Delta V$ will be zero, when in the second case it will be the
electrical current $J_e=0$. The bias at which $J_e=0$ is called the {\it stopping voltage},
because it is the voltage that builds up to stop the current flow;
from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Je-vs-DeltaV+DeltaT}) we see that $J_e=0$
occurs at
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta V \ =\colorproofs{ \Delta V_{\rm stop}} \ =\ S \Delta T .
\label{Eq:V_stop}
\end{eqnarray}
This is natural, given that the definition of the Seebeck coefficient, $S$, as the ratio between the
voltage and the temperature difference, when the thermoelectric is
not connected to a circuit (so $J_e=0$).
Thus we know that a heat-engine will generate finite power, $P_{\rm gen}$, will be between
zero and $\Delta V_{\rm stop}$.
}
\green{
Note that we can recast the stopping voltage in terms of thermodynamic forces,
by defining the stopping force ${\mathcal{F}}_e^{\rm stop}$
as the ${\mathcal{F}}_e$ at which the electrical current $J_e$ vanishes for a given ${\mathcal{F}}_h$.
Then from Eq.~(\ref{eq:coupledlinear-a}) we have
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal{F}}_{e,{\rm stop}} = - {L_{eh} \over L_{ee}} {\mathcal{F}}_h
\label{eq:stopping-force}
\end{eqnarray}
which of course simply means that ${\mathcal{F}}_e^{\rm stop}= \Delta V_{\rm stop}/T$
as it should given Eqs.~(\ref{eq:el_conductance}-\ref{eq:Peltier-from-Ls}).
}
\green{
To find the maximum power generation, $P_{\rm gen}=-\Delta V J_e$, it is convenient to forget Eq.~(\ref{Eq:G_load}) and treat $J_e$ and $\Delta V$ as quantities only related by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Je-vs-DeltaV+DeltaT}).
Then, we find the $\Delta V$ which maximizes $P_{\rm gen}$ is
$\Delta V \ =\ -{1\over 2} S \Delta T \ \equiv\ {1 \over 2} V_{\rm stop}$.
Hence, the power generated is maximized when the bias is half the stopping voltage
(or when the thermodynamic force ${\mathcal{F}}_e$ is half the stopping force).
The electric current is then $J_e = {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} G S \Delta T$, and so the maximum power is
\begin{eqnarray}
P^{\rm max}_{\rm gen}\ =\ {1 \over 4} G V_{\rm stop}^2 \ =\ {1 \over 4} G S^2 \, \Delta T^2
\label{Eq:P_gen_max}
\end{eqnarray}
which one can equally write as $P^{\rm max}_{\rm gen} \ =\ {1 \over 4} T L_{ee} \,{\mathcal{F}}_{e,{\rm stop}}^2$
with ${\mathcal{F}}_{e,{\rm stop}}$ given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:stopping-force}).
Now using the fact that $\Delta V= -{\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} S \Delta T$ and $J_e = {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} G S \Delta T$ at maximum power, we can use Eq.~(\ref{Eq:G_load}), if we need to. The answer is that maximum power is delivered when $G_{\rm load}=G$;
in other words, when the load resistance matches the thermoelectric's resistance.
}
\green{
Note that in this section we assumed $S \geq 0$ (i.e. $L_{eh}\geq0$.
If we change the sign of $S$ (i.e. change the sign of $L_{eh}$), then everything we say here follows through,
if one also changes the sign of the bias. Thus $V_{\rm stop}$ will be positive, and device will work as a heat engine for positive biases less than $V_{\rm stop}$, with maximum power at ${\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} V_{\rm stop}$.
This is just like flipping the curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:power-vs-bias}
about the $y$-axis, so $\Delta V \to -\Delta V$.
}
\subsection{\green{Stopping temperature of a refrigerator}}
\label{sec:stopping_temp}
\green{
Just as a heat-engine obeying Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:currents-vs-DeltaV+DeltaT}) has a stopping voltage, a refrigerator has a stopping temperature, which is the maximum $\Delta T$ it can support for a given $\Delta V$.
To function as a refrigerator, Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Jh-vs-DeltaV+DeltaT}) must have $J_h$ with the opposite sign
from $\Delta T$.
Here we take a given positive $\Delta T=T_L-T_R$, then refrigeration of reservoir R occurs when $J_h$ is negative.
If the system has positive $S$ and positive $\Pi$ then this requires that
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta V \ <\ \Delta V_{\rm fri} \ \equiv\ - {K+GS\Pi \over G \Pi} \Delta T\ .
\label{eq:V_fri}
\end{eqnarray}
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:power-vs-bias} for $\Delta T > 0$.
We can write $\Delta V_{\rm fri} = \Delta V_{\rm stop}-K\, \Delta T\big /(G\Pi) $, which means that
$\Delta V_{\rm fri} < \Delta V_{\rm stop}$, and so there is always a regime of ``dissipation'' between
the bias at which the system is a heat-engine and the bias at which it is a refrigerator.
We use the term ``dissipation'' for this regime, because heat flows from hot to cold, and electrical current
flows from high to low bias (like in a resistor). This dissipative regime only vanishes in the limit $K \to 0$,
which is the limit which corresponds to {\it tight-coupling} (see Section~\ref{sec:ZT}).
}
\green{
Inverting Eq.~(\ref{eq:V_fri}) we find that a refrigerator driven by a given negative bias $\Delta V$ will
not be able to remove heat from the cold reservoir unless
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta T \ <\ \Delta T_{\rm stop} \ \equiv - {G\Pi \over K+GS\Pi} \Delta V
\label{Eq:T_stop}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus the cold reservoir will get colder as the refrigerator extracts heat from it,
until the temperature difference approaches tends to $\Delta T_{\rm stop}$,
at which point the cooling will slow to zero, and the cold reservoir will not get any colder.
}
\green{
If the system has positive $S$, but negative $\Pi$, then its function as a heat-engine is unchanged, but now it works as a refrigerator in a regime of positive $\Delta V $ (as before we take $\Delta T >0$) defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta V \ >\ \Delta V_{\rm fri} \equiv -{K+GS\Pi \over G \Pi} \Delta T\ .
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta V_{\rm fri}$ is now a positive quantity.
If we replotted Fig.~\ref{fig:power-vs-bias} for negative $\Pi$ (keeping $S$ positive), the heat-engine regime would be unchanged, but the refrigerator regime would move to positive $\Delta V$ (at $\Delta V > \Delta V_{\rm fri}$), where it would be separated from the heat-engine regime by a dissipation regime
(at $0<\Delta V < \Delta V_{\rm fri}$). It is worth noting that $K+GS\Pi$ is always positive (see below Eq.~(\ref{Eq:2nd-law-constraint-on-S-Pi-etc})), but it is smaller when $S$ and $\Pi$ have opposite sign. Thus, the
stopping temperature for a given magnitude of the bias is smaller when $S$ and $\Pi$ have opposite sign.
}
\green{
Finally, we note that the physics for negative $S$ is the same as described above, once we take $S \to -S$, $\Pi \to -\Pi$ and $\Delta V \to -\Delta V$, so the curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:power-vs-bias} is flipped about the y-axis.
}
\subsection{\green{Lowest refrigeration temperature and $ZT$}}
\green{
Section 2.2 of Goldsmid's textbook \cite{goldsmid} gives an elegant argument which says
that the maximum temperature difference that a refrigerator can
achieve is given by its dimensionless figure of merit $ZT$ given in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:ZT-intro}).
This argument is based on the idea that (unlike in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:T_stop})) a large bias is bad for refrigeration, because it generates a lot of Joule heat, and about half of that heat will flow back into the reservoir being cooled.
For a refrigerator with dimensionless figure of merit $ZT$ given in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:ZT-intro}),
which is cooling a reservoir to a temperature $\Delta T$ below that of the environment (so the environment is at temperature $T$ and the reservoir being cooled is at $T_C = T-\Delta T$).
The argument leads to the conclusion that $\Delta T \leq \Delta T_{\rm limit}$
where $\Delta T_{\rm limit}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\Delta T_{\rm limit} \over T} \ \simeq\ { ZT \over 2}
\label{Eq:T_limit-vs-ZT}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus the refrigerator will never cool a reservoir to a temperature below about $\left(1-{\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} ZT\right)T$.
Here we outline the argument which leads to this relation, and briefly explain the conditions under which
it is likely to by broken by a nanoscale refrigerator \cite{whitney2013-catastrophe}.
}
\green{
To arrive at Eq.~(\ref{Eq:T_limit-vs-ZT}), one starts with the linear response equations in Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:currents-vs-DeltaV+DeltaT}) for a refrigerator. One then notes that Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Je-vs-DeltaV+DeltaT}) implies that the system is dissipating electrical work equal to $J_e \Delta V$ as Joule heat (in other words the power generated
$P_{\rm gen} =- J_e \Delta V <0$), but that this Joule heat does not appear in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Jh-vs-DeltaV+DeltaT}). To remedy this, one should add a Joule heating term to Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Jh-vs-DeltaV+DeltaT}),
this term is non-linear and violated conservation of $J_h$, as such we have to define a heat current
$J_{h,L}$ from the refrigerator into reservoir L, and a current $J_{h,R}$ from the refrigerator into reservoir R.
If we were to stay with linear-response and neglect Joule heating, we would have $-J_{h,L}=J_{h,R}=J_h$ where $J_h$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Jh-vs-DeltaV+DeltaT}). However, once we add the Joule heating term
we have $J_{h,L}+J_{h,L} = J_{e}\Delta V$, using Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Je-vs-DeltaV+DeltaT}) this becomes
$J_{h,L}+J_{h,L} = (G\Delta V + GS\Delta T)\Delta V$.
Let us assume that the proportion of the Joule heating will go to the cold reservoir (which we take to be reservoir R) is $\alpha$, so the proportion that goes to the
hot environment (reservoir L) is $1-\alpha$. Then we have
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{h,R} &=& \ \ \big[G\Pi \Delta V + (K+GS\Pi)\Delta T \big]
\ +\ \alpha \, \big[ (G\Delta V + GS\Delta T)\Delta V \big],
\\
J_{h,L} &=& - \big[G\Pi \Delta V + (K+GS\Pi)\Delta T \big]
\ +\ (1-\alpha)\, \big[ (G\Delta V + GS\Delta T)\Delta V \big],
\end{eqnarray}
where the first square bracket in each expression comes from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Jh-vs-DeltaV+DeltaT}),
and the second square-bracket comes from the Joule heating. These equations are an approximation because
the only non-linear term we consider is that associated with Joule heating, when in reality there are many other non-linear terms coming from the $T$ dependences of $G$, $S$, $\Pi$, and $\Pi$.
}
\green{
Now, we see that (unlike in Section~\ref{sec:stopping_temp}) making the bias more and more negative
does not make the heat flow into the cold reservoir $J_{h,R}$ more and more negative.
Instead, the fact the Joule heating term is quadratic in $\Delta V$ means the most negative value of $J_{h,R}$ occurs when $\Delta V= - (\Pi +\alpha S \Delta T)\big/ (2\alpha)$.
Thus the most negative heat current (i.e.~the maximum cooling power) is
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{h,R} &=& - {G \over 4 \alpha}\big(\Pi +\alpha S \Delta T\big)^2 \ +\ K \Delta T.
\end{eqnarray}
Now to follow Goldsmid's argument, we assume that the system has $\Pi=ST$, such as in a system with time-reversal symmetry.
Then we have
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{h,R} &=& K T \left[{ \Delta T \over T} - {ZT \over 4\alpha} \left(1+{ \Delta T \over T}\right)^2 \right].
\label{Eq:J_hR-at-max-cooling-power}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ZT$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:ZT-intro}).
If $J_{h,R}$ is negative for a given $\Delta T$, then the the cold reservoir can be cooled further by the
refrigerator, this cooling only stops when $\Delta T$ reaches a value where $J_{h,R}$ is no longer negative.
From Eq.~(\ref{Eq:J_hR-at-max-cooling-power}) for $ZT < \alpha$, we see that cooling happens for all
$\Delta T$ down to $\Delta T_{\rm limit}$ where
\begin{eqnarray}
{\Delta T_{\rm limit} \over T} \ =\ {2\alpha \over ZT} \ \left(\, 1-{ZT \over2\alpha} - \sqrt{1-{ZT \over \alpha}}\,\right) \qquad \hbox{ for }\ {ZT \over \alpha} < 1
\label{Eq:T_limit-vs-ZT-2}
\end{eqnarray}
As the cooling power can be negative for all $\Delta T \leq \Delta T_{\rm limit}$, it means that the refrigerator will be able to cool the cold reservoir down to $T_C = T -\Delta T_{\rm in}$ if one waits long enough
(where $T$ is the environment temperature).
}
\green{
In contrast, if $ZT > \alpha$ then we can see that cooling happens at all $\Delta T$, this implies that the cold reservoir can be cooled to arbitrary low temperatures (even unphysical negative temperatures). This is a clear indication of a deep problem with this argument for large $ZT$. The problem is that we assumed that we were close enough to linear-response to the linear-response equations and only adding one non-linear term (the term giving Joule heating). This assumption may or may not be reasonable in any given circumstance, however it is clear that it is only self-consistent for systems cooling down to $\left(T-\Delta T_{\rm limit}\right)$ if $\Delta T_{\rm limit}/T $ remains small enough to stay close to the linear-response regime (i.e.~that we can neglect the $\Delta T$ dependence $G$, $K$ and $S$ when $\Delta T \sim \Delta T_{\rm limit}$).
Thus for a nanoscale system where the linear-response equations fail as soon as $\Delta T/ T$ or
$e\Delta V\big/(k_{\rm B} T)$ is not small (see Section~\ref{Sect:Thermoelectrics_traditional_vs_quantum}), one sees that Eq.~(\ref{Eq:T_limit-vs-ZT-2}) is only a good estimate of $\Delta T_{\rm limit}$ if $ZT \ll 1$,
in which case we can expand the square-root to get
\begin{eqnarray}
{\Delta T_{\rm limit} \over T} \ =\ {ZT \over 4\alpha} \ +\ {1 \over 8}\left({ZT \over \alpha}\right)^2
\ +\ {\cal O}\left[ \left({ZT\over \alpha}\right)^3\right] \ .
\end{eqnarray}
Goldsmid's argument made the additional assumption that the Joule heat is approximately equally divided between the hot and cold reservoirs, so $\alpha \simeq 1/2$. Then for $ZT \ll \alpha$ one gets Eq.~(\ref{Eq:T_limit-vs-ZT}).
}
\green{
One can look at Ref.~\cite{whitney2013-catastrophe} to see how the above argument fails for a nanoscale system when $ZT$ is {\it not} small, and so the cooling makes $\Delta T$ large enough that one must take into account all non-linear effects. That work considered a simple non-linear theory of a quantum point-contact (which has $ZT \simeq 1.4$)
acting as a nanoscale refrigerator. It shows that the $\Delta T_{\rm limit}$ (and the manner one gets to that limiting temperature) are very different from that discussed above.
}
\section{Concluding remarks}
\label{sec:conclusions}
In this review we have presented simple and self-contained accounts of some of the main theoretical approaches to the problem of thermoelectric efficiency, and the efficiency of steady-state heat to work conversion in general. Even though the problem has a long history, we believe that the recent theoretical view points described here will be useful. \green{They make a significant contribution to the understanding of the quantum thermodynamics of such steady state quantum machines.}
We expect that they will prove useful in analysing current experiments on nano-scale systems,
and hope they will stimulate new generations of experiments.
Despite the works reviewed here, we believe that the powerful machinery of non-equilibrium statistical mechanics and dynamical system's theory has not yet been fully explored in connection to coupled heat, electric, magnetic or particle transport. In particular, we believe this machinery will be important in inventing ways of enhancing
heat to work conversion using thermoelectric, thermomagnetic or thermochemical effects.
An indication of this is the recent realization of the importance of magnetic fields, discussed
in section~\ref{sec:ZT},
which allow entirely new thermoelectric behaviour by breaking the time-reversal symmetry in the underlying equations of motions.
The central question which this review identifies is the following:
What limits do the microscopic dynamics -- for a particular model, or for a particular non-equilibrium steady-state setup --
impose on the thermodynamic heat-to-work efficiency?
While the theory for non-interacting quantum systems starts to be well understood, see chapters~\ref{Sect:scattering-theory} and \ref{sec:landauer}, the understanding of general mechanisms connected to interactions \green{is} only begins to emerge.
\green{This is particularly the case when those interactions induce features with no analogue in macroscopic quantum machines, such as quantum coherence and entanglement.}
One hope is that strongly interacting systems
might be favorable for thermoelectric conversion under suitable conditions,
for example for the systems close to phase transitions mentioned in chapter~\ref{sec:interacting}.
In all cases, less is known about the physics of heat to work conversion beyond
the linear-response regime, even though we can expect many
nanoscale thermoelectric devices to operate far from equilibrium. In that nonlinear regime,
reciprocity relations break down, and there are strong nonlinear effects, such as rectification.
In this regard, we look forward to new theoretical methods that can treat systems deep in the nonlinear regime,
in situations for which the scattering theory of chapter~\ref{Sect:scatter-nonlin} and the rate equations
of chapter~\ref{Sect:Qu-Master-Eqn} are not applicable.
Another aspect of the physics of nanostructures currently of great interest, is that of {\it spin caloritronics};
this is the study of situation in which heat is converted into spin-currents (rather than electrical currents).
Many works have recently discussed the spin equivalent of thermoelectric effects, such as spin-Seebeck effects.
We lack the space in this review to do justice to this very active field,
even if the theoretical methods used in the spin caloritronics of nanostructures are often exactly the same as those presented here (scattering theory and master equations).
For the reader interested in spin-caloritronics we suggest starting with the reviews such as Refs.~\cite{spin-caloritronics2012,spin-caloritronics2014}.
Finally, we note that heat to work conversion in the steady-state has the advantage of simplicity (both theoretically and experimentally) over systems that require pumping or driving. However, this does not mean that we can be sure that steady-state systems are the best route to optimal heat to work conversion. The types of system considered in sections ~\ref{sec:CTM} and \ref{sec:machines},
may turn out to present advantages over steady-state systems. Such a possibility is suggested by the fact that,
as mentioned in section~\ref{sec:thermodriven}, thermodynamic constraints on the steady-state Onsager
coefficients may be relaxed.
Hence, as our experimental control of the driving of nanoscale system
improves, it will make sense to consider such systems in more detail.
\section{Thermodynamic efficiency of steady-state thermal machines}
\label{sec:TE}
One of the pillars of thermodynamics is the existence of an upper bound
on the efficiency of the conversion of heat to work.
Given any thermal machine operating as a heat engine between
two reservoirs at temperatures $T_L$ and $T_R$ $(T_L>T_R)$,
the efficiency $\eta^{\rm eng}$, defined as the ratio of the performed work $W$
over the heat $Q_L$ extracted from the high temperature reservoir,
where we use the superscript``eng'' to indicate that it is the efficiency of a heat engine.
This efficiency is bounded by the \emph{Carnot efficiency} $\eta_{\rm C}^{\rm eng}$ \cite{carnot},
\begin{equation}
\eta^{\rm eng} \ =\ \frac{W}{{Q}_L} \leq \eta_{\rm C}^{\rm eng} \ =\ 1-\frac{T_R}{T_L}.
\end{equation}
The ideal Carnot efficiency may be achieved if the conversion process
is \emph{reversible}. Since a thermodynamic reversible transformation
is \emph{quasi-static}, \green{the thermodynamic cycle will take an infinite time.
This is not only impractical, it means the power generated
(i.e.~the work generated per cycle divided by the cycle's period) is vanishingly small.
Therefore an engine ideally working at the Carnot efficiency would
be useless.
Of course, the idea is to operate a real machine with a finite cycle time, so the process will not quite be reversible and a small amount of entropy will be generated.
This will make its efficiency slightly less than $ \eta_{\rm C}^{\rm eng}$, but it will generate a finite power.
An important practical question is to quantify how much}
the efficiency deteriorates when heat to work conversion takes place
in a finite time. This is a central question in the field of \emph{finite-time thermodynamics}
(for a review, see \cite{andresen11}).
Hereafter, we focus on steady-state thermal machines, while the
discussion of cyclic thermal machines is postponed to
Chapter~\ref{sec:CTM}. Owing to the steady-state, we can
write the efficiencies of heat-engines and refrigerators in terms of heat currents
and power, as in Section~\ref{Sect:intro-eff}.
\subsection{Figure of merit for thermoelectric efficiency}
\label{sec:ZT}
Within linear response, \green{as given by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:coupledlinear}),}
the efficiency of steady-state conversion of heat to work
reads
\begin{equation}
\eta=\frac{P}{J_{\rm h,L}}=\frac{-(\Delta V) J_{e}}{J_{h}}
=\frac{-T \mathcal{F}_e (L_{ee}\mathcal{F}_e +L_{eh}\mathcal{F}_h)}{L_{he}
\mathcal{F}_e+L_{hh}\mathcal{F}_h},
\label{eq:efficiency}
\end{equation}
where $P=-(\Delta V) \ J_{e}>0$.
The maximum of $\eta$ over $\mathcal{F}_e$, for fixed $\mathcal{F}_h$,
i.e. over the applied voltage $\Delta V$ for a given temperature
difference $\Delta T$, is achieved for
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{F}_e=- \frac{L_{hh}}{L_{he}}\left(
1-\sqrt{\frac{\det{\bm L}}{L_{ee}L_{hh}}}\right)\mathcal{F}_h.
\label{eq:etamaxcondition}
\end{equation}
\green{where we recall that $\det{\bm L}= L_{ee}L_{hh}-L_{eh}L_{he}$.
It is worth doing a bit of algebraic manipulation to write this in term of
the dimensionless quantity
\begin{eqnarray}
y= {L_{eh}L_{he}\over \det{\bm L}} \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where it takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{F}_e \ =\ \mathcal{F}_{e,{\rm stop}}
\ {1+y - \sqrt{1+y}
\over y}
\label{Eq:F_e-max-efficency}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{F}_{e,{\rm stop}}$ is the stopping force in Eq.~(\ref{eq:stopping-force}).
In systems with $L_{eh}=L_{he}$, such as systems with time-reversal symmetry,
\begin{eqnarray}
y \ \to\ {L^2_{eh}\over \det{\bm L}} \ = \ {GS^2 T \over K} \ \equiv \ ZT
\end{eqnarray}
is the dimensionless figure of merit introduced in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:ZT-intro}).
Then we can see that a poor thermoelectric, given by the low $ZT$ limit of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:F_e-max-efficency}),
has maximum efficiency at $\mathcal{F}_{e}={\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} \mathcal{F}_{e,{\rm stop}}$. This coincides with the
condition for it to have maximum power. In the opposite limit, an ideal thermoelectric
with $ZT \to \infty$ has a maximum efficiency at $\mathcal{F}_{e}= \mathcal{F}_{e,{\rm stop}}$.
}
\green{Here we continue by considering only systems with $L_{eh}=L_{he}$ (such as those with time-reversal symmetry),
and postpone discussion of systems with $L_{eh}\neq L_{he}$ to section~\ref{sec:efficiencymagnetic}.
Taking Eq.~(\ref{Eq:F_e-max-efficency}) with $y \to ZT$ and substituting it into Eq.~(\ref{eq:efficiency}),
one find that the \emph{maximum efficiency} is \cite{goldsmid}}
\begin{equation}
\eta_{\rm max}=
\eta_{\rm C}\,
\frac{\sqrt{ZT+1}-1}{\sqrt{ZT+1}+1},
\label{etamaxB0}
\end{equation}
where the Carnot efficiency, $\eta_{\rm C}=1-T_R/T_L$, in the linear-response regime takes the form $\eta_{\rm C} = \Delta T/T= T \mathcal{F}_h$.
In general, $ZT$ depends on the size of the system,
since this is the case for $G$, $K$ and $S$.
On the other hand, if we are in the diffusive transport
regime where Ohm's scaling law $G=\sigma A/\Lambda$ and
Fourier's scaling law $K=\kappa A/\Lambda$ hold, where
$A$ and $\Lambda$ are the cross section area and length of the material,
$\sigma$ the electric conductivity and
$\kappa$ the thermal conductivity, then $G/K=\sigma/\kappa$.
If moreover $S$ is size-independent, then
the figure of merit can be expressed in terms of
the material transport coefficients $\sigma$, $\kappa$ and $S$:
\begin{equation}
ZT=\frac{\sigma S^2}{\kappa}\,T.
\end{equation}
The only restriction imposed by thermodynamics
(more precisely, by the positivity of the entropy production rate)
is $ZT\ge 0$, since $G=L_{ee}/T\ge 0$ and $K={\det {\bm L}}/(T^2 L_{ee})\ge 0$.
It is easy to see that $\eta_{\rm max}$ is a monotonous growing function
of $ZT$, with $\eta_{\rm max}=0$ when $ZT=0$ and
$\eta_{\rm max}\to \eta_{\rm C}$ when $ZT\to\infty$ (full curve in
Fig.~\ref{fig:ZT}).
Note that the divergence of $ZT$ (leading to the Carnot efficiency)
implies that the condition number
\begin{equation}
{\rm cond}({\bm L})\equiv \frac{[{\rm Tr}({\bm L})]^2}{\det {\bm L}}> ZT
\end{equation}
also diverges.
As a consequence, the Onsager matrix ${\bm L}$
is ill-conditioned, namely
the ratio
\begin{equation}
\frac{\lambda_+({\bm L})}{\lambda_-({\bm L})}=
\frac{1+\sqrt{1+\frac{4}{{\rm cond}({\bm L})}}}{1
-\sqrt{1-\frac{4}{{\rm cond}({\bm L})}}}
\end{equation}
diverges; here
$\lambda_+ ({\bm L})$ and $\lambda_- ({\bm L})$ denote the largest and
the smallest eigenvalue of ${\bm L}$, respectively.
Therefore, in the limit $ZT\to\infty$ the system
(\ref{eq:coupledlinear}) becomes singular.
That is,
$J_{u}=c J_{e}$, with the proportionality factor $c$ being independent
of the values of the applied thermodynamic forces.
In short, within linear response (and without external magnetic fields
or other effects breaking time-reversal symmetry) the Carnot efficiency
can be obtained only if charge and energy flows are proportional, \green{this is} known as the
\emph{tight coupling} condition (also sometimes called \emph{strong coupling}).
In most physical systems ${\rm Tr}({\bm L})$ has a finite upper bound, which means the tight coupling condition requires $\det[{\bm L}] \to 0$. In this case Eqs.~(\ref{eq:el_conductance},\ref{eq:th_conductance}) tell us that the ratio of thermal conductance to electrical conductance vanishes, $K\big/G \to 0$.
Thus a system which achieves large $ZT$ is likely to strongly violate the Wiedemann-Franz law (for an example see
Section~\ref{sec:energyfiltering}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{ZT.pdf}}
\caption{Linear response efficiency for heat to work conversion,
in units of Carnot efficiency $\eta_{\rm C}$, as a function of the figure
of merit $ZT$. The top and the bottom curve correspond to the
maximum efficiency $\eta_{\rm max}$ and to the efficiency at
the maximum power $\eta(P_{\rm max})$, respectively.}
\label{fig:ZT}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Efficiency at maximum power}
\label{sec:ZTmaxpower}
The output power
\begin{equation}
P=-(\Delta V) J_{e}
=-T \mathcal{F}_e (L_{ee}\mathcal{F}_e +L_{eh}\mathcal{F}_h)
\end{equation}
is maximum when
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{F}_e=-\frac{L_{eh}}{2L_{ee}}\,\mathcal{F}_h
\label{eq:X1max}
\end{equation}
and is given by
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm max}=\frac{T}{4}\frac{L_{eh}^2}{L_{ee}}\,\mathcal{F}_h^2=
\frac{\eta_{\rm C}}{4}\,\frac{L_{eh}^2}{L_{ee}}\,\mathcal{F}_h.
\label{eq:Pmax}
\end{equation}
Using Eqs.~(\ref{eq:el_conductance}) and (\ref{eq:seebeck})
we can also write
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm max}=\frac{1}{4}\,S^2 G (\Delta T)^2.
\label{Eq:max-power}
\end{equation}
We can see from this last equation that the maximum power
is directly set by the combination $S^2 G$, known
for this reason as \emph{power factor}.
Note that $P$ is a quadratic function of $\mathcal{F}_e$ and the
maximum is obtained for the value (\ref{eq:X1max})
corresponding to half of the so-called \emph{stopping force} in Eq.~(\ref{eq:stopping-force}).
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{F}_e^{\rm stop}=-\frac{L_{eh}}{L_{ee}}\,\mathcal{F}_h,
\end{equation}
that is, of the value for which the electric current vanishes,
$J_{e}(\mathcal{F}_e^{\rm stop})=0$.
For systems with time reversal symmetry,
the efficiency at maximum power
reads \cite{vandenbroeck2005}
\begin{equation}
\eta(P_{\rm max})=\frac{\eta_{\rm C}}{2}\frac{ZT}{ZT+2}.
\label{etawmaxB0}
\end{equation}
This quantity also is a monotonous growing function of
$ZT$, with $\eta(P_{\rm max})=0$ when $ZT=0$ and
$\eta(P_{\rm max})\to \eta_{\rm C}/2$ when $ZT\to\infty$ (dashed curve in
Fig.~\ref{fig:ZT}). For small $ZT$ we
have $\eta(P_{\rm max})\approx\eta_{\rm max}\approx
(\eta_{\rm C}/4) ZT$. The difference between
$\eta(P_{\rm max})$ and $\eta_{\rm max}$ becomes
relevant only for $ZT>1$.
\red{
It is useful to point out at this stage that the
bound $\eta_{\rm C}/2$ coincides with the linear response
expansion of the Curzon-Ahlborn efficiency. This will be discussed
in Section~\ref{sec:CTM} for cyclic thermal machines.}
\subsection{Efficiency versus power}
In this section, we discuss how it is possible to
establish a linear-response efficiency versus power plot.
We can express the ratio between the power at a given value of
$\mathcal{F}_e$ and the maximum power as a function of
the \emph{force ratio} $r=\mathcal{F}_e/\mathcal{F}_e^{\rm stop}$:
\begin{equation}
\frac{P}{P_{\rm max}}=4 r (1-r).
\end{equation}
This relation can be inverted:
\begin{equation}
r=\frac{1}{2}\,\left[1\pm \sqrt{1-\frac{P}{P_{\rm max}}}\right],
\end{equation}
with the plus sign for $r\ge 1/2$ and the minus sign for $r\le 1/2$.
Inserting this latter relation into Eq.~(\ref{eq:efficiency}) we can
express the efficiency (normalized to the Carnot efficiency) as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\eta}{\eta_{\rm C}}=
\frac{\displaystyle{\frac{P}{P_{\rm max}}}}{
\displaystyle{2\left(1+\frac{2}{ZT}\mp \sqrt{
1-\frac{P}{P_{\rm max}}}\right)}},
\end{equation}
where the minus sign corresponds to $r\ge 1/2$, the plus sign to
$r\le 1/2$.
Plots of the normalized efficiency versus the normalized power
are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:eta_power}, for several values
of the figure of merit $ZT$.
Note that, while for low values of $ZT$ the maximum efficiency
is close to the efficiency at maximum power, for large $ZT$
the difference becomes relevant (see also Fig.~\ref{fig:ZT}).
For $ZT=\infty$ the Carnot efficiency is achieved at $P=0$, i.e. at
the stopping force: $\mathcal{F}_e=\mathcal{F}_e^{\rm stop}$, namely $r=1$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{eta_power.pdf}}
\caption{Relative efficiency $\eta/\eta_{\rm C}$ versus normalized
power $P/P_{\rm max}$. From bottom to top: $ZT=1,5,100$, and $\infty$.
In each curve the lower branch corresponds to a force ratio
$r\le 1/2$, the upper branch to $r\ge 1/2$. Maximum efficiency is
always achieved on the upper branch.
\green{
For refrigerators, similar curves can be plotted of efficiency versus cooling power,
see for example Refs.~\cite{Gordon-Ng-book,Kosloff-Levy2014}
}}
\label{fig:eta_power}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Coefficient of performance}
When the force ratio exceeds one, $r>1$, the thermoelectric device works as
a \emph{refrigerator}. In this case the most important benchmark is
the \emph{coefficient of performance} (COP)
$\eta^{(r)}=J_{h}/P$ ($J_{h}<0$, $P<0$), given by the ratio of the heat
current extracted from the cold system over the absorbed power.
By optimizing this quantity within linear response, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\eta_{\rm max}^{(r)}=
\eta_{\rm C}^{(r)}\,
\frac{\sqrt{ZT+1}-1}{\sqrt{ZT+1}+1},
\label{etamaxref}
\end{equation}
where $\eta_{\rm C}^{(r)}=T_R/(T_L-T_R)\approx 1/(T \mathcal{F}_h)$
is the efficiency
of an ideal, dissipationless refrigerator.
Since the ratio $\eta_{\rm max}^{(r)}/\eta_{\rm C}^{(r)}$ for refrigeration is equal
to the ratio $\eta_{\rm max}/\eta_{\rm C}$ for thermoelectric power generation,
$ZT$ is the figure of merit for both regimes.
\subsection{Systems with broken time-reversal symmetry}
\label{sec:efficiencymagnetic}
The same analysis as above can be repeated
when time-reversal symmetry is broken, say by a magnetic
field ${\bm B}$ (or by other effects
such as the Coriolis force).
The maximum output power is again given by (\ref{eq:Pmax})
and the corresponding efficiency at maximum power
\begin{equation}
{\displaystyle
\eta(P_{\rm max}) = \frac{P_{\rm max}}{J_{h}}
= \frac{\eta_{\rm C}}{2}\, \frac{1}{2\frac{L_{ee}L_{hh}}{L_{eh}^2}
-\frac{L_{he}}{L_{eh}}}
}
\end{equation}
is seen to depend on two parameters \cite{BSC2011}: the asymmetry parameter
\begin{equation}
x=\frac{L_{eh}}{L_{he}}=\frac{S({\bm B})}{S(-{\bm B})}
\label{def:x}
\end{equation}
and a generalized ``figure of merit''
\begin{equation}
y=\frac{L_{eh}L_{he}}{\det {\bm L}}=
\frac{G({\bm B}) S({\bm B})S(-{\bm B})}{K({\bm B})}\,T \, ,
\end{equation}
\green{where we recall that we have defined $T=T_R$, see the end of section~\ref{sec:linear_response}
for a discussion of this point.}
Expressed as a function of the parameters $x$ and $y$,
the efficiency at maximum power reads
\begin{equation}
\eta(P_{\rm max})=
\frac{\eta_{\rm C}}{2}\,\frac{xy}{2+y}.
\label{etawmax}
\end{equation}
The maximum efficiency is again achieved
when $\mathcal{F}_e$ and $\mathcal{F}_h$ are related as in
(\ref{eq:etamaxcondition}) and is given by
\begin{equation}
\eta_{\rm max}= \eta_{\rm C}\,x\,
\frac{\sqrt{y+1}-1}{\sqrt{y+1}+1}.
\label{eq:ZTx}
\end{equation}
In the particular case $x=1$, $y$ reduces to the $ZT$
figure of merit of the
time-symmetric case, Eq.~(\ref{eq:ZTx}) reduces to
Eq.~(\ref{etamaxB0}),
and Eq.~(\ref{etawmax}) to Eq.~(\ref{etawmaxB0}).
While thermodynamics does not impose any restriction on the
attainable values of the asymmetry parameter $x$, the positivity
of entropy production (Eq.~(\ref{dots}))
implies $h(x)\le y \le 0$ if $x\le 0$ and
$0\le y \le h(x)$ if $x\ge 0$, where the function $h(x)= 4x/(x-1)^2$.
Note that $\lim_{x\to 1} h(x)=\infty$ and therefore there is no
upper bound on $y(x=1)=ZT$. For a given value of the asymmetry $x$,
the maximum (over $y$)
$\bar{\eta}(P_{\rm max})$ of $\eta(P_{\rm max})$ and the maximum
$\bar{\eta}_{\rm max}$ of $\eta_{\rm max}$ are obtained for $y=h(x)$
and are given by
\begin{equation}
\bar{\eta}(P_{\rm max})=\eta_{\rm C}\frac{x^2}{x^2+1},
\label{eq:boundetapmax}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\bar{\eta}_{\rm max}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\eta_{\rm C}\,x^2 & {\rm if}\,\, |x| \le 1,
\\
\\
\eta_{\rm C} & {\rm if}\,\, |x| \ge 1.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:boundetamax}
\end{equation}
The functions $\bar{\eta}(P_{\rm max})(x)$ and
$\bar{\eta}_{\rm max}(x)$
are drawn
in Fig.~\ref{fig:magnetic}.
In the case $|x|>1$, it is in principle possible to overcome
the \green{Curzon-Ahlborn} limit $\eta_{CA}=\eta_{\rm C}/2$ within linear response and to reach the
Carnot efficiency, for increasingly smaller and smaller figure of merit $y$ as
the asymmetry parameter $x$ increases. The Carnot efficiency is
obtained for ${\rm det} {\bm L}=(L_{eh}-L_{he})^2/4>0$ when $|x|>1$,
that is, the tight coupling condition is not fulfilled.
The output power at maximum efficiency reads
\begin{equation}
P(\bar{\eta}_{\rm max})=\frac{\bar{\eta}_{\rm max}}{4}\frac{|L_{eh}^2-L_{he}^2|}{L_{ee}}\,\mathcal{F}_h.
\end{equation}
Therefore, always within linear response,
it is allowed from thermodynamics
to have Carnot efficiency and nonzero power
simultaneously when $|x|>1$.
Such a possibility can be understood on the basis of the
following argument \cite{BSS2013,BS2013}. We first split each current $J_{i}$
(${i}={e},{h}$) into a
reversible and an irreversible part, defined by
\begin{equation}
J_{i}^{\rm rev}=\sum_{j=e,h} \frac{L_{ij}-L_{ji}}{2}\,\mathcal{F}_j,
\;\;
J_{i}^{\rm irr}=
\sum_{{j}={e},{h}} \frac{L_{ij}+L_{ji}}{2}\,\mathcal{F}_j.
\label{eq:Jrevirr}
\end{equation}
It is readily seen from Eq.~(\ref{eq:sprod}) and
(\ref{eq:Jrevirr}) that only the irreversible part
of the currents contributes to the entropy production:
\begin{equation}
\dot{\mathscr{S}}=J_{e}^{\rm irr} \mathcal{F}_e + J_{h}^{\rm irr} \mathcal{F}_h.
\end{equation}
The reversible currents $J_{i}^{\rm rev}$ vanish for
${\bm B}=0$. On the other hand, for broken time-reversal symmetry
the reversible currents can in principle become arbitrarily large,
giving rise to the possibility of dissipationless transport.
While in the time-reversal case the linear response
normalized maximum efficiency
$\eta_{\rm max}/\eta_{\rm C}$
and coefficient of performance
$\eta_{\rm max}^{(r)}/\eta_{\rm C}^{(r)}$
for power generation and refrigeration
coincide, this is no longer the case with broken
time-reversal symmetry. For refrigeration
the maximum value of the coefficient of performance reads
\begin{equation}
\eta_{\rm max}^{(r)}=\eta_{\rm C}^{(r)}
\,\frac{1}{x}\,\frac{\sqrt{y+1}-1}{\sqrt{y+1}+1}.
\label{eq:etarefrigeration}
\end{equation}
For small fields, $x$ will usually be a linear function of the magnetic field,
while $y$ is by construction an even function of the field.
As a consequence, a small external magnetic field either improves
power generation and
worsens refrigeration or vice-versa, while the average
efficiency
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\eta_{\rm max}({\bm B})}{\eta_{\rm C}}+
\frac{\eta_{\rm max}^{(r)}({\bm B})}{\eta_{\rm C}^{(r)}}\right]
=\frac{\eta_{\rm max}({\bm 0})}{\eta_{\rm C}}=
\frac{\eta_{\rm max}^{(r)}({\bm 0})}{\eta_{\rm C}^{(r)}},
\end{equation}
up to second order corrections.
Due to the Onsager-Casimir relations, $x(-{\bm B})=1/x({\bm B})$
and therefore by inverting the direction of the magnetic field
one can improve either power generation or refrigeration.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{magnetic.pdf}}
\caption{Ratio $\eta/\eta_{\rm C}$ as a function of the asymmetry parameter $x$,
with $\eta=\bar{\eta}(P_{\rm max})$ (dashed curve) and
$\eta=\bar{\eta}_{\rm max}$
(full curve). For $x=1$,
$\bar{\eta}(P_{\rm max})=\eta_{\rm C}/2$ and $\bar{\eta}_{\rm max}=\eta_{\rm C}$
are obtained for $y(x=1)=ZT=\infty$.}
\label{fig:magnetic}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Onsager relations do not impose the symmetry
$x=1$, i.e., we can have $S({\bm B})\ne S(-{\bm B})$.
However, as discussed in section~\ref{sec:probes} below,
\green{one must have $S(-{\bm B})=S({\bm B})$ for any non-interacting two-terminal system}
as a consequence
of the symmetry properties of the scattering matrix \cite{Butcher1990,datta}.
This symmetry
is typically violated when electron-phonon and electron-electron
interactions are taken into account.
While the Seebeck coefficient \green{is usually} found
to be an even function of the magnetic
field in two-terminal purely metallic mesoscopic
systems \cite{lsb98,gbm99},
measurements for certain orientations of
a bismuth crystal \cite{wolfe1963},
Andreev interferometer experiments \cite{chandrasekhar,
Petrashov03,Chandrasekhar05,Chandrasekhar09}
and theoretical studies \cite{jacquod,SBCP2011,sanchez2011}
have shown that systems
in contact with a superconductor or subject to inelastic
scattering can exhibit non-symmetric thermopower,
i.e., $S(-{\bm B})\ne S({\bm B})$.
So far, investigations of various
classical \cite{horvat2012} and quantum \cite{SBCP2011}
dynamical models have shown arbitrarily large values of the
asymmetry $x$, but correspondingly with low efficiency.
However, efficiency at maximum power beyond the \green{Curzon-Ahlborn} limit for
$x>1$ has been shown in \cite{BSS2013,vinitha2013,BS2013}
(see section~\ref{sec:probes} below).
There is also current interest in multi-terminal systems with broken time-reversal symmetry,
particularly three-terminal systems in which heat supplied to one terminal drives an electrical current
between two others. We discuss a number of such three-terminal systems
in chapters \ref{Sect:scattering-theory} and \ref{Sect:master-examples}, but mention here that those in which broken time-reversal symmetry is crucial
to their operation include Aharonov-Bohm rings \cite{entin2012} and quantum hall systems
\cite{
QuNernst2014,sanchez2015a,sanchez2015b,Hofer-Sothmann2015,Vannucci2015,sanchez2016,whitney2016,Samuelsson-Sothmann2016}.
\section{Cyclic thermal machines}
\label{sec:CTM}
\red{So far we have considered steady state (or \emph{autonomous}) heat engines,
where no time-dependent parameters are involved.
On the other hand, thermal machines usually discussed in thermodynamics textbooks, such as Carnot and
Otto engines, involve time-dependent parameters for controlling volume, temperature, and so on.
These engines are \emph{nonautonomous}, since they require an external control system.
In this chapter, we will consider cyclic thermal machines, where all parameters return to their original
position in one period, drawing a cycle in the parameter space.
We shall discuss general features of power and efficiency in cyclic heat engines,
highlighting the (dis)similarities between steady-state and cyclic heat engines.}
\subsection{Finite-time thermodynamics}
\label{sec:CA}
In the same way as for a steady-state engine,
in a \emph{cyclic thermal machine} operating between
two (hot and cold) reservoirs at temperatures $T_H$ and $T_C$ $(T_H>T_C)$,
the efficiency $\eta$, defined as the ratio of the output work
$W$ over the heat $Q_H$ extracted from the hot reservoir,
is bounded by the Carnot efficiency $\eta_C$; so
$\eta = \frac{W}{Q_H} \leq \eta_C = 1-\frac{T_C}{T_H}$.
\red{The Carnot engine achieves the Carnot efficiency for
a quasi-static transformation which requires infinite time for one cycle
and therefore the extracted power, in this limit, reduces to zero.
Moreover, the total entropy generated in the system plus reservoir is zero,
hence the process is reversible. The total entropy production per cycle
is sometimes referred to as \emph{dissipation} in heat engines.
To get finite power, one needs finite-time cycles. As a consequence,
there is dissipation, and the efficiency is reduced below the Carnot limit.
It is the purpose of
finite-time thermodynamics \cite{andresen11}
to investigate the efficiency as well as performance bounds
on finite-time, irreversible thermodynamic processes,
addressing the trade-off between efficiency and power.}
In particular, in \emph{endoreversible} thermodynamics
\cite{rubin79,hoffmann97} dissipation is introduced by
considering finite thermal conductances between heat reservoirs
and the ideal heat engine, namely the engine has no internal dissipation.
In contrast, in \emph{exoreversible} engines
no dissipative thermal contacts are
involved, and irreversibility only arises
due to internal processes. For instance,
in thermoelectricity the Joule effect is a dissipative internal process.
In this section, we shall discuss in detail the Curzon-Ahlborn endoreversible engine
and compare its efficiency at maximum power with the result obtained for the
Schmiedl-Seifert exoreversible engine (whose detailed discussion will
be postponed to section~\ref{sec:stochasticSS}, after introduction of
the necessary tools of stochastic thermodynamics). Both the Curzon-Ahlborn \green{(CA)} and
the Schmiedl-Seifert \green{(SS)} efficiency at maximum power, $\eta_{CA}$ and
$\eta_{SS}$, feature in
a model of low-dissipation engines, which highlights the relevance of
asymmetric coupling to the reservoirs. Moreover, the crossover between
$\eta_{CA}$ and $\eta_{SS}$ can be seen in a model of a thermoelectric device,
in which dissipation is dominated
either by thermal contacts with the reservoirs (endoreversible behavior)
or by internal thermal dissipation (exoreversible behavior).
Finally, we shall briefly discuss the extension of linear response
formalism for coupled charge and heat flows to driven systems.
\subsection{Endoreversible cyclic engines}
\label{Sect:endoreversible-cyclic}
The very important concept of efficiency at
maximum power can be conveniently illustrated by means of
the endoreversible
{cyclic} Curzon-Ahlborn (CA) engine depicted in
Fig.~\ref{fig:curzon}.
The Curzon-Ahlborn engine consists of two heat baths at temperatures $T_H$ and
$T_C$ and a reversible Carnot engine operating between internal temperatures
$T_{Hi}$ and $T_{Ci}$ ($T_H>T_{Hi}>T_{Ci}>T_C$).
The two processes of heat transfer, from the
hot reservoir to the system and from the system to the cold
reservoir, are the only irreversible processes in the Curzon-Ahlborn engine.
The output work $W$ is the difference between the heat $Q_H$ absorbed
from the hot reservoir and the heat $-Q_C$ ($Q_H>0$, $Q_C<0$)
evacuated to the cold
reservoir ($W=Q_H+Q_C$).
Heat transfers take place during the isothermal strokes
of the Carnot cycle, with the working fluid (the system) at
internal temperatures
$T_{Hi}$ and $T_{Ci}$. We further assume that
the rate of heat flow $\dot{Q}_H$ is
proportional to the temperature difference
\green{
$T_H-T_{Hi}$ between the hot reservoir
and the working fluid, and the heat flow $\dot{Q}_C$ is proportional
to the temperature difference $T_C-T_{Ci}$ between the cold reservoir
and the working fluid.} Therefore, we need a time $t_H$
to transfer an amount $Q_H$ of heat out of the hot reservoir, so that
\begin{equation}
Q_H= K_H t_H (T_H-T_{Hi}),
\end{equation}
\green{for thermal conductance $K_H$ between the working fluid and the hot reservoir, and
a time $t_C$
to transfer an amount $-Q_C$ of heat into the cold reservoir,}
\begin{equation}
-Q_C= K_C t_C (T_{Ci}-T_C).
\end{equation}
\green{for thermal conductance $K_C$ between the working fluid and the cold reservoir.}
Finally, we assume that the time spent in the adiabatic strokes of
the Carnot cycle is negligible compared to the times of the
isothermal strokes, so that the total time of the cycle is approximately
given by $t=t_H+t_C$. Such \green{an} assumption is justified if the
relaxation time for the working fluid is \green{short enough that one can operate the adiabatic transformations
as fast as one wishes} \footnote{\label{Footnote:adiabatic} \green{Note that here we use {\it adiabatic} in the thermodynamic sense of the word (a transformation which does not change the working fluid's entropy) rather than in the quantum sense.
Thus an adiabatic transformation must be slow on the scale of the relaxation rate of
the working fluid. However, in principle, this relaxation can be arbitrarily fast, and thus
the adiabatic transformation can also be made arbitrarily fast.}}.
The output power reads
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm gen}=\frac{W}{t}=\frac{Q_H+Q_C}{t}=\frac{K_Ht_H(T_H-T_{Hi})+
K_Ct_C(T_C-T_{Ci})}{t_H+t_C}.
\end{equation}
Taking into account that the internal Carnot engine operating between
temperatures $T_{Hi}$ and $T_{Ci}$ has efficiency
$\eta_{Ci}=1-T_{Ci}/T_{Hi}=1+Q_C/Q_H$ and using the
relations $Q_H+Q_C=W$ and $t_j=Q_j/[K_j(T_j-T_{ji})]$,
$(j=H,C)$, we can express the power as
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm gen}=\frac{K_H K_C \alpha\beta(T_H-T_C-\alpha-\beta)}{
K_H \alpha T_C + K_C \beta T_H +\alpha\beta(K_H-K_C)},
\label{Eq:P_gen-finite-time-thermodyn}
\end{equation}
where we have defined $\alpha=(T_H-T_{Hi})$ and
$\beta=(T_{Ci}-T_C)$.
If the working fluid is at the same temperature as
the reservoir \green{that it is in contact with, then one either has $\alpha=0$ (i.e.~$T_{Hi}=T_H$)
or $\beta=0$ (i.e.~$T_{Ci}=T_C$) or both; in all these cases we see from
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P_gen-finite-time-thermodyn}) that $P_{\rm gen}$ vanishes.
Physically, $\alpha=0$ corresponds to the case where the working fluid is at the same temperature
as the hot reservoir during all the time that they are in contact with each other, and as a result the heat current from the hot reservoir into the working fluid is vanishingly small,
thus the power generated must be vanishingly small, not matter how efficient the machine is.}
On the other hand,
\green{if we maximize the heat flow by maximizing $\alpha$ and $\beta$, we end up taking $T_{Hi} \to T_{Ci}$ and $(T_H-T_C-\alpha-\beta) \to 0$ in the numerator of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P_gen-finite-time-thermodyn}).
Physically, this is the limit where the working fluid is performing a vanishingly small cycle in temperature, which is why
the power generated is again vanishingly small. Maximum power is clearly between these two extremes.}
By maximizing the power with respect to
the internal temperatures $T_{Hi}$ and $T_{Ci}$ we obtain
the optimum values
\begin{equation}
T_{Hi}=c\sqrt{T_H},\;\;T_{Ci}=c\sqrt{T_C},
\quad c\equiv \frac{\sqrt{K_H T_H}+\sqrt{K_C T_C}}{\sqrt{K_H}+\sqrt{K_C}}.
\label{eq:optimumTi}
\end{equation}
These internal temperatures correspond to the maximum power delivered
by the engine:
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm max}=K_H K_C\left(
\frac{\sqrt{T_H}-\sqrt{T_C}}{\sqrt{K_H}+\sqrt{K_C}}\right)^2.
\end{equation}
From the energy balance $Q_H+Q_C=W$ and from the condition
$Q_C/Q_H=-T_{Ci}/T_{Hi}$ for the internal Carnot cycle, we obtain
\begin{equation}
Q_H=\frac{T_{Hi}}{T_{Hi}-T_{Ci}}\,W,
\quad
Q_C=-\frac{T_{Ci}}{T_{Hi}-T_{Ci}}\,W,
\end{equation}
so that the efficiency of the Curzon-Ahlborn engine can be written as
\begin{equation}
\eta=\frac{Q_H+Q_C}{Q_H}=1-\frac{T_{Hi}}{T_{Ci}}.
\end{equation}
Using the values of $T_{Hi}$ and $T_{Ci}$ from
(\ref{eq:optimumTi}), we obtain
the efficiency at the maximum power $P_{\rm max}$,
\begin{equation}
\eta_{CA} = 1-\sqrt{\frac{T_H}{T_C}}=1-\sqrt{1-\eta_C}. \label{eq:ca.eff} \ .
\end{equation}
This efficiency is commonly referred to
as the \emph{Curzon-Ahlborn efficiency} \cite{curzon}, even if it already appeared in earlier works
\cite{Yvon,chambadal,novikov}:
Remarkably, the Curzon-Ahlborn efficiency is independent of the heat conductances
$K_H$ and $K_C$.
It is interesting to remark that the Curzon-Ahlborn efficiency is
invariant under concatenation \cite{vandenbroeck2005}.
We consider two thermal machines working in a tandem,
the first one between the hot source at temperature
$T_H$ and a second heat bath at intermediate temperature $T_i$, the second
one between this latter bath and the cold source at temperature $T_C$.
The first machine absorbs heat $Q_H$, delivers work
$W'$ and evacuates heat $|Q_i|=Q_H-W'$, the second machine reuses
heat $|Q_i|$ and outputs work $W''$.
If both machines function at the Curzon-Ahlborn (CA) efficiency, also the
overall efficiency $(W'+W'')/Q_H$ is given by
$\eta_{CA}=1-\sqrt{T_C/T_H}$. This is the self-concatenation property
as that which is well known for machines working at Carnot efficiency.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.55\columnwidth]{curzon.pdf}}
\caption{Schematic drawing of the endoreversible engine for
the Curzon-Ahlborn cycle. The two heat baths at temperatures
$T_H$ and $T_C$ are coupled for times $t_H$ and $t_C$
to the system $S$ (the working fluid, with output work
per cycle equal to $W$) by heat conductances
$K_H$ and $K_C$. The system $S$ is considered as a Carnot
engine operating between the internal temperatures
$T_{Hi}$ and $T_{Ci}$ ($T_H>T_{Hi}>T_{Ci}>T_C$).}
\label{fig:curzon}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The Curzon-Ahlborn efficiency was derived, as described above, for a specific engine.
It turns out not to be an upper bound for the
efficiency at maximum power, as shown in several models, see e.g.
\cite{mahler08,izumida_okuda08,izumida_okuda091,izumida_okuda092,ss08,elb09,sb2012}.
Yet $\eta_{CA}$ describes the efficiency of
actual thermal plants reasonably well \cite{curzon,esposito2010},
and therefore it
has been widely discussed in the literature, see e.g.
\cite{vandenbroeck2005,esposito2009,schulman,esposito2010,
linke2010,mahler10,seifert2011,goupil2012a,goupil2012b,shakouri2012} and
\cite{tu12} for a review.
\red{Moreover, the Curzon-Ahlborn efficiency was also derived in models
different from the one proposed by Curzon and Ahlborn,
for instance for a quantum system (two interacting oscillators)
coupled to reservoirs and
with the power extracted by an external periodic driving force
\cite{kosloff84} or in an ensemble of quantum oscillators operating
in an Otto cycle \cite{rezek06}.}
\red{The linear (in $\eta_C$) expansion of the Curzon-Ahlborn bound
(\ref{eq:ca.eff}), $\eta_{CA}^{(1)}=\eta_C/2$, coincides with the
exact and universal upper bound for the efficiency at maximum power
for steady-state systems with
(i) time-reversal symmetry and (ii) within a regime of linear
response (see section~\ref{sec:ZTmaxpower}).
In the presence of left-right
symmetry in the system (e.g., in thermoelectrics
the switching of the temperatures
$T_H$ and $T_C$ and of the
electrochemical potentials $\mu_H$ and $\mu_C$
leads to an inversion of the currents),
a universal upper bound
up to quadratic order in the deviation from equilibrium
was derived in Ref.~\cite{esposito2009}.
The obtained result agrees with the expansion of
$\eta_{CA}$ up to second order in $\eta_C$,
\begin{equation}
\eta_{CA}^{(2)}=
\frac{\eta_C}{2}+\frac{\eta_C^2}{8}.
\label{eq:etaCA2}
\end{equation}
}
\subsection{Exoreversible cyclic engines}
\label{sec:exoreversible}
Another expression for the efficiency at maximum power was obtained
by Schmiedl and Seifert
\cite{ss08}, using a model of stochastic cyclic heat engine which
we shall describe in section~\ref{sec:stochastic}.
This machine is exoreversible,
in that dissipation is fully internal, and the efficiency at maximum power
is given by
\begin{equation}
\eta_{SS}=\frac{\eta_C}{2-\gamma\eta_C},
\label{eq:etaSS}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma\in[0,1]$ is a parameter related to the ratio of
entropy production during the hot and cold isothermal steps
of the machine.
For the symmetric case $\gamma=1/2$. This is for instance the case of
thermoelectricity when internal dissipation is due to Joule heating,
and each end of a thermoelectric device receives half of the produced heat.
It is interesting to remark that for the symmetric case
$\eta_{CA}$ and $\eta_{SS}$ agree up to second order in $\eta_C$.
\subsection{Low-dissipation engines}
The Curzon-Ahlborn efficiency was also derived for the Carnot cycle in the limit
of low and symmetric dissipation
by Esposito \emph{et al.} \cite{esposito2010}.
They considered a Carnot engine which operates under reversible
conditions at the Carnot efficiency when the cycle duration
becomes infinitely long. In that limit, the system entropy
increase $\Delta \mathscr{S}=Q_H/T_H$
during the isothermal transformation at the hot temperature
$T_H$ is equal to the system entropy decrease
$-\Delta \mathscr{S}=Q_C/T_C$ during
the isothermal transformation at the cold temperature $T_C$.
Hence, there is no overall entropy production
and the Carnot efficiency $\eta_C=1+Q_C/Q_H=1-T_C/T_H$ is achieved.
Ref.~\cite{esposito2010} considers the weak dissipation regime and
assumes that the system relaxation is much faster than the times
$t_H$ and $t_C$ spent in the isothermal strokes, so that the
overall cycle duration is to a good approximation given by $t_H+t_C$.
In the low dissipation regime the entropy production is proportional
to $1/t_H$ and $1/t_C$, so that it vanishes in the limit of
infinite-time cycle where it is supposed that the Carnot efficiency
is recovered. Therefore the amount of heat entering the system
from the hot (cold) reservoir is, to first order in $1/t_H$ and
$1/t_C$,
\begin{equation}
Q_H=T_H\left(\Delta \mathscr{S}-\frac{\Sigma_H}{t_H}\right),
\quad
Q_C=T_C\left(-\Delta \mathscr{S}-\frac{\Sigma_C}{t_C}\right),
\end{equation}
with $\Sigma_H$ and $\Sigma_C$ coefficients depending on the
specific implementation.
The maximum of the output power
\begin{equation}
P=
\frac{Q_H+Q_C}{t_H+t_C}=
\frac{(T_H-T_C)\Delta \mathscr{S} - T_H\Sigma_H/t_H-
T_C\Sigma_C/t_C}{t_H+t_C}
\end{equation}
is obtained when $\partial P/\partial t_H=\partial P/\partial t_C=0$.
This leads to the efficiency at the maximum output power
\begin{equation}
\eta(P_{\rm max})=
\frac{\eta_C\left(1+\sqrt{\frac{T_C\Sigma_C}{T_H\Sigma_H}}\right)}{\left(1
+\sqrt{\frac{T_C\Sigma_C}{T_H\Sigma_H}}\right)^2+\frac{T_C}{T_H}
\left(1-\frac{\Sigma_C}{\Sigma_H}\right)}.
\label{eq:etas1s2}
\end{equation}
Note that this result was also obtained in the context
of stochastic thermodynamics by Ref.~\cite{ss08}.
The Curzon-Ahlborn efficiency is recovered for symmetric dissipation,
$\Sigma_H=\Sigma_C$. From (\ref{eq:etas1s2}) we obtain
\begin{equation}
\eta_-=\frac{\eta_C}{2}\le \eta(P_{\rm max}) \le
\eta_+=\frac{\eta_C}{2-\eta_C},
\label{eq:uppermax}
\end{equation}
with the lower and upper bounds reached in the limits of
completely asymmetric dissipation, for
$\Sigma_C/\Sigma_H\to \infty$ and
$\Sigma_C/\Sigma_H\to 0$, respectively.
\red{Interestingly, the upper bound is obtained when
dissipation takes place in the hot reservoir. This is an
intuitive result, since heat dissipated to the hot reservoir
can be reused to fuel the heat engine.}
The lower and upper bound coincide in the linear response
regime where $\eta_-=\eta_+=\eta_{CA}=\eta_{SS}=\eta_C/2$ \footnote{Note that the same upper bound as in (\ref{eq:uppermax})
was obtained with a different approach by \cite{schulman}.}.
\red{
We note that features of the efficiency at maximum power similar to
those above discussed for low-dissipation engines are also found
in a quantum model where the working substance is a single multilevel
particle which undergoes an Otto cycle \cite{Uzdin2014}.}
\subsection{Crossover from endoreversible to exoreversible regime}
The crossover between the endoreversible and the exoreversible regime
was illustrated by Apertet \emph{et al.} \cite{goupil2012a}
in the model of a thermoelectric device. In the ideal case
of no heat leak (open-circuit thermal conductance $K=0$), two
irreversible sources were taken into account: the internal one
(Joule heating) and the external one (dissipative thermal coupling
to reservoirs). In particular, for the symmetric case (equal thermal
contact conductances, $K_H=K_C$), the Curzon-Ahlborn efficiency $\eta_{CA}$
(up to third order in $\eta_C$) is obtained in the endoreversible limit,
when dissipation is dominated by thermal contacts, and the Schmiedl-Seifert
efficiency $\eta_{SS}$ in the exoreversible limit, when dissipation is fully internal.
\subsection{Thermoelectricity for driven systems}
\label{sec:thermodriven}
The linear response formalism can be extended to systems subjected
to a time-dependent driving force $F(t)$, which is applied
starting from time $t_0$ \cite{hanggi2015}.
In this case, we do not have a steady state but the charge and heat currents
depend on time and are functions of the entire history of the
applied force, i.e. $J_{e}(t)$ and $J_{h}(t)$ depend on $F(t')$, for all
$t'\in [t_0,t]$.
By linearly expanding the currents at each instant of time
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
J_{e}(t)=\left. J_{e}(t)\right|_{\mathcal{F}_e=0,\mathcal{F}_h=0}
+ \left( \frac{\partial J_{e} (t)}{\partial \mathcal{F}_e}
\right)_{\mathcal{F}_h=0} \mathcal{F}_e
+ \left( \frac{\partial J_{e} (t)}{\partial \mathcal{F}_h}
\right)_{\mathcal{F}_e=0} \mathcal{F}_h
\equiv J_{e}^D(t) + L_{ee}[F]\, \mathcal{F}_e + L_{eh}[F]\, \mathcal{F}_h,
\\
\\
J_{h}(t)= \left. J_{h}(t)\right|_{\mathcal{F}_e=0,\mathcal{F}_h=0}
+ \left( \frac{\partial J_{h} (t)}{\partial \mathcal{F}_e}
\right)_{\mathcal{F}_h=0} \mathcal{F}_e
+ \left( \frac{\partial J_{h} (t)}{\partial \mathcal{F}_h}
\right)_{\mathcal{F}_e=0} \mathcal{F}_h
\equiv J_{h}^D(t) + L_{he}[F]\, \mathcal{F}_e + L_{hh}[F]\, \mathcal{F}_h.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:coupleddriving}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, the coefficients $L_{ab}[F]$ are functionals
depending on the whole history of the applied force via
the currents $J_{e}[F]$ and $J_{h}[F]$, and the currents
$J_{e}^D$ and $J_{h}^D$ at zero thermodynamic forces
are known as \emph{displacement currents}. Note that the
displacement currents must vanish for an undriven system,
since we cannot have non-zero steady currents at zero bias
($\mathcal{F}_e=0,\mathcal{F}_h=0$). For undriven systems,
we recover the usual coupled linear transport equations
(\ref{eq:coupledlinear}), with time-independent Onsager
coefficients $L_{ab}$.
The driving force leads to interesting
consequences \cite{hanggi2015}.
The thermodynamic constraints on
the steady-state Onsager coefficients can be relaxed, i.e. we can have
$L_{eh}[F]\ne L_{he}[F]$ and $\det {\bm L}[F] <0$.
In such a situation one can have a significant
enhancement of the thermoelectric conversion efficiency, as
shown in a few examples discussed in Ref.~\cite{hanggi2015}.
It should be stressed that the overall
energy conversion efficiency
of a driven system must take into account
as a cost also the input power
by the driving force.
($W_{in}(t)$ is work performed
by the driving force on the system).
The thermoelectric analysis of driven systems takes a simple
and appealing form in the case of adiabatic \emph{ac}
driving \cite{arrachea2015}.
In this case, after averaging over one period of the driving,
one can express the entropy production rate as
\begin{equation}
\overline{\dot{\mathscr{S}}}=
\overline{J_{e}} \mathcal{F}_e + \overline{J_{h}} \mathcal{F}_h
+\overline{J_\omega} \mathcal{F}_\omega,
\end{equation}
where the overbar denotes time averaging, the average current
$\overline{J_\omega}\equiv \overline{\dot{W}_i}/\hbar\omega$,
with the associated thermodynamic force $\mathcal{F}_\omega=
\hbar\omega/T$, \red{$W_{i}$ and $\omega$ being the work performed
by the driving force on the system and the frequency of the driving,
respectively}.
The linear response relations between fluxes and thermodynamic
forces then read $\overline{J_a}=\sum_b L_{ab} \mathcal{F}_b$
($a,b=e,h,\omega$),
with the coefficients $L_{ab}$ that satisfy Onsager
reciprocity relations \cite{arrachea2015}. This theoretical
framework was applied to quantum motors, quantum generators,
heat engines and heat pumps \cite{arrachea2015}.
\red{For a recent review on energy and heat flow in mesoscopic systems
subjected to periodic driving, see Ref.~\cite{Arrachea_2016}.
}
\subsection{Quantum Carnot engine in the quasi-static limit}
\label{sec:quantum-Carnot-engine}
\red{
\green{The} quantum nature \green{of cyclic} heat engines can emerge from the discreteness of eigenenergies and
quantum coherence in the dynamics. In this section, we briefly
discuss effects from the discreteness
of the eigenenergies, while aspects related to quantum coherence will
be mentioned in section \ref{sec:cycliccoherent}.
Following Ref.~\cite{quan07}, we clarify the meaning of \green{the}
(quasi-static) isothermal,
isochoric, and adiabatic processes in quantum engines, and we compare such processes with
their classical counterpart. These clarifications are crucial when considering
a quantum mechanical system (the working substance)
\green{performing} cycles such as Carnot or Otto cycle,
in other words a \emph{quantum Carnot engine} (see e.g. Refs.~\cite{geva92,quan07,eklv10})
or a \emph{quantum Otto engine}
(see e.g. Refs.~\cite{kosloff96,quan05,rezek06,HRM07,quan07,mahler08}).
\green{We compare these quantum engines with classical ones in which the working substance is}
a classical ideal gas confined within a finite volume.
}
\red{
Suppose that the \green{quantum system's} Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\cal H} = \sum_{n} E_n \,|n \rangle \langle n | \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $| n \rangle$ is the $n$-th eigenstate of the \green{system}, with the
corresponding \green{eigen-energy $E_n$, where $E_{n+1} \ge E_n$ and without loss of generality
we can set $E_0=0$}.
\green{Let us consider a system without coherences, so its density matrix is diagonal in the energy eigenbasis,
then its state is given by the}
occupation distribution, with probability
$P_n$ for the $n$-th eigenstate. Then the internal energy $U$ is given by
$U=\sum_n P_n E_n$, and the entropy $\mathscr{S}$ of the system is given by
$\mathscr{S}=-\sum_n P_n \ln P_n$. \green{Note that we can only take this form for the
entropy, $\mathscr{S}$, because we assume the system's density matrix is diagonal in the energy eigenbasis.}
We have
$dU=\sum_n(E_ndP_n+P_ndE_n)$ and from the first law of thermodynamics
$d U = \;{\mathchar'26\mkern-11mud} Q - \;{\mathchar'26\mkern-11mud} W$,
from which we can identify the heat absorbed from the environment and
the work performed by the system respectively with
\begin{eqnarray}
\;{\mathchar'26\mkern-11mud} Q = \sum_n E_n d P_n,\quad
\;{\mathchar'26\mkern-11mud} W = -\sum_{n} P_n d E_n\,.
\end{eqnarray}
}
\red{
In an isothermal process,
the system is always in thermodynamic equilibrium with the fixed temperature
$T$ of the heat reservoir. Then, the density matrix of the system
at time $t$ is given by the
canonical distribution
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{\rm can} (t) = \frac{1}{Z(t)}\sum_n e^{-E_n(t) / k_B T}
|n(t)\rangle \langle n(t) | \, , \label{isothermal}
\end{eqnarray}
where $Z(t)=\sum_n e^{-E_n(t) / k_B T}$ is the canonical partition function,
$|n(t)\rangle$ and $E_n(t)$ are instantaneous system's eigenstates and eigenenergies.
In the quantum case, temperature is invariant while $U$, $E_n$ and $P_n$ vary,
so that work can be done and heat can be exchanged with the bath
($\;{\mathchar'26\mkern-11mud} Q,\;{\mathchar'26\mkern-11mud} W\ne 0$).
In the ideal classical gas, $U$ and $T$ are invariant, while pressure and volume vary.
}
\red{
A quantum isochoric process has similar properties to those of a classical isochoric process.
No work is done in this process while heat is exchanged with the heat bath. In the
quantum case, the eigenenergies $E_n$ are invariant while
the probabilities $P_n$ vary. Hence the entropy
$\mathscr{S}$ changes until the system reaches thermal equilibrium with the heat bath.
In a classical isochoric process, pressure and temperature change.
}
\green{
There is a significant difference between a thermodynamically adiabatic process and a quantum adiabatic process. To be thermodynamically adiabatic, a process should not change the system's entropy.
One way to achieve this is by assuming that the process is adiabatic in the quantum sense,
in which case the process does not change the distribution of occupation probabilities,
$d P_n=0$. This implies $\;{\mathchar'26\mkern-11mud} Q=0$, while work done
can still be nonzero. However, a fast quantum process that interchanges
the occupation probabilities of the levels without changing $\mathscr{S}$ would also be
thermodynamically adiabatic.
}
\red{
Finally, we make a remark on the reversibility condition for the quantum Carnot engine.
Let us consider the standard four-stroke Carnot cycle in the quasi-static limit,
i.e.,
\begin{itemize}
\item[] (A)$\to$(B) \ = \ isothermal process with temperature $T_H$,
\item[] (B)$\to$(C) \ = \ quantum adiabatic process,
\item[] (C)$\to$(D) \ = \ isothermal process with temperature $T_C<T_H$,
\item[] (D)$\to$(A) \ = \ quantum adiabatic process.
\end{itemize}
From the isothermal property (\ref{isothermal})
and quantum adiabatic condition $dP_n=0$, we can readily find
\begin{eqnarray}
{ P_n (B) \over P_m (B)} = {e^{ - E_n (B) / k_B T_H} \over e^{ - E_m (B) / k_B T_H}} =
{ P_n (C) \over P_m (C)} = {e^{ - E_n (C) / k_B T_C} \over e^{ - E_m (C) / k_B T_C}} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $P_l (X)$ and $E_l (X)$ ($l=m,n$, $X=A,B$) are the occupation probability for the
$l$-th eigenstate and the $l$-th eigenenergy at point (X), respectively.
From this, the quantum Carnot engine must satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
E_n (C) - E_m (C) = (T_C / T_H) \left[ E_n (B) - E_m (B) \right] \, .
\end{eqnarray}
}
\red{
This means that \green{to have a reversible (quantum Carnot) heat engine,}
all energy gaps must change by the same ratio in
\green{the} quantum adiabatic process and this ratio is $T_C / T_H$.
This is in addition to the condition of
quasi-static transformation.
}
\subsection{Cyclic quantum engines and quantum coherence effects}
\label{sec:cycliccoherent}
\red{
To investigate finite-time cyclic quantum heat engines, one has to consider
the dynamics of quantum open systems, coupled to (hot and cold) baths.
Under appropriate assumptions, the dynamics of an open system attached to
a thermal environment can be analyzed by means of a quantum master equations
of the Lindblad or Redfield type \cite{lindblad,redfield,kubo} discussed in section~\ref{Sect:beyond-master}.
In general such quantum master equation cannot be reduced to classical rate equations
(as in the analysis of chapters \ref{Sect:Qu-Master-Eqn} and \ref{Sect:master-examples}
for steady-state engines and in the example of section \ref{sec:drivenqd} where a rate
equation for the populations of a quantum dot is used), \green{because} quantum coherent
superpositions play a role and off-diagonal elements of the system's density matrix
cannot be neglected.
}
\red{
We consider the quantum master equation, introduced in the textbooks mentioned in
section~\ref{Sect:beyond-master}, of the form
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\hat{\rho}}{dt}=-\frac{i}{\hbar}\,[\hat{\cal H},\hat{\rho}] +
\mathcal{D}(\hat{\rho}),
\label{eq:masterequation}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\rho}$ is the density operator describing the state of the
working substance, governed by the Hamiltonian $\hat{\cal H}$ and coupled to
reservoirs by the dissipator $\mathcal{D}=\mathcal{D}_H+
\mathcal{D}_C$,
where $\mathcal{D}_H$ ($\mathcal{D}_C$) describes the coupling to
the hot (cold) reservoir. In a generic thermodynamic cycle,
both $\hat{\cal H}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ depend on time.
Defining the internal energy of the system,
\begin{equation}
U(t)=\langle \hat{\cal H}(t)\rangle = {\rm tr}\left\{\hat{\cal H}(t)\hat{\rho}(t)\right\},
\end{equation}
we take its time-derivative and then use the first law of thermodynamics,
$d U = \;{\mathchar'26\mkern-11mud} Q - \;{\mathchar'26\mkern-11mud} W$,
to obtain \cite{alicki79,kosloff84,GevaKosloff94}
the instantaneous output power
\begin{equation}
P(t)=\dot{W}(t)=
-{\rm tr}\,\left\{ \frac{\partial \hat{\cal H}(t)}{\partial t}\hat{\rho}(t)\right\}
\end{equation}
and the instantaneous heat current absorbed from the environment,
\begin{equation}
\dot{Q}(t)={\rm tr} \,\left\{
\hat{\cal H}(t) \frac{\partial \hat{\rho}(t)}{\partial t}\right\}.
\end{equation}
It is easy to check from the master equation
(\ref{eq:masterequation}) that
$\dot{Q}(t)=\sum_{k=H,C}\dot{Q}_{k}(t)$,
where
\begin{equation}
\dot{Q}_{k}(t)=
{\rm tr}\left\{ \hat{\cal H}(t) \, \mathcal{D}_{k}\left[\colorproofs{\hat{\rho}(t)}\right]\right\}
\end{equation}
is the instantaneous heat current from bath $k$.
Integrating the power and heat absorbed over one thermodynamic cycle, we
can obtain the output work $W$ and the heat $Q_H$ extracted from the
hot reservoir per cycle, and finally the efficiency $\eta=W/Q_H$.
We note that this master equation approach reproduces the Carnot inequality for the efficiency
of any heat engine, $\eta\le\eta_C$ \cite{Spohn78,alicki79}.
}
\red{
The dynamics of many quantum heat engines was analyzed by means of such
quantum master equations.
For instance, Kosloff \cite{kosloff84} showed that two coupled oscillators interacting with hot and cold quantum reservoirs exhibit Curzon-Ahlborn efficiency in the limit of weak coupling. The quantum master equation approach was applied to analyze the performance of heat engines working with spins \cite{geva92,he02,chen02}, harmonic oscillators \cite{lin03-1,amaud02, lin03-2, lin03-3}, and multi-level systems \cite{GevaKosloff94,GevaKosloff96}. Characteristics of the steady state achieved by the iteration of cyclic processes and the monotonic approach to the limit cycle were discussed making use of the quantum conditional entropy \cite{feldmann04}. The unavoidable irreversible loss of power in a heat engine was considered for harmonic systems in the framework of quantum master equation approach \cite{rezek06}.
}
\red{
Other systems studied include quantum heat engines or heat pumps with the working fluid composed
of non-interacting two-level systems \cite{feldmann00}.
\green{A refrigerator made of a pair of periodically driven quantum dots, which cooled an electronic reservoir, was considered in Refs.~\cite{Juergens2013}}.
The concept of ideal quantum heat engine was introduced in cold bosonic atoms confined to a double well potential where thermalization occurs, and the operation of a heat engine with a finite quantum heat bath was proposed \cite{fialko12}. A thermoelectric heat engine with ultracold fermionic atoms was demonstrated, both theoretically and experimentally \cite{Brantut-Grenier-et-al2013}.
}
\red{
Concepts from quantum information theory also provide new insights into the working of quantum heat engines, see e.g. \cite{lloyd97,kieu04,kieu06,quan06,quan07,sagawa08,nori09,zhou10,Cottet2017}, in particular the reviews~\cite{nori09,Vinjanampathy2016,Millen2016,Goold2016}.
}
\red{
Finding signatures and understanding the relevance of quantum coherent superpositions,
quantum correlations and entanglement in heat engines is an intriguing subject.
However, a complete picture has yet to emerge.
Quantum thermoelectrics and quantum photonic heat engines
are relevant examples of steady-state engines for exploring this direction.
In cyclic engines, there exist
several time-dependent protocols with noncommutability of the Hamiltonian at different times.
Purely quantum effects in quantum heat engine were discussed
in Refs.~\cite{Uzdin2015,uzdin16}:
stationary, two- and four-stroke quantum Otto engines perform equivalently
when the operator norm of the time-evolution operator is much smaller than the Planck
constant. This becomes possible for few-level quantum systems.
In Ref. \cite{rezek06}, irreversible loss of power in a heat engine was considered
for harmonic systems in the framework of the quantum master equation approach and
the origin of friction was traced back to the noncommutability
of the kinetic and potential energy of the working substance.
A primary objective in the investigation of quantum heat engines
is to find conditions under which the engine performance can be enhanced
by quantum mechanical effects.
For instance, it was discussed in Ref.~\cite{scully11}
that radiatively induced quantum coherence in a photonic heat engine can break
detailed balance and yields lasing without inversion. As a result, one gets more power output.
Work can be significantly boosted also by constructing quantum
heat engines with collective behavior \cite{uzdin16b}.
}
\section{Stochastic heat engines}
\label{sec:machines}
Recent technological developments allow the realization of finite-time
thermodynamic devices with high controllability.
In particular, a number of
stochastic cyclic heat engines have been fabricated of small size
\cite{steeneken2010,bb2012,ribezzi2015,rosnagel2015,koski2014}.
In such cases, the system is not considered to be quantum, but its small size means that thermal fluctuations are significant, making the conversion of heat to work
into a stochastic process.
This is the situation for which stochastic thermodynamics \cite{seifert} was developed.
Section~\ref{Sect:traj} presented stochastic thermodynamics in the context of master equations for quantum system with
a discrete set of states. Here we will consider it in the context of a systems with
continuous degrees of freedom, such as those described by a Langevin equation.
The fact that the Langevin equation is more complicated than the rate equations discussed in
section~\ref{Sect:Qu-Master-Eqn} means that the mathematics is more complicated here.
In particular, the fact the Langevin equation is for a continuous degree of freedom means that
one has to cope with sums of infinite numbers of trajectories (as in a path integral),
rather than discrete trajectories on a network. However, the basic concepts are exactly the same here as
in section~\ref{Sect:traj}.
In this section, we start with the basic framework to discuss heat to work
conversion in stochastic processes and introduce several simple
stochastic heat engine models.
\subsection{Stochastic thermodynamics for a Langevin equation}
\label{sec:stochastic}
Stochastic thermodynamics is a framework to study nonequilibrium thermodynamics in small systems like colloids or biomolecules driven out of equilibrium \cite{sekimoto, seifert}. It describes the energetics of the system of interest surrounded by a thermal environment. Let us consider a system consisting of
a classical particle and suppose that (i) the time scales of the environment
and the system are sufficiently separated and (ii) the system's dynamics is well described by the Langevin equation. An important example is that of
a colloidal particle trapped by an external potential,
where the dynamics is described by the overdamped Langevin equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{x}(t) \ =\ \mu F ( x, \lambda (t) ) + \eta(t) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $x(t)$ is the particle's coordinate, $\mu$ is the mobility, and
$\eta (t)$ is a Langevin thermal noise satisfying $\langle \eta (t ) \eta (t ' )
\rangle = 2D \delta (t-t') $ with
$D$ being the diffusion constant. The function
$F(x, \lambda (t) )$ is a time-dependent force field, which is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
F(x, \lambda (t)) = - \partial_x V(x, \lambda (t) ) + f\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $V(x,\lambda(t))$ is a potential which contains a time-dependent control
parameter $\lambda(t)$, and $f$ is a nonconservative force which cannot be expressed as the gradient of a potential. The nonconservative force $f$ can drive the system into nonequilibrium states when no time-dependent
potential is applied.
The diffusion constant $D$ and the mobility $\mu$ are related by the Einstein relation $D=k_B T\mu$, where $T$ is the temperature of the medium surrounding the
particle. For notational simplicity, we set $k_B=1$ in the rest of this section.
The Langevin dynamics allows a thermodynamic interpretation by applying the energy balance to any individual stochastic trajectory:
\begin{equation}
d U = \;{\mathchar'26\mkern-11mud} Q - \;{\mathchar'26\mkern-11mud} W \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\;{\mathchar'26\mkern-11mud} Q$ is the amount of heat
absorption from the thermal environment, $d U$
the change of internal energy, and $-\;{\mathchar'26\mkern-11mud} W$ the work done
by the time-dependent potential and by the nonconservative force
(we use the convention that the work is positive
when it is generated by the system).
On the coarse-grained time scale where the overdamped Langevin equation is
valid, inertial effect of the particle is negligible and the particle
moves by thermal activation.
The total energy is then given by the potential term and
the variation $d U$ of the internal energy
is equivalent to the change $d V$ of the potential.
The work done on the particle reads
\begin{equation}
-\;{\mathchar'26\mkern-11mud} W = (\partial V/\partial \lambda) \dot{\lambda}dt + f dx,
\end{equation}
hence the amount of heat dissipation is
\begin{equation}
{\mathchar'26\mkern-11mud} Q = dV + \;{\mathchar'26\mkern-11mud} W = -F dx \, .
\end{equation}
The work and heat defined above are the basis for
investigating the thermodynamic efficiency in stochastic thermodynamics of Langevin systems.
In what follows, we shall describe a few models of stochastic heat engines.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.4\columnwidth]{ss-engine.pdf}}
\caption{Schematic picture of the stochastic thermodynamic engine in Ref.~\cite{ss08}.
In each plot the curve shows the potential $V$ versus the position $x$,
the filled region is limited by the curve $p(x)$, representing
the (time-dependent) probability density to find the trapped
particle at $x$.}
\label{ss-engine}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Stochastic heat engines I: Schmiedl-Seifert heat engine}
\label{sec:stochasticSS}
Much of thermodynamics was developed with the simple example of the ideal gas contained in a vessel and compressed by a piston. Fundamental and universal laws reveal themselves in this simple model. Hence simple and solvable models are important. Here, we discuss a solvable model, which was introduced by Schmiedl and Seifert \cite{ss08}. Suppose that one particle is trapped by a time-dependent harmonic potential $V(x, \lambda(t) ) = {\lambda (t) x^2 / 2}$ without any non-conservative force. We consider a cycle, depicted in Fig.~\ref{ss-engine}, composed of the following four steps.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Isothermal transition at the hot
temperature $T_H$ during $0 \le t < t_1$.
The potential $V(x,\lambda(t))$ changes in time and work is extracted
from the system.
\item \green{An adiabatic transition which should ideally be instantaneous. In other words, we assume
that adiabatic transitions in the cycle are much faster than the isothermal transitions,
see footnote~\ref{Footnote:adiabatic} on page~\pageref{Footnote:adiabatic},
from the hot temperature $T_H$ to the cold temperature $T_C$.}
\item Isothermal transition at the cold temperature $T_C$ during the time interval $t_1 \le t < t_1 + t_3$; $V(x,\lambda(t))$ changes in time and work is
done on the particle.
\item Adiabatic instantaneous transition from the cold temperature $T_C$ to the hot temperature $T_H$.
\end{enumerate}
Let $ Q^{(i)}$ be the amount of heat absorbed from the reservoir in the $i$-th step ($i=1,...,4$).
Energy conservation means that the work generated $W = Q^{(1)} + Q^{(3)}$.
Then the thermodynamic efficiency is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta = { W \over Q^{(1)}} = 1 + { Q^{(3)} \over Q^{(1)}}\, .
\end{eqnarray}
Let $p(x,t)$ be the probability density to find the system (the trapped particle) at position $x$ at time $t$.
The time evolution of the distribution $p(x,t)$ is described by the Fokker-Planck dynamics
\begin{eqnarray}
{\partial \over \partial t} p(x,t) = \mu \left( \lambda (t) {\partial \over \partial x} x + T {\partial^2 \over \partial x^2 } \right) p(x,t) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $T$ is either $T_H$ or $T_C$ depending on the step $i=1,\cdots, 4$ and $\mu$ is a mobility. The distribution $p(x,t)$ is a Gaussian with zero mean, and hence its variance $\omega (t)=\int dx x^2 p(x,t)$ suffices to describe the time-dependent distribution\footnote{The distribution $p(x,t)$ remains a Gaussian at all times if it is so initially.}.
From the Fokker-Planck equation, we can find the equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\omega} (t) = - 2 \mu \lambda (t) \omega (t) + 2 \mu T \, . \label{wdynamics}
\end{eqnarray}
Using the variance $\omega$, the heat absorption between two generic times
$t_i$ to $t_f$ is calculated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta Q_{t_i \rightarrow t_f} = \int_{t_i}^{t_f} dt \int dx \dot{p}(x,t) V(x,t) =
-{1\over 4 \mu} \int_{t_i}^{t_f} dt {\dot{\omega}^2 \over \omega } + {T \over 2} \ln {\omega (t_f) \over \omega (t_i ) } \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, the work done from time $t_i$ to $t_f$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta W_{ t_i\rightarrow t_f}
= \int_{t_i}^{t_f} dt \int dx p (x,t) {\partial \over \partial t} V(x,t)
=
-{1\over 2} \left[ \lambda \omega \right]_{t_i}^{t_f} + {1 \over 4\mu} \int_{t_i}^{t_f} dt {\dot{\omega}^2 \over \omega }
- {T\over 2} \ln {\omega (t_f ) \over \omega (t_i) } \, .
\end{eqnarray}
The maximum work generated is obtained by optimizing
$\Delta W_{t_i\rightarrow t_f}[\omega]$ with respect to the possible paths of
$\omega(t)$. We obtain the equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\omega}^2 - 2 \omega \ddot{\omega} = 0 \, .
\end{eqnarray}
The solution $\omega^{\ast} (t) $ satisfying the boundary
conditions $\omega (t_i) = \omega_i$ and $\omega (t_f) = \omega_f$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega^{\ast} (t) = \left[{ (t - t_f) \sqrt{\omega_i} - (t - t_i)\sqrt{\omega_f} \over t_i - t_f} \right]^2 \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Correspondingly the function
$\lambda(t)$ is determined via Eq.~(\ref{wdynamics}). Using the optimum path we calculate the amount of the heat absorbed; $ Q^{(1)}$ and $ Q^{(3)}$. After some manipulation one can find the efficiency as
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta = 1 - {T_C \Delta \mathscr{S} + A_{\rm irr}/t_3 \over T_H
\Delta \mathscr{S} - A_{\rm irr} / t_1} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta \mathscr{S} = \ln \sqrt{\omega_b / \omega_a }$ and $A_{\rm irr} = (\sqrt{\omega_b} - \sqrt{\omega_a})^2/\mu$. Here
$\omega_a = \omega (0)$ and $\omega_b = \omega (t_1)$. We can check that in the quasi-static limit $t_1, t_3 \to\infty$, the Carnot efficiency is recovered. To compute the efficiency at the maximum power,
one maximizes the power $P$
\begin{eqnarray}
P = {W \over t_1 + t_3} = {1\over t_1 + t_3} \left[ (T_H - T_C) \Delta \mathscr{S} -A_{\rm irr} \left({1\over t_1} + {1\over t_3}\right) \right]\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
with respect to $t_1$ and $t_3$. Solving this variational problem, the optimum times $t_1^{\ast}$ and $t_3^{\ast}$ are obtained in terms of $A_{\rm irr}$ and $\Delta \mathscr{S}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
t_1^{\ast} = t_3^{\ast} = {4 A_{\rm irr} \over \Delta \mathscr{S} (T_H -T_C)} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Using these times, one arrives at the efficiency at the maximum power
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{SS} = {\eta_C \over 2 - \eta_C/2} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
As already remarked in section~\ref{sec:exoreversible},
this exact result agrees with the \green{Curzon-Ahlborn} efficiency (\ref{eq:ca.eff}) up to
the second order in $\eta_C$.
\red{A more general treatment \cite{ss08} leads to
the expression in Eq.~(\ref{eq:etaSS}) for the efficiency at maximum power.}
A micrometer-sized stochastic engine
using a colloidal particle in a time-dependent harmonic potential
was experimentally realized in \cite{bb2012}.
\subsection{Stochastic heat engines II: Two-level heat engine}
\label{sec:drivenqd}
Among low-dimensional electronic systems, the quantum dot has the potential to provide many kinds of thermodynamic engines \cite{linke2002,elb09,eklv10,linke2010}. Finite-time heat engines can be illustrated by means of quantum-dot systems, where one controls the gate voltage in time to change the on-site energy $\epsilon(t)$ of the dot.
Here we consider the simplest instance,
we assume only one dot level is close enough the the reservoir's chemical potential to contribute to the
engine's processes. We assume that level has a time-dependent energy $\epsilon (t)$, and the reservoir has temperature $T $ and electrochemical potential $\mu(t)$.
We assume the off-diagonal elements of the density matrix (in the system's energy eigenbasis) are negligible. This implies that quantum coherent superpositions do not play a role and the master equation reduces to a rate equation for the probability
$p(t)$ of the occupied state in the quantum dot. Then the time evolution is governed by the following master equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{p}(t) = - \gamma \left[ 1 - f(\beta, \epsilon(t), \mu(t) ) \right] p(t) + \gamma f(\beta, \epsilon(t), \mu(t) ) \left( 1 - p(t) \right) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\gamma$ is a rate constant,
$\beta=1/k_B T$ and the function $f$ is a time-dependent Fermi distribution:
\begin{eqnarray}
f(\beta, \epsilon(t), \mu(t) ) = {1 \over e^{\beta ( \epsilon (t) - \mu (t) ) } + 1 } \, .
\end{eqnarray}
From this latter equation it is clear that raising the energy level is
equivalent to lowering the electrochemical potential, since only
$\epsilon(t)-\mu(t)$ matter and not $\epsilon(t)$ and $\mu(t)$ separately.
The internal energy $U(t)$ of the quantum-dot system at time
$t$ is given by
\begin{equation}
U(t)=[\epsilon(t) -\mu(t)] p(t).
\end{equation}
The rate of change in the internal energy, $\dot{U}$, is the sum of two terms,
a work flux
\begin{equation}
-\dot{W}(t)=[\dot{\epsilon}(t) -\dot{\mu}(t)]p(t),
\end{equation}
and a heat flux
\begin{equation}
\dot{Q}(t)=[\epsilon(t) -\mu(t)]\dot{p}(t)\, .
\end{equation}
\green{We use the convention that $\dot{W}$ is positive when the system is generating work,
and $\dot{Q}(t)$ is positive when the system is absorbing heat.}
Work is done when
the energy levels are shifted in time, while when an electron enters the
quantum-dot system at time $t$
an amount of heat ${Q}(t)=\epsilon(t)-\mu(t)$ is extracted from the bath.
Esposito et al. proposed an exactly solvable model for a quantum-dot heat engine by using the following cycle \cite{eklv10}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Isothermal process: The
quantum dot is in contact with a cold lead at temperature $T_C$ and
electrochemical
potential $\mu_C$. The energy level is raised during a finite time $t_1$
as $\epsilon (t): \epsilon_0 \to \epsilon_1 ~~(\epsilon_1 > \epsilon_0)$.
\item Adiabatic process: The quantum dot is disconnected from the lead, and the energy level is abruptly lowered
as $\epsilon (t): \epsilon_1 \to \epsilon_2 ~~(\epsilon_1 > \epsilon_2)$.
Note that, since the quantum dot is isolated during the adiabatic process,
the population of the level does not change.
\item Isothermal process: The quantum dot is connected to a hot lead with temperature $T_H$ and electrochemical
potential $\mu_H$. The energy level is lowered during a finite time $t_2$,
$\epsilon (t): \epsilon_2 \to \epsilon_3 ~~(\epsilon_2 > \epsilon_3)$.
\item Adiabatic process: The dot is disconnected, and the energy level abruptly returns to the original value,
$\epsilon (t): \epsilon_3 \to \epsilon_0$.
\end{enumerate}
The period of one cycle is $\tau=t_1 + t_2$, the output power is given by
\begin{equation}
P={W[p] \over \tau}={Q[p]\over \tau}
={1\over \tau}\int_{0}^{\tau} dt \, \dot{p}(t) \left[ \epsilon(t) - \mu (t)\right],
\end{equation}
where the net total output work per cycle,
$W[p]=\int_0^\tau dt\,\dot{W}(t)$, and the total absorbed heat,
$Q[p]=\int_0^\tau dt\,\dot{Q}(t)$,
are functionals of the occupation probability $p(t)$.
Finding the set of parameters that maximize the power may be done with a variational equation. In particular, the \green{Curzon-Ahlborn} efficiency is recovered in the limit of weak dissipation \cite{eklv10}.
\subsection{Onsager matrix in stochastic heat engines}
Thermoelectric transport and stochastic heat engines are categorized into different types of heat to work conversion, since in the thermoelectric transport the power is generated from the steady state electric current, while the work in stochastic heat engines is extracted by using time-dependent thermodynamic protocols. In thermoelectric transport, the Onsager matrix plays a key role in the thermodynamic efficiency in the linear response regime. Here we formulate the Onsager matrix in the stochastic heat engine to discuss the differences between these two types of heat to work conversion.
We follow Brandner \emph{et al.} \cite{brandner15} and discuss the linear response structure by using a general stochastic approach. Let us consider the stochastic heat engine where the heat bath temperature is controlled in time as
\begin{eqnarray}
T(t)={ T_C T_H \over T_H + (T_C - T_H) \gamma_h (t) } \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $T_H > T_C$ and the function $\gamma_h (t)$ is a function which takes
the values $1$ or $0$, so that $T(t)$ takes either $T_H$ or $T_C$. The Hamiltonian is also controlled in time:
\begin{eqnarray}
H(x,t) = H_0 (x) + \Delta H g_w (x,t) \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Both time-dependent functions $\gamma_h (t)$ and $g_w (x, t)$ are periodic in time with the period ${\cal T}$. We can have in mind as an example the Schmiedl-Seifert engine described in section~\ref{sec:stochasticSS}. We set a small amplitude for the quantities $\Delta T = T_H - T_C $ and $\Delta H$, so that we are within the linear response regime. Then the entropy production rate $\dot{\mathscr{S}}$ is given in the form $\dot{\mathscr{S}}=\mathcal{F}_w J_w + \mathcal{F}_h J_h$, where $\mathcal{F}_w$ and $\mathcal{F}_h$ are affinities:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{F}_w = \Delta H/ T\, ,\\
\mathcal{F}_h = \Delta T/T^2 \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where $T=T_C$. The work flux $J_w$ and heat flux into the system $J_{h}$ are respectively defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
J_w &=& {1\over {\cal T} }\int_0^{\cal T} dt \int dx \dot{g}_w (x,t) p_c (x,t) \, , \label{defjw}\\
J_{h} &=& {1\over {\cal T} }\int_0^{\cal T} dt \int dx \gamma_h (t) H( x,t ) \dot{p}_c (x,t) \, \label{defjq} .
\end{eqnarray}
Here $p_c (x,t)=p_c (x,t +{\cal T})$ is
the periodic limit to which the time evolution of the probability density
$p(x,t)$ is assumed to converge.
The time evolution of $p(x,t)$ is given by the Fokker-Planck equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{p} (x , t) &=& \mathbb{ L} (t) p (x,t) \, , \\
\mathbb{ L} (t) &=& \mathbb{ L}_0 + \Delta H \mathbb{L}_H (t) + \Delta T \mathbb{L}_T (t) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the Fokker-Planck operator has been linearized: $\mathbb{L}_0$ is the unperturbed time evolution generator, and $\mathbb{ L}_H (t)$ and $\mathbb{L}_T (t)$ are respectively contributions from time-dependent potential and temperature.
We now impose the detailed balance condition to the unperturbed generator, which is the most crucial requirement to get the symmetry in the Onsager matrix:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb{L}_0 p_{\rm eq} = p_{\rm eq} \mathbb{L}_0^{\dagger} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $p_{\rm eq}$ is the equilibrium distribution
of the unperturbed system.
A standard linear response calculation yields $p_c (x,t)$
up to the first order:
\begin{eqnarray}
p_c (x,t) = p_{\rm eq} (x) + \sum_{X = H,T} \Delta X \, \int_0^{\infty}
d \tau e^{\mathbb{L}_0 {\tau}} \mathbb{ L}_X (t-\tau) p_{\rm eq} (x) + O(\Delta^2) \, . \label{steadypc}
\end{eqnarray}
Now we define the Onsager matrix:
\begin{eqnarray}
J_w &=& L_{ww} \mathcal{F}_w + L_{wh} \mathcal{F}_h + O(\Delta^2) \, , \\
J_{h} &=& L_{hw} \mathcal{F}_w + L_{hh} \mathcal{F}_h + O(\Delta^2) \, .
\end{eqnarray}
By using (\ref{defjw}), (\ref{defjq}), and (\ref{steadypc}), one can find the compact expression of the Onsager matrix elements:
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{\alpha\beta} = L_{\alpha\beta}^{\rm ad} + {1\over k_B}\int_{0}^{\infty} d\tau
\langle\langle \delta \dot{g}_{\alpha} (0) ; \delta \dot{g}_{\beta} (-\tau ) \rangle \rangle, \, ~~~~(\alpha = w, h)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\delta A \equiv A - \langle A \rangle_{\rm eq}$ with the equilibrium average $\langle A\rangle_{\rm eq}$, $g_h \equiv H_0 \gamma_h$, and the generalized equilibrium correlation function is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{\alpha \beta}^{\rm ad} &=& -{1\over k_B {\cal T} } \int_0^{\cal T} dt \int dx\, \delta \dot{g}_{\alpha} (x,t) \, \delta g_{\beta }(x,t)\, p_{\rm eq} (x)\, ,\\
\langle\langle A(t_1); B(t_2) \rangle\rangle & =&
{1\over {\cal T} } \int_0^{\cal T} dt \int d x \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
A(x, t_1 + t) e^{\mathbb{ L}_0 (t_1 - t_2)} B(x, t_2 + t) p_{\rm eq} (x), ~~&~~(t_1 \ge t_2) \\
B(x, t_2 + t) e^{\mathbb{ L}_0 (t_2 - t_1)} A(x, t_1 + t) p_{\rm eq} (x), ~~&~~(t_1 < t_2)
\end{array}
\right. \, .
\end{eqnarray}
One intriguing property is that the Onsager matrix elements are in general nonsymmetric unless the above described
thermodynamic protocol is symmetric under time reversal. In general we can show
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{\alpha\beta} \left[ H(x,t) , T(t) , {\bm B}\right]
=
L_{\beta\alpha} \left[ H(x, - t) , T(- t) , - {\bm B}\right] \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the Onsager coefficients are considered functions of the time-dependent Hamiltonian and temperature and of an external magnetic field ${\bm B}$. This nonsymmetric property in the Onsager matrix structure is similar to the thermoelectric transport in the presence of a magnetic field. However, one remark here is that this nonsymmetric property in the stochastic heat engine is present even without any magnetic field, as long as the thermodynamic protocol is not symmetric under time reversal.
In the stochastic heat engine, the parameters which characterize thermodynamic efficiency are, similarly to what discussed in
section~\ref{sec:efficiencymagnetic},
a generalized figure of merit and the asymmetry between
the off diagonal Onsager matrix elements.
By algebraic manipulation, one can show an interesting exact bound for the power $P(\eta , \chi)$ for fixed efficiency $\eta$ and fixed ratio between the off-diagonal Onsager matrix elements $\chi=L_{w h} / L_{h w}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
P(\eta , \chi) \le
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
4 \bar{P}_0 \bar{\eta} (1 - \bar{\eta}), & |\chi | \ge 1 \, ,\\
\bar{\eta} - \bar{\eta}^2/ \chi^2, & |\chi | < 1 \, ,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar{\eta}=\eta / \eta_C$ and $\bar{P}_0$ is a model-dependent constant.
This formula tells us that the Carnot efficiency implies zero power. Isothermal heat engines were discussed in the same framework and the relation between power and work was investigated \cite{vandenbroek2015}.
\red{
Recently a trade-off relation between efficiency and power was proved for
systems described as Markov process, so that a heat engine with nonvanishing power
never attains the Carnot efficiency \cite{Shiraishi2016}.}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Since the industrial revolution, the transformation of heat into work has been at the centre of technology.
The earliest examples were steam engines, and current examples range from solar cells
to nuclear power stations.
The quest to understand the physics of this transformation led to the theory of thermodynamics.
During the 19th century it became clear that heat and work were simply two different forms of energy
(the first law of thermodynamics), but that heat is special because it has entropy associated with it,
and no process is allowed to reduce this entropy (the second law of thermodynamics).
The most concrete prediction of this theory of thermodynamics was that one could never convert
heat into work with an efficiency exceeding the Carnot efficiency \cite{carnot}, and that this Carnot
efficiency is always less than one.
A great revolution came with Boltzmann, who made the connection between Newton's deterministic laws of motion
and thermodynamic ideas of the difference between heat and work.
\green{His work showed} that the laws of thermodynamics emerged at a large scale from a combination of
Newton's laws for each microscopic particle with the statistical uncertainty of our
knowledge of the positions and velocities of those particles.
This became known as the theory of statistical mechanics.
It completely changed the status of thermodynamics, which was no longer considered as an underlying theory of nature, but rather an {\it effective} theory that applies to macroscopic systems.
However, this only emphasizes the beauty and power of thermodynamics; it is a simple set of laws for macroscopic
observables like heat and work, which does not require us to model the microscopic details of the system in question.
The advent of quantum mechanics completely changed the vision of statistical mechanics, forcing us to consider the
quantization of energy levels, the statistics of quantum particles (fermionic or bosonic), etc.
Yet, this revolution in the microscopic theory did not change the rules of thermodynamics that apply to the macroscopic machines typically used for heat to work conversion.
In contrast, in recent years we have become increasingly interested in machines that convert heat into
electrical power at a microscopic level, \green{where quantum mechanics plays a crucial role. The study of such systems is increasingly becoming known as {\it quantum thermodynamics}.}
Thermoelectric and photovoltaic devices are some of the simplest examples of this, and it is often said that they
differ from other machines by having no moving parts.
However, it is more accurate to say that they differ from other machines by having no macroscopic moving parts
(i.e. no turbines, pistons, etc). Instead, they work with steady-state currents of microscopic particles (electrons, photons, phonons, etc) which are all quantum in nature.
Nanotechnology has significantly advanced efforts in this direction, giving us unprecedented control of individual quantum particles. The questions of how this control can be used for new forms of heat to work conversion has started to be addressed in recent years.
This scientific activity has been boosted by the increasing importance placing on
sustainable energy for the world's population.
Most experts expect that small efficient sources of power (heat to work conversion) or refrigeration (work to heat conversion) will be part of the energetic mix of the future.
We should also not neglect the recovery of the waste heat that is generated in many machines
(from car exhausts to industrial processes). The objective would be to turn waste heat into electrical power
without impeding the operation of the machine in question.
In spite of the progress made in the last few years, the efficiency of macroscopic thermoelectrics remains rather low \cite{goldsmid,DiSalvo-review,Koumoto2013,Macia2015,dresselhaus,snyder,kanatzidis,majumdarrev,shakouri2009,shakouri2011,dubi, Perroni2016,Pop}.
The efficiency is often quantified by the material's dimensionless figure of merit, $ZT$,
defined in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:ZT-intro}).
High efficiency requires high $ZT$, see Table~\ref{Table:ZT}.
More than 50 years after Ioffe's discovery that doped semiconductors exhibit relatively large thermoelectric effects
\cite{ioffebook,ioffereview}, and in spite of recent achievements, the most efficient actual devices still operate
at $ZT$ around 1.
This corresponds to heat to work conversion with an efficiency which is about a sixth of Carnot efficiency (see Table~\ref{Table:ZT}). While even a small improvement would be most welcome, it is generally accepted that $ZT\sim 3$ (heat to work conversion at about a third of Carnot efficiency) would be necessary for wide-spread industrial and household applications.
For example, one would be able to replaced current pump-based household refrigerators by thermoelectric ones with $ZT\approx 3$.
However, so far, no clear paths exist to reach that target.
In such a situation it is useful to investigate an approach which starts from first principles, i.e. from the fundamental microscopic dynamical mechanisms which underline the phenomenological laws of heat and particles transport.
These methods are particularly suited to study nanoscale systems, which have been considered with interest since
Hicks and Dresselhaus theoretically studied quantum-well
structures in low dimensions and showed that there was a potential to increase the thermoelectric figure
of merit \cite{hd93,hd93b,hhsd96}.
In this context, enormous achievements in nonlinear dynamical systems and the new tools developed have led to a much better understanding of the statistical behavior of dynamical systems. For example, the question of the derivation of the phenomenological Fourier law of heat conduction from the dynamical equations of motion has been studied in great detail \cite{lepri,dhar,lepri2016}. Theoretical work in this direction have led to the possibility to control the heat current and devise heat diodes,
transistors, and thermal logic gates
\cite{Terraneo-Payrard-Casati2002,hanggi2012}. Preliminary experimental results have also been
obtained \cite{majumdar,terasaki}. We are confident that this theoretical approach, combined with
sophisticated numerical techniques, may lead to substantial progress on the way of improving the long standing problem of thermoelectric efficiency.
The study of dynamical complexity of these structures may lead to entirely
new strategies for developing materials with higher efficiencies of heat to work conversion.
An additional motivation in favor of steady-state devices, such as thermoelectrics, is that
mechanical engines' efficiencies drop very rapidly at low power output.
This drop is much less significant in thermoelectrics, making them particularly interesting as
candidates for very small scale (e.g. at micro or nano-scale) power production.
\subsection{The aim of this review}
We believe that a better understanding of the fundamental dynamical mechanisms which control heat and particles transport is desirable. The combined efforts of physicists and mathematicians working in nonlinear dynamical systems and statistical mechanics, condensed matter physicists, and material scientists may prove useful to contribute substantially to the progress in this field of
\green{importance for our energy supply and its environmental impact.}
The purpose of the present review is to introduce the basic tools and fundamental results on steady-state conversion of heat to work, mainly from a statistical physics and dynamical system's perspective. We hope our review will help bridging the gap among rather diverse communities and research fields, such as \green{non-equilibrium statistical mechanics, mesoscopic physics, mathematical physics of dynamical systems, and strongly correlated many-body systems of condensed matter. }
We start this review with a short overview of non-equilibrium thermodynamics in chapter \ref{sec:nonequilibrium}, where fundamental results on linear response theory and Onsager reciprocity relations are discussed. In chapter \ref{sec:TE}
we then explain basic abstract definitions of thermoelectric heat to work conversion efficiency.
In chapter \ref{Sect:scattering-theory} we review the microscopic Landauer or Landauer-B\"uttiker scattering theory for systems of non-interacting electrons, and explain how the concept of energy filtering leads to thermoelectric effects which
convert heat to work in such systems.
Chapter~\ref{sec:landauer} discusses the scattering theory in the linear-response regime, addressing the question of thermodynamic efficiency and the figure of merit in the context of energy filtering, chiral edge-states, external noise and probe reservoirs.
Chapter~\ref{Sect:scatter-nonlin} then discusses non-linear scattering theory for systems far from equilibrium,
showing how the laws of thermodynamics emerge naturally from the scattering theory.
It also addresses the treatment of electron-electron interaction at the mean-field level within scattering theory.
One of the most exciting avenues for future investigations of heat to work conversion at the nanoscale
will be that of systems with strong electron-electron interactions (those for which a mean-field treatment is insufficient). We set the stage for this in chapters~\ref{sec:interacting}-\ref{Sect:master-examples}.
Chapter \ref{sec:interacting} reviews ideas on the relation between high efficiencies and phase transitions in interacting systems, and introduces the Kubo formalism in this context.
Chapter~\ref{Sect:Qu-Master-Eqn}
introduces a rate equation method, which is well adapted to describe simple quantum
systems with strong electron-electron interactions, and chapter~\ref{Sect:master-examples} uses this method
to model a variety of quantum thermoelectrics and quantum machines.
Chapter~\ref{Sect:other-steady-state} discusses some other steady-state machines which convert heat to work.
While this review concentrates on steady-state machines, chapter~\ref{sec:CTM} and chapter~\ref{sec:machines} briefly discuss driven systems, and mentions similarities and differences
compared to steady-state machines.
Chapter~\ref{sec:CTM} treats cyclic machines using methods such as finite-time-thermodynamics.
Chapter~\ref{sec:machines} treats systems modelled by stochastic thermodynamics.
We conclude in chapter~\ref{sec:conclusions} with some
remarks on future prospects of the field.
\subsection{Further reading: textbooks and reviews}
In this review we will cite numerous works, and apologize for those that we have overlooked.
To help the reader get a complete picture of the field,
here we give a brief list of useful textbooks and reviews.
One can start with textbooks on thermodynamics \cite{callen,mazur,kubo}
and thermoelectricity \cite{ioffebook,goldsmid,rowe}, these focus on bulk systems rather than nanostructures, but present many useful results.
Useful reviews on thermoelectric effects include Ref.~\cite{DiSalvo-review,shakouri2009,shakouri2011,Pop},
with perspectives for nano-structured materials given in Ref.~\cite{Koumoto2013,Macia2015}.
Ref.~\cite{sothmannreview} gives a less mathematical overview of the work on quantum dots discussed in this review,
other related issues are reviewed in Ref.~\cite{Haupt-review}. The thermodynamics of systems modelled by Markovian
quantum master equations (Lindblad master equations) is reviewed in Ref.~\cite{Kosloff-review}.
Thermoelectric effects in atomic and molecular junctions are reviewed in
Refs.~\cite{dubi,Ratner2013,Bergfield-Ratner}.
Ref.~\cite{DiVentra-book}
addresses theories of transport in nano-systems discussed in this review and beyond.
Refrigeration using superconducting junctions are reviewed in
Ref.~\cite{Pekola-review2006,pekola2012}. Thermal transport at the nanoscale is reviewed
in Ref.~\cite{Cahill2003,Cahill2014}.
On the more theoretical side, the fluctuations of small systems (classical or quantum) can be modelled using stochastic thermodynamics \cite{review-Seifert2007,seifert,review-vandenBroeck,review-Broeck-Esposito}.
The highly active field of quantum thermodynamics was recently reviewed in Refs.~\cite{Vinjanampathy2016,Millen2016,Goold2016}.
\subsection{Power, efficiency and textbook thermodynamics}
\label{Sect:intro-eff}
To proceed with the introduction it is useful to recall one or two definitions from a first course on thermodynamics.
A heat-engine's conversion of heat into work is typically described by two quantities; the power generated, $P_{\rm gen}$,
and the efficiency of the converter, $\eta$. In the case where the power generated is electrical, then
$P_{\rm gen} \ =\ J_{\rm e}\ \Delta V$,
where $J_{\rm e}$ is the electrical current against a voltage difference $\Delta V$.
The heat engine (eng) efficiency, $\eta_{\rm eng}$,
is defined as the ratio of the power generated to the heat input, so
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\rm eng} \ = \ { P_{\rm gen}\over J_{\rm H} }\, ,
\label{Eq:eta-eng}
\end{eqnarray}
where $J_{\rm H}$ is the heat flow out of the hot (H) reservoir.
Textbook thermodynamics \cite{callen} tells us that one cannot generate work directly from a heat reservoir, one needs
a pair of reservoirs; hot and cold. The upper bound on the efficiency of any heat to work conversion
is that of Carnot,
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\rm eng}^{\rm Carnot} \ = \ 1 - {T_{\rm C} \over T_{\rm H}} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $T_{\rm H}$ and $T_{\rm C}$ are the temperatures of the hot (H) and cold (C) reservoirs.
This means the maximum efficiency is always less than one, and becomes very small when
the hot and cold reservoir have similar temperatures.
The conversion of work into heat flow by a refrigerator is also described by two quantities;
the cooling power, and the coefficient of performance (often called COP).
The refrigerator's cooling power is the heat current $J_{\rm C}$ that it sucks out of the cold reservoir being refrigerated.
The refrigerator (fri) coefficient of performance, $\eta_{\rm fri}$, is defined as the ratio of cool power to the power absorbed, so
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\rm fri} \ = \ {J_{\rm C} \over P_{\rm abs}} \, ,
\label{Eq:eta-fri}
\end{eqnarray}
where $P_{\rm abs}$ is the power absorbed by the refrigerator. If $P_{\rm abs}$ is electrical power,
then it equals $J_{\rm e}\, \Delta V$. However, unlike for the heat-engine, $J_{\rm e}$ is the electrical current in the direction driven by the voltage difference $\Delta V$.
Thermodynamics tells us that we cannot use work to directly cool a reservoir,
one needs a second reservoir at ambient temperature (which we will call the hot reservoir)
in which to dump the heat extracted from the cold reservoir.
The upper bound on the coefficient of performance
is that of Carnot,
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\rm fri}^{\rm Carnot} \ = \ \left( {T_{\rm H} \over T_{\rm C}}-1 \right)^{-1} \, ,
\label{Eq:fri-Carnot}
\end{eqnarray}
where $T_{\rm C}$ and $T_{\rm H}$ are the temperatures of reservoirs C and H.
The coefficient of performance is nothing but the efficiency of the refrigerator,
however it has an unusual feature that it can be bigger than one.
The laws of thermodynamics allow the coefficient of performance to be bigger than one for all
$T_{\rm C} > {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} T_{\rm H}$ and it can diverge as $T_{\rm C}$ approaches $T_{\rm H}$, see Eq.~(\ref{Eq:fri-Carnot}).
This is because a good refrigerator (i.e. a refrigerator with an efficiency close to that of Carnot)
can pump many Watts of heat from cold to hot for each Watt of power that consumes, so long as the
difference in temperature between cold and hot is small.
\subsection{Thermoelectrics : traditional versus quantum}
\label{Sect:Thermoelectrics_traditional_vs_quantum}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig-bulk-vs-nano.pdf}}
\caption{\label{fig:bulk-vs-nano}
A sketch of the qualitative difference between (a) traditional thermoelectrics and (b) quantum thermoelectrics.
In (a) the distance on which the electrons relax to a local equilibrium is the shortest lengthscale in the system.
Thus, one can treat the electrons inside the thermoelectric structure as being in local thermal equilibrium, with
a local temperature which varies smoothly across the thermoelectric. The system can then be described by Boltzmann transport equations.
In contrast, in mesoscopic or nanoscale thermoelectric devices, the thermoelectric structure is of similar size or smaller than the lengthscale on which electrons relax to a local equilibrium. Then the physics of the system can be much richer, exhibiting intrinsically quantum effects such as interference effects or strong correlation effects,
and one cannot make the approximations necessary to use the standard Boltzmann transport theory.
}
\end{figure}
Traditional thermoelectrics have no structure on scales smaller than the
electronic relaxation length \colorproofs{(except the unit cell which provides their band-structure)}, see Fig.~\ref{fig:bulk-vs-nano}a, where the relaxation length is the distance travelled by an excited electron before inelastic scatterings cause it to relax to thermal equilibrium.
At room temperature, this relaxation length is usually of the order of the mean free path, since electron scattering is typically dominated by inelastic electron-phonon scattering, which
thermalizes the electrons at the same time as causing electrical resistance by relaxing the electrons' momentum.
As such, the relaxation length can be estimated to equal the mean free path extracted from the mobility of the sample in the usual way; it is typically some tens of nanometres. A thermoelectric with no structure on a scale smaller than this (excepting the unit cell which determines its band structure) is usually well described by Boltzmann transport theory, which assumes a local equilibrium at each point in the thermoelectric, with the temperature and
electro-chemical potential of this local equilibrium varying smoothly across the thermoelectric.
Much of the current interest in nanoscale thermoelectrics is because they have structures smaller than this
relaxation length; in many cases the whole thermoelectric is smaller than a relaxation length, see Fig.~\ref{fig:bulk-vs-nano}b. This is the origin of new physics, such as quantum interference effects or strong correlation effects, for which one cannot use the standard Boltzmann transport theory. In particular,
the transport properties of the system become non-local on all scales smaller than the relaxation length.
This means that one has to talk in terms of the conductance of the whole system, rather than the conductivity at each point within it.
The objective of this review is to discuss situations of heat to work conversion which are {\it not} described by the
Boltzmann transport theory. As such we do not discuss this Boltzmann transport theory, beyond mentioning its similarities to the scattering theory in Section.~\ref{Sect:Boltzmann-Equation}. The Boltzmann theory for thermoelectrics can be found in
chapter 3 of Ref.~\cite{goldsmid} or other textbooks.
At low temperatures (typically less than a Kelvin), electron-electron and electron-phonon interactions are rather weak,
as a result the relaxation length can be many microns (or in some cases even a significant fraction of a millimetre \cite{Pfeiffer,Umansky}). Many system have structures smaller than this, and so will not be described by the usual Boltzmann theory.
At low temperatures, the relaxation length should not be confused with the electron's mean free path.
In such a system, the mean free path is dominated by static disorder which induces only elastic scattering; this
causes resistance by relaxing the electron's momentum without causing
thermalization.\footnote{\green{Such elastic scatterings randomize the direction of the electron's momentum without modifying the magnitude of that momentum. Hence, the average momentum decays, but the kinetic energy of each electron does not change.}}
Then the relaxation length will be much larger than the mean free path, and so it cannot be experimentally determined from the mobility. Instead, it must be measured by directly generating an out of equilibrium electron distribution, and studying how it relaxes to a thermal distribution \cite{Pothier1997,Ritchie-thermometer-2009,Ritchie-thermometer-2013}. In general the electron-electron scattering length scales with a lower power of temperature than the electron-phonon scattering length, for details see \cite{Pekola-review2006,pekola2012}. Thus at low enough temperatures, the relaxation length is given by the electron-electron scattering. This means that electrons first thermalize amongst each other via electron-electron interactions, and only afterwards do they thermalize with the phonons
through electron-phonon interactions.
In such cases, if one is driving the electron gas, it may reach a steady-state where electrons thermalize
(between themselves) at a temperature which is different from that of the phonons in their vicinity.
\subsubsection{\green{Quantum coherence}}
\green{
If the device is small and thermalization is weak, then one may also have quantum coherence over the scale of the device. Then particles not only maintain their energy as they pass through the device,
they also keep (at least partially) the coherence of their wavefunction. This means that particles in the device can be in a coherent superposition of different states.
There can then be interference between the different paths that a particle travels along inside the device.
It means that quantum correlations can build up between different particles in the device.
Such superposition interference and correlation effects can give rise to numerous effects in quantum thermoelectrics that are absent in classical ones. Interference can induce thermoelectric effects in systems where they would otherwise be absent, and can modify them in systems which would already have a thermoelectric response (either reducing or increasing them).
These effects are very diverse and we will touch on a number of them in this review.
}
\green{
A complete picture of the effects of quantum coherence has yet to emerge.
However, we can at least state that
coherence adds another parameter to the system; the quantum mechanical phase.
When this phase can be manipulated by experimentalists, it can often be adjusted to improve the relevant properties of the system in question and make a better heat engine or refrigerator. One of the earliest examples of this is in
Ref.~\cite{scully03}, but we cite other examples throughout this review. Of course, there are usually various classical system parameters that can be manipulated to improve a device's performance.
However one should never underestimate the practical benefit of having one more parameter (the quantum phase) to tune to optimize the machine's performance.
}
\subsection{From linear-response to far-from-equilibrium }
In many applications of thermoelectrics, one is interested in temperature differences which are not small compared to the average temperature. For example, a proposed application in the automotive industry
is to generate electricity from the waste heat in a vehicle's exhaust pipe.
The heat reservoir (the exhaust gases) would typically be at 600-700K when the cold reservoir would be the environment at 270-300K. So the temperature difference is of order the average temperature.
Thus, one should ask whether one can use a linear response theory to describe this situation.
Linear response theory is based on the idea of expanding to linear order about the local equilibrium, and is only expected to work when the temperature difference and bias are small compared to the average temperature.
The answer to the question is very different depending on whether one is considering a traditional bulk thermoelectric sketched in
Fig.~\ref{fig:bulk-vs-nano}a, or a nanoscale thermoelectric sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:bulk-vs-nano}b.
The reason is that linear response theory applies when the difference in temperature and chemical potential
is small (compared to the average temperature)
{\it on the scale of the relaxation length}. This is very different for the two cases in Fig.~\ref{fig:bulk-vs-nano}.
In the case of a traditional bulk thermoelectric, the temperature drop happens over a few millimetres when the relaxation length is on the scale of tens of nanometres. This means that the temperature drop on the scale of the relaxation length is tiny. For the above example of an exhaust pipe, the temperature drop
on the scale of a relaxation length would be of order 0.003K (taking a relaxation length of order 10nm),
which is obviously very much less than the average temperature at any point in the thermoelectric.
This means that every point in the thermoelectric is extremely close to a local equilibrium, because electrons only fly a distance equal to the relaxation length before relaxing, and so the electrons at a given point all come from neighboring regions with almost the same temperatures and chemical potentials. In such a situation linear-response theory should work extremely well.
In the case of a nanoscale thermoelectric, the hot and cold reservoirs come within a few nanometres of each other, and the entire temperature drop happens across that nanoscale device which is smaller than a relaxation length.
Thus linear-response theory fails as soon as the temperature difference between the two reservoirs is not much smaller than the average temperature of the two reservoirs.
This makes it extremely clear that if one wanted to use nanoscale thermoelectrics in the above example
of an exhaust pipe, one would absolutely need to describe them with a non-linear theory in which the
nanostructure is driven far from equilibrium by its coupling to two reservoirs at very different temperatures.
The great simplicity of the linear-response regime is that we can write all thermoelectric properties of the system in terms of four parameters; the electrical conductance, $G$, the thermal conductance, $K$,
the Seebeck coefficient, $S$, and the Peltier coefficient, $\Pi$.
While we do not give precise definitions of these quantities until section~\ref{sec:linear_response},
it is important to explain here that this means one can separate the problem in two. The first problem
is to find the $G$, $K$, $S$ and $\Pi$ for a given thermoelectric system (either experimentally or
by modelling).
The second problem is to find the relationship between a \colorproofs{thermoelectric's parameters ($G$, $K$, $S$ and $\Pi$),} and
\green{the efficiency and power output into a given load that the thermoelectric is attached to.
This second problem is discussed in detail in sections~\ref{sec:stopping_voltage} and \ref{sec:ZT},
with the latter section particularly considering the little studied situation where}
a magnetic field breaks the well known symmetry relation between $\Pi=TS$
(a magnetic field allows one to have $\Pi\neq TS$ without violating the Onsager relations).
In the absence of magnetic field, we will show in section~\ref{sec:TE} that there are two principle quantities that are crucial for heat to work conversion.
The first quantity is the dimensionless combination known as the dimensionless figure of merit
\begin{eqnarray}
ZT = {G\, S^2 \, T \over K }\, .
\label{Eq:ZT-intro}
\end{eqnarray}
This gives a measure of the efficiency of the device, via the formulas in section~\ref{sec:ZT},
which will show us that for a heat engine to achieve a given efficiency we require a given value of $ZT$,
as indicated in Table \ref{Table:ZT}.
The second quantity is sometimes called the power factor $S^2G$, and is a measure of the maximum power
such a thermoelectric heat engine can produce, see Eq.~(\ref{Eq:max-power}).
These two quantities act as crucial guides to experimentalists and theorist, since they tell them that a good thermoelectric
requires maximizing $G$ and $S$, while minimizing the thermal conductance $K$.
However, this logic is greatly complicated by the fact that $G$, $S$ and $K$ are not independent parameters, but instead each of them depends in a different manner on the underlying electronic dynamics, making it hard to optimize the heat to work conversion without a good microscopic theory of these electron dynamics.
One such microscopic model is the scattering theory presented in Chapter~\ref{sec:landauer}.
\begin{table}
\centerline{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
Desired efficiency & \ $\phantom{\Big|}$ Necessary $ZT$ \ \\
\hline
$\phantom{\Big|}$ Carnot efficiency & $\infty$ \\
$\phantom{\Big|}\ 9/10 \ \times\ $ Carnot efficiency & 360\\
$\phantom{\Big|}\ 3/4 \ \times\ $ Carnot efficiency & 48\\
$\phantom{\Big|}\ 1/2 \ \times\ $ Carnot efficiency & 8\\
$\phantom{\Big|}\ 1/3 \ \times\ $ Carnot efficiency & 3 \\
$\phantom{\Big|}\ 1/6 \ \times\ $ Carnot efficiency & ${24/25} \ \sim \ 1$ \\
$\phantom{\Big|}\ 1/10 \ \times\ $ Carnot efficiency & ${40/81} \ \sim \ 0.5$ \\
$\phantom{\Big|}\ 1/100 \ \times\ $ Carnot efficiency & \ ${400/9801}\ \sim \ 0.04$\ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\hskip 5mm
\caption{\label{Table:ZT}
Examples of the dimensionless figure of merit $ZT$ necessary for a desired heat-engine efficiency,
see Eq.~(\ref{etamaxB0}).
This connection between the maximum efficiency and $ZT$ is convenient, as it is easier to
calculate $ZT$ from basic transport measurements than to measure the maximum efficiency directly.
Current bulk semiconductor thermoelectrics have $ZT\sim1$, while a $ZT\sim 3$ would be necessary for
most industrial or household applications.
However the connection between maximum efficiency and $ZT$ only exists in the linear-response regime, as
$ZT$ has no meaning outside the linear-response regime.
}
\end{table}
The situation is much more complicated in the nonlinear regime in which the system is far from equilibrium.
Then one can no longer write the physics in terms of a few constants (like $G$, $S$, etc.) as in the linear-response regime. Instead, the electrical and heat currents become nonlinear functions of the temperatures and electro-chemical potentials of the reservoirs for which few general statements can be made without explicit considerations of the microscopic dynamics. It is well known that $ZT$, as defined in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:ZT-intro}),
is no longer a measure of thermodynamic efficiency \cite{shakouri2007,Muralidharan-Grifoni2012,Meair-Jacquod2013,whitney2013-catastrophe,Azema-Lombardo-Dare2014,Crepieux2015}, with it sometimes over-estimating and sometimes
under-estimating the real efficiency in the nonlinear regime. Despite efforts in this direction, there is currently no
nonlinear version of $ZT$. In other words, in the nonlinear regime there is no experimental quantity that acts as a
short cut to finding the maximum efficiency, the only way to find the maximum efficiency of a given system
is to measure it.
Similarly, there is no short cut to getting a theoretical prediction of a system's maximum efficiency,
it must be calculated from that system's microscopic dynamics.
In chapters~\ref{Sect:scatter-nonlin} and \ref{Sect:Qu-Master-Eqn} we consider two different models of such
microscopic dynamics suitable for treating different systems far from equilibrium. Both methods rely on approximations, either an assumption that interactions between electrons in the nanostructure
are described by a mean-field theory (the scattering theory in chapter~\ref{Sect:scatter-nonlin}) or
an assumption that the nanostructure only has a few levels and is weakly coupled to the reservoirs (the rate equations in chapter~\ref{Sect:Qu-Master-Eqn}).
\subsection{Thermocouples, quantum thermocouples and nanoscale photovoltaics}
Traditionally to make a thermoelectric heat-engine, one must construct a thermocouple
from two thermoelectric materials (the two ideally having opposite thermoelectric responses),
and heat the region between them (as in Fig.~\ref{Fig:thermocouple}a).
One assumes this hot reservoir is ideal, meaning it is large and in thermal equilibrium at temperature $T_{\rm H}$. In this case the thermoelectrics could be traditional or quantum.
The electrons carry heat through them, and thereby generate an electrical current.
However, quantum systems give another possibility.
A suitable quantum system can replace the entire thermocouple (pair of thermoelectrics and hot reservoir),
see Fig.~\ref{Fig:thermocouple}b.
Heat falls directly on the quantum system in the form of photons, phonons or some other chargeless excitation,
and this drives a steady-state current between the two remaining reservoirs.
We call this a {\it quantum thermocouple}, because it \green{can} exhibit coherent interference effects, quantum correlations
and non-equilibrium effects across the whole thermocouple. This makes its physics much richer than a traditional thermocouple.
Many works have considered such systems in recent years, often referring to them as three terminal thermoelectrics,
with one terminal being the one that supplies heat and the other two terminals being those that carry the current.
We discuss such three terminal systems in detail in sections~\ref{sec:probes}-\ref{Sect:Andreev-linear}
and in sections~\ref{Sect:3-term-sys1}-\ref{Sect:cooling-by-heating}.
It is worth noting that if the heat source is the sun (which is reasonably well approximated by photons emitted from a black-body at 4000K), then the quantum thermocouple can also be thought of as a nanoscale photovoltaic.
Indeed at a hand-waving level, it works much like a traditional p-n junction photovoltaic.
The electrons at low energies (those in the valence band in a p-n photovoltaic) are coupled to reservoir 1, while those in excited states (the conduction band in a p-n photovoltaic) are coupled to reservoir 2.
Thus when a photon excites an electron from a low to high energy state, that electron flows into reservoir 2.
The empty low energy state is filled by an electron from reservoir 1 (this is often represented as a hole flowing from the system into reservoir 1). Thus the absorption of a photon causes a net electron flow from reservoir 1 to reservoir 2,
even though reservoir 2 has a higher electro-chemical potential than reservoir 1. It thus converts heat
into electric work.
The quantum thermocouple systems that
we will discuss in sections~\ref{Sect:3-term-sys1}-\ref{Sect:cooling-by-heating},
are microscopically rather different from a p-n junction photovoltaic, but they still work in the manner outlined here.
\green{
It is also worth noting that heat gradients may play a role in chemical reactions,
and that these can be considered with donor-acceptor models and reaction path ways
\cite{Craven-Nitzan2016}, not dissimilar to the models considered in this review.
}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig-thermocouple.pdf}}
\caption{\label{Fig:thermocouple}
In (a) we show a traditional thermocouple made of two different thermoelectrics (open and filled circles)
each coupled to the reservoir being heated (reservoir H) and one of the cold reservoirs (1 or 2).
The heat drives electrons around the circuit from reservoir 1 to reservoir 2, through the load which turns the electrical power into some other kind of work (for example the load could be a motor that generates mechanical work).
In the ideal case, the two thermoelectrics have opposite thermoelectric responses; the one marked by the open circle generates an electrical current in the same direction as the heat flow, while that marked by the filled circle generates an electrical current in the opposite direction to the heat flow.
In (b) we show a new possibility afforded by quantum systems. In this case
a single quantum system plays the role of the whole thermocouple.
We mark it as a half-filled circle, to indicate that it combines the properties of the two thermoelectrics in (a).
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Thermoelectricity as a probe of nanostructures}
Increasingly experimentalists are using the thermoelectric response of nanostructures
as a probe of the physics of those structures.
It provides complementary information to that extracted from more traditional
transport measurements such as measuring the nanostructure's I-V response.
In this context, the linear-response regime is particularly interesting,
because the linear-response transport properties give us
information about the equilibrium state of the nanostructure.
At a handwaving level, one can say that a standard measure of conductance
(by biasing the sample and measuring the resulting charge current) tells us about the average
dynamics of those electrons in the nanostructure which have energies close to the Fermi surface.
In contrast, a measurement of the Seebeck coefficient (by applying a temperature difference across the sample
and measuring the resulting potential difference) tells us about the {\it difference} in the dynamics of electrons
above and below the Fermi surface. This clearly gives us more information about the sample than the conductance alone.
For example, the sign of the Seebeck coefficient can tell us if the charge carries are electronic excitations (above the Fermi surface) or hole excitations (below the Fermi surface).
This hand waving argument is made quantitative in section~\ref{Sect:scatter-2term-linear}.
The situation is more complicated for the thermoelectric response beyond the linear regime,
just as it is usually harder to understand the nonlinear I-V response of a system than to understand its linear conductance. In most cases, it is hard to use simple arguments to understand the nonlinear thermoelectric response
of a nanostructure. Instead, one has to assume a plausible model for the nanostructure, find its thermoelectric response (analytically or numerically) and compare the result with experiments to see how close the model is to the real nanostructure. The models discussed in chapters~\ref{Sect:scatter-nonlin} and \ref{Sect:Qu-Master-Eqn}
may provide a good starting point for this sort of analysis.
\subsection{Thermoelectric refrigeration of micron-sized structures to
extremely low temperatures}
One of the particularly promising applications of nanoscale thermoelectric effects is to refrigerate
micron-sized (or smaller) structures to unprecedently low temperatures. Standard cryogenics
typically refrigerate centimetre-sized structures down to 10-100mK, and these are widely used to study
quantum coherent effects in nano-structures, low temperature phase-transitions, etc.
The new idea is to study this type of physics at even lower temperatures by placing
a thermoelectric cooling circuit within the cryogenic refrigerator. This could
cool a micron-sized region down to a temperature much lower than that of the cryogenic refrigerator.
It is important to note that a standard cryogenic refrigerator cools the lattice of the structure within it,
that is to say that it cools the structure's phonon gas. However, at very low temperatures, the coupling between electrons and phonons is very weak. So it becomes increasingly difficult to cool the electron gas in a structure by cooling the lattice. Instead, one risks to have a cold gas of phonons and a hotter gas of electrons within the structure, with almost no thermal coupling between the two.
Thermoelectric cooling in contrast cools the electrons directly, so may be more efficient for cooling the electron gas than traditional cryogenics.
In this case, the weak coupling to phonons may be a benefit. If one is interested in the physics of very cold electron gases in metals, quantum hall edge-states, etc. (say to look for new phases of matter induced by the electron-electron interaction), one may not care if the phonons are hotter than the electrons, so long as they are cold enough that they only couple
weakly to the electron gas. For this, one could use standard cryogenics to cool the phonons to a few milliKelvin, and then use thermoelectric effects to cool the electrons to much lower temperatures.
Significant experimental progress in cooling has been made using superconducting-normal junctions.
As these have been well-reviewed elsewhere \cite{Pekola-review2006,pekola2012},
we concentrate on other proposed nanoscale refrigeration schemes in this review.
\green{
A particular application of this nanoscale refrigeration could be the cooling of the environment of solid-state qubits (superconducting circuits, spins in quantum dots, etc.), to maximize the coherence times of such qubits.
This could be crucial for the success of future quantum computers, which require long coherence times.
However, in this context, we note that an interesting recent work \cite{Splettstoesser2015} shows that it is not only the temperature of the environment which is important in determining the decoherence rate of a superconducting qubit. A temperature difference between different parts of the qubit's environment can lead to a heat current in the vicinity of the qubit which can decohere the qubit more strongly than an environment which is all at the same temperature. This is a warning that in some cases a non-uniform refrigeration of the environment of qubits may be worse than no refrigeration.
}
\subsection{Phonons and photons as detrimental effects}
\label{Sect:intro-phonons}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{fig-phonons-intro.pdf}}
\caption{\label{Fig:phonons-intro}
In (a) we sketch of a thermocouple showing how phonons and/or photons carry heat from hot to cold, in parallel with whatever heat the electrons carry through the thermocouple. It is clear that however efficiently the thermoelectric converts the heat into work, the heat radiated as phonons or photons is lost, greatly reducing the
overall efficiency of the machine. Thus it is clear that we want to place an extremely good thermal insulator around
the hot source, and engineer the thermoelectric so the phonon component of its heat conductivity is as small as possible. The problem is that phonons are uncharged bosons over which we have rather little control.
To illustrate this (b) shows an adaptation of a figure from Ref.~\cite{conductivity-scales},
it shows the scale of thermal conductivities that exist in nature (spanning about four decades)
compared to electrical conductivities (spanning about 24 decades). This is a good indication that it is extremely hard to make a good phonon insulator.
}
\end{figure}
Most systems contain charge-less excitation (such as phonons or photons), which
will carry heat from hot to cold in a manner independent of the thermoelectric properties of the system.
The fact these excitation are charge-less makes them much harder to control than electrons,
and as a result we do not have really good thermal insulators.
Indeed as Fig.~\ref{Fig:phonons-intro}b shows, there is only about a factor of $10^4$ difference in thermal conductivity between the best non-exotic thermal conductors (such as copper or diamond) and worst non-exotic thermal conductors (such as glass).
Even a vacuum has a significant thermal conductivity, because of black-body radiation from hot to cold in the form of photons.
This can be contrasted with factor of $10^{20}$ difference in electrical conductivity between good non-exotic electrical conductors (such as copper) and poor conductors (such as glass).
Thus, while some phonons and photons will flow through the thermoelectric quantum system,
and might interact with the electrons there,
most will flow via other routes, see Fig.~\ref{Fig:phonons-intro}a.
Under such circumstances a thermoelectric heat-engine's efficiency in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:eta-eng}) can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\rm eng} \ = \ { P_{\rm gen}\over J^{\rm (el)}_{\rm h,H} + J^{\rm (ph)}_{\rm h,H}}
\label{Eq:eta-eng-phonons}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ J^{\rm (el)}_{\rm h,H}$ is the heat carried away from the heat source by the electrons
and $J^{\rm (ph)}_{\rm h,H}$ is the heat carried away from the heat source by phonons, photons, and any other chargeless excitations that may be present.
The heat flow $J^{\rm (ph)}_{\rm h,H}$ cannot contribute to power production,
so we see from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:eta-eng-phonons}) that it only reduces the efficiency.
The efficiency of the power production due to the electronic heat flow, $J^{\rm (el)}_{\rm h,H}$, cannot
exceed that of Carnot, so $P_{\rm gen}\big/ J^{\rm (el)}_{\rm h,H} \,\leq\, \eta_{\rm eng}^{\rm Carnot}$.
Thus the efficiency in the presence of phonons
must obey
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\rm eng} \ \leq\ \eta_{\rm eng}^{\rm Carnot} \ \times\ {J^{\rm (el)}_{\rm H} \over J^{\rm (el)}_{\rm H} + J^{\rm (ph)}_{\rm H}}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus to achieve a high over all efficiency it is not sufficient to optimize the electronic dynamics to
maximize $ P_{\rm gen}\big/ J^{\rm (el)}_{\rm H}$, one also needs to work to minimize the phonon/photon heat flow.
This requires maximising the insulation around the heat source, and also engineering the thermoelectric's properties
so the phonon heat flow through it is minimal.
The detrimental effect of phonons and photons is even more stark for refrigeration.
Since one is trying to refrigerate the colder of two reservoirs, the phonons and photons will carry heat from
hot to cold, greatly reducing the cooling power.
The cooling power in the presence of phonons will be $J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (el)} +J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (ph)}$,
where the phonon or phonon contribution to the heat flow out of the cold reservoir, $J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (ph)}$,
is {\it negative} and so reduces the cooling power.
Here, $J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (el)}$ is the cooling power of the electrons alone (defined in section~\ref{Sect:intro-eff}),
and $J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (ph)}=-J_{\rm h,H}^{\rm (ph)}$ is typically given by a formula of the type in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:J_h,ph}).
It is the relationship between the electron's cooling power and the phonon's heat flow as a function of $T_{\rm C}$
that will determine the lowest $T_{\rm C}$ that the refrigerator can achieve.
Irrespective of the details, if one reduces $T_{\rm C}$ for fixed $T_{\rm H}$,
then $J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (ph)}$ will become increasingly negative,
while $J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (el)}$ will typically decrease and become negative at a given value of $T_{\rm C}$
(in the best case this will happen at $T_{\rm C}=0$).
Imagine turning on the refrigerator to cool down a cold reservoir, which is initially at the same temperature as the hot one. Then $J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (el)}$ is positive and $J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (ph)}=0$, so heat is sucked out of the
cold reservoir, cooling it down. As its temperature $T_{\rm C}$ drops, $J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (el)}$ drops and $J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (ph)}$ becomes increasingly negative. The cooling power $J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (el)} +J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (ph)}$ is thus smaller, but cooling continues until $T_{\rm C}$ is such that
$J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (el)} +J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (ph)}=0$.
At this point no further cooling is possible and one has achieved the lowest temperature for the refrigerator.
Thus, we see that minimizing the magnitude of phonon and photon heat flow, $J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (ph)}$
(for example minimizing $\alpha$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:J_h,ph})) is as important as maximizing the electronic cooling power $J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (el)}$.
It is clear that the efficiency of the refrigerator is reduced by the phonon and photon heat flows in the same manner as the cooling power is, because in the presence of such photons and phonons the numerator in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:eta-fri}) becomes the total cooling power $J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (el)} +J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (ph)}$,
with $J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (ph)} <0$ as discussed above.
\subsubsection{Heat carried by phonons and photons}
As a first approximation, the phonon heat flow for the machine is given by that through a typical insulator.
A number of theories for these phonon or photon heat currents
take the form
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{\rm h,H}^{\rm (ph)}= \alpha (T_H^\kappa-T_C^\kappa),
\label{Eq:J_h,ph}
\end{eqnarray}
where $J_{\rm h,H}^{\rm (ph)}$ is the heat flow out of the hot (H) reservoir due to phonons or photons,
and both $\alpha$ and $\kappa$ depend on the system in question.
The heat flow out of the cold reservoir, $J_{\rm h,C}^{\rm (ph)}$, is negative and
equals $-J_{\rm h,H}^{\rm (ph)}$.
The textbook example of such a theory is that of black-body radiation between the two reservoirs,
then $\kappa=4$ and $\alpha$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
Other examples for phonons in various situations include Refs.~\cite{phonons-Vols,phonons-Zou,Cahill2003,phonons-Wang,phonons-Heron,phonons-Avery,Cahill2014}, while examples for photons in nanostructures
include Refs.~\cite{photons-Schmitt,photons-Hekking}.
An example relevant to suspended sub-Kelvin nanostructures
is a situation where a finite number $N_{\rm ph}$ of
phonon or photon modes carry heat between the two reservoirs
\cite{Pendry1983,photons-Hekking,photons-Schmitt,phonons-Heron}. There, one has
$\kappa=2$ and $\alpha = t N_{\rm ph}\pi^2 k_{\rm B}^2/(6h)$, if each mode has the same transmission probability, $t$, with $k_{\rm B}$ being the Boltzmann constant, and $h$ being the Planck constant.
In many cases, phonons flow diffusively from hot to cold , with regular inelastic scatterings causing thermalization between the phonons, then the temperature drop on the scale of the thermalization length (inelastic scattering length) is small, and one can apply linear response theory for the phonon heat transport. If the thermal conductance is approximately temperature independent (on the scale of the temperature difference between hot and cold), then one will
have a Fourier law for heat flow with $\kappa=1$ and $\alpha$ equalling the phonon thermal conductance.
One of the biggest practical challenges for quantum thermoelectrics is that phonons and photons
will often carry much more heat than the electrons. This is simply because the hot reservoir
can typically radiate heat in all directions as phonons or photons, while electrons only carry heat
through the few nanostructures connected to that reservoir.
Thus, in many cases the phonon or photon heat flow will dominate over the electronic one.
However, progress is being made in blocking phonon and photon flow.
One can engineer band gaps in the phonon spectrum by drilling regularly spaced holes in the material to make a phononic crystal (see for example \cite{sound-idea,Phononic-Crystals}). One can make a highly disordered material known as a phonon glass
or at least sufficiently disorder to reduce the phonon conduction by a significant factor
(see for example \cite{Phonon-glass1,Phonon-glass2,Phonon-glass3}).
A strategy which makes particular sense for the refrigeration of micron-sized samples to temperatures below that of
current cryogenics is to suspend the sample being refrigerated.
This limits its thermal contact with the substrate (which will be at the temperature of the cryostat),
by ensuring that phonons can only flow between the substrate and the micron-sized sample through the
relatively few phonon modes of the pillars that hold up that sample \cite{phonons-Heron}.
A typical thermal phonon or photon has a wavelength of $\lambda_{\rm ph} \sim hv_{\rm ph}\big/(k_{\rm B} T)$,
where $T$ is the temperature and $v_{\rm ph} $ is the velocity of the wave in questions.
For photons in vacuum $v_{\rm ph}=c= 3\times10^8 {\rm ms}^{-1}$, while for photons in solids
$v_{\rm ph}$ varies a lot depending on the material and the type of phonon (longitudinal, transverse, etc.)
but is typically $10^3$-$10^4 {\rm ms}^{-1}$.
Thus at cold temperatures (less than one Kelvin) the typical thermal phonon's wavelength is tens of nanometres,
while the wavelength of thermal photons in vacuum is of the order of a millimetre.
Thus one might imagine that photons will have too long a wavelength to carry heat efficiently into the micron-sized
island being refrigerated. This may be true of photons in vacuum, however it is predicted that the metallic wires necessary for the thermoelectric circuit will carry heat via another kind of photons; these photons are induced by thermal charge fluctuations in the hot part of the circuit, which generate electromagnetic fields that carry heat into
the cold part of the circuit. In the simplest case the circuit carries a single photon mode
with a transmission, $t\sim 1$ \cite{photons-Schmitt}, although one can engineer the capacitance and impedance of the circuit to make this transmission much less than one \cite{photons-Hekking}.
In such cases, the heat flow carried by such circuit photons is given by $J_{\rm h,H}^{\rm (ph)}$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:J_h,ph}) with
$\kappa=2$ and $\alpha = t \pi^2 k_{\rm B}^2/(6h)$, as mentioned above.
\subsection{The second law of thermodynamics}
Chapters~\ref{Sect:scatter-nonlin} and \ref{Sect:Qu-Master-Eqn}
will explicitly derive the second law of thermodynamics from the quantum physics of certain systems coupled to reservoirs.
Since such systems are described by Schr\"odinger's equation, their dynamics are symmetric under time-reversal.
However, \green{in these systems,} we will show that the second law of thermodynamics emerges as soon as those systems are
coupled to macroscopic reservoirs.
What is intriguing is that this result depends very little on the properties of the macroscopic reservoirs,
indeed their dynamics do not even need to be described in detail. All one needs to get the second law is that the reservoirs act as equilibrium boundary conditions on the system; that is to say
all particle arriving at the system from a given reservoir have an equilibrium distribution (defined by the temperature and chemical potential of that reservoir), irrespective of the distribution of particles entering that reservoir from the system.
\green{
Any reservoir which fulfills this condition is enough.
One possibility is that the reservoir is effectively infinite, so that particles entering it do not leaving it again on the timescale of any experiment. Another possibility is that the reservoir is large but finite, and contains a weak dissipative process, so that particles entering it are relaxed to the reservoir's equilibrium state before they leave the reservoir again.}
This relaxation process could be due to coupling between the degrees of freedom within the reservoir, or to coupling of that reservoir's degrees of freedom to yet another reservoir.
The microscopic details of these couplings is of no importance, the quantum system will obey
the second law of thermodynamics.
Unfortunately, no proof currently exists that the second law of thermodynamics emerges naturally from the quantum physics of an {\it arbitrary} system coupled to reservoirs, \green{although works in this direction are cited in section~\ref{Sect:Keldysh}}. The proofs discussed in chapters~\ref{Sect:scatter-nonlin} and \ref{Sect:Qu-Master-Eqn} are special because the systems are particularly simple to treat theoretically, either because they exhibit no non-trivial interactions between particles in quantum system (scattering theory in chapter~\ref{Sect:scatter-nonlin}) or we take the limit of weak coupling between the quantum system and the reservoirs
(rate equations in chapter~\ref{Sect:Qu-Master-Eqn}).
However, even if we are unable to prove this for an arbitrary system, few experts expect that any such systems will violate the second law.
In contrast, we know that all quantum systems exhibit fluctuations, just as small classical systems exhibit thermal fluctuations.
Thus, even in systems where we know the entropy increases on average, a fluctuation may cause entropy to decrease during a brief period, typically by an amount of order the Boltzmann constant, $k_{\rm B}$.
These fluctuations average out on longer timescales, ensuring that the entropy does increase on average.
This means that, if the system is left for a long enough time that its steady-state current
involves entropy generation much more than $k_{\rm B}$, then it will be extremely unlikely for a fluctuation to
cause the entropy produced during that time to be negative.
None the less the second law of thermodynamics is only an {\it average} property in such systems.
There is always a small chance of the entropy being less at the end of the time period during which the quantum machine runs, even if this probability decays exponentially as one increases the time period being considered.
However, we expect that any quantum machine left running long enough to produce a non-microscopic amount of work will have a basically negligible chance of violating the second law.
\section{Quantum theories II: Green-Kubo approach}
\section{Aspects of thermoelectricity in interacting systems}
\label{sec:interacting}
Strongly interacting systems
are of great interest, since it appears that interactions are another avenue to large thermoelectric effects.
Experimental results on some strongly correlated materials
such as sodium cobalt oxides revealed unusually large thermopower
values \cite{Terasaki1997,Wang2003}, in part attributed to strong
electron-electron interactions \cite{Peterson2007}.
A fundamental motivation for the study of
interacting systems will be discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:phaset}:
an analogy between a classical heat engine and a thermoelectric material
suggests, for strongly interacting systems, the possibility of large values
of the thermoelectric figure of merit $ZT$ near electronic phase
transitions \cite{Vining1997}.
In general, very little is known about the thermoelectric
properties of interacting systems: analytical results
are rare and numerical simulations challenging.
However, on the basis of the Green-Kubo formula, we will discuss
a thermodynamic argument suggesting that the Carnot efficiency
is achieved in the thermodynamic limit for non-integrable
momentum-conserving systems.
\subsection{Thermoelectricity and electronic phase transitions}
\label{sec:phaset}
A reasoning by Vining \cite{Vining1997} suggests that large values
of $ZT$ can be expected near electronic phase transitions.
First of all, we consider the thermal conductance at zero voltage:
\begin{equation}
K'\equiv \left(
\frac{J_{h}}{\Delta T}
\right)_{\Delta V=0}=\frac{L_{hh}}{T^2}=K+GS\Pi.
\end{equation}
The thermoelectric figure of merit can then be written as
\begin{equation}
ZT=\gamma_K-1,
\quad \gamma_K\equiv \frac{K'}{K};
\end{equation}
obviously $ZT$ diverges if the ratio $\gamma_K$ diverges.
We now focus on the thermodynamic properties of the working fluid
itself rather than on transport.
Consider an open system characterized by the number $N$
of particles, the chemical potential $\mu$ and the temperature $T$.
We have
\begin{equation}
dN=
\left. \frac{\partial N}{\partial \mu}\right|_T d\mu+
\left. \frac{\partial N}{\partial T}\right|_\mu dT,
\quad
d \mathscr{S} =-\frac{\mu}{T}\,dN+ \frac{dU}{T}=
-\frac{\mu}{T}\,
\left(\left. \frac{\partial N}{\partial \mu}\right|_T d\mu+
\left. \frac{\partial N}{\partial T}\right|_\mu dT\right)
+\frac{1}{T}\,\left(
\left. \frac{\partial U}{\partial N}\right|_T dN+
\left. \frac{\partial U}{\partial T}\right|_N dT\right),
\end{equation}
where $U$ is the internal energy of the system.
These equations can be written in a form similar to
the coupled transport equations (\ref{eq:coupledlinear}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
dN=C_{NN} d\mu + C_{N\mathscr{S}} dT,
\\
\\
d\mathscr{S}=C_{\mathscr{S}N} d\mu + C_{\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}} dT,
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:capacitymatrix}
\end{eqnarray}
where the \emph{capacity matrix} ${\bm C}$ has elements
\begin{equation}
C_{NN}=\left. \frac{\partial N}{\partial \mu}\right|_T,
\quad
C_{N\mathscr{S}}=\left. \frac{\partial N}{\partial T}\right|_\mu,
\quad
C_{\mathscr{S}N}=\frac{1}{T}
\left. \frac{\partial N}{\partial \mu}\right|_T
\left( \left.\frac{\partial U}{\partial N}\right|_T-\mu\right),
\quad
C_{\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}=\frac{1}{T}\,\left[
\left. \frac{\partial U}{\partial T}\right|_N+
\left. \frac{\partial N}{\partial T}\right|_\mu
\left( \left.\frac{\partial U}{\partial N}\right|_T-\mu\right)\right].
\end{equation}
Note that $C_{N\mathscr{S}}=C_{\mathscr{S}N}$ due to a Maxwell-type relation
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{\partial N}{\partial T}\right)_\mu=
\left(\frac{\partial \mathscr{S}}{\partial \mu}\right)_T.
\end{equation}
Moreover,
\begin{equation}
C_{\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}}=
\left(\frac{\partial \mathscr{S}}{\partial T}\right)_\mu\equiv C_\mu
\end{equation}
is the entropy capacity at constant $\mu$. Finally, the entropy
capacity at constant $N$ is
\begin{equation}
C_{N}\equiv\left(\frac{\partial \mathscr{S}}{\partial T}\right)_N
=\frac{\det{\bm C}}{C_{NN}},
\end{equation}
where the last equality is derived after setting $dN=0$ in
(\ref{eq:capacitymatrix}).
We now consider a thermodynamic \emph{cycle} consisting of
two constant chemical potential strokes $d\mu$ apart and
two constant particle number strokes $dN$ apart.
The infinitesimal work performed by this cyclic process is
$-d\mu dN$ and we can compare it with the work
$d\mathscr{S} dT$ performed by a Carnot cycle
consisting of two isothermal strokes $dT$ apart and two adiabatic
strokes $d\mathscr{S}$ apart. The ratio between the
heat to work conversion efficiencies
of the above two processes is therefore given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{\eta}{\eta_C}=\frac{-d\mu dN}{d\mathscr{S} dT}.
\end{equation}
As the Carnot efficiency for a cycle operating between
temperatures $T$ and $T+dT$ is $\eta_C=dT/T$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\eta=\frac{-d\mu dN}{Td\mathscr{S}}
=\frac{-d\mu (C_{NN} d\mu + C_{N\mathscr{S}} dT)}{T
(C_{\mathscr{S}N} d\mu + C_{\mathscr{S}\mathscr{S}} dT)}.
\end{equation}
This formula is analogous to Eq.~(\ref{eq:efficiency})
for the efficiency of thermoelectric transport.
Similarly to Sec.~\ref{sec:ZT}, we can show that the maximum
of $\eta$ over $d\mu$, for a fixed $dT$, is given by
\begin{equation}
\eta_{\rm max}=
\eta_C\,
\frac{\sqrt{Z_{\rm th} T+1}-1}{\sqrt{Z_{\rm th}T+1}+1},
\label{eq:ZTth}
\end{equation}
where the \emph{thermodynamic figure of merit}
\begin{equation}
Z_{\rm th} T=\frac{C_{N\mathscr{S}}^2}{\det {\bm C}}=
\gamma_{\mu N}-1, \quad \gamma_{\mu N}\equiv \frac{C_\mu}{C_N}.
\end{equation}
We point out that $Z_{\rm th} T$ is purely determined by the
properties of the working fluid, without referring to
thermoelectric transport.
Consequently, it does not include any contribution
from phonons, that instead affect the thermoelectric figure of merit $ZT$.
As a final step, we use the mapping $\mu\rightarrow -p$ and $N\to V$,
with $p$ and $V$ pressure and volume of a classical gas. We then
consider the infinitesimal work $dpdV$ performed by a cycle consisting
of two isobaric strokes $dP$ apart and two isochoric strokes
$dV$ apart and compare it again with the work
$d\mathscr{S} dT$ performed by a Carnot cycle.
By using the same steps as above for the $\mu-N$ system,
we find that the maximum of the heat to work conversion efficiency
$\eta$ over $dp$, for a fixed $dT$, is given by
Eq.~(\ref{eq:ZTth}).
The thermodynamic figure of merit for the $p-V$ systems reads
\begin{equation}
Z_{\rm th} T=
\gamma_{pV}-1, \quad \gamma_{pV}\equiv \frac{C_p}{C_V},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
C_p\equiv T \left(\frac{\partial \mathscr{S}}{\partial T}\right)_p,
\quad
C_V\equiv T \left(\frac{\partial \mathscr{S}}{\partial T}\right)_V
\end{equation}
are the heat capacity at constant pressure and volume, respectively.
For a classical ideal (noninteracting)
gas, $1<\gamma_{pV}\le \frac{5}{3}$, with the
upper bound achieved for monatomic gases. Hence, $Z_{\rm th} T \le
\frac{2}{3}$.
On the other hand, the ratio $\gamma_{pV}$ (and $Z_{\rm th}$) can diverge for
condensable gases, at the critical temperature $T_c$ between the gas
phase and the two-phase region (gas-liquid coexistence).
The analogy with a classical gas suggests the possibility of large values
of $Z_{\rm th}$ close to electronic phase transitions, strongly improving
the thermoelectric properties of the working fluid with respect to
noninteracting systems. Indeed, it has been recently
demonstrated \cite{Ouerdane2015} that $Z_{\rm th} T$ diverges
when approaching from the normal phase the critical point for
the transition to the superconducting phase.
It is worth mentioning here that the impact of a phase transition on the
efficiency
of a cyclic quantum engine performing an Otto cycle was recently
investigated
by Campisi and Fazio\cite{campisifazio}.
They considered interacting systems of size $N$, with the cycle
operated at the verge of a second-order phase transition. Their analysis
was based on
finite-size scaling theory and their key ingredient is the divergence of
the specific heat with the system size at the phase transition.
They showed that, provided the critical exponents of the transition
fulfill a suitable condition, then at the thermodynamic limit
$N\to\infty$ one can approach
the Carnot efficiency, $(\eta-\eta_C)\sim N^{-a}\to 0$ (with $a>0$),
while keeping the ``power per resource'' fixed, namely the power $P\sim N$.
\green{It should be stressed that this means that the engine
cannot achieve Carnot efficiency at finite power for any finite $N$, but it can do so in the limit $N\to \infty$.}
\red{
A similar result was obtained by
Allahverdyan et al.~\cite{Allahverdyan13} when considering a generalized
Carnot cycle (i.e., not restricted to quasi-static processes),
the working substance in contact with the thermal
baths being a quantum system of size $N$. In that paper,
it was shown that it is possible to obtain $\eta\to\eta_C$ for $N\to\infty$, at finite
output power.
}
\subsection{Green-Kubo formula}
\label{sec:Kubo}
While the Landauer-B\"uttiker approach cannot be applied to interacting
systems, the linear response regime can be numerically investigated
in equilibrium simulations by using the Green-Kubo formula.
Such a formula is rooted in the fluctuation-dissipation theorem,
in that it relates the equilibrium noise (i.e. fluctuations) to the
linear response transport coefficients (i.e. dissipation).
Indeed, the Green-Kubo formula expresses the Onsager kinetic coefficients
of Eq.~(\ref{eq:coupledlocal}) in terms of \emph{dynamic correlation functions}
of the corresponding
current operators, calculated at thermodynamic equilibrium (see for
instance \cite{kubo,mahan}):
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{ab} = \lim_{\omega\to 0} {\rm Re} [\lambda_{ab} (\omega)],
\quad
\lambda_{ab}(\omega) = \lim_{\epsilon\to 0}
\int_0^\infty\!\!\!\!dt e^{-i(\omega\!-\!i\epsilon)t}\lim_{\Omega\to\infty}\frac{1}{\Omega}
\int_0^\beta\!\!\!\!d\tau\langle \hat{J}_a \hat{J}_b (t+i\tau)\rangle,
\label{eq:kubo}
\end{equation}
where $\beta=1/k_B T$,
$\langle \; \cdot \;\rangle = \left\{{\rm tr}[(\;\cdot\;) \exp(-\beta H)]\right\}/{\rm tr} [\exp(-\beta H)] $
denotes the thermodynamic expectation value at temperature $T$,
$\Omega$ is the system's volume, and
the currents are $J_a=\langle {\hat J}_a \rangle$, with $\hat{J}_a$
being the total current operator.
Note that in extended systems, the operator
${\hat J}_a=\int_\Omega d{\bm r} {\hat j}_a({\bm r})$ is an extensive quantity,
where ${\hat j}_a({\bm r})$ is the current density operator,
satisfying the continuity equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\hat{\rho}_a({\bm r},t)}{d t} = \frac{i}{\hbar}\,[H,\hat{\rho}_a] =
-\nabla \cdot {\hat{j}}_a({\bm r},t).
\label{eq:continuity}
\end{equation}
Here $\hat{\rho}_a$ is the density of the corresponding conserved quantity,
that is, electric charge for the electric current and energy for
the energy current.
Eq.~(\ref{eq:continuity}) can be equally well written in classical
mechanics, provided the commutator is substituted by the Poisson
bracket multiplied by the factor $i\hbar$.
It can be shown that
the real part of $\lambda_{ab}(\omega)$ can be decomposed into a
$\delta$-function at zero frequency defining a generalized \emph{Drude weight}
$D_{ab}$ (for $a=b$ this is the conventional Drude weight)
and a regular part $\lambda_{ab}^{\rm reg}(\omega)$:
\begin{equation}
{\rm Re} \lambda_{ab}(\omega)=
2\pi D_{ab}\delta(\omega)+\lambda_{ab}^{\rm reg}(\omega).
\label{eq:Lreg}
\end{equation}
The matrix of Drude weights can be
also expressed in terms of time-averaged current-current correlations directly:
\begin{equation}
D_{ab}=\lim_{\bar{t}\to\infty}\frac{1}{{\bar{t}}}\int_0^{\bar{t}}
dt \lim_{\Omega\to\infty}\frac{1}{\Omega}\int_0^\beta d\tau\langle \hat{J}_a (0) \hat{J}_b (t+i\tau)\rangle.
\label{drudematrix}
\end{equation}
It has been shown that non-zero Drude weights, ${D}_{ab}\ne 0$,
are a signature of ballistic
transport~\cite{Zotos1997,Zotos2004,Garst2001,H-M2005}, namely in the
thermodynamic limit the kinetic coefficients $\lambda_{ab}$
diverge linearly with the system size.
The linear response Green-Kubo formalism has been used to
investigate the thermoelectric properties of
one-dimensional integrable and non-integrable
strongly correlated quantum lattice models, see for instance
\cite{chaikin1976,furukawa2005,prelovsek2005,Peterson2007,shastry2009,shastry2013}.
In spite of the generality and usefulness of the Green-Kubo formalism,
there are a few significant limitations.
First of all, it is a linear response theory,
while many problems in nanoelectronics require a
framework that can handle far from equilibrium quantum transport.
Moreover, the Green-Kubo formula is derived in the thermodynamic
limit and therefore its use for small system sizes is not
well justified. Finally, the assumption of local thermal
equilibrium is crucial \footnote{See, however, Ref.~\cite{Dhar2009}
which discussed a Green-Kubo formula for heat conductance
(rather than conductivity) in \emph{finite open} systems.}.
The nonequilibrium Green's function formalism (also referred to as
the Keldysh formalism) is often used
instead of the Green-Kubo formula to analyze quantum transport in small
systems \cite{datta}.
\subsection{Conservation laws and thermoelectric transport}
\label{sec:cmotion}
The way in which the dynamic correlation functions in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:kubo}) decay determines the ballistic, anomalous or
diffusive character of the heat and charge transport.
It has been understood that this decay is directly related to the
existence of conserved dynamical quantities
\cite{Zotos1997,Zotos2004}. For quantum spin chains and
under suitable conditions,
it has been proved that systems
possessing conservation laws exhibit ballistic transport at
finite temperature \cite{Ilievski2013}.
The following argument \cite{Benenti2013} highlights the role
that conserved quantities play in the thermoelectric efficiency.
The decay of time correlations for the currents
can be related to the existence of
conserved quantities by using \emph{Suzuki's formula}
\cite{Suzuki1971}, which generalizes an inequality proposed by Mazur
\cite{Mazur1969}.
Consider a system of size $\Lambda$ along the direction of
the currents (we denote its volume as $\Omega(\Lambda)$) and
Hamiltonian $H$,
with a set of $M$ \emph{relevant conserved quantities} ${Q}_m$,
$m=1,\ldots ,M$, namely the commutators $[{H},Q_m]=0$.
A constant of motion $Q_m$ is by definition relevant if
it is not orthogonal to the currents under consideration,
in our case $\langle \hat{J}_e Q_m \rangle \ne 0$ and
$\langle \hat{J}_u Q_m \rangle \ne 0$.
It is assumed that the $M$ constants of motion are orthogonal, i.e.,
$\langle Q_m Q_n\rangle = \langle Q_n^2 \rangle
\delta_{mn}$ (this is always possible via a Gram-Schmidt procedure).
Furthermore, we assume that the set $\{Q_m\}$ exhausts
all relevant
extensive
conserved quantities.
(in the thermodynamic limit
$\Omega\to\infty$).
Then using Suzuki's formula,
we can express the \emph{finite-size Drude weights}\footnote{Note that
hereafter we shall use the simple thermal average correlator
$\langle \hat{J}_a(0) \hat{J}_b(t) \rangle$ rather than
the Kubo-Mori inner product
$\int_0^\beta d\tau\langle \hat{J}_a (0) \hat{J}_b (t+i\tau)\rangle$;
see \cite{Ilievski2013} for a discussion of the assumptions needed
to justify the use of the simple thermal-averaged expression.}
\begin{equation}
d_{ab}(\Lambda)\equiv \frac{1}{2\Omega(\Lambda)}
\lim_{\bar{t}\to\infty}\frac{1}{\bar{t}}
\int_0^{\bar{t}} dt \langle \hat{J}_a(0) \hat{J}_b(t) \rangle
\end{equation}
in terms of the relevant conserved quantities:
\begin{equation}
d_{ab}(\Lambda)=\frac{1}{2\Omega(\Lambda)}
\sum_{m=1}^M \frac{\langle \hat{J}_aQ_m \rangle \langle \hat{J}_bQ_m
\rangle}{\langle Q_m^2 \rangle}.
\label{eq:finitesizedrude}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the thermodynamic Drude weights can also be expressed
in terms of time-averaged
current-current correlations as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Drude}
{D}_{ab}=\lim_{\bar{t}\to\infty}\lim_{\Lambda\to \infty}
\frac{1}{2\Omega({\Lambda}) \bar{t}}
\int_0^{\bar{t}} dt \langle \hat{J}_a(0) \hat{J}_b(t) \rangle .
\end{equation}
If the thermodynamic limit $\Lambda\to\infty$ commutes with the long-time
limit $\bar{t}\to\infty$, then the thermodynamic Drude weights ${D}_{ab}$
can be obtained as
\begin{equation}
{D}_{ab}=\lim_{\Lambda\to\infty} d_{ab}(\Lambda)\ .
\label{eq:drudeinfty}
\end{equation}
Moreover, if the limit does not vanish we can conclude that the presence
of relevant conservation laws yields non-zero generalized Drude weights,
which in turn imply that transport is ballistic, $\lambda_{ab}\sim \Lambda$.
As a consequence, the electrical conductivity is ballistic,
$\sigma\sim \lambda_{ee}
\sim \Lambda$, while the thermopower is asymptotically size-independent,
$S\sim \lambda_{eh}/\lambda_{ee}\sim \Lambda^0$.
We can see from Suzuki's formula that for systems with a single relevant
constant of motion ($M=1$), the ballistic contribution to $\det {\bm\lambda}$
vanishes, since it is proportional to ${D}_{ee}{D}_{hh}-
{D}_{eh}^2$, which is zero from Eqs. (\ref{eq:finitesizedrude})
and (\ref{eq:drudeinfty}).
Hence, $\det {\bm \lambda}$ grows slower than $\Lambda^2$,
and therefore the thermal conductivity $\kappa\sim \det{{\bm \lambda}}/
L_{ee}$ grows sub-ballistically, $\kappa\sim \Lambda^\alpha$, with $\alpha<1$.
Since $\sigma\sim\Lambda$ and $S\sim\Lambda^0$, we can conclude
that $ZT\sim \Lambda^{1-\alpha}$ \cite{Benenti2013}.
Hence $ZT$ diverges in the thermodynamic limit $\Lambda\to\infty$. This general
theoretical argument applies for instance to systems where momentum is the
only relevant conserved quantity.
Note that these
conclusions for the thermal conductance and the figure of merit
do not hold when $M>1$, as it is typical for completely integrable systems.
In that case we have, in general,
$D_{ee}D_{hh}-D_{eh}^2\ne 0$, so that thermal conductance
is ballistic and therefore $ZT$ is size-independent.
The above reasoning is not limited to quantum systems and has no dimensional
restrictions; it has been illustrated by means of a diatomic
chain of hard-point colliding particles \cite{Benenti2013}
(see details on the numerical simulation of classical
reservoirs in \green{Appendix}~\ref{sec:numerics_c}),
where the divergence of the figure of merit with the system
size cannot be explained in terms of the energy
filtering mechanism \cite{Saito2010},
in a two-dimensional
system connected to reservoirs \cite{Benenti2014},
with the dynamics simulated by
the multiparticle collision dynamics method \cite{Kapral1999}
and in a one-dimensional gas of particles with nearest-neighbor Coulomb
interaction,
modeling a screened Coulomb interaction between electrons \cite{Chen2015}.
In all these (classical) models collisions are elastic
and the component of momentum along the direction of
the charge and heat flows is the only relevant constant of motion.
We point out that it is a priori not excluded that
there exist models
where the long-time limit and the
thermodynamical limit do not commute when computing
the Drude weights.
However, numerical evidence shows that
for the models so far considered these two limits commute
\cite{Benenti2013,Benenti2014,Chen2015}.
Finally, we note that divergence of $ZT$ has been also predicted,
on different theoretical considerations, for an ideal homogeneous quantum wire
with weak electron-electron interactions,
in the limit of infinite wire length \cite{matveev}.
\section{Scattering theory for thermoelectric responses}
\label{Sect:scattering-theory}
Landauer's scattering theory is a simple and elegant description of quantum transport.
It is capable of describing the electrical, thermal and thermoelectric properties of
non-interacting electrons in an arbitrary potential (including arbitrary disorder)
in terms of the
probability that the electrons go from one reservoir to another.
These probabilities may be challenging to calculate in complicated structures,
particularly as the electrons propagate as waves which interfere with themselves.
Yet, we can already find out much about such systems' potential for heat-to-work conversion
from the simple fact that the above probabilities are positive,
and that they reflect electron dynamics which
obeys time-reversal symmetries (under reversal of any external magnetic field).
This chapter introduces thermoelectric effects within the scattering theory.
Chapter~\ref{sec:landauer} then discusses
the linear response regime, in particular showing how the structure of the scattering theory leads to
Onsager reciprocal relations and other similar relations, and the relationship between the system's
scattering properties and its thermoelectric figure of merit $ZT$.
Chapter~\ref{Sect:scatter-nonlin} discusses in detail the nonlinear version of the scattering theory,
and shows that it contains the laws of thermodynamics. This means that no system modelled by scattering theory (in the linear-response regime or the nonlinear regime) can ever violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.
It also shows how Joule heating occurs in systems without a thermoelectric response.
\subsection{Heat-to-work conversion through energy-filtering}
Thermoelectric effects are present whenever the dynamics of the electrons above the Fermi surface are different from the dynamics of electrons below the Fermi surface.
The simplest example of a thermoelectric effect is that of an energy filter. Scattering theory captures this energy filtering effect in a manner that allows quantitative calculations of currents, efficiencies, etc.
However, to develop our intuition before launching into quantitative calculations, we first introduce the basic concepts of using energy filtering to perform heat-to-work conversion.
Suppose one has a hot reservoir of electrons and a cold reservoir of electrons, both with the same electrochemical potential (i.e.\ same Fermi energy).
If we connect them together directly, electrons in full states above
the Fermi surface of the hot reservoir will flow into empty states in the cold reservoir,
while electrons in full states below the Fermi surface of the cold reservoir will flow into
empty states in the hot reservoir (see the sketch in Fig.~\ref{Fig:energy-filter}a).
The result is a flow of heat from hot to cold, but no flow of charge, because for every electron above the electrochemical potential flowing one way, there is another electron below the electrochemical potential flowing the other way. However, if one wants an electrical current,
one simply has to put an energy-filter between the reservoirs that blocks the
electron flow at certain energies, for example those energies below the electrochemical potential.
Applying this idea in Fig.~\ref{Fig:energy-filter}b, an energy-filter can
allow the high energy electrons on the left to flow to the right (indicated by the upper arrow), while stopping the lower energy electrons
on the right to flow to the left (indicated by the lower arrows).
Thus there is a net electrical current between the reservoirs.
\green{An electrical machine does work by moving charge from a reservoir with lower electrochemical potential to a reservoir with higher electrochemical potential, as would be the case if it were charging up a capacitor plate or a battery.
Thus a a flow of electrons from left to right only generates electrical work if the electrochemical potential is higher on the right, as sketched in Fig.~\ref{Fig:energy-filter}b. There we
show the filter blocking all energies up to certain value, with the electrochemical potential of the right
reservoir being a bit below this value.}
This system is now converting heat into work, and thus is functioning as a thermodynamic machine.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig-direct+energy-filter+eng+fri.pdf}}
\caption{\label{Fig:energy-filter}
The simplest thermoelectric effect to understand is that of an energy filter.
In (a) we show direct connection between two reservoirs of electrons at different
temperatures but the same electrochemical potential in the absence of any energy filter.
Electrons in occupied (shaded) states want to flow into empty (white) states,
crossing from one reservoir to the other to do so. The resulting flows are marked by the thick black arrows.
In the absence of an energy-filter there is a heat current but no electrical current (the opposite flows of electrons above and below electrochemical potential cancel each other out).
In (b) and (c) we sketch an energy-filter between the hot and cold Fermi seas
which blocks all particle flow below a certain energy.
In (b) we show how to use it as a heat-engine, it generates power because the temperature difference means that electrons flow from a region of lower electrochemical potential (left) to a region of higher electrochemical potential (right).
In (c) we show how to use it as a refrigerator, using a potential bias
to ensure that electrons above the Fermi sea can flow out of the cold reservoir,
cooling it further.
}
\end{figure}
One can equally use an energy filter as a refrigerator, to convert electrical power into a heat flow from cold to hot,
in the manner sketched in Fig.~\ref{Fig:energy-filter}c. The electron states above the electrochemical potential of the cold reservoir have a higher occupation than the states at the same energy in the hot reservoir, because
the hot reservoir
is biased in such a way that its electrochemical potential is lower than that of the cold reservoir.
Electrons above the cold reservoir's electrochemical potential will escape over the barrier, thereby cooling the cold reservoir further, despite the fact it is colder than the hot reservoir. These electrons flow from a region of high electrochemical
potential to one of low electrochemical potential, so work is necessary to maintain the potential difference
(supplied by a power source), and ensure that the refrigeration continues.
For steady-state power generation or refrigeration, a single thermoelectric is rarely enough.
The thermoelectric should carry electrical current, which requires that one form a circuit for this current flow.
The most common way to form a circuit is with a thermocouple, as in Fig.~\ref{Fig:thermocouple}a,
in which one has two thermoelectrics with different (ideally opposite) thermoelectric responses.
Fig.~\ref{Fig:energy-filter-thermocouples} shows a sketch of how a thermocouple made of two energy-filters works at the microscopic level. Filter 1 lets pass electrons with energies above the electrochemical potential of the central region,
while filter 2 lets pass electrons with energies below the electrochemical potential of the central region.
In Fig.~\ref{Fig:energy-filter-thermocouples}a, the heat source maintains the central region at a higher temperature than the rest of the system (cold reservoirs, load, etc.), by exciting electrons (red arrow).
Electrons flow in from the left (black arrow) below the electrochemical potential of the central region to fill the holes
in the central region's Fermi sea, even though the electrochemical potential is lower on the left than in the central region. Electrons above the central region's electrochemical potential flow out to the right, even though that means they flow into a region with higher electrochemical potential. This means the thermocouple is causing an electrical current against a bias.
This means that it can drive electrical current through a load, which converts that electrical work into some other form of work (mechanical, chemical, etc.).
In Fig.~\ref{Fig:energy-filter-thermocouples}b, the central region is being refrigerated by the bias applied to the thermoelectrics by the power supply, so it is colder than the ambient temperature. In such cases, we cannot rule out a back-flow of heat from the environment in the form of phonons or photons opposing the refrigeration, which excites electrons in the central region (red arrow). This heat must be removed by the the thermoelectrics.
In both cases, we assume that there is a weak thermalization process in the central region,
which means that any electron entering that region at higher energy
(or any electron excited by heat arriving from a heat source or back-flow from the environment)
dissipates that energy to the other electrons in the central region, before arriving at either energy filter.
Thus electrons arriving at the energy filters from the central region will have a thermal distribution
given by the temperature of the central region.
For this reason, we can calculate the thermoelectric properties of each energy filter separately,
without worrying about how they are connected up or how the temperature difference and bias across each one is generated.
\green{
Above we outlined systems of the type called "traditional thermocouples" in Fig.~\ref{Fig:thermocouple},
which we discuss in more detail in much of chapters~\ref{sec:landauer} and \ref{Sect:scatter-nonlin}.
Systems of the type called "quantum thermocouples" in Fig.~\ref{Fig:thermocouple} are discussed in sections~\ref{sec:genericmultiterminal}, \ref{Sect:3-term-sys1} and \ref{Sect:3-term-sys2}. }
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig-energy-filter-thermocouples.pdf}}
\caption{\label{Fig:energy-filter-thermocouples}
Sketch of electron dynamics for a pair of energy filters in a thermocouple geometry \green{such as Fig.~\ref{Fig:thermocouple}a},
acting as (a) a power generator or (b) a refrigerator --- adapted from Refs.~\cite{buttiker2013,buttikerNJP2013}.
In both cases the energy filter on the right (energy filter 1) only lets through electrons with energies above a certain value (as in Fig.~\ref{Fig:energy-filter}). In contrast the energy filter on the left (energy filter 2) only lets through
electrons {\it below} a certain energy. In (a) the heat source heats the central region, inducing a flow of electrons from left to right (against a bias), thereby generating electrical power. This electrical work can then be converted into another form of work by a suitable load (a \emph{motor} will convert electrical work into mechanical work, a \emph{battery} charger will convert the electrical work into chemical work, etc).
In (b) the power supply generates a bias across the thermocouple and a current from left to right
(flowing due to the bias), so the thermocouple is absorbing work from the power supply. This flow
however leads to the refrigeration of the central region.
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{History of the scattering theory for thermoelectricity}
The literature on Landauer's scattering theory can be divided roughly into two periods.
The first period was that of foundations, it started with Landauer's early publications \cite{Landauer1957,Landauer1970} and
continuing up to the late 1980s. Papers from this period must be read with great care, because
the theoretical construction of the method was carried out during a time of confusion about
the experimentally-relevant definition of resistance at the nanoscale.
Once, experiments started to be carried out in the late 1980s
\cite{q-point-cont:van-Wees1988,q-point-cont:Wharam1988},
it became clear how to use the method as a recipe to explain experiments. This led to the second period, which was its applications to increasingly complex nanostructures.
During the foundational period, the 1981 work of Enquist and Anderson \cite{Enquist-Anderson1981} laid the foundations for thermal effects, while the 1986 work of Sivan and Imry \cite{Sivan-Imry1986} addressed thermoelectric effects, and by extension heat-to-work conversion.
These two works basically contain all the formalism that we will need, but they must be read
with caution, because they were written at a time when there was no consensus about whether
the resistance of a perfectly transmitting single channel was zero or finite.
The earliest work suitable for beginners is Ref.~\cite{Butcher1990}, which was written after the consensus was established and develops the formalism for thermoelectric effects further.
Other crucial works are those of Bekenstein \cite{Bekenstein1981,Bekenstein1984} and Pendry \cite{Pendry1983} which use
scattering theory to show that quantum mechanics places a limit on heat flow, of these works
Ref.~\cite{Pendry1983} is by far the easiest for a modern reader to follow.
\green{Reader who wish to understand the work of
Enquist and Anderson \cite{Enquist-Anderson1981}
or the work of Sivan and Imry \cite{Sivan-Imry1986}
should keep in mind the context in which they were written. At that time}
two formulas for the conductance, $G$, had appeared in the literature: Landauer's original proposition $G \propto T/(1-T)$,
and another proposal $G \propto T$ \cite{Fisher-Lee1981}, where $T$ was the channel's transmission probability. The former predicts that a perfectly transmitting channel (one with $T=1$) has zero resistance, while the second predicts that it has a finite resistance.
A partial resolution of the confusion is already visible in Ref.~\cite{Enquist-Anderson1981},
which implies that the result depends on the manner in which one measures the voltage.
However, Refs.~\cite{Fisher-Lee1981,Enquist-Anderson1981} add to the confusion
by arguing that the resistance of a perfectly transmitting channel should be zero, and that their results which indicated $G \propto T$ were faulty because the reservoirs were not treated correctly within their theories. It is now generally agreed that their treatments were not faulty, and results with $G \propto T$ are correct.
B\"uttiker's 1986 work \cite{Buttiker1986} clarified the situation by
showing that the $G \propto T$ formula could be generalized to multi-terminal geometries.
This enabled him to show that the conductance measured in two-probe geometries was
$G \propto T$, while that measured in four-probe geometries was more complicated
(because voltage probes acquire a bias such that they carry no current).
Yet, in a certain limit the four-probe result becomes
$G \propto T/(1-T)$; this limit being that of weakly-coupled voltage probes in a specific geometry.
At the same time, Imry \cite{Imry1986,imry} gave a pretty interpretation of this in terms of the idea that a perfectly transmitting channel had zero resistance, but that there is always a contact resistance between
the channel and the bulk leads it is coupled to. However, this interpretation
has rather fallen out of favour,
because it is hard to apply in multi-terminal geometries, and it encourages its user to think in terms of summing resistances in series (which is not in-general allowed in phase-coherent conductors).
Crucially, the $G\propto T$ formula fitted the first experiments on point-contacts \cite{q-point-cont:van-Wees1988,q-point-cont:Wharam1988}
which were of two-terminal type.
B\"uttiker's multi-terminal version of the $G \propto T$ formula was placed on a more solid theoretical footing by Ref.~\cite{Stone-Szafer1988}, which derived it from the Kubo linear-response formalism.
Latter B\"uttiker's formula was shown to fit four-terminal experiments \cite{Picciotto2001-four-term-resistance}.
Finally, we mention that Ref.~\cite{beenakker1992} was the first to show a thermoelectric response in a nanostructure (a point-contact), and used scattering theory to explain the experimental observation.
The Bekenstein-Pendry bound on heat-flow was observed experimentally in point-contacts \cite{Molenkamp-Peltier-thermalcond}, and recently verified to high accuracy in quantum Hall edge-states \cite{Jezouin2013}.
\subsection{The basics of scattering theory}
\label{Sect:scatter-basics}
The scattering theory is based on the idea that one can split the situation under consideration into a small
scattering region coupled to multiple macroscopic reservoirs of free electrons. The scattering region should then be such that each electron traverses that region from one reservoir to another without exchanging energy with other particles (electrons, phonons, etc). Thus, an electron that enters the scattering region with energy $E$ from a given reservoir will be a wave with energy $E$ that bounces around elastically (interfering with itself) until it escapes into a reservoir.
All inelastic processes that could cause dissipation or decoherence are limited to the reservoirs.
Here we follow the less technical route to the scattering theory in Refs.~\cite{imry,datta},
however we mention that one can also derive it using second quantization \cite{Blanter-Buttiker}.
The coupling of the scatterer to each reservoir is written in terms of a set of orthogonal modes in the contact between the scatterer and the reservoir. Typically one thinks of the connection to the reservoir as a waveguide, so the modes are the transverse modes of this waveguide, although it is sometimes convenient to rotate to another basis of modes, see e.g.~\cite{wj2005,wj2006prb}.
Then, the crucial quantity that encodes this probability for the electron with energy $E$ to go from mode $m$ of reservoir $j$ to mode
$n$ of reservoir $i$ is the scattering matrix element, ${\cal S}_{in;jm}(E)$.
Since the Hamiltonian for the scatterer is hermitian,
the scattering matrix must be unitary, so its matrix element ${\cal S}_{in;jm}(E)$ must obey
$\sum_{jm} {\cal S}_{in;jm}(E) {\cal S}^*_{i'n';jm}(E) =\delta_{i'i}\delta_{n'n}$.
The probability to go from mode $m$ of reservoir $j$ to mode
$n$ of reservoir $i$ is
\begin{align}
P_{in;jm}(E)\ =\ \big| {\cal S}_{in;jm}(E) \big|^2.
\label{Eq:scattering-prob}
\end{align}
If we sum this over all modes coupled to reservoirs $i$ and $j$, we get the transmission matrix elements
\begin{align}
{\cal T}_{ij}(E) = \sum_{nm} P_{in;jm} (E);
\label{Eq:def-T_ij}
\end{align}
this can be interpreted as the probability to go from a given mode of reservoir $j$ to any mode of reservoir $i$, summed over all modes of reservoir $j$. As such, one has
\begin{subequations}
\label{Eq:constraints-T_ij}
\begin{align}
&{\cal T}_{ij}(E) \geq 0 \qquad\hbox{ for all } \ i,\ j,\ E,
\end{align}
while
\begin{align}
&\sum_i {\cal T}_{ij}(E) = N_j(E),
\label{Eq:constraints-T_ij-b}
\\
&\sum_j {\cal T}_{ij}(E) = N_i(E),
\label{Eq:constraints-T_ij-c}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where the $i$ and $j$ sums are over all reservoirs.
Here, $N_j(E)$ is the number of modes in the coupling to reservoir $j$ at energy $E$.
Often authors refer to ${\cal T}_{ii}$ with the symbol ${\cal R}_{ii}$ for ``reflection'',
since it corresponds to electrons entering the scatterer from reservoir $i$ and being reflected back into reservoir $i$,
however we will use ${\cal T}_{ii}$ here \green{to keep the formulas compact}.
The scatterer has an underlying Hamiltonian which satisfies time-reversal symmetry. This means that
if we reverse the velocity of all particles,
and reverse the external magnetic field, ${\bm B}$,
then the particles will follow a time-reversed trajectory back to where they came from
(so incoming electrons become outgoing electrons and vice versa).
Hence, the scattering matrix elements must obey ${\cal S}_{in;jm}(E,-{\bm B}) = {\cal S}^*_{jm;in}(E,{\bm B})$,
which in turn means that the transmission functions obey
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_{ij}(E,{\bm B})={\cal T}_{ji}(E,-{\bm B})\ .
\label{Eq:T_ij-time-reverse}
\end{eqnarray}
This relation will be fundamental in proving Onsager reciprocal relations for such systems,
such as the well-known relation between Seebeck and Peltier coefficients.
The Landauer approach tells us that one can write the charge and heat currents out of reservoir $i$ in terms of ${\cal T}_{ij}(E)$. The
charge current $J_{{e},i} $ out of reservoir $i$ and into the scatterer is given by counting each electron that crosses the boundary between the scatterer and reservoir $i$.
The number of electrons flowing out of reservoir $i$ and into the scatterer at energy $E$ is proportional to the
number of modes $N_i$ multiplied by the reservoir's occupation at energy $E$, which
is given by the
Fermi function
\begin{eqnarray}
f_i(E) = \left(1+\exp\left[(E - \mu_i)\big/ (k_{\rm B} T_i) \right] \right)^{-1},
\label{Eq:f}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mu_i=e V_i$ and $T_i$ are the electrochemical potential and temperature
of reservoir $i$. However, there is also a flow of electrons from the scatterer into reservoir $i$.
\green{The number of electrons that flow into reservoir $i$ at energy $E$ from reservoir $j$ is
proportional to ${\cal T}_{ij}(E)$ multiplied by reservoir $j$'s occupation $f_j(E)$.}
The total flow of electrons into reservoir $i$ is given by the sum of this over all $j$ (including $j=i$).
The electrical current into the \green{scatterer} from reservoir $i$ is
\green{then given by the flow of electrons out of the reservoir minus the total flow into it}
\cite{imry,datta},
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{{e},i} \! &=& \! \sum_{j} \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{\rm d}E \over h} \ \ e \
\, \left[N_i(E)\, \delta_{ij} - {\cal T}_{ij}(E) \right] \, f_j (E).
\label{Eq:I-initial}
\end{eqnarray}
We can make the same argument to define the energy current out of reservoir $i$ into the scatterer, except now each electron carries
an amount of energy $E$ instead of the charge $e $.
Hence
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{{u},i} \! &=& \! \sum_{j} \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{\rm d}E \over h} \ \ E \
\, \left[ N_i(E)\, \delta_{ij} - {\cal T}_{ij}(E) \right] \, f_j (E),
\label{Eq:I-energy-initial}
\end{eqnarray}
To construct the equivalent formula for the heat current out of a reservoir,
we must consider the definition of heat in that reservoir.
We take the heat energy in a reservoir's electron gas \green{to be} the total energy of the gas
minus the energy which that gas would have in its ground-state \green{at the same chemical potential}.
As such, the heat energy can be written as a sum over the energy of all electrons, measured from the reservoir's electrochemical potential. This means electrons above the electrochemical potential
contribute positively to the heat, while those below the electrochemical potential contribute negatively
to the heat. The latter can be understood as saying that if one removes an electron below
the electrochemical potential, it increases the heat in the reservoir, because one is pushing the system
further from the zero temperature Fermi distribution (in which all states below the electrochemical potential are filled).
Thus, an electron with energy $E$ leaving reservoir $i$ carries an amount of heat, $\Delta Q_i= E -\mu_i$, out of the reservoir. The formula for heat current is the same as that for energy current, Eq.~(\ref{Eq:I-energy-initial}), but with $(E-\mu_i)$ in place of $E$.
Hence \green{the heat current into the scatterer from reservoir $i$} \cite{Butcher1990,Nenciu2007,sanchezprb13,Meair-Jacquod2013,Whitney-2ndlaw} is
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{{h},i} \! &=& \! \sum_{j} \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{\rm d}E \over h}\, (E\!-\! \mu_i)\,
\left[ N_i(E)\, \delta_{ij} - {\cal T}_{ij}(E) \right] \, f_j (E).\ \
\label{Eq:J-initial}
\end{eqnarray}
We note that the heat current obeys
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{{h},i} = J_{{u},i} - V_i J_{{e},i} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $V_i$ is the electrical bias of reservoir $i$, given by $\mu_i=e V_i$.
It is useful to also define $\dot{\mathscr{S}}_i$ as the rate of change of the entropy of reservoir $i$.
Using the Claussius relation that the entropy of a reservoir is its heat divided by its temperature,
and noting that the rate of change of heat in reservoir $i$ is $-J_{{h},i} $,
the rate of change of entropy in reservoir $i$ is
\begin{align}
\dot{\mathscr{S}}_i = - J_{{h},i} /T_i.
\label{Eq:scatter-dotS}
\end{align}
In the steady-state the entropy of the electrons in the scatterer
does not change with time, thus the rate of change of the total entropy $\dot{\mathscr{S}}$
is simply the sum of the rate of changes in the reservoirs,
\begin{align}
\dot{\mathscr{S}} = - \sum_i J_{{h},i} /T_i.
\label{Eq:scatter-S_total}
\end{align}
Given Eq.~(\ref{Eq:constraints-T_ij-c}), we see that the sum of electrical current $J_{{e},i} $,
or energy current $J_{{u},i} $, over all reservoirs $i$ is zero;
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_i J_{{e},i} = \sum_i J_{{u},i} = 0\, .
\label{Eq:I-conserve}
\end{eqnarray}
This is nothing but Kirchoff's law of
current conservation for electrical or energy currents.
However, we then see that heat-currents \green{into the scatterer} obey
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_i J_{{h},i} = - \sum_i V_i \, J_{{e},i} .
\label{Eq:scatter-1st-law}
\end{eqnarray}
This means that heat currents are not conserved, since
the scatterer can be a source or sink for heat.
Section~\ref{Sect:scatter-1st-law} will explain that the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-1st-law}) is
the electrical power generated by the scatterer (one can already guess this from the fact it is a bias multiplied by an electrical current), \green{which we call $P_{\rm gen}$.} This means that Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-1st-law})
\green{with $P_{\rm gen}=- \sum_i V_i \, J_{{e},i} $} is nothing but the first law of thermodynamics for a steady-state flow.
If the power generated $P_{\rm gen} >0$, then the scatterer is absorbing heat from the electronic reservoirs and turning it into electrical power.
In contrast, if $P_{\rm gen} <0$, then the scatterer is absorbing electrical power and emits heat into the electronic reservoirs; one can think of this as Joule heating.
It is important to note that the energy current is conserved, but it is not gauge-independent. That is to say, the value of the energy current, $J_{{u},i} $, depends on our choice of the zero of
energy. This means that the energy current is not of physical relevance,
although differences in energy currents may be.
In contrast, even though they are not conserved, the heat currents are gauge-independent.
Thus they are of physical relevance.
\subsubsection{Scattering theory for two reservoirs}
A common situation is that of only two reservoirs, which we label left ($L$) and
right ($R$). Thus, it is worth explicitly considering how the scattering theory simplifies for this situation.
The main specificity of a two reservoir system is that the transmission from right to left must equal that from left to right,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_{ LR}(E) \ =\ {\cal T}_{ RL}(E)\ \geq \ 0 \ ,
\label{Eq:LR=RL}
\end{eqnarray}
for any given set of conditions (biases and temperatures) on the reservoirs
\footnote{At first glance this makes it look like the scattering theory could never predict an asymmetric current-voltage relation, such as that of a diode. This is not the case, such effects come from the interactions which make the transmission ${\cal T}_{\rm LR}(E)$ depend on the reservoir biases. A diode would result if ${\cal T}_{\rm LR}(E)$ is
large when a reservoir is biased positively and small when that reservoir is biased negatively,
even though for any given bias the scatterer respects Eq.~(\ref{Eq:LR=RL}).}.
This can be easily proven by
comparing Eq.~(\ref{Eq:constraints-T_ij-b}) with $j={ L}$
with Eq.~(\ref{Eq:constraints-T_ij-c}) with $i={ L}$.
In addition, Eq.~(\ref{Eq:constraints-T_ij-c}) give the following useful results
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_{ LL}(E) &=& N_{ L}(E) - {\cal T}_{ LR}(E)
\\
{\cal T}_{ RR}(E) &=& N_{ R}(E) - {\cal T}_{ LR}(E)
\label{Eq:LLandRR}
\end{eqnarray}
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:I-initial},\ref{Eq:I-energy-initial}) each have only two terms in the sums over $j$, using
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:LLandRR}) we get that the currents
\footnote{It is interesting
to remark that the transmission-function approach is not limited
to quantum mechanics. For classical non-interacting particles,
formulas similar to (\ref{Eq:I-initial-two-reservoir}) and (\ref{Eq:I-energy-initial-two-reservoir}) can be
written, where the Boltzmann rather than the Fermi
distribution of injected particles appears, see e.g. \cite{Saito2010}.}
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{e,L} = - J_{e,R} = \ \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{\rm d}E \over h} \ e \
{\cal T}_{ LR}(E) \, \left[ f_{ L} (E) -f_{ R}(E) \right],
\label{Eq:I-initial-two-reservoir}
\\
J_{u,L} = - J_{u,R} = \ \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{\rm d}E \over h} \ E \
{\cal T}_{ LR}(E) \, \left[ f_{ L} (E) -f_{ R}(E) \right].
\label{Eq:I-energy-initial-two-reservoir}
\end{eqnarray}
For the heat currents we have
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{h,L} &=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{\rm d}E \over h} \ (E -\mu_{ L})\
{\cal T}_{ LR}(E) \, \left[ f_{ L} (E) -f_{ R}(E) \right],
\nonumber \\
J_{h,R} &=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{\rm d}E \over h} \ (E -\mu_{ R})\
{\cal T}_{ LR}(E) \, \left[ f_{ R} (E) -f_{ L}(E) \right],
\label{Eq:J-initial-two-reservoir}
\end{eqnarray}
where we recall that $\mu_i= e V_i$.
Since heat current is not conserved, we expect that $J_{h,L} \neq -J_{h,R} $,
and indeed we have
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{h,L} +J_{h,R} = (V_{ R}-V_{ L})\, J_{e,L} \ .
\label{Eq:scatter-1st-law-two-reservoir}
\end{eqnarray}
Section~\ref{Sect:scatter-1st-law}
will explain that this is the first law of thermodynamics for steady-state
state flow in a two reservoir problem.
\subsection{Applicability of scattering theory to given systems}
\label{Sect:scatter-validity}
Scattering theory is a single-electron theory. In other words, the outcome of the scattering for any given electron is assumed to be independent of the outcome of the scattering for any other electron. This is correct for non-interacting particles, but does it apply to electrons which repel each other rather strongly?
The generally accepted view is that scattering theory is a quantitatively good model of a system even if a given electron's dynamics is strongly affected by the fluid formed by the other electrons, so long as that electron feels the electrostatic effect of the fluid on average (treated as a fluid
with a continuous charge distribution given by the modulus-squared of the wavefunctions at each point).
In more formal language, this is like equivalent to saying that the theory captures mean-field effects of the type
described by a time-independent Hartree approximation.
However, it cannot capture situations where two electrons feel each other's individual dynamics. For example, it cannot capture the physics of an electron scattering off another one, imparting part of its energy to that electron. Nor can it capture the physics of an electron scattering off the lattice (i.e. electron-phonon scattering) and imparting part of its energy to the lattice. This is why electrons leave the scatter with the same energy that they entered with, each electron only undergoes elastic scattering from the electrostatic potential due to the lattice and the flow of electrons. The theory also does not capture the correlations induced by interactions between individual electrons. For example, \green{it cannot model a situation in which two electrons which could individually be scattered in either of two direction (say left or right), but where their repulsion means that they are unlikely to go in the same direction as each other.}
Similarly, it does not capture the physics of single-electron interaction effects, such as Coulomb blockade or the Kondo effect.
While the scattering theory can account for the mean-field interactions of each electron with the fluid made of the other electrons, it is hard work to do this for a given realistic situation. In principle, one could start with the bare potential,
determined by the material's chemistry (position of charged ions) and the surrounding electrostatic gates.
One would then add the electron flows from one reservoir to another through the scatterer
in a manner that is self-consistent. So the modulus-squared of the wavefunctions of the scattering states
(integrated over all energies) determine the electrostatic potential at each point in the scatterer, while in turn this potential determines the wavefunctions of the scattering states.
So if the dynamics are such that electrons have a high probability of spending time in one region of the scatterer
on their way from one reservoir to another, then that will tend to change the potential in the scatterer in such a way to repel electrons from this region.
In practice, one nearly always
starts by assuming that one knows the electrostatic potential in the scatterer when all reservoirs are
at equilibrium with each other (at the same temperature and electrochemical potential). Indeed, this assumption is usually more realistic that the assumption that one could ever know the bare electrostatic potential defined by the chemistry and gates in the absence of the conduction electrons.
If one only wishes to treat the linear response regime, as in chapter~\ref{sec:landauer}, then one can calculate the scattering matrix, and hence the transmission functions ${\cal T}_{ij}(E)$ directly from this equilibrium electrostatic potential. This is because the small changes in the electrostatic potential \green{of the scatterer that are} induced by applying a small bias (or temperature difference) will not affect the currents
at linear order in the small bias (or temperature difference).
For the nonlinear response, the situation is complicated, even if one knows the equilibrium electrostatic potential. The reason is that strong biases on a reservoir will deform the electrostatic potential (just as a gate would), and the flow of electrons through the scatterer due to the bias (or temperature difference)
will change the electrostatic potential in the scatterer, thereby changing the scattering properties of the
scatterer. These effects start making an essential contribution to the system's response as soon as one goes beyond linear response (i.e.~they start contributing at quadratic order in the bias or temperature difference). We discuss how to treat these effects in the nonlinear response in
chapter~\ref{Sect:scatter-nonlin}.
However, one should not forget that the difficulty are limited to
calculating the transmission function, ${\cal T}_{ij}(E)$, for given bias and temperature of
each reservoir.
If one were given that ${\cal T}_{ij}(E)$, then
one can simply use the formulas in section~\ref{Sect:scatter-basics} to directly calculate all currents
for that bias and temperature of each reservoir.
Even if one does not have ${\cal T}_{ij}(E)$,
we know it must obey the relations in section~\ref{Sect:scatter-basics},
as consequences of time-reversal symmetry, particle conservation, etc.
These results will already be enough to say many things about the
thermodynamics of a system operating to convert heat into work.
We do this in the linear-response regime in chapter~\ref{sec:landauer},
and for nonlinear responses in chapter~\ref{Sect:scatter-nonlin}.
\subsubsection{Transmission function for a point contact}
\label{Sect:scatter-pointcont}
It is instructive to briefly look at examples of nanostructure with simple energy dependent
transmission function, to get an idea about what can be expected from physical systems.
Firstly we have the point contact, this was the first nanostructure for which a thermoelectric effect was observed experimentally \cite{beenakker1992}.
If we assume it has a smooth enough profile near its narrowest point, its form is approximately parabolic,
it will have the following saddle-point potential \cite{Buttiker-pointcont}, \green{where $x$ is the direction
along the point contact from one reservoir to the other},
\begin{eqnarray}
V(x,y,z) = V_0 -{\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} m \omega_x^2 x^2 + {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} m \omega_y^2 y^2 + {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} m \omega_z^2 z^2 \ .
\end{eqnarray}
Note \cite{Buttiker-pointcont} assumed the point contact was between two two-dimensional electron gases (so there is no z-component to the potential), here we take a three-dimensional problem.
Then it can be shown \cite{Buttiker-pointcont}, that its transmission function is
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_{ LR}(E) = \sum_{n_y,n_z} \ {1 \over 1+ \exp \left[- \big(E-\epsilon(n_y,n_z)\big)\big/D \right] },
\label{Eq:transmission-pc}
\end{eqnarray}
where for transverse mode $n_y,n_z$ in the point contact one has
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon(n_y,n_z) = V_0 + \hbar \omega_y\left( n_y+{\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} \right) + \hbar \omega_z\left( n_z+{\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} \right), \qquad D \ =\ {\hbar \omega_x \over 2\pi}.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, the point contact acts as an energy barrier of height $\epsilon(n_y,n_z) $.
Electrons in the transverse mode $n_y,n_z$, with total energy much less than $\epsilon(n_y,n_z) $
are reflected by this barrier
(${\cal T}_{ LR}(E) \sim 0$),
while electrons in that mode but with total energy much more than $\epsilon(n_y,n_z) $
pass over the barrier \colorproofs{(see Fig.~\ref{fig:pointcont-qu-dot})}.
Tunnelling through the barrier and reflection above the barrier are significant on energy scales within $D$ of $\epsilon(n_y,n_z) $,
and are the physical origin of ${\cal T}_{ LR}(E)$ switching smoothly from zero to one over a range of energies of order $D$ around $\epsilon(n_y,n_z)$.
A very long point contact, $\omega_x \to 0$, has negligible tunneling or over barrier reflection, $D \to 0$. Thus, such a point-contact's transmission simplifies to the sum of
Heaviside step-functions, $\sum_n \theta[E-\epsilon(n_y,n_z) ]$. This gives a transmission function
which takes the form of a staircase,
with the transmission of the point contact at energy $E$
equalling the number of steps up to that energy, i.e.~ the number of transverse modes with $\epsilon(n_y,n_z) < E$.
For finite values of $\omega_x$ the steps in the staircase become smoothed out, but they will still be clearly distinguishable while $D$ remains less than the energy different between successive steps.
The main regime discussed in the literature \green{on the thermoelectric response of}
a point contact is for one which is narrow enough ($\omega_y,\omega_z$ are large enough)
that $\epsilon(1,0)-\epsilon(0,0)$ and $\epsilon(0,1)-\epsilon(0,0)$ are much larger than temperature or bias.
This was more or less the case in the first experiments on thermoelectric effects in point contacts \cite{beenakker1992}.
Then, most theory works consider taking $\epsilon(0,0)$ as close to the reservoir's electrochemical potentials, which means
only the first step in the staircase plays any role in the physics. Thus, one
can drop the sums over $n_y,n_z$ in the above expressions, and get a transmission
which switches from zero at low energies to one at high energies in a manner that gives it the form of a Fermi function
centred at $\epsilon(0,0)$ with width $D$. To get significant thermoelectric effects, one want to choose $\omega_x$ such that the width $D$ is of order or less than the reservoir temperatures, so the transmission takes the form of
a Heaviside $\theta$-function.
Such a point contact gives an energy-filter which is the same those sketched in Fig.~\ref{Fig:energy-filter}, which blocks all electrons below energy $\epsilon(0,0)$ and lets through electrons above energy $\epsilon(0,0)$.
A rather different regime was discussed in Refs.~\cite{Brantut-Grenier-et-al2013,Grenier2014},
they considered a case in which temperature was much larger than the distance between steps in the above mentioned staircase. Then, it is the slope of the staircase as a whole that manners, not the individual steps in the staircase. If we take the number of $n_y,n_z$ for which $\epsilon(n_y,n_z) < E$, grows quadratically with $E$ on scales when we cannot resolve individual steps. Thus in this regime
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_{LR}(E) \sim \left\{ \begin{array}{ccl}
0 &\qquad \hbox{ for} & E \leq V_0,
\\
{\displaystyle{\pi \,(E-V_0)^2 \over \omega_y \omega_z}} &\qquad \hbox{ for} & E > V_0,
\end{array}\right.
\label{Eq:point-contact-smooth-staircase}
\end{eqnarray}
where we assume the contribution of each individual step is negligible.
A strong thermoelectric effect under situations where the magnitude of
${\cal T}_{LR}(E)$ changes by a significant proportion within a window of temperature around the electrochemical
potential, this requires that $V_0$ is reasonably close to the electrochemical potentials.
This is currently difficult to do in electronic systems,
it is much easier to pinch-off the point contact (increasing $\omega_y,\omega_z$) than uniformly change the
potential in the vicinity of the point-contact, $V_0$. Thus the regime in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:point-contact-smooth-staircase}) is little considered in electronic systems, even though it is highly relevant to atomic gases \cite{Brantut-Grenier-et-al2013,Grenier2014}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{fig-pointcont-qu-dot.pdf}}
\caption{
A sketch of (a) a point contact and (b) a single level quantum dot. In each case, we sketch the transmission function, ${\cal T}_{ LR}(E)$ as a function of energy $E$, as described in sections~\ref{Sect:scatter-pointcont} and \ref{Sect:scatter-single-level-dot}.
The sketch of ${\cal T}_{ LR}(E)$ in (a) shows the staircase function which occurs as the number of open modes goes up with increasing $E$. However, most proposal for thermoelectrics involve making the point-contact
narrow enough that temperature is much less than the distance between the steps, so only the first step is relevant,
as shown in the inset. In this case there are two parameters to control, the position of this step, $\epsilon(0,0)$, and the width of the step, $D$.
A good thermoelectric response occurs if the step is narrower than temperature, $D \ll k_{\rm B} T$, and positioned within $k_{\rm B} T$ of the electrochemical potential of the reservoirs.
The sketch ${\cal T}_{ LR}(E)$ in (b) shows the Lorentzian nature of the transmission,
as typical of a Breit-Wigner form. Again there are two parameters to control, the Lorentzian's position, $E_0$, and width $\Gamma_{ L}+\Gamma_{ R}$.
A good thermoelectric response occurs if the Lorentzian is narrower than temperature,
$\big(\Gamma_{ L}+\Gamma_{ R}\big) \ll k_{\rm B} T$, and positioned within $k_{\rm B} T$ of the electrochemical potential of the reservoirs.
}
\label{fig:pointcont-qu-dot}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Transmission function for a single-level quantum dot}
\label{Sect:scatter-single-level-dot}
Now, let us turn to the case of a single level quantum dot, or a single-level molecule. Here we make the assumption that the electrons do not interact with each other, so Coulomb blockade effects (which cannot be treated in the scattering theory)
are absent. This would be the case if the quantum dot is so well screened
by surrounding gates, that the electrons in the dot do not feel the presence of each other.
This is a rather drastic assumption, which is rarely satisfied in real experimental systems.
Most real quantum dots have significant Coulomb blockade effects, and so are better modelled by
another method, such as the rate equation method, see section~\ref{Sect:2-term-sys}.
However, it is none the less instructive to understand the scattering theory for a quantum dot, before
going on to more sophisticated models.
Partly, because it is a good introduction to the problem,
and partly because its results fit rather well
(perhaps better than one would expect) with the results of more sophisticated calculations \cite{Kennes2013}.
To treat a quantum dot within scattering theory, one can use the following relation
to relate the dot's scattering matrix to its Hamiltonian \cite{Jalabert1992,Alhassid-review},
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal S}(E) = \hat{1}\ -\ i2\pi \hat{W}^\dagger \left[{E-\hat{\cal H}_{\rm dot}+i \pi \hat{W}\hat{W}^\dagger} \right]^{-1}\hat{W},
\label{Eq:S-from-H}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat{1}$ is the unit-operator (i.e.\ the unit matrix) in the space of reservoir modes,
$\hat{\cal H}_{\rm dot}$ is the Hamiltonian of the dot,
and $\hat{W}$ is the operator coupling the reservoir modes to dot states.
All these operators are most easily written as matrices, in which case $[\cdots]^{-1}$ is simply a matrix inverse.
If the dot only has one state at energy $E_0$, and two reservoirs (each with one mode), which couple
to the dot with strength $w_{ L}$ and $w_{ R}$, then
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{W} = \big(w_{ L},w_{ R}\big), \qquad \hat{W}^\dagger = \left( \begin{array}{c}w^*_{ L} \\ w^*_{ R} \end{array}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
as a result
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal S}(E) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{array}\right)
\ -\ {{\rm i} 2\pi \over E-E_0 +i\pi |w_{ L}|^2 +i\pi |w_{ R}|^2}
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
|w_{ L}|^2 & w_{ L}^* w_{ R}\\
w_{ R}^* w_{ L} & |w_{ R}|^2
\end{array}\right),
\label{Eq:S-single-level-dot}
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting this into Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:scattering-prob},\ref{Eq:def-T_ij})
and extracting the term corresponding to the transmission from right to left we get
a Lorentzian energy dependence,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_{ LR}(E) = \frac{\Gamma_{ L} \Gamma_{ R} }{\left(E-E_0\right)^2 + \frac{1}{4}\left(\Gamma_{ L} +\Gamma_{ R}\right)^2 },
\label{Eq:Briet-Wigner}
\end{eqnarray}
where we define $\Gamma_i=2\pi |w_ i|^2$ for $i\in { L,R}$, such that $\Gamma_i/\hbar$ is the rate at which
the dot state decays into reservoir $i$. Thus, we see that the transmission has a Breit-Wigner form, with
$\Gamma_{ L}+\Gamma_{ R}$ being the energy-broadening of the dot-level due to the coupling to the reservoirs. The thermoelectric response of systems with this transmission function have been
studied in detail in Refs.~\cite{Paulsson-Datta03,linke2010,elb09,esposito2010,Fahlvik-Svensson2012,Fahlvik-Svensson2013}, and we will refer to this case in sections~\ref{sec:energyfiltering} and \ref{Sect:scatter-nonlin-Carnot}.
At least one of the more sophisticated methods of treating the same problem \cite{Kennes2013},
which includes some amount of Coulomb interaction effects between electrons,
gives basically the same result for the transmission function of a single level quantum dot
(at least in the linear response regime). The Coulomb interaction renormalizes $E_0$, $\Gamma_{ L}$ and
$\Gamma_{ R}$, but does not change the Lorentzian form of the energy dependence in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Briet-Wigner}).
\subsubsection{Transmission functions for more complicated systems}
\label{Sect:transmission-LDA}
\green{
For more complicated systems, one typically needs to resort to a numerical method to find the
transmission function.
The simplest method is to model the quantum system as an $n$ site tight-binding model,
written in a matrix form (with on-site energies on the diagonal and inter-site couplings for the off diagonal elements), and substitute this into Eq.~(\ref{Eq:S-from-H}). The scattering matrix can be found
by a numerical diagonalization of the matrix $\left[{E-\hat{\cal H}_{\rm dot}+i \pi \hat{W}\hat{W}^\dagger} \right]$.
}
\green{
A more sophisticated treatment is to use a density functional theory, which treats interaction effects through a local density approximation (LDA), within this approximation one can solve from first principles the problem of the transmission through a molecular structure \cite{car,Pecchia2008,Finch09,Peterfalvi2014,Garcia-Suarez}. This was used to find the thermoelectric response and figure of merit of various molecules between metallic contacts, and thereby show how to engineer the transmission function; for example by adding side groups to the molecule
which introduce Fano resonances at the right energy to generate a strong thermoelectric response
\cite{Finch09,Peterfalvi2014}. Other works on using density function theory for thermoelectrics include \cite{vignale,dagosta}. Recently a powerful software package \cite{Ferrer-GOLLUM14} has been developed
based on the technique called LDA+U with spectral adjustments for coupled spin, charge and thermal transport. This package generates the scattering matrix for transport in the presence of non-collinear magnetism, the quantum-Hall effect, Kondo and Coulomb blockade effects, multi-terminal transport, quantum pumps, superconducting nanostructures, etc. This gives one the information necessary to calculate the thermoelectric response,
and the system's efficiency as a thermoelectric heat-engine or refrigerator \cite{Ismael,Algharagholy,Sadeghi2017}.
}
\subsection{Scattering theory with Andreev reflection}
\label{Sect:scatter-Andreev}
Here we assume we are considering a system at low temperatures (typically less than 1 Kelvin),
coupled to a superconductor whose superconducting gap is much larger than all temperatures or biases in the problem.
Such a superconductor has no electronic states that can contribute to transport, however it does acts as an ``Andreev mirror''. An electron hitting the superconductor is retro-reflected as a hole (with a Cooper pair going into the superconducting reservoir).
To include this Andreev reflection in the scattering theory \cite{Claughton-Lambert,Beenakker-review}, we
define the zero of energy as being that of the electrochemical potential of the superconductor.
Then all electron states at negative energies $E_{\rm electron} < 0$,
we write in terms of holes (the absence of an electron)
with positive energy $E=-E_{\rm electron}$.
We thus have two species of particles in the scattering problem at each energy, electrons that we label with $\varsigma=+1$, and holes that we label with $\varsigma=-1$.
The occupation of reservoir $i$ with electrochemical potential $\mu_i$ and temperature $T_i$, is
then
\begin{align}
f_j^\varsigma(E) = \left(1+\exp\left[(E - \varsigma \mu_j)\big/ (k_{\rm B} T_j) \right] \right)^{-1}
\quad \hbox{ with } \ E \geq 0.
\label{Eq:f-eh}
\end{align}
This formula for the electrons ($\varsigma=+1$) is identical to Eq.~(\ref{Eq:f}).
To get this formula for holes ($\varsigma=-1$),
we use the fact that the probability a state at energy $E$ contains a hole is
simply one minus the probability it contains an electron, given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:f}).
We then make the observation that $1- (1+{\rm e}^x)^{-1} = (1+{\rm e}^{-x})^{-1}$, followed by the substitution $E \to -E$ to write the negative electron energies in term of the positive hole energy.
Now we have two species of particles,
the scattering matrix elements are more complicated than in section~\ref{Sect:scatter-basics}:
they gain the index $\varsigma$ which indicates if the
incoming state is an electron or a hole, and an index $\varrho$ which indicates if the outgoing
state is an electron or a hole.
The probability for a particle $\varsigma$ in mode $m$ of reservoir $j$ to scatter into a particle $\varrho$ in mode $n$ of reservoir $i$ is
\begin{align}
P^{\varrho\varsigma}_{in;jm}(E)\ =\ \big| {\cal S}^{\varrho\varsigma}_{in;jm}(E) \big|^2.
\label{Eq:scattering-prob-eh}
\end{align}
If we sum this over all modes coupled to reservoirs $i$ and $j$, we get the transmission matrix elements
\begin{align}
{\cal T}^{\varrho\varsigma}_{ij}(E) = \sum_{nm} P^{\varrho\varsigma}_{in;jm} (E).
\label{Eq:def-T_ij-SC}
\end{align}
In the absence of the Andreev reflection, incoming electron-states
scatter to outgoing electron-states without changing energy, and incoming hole-states
scatter to outgoing hole-states without changing energy. In this case,
${\cal S}^{\varrho\varsigma}_{in;jm}(E)$ would only be non-zero
for $\varrho=\varsigma$ \cite{Beenakker-review}, with
${\cal S}^{+1,+1}_{in;jm}(E \geq 0) = {\cal S}_{in;jm}(E)$
and $
{\cal S}^{-1,-1}_{in;jm}(E \geq 0) = {\cal S}^*_{jm;in}(-E)$,
where ${\cal S}_{in;jm}(E)$ is the scattering matrix above Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scattering-prob}).
However, everything changes in the presence of a superconducting reservoir.
Every time an electron in the scatterer hits the superconductor,
it changes into a hole reflected back into the scatterer
(injecting a Cooper pair into the superconducting reservoir).
Every time a hole in the scatterer hits the superconductor, it changes into an electron reflected back into scatterer (absorbing a Cooper pair from the superconducting reservoir).
This means that scattering matrix elements for electrons and holes, ${\cal S}^{\varrho\varsigma}_{in;jm}(E)$ are no longer zero for $\varrho \neq \varsigma$.
Here, $i$ and $j$ label normal (not superconducting) reservoirs, since the superconducting reservoir acts as an Andreev mirror for electrons and holes.
The scattering matrix must still be unitary, because there is conservation of particles in the scatterer (even if the particles make transitions between being electrons and holes). Since the scattering matrix is unitary, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{j\neq {\rm SC}} \sum_{m\varsigma} {\cal S}^{\varrho \varsigma}_{in;jm}(E) \ \left[{\cal S}^{\varrho' \varsigma }_{i'n';jm}(E)\right]^*
=\delta_{i'i}\delta_{n'n}\delta_{\varrho'\varrho},
\end{eqnarray}
where $j\neq {\rm SC}$ indicates that the sum is over all reservoirs except the superconducting (SC) reservoir.
This means that
\begin{subequations}
\label{Eq:constraints-T_ij-eh}
\begin{align}
&{\cal T}^{\varrho\varsigma}_{ij} (E) \geq 0 \qquad\hbox{ for all } \ i,j, \varrho, \varsigma
\label{Eq:constraints-T_ij-eh-a}
\end{align}
while
\begin{align}
&\sum_{i\neq {\rm SC}} \sum_\varrho {\cal T}^{\varrho\varsigma}_{ij}(E) = N^\varsigma_j(E),
\qquad
\sum_{j\neq {\rm SC}} \sum_\varsigma {\cal T}^{\varrho\varsigma}_{ij}(E) = N^\varrho_i(E),
\label{Eq:constraints-T_ij-eh-c}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where the $i$ and $j$ sums are over all non-superconducting reservoirs.
As in the absence of Andreev reflection, the dynamics are time-reversed if one reverses all particle velocities
(so incoming particles become outgoing particles and vice versa), and one reverses any external magnetic field, ${\bm B}$,
hence
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}^{\varrho\varsigma}_{ij}(E,{\bm B})={\cal T}^{\varsigma\varrho}_{ji}(E,-{\bm B})\ .
\label{Eq:T_ij-time-reverse-SC}
\end{eqnarray}
The charge current out of non-superconducting reservoir $i$ is \cite{Beenakker-review}
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{{e},i} = \sum_{j \neq {\rm SC}} \sum_{\varrho\varsigma} \int_0^\infty {{\rm d}E \over h} \ \varrho e
\, \left[N_i^\varrho(E) \,\delta_{ij}\delta_{\varrho \varsigma}-{\cal T}_{ij}^{\varrho \varsigma}(E) \right]
\, f_j^\varsigma (E),
\label{Eq:I-initial-eh}
\end{eqnarray}
where $j$ is summed over all non-superconducting reservoirs,
while the $\varrho\varsigma$-sums are over electrons ($+1$) and holes ($-1$).
The energy current out of reservoir $i$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{{u},i} = \sum_{j \neq {\rm SC}} \sum_{\varrho\varsigma} \int_0^\infty {{\rm d}E \over h} E
\, \left[N_i^\varrho(E) \,\delta_{ij}\delta_{\varrho \varsigma} - {\cal T}_{ij}^{\varrho \varsigma}(E) \right]
\, f_j^\varsigma (E),
\label{Eq:I-energy-initial-eh}
\end{eqnarray}
and the heat current out of reservoir $i$ is \cite{Claughton-Lambert,Whitney-2ndlaw}
\begin{equation}
J_{{h},i} = \sum_{j \neq {\rm SC}} \sum_{\varrho\varsigma} \int_0^\infty {{\rm d}E \over h}\, (E\!-\!\varrho \mu_i)
\left[ N_i^\varrho(E) \,\delta_{ij}\delta_{\varrho \varsigma} - {\cal T}_{ij}^{\varrho \varsigma}(E) \right] \, f_j^\varsigma (E).\ \
\label{Eq:J-initial-eh}
\end{equation}
Comparing these three equations, one can easily see that
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{{h},i} &=& J_{{u},i} -V_i \, J_{{e},i} .
\label{Eq:J-to-I-energy-eh}
\end{eqnarray}
It is crucial to recall that throughout this review we use the subscripts ``e'' for electrical current
and ``h'' for heat current.
In the context of systems with superconductors, this is notation is unfortunate,
because most of the works we cite use ``e'' for electrons and ``h'' for holes (for which we recall we use ``$\pm 1$'').
If a superconductor is present, then there is a charge-current into it
(in the form of Cooper pairs), $J_{e,{\rm SC}} $.
In contrast, the heat flow into the superconducting reservoir is zero
as each electron hitting the superconductor
is Andreev reflected back into the scatterer as a hole with the same energy.
In addition, given that we define the zero of energy as being at the electrochemical potential
of the superconductor, the energy-current into the superconductor equals the heat-current
into the superconductor, and is also zero.
Thus, since electrical currents and energy currents are conserved, we have
\begin{align}
J_{e,{\rm SC}} &\ =\ - \sum_{i\neq {\rm SC}} J_{{e},i} \ ,
\label{Eq:Isc}
\\
0 \ = &\ J_{h,{\rm SC}} \ =\ J_{u,{\rm SC}} \ =\ -\sum_{i \neq {\rm SC}} J_{{u},i} ,
\label{Eq:Jsc}
\end{align}
where again $i$ is summed over the non-superconducting reservoirs.
As the sum of energy currents over all non-superconducting reservoirs is zero,
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{i\neq {\rm SC}} J_{{h},i} = - \sum_{i\neq {\rm SC}} V_i \, J_{{e},i} \ .
\label{Eq:scatter-1st-law-eh}
\end{eqnarray}
We also note that the entropy of the superconducting reservoir does not change with time,
$\dot{\mathscr{S}}_{\rm SC}=0$, while the rate of change of the entropy in the other reservoirs
is given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-dotS}).
Note that the scattering theory presented \green{here} can treat an arbitrary number of superconducting leads with different phases for the superconducting order parameter, but only if all those superconductors
all have the same electrochemical potential. In cases where there are multiple superconductors with different
electrochemical potentials one has to use methods beyond this review, such as the methods presented in
Refs.~\cite{KBT-theory1982,KBT-theory1983,Cuevas1999,Melin2011}.
\section{Scattering theory in linear response}
\label{sec:landauer}
Much can be said about the scattering theory of arbitrary systems in the limit where the
differences in temperature and bias between reservoirs are small on the scale of the average temperature.
In this limit one gets a linear-response theory, where the currents are proportional to the
thermodynamic forces. This microscopic quantum theory is thus a complement to the
classical linear-response thermodynamics in chapter~\ref{sec:nonequilibrium},
or indeed a justification for applying classical linear-response thermodynamics to
such quantum systems.
To get the linear-response version of the scattering theory we
expand the Fermi functions about a given electrochemical potential and temperature.
For $k_{\rm B}\Delta T_j$ and $\Delta\mu_j= e V_j$ much less than $k_{\rm B} T$, we have
\begin{align}
f_j(E)
&\approx
f(E) + \frac{\partial f}{\partial T} \,\Delta T_j
+ \frac{\partial f}{\partial \mu} \,\Delta \mu_j
\ =\
f(E)\, - \, f'(E) \,\left[
(E-\mu)\frac{\Delta T_j}{T}+eV_j
\right],
\label{eq:fermilinear}
\end{align}
where we used the fact that $\Delta \mu_i = eV_j$ for a bias $V_j$ on reservoir $j$.
Here we have defined $f'(E)$ as the derivative of the Fermi distribution, so
\begin{eqnarray}
-f'(E) \ \equiv \ -\frac{\partial f}{\partial E} \ = \
\frac{1}{4k_BT\cosh^2[(E-\mu)/2k_BT]}\ ,
\label{Eq:fprime}
\end{eqnarray}
is a bell-shaped function centered at $\mu$ and has a width
of the order of $k_B T$.
In the absence of a superconducting reservoir,
we can insert the linear expansion in Eq.~(\ref{eq:fermilinear}) into
the equations for the currents in section~\ref{Sect:scatter-basics}.
We then note that the terms which are zeroth-order in $k_{\rm B}\Delta T_j$ and $\Delta\mu_j$ cancel due to
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:constraints-T_ij}).
This gives us a linear relationship between the currents, $J_{{e},i} $ and $J_{{h},i} $, and the thermodynamic forces, $\mathcal{F}_{{ e},i} = V_i/T$ and $\mathcal{F}_{{h},i} = \Delta T_i/T^2$, such that
\begin{equation}
J_{\mu,i}\ =\ \sum_{\nu={ e,h}}\sum_j\
L_{\mu \nu;ij}\ \mathcal{F}_{\nu,j},
\label{Eq:Onsager-matrix-general}
\end{equation}
where $\mu =$e (charge) or h (heat), and $j$ is summed over all reservoirs.
The Onsager coefficients are then given by
\begin{align}
L_{ee,ij}\ =\ e^2 T I^{(0)}_{ij},\qquad
L_{eh,ij}\ =\ L_{he;ij} \ =\ e T I^{(1)}_{ij},\qquad
L_{hh,ij}\ =\ T I^{(2)}_{ij}.
\label{Eq:Ls-multiterm}
\end{align}
where we define the integral $I^{(n)}_{ij}$ as
\begin{equation}
I^{(n)}_{ij} \equiv \int_{-\infty}^\infty
\frac{dE}{h} (E-\mu)^n \ \left( N_i(E)\delta_{ij} -{\cal T}_{ij}(E)\right) \ \big(- f'(E)\big).
\label{eq:In}
\end{equation}
Given Eq.~(\ref{Eq:constraints-T_ij-c}), one sees that Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:Ls-multiterm},\ref{eq:In})
imply that the linear response heat current is conserved,
by which we mean it obeys a Kirchoff's law
\begin{align}
\sum_i J_{{h},i} =0 \ ,
\label{Eq:heat-sum-linear}
\end{align}
where the sum is over all reservoirs.
We warn the reader that this conservation of heat current is
a specificity of linear-response theory.
In general, we have Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-1st-law}) in place of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:heat-sum-linear}).
If the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-1st-law}) is negative, then the system is consuming electrical power
and producing heat (i.e. the heat flow into the system is less than the heat flow out), in the form of Joule heating.
In contrast, if the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-1st-law}) is positive,
then the system is producing electrical power and absorbing heat
(i.e. the heat flow into the system is more than the heat flow out).
This is required to conserve energy, and is the origin of the first law of thermodynamics.
So why is it that Eq.~(\ref{Eq:heat-sum-linear}) suggests that heat flow is conserved (heat flow in equals heat flow out)
irrespective of whether the system is absorbing or producing electrical work? The reason is that
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:heat-sum-linear}) is calculated in linear response, which means that it is only accurate to first order
in bias and/or temperature difference. The power generated or absorbed by the system is {\it quadratic} in these parameters, and so its modification of the heat is not captured by linear response.
To see this, it is sufficient to note that the electrical current is proportional to bias and/or temperature difference, and the power goes like bias times the electrical current, hence the power goes like bias squared and/or bias times temperature difference.
From Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Ls-multiterm}) we can get various results about the symmetries of the
matrix of Onsager coefficients. Firstly, we can use the fact that the transmission obeys
${\cal T}_{ij}(E,{\bm B})={\cal T}_{ji}(E,-{\bm B})$, as described in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:T_ij-time-reverse})
to prove that the Onsager coefficients for an external magnetic field ${\bm B}$ obey the Onsager reciprocal relation
\begin{align}
L_{\mu\nu,ij}({\bm B})=L_{\nu\mu;ji}(-{\bm B})
\label{Eq:Onsager-multiterm}
\end{align}
with $\mu$ and $\nu$ being either electric ($e$) or heat ($h$).
This is just as Onsager showed in classical thermodynamics.
However, as Ref.~\cite{Butcher1990} pointed out, the above microscopic derivation also shows that
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{eh,ij}({\bm B})=L_{he;ij}({\bm B}).
\label{Eq:Butcher}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining the two above relations means that $L_{eh;ij}({\bm B})=L_{eh;ji}(-{\bm B})$.
Ref.~\cite{Samuelsson-Linke2014} presents experiments that demonstrate such relations,
although the relations found experimentally are rarely perfect for the reasons discussed in that paper.
Of particular importance is the fact that decoherence due to inelastic scattering
leads to a breaking of the equality in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Butcher}), without affecting the
equality in Eq.~ (\ref{Eq:Onsager-multiterm}), see section~\ref{sec:probes}
of this review for more details. We also note that Andreev reflection from a superconductor
breaks the equality in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Butcher}), see section~\ref{Sect:Andreev-linear}.
Symmetries in the underlying system Hamiltonian (such as spin-rotation symmetry, particle-hole symmetry, or sub-lattice symmetry) lead directly to additional relations between the above Onsager coefficients.
Such relations are given in Ref.~\cite{jwmb}, along with similar relations for the Onsager coefficients
which couple spin transport to charge and heat transport.
\subsection{Onsager matrix}
If the reservoirs are labelled $1,2,3,\cdots,K$, then we can choose to measure all biases and temperatures from those of reservoir 1, so $\mathcal{F}_{{ e},i} = (V_i-V_1)/T_1$ and $\mathcal{F}_{{h},i} = (T_i-T_1)/T_1^2$.
This means that $\mathcal{F}_{{ e},1}= \mathcal{F}_{{h},1}=0$, which
simplifies Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Onsager-matrix-general}). If Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Onsager-matrix-general}) is written as a matrix equation, this is equivalent to eliminating two rows and two columns from the matrix,
resulting in
\begin{equation}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\Jelectric{2} \\
\Jheat{2} \\
\Jelectric{3} \\
\Jheat{3} \\
\vdots \\
\Jelectric{K} \\
\Jheat{K}
\end{array} \right)
\ \ =\ \
\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}
L_{{ee},22} & L_{{eh},22} & L_{{ee},23} & L_{{eh},23} & \cdots &L_{{ee},2K} & L_{{eh},2K} \\
L_{{he},22} & L_{{hh},22} & L_{{he},23} & L_{{hh},23} & \cdots &L_{{he},2K} & L_{{hh},2K}\\
L_{{ee},32} & L_{{eh},32} & L_{{ee},33} & L_{{eh},33} & \cdots &L_{{ee},3K} & L_{{eh},3K} \\
L_{{he},32} & L_{{hh},32} & L_{{he},33} & L_{{hh},33} & &L_{{he},3K} & L_{{hh},3K}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & \ddots & & \vdots\\
L_{{ee},K2} & L_{{eh},K2} & L_{{ee},K3} & L_{{eh},K3} & &L_{{ee},KK} & L_{{eh},KK} \\
L_{{he},K2} & L_{{hh},K2} & L_{{he},K3} & L_{{hh},K3} & \cdots &L_{{he},KK} & L_{{hh},KK} \\
\end{array} \right)
\ \left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{F}_{{e},2} \\
\mathcal{F}_{{h},2} \\
\mathcal{F}_{{e},3} \\
\mathcal{F}_{{h},3} \\
\vdots \\
\mathcal{F}_{{e},K} \\
\mathcal{F}_{{h},K}
\end{array} \right)\ .
\label{Eq:Onsager-matrix}
\end{equation}
We refer to the above matrix as the Onsager matrix, ${\bm L}$, which is $(2K-2)\times(2K-2)$.
This matrix equation does not give the electrical and heat current into reservoir 1.
However, these can be found by using the Kirchoff's laws for conservation of electrical and heat currents in
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:I-conserve},\ref{Eq:heat-sum-linear}), thus
$\Jelectric{1} = -\sum_{i=2}^K J_{{e},i} $ and $\Jheat{1}=-\sum_{i=2}^K J_{{h},i} $.
\subsection{Linear-response for two-terminal systems}
\label{Sect:scatter-2term-linear}
The most commonly considered case of Onsager reciprocal relations are for two-terminal systems
which are coupled to two reservoirs; left (L) and right (R).
For two non-superconducting terminals we start with
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:I-initial-two-reservoir}-\ref{Eq:J-initial-two-reservoir})
and use Eq.~(\ref{eq:fermilinear}) to expand the Fermi function for reservoir L
about the electrochemical potential and temperature of reservoir R,
so $e\Delta V = (\mu_{L}-\mu_{R})$ and $\Delta T = T_{L}-T_{R}$.
Then Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Onsager-matrix}) contains only a two-by-two matrix for ${\bm L}$,
and corresponds to Eq.~(\ref{eq:coupledlinear}) for currents from left to right.
The Onsager coefficients then read,
\begin{equation}
L_{ee}=e^2 T I_0,\qquad
L_{eh}=L_{he}=e T I_1,\qquad
L_{hh}=T I_2.
\label{Eq:Ls-two-term}
\end{equation}
Here, the integrals $I_n$ have been defined as
\begin{equation}
I_n\equiv \int_{-\infty}^\infty
\frac{dE}{h} \ (E-\mu)^n \ {\cal T}_{LR}(E,{\bm B}) \,\big[\!-\!f'(E)\big],
\label{eq:In-2term}
\end{equation}
for an external magnetic field ${\bm B}$.
It immediately follows
from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:el_conductance}-\ref{eq:seebeck})
that the conductances,
thermopower and Peltier coefficients can all be expressed in terms of the integrals $I_n$:
\begin{equation}
G=e^2 I_0,\qquad
K=\frac{1}{T}\left(I_2-\frac{I_1^2}{I_0}\right),\qquad
S=\frac{1}{eT}\frac{I_1}{I_0}, \qquad
\Pi = \frac{1}{e}\frac{I_1}{I_0}.
\label{eq:landauer.ex}
\end{equation}
In this two-terminal case, Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Onsager-multiterm}) reduces to
\begin{align}
L_{\mu \nu} (-{\bm B}) \ =\ & L_{\nu \mu} ({\bm B}) \ ,
\label{Eq:Onsager-2term}
\end{align}
with $\mu$ and $\nu$ being either electric ($e$) or heat ($h$).
This means that for this quantum system, we recover the famous relation between the Seebeck and Peltier coefficients (see chapter~\ref{sec:nonequilibrium}),
\begin{equation}
\Pi({\bm B})=TS(-{\bm B}),
\label{Eq:Onsager-2term-2}
\end{equation}
which Onsager proved for systems described
by classical thermodynamics.
However since, we also have $L_{eh}({\bm B})=L_{he}({\bm B})$, this tells us that $L_{\mu \nu} ({\bm B})$
is an even function of the external magnetic field ${\bm B}$ for all $\mu, \nu$.
Thus we see that $G({\bm B})$, $K({\bm B})$, $S({\bm B})$ and $\Pi({\bm B})$ must all be even functions of ${\bm B}$ \cite{Butcher1990}.
However, as will be discussed further in section~\ref{sec:probes},
the relationship $\Pi({\bm B})=TS({\bm B})$ can be broken by decoherence effects or Andreev reflection,
while the Onsager reciprocal relations ($G({\bm B})=G(-{\bm B})$, $K({\bm B})=K(-{\bm B})$ and $\Pi({\bm B})=TS(-{\bm B})$) are not.
Thus in realistic systems it is not surprising to see $S({\bm B})$ and $\Pi({\bm B})$ not being even in ${\bm B}$,
while $G({\bm B})$ and $K({\bm B})$ are.
From Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:Ls-two-term}-\ref{eq:landauer.ex}) we see that \cite{mott1},
\begin{equation}
S=
\frac{1}{eT}
\frac{\int_{-\infty}^\infty
dE (E-\mu) {\cal T}_{LR}(E) \,\big[\!-\!f'(E)\big]}{
\int_{-\infty}^\infty
dE {\cal T}_{LR}(E) \,\big[\!-\!f'(E)\big]},
\label{Eq:S-as-ratio-of-integrals}
\end{equation}
with $f'(E)$ being the derivative of the Fermi function in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:fprime}).
Since $f'(E)$
is an even function of $(E-\mu)$, one sees that $S$ vanishes
if ${\cal T}_{LR}(E)$ is symmetric around $\mu$. It is then clear that
electrons and holes contribute to the thermopower with opposite signs
and that $S=0$ when there is particle-hole symmetry.
Any system in which the symmetry is broken between the dynamics of electrons above and below the electrochemical will exhibit a finite thermopower.
This occurs when $\mu$ is close to sharp resonances
of ${\cal T}_{LR}$ \cite{fazio2001,bss10} or close to the mobility edge
of the Anderson metal-insulator phase transition
\cite{ImryAmir} (the states with energies above the mobility
edge are extended, while those below it are localized),
where the transmission exhibits a sharp and asymmetric energy
dependence (the transmission drops exponentially with the
system size in the insulating regime).
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:S-as-ratio-of-integrals}) also gives a pretty interpretation of the thermopower,
as the following average \cite{mahansofo}
\begin{equation}
S=
\frac{1}{eT} \big\langle E-\mu \big\rangle
\label{Eq:S-as-average}
\end{equation}
Here $\langle E -\mu \rangle$ as the average energy (measured from the electrochemical potential)
of the electrons that are transmitted through the scatterer,
\green{where the average is defined as}
\begin{equation}
\langle \ \cdots\ \rangle \ =\
\frac{\int_{-\infty}^\infty
dE \ (\,\cdots\,)\ {\cal T}_{LR}(E) \ \left(-f'(E)\right) }{
\int_{-\infty}^\infty
dE \ {\cal T}_{LR}(E) \ \left(-f'(E)\right)}.
\label{Eq:defining-average-over-E}
\end{equation}
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:S-as-average}) makes it clear that we can make $S$ as big as we like, by choosing a scatterer which only lets
through the electrons with very high energy.
Of course, then the flow of electrons through the scatterer will be exponentially small.
This means it will take the system a long time to find the steady state, since if we apply a temperature difference to
a thermoelectric that was previously in equilibrium, the rate at which the bias builds up across the thermoelectric is dependent on the rate at which current flows though it.
A similar analysis tells us that the ratio of thermal to electrical conductance
can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
{K \over G} \ & = & \frac{ \big\langle (E-\mu)^2 \big\rangle - \big\langle E-\mu \big\rangle^2 }{e^2T}
\label{Eq:K/G}
\end{eqnarray}
We will show in Section~\ref{sec:Sommerfeld-phenomenology} that the right hand side becomes the Lorenz constant, ${\cal L}$, given in Eq.~(\ref{lorenz}), in the limit where the transmission depends only weakly on energy.
So the system obeys the Wiedemann-Franz law in such a limit.
However, we will also see that for any significant thermoelectric effect, the transmission will be such that the
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:K/G}) will violate the Wiedemann-Franz law,
with section~\ref{sec:energyfiltering} showing that the best thermoelectrics have $K\big/G \to 0$.
\subsubsection{Comparison with the Boltzmann Equation}
\label{Sect:Boltzmann-Equation}
While the Landauer approach describes coherent quantum
transport
\footnote{Note, however, that the Landauer approach
can be useful for understanding transport coefficients in
large conductors as well, by viewing them as a series of elastic
resistors, connected by reservoirs where energy is dissipated,
see Ref.~\cite{datta2013}.},
semiclassical transport can be described by means
of the Boltzmann equation. Here we consider transport processes that
occur much slower than the relaxation to local equilibrium
and treat collisions within the relaxation-time
approximation \cite{ashcroftmermin}. That is, collisions drive
the electronic system to local thermodynamic equilibrium under the
assumption that the distribution of electrons emerging from
collisions does not depend on the structure of their non-equilibrium
distribution prior to the collision and that collisions do not
alter local equilibrium. In this case we can express
\emph{conductivities} and the thermopower in terms of the
integrals
\begin{equation}
K_n\equiv \int_{-\infty}^\infty
dE \ (E-\mu)^n \ \Sigma(E)\ \left(-f'(E)\right).
\label{eq:Kn}
\end{equation}
The form of this function is highly reminiscent of the scattering theory for a two-terminal systems.
Here $\Sigma(E)\approx D(E) t_R(E)\nu(E)^2$ is the transport distribution function, where $D(E)$ is the density of states, $t_R(E)$ the electron
relaxation time, and $\nu(E)$ the electron group velocity.
From the Boltzmann equation one obtains \cite{mahansofo}
\begin{equation}
\sigma = e^2 K_0,\quad
\kappa=\frac{1}{T}\left(K_2-\frac{K_1^2}{K_0}\right),\quad
S=\frac{1}{eT}\frac{K_1}{K_0}.
\label{eq:boltzmann.ex}
\end{equation}
Note that we neglect spin in these results. If we include spin degeneracy, $\sigma$ and $\kappa$ would be double their above values but $S$ would be unchanged.
More sophisticated treatments of thermoelectric systems include modelling them with density functional theory
methods coupled to a Boltzmann transport theory
\cite{Arita2008,Held2009,Wissgott2010,Sangiovanni,Knivek2015}.
Broadly speaking these are the Boltzmann theory equivalent
of the scattering theory coupled to density functional theory discussed in sect.~\ref{Sect:transmission-LDA}.
\subsubsection{The Sommerfeld expansion for weakly thermoelectric transport}
\label{sec:Sommerfeld-phenomenology}
In macroscopic conductors with weak thermoelectric responses, the transport coefficients are strongly
interdependent. The Wiedemann-Franz (WF) law \cite{wf,kittel}
relates the electrical and
thermal conductivities, while Mott's formula \cite{mott1,mott2,mott3}
relates the thermopower to the logarithmic derivative of the conductivity,
evaluated at the reference electrochemical potential. These phenomenological
equations can be derived both within the Boltzmann and the Landauer
approaches. In the latter case, conductances rather than conductivities
are considered.
In both cases, one makes use of a \emph{Sommerfeld expansion} \cite{ashcroftmermin} of integrals
Eq.~(\ref{eq:In}) or Eq.~(\ref{eq:Kn})
to the leading order in $k_B T/E_F$, with $E_F=\mu(T=0)$ being the Fermi energy.
Such expansions are valid when the function ${\cal T}_{LR}(E)$ (for scattering theory)
or the function $\Sigma(E)$ (for the Boltzmann equation) is smooth on the scale of the reservoir
temperatures. Thus for any given transmission function, going to a sufficiently low temperatures
will take one into a regime where the Sommerfeld expansion is a valid approximation.
In this regime, we expect the energy-filtering effect is weak, and thus expect weak thermoelectric effects.
Hereafter, we focus on the scattering theory approach.
The transmission function is \green{assumed to be slowly varying on the scale of temperature, so it can be
approximated by its Taylor expansion up to first order, }
\begin{equation}
{\cal T}_{LR} (E) \ \approx\ {\cal T}_{LR} (\mu) + \left.\frac{d {\cal T}_{LR} (E)}{dE}\right|_{E=\mu}
(E-\mu ).
\label{Eq:smooth-T-truncation}
\end{equation}
Inserting this expansion into (\ref{eq:In-2term}), we obtain
the leading order terms of the Sommerfeld expansion of integrals $I_n$:
\begin{equation}
I_0\approx \frac{{\cal T}_{LR}(\mu)}{h},\quad
I_1\approx \frac{\pi^2}{3h}\,(k_B T)^2
\left.\frac{d {\cal T}_{LR} (E)}{dE}\right|_{E=\mu},\quad
I_2\approx \frac{\pi^2}{3h}\,(k_B T)^2 {\cal T}_{LR}(\mu).
\label{eq:I0I1I2}
\end{equation}
In this derivation, we have used the fact that
$\partial f/\partial E$ is an even function of
$(E-\mu)$. Hence, $I_0$ and $I_2$
are determined to the leading order by ${\cal T}_{LR}(\mu)$.
In contrast, $(E-\mu)\partial f/\partial E$ is an
odd function of $(E-\mu)$, so that $I_1$ is determined by
the derivative $\left( {d {\cal T}_{LR} (E)}\big/{dE}\right)_{E=\mu}$.
The fact that we assume ${\cal T}_{LR} (E)$ is a smooth enough function of $E$ to
truncate the expansion in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:smooth-T-truncation}) at leading order in $(E-\mu)$ implies that
we are considering a situation where
\begin{align}
I_1 \ll k_{\rm B} T \, I_0
\qquad \hbox{ and } \qquad I_1 \ll I_2\big/ ( k_{\rm B} T).
\label{Eq:smooth-T-consequences}
\end{align}
There relations
can equally be written as $L_{eh} \ll L_{ee}/e $ and $L_{eh} \ll eL_{hh}$.
This is equivalent to saying the thermoelectric effects are much weaker than conventional electrical
and thermal conduction. More specifically, it implies that $L_{eh}^2 \ll L_{ee}L_{hh}$, hence the figure of
merit $ZT=L_{eh}^2/{\det{\bm L}}\approx L_{eh}^2/L_{ee}L_{hh}\ll 1$, \green{which means the scatterer has} a poor efficiency for heat-to-work conversion.
We then obtain from Eq.~(\ref{eq:landauer.ex})
\begin{equation}
G\approx \frac{ e^2}{h}\,{\cal T}_{LR}(\mu),
\qquad
K\approx \frac{ \pi^2 k_B^2 T}{3h}\,{\cal T}_{LR}(\mu).
\end{equation}
From these relations we find the \emph{Wiedemann-Franz law},
\begin{equation}
\frac{K}{G} \approx {\cal L} T \, , \label{wflaw}
\end{equation}
where the constant value
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} = \frac{\pi^2}{3} \left( \frac{k_B}{e} \right)^2
\label{lorenz}
\end{equation}
is known as the \emph{Lorenz number}.
Note that to derive the Wiedemann-Franz law we have considered only the
leading order term in the Sommerfeld expansion, i.e. we have
neglected in the heat conductance $I_1^2/I_0$ with respect to $I_2$,
as a natural consequence of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:smooth-T-consequences}).
From Eqs.~(\ref{eq:landauer.ex}) and (\ref{eq:I0I1I2}) we also
derive \cite{mott1}
\begin{equation}
S \approx
\frac{\pi^2}{3}\left(\frac{k_B}{e}\right) (k_B T)
\left.\frac{d}{dE}\ln {\cal T}_{LR} (E) \right|_{E=\mu}
\end{equation}
and consequently \emph{Mott's formula} for the thermopower:
\begin{equation}
S \approx
\frac{\pi^2}{3}\left(\frac{k_B}{e}\right) (k_B T)
\frac{d}{d\mu}\ln G(\mu),
\label{mott}
\end{equation}
where $G (\mu)\approx (e^2/h){\cal T}_{LR}(\mu)$
is the electric conductance at electrochemical potential $\mu$.
From this equation we can see that the thermopower vanishes at $T=0$.
We remark that people sometimes use the term ``Mott's formula''
to refer to Eq.~(\ref{Eq:S-as-ratio-of-integrals}) as well as Eq.~(\ref{mott}),
probably because both formulas appear in Ref.~\cite{mott1}.
Both the Wiedemann-Franz law and the Mott's formula are typically violated at
higher orders in the Sommerfeld expansion than those considered above,
or when the transmission function is not smoothly varying in the width of order temperature around the electrochemical potential (in which case a Sommerfeld expansion is not possible).
Thus they are typically violated in any system with a large thermoelectric response, or
large thermoelectric figure of merit, $ZT$.
In particular, the Wiedemann-Franz law has been shown to be violated in strongly interacting systems
\cite{kf96,lo02,Catelani-Aleiner05,dora06,Kubala-Konig-Pekola2008,grsr09,wbxmgh11,Schwiete-Finkelstein2016a,Schwiete-Finkelstein2016b} and in small systems where
transmission can show a significant energy dependence
\cite{fazio2001,stone,shakouri2007b,bss10,bjs10,bbb12,sanchezprb13}.
\subsection{The figure of merit, {\it ZT}, and how to maximize it}
\label{sec:energyfiltering}
Now we turn to large thermoelectric effects, and more particularly large figure of merit, $ZT$,
so we leave behind the Sommerfeld expansion,
and return to the results in Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:Ls-two-term}-\ref{eq:landauer.ex}).
An interesting question is what is the transmission function
${\cal T}_{LR}(E)$ (or transport distribution function $\Sigma(E)$ in
the Boltzmann approach) that maximizes the
thermodynamic efficiency.
Here, we will reproduce Mahan and Sofo's \cite{mahansofo}
proof that a delta-shaped transmission function leads
to an infinite figure of merit ($ZT\to \infty$) and consequently to Carnot efficiency in the linear response regime.
Their proof was presented in the context of Boltzmann theory, but we will do it in the context of scattering theory.
The first important point is to note that the definition of $ZT$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:ZT-intro})
contains the total heat conductance in the denominator. This is typically the sum of the electronic heat conductance, which we will call $K$, and the heat conductance due to other mechanisms (usually phonons and photons),
which we will call $K_{\rm ph}$.
Thus, in general
\begin{equation}
ZT=\frac{GS^2}{K+K_{\rm ph}}\,T\, .
\label{Eq:ZT-with-phonons}
\end{equation}
Note that as the phonons and photons are uncharged, they do not contribute to the thermoelectric effects or the charge conductance in the numerator, but do contribute to the denominator.
This makes it clear that phonon/photon heat flow is always detrimental to thermoelectric efficiency, $ZT$.
Thus the first step of Mahan and Sofo's derivation of the maximal efficiency is to assume we could engineer
the system to suppress phonon and photon heat currents and thus take $K_{\rm ph} \to 0$.
In reality, it is extremely difficult to control phonon and photon heat flows,
although even modest progress in this direction can make a huge difference to $ZT$,
see section~\ref{Sect:intro-phonons}.
None the less, to find the fundamental upper bound on efficiency,
it is natural to start by taking $K_{\rm ph}=0$.
Then substituting Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:Ls-two-term}-\ref{eq:landauer.ex})
into Eq.~(\ref{Eq:ZT-with-phonons}), we get
\begin{equation}
ZT=\frac{GS^2}{K}\,T=\frac{I_1^2}{I_0I_2-I_1^2}
\end{equation}
It is revealing to write this in terms of the
averages of the energy (measured from the electrochemical potential)
of the electrons that are transmitted through the scatterer \cite{mahansofo}.
Then we see that
\begin{equation}
ZT= \frac{ \big\langle (E-\mu) \big\rangle^2 }{ \big\langle (E-\mu)^2 \big\rangle- \big\langle (E-\mu) \big\rangle^2}\ \ ,
\label{Eq:ZT-simple-interpretation}
\end{equation}
where we recall that the average over the transmitted electrons is defined in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:defining-average-over-E}).
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:ZT-simple-interpretation}) is crucial,
because it makes it easy to have a simple physical picture of the value of $ZT$.
Scattering theory (or Boltzmann theory \cite{mahansofo}) tells us that
it is simply the square of the average energy carried by transmitting electrons
divided by the variance of their energy.
Thus it is clear to see that one will have $ZT \to \infty$ if one makes the variance of the energies of transmitted electrons vanish. This is the case if all the transmitted electrons have exactly the same energy $E=E_\star$.
Thus we require that the transmission function ${\cal T}_{LR}(E)$ is shaped like a $\delta$-function, being
only non-zero in a tiny window around energy $E_\star$, see Fig.~\ref{Fig:slices}b.
For such an energy filter, that only lets through electrons in the energy window $E_\star$ to $E_\star+\delta E$
with $\delta E \to 0$, one has
\begin{equation}
I_n \to \frac{\delta E}{h} \ (E_\star-\mu)^n \ {\cal T}_{LR}(E_\star) \ \left(-f'(E_\star)\right),
\label{eq:In-deltafunct}
\end{equation}
which means $I_n \to(E_\star-\mu)^n I_0$, for all $n$.
One can easily find all Onsager coefficients, thermopower, etc., by substituting this into
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:Ls-two-term}-\ref{eq:landauer.ex}).
Intriguingly, the only constraint on the value of $E_\star$
is that the numerator of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:ZT-simple-interpretation}) must not vanish, i.e.~one can take any value of $E_\star \neq \mu$.
Section~\ref{Sect:scatter-nonlin-Carnot} will show that this energy filtering mechanism allows us to achieve the Carnot
efficiency also beyond linear response \cite{linke2002,linke2005}. However, there we cannot take any $E_\star$, instead in the nonlinear regime one only achieves Carnot efficiency if $E_\star=E^\rightleftharpoons$,
which is related to the bias and temperatures of the two reservoirs by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:eps-reversible}).
It is worth noting that when the variance of the transmitted energies is zero, the ratio
of thermal to electrical conductance vanishes, because of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:K/G}). Thus the above mentioned
system with $ZT \to \infty$ violates the Wiedemann-Franz law in the most extreme way, by having
$K\big/G \to 0$.
For experimental evidence of energy filtering, see
\cite{shakouri2006}, where barriers in a
superlattice were used to limit the transport to those electrons
with sufficiently high energy. As a result, a dramatic increase of
the Seebeck coefficient was shown together with a relatively modest
decrease of the electrical conductivity.
Sharp electronic resonances can be found also in molecules
weakly coupled to electrodes and for this reasons molecular
junctions might be efficient for thermoelectric conversion
\cite{majumdar2007,pauly2008,baranger2009,lambert2009,lejinse2010,bss10,dubi,reddy2012,venkataraman2013}.
The above result shows that $ZT\to\infty$ requires that one takes $\delta E \to 0$,
however the current generated is proportional to $\delta E$,
since Eq.~(\ref{eq:In-deltafunct}) scales like $\delta E$.
Thus for vanishing $\delta E$ one gets
very high $ZT$ but a vanishing power output.
High but finite values of $ZT$ can still be achieved if, rather
than delta-shaped transmission function, one considers
sharply rising \cite{shakouri2004,humphrey2005}
or boxcar-function-shaped \cite{muttalib2013,nikolic,whitney-prl2014,whitney2015} transmission functions.
Such transmission functions allow much greater power outputs than the delta-like function
considered above.
It is crucial to note that the above argument only gives $ZT \to \infty$ because we have assumed
the phonon contribution to thermal conductivity is vanishingly small, $K_{\rm ph}\to 0$.
If this conductivity $K_{\rm ph}$ is finite, then everything changes.
In this case, taking $\delta E \to 0$ means $ZT \to 0$, since the denominator of $ZT$ in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:ZT-with-phonons}) contains the $K_{\rm ph}$-term, which is independent of $\delta E$, while the numerator goes like $\delta E^2$.
Thus it is crucial to remember that a narrow transmission function is only desirable if one has managed to completely eliminate the phonon and photon heat conductances.
\subsection{Maximizing {\it ZT} for strong phonon heat transport}
\label{Sect:max-ZT-phonons}
The opposite limit to that discussed in the previous section is when phonon heat conductivity, $K_{\rm ph}$, dominates over electron heat conductivity in $ZT$ given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:ZT-with-phonons}).
Then
one has
\begin{eqnarray}
ZT \ \simeq\ \frac{G T S^2}{K_{\rm ph}} \ =\ \frac{1}{K_{\rm ph}T}\ I_0 \ \langle E -\mu \rangle^2
\label{Eq:def-ZT-phonons}
\end{eqnarray}
where we recall that \green{$ \langle E-\mu \rangle =I_1/I_0$.}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{fig-slices.pdf}}
\caption{
If one can have any transmission function as in (a), and can change it as desired to maximize $ZT$,
the result is as shown in (b) and (c). In the absence of phonons carrying heat in parallel with the electrons, shown in (b),
the optimal transmission is the delta-function-like transmission shown in (b) and discussed in
section~\ref{sec:energyfiltering}.
This gives $ZT \to\infty$, which corresponds to Carnot efficiency. However, if there is {\it any} phonon heat flow in parallel with that of the electrons, such a delta-function-like transmission will give $ZT =0$.
In the limit of very strong phonon heat flow (so the phonons carry more heat than the electrons can),
the optimal transmission is a step-function (theta-function) shown in (c) and discussed in
section~\ref{Sect:max-ZT-phonons}
The optimal transmission for intermediate phonon heat flows is
a boxcar function (band-pass filter) as discussed in Ref.~\cite{whitney2015}.
}
\label{Fig:slices}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Our objective here is to find the $E$ dependence of ${\cal T}_{LR}(E)$ which maximizes Eq.~(\ref{Eq:def-ZT-phonons}). For simplicity in what follows we can measure all energies from the electrochemical potential,
which is equivalent to saying $\mu=0$.
We consider the case where transmission is dominated by positive energies, so $\langle E\rangle >0$.
If one wishes to consider the case where the transmission is dominated by negative energies
(which will have the same $ZT$
but equal and opposite $S$), one takes $E \to -E$ is everything that follows.
Continuing with the case dominated by positive energies,
the first thing we note is that transmission at high energies increases both $I_0$ and $\langle E\rangle$,
so transmission at high energies clearly enhances $ZT$. Transmission at low energies is more problematic;
allowing electron flow at low energies increase $I_0$, but it reduces $\langle E\rangle$, so its effect on $ZT$
is unclear. To proceed, we follow a similar procedure as for that in Refs.~\cite{whitney-prl2014,whitney2015},
but in this case the algebra is much simpler.
Thus, we start by considering the transmission function as an infinite set of slices each of width $\delta\to 0$,
as in Fig.~\ref{Fig:slices}a, where we define $\tau_\gamma$ as the transmission of slice $\gamma$, which sits at energy $E_\gamma$.
Some basic algebra gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{{\rm d} I_n}{{\rm d} \tau_\gamma} = \frac{\delta}{h}\ E_\gamma^n \ \big(-f'(E_\gamma)\big)
\end{eqnarray}
so the rate at which $ZT$ changes with a small increase in $\tau_\gamma$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{{\rm d} (ZT)}{{\rm d} \tau_\gamma}
\ =\ \frac{1}{K_{\rm ph}T} \left( \frac{2I_1}{I_0}
\frac{{\rm d} I_1}{{\rm d} \tau_\gamma} - \frac{I_1^2}{I_0^2} \frac{{\rm d} I_0}{{\rm d} \tau_\gamma} \right)
\ =\ \frac{1}{K_{\rm ph}T}\ \frac{\delta}{h}\ \langle E\rangle \ \big(-f'(E_\gamma)\big) \ \times \ \big(2E_\gamma -\langle E\rangle \big) \ .
\end{eqnarray}
This means that increasing $\tau_\gamma$ increases $ZT$ if $E_\gamma > {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} \langle E \rangle$,
but it decreases $ZT$ if $E_\gamma < {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} \langle E \rangle$.
As a result, if the scatterer has $N$ transverse modes,
one can expect that the transmission which maximizes Eq.~(\ref{Eq:def-ZT-phonons})
is the Heaviside theta function shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:slices}c,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_{LR}(E)=N \ \theta\left(E-E_0\right),
\label{Eq:theta-for-ZT-phonons}
\end{eqnarray}
with $E_0$ determined by the transcendental equation
$2E_0 = \big\langle E \big\rangle$.
Here $\big\langle E \big\rangle$
is the average energy for the
transmission function in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:theta-for-ZT-phonons}),
and therefore $\big\langle E \big\rangle$ depends on $E_0$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\big\langle E \big\rangle
\ =\
\frac{ \int_{E_0}^\infty {\rm d} E \ E \ \big(\!-f'(E)\big) }{ \int_{E_0}^\infty {\rm d} E \ \big(\!-f'(E)\big) }
\ =\ E_0 \ +\
\frac{ k_{\rm B} T \ln \left[1+\exp[-E_0/(k_{\rm B} T)] \right] }{ f(E_0) } \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the integrals were evaluated using standard methods, giving the right hand result.
Hence, the transcendental equation for $E_0$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{E_0}{k_{\rm B} T} f(E_0) \ =\ \ln \left[1+\exp[-E_0/(k_{\rm B} T)] \right] \ .
\label{Eq:transcendental}
\end{eqnarray}
If we define $B_0 = \exp[-E_0/(k_{\rm B} T)]$, this transcendental equation simplifies to\footnote{\green{
We note that Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:theta-for-ZT-phonons},\ref{Eq:transcendental})
for maximizing $ZT$ in the linear response regime coincide
with the results for maximizing efficiency in the nonlinear regime
when phonon effects are very strong (so maximizing efficiency requires maximizing the power output),
see section~XIV of Ref.~\cite{whitney2015}.
The transcendental equation given here coincides with that in Eq.~(42) of Ref.~\cite{whitney2015}.}}
$(1+B_0)\ln[1+B_0] + B_0 \ln[B_0] =0$.
The solution is $B_0= 0.318...$, which means $E_0 = 1.146... \times k_{\rm B} T$.
Noting that in this case $I_0=(N/h) f(E_0)$ and $\langle E \rangle=2E_0$,
one finds that Eq.~(\ref{Eq:def-ZT-phonons}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
ZT \ =\ \frac{1}{K_{\rm ph}T} \frac{N E_0^2 f(E_0)}{h}
\ =\ \frac{k_{\rm B}^2 T}{h K_{\rm ph}} \ N \ \times \ 0.317...\ .
\label{Eq:def-ZT-phonons-max}
\end{eqnarray}
This is the maximum possible $ZT$ in the case where heat currents are dominated by phonons,
which is the case when $K_{\rm ph} \gg K_{\rm el}$ where the heat conductance due to electrons $K_{\rm el} \sim k_{\rm B}^2 T N/h$
(this is only an order of magnitude estimate of $K_{\rm el}$). Thus, the maximum possible $ZT$ is
of order $K_{\rm el}/K_{\rm ph}$ which is definitely much less than one.
This is expected of course, because phonons carry heat without generating any electrical power.
However, by having a transmission function in the form of a $\theta$-function, Eq.~(\ref{Eq:theta-for-ZT-phonons}), one gets a finite $ZT$, when the $\delta$-like function in section~\ref{sec:energyfiltering}
would give strictly zero $ZT$ for any finite $K_{\rm ph}$.
By combining the results of this section with that of the previous one, we conclude that the form of the transmission function
which optimizes $ZT$ depends on the heat current carried between hot and cold by phonons. If there are no phonons or they transport no heat, then the optimal transmission function is very narrow, and gives Carnot efficiency ($ZT \to \infty$).
If phonons transport a lot of heat, a wide transmission function maximizes $ZT$, but this maximum value
will be rather modest (\green{significantly below} Carnot efficiency).
In what was presented above, we only considered the two limits (no phonon heat flow and strong phonon heat flow), however section~XIV of Ref.~\cite{whitney2015} treated the intermediate cases for a nonlinear scattering theory
(where $ZT$ is not meaningful, but efficiency is). It showed that the maximum efficiency for intermediate phonon heat flows is achieved with a boxcar function (a band pass filter) which transmits all electrons with energies between two energies $E_0$ and $E_1$, and block all electrons outside this energy window,
see section~\ref{Sect:whitney2015}.
\subsection{Inelastic scattering and probe reservoirs}
\label{sec:probes}
The idea of a probe reservoir was first introduced \cite{Enquist-Anderson1981,Buttiker1986}
as a simple model of a device for measuring the voltage at a given point in a nano-structure, this is typically known as a {\it voltage probe}.
In the same spirit a number of authors have considered a {\it temperature probe}
\cite{jacquet2009,Meair2014,Stafford2014,Shastry-Stafford2015,Shastry-Stafforf2016}
intended to model a device that measures the temperature at a given point in a nano-structure.
An ideal such probe is a large but finite sized
reservoir coupled to the
system, as sketched in Fig.~\ref{fig:3ter}a. \green{The probe reservoir is assumed to be large enough that electrons entering it thermalize before escaping from it. However, it is assumed to be small enough that it will achieve a steady state with respect to the scatterer on an experimentally accessible timescale.
As this probe reservoir is only in contact with the scatterer, its
temperature and electrochemical potential will build up to their steady-state values, those
for which the net fluxes of particles and heat into the probe reservoir are zero on average. We assume the
probe reservoir has achieved this steady state in all the analysis that follows.}
One can then read off the electrochemical potential and temperature of this finite but macroscopic probe reservoir using standard techniques.
It is worth mentioning that it is relatively easy to isolate reservoir electrically,
however it is hard to isolate it thermally from its environment.
Thus one can imagine that many probes will look more like that in Fig.~\ref{fig:3ter}b,
they charge up to a bias
that ensures the electrical current into it is zero, however they exchange heat with their environment
(marked as ``heat bath'' in Fig.~\ref{fig:3ter}b) so that the heat current into them is not zero in the steady state.
This is typically fine if one is interested in making a voltage probe \cite{Enquist-Anderson1981,Buttiker1986}
for a system with weak thermoelectric effects. However, a probe of the type in Fig.~\ref{fig:3ter}b obviously changes the heat flow in the system
(as it will typically absorb or emit heat),
which makes it a poor temperature probe. It also makes it a poor voltage probe in a system which exhibits
a strong thermoelectric responses (because the heat it injects or absorbs will change the electrical currents in the scatterer)
\cite{Meair2014,Stafford2014}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{3term-new.pdf}}
\caption{
In (a) we show a sketch of partially-coherent thermoelectric
transport, with the third terminal acting as a probe reservoir
mimicking inelastic electron-electron scattering.
Electrons entering the probe reservoir, P, from the scatterer get thermalized at the temperature $T_{P}$
and electrochemical potential $\mu_{P}$, before re-emerging into the scatterer.
The temperature $T_{P}$ and the electrochemical
potential $\mu_{P}$ of the probe reservoir are thus such that the net
average electric and heat currents into this reservoir vanishes,
$J_{e,P}=J_{h,P}=0$. This setup can be generalized to any number
of probe reservoirs, $k= P1,P2,\cdots$, by setting
$J_{e,k}=J_{h,k}=0$ for all probes.
In (b) we show a sketch in which the probe reservoir is mimicking inelastic {\it electron-lattice} scattering
(i.e.\ electron-phonon scattering). In this case, as the lattice temperature at that point in the nanostructure
will be determined by phonon dynamics, it will not usually be the same as the temperature of the electrons
which scatter from it. Thus there will be a flow of heat between the electrons and the lattice, $J_{h,P}\neq 0$, but obviously no flow of charge, $J_{e,P} = 0$. }
\label{fig:3ter}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Another reason to consider such probes is that they
elegantly simulate inelastic scattering in a phenomenological manner \cite{buttiker1988}.
The Landauer scattering approach suffers from the fact it only describes coherent quantum transport,
when real systems often only exhibit partially coherent transport, because there is \emph{inelastic
scattering} due to the interactions of the electrons with phonons,
photons, and other electrons.
One can add probe reservoirs to the model to mimic
such inelastic scattering.
The advantage of such an approach lies in its simplicity and independence
from microscopic details of inelastic processes.
The probe reservoir is one
whose parameters (temperature and electrochemical potential)
are chosen self-consistently so that there is no net \emph{average} flux of
particles or heat between this reservoir and the system
(see Fig.~\ref{fig:3ter}).
One can think of the probe as mimicking a small region in the scatterer in which particles relax
to thermal equilibrium. The only problem with this model is that such equilibration happens completely
(for particles that enter this region) or not at all (for particles that do not enter this region).
This is rather different from what we expect in more realistic models of electron-electron scattering,
in which we would expect that if a significant number of electrons undergo no inelastic scattering before escaping the
scatterer, then there would also be a significant number which escape after just a single inelastic scattering.
We expect a single such scattering to exchanges energy between the electrons, but not to take them to a perfect thermal distribution (it usually takes many inelastic scatterings for
the electrons arrive at thermal equilibrium). This model misses this ``partial thermalization'' of electrons,
despite this, it is believed to capture \green{much} of the physics of inelastic scattering in a simple manner.
As a result, probe reservoirs have been widely used in the literature
and proved to be useful in unveiling nontrivial aspects of
phase-breaking
processes \cite{datta}, heat transport and rectification
\cite{visscher,lebowitz,dhar2007,dhar,lebowitz2009,pereira,segal05,segal,saito06}.
The role of inelastic processes induced by such probes upon thermoelectric responses
was considered in
\cite{jacquet2009,SBCP2011,sanchez2011,BS2013,BSS2013,segal2013,BS2015,Yamamoto2016}.
Many other works have considered the third probe as a reservoir which supplies heat to the system,
these works will be discussed elsewhere in this review \green{(see sections~\ref{sec:genericmultiterminal}, \ref{Sect:3-term-sys1} and \ref{Sect:3-term-sys2}).}
To model thermalization due to inelastic electron-electron interactions \cite{SBCP2011,sanchez2011},
we consider a system with $K_{P}$ probe reservoirs, and $K_{C}$ current carrying reservoirs, so Fig.~\ref{fig:3ter}a is an example with $K_{P}=1$ and $K_{C}=2$.
Taking Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Onsager-matrix}), we take reservoirs 1 to $K_{C}$ to be the current carrying reservoirs,
while reservoirs $K_{C}+1$ to $K_{C}+K_{P}$ are the probe reservoirs.
Then, we can write Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Onsager-matrix}) as
\begin{equation}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
{\bf J}_{C} \\
0
\end{array} \right)
\ \ =\ \
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\bm L}_{CC} & {\bm L}_{CP} \\
{\bm L}_{PC} & {\bm L}_{PP}
\end{array} \right)
\ \left(\begin{array}{c}
\boldsymbol{{\cal F}}_{{C}} \\
\boldsymbol{{\cal F}}_{{P}}
\end{array} \right)\ ,
\label{Eq:Onsager-matrix-probes}
\end{equation}
where we label the probe reservoirs as $P$ and the remaining current-carrying reservoirs as $C$.
Thus $\boldsymbol{{\cal F}}_{{C}}$ is a vector of the thermodynamic forces
(bias and temperature as defined above Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Onsager-matrix}))
on the current-carrying reservoirs $2, \cdots, K_{C}$, remember that we already eliminated reservoir 1 in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Onsager-matrix}).
Similarly $\boldsymbol{{\cal F}}_{{P}}$ is a vector of the forces (bias and temperature) on the probe reservoirs $K_{C}+1, \cdots, K_{C}+K_{P}$.
Then, ${\bf J}_{C}$ is the vector of currents (electrical and heat) in these reservoirs, while there is no current
into the scatterer from the probe reservoirs.
Thus ${\bm L_{PP}}$ is the matrix of the elements of the Onsager matrix ${\bm L}$ which couple probe reservoir forces to probe reservoir currents, so ${\bm L_{ PP}}$ is a $2K_{P}\times 2K_{P}$ matrix.
Similarly, ${\bm L_{CC}}$ is the matrix of the elements of the Onsager matrix ${\bm L}$ which couple forces on current-carrying reservoir forces to currents on those reservoirs, so ${\bm L_{CC}}$ is a $(2K_{C}-2)\times (2K_{C}-2)$ matrix.
This means ${\bm L_{CP}}$ is a $(2K_{C}-2) \times 2K_{P}$ matrix of the
coupling between forces on the probe reservoirs and the currents in the charge-carrying reservoirs.
To be concrete for the example in Fig.~\ref{fig:3ter}a, where we identify reservoir 1 with reservoir R, reservoir 2 with reservoir L, and reservoir 3 with the probe reservoir, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\boldsymbol{{\cal F}}_{{C}} = \left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{F}_{{e,L}} \\
\mathcal{F}_{{h,L}}
\end{array} \right),
\qquad
\boldsymbol{{\cal F}}_{{P}} = \left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{F}_{{e,P}} \\
\mathcal{F}_{{h,P}}
\end{array} \right),
\qquad
{\bf J}_{{C}} = \left(\begin{array}{c}
\Jelectric{{L}} \\
\Jheat{{L}}
\end{array} \right),
\qquad
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bm L}_{CC} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
L_{{ ee,LL}} & L_{{ eh,LL}}\\
L_{{ he,LL}} & L_{{ hh,LL}}
\end{array} \right),
\;
{\bm L}_{ PP} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
L_{{ ee,PP}} & L_{{ eh,PP}}\\
L_{{ he,PP}} & L_{{ hh,PP}}
\end{array} \right),
\;
{\bm L}_{ CP} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
L_{{ ee,LP}} & L_{{ eh,LP}}\\
L_{{ he,LP}} & L_{{ hh,LP}}
\end{array} \right),
\;
{\bm L}_{ PC} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
L_{{ ee,PL}} & L_{{ eh,PL}}\\
L_{{ he,PL}} & L_{{ hh,PL}}
\end{array} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
Now returning to the general case, we can solve \cite{SBCP2011}
the second line of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Onsager-matrix-probes}),
to find that $\boldsymbol{{\cal F}}_{{ P}} = -{\bm L}_{ PP}^{-1} {\bm L}_{ PC}\boldsymbol{{\cal F}}_{{ C}}$.
Substituting this into the first line of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Onsager-matrix-probes}), allows us to
eliminate the probes from the problem, and retrieve a relation for the currents in terms of the forces on the
current-carrying reservoirs alone.
This gives us ${\bf J}_{{ C}} \ =\ {\bm L}' \ \boldsymbol{{\cal F}}_{{ C}}$, with
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bm L}' \ =\ {\bm L}_{ CC} \ -\ {\bm L}_{ CP} \,{\bm L}_{ PP}^{-1} \, {\bm L}_{ PC} \ .
\label{Eq:Lprimed}
\end{eqnarray}
This is the transport relation in the presence of probe reservoirs which mimic inelastic scattering within the scatterer.
So the presence of inelastic effects leads one to replace the ${\bm L}$ matrix for the current-carrying reservoirs (referred to here as ${\bm L}_{ CC}$) by ${\bm L}'$.
The first term in ${\bm L}'$ gives the elastic component of the scattering, so \green{it} is proportional to the probability that electrons traverse the scatterer without any inelastic scattering. The second term gives the inelastic part
and is proportional to the probability that electrons undergo inelastic scattering during the time they traverse the scatterer.
We can show that the inelastic effect do not affect the Onsager reciprocal relation, by noting that
the Onsager relation in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Onsager-multiterm}) means that
${\bm L}_{ CC}({\bm B})={\bm L}_{ CC}^{\rm T}(-{\bm B})$,
${\bm L}_{ PP}({\bm B})={\bm L}_{ PP}^{\rm T}(-{\bm B})$, and
${\bm L}_{PC}({\bm B})={\bm L}_{ CP}^{\rm T}(-{\bm B})$, where T indicate the matrix transpose.
Thus it is easy to see that ${\bm L}' ({\bm B}) = [{\bm L}' (-{\bm B})]^{\rm T}$, which is the same as saying
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{\mu\nu,ij}'({\bm B})=L_{\nu\mu;ji}'(-{\bm B}),
\end{eqnarray}
in the presence or absence of inelastic effects.
In contrast, now that we have inelastic effects, we find that there is no reason for ${\bm L}'$ to obey the relation in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Butcher}). Even though Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Butcher}) means that each matrix on the right hand side of
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Lprimed}) is equal to itself under a transpose within the two-by-two block for each reservoir, this does not mean that the second term in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Lprimed}) is equal to itself under a transpose within the two-by-two block for each reservoir. As a result, one can expect that most systems with inelastic scattering will have
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{\mu\nu,ij}'({\bm B}) \ \neq \ L_{\nu\mu;ij}'({\bm B}),
\end{eqnarray}
because of that inelastic scattering.
It is interesting to note that $L_{\mu\nu,ij}'({\bm B}) - L_{\nu\mu;ij}'({\bm B})$ is proportional to
the probability electrons undergo inelastic scattering as they traverse the scatterer,
\green{although} the constant of proportionality is likely to be highly system dependent.
Recasting the above general results in terms of the system in Fig.~\ref{fig:3ter}a with two current-carry reservoirs and a single probe reservoir, we get
\begin{equation}
\left( \begin{array}{c}
J_{e,L} \\
J_{h,L}
\end{array}
\right)
\ =\ {\bm L}' \ \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\mathcal{F}_{e,L} \\
\mathcal{F}_{h,L}
\end{array} \right)
\ \ \equiv\ \ \left( \begin{array}{cc}
L'_{ee} & L'_{eh} \\
L'_{he} & L'_{hh}
\end{array} \right) \,\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\mathcal{F}_{e,L} \\
\mathcal{F}_{h,L}
\end{array} \right),
\label{eq:Lred}
\end{equation}
where $J_{e,L} = - J_{e,R}$ and $J_{h,R} = - J_{h,L}$.
The above arguments for the general case mean that the matrix elements $L'_{\mu\nu}$ obey the Onsager reciprocal relation,
$L'_{\mu\nu}({\bm B})=L'_{\nu\mu}(-{\bm B})$, but do not obey the relation $L'_{\mu\nu}({\bm B})=L'_{\nu\mu}({\bm B})$.
Exactly the same is true if we consider an arbitrary number of probe reservoirs.
As a result, any two-terminal system with inelastic scattering will obey the two-terminal Onsager reciprocal relations
$G({\bm B})=G(-{\bm B})$, $K({\bm B})=K(-{\bm B})$, and $\Pi({\bm B})=TS(-{\bm B})$.
However, the inelastic scattering means that we should not expect either $S({\bm B})$ or $\Pi({\bm B})$ to be even functions of ${\bm B}$.
The thermodynamic efficiencies for this case can
be computed by means of the standard two-terminal formulas
(\ref{eq:ZTx}) and (\ref{etawmax}), with the factors of ${\bm L}$ replaced by the above factors of ${\bm L}'$.
Arbitrarily large values of the asymmetry
parameter $x=S({\bm B})/S(-{\bm B})=L'_{eh}/L'_{he}$
were obtained in \cite{SBCP2011,sanchez2011} by means
of a three-dot Aharonov-Bohm interferometer model.
The asymmetry was found also for
chaotic cavities,
ballistic microjunctions \cite{sanchez2011}, and
random Hamiltonians drawn from the Gaussian unitary
ensemble \cite{vinitha2013}.
In \cite{sanchez2011} it was shown that the asymmetry is
a higher-order effect in the Sommerfeld expansion and therefore
disappears in the low temperature limit.
The asymmetry was demonstrated also in the framework
of classical physics, for a three-terminal deterministic
railway switch transport model \cite{horvat2012}.
In such model, only the values
zero and one are allowed for the transmission functions
${\cal T}_{ji}(E)$, i.e., ${\cal T}_{ji}(E)=1$
if particles injected from terminal $i$ with energy $E$
go to terminal $j$ and ${\cal T}_{ji}(E)=0$ is such
particles go to a terminal other than $j$. The transmissions
${\cal T}_{ji}(E)$ are piecewise constant
in the intervals $[E_k,E_{k+1}]$, $(k=1,2,\cdots)$, with switching
${\cal T}_{ji}=1\to 0$ or vice-versa possible at the
threshold energies $E_k$, with the constraints (\ref{Eq:constraints-T_ij})
always fulfilled.
In all the above instances, no systems were found which had both
large values of the asymmetry parameter, Eq.~(\ref{def:x}), and high thermoelectric efficiency.
Such a failure was explained by \cite{BSS2013} and is generic
for non-interacting three-terminal systems. In the case where ${\bm B}\ne 0$, current conservation (which is
mathematically expressed by unitarity of the scattering matrix
${\cal S}$) imposes bounds on the Onsager matrix stronger than
those derived from positivity of entropy production. \green{It takes the form}
\begin{equation}
L_{ee}L_{hh}
-\frac{1}{4}\,(L_{eh}+L_{he})^2 \ge
\frac{3}{4}\,(L_{eh}-L_{he})^2.
\label{eq:3terbound}
\end{equation}
This only reduces to the third inequality of
Eq.~(\ref{dots}) in the time-symmetric case
$L_{eh}=L_{he}$, while it is in general a stronger inequality,
since the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:3terbound})
is strictly positive when $L_{eh}\ne L_{he}$.
As a consequence, Carnot efficiency can be achieved
in the three-terminal setup only in the time-symmetric case
${\bm B}=0$. On the other hand, the Curzon-Ahlborn linear response
bound $\eta_{CA}=\eta_C/2$ for the efficiency at maximum power
can be overcome for moderate asymmetries, $1<x<2$, with a
maximum of $4\eta_C/7$ at $x=4/3$. The bounds obtained by
\cite{BSS2013} are in practice saturated in a
quantum transmission model reminiscent of the
railway switch model \cite{vinitha2013}.
Multi-terminal cases with more than three terminals were also discussed for
noninteracting electronic transport \cite{BS2013}.
By increasing the number $K_P$ of probe terminals,
the constraint from current conservation on the maximum efficiency
and the efficiency at maximum power becomes weaker than that
imposed by Eq.~(\ref{eq:3terbound}). However, the bounds
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:boundetapmax},\ref{eq:boundetamax})
from the second law of
thermodynamics are saturated only in the limit $K_P\to\infty$.
Moreover, numerical evidence suggests that the power
vanishes when the maximum efficiency is approached \cite{BS2015}.
It is an interesting open question whether
similar bounds on efficiency, tighter
than those imposed by the positivity of entropy production,
exist in more general transport models for interacting systems.
\subsection{Generic multi-terminal setups}
\label{sec:genericmultiterminal}
There is increasing interest in systems with more than just two reservoirs carrying currents.
For instance, one may have a third reservoir which is a
phonon heat bath connected to the electrons in the nanostructure.
This can be used as a model of electron thermalization within the nanostructure
due to inelastic electron-lattice (electron-phonon) interactions, as in Fig.~\ref{fig:3ter}b.
Note that in typical nanostructures, phonons in the scatterer are rather strongly coupled with the bath of phonons in the reservoirs, substrate, etc. Thus the bath of phonons can absorb or supply heat to the electrons,
which mean that $\Jheat{{ ph}} \neq 0$ while $\Jelectric{{ ph}} = 0$.
One can imagine using this to supply heat to the nanostructure through the probe reservoir,
by ensuring it is coupled to a reservoir of phonons (or photons) which is hotter than the other reservoirs.
It has been shown that such setups can be favorable for thermoelectric
energy conversion \cite{imry2012}.
There are many proposals for such devices, for some of them broken time-reversal symmetry
(via an external magnetic field) is crucial to their operation; these include Aharonov-Bohm rings \cite{entin2012} and quantum Hall systems \cite{sanchez2015a,sanchez2015b,sanchez2016,whitney2016}.
The setup can also act as a
refrigerator for the local phonon system (modelled here as the probe reservoir).
The \emph{cooling by heating} phenomenon can also
be interpreted in terms of a third, photonic terminal powering refrigeration:
In the proposal by Pekola and Hekking \cite{pekola2007}
(see also \cite{pekola2011,pekola2012,vandenbroeck2006})
the photons
emitted by a hot resistor can extract
heat from a cold metal, providing the energy needed to
electrons to tunnel to a superconductor (separated from the metal
by a thin insulating junction; no voltage is applied over the
junction). If the temperature of the resistor
is suitably set, only the high energy electrons are removed
from the metal, thus cooling it.
Similar mechanisms have been discussed for cooling
a metallic lead, connected to another, higher temperature
lead by means of two adjoining quantum dots \cite{vandenbroeck2012}
or for cooling an optomechanical system \cite{eisert2012}.
In both cases, refrigeration is powered by absorption of photons.
Many of these situations can be treated in terms of a multi-terminal scattering theory.
However, a number of them are more naturally treated in terms of the rate equation technique,
so they are discussed in chapter~\ref{Sect:master-examples}.
In a multi-terminal device
all terminals should be treated on equal footing, without
necessarily declaring some of them as probes.
For a linear response approach, the transport coefficients
must be generalized \cite{Mazza2014}. A generalization of the
thermopower to the multi-terminal scenario can be obtained by
introducing the matrix of elements
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:thermopower}
S_{ij} = -\left(\frac{\Delta V_i}{\Delta T_j} \right)_{\mbox{\tiny{$\begin{array}{l}
J_{e,k} = 0, \; \forall k, \\
\Delta T_{k} = 0,\; \forall k\neq j
\end{array}$}} },
\end{equation}
where $\Delta V_i\equiv \Delta \mu_i/e$
is the voltage developed between reservoir
$i$ and (reference) reservoir $1$.
In this definition we have imposed that the charge currents in all the leads are
zero (the voltages are measured at open circuits) and that all but one
temperature differences are zero
While \emph{local} thermopowers correspond to $i=j$,
\emph{nonlocal} thermopowers are obtained when $i\ne j$, i.e. a temperature
difference between two reservoirs ($j$ and $1$) induces a voltage also
between other reservoirs ($i$ and $1$ for $S_{ij}$) at the same
temperature \footnote{It is worth observing that
Eq.~(\ref{eq:thermopower}) differs from other definitions proposed in the literature
For example in Ref.~\cite{Belzig2013} a generalization of the two-terminal
thermopower to a three-terminal system, was proposed
by setting to zero one voltage instead of the corresponding particle current.
While operationally well defined, this choice does not allow one to easily recover
the thermopower of the two-terminal case.}.
Generalizations of the electrical and thermal conductances and of the
Peltier coefficient to the multi-terminal case are provided by the following matrices:
\begin{equation}
G_{ij} = \left(\frac{J_{e,i}}{\Delta V_j} \right)_{\mbox{\tiny{$\begin{array}{l}
\Delta T_k = 0, \; \forall k, \\
\Delta V_{k} = 0,\; \forall k\neq j
\end{array}$}} },
\quad
K_{ij} = \left(\frac{J_{h,i}}{\Delta T_j} \right)_{\mbox{\tiny{$\begin{array}{l}
J_{e,k} = 0, \; \forall k, \\
\Delta T_{k} = 0,\; \forall k\neq j
\end{array}$}} },
\quad
\Pi_{ij} = \left( \frac{J_{h,i}}{J_{e,j}} \right)_{\mbox{\tiny{$\begin{array}{l}
\Delta T_k = 0, \; \forall k, \\
\Delta V_{k} = 0,\; \forall k\neq j
\end{array}$}} }.
\end{equation}
The Peltier matrix is related to the the thermopower matrix (\ref{eq:thermopower})
through the Onsager reciprocal relations, implying
$\Pi_{ij}({\bm B})=T S_{ji}(-{\bm B})$.
The steady-state heat to work conversion efficiency for a multi-terminal
system is defined as the power $P$ generated by the machine
(which equals to the sum of all the heat currents {\it exchanged}
between the system and the reservoirs),
divided by the sum of the heat currents {\it absorbed} by the system, i.e. \cite{Mazza2014}
\begin{equation}
\label{effmulti}
\eta \ =\ \frac{P}{\sum_{k_+} J_{h,k}}\ =\
\frac{\sum_{k=1}^n J_{h,k}}{\sum_{k_+} J_{h,k}}\ =\
\frac{ -\sum_{k=1}^n (\mu_k/e)J_{e,k}}{\sum_{k_+} J_{h,k}} \ =\
\frac{-\sum_{k=2}^n \Delta V_k J_{e,k}}{\sum_{k_+} J_{h,k}},
\end{equation}
where the symbol $\sum_{k_+}$ in the denominator indicates that the sum is restricted
to positive heat currents only, and where to derive
the last two expressions we used
the charge and energy conservation laws in section~\ref{Sect:scatter-basics}
\footnote{
\green{We have excluded $k=1$ in the last sum of
Eq.~(\ref{effmulti}) because we have $\Delta V_1=0$ due to our choice of reservoir $1$ as the
reference.}
}.
The definition (\ref{effmulti}) applies only to the case in which $P$ is positive.
Since the signs of the heat currents $J_{h,k}$ are not known a priori
(they actually depend on the details of the system), the expression of
the efficiency depends on which heat currents are positive.
For instance, if for the three-terminal case we set $T_1>T_2>T_3$
and focus on those situations
where $J_{h,3}$ is negative
(positive values of $J_{h,3}$ being associated with regimes where the
machine effectively works as a refrigerator which extract heat from the
coldest reservoir of the system), we obtain
$\eta=P/(J_{h,1}+J_{h,3})$ where the heat currents from
reservoirs $1$ and $2$ are both positive or
$\eta=P/J_{h,k}$ for $k=1$ or $2$
where only $J_{h,k}$ is positive.
For a generic multi-terminal setup, the Carnot efficiency is obtained
by imposing the condition of zero entropy production,
namely $\dot{\mathscr{S}} = \sum_{k=1}^n J_{h,k}/T_k = 0$.
In particular,
for $n=2$ terminals kept at temperatures $T_1$ and $T_3$ (with $T_1>T_3$),
from the condition $\dot{\mathscr{S}}=0$ and
the definition of the efficiency, Eq.~(\ref{effmulti}),
one gets the usual two-terminal Carnot efficiency $\eta_C^{II}=1-T_3/T_1$.
It is worth noticing that, as shown below for the
three-terminal case and in contrast to the two-terminal case,
in general the Carnot efficiency cannot be written in terms of the
temperatures only, but it depends on the details of the system.
Several instances must be considered separately, already with
$n=3$ terminals (a reservoir at an intermediate temperature $T_2$ is added)
where we have, as discussed above, three possibilities.
If $J_{h,1}$ only is positive, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:carnot3t_a}
\eta_{C}=1-\frac{T_3}{T_1}+\frac{J_{h,2}}{J_{h,1}}(1-\zeta_{32})=
\eta_C^{II}+\frac{J_{h,2}}{J_{h,1}}(1-\zeta_{32}),
\end{equation}
where $\zeta_{ij} \equiv T_i/T_j$.
Note that Eq.~(\ref{eq:carnot3t_a})
is the sum of the two-terminal Carnot efficiency $\eta_C^{II}$ and a term
whose sign is determined by $(1-\zeta_{32})$.
Since $J_{h,1}>0$, $J_{h,2}<0$ and $\zeta_{32}<1$, it follows that
$\eta_{C}$ is always \emph{reduced} with respect to its two-terminals
counterpart $\eta_C^{II}$.
Analogously if $J_{h,2}$ only is positive, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:carnot3t_c}
\eta_{C}=\eta_C^{II} - \frac{T_3}{T_1}
\left[ \frac{J_{h,1}}{J_{h,2}} (1-\zeta_{13})-(1-\zeta_{12}) \right] ,
\end{equation}
which again can be shown to be reduced with respect to $\eta_C^{II}$,
since $J_{h,1}<0$, $J_{h,2}>0$, $\zeta_{12}>1$, and $\zeta_{13}>1$.
We notice that this is a hybrid configuration (not a heat engine, neither a
refrigerator): the hottest reservoir absorbs heat, while the intermediate-temperature
reservoir releases heat.
However, the heat to work conversion efficiency is legitimately defined since
generation of power ($P>0$) can occur in this situation.
Finally, if both $J_{h,1}$ and $J_{h,2}$ are positive we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:carnot3t_b}
\eta_{C}=1-\frac{T_3}{T_1}
\left( 1 + \frac{\zeta_{12} -1}{ 1+ \frac{J_{h,1}}{J_{h,2}} } \right) =
\eta_C^{II} - \frac{T_3}{T_1} \frac{\zeta_{12} -1}{ 1+ \frac{J_{h,1}}{J_{h,2}} }.
\end{equation}
Since $T_1>T_2>T_3$, the term that multiplies $T_3/T_1$ is positive so that
$\eta_{C}$ is reduced with respect to the two-terminal case.
It can be expected that given a system that works between $T_1$ and $T_3$
(with $T_1>T_3$) and adding an arbitrary number of terminals at
intermediate temperatures will in general lead to Carnot bounds smaller
than $\eta_C^{II}$ \footnote{Of course, adding terminals at higher (or colder)
temperatures than $T_1$ and $T_3$ will make $\eta_C$ increase.}.
Within linear response and for the time-reversal symmetric case,
analytical expressions for the efficiency at maximum power,
written in terms of generalized figures of merit, have been derived
for the three-terminal case \cite{Mazza2014}.
It turns out that the efficiency at maximum power is always upper
bounded by half of the associated Carnot efficiency, which in turn,
as shown above, is upper bounded by $\eta_C^{II}$.
On the other hand, as shown in Ref.~\cite{Mazza2014}
in the examples of single and double dot
systems, for two-terminal efficiencies at maximum power
lower than the CA upper bound, a third terminal can be useful to improve
both the efficiency at maximum power and the output power.
Moreover, a multi-terminal device offers enhanced \emph{flexibility}
that might be useful to improve thermoelectric performances.
For instance, with three terminals
one can separate the currents,
with charge and heat flowing to different reservoirs \cite{Mazza2015}.
\subsection{Andreev reflection from superconductors}
\label{Sect:Andreev-linear}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{3term-SC.pdf}}
\caption{
\label{fig:3term-SC}
Systems which exhibit interesting effects due to Andreev reflection from a superconductor.
(a) A sketch of the geometry used for heat-charge separation discussed in section~\ref{Sect:heat-charge-separation}.
Charge cannot flow into the probe and heat cannot flow into the superconductor.
(b) A sketch of an Andreev interferometer which generates a thermopower which is an odd function of the applied magnetic field, ${\bm B}$, as discussed in section~\ref{Sect:odd-B}.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In the presence of a superconducting reservoir which induces Andreev reflection,
we must consider the more complicated expressions for the currents in section~\ref{Sect:scatter-Andreev}.
Performing a linear expansion of the Fermi function, $f^\varsigma_j(E)$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:f-eh}),
in a similar manner to Eq.~(\ref{eq:fermilinear}), we recover a relation of the form in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Onsager-matrix})
for currents into non-superconducting reservoirs,
with all biases from the electrochemical potential of the superconductor.
In this case, the Onsager coefficients are
\begin{align}
L_{ee,ij} \ =\ e^2T \ I_{ij}^{(0,0)}, \qquad
L_{eh,ij} \ =\ eT \ I_{ij}^{(0,1)}, \qquad
L_{he,ij}\ =\ eT \ I_{ij}^{(1,0)}, \qquad
L_{hh,ij}\ =\ T \ I_{ij}^{(1,1)},
\label{Eq:Andreev-linear1}
\end{align}
where we define the integral $ I_{ij}^{(n,m)}$ as
\begin{align}
I_{ij}^{(n,m)} \ = \ &
\sum_{\varrho\varsigma} \int_0^\infty {{\rm d}E \over h} \ \varrho^{1-n} \,\varsigma^{1-m} \,E^{n+m}
\
\left[N_i^\varrho(E) \,\delta_{ij}\delta_{\varrho \varsigma}-{\cal T}_{ij}^{\varrho \varsigma}(E) \right]
\,\big[\!-\!f'(E)\big],
\label{Eq:Andreev-linear2}
\end{align}
in which the energy $E$ is measured from the electrochemical potential of the superconductor.
The $\varrho$ and $\varsigma$ sums are over over $+1$ for electrons and $-1$ for holes.
We recall that throughout this review we use the subscripts \green{``e'' for electrical current
and ``h'' for heat current},
when most of the works on systems with superconductors use ``e'' for electrons and ``h'' for holes (for which we use ``$\pm 1$'').
One can easily use Eq.~(\ref{Eq:T_ij-time-reverse-SC}) to show that the system obeys the Onsager reciprocal relation in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Onsager-multiterm}).
However, in general one no longer has the equality in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Butcher}).
This is because $L_{eh,ij}$ is sensitive to the charge carried by particles when they leave the scatterer
(an extra factor of $\varrho$ in the integrand),
while $L_{he,ij}$ is sensitive to the charge carried by particles when they enter the scatterer
(an extra factor of $\varsigma$ in the integrand).
The two are the same in the absence of the superconductor (when ${\cal T}_{ij}^{\varrho \varsigma}$ is only non-zero for $\varrho=\varsigma$),
however the fact that the Andreev reflection from the superconductor turns electrons into holes (and vice-versa)
means that in general $L_{eh,ij}(B)$ will not equal $L_{he,ij}(B)$ \cite{jwmb}.
\subsubsection{Heat-charge separation}
\label{Sect:heat-charge-separation}
Heat-charge separation can be obtained in a device called ``SPN'', which is
composed of a generic conductor connected to a superconducting reservoir (S),
a normal metal reservoir (N) and a second normal reservoir whose electrochemical
potential is set to inhibit the flow of electrical current, thus
acting as a voltage probe (P).
This set-up naturally realizes heat-charge current separation.
A voltage probe exchanges (on average) by definition only
heat (energy) with the system, whereas the superconductor, being a poor heat
conductor for temperatures below the gap, can exchange only charges.
This way, the heat and charge currents, flowing together out
of the normal metal reservoir (N), are split and driven either
towards the voltage probe (heat), or towards the superconducting
reservoir (charge).
As a result, it is possible to violate in a controlled fashion the
Wiedemann-Franz law,
greatly enhancing (at low temperatures, i.e. where the
Sommerfeld expansion holds)
both the efficiency and the power factor
with respect to a standard two-terminal system \cite{Mazza2015}.
\subsubsection{Thermopower as odd-function of external magnetic-field }
\label{Sect:odd-B}
In section~\ref{Sect:scatter-2term-linear}, we explained that the thermopower of a phase coherent scatterer
coupled to two-reservoirs, $S({\bm B})$, was always an even function of the external ${\bm B}$-field; i.e. $S({\bm B})=S(-{\bm B})$.
In section~\ref{sec:probes}, we showed that phase breaking effects (modeled as a probe reservoir)
give the thermopower an indeterminate symmetry under ${\bm B} \to -{\bm B}$.
In that case, any given system's thermopower will contain terms that are even in ${\bm B}$ and others that are odd in ${\bm B}$,
and we can make no general statement about which will be larger.
Here we show that a so-called \emph{Andreev interferometer} has a thermoelectric response that is {\it systematically} odd in the external field;
i.e. $S({\bm B})=-S(-{\bm B})$.
As such it is a ideal test case for the theories discussed in section~\ref{sec:efficiencymagnetic} since it has an asymmetry parameter $x=-1$.
An Andreev interferometer is a superconducting island formed in a horse-shoe shape so it can be
coupled to the scatterer at two points, as in Fig.~\ref{fig:3term-SC}b, with a magnetic field, ${\bm B}$,
through the resulting loop.
Andreev interferometers have been extensively studied experimentally \cite{chandrasekhar,Petrashov03,Chandrasekhar05,Chandrasekhar09},
and nearly all samples clearly show that $S({\bm B})$ is an odd function of ${\bm B}$.
While those experimental systems had $x=-1$, their thermoelectric responses corresponded
to a generalized figure of merit, $y\ll 1$,
which means they could not have been useful for applications such as power production
or refrigeration. The theory that we will discuss here captures the basic physics of these systems, but only works in the regime where $y \ll 1$. One may hope
that one could get larger figures of merit by a suitable tuning of the parameters of the experimental system,
even if a different theory is necessary to model such systems.
This system was modelled using scattering theory in Ref.~\cite{jacquod}, which showed that the thermoelectric
effect could be seen by considering interference between paths that undergo Andreev reflection from the superconductor.
There are many paths that contribute to the transmission \cite{jacquod}, however the basic physics can be understood by considering the two paths shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3term-SC}b.
In both cases an electron comes from the left reservoir and Andreev reflects back along the same path to
return to reservoir L as a hole, this process removes a charge of $2e$ out of reservoir L.
The difference between the paths is that path 1 reflects off arm SC1 of the superconducting island, while
path 2 reflects off arm SC2. The phase acquired by along path 1 is $2E t_1 +\phi/2$
if the electron initially has energy $E$ above the Fermi surface, while the phase acquired by along path 2 is
$2E t_2-\phi/2$ for the same initial electron energy,
where $t_n$ is the time taken to follow path $n$.
The factor of $\phi$ is the external field ${\bm B}$ multiplied by the area of the loop (formed by the
two arms of the superconductor) measured in units of the magnetic flux quantum, $h/(2e)$.
Thus the superconducting phase is $\phi/2$ at SC1, while it is $-\phi/2$ at SC2,
and this phase is acquired by the wavepacket every time an electron reflects as a hole.
There are many paths going to SC1 with different $t_1$, and many paths going to SC2 with different $t_2$,
however the asymmetric geometry of the two arms means that on average $t_2-t_1 =\delta t$.
Thus we can conclude that the average contribution to the current due to
interference between path 1 and path 2 is $2eA \cos(2E\delta t -\phi)$.
Here $A$ is a constant related to the probability to follow the paths.
However, if reservoir L is hot but unbiased, for every electron flowing into the scatterer there is a hole flowing into the scatterer. Thus we must also consider the same paths, but with electron and hole interchanged,
so a hole with energy $\epsilon$ is injected to be Andreev reflected as an electron from SC1 or SC2 back along the same path, this process removes a charge of $-2e$ from reservoir L.
In this case, the average contribution to the current due to
interference between path 1 and path 2 is $-2eA \cos(2E\delta t +\phi)$.
The sign changes in front of $\phi$ because the phase acquired in the transition hole$\to$electron is opposite from that acquired in the transition electron$\to$hole. The sum of processes electron$\to$hole and hole$\to$electron gives
an average interference contribution to the current out of reservoir L equalling
\begin{eqnarray}
2eA \left[ \cos (2E\delta t -\phi) - \cos (2E\delta t +\phi) \right] \ = \ 4eA \sin (2E \delta t) \ \sin \phi
\label{Eq:Andreev-intererence}
\end{eqnarray}
The various other contributions to thermoelectric transport considered in Ref.~\cite{jacquod} have the same $\phi$ dependence.
Thus, we see that heating reservoir L leads to an electrical current in reservoir L that is an odd function of $\phi$,
and hence an odd function of the external field ${\bm B}$. Similar argument tell us that the electrical conductivity is even in
$\phi$, which mean that the Seebeck coefficient (which is the ratio of the two) is an odd function of the external magnetic field, $S({\bm B})=-S(-{\bm B})$.
We make a few technical notes about calculating the Onsager matrix for such systems.
Since the superconductor is an island, the average current flow out of it must be zero
in the steady-state, $J_{e,{\rm SC}} =0$ (we recall that one always has the heat flow $J_{h,{\rm SC}} =0$).
Combining this with current conservation, means we expect that
$J_{e,L} =-J_{e,R} $, while heat conservation in linear response means that $J_{h,L} =-J_{h,R} $.
To write an equation of the form in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Onsager-matrix}), we must chose reservoir 1 as the superconductor,
because we must measure all energies and biases with respect to the electrochemical potential of the
superconductor. The temperature of the superconductor is irrelevant, so it is convenient to measure temperatures
from that of reservoir R, which means $\Delta T_{ L} = T_{ L}-T_{ R}$.
Then we get \cite{Claughton-Lambert}
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
J_{e,L} \\
J_{e,R} \\
J_{h,R}
\end{array}\right) \ = \
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
L_{ ee;L-} & L_{ eh;LL}& L_{ ee;L+} \\
L_{ ee;R-}& L_{ eh;RL}& L_{ ee;R+} \\
L_{ he;R-} & L_{ hh;RL}& L_{ he;R+} \\
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{F}_{ e,-} \\
\mathcal{F}_{ h,L} \\
\mathcal{F}_{ e,+}
\end{array}\right),
\label{Eq:Onsager-matrix-2term+SC}
\end{eqnarray}
where we write the thermodynamic forces in terms of the sum and difference of biases $V_{ L}$ and $V_{ R}$,
such that $\mathcal{F}_{ e,\pm} = (V_{ L} \pm V_{ R})\big/ T_{ R}$.
This means that the matrix elements
$L_{\mu { e};i\pm} =
{\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} \left(L_{{ \mu e};i{ L}}
\pm L_{\mu { e};i{ R}}\right)$
for $\mu \in { e,h}$ and $i \in { L,R}$.
Now for a superconducting island, the electrochemical potential of the superconductor must be adjusted to ensure that the condition
$J_{e,L} =-J_{e,R} $ is fulfilled,
much as we did with the probe in section~\ref{sec:probes}.
However, as we measure all energies from the
superconductor's electrochemical potential, this means that we actually adjust
$\mathcal{F}_{ e,+}$ to ensure that $J_{e,L} =-J_{e,R} $,
while the thermodynamic force associated with a bias between left and right is
$\mathcal{F}_{ e,-}$.
\green{The condition that $J_{e,L} =-J_{e,R} $ means that}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{F}_{ e,+} \ =\ - \frac{ L_{ ee;+-} \mathcal{F}_{ e,-} \ + \ L_{ eh;+L}\mathcal{F}_{ h,L}}{L_{ ee;++}}
\end{eqnarray}
where for compactness we define $L_{{ e}\nu;\pm j} = {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} \left(L_{{ e\nu;L} j}\pm L_{{ e\nu;R} j} \right)$
for $\nu \in { e,h}$ and $j \in { L,-,+}$.
Substituting this into Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Onsager-matrix-2term+SC}), and doing some basic algebra
gives us the two-terminal relations of a system coupled to a superconducting island \cite{Claughton-Lambert},
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
J_{e,R} \\
J_{h,R}
\end{array}\right) \ = \
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\tilde{L}_{ ee;R-}
& \tilde{L}_{ eh;RL} \\
\tilde{L}_{ he;R-} & \tilde{L}_{ hh;RL}\\
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{F}_{ e,-} \\
\mathcal{F}_{ h,L}
\end{array}\right)
\qquad \hbox{ with }
\ \
\tilde{L}_{\mu\nu;ij} = L_{\mu\nu;ij}- \frac{L_{{ \mu e};i+}L_{{ e\nu};+j}}{ L_{ ee;++} }\ ,
\label{Eq:Onsager-matrix-2term+SCisland}
\end{eqnarray}
where we recall that $J_{e,L} =-J_{e,R} $ and $J_{h,L} =-J_{h,R} $.
We can then use Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Andreev-linear1},\ref{Eq:Andreev-linear2}) to get $L_{\mu\nu;ij}$ from the transmission matrix elements.
The handwaving argument that led to Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Andreev-intererence}) applies to
$L_{\mu\nu;ij}$ rather than $\tilde{L}_{\mu\nu;ij}$. However, Ref.~\cite{jacquod} summed all such
contributions to $ L_{\mu\nu;ij}$, inserted them into Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Onsager-matrix-2term+SCisland}),
and found that the asymmetry under $\phi \to -\phi$
does indeed carry over into the final result in the case \green{when the coupling to the superconducting reservoir is weaker than the coupling to the other reservoirs.}
For this, they considered a scatterer connected by $N_{\rm SC1}$ and $N_{\rm SC2}$ modes to the two parts of the superconductor, and
by $N_{ L}$ and $N_{ R}$ modes to the the left and right reservoirs, in the limit where $1 \ll (N_{\rm SC1}+N_{\rm SC2}) \ll (N_{ L}+N_{ R})$.
Under these conditions, they found that
\begin{eqnarray}
S(\phi) \ =\ \frac{\tilde{L}_{ eh;RL}}{\tilde{L}_{ ee;R-}}
\ = \
{4 k_{\rm B} \over e} {N_{\rm SC1}\ N_{\rm SC2} \over (N_{ L}+N_{ R})^2} \ I_{\rm b}(T) \sin \phi.
\end{eqnarray}
The form of the dimensionless factor $ I_{\rm b}(T)$ can be found in Ref.~\cite{jacquod}.
Under the same conditions, they also showed that the Wiedemann-Franz law is violated since
\begin{eqnarray}
{K \over GT} = {\cal L} \ \left(
1 - F(T) {N_{\rm SC1}^2+N_{\rm SC2}^2 + 2 N_{\rm SC1}N_{\rm SC2}\cos \phi
\over 4(N_{ L}+N_{ R})(N_{\rm SC1}+N_{\rm SC2})}
\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal L} $ is the Lorenz number in Eq.~(\ref{lorenz}), and $F(T)$ is a thermal damping factor
with $F(0)=1$. This violation is much bigger than that found in the absence of a superconducting island
\cite{lsb98},
but remains small since their calculation assumes $N_{\rm SC1}+N_{\rm SC2} \ll N_{ L}+N_{ R}$.
Thus $K \big/(GT)$ is still of order ${\cal L}$ which means that the figure of merit $ZT$ is of order
${\cal L} \ S^2$ which is clearly much less than one in the regime for which their calculation is valid.
It would be a good idea to do theory
for cases when $(N_{\rm SC1}+N_{\rm SC2})$ is of order $ (N_{ L}+N_{ R})$,
as $ZT$ should be much larger there. For that one would have to treat the difficult problem
of multiple scattering from the superconductor; this could be done by treating the scatterer as a random matrix
\cite{Beenakker-review}, or by switching to the Usadel approach \cite{Sev00,Vir04,Vir07a,Vir07b,Tit08}.
However, we are not aware of
any works that explore how to maximize $ZT$ in such systems.
\subsection{Mesoscopic fluctuations inducing thermoelectric effects in quantum dots}
The systems discussed in most of this review have their parameters chosen to have simple and strong thermoelectric responses.
However, this is often not the case in real nanoscale systems, since uncontrolled disorder in the system (impurities, dislocations, grain boundaries, etc.)
tends to change and randomize the system parameters. In such cases thermoelectrics effects may change significantly from one sample (with one distribution of the microscopic disorder)
to another superficially identical sample (with a different distribution of disorder).
In macroscopic systems such microscopic effects usually average out across the system, so such fluctuations are of little relevance. However, nanoscale quantum systems are known as {\it mesoscopic}, because the fluctuations do not average out.
The {\it universal conductance fluctuations} are the most famous example of such an effect.
They can be understood within the context of scattering theory as variations in the transmission with energy
due to quantum interference between electron paths that scatter from the disorder in multiple ways.
The energy dependence of transmission leads to thermoelectric effects, as was noted
in Ref.~\cite{lsb98}.
However, the disorder varies from sample to sample, and thus so does the energy-dependence of the transmission.
If we average over samples, we find that the average transmission is energy independent. Thus
there is no thermoelectric effect on average. None the less, the samples have a distribution of Seebeck coefficients centered around zero, so some samples will have positive $S$ while others will have negative $S$.
Scattering theory has been used to find the typical magnitude of $S$ for a large quantum dot well coupled to the reservoirs \cite{lsb98}, with the dot's level spacing being $\Delta$, and the level broadening being of order $N\Delta$,
where $N$ is the number of modes in the contacts to the reservoirs.
We do not reproduce the calculations in Ref.~\cite{lsb98},
but note that they use the Sommerfeld expansion to treat the problem, which relies on
the transmission function being a smooth function energy on the scale of temperature.
Since the transmission varies on the scale of the level broadening, the Sommerfeld expansion is only valid for $k_{\rm B} T \ll N \Delta$.
In this regime, Ref.~\cite{lsb98} found that the magnitude of the Seebeck coefficient
is
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{\rm typical} \ = \ \sqrt{ {\rm var}(S) } \ =\ \frac{\pi^3 \ k_{\rm B}^2 T}{3e \ \beta \ N^2 \Delta},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\beta$ is the integer telling us if the system respects time-reversal symmetry in random-matrix theory (time-reversal symmetry means $\beta=1$, while broken time-reversal symmetry due to an external magnetic fields means $\beta=2$).
As one is in the regime given by the Sommerfeld expansion, it is reasonable to assume the
Wiedemann-Franz law is approximately satisfied (although there will be small mesoscopic oscillations in the ratio $K/G$),
which means the figure of merit
\begin{eqnarray}
(ZT)_{\rm typical} \ \sim\ {\cal L} \,S_{\rm typical}^2 \ =\ \frac{\pi^4 }{3 \beta \ N^2} \
\left(\frac{k_{\rm B} T}{N\Delta}\right)^2
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal L}$ is the Lorenz number in Eq.~(\ref{lorenz}).
We recall the calculation is valid for $k_{\rm B} T \ll N\Delta$, which means that it gives $ZT \ll 1$.
Thus, while these fluctuations are interesting and give us information about the sample, they are too small to
be useful for heat engines or refrigerators.
Ref.~\cite{jacquod} pointed out that $S_{\rm typical}$ obeys the symmetry discussed below
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Onsager-2term-2}),
and so could provide an explanation for the previously unexplained even-${\bm B}$ dependence of $S({\bm B})$ for the experimental samples called ``house-geometry'' in
Ref~\cite{chandrasekhar}.
Similar mesoscopic fluctuations in the context of the nonlinear scattering theory were studied
in Ref.~\cite{sanchez2011},
they were also studied in different regimes of systems with strong Coulomb blockade in
Refs.~\cite{vonOppen2004,Stone-Alhassid2010,Vasenko2015}.
\subsection{Thermoelectricity in disordered systems near the mobility edge}
There have been many works on thermoelectric effects associated with the mobility-edge in a bulk disordered
semiconductor \cite{Fritzsche71}, and this idea was extended to nanostructures in Ref.~\cite{Sivan-Imry1986}. The idea is that electronic states below an energy $E_{\rm loc}$ are localized by the disorder, and so cannot flow from hot to cold,
while those above $E_{\rm loc}$ are delocalized, and so free to flow.
At a hand-waving level, one can guess that this will mean the transmission of the disordered system is
very small below $E_{\rm loc}$ and close to one above $E_{\rm loc}$ (much like the transmission of the point-contact discussed in section~\ref{Sect:scatter-pointcont}).
Thus, one can immediately see from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:S-as-average}) that the system will
have a significant Seebeck coefficient, $S$.
This simple argument captures the basic idea of the coherent transport regime \cite{pichard2014a} that occurs at low temperatures,
but at higher temperatures activated hopping start to dominate \cite{pichard2014b,Pichard2016}.
Then, the electrons flow from hot to cold with the aid of thermal activation by phonons,
giving a more complicated (but no less interesting) thermoelectric effect \cite{pichard2014b,Pichard2016}.
This physics should be visible in disordered semiconductor nanowires, where
a back-gate could be used to tune $E_{\rm loc}$, and thereby tune the Seebeck coefficient.
This would allow field control of the heat exchange
between the phonons and the electrons at submicron scales in electronic circuits. It could be also
used for cooling hot spots \cite{pichard2015}.
The hopping regime can also be used to make a three-terminal thermoelectric heat-engine \cite{imry2012,imry2013},
by heating the phonon gas that activates the transport. There is has been argued that the physics is dominated
by the boundary between the nanoscale disordered region being heated and the bulk electronic reservoir
that carry the current generated \cite{imry2013}.
\subsection{Aharonov-Bohm, quantum Hall and other chiral systems}
\label{sect:qu-hall}
\green{
There are many proposals for nanoscale heat-engines and refrigerators which require an external magnetic field for their operation, these include Aharonov-Bohm rings \cite{entin2012} and quantum Hall systems \cite{
QuNernst2014,sanchez2015a,sanchez2015b,Hofer-Sothmann2015,Vannucci2015,sanchez2016,whitney2016,Samuelsson-Sothmann2016}.
In these cases the external magnetic field does not provide heat or work to the system, but does change the systems dynamics, allowing its dynamics to break time-reversal symmetry.
The external magnet that generates this magnetic field can the thought of as a catalyst;
it is a resource that changes the system's behavior without being modified itself.
Of course, if the external magnet is a resistive coil, then it takes work to drive it,
but this is not the case if it is a permanent magnet or a superconducting magnet.
}
\green{
Quantum Hall systems are particularly intriguing because electrons flow in chiral edge-states; so for example electrons can flow clockwise around the edge of the system, but cannot flow counter-clockwise.
This makes them the most extreme example of time-reversal symmetry breaking,
since it is not only that the time-reversed state of a given electron has different dynamics.
Instead, here the time-reversed state of an electron going clockwise would be one going counter-clockwise, and this state does not exist in the system.
}
\green{
Thus one can have a quantum-Hall system coupled to three reservoirs (hot, left and right) that has electrons
flowing from hot to left, but no electrons flowing from left to hot. Superficially, it looks like one can use this
to engineer unphysically good thermoelectric machines, for example one whose power output is independent of the temperature of the left reservoir. However, a more careful analysis requires taking into account the flow of electrons from left to right and right to hot \cite{sanchez2015a,sanchez2015b,sanchez2016,whitney2016},
when this is done one recovers the predictions similar to those in section~\ref{sec:efficiencymagnetic}. Thus the efficiency must be equal to or less than Carnot efficiency, while the power output is of a similar order of magnitude to systems without magnetic fields \cite{whitney2016}.
}
\green{
This does not mean that quantum Hall systems are without interest, quite the contrary.
To build a good thermoelectric nanostructure, it is critical to have a very high degree of control over the electrons, and currently quantum Hall systems are better for this than almost any other electronic system.
For example it is the only context in which one can build a solid state Mach-Zehnder interferometer for electrons
\cite{Heiblum2003,Heiblum2007,Roulleau2008a,Roulleau2009,Strunk2010,Portier2012}.
Such a system has recently been proposed as a powerful
and efficient heat engines \cite{Hofer-Sothmann2015,Samuelsson-Sothmann2016}.
}
\green{
Turning the situation around, one can use heat and charge transport properties as a probe of physics of a nanostructure. In this context, recent measurements of the heat and charge transport
of a point contact in the fractional quantum Hall regime have given a great deal of information about the
chiral edge-states (and their reconstruction) in these systems \cite{Mitali-Banerjee}.
}
\green{Finally, we mention that works are starting to appear on other topological systems such as
topological insulators \cite{Ronetti2016}. }
\red{
Due to their bulk properties, many currently known topological insulators (for instance
bismuth telluride, Bi$_2$Te$_3$) are also excellent
thermoelectric materials, with applications in power sources for space exploration
\cite{Schmidt-deep-space}. The possibility that the topologically protected conducting
channels act as energy filters \cite{Chang2014} and the nontrivial interplay between edge
(or surface) and bulk states \cite{Xu2014} offer new opportunities to improve thermoelectric
efficiency. Moreover, topological protection against nonmagnetic impurities can ensure
a good electrical conductivity while phonon conductivity is suppressed by the
impurities \cite{Chang2014}.
}
\subsection{\green{Noise in heat and charge currents}}
\green{
Scattering theory has long been used to calculate the noise in the charge current through
a quantum system \cite{Blanter-Buttiker}. Experimentally this noise can give us much more information than the average current alone, such as the charge of the current carriers (which one could only get from the average current alone if one had a perfect knowledge of the system's transmission probability). This is often summarized with the famous phrase of Landauer that ``the noise is the signal'' \cite{Landauer-noise-is-signal}. A perfect example of this is that noise measurements were used to prove that the charge carriers in fractional quantum Hall states are fractionally charged \cite{frac-qu-hall1,frac-qu-hall2}.
}
\green{
One can do the same for the noise in heat or energy currents, both theoretically
\cite{Sergi2011,Zhan2011,Sanchez2012,Sanchez2013,Azema-Lombardo-Dare2014,Crepieux2015,Battista2014a,Battista2014b}
and experimentally \cite{Jezouin2013,Mitali-Banerjee},
and this again should give more information about the system than
the average currents alone. In particular, one can look at cross-correlations between noise in the charge current and that in the heat current, which can give information about whether each charge carriers carry
positive or negative amounts of heat \cite{Azema-Lombardo-Dare2014,Crepieux2015}.
The noise in the heat currents into a finite size reservoir will lead to fluctuations in the energy in that reservoir.
If electron-electron interactions cause the electrons in the reservoir to relax to a Fermi distribution
(with a well-defined temperature) faster than any process which couples that reservoir to its environment, then
these energy fluctuations can be considered as fluctuations of the effective temperature of the finite-size reservoir \cite{Van-den-Berg2015}.
}
\section{Nonlinear scattering theory and the thermodynamic laws}
\label{Sect:scatter-nonlin}
The central objective of this chapter is to prove that the scattering theory introduced
in chapter~\ref{Sect:scattering-theory}
contains the laws of thermodynamics. This will allow us to say that the laws of thermodynamics
are not violated by any system modelled by the scattering theory.
As a practical consequence, no system modelled by the scattering theory can exceed Carnot efficiency.
We will carry out these proofs in the context of the nonlinear scattering theory
(which of course means it also applies to the
linear response scattering theory in chapter~\ref{sec:landauer}). The reason for this is twofold.
Firstly, the proofs are not more difficult in the nonlinear scattering theory than in the linear response theory.
Secondly, there is an ambiguity in the linear response theory with respect to the first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation), which is absent in the full nonlinear theory.
This ambiguity will be made clearer when we address the first law below, however its origins
can already be seen in the discussion below Eq.~(\ref{Eq:heat-sum-linear}). In linear response, the heat flow into the scatterer equals the heat flow out, even when the scatterer is producing electrical power.
Superficially, this looks like a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, which says that one cannot generate work without absorbing heat (or vice versa). However,
in the linear response regime
the work produced is quadratic in the applied bias, and thus so is the associated reduction in heat.
This means the absorption of heat associated with the work generation is beyond the linear-response theory.
Hence, linear-response is ambiguous about the first law;
in other words it is hard to tell if a theory is violating the first law or not by only studying its linear-response regime.
\subsection{Calculating transmission in the nonlinear regime}
\label{Sect:scatter-validity2}
Here we return to the question of calculating the transmission function for a given system, that was
initially discussed in section~\ref{Sect:scatter-validity}, considering in more detail the case of large biases or temperature differences.
This section is only necessary reading if one wishes to calculate the transmission function for a given nanostructure.
It can be skipped if one is more interested in knowing how an arbitrary nanostructure obeys the laws of thermodynamics, for the reasons outlined at the end of section~\ref{Sect:scatter-validity}.
The objective is to find the electrostatic potential in the scatter for the desired biases and temperature differences between the reservoirs, taking into account the electron flows that occur because the reservoirs are no longer in equilibrium with each other.
There are two main methods to proceed in a manner that make the problem tractable, both found in
Refs.~\cite{Christen-Buttiker1996a,Christen-Buttiker1996b}.
The first method is to treat the effect of the biases and temperature differences in simple phenomenological models
which enable one to consider situations deep in the nonlinear regime.
The second method is the weakly nonlinear theory \cite{Christen-Buttiker1996a,Christen-Buttiker1996b,Sanchez-Buttiker2005,Buttiker-Sanchez2005}, which involves doing a perturbation expansion about the equilibrium state, by treating the biases and temperature differences as small.
This second method is microscopic, in the sense that it is a recipe which can be used to calculate the
transport properties of a given system from that system's Hamiltonian. However, such a calculation would require numerical simulation in all but the simplest model situations.
Irrespective of which method one uses to calculate the scattering matrix of the system in question, at the end one has a scattering matrix which depends not only on energy $E$, but also on the electrochemical potential and temperature of all the reservoirs in the vicinity of the scatter.
Note that this requires a change of perspective compared with the linear-response regime.
In the linear response regime, we only cared about those reservoirs which exchanged electrons with the scatterer.
Here we must also consider all those reservoir (gates) which are electrostatically coupled to the scatterer,
e.g. everything within the dashed red ellipse in Fig.~\ref{Fig:nonlinear-example}a.
However, despite this complexity, we know that for any given set of electrochemical potentials and temperatures, there is a unitary scattering matrix which gives the transmission matrix as in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:def-T_ij}).
This, in turn, enables us to calculate the currents in Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:I-initial},\ref{Eq:J-initial}).
The fact that the scattering matrix is unitary, irrespective of how one calculates that scattering matrix,
means that the system will always satisfy
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:constraints-T_ij}). This is crucial to sections~\ref{Sect:zeroth-law-scattering}-\ref{Sect:second-law-scattering}, as
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:constraints-T_ij}) will be the only requirement in our proof
that an arbitrary system modelled by the scattering theory will obey the laws of thermodynamics.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig-nonlinear-example.pdf}}
\caption{\label{Fig:nonlinear-example}
Example of a two-terminal quantum dot system (reservoir L, quantum dot and reservoir R) defined in a two-dimensional electron gas by
the set of top gates (shown in blue). Four top gates are necessary to independently control the
size of the quantum dot and the width of the point contacts to the left and right.
When modelling the system using the nonlinear scattering theory, one cannot consider the two-dimensional
electron gas alone, one must also treat its entire electro-static environment, determined by the top-gates
(and the back-gate if present). Thus, in general, one must solve the Poisson equation given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Poisson1})
within a region significantly bigger than the scatterer (in this case the quantum dot), such as that marked by the dashed red ellipse in (a). If the gates are all close to ideal (i.e.~good metals), then it may be reasonable to make the approximation indicated in (b). There the Poisson equation is solved only in the quantum dot and in the nearby parts of its reservoirs (within the dashed red loop), but the gates are taken into account via a capacitive coupling to each point $x$ inside the dashed red loop. For clarity we sketch each gate as only having a capacitive effect on the nearest part of the nanostructure. However, experiments show that a gate's capacitive effect applies on a range as large as the nanostructure, so it would be more correct to sketch every point $x$ in the nanostructure as being
connected capacitively to all gates, with an inverse capacitance which decays smoothly with distance from the gate in question.
}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Phenomenological treatment of strong nonlinearities}
\label{Sect:nonlin-phenomen}
The simplest phenomenological model of nonlinear situations is to take the transmission function
for the linear response problem and allow its parameters to depend on the bias and temperature of the reservoirs and gates. For example, one could take the point-contact discussed in section~\ref{Sect:scatter-pointcont},
and assume the two parameters $\epsilon(n_y,n_z)$ and $D$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:transmission-pc}) depend on the bias and temperatures of reservoirs and gates.
Similarly, one could take the single-level quantum dot discussed in section~\ref{Sect:scatter-single-level-dot},
and assume that the three parameters $\Gamma_{ L}$, $\Gamma_{ R}$ and $\epsilon_0$
in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Briet-Wigner}) depend on the bias and temperatures of reservoirs and gates.
In principle, a system could have almost any dependence of these parameters on the bias and temperatures of reservoirs and gates. However, one should remember that the physics should be \emph{gauge-invariant}, by which we mean the physics depends on energy differences, but not on the absolute value of energy. Thus, a uniform shift of the bias on all reservoirs and gates by $V$ should simply shift the transmission function in energy by $e V$ in such a way that all heat and charge currents are invariant under the uniform shift of the bias.
The simplest possible example of such a phenomenological model is one in which the transmission function is shifted by
the charge build up around the scatterer caused by the bias,
without significantly changing the shape of the transmission function.
In other words, if the system acts as a single-level quantum dot when at zero bias, it still acts as a single-level quantum dot at finite bias.
\green{Let us consider a system coupled to two reservoirs (L and R) and one gate, such as in Fig.~\ref{Fig:minimal}a.}
If ${\cal T}^0_{L,{\rm isl}}(E)$ is the transmission function
when all reservoirs are at the same bias and same temperature ($V_0,T_0$), then
the simplest model is to assume that the transmission function at other biases and temperatures is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal T}_{L,{\rm isl}}( E)
\simeq \
{\cal T}^0_{L,{\rm isl}}\Big( E -\kappa_{ e}\big(
\mathcal{F}_{{ e,L}},\mathcal{F}_{{ e,R}},\mathcal{F}_{{ e, {\rm gate}}}\big)
-\kappa_{ h}\big(
\mathcal{F}_{{ h,L}},\mathcal{F}_{{ h,R}},\mathcal{F}_{{ h, gate}}\big) \Big),
\label{Eq:T-electrostatics1}
\end{eqnarray}
where our notation means that
$\mathcal{F}_{{ e},i} = (V_i-V_0)\big/T_0$ and $\mathcal{F}_{{ h},i} = (T_i-T_0)\big/T_0^2$,
and we define
\begin{eqnarray}
\kappa_{ e} (
\mathcal{F}_{{e,L}},\mathcal{F}_{{ e,R}},\mathcal{F}_{{ e, {\rm gate}}}) &=&
\left(1-\alpha^{ (e)}_{\rm gate}\right)
\left[{e T_0 \over 2}\left(1-\alpha^{(e)}_{\rm asym}\right) \, \mathcal{F}_{{ e,L}}+
{e T_0 \over 2}\left(1+\alpha^{ (e)}_{\rm asym}\right) \, \mathcal{F}_{{ e,R}}
\right] + \alpha^{ (e)}_{\rm gate}\, eT_0 \mathcal{F}_{{e,{\rm gate}}} ,
\label{Eq:T-electrostatics2}
\\
\kappa_{h} (
\mathcal{F}_{{ h,L}},\mathcal{F}_{{ h,R}},\mathcal{F}_{{ h, {\rm gate}}}) &=&
\alpha^{(h)}_{ L}\ \mathcal{F}_{{ h,L}}
\ + \ \alpha^{ (h)}_{ R}\ \mathcal{F}_{{ h,R}}
\ +\ \alpha^{ (h)}_{\rm gate}\ \mathcal{F}_{{h,{\rm gate}}} .
\label{Eq:T-electrostatics3}
\end{eqnarray}
The $\alpha^{ (\mu)}_i$ are phenomenological parameters
which describe the electrostatic environment of the quantum system, where
$0 \leq \alpha^{(e)}_{\rm gate} \leq 1$ and $-1<\alpha^{(e)}_{\rm asym}\leq 1$.
The form of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:T-electrostatics2}) is chosen to ensure that it is gauge-invariant (as discussed above)
for any value of $\alpha^{(e)}_{\rm gate}$ and $\alpha^{(e)}_{\rm asym}$.
In contrast, gauge-invariance places no constraint on $\kappa_{h}$, so the parameters $\alpha^{(h)}_i$
can take any value. Although, in many situations the shift of energy due to temperature effects can be expected to
be less than that due to a bias, in which case the magnitude of the $\alpha^{ (h)}$s are typically smaller
than the magnitudes of the $\alpha^{(e)}$s.
If the gate is absent then $\alpha^{(e)}_{\rm gate}=\alpha^{(h)}_{\rm gate}=0$.
In this case, $\alpha_{\rm asym}=0$ means that the system feels the same changing effects from the reservoir to its left and its right.
Positive $\alpha_{\rm asym}$ means that charging effects
are dominated by the charge in the reservoir to the right of the quantum system.
Negative $\alpha_{\rm asym}$ means that charging effects
are dominated by the charge in the reservoir L.
If, in contrast, the gate dominates the charge felt by the island then $\alpha_{\rm gate}=1$ and
$\alpha_{\rm asym}$ is irrelevant.
Fig.~\ref{Fig:minimal}b is a sketch of the effect of $\kappa_{e}$ for a single-level quantum dot with no gate
(so $\alpha^{\rm (\mu)}_{\rm gate}=0$), for the case where the $\alpha^{(h)}$s are small enough to be neglected.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fig-minimal-mean-field.pdf}}
\caption{\label{Fig:minimal}
\green{(a) A simple two terminal system in which the scatterer is a single level quantum dot
with a tunnel coupling to reservoirs L and R, and a capacitive coupling to a gate (in addition to
an inevitable capacitative coupling to reservoirs L and R).
(b)} Sketch of how electro-static coupling between the quantum system and the leads modify the
system's transmission function when a bias is applied across the system.
The sketch is for our minimal mean-field charging approximation, for an un-gated quantum system, so $\alpha_{\rm gate}=0$
in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:T-electrostatics2}).
If the dashed curve corresponds to the transmission when the system is unbiased, the solid (shaded) curve
gives the transmission when the L lead is biased by $V_L$.
It is simply the unbiased transmission curve shifted down by $(1-\alpha_{\rm asym})| e^{\operatorname{-}} V_L|$.
}
\end{figure}
This approach is simple, easy to understand, and can be used to treat highly nonlinear situations.
It could be easily extended to the other parameters in the transmission function,
such as making the couplings to the left and right reservoirs in Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:S-from-H}-\ref{Eq:Briet-Wigner}) dependent on the bias on those reservoirs.
It can also be extended by replacing Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:T-electrostatics2},\ref{Eq:T-electrostatics3})
by nonlinear functions of the biases and temperatures.
However, whatever one does the model remains phenomenological, and the number of phenomenological parameters increases rather rapidly as one makes the model more sophisticated. This makes it hard to guess
what version of the model (and what value of the parameters) to use to predict the properties of a given nanostructure.
However for simple geometries, such as a point-contact, this model may none the less help understand the physics. It was used in this context to model thermoelectric refrigeration \cite{whitney2013-catastrophe}, in the limit where the gates dominated ($\alpha_{\rm gate} \to 1$).
\subsubsection{Microscopic treatment of weak nonlinearities}
\label{Sect:weakly-nonlinear-microscopic}
In linear response (linear order in biases and temperature differences),
the electron flows are small enough that the potential in the scatterer remains that of the equilibrium state.
Thus, the scattering matrix is directly given by the dynamics under this unmodified electrostatic potential.
If one goes to one order higher (quadratic order in biases and temperature differences),
then one has to take into account the effect of the linear-response particle flow on the potential in the scatterer.
We expand about the chemical potential and temperature at equilibrium $(V_0,T_0)$, so we expand in powers of
$\mathcal{F}_{\mu,i}$, where we recall our notation means that
$\mathcal{F}_{{ e},i} = (V_i-V_0)/T_0$ and $\mathcal{F}_{{h},i} = (T_i-T_0)/T_0^2$.
This gives \cite{sanchezprb13,Meair-Jacquod2013,Sanchez-Lopez2013,Lopez-Sanchez2014},
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{\mu ,i} = \sum_{\nu= { e,h}} \sum_j L_{\mu\nu,ij} \, \mathcal{F}_{\nu,j} \ +\
\sum_{\nu,\kappa= { e,h}} \sum_{j,k} {\cal L}_{\mu\nu\kappa,ijk} \, \mathcal{F}_{\nu,j} \mathcal{F}_{\kappa,k}
\label{Eq:J-scatter-2ndorder-expansion}
\end{eqnarray}
where the first term on the right is the linear response as in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Onsager-matrix-general}),
and the remaining terms are the leading nonlinear corrections.
Note that while the sum over $j$ above is over all reservoirs which exchange electrons with the scatterer, the sum over $k$ is over all reservoirs in the electro-static environment of the scatterer, including gates.
That electrostatic environment is indicated in Fig.~\ref{Fig:nonlinear-example}a by everything inside the
dashed red ellipse. In the case were the gates are good enough metals that the charge on their surface is entirely determined by their bias, we can treat the gates in the electrostatic environment as capacitances, as in Fig.~\ref{Fig:nonlinear-example}b, however we cannot avoid a more sophisticated treatment of the electrostatic environment generated by the scatterer itself (the region inside the dashed loop in Fig.~\ref{Fig:nonlinear-example}b).
The linear-response Onsager coefficients, $L_{\mu\nu,ij}$, are given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Ls-multiterm}),
while the nonlinear coefficients are given by the following second derivative of $J_{\mu,i}$;
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{\mu\nu\kappa,ijk} ={1 \over 2} \left. {{\rm d}^2 \,J_{\mu,i} \over {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{\nu,j} {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{\kappa,k}} \right|_{\mathcal{F}\to 0}
\label{Eq:nonlinear-L-double-derivative}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{F}\to 0$ indicates that we take $ \mathcal{F}_{\mu',i'}\to 0$ for all $\mu'$ and $i'$.
Carefully evaluating these derivative gives results consisting of terms containing zeroth, first and second derivatives of the Fermi function, $f(E)$. However, the fact that
$\sum_j N_i \delta_{ij}- {\cal T}_{ij}(E)=0$ means that terms containing the zeroth derivative of $f(E)$
do not contribute.
Hence, these second-order coefficients contain two type of terms.
The first type of term is the second derivative of the scattering theory equations
for $J_{{ e},i}$ and $J_{{ h},i}$ in Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:I-initial},\ref{Eq:J-initial}) which one would have if one assumed that the transmission functions are fixed (does not change with bias or temperature differences).
The second type of term takes into account the fact that the bias and temperature differences, as given by the set of
$ \mathcal{F}_{\mu,i}$s will affect the transmission functions, $\big(N_i(E)\delta_{ij} -{\cal T}_{ij}(E)\big)$;
these terms looks exactly like the linear response terms but with an additional derivative with respect to $ \mathcal{F}_{\mu,i}$ acting on $\big(N_i(E)\delta_{ij} -{\cal T}_{ij}(E)\big)$.
The double-derivative in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:nonlinear-L-double-derivative}) are ugly.
They are slightly simpler if one write everything in terms of $f'(E)$, where the primed indicates $({\rm d} /{\rm d} E)$,
by using $\int {\rm d} E \,a(E) \,f''(E) = - \int {\rm d} E \,a'(E) \, f'(E)$.
For compactness, we follow Refs.~\cite{Christen-Buttiker1996a,Sanchez-Buttiker2005,Buttiker-Sanchez2005} in defining ${\cal A}_{ij} \equiv N_i(E)\delta_{ij}-{\cal T}_{ij}(E)$,
then the coefficients \green{(containing both types of terms discussed above)} are
\begin{subequations}
\label{Eq:nonlinearLs}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{{eee},ijk} \!&=& \! {e^3T_0 \over 2} \int {{\rm d} E \over h} \
\left[ {1 \over e} {{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij}\over {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{{ e},k}}
+ {1 \over e}{{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ik}\over {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{{ e},j}}
+ T_0 \delta_{jk} {\cal A}'_{ij} \right]\ \Big(- \!f'\Big) \ ,
\\
{\cal L}_{{ eeh},ijk} \!&=&\! {e^2 T_0 \over 2} \int {{\rm d} E \over h}\
\left[ {{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij}\over {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{{ h},k}}
+ (E-\mu_1)\left( {1 \over e}{{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ik}\over {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{{ e},j}} +T_0 \delta_{jk} {\cal A}'_{ij}
\right) \right]\ \Big(-\!f'\Big)\ ,
\\
{\cal L}_{{ ehh},ijk} \! &=& \! {eT_0 \over 2} \int {{\rm d} E \over h}\ (E-\mu_1) \
\left[ {{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij}\over {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{{ h},k}}
+ {{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ik}\over {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{{ h},j}} + T_0(E-\mu_1) \delta_{jk} {\cal A}'_{ij}
\right]\ \Big(-\!f'\Big)\ ,
\\
{\cal L}_{{ hee},ijk} \!&=&\! {e^2T_0 \over 2} \int {{\rm d} E \over h}
\left[ (E-\mu_1)
\left( {1 \over e}{{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij}\over {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{{ e},k}}
+ {1 \over e}{{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ik}\over {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{{ e},j}}
+ T_0\delta_{jk}{\cal A}'_{ij} \right)
+T_0 \left(\delta_{jk}{\cal A}_{ij}-\delta_{ij}{\cal A}_{ik}-\delta_{ik}{\cal A}_{ij} \right)
\right] \ \Big(-\!f'\Big) \ , \qquad
\\
{\cal L}_{{ heh},ijk} \!&=&\! {e T_0 \over 2} \int {{\rm d} E \over h} \
(E-\mu_1) \ \left[ {{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij}\over {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{{ h},k}}
+ (E-\mu_1)\left( {1 \over e}{{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ik}\over {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{{ e},j}}
+T_0\delta_{jk}{\cal A}'_{ij}\right) + T_0 \big(\delta_{jk}{\cal A}_{ij} -\delta_{ij} {\cal A}_{ik}\big)
\right] \ \Big(-\!f'\Big) \ ,
\\
{\cal L}_{{ hhh},ijk} \!&=&\! {T_0 \over 2} \int {{\rm d} E \over h}
\ (E-\mu_1)^2 \left[ {{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij}\over {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{{ h},k}}
+ {{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ik}\over {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{{ h},j}}
+T_0(E-\mu_1)\delta_{jk}{\cal A}'_{ij}+T_0\delta_{jk}{\cal A}_{ij}
\right] \ \Big(-\!f'\Big) ,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
where all quantities are evaluated in the limit where $\mathcal{F}_{\mu',i'}\to 0$ for all $\mu'$ and $i'$.
It is easy to see that $L_{{ ehe};ijk}= L_{{ eeh};ikj}$ and $L_{{ hhe};ijk}= L_{{ heh};ikj}$.
Expanding both sides of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-1st-law}) up to second order in $\mathcal{F}$ as above,
one can see that there must be the following relations between certain nonlinear coefficients and certain linear coefficients \cite{Meair-Jacquod2013},
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_i{\cal L}_{hee,ijk} = -{\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} T_0 \left( L_{ee,jk} + L_{ee,kj} \right)
\qquad \hbox{ and } \qquad
\sum_i {\cal L}_{heh,ijk} = -T_0 L_{ee,jk}
\end{eqnarray}
It is fairly easy to see that the above expressions satisfy these relations, once one notes that
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:constraints-T_ij-b}) means that $\sum_i {\cal A}_{ij}=0$. This means the theory conserves energy up to
second order, ensuring it obeys the first law of thermodynamics (see section.~\ref{Sect:scatter-1st-law}).
To evaluate Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:nonlinearLs}), we need the derivatives of ${\cal A}_{ij}$ with respect to the $\mathcal{F}$.
To get these, one defines the so-called characteristic potentials as
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{\nu,k} (x) = \left( {{\rm d} U(x)\over {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{\nu,k}}\right)_{ \mathcal{F}\to 0}\ .
\label{Eq:u_characteristic}
\end{eqnarray}
These correspond to the change in electrochemical potential at point $x$ in the nanostructure due to
the change of the thermodynamics potential $\mathcal{F}_{\nu,k}$ in reservoir $k$.
\green{Physically this characteristic potential contains two effects which lead to a change in the electron density at the point $x$ inside and near the scatterer (i) the extra charge injected into each region of the scatterer and (ii) the polarization of the existing charges in the region $x$.}
We use the characteristic potential to write
\begin{eqnarray}
\left({{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij}\over {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{\mu,k}} \right)_{ \mathcal{F}\to 0}
= \int {\rm d}^d x\ {{\rm d}{\cal A}_{ij}\over {\rm d} U(x)}\ u_{\mu,k} (x) &\equiv& \sum_{n} {{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij}\over {\rm d} U_n} u_{\mu,k} (x_n).
\label{Eq:dA/dF-in-terms-of-characteristic-potential}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, ${{\rm d} (\cdots) \big/ {\rm d} U(x)}$ is formally a functional derivative, but we assume it is defined
by discretizing space on a grid, and taking the spacing of the grid to zero.
Then $U_n \equiv U(x_n)$ is the potential at the position $x_n$ of the $n$th site on the grid.
In practice, the grids do not need to be infinitesimally fine, it is sufficient that it is small enough that
$\big({\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij} \big/ U(x)\big)(\cdots)$ varies little between neighbouring sites. In contrast, the grid must extend far enough into
each reservoir to capture the fact that a change in $U(x)$ at a point $x$ in the reservoir close to the nanostructure
may change ${\cal A}_{ij}$.
If we substitute Eq.~(\ref{Eq:dA/dF-in-terms-of-characteristic-potential}) into Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:nonlinearLs}),
we split the problem of calculating $\left({{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij}\big/ {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{\mu,k}} \right)$
into two parts; the calculation of the transmission functions dependence on small changes of
the potential within the scatterer (see Appendix \ref{Sect:T-as-function-of-U}), and the calculation of the characteristic potential (see Appendix \ref{Sect:Characteristic-potentials}).
As these Appendices show, the majority of the work is to calculate the characteristic potential, since this requires solving the Poisson equation to get the potential at a given point in the system from the charge distribution in and around that system.
\subsubsection{Weak nonlinearities for a simple model of a quantum dot}
\label{Sect:microsopic-nonlinear-simple}
It is instructive to consider a simple model treated in the weakly nonlinear regime; this is the model
of a single-level dot \cite{sanchezprb13,Meair-Jacquod2013,Sanchez-Lopez2013,Lopez-Sanchez2014}.
We briefly outline the assumptions that allow us to derive it from the general case,
discussed in Appendix \ref{Appendix:weakly-nonlinear}, however it is not necessary to follow the details in that appendix to get a feeling
for the physics of the model.
The main assumption is to treat the Poisson equation as a single site problem (the site being the quantum dot)
with a capacitive coupling to an external gate;
so there is only a single site in the grid discussed in the context of
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:dA/dF-in-terms-of-characteristic-potential}).
Then the fact there is only one site means there is only one value of $\left({{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij} \big/ {\rm d} U(x)}\right)$
to calculate, and what is more in such a situation the gauge-invariance discussed in
Appendix~\ref{Sect:gauge-invariance}
enables us to replace $\left({{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij} \big/ {\rm d} U(x)}\right)$ with ${\cal A}'_{ij}$.
In fact the same argument allows us to replace ${\rm d} (\cdots) \big/ {\rm d} U(x)$ by $-{\rm d} (\cdots) \big/ {\rm d} E$
in all quantities, such as $\nu_k (E,x)$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:nu_k}).
The function ${\cal A}_{ij} \equiv N_i(E)\delta_{ij}-{\cal T}_{ij}(E)$ for the single level quantum dot is given by Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:S-single-level-dot},\ref{Eq:Briet-Wigner}).
Suppressing all site labels (since there is only one site), we get
the {\it injectivities}, $D_{\mu,k}$, defined in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:qinj}), which corresponds to the extra charge injected from reservoir $k$ when its bias ($\mu={ e}$) or temperature ($\mu={ h}$) is slightly changed.
They take the form
\begin{eqnarray}
D_{{ e},k} \ =\ {e^2T \over \epsilon_0} \int {\rm d} E \ \big(\!-f'(E)\big)\ \nu_k (E) \ ,
\qquad
D_{{ h},k} \ =\ {eT \over \epsilon_0} \int {\rm d} E \ \big(\!-f'(E)\big)\ (E-\mu_1)\ \nu_k (E) \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
for $k={ L,R}$.
Here $\epsilon_0$ is the permittivity of free space,
$\nu_k(E)$ is the partial density of states associated with particles coming from reservoir $k$,
combining Eq.~(\ref{Eq:S-single-level-dot}) with Eq.~(\ref{Eq:nu_k}), they find that
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu_k (E) = {1 \over 2\pi} \ \frac{\Gamma_k}{\left(E-E_0\right)^2 + \frac{1}{4}\left(\Gamma_{ L} +\Gamma_{ R}\right)^2 }
\end{eqnarray}
The works in question \cite{sanchezprb13,Meair-Jacquod2013,Sanchez-Lopez2013,Lopez-Sanchez2014}
argue that the discretized Lindhard screening function $\Pi$ for the single site is given by a local function $e^2\Pi=D_{ e,L}+D_{ e,R}$ in the limit of good screening within the scatterer.
Then Eq.~(\ref{Eq:C-relations}) reduces to $C=-\tilde{C}_{\rm gate}$.
After this we get the characteristic potentials
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{\mu, { L}} = \frac{D_{\mu,{ L}} }{C+D_{ e,L}+D_{ e,R}}\,,
\qquad
u_{\mu, { R}} =\frac{D_{\mu,{ R}} }{C+D_{ e,L}+D_{ e,R}}\,,
\qquad
u_{\mu,{\rm gate}} = \delta_{\mu, { e}} \ \frac{ C }{C+D_{ e,L}+D_{ e,R}}\,.
\label{Eq:characteristic-potentials-for-qu-dot-model}
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting all the above results into Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:nonlinearLs}) gives us all the nonlinear coefficients,
and so we can get charge and heat currents up to second-order in the thermodynamic forces (biases and temperature differences), from which we can extract power outputs, efficiencies, etc.
With a little effort one can see that this is equivalent to the phenomenological treatment of the single-level quantum system, as discussed in section~\ref{Sect:nonlin-phenomen},
in which the bias and temperature difference result is a shift of the
energy-level of the quantum dot. However, here the phenomenological functions
in Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:T-electrostatics2},\ref{Eq:T-electrostatics3})
can now be calculated from the microscopic properties of the system.
If we take Eq.~(\ref{Eq:T-electrostatics1}), we see that it implies that
\begin{eqnarray}
\left({{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij}\over {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{\mu,k}} \right)_{ \mathcal{F}\to 0} = -
\left({\cal A}'_{ij}
\ {{\rm d} \kappa_\mu \over {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{\mu,k}} \right)_{ \mathcal{F}\to 0}\ .
\end{eqnarray}
We can compare this with Eq.~(\ref{Eq:dA/dF-in-terms-of-characteristic-potential}) for the case where there is only one
site in the sum over $n$, and in which we have used Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Aprimed-to-functional-derivative}) to replace
$\left({{\rm d} {\cal A}_{ij}\big/ {\rm d} \mathcal{F}_{\mu,k}} \right)$ by $-{\cal A}'_{ij}$.
Then we see that that the the above analysis corresponds to the phenomenological model
in section~\ref{Sect:nonlin-phenomen}, \green{but now the $\kappa$s in
Eqs.(\ref{Eq:T-electrostatics1}-\ref{Eq:T-electrostatics3}) need not be taken as phenomenological constants,
they can be extracted from the microscopic theory via}
\begin{eqnarray}
\kappa_\mu = u_{\mu,L} \mathcal{F}_{\mu,L} + u_{\mu,R} \mathcal{F}_{\mu,R} + u_{\mu,{\rm gate}} \mathcal{F}_{\mu,{\rm gate}},
\end{eqnarray}
\green{where the recipe above (and in Appendix \ref{Appendix:weakly-nonlinear}) tells us how to calculate the $u_{\mu,L}$, $ u_{\mu,R}$ and $ u_{\mu,{\rm gate}}$ for a given system.}
Finally, we note that Ref.~\cite{Meair-Jacquod2013} did a similar calculation for a simple model of a point-contact in the weakly nonlinear regime.
\subsubsection{Consequences for the nonlinear regime}
The central results of Refs.~\cite{sanchezprb13,Meair-Jacquod2013,Sanchez-Lopez2013,Lopez-Sanchez2014} show the strong effect of nonlinear contributions on the thermoelectric response of the system.
This sets in whenever the temperature difference or bias is large enough that the
nonlinear term in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:J-scatter-2ndorder-expansion}) becomes of similar order to the linear term.
This can be clearly seen in the rectification of charge and heat currents, by which we mean that the sign of the currents
do not reverse when the sign of the thermodynamic forces are reversed.
Another crucial difference from linear response is that the heat-current is not conserved,
the heat current into the quantum dot is not the same as that which flows out, since the system must obey
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-1st-law-two-reservoir}).
Ref.~\cite{sanchezprb13} gives a nonlinear analogue of the Wiedemann-Franz,
defined as the ratio of heat current to temperature difference ${\Delta T}$ (with no bias)
divided by the ratio of charge current to bias $V$ (with no temperature difference),
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda = {J_{ h,L}(\Delta T, V=0)\big/ \Delta T \over J_{ e,L}(\Delta T=0,V)\big/ V }.
\label{Eq:WF-ratio-nonlin}
\end{eqnarray}
They show that it is given by the usual linear-response Wiedemann-Franz ratio {\it plus} nonlinear corrections
proportional to the nonlinear ${\cal L}$ coefficients
multiplied by $V$ or $\Delta T$ and divided by the linear-response $L$ coefficients.
However, since heat is not conserved in the nonlinear terms, the value of the ratio is not unique
for a given nanostructure; that is to say it will be different
if the currents are measured at the right reservoir instead of the left reservoir (i.e. taking $L\to R$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:WF-ratio-nonlin})).
Ref.~\cite{Meair-Jacquod2013} used the same method to show that
the efficiency of a heat engine (or the coefficient of performance of a refrigerator)
is no longer given by its figure of merit $ZT$, as calculated from the linear-response coefficients in
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:ZT-intro}). The efficiency can be large or smaller than one would predict from
the linear-response $ZT$. This can be see phenomenologically from section~\ref{Sect:nonlin-phenomen};
the bias will shift the peak in transmission function, $E_0$, in a manner that
depends on the nature of the microscopic parameters. This can either shift $E_0$ towards or away from the value which optimizes the efficiency. If it moves $E_0$ towards its optimal value, then the efficiency will be larger than that predicted by the linear-response $ZT$.
In contrast, if it moves $E_0$ away from its optimal value, then the efficiency will be smaller than that predicted by the linear-response $ZT$.
\green{
Since the bias is typically opposite when a system is used as a refrigerator from when it is used as a heat-engine
(see Fig.~\ref{Fig:energy-filter}), if the bias in the heat-engine configuration pushes a given system's $E_0$ away from its optimal value, then the bias in the refrigeration configuration will push $E_0$ towards its optimal value.
Thus a system that is a worse heat-engine than expected in the non-linear regime (i.e.\ its efficiency is less than that one would predict from its linear-response $ZT$), will be a better refrigerator in the non-linear regime,
and vice versa.}
\subsection{Equilibrium and the zeroth law of thermodynamics}
\label{Sect:zeroth-law-scattering}
Two systems are said to be in equilibrium, if there is no particle or heat current between them when they are linked by a contact which can carry particle and heat currents independently.
\green{That is to say that the contact should not be a "tight-coupling" contact }that lets through particles with only one energy $E_\star$ (i.e.~${\cal T}_{ij}(E)$ should not be $\delta$-function-like in $E$),
because such a contact always has a heat current equal to $E_\star$ times the particle current, which means
the particle and heat currents are not independent.
\green{In its dynamic form,} the zeroth law of thermodynamics is the statement that if two systems are in thermodynamic equilibrium with a third system, then they are in thermodynamic equilibrium with each other.
Hence, if the three systems in question are reservoirs of non-interacting electrons,
then there will be no currents between them, irrespective of the nature of the scatterer that
connects them.
It is trivial to show that the scattering theory obeys the zeroth law, in the sense that if reservoirs are in equilibrium with each other, then there are no particle or heat currents between them however they are connected.
For any quantum scatterer placed between any number of reservoirs in equilibrium with each other, so $T_j=T_0$ and $\mu_j=\mu_0$ for all $j$.
The fact that the scattering matrix ${\cal S}$ is unitary implies Eq.~(\ref{Eq:constraints-T_ij-c}).
When we substitute this into Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:I-initial}-\ref{Eq:I-energy-initial}),
one sees that charge, heat and energy currents are zero.
The same is true in the case with Andreev reflection from a superconductor.
Remembering that we take the electrochemical potential of the superconductor as zero of energy ($\mu_{\rm SC}=0$), reservoir $i$ will be in equilibrium with the superconductor and with the other non-superconducting reservoirs for $\mu_i=0$ and $T_i=T_0$.
Combining this with Eq.~(\ref{Eq:constraints-T_ij-eh-c}), one sees from Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:I-initial-eh}-\ref{Eq:I-energy-initial-eh}) that the charge, heat and energy currents
into the non-superconducting reservoirs are all zero. Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:Isc},\ref{Eq:Jsc}) mean that all the currents out of the superconductor are also zero.
It is more difficult to show that equilibrium is the {\it only} condition under which there is no
particle current nor heat current through arbitrary contacts (assuming that they carry particle and heat currents independently, as discussed above). While it seems natural that this is the case, we do not know of a rigorous proof
for arbitrary ${\cal T}_{ij}(E)$.
\subsection{Work and the first law of thermodynamics}
\label{Sect:scatter-1st-law}
The first law of thermodynamics states that the sum of heat and work remains constant.
Once it was realized that heat and work are just different forms of energy, this
is simply a consequence of energy conservation.
In the context of a steady-state machine the first law can be cast in terms of currents,
in which case it states that the power output of the system must equal the total heat current into it.
In a thermoelectric system the work takes the form of electrical power;
a heat engine converts heat into electrical power,
while a refrigerator uses electrical power to move heat from a colder reservoir to a hotter one.
For such electrical circuits, adding an electron to a region increases the work in that region by an amount equal to the electrochemical potential of that region.
Removing that electron reduces the work there by the same amount.
Thus, an electron from reservoir $1$ moving to reservoir $2$ generates a total change in work equal to $(\mu_2-\mu_1)= e (V_2-V_1)$. In terms of currents, this means the power generated in reservoir $i$ equals
$P_{{\rm gen};i} = - V_i J_{{e},i} $,
which means the total power generated is
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{{\rm gen}} = \sum_i P_{{\rm gen};i} = - \sum_i V_i J_{{e},i} \, ,
\label{Eq:P_gen}
\end{eqnarray}
This can be understood by thinking that each reservoir coupled to the system could be an ideal battery (for example a very large ideal capacitor), whose other terminal is coupled to earth
(where we take earth to be a reservoir with electrochemical potential $\mu=0$).
If the current into the scatterer from the reservoir, $J_{{e},i} $, is negative, while the voltage on that reservoir, $V_i$, is positive (with respect to ground), then one is charging up the battery.
Whenever $J_{{e},i} $ and $V_i$ have opposite signs,
the work in the battery is increasing at a rate $-V_iJ_{{e},i} >0$.
In contrast, if the current $J_{{e},i} $ and bias $V_i$ have the same sign, then the current is discharging the battery; the rate of change of work in the battery is $-V_iJ_{{e},i} < 0$.
Note, that the definition of the power generated in each reservoir is gauge-dependent,
that is to say that it depends on our choice of the zero of energy, which defines the electrochemical
potential of the earth reservoir. However, the power generated summed over all reservoirs,
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P_gen}), is independent of this choice of the zero of energy,
and so is gauge-independent. This can be seen by noting that Eq.~(\ref{Eq:I-conserve})
implies that we can shift all biases by the same arbitrary amount
without changing $P_{\rm gen}$.
The scattering theory explicitly conserves energy, as each particle leaves the scatterer with the same energy that it entered, with this conservation being apparent in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:I-energy-initial}).
Hence, it should be no great surprise that the theory satisfies the first law of thermodynamics.
Indeed, given the above discussion of work and electrical power, it is obvious that
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-1st-law}) is the first law of thermodynamics;
the left hand side is the heat absorbed by the scatterer, while
the right hand side is the power generated by the scatterer, Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P_gen}).
Thus we have the {\it first law of thermodynamics} as
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{\rm gen} = \sum_i J_{{h},i} .
\label{Eq:scatter-1st-law-explicit}
\end{eqnarray}
For the case of a two reservoir system, the first law is even simpler,
and the same logic shows that it is that given in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-1st-law-two-reservoir}).
It is worth noting that
there is no special relation between the heat current out of reservoir $i$, and the power generated in reservoir $i$. It is only when one sums over all reservoirs , that one finds the equality between
heat input and power output given by the first law of thermodynamics.
Of course, in reality no reservoir is an ideal battery. In the worst case, reservoir $i$ could be coupled to ground through a resistor, for which one always has $J_{{e},i} $ of the same sign as $V_i$.
Such a resistor would simply dissipate the power it absorbs, equal to $-P_{{\rm gen};i}=V_iJ_{{e},i} $,
as the electricity flowing into that resistor gets dissipated as heat which is lost into the environment.
However, we would interpret this situation
as the scatterer turning \green{heat into work, which is injected into the reservoir, and then turned back into heat by the fact the reservoir is not ideal, i.e.\ the reservoir contains resistances.}
If there is a superconducting reservoir inducing Andreev reflection, then
the situation changes very little.
Since we have chosen to take the gauge where the zero of energy is the electrochemical potential of the superconductor, the power generated in the SC reservoir is zero.
Thus, the power generated takes a similar form to the case without the superconductor,
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P_gen}), except that now $i$ sum being over all non-superconducting reservoirs.
This means that Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-1st-law-eh}) is the first law of thermodynamics for situations with a superconducting reservoir,
with its left hand side being the heat flow into the scatterer and its right hand side
being the power generated by the scatterer.
\subsubsection{Two reservoir systems without thermoelectric effects: Joule heating, etc.}
\label{Sect:two-reservoir}
Although this review is mostly about using thermoelectric effects to actively convert heat into work,
or convert work into a heat flow (refrigeration), it is worth looking in more detail at the \emph{passive}
\green{work to heat} conversion known as Joule heating.
If a scatterer has an energy independent transmission function,
then it will exhibit no thermoelectric effects, and will instead act as a resistance.
If we apply a bias across this scatterer, a current will flow, but as the scatterer has a resistance,
we know that the energy used to make the current flow is dissipated as Joule heating.
\green{In scattering theory there is no coupling between the electrons and phonons, so
the Joule heating takes the form of an electronic heat current from the scatterer into the reservoirs.
This is given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-1st-law-explicit}) with negative $P_{\rm gen}$.}
An interesting special case is when the the scatterer is coupled between two reservoirs at the same temperature, but with a bias $V$ between them. This bias generates a current $I$ through the scatterer.
Ref.~\cite{Gurevich1996-equidistribution-Joule-heat} showed that the scatterer generates a Joule heating, $VI$, with exactly half this heat going into \green{the electrons in} each reservoir.
Remarkably, this result is independent of the details of the scatterer;
even if the scattering region is a dot with weak single-mode coupling to one reservoir and strong many-mode coupling to the other, the Joule heat flow into each reservoir will be the same.
The easiest way to prove this result is to take two reservoirs L and R, and choose that
their electrochemical potentials are $\mu_{ L}= \mu/2$ and $\mu_{ R}=-\mu/2$, respectively. Then, taking Eq.~(\ref{Eq:J-initial-two-reservoir})
and splitting the term $(E \pm \mu/2)$ into two separate integrals,
one has
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{h,L} &=& {\cal T}_{ LR} \ \ \left(
\int_{-\infty}^\infty {{\rm d} E \over h} \ E
\ \left[ f_{ L}(E) - f_{ R}(E) \right] \ -\ {\mu \over 2}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty {{\rm d} E \over h} \
\ \left[ f_{ L}(E) - f_{ R}(E) \right] \right)
\label{Eq:J-energy-independent}
\\
J_{h,R} &=& {\cal T}_{ LR} \ \ \left(
\int_{-\infty}^\infty {{\rm d} E \over h} \ E
\ \left[ f_{ R}(E) - f_{ L}(E) \right] \ +\ {\mu \over 2}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty {{\rm d} E \over h} \
\ \left[ f_{ R}(E) - f_{ L}(E) \right] \right)
\end{eqnarray}
Next we note that $\left[ f_{ L}(E) - f_{ R}(E) \right]$ is an even function of $E$
for this choice of electrochemical potentials (remembering also that there is no temperature difference,
$T_{ L}=T_{ R}$).
This means that the first integral in $J_{h,L} $ and $J_{h,R} $ vanishes,
while the second integral equals $\mu/2 \times J_{e,L} /e $ in both cases,
where $J_{e,L} $ is given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:I-initial-two-reservoir}).
Thus, remembering that $\mu = e V$, we arrive at Ref~\cite{Gurevich1996-equidistribution-Joule-heat}'s observation that the Joule heat radiated into each of the two reservoirs is the same, and equals $VJ_{e,L} /2$.
In other words the heat currents into the scatterer from the reservoirs are negative, and equal
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{h,L} = J_{h,R} = -{V J_{e,L} \over 2}
\label{Eq:equidistribution-Joule-heat}
\end{eqnarray}
for any scatterer with an energy-independent transmission, when $T_{ L}=T_{ R}$.
In fact, if ${\cal T}_{LR}$ is $E$-independent, we
can also get simple expression for $J_{e,L} $ and $J_{h,L} $ for $T_{ L}\neq T_{ R}$.
We start by evaluating the $E$ integrals in $J_{e,L} $ given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:I-initial-two-reservoir}).
For this, we note that
\begin{eqnarray}
f_i(E)
&=& \theta (E-\mu_i) + {{\rm sign}(E-\mu_i)
\over 1+\exp\big[|E-\mu_i| \big/ (k_{\rm B} T_i)\big]} \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the first term on the right is a Heaviside $\theta$-function.
Since the second term on the right hand side of this equation
is an odd function for $E-\mu_i$, it cancels when we integrate from
$-\infty$ to $\infty$.
In this case, the integrand in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:I-initial-two-reservoir})
reduces to the difference of two $\theta$-functions, in which neither $T_{ L}$ nor $T_{ R}$ appears.
Performing this trivial integral one gets
\begin{align}
J_{e,L} =-J_{e,R} = {e^2 \over h} \ {\cal T}_{ LR} \ V
\label{Eq:I-eps-independent}
\end{align}
for any $T_{ L}$ and $T_{ R}$.
Note that ${\cal T}_{ LR}$ will typically depend on $V$, $T_{ L}$ and $T_{ R}$, as discussed
at length in section~\ref{Sect:scatter-validity}, so the current may be a very nonlinear
function of bias and temperature.
If $T_{ L}=T_{ R}$,
we can then use Eq.~(\ref{Eq:equidistribution-Joule-heat})
directly to get $J_{h,L} $ and $J_{h,R} $.
For $T_{ L} \neq T_{ R}$, it is easiest to build upon the result for
$T_{ L} = T_{ R}$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:equidistribution-Joule-heat}).
From Eq.~(\ref{Eq:J-energy-independent}), we see that the difference between the result
when $T_{ L} \neq T_{ R}$ from when $T_{ L} \to T_{ R}$
is
\begin{align}
J_{h,L} - J_{h,L} (T_{ L} \to T_{ R})
\ =\ \ & {\cal T}_{ LR} \int_{-\infty}^\infty {{\rm d}E \over h} \ (E -\mu_{ L})\
\left[ f_{ L} (E) - f_{ L}\big(E;T_{ L} \to T_{ R}\big) \right],
\end{align}
where $f_{ L}\big(E;T_{ L} \to T_{ R}\big)$
is Eq.~(\ref{Eq:f}) with $\mu_i=\mu_{ L}$ but $T_i =T_{ R}$.
We change variables in the integrals to $\tilde E =E-\mu_{ L}$,
after which the integrand takes the form
$g(\tilde E) = \tilde E
\left[\left(1+\exp\left[\tilde E/(k_{\rm B} T_L)\right]\right)^{-1} -\left(1+\exp\left[\tilde E/(k_{\rm B} T_R)\right]\right)^{-1} \right] $. We can use the relation
$\left(1+{\rm e}^{-x}\right)^{-1}= 1 - \left(1+{\rm e}^{x}\right)^{-1}$ to prove that
$g(\tilde E)$ is an even function of $\tilde E$.
This means
$\int_{-\infty}^\infty {\rm d} \tilde E g(\tilde E) = 2 \int_0^{\infty} {\rm d} \tilde E
\, g(\tilde E)$, and as a result all the integrals take the form
$\int_0^\infty {\rm d} x x\big/(1+{\rm e}^x) = \pi^2/12$.
This gives us an algebraic result for
$J_{h,L} - J_{h,L} (T_{ L} \to T_{ R}) $, which
we add to $J_{h,L} (T_{ L} \to T_{ R}) $
in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:equidistribution-Joule-heat}).
Thus shows that an arbitrary two reservoir system with energy-independent transmission, has
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{h,L} &=& {\cal T}_{ LR} \ \left({\pi^2 \over 6h} \left((k_{\rm B} T_{ L})^2 -(k_{\rm B} T_{ R})^2\right) - {1\over 2h} (e V)^2 \right).
\end{eqnarray}
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-1st-law-two-reservoir}) with $V_{ R}-V_{ L}=V$, then tells us that the expression
for $J_{h,R} $ equals that for $J_{h,L} $ with $T_{ L}$ and $T_{ R}$ interchanged.
Thus, in such systems, the heat current into any reservoir is simply the sum of two terms;
the first term is a conservative flow (it has opposite signs for $J_{h,L} $ and $J_{h,R} $)
given by the temperature difference in the absence of an electrical bias, and the second
term is half the Joule heating induced by the bias (with the same sign for both reservoirs).
While the results in this section are simple, and pretty,
they do not apply to the thermoelectric systems which we are interested in using to convert between heat and work.
To be a thermoelectric, the system must have a ${\cal T}_{ LR}$ which depends on $E$.
Then, in general, none of the expressions presented in this section will apply.
\subsubsection{Two reservoirs when one is a superconductor: Joule heating, etc.}
Another interesting example is that of a two-reservoir system, when reservoirs R is
a superconductor which induces Andreev reflection.
This is the simplest example of a system coupled to
a superconductor which induces Andreev reflection.
This system is uninteresting from the point of view of heat-to-work conversion,
but it is worth studying because it clearly shows the effect of Andreev reflection on Joule heating.
Let us say that the right reservoir is a superconductor, while the left (L) reservoir is not.
In this case, there are only terms with $j=i=L$ in Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:constraints-T_ij-eh}).
With a little care, one can rewrite these constraints as
\begin{align}
{\cal T}^{(-1,1)}_{LL}(E) \ =& \ {\cal T}^{(1,-1)}_{LL}(E)\, ,
\\
{\cal T}^{(1,1)}_{LL}(E) \ =& \ N^{(1)}_{ L}(E) -{\cal T}^{(1,-1)}_{LL}(E)\, ,
\\
{\cal T}^{(-1,-1)}_{LL}(E) \ =& \ N^{(-1)}_{ L}(E) -{\cal T}^{(1,-1)}_{LL}(E)\, ,
\end{align}
where we recall that the indices in the superscripts refer to electrons ($1$) or holes ($-1$).
As we take the electrochemical potential of the superconductor as our zero of energy,
a bias of $V_{ L}$ across the scatterer corresponds to taking reservoir L's electrochemical potential
$\mu_{ L}=e V_{ L}$.
Using the above results, Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:I-initial-eh}-\ref{Eq:J-initial-eh}) reduce to
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{e,L} \!\!&=& \!\! -J_{e,{\rm SC}} = \ 2e \!\! \int_0^\infty \!\! {\rm d} E \ \ {\cal T}_{LL}^{(1,-1)}(E)
\, \left[ f_{ L}^{(1)} (E) - f_{ L}^{(-1)} (E) \right], \qquad
\label{Eq:I-initial-eh-two-reservoirs}
\\
J_{u,L} \!\!\!\! &=& \!\! -J_{u,{\rm SC}} \ =\ J_{h,{\rm SC}} \ =\ 0 \ ,
\\
J_{h,L} \!\! &=& - V_{ L} J_{e,L} \ .
\label{Eq:J-initial-eh-two-reservoirs}
\end{eqnarray}
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:I-initial-eh-two-reservoirs}) means that each electron from reservoir L
reflected as a hole carries
a current of $2e$ from reservoir L into the superconductor, in the form of a Cooper pair.
In contrast, each electron reflected as an electron
(either because it never hit the superconductor, or because it Andreev reflected from
the superconductor an even number of times) carries no current from reservoir L into the superconductor.
The function $\left[ f_{ L}^{(1)} (E) - f_{ L}^{(-1)} (E) \right]$ is an odd function of $V_{ L}$,
always taking the opposite sign to $V_{ L}$.
Thus the current, $J_{e,L} $, out of reservoir $L$ is also an odd function of $V_{ L}$,
but takes the same sign as $V_{ L}$ (remember $e$ is negative).
This means the current always flows from the reservoir with higher electrochemical potential to the one with lower electrochemical potential, and so the power generated $P_{\rm gen}= -V_{ L}J_{e,L} $ is always negative (although it vanishes at $V_{ L}=0$).
Hence the scatterer can only dissipate power as a classical resistance would, as Joule heat.
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:J-initial-eh-two-reservoirs})
shows that {\it all} of this Joule heat flows into the non-superconducting reservoir (L),
as none can go into the superconducting reservoir.
Note that despite the fact we allow for an energy-dependent transmission, there is no thermoelectric effect in a two reservoir system, when one of those reservoirs is a superconductor that induces Andreev reflection.
The only role of temperature, which enters through the Fermi functions,
$f_{ L}^{(\pm1)} (E)$, is to determine the resistance of the scatterer,
which will typically be a nonlinear function of both $V_{ L}$ and $T_{ L}$.
\subsection{Second law of thermodynamics}
\label{Sect:second-law-scattering}
The process of entropy production is that which we usually call dissipation
in this context,
however dissipation is treated very lightly in the scattering theory.
It is simply assumed that dissipation occurs
when the electrons relax to a thermal state in the reservoirs.
The theory contains no microscopic model for this dissipation,
thus it is natural to wonder if this is sufficient for the theory to capture
the physics of entropy production. In particular, it is natural to wonder whether
the scattering theory contains the second law of thermodynamics or not.
As we will see below, despite the simplicity of its treatment of entropy production,
the scattering theory {\it does} contain the second law of thermodynamics.
This makes it clear that the second-law of thermodynamics is not reliant
on the microscopic details of the relaxation process. It is sufficient simply that some such process exists in the reservoirs, and that it induces relaxation on a suitable timescale.
The timescale for relaxation in the scattering theory should be long compared with that of the scattering,
only then can we treat electrons in the reservoir as non-interacting when they arrive at and when they leave the scatterer.
However, this timescale should also be short enough that electrons injected into a reservoir relax completely to a local thermal distribution \green{(a Fermi distribution determined by that reservoir's temperature and electrochemical potential)} before coming back to the scatterer,
so we can assume that electron's arriving at the scatterer all come from a Fermi distribution with the temperature and electrochemical potential
of the reservoir in question.
However, beyond these assumptions, any relaxation rate or process is acceptable for the scattering theory to work, and for that scattering theory to contain the second law of thermodynamics.
\subsubsection{Second law for a scatterer between two reservoirs}
\label{Sect:scatter-2ndlaw-two-reservoirs}
In the case of an arbitrary system with only two reservoirs,
the proof that the scattering theory
contains the second law is rather straightforward, \colorproofs{and has been rediscovered multiple times \cite{Nenciu2007,Bruneau2012,Whitney-2ndlaw,Yamamoto2015}}.
Defining these two reservoirs as left (L) and right (R),
the rate of change of total entropy, Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-S_total}),
is
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\mathscr{S}}\ = \ - {J_{h,L} \over T_{ L}} -{J_{h,R} \over T_{ R}} \ .
\label{Eq:dotS-two-term}
\end{eqnarray}
If we substitute in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:J-initial-two-reservoir}), we get
\begin{eqnarray}
{\dot{\mathscr{S}} \over k_{\rm B}} =
- \int_0^\infty {{\rm d}E \over h}\, \big[\xi_{ L}-\xi_{ R}\big]
\ {\cal T}_{ LR}(E) \ \big[ f(\xi_{ L}) - f(\xi_{ R}) \big],
\label{Eq:scatter-dotS-equation-two-reservoir}
\end{eqnarray}
where one defines
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi_i= (E - \mu_i)/(k_{\rm B} T_i),
\end{eqnarray}
and one takes $f_i(E)= f(\xi_i)$ for
$f(\xi)= (1+\exp[\xi])^{-1}$.
Now, since $f(\xi)$ is a monotonically decaying function of $\xi$,
the product of the two square-brackets in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-dotS-equation-two-reservoir}) cannot be positive.
Taking this together with the positivity of ${\cal T}_{ LR}(E)$
in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:LR=RL}), one concludes that the integrand in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-dotS-equation-two-reservoir}) is not positive at any energy $E$.
Thus, whatever the details of the integral over $E$, one can see that
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\mathscr{S}} \geq 0.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus any two-reservoir system that obeys the scattering theory will automatically
satisfy the second-law of thermodynamics.
\subsubsection{Carnot efficiency for a scatterer between two reservoirs}
\label{Sect:scatter-nonlin-Carnot}
We can use Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-dotS-equation-two-reservoir}) to show the conditions under which Carnot efficiency can be achieved \cite{linke2002}.
We will see that the conditions for achieving Carnot efficiency in the nonlinear regime are a bit stricter than
those for achieving $ZT \to \infty$ in the linear response regime \green{(see section \ref{sec:energyfiltering}).}
By examining the integrand in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-dotS-equation-two-reservoir}),
we see that the only energy $E$ at which the transmission
of an electron from left to right (or right to left) does not generate entropy is the $E$ for which $\xi_{ L}=\xi_{ R}$.
We define this energy as $E^\rightleftharpoons$,
it obeys
\begin{eqnarray}
E^\rightleftharpoons-e V_{ L} &=& {e (V_{ R}-V_{ L}) \over 1-T_{ R}\big/T_{ L}} \ .
\label{Eq:eps-reversible}
\end{eqnarray}
Physically, $E^\rightleftharpoons$ is the energy at which the Fermi functions of reservoirs L and R are the same, $f(\xi_{ L})=f(\xi_{ R})$, which
means that the flow of particles from left to right is the same as the flow from right to left
(which is why we give it the symbol $\rightleftharpoons$).
Thus, if particles only flow at this energy, then the flow is ``reversible'' in the thermodynamic sense.
For a system to be Carnot efficient, we require that it is reversible.
In other words, for Carnot efficiency,
we require that ${\cal T}_{ LR}(E)$ is only non-zero
for $E=E^\rightleftharpoons$. To achieve this one usually considers
${\cal T}_{ LR}(E)$ to be a Lorentzian or boxcar function centred on
$ E^\rightleftharpoons$, whose width is taken to zero.
Then, since each electron that flows carries the same charge, $e$,
and the same energy, $E^\rightleftharpoons$, one has a trivial relationship between
$J_{e,L} $ and $J_{u,L} $,
\begin{eqnarray}
J_{u,L} \ =\ {E^\rightleftharpoons \over e}\, J_{e,L} .
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, remembering that $J_{h,L} =J_{u,L} -V_{ L}J_{e,L} $,
a reversible system has
\begin{eqnarray}
{J_{e,L} \ (V_{ R}-V_{ L}) \over J_{h,L} }
\ =\
{e (V_{ R}-V_{ L}) \over
E^\rightleftharpoons-e V_{ L} }
\ =\ 1 - {T_{ R} \over T_{ L}},
\label{Eq:IV-versus-J-reversible}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used Eq.~(\ref{Eq:eps-reversible}) to get the second equality.
Let us consider a thermoelectric heat-engine, which is using the heat flow out of a hot reservoir L, $J_{h,L} $, to generate electrical power $J_{e,L} V$, by driving an electrical current $J_{e,L} $ against a bias of $V$ (i.e.~the electrons flows from the reservoir with a lower electrochemical potential to the one with a high electrochemical potential).
If we take reservoir L to be at hot (H) temperature $T_{ H}$,
and reservoir R to be at cold (C) temperature $T_{ C}$,
a heat-engine made from the above reversible system, Eq.~(\ref{Eq:IV-versus-J-reversible}), has efficiency
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\rm eng} \equiv {J_{e,L} \ (V_{ R}-V_{ L}) \over J_{h,L} }
\ =\ 1 - {T_{ C} \over T_{ H}}.
\end{eqnarray}
This is the Carnot efficiency for a heat-engine, so the thermodynamically reversible system has Carnot efficiency, as expected.
Similarly, we can consider a thermoelectric refrigerator, which extracts a heat current
$J_{h,L} $ from a cold reservoir L, by absorbing the electrical power $J_{e,L} V$.
The absorbed electrical power must come from an electrical current $J_{e,L} $, driven by a bias $V$ (note that here the current flows in the direction of the bias, when the flow was against the bias for the heat-engine).
If we take reservoir L to be at cold (C) temperature $T_{ L}$,
and reservoir R to be at ambient (0) temperature $T_0$,
a refrigerator made from the above reversible system, Eq.~(\ref{Eq:IV-versus-J-reversible}), has a coefficient of performance (COP),
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\rm fri} \equiv {J_{h,L} \over J_{e,L} (V_{ L}-V_{ R})}
\ =\ {1 \over T_0 \big/ T_{ C} \ -\ 1}.
\end{eqnarray}
This is the Carnot efficiency for a refrigerator,
so again the thermodynamically reversible system has Carnot efficiency, as expected.
\subsubsection{Second law in presence of any number of reservoirs}
\label{Sect:scatter-2ndlaw-general}
One can also prove that the second law follows from the scattering theory for an arbitrary scatterer coupled to an arbitrary number of reservoirs at arbitrary temperatures and biases \cite{Nenciu2007}.
The prove relies only on the structure of the
scattering theory and the positivity of the transmission functions (which in turn comes from the unitarity of the scattering matrix). It is a little more technical than that given above for two terminal systems.
However, this proof applies even if one of the reservoirs is a superconductor inducing Andreev reflection
(or multiple reservoirs are superconductors, if they are all at the same chemical potential) \cite{Whitney-2ndlaw}.
Here we reproduce Nenciu proof \cite{Nenciu2007}, which is much more elegant than Ref.~\cite{Whitney-2ndlaw}'s proof.
Taking the rate of change of total entropy in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-S_total})
with the heat currents given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:J-initial-eh}),
we can write
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\mathscr{S}} \ =\ {k_{\rm B} \over h}\int_0^\infty {\rm d} E \ Z (E),
\label{Eq:dotS_and_Z}
\end{eqnarray}
with the integrand
\begin{eqnarray}
Z(E) \ =\
- \sum_{ij \neq {\rm SC}} \sum_{\varrho\varsigma}\ \xi_{i\varrho} \
{\cal A}_{ij}^{\varrho\varsigma}(E) \ f(\xi_{j\varsigma}), \qquad
\label{Eq:Z}
\end{eqnarray}
where $i$ and $j$ are summed over all the non-superconducting reservoirs.
Here we have defined
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi_{i\varrho} \ =\ {E - \varrho e V_i \over k_{\rm B} T_i},
\qquad \qquad
{\cal A}_{ij}^{\varrho\varsigma}(E) \ =\ N_i^\varrho(E) \delta_{ij}\delta_{\varrho\varsigma}-{\cal T}_{ij}^{\varrho\varsigma}(E),
\end{eqnarray}
and
$f(\xi) = \left(1+\exp\left[\xi \right] \right)^{-1}$,
as in section~\ref{Sect:scatter-2ndlaw-two-reservoirs}.
Our objective is to prove that $Z (E) \geq 0$ for all $E$,
irrespective of the nature of the scatterer,
an immediate consequence of this will be that the second law is satisfied.
The first step is to note that the quantity similar to $Z(E)$ but with $\xi_{i\varrho}$ replaced by $\xi_{j\varsigma}$,
obeys
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{ij \neq {\rm SC}} \sum_{\varrho\varsigma}\ \xi_{j\varsigma} \
{\cal A}_{ij}^{\varrho\varsigma}(E) \ f(\xi_{j\varsigma}) \ = \ 0
\end{eqnarray}
as can be seen by using Eq.~(\ref{Eq:constraints-T_ij-eh-c}) to evaluate the sums over $i$ and $\varrho$.
Adding this term to Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Z}) gives
\begin{eqnarray}
Z(E) \ =\
\sum_{ij \neq {\rm SC}} \sum_{\varrho\varsigma}\
\left(-{\cal A}_{ij}^{\varrho\varsigma}(E) \right) \ \left(\xi_{i\varrho}-\xi_{j\varsigma}\right)\ f(\xi_{j\varsigma}). \qquad
\label{Eq:Z2}
\end{eqnarray}
Now we will use a mathematical trick, for which we need to define a function $F(x) = \int^x {\rm d} \xi f(\xi)$. Since we know that $f(\xi)$ is a monotonically decaying function of $\xi$, we know that $F(x)$ is a concave function of $x$.
A known inequality for concave functions is
that
\begin{eqnarray}
F\big(x\big) - F\big(x_0\big) &\leq& (x-x_0 ) \,f(x_0)\ .
\end{eqnarray}
This inequality can be understood as saying the value of a concave function at $x$ is always less than the value of that function's linear Taylor expansion about $x_0$ (this is easy to see graphically).
We identify $x$ with $\xi_{i\varrho}$ and $x_0$ with $\xi_{j\varsigma}$, and substitute this inequality into the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Z2}), and note that Eq~(\ref{Eq:constraints-T_ij-eh-a})
means that ${\cal A}_{ij}^{\varrho\varsigma}(E)$ is negative
for all non-zero contributions to the sums; i.e.\ ${\cal A}_{ij}^{\varrho\varsigma}(E)$ is only positive when $i=j$ and $\varrho=\varsigma$, but the factor of $(\xi_{i\varrho}- \xi_{j\varsigma})$ means that such terms make no contribution.
This gives
\begin{eqnarray}
Z(E) \ \geq\
\sum_{ij \neq {\rm SC}} \sum_{\varrho\varsigma} \
\left(-{\cal A}_{ij}^{\varrho\varsigma}(E) \right) \ \left(F(\xi_{i\varrho})-F(\xi_{j\varsigma}) \right). \qquad
\label{Eq:Z-inequality}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, Eq.~(\ref{Eq:constraints-T_ij-eh-c}) tells us that the first term in the sum gives zero when summed over $j$ and $\varsigma$, and the second term in the sum gives zero when summed over $i$ and $\varrho$.
Thus we immediately have $Z(E) \geq 0$ for any $E$.
Substituting this result into Eq.~(\ref{Eq:dotS_and_Z}),
we can state that any system modelled by the scattering theory will obey,
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\mathscr{S}} \ =\ - \sum_i {J_{{h},i} \over T_i}\ \geq \ 0 \ ,
\label{Eq:scatter-2nd-law}
\end{eqnarray}
which is the second-law of thermodynamics for such a system.
We recall that this scattering theory does not capture all physical processes in quantum transport.
In particular, it does not capture interaction effects beyond the mean-field level, and it cannot handle multiple superconducting reservoirs at different chemical potentials. So more general derivations of the second-law would be
worthwhile.
\subsubsection{Consequence of the second law for Joule heating}
Here we note that the second law has a strong consequence for Joule heating.
For arbitrary temperature differences between reservoirs, a scatterer may absorb heat (generating power)
or create heat (absorbing electrical power).
However if all reservoirs are at the same temperature, the
system cannot generate electrical power. As a result it behaves like a resistance, absorbing electrical power
whenever there are electrical currents through it, and turning that power into Joule heating.
To see that this is always the case we just have to note that Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-2nd-law}) in the case where all reservoirs have the same temperature reduces to $\sum_i J_{{h},i} \leq 0$. Combining this with the first law,
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:scatter-1st-law-explicit}),
give us
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{\rm gen} \ =\ \sum_i J_{{h},i} \ \leq \ 0 \ .
\end{eqnarray}
Thus the scatterer absorbs electrical power (negative $P_{\rm gen}$, and generates generates Joule heat
(sum of heat flows into scatterer is negative).
\subsection{Upper bound on heat flow and upper bounds on efficiency at given power output}
Having shown that systems modeled by scattering theory always obey the bounds given by the laws of thermodynamics, we now show that quantum mechanics places different bounds on such systems.
The best known is the Bekenstein-Pendry upper bound on heat flow, which we discuss in the following section.
Sections~\ref{Sect:max-power-and-theta-funct} and \ref{Sect:max-eta-given-P} then discusses the consequences of this bound (or more strictly the aspects of scattering theory which lead to this bound)
for the efficiency of a heat-engine or refrigerator. In particular, section~\ref{Sect:max-eta-given-P} shows that quantum mechanics can place a stricter upper bound on efficiency than classical thermodynamics alone.
\subsubsection{The Bekenstein-Pendry bound on heat flow and Nernst's unattainability principle}
\label{Sect:Nernst}
Bekenstein \cite{Bekenstein1981,Bekenstein1984} and Pendry \cite{Pendry1983} independently noted that there is an upper bound on the heat current through a single transverse mode. \green{This bound is most easily derived within scattering theory \cite{Pendry1983,Whitney-2ndlaw}; it comes from the quantization of thermal conductance,
combined with the fact that zero temperature is special.
Ref.~\cite{Pendry1983} found the maximum heat carried away from reservoir $i$ at temperature $T_i$ by the flow of electrons through a constriction carrying $N$ transverse modes. Ref.~\cite{Whitney-2ndlaw} made the straightforward generalization to include finite biases and a superconducting reservoir.}
The heat flow out of reservoir $i$ is maximal when that reservoir is coupled to another reservoir at zero temperature \green{(and at the same electrochemical potential)} via a constriction which lets particles flow at all energies, ${\cal T}(E) = N$. From Eq.~(\ref{Eq:J-initial-two-reservoir}),
it then follows that the Bekenstein-Pendry limit on heat flow,
\begin{eqnarray}
J^{\rm max}_{{ h},i} \ =\ {2 \over h} \ N \ k_{\rm B}^2 T_i^2 \int_0^\infty {x \ {\rm d} x \over 1+e^x}
\ =\
{\pi^2 \over 6 h}\ N \ k_{\rm B} ^2 T_i^2 \ .
\label{Eq:Jmax}
\end{eqnarray}
The number of transverse modes, $N$, is given by the cross-section in units of the Fermi wavelength of the electrons.
This means that the maximum rate of entropy flow out of reservoir $i$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\mathscr{S}}^{\rm max}_{{ h},i} \ =\
{\pi^2 \over 6 h}\ N \ k_{\rm B} ^2 T_i \ .
\end{eqnarray}
One has a stricter bound if one restricts to heat flow through a scatterer between a reservoir at temperature $T_{ L}$ and another at $T_{ R}$, without performing any work on reservoirs or scatterer.
\green{This means the reservoirs must be at the same electro-chemical potential to ensure that
neither of them can perform work, and the scattering potential must be time-independent to ensure that it cannot perform work.}
In this case, the maximum heat current out of reservoir L is
\begin{eqnarray}
J^{\rm max\,(no\,work\, input)}_{{ h,L}} \ =\ \left\{ \begin{array}{ccl}
{\displaystyle {\pi^2 \over 6 h}}\ N \ k_{\rm B} ^2 \left(T_{ L}^2 - T_{ R}^2 \right) & \qquad & \hbox{ for } T_{ L} > T_{ R},
\\
0 \phantom{\Big|} & \qquad & \hbox{ for } T_{ L} < T_{ R}.
\end{array}\right.
\label{Eq:Jmax-no-work}
\end{eqnarray}
\green{For $T_L>T_R$, the bound is reached when the scatterer transmits particles at all energies.
For $T_L <T_R$, the bound is reached when the scatterer reflects particles at all energies.}
The upper bounds in Eqs.(\ref{Eq:Jmax},\ref{Eq:Jmax-no-work}) are of quantum origin;
if we take a naive classical limit for a system with a given cross-section by taking the wavelength to zero, we see that $N\to \infty$, and there ceases to be an upper bound on the heat flow. However, in reality $N$ is always finite,
and $J^{\rm max}_{{ h},i}$ is 0.5 pW per transverse mode per Kelvin-squared. To get a better feeling of what this means, suppose we are trying to an object at $T_{ L}=$600K (the typical temperature of an exhaust pipe of a car) by connecting it to the filament of a lightbulb ($10^{-5}$m is diameter with a Fermi wavelength of $10^{-10}$m) the other end of which is connected to a lump of metal at ambient temperature $T_{ R}=$300K. Then, it can only carry heat out of a metallic reservoir at a rate less than 1350W. While this is a very large heat flow of such a narrow wire, it is not many orders of magnitude above the heat typically carried by lightbulb filaments. Thus, the upper bound imposed by quantum mechanics is not so irrelevantly large as to only be of academic interest.
These Bekenstein-Pendry bound was observed experimentally in point contacts \cite{Molenkamp-Peltier-thermalcond}, and recently verified to high accuracy in quantum Hall edge states \cite{Jezouin2013}.
Remarkably, if one does the same scattering theory calculation for phonons or photons (replacing the Fermi functions in the scattering theory by Bose function), one arrives at exactly the same result \cite{Pendry1983,Maynard-Akkermans1985}.
\green{In the case of photons, one can make a direct connection to the Stefan-Boltzmann law for black-body radiation in the limit of an aperture much larger than the typical photon wavelength. In this limit, the number of traverse photon modes in the aperture, $N$, scales like the temperature-squared, so Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Jmax}) scales like $T^4$, giving the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The difference for electrons in metallic samples is that the number of traverse modes, $N$, is determined principally by the wavelength at the Fermi energy, so $N$ is only weakly dependent on temperature.}
Remarkably the bound in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Jmax-no-work}) means that there is an {\it upper} bound
on the rate of entropy production of any two-terminal system to which we do not supply work, such as a heat-engine. \green{We all know that the second law of thermodynamics gives a lower bound on entropy production, but now we see that quantum mechanics also places an upper bound on the entropy production. }
The maximum heat flow out of reservoir L is given by
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Jmax-no-work}), while the heat flow out of reservoir R is $P_{\rm gen} - J_{ L}$, where the power generated by the system $P_{\rm gen} \geq 0$ (since we are not supplying power to the system),
but is clearly smaller than $J_{ L}$. Thus,
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:dotS-two-term}) is maximal when $P_{\rm gen} \to 0$, which means that the upper bound on
the rate of entropy production is
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\mathscr{S}}_{\rm max\,(no\,work\, input)} \ = \ {\pi^2 \over 6 h}\ N \ k_{\rm B} ^2 \left(T_{ L} - T_{ R} \right)^2 \ \left({T_{L}+T_{R} \over T_{L} T_{R}} \right) .
\label{Eq:max-dotS-no-work}
\end{eqnarray}
Of course, this bound does not apply if we supply work to the system (for which $P_{\rm gen}$ would be negative), because all the work we supply may be converted into heat in the reservoirs, and hence increases their entropy.
We now turn to the case in which we supply work to the system.
As show in Fig.~\ref{Fig:energy-filter}c, one can move heat from reservoir L to reservoir R even if $ T_{ L} < T_{ R}$, so long as one supplies work to the system in the form of a bias between reservoirs L and R.
However, no matter how much work one does, the upper bound on the heat extracted \cite{whitney-prl2014,whitney2015} is exactly half $J^{\rm max}_{{ h},L}$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Jmax}).
\green{This bound is achieved by a two terminal system, in which the scatterer transmits all electrons
with energies $\epsilon > \mu_L$ and reflects all electrons with $\epsilon < \mu_L$
(as in Fig.~\ref{Fig:energy-filter}c) in the limit where $\mu_R$ is very far below $\mu_L$, such that $(\mu_L-\mu_R)/T_L \to \infty$.
The same bound also applies to three terminal refrigerators. \cite{whitney2016} in which heat is extracted from the reservoir being cooled, without extracting charge from it, by forcing an electrical current to flow between two other electronic reservoirs\footnote{In this case the upper bound on refrigeration is half
$J^{\rm max}_{h,i}$, where $N$ is the sum of the number of modes on the two leads that carry the electrical current.}}
\green{
We will follow Ref.~\cite{Whitney-2ndlaw} in showing that this leads directly to Nernst's unattainability
principle, sometime called the third law of thermodynamics,
which states that it is impossible to cool a system to absolute zero in a finite time.
The temperature change of a reservoir, ${\rm d} T$, associated with extracting a given amount of heat, ${\rm d} Q$, from it is determined by that reservoir's heat capacity $C(T) = \left({\rm d} Q \big/ {\rm d} T\right)$. Thus the rate of change of temperature of reservoir $i$ when heat is extracted at a rate $J_i(T_i)$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
{{\rm d} T_i \over {\rm d} t} \ =\ -{ J_i(T_i) \over C_i(T_i)}\ ,
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $C_i(T_i)$ is the heat capacity of reservoir $i$ at temperature $T_i$.
The heat capacity of a reservoir of
free electrons is $C_i \propto T_i$,
so if the maximum heat flow is $J^{\rm max}_{{ h},i} \propto T_i^2$, then it is easy to see that
the temperature decay is given by}
\begin{eqnarray}
{{\rm d} T_i \over {\rm d} t} \ \propto\ -T_i\ .
\label{Eq:weak-Nernst}
\end{eqnarray}
This means that in the ideal case the temperature $T_i$ can decay exponentially towards zero, but can never reach $T_i=0$ on any finite timescale. For non-ideal cases the temperature drop will be slower, and usually stops at a finite temperature.
Note that if $J^{\rm max}_{{ h},i} \propto T_i^\zeta$ for any exponent $\zeta < 2$, then one can show that the temperature would reach zero in a finite time,
\green{while a system with $\zeta > 2$ will never reach zero temperature.
A system that achieves the Bekenstein-Pendry bound on the cooling of a reservoir of free electrons
(and so has $\zeta=2$) is critical. By causing the reservoir temperature to drop exponentially with time,
it obeys the unattainability principle in its weakest possible form; the reservoir temperature never reaches zero even if it gets exponentially close to zero on a finite timescale.
}
\green{
Note that in interacting quantum systems there has been recent controversy about whether the Nernst unattainability principle is valid. There were indications that it might not always be valid
\cite{kolvar2012-violate-Nernst,Levy2012a,Levy2012b,vandenbroeck2012},
followed by a number of claims that it is valid
\cite{Allahverdyan2012-comment,Levy2012-comment,Cleuren-reply2012,Entin-Imry2014-comment,Masanes2014,Freitas2016}.
It has also been shown \cite{BS15} that quantum mechanics imposes a fundamental
limitation for cooling by cyclic engines of the type discussed in section~\ref{sec:CTM},
}
\red{
whose origin is rooted in the dynamical Casimir effect (DCE)
(for a review of this and other quantum vacuum amplification phenomena see
\cite{Nation12}).
The DCE concerns the generation of photons from the vacuum due to time-dependent
boundary conditions or more generally to the change of some parameters of a system.
Ref.~\cite{BS15} considered a reciprocating refrigerator,
operating by means of a working medium (a single mode of the electromagnetic field, that is,
a harmonic oscillator, with a time-dependent frequency), shuttling heat from a cold
finite-size ``bath'' (a single qubit) to a hot bath. The working medium undergoes
a four-stroke Otto cycle. Even assuming the ideal case in \green{an} isochore
stroke of the cycle the qubit and the oscillator are prepared in their ground state,
due to the DCE both the oscillator and the qubit are excited, so that at the end of the
isochore stroke the qubit is left in a state at a nonzero temperature
(note that in this case the change of system's parameters is the switching on/off
of the qubit-oscillator coupling at the beginning/end of the isochore stroke).
As a consequence, for finite-time Otto cycles, the qubit does not attain the
\green{absolute} zero of temperature, even in the limit of an infinite number of cycles.
This fundamental limitation for cooling imposed by the DCE has been recently
confirmed in a more general setup, where a linear and periodically driven quantum
system is coupled with bosonic reservoirs \cite{Freitas2016}.
}
\subsubsection{Maximum power output of a heat-engine}
\label{Sect:max-power-and-theta-funct}
Refs.~\cite{whitney-prl2014,whitney2015} pointed out that the Bekenstein-Pendry upper bound on heat flow, must place a similar upper bound on the power generated by a heat-engine (since the efficiency is always finite).
A very quick over-estimate of this upper bound can be made by noting that if one does not provide work to the system,
then the maximum heat-flow between reservoir L and R is given by the bound in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Jmax-no-work}), and the efficiency must be less than Carnot's efficiency.
This means that the power output for a machine with $N$ transverse modes must be less than
${\pi^2 \over 6h} N k_{\rm B}^2 (1+T_{ R}/T_{ L}) (T_{ L}-T_{ R})^2$.
However, there is a clear competition between maximizing heat flow (which requires allowing electrons to flow at all energies) and maximizing the efficiency (which involves blocking electron flow at all energies except $E^\rightleftharpoons$, see section~\ref{Sect:scatter-nonlin-Carnot}), which makes this bound unattainable.
Using a method of optimization analogous to the one that we presented in section~\ref{Sect:max-ZT-phonons},
Refs.~\cite{whitney-prl2014,whitney2015} found the following strict upper-bound on the power generated;
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{\rm gen}^{\rm max} \,\equiv\,
A_0\, {\pi^2 \over h} \ N\ k_{\rm B}^2 \big(T_L-T_R\big)^2,
\label{Eq:Pmax}
\end{eqnarray}
where $A_0 \simeq 0.0321$.
This bound is strict in the sense that it is never exceeded, but is achieved by
a system with a transmission function in the form of a Heaviside $\theta$-function (i.e. a high-pass filter)
which lets through all particles with $E \geq E^\rightleftharpoons$ as defined in Section~\ref{Sect:scatter-nonlin-Carnot}) when one takes
$e V = 1.146 \,k_{\rm B} (T_L-T_R)$.
\subsubsection{Maximum efficiency at given power output}
\label{Sect:max-eta-given-P}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig-Eff-max-vs-Pgen.pdf}}
\caption{\label{Fig:Eff-max-vs-Pgen}
Here we take given temperatures $T_{ L}$ and $T_{ R}$,
and sketch
power-efficiency curves (the grey loops) for systems with different transmission functions.
The thick black curve is the envelope of all the loops; it separates the region accessible by systems with
suitably chosen transmission functions, from the region of efficiencies and powers that no system can achieve.
For small power generation this envelope tends to the dashed white curve given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:eta-eng-small-Pgen}).
The maximum power generation (black square) is given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Pmax}), with efficiency given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Eff-at-Pmax}).
Each loop is formed (in the manner indicated by the arrows) by taking a given heat-engine and changing the resistance of the load upon it from zero up to infinity (i.e. increasing the bias from zero up to the stopping voltage).
The triangle marks that system's highest efficiency, while the square marks its highest power generation.
The details of these loops will depend on how the transmission function varies with bias (which will depend on the nature of the screening, etc.). Loop 1 is for a system with a narrow transmission function
as in section~\ref{Sect:scatter-nonlin-Carnot}, which has a low power output, but is capable of
achieving a high efficiency (close to Carnot efficiency). This system has a high efficiency at maximum power, which can be close to the Curzon-Ahlborn efficiency, if its parameters are tuned carefully \cite{elb09}. Loop 2 is a system with a transmission in the form of a Heaviside $\theta$-function, as in
section~\ref{Sect:max-power-and-theta-funct},
its maximum efficiency is lower, but its maximum power is much higher.
With correct tuning it achieves the highest power generation of any system, as sketched here.
Only specific systems (those with transmission-functions which act as the correct type of band-pass filters)
have loops which touch the envelope.
All other systems will have power-efficiency curves significantly below the envelope, such as the dashed loop.
}
\end{figure}
A given system has a given transmission function ${\cal T}_{ LR}(E)$, and as a result it has
a given curve of efficiency against power output as a function of bias, typically a loop as sketched
in Fig.~\ref{fig:eta_power},
with a given maximum power.
The phenomenological theory used for Fig.~\ref{fig:eta_power} gives this curve for linear response, but is unable to
capture the maximum power of a given system, instead the horizontal axis in Fig.~\ref{fig:eta_power} gives
the system's normalized power; that is to say the power as a fraction of that system's unknown maximum power.
This hides the fact that the systems with the highest efficiencies typically also have the lowest
maximum powers. While this observation of a competition between efficiency and power is fairly common, to-date only scattering theory has explicitly shown that such a competition is unavoidable \cite{whitney-prl2014,whitney2015,BS2015}.
Refs.~\cite{whitney-prl2014,whitney2015} used an optimization method similar to
that which we presented in section~\ref{Sect:max-ZT-phonons} to find the envelope defined by these
``loops'' for all conceivable systems described by scattering theory. That is to say that these works found the boundary which separates the region of efficiencies and powers
achievable by systems that are described by scattering theory, and the region that no system can achieve
whatever its transmission function.
They thus showed that one cannot get close to Carnot efficiency unless
the power generation is much less than $P_{\rm gen}^{\rm max}$. As we increase the desired power generation towards $P_{\rm gen}^{\rm max}$, the maximum possible efficiency decays monotonically.
The system which achieves the maximal efficiency for a given $P_{\rm gen}$ is one which has a transmission in the form of a band pass filter;
it lets though all particles in a window between $E_0$ and $E_1$, and blocks all other particles.
In general, $E_0$ and $E_1$ are given by an ugly transcendental equation, so there is no
closed form algebraic expression for this maximal upper bound at arbitrary $P_{\rm gen}$.
However, one can observe that larger $P_{\rm gen}$ requires a
wider the band-pass filter (i.e. the greater the difference between $E_1$ and $E_0$),
up to the point where $E_1$ goes to infinity for $P_{\rm gen}\to P_{\rm gen}^{\rm max}$.
In the limit $P_{\rm gen}\big/ P_{\rm gen}^{\rm max}\ll 1$, one can get an algebraic expression for the upper bound on heat-engine efficiency as a function of $P_{\rm gen}$; it is
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\rm eng} \big(P_{\rm gen}\big) = \eta_{\rm eng}^{\rm Carnot}
\left(1- 0.478
\sqrt{ {T_R \over T_L} \ {P_{\rm gen} \over P_{\rm gen}^{\rm max}}} \ + \ {\cal O}\left[P_{\rm gen} \big/ P_{\rm gen}^{\rm max}\right]
\right) . \quad
\label{Eq:eta-eng-small-Pgen}
\end{eqnarray}
In the limit of maximum power generation, $P_{\rm gen}=P_{\rm gen}^{\rm max}$,
the upper bound on efficiency is
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\rm eng} (P_{\rm gen}^{\rm max})
&=& {\eta_{\rm eng}^{\rm Carnot}\over 1+0.936 (1+T_R/T_L) }.
\label{Eq:Eff-at-Pmax}
\end{eqnarray}
One might find it surprising that the efficiency at $P_{\rm gen}^{\rm max}$
is not vanishingly small, indeed it is more than one third of $\eta_{\rm eng}^{\rm Carnot}$.
However, this is less surprising when one recalls that it is the upper-bound on heat-flow that is at the origin of this effect. As the power generated equals the heat-flow multiplied by the efficiency, the efficiency must be reasonably large when one achieves the maximum power output $P_{\rm gen}^{\rm max}$.
Refs.~\cite{whitney-prl2014,whitney2015} calculated similar expressions for the upper bound on refrigerator efficiency as a function of cooling power. As pointed out in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Jmax}), the maximum cooling power is
${\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} J^{\rm max}_{ L}$, and is achieved by a system with a transmission ${\cal T}_{ LR}= N\theta(E-\mu_{ L})$, where $\theta(E)$ is a Heaviside function, and corresponds to blocking all particles with energies less than
Reservoir L's electrochemical potential $\mu_{ L}$ and letting through all those with energies above $\mu_{ L}$.
The refrigerator only gets close to Carnot efficiency for cooling powers much less than ${\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} J^{\rm max}_{ L}$.
As one increases the desired cooling power towards ${\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} J^{\rm max}_{ L}$, the maximum possible efficiency decays monotonically.
There are various differences between the expressions for the refrigerator and the heat-engine, but the basic picture remains the same. The system that achieves maximum efficiency for given cooling power is one whose transmission takes the form of a band-pass filter, only letting through electrons with energies between $E_0$ and $E_1$ (although the form of $E_0$ and $E_1$ are inversed with respect to those of a heat-engine).
Larger cooling power $J_{ L}$ requires a wider band-pass filter, with the upper bound on the band-pass filter going to infinity if we wish to achieve $J_{ L}\to {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} J^{\rm max}_{ L}$.
At lower cooling powers the upper bound on refrigerator efficiency
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\rm fri}(J_{ L}) = \eta_{\rm fri}^{\rm Carnot}
\left(1- 1.09
\sqrt{
\,{T_{ R} \over T_R-T_{ L}}\ {J_{ L} \over J_{ L}^{\rm max}} }\ + \ {\cal O}\left[ J_{ L} \big/ J_{ L}^{\rm max}\right] \right),
\nonumber \\
\label{Eq:eta-fri-smallJ}
\end{eqnarray}
The biggest difference between the refrigerator and the heat engine is that the refrigerator's efficiency
(coefficient of performance) vanishes
at maximum cooling power. In other words, one must supply an infinite amount of electrical power to achieve
a cooling power equal to ${\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} J^{\rm max}_{ L}$. Although, one can get exponentially close to ${\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} J^{\rm max}_{ L}$ with a finite supply of electrical power.
Ref.~\cite{whitney2016} considered three-terminal machines modelled by scattering theory, and found that they had the same upper bounds on efficiency at given power output as those discussed above for two-terminal heat-engines
and refrigerators. In that work the basic geometry of three-terminal heat-engines was that considered elsewhere in this review; one reservoir is at the hot temperature and supplies heat current to the system, while the power is generated by a current between the other reservoirs which are both at the cold temperature. However, its proofs only apply to those three-terminal machines which can be described by scattering theory.
\subsection{Maximizing efficiency when phonons also carry heat}
\label{Sect:whitney2015}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.3\columnwidth]{fig-eff-vs-power-phonons.pdf}}
\caption{\label{Fig:eff-vs-power-phonons}
Sketch of the maximum heat-engine efficiency as a function of the power it generates, in the presence of a phonon or photon heat flow from hot to cold, as sketched in Fig.~\ref{Fig:phonons-intro}. More detailed curves can be seen in Ref.~\cite{whitney2015}.
}
\end{figure}
Here we consider phonon or photon heat flow in parallel with the electronic heat flow, as described in
section~\ref{Sect:intro-phonons}, and ask what effect it has on the maximum efficiency at given power output.
In what follows we will refer to phonons, but the arguments we make could equally apply to photons.
For a heat-engine, if the heat flow out of the hot (left) reservoir in the absence of phonons
is $J_{ L}$, then the heat flow in the presence of phonons will be $J_{ L}+J_{\rm ph}$.
We will assume that the heat carried by the phonons, $J_{\rm ph}$, is dependent on the properties of the insulation between the hot reservoir L and the cold environment (assumed to be at the same temperature as reservoir R)
and on the temperatures $T_{ L}$ and $T_{ R}$.
However, we will assume it is independent of the details of the thermoelectric systems (their transmission function, etc.) and of the bias across them.
In this case, the heat-engine's efficiency when generating power $P_{\rm gen}$ in the presence of the phonons is
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta^{\rm e+ph}_{\rm eng}(P_{\rm gen})\ =\ {P_{\rm gen} \over J_{L}(P_{\rm gen})+J_{\rm ph}} \ =\ {1 \over \eta_{\rm eng}^{-1} (P_{\rm gen}) +J_{\rm ph} / P_{\rm gen} },
\label{Eq:eng-e+ph}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\eta_{\rm eng} (P_{\rm gen})$ is the heat-engine's efficiency
in the absence of phonons (i.e.~for $J_{\rm ph}=0$).
Given the maximum efficiency at given power in the absence of phonons, discussed
in section~\ref{Sect:max-eta-given-P},
we can use this result to find the maximum efficiency for a given phonon heat flow,
$J_{\rm ph}$.
An example of this is sketched in Fig.~\ref{Fig:eff-vs-power-phonons}.
The sketch in Fig.~\ref{Fig:eff-vs-power-phonons}, makes a number of points.
Firstly, Carnot efficiency is never possible for finite $J_{\rm ph}$.
Secondly, phonons have a huge effect on the efficiency at small power output;
the efficiency vanishes at zero power output for any finite $J_{\rm ph}$,
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta^{\rm e+ph}_{\rm eng}(P_{\rm gen})=P_{\rm gen}\big/J_{\rm ph} \ \ \ \hbox{ for } \ P_{\rm gen} \ll J_{\rm ph}.
\label{Eq:eta-with-phonons-smallP}
\end{eqnarray}
For weak phonon heat flows, $J_{\rm ph} \ll P_{\rm gen}^{\rm max}$, the presence of the phonons has little
effect on the efficiency near the maximum power output.
For strong phonon flow, where $J_{\rm ph} \gg P_{\rm gen}^{\rm max}$,
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:eta-with-phonons-smallP}) applies at all powers up to the maximum, $P_{\rm gen}^{\rm max}$.
Then, the efficiency is maximal when the power is maximal, where maximal power is the quantum bound given in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Pmax}).
Section~\ref{Sect:max-eta-given-P} explained that this maximum power occurs for a system whose transmission is
a Heaviside step function. Hence this result coincides with that
in section~\ref{Sect:max-ZT-phonons} for strong phonon flows in the linear-response regime.
Now let us turn to the case of a refrigerator.
Whenever one is trying to refrigerate the cold (left) reservoir,
the presence of phonons carries a back flow of heat $J_{\rm ph}$ from hot to cold,
Hence to extract heat from reservoir L at rate $J$,
the refrigerator must actually extract heat at a rate $J_L=J+J_{\rm ph}$.
Here, for clarity, we take $J_{\rm ph}$ to be positive when $T_L< T_R$
(so it has the opposite sign from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:J_h,ph})).
\green{
The refrigerator's efficiency (coefficient of performance)
is the heat current extracted, $J$, divided by the electrical power $P_{\rm abs}(J+J_{\rm ph})$ that is
required to extract heat at the rate $(J+J_{\rm ph})$.
Given that in the absence of phonons $\eta_{\rm fri}(J)= J/P_{\rm abs}(J)$, we can write
$P_{\rm abs} = (J+J_{\rm ph})\big/ \eta_{\rm fri}(J+J_{\rm ph})$. Then the efficiency (coefficient of performance) in the presence of phonons is }
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\rm fri}^{\rm e+ph}(J) &=& {J \, \eta_{\rm fri}(J+J_{\rm ph}) \over J+J_{\rm ph}} ,
\label{Eq:fri-e+ph}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\eta_{\rm fri} (J)$ is the refrigerator efficiency in the absence of phonons.
This means that once we have the maximum efficiency for given cooling power in the absence of phonons, as discussed in section~\ref{Sect:max-eta-given-P}, we can easily find the maximum efficiency at given cooling power in the presence of the phonon heat flow $J_{\rm ph}$. The result is much the same as for a heat-engine, with one notable exception;
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:fri-e+ph}) means that the phonons reduce the maximum cooling power,
so $J$ must now obey
\begin{eqnarray}
J&\leq& {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} J_L^{\rm max} -J_{\rm ph},
\label{Eq:Jqb-phonons}
\end{eqnarray}
with $J_L^{\rm max}$ given in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Jmax}).
Thus, the upper bound on cooling power reduces as $J_{\rm ph}$ increases.
The above bound has a direct consequence on the lowest temperature that can be achieved by the refrigerator,
because the refrigerator with the highest cooling power will be the one that achieves the lowest temperature.
To see this let us take one with the maximum cooling power, ${\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} J_L^{\rm max}$, which corresponds to a system with a Heaviside step transmission function, such as the point-contact discussed in section~\ref{Sect:scatter-pointcont}, see also Ref.~\cite{whitney2013-catastrophe}.
If reservoir L (the reservoir one wishes to refrigerate) is at the ambient temperature, $T_{ R}$,
when one starts the refrigeration, then
initially one has $J_{\rm ph}=0$ so heat is extracted at a rate equal to ${\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} J_L^{\rm max}$. However, as reservoir $L$ is cooled down through this lose of heat (reducing $T_L$),
$J_{\rm ph}$ grows and $J_L^{\rm max}$ shrinks, thus the heat extraction rate must go down.
Well before $T_{ L}$ reaches zero, one arrives at the situation where $J_{\rm ph} = {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} J_L^{\rm max}$,
and any further cooling of reservoir $L$ is impossible. Thus, if one has the $T_L$ dependence of $J_{\rm ph}$ for a given system, the lowest temperature
that reservoir $L$ can be refrigerated to, is given by the solution of the equation $J_{\rm ph} = {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} J_L^{\rm max}$.
We also note that, as with the heat-engine, phonons have a huge effect on the refrigerator efficiency at small cooling power. For $J_{\rm ph} < {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} J_L^{\rm max}$, one has
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta^{\rm e+ph}_{\rm fri}(J)=J \ {\eta_{\rm fri}(J_{\rm ph}) \over J_{\rm ph}}\ \ \ \ \hbox{ for } \ J \ll J_{\rm ph},
\end{eqnarray}
which means that the efficiency vanishes for small cooling power whenever phonons are present.
\subsection{Lower limit on entropy production at given power output}
Consider a two-terminal heat-engine that generates a power $P_{\rm gen}$ at an efficiency $\eta_{\rm eng}(P_{\rm gen})$. This tells us that the heat flow out of the left (hot) reservoir is
$J_{ L}= P_{\rm gen}\big/\eta_{\rm eng}(P_{\rm gen})$,
while the heat flow out of the right (cold) reservoir is
$J_{ R}= P_{\rm gen} - J_{ L} = P_{\rm gen}\left( 1- 1\big/\eta_{\rm eng}(P_{\rm gen})\right)$.
Inserting these equations into
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:dotS-two-term}), we see that the rate of entropy production at given power generation
(for given $T_{ L}$ and $T_{ R}$)
is entirely determined by the efficiency at that power generation, by the relation
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\mathscr{S}}(P_{\rm gen}) &=& {P_{\rm gen} \over T_{ R}} \left({ \eta_{\rm eng}^{\rm Carnot} \over \eta_{\rm eng}(P_{\rm gen})} -1 \right) \,.
\label{Eq:dotS-for-given-Pgen}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus entropy is produced for any efficiency less than Carnot efficiency. One should not be confused by the factor
of $P_{\rm gen}$, it does not mean that any system which generates zero power will generate zero entropy.
A system which generates zero power, may easily have a finite heat flow $J_{ L}$, in which case $\eta_{\rm eng}(P_{\rm gen}) =0$, then the above equation indicates that its entropy production rate will be finite.
The form of Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:dotS-for-given-Pgen}) means that an upper bound on $\eta_{\rm eng}(P_{\rm gen})$
immediately implies a lower bound on the rate of entropy production. If we concentrate on the regime small
power generation given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:eta-eng-small-Pgen}), we find that the entropy production of a heat-engine
generating a power $P_{\rm gen}$ must obey
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\mathscr{S}}(P_{\rm gen}) &\geq&
{0.478 P_{\rm gen}^{\rm max} \over\sqrt{ T_{ R} T_{ L}}} \ \left(\left( {P_{\rm gen} \over P_{\rm gen}^{\rm max}} \right)^{3/2} \ + \ {\cal O}\left[\left( {P_{\rm gen} \over P_{\rm gen}^{\rm max}} \right)^2 \right] \ \right). \quad
\end{eqnarray}
Taking this result together with Eq.~(\ref{Eq:max-dotS-no-work}), we see that quantum mechanics imposes both a lower bound and an upper bound on the rate of entropy production for a heat-engine.
If we now consider a refrigerator which extracts heat $J_{ L}$ from the left (cold) reservoir with an efficiency (coefficient of performance) $\eta_{\rm fri}(J_{ L})$, we see that the heat flow out of the right (hot) reservoir is $J_{ R}= - J_{ L}-P_{\rm abs}$, where the power absorbed by the refrigerator $P_{\rm abs}=J_{ L}\big/ P_{\rm abs}$. Inserting these equations into
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:dotS-two-term}), we find that the rate of entropy production of such a refrigerator is
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\mathscr{S}}(J_{ L}) &=& {J_{ L} \over T_{ R}} \ \left({1 \over \eta_{\rm eng}(J_{ L})} -{1 \over \eta_{\rm fri}^{\rm Carnot} } \right) \,.
\label{Eq:dotS-for-given-JL}
\end{eqnarray}
As mentioned in section~\ref{Sect:max-eta-given-P},
there is an upper-bound on refrigerator efficiency at given cooling power,
much like the bound on heat-engine efficiency sketched in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Eff-max-vs-Pgen}.
Combining this efficiency bound with Eq.~(\ref{Eq:dotS-for-given-JL}) directly implies a lower bound on the entropy production of a refrigerator.
For small cooling powers, we can insert Eq.~(\ref{Eq:eta-fri-smallJ}) into Eq.~(\ref{Eq:dotS-for-given-JL})
to find that the entropy production of a refrigerator with cooling power $J_{ L}$ must obey
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot S \big(J_L\big) \ \geq \
1.09
{J^{\rm max}_{ L} \over T_{ L}} \left( \sqrt{1-{T_{ L}\over T_{ R}}}
\left({J_{ L} \over J_{ L}^{\rm max}} \right)^{3/2}\, +
\ {\cal O}\left[\left( {J_{L} \over J_{L}^{\rm max}} \right)^2 \right] \ \right).
\nonumber \\
\label{Eq:dotS-fri-smallJ}
\end{eqnarray}
It is easy to show that Eq.~(\ref{Eq:dotS-for-given-Pgen})
applies to the three-terminal heat-engines,
where one reservoir is at the hot temperature and two are at the same cold temperature,
with the power being generated between the two cold reservoirs.
Similarly Eq.~(\ref{Eq:dotS-for-given-JL}) applies to three-terminal refrigerators,
where one extracts heat from a cold reservoir by driving an electrical current between two reservoirs at the same ambient temperature.
Since Ref.~\cite{whitney2016} has shown that such systems have the same efficiency bounds as two terminal systems, all results in this section apply equally to such three-terminal systems.
\section{\green{Rate equations for quantum systems}}
\label{Sect:Qu-Master-Eqn}
In this section we consider an arbitrary quantum system coupled to multiple
reservoirs of electrons, photons or phonons.
We take the system's Hamiltonian (in the absence of the coupling to the
reservoirs) to be
$\hat{\cal H}_{\rm s}$, and assume it is time-independent.
In particular, we will allow for the possibility for strong interactions between
electrons in the quantum system, in which case
the scattering theory presented in chapter~\ref{Sect:scattering-theory} is not applicable.
If the coupling between the quantum system and the reservoirs is weak, then
we can model this situation with a quantum master equation.
The derivation requires that the system-reservoir coupling
is weak enough that it has a very small effect on the system on the
scale of the memory time associated with that reservoir.
Physically, the memory time is the time-scale on which a mode in the reservoir
which was excited by a transition in the system will have an effect on the
dynamics of the system.
For a reservoir of free-electrons, this memory time is of order $h/(k_{\rm B} T)$,
so we require that the coupling to each reservoir is much less than the
temperature of that reservoir. For a reservoir of bosons (either photons or
phonons), the memory time depends on both the bosonic spectrum and the
temperature, but again the memory time decays with increasing temperature.
If the reservoir's total effect on the system is small during a memory time, we
can treat the coupling to each reservoir mode using Fermi's golden rule,
and neglect the possibility that the system interacts with two environment modes
at the same time.
Another way to say this is to say the system is in the regime of sequential tunnelling \cite{Schoeller97}.
Then the evolution of the system's density matrix, $\rho(t)$,
in the basis of eigenstates of the system's Hamiltonian,
is given by a quantum master equation of a Markovian form.
In some cases, it has been shown that this master equation can be cast in a Lindblad form
\cite{Davies74,Davies76,Dumcke1985,lindblad,book:open-quantum,Alicki2006,Whitney2008,Rivas2010}.
In this review, we will restrict our analysis to systems for which this Markovian master equation is
particularly simple, because we will assume that quantum
coherent superpositions
do not play a role. That is to say that we assume the off-diagonal
elements of the system's density matrix are negligible at all times (where
we take that density matrix to be written in the system's energy eigenbasis).
The conditions under which this is a reasonable assumption are
a little subtle and we postpone the discussion of them until in
section~\ref{Sect:master-coherences}, although we note now that they can be
safely neglected in all the machines considered in
chapter~\ref{Sect:master-examples}.
Upon neglecting the coherent superpositions,
the quantum master equation reduces to a rate equation for the probability
of occupying a given system state.
One can consider the case of superconducting \cite{Sothmann-Futterer-Governale-Konig2010}
or ferromagnetic \cite{Wysokinski2012} reservoirs, but this can be done.
This rate equation is sufficiently simple that it can be explained and used
without a
detailed understanding of its origin. Thus, we present the rate
equation first,
and only afterwards do we present the connection with the microscopic
Hamiltonian
for the quantum system and the reservoirs.
The two ingredients that one needs to construct any rate equation are
(i) the states and (ii) the transitions. We start by defining the states.
In the rate equation that we consider, the states are the
many-body eigenstates of the quantum system when isolated from the reservoirs.
As an example, consider the Hamiltonian discussed in Table~\ref{Table:example-H}, it has four many-body states,
$|0 \rangle$, $|1 \rangle$, $|2 \rangle$ and $|{\rm d} \rangle$, which we would use as the states for the rate equation.
\begin{table}[b]
\centerline{\begin{tabular}{|c|c c|c c|}
\hline
\!Many-body\! & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{
Electronic states} & Electron- & Energy, \\
states, $|a\rangle$& 1 & 2 & number, $N_a$ & $E_a$ \\
\hline
$|0 \rangle$ & empty & empty & 0 & 0 \\
$|1 \rangle$ & full & empty & 1 & $\epsilon_1$ \\
$|2 \rangle$ & empty & full & 1 & $\epsilon_2$ \\
$|{\rm d} \rangle$ & full & full & 2 & $\epsilon_1\!+\!\epsilon_2\!+\!U\!$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\caption{\label{Table:example-H}
As an example, consider a system with two possible fermionic states,
such that its Hamiltonian is
$\hat{\cal H}^{\rm example}_{\rm s}
= \epsilon_1 \, \hat{n}_1+\epsilon_1 \, \hat{n}_2+ U\,\hat{n}_1\hat{n}_2\,$,
with the number operator $n_i= \hat{d}^\dagger_i \hat{d}_i$, where
$\hat{d}^\dagger_i$ and $\hat{d}_i$ are fermionic creation and annihilation
operators for the state $i$.
The $U$-term is due to Coulomb repulsion between electrons, it
means that the energy for occupying both states is more than just the sum of
occupying each
state individually. We list the four many-body eigenstates of this Hamiltonian,
labelling them
$|0 \rangle$, $|1 \rangle$, $|2 \rangle$, $|{\rm d} \rangle$ (where d stands for
``double-occupancy'').
}
\end{table}
Now let us imagine that there are reservoirs coupled to the system which can
induces changes in the system's state.
The system will exchange electrons with electronic reservoirs,
changing the both system's state and its charge.
It will exchange photons or phonons with the relevant reservoirs,
changing the system's state without changing its charge.
Let us define the rate of each transition from system state $a$
to system state $b$ due to the coupling to reservoir $i$ as $\Gamma^{
(i)}_{ba}$. We then define the total rate of transition from state $a$ to
$b$ as $\Gamma_{ba}$, so it is the following sum over all reservoirs $i$,
\begin{align}
\Gamma_{ba} = \sum_i \Gamma^{ (i)}_{ba} \ .
\label{Eq:Gamma_ba}
\end{align}
Then the probability $P_b (t)$ that one finds the system in state $|b\rangle$
at time $t$
is given by the rate equation (or classical master equation)
\begin{align}
{{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t} P_b (t)
= \sum_a \Big( \Gamma_{ba} \, P_a (t) \ -\ \Gamma_{ab} \, P_b (t) \Big) \, ,
\label{Eq:master-eqn}
\end{align}
where the sum is over all system states (formally the sum is for $a \neq b$,
but we do not need
to specify this because the term with $a=b$ is zero).
The first term in the sum is the rate at which probability arrives to the state
$b$, while the
second term is the rate at which it leaves state $b$.
One can derive the rates $\Gamma_{ba}^{(i)}$ from the microscopic
Hamiltonian,
as we do in section~\ref{Sect:transition-rates},
or one can treat these rates as phenomenological constants.
However, if one treats them phenomenologically,
one must still ensure that these rates obey
a relation known as {\it local-detailed balance} \cite{Katz-Lebowitz-Spohn83},
sometimes also called a micro-reversibility relation \cite{Crooks1999}
\green{
for a system with a non-degenerate Hamiltonian \cite{Dumcke1985},
}
\begin{align}
\Gamma^{(i)}_{ab}
&= \Gamma^{(i)}_{ba} \,\exp\left[ -\Delta \mathscr{S}^{(i)}_{ba} \, \Big/\,k_{\rm B}
\right]\, ,
\label{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final}
\end{align}
where $\Delta \mathscr{S}^{(i)}_{ba}$
is the change in entropy in reservoir $i$
when it induces a system transition from $a$ to $b$.
This entropy change is given by the Clausius relation
\begin{align}
\Delta \mathscr{S}^{(i)}_{ba} ={\Delta Q^{(i)}_{ba} \over T_i}
= {E_a-E_b -(N_a-N_b)\mu_i \over T_i},
\label{Eq:DeltaS_ba}
\end{align}
where $E_a$ and $N_a$ are the energy and electron-number for system state $a$
(see Table~\ref{Table:example-H} for examples of $E_a$ and $N_a$),
and $\mu _i$ is the electrochemical potential of reservoir $i$.
Here $\Delta Q^{(i)}_{ba}$ is the change in heat in reservoir $i$
associated with the transition $a \to b$, the reason it can be written as
$E_a-E_b -(N_a-N_b)\mu_i$ will be discussed in
section~\ref{Sect:transition-rates},
where Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final}) will be derived.
The physical consequence of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final}) is that
a transition that increases the entropy of the reservoir has a higher rate than the reverse
process (which reduces the entropy of the reservoir).
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final})
will be the crucial ingredient in showing that master equations obey the
laws of thermodynamics.
\green{We note that some works recast Eq.~(\ref{Eq:master-eqn}) as
the matrix equation
\begin{eqnarray}
{{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t} {\bf P} (t)
\ =\ \bm{\Gamma}\ {\bf P}(t),
\label{Eq:master-eqn-matrix-form}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf P} (t)$ is a column vector whose
elements are $P_a(t)$.
The matrix $\bm{\Gamma}$ has off-diagonal elements given by $\Gamma_{ba}$,
while its diagonal elements are defined to be $\Gamma_{bb} = -\sum_{a\neq b}
\Gamma_{ab}$;
this means each column of the matrix $\bm{\Gamma}$ sums to zero.
In all that follows in this chapter, it will be more convenient to work with
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:master-eqn}) than Eq.~(\ref{Eq:master-eqn-matrix-form}).}
It is always helpful to visualize this rate equation as a network,
where each state is a vertex and each transition is a bond.
Each bond is labelled by the reservoir that induces the transition.
Examples of such networks are sketched in the insets of
Figs.~\ref{Fig:2-term-sys},
\ref{Fig:3-term-sys1} and \ref{Fig:3-term-sys2}.
If multiple reservoirs can induce a transition between
two states, then we draw multiple bonds between those states (one for each
reservoir);
see for example the two bond between states 0 and 1 in inset (a) of
Fig.~\ref{Fig:2-term-sys},
one for reservoir L and one for reservoir R.
Similarly, if a given reservoir induces \green{multiple} transitions then
there will be multiple bonds associated with that reservoir; for example there
are four bond associated with
reservoir L in inset (b) of Fig.~\ref{Fig:2-term-sys} (and four associated with
reservoir R).
Just as there is a probability for each state in the network,
we can define a probability current for each bond in the network.
Many observables, particularly particle and energy currents into the system
from the reservoirs,
are given naturally in terms of these probability currents.
We define ${\cal I}_{ba}^{(i)}(t)$ as the probability current for the transition from
state $a$ to state $b$ at time $t$ due to reservoir $i$, and we take it to be the
probability flow \green{from $a$ to $b$ minus the probability flow from $b$ to $a$.}
Thus
\begin{align}
{\cal I}_{ba}^{(i)}(t) \ =\ -{\cal I}_{ab}^{(i)}(t) \ =\
\Gamma_{ba}^{(i)} \, P_a (t) - \Gamma_{ab}^{(i)} \, P_b (t) \ .
\label{Eq:probability-currents}
\end{align}
Then, the rate equation reads
${{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t} P_b (t)
= \sum_i \sum_a {\cal I}_{ba}^{(i)}(t)$.
This equation provides no more information than Eq.~(\ref{Eq:master-eqn}), but
can be a convenient way of thinking
of certain aspects of the system's physics, particularly in the steady state.
\subsection{Steady state solution of the rate equation}
For a time-independent system Hamiltonian with time-independent couplings to
the reservoirs,
there is a steady-state solution of the rate equation in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:master-eqn}), which
corresponds to
\begin{align}
{{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t} P_b (t) =0 \qquad \hbox{ for all $b$}.
\nonumber
\end{align}
Defining the solution to this equation as $P_a^{\rm steady}$, it must obey
\begin{align}
0 = \sum_a \Big( \Gamma_{ba} \, P_a^{\rm steady} \ -\ \Gamma_{ab} \, P_b^{\rm
steady} \Big)
\qquad \hbox{ for all $b$}.
\label{Eq:steady-state-master-eqn}
\end{align}
This forms a set of simultaneous equations which can be solved to find the
steady-state occupation probability for each state, $P_a^{\rm steady}$.
If the reservoir couplings induce transitions between all eigenstates, there is
likely to be only one steady-state, although one should verify this for the
system in question.
When the steady-state is unique, then any system state will eventually relax to
the state $P_b^{\rm steady}$, typically at a rate of
order the slowest of the decay rates, $\{\Gamma_{ab}\}$.
We assume we are only interested in the response of the system on time-scale
very much longer than this relaxation time, so the physics is entirely
dominated by the
steady-state.
If we recast this in terms of probability currents defined in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:probability-currents}), then the \green{steady-state probability currents are}
\begin{align}
{\cal I}_{ba}^{(i) \rm steady}(t) \ =\ -{\cal I}_{ab}^{(i) \rm
steady}(t) \ =\
\Gamma_{ba}^{(i)} \, P_a^{\rm steady} - \Gamma_{ab}^{(i)} \, P_b^{\rm
steady} \ .
\label{Eq:probability-currents-steady}
\end{align}
These probability currents then obey a {\it Kirchhoff's law};
in other words the sum of probability currents into (or out of) vertex $a$ sum
to zero,
\begin{align}
0 = \sum_i \sum_b {\cal I}_{ba}^{(i)\,\rm steady}
= \sum_i \sum_b {\cal I}_{ab}^{(i)\,\rm steady} \qquad \hbox{ for
all $a$}.
\label{Eq:Kirchhoff-for-prob-currents}
\end{align}
Section~\ref{Sect:single-loop} will show that when the network of system states
is simple enough, one can get useful information about the system's properties
from this Kirchhoff law,
without needing to solve Eq.~(\ref{Eq:steady-state-master-eqn}).
However, to get full information about any system,
solving Eq.~(\ref{Eq:steady-state-master-eqn}) is unavoidable.
\subsection{Currents into the system, and power output}
\label{Sect:currents}
To understand the steady-state properties of the machines that interest us,
we need the currents of particles and energy
into the system from the various reservoirs.
The particle (electron) current into the system from reservoir $i$ is
given by the
probability currents associated with transitions involving reservoir $i$.
If that transition involves the system changing from a state $a$ in which the
system contains $N_a$ electrons,
to a state $b$ in which the system contains $N_b$ electrons, then it is because
$\left(N_b -N_a \right)$ electrons
have flowed from reservoir $i$ into the system. This transition occurs
with a rate given by the
probability current ${\cal I}_{ba}^{(i)}(t)$ to go from $a$ to $b$ due to
the coupling to
reservoir $i$ given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:probability-currents}).
The particle current into the system from reservoir $i$,
is given by summing over all transitions involving $i$.
Hence, the particle current into the system from reservoir $i$ is
\begin{align}
J_{\rho,i} (t) = {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} \sum_{ab} \left(N_b -N_a \right) {\cal
I}_{ba}^{(i)}(t),
\label{Eq:I^N}
\end{align}
where the factor of ${\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}$ is due to the fact that the sum over $a$ and $b$
counts each transition twice.
By analogy, the energy current out of reservoir $i$
into the system is
\begin{align}
J_{{u},i} (t) = {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}\sum_{ab} \left(E_b -E_a \right) {\cal
I}_{ba}^{(i)}(t).
\label{Eq:I^E}
\end{align}
The steady-state particle and energy currents are given by taking ${\cal
I}_{ba}^{(i)}(t)= {\cal I}_{ba}^{(i) \rm steady}$ given by
\green{Eq.~(\ref{Eq:probability-currents-steady})}.
From the above two currents,
we get the electrical current, $J_{{e},i} $, and heat current, $J_{{h},i} $,
flowing out of reservoir $i$ into the quantum system:
\begin{align}
J_{{e},i} &= e J_{\rho,i} ,
\\
J_{{h},i} &= J_{{u},i} - \mu_i J_{\rho,i} ,
\label{Eq:J}
\end{align}
where $e$ is the electronic charge (so $e$ is negative).
Physically, the heat current $J_{{h},i} $ is just the energy current measured
from the reservoir's electrochemical potential.
This definition make sense from a microscopic point of view; electrons above a
reservoir's electrochemical potential
reduce the heat in that reservoir when they escape (making the Fermi
distribution infinitesimally narrower),
but electrons below the electrochemical potential increase the heat in that reservoir
when they escape (making the Fermi distribution infinitesimally broader).
If reservoir $i$ is a reservoir of non-interacting bosons, such as photons
or phonons,
the formulas for particle and energy flow are the same.
However, since photons and phonons are uncharged, they do not carry any
electrical current.
The rate equation should be constructed such that each transition conserves both
energy and electron number
(although there is no requirement that it conserves the number of photons or
phonons). The energy and electron number in the quantum system become constant
once the system reaches its steady-state, so there can be no net flow of
electrons or energy into the system,
thus the energy currents and particle currents obey
\begin{align}
J_{u} ^{\rm (sum)} &\equiv \sum_i J_{{u},i} =0\,,
\label{Eq:energy-conservation}
\\
J_\rho ^{\rm (sum)} &\equiv \sum_i J_{{e},i} =0\, ,
\end{align}
where the sums are over all reservoirs.
To see explicitly that the steady-state obeys the first of these equations,
we note that \green{
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:probability-currents-steady},\ref {Eq:I^E}) }
mean that $J_{u} ^{\rm (sum)} = -{\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}} \sum_{ab} \left(E_b -E_a \right)
\left(\Gamma_{ba} P_a^{\rm steady} - \Gamma_{ab} P_b^{\rm steady} \right)$.
If we now exchange dummy variables $a \leftrightarrow b$ in the term containing
$E_a$, we get
\begin{align}
J_{u} ^{\rm (sum)} = -\sum_b E_b \sum_{a}
\left(\Gamma_{ba} P_a^{\rm steady} - \Gamma_{ab} P_b^{\rm steady} \right).
\end{align}
Then, Eq.~(\ref{Eq:steady-state-master-eqn}) immediately gives
$J_{u} ^{\rm (sum)} =0$ as required. The proof that $J_\rho ^{\rm (sum)}=0$ is the same,
except that one replaces $E_b,E_a$ with $N_b,N_a$.
Now we turn to calculating the electrical power that the system generates in a given reservoir.
Injecting a particle into reservoir
$i$ requires a work equal to the \green{reservoir's} electrochemical potential, $\mu_i$. Just
as moving a classical particle up a hill requires a work equal to the potential
energy. This electric power that the system generates could be stored in the form of electric work (taking the reservoir to be one plate in a capacitor), or it could be immediately
converted into another form of work.
In the latter case, an example would be an ideal electric motor connected between the reservoir and ground
(a reservoir with electrochemical potential equal to zero).
Such a motor turns electrical work into mechanical work without losses, but from the point of view of the electric circuit, it is just a load.
The power that the system generates and sends into the load connected to reservoir $i$ is
\begin{align}
P_{\rm gen}^{(i)}=-\mu_i J_{\rho,i},
\label{Eq:P_gen^i}
\end{align}
where $J_{\rho,i}$ is the particle current into the system from reservoir $i$
(i.e. it is the number of electrons that flow from reservoir $i$ to the system per unit time).
The negative sign is because of our convention for currents.
This convention means that if $\mu_i$ is larger than all other electrochemical potentials,
then the current $J_{{e},i} $ into the system from reservoir $i$ should be negative
if we want to do work by moving charge from the reservoirs with lower electrochemical potentials
to reservoir $i$ with its higher electrochemical potential.
The power generated in \green{reservoir} $i$ can be cast in the familiar form of
voltage $\times$ electrical current, by noting that $\mu_i=eV_i$ so
\begin{align}
P_{\rm gen}^{(i)} = -V_i J_{{e},i} \, .
\label{Eq:P_gen=VI}
\end{align}
Note, that the power generated in reservoir $i$ depends on the definition of ground (the energy from which all electrochemical potentials are measured).
However, since $\sum_i J_{\rho,i} =0$, the total power generated (summed over all reservoirs)
is independent of any overall shift of the electrochemical potential with respect to ground, as one
expects.
Similarly, we can clearly see the {\it Joule heating} effect, if we consider the case where the reservoirs are all at the same temperatures (so the system cannot perform any thermoelectric power generation), but reservoir $i$ is maintained at a electrochemical potential $\mu_i=eV_i$ by a power supply.
Then, the system will act as a resistance (usually a non-linear resistance), which absorbs a power
$P_{\rm abs}^{(i)} = -P_{\rm gen}^{(i)}$
from the power supply coupled to reservoir $i$. Eq.~(\ref{Eq:heat+power}) will tells us that
the electrical power absorbed by the system is radiated into the reservoirs as heat. This is Joule heating,
with the usual form of voltage $\times$ electrical current in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P_gen=VI}).
The negative signs ensure that the power absorbed, $P_{\rm abs}^{(i)}$, is positive, when currents flow from regions of high electrochemical potential to regions of lower electrochemical potential.
\subsection{From the microscopic Hamiltonian to the rate equation}
\label{Sect:transition-rates}
\green{
Here we discuss the derivation of the above rate equation from a microscopic Hamiltonian
for the system and the reservoirs. The derivation assumes that the coupling between the system and the reservoirs is weak enough that one can apply a Fermi golden rule approximation.
The golden-rule treatment of such system-reservoir problems, in which one assumes the system-reservoir coupling is a perturbation that can be treated to lowest order, has a long history. Depending on the community and context it is known as the Redfield \cite{redfield} or Bloch-Redfield \cite{Bloch57} approximation,
the sequential tunnelling approximation in transport theory (see e.g.~\cite{Schoeller97}),
or the weak-coupling limit of the Nakajima-Zwanzig model \cite{Nakajima58,Zwanzig60}.
A more rigorous treatment well known in the mathematical physics community is the weak-coupling limit of quantum-mechanical master equations in Refs.~\cite{Davies74,Davies76,Dumcke1985}.
For students looking to learn these techniques we recommend Ref.~\cite{Bellac-qm-book}, with Refs.~\cite{Atom-Photon-Interactions-book,Blum-book,book:open-quantum} being good alternatives.
These works provide a good base from which to attack more technical reviews such as that of
the sequential tunnelling approximation in Ref.~\cite{Schoeller97}.
}
Consider a finite size quantum system with Hamiltonian $\hat{\cal H}_{\rm s}$
coupled to a number of reservoirs.
They may be reservoirs of non-interacting electrons,
which can tunnel between the reservoirs and the quantum system.
Alternatively, they may be reservoirs of non-interacting photons or phonons,
whose emission or absorption induce transitions within the quantum system.
Then, the Hamiltonian for the system plus the reservoirs will be
\begin{align}
\hat{\cal H}_{\rm total} &= \hat{\cal H}_{\rm s}
+\sum_{i \in {\rm el}}
\left( \hat{\cal V}_{\rm el}^{(i)} +\hat{\cal H}_{\rm el}^{(i)}
\right)
+\sum_{i \in {\rm ph}}
\left( \hat{\cal V}_{\rm ph}^{(i)} +\hat{\cal H}_{\rm ph}^{(i)}
\right).
\label{Eq:H_total-1}
\end{align}
The first sum is over all reservoirs of non-interacting electrons.
The second sum
is over all reservoirs of non-interacting bosonic modes, which could be photons
or phonons. \green{In all cases, we assume this total Hamiltonian is bounded from below.}
If reservoir $i$ consists of non-interacting electrons, then its
Hamiltonian is
\begin{align}
\hat{\cal H}_{\rm el}^{(i)} &= \sum_\gamma \,E_{i;\gamma}\,
\hat{c}_{i;\gamma}^\dagger \,\hat{c}_{i;\gamma},
\end{align}
where $E_{i;\gamma}$, $\hat{c}_{i;\gamma}^\dagger$ and $\hat{c}_{i;\gamma}$ are
respectively the energy, the creation operator and the annihilation operator
for the fermionic state $\gamma$ in reservoir $i$. The coupling to such a reservoir
induces transitions in the system which changes its charge state by one.
If we define $\hat{d}^\dagger_\alpha$ and $\hat{d}_\alpha$ as the creation and annihilation operators for
electron state $\alpha$ in the system, then
\begin{align}
\hat{\cal V}_{\rm el}^{(i)} \ \ &=\ \sum_\gamma \left(\hat{V}_{{\rm el}; i}(E_\gamma) \,\hat{c}_{i;\gamma}^\dagger
\ +\ {\hat V}_{{\rm el}; i}^\dagger (E_\gamma) \,\hat{c}_{i;\gamma} \right)\, ,
\qquad
\hbox{ with } \ {\hat V}_{{\rm el}; i}(E_\gamma)\ = \ \sum_\alpha V^{{\rm el};i}_{\alpha}(E_\gamma)\ \hat{d}_\alpha \ ,
\label{Eq:V_el}
\end{align}
where the complex number $V^{{\rm el};i}_{\alpha}$ is the matrix element for the transition under consideration.
We assume that the mode $\gamma$ in reservoir $i$ is entirely determined by its energy $E_\gamma$.
If we wish to include internal degrees of freedom of the reservoir
(coupling to different spin-states or multiple modes of the reservoir), we
treat it as multiple reservoirs, each with one degree of freedom.
For example, a reservoir of electrons with spin-up and spin-down can be treated
as two reservoirs, one of spin-up electrons and the other with spin-down
electrons. In this manner it is easy to take into account different coupling
to different spin-states or reservoir modes, spin-accumulations in the
reservoirs (different electrochemical potentials for spin up and spin down), etc.
If reservoir $i$ consists of non-interacting photons or phonons (or some
other chargeless bosonic excitation) it has a Hamiltonian
\begin{align}
\hat{\cal H}_{\rm ph}^{(i)} &= \sum_\gamma \,E_{i;\gamma}\,
\hat{b}_{i;\gamma}^\dagger \,\hat{b}_{i;\gamma},
\end{align}
where $E_{i;\gamma}$, $\hat{b}_{i;\gamma}^\dagger$ and $\hat{b}_{i;\gamma}$
are respectively the energy, the creation operator and the annihilation
operator for the bosonic
state $\gamma$ in reservoir $i$. The coupling to such a reservoir
induces transitions in the system which move system electrons from state $\alpha$ to state $\beta$,
\begin{align}
\hat{\cal V}_{\rm ph}^{(i)}\ \ &= \ \sum_{\gamma} \, \hat{V}_{{\rm ph};i} (E_\gamma)\,
\left(\hat{b}_{i;\gamma}^\dagger + \hat{b}_{i;\gamma}\right)\ ,
\qquad \hbox{ with } \
\hat{V}_{{\rm ph};i} (E_\gamma)\ = \ \sum_{\alpha\beta} V_{\beta\alpha}^{{\rm ph};i}(E_\gamma)
\ \hat{d}_\beta^\dagger
\hat{d}_{\alpha},
\label{Eq:V_ph}
\end{align}
where the complex number $V_{\alpha\beta}^{{\rm ph};i}(E_\gamma)$ is the matrix element for the transition being considered. The Hermiticity of the Hamiltonian requires that $V_{\alpha\beta}^{{\rm ph};i}(E_\gamma)$
is the complex conjugate of $V_{\beta\alpha}^{{\rm ph};i}(E_\gamma)$.
We now use Fermi's golden-rule to calculate the transition rates for the above
microscopic Hamiltonian. In this context the golden-rule is a perturbative treatment to lowest order in the system-reservoir coupling.
\green{As mentioned above, a good introduction is Ref.~\cite{Bellac-qm-book},
with more technical alternatives being Refs.~\cite{Atom-Photon-Interactions-book,Blum-book,book:open-quantum}.
A powerful diagrammatic treatment of this type of problem is reviewed in Ref.~\cite{Schoeller97},
where the golden-rule approximation is referred to as the sequential tunnelling
approximation.}
\green{We start be writing the system in terms of its many-body eigenbasis, an example of which is given in
Table~\ref{Table:example-H}. This involves passing from second-quantization back to first quantization. This is the opposite direction from that taken in most textbooks (which go from first quantization to second quantization), so Appendix~\ref{Append:second-to-first-quantization} gives a a quick summary of the transformation in the opposite direction for a two-state system similar to that in Table~\ref{Table:example-H}.
This transformation allows us to write the system in terms of a set of many-body eigenstates. In this basis the
system dynamics in the absence of the coupling to the reservoirs are trivial, because ${\cal H}_{\rm s}$ is a diagonal-matrix, and so does not induce transitions between states. This means the only transitions between
a many-body eigenstate $a$ and a many-body eigenstate $b$ are due to the coupling to a reservoir.
Then each such transition in the system is associated with either absorbing a particle from a reservoir
or emitting a particle into a reservoir.}
For transitions which involve an electron moving from the reservoir to the
system, we know that
matrix elements containing ${\cal V}_{\rm el;i}$ are only non-zero when
the many-body system states $|a\rangle$ and $|b\rangle$ differ by one unit of charge.
Energy conservation tells us that the rate of transition from state $a$ to
state $b$
depends on the density of electrons at energy $\Omega_{ba}$ in the reservoir,
where we define
\begin{align}
\Omega_{ba}=E_b-E_a \, ,
\end{align}
where $E_a$ is the energy of the system state $a$.
The density of electrons at energy $\Omega_{ba}$ in reservoir $i$ is
$\nu_{i}(\Omega_{ba}) f_i(\Omega_{ba})$,
where
$\nu_{i}(E)$ is the density of reservoir states at energy $E$,
and $f_i(E)$ is the Fermi factor for the reservoir. Here
\begin{align}
f_i(E) &= 1\big/\big(1+\exp[(E-\mu_i)/k_{\rm B} T_i]\big),
\end{align}
with $\mu_i$ being the reservoir's electrochemical potential, and
$T_i$ being its temperature.
For a transition from system state $a$ to system state $b$, which is
achieved by the
system absorbing an electron from the reservoir $i$,
the golden-rule transition rate is
\begin{align}
\Gamma^{({\rm el};i+)}_{ba} = {1\over h} \nu_{i}(\Omega_{ba}) \
f_i(\Omega_{ba}) \,
\ \Big| \bigbra{b} \hat{V}_{{\rm el};i}(\Omega_{ba}) \bigket{a}
\Big|^2,
\label{Eq:Gamma_el_ba-plus}
\end{align}
where the superscript ``$+$'' indicates that the transition from $a$ to $b$ adds an electron to the system,
and $\hat{V}_{{\rm el};i}(E)$ is given in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:V_el}).
For transitions which involve an electron moving from the system to the
reservoir,
energy conservation tells us that the rate of transition from state $a$ to
state $b$
depends on the density of empty electron states at energy $-\Omega_{ba}$,
this density is hence given by $\nu_{i}(-\Omega_{ba})
[1-f_i(-\Omega_{ba})]=\nu_{i}(-\Omega_{ba}) f_i(\Omega_{ba})$.
Thus for a transition from system state $a$ to system state $b$, which is
achieved by the
system emitting an electron into reservoir $i$,
the golden-rule transition rate is
\begin{align}
\Gamma^{({\rm el};i-)}_{ba} = {1\over h} \nu_{i}(-\Omega_{ba}) \
f_i(\Omega_{ba}) \,
\ \Big|\bigbra{b} \hat{V}_{{\rm el};i}^\dagger (-\Omega_{ba})\bigket{a}
\Big|^2 ,
\label{Eq:Gamma_el_ba-minus}
\end{align}
where the superscript ``$-$'' indicates that the system loses an electron
during the transition from $a$ to $b$.
The structure is similar for bosonic excitations (phonons or photons) as it was
for electrons,
except that the fermion functions are replaced by bosonic functions,
\begin{align}
n_i (E)=1\big/\big(\exp[E/k_{\rm B} T_i ] -1\big),
\end{align}
with $E>0$.
A transition from system state $a$ to system state $b$ with $E_b > E_a$,
involves the system absorbing a bosonic excitation
(photon or phonon) with energy $\Omega_{ba}=E_b-E_a$ from the reservoir.
The golden-rule rate for this transition is
\begin{align}
\Gamma^{\rm (ph;i +)}_{ba} = {1\over h} \nu_{i }(\Omega_{ba}) \ n_i
(\Omega_{ba}) \,
\ \Big|\bigbra{b}\hat{V}_{{\rm ph};i}(\Omega_{ba})\bigket{a}
\Big|^2 ,
\label{Eq:Gamma_ph_ba-plus}
\end{align}
where $\hat{V}_{{\rm ph};i}(E)$ is the operator in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:V_ph}).
We use the superscript ``$+$'' to indicate that the system has gained energy
during the transition.
One could say that the system has gained ``one bosonic excitation'' in analogy
with what we said for electrons, however we avoid this language because the
number of bosonic excitations in the system is not well-defined (since bosons
such as photons and phonons need not be conserved by the system Hamiltonian).
Similarly, a system transition with $E_b < E_a$ (so $\Omega_{ba}<0$) without a
change in electron number in the system,
involves the system emitting a photon or phonon with energy $-\Omega_{ba}$ into
the reservoir.
The golden-rule rate for this transition is
\begin{align}
\Gamma^{\rm (ph;i -)}_{ba} = - {1\over h} \nu_{i }(-\Omega_{ba}) \ n_i
(\Omega_{ba})
\ \Big|\bigbra{b} \hat{V}_{{\rm ph};i}(-\Omega_{ba}) \bigket{a}
\Big|^2,
\label{Eq:Gamma_ph_ba-minus}
\end{align}
where we have used the fact that $1+n_i (-E) = -n_i (E)$.
The superscript ``$-$'' indicates that the system has lost energy in the
transition.
\subsection{Neglecting coherent superpositions in the rate equation}
\label{Sect:master-coherences}
\green{
In our rate equation analysis we have taken the system's density matrix in the basis defined by
the many-body eigenbasis of the system Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{\rm s}$, and then we have neglected the off-diagonal elements of this matrix.}
This neglects quantum coherent superpositions, which is why the master equation reduces to a classical rate equation. We can then directly apply results from the thermodynamics of
stochastic processes.
The conditions under which the quantum coherent superpositions
(off-diagonal elements) can be neglected are as follows.
Firstly, one must start with a state which contains no coherent superpositions,
and secondly the interaction with the reservoirs should not generate any
coherent superpositions.
Let us now discuss each of the conditions in more detail.
The first condition is that the system's initial state should contain no
quantum coherent superpositions,
by which we mean that we start at time $t_0$ with a density matrix which is a
product of density matrices for the system and for each reservoir.
Each reservoir's density matrix is assumed to start in a thermal state of its
Hamiltonian (neglecting the coupling to the system) at its own temperature.
However, we also require that the system's density-matrix is diagonal in the energy
eigenbasis of its Hamiltonian, $\hat{\cal H}_{\rm s}$ (recall that this is the
Hamiltonian of the system if one neglects the coupling to the reservoirs). Then
the initial state of the system is
\begin{align}
\rho^{\rm (s)}_{ab}(t_0) = P_a(t_0)\ \delta_{ab}\ ,
\label{Eq:rho-sys-diag}
\end{align}
where $\delta_{ab}$ is a Kronecker delta-function,
and $P_a (t_0)$ is the probability that the system is in eigenstate $a$ of
$\hat{\cal H}_{\rm s}$.
Since such states have no quantum coherent superpositions, they would be
time-independent
in the absence of coupling to the reservoirs. In contrast, any state
containing superpositions would undergo coherent oscillations (in the absence
of reservoirs coupling) at a frequency
given by the energy difference between the states in the superposition.
A natural initial system state is a thermal state at some
temperature $T$, in which $P_a(t_0)= \exp[-E_a/(k_{\rm B} T)]\big/Z$
for an eigenstate with energy $E_a$,
where the partition function $Z= \sum_a \exp[-E_a/(k_{\rm B} T)]$ with the sum being
over all eigenstates of
$\hat{\cal H}_{\rm s}$. However, we emphasize that any initial
state that obeys Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rho-sys-diag}) is acceptable.
The second condition is that coupling to the reservoirs does not generate any
coherent superpositions
in the system.
This condition depends on the nature of the coupling between
the system and the reservoirs. If the coupling turns one system eigenstate
into another system
eigenstate, as is the case for all examples in
section~\ref{Sect:master-examples},
then it does not create a coherent superposition in the system.
A counter-example of a system which does create coherent superpositions is
considered in Ref.~\cite{Levy-Kosloff2014},
which points out that one has to be careful in the treatment of the system if one
wants to
get dynamics that obey the second law of thermodynamics.
Treating such superposition-generating cases is beyond the scope of this review, however it is instructive
to take a moment to understand why
coherent superpositions are generated
(although the following explanation will be more clear after having read some of the examples in section~\ref{Sect:master-examples}).
Consider a system with two possible electronic states,
as in Fig.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys1} discussed in section~\ref{Sect:3-term-sys1},
but in which the
system Hamiltonian, ${\cal H}_{\rm s}$, contains a direct tunnel coupling between states 1 and 2.
\green{Such a system Hamiltonian is discussed in Appendix~\ref{Append:second-to-first-quantization}.}
The many-body eigenstates with $N_a=0$ or $N_a=2$
are respectively $|0\rangle$ and $|{\rm d}\rangle$, as defined in
Table~\ref{Table:example-H}.
However, the tunnel coupling between state 1 and 2 means that the many-body
eigenstates of ${\cal H}_{\rm s}$ with $N_a=1$ are superpositions of $|1\rangle$ and $|2\rangle$. The
first of these eigenstates,
$|+\rangle$, is a bonding state, and contains a superposition which is a sum of
$|1\rangle$ and $|2\rangle$.
The second of these, $|-\rangle$, is an anti-bonding state, and contains a
superposition which is a difference of $|1\rangle$ and $|2\rangle$.
These states have energies $E_+$ and $E_-$, with the bonding state energy $E_+$
being less than the anti-bonding state energy $E_-$.
Now we assume, as in section~\ref{Sect:3-term-sys1}, that reservoir L is tunnel
coupled to system state 1 but not to system state 2.
The coupling to reservoir L can
\green{
be in two regimes;
}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
If the energy difference $(E_--E_+)$ is much larger than the coupling between state $|1\rangle$ and reservoir L,
we can assume that the reservoir mode with energy $E_+$ will couple to the system state $|+\rangle$
and the reservoir mode with energy $E_-$ will couple to the system state $|-\rangle$.
Since there is no coherence between reservoir modes with energies $E_+$ and $E_-$, this will
not generate any coherence in the system, and then the rate equation analysis we consider here should apply.
In this case one has to be sure to take the states in the
\green{rate equation as the system's}
many-body eigenstates, i.e.~ $|0\rangle$, $|+\rangle$, $|-\rangle$, and $|d\rangle$.
\item[(ii)]
If the energy difference $(E_--E_+)$ is of the order of the coupling between state $|1\rangle$ and reservoir L,
we can assume that a reservoir mode which couples to $|+\rangle$ will also couple to $|-\rangle$.
Consider the system to be in the state $|0\rangle$, when an electron from that mode of reservoir L tunnels into it.
Then the system will arrive at a state which is a coherent superposition of $|+\rangle$ and $|-\rangle$.
Thus, the coupling to the reservoir will generate a coherent superposition of many-body eigenstates within the system.
This means that even if one starts with
the system's density matrix in a diagonal state, the coupling to the reservoir
will generate off-diagonal terms.
In this case, the theory presented in this review is insufficient, and one must
treat the evolution of the full
density matrix \cite{Levy-Kosloff2014}, rather than just its diagonal elements.
\end{itemize}
\green{
Thus the rate equations discussed in this chapter (which neglect coherences) apply to problems of the type in regime (i) but not in regime (ii). More generally, the rate equations method requires that the
coupling to reservoirs is smaller than {\it any} energy scale in the quantum system. This requires
that the quantum system has {\it no degeneracies} between its many-body eigenstates.
}
While this review concentrates on steady-states of systems with
time-independent Hamiltonians, the rate equation
technique discussed here applies to any time-dependent problem in which
coherent superpositions of system states are absent.
The rate equation technique applies to arbitrary time-dependence of the system-reservoir
couplings and system's energy-levels, so long as they obey the two conditions
discussed above at all times, along with a third condition.
\green{This third condition is that the time-dependence of ${\cal H}_{\rm s}$ does not generate superpositions
of system eigenstates (this can be checked in the absence of the coupling to the reservoirs). Two examples of time-dependences which do not generate superpositions
of system eigenstates are (i) arbitrary time-dependences of the eigenenergies of ${\cal H}_{\rm s}$, but with unchanging eigenstates (so $\hat {\cal H}_{\rm s}(t_1)$ commutes with $\hat
{\cal H}_{\rm s}(t_2)$ for all times $t_1 $ and $t_2$ during the evolution),
or (ii) adiabatically slow evolution of ${\cal H}_{\rm s}$.}
\green{
We mention systems which do not satisfy all the above conditions in section~\ref{Sect:beyond-master}.}
\subsection{Local-detailed balance for transition rates}
\label{Sect:local-detailed}
Here we show that the golden-rule transition rates, discussed in the previous
section, satisfy the relation in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final}).
This relation is called ``local detailed balance''
\cite{Katz-Lebowitz-Spohn83,Dumcke1985},
and the word ``local'' is crucial, because it is different from the usual detailed balance condition.
``Detailed balance'' is a property of the occupation probabilities of system
states {\it at equilibrium} (see section~\ref{Sect:master-zeroth-law}).
''Local detailed balance'' in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final}) is a statement about transition rates,
which is true because each reservoir is in its own {\it local} equilibrium,
irrespective of whether the system \green{ (in which the reservoir induces transitions)}
is in equilibrium or not.
For a transition induced by the coupling to electron reservoir $i$,
if the transition from system state $a$ to system state $b$ involves the system
absorbing an electron, then the transition from $b$ to $a$ must involve the
system emitting an electron.
The former transition is given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Gamma_el_ba-plus}),
while the latter is given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Gamma_el_ba-minus}) with $a
\leftrightarrow b$.
Then since $f_i(-E) =f_i(E) \exp\left[(E-\mu_i)\big/(k_{\rm B}
T_i)\right] $
and $\Omega_{ab}=-\Omega_{ba}$,
we find
\begin{align}
\Gamma^{\rm (el;i-)}_{ab}
&= \Gamma^{\rm (el;i+)}_{ba} \
\exp\left[ {\Omega_{ba} - \mu_i \over k_{\rm B} T_i}\right] \, .
\label{Eq:rate-for-reverse-electron-plus}
\end{align}
Now we note that the change in heat in reservoir $i$,
when it emits or absorbs an electron, is equal to
the change in that reservoir's
energy measured from its electrochemical potential.
If the system state changes from $a$ to $b$ because it absorbs an electron from
reservoir $i$
(so the electron leaving the reservoir has energy $\Omega_{ba}$),
then the change in heat in reservoir $i$ is
\begin{align}
\Delta Q_{ba}^{(i+)} = - \big( \Omega_{ba} -\mu_i \big)\ .
\end{align}
Alternatively, if the system state changes from $a$ to $b$ because it emits an
electron into reservoir $i$
(so the electron enters the reservoir with energy $-\Omega_{ba}$),
then the change in heat in reservoir $i$ is
\begin{align}
\Delta Q_{ba}^{(i-)} = - \Omega_{ba} -\mu_i \ .
\end{align}
We then use the Clausius relation to
define the change in reservoir $i$'s entropy, $\Delta \mathscr{S}^{(i)}_{ba}$,
when it changes the system state from $a$ to $b$,
as the above change in heat divided by the reservoir's temperature.
Substituting this definition of change
into Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-electron-plus}), one can see that one gets
the {\it local-detailed balance} given in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final}),
irrespective of whether the system absorbs an electron ($N_b-N_a=1$) or emits
an electron
($N_b-N_a=-1$).
Note that we do not need to label the transitions with ``$+$'' or ``$-$'' for
absorption or emission,
because this is completely determined by the states $a$ and $b$
(or more precisely their electron-number, $N_a$ and $N_b$).
Now we turn to considering
transitions from state $a$ to $b$ which involving the system absorbing or
emitting a bosonic excitation (photon or phonon). We can make a similar
argument as
that for electrons above.
We take Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Gamma_ph_ba-minus}) with $a \leftrightarrow b$, and
comparing it to Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Gamma_ph_ba-plus})
Since $n_i (-E) =-n_i (E) \exp\left[E\big/(k_{\rm B} T_i )\right] $
and $\Omega_{ab}=-\Omega_{ba}$, we recover
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final}) for bosons.
For this, we define $\Delta Q^{(i)}_{ba}$ as the change in the heat in
the bosonic reservoir,
which is equal to the change in energy of that reservoir (since there is no
chemical potential for the photons or phonons), and thus equals $-\Omega_{ba}$.
\subsection{Equilibrium and the zeroth law of thermodynamics}
\label{Sect:master-zeroth-law}
If all reservoirs are at the same temperature and same electrochemical potential as
each other,
$T_i=T$ and $\mu_i=\mu$, then the reservoirs are in equilibrium with
each other.
Any system coupled between them should also achieve equilibrium at the same
temperature
and electrochemical potential. \green{We can make a dynamical definition of equilibrium, and thereby a dynamical
formulation of the zeroth law of thermodynamics.
Dynamically, equilibrium} implies that the system is in the state of {\it detailed balance},
which means that the system state is such that the transitions $a \to b$
and $b \to a$ occurs at the same rate.
Thus, if we define the occupation probability for state $a$ at equilibrium as
$P^{\rm eq}_a$, then it must obey
\begin{align}
\Gamma^{(i)}_{ab} P^{\rm eq}_b = \Gamma^{(i)}_{ba} P^{\rm eq}_a
\qquad \hbox{ for all }\, a,b, i.
\label{Eq:detailed-balance}
\end{align}
Taking Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final}) for $T_i=T$ and
$\mu_i=\mu$, we have
\begin{align}
{\Gamma^{(i)}_{ab} \, =\, \Gamma^{(i)}_{ba}} \,
\exp\left[ -{\Omega_{ba} -(N_b-N_a)\mu \over k_{\rm B} T}\right]\, ,
\end{align}
where the exponent is the same for all reservoirs.
Then Eq.~(\ref{Eq:detailed-balance}) corresponds to
\begin{align}
P_a (t) \ =\ P^{\rm eq}_a \ \equiv \ {1 \over Z} \exp\left[-{E_a - N_a \mu
\over k_{\rm B} T}
\right]
\end{align}
with normalization $Z= \sum_a \exp\left[-(E_a-N_a\mu)\big/(k_{\rm B} T)\right]$,
where $a$ is summed over all system states. This is the state one would
naively write down for a system in equilibrium at temperature $T$
and electrochemical potential $\mu$, and here we have shown that it is indeed the
equilibrium state.
Since this state satisfies detailed balance, it is a steady-state where all
electron currents and heat currents are zero.
The zeroth law of thermodynamics states that if system A is in equilibrium with a system B and with a system C, then systems B and C must also be in equilibrium with each other.
Let us consider two reservoirs (A and B) which we know to be in equilibrium with each other.
\green{Let us take a dynamical definition of equilibrium, which says systems are in equilibrium
if there is no heat current or particle current between them when they are coupled to each other.}
Then, if a small quantum system C is in equilibrium with reservoir A (as modelled by a rate equation),
the above rate equation analysis is sufficient to prove that system C will also be in equilibrium with reservoir B.
\green{This dynamical formulation of the zeroth law based on the dynamical definition of equilibrium
assumes that the coupling between systems can support independent particle and heat currents.}
This presents a minor problem for simple quantum systems modelled by the rate equation, since some of the most interesting ones do not allow independent particle and heat currents. In other words, the value of the particle current completely determines the energy current, which is often referred to as {\it tight coupling} between these two types of current. An explicit example of such a system is that in Fig.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys2}
in the situation where the transitions indicated by the dashed lines in the inset are absent.
Then each electron leaving reservoir L carries an energy of exactly $\epsilon_1$ out of that reservoir
irrespective of the biases and temperatures of the different reservoirs,
so the energy current, $J_{u,L} $, is not independent of the particle current, $J_{\rho,{L}} $, because
$J_{u,L} = \epsilon_1J_{\rho,{L}} $.
Under such circumstances a system can satisfy Eq.~(\ref{Eq:detailed-balance})
even when it is coupled to multiple reservoirs at different temperatures and chemical potential,
so long as there is a specific relationship between system parameters, reservoir temperatures
and reservoir biases. Such situations typically correspond to situations under which the quantum system acts as a Carnot efficient machine (generating no entropy).
This situation is discussed in detail in section~\ref{Sect:rule-Carnot}.
However, this poses a problem for the definition of equilibrium for such systems.
A resolution of this problem is to define equilibrium between a reservoir and a quantum system by saying that there is no particle or heat flow between them when they are coupled to each other, even when all the system parameters (energy gaps, etc) are varied a little. This works because the systems which satisfy Eq.~(\ref{Eq:detailed-balance}) when coupled to multiple reservoirs not in equilibrium with each other,
only do so for specific values of their parameters. If we change those system parameters a little,
one will observe a violation of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:detailed-balance}) which will result in particle and heat currents,
unless the system is truly in equilibrium with all the reservoirs it is in contact with.
\subsection{First law of thermodynamics}
The first law of thermodynamics in the steady-state follows from
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:energy-conservation}),
which is a direct consequence of the fact that the rate equation conserves
energy.
Combining it with Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:J}) and (\ref{Eq:P_gen^i}), we get
\begin{align}
\sum_i J_{{h},i} \ =\ \sum_i P_{\rm gen}^{(i)} \ ,
\label{Eq:heat+power}
\end{align}
where $i$ is summed over all reservoirs.
The left hand side is the total heat-current into \green{the system from} the reservoirs, and
the right hand side is the total power generated by the system.
Thus Eq.~(\ref{Eq:heat+power}) corresponds to the first law of thermodynamics,
since it says that
the rate of work production (electrical power) equals the rate of heat
absorption (total heat current).
Note that the equality between power generated and heat absorbed only holds when we sum over all reservoirs,
in general it does not hold at the level of any given
reservoir.
\subsection{Second law of thermodynamics}
\label{Sect:2ndlaw}
Here we present a proof, taken from Ref.~\cite{review-vandenBroeck},
that the rate equation for
any system of discrete states fulfills the second law of thermodynamics.
This proof is similar in style to the much older proofs by Spohn \cite{Spohn78} and Alicki \cite{alicki79}
for more complicated quantum master equations (which include coherence), see also Ref.~\cite{Peres-book-2nd-law}.
It is convenient not to take the steady-state limit until the end of
the derivation, so we assume that the system has dynamics (which implies that the probabilities
$P_a(t)$ are time-dependent).
We start by noting that the rate of change of entropy in reservoir $i$ can
be
written as
\begin{align}
{{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t} \mathscr{S}^{(i)} (t)
\ =\ - {J_{{h},i} (t) \over T_i}
\ =\ \green{1 \over 2} \sum_{ab}
{\cal I}_{ba}^{(i)}(t) \ \Delta \mathscr{S}^{(i)}_{ba},
\label{Eq:dotS_i}
\end{align}
where $\Delta \mathscr{S}^{(i)}_{ba}$ and ${\cal I}^{(i)}_{ba}$ are given by
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:DeltaS_ba},\ref{Eq:probability-currents}).
\green{The factor of a half comes from the fact that the sum over all $a$ and $b$ counts all transitions twice.}
We recall that $\Delta \mathscr{S}^{(i)}_{ba}$ is the entropy change of reservoir $i$
when that reservoir induces a system transition $a \to b$,
while ${\cal I}^{(i)}_{ba}$
is the probability current associated with this transition at time $t$.
Since the system state is typically non-thermal,
we cannot use Clausius' definition to calculate its rate of change of entropy.
Instead, we use the Shannon entropy,
\begin{align}
\mathscr{S}_{\rm sys} = -k_{\rm B} \sum_b P_b(t) \ln[P_b(t)].
\label{eq:Shannon}
\end{align}
Its time-derivative is simplified by the probability conservation condition
$\sum_b {{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t} P_b(t) =0$,
we then use Eq.~(\ref{Eq:probability-currents}) to write
\begin{align}
{{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t} \mathscr{S}_{\rm sys}(t)
\ =\ -k_{\rm B} \sum_{abi} \, {\cal I}_{ba}^{(i)}(t) \,\ln
\big[P_b(t)\big] \ .
\label{Eq:dotS_sys}
\end{align}
To proceed with the proof, we write ${{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t} \mathscr{S}_{\rm sys}$ as two copies terms of
the
right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:dotS_sys}) each divided by two,
and then interchange the dummy-indices $a\leftrightarrow b$ in \green{one of the} term.
Then since ${\cal I}_{ba}^{(i)}(t)=-{\cal I}_{ab}^{(i)}(t)$, we can
write
\begin{align}
{{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t} \mathscr{S}_{\rm sys}(t)
\ =\ \green{{1 \over 2}} \,k_{\rm B} \sum_{abi} {\cal I}_{ba}^{(i)}(t)
\ \Big(\ln \big[P_a(t)\big]-\ln\big[P_b(t)\big] \Big).
\label{Eq:dotS_sys-modified}
\end{align}
The total entropy of the system and the reservoirs at time $t$ is
\begin{align}
\mathscr{S}(t) = \mathscr{S}_{\rm sys}(t) + \sum_i \mathscr{S}^{(i)}(t).
\end{align}
Given Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:dotS_i}) and (\ref{Eq:dotS_sys-modified})
we conclude that the total entropy obeys
\begin{align}
{{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t} \mathscr{S}(t)
\ =\ {{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t} \mathscr{S}_{\rm sys}(t) + \sum_i {{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t}
\mathscr{S}^{(i)}(t)
\ =\ \green{{1 \over 2}}\,k_{\rm B} \sum_{abi} {\cal I}_{ba}^{(i)}(t)
\ \Big(\ln \big[P_a(t)\big]-\ln\big[P_b(t)\big]+ {\Delta \mathscr{S}^{(i)}_{ba}\big/
k_{\rm B}} \Big).
\end{align}
Now let us write ${\cal I}_{ba}^{(i)}(t)$ in terms of rates, as in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:probability-currents}), and
use Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final})
to write $\Gamma^{(i)}_{ab}$ in terms of $\Gamma^{(i)}_{ba}$.
Then writing
$\ln\big[P_b(t)\big]-\Delta \mathscr{S}^{(i)}_{ab}\big/k_{\rm B} =
\ln\big[P_b(t){\rm e}^{-\Delta \mathscr{S}^{(i)}_{ba}/k_{\rm B}}\big]$,
we get
\begin{align}
{{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t} \mathscr{S}(t)
&= \green{{1 \over 2}}\,k_{\rm B}\sum_{abi} \Gamma^{(i)}_{ba} \ \Big( \, P_a(t)
- P_b(t) \exp\big[{-\Delta \mathscr{S}^{(i)}_{ba}/k_{\rm B}}\big] \Big)
\ \Bigg(\ln \big[P_a(t)\big]
- \ln\left[P_b(t) \exp\big[{-\Delta \mathscr{S}^{(i)}_{ba}/k_{\rm B}}\big] \right] \Bigg).
\label{Eq:dotS_total}
\end{align}
To arrive at the second-law, we must prove that this quantity cannot be negative.
To do so, we note that the only non-zero contributions to the sum are those
with $a\neq b$
(since $\Delta \mathscr{S}^{(i)}_{bb}=0$), and that $\Gamma^{(i)}_{ba} \geq 0$
for all such contributions. Next, we note that each term in the sum takes the
form
$(x-y)\big(\ln[x]-\ln[y]\big)$. Since $\ln[x]$ is a monotonically increasing
function of $x$, we have $(x-y)\big(\ln[x]-\ln[y]\big)\geq0$ for all $x,y$.
Thus we can conclude that none of the terms in the sum over $i$, $a$ and
$b$
in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:dotS_total}) are negative.
Thus we have proven that any such rate equation will obey the
second-law of thermodynamics,
in the form
\begin{align}
{{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t} \mathscr{S}(t) \ \geq \ 0
\label{Eq:2ndlaw}
\end{align}
We did not take the steady-state limit to get this result, so it applies
even when the system state is time-dependent, for an arbitrary initial system
state.
In the steady-state limit, we have ${{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t} \mathscr{S}_{\rm sys}=0$, because
${{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t} P_b(t)=0$ for all $b$. However, assuming this at the
beginning
of the derivation does not simplify the
proof of the second law.
One should not forget that the result in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:2ndlaw})
is for the entropy production averaged over a large number of transitions. It
is thus only directly applicable to a given system in a situation where
fluctuations about this average are small enough to be neglected.
This is typically the case for system responses on time-scales much longer than
those for a transition in the system.
Since transitions are uncorrelated, we can apply central limit theorem, then
the average
entropy production calculated above scales like the number of transitions
(which grows linearly in time), while fluctuations scale like the square-root of
the number of transitions.
Thus for long enough times, the fluctuations will become much less than the
average,
at which point we can neglect the fluctuations, and the second-law becomes a
true ``law''
(applicable to any system under any conditions).
However, on any shorter time-scale the second law is a universal statement that
applies {\it only} to the average entropy production.
Much more useful at such short times are
certain universal results known as {\it fluctuation theorems}, since these include fluctuations about the average,
see sections~\ref{Sect:traj}.
\subsection{Efficiency of ``single-loop'' machines}
\label{Sect:single-loop}
Here we restrict our interest to the simplest machines, those whose rate
equations
correspond to a network that contains a single loop.
Concrete examples would be that in inset (a) of Fig.~\ref{Fig:2-term-sys}, or
those in the the insets of
Figs.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys1} and \ref{Fig:3-term-sys2} in cases where the
dashed bonds can be neglected.
Fig.~\ref{Fig:single-loop} shows a more complicated network, which contains
multiple side-branches but
still only a single loop.
We will find the steady-state efficiency of such a machine using the
Kirchhoff's law in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Kirchhoff-for-prob-currents}), without needing to solve the set of
simultaneous equations for the steady-state occupation probabilities given by
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:steady-state-master-eqn}).
The logic followed in this section is inspired by Ref.~\cite{Einax-Nitzan2016,Einax-Nitzan2016b}.
The first thing to note is that Kirchhoff's law,
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Kirchhoff-for-prob-currents}), means there can be no steady-state
probability current in the side branches on the network,
so ${\cal I}_{ba}^{(i) \rm steady}=0$ for $a$ and $b$ anywhere except in
the loop.
This can be proven by starting at the ends of each branch, where the the
probability current is obviously zero, and then using Kirchhoff's law to see
that bonds one step nearer to the loop
have zero probability current, and so forth, until one has addressed all bonds
in each side-branch.
Then the only non-zero probability currents are on bonds in the loop,
for which Kirchhoff's law implies that the probability current on every bond in
the loop is the same,
${\cal I}_{a,a-1}^{\rm (i)steady}= {\cal I}_{\rm loop}^{\rm steady}$ where
$a-1$ and $a$ label any two neighbouring states (vertices) on the loop, and
$i$ is the reservoir which is associated with the transition (bond) from
$a-1$ to $a$.
The steady-state currents of particles and energy
that enable the machine to convert a heat flow into power (or power into a heat
flow), are proportional to the probability currents. Thus, only the
transitions in the loop are relevant, and they all have the same probability
current, ${\cal I}_{\rm loop}^{\rm steady}$.
From Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:I^N}-\ref{Eq:J}), we have the
particle and energy currents into the system from reservoir $i$ as
\begin{align}
J_{\rho,i} = {\cal I}_{\rm loop}^{\rm steady} \times
\sum_{a \,\in \,\{i\}} \Big(N_{a}-N_{a-1}\Big) \, ,
\qquad \qquad
J_{{u},i} = {\cal I}_{\rm loop}^{\rm steady} \times
\sum_{a \,\in \,\{i\}} \Big(E_{a}-E_{a-1}\Big) \, .
\label{Eq:I^N+I^E-in-terms-of-I_loop}
\end{align}
Here ``$a \in \{i\}$'' indicates that the sum over all $a$ for
which the transition $(a-1) \to a$ is associated with reservoir $i$,
while $N_a$ and $E_a$ are the electron number and energy of system state $a$.
Thus, the heat current into the system from reservoir $i$ is
\begin{align}
J_{{h},i} = {\cal I}_{\rm loop}^{\rm steady} \times
\Delta Q_{\rm loop}^{(i)},
\label{Eq:J-in-terms-of-I_loop}
\end{align}
where $\Delta Q_{\rm loop}^{(i)}$ is the heat that enters the system from
reservoir
$i$ in the transitions that form the loop, so
\begin{align}
\Delta Q_{\rm loop}^{(i)} \equiv \sum_{a \,\in \,\{i\}}
\Big(E_{a}-E_{a-1}- \mu_i \big(N_a-N_{a-1} \big)\Big). \
\end{align}
The power generated in the electronic reservoir $i$ is
\begin{align}
P_{\rm gen}^{(i)} = {\cal I}_{\rm loop}^{\rm steady} \times
\Delta W_{\rm loop}^{(i)},
\end{align}
where $\Delta W_{\rm loop}^{(i)}$ is the work done by the system on
reservoir
$i$ in the transitions that form the loop, so
\begin{align}
\Delta W_{\rm loop}^{(i)} \equiv - \sum_{a\,\in \,\{i\}} \mu_i \big(N_a-N_{a-1} \big). \
\end{align}
\green{
Next let us define $P_{\rm gen}$ as the sum of the power generated in all reservoirs,
and $J_{\rm heat}$ as the total heat absorbed from all reservoirs.
Then
\begin{align}
P_{\rm gen} &= {\cal I}_{\rm loop}^{\rm steady} \times \Delta W^{\rm (gen)}_{\rm loop}
\nonumber
\\
J_{\rm heat} &= {\cal I}_{\rm loop}^{\rm steady} \times \Delta Q^{\rm (heat)}_{\rm loop}
\nonumber
\end{align}
where $\Delta W^{\rm (gen)}_{\rm loop}$ is the sum of $\Delta W_{\rm
loop}^{(i)}$ over all electronic reservoirs $i$ in which the
electrical power is generated, and
$\Delta Q^{\rm (heat)}_{\rm loop}$ is the sum of $\Delta Q_{\rm
loop}^{(i)}$ over all reservoirs $i$ which act as heat sources.
Since the heat-engine efficiency is $\eta_{\rm eng} = {P_{\rm gen} \big/ J_{\rm heat}}$,
this efficiency is independent of the probability current ${\cal I}_{\rm loop}^{\rm steady}$
in a single-loop steady-state machine; it is simply}
\begin{align}
\eta_{\rm eng} \ = \
{\Delta W^{\rm (gen)}_{\rm loop} \over \Delta Q^{\rm (heat)}_{\rm loop} }.
\label{Eq:single-loop-eng}
\end{align}
Similarly, the coefficient of performance, $\eta_{\rm fri} = { J_{\rm cold}\big/ P_{\rm abs} }$,
of a single-loop steady-state
refrigerator is
\begin{align}
\eta_{\rm fri} \ = \ {\Delta
Q^{\rm (cold)}_{\rm loop}
\over \Delta W^{\rm (abs)}_{\rm loop} }.
\label{Eq:single-loop-fridge}
\end{align}
Here, $\Delta W^{\rm (abs)}_{\rm loop}$ is the sum of $-\Delta W_{\rm
loop}^{(i)}$ over all electronic reservoirs $i$ which supply the
electrical power absorbed by the machine,
while $\Delta Q^{\rm (cold)}_{\rm loop}$ is the sum of $\Delta Q_{\rm
loop}^{(i)}$ over all reservoirs $i$ being refrigerated.
This shows that one can find the efficiencies without solving the steady-state
equation,
because they are given by ratios in which ${\cal I}_{\rm loop}^{\rm steady}$
cancels out.
As such, they only depend on the energy, $E_a$, and particle number, $N_a$, for
each state in the loop, as shown in
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:single-loop-eng},\ref{Eq:single-loop-fridge}).
In contrast, we cannot find other quantities, such as the power generated,
without
knowing ${\cal I}_{\rm loop}^{\rm steady}$.
The only way to find ${\cal I}_{\rm loop}^{\rm steady}$ is
to solve the full steady-state problem, given by the simultaneous equations in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:steady-state-master-eqn}),
and then use Eq.~(\ref{Eq:probability-currents}) to find the probability
current at some
point in the loop.
We also note that if the machine's network contains multiple loops, then
the probability currents do not drop out of the efficiencies,
so one cannot find the efficiency without finding the steady-state solution
of the rate equations.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth]{fig-single-loop.pdf}}
\caption{\label{Fig:single-loop}
The network of system states (vertices) and the transitions (bonds) between
them,
for a system in which the network has a {\it single loop}.
The probability current from state $a-1$ to state $a$ in the loop is
${\cal I}^{(i) {\rm steady}}_{a,a-1}$,
where $i$ is the reservoir associated with the transition $a-1 \to a$.
Concrete examples would be that in inset (a) of Fig.~\ref{Fig:2-term-sys}, or
those in the the insets of
Figs.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys1} and \ref{Fig:3-term-sys2} in cases where the
dashed bonds can be neglected.
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Stochastic thermodynamics for rate equations}
\label{Sect:traj}
Most of the time, the simplest way to get quantitative results about the
steady-state is to solve the
steady-state equations, see
sections~\ref{Sect:2-term-sys}-\ref{Sect:3-term-sys2} for specific examples.
However, one can also think in terms of stochastic trajectories that explore the space of system
states with time.
The price to be paid is that the number of such trajectories increases
exponentially with time.
Despite this, certain useful results can arrived at from considering these
trajectories. The study of such trajectories is known as {\it stochastic thermodynamics} \cite{seifert,review-Broeck-Esposito}.
Here, we apply ideas of stochastic thermodynamics to the rate equations introduced above,
and show how they can be used to derive fluctuation theorems,
and a simple rule for the achievability of Carnot efficiency.
Section~\ref{sec:machines} briefly discusses stochastic thermodynamics in contexts other than the rate equations considered here.
Entropy production is a probabilistic process, and
the second law of thermodynamics is only a statement about
{\it average} entropy production.
In most macroscopic situations, the statistical fluctuations about this average
are
extremely small, and can be neglected. However, the fluctuations may be
significant in nanoscale system, and deserve closer study.
Suppose that we are able to resolve
individual transitions in the system, then we would be able to follow the
entropy change of the system and reservoirs transition by transition.
On the scale of a few transitions, we expect to see significant violations of
the second law.
While some aspects of these violations are system specific, there are certain
{\it universal}
results for these violations known as {\it fluctuation theorems}.
Deriving and understanding the meaning of such fluctuation theorems in quantum systems
is crucial to understand the quantum thermodynamics of such systems,
for a review see \cite{Campisi-review}.
\subsubsection{Stochastic trajectories}
Let us now define a trajectory of the system dynamics, $\zeta$, as a given
series of
$n$ transitions; the system starts in a state $ a_0$ at time $t_0$,
followed by a transition to state $a_1$ at time $t_1$ due to the coupling to
reservoir $i_1$,
followed by a transition to state $a_2$ at time $t_2$ due to the coupling to
reservoir $i_2$,
and so forth, until the system makes a transition to its final state $a_n$ at
time $t_n$, and remains in this state until time $t$. Obviously, we take $t_0
< t_1 <t_2< \cdots < t_n < t$.
Let us denote this trajectory as
\begin{align}
\zeta \ \equiv
\begin{array}{c} \phantom{i_0} \\ | \\ t_0 \end{array}
\hskip 1mm \raisebox{6pt}{$a_0$}
\hskip -7.3mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{10mm}} }
\hskip -2.5mm \begin{array}{c} i_1 \\ {\bm |} \\ t_1 \end{array}
\hskip 1mm \raisebox{6pt}{$a_1$}
\hskip -7.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{10mm}} }
\hskip -2.5mm \begin{array}{c} i_2 \\ {\bm |} \\ t_2 \end{array}
\hskip 1mm \raisebox{6pt}{$a_2$}
\hskip -7.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{10mm}} }
\ \cdots \
\hskip 2.5mm \raisebox{6pt}{$a_{n-1}$}
\hskip -8.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{10mm}} }
\hskip -2.5mm \begin{array}{c} i_n \\ {\bm |} \\ t_n \end{array}
\hskip 1mm \raisebox{6pt}{$a_n$}
\hskip -7.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{10mm}} }
\hskip -2.5mm \begin{array}{c} \phantom{i_0} \\ | \\ t \end{array}.
\label{Eq:def-trajectory-zeta}
\end{align}
We will compare this trajectory with its {\it time-reverse} which we call
$\bar{\zeta}$,
evolving in a system with {\it time-reversed parameters}.
The time-reversing of the trajectory means
\begin{align}
\bar \zeta \ \equiv
\hskip -2mm \begin{array}{c} \phantom{i_0} \\ | \\ t_0 \end{array}
\hskip 1mm \raisebox{6pt}{$a_n$}
\hskip -7.3mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{10mm}} }
\hskip -2.5mm \begin{array}{c} i_n \\ {\bm |} \\ {\bar t}_n \end{array}
\hskip 0mm \raisebox{6pt}{$a_{n-1}$}
\hskip -9mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{11mm}} }
\hskip -3.5mm \begin{array}{c} i_{n-1} \\ {\bm |} \\ {\bar t}_{n-1}
\end{array}
\hskip -.5mm \raisebox{6pt}{$a_{n-2}$}
\hskip -10mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{11mm}} }
\ \cdots \
\hskip 4mm \raisebox{6pt}{$a_1$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} }
\hskip -2.5mm \begin{array}{c} i_1 \\ {\bm |} \\ {\bar t}_1 \end{array}
\hskip 1mm \raisebox{6pt}{$a_0$}
\hskip -7.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} }
\hskip -2.5mm \begin{array}{c} \phantom{i_0} \\ | \\ t \end{array},
\label{Eq:def-trajectory-barzeta}
\end{align}
where the time ${\bar t}_k \equiv t_0+t-t_k$, so
$t_0 <{\bar t}_n < \cdots < {\bar t}_2< {\bar t}_{1} < t$.
When we say that the system has {\it time-reversed parameters} \footnote{We assume the time-dependences do not violate the conditions which allow the use of the rate equation discussed here, see the last paragraph of section~\ref{Sect:master-coherences}.}, we mean that we consider the evolution in a
different system whose parameters (transition rates, system Hamiltonian, etc.)
are related to those of the original system by
\begin{align}
\overline{\Gamma}_{ba}^{\rm \,(i)} (\tau) = \Gamma_{ba}^{\rm(i)}
(t_0+t-\tau),
\qquad
\overline{\cal H}_{\rm s}(\tau)= \hat{\cal H}_{\rm s}(t_0+t-\tau).
\label{Eq:time-reversed-rates}
\end{align}
If one only considers time-independent ${\cal H}_{\rm s}$ and time-independent rates, as we do in most of this review,
then the time-reversing of these parameters can be forgotten, and $\zeta$ and
$\bar\zeta$ are time-reversed trajectories
in the same system. However, we think it is important to keep the
time-dependence in the rates in derivation,
so one can see which of the results we get for time-independent couplings
cannot be trivially extended to time-dependent couplings.
The Markovian nature of the rate equation governing this dynamics
means that the probability of following such paths is the product of the
probabilities for each transitions.
For a single transition, the probability for the system to remain in state
$a_m$ from time $t_m$ to time $t_{m+1}$ and then make a transition to state
$a_{m+1}$ at time $t_{m+1}$ through an interaction with reservoir
$i_{m+1}$ is
$\Gamma^{(i_{m+1})}_{a_{m+1} a_m}(t_{m+1})
\exp\left[-\int_{t_m}^{t_{m+1}}\Gamma_{a_m}(\tau) {\rm d} \tau \right]$,
where we define $\Gamma_{a}(t)\equiv \sum_{b,i} \Gamma^{(i)}_{ba}(t)$
as the total rate of leaving state $a$ at time $t$ (so the sum is over
transitions to any state $b$ due to the coupling to any reservoir $i$).
Thus the probability of trajectory $\zeta$ is
\begin{align}
P(\zeta) = \exp\left[{\textstyle -\int_{t_n}^{t}\Gamma_{a_n}(\tau) {\rm d} \tau}
\right] \ \prod_{m=0}^{n-1}\,
\Gamma^{(i_{m+1})}_{a_{m+1} a_m} (t_{m+1})
\, \exp\left[{\textstyle -\int_{t_m}^{t_{m+1}}\Gamma_{a_m}(\tau) {\rm d} \tau
}\right].
\label{Eq:prob-traj-zeta}
\end{align}
The equivalent expression for the probability of the time-reversed path in the
time-reversed system
is
\begin{align}
\overline{P}\left(\bar{\zeta}\right) = \exp\left[{\textstyle -\int_{{\bar
t}_1}^{t}\overline\Gamma_{a_0}(\tau) {\rm d} \tau} \right] \ \prod_{m=1}^{n}\,
\overline\Gamma^{\,(i_m)}_{a_{m-1} a_m} \left({\bar t}_m\right)
\, \exp\left[{\textstyle -\int_{{\bar t}_{m+1}}^{{\bar t}_{m}
}\overline\Gamma_{a_m}(\tau) {\rm d} \tau }\right],
\label{Eq:prob-traj-barzeta}
\end{align}
where we recall that ${\bar t}_m$ is defined below
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:def-trajectory-barzeta}), and for compactness we define
${\bar t}_{n+1}\equiv t_0$.
We now replace all time-reversed system rates using
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:time-reversed-rates}),
noting that
\begin{align}
\int_{{\bar t}_{m+1}}^{{\bar t}_{m}}\overline\Gamma_{a_m}(\tau) {\rm d} \tau
= \int_{t_{m}}^{t_{m+1}} \Gamma_{a_m}(\tau) {\rm d} \tau ,
\end{align}
one sees that
the exponents in $\overline{P}\left(\bar{\zeta}\right)$ and $P(\zeta)$ are the same.
As a result,
\begin{align}
\overline{P}\left({\bar{\zeta}}\right) \ =\ P(\zeta) \ \times \
{\displaystyle {\prod_{m=1}^{n}\, \Gamma^{(i_m)}_{a_{m-1} a_{m}}(t_m)} \over
{\phantom{-}\displaystyle \prod_{m=0}^{n-1}\, \Gamma^{(i_{m+1})}_{a_{m+1} a_{m}}(t_{m+1}) }
\phantom{-}}\ ,
\end{align}
at which point one can use Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final}) to arrive
directly at
\begin{align}
\overline{P}\left({\bar{\zeta}}\right) = P(\zeta) \ \times \ \exp\left[- {1 \over
k_{\rm B}}\Delta \mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta) \,\right],
\label{Eq:trajectory-fluct-rel}
\end{align}
where $\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta)=\sum_{k=1}^{n} \Delta
\mathscr{S}^{(i_k)}_{a_ka_{k-1}}$ is the total change in entropy in the reservoirs
during trajectory $\zeta$.
We recall that the left hand side of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:trajectory-fluct-rel}) is the
probability to follow the time-reversed trajectory in the system with
time-reversed reservoir couplings, defined by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:time-reversed-rates}).
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:trajectory-fluct-rel}) is a crucial relation,
which we will use to derive a simple rule for achieving Carnot
efficiency (see section~\ref{Sect:rule-Carnot}), and to derive some fluctuation theorems
(see sections~\ref{Sect:fluct-theorem-steady-state}, \ref{Sect:Crooks} and \ref{Sect:Seifert}).
In general, Eq.~(\ref{Eq:trajectory-fluct-rel}) is a relation between
trajectories in two {\it different} systems;
\green{one with its parameters time-reversed with respect to the other one}
(we placed a bar over $P$ on the left hand side to recall this).
However, in the case of systems where \green{${\cal H}_{\rm s}$ and} the reservoir couplings are
time-independent,
then the relation becomes one between a
trajectory and its time-reverse in the {\it same} system (so one can drop the
bar over $P$).
\subsubsection{Fluctuation theorem for the steady-state}
\label{Sect:fluct-theorem-steady-state}
One should not forget that the steady-state is a state in which the {\it
average} occupation probabilities for each system state
do not vary in time. However, this does not mean there are not time-dependent
fluctuations about this average. Such fluctuations will typically dominate on
short time-scales,
while becoming irrelevant on long enough time-scales. Thus
to observe such fluctuations, one has to design the system so one can see the
short time dynamics
of the system (ideally on the time-scale of individual transitions).
The objective of this section is to derive
the steady-state fluctuation relation of Evans and Searles
\cite{Evans-Searles1994},
which says that the probability $P(-\Delta\mathscr{S},t)$ that the system undergoes a
fluctuation that produces
entropy $-\Delta\mathscr{S}$ in a time $t$ (i.e.\ it reduces the total entropy of system
and reservoirs) is
\begin{align}
P(-\Delta\mathscr{S},t) =P(\Delta\mathscr{S},t) \exp\big[-\Delta\mathscr{S}\big/ k_{\rm B}\big]\ .
\label{Eq:detailled-fluctuation-theorem}
\end{align}
Thus, the entropy can be reduced, but it is always more likely to be produced.
The intriguing thing is that while the distribution of entropy production,
$P(\Delta\mathscr{S},t)$,
is system specific for $\Delta\mathscr{S} >0$, the relation
in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:detailled-fluctuation-theorem})
between $P(-\Delta\mathscr{S},t)$ and $P(\Delta\mathscr{S},t)$ is universally true for the
steady-state response
of any system.
Here, we reproduce the proof of the fluctuation theorem in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:detailled-fluctuation-theorem})
in Ref.~\cite{Seifert-PRL2005,review-Seifert2007,seifert,review-Broeck-Esposito}, which is based on the
relation for individual trajectories in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:trajectory-fluct-rel}).
However, the first step is to assign an entropy to the system's initial and
final state,
even though these states are typically non-thermal distributions, and are not
defined
by a temperature. For this, Seifert \cite{Seifert-PRL2005,review-Seifert2007}
argued that the entropy $\mathscr{S}^{\rm sys}_a$ that one should assign to system state
$a$ is
\begin{align}
\mathscr{S}^{\rm sys}_a =-k_{\rm B} \ln[P_{a}],
\label{Eq:S_a^sys}
\end{align}
where $P_{a}$ is the occupation probability for state $a$.
This choice can be motivated by noting that if one sums over
all initial states,
the entropy of the system would be $\mathscr{S}^{\rm sys} = \sum_a P_a \mathscr{S}^{\rm sys}_a =
-k_{\rm B} \sum_a P_a \ln[P_a]$
which corresponds to the Shannon entropy. We refer the reader to
Refs.~\cite{review-Seifert2007} for an explanation of the other reasons for
choosing
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:S_a^sys}) as the entropy associated with a given system state.
Given Eq.~(\ref{Eq:S_a^sys}), we see that the total change in entropy of the
system and environment,
$\Delta\mathscr{S}(\zeta)$, associated with trajectory $\zeta$ from $a_0$ at
time $t_0$ to $a$
at time $t$ is
\begin{align}
\Delta\mathscr{S}(\zeta) \ = \
\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta) + \mathscr{S}^{\rm sys}_{a} (t) - \mathscr{S}^{\rm sys}_{a_0} (t_0)
\ = \
\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta) + k_{\rm B} \, \ln\left[P_{a_0}(t_0) \,\big/\, P_a(t)\right]
,
\label{Eq:DeltaS_tot}
\end{align}
where $\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta)$ is defined below
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:trajectory-fluct-rel}).
This means that
\begin{align}
{P_{a_0}(t_0) \over P_{a}(t)}\exp\left[-{\Delta\mathscr{S}(\zeta)\over k_{\rm B}}
\right] \ &= \ \exp\left[-{\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta)\over k_{\rm B}} \right] ,
\label{Eq:exp-DeltaS_tot}
\end{align}
which we combine with Eq.~(\ref{Eq:trajectory-fluct-rel}) to get
\begin{align}
P\left(\zeta\right) \ P_{a_0}(t_0) \ &= \ {\overline{P}}\left(\bar\zeta\right)\
P_{a}(t) \
\exp\left[-\Delta\mathscr{S}(\zeta)\big/ k_{\rm B} \right]\ ,
\label{Eq:P-zeta-versus-P-barzeta}
\end{align}
where we use the fact that $\Delta\mathscr{S}(\bar\zeta)=-\Delta\mathscr{S}(\zeta)$.
The probability that the system produces an entropy $-\Delta\mathscr{S}$ during the time
from $t_0$ to $t$
can be written as the following sum over trajectories:
\begin{align}
P(\Delta\mathscr{S},t) = \sum_{a,a_0}\ \sum_{\zeta \in \{a_0,t_0\to a, t\}}
\delta \left[\Delta\mathscr{S}- \Delta\mathscr{S}_{\scriptstyle{\rm tot}}(\zeta) \right] \
P(\zeta) \ P_{a_0}(t_0),
\label{Eq:P-DeltaS-as-traj-sum}
\end{align}
where the sum is over all trajectories from $a_0$ at time $t_0$ to $a$ at time
$t$, but the Dirac $\delta$-function picks out only those trajectories
which generate a total entropy equal to $\Delta\mathscr{S}$.
Substituting Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P-zeta-versus-P-barzeta}) into the
right hand side of
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P-DeltaS-as-traj-sum}), and then making the substitution
$\Delta\mathscr{S}(\zeta)=-\Delta\mathscr{S}(\bar\zeta)$ in the $\delta$-function,
one gets
\begin{align}
P(\Delta\mathscr{S},t) = {\rm e}^{\Delta\mathscr{S}/k_{\rm B}} \sum_{a,a_0}\ \sum_{\zeta \in \{a_0,t_0\to
a, t\}}
\delta \left[\Delta\mathscr{S}+ \Delta\mathscr{S}_{\scriptstyle{\rm tot}}(\bar\zeta) \right] \,
{\overline{P}}\left(\bar\zeta\right) P_{a}(t),
\label{Eq:P(DeltaS)-to-barP}
\end{align}
where we have used the presence of the $\delta$-function to replace
$\Delta\mathscr{S}(\bar\zeta)$ by $-\Delta\mathscr{S}$ in the exponent, and then noted that it
simply forms a constant prefactor on the sums.
The fact we are considering time-independent reservoir coupling means that we
can drop the bar over $P$.
Next we replace $\bar\zeta$ by $\zeta$, noting that the sum now runs over all
paths $\zeta$ from
$a$ at time $t_0$ to $a_0$ at time $t$. Then Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P(DeltaS)-to-barP}) becomes
\begin{align}
P(\Delta\mathscr{S},t) {\rm e}^{-\Delta\mathscr{S}/k_{\rm B}} = \! \sum_{a,a_0}\ \sum_{\zeta \in \{a,t_0\to
a_0, t\}}
\delta \left[\Delta\mathscr{S}+ \Delta\mathscr{S}_{\scriptstyle{\rm tot}}(\zeta) \right] \,
P\left(\zeta\right) P_{a}(t) \ .
\label{Eq:P(DeltaS)-to-P}
\end{align}
Finally, since we are in the steady-state $P_{a}(t)=P_{a}(t_0)=P_a^{\rm
steady}$,
we see by comparison with Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P-DeltaS-as-traj-sum}) that the right
hand side is simply $P(-\Delta\mathscr{S},t)$
Thus, we have used the fact the system is in a steady-state to prove the
fluctuation relation
in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:detailled-fluctuation-theorem}).
\subsubsection{A rule for achieving Carnot efficiency}
\label{Sect:rule-Carnot}
We can use the trajectories introduced in section~\ref{Sect:traj} to derive a
simple rule
for achieving Carnot efficiency. The rule enables one to tell if a given
machine can be
Carnot efficient or not, without having to solve the steady-state rate
equation.
Carnot efficiency is only achievable if the machine produces no entropy on
average,
$\langle \Delta\mathscr{S}(t;t_0) \rangle=0$.
Our objective is to find out what this means in terms of trajectories.
One can write the average entropy production in terms of trajectories
as
\begin{align}
\langle \Delta\mathscr{S}(t;t_0) \rangle
= \sum_{a_0,a}\ \sum_{\zeta \in \{a_0,t_0 \to a,t \} } \Delta\mathscr{S}(\zeta)
\,P(\zeta) \, P_{a_0}(t_0) .
\end{align}
Let us now write $\langle \Delta\mathscr{S}(t;t_0)\rangle$
as two copies of this sum each divided by two.
Since we sum over all trajectories and over all $a_0,a$, we can replace all
trajectories by their time-reverse
while interchanging $a_0$ and $a$ without changing the result of this sum.
Upon doing this we have
\begin{align}
\langle \Delta\mathscr{S}(t;t_0) \rangle =
\sum_{a_0,a}\ \sum_{\zeta \in \{a_0,t_0 \to a,t \} } {\Delta\mathscr{S}(\zeta)
\over 2}
\left( P(\zeta) \, P_{a_0}(t_0) - P(\bar\zeta) \, P_{a}(t_0) \right)\, ,
\end{align}
where we used the fact that $\Delta\mathscr{S}(\bar\zeta) =-\Delta\mathscr{S}(\zeta) $.
Now since we are considering a system with time-independent couplings in the
steady-state, we can
use $P_a(t_0)=P_a(t)=P_a^{\rm steady}$ to
replace $P_a(t_0)$ by $P_a(t)$ and
substitute in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P-zeta-versus-P-barzeta}) (we drop the bar over $P$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P-zeta-versus-P-barzeta}) because we are considering a time-independent situation).
Then we have
\begin{align}
\langle \Delta\mathscr{S}(t;t_0) \rangle =& {\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}
\sum_{a_0,a}\ \sum_{\zeta \in \{a_0,t_0 \to a,t \} } \Delta\mathscr{S}(\zeta)
\Big(1 - \exp\left[- \Delta\mathscr{S}(\zeta)\big/ k_{\rm B} \right] \Big)
\ P(\zeta) \ P_{a_0}^{\rm steady}\ .
\end{align}
The term containing $ \Delta\mathscr{S}(\zeta)$ takes the form $x(1-{\rm e}^{-x})$,
and this is greater than or equal to zero for all $x$.
Since all other factors are probabilities (and so not negative),
we see that $\langle \Delta\mathscr{S}(t;t_0) \rangle$ is never negative. This
constitutes another proof that the rate equation obeys the second-law
of thermodynamics.
However, it also gives us more information;
The only way to arrive at $\langle \Delta\mathscr{S}(t;t_0) \rangle=0$, is for
every term in the sum to be zero.
Thus to achieve Carnot efficiency each trajectory $\zeta$ that the system could
follow
must generate zero entropy, $\Delta\mathscr{S}(\zeta)=0$.
If Carnot efficiency requires that no trajectory generates entropy, it is
obviously necessary (but not sufficient) that no
{\it closed} trajectory $\zeta_{\rm closed}$ generates entropy
(a closed trajectory being one which starts and ends at the same system state,
$a=a_0$).
We see from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:DeltaS_tot}) that
$\Delta\mathscr{S}(\zeta_{\rm closed})=\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta_{\rm closed})$ for such a trajectory,
which makes the entropy that it generates independent of the
occupation probabilities of the steady-state.
Thus, without solving the steady-state equation, \green{our objective is} to find
the conditions under which the entropy generated in the reservoirs around all
closed trajectories is zero
(or to show that no such conditions exist).
Note that the closed trajectory may involve entropy flow from one reservoir to
another,
but the sum of the entropy change over all reservoir for the closed trajectory
must be zero.
While the closed trajectories for long time response (relevant to the
steady-state) are very long, they can be
broken into many {\it primitive closed trajectories}.
By ``primitive closed trajectories'', we simply mean a finite set of closed
trajectories
from which all other closed trajectories can be constructed (it is largely a
matter of convenience how one chooses this set).
For systems with a relatively small number of states,
there are relatively few such primitive trajectories, and they are fairly
short.
If the entropy generated around these closed primitive trajectories is zero,
then
the entropy generated for all closed trajectories is zero. In addition,
self-retracing closed
trajectories never generates any entropy in the reservoirs, so one can focus ones
attention on
those which do not self-trace.
Requiring that every closed trajectory must produce zero entropy in the
reservoirs is
obviously a necessary condition for the system to be Carnot efficient.
However, we will now argue that it is also a sufficient condition. The fact
that closed trajectories
generate no entropy in the reservoirs, means that \green{every} open trajectory from
$a_0$ to $a$ generates the same entropy in the reservoirs. Thus one can always
choose $P_a$ with respect to $P_{a_0}$ such that the entropy change in the
system $\mathscr{S}^{\rm sys}_a-\mathscr{S}^{\rm sys}_{a_0}$
is equal and opposite to that entropy change in the reservoirs. Doing this for
all $a$ gives a unique value of $P_a$ for each $a$ which satisfies the
condition that no open trajectory produces any entropy.
\green{However, it is not guaranteed that this recipe for choosing $P_a$ is the steady-state solution of the
rate equation. If is not the steady-state solution, it will not be consistent with the assumptions
made to get this far, and the recipe will not be valid. To show that this is not a problem and that
the recipe does give a solution that coincides with the steady-state one, it is sufficient
to focus on}
trajectories associated with a single transition from state $a$
to state $b$
due to a single interaction with reservoir $i$,
the condition that the total entropy does not change for such a
single-transition trajectory is
$0 = \Delta\mathscr{S}_{ba}^{(i)}/k_{\rm B} - (\ln P_b -\ln P_a )$ for all $a,b,i$.
Given
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final}), this means that
\begin{align}
\Gamma_{ba}^{(i)} P_a = \Gamma_{ab}^{(i)} P_b\qquad \hbox{ for all }
a,b,i.
\label{Eq:master-detailed-balance-for-Carnot}
\end{align}
This is reminiscent of the detailed balance relation discussed in
section~\ref{Sect:master-zeroth-law},
and it is trivial to see that it satisfies the condition for a steady-state,
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:steady-state-master-eqn}).
\green{
This is sufficient to see that the probabilities, $P_a$, given by the above recipe do coincide with the steady-state of such a system in which no closed trajectory generates any entropy.
This, in turn, means that open trajectories in such a system (in its steady-state) generate no entropy.
}
Hence, requiring every closed trajectory
to produce zero entropy is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for the
system to have Carnot efficiency.
These results will be useful enough that we call it a ``rule''.
\begin{itemize}
\item[] {\bf Rule for achieving Carnot efficiency:} The requirement to achieve
Carnot efficiency in the steady-state, is that {\it all} closed trajectories in
the system's
state-space must generate zero entropy in the reservoirs.
For this, it is sufficient to verify the absence of entropy generation for
every primitive closed trajectory which is not self-retracing.
\end{itemize}
What is nice about this rule, is that one does not have to solve the
steady-state rate equation
to see if a system is Carnot efficient or not, one just has to inspect the
primitive closed trajectories.
Section~\ref{Sect:master-examples} shows how this rule can easily be applied to
a variety of concrete systems.
For the machines with two or three reservoirs that we know of (see section~\ref{Sect:master-examples}),
the ones that achieve Carnot efficiency obey a {\it tight coupling} condition.
Unlike in linear response, it is not clear if this is a necessary requirement, or simply a convenient manner to
achieve a system that easily satisfies the above rule.
A system obeys the tight coupling condition if every electron entering or leaving it from a given reservoir
carries exactly the same amount of energy. This implies that the ratio of energy current to particle current,
$J_{{u},i} /J_{\rho,i} $, is a constant determined by system properties, independent of all reservoir biases and temperatures.
An explicit example of such a system is that in Fig.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys2}
in the situation where the transitions indicated by the dashed lines in the inset are absent.
Then each electron leaving reservoir L carries an energy of exactly $\epsilon_1$ out of the reservoir,
so $J_{u,L} = \epsilon_1J_{\rho,{L}} $. If, in contrast, we allow the transitions marked by the dashed lines in the inset of Fig.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys2}, then the system does not obey the tight coupling condition, for example
an electron leaving reservoir L can carry energy $\epsilon_1$ or $\epsilon_2$. Then the ratio of energy current to particle current will depend on transition rates, which in turn depend on reservoir biases and temperatures.
At a hand-waving level, one can see why tight coupling makes it easier to satisfy the above rule for Carnot efficiency.
If one does not have tight coupling, it is because at least one reservoir couples to two system transitions
with different energies. In this case, it is likely that there are at least two loops in the system,
in which case it is harder to tune all parameters to ensure that no loop generates any entropy.
It is important to note that Eq.~(\ref{Eq:master-detailed-balance-for-Carnot}) implies that there are no currents flowing in the system, cf.\ section~\ref{Sect:currents}. Thus the machine is Carnot efficient, but produces no power. However, if we make a small change in the parameters (typically changing the electrochemical potential of a reservoir), we can get a machine which generates a small (but finite) amount of power
at an efficiency which is only very slightly less than that of Carnot.
Finally, we note that the above arguments mean that a Carnot efficient machine exhibits no fluctuations in its
entropy production. At no moment does it have a fluctuation which increases or reduces entropy.
\subsubsection{Crooks' fluctuation theorem}
\label{Sect:Crooks}
Having derived the steady-state fluctuation theorem
in section~\ref{Sect:fluct-theorem-steady-state}, we note that we can get
Crooks' fluctuation theorem \cite{Crooks1999} from an almost identical derivation.
The difference is in the choice of system and protocol.
We assume the set-up has time-dependent parameters,
so we cannot drop the bar over $P$ on the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P(DeltaS)-to-barP}).
Although, we assume that the time-dependence does not violate the conditions in the last paragraph of
section~\ref{Sect:master-coherences}, which allow the use of the rate equation discussed here.
This means the system is not in a steady state, none the less we assume that the initial and final state of the system are the same, so $P_a(t)=P_a(t_0)$ for all $a$.
Crooks \cite{Crooks1999} pointed out that this rather restrictive assumption is natural in certain non-steady-state situations.
For example, suppose we start with the system in a thermal state of ${\cal H}_{\rm sys}(t_0)$ at the temperature equal to that of reservoir $i$. We can then manipulate the system as we wish, changing ${\cal H}_{\rm sys}$, turning on and off couplings to different reservoirs, etc., up until some time $t'$. We then take the system's Hamiltonian back to its value at $t_0$,
and decouple the system from all reservoirs except reservoir $i$.
Whatever the state of the system at time $t'$, it will relax towards a state identical to its state at $t_0$.
If the time $t-t'$ is large enough, the
state of the system at time $t$ will be practically indistinguishable from its state at $t_0$, and we will have
$P_a(t)=P_a(t_0)$ for all $a$.
Armed with this information, we see that the derivation in section~\ref{Sect:fluct-theorem-steady-state} applies to
the evolution from time $t_0$ to time $t$ for any time-dependent parameters, so long as the system state obeys
$P_a(t)=P_a(t_0)$ for all $a$. The only difference in the derivation is that we cannot drop the bar over $P(\zeta)$ on the right hand side when we go from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P(DeltaS)-to-barP}) to Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P(DeltaS)-to-P}).
Thus instead, when we replace $P_a(t)$ by $P_a(t_0)$, we get
\begin{align}
P(\Delta\mathscr{S},t) {\rm e}^{-\Delta\mathscr{S}/k_{\rm B}} = \! \sum_{a,a_0}\ \sum_{\zeta \in \{a,t_0\to
a_0, t\}}
\delta\left[\Delta\mathscr{S}+\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\scriptstyle{\rm tot}}(\zeta)\right]
\overline{P}\left(\bar{\zeta}\right) P_{a}(t_0) .
\label{Eq:P(DeltaS)-to-P-Crooks}
\end{align}
Comparing this equation with Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P-DeltaS-as-traj-sum}), we see that the right-hand side is the probability for the system undergoes a fluctuation which produces entropy $-\Delta\mathscr{S}$ between time $t_0$ and time $t$, if the system is evolving under the time-reversed parameters compared to the original system, see Eq.~(\ref{Eq:time-reversed-rates}) .
Thus, we arrive at Crooks' fluctuation theorem,
\begin{align}
\overline{P}(-\Delta\mathscr{S},t) =P(\Delta\mathscr{S},t) \exp\big[-\Delta\mathscr{S}\big/ k_{\rm B}\big]\ .
\label{Eq:Crooks}
\end{align}
This relations differs from the steady-state one, Eq.~(\ref{Eq:detailled-fluctuation-theorem}), by the bar over $P$,
which indicates that the equality relates the probability of the change of entropy $\Delta\mathscr{S}$ in a time-dependent problem,
and the probability of the opposite change of entropy, $-\Delta\mathscr{S}$, in a system with {\it time-reversed parameters}.
\subsubsection{Non-equilibrium partition identity}
\label{Sect:Seifert}
The above analysis of the trajectories gives us
all the ingredients necessary to derive a different fluctuation theorem
known as the
{\it non-equilibrium partition identity}
\cite{Yamada-Kawasaki1967,Carberry-JChemPhys-2004}.
This theorem is less powerful than the steady-state and Crooks' fluctuation theorems,
but it is more general. It is applicable to any time-dependent problem, with any resulting
time-dependence of the system state, so long as the conditions are fulfilled which allow one to use
the rate equation discussed here (see the last paragraph of section~\ref{Sect:master-coherences}).
The theorem states that
\begin{align}
\left\langle {\rm e}^{-\Delta\mathscr{S}/k_{\rm B}} \right\rangle \ = \ 1 ,
\label{Eq:Integral-fluct-theorem}
\end{align}
so on average ${\rm e}^{-\Delta\mathscr{S}/k_{\rm B}}$ is unity.
This is an {\it integral fluctuation theorem}, meaning
it is a statement about the whole probability distribution.
This is in contrast with the steady-state fluctuation relation,
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:detailled-fluctuation-theorem}), which is a
relation between probabilities to produce specific entropies.
As a result, Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Integral-fluct-theorem}) contains much
less information than the steady-state fluctuation relation;
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:detailled-fluctuation-theorem}) directly implies
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Integral-fluct-theorem}) --- integrating the former over all
$\Delta\mathscr{S}$ gives the latter ---
but Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Integral-fluct-theorem}) does not imply
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:detailled-fluctuation-theorem}) \cite{Carberry-JChemPhys-2004}.
However, we will follow \cite{Seifert-PRL2005,review-Seifert2007}, and show
that
the non-equilibrium partition identity in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Integral-fluct-theorem})
is valid for any rate equation, even when the system is not in the
steady-state or when the problem has time-dependent parameters.
The proof is carried out by considering the following sum over trajectories,
\begin{align}
\left\langle {\rm e}^{-\Delta\mathscr{S}/k_{\rm B}} \right\rangle \ &= \
\sum_{a_0,a_n} \sum_{\zeta \in \{a_0,t_0 \to a,t\}} P(\zeta) \, P_{a_0}
(t_0)
\ {\rm e}^{-\Delta\mathscr{S}(\zeta)/ k_{\rm B}}\,,
\label{Eq:exponential-entropy-as-traj-sum}
\end{align}
where $\Delta\mathscr{S}(\zeta)$ is defined as in
section~\ref{Sect:fluct-theorem-steady-state}.
Now substituting in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P-zeta-versus-P-barzeta}),
and noting that $\Delta\mathscr{S}(\bar\zeta)=-\Delta\mathscr{S}(\zeta)$,
we see that
\begin{align}
\left\langle {\rm e}^{-\Delta\mathscr{S}/k_{\rm B}} \right\rangle \ &= \
\sum_{a_0,a} \sum_{\bar\zeta \in \{a,t_0 \to a_0,t\}}
{\overline{P}}\left({\bar{\zeta}}\right) \,P_{a}(t) \, ,
\label{Eq:derivation-Integral-fluct-theorum}
\end{align}
where we have used the fact that a sum over $\zeta \in \{a_0,t_0 \to a,t\}$ is
the same as a sum over
$\bar\zeta \in \{a,t_0 \to a_0,t\}$.
Now we note that this is a sum over all paths from $a$ to $a_0$ in the
time-reversed system,
which is the system whose time-dependent parameters are given by
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:time-reversed-rates}). However, irrespective of what the
time-dependence of the coupling is in the original system, the time-reversed
system could in principle exist, and thus must respect probability
conservation. Probability conservation means that the sum over all paths $\bar\zeta$ from $a$ to $a_0$ also summed over all final states $a_0$ must be one at all times:
\begin{align}
\sum_{a_0} \sum_{\bar\zeta \in \{a,t_0 \to a_0,t\}} {\overline P}\left({\bar{\zeta}}\right) = 1\,.
\end{align}
Substituting this into Eq.~(\ref{Eq:derivation-Integral-fluct-theorum})
and summing over $a$ leads immediately to the
{\it non-equilibrium partition identity} in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Integral-fluct-theorem}).
\green{
If one writes the non-equilibrium partition identity in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Integral-fluct-theorem})}
as $\left\langle 1-\exp\big[- \Delta\mathscr{S}\big/k_{\rm B}\big]
\right\rangle =0$
and then notes that
$x \geq 1-{\rm e}^{-x}$ for all $x$, one immediately sees that this identity implies
$ \left\langle \Delta\mathscr{S} \right\rangle \geq 0$. Thus the rate
equation obeys second law of thermodynamics
regardless of the time-dependence of the problem (although we recall that this rate equation only
applies for time-dependences with fulfill the conditions in the last paragraph of section~\ref{Sect:master-coherences}).
However,
\green{Eq.~(\ref{Eq:Integral-fluct-theorem})}
gives us more information than the second law, because it is an identity, when the second law is only an
inequality.
\subsubsection{Fluctuations exhibiting Carnot efficiency are the least likely}
We close this section by mentioning the intriguing work \cite{unlikely-Carnot} which showed that machines described by stochastic thermodynamics are less likely to have a ``Carnot efficient'' fluctuation than any other fluctuation.
To understand what this means consider a machine operating in the steady-state whose average efficiency is less than that of Carnot. \green{Its entropy production will fluctuate as described by the fluctuation relation in section~\ref{Sect:fluct-theorem-steady-state}, thus there are fluctuations in its efficiency.
When the entropy production is negative for a short time, due to such a fluctuation, the efficiency will exceed Carnot efficiency during that time.}
Ref.~\cite{unlikely-Carnot} considered the rate at which such efficiency fluctuations decay in the long time limit.
The decay is only zero at the average efficiency, which guarantees that the efficiency measured over long enough times is always the average efficiency (since fluctuations average out over long times).
All fluctuations decay exponentially with time, and broadly speaking the rate of decay is larger for large fluctuation, as one might guess. However, the decay rate is {\it not} a monotonic function of the size of the fluctuation. Remarkably, the decay rate is maximal for a fluctuation which corresponds to the
Carnot efficiency, irrespective of whether this fluctuation is large (i.e.~when the average efficiency is much less than Carnot)
or small (i.e.~when the average efficiency is close to that of Carnot).
Thus in the long time limit, a fluctuation exhibiting the Carnot efficiency is exponentially less probable than
any other fluctuation; this means it is less probable than a fluctuation exhibiting an efficiency larger than Carnot efficiency.
Ref.~\cite{unlikely-Carnot} shows that this observation holds in the limit of the average efficiency tending towards Carnot efficiency, with the decay rate being zero at the average efficiency, and rapidly sweeping up to its maximum value at the Carnot efficiency.
The case of a machine with exactly the Carnot efficiency is a bit special, because such a machine exhibits no fluctuations at all, as mentioned at the
end of section~\ref{Sect:rule-Carnot}. Thus the rate of decay of such fluctuations is irrelevant simply because their magnitude is zero.
\green{
Another recent work \cite{Jiang-Agarwalla-Segal} indicates that the suppression of those fluctuations which give Carnot efficiency is a consequence of time-reversal symmetry. That work considers three-terminal systems in which an external magnetic field breaks time-reversal symmetry.
They find that the decay rate is still maximal for a given fluctuation of efficiency, but that the efficiency in question can be large or smaller than the Carnot efficiency (depending on the value of the magnetic field and other system parameters).
}
\subsection{Beyond rate equations}
\label{Sect:beyond-master}
\green{
While we concentrate on time-independent situations in this review, for completeness we mention
that one has to be a bit more careful with the derivation for time-dependent problems.
Broadly speaking, the approaches cited in section~\ref{Sect:transition-rates} work reasonably well when the time-dependence is slow on the scale of the system dynamics and on the scale of the reservoir memory times. In this adiabatic regime, one usually finds the same rate equations with time-dependent parameters, but care should be taken that non-adiabatic corrections to this approximation are indeed small.
Most work on this situation has been for systems where coherences cannot be neglected \cite{Davies78}
(i.e.~when the assumptions in section~\ref{Sect:master-coherences} are not satisfied)
for which the situation is richer even for slow driving.
Then reservoir induced decoherence can destroy interference effects in the system, and thereby completely change the final state of the system
\cite{Gefen-Ben-Jacob-Caldeira87, Shimshoni-Gefen91,Grifoni-Hanggi98,Albash2012}.
}
\green{
There are numerous methods that go beyond simple rate equations, and so can capture features of time-independent and time-dependent systems that rate equations cannot. Here we mention some of the more popular methods which work for various situations which do not satisfy the requirements in section \ref{Sect:master-coherences}.
}
\subsubsection{The Lindblad equation: a markovian master equation with coherences}
\green{
Here we mention more complicated master equations which included quantum coherences, and so go beyond those discussed elsewhere in this section.
The best understood of such equations are those for Markovian dynamics, such as the Lindblad equation \cite{lindblad,book:open-quantum,Alicki-semigroup}.
These equations look a little like the rate equations in this section,
however rather than give the rate of change of the occupation probability of the $n$ system states, they give the rate of change of the $n \times n$ system density matrix. As such, their structure is rather more complicated,
however they can be used to treat problems in which the evolution generates off-diagonal elements in the system's density matrix.
There has been a great deal of work over many years on the type of master equation with coherence
known as the Lindblad equation.
Dynamics under this equation is well reviewed in textbooks \cite{book:open-quantum,Alicki-semigroup}. These systems have long since been show to obey the laws of thermodynamics; the various proofs and some associated controversies are nicely reviewed in
Ref.~\cite{Kosloff-review}, which contains an extensive bibliography of the original works on this subject, such as
Refs~\cite{Davies74,Davies76,Spohn78,alicki79} and many more.
We have nothing to add to this review, although we hope that reading the proofs in this section (for systems without coherences) will provide a good preparation for the proofs for the more complicated Lindblad equation.
}
\subsubsection{\green{Quantum master equations from golden-rule: Bloch-Redfield or Nakajima-Zwanzig}}
\green{
Quantum master equations that include coherences can derived from approximate methods based on a golden-rule treatment of such system-reservoir problems, in which one assumes the system-reservoir coupling is a perturbation that can be treated to lowest order.
Depending on the community and context such equations are known as the Redfield \cite{redfield} or Bloch-Redfield \cite{Bloch57},
the sequential tunnelling approximation in transport theory (see e.g.~\cite{Schoeller97}),
or the weak-coupling limit of the Nakajima-Zwanzig model \cite{Nakajima58,Zwanzig60}.
A more rigorous treatment known in the mathematical physics community is the weak-coupling limit of quantum-mechanical master equations in Refs.~\cite{Davies74,Davies76,Dumcke1985}.
The rate equations that we presented above are taken from these quantum master equations,
under the additional assumption that coherences are not important.
}
\green{
Once one includes the coherences, the perturbative quantum master equation
is believed to be a reasonable approximation whenever the memory time is significantly shorter than the
dissipative timescales (the typical timescale between interactions of the system with the reservoirs),
even if the system's dynamics are rapid on the timescale of the memory time.
This belief is based on estimating the next order in perturbation theory, and finding it to be small in this case.
This master equation gives the Lindblad equation directly when one takes the memory time to zero
(unlike in some other derivations of the Lindblad equation, no course-graining of the dynamics is necessary).
For finite memory times, it look similar to a Lindblad equation,
but its slightly different structure makes it hard to prove that it respect positivity
(i.e. that it never generates negative probabilities), see \cite{Whitney2008} for a proof of positivity in a particular system.
There is not yet a consensus on whether it obeys the laws of thermodynamics
in the regime where it does not coincide with the Lindblad equation,
although it has recently been claimed that it does obey the second law
\cite{whitney-fluct2016}.
}
\green{While the Bloch-Redfield approximation relies on weak coupling between the system and the reservoirs,
one can sometimes use a well known trick to treat a simple system which is strongly coupled to its reservoirs.
The trick is to perform a polaron transformation on the total Hamiltonian of the system and its reservoirs, see ``Small polaron theory'' in chapter 7 of \cite{mahan} and Refs.~\cite{Zwerger83a,Zwerger83b,Silbey-Harris,Aslangul86,Dekker87,Aslangul88}. Under the right condition, this enables one to transform the problem into that of a system weakly coupled to reservoirs (although the transformation redefines exactly what one calls
the system and what one calls the reservoir), which can then be treated with the Bloch-Redfield or Lindblad approaches. This polaron transformation followed by a weak-coupling approximation is a more rigorous and transparent version of the ``non-interacting blip'' approximation of Ref.~\cite{Leggett-review}.
This method was used in Ref.~\cite{Gelbwaser2015} to treat a quantum heat engine which is strongly coupled to its reservoirs.
}
\subsubsection{Non-equilibrium Green's functions and real-time transport theory}
\label{Sect:Keldysh}
\green{
Non-equilibrium Green's functions are a powerful method for modelling the transport properties of
quantum systems, see for example chapter 4 of Ref.~\cite{DiVentra-book}.
There is current progress in using this method to
calculate the properties of heat-to-work conversion, and prove the laws of thermodynamics,
for far-from-equilibrium systems that cannot be modelled by either Landauer scattering theory or Lindblad master equations.
These systems are typically those which exhibit interactions (so scattering theory is inapplicable), and are not weakly coupled to the reservoirs (so their dynamics exhibit memory effects not captured by rate equations, Lindblad equations or Bloch-Redfield equations).
}
\green{
While there are numerous works which use non-equilibrium Keldysh versions of energy Green's functions to calculate heat engine or refrigeration efficiencies for various quantum systems,
we only know of a few works which pose the question of whether such systems obey the laws of thermodynamics
when far from equilibrium \cite{Sanchez-2ndlaw2014,Esposito-2ndlaw,Esposito2015,Bruch-2016,Sanchez-2ndlaw-2016}. These works have found the heat and charge currents for certain systems and shown that
they obey the laws of thermodynamics.
Refs.~\cite{Sanchez-2ndlaw2014,Esposito-2ndlaw,Esposito2015,Bruch-2016}
do this for non-interacting systems (quadratic Hamiltonians), while Refs.~\cite{Sanchez-2ndlaw-2016} treats interacting systems with adiabatic driving.
One extremely recent work used similar methods for non-equilibrium propagators in time (rather than energy) on the Keldysh contour \cite{whitney-fluct2016}, it claims that one can use a method known as real-time transport theory \cite{Schoeller-Schon1994,Konig96,Konig97,Leijnse2008,Schoeller2009,Wegewijs2014,Sothmann2014,Schulenborg2016}
to prove the
second law of thermodynamics, and the fluctuation theorems in sections~\ref{Sect:fluct-theorem-steady-state}-\ref{Sect:Seifert}, for an arbitrary interacting quantum system with or without time-dependent driving.
All these works raise a number questions, and we feel it is much too soon to write a definitive review of these methods.
}
\section{Rate equations -- Examples}
\label{Sect:master-examples}
In this chapter, we use the rate equations introduced in chapter~\ref{Sect:Qu-Master-Eqn}
to model three examples of machines which carry out heat-to-work conversion.
The machines are sketched in
Figs.~\ref{Fig:2-term-sys}, \ref{Fig:3-term-sys1} and \ref{Fig:3-term-sys2}.
The examples are presented in order of increasing complexity,
but the discussion of each example is self-contained
(thus there is
some repetition from example to example).
In each case, we use the results in sections~\ref{Sect:single-loop}
and \ref{Sect:rule-Carnot}
to get information about the efficiencies through a simple
inspection of the system-states and transition
(without solving the steady-state rate equation).
In each case, we also present the solution of the steady-state rate
equation,
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:steady-state-master-eqn}), and the use of
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:I^N}-\ref{Eq:J})
to calculate all currents (heat, energy, particle, and charge) and the power
generated.
The first machine (section~\ref{Sect:2-term-sys})
is a two-terminal device, which is the quantum equivalent of a thermoelectric.
It allows the flow of electrons between the
reservoirs, but any heat flow is accompanied by a charge flow,
and vice-versa, due to the energy selectivity of the quantum dot.
As such, it exhibits strong Seebeck and Peltier effects.
To make a steady-state heat-engine one needs two such devices with opposite
thermoelectric response in a thermocouple geometry; this means they are
coupled between three macroscopic electronic reservoirs with the central
macroscopic
electronic reservoir being hotter due to coupling to some sort of external heat
source (see Fig.~\ref{Fig:thermocouple}a).
The same device can be a steady-state refrigerator, cooling the central
macroscopic reservoir, if one applies an electrical current though the
thermoelectrics.
The other two machines (sections~\ref{Sect:3-term-sys1} and
\ref{Sect:3-term-sys2}) are three-terminal machines
which act as the quantum equivalent of a thermocouple (see Fig.~\ref{Fig:thermocouple}b).
Heat (but not charge)
is injected from a hot-reservoir, and causes an electric current between two
other reservoirs (L and R). In one case the heat source is a bosonic bath
(photons or phonons), while in the other case the heat source is an electronic
bath which is capacitively coupled to the rest of the device.
\subsection{Thermoelectric dot between two electronic reservoirs}
\label{Sect:2-term-sys}
We follow Refs.~\cite{Tsaousidou2007,elb09,Kennes2013,Murphy-Mukerjee-Moore2008,Taylor-Segal2015,Szukiewicz2016},
and consider a quantum dot between two electronic reservoirs. Let us assume
that the dot's level-spacing is large enough that there is only one dot-state
within a window of order temperature of the reservoirs' electrochemical potentials.
Then we can treat the dot as having only one level, at energy $\epsilon_1$, as
sketched in Fig.~\ref{Fig:2-term-sys}.
Further let us assume that the dot is in the Coulomb blockade regime, where
the charging energy for double-occupation is $U$.
\green{
While we only consider a single dot-state here, the rate equation approach has also been used to study multi-level quantum dots with Coulomb blockade effects~\cite{erdman}.}
\subsubsection{Solving the problem without spin or double-occupancy}
\label{Sect:spinless}
The simplest case is that in which we neglect spin and assume the charging
energy for
double-occupancy, $U$, is much bigger than all other energy scales
(temperatures, biases, etc.)
Then we only have two system states 0 (dot-level empty) and 1 (dot-level singly
occupied), with energies
$E_0=0$ and $E_1=\epsilon_1$ respectively.
Then, the rate equation for the dot's dynamics is
\begin{align}
{{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t}
\left( \begin{array}{c} P_0(t) \\ P_1(t) \end{array}\right) \, = \,
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
-\Gamma_{10} & \Gamma_{01} \\
\Gamma_{10} & -\Gamma_{01}
\end{array}\right)\,
\left( \begin{array}{c} P_0(t) \\ P_1(t) \end{array}\right) \, ,
\end{align}
where $\Gamma_{ba}=\Gamma^{(\rm L)}_{ba}+\Gamma^{(\rm R)}_{ba}$.
and these rates obey Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final}).
\green{In many cases, it may be sufficient to treat these rates as phenomenological parameters,}
however if one wishes to relate them to the Hamiltonian of the system and reservoirs,
as in section~\ref{Sect:transition-rates}, one has
\begin{align}
\Gamma^{(i)}_{10} =& {1 \over h} \nu_i \big(\epsilon_1) \,
f_i\big(\epsilon_1\big) \, \big|V_i(\epsilon_1) \big|^2
\end{align}
where $V_i(\epsilon_1)$ is the tunnel-coupling of the system to reservoir $i$, for $i={\rm L,R}$.
From this Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final}) gives $\Gamma^{\rm i}_{01}$,
as discussed in section~\ref{Sect:local-detailed}.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig-two-terminal-system.pdf}
}
\caption{\label{Fig:2-term-sys}
A single-level quantum dot in the Coulomb blockade regime, coupled to two
reservoirs
at different temperatures, $T_{\rm L}$ and $T_{\rm R}$.
In inset (a) we show the two dot states that exist if we neglect the electron's
spin, and assume the charging energy
is too high for the dot to ever be doubly-occupied, so the dot makes
transitions between state 0 (empty)
and state 1 (single-occupancy).
In inset (b) we include spin and double-occupancy, so the dot has four possible
states
$(0,0)$, $(1,0)$, $(0,1)$ and $(1,1)$, where the first number and second number
in the brackets are the occupancy of the $\uparrow$-state and $\downarrow$ state,
respectively.
When reservoirs L and R are at different temperatures, the dot can act as a
thermoelectric.
Each inset also indicated the energy the reservoir gives to the system during
the transition marked by the arrow.
}
\end{figure}
The particle current into the system from the reservoirs are
\begin{align}
J_{\rho,{L}} = -J_{\rho,{R}} = {\cal I}_{10}^{\rm (L) \,steady}
\end{align}
Without loss of generality, we define the zero of energy to coincide with
reservoir L's electrochemical potential, so that $\mu_{\rm L}=0$.
We define $\mu$ as the difference in electrochemical potential between the reservoirs,
so $\mu=\mu_{\rm R}-\mu_{\rm L}$.
Then the heat currents out of reservoirs L and R are
\begin{align}
J_{h,L} \, &=\, J_{u,L} \, = \, \epsilon_1 J_{\rho,{L}}
,\qquad
J_{h,R} \, = \, (\mu-\epsilon_1) J_{\rho,{L}} ,
\label{Eq:master-two-term-simple-Js}
\end{align}
where we have used the fact that $J_{u,R} = -J_{u,L} $ and
$ J_{\rho,{R}} = - J_{\rho,{L}} $.
Note that these direct relationships between the heat currents and the particle currents are
a consequence of the fact that the nature of the system means that every electron leaving a given reservoir carries the same amount of heat; for example every electron entering from reservoir L carries heat $\epsilon_1$.
This is thus an example of {\it tight coupling}, which section~\ref{Sect:rule-Carnot} mentions as a common
pre-requisite for Carnot efficiency.
The power generated is
\begin{align}
P_{\rm gen} \, = \, -\mu J_{\rho,{R}} \, =\, \mu J_{\rho,{L}} .
\label{Eq:P_gen-master}
\end{align}
Since we are in the steady-state, the system entropy does not change with time
(${\rm d} \mathscr{S}_{\rm sys}\big/{\rm d} t=0$), thus
the rate of total entropy production is
\begin{align}
{{\rm d} \mathscr{S} \over {\rm d} t}
\ =\ {{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t} \left(\mathscr{S}^{(\rm L)}_{\rm res} +\mathscr{S}^{(\rm R)}_{\rm res}
\right)
\ = \ -{J_{h,L} \over T_{\rm L}} - {J_{h,R} \over T_{\rm R}}
\ =\ {J_{\rho,{L}} \over T_{\rm R}}\,\Big( \epsilon_1 \big(1-T_{\rm
R}\big/T_{\rm L}\big) -\mu \Big) \ .
\label{Eq:dotS-2term}
\end{align}
If we use the system as a heat engine, where reservoir L is the heat source
($T_{\rm L} > T_{\rm R}$) that induces the power generation,
then the efficiency is
\begin{align}
\eta_{\rm eng} \, \equiv\, P_{\rm gen} \big/ J_{h,L} \ =\ \mu\big/ \epsilon_1\,,
\label{Eq:efficiency-engine-two-term-master}
\end{align}
where $\mu$ has the same sign as $\epsilon_1$ to ensure that $P_{\rm gen} >0$.
If, in contrast, we use the system as a refrigerator, where reservoir L is the
one being cooled
($T_{\rm L} < T_{\rm R}$), and the system absorbing electrical power $P_{\rm abs}=-P_{\rm
gen}$ to
carry out the cooling, then the efficiency is
\begin{align}
\eta_{\rm fri} \, \equiv\, J_{h,L} \big/ P_{\rm abs} \ =\ \epsilon_1\big/ (-\mu) \,,
\label{Eq:efficiency-fridge-two-term-master}
\end{align}
where $\mu$ has the opposite sign from $\epsilon_1$ to ensure $J_{\rm h,L} >0$.
Inset (a) of Fig.~\ref{Fig:2-term-sys} makes it clear that this system is a
single-loop machine,
so it is not surprising that the efficiencies given above coincide with
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:single-loop-eng},\ref{Eq:single-loop-fridge}). To see this one
notes that
the heat flow $J_{h,L} $ is associated with the transition
\hbox{
$\raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 0}$} \hskip -2.5mm\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}}
\hskip -1.5mm
\raisebox{8pt}{${\scriptstyle {\rm L}}$} \hskip -1.1mm {\bm |} \hskip -1.5mm
\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} \hskip -2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 1}$}$}
and its time-reserve.
Similarly, power is generation or absorption only
occurs when an electron is injected into reservoir R,
which is only associated with
\hbox{
$\raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 1}$} \hskip -2.5mm\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}}
\hskip -1.5mm
\raisebox{8pt}{${\scriptstyle {\rm R}}$} \hskip -1.1mm {\bm |} \hskip -2.3mm
\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} \hskip -2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 0}$}$}
and its time-reserve.
Thus, there is only one term in the numerator and denominators of
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:single-loop-eng},\ref{Eq:single-loop-fridge}), and the results
coincide with
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:efficiency-engine-two-term-master},\ref{Eq:efficiency-fridge-two-term-master}).
One could immediately get information about the efficiency of this device,
by inspecting the system states and transitions without solving the equation
for the
steady-state of the rate equation
(using the results in sections~\ref{Sect:single-loop}
and \ref{Sect:rule-Carnot}). However, in this case the rate equation is
simple enough that it
is as easy just to solve it. Thus, we present the steady-state solution of the
rate equation first, and afterwards show that it fits with the results in
sections~\ref{Sect:single-loop} and \ref{Sect:rule-Carnot}.
One can use $P_1(t)=1-P_0(t)$,
to reduces the rate equation to
${{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t}P_0(t) = \Gamma_{01}-\left(\Gamma_{10}+\Gamma_{01}\right)
P_0(t)$.
The steady-state is given by ${\rm d} P_0(t) \big/{\rm d} t =0$, and so
\begin{align}
P_0^{\rm steady} = {\Gamma_{01} \over \Gamma_{10}+\Gamma_{01}}\, ,
\qquad
P_1^{\rm steady} = {\Gamma_{10} \over \Gamma_{10}+\Gamma_{01}}\, .
\end{align}
From Eq.~(\ref{Eq:I^N}), we get the steady-state particle current
$J_{\rho,{L}} = \Gamma^{\rm (L)}_{10}P^{\rm steady}_0
- \Gamma^{\rm (L)}_{01}P^{\rm steady}_1$.
Substituting in the above results gives
\begin{align}
J_{\rho,{L}} \ =\ { \Gamma^{\rm (L)}_{10} \Gamma^{\rm (R)}_{01}
- \Gamma^{\rm (R)}_{10} \Gamma^{\rm (L)}_{01}
\over \Gamma^{\rm (L)}_{10} + \Gamma^{\rm (R)}_{10}
+ \Gamma^{\rm (L)}_{01} + \Gamma^{\rm (R)}_{01} }
\ =\ { \Gamma^{\rm (L)}_{10} \Gamma^{\rm (R)}_{10}
\left({\rm e}^{-\Delta \mathscr{S}^{\rm R}_{10}\big/k_{\rm B}} - {\rm e}^{-\Delta \mathscr{S}^{\rm L}_{10}\big/k_{\rm B}}
\right)
\over \Gamma^{\rm (L)}_{10} \left(1+ {\rm e}^{-\Delta \mathscr{S}^{\rm L}_{10}\big/k_{\rm B}} \right)
+ \Gamma^{\rm (R)}_{10} \left(1+ {\rm e}^{-\Delta \mathscr{S}^{\rm R}_{10}\big/k_{\rm B}} \right) }\,,
\label{Eq:I^N_L-two-term}
\end{align}
where we get the right hand equality by using Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final}).
All other currents are then given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:master-two-term-simple-Js}).
The machine operates {\it reversibly} (in the thermodynamic sense) if the rate
of entropy production, given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:dotS-2term}), is zero.
This is achieved when one chooses the chemical
potential difference
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu = \epsilon_1 \big(1-T_{\rm R}\big/T_{\rm L}\big) .
\label{Eq:mu-for-reversible}
\end{eqnarray}
In this case Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:efficiency-engine-two-term-master},
\ref{Eq:efficiency-fridge-two-term-master}) become the relevant Carnot
efficiencies
$\eta_{\rm eng} =1-T_{\rm R}\big/T_{\rm L}$ and
$\eta_{\rm fri}= \big(T_{\rm R}\big/T_{\rm L} -1\big)^{-1}$.
However, there is a price to pay to achieve this efficiency, the price is that
the power output is zero. This is because Eq.~(\ref{Eq:mu-for-reversible})
implies $\Delta \mathscr{S}^{\rm L}_{10}=\Delta \mathscr{S}^{\rm R}_{10}$, and
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:I^N_L-two-term}) then means that the particle current
$J_{\rho,{L}} =0$.
The way to get a non-zero power output is to slightly reduce $\mu$, so
$\big({\rm d} \mathscr{S}\big/ {\rm d} t\big)$ becomes slightly positive
and a small but finite power is produced. Of course, now $\mu$ is slightly less
than
$\epsilon_1(1-T_0/T_{\rm H})$, and so the efficiency is slightly less than that of
Carnot.
The above derivation is a full treatment of the problem, giving all currents of
heat, charge, etc.
However, if one only wants to answer the question of whether the system can
achieve Carnot efficiency, it would be sufficient to use the rule in
section~\ref{Sect:traj}. In this case, the full derivation was so simple that this rule
is not really simpler than the full derivation.
However, it is worth seeing how the rule applies in this case,
before applying it to more complicated situations.
The system dynamics explore all trajectories on the very simple network shown
in the inset (a) of Fig.~\ref{Fig:2-term-sys}. There are only two primitive
closed trajectories
in this state space. The first is
\begin{align}
\zeta_1\ = \
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -2mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\rm L} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{L} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$1$}
\hskip -7mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{10mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\rm R} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{L} \end{array} \hskip -4mm
\hskip 4mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} }
\end{align}
and the second is $\bar{\zeta}_1$, which is the time-reverse of $\zeta_1$.
For the transition
$\raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 0}$} \hskip -2.5mm\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}}
\hskip -1.5mm
\raisebox{8pt}{${\scriptstyle {\rm L}}$} \hskip -1.1mm {\bm |} \hskip -1.5mm
\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} \hskip -2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 1}$}$
the entropy change in reservoir L is $-\epsilon_1/T_{\rm L}$,
while for the transition
$\raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 1}$} \hskip -2.5mm\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}}
\hskip -1.5mm
\raisebox{8pt}{${\scriptstyle {\rm R}}$} \hskip -1.1mm {\bm |} \hskip -2.3mm
\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} \hskip -2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 0}$}$
the entropy change of reservoir R is $(\epsilon_1-\mu_{\rm R})/T_{\rm R}$.
Thus, the sum of entropy changes in all reservoirs during the closed trajectory
$\zeta_1$ is
\begin{align}
\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta_1) \ =\ -\epsilon_1/T_{\rm L} + (\epsilon_1-\mu_{\rm R})/T_{\rm
R}\,.
\end{align}
The sum of entropy changes in all reservoirs during $\bar{\zeta}_1$ is
$\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\bar{\zeta}_1)=-\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta_1)$.
Section~\ref{Sect:traj}'s rule says that
Carnot efficiency is only achieved if $\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta_1)=0$.
Without further algebra,
this gives the result that this system can achieve Carnot efficiency if it
obeys
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:mu-for-reversible}).
\subsection{Including spin and double-occupancy}
If we include spin and the possibility of double-occupancy in the problem
described above, the physics becomes
more complicated. We will show here how to treat this case, and reproduce the
result of Ref.~\cite{Murphy-Mukerjee-Moore2008,Taylor-Segal2015}, that
the system can achieve Carnot efficiency if the charging energy vanished
($U=0$) or diverges ($U=\infty$), but not if $U$ is finite.
In the case where we include spin, there are four states labelled by
$(n_\uparrow,n_\downarrow)$, where
$n_\sigma=1$ if the dot's electron state with spin-$\sigma$ is full, and
$n_\sigma=0$ if the electron state with spin-$\sigma$ is empty.
To simplify the notation we refer to $(0,0)$ as state ``0'',
$(1,0)$ as state ``$\uparrow$'',
$(0,1)$ as state ``$\downarrow$'',
and
$(1,1)$ as state ``d'' (for double occupation).
These states have energy $E_0=0$, $E_\uparrow=E_\downarrow=\epsilon_1$ and $E_{\rm d} = 2\epsilon_1+U$,
respectively,
where $U$ is the Coulomb charging energy that must be paid if one wishes to
place two electrons on the dot.
A similar model with ferromagnetic leads is treated in Ref.~\cite{Szukiewicz15},
but we will restrict ourselves to non-magnetic reservoirs.
Then the rate equation is
\begin{align}
{{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t}
\left( \!\! \begin{array}{c} P_0 \\ P_\uparrow \\ P_\downarrow \\ P_{\rm d} \end{array}
\!\! \right) =
\left(\!\! \begin{array}{cccc}
-\Gamma_{\up0}-\Gamma_{\dn0} \!\! & \Gamma_{0\uparrow} & \Gamma_{0\downarrow} & 0 \\
\Gamma_{\up0} &\!\! -\Gamma_{0\uparrow}-\Gamma_{{\rm d}\uparrow} \!\! &0 & \Gamma_{\uparrow{\rm d}}\\
\Gamma_{\dn0} & 0& \!\! -\Gamma_{0\downarrow}-\Gamma_{d\downarrow} \!\! & \Gamma_{\downarrow{\rm d}}\\
0& \Gamma_{{\rm d}\uparrow} & \Gamma_{{\rm d}\downarrow} &
\!\!-\Gamma_{\uparrow{\rm d}}-\Gamma_{\downarrow{\rm d}} \\
\end{array} \!\! \right)
\,
\left(\!\! \begin{array}{c} P_0 \\ P_\uparrow \\ P_\downarrow \\ P_{\rm d}
\end{array}\!\!\right)\,,
\end{align}
where $\Gamma_{ba}=\Gamma^{\rm (L)}_{ba}+\Gamma^{\rm (R)}_{ba}$.
Using section~\ref{Sect:transition-rates}, we have the rates involving an
electron entering the dot are
\begin{subequations}
\label{Eq:rates-with-spin&double-occ}
\begin{align}
\Gamma^{\rm i}_{\uparrow 0} \ =\ \Gamma^{\rm i}_{\downarrow 0} \ =& \ \ {1 \over h} \nu_i
\big(\epsilon_1) \,
f_i\big(\epsilon_1\big) \, \big|V_i(\epsilon_1) \big|^2
\\
\Gamma^{\rm i}_{d\uparrow} \ =\ \Gamma^{\rm i}_{d\downarrow} \ =& \ \ {1 \over h} \nu_i
\big(\epsilon_1+U) \,
f_i\big(\epsilon_1+U\big) \, \big|V_i(\epsilon_1+U) \big|^2
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for $i={\rm L,R}$,
The remaining rates, those involving an electron leaving the dot, are related
to these via Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final}), as discussed in
section~\ref{Sect:local-detailed}.
Taking the steady-state limit in which the left hand side of the rate
equation is zero,
and then using the fact that $P_{\rm d} = 1-P_0-P_\uparrow-P_\downarrow$, we get three
simultaneous equations,
\begin{align}
(\Gamma_{\up0}+\Gamma_{\dn0})P^{\rm steady}_0
- \Gamma_{0\uparrow} P^{\rm steady}_\uparrow - \Gamma_{0\downarrow}P^{\rm steady}_\downarrow \ \ &=\ 0\ ,
\nonumber\\
(\Gamma_{\uparrow{\rm d}}-\Gamma_{\up0}) P^{\rm steady}_0
+(\Gamma_{0\uparrow}+\Gamma_{{\rm d}\uparrow}+\Gamma_{\uparrow{\rm d}})P^{\rm steady}_\uparrow
+ \Gamma_{\uparrow{\rm d}} P^{\rm steady}_\downarrow \ \ &=\ \Gamma_{\uparrow{\rm d}} \ ,
\nonumber\\
(\Gamma_{\downarrow{\rm d}}-\Gamma_{\dn0}) P^{\rm steady}_0
+ \Gamma_{\downarrow{\rm d}} P^{\rm
steady}_\uparrow+(\Gamma_{0\downarrow}+\Gamma_{{\rm d}\downarrow}+\Gamma_{\downarrow{\rm d}})P^{\rm steady}_\downarrow
\ \ &= \ \Gamma_{\downarrow{\rm d}} \ .
\nonumber\\
\label{Eq:simult-eqns-with-spin&double-occ}
\end{align}
It is not difficult to solve this set of simultaneous equations using the
standard methods,
but it is tedious. The solutions are long algebraic expressions, which are
hard to simplify to something easily comprehensible.
Thus we do not proceed further with this, if the reader wants
the solution, they can evaluate it themselves, or use computer algebra software
(such as Wolfram's Mathematica) to do so \footnote{Our experience is that Mathematica gives the algebraic solution of the problem most easily if one does the following. Solve Eq.~(\ref{Eq:simult-eqns-with-spin&double-occ}) for arbitrary rates first, and then substitute the rates of interest, given by Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:rates-with-spin&double-occ}), into the solution. However, this may depend on the version of the software used.}.
Once one has this solution, one can use Eq.~(\ref{Eq:probability-currents})
to write down the probability current for each transitions, ${\cal
I}_{ba}^{(i)}$.
Then the particle and energy currents are given by
\begin{align}
J_{\rho,{L}} \ =\ -J_{\rho,{R}} \ =& \ \
{\cal I}^{\rm (L)}_{\uparrow 0}+{\cal I}^{\rm (L)}_{\downarrow 0}+{\cal I}^{\rm (L)}_{{\rm d}
\uparrow}+{\cal I}^{\rm (L)}_{{\rm d}\downarrow}\,,
\\
J_{u,L} \ =\ -J_{u,R} \ =& \ \
\epsilon_1\left({\cal I}^{\rm (L)}_{\uparrow 0}+{\cal I}^{\rm (L)}_{\downarrow 0}\right)
+(\epsilon_1+U) \left({\cal I}^{\rm (L)}_{{\rm d} \uparrow}+{\cal I}^{\rm
(L)}_{{\rm d}\downarrow}\right)\,,
\end{align}
while the heat currents are $J_{h,L} =J_{u,L} $ and
$J_{h,R} =J_{u,R} -\mu J_{\rho,{R}}
= \mu J_{\rho,{L}} -J_{u,L} $.
If one wishes to operate the machine as a heat-engine, using reservoir L as the
heat source
($T_{\rm L} > T_{\rm R}$) one must choose $\mu$ such that the power generated
is positive, $P_{\rm gen} > 0$, with $P_{\rm gen}$
given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P_gen-master}).
Then the heat-engine's efficiency is $\eta_{\rm eng}=P_{\rm gen}\big/ J_{h,L} $.
If one wishes to operate the machine as a refrigerator,
extracting heat from a cold reservoir L ($T_{\rm L}< T_{\rm R})$, then one must
choose
$\mu$ such that the power absorbed is positive, $P_{\rm abs} \equiv -P_{\rm
gen} > 0$,
with $P_{\rm gen}$ given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:P_gen-master}).
Then the refrigerator's efficiency or coefficient of performance is
$\eta_{\rm fri}=J_{h,L} \big/ P_{\rm abs}$.
Since the state-space network of the machine (inset (b) of
Fig.~\ref{Fig:2-term-sys})
has multiple loops, we cannot use
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:single-loop-eng},\ref{Eq:single-loop-fridge})
to get the efficiencies without solving the steady-state rate equation.
However, we can still use section~\ref{Sect:traj}'s rule to look at the
conditions
for Carnot efficiency. With this, we can reproduce an interesting result
in Ref.~\cite{Murphy-Mukerjee-Moore2008,Taylor-Segal2015}, which showed
that one can have Carnot efficiency for $U=0$ or $U=\infty$, but {\it not} for
$U$ between the two. Refs.~\cite{Murphy-Mukerjee-Moore2008,Taylor-Segal2015}
were for linear response (where having $ZT \to \infty$ is equivalent to Carnot efficiency);
Ref.~\cite{Murphy-Mukerjee-Moore2008} considering weak coupling to
the reservoirs, while Ref.~\cite{Taylor-Segal2015} considered arbitrarily strong coupling to
the reservoirs. Here we will show that the same conclusion can be made beyond
the linear-response regime, in the context of our rate
equations for a system weakly coupled to the reservoirs.
Section~\ref{Sect:traj}'s rule requires that we calculate the entropy change
around
the primitive closed trajectories of the system space, which is sketched in
inset (b) of Fig.~\ref{Fig:2-term-sys}.
There are eight such primitive trajectories which visit two states without
being self-retracing;
they are
\begin{align}
\zeta_1 =
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -2mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm L}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$\uparrow$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm R}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array} \hskip -4mm
\hskip 4mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -4.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} }
\,,\qquad \quad &
\zeta_2 =
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -2mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm L}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$\downarrow$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm R}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array} \hskip -4mm
\hskip 4mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -4.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} }
\,,\\
\zeta_3 =
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$\uparrow$}
\hskip -2mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm L}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\rm d}$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm R}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array} \hskip -4mm
\hskip 4mm \raisebox{6pt}{$\uparrow$}
\hskip -4.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} }
\,,\qquad \quad &
\zeta_4 =
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$\downarrow$}
\hskip -2mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm L}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\rm d}$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm R}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array} \hskip -4mm
\hskip 4mm \raisebox{6pt}{$\downarrow$}
\hskip -4.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} } \,,
\end{align}
plus four trajectories which are the time-reverse of these.
Since the system state has the same energy for $\uparrow$ and $\downarrow$,
the entropy change associated with trajectories $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$
is the same, as is that associated with trajectories $\zeta_3$ and $\zeta_4$.
Following the same logic as for trajectory $\zeta_1$ in
section~\ref{Sect:spinless}, we have
\begin{align}
\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta_1)=\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta_2) \ &=\
-{\epsilon_1\over T_{\rm L}} + {\epsilon_1-\mu\over T_{\rm R}}\,,
\label{Eq:DeltaS-zeta1}
\\
\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta_3)=\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta_4) \ &=\
-{\epsilon_1+U\over T_{\rm L}} + {\epsilon_1+U-\mu \over T_{\rm R}}\,.
\label{Eq:DeltaS-zeta3}
\end{align}
There are two further primitive trajectories which visit four states without being
self-retracing;
\begin{align}
\zeta_5\ =
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -2mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm R}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$\uparrow$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm R}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\rm d}$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm R}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$\downarrow$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm R}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 1mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -5.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} }
\end{align}
and its time-reverse.
It is trivial to see that $\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta_5)=0$.
One might imagine that there are more primitive trajectories which visit four
states without being self-retracing;
such as
\begin{align}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -2mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle i_1} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$\uparrow$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle i_2} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\rm d}$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle i_3} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$\downarrow$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle i_4} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 1mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -5.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} }\,,
\end{align}
where each $i_i$ can be L or R (giving $2^4$ different trajectories).
However, each of them can be composed out of $\zeta_5$ plus suitable
combinations of
$\zeta_1, \cdots, \zeta_4$.
For example
\begin{align}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -2mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm R}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$\uparrow$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm L}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\rm d}$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm R}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$\downarrow$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm R}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 1mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -5.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} }
\ \ \ = \ \zeta_{5}+\zeta_{3}\,.
\end{align}
It is now trivial to see that if $U=0$, Eq.~(\ref{Eq:DeltaS-zeta1}) and
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:DeltaS-zeta3}) are the same.
Then if we choose $\mu$ to satisfy Eq.~(\ref{Eq:mu-for-reversible}), we have
zero entropy production of all closed trajectories.
Then section~\ref{Sect:traj}'s rule means that the system will be Carnot
efficient.
However as soon as $U\neq 0$, \green{there is no choice of $\mu$ for which}
both Eq.~(\ref{Eq:DeltaS-zeta1}) and Eq.~(\ref{Eq:DeltaS-zeta3}) are equal to zero
for $T_{\rm L}\neq T_{\rm R}$.
Thus the system can never be Carnot efficient for finite $U$.
The exception to this is the limit $U\to\infty$, for which there is never
enough energy for the system to be doubly-occupied. Thus, $P_{\rm d} =0$ and
$\Gamma_{\uparrow{\rm d}}=\Gamma_{{\rm d}\uparrow}=\Gamma_{\downarrow{\rm d}}=\Gamma_{{\rm d}\downarrow}=0$.
The primitive trajectories involving ${\rm d}$ drop out of the dynamics, so the
only relevant primitive trajectories are $\zeta_1$, $\zeta_2$ and their
time-reverses.
In this $U=\infty$ case (as in the $U=0$ case), we can choose $\mu$ to satisfy
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:mu-for-reversible}),
and have that no closed trajectory generating entropy, then
section~\ref{Sect:traj}'s rule means that the system will be Carnot efficient.
Hence, we conclude that Carnot efficiency is achievable for $U=0$ or $U=\infty$ by having $\mu$ satisfy Eq.~(\ref{Eq:mu-for-reversible}), however Carnot efficiency is never possible for finite $U$.
\subsection{Machine with one bosonic and two electronic reservoirs}
\label{Sect:3-term-sys1}
Consider the quantum thermocouple system in Fig.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys1},
suggested in Refs.~\cite{rutten09,imry2012},
similar to those in Refs.~\cite{Entin-Wohlman2010a,imry2010,entin2012,sb2012,imryNJP2013,imry2013}.
In addition to being coupled to two electronic reservoirs (L and R), the quantum system is coupled to a reservoir of
photons (ph). This reservoir induces transitions between states of the quantum system with the same charge.
If this reservoir is hotter than the electronic reservoirs, it will tend to excite electrons in the quantum system,
so they will leave with more energy than they entered.
While we will refer to reservoir ph as being a reservoir of photons, it would change nothing in our analysis
if it were a reservoir of phonons, or of more exotic chargeless excitations (magnons \cite{sb2012}, microwave photons in the circuit itself \cite{ruokola2012}, etc). Models with two phononic baths were considered in Refs.~\cite{pichard2014b,Pichard2016,Lu-Zhou2015,Lu-Wang2016}.
Ref.~\cite{Bergenfeldt13} considered a heat engine \green{which is a sort of hybrid between those
in Figs.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys1} and \ref{Fig:3-term-sys2};
the heat arrives at the heat-engine in the form of hot microwaves flowing though a waveguide (cavity), but those microwaves are emitted from a hot reservoir of electrons.}
The quantum dot has two
states; we define state 1 as the lower energy of the two states, so state 1 has
energy $\epsilon_1$ and state 2 has energy $\epsilon_2>\epsilon_1$.
We take state 1 to be more strongly coupled to reservoir L and state 2 to be
more strongly coupled to reservoir R.
The many-body eigenstates of the system Hamiltonian are given in
section~\ref{Sect:Qu-Master-Eqn}'s table~\ref{Table:example-H}.
The potential states of this system are $(n_1,n_2)$, where $n_i$ is the
occupation of state $i$ which can be 0 or 1.
We assume that we are in a Coulomb blockaded regime, with a strong enough
$U$, that the two states are never
occupied at the same time. Then the only relevant states are $|0\rangle$, $|1\rangle$ and $|2\rangle$,
as shown in the inset of Fig.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys1}.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{fig-three-terminal-system1.pdf}}
\caption{\label{Fig:3-term-sys1}
A system which has been proposed as a heat-engine \cite{rutten09,imry2012}.
It converts heat radiated by the photonic reservoir (at temperature $T_{\rm
ph}>T_0$)
into electrical power, manifested
as a charge current between the left and right electronic reservoirs flowing
against a potential difference.
The inset shows the network associated with the system dynamics,
the nodes indicating system states, while the bonds indicate transitions
induced by the coupling to the reservoir indicated (L, R or ph).
For the system to work well as a heat-engine, the transition rates associated
with the dashed
lines must be much smaller than those associated with the solid lines.
The arrows in the inset indicate a heat flow out of reservoir ph,
which causes an electric current from left to right.
Next to each arrow we indicate the energy that the reservoir gives to the system
during that transition.
The same system could also be used as a refrigerator to cool reservoir ph
to a temperature $T_{\rm ph} < T_0$, by driving a current between the left and right reservoirs.
}
\end{figure}
The rate equation for these three states is
\begin{align}
{{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t}
\left( \!\! \begin{array}{c} P_0 \\ P_1 \\ P_2 \end{array} \!\! \right) =
\left(\!\! \begin{array}{ccc}
-\Gamma_{10}-\Gamma_{20} \!\! & \Gamma_{01} & \Gamma_{02} \\
\Gamma_{10} &\!\! -\Gamma_{01}-\Gamma_{21} \!\! & \Gamma_{12} \\
\Gamma_{20} & \Gamma_{21} & \!\! -\Gamma_{02}-\Gamma_{12} \!\! \\
\end{array} \right)
\left(\!\! \begin{array}{c} P_0 \\ P_1 \\ P_2 \end{array}\!\!\right)\,.
\label{Eq:master-eqn-3-term-sys1}
\end{align}
Here $\Gamma_{i0}= \Gamma^{\rm (L)}_{i0}+\Gamma^{\rm (R)}_{i0}$ and
$\Gamma_{0i}= \Gamma^{\rm (L)}_{0i}+\Gamma^{\rm (R)}_{0i}$ for $i\in 1,2$.
Following section~\ref{Sect:transition-rates}, the rates involving adding an
electron to the dot obey
\begin{align}
\Gamma^{\rm i}_{i 0} = \ {1 \over h} \nu_i \big(\epsilon_i) \,
f_i\big(\epsilon_i\big) \, \big|V^{(i)}_i(\epsilon_i) \big|^2\,,
\end{align}
where $V^{(i)}_i(\epsilon_i)$ is the coupling of the system state $i$ to the
state in
reservoir $i$ with energy $E_i$.
The rates involving an electron leaving the dot, $\Gamma^{\rm i}_{0i}$,
are then given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final}), as discussed in
section~\ref{Sect:local-detailed}.
The rates $\Gamma_{21}$ and $\Gamma_{12}$ are for transitions due to the photon
reservoir.
The rate $\Gamma_{21}$ involves a photon adding energy to the dot
($\epsilon_2>\epsilon_1$),
so from section~\ref{Sect:transition-rates} we have
\begin{align}
\Gamma_{21} \equiv \Gamma^{\rm ph +}_{21} = {1 \over h} \nu_{\rm ph}
\big(\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1) \,
n_{\rm ph} \big(\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1\big) \, \big|V_{\rm (ph)}(\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1) \big|^2\,.
\end{align}
where $V_{\rm (ph)}(\omega)$ is the coupling of the system to the photon field at energy $\omega$.
The rate $\Gamma_{12}$ involving the dot losing energy into the photon
reservoir, is then given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final}), as discussed
in section~\ref{Sect:local-detailed}.
We will show that the machine can absorb heat from the photon reservoir and
thus generate
electrical power in the electronic reservoirs, by driving an electrical current
from reservoir L to reservoir R against a potential difference.
The two quantities of most interest for a heat engine are the electrical power
it generates, $P_{\rm gen}$,
and its efficiency $\eta_{\rm eng}$.
In this case, as reservoir ph is the heat source ($T_{\rm ph}>T_0$),
the heat-engine's efficiency is given by
\begin{align}
\eta_{\rm eng} \equiv P_{\rm gen}\big/ J_{h,{\rm ph}} \,.
\end{align}
Alternatively, we can use the machine as a refrigerator to cool the photon
reservoir (ph)
below the temperature of its environment, $T_{\rm ph}<T_0$. This cooling
requires
that the electrical current is driven by a potential difference so the power
absorbed
by the refrigerator $P_{\rm abs}=-P_{\rm gen} >0$.
The two quantities of most interest for a refrigerator are its cooling power,
and its coefficient of performance (COP).
In this case, as reservoir ph is being cooled, the cooling power is the
\green{the heat current out of reservoir ph, $J_{h,{\rm ph}} $.}
The coefficient of performance (efficiency) for this cooling is
\begin{align}
\eta_{\rm fri} \equiv J_{h,{\rm ph}} \big/ P_{\rm abs}\,.
\label{Eq:3-term-sys1-fridge}
\end{align}
Without loss of generality, we will take the zero of energy to be that of the
electrochemical potential
of reservoir L ($\mu_{\rm L}=0$), and then define $\mu_{\rm R}=\mu$, so that
$\mu$
is the difference in electrochemical potential between reservoir R and L.
\subsubsection{Results before solving the steady-state equation}
\label{Sect:3-term-sys1-before-solving}
Before explicitly finding the steady-state of the above rate equation, we use
the results in sections~\ref{Sect:single-loop} and \ref{Sect:rule-Carnot}
to get information about the system's efficiency, such as whether it can
achieve Carnot efficiency.
Let us start by considering the case where
state 1 has negligible coupling to reservoir R,
while state 2 has negligible coupling to reservoir L, so
\begin{align}
\Gamma_{10}^{\rm (R)} = \Gamma_{01}^{\rm (R)} =
\Gamma_{20}^{\rm (L)} = \Gamma_{02}^{\rm (L)} = 0.
\label{Eq:3-term-sys1-no-dashed-transitions}
\end{align}
This means that the transitions marked by dashed lines in the inset of
Fig.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys1}
are absent. Then, there are only two closed primitive trajectories which are not
self-retracing,
the first is
\begin{align}
\zeta_1 \ =\
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -2mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm L}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$1$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm ph}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$2$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm R}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 1mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -5.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} }\,,
\label{Eq:zeta1-sys1}
\end{align}
while the second is its time-reverse, $\bar{\zeta}_1$.
For the transition
\hbox{$\raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 0}$} \hskip
-2.5mm\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -1.5mm
\raisebox{8pt}{${\scriptstyle {\rm L}}$} \hskip -1.1mm {\bm |} \hskip -1.5mm
\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 1}$}$},
the entropy change in reservoir L is $-\epsilon_1/T_0$.
For the transition
\hbox{$\raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 1}$} \hskip
-2.5mm\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -1.5mm
\raisebox{8pt}{${\scriptstyle {\rm ph}}$} \hskip -1.1mm {\bm |} \hskip -1.5mm
\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 2}$}$},
the entropy change in reservoir ph is $-(\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1)/T_{\rm ph}$.
For the transition
\hbox{$\raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 2}$} \hskip
-2.5mm\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -1.5mm
\raisebox{8pt}{${\scriptstyle {\rm R}}$} \hskip -1.1mm {\bm |} \hskip -1.5mm
\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 0}$}$},
the entropy change in reservoir R is $(\epsilon_2-\mu)/T_0$.
Thus the total entropy change in the reservoirs associated with trajectory
$\zeta_1$
or $\bar{\zeta}_1$ is
\begin{align}
\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta_1) = - \Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}\left(\bar{\zeta}_1\right) =
{\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1-\mu \over T_0} - {\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1 \over T_{\rm ph}} \ .
\end{align}
Using section~\ref{Sect:rule-Carnot}'s rule, we conclude that the steady-state
will be Carnot efficient if
we choose the electrochemical potential of reservoir R (relative to that of reservoir
L) to obey
\begin{align}
\mu \ = \ (\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1) \left( 1- T_0/T_{\rm ph}
\right)\,.
\label{Eq:3-term-sys1-mu-for-Carnot}
\end{align}
Since there is only one closed loop in the system, we can also
use sections~\ref{Sect:single-loop} to find the steady-state
efficiencies for heat-engines and refrigerators for arbitrary $\mu$.
In the context of Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:single-loop-eng},\ref{Eq:single-loop-fridge}),
the only transition in the loop which contributes to $\Delta Q^{\rm
(heat)}_{\rm loop}$ (for heat-engines) or
$\Delta Q^{\rm (cold)}_{\rm loop}$ (for refrigerators) is $1 \to 2$, so we have
$\Delta Q^{\rm (heat)}_{\rm loop} =\Delta Q^{\rm (cold)}_{\rm loop} =
(\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1)$.
The work performed around the loop comes from the transition $2 \to 0$
which involves reservoir R (we do not need to take reservoir L into account
because we have defined its electrochemical potential as zero), thus we have
$\Delta W^{\rm gen}_{\rm loop} = -\Delta W^{\rm abs}_{\rm loop}= \mu$.
Then Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:single-loop-eng},\ref{Eq:single-loop-fridge}) give,
\begin{align}
\eta_{\rm eng} = {\mu \over \epsilon_2-\epsilon_1} \ ,\qquad
\eta_{\rm fri} = -\,{ \epsilon_2-\epsilon_1 \over \mu} \ ,
\label{Eq:3-term-sys1-eff-single-loop}
\end{align}
where $\mu$ has the same sign as $(\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1)$ for the heat-engine,
and the opposite sign for the refrigerator.
These immediately give Carnot efficiencies when we substitute
in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys1-mu-for-Carnot}).
However, the results in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys1-mu-for-Carnot},\ref{Eq:3-term-sys1-eff-single-loop})
rely on the fact that we have assumed that the couplings marked by dashed lines
in the inset of Fig.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys1} are negligible, as in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys1-no-dashed-transitions}).
If we re-introduce these couplings, we see that there is no longer only one
loop in the network
of system-states. There are four other primitive closed
trajectories which
are not self-retracing,
\begin{align}
\zeta_2 \ =\
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -2mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm L}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$1$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm R}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 1mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -5.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} }
\,,\qquad \qquad
\zeta_3 \ =\
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -2mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm L}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$2$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm R}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 1mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -5.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} }
\end{align}
and their time-reverse trajectories, $\bar{\zeta}_2$ and $\bar{\zeta}_3$.
One might think there are other primitive trajectories, however
we can construct them out of other primitive closed trajectories. For example,
\begin{align}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -2mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm L}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$1$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm ph}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$2$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm L}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 1mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -5.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} }
\end{align}
looks like it might be a primitive closed trajectory, but we can construct it
out of
$\zeta_1$ and $\bar{\zeta}_3$.
Following the same logic as for trajectory $\zeta_1$ above, we see that
\begin{align}
\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta_2) =-\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\bar{\zeta}_2) =
\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta_3) =-\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\bar{\zeta}_3) = - \mu\big/T_0
\ .
\end{align}
Given Eq.~(\ref{Eq:trajectory-fluct-rel}), this means that for $\mu >0$,
trajectories $\bar{\zeta}_{2}$ and $\bar{\zeta}_{3}$ are more probable than
$\zeta_2$ and $\zeta_3$, respectively. Thus, this set of trajectories leads to a net flow of
electrons from
a region of high electrochemical potential (reservoir R) to one of low
electrochemical potential (reservoir L).
As such, they are parasitic processes, reducing the power generation.
Formally, one can still achieve Carnot efficiency if one chooses the system to
have
$\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1 \to 0$ and then takes $\mu=0$, so the parasitic back-flow of
electrons is negligible. Indeed, it is often the case in machines with such
parasitic processes, that
the dissipation becomes negligible in the limit $\mu \to 0$.
However, this limit $\mu \to 0$ is bad for producing power.
The reason is that Carnot efficiency always corresponds to vanishing currents
(since it requires reversibility). If one can achieve this at finite $\mu$,
then one can get
close to Carnot efficiency for small currents, and the power output will be
proportional to the small current. However, if one can only achieve Carnot
efficiency at $\mu=0$
then to get non-zero power close to Carnot efficiency one must have a small
current
and a small $\mu$, which means the power output will be the product of two
small numbers.
Thus, unsurprisingly, the machine with the parasitic dissipation process
will produce less power at given efficiency that the one without this parasitic
process.
\subsubsection{Solving the steady-state equation}
Now we return to finding the steady-state properties of the rate equation in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:master-eqn-3-term-sys1}).
In the steady-state, the left hand side of this equation is zero, so using the
fact that
$P_2=1-P_0-P_1$ to eliminate $P_2$, we get a pair of simultaneous equations
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
(\Gamma_{10}+\Gamma_{20}+\Gamma_{02})P^{\rm steady}_0 +
(\Gamma_{02}-\Gamma_{01})P^{\rm steady}_1 &= \Gamma_{02} \ ,
\\
(\Gamma_{12}-\Gamma_{10})P^{\rm steady}_0 +(\Gamma_{01}+\Gamma_{21}+
\Gamma_{12})P^{\rm steady}_1&= \Gamma_{12}\ .
\label{Eq:sim-eq-2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The solutions are
\begin{subequations}
\label{Eq:3-term-sys1-occupations}
\begin{align}
P^{\rm steady}_0 \ \ &=\ { \Gamma_{01}\Gamma_{02}+\Gamma_{21}\Gamma_{02}+\Gamma_{01}\Gamma_{12}
\over K} \ ,
\\
P^{\rm steady}_1 \ \ &=\ { \Gamma_{12}\Gamma_{10}+\Gamma_{12}\Gamma_{20}+\Gamma_{02}\Gamma_{10}
\over K} \ ,
\\
P^{\rm steady}_2 \ \ &=\ 1-P^{\rm steady}_0-P^{\rm steady}_1 \ =\ { \Gamma_{01}\Gamma_{20}+\Gamma_{21}\Gamma_{10}+\Gamma_{21}\Gamma_{20}
\over K} \ ,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where we have defined
\begin{align}
K \ =& \ \ (\Gamma_{01}+\Gamma_{21}+
\Gamma_{12})(\Gamma_{10}+\Gamma_{20}+\Gamma_{02})-(\Gamma_{02}-\Gamma_{01}
)(\Gamma_{12}-\Gamma_{10})
\nonumber
\\
=& \ \ \Gamma_{01}\Gamma_{02}+\Gamma_{21}\Gamma_{02}+\Gamma_{01}\Gamma_{12}
+ \Gamma_{12}\Gamma_{10}+\Gamma_{12}\Gamma_{20}+\Gamma_{02}\Gamma_{10}
+ \Gamma_{01}\Gamma_{20}+\Gamma_{21}\Gamma_{10}+\Gamma_{21}\Gamma_{20} \ ,
\end{align}
where the first line is prettier, but the second line shows explicitly that $K$ is positive
(since all $\Gamma$s are positive), ensuring all the above probabilities are positive.
From Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:I^N}-\ref{Eq:J}) we get that
\begin{align}
J_{\rho,{L}} \ \ &=\ -J_{\rho,{R}} \ = \
{\cal I}^{\rm (L)\, steady}_{10} +{\cal I}^{\rm (L)\, steady}_{20}\,,
\label{Eq:I_L-3term-sys1}
\\
J_{h,L} \ \ &=\
J_{u,L} \ = \
\epsilon_1 {\cal I}^{\rm (L)\, steady}_{10} + \epsilon_2 {\cal I}^{\rm (L)\,
steady}_{20}\,,
\label{Eq:J_L-3term-sys1}
\\
J_{h,{\rm ph}} \ \ &= \ J_{u,{\rm ph}} \ =\ ( \epsilon_2-\epsilon_1) \,{\cal I}^{\rm
(L)\, steady}_{21}\,,\label{Eq:J_ph-3term-sys1}
\end{align}
where ${\cal I}_{ba}^{(i)\, \rm steady}$ is given by
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:probability-currents})
with the occupation probabilities given by
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys1-occupations}).
Energy conservation gives $J_{u,R} = -J_{u,L} - J_{h,{\rm ph}} $, so
\begin{align}
J_{h,R} &= J_{u,R} -\mu J_{\rho,{R}}
\ =\ \mu J_{\rho,{L}} - J_{h,L} - J_{h,{\rm ph}} \,.
\label{Eq:3-term-sys1-JR}
\end{align}
The power generated is $P_{\rm gen}= -\mu J_{\rho,{R}} =\mu J_{\rho,{L}} $.
The above results,
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys1-occupations}-\ref{Eq:3-term-sys1-JR}),
constitute a complete solution of the general case of this model.
Returning to the special case discussed in detail above,
given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys1-no-dashed-transitions}) in which there is a
single loop in the state-space.
The particle current is given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:I_L-3term-sys1}) with ${\cal
I}_{20}^{\rm (L)}=0$,
its explicit form is thus
\begin{align}
J_{\rho,{L}} = -J_{\rho,{R}} = \Gamma^{\rm (L)}_{10} P_0^{\rm steady} -
\Gamma^{\rm (L)}_{01} P_1^{\rm steady}\ ,
\label{Eq:particle-current-special-case}
\end{align}
with $P_a^{\rm steady}$ given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys1-occupations}).
Since $J_{\rho,{L}} = {\cal I}_{\rm loop}^{\rm steady}$, we can use
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:I^N+I^E-in-terms-of-I_loop}-\ref{Eq:J-in-terms-of-I_loop})
to write all currents in terms of $J_{\rho,{L}} $.
The energy currents simplify
to $J_{u,L} = \epsilon_1 J_{\rho,{L}} $ and
$J_{u,R} = \epsilon_2 J_{\rho,{R}} =-\epsilon_2 J_{\rho,{L}} $.
Then since energy conservation means that
$J_{u,L} +J_{u,R} + J_{h,{\rm ph}} = 0$, we have
$J_{h,{\rm ph}} = (\epsilon_2 -\epsilon_1) J_{\rho,{L}} $.
This information complements that in
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys1-no-dashed-transitions}-\ref{Eq:3-term-sys1-eff-single-loop})
for this special case.
\subsection{Machine with three electronic reservoirs}
\label{Sect:3-term-sys2}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{fig-three-terminal-system2.pdf}}
\caption{\label{Fig:3-term-sys2}
A system which has been proposed as a heat-engine \cite{Sanchez2011,buttiker2012,Sanchez2013,Esposito-Maxwell-demon}.
It converts heat radiated by the middle electronic reservoir (at temperature
$T_{\rm M}>T_0$)
into electrical power, manifested
as a charge current between the left and right electronic reservoirs flowing
against a potential difference.
The inset shows the network associated with the system dynamics,
the nodes indicating system states, while the bonds indicate transitions
induced by the coupling to the reservoir indicated (L, R or M).
For the system to work well as a heat-engine, the transition rates associated
with the dashed
lines must be much smaller than those associated with the solid lines.
The arrows in the inset indicate a heat flow out of reservoir M,
which causes an electric current from left to right.
Next to each arrow we indicate the energy that the reservoir gives to the system
during that transition.
The same system could also be used as a refrigerator to cool reservoir ph
to a temperature $T_{\rm ph} < T_0$, by driving a current between the left and right reservoirs.
}
\end{figure}
Consider the system in Fig.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys2} suggested in
\colorproofs{Ref.~\cite{Sanchez2011}, see also Refs.~\cite{buttiker2012,Sanchez2013,Esposito-Maxwell-demon},} and recently realized experimentally in Refs.~\cite{Roche15,Hartmann15,Thierschmann15}.
There one electronic reservoir (M) at temperature $T_{\rm M}$ is coupled to a
dot which is capacitively
coupled to the rest of the system, thus it cannot exchange charge with the
other reservoirs, although we will see that it can exchange heat.
This heat exchange leads to electrical power generation between the left and right reservoirs.
Such experimental quantum dot systems are likely to lose heat directly into their cold environment,
which should be modelled by adding a capacitive coupling to a fourth cold reservoir \cite{wshs2016}.
We will not consider this heat loss further here, beyond noting that Ref.~\cite{wshs2016} found that such a
quantum system could be designed to out perform any classical system with the same heat loss.
Ref.~\cite{Bergenfeldt13} considered a more complicated system , in which the two dots are replaced by a pair of double-dots sitting at each end of a microwave cavity. At one end of the microwave cavity is the heat engine which is driven by the microwaves flowing from a hot reservoir of electrons at the other end of the microwave cavity. Such a system could be treated in terms of rate equations in a similar manner to here,
but one would have to replace the four states in the inset of Fig.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys2}
with the relevant eigenstates of the Hamiltonian for the two double-dots coupled to the microwave cavity.
The methods and results discussed in this section
are fairly similar to those in section~\ref{Sect:3-term-sys1-before-solving}.
However, we do not wish to make section~\ref{Sect:3-term-sys1} required reading
to understand this section, so there will be a certain amount of repetition
here.
We assume that each dot only has a single energy level, at energies $\epsilon_1$
and $\epsilon_2$,
and that the charging energy for each dot is high enough that the neither dots can
be
doubly-occupied (for simplicity we also neglect spin).
We also assume that the capacitative coupling between the dots leads to a charging energy $U$ for occupying the two dots at the same time.
Then the many-body eigenstates of the system are those given in section~\ref{Sect:Qu-Master-Eqn}'s table~\ref{Table:example-H}.
The rate equation for this system is
\begin{align}
{{\rm d} \over {\rm d} t}
\left( \!\! \begin{array}{c} P_0 \\ P_1 \\ P_2 \\ P_{\rm d} \end{array} \!\!
\right) =
\mathbf{\Gamma} \
\left( \!\! \begin{array}{c} P_0 \\ P_1 \\ P_2 \\ P_{\rm d} \end{array} \!\!
\right)\,,
\label{Eq:3term-sys2-master-eqn}
\end{align}
\green{where we now use the matrix form of the rate equation given in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:master-eqn-matrix-form}).}
The four-by-four matrix
$\mathbf{\Gamma}
= \mathbf{\Gamma}^{\rm (L)}+ \mathbf{\Gamma}^{\rm (R)}+ \mathbf{\Gamma}^{\rm
(M)}$
is the sum of transitions due to
reservoirs L, R and M. The transitions due to reservoirs L or R take the form
\begin{align}
\bm{\Gamma}^{\rm (i)}
&\equiv
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
- \Gamma^{\rm (i)}_{10} \phantom{\Big|}\! &
\Gamma^{\rm (i)}_{01}
& 0&0 \cr
\Gamma^{\rm (i)}_{10} \phantom{\Big|}\! &
-\Gamma^{\rm (i)}_{01}
& 0&0 \cr
0 & 0 & -\Gamma^{\rm (i)}_{\rmd2} \phantom{\Big|}\! & \Gamma^{\rm
(i)}_{2{\rm d}} \cr
0 & 0 & \Gamma^{\rm (i)}_{\rmd2} \phantom{\Big|}\! & -\Gamma^{\rm
(i)}_{2{\rm d}}
\end{array}\right)\,,
\end{align}
for $i =$ L or R.
The transitions due to reservoir M take the form
\begin{align}
\bm{\Gamma}^{\rm (M)}
&\equiv
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
- \Gamma^{\rm (M)}_{20} \phantom{\Big|}\! & 0 &
\Gamma^{\rm (M)}_{02} & 0 \cr
0 & -\Gamma^{\rm (M)}_{{\rm d} 1} & 0 & \Gamma^{\rm (M)}_{1{\rm d}} \cr
\Gamma^{\rm (M)}_{20} \phantom{\Big|}\! & 0 &
-\Gamma^{\rm (M)}_{02} & 0 \cr
0 & \Gamma^{\rm (M)}_{\rmd1} & 0 & -\Gamma^{\rm (M)}_{1{\rm d}}
\end{array}\right)\,,
\end{align}
with the rates obeying Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final}).
Often, \green{it is sufficient to consider these rates phenomenological parameters},
however they can be related to the Hamiltonian of the system and environment
as in section~\ref{Sect:transition-rates}. Then the rates are
\begin{subequations}
\label{Eq:3-term-sys2-rates}
\begin{align}
\Gamma^{(i)}_{10} =& \ {1 \over h} \,\nu_i \big(\epsilon_1) \,
f_i\big(\epsilon_1\big) \, \big|V_i(\epsilon_1) \big|^2\,,
\\
\Gamma^{(i)}_{\rmd2} =& \ {1 \over h} \,\nu_i (\epsilon_1+U) \,
f_i\big(\epsilon_1+U\big)\, \big|V_i (\epsilon_1+U)\big|^2\,,
\\
\Gamma^{\rm (M)}_{20} =& \ {1 \over h} \,\nu_{\rm M} \big(\epsilon_2) \,
f_{\rm M}\big(\epsilon_2\big) \, \big|V_{\rm M}(\epsilon_2) \big|^2\,,
\\
\Gamma^{\rm (M)}_{\rmd1} =& \ \ {1 \over h}\, \nu_{\rm M} (\epsilon_2+U) \,
f_{\rm M}\big(\epsilon_2+U\big)\, \big|V_{\rm M} (\epsilon_2+U)\big|^2\,,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with the reverse of these rates given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:rate-for-reverse-final}),
as discussed in section~\ref{Sect:local-detailed}.
Here $V_i(E)$ for $i \in {\rm L,R}$ is the matrix element for an
electron hopping
between dot 1 and a state in reservoir $i$ with energy $E$, while
$V_{\rm M}(E)$ is the matrix element for an electron hopping
between dot 2 and a state in reservoir M with energy $E$.
Without loss of generality, we take the zero of energy to be that of the
electrochemical potential
of reservoir L ($\mu_{\rm L}=0$), and then define $\mu_{\rm R}=\mu$, so that
$\mu$
is the difference in electrochemical potential between reservoir R and L.
We then note that since reservoir M never exchanges particles with the other
reservoirs or dot 1,
its electrochemical potential only plays a role with respect to dot 2.
Thus, without loss of generality, we can measure dot 2 energy $\epsilon_2$ from the
electrochemical potential of reservoir M, which is the same as taking $\mu_{\rm M}=0$.
We will show that the machine can absorb heat from the reservoir M and thus
generate
electrical power by driving an electrical current from reservoir L to
reservoir R against a potential difference.
The two quantities of most interest for a heat engine are
the electrical power it generates, $P_{\rm gen}$,
and its efficiency $\eta_{\rm eng}$.
In this case, as reservoir M is the heat source ($T_{\rm M}>T_0$),
the heat-engine's efficiency is given by
\begin{align}
\eta_{\rm eng} \equiv P_{\rm gen}\big/ J_{h,M} \,.
\end{align}
Alternatively, we can use the machine as a refrigerator to cool electron
reservoir M
below the temperature of its environment ($T_{\rm M}<T_0$). This cooling
requires
that the electrical current is driven by a potential difference so the power
absorbed
by the refrigerator $P_{\rm abs}=-P_{\rm gen} >0$.
The two quantities of most interest for a refrigerator are its cooling power,
and its coefficient of performance (COP).
In this case, as reservoir M is being refrigerated, the cooling power is
$J_{h,M} $,
while the coefficient of performance (efficiency) is
\begin{align}
\eta_{\rm fri} \equiv J_{h,M} \big/ P_{\rm abs}\ .
\label{Eq:3-term-sys2-fridge}
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Results before solving the steady-state equation}
\label{Sect:3-term-sys2-before-solving}
Before discussing the manner of finding the steady-state solution of the rate
equation in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:3term-sys2-master-eqn}),
we use results from section~\ref{Sect:single-loop} and \ref{Sect:rule-Carnot}
to find the conditions under which this system can achieve Carnot efficiency.
Let us start by considering the case where dot 1 is \green{only} tunnel-coupled to
reservoir R if dot 2 is full,
and is \green{only} tunnel-coupled to reservoir L if dot 2 is empty; so
\begin{align}
\Gamma^{\rm (R)}_{10}=\Gamma^{\rm (R)}_{01}
= \Gamma^{\rm (L)}_{d2}=\Gamma^{\rm (L)}_{2d}= 0 \ .
\label{Eq:3-term-sys2-no-dashed-transitions}
\end{align}
This requires that the energy dependence of the tunnel-coupling in
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys2-rates}) is
such that $V_{\rm R}(\epsilon_1)=0$ while $V_{\rm R}(\epsilon_1+U)$ is finite,
and that $V_{\rm L}(\epsilon_1+U)=0$ while $V_{\rm L}(\epsilon_1)$ is finite.
This corresponds to neglecting the transitions marked by dashed lines in the
inset of
Fig.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys2}.
Then there are only two closed primitive trajectories which are not
self-retracing,
the first is
\begin{align}
\zeta_1 \ =\
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -2mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm L}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$1$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm M}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\rm d}$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm R}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$2$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm M}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 1mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -5.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} } \,,
\end{align}
while the second is its time-reverse, $\bar{\zeta}_1$.
For the transition
\hbox{$\raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 0}$} \hskip
-2.5mm\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -1.5mm
\raisebox{8pt}{${\scriptstyle {\rm L}}$} \hskip -1.1mm {\bm |} \hskip -1.5mm
\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 1}$}$},
the entropy change in reservoir L is $-\epsilon_1/T_0$.
For the transition
\hbox{$\raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 1}$} \hskip
-2.5mm\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -1.5mm
\raisebox{8pt}{${\scriptstyle {\rm M}}$} \hskip -1.1mm {\bm |} \hskip -1.5mm
\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle {\rm d}}$}$},
the entropy change in reservoir M is $-(\epsilon_2+U)/T_{\rm M}$.
For the transition
\hbox{$\raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle {\rm d}}$} \hskip
-2.5mm\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -1.5mm
\raisebox{8pt}{${\scriptstyle {\rm R}}$} \hskip -1.1mm {\bm |} \hskip -1.5mm
\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 2}$}$},
the entropy change in reservoir R is $(\epsilon_1+U-\mu)/T_0$.
For the transition
\hbox{$\raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 2}$} \hskip
-2.5mm\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -1.5mm
\raisebox{8pt}{${\scriptstyle {\rm M}}$} \hskip -1.1mm {\bm |} \hskip -1.5mm
\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 0}$}$},
the entropy change in reservoir M is $\epsilon_2/T_{\rm M}$.
Thus the total entropy change in the reservoirs associated with trajectory
$\zeta_1$
or $\bar{\zeta}_1$ is
\begin{align}
\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta_1) = - \Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}\left(\bar{\zeta}_1\right) =
{U-\mu \over T_0} - {U \over T_{\rm M}} \ .
\end{align}
Using section~\ref{Sect:rule-Carnot}'s rule, we conclude that the steady-state
will be Carnot efficient if
we choose the electrochemical potential of reservoir R (relative to that of reservoir
L) to obey
\begin{align}
\mu \ =\ U \left( 1- T_0/T_{\rm M} \right) \,.
\label{Eq:3-term-sys2-mu-for-Carnot}
\end{align}
Since there is only one loop in the system, we can
use the results in section~\ref{Sect:single-loop} to find the steady-state
efficiencies for heat-engines and refrigerators for arbitrary $\mu$.
For this, we take Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:single-loop-eng},\ref{Eq:single-loop-fridge}),
with two transition in the loop contributing to $\Delta Q^{\rm (heat)}_{\rm
loop}$ \green{(for heat-engines)} or
$\Delta Q^{\rm (cold)}_{\rm loop}$ \green{(for refrigerators)}, these are
\hbox{$\raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 1}$} \hskip
-2.5mm\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -1mm {\bm |} \hskip -1.5mm
\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle {\rm d}}$}$}
and
\hbox{$\raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 2}$} \hskip
-2.5mm\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -1mm {\bm |} \hskip -1.5mm
\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 0}$}$}.
Thus, we have
$\Delta Q^{\rm (heat)}_{\rm loop} =\Delta Q^{\rm (cold)}_{\rm loop} = -\epsilon_1
+(\epsilon_1+U) =U$.
The work performed around the loop comes from the transition
\hbox{$\raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle {\rm d}}$} \hskip
-2.5mm\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -1mm {\bm |} \hskip -1.5mm
\xrightarrow{\hspace*{2mm}} \hskip -2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\scriptstyle 2}$}$},
which involves reservoir R (we do not need to take reservoir L into account
because we have defined its electrochemical potential as zero). Thus, we have
$\Delta W^{\rm gen}_{\rm loop} = -\Delta W^{\rm abs}_{\rm loop}= \mu$.
Then Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:single-loop-eng},\ref{Eq:single-loop-fridge}) give,
\begin{align}
\eta_{\rm eng} = {\mu \over U} \ ,\qquad
\eta_{\rm fri} = -\,{ U \over \mu} \ ,
\label{Eq:3-term-sys2-eff-single-loop}
\end{align}
where $\mu$ is positive for the heat-engine,
and negative for the refrigerator ($U$ is always positive).
These immediately give Carnot efficiencies when we substitute
in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys2-mu-for-Carnot}).
However, the results in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys2-mu-for-Carnot},\ref{Eq:3-term-sys2-eff-single-loop})
rely on the fact that we have assumed that the couplings marked by dashed lines
in the inset of Fig.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys2} are negligible, as in
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys2-no-dashed-transitions}).
If we re-introduce these couplings, we see that
there is no longer a single-loop in the
network
of system-states. There are four other primitive closed trajectories which
are not self-retracing,
\begin{align}
\zeta_2 \ =\
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -2mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm L}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$1$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm R}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 1mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -5.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} }
\,,\qquad \qquad
\zeta_3 \ =\
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$2$}
\hskip -2mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm L}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\rm d}$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm R}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 1mm \raisebox{6pt}{$2$}
\hskip -5.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} }
\end{align}
and their time-reverse trajectories, $\bar{\zeta}_2$ and $\bar{\zeta}_3$.
One might think there are other primitive trajectories, however
we can construct them out of the above primitive closed trajectories. For
example,
\begin{align}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -2mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm L}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$1$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm M}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{${\rm d}$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm L}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 2mm \raisebox{6pt}{$2$}
\hskip -6.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{8mm}} } \hskip -2mm
\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle {\rm M}} \\ {\bm |} \\ \phantom{{\scriptstyle
L}} \end{array}
\hskip 1mm \raisebox{6pt}{$0$}
\hskip -5.5mm {\xrightarrow{\hspace*{3mm}} }
\end{align}
looks like it might be a primitive closed trajectory, but we can construct it
out of
$\zeta_1$ and $\bar{\zeta}_3$.
Following the same logic as for trajectory $\zeta_1$ above, we see that
\begin{align}
\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta_2) =-\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\bar{\zeta}_2) =
\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta_3) =-\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\bar{\zeta}_3) = - \mu\big/T_0
\ .
\end{align}
Given Eq.~(\ref{Eq:trajectory-fluct-rel}), this means that for $\mu >0$,
trajectories $\bar{\zeta}_{2}$ and $\bar{\zeta}_{3}$ are more probable than
$\zeta_2$ and $\zeta_3$, respectively. Thus, this set of trajectories leads to a net flow
electrons from
a region of high electrochemical potential (reservoir R) to one of low
electrochemical potential (reservoir L).
As such, they are parasitic processes, reducing the power generation.
Formally, one can still achieve Carnot efficiency if one chooses the system to
have
$\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1 \to 0$ and then takes $\mu=0$, so the parasitic back-flow of
electrons is negligible. Indeed it is often the case in machines with such
parasitic processes, that
the dissipation becomes negligible in the limit $\mu \to 0$.
However, this is bad for producing power, for the reasons discussed in the last
paragraph of section~\ref{Sect:3-term-sys1-before-solving}.
\subsubsection{How to solve the steady-state equation}
Taking the steady-state limit in which the left hand side of the rate
equation in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:3term-sys2-master-eqn}) is zero,
and then using the fact that $P_{\rm d} = 1-P_0-P_1-P_2$, we get three
simultaneous equations,
\begin{align}
\left(\Gamma_{20} + \Gamma_{10}\right)P^{\rm steady}_0
-\Gamma_{01} P^{\rm steady}_1 - \Gamma_{02} P^{\rm steady}_2 =&0\,,
\nonumber \\
\left(\Gamma_{1{\rm d}} - \Gamma_{10}\right)P^{\rm steady}_0
+\left(\Gamma_{1{\rm d}} + \Gamma_{\rmd1} + \Gamma_{01} \right) P^{\rm steady}_1
+ \Gamma_{1{\rm d}} P^{\rm steady}_2 =& \Gamma_{1{\rm d}} \,,
\nonumber
\\
\left(\Gamma_{2{\rm d}} - \Gamma_{20}\right)P^{\rm steady}_0
+\Gamma_{2{\rm d}} P^{\rm steady}_1
+ \left( \Gamma_{2{\rm d}}+\Gamma_{\rmd2} + \Gamma_{02} \right) P^{\rm steady}_2
=& \Gamma_{2{\rm d}} \,,
\nonumber \\
\label{Eq:3-term-sys2-simultaneous}
\end{align}
where
for compactness we have dropped the reference to the reservoirs in the rates;
however it is easy to see that $\Gamma_{20}\equiv \Gamma_{20}^{\rm (M)}$,
and $\Gamma_{d1}\equiv \Gamma_{d1}^{\rm (M)}$,
while $\Gamma_{10}\equiv \Gamma_{10}^{\rm (L)}+\Gamma_{10}^{\rm (R)}$,
and $\Gamma_{d2}\equiv \Gamma_{d2}^{\rm (L)}+ \Gamma_{d2}^{\rm (R)}$, and so
forth.
It is not difficult to solve the above set of simultaneous equations using the
standard methods,
but it is tedious. The solution are long algebraic expressions, which are hard
to simplify to something easily comprehensible.
Thus we do not proceed further with this, if the readers want
the solution, they can evaluate it themselves, or use computer algebra software
(such as Wolfram's Mathematica) to do so.
From Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:I^N}-\ref{Eq:J}) we get that
\begin{align}
J_{\rho,{L}} \ =\ -J_{\rho,{R}} \ = &\
{\cal I}^{\rm (L)\, steady}_{10} +{\cal I}^{\rm (L)\, steady}_{d2}\,,
\label{Eq:I_L-3term-sys2}
\\
J_{h,L} \ =\
J_{u,L} \ = & \
\epsilon_1 {\cal I}^{\rm (L)\, steady}_{10} + (\epsilon_1+U) {\cal I}^{\rm (L)\,
steady}_{d2}\,,
\label{Eq:J_L-3term-sys2}
\\
J_{h,M} \ = \ J_{u,M} \ =& \ \epsilon_2 \,{\cal I}^{\rm (L)\,
steady}_{20}
+ (\epsilon_2+U) {\cal I}^{\rm (L)\, steady}_{d1}\,,
\label{Eq:J_M-3term-sys2}
\end{align}
where ${\cal I}_{ba}^{(i)\, \rm steady}$ is given by
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:probability-currents})
with the occupation probabilities found by solving the simultaneous equations,
Eq.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys2-simultaneous}).
Energy conservation gives $J_{u,R} = -J_{u,L} - J_{u,M} $, so
\begin{align}
J_{h,R} &= J_{u,R} -\mu J_{\rho,{R}}
\ =\ \mu J_{\rho,{L}} - J_{h,L} - J_{h,M} \,.
\label{Eq:3-term-sys2-JR}
\end{align}
The power generated is $P_{\rm gen}= -\mu J_{\rho,{R}} =\mu J_{\rho,{L}} $.
The above results,
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys2-simultaneous}-\ref{Eq:3-term-sys2-JR}),
constitute a formal solution of the general case of this model, however one has
to
solve the simultaneous equations, Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys2-simultaneous}), to
get explicit
formulas for the currents.
Unfortunately, in the special case given by \green{Eq.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys2-no-dashed-transitions})},
which has a single loop and
was discussed in detail above, the simultaneous equations are not
simpler to solve than in the general case.
However, once one has solved them, the formulas for the currents are
significantly simpler.
The particle current is given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:I_L-3term-sys2}) with ${\cal
I}_{d2}^{\rm (L)}=0$,
its explicit form is thus
\begin{align}
J_{\rho,{L}} = -J_{\rho,{R}} = \Gamma^{\rm (L)}_{10} P_0^{\rm steady} - \Gamma^{\rm
(L)}_{01} P_1^{\rm steady}
\ .
\label{Eq:3-term-sys2-IL-single-loop}
\end{align}
Since $J_{\rho,{L}} = {\cal I}_{\rm loop}^{\rm steady}$,
as defined in section~\ref{Sect:single-loop},
we can write all currents in terms of $J_{\rho,{L}} $ by using Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:I^N+I^E-in-terms-of-I_loop}-\ref{Eq:J-in-terms-of-I_loop}).
The energy currents simplify
to $J_{u,L} = \epsilon_1 J_{\rho,{L}} $ and
$J_{u,R} = (\epsilon_1+U) J_{\rho,{R}} =-(\epsilon_1+U) J_{\rho,{L}} $.
Then since energy conservation means that
$J_{u,L} +J_{u,R} + J_{h,R} = 0$, we have
$J_{h,R} = U\, J_{\rho,{L}} $.
Thus for this special case, it is sufficient to take $P_0^{\rm steady}$ and
$P_1^{\rm steady}$ from the solution of the simultaneous equations,
Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys2-simultaneous}),
and substitute them into Eq.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys2-IL-single-loop}) to get all
particle, energy and heat currents.
\subsection{Cooling by heating}
\label{Sect:cooling-by-heating}
While the subject of this review is that of conversion between heat and work, we wish to mention
that one can also use heat directly to do refrigeration (rather than turning the heat into work, and then using that work to do refrigeration). At the macroscopic scale this is often called an absorption refrigerator.
There has been a lot of work on such {\it cooling by heating} in nanostructures and quantum systems in
recent years \cite{Geusic1959,GevaKosloff94,GevaKosloff96,pekola2007,pekola2011,pekola2012,vandenbroeck2006,vandenbroeck2012,Correa2013,Correa2014, Palao2001,popescu2010,Levy2012a,Levy2012b,popescu2011,popescu2012,fazio2013,eisert2012}.
As mentioned in section~\ref{Sect:Nernst}, a number of works have appeared that implied certain such cooling-by-heating systems could violate Nernst's unattainability principle \cite{kolvar2012-violate-Nernst,Levy2012b,vandenbroeck2012},
followed by a number of claims that it is valid
\cite{Allahverdyan2012-comment,Levy2012-comment,Cleuren-reply2012,Entin-Imry2014-comment,Masanes2014,Freitas2016}.
We will outline cooling-by-heating here, after which readers can study the works on Nernst's principle by themselves.
To perform cooling by heating, a machine must have at least three reservoirs; reservoirs 0, H and C.
Reservoir 0 is at ambient temperature $T_0$, reservoir H is hotter, $T_{\rm H}>T_0$, and reservoir C is colder,
$T_{\rm C} < T_0$.
The machine then uses the heat flow from reservoir H to reservoir 0 to ``drag'' heat out of reservoir C, even though reservoir C is colder than the other reservoirs.
There is particular interest in the minimal self-contained machine which can perform such refrigerator.
It was shown \cite{popescu2010,popescu2011,popescu2012} that a refrigerator can consist of three qubits each coupled to a thermal bath. Ref.~\cite{fazio2013} considered an electronic quantum refrigerator based on four quantum dots in contact with four thermal electronic reservoirs.
Here we outline a system similar to these but with two quantum dots in contact with three reservoirs.
A cooling by heating (cbh) machine's efficiency is
defined as the heat flow out of reservoir C (the reservoir being refrigerated) divided by the heat flow out of reservoir H (the hot reservoir, whose heat is driving the process);
so its efficiency $\eta_{\rm cbh} = J_{\rm h,C}/J_{\rm h,H}$.
The upper bound on such a machine's efficiency is given by the condition that no entropy is generated, then its efficiency is
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\rm cbh}^{\rm Carnot} = {1- T_0\big/T_{\rm H} \over T_0\big/ T_{\rm C} -1}\,.
\label{Eq:eta_cbh-Carnot}
\end{eqnarray}
It is worth noting that this Carnot efficiency is exactly the same as the efficiency of a
Carnot efficient heat engine whose power output all goes into a Carnot efficient refrigerator;
that is to say $\eta_{\rm cbh}^{\rm Carnot} = \eta_{\rm eng}^{\rm Carnot} \eta_{\rm fri}^{\rm Carnot}$.
Thus, in principle, there is no thermodynamic advantage of cooling by heating over
an ideal heat engine coupled to an ideal refrigerator.
However, in practice, each time we turn heat flows into electricity and back, we can expect sub-Carnot efficiencies,
thus there may well be situations in which cooling by heating achieves higher efficiencies than the available alternatives.
There are many proposed machines for cooling by heating, however here we limit ourselves to
pointing out that
\green{the machines considered in sections~\ref{Sect:3-term-sys1} and \ref{Sect:3-term-sys2},
(shown in Figs.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys1} and \ref{Fig:3-term-sys2})}
are capable of doing this. For example, one could have reservoir L as hot (at temperature $T_{\rm H}$)
and reservoir R as ambient (at temperature $T_0$,
so heat wants to flow from left to right. This heat flow occurs via an electron flow between reservoirs L and R,
but as we assume the reservoirs are at the same electrochemical potential this electron flow involves no work.
This heat flow can drag heat out of
\green{
the other reservoir
(reservoir ph in Fig.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys1} or reservoir M in Fig.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys2})}
even when that reservoir is at a temperature $T_{\rm C}$ colder than the other two reservoirs, $ T_{\rm C} < T_0 < T_{\rm H}$. The system can satisfy the second-law of thermodynamics
because the increase in entropy in reservoir R associated with the heat flow from L to R is larger than
the entropy reduction in the reservoir being cooled.
\green{
Consider the system shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:3-term-sys1}
in the ideal case, which obeys Eq.~(\ref{Eq:3-term-sys1-no-dashed-transitions}),
and for which there are only two primitive trajectories, $\zeta_1$ and $\bar{\zeta}_1$ (see section~\ref{Sect:3-term-sys1-before-solving}). }
In the set-up which exhibits cooling by heating, the changes in reservoir entropy associated with trajectories $\zeta_1$ and $\bar{\zeta}_1$
are
\begin{align}
\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta_1) \ =\ - \Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}\left(\bar{\zeta}_1\right) \ =\
-{\epsilon_1\over T_{\rm H}} - {\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1 \over T_{\rm C}} + {\epsilon_2 \over T_{\rm 0}}\ .
\end{align}
Using section~\ref{Sect:rule-Carnot}'s rule, we conclude that the system can achieve Carnot efficiency
if we tune $\epsilon_2$ such that $\Delta\mathscr{S}_{\rm res}(\zeta_1)=0$, which occurs when
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_2 -\epsilon_1 \ =\ {\epsilon_1 \ \big(1- T_0\big/T_{\rm H} \big)\over T_0\big/ T_{\rm C} -1}.
\label{Eq:cbh-condition-for-Carnot}
\end{eqnarray}
Since this system is a ``single-loop'' machine, we can use arguments analogous to those in
section~\ref{Sect:single-loop} to see that
the cooling-by-heating efficiency (as defined above Eq.~(\ref{Eq:eta_cbh-Carnot})), is given by
\begin{align}
\eta_{\rm cbh} \ =\ {\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1 \over \epsilon_1}\,.
\end{align}
Thus we immediately see that Eq.~(\ref{Eq:cbh-condition-for-Carnot})
does indeed imply the Carnot efficiency in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:eta_cbh-Carnot}).
The method of analysis in section \ref{Sect:single-loop}
also enables us to calculate all currents; they are given
in and below Eq.~(\ref{Eq:particle-current-special-case}).
We see that for any $(\epsilon_2 -\epsilon_1)$ with the same sign as $\epsilon_1$,
the heat current out of the hot reservoir (reservoir L)
and cold reservoir (reservoir ph) have the same sign.
Thus, so long as the hot reservoir is hot enough for the heat current out of that reservoir to be positive,
we know that the system is cooling reservoir ph (the cold reservoir).
Finally, we note that Ref.~\cite{Imry-combined-power+cooling} considered a machine
coupled to three reservoir, and pointed out that
one can make it generate power at the same time as it carries out refrigeration.
This is easily seen in the context of the above model,
where the heat current between the electron reservoirs (L and R) is associated with a
charge current between these reservoirs (again the currents are given in
and below Eq.~(\ref{Eq:particle-current-special-case})).
If the machine has $\epsilon_1 >0$, then cooling by heating is associated with an electron flow from left to right.
Thus, if we raise the electrochemical potential of the right reservoir, the machine will be generating electrical power
at the same time as cooling the cold reservoir of photons.
However, one can see that the machine's cooling power goes down as its power generation goes up.
The authors of
Ref.~\cite{Imry-combined-power+cooling} studied the thermodynamics of such models.
They showed that one can play with the ratio between the two effects to enhance the overall efficiency by tuning the system towards the more efficient process; either power generation (if the cold reservoir is so cold that refrigerating it is inefficient) or refrigeration (if the cold reservoir is close to the ambient temperature).
\subsection{\green{Cold engines and a specific type of Maxwell demon}}
\green{
Instead of having a heat-source as the resource that is used to produce work, one could consider
a cold-source at temperature $T_{\rm C}$ (below ambient temperature) as the resource. A rather impractical illustration of this would be if
one brought a block of ice down from a glacier to somewhere on the equator, so it could be used as a cold-source for power production, (instead of extracting coal and burning it to make a heat-source for power production).
Then what matters is how much work you can get for a given flow of heat into the cold-source,
since that heat flow will eventually deplete the resource (the cold-source).
Hence, a natural definition of efficiency would be power generated, $P_{\rm gen}$ divided by heat current into the cold source, $J_{\rm h,C}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\rm cold\,eng} = {P_{\rm gen} \over J_{\rm h,C}} \ .
\end{eqnarray}
In this case, it is easy to see that the laws of thermodynamics tell us that this efficiency must always be less than
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta^{\rm Carnot}_{\rm cold-eng} = {T_{\rm H} \over T_{\rm C}} -1 \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where now the ``hot'' reservoir is simply at ambient temperature, which we still call $T_{\rm H}$ because it is
hotter than the cold source.
This efficiency can be larger than one (much like the coefficient of performance a refrigerator can be greater than one).
Indeed this efficiency goes to infinity in the limit that the cold source's temperature goes to absolute zero.
This means that the laws of thermodynamics allow a machine to generate work
due to its coupled to a reservoir at absolute zero, even if the heat flow into that reservoir is vanishingly small.
}
\green{
An example of this was considered in Ref.~\cite{Esposito-Maxwell-demon}, which considered a system the same as in our section~\ref{Sect:3-term-sys2} but with a cold reservoir in place of the hot one.
They show that it is a physical implementation of a Maxwell demon. Yet at the same time, it is clear that
there is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics once one realizes that the implementation of the demon requires a zero-temperature reservoir. Ref.~\cite{Henriet2015} is a similar work on a different system, which shows that a zero-temperature reservoir (i.e.a reservoir which exhibits vacuum fluctuations but no thermal fluctuations) can break the symmetry between two others reservoirs (left and right) both at a finite temperature, $T_{\rm H}$,
and thereby cause a net current flow from left to right.
}
\green{There are, of course, many other types of Maxwell demon, however most of them do not operate in the steady-state
(unlike \cite{Esposito-Maxwell-demon,Henriet2015}).
They are beyond the scope of this review, and we refer the reader to
Refs.~\cite{lloyd97,kieu04,kieu06,quan06,sagawa08,nori09,zhou10,Cottet2017}.
}
\section{Other steady-state machines}
\label{Sect:other-steady-state}
\subsection{Heat engine with blowtorch effect}
\label{sec:blowtorch}
B\"{u}ttiker and Landauer's motor \cite{buttiker87,landauer88,vankampen} is a rather different example of a heat engine from those treated in the previous chapters. In this example, a particle is trapped in a periodic potential $V(x)$ and subject to a spatially periodic temperature profile. This situation is analyzed using the Langevin dynamics where the particle is alternately in contact, along the spatial coordinate, to thermal baths at different temperatures, see Fig.~\ref{blowtorch-engine}. The equation of motion
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
m \ddot{x} = -\gamma(x) \dot{x} -V'(x) - f + \sqrt{2\gamma(x) T(x)} \, \xi (t) ,
\label{BLdynamics}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\gamma(x)$ is the coefficient of a viscous friction, $f$ is the external force, and $\xi $ is a white Gaussian noise satisfying $\langle \xi (t) \xi(t' )\rangle =\delta (t-t')$. We assume that the potential and temperature depend on the position and are periodic with the period $L$, with the following
dependence on the position:
\begin{eqnarray}
(T(x), \gamma (x)) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(T_H , \gamma_{H}), & 0 \le x < {L\over 2} \, , \\
(T_C , \gamma_{C}), & {L\over 2} \le x < L \, , \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
where $T_H>T_C$. A schematic picture for the potential and temperature is presented in Fig.~\ref{blowtorch-engine}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{fig-blowtorch.pdf}}
\caption{Schematic picture of the
B\"{u}ttiker-Landauer's heat engine. The temperature is a periodic function of $x$, taking the value
$T_H$ for $0\le x<L/2$ and $T_C$ for
$L/2\le x<{L}$}
\label{blowtorch-engine}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Landauer showed the physical significance of nonuniform temperature in changing the relative
stability of otherwise locally stable states \cite{landauer88}. He called this phenomenon the
blowtorch effect, since some regions are elevated to higher
temperatures (the region $0\le x<\frac{L}{2}$ in Fig.~\ref{blowtorch-engine}).
The BL motor has no time-dependent parameters, and hence it is categorized as a steady state engine,
and may be regarded as an extreme case in the thermoelectric transport where all parts of the system are attached to reservoirs.
The energetics and transport properties of the B\"{u}ttiker-Landauer motor have been studied by many authors.
Periodic temperature with a periodic potential induces a net transport of Brownian particles \cite{buttiker87,landauer88,parrondo02}. In the hot region a Brownian particle can move more easily than in the cold region. Hence, a finite net current is generated.
The average work \green{generated} by the particle per unit time is
$\dot{W}=f \langle \dot{x}\rangle$, \green{where the dot indicates a time-derivative, and the average is over all $x$. }
Then the efficiency $\eta =\dot{W}/\dot{Q}_H$, where $\dot{Q}_H$ is the heat supply (per unit time) from the hot region, evaluated as (see \cite{sekimoto}) $\dot{Q}_H = \langle (-\gamma_H \dot{x} + \sqrt{ 2\gamma_H T_H} \xi (t) ) \dot{x} \rangle$, where the average is taken {\it only} over the hot regions ($0\le x < L/2$, etc).
The overdamped limit for this model is problematic since temperature depends on the position. It has been discussed in the literature that a naive calculation neglecting the inertial term in the Langevin equation (i.e., $\ddot{x}\to 0$ in Eq.~(\ref{BLdynamics})) is not justified \cite{sancho}. The overdamped Langevin equation is instead given by $\gamma (x) \dot{x} = -V' (x) -f + \sqrt{2 T(x) \gamma (x)} \xi (t) - (2 \gamma (x))^{-1}(d/dx)\left[ T(x) \gamma (x) \right]$, and one can derive \cite{sancho} the Fokker-Planck equation
\begin{eqnarray}
{\partial P(x,t) \over \partial t}
= {\partial \over \partial x}
\left\{ {1\over \gamma (x) } \left[ V' (x) + f +{\partial \over \partial x} T(x) \right]
\right\} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
From this equation, one can obtain the net current and show that the efficiency can reach the Carnot efficiency \cite{matsuo.sasa00,asfaw04,asfaw07}. However, it was pointed out that reaching the Carnot efficiency may be problematic due to the abrupt change of temperature at the boundaries between hot and cold regions \cite{astumian99,hs00,ai05,ai06}. Indeed recent first principle calculations using molecular dynamics simulations showed a thermodynamic efficiency much lower than
the Carnot efficiency \cite{benjamin.kawai08}, thus supporting the
unattainability
of the Carnot efficiency.
Brownian motors driven by temporal rather than spatial temperature oscillations are discussed in \cite{hanggiPLA}, where the potential has broken spatial symmetry (``ratchet'' potential). The constructive role of Brownian motion for various physical and technological setups is reviewed in \cite{marchesoni}.
\subsection{Photonic heat engines}
\label{sec:photonic}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{maser.pdf}}
\caption{A schematic picture of a three-level maser, which is an ideal model to understand the connection to heat engines.}
\label{3maser}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Quantum mechanics and thermodynamics have a deep connection, whose investigation started from thermodynamic studies by Planck \cite{planck01} and Einstein \cite{einstein17}.
The understanding of black-body radiation was a milestone in this context. Nowadays photonic heat engines such as cavity maser systems attract much attention, since quantum effects are anticipated in their working.
Models of lasers and masers can be understood as quantum heat engines in several situations \cite{scovil59}. We follow the idealized model introduced by Scovil and Shulz-DuBois \cite{scovil59} to show the deep connection between the quantum efficiency of the maser and the Carnot cycle. Their system is somewhat similar to the thermoelectric transport in the sense that the model is categorized into the steady state heat engines without time-dependent parameters. We consider an atom with three levels which enters an optical cavity attached to thermal reservoirs,
see the three-level maser depicted in Fig.~\ref{3maser}. The energy gap between states $1$ and $3$ is $h \nu_p$ ($p$ stands for ``pump'') and the transitions between these two states are driven only by the hot reservoir with the temperature $T_H$. The energy gap between states $2$ and $3$ is $h \nu_i$
($i$ stands for ``idler'') and the transitions between these states can be induced only by the cold reservoir with the temperature $T_C$. Then state $2$ relaxes to state $1$ by emitting a photon of frequency $\nu_s$ ($\nu_s = \nu_p - \nu_i$, where $s$ stands for ``signal''). For each quantum $h\nu_p$ supplied by the hot
reservoir, an amount of energy equal to $h\nu_i$ goes to the cold reservoir.
Let $n_{i}$ be the population of the $i$-th state. Then, for the maser operation, namely to extract quanta at energy $h \nu_s$, population inversion between $n_1$ and $n_2$ is necessary, i.e., we need $n_2 \gg n_1$. The efficiency of this
ideal maser setup is defined as the ratio between the extracted energy and
the energy supplied by the hot reservoir:
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_M = \nu_s / \nu_p \, .
\end{eqnarray}
From the Boltzmann factors, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
{n_2 \over n_1} = \exp \left( {h\nu_i \over k_B T_C} - {h \nu_p \over k_B T_H}\right) \, .
\end{eqnarray}
After rearrangement, this becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
{n_2 \over n_1} = \exp \left[ {h\nu_s \over k_B T_C} \left( {\eta_C\over \eta_M} - 1\right) \right] \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Taking into account the request of population inversion, $n_2 \gg n_1$,
we find the condition for maser action:
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_M \ll \eta_C \, .
\end{eqnarray}
This shows the deep connection between the maser operation and
thermodynamics.
The Carnot efficiency is obtained at the verge of population inversion,
namely for $n_2/n_1\to 1$, and in this limit the extracted power vanishes.
\red{The above description of a three-level maser is
essentially based on a static quasi-equilibrium viewpoint, where operations
are infinitely slow and the output power vanishes. On the other hand,
engines operate far from the quasi-static limit in order to produce power.
It is therefore necessary to describe finite-time dynamical processes
and this is possible in simple quantum models where few-level systems are coupled to reservoirs
and the system's dynamics is described via a Markovian (Lindblad) master equation.
These models reproduce generic features of heat engines, in that finite power can
be extracted, but heat leaks to the baths always impose efficiencies smaller than
the Carnot efficiency, see Ref.~\cite{Kosloff-Levy2014} for a review.}
Triggered by this pioneering study of Scovil and Shulz-DuBois, a lot of efforts have been devoted to finding quantum effects in photonic quantum heat engines.
In particular, the role of engineered nonequilibrium
distributions for the reservoirs
was investigated \cite{scully02,scully03,scully10,lutz2014,parrondo2016}.
Note that in this case one can overcome the Carnot limit but
this should not be considered surprising since we have nonequilibrium
distributions for the reservoirs.
Moreover, the energy cost to engineer
such distributions should also be taken into account when
evaluating the overall efficiency of a heat engine.
It is interesting to remark that the photosynthetic reaction center
has been interpreted as a quantum heat engine \cite{dorfman13},
thus suggesting an important intersection between physics and biology.
\subsubsection{\green{Superconductor-based quantum heat-engine and refrigerators}}
\green{
Another promising direction is to consider a Josephson junction coupled to two microwave cavities;
one coupled to a reservoir of hot photons and the other coupled to a reservoir of cold photons.
The temperature difference can be used to perform photon-assisted Cooper pair tunnelling across the Josephson junction against a potential difference (thereby generating electrical work) \cite{Hofer-Clerk2016}.
Alternatively, one can use the potential difference to drive photon-assisted Cooper-pair tunnelling,
in a manner that extracts photons from the cold photonic reservoir, thereby cooling it down
\cite{Hofer2016b}. Refs.~\cite{Hofer-Clerk2016,Hofer2016b} used $P(E)$-theory \cite{Ingold-Nazarov} and numerical modelling in the rotating wave approximation
to predict that such a device can reach Carnot efficiency (assuming no flow of photons directly from the hot reservoir to the cold one), but explicitly shows how
the power output vanishes as this efficiency is approached.
}
\section{Acknowledgements}
We would like to express our gratitude to
V. Balachandran,
R. Bosisio,
K. Brandner,
M. B\"uttiker,
S. Chen,
R. Fazio,
V. Giovannetti,
C. Goupil,
F. Haupt,
M. Horvat,
Ph. Jacquod,
F. Mazza,
C. Mej\'{\i}a-Monasterio,
H. Ouerdane,
T. Prosen,
R. S\'anchez,
U. Seifert,
J. Splettstoesser,
G. Strini,
F. Taddei,
S. Valentini,
and
J. Wang,
with whom we have had the pleasure of collaborating on the topics discussed in this review paper.
\green{We thank P.~Hofer, B.~Sothmann, R.~Uzdin and an anonymous referee for comments that greatly improved this review.}
G.B. and G.C. acknowledge the support of the MIUR-PRIN.
G.B. acknowledges the financial support of the INFN through the project ``QUANTUM''.
K.S was supported by JSPS KAKENHI; grant numbers JP25103003 and JP26400404.
R.W. acknowledges the financial support of the COST Action MP1209 ``Thermodynamics in the quantum regime'' and the CNRS PEPS Energie grant ``ICARE''.
|
\section{Introduction}
Fast oscillating external drivings have become an important tool to manipulate quantum phases of matter.
By irradiating intense laser lights to solid state systems \cite{Oka2009,Lindner2011,Kitagawa2011} or shaking optical lattices in ultracold atomic systems \cite{Linger2007,Struck2011,Aidelsburger2013a,Aidelsburger2013b,Miyake2013,Aidelsburger2015}
we can realize novel properties of matter which the system does not have before applying external drivings, and these phenomena have been observed experimentally.
Among various intriguing topics, long time dynamics of periodically driven quantum systems has attracted particular attention in condensed matter physics.
Theoretical treatments of periodically driven systems rely on the Floquet theory which ensures that the long time dynamics can be described by the static effective Hamiltonian \cite{Shirley1965,Sambe1973}.
However, this fact does not necessarily lead to the equivalence between the properties of the long time asymptotic state and the thermodynamic properties of the effective Hamiltonian.
Recently, the essential feature of periodically driven {\it isolated systems} has been revealed \cite{Lazarides2014a,DAlessio2013,Lazarides2014b,Ponte2015,Abanin2015a,Abanin2015b,Abanin2015c,Mori2016,Mori2015a,Bukov2015,Kuwahara2016,Das2010,Bhattacharyya2012,Hegde2014}; it has been shown that while integrable systems can be described by the time-periodic generalized Gibbs state \cite{Lazarides2014a}, nonintegrable systems heat up and show infinite temperature behaviors after a long time \cite{DAlessio2013,Lazarides2014b,Ponte2015}.
Further studies have also shown that the energy absorption rate is exponentially small in the high frequency regime of the external driving \cite{Abanin2015a,Abanin2015b,Abanin2015c,Mori2016}.
In spite of these intensive studies, there still remain fundamental problems in periodically driven quantum systems.
In particular, {\it open quantum systems} in which the system under consideration is coupled to a thermal bath have been investigated extensively \cite{Kohler1997,Breuer2000,Kohn2001,Hone2009,Ketzmerick2010,Iadecola2013,Langemeyer2014,Iadecola2015a,Iadecola2015b,Shirai2015a,Liu2015,Seetharam2015,Dehghani2014}.
However, general properties common to periodically driven open systems have not been understood well.
Without external driving, the detailed balance condition ensures that the asymptotic state of the system can be described by the Gibbs state.
On the other hand, when the external time periodic driving is applied, the detailed balance condition is not fulfilled, and therefore the asymptotic state cannot be described by the Gibbs distribution of the effective Hamiltonian (Floquet Gibbs state) and depends on the details of the reservoir in general.
It has been shown that if certain special conditions are satisfied, the detailed balance condition is fulfilled and therefore the long time asymptotic state of periodically driven open quantum systems can be described by the Floquet Gibbs state \cite{Shirai2015a,Liu2015,Iadecola2015a}.
However, these conditions require fine tuning of the system-reservoir coupling, and cannot be applied for generic cases.
In addition, these studies have treated the weak system-reservoir coupling limit, and thus the effect of finite dissipation has not been taken into account.
Recent study by Shirai {\it et al.} \cite{Shirai2016} has shown numerically that the conditions obtained in the paper \cite{Shirai2015a} can be relaxed, but their analysis still requires another fine tuning for external field.
Therefore it is desirable to understand general properties expected for periodically driven open quantum systems, which are not specific to the special models.
In this paper, we explore some generic properties of the periodically driven open free fermionic systems, which are independent of the details of the reservoir, and also clarify the effect of finite dissipation.
Our results reveal that
low-energy properties of long time asymptotic states are generally described by those of the Floquet Gibbs state if the frequency of the external driving is much larger than the energy cutoff of the system-reservoir coupling.
We also find that excitations cannot be suppressed by simply rendering the system-reservoir coupling stronger.
These facts demonstrate that in order to obtain the equilibrium properties of a Floquet effective Hamiltonian in open quantum systems, we need high frequency external drivings whose frequency exceeds the energy cutoff of the system-reservoir coupling.
In the next section, we show the model considered in this paper and derive the equation of motion of the system.
We investigate the long time asymptotic state of the system in the weak system-reservoir coupling limit in Sec. \ref{Sec_WeakCouplingLimit},
then we discuss the effect of finite system-reservoir coupling in Sec. \ref{Sec_FiniteCoupling}.
A summary of our results is presented in Sec. \ref{Sec_Summary}.
\section{Setup}
Let us start with a setup of our system.
The total Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{equation}
H_{\text{tot}}(t)=H_{S}(t)+H_{R}+H_{I},
\end{equation}
where $H_{S}(t)$ and $H_{R}$ are the Hamiltonian of the system and the reservoir, and $H_{I}$ represents the interaction between them.
The Hamiltonian of the system is bilinear $H_{S}(t)=\sum_{\alpha,\beta}H_{\alpha\beta}(t)a^{\dagger}_{\alpha}a_{\beta}$, where $a_{\alpha}$ is an annihilation operator of a fermion in the system.
The time dependent matrix $H_{\alpha\beta}(t)$ has a period of $\tau$: $H_{\alpha\beta}(t+\tau)=H_{\alpha\beta}(t)$ and the degree of freedom of the system is finite.
We take the reservoir as a fermionic bath $H_{R}=\sum_{k}\epsilon_{k}A^{\dagger}_{k}A_{k}$, and consider the continuum limit $\sum_{k}\frac{2\pi}{L}F(\epsilon_{k})=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\epsilon D(\epsilon)F(\epsilon)$, where $D(\epsilon)$ is the density of states of the reservoir and $F(\epsilon)$ is an arbitrary function.
The initial state of the reservoir is the equilibrium state with the temperature $T$ and the chemical potential $\mu$, that is, $\braket{A^{\dagger}_{k}A_{k}}=f_{T}(\epsilon_{k}-\mu)$, where $f_{T}(\omega)=1/(e^{\omega/T}+1)$ is the Fermi distribution function.
Without loss of generality, the chemical potential $\mu$ can be taken as zero.
The system-reservoir coupling, which controls the exchange of particles as well as energy, is assumed to be bilinear $H_{I}=\sum_{k,\alpha}(\lambda_{k,\alpha}A^{\dagger}_{k}a_{\alpha}+h.c.)/\sqrt{L}$.
The Heisenberg equation of the total system reads
\begin{align}
&i\frac{d}{dt}A_{k}(t)=\epsilon_{k}A_{k}(t)+\sum_{\alpha}\frac{\lambda_{k,\alpha}}{\sqrt{L}}a_{\alpha}(t)\label{Eq_ReservoirEOM}\\
&i\frac{d}{dt}a_{\alpha}(t)=\sum_{\beta}H_{\alpha\beta}(t)a_{\beta}(t)+\sum_{k}\frac{\lambda_{k,\alpha}^{\ast}}{\sqrt{L}}A_{k}(t)\label{Eq_SystemEOM}.
\end{align}
Integrating eq. (\ref{Eq_ReservoirEOM}) and substituting into eq. (\ref{Eq_SystemEOM}), we have a closed form of the equation of motion for the system:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
i\frac{d}{dt}a_{\alpha}(t)=&\sum_{\beta}H_{\alpha\beta}(t)a_{\beta}(t)\\&-i\sum_{\beta}\int_{0}^{t}dt^{\prime}\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}(t^{\prime})a_{\beta}(t-t^{\prime})+i\xi_{\alpha}(t),\label{Eq_SystemClosedEOM}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}(t)=\sum_{k}\frac{\lambda_{k,\alpha}^{\ast}\lambda_{k,\beta}}{L}e^{-i\epsilon_{k}t}=\int\tilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha\beta}(\omega)e^{-i\omega t}d\omega$ and $\xi_{\alpha}(t)=-i\sum_{k}\frac{\lambda_{k,\alpha}^{\ast}}{\sqrt{L}}e^{-i\epsilon_{k}t}A_{k}$.
In addition to the unitary time evolution by the Hamiltonian $H_{\alpha\beta}(t)$, eq. (\ref{Eq_SystemClosedEOM}) contains the dissipation term $\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}(t)$ and the noise term $\xi_{\alpha}(t)$.
\section{Results for weak system-reservoir coupling limit}\label{Sec_WeakCouplingLimit}
\subsection{Derivation of long time asymptotic states in the weak system-reservoir coupling limit}
From now on, we write the time periodic matrix $H_{\alpha\beta}(t)$ as $[H(t)]_{\alpha\beta}$.
We here make use of Floquet theorem to treat the time dependence in eq. (\ref{Eq_SystemClosedEOM}). Floquet theorem ensures the existence of a time periodic unitary transformation $W_{\alpha\beta}(t)=W_{\alpha\beta}(t+\tau)$ which eliminates the periodic time dependence of the Hamiltonian $H_{\alpha\beta}(t)$:
\begin{equation}
H^{\text{eff}}=W^{\dagger}(t)H(t)W(t)-W^{\dagger}(t)i\frac{d}{dt}W(t).
\end{equation}
Diagonalize the effective Hamiltonian $H^{\text{eff}}$ by a unitary transformation $V$ and define an annihilation operator of the Floquet state, $c_{\alpha}(t)=\sum_{\beta}U^{\dagger}_{\alpha\beta}(t)a_{\beta}(t)$, where $U(t)=W(t)V$.
Then the equation of motion of the Floquet state follows from eq. (\ref{Eq_SystemClosedEOM}),
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&i\frac{d}{dt}c_{\alpha}(t)=\epsilon_{\alpha}c_{\alpha}(t)+i\eta_{\alpha}(t)\\
&-i\sum_{\beta}\sum_{n,m\in\mathbb{Z}}e^{-i(n-m)\Omega t}\int_{0}^{t}dt^{\prime}\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{nm}(t^{\prime})e^{-im\Omega t^{\prime}}c_{\beta}(t-t^{\prime}),\label{Eq_FloquetEOM}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\eta_{\alpha}(t)=\sum_{\beta}U^{\dagger}_{\alpha\beta}(t)\xi_{\beta}(t)$, $\Omega=2\pi/\tau$ and $\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{nm}(t)=[U^{(n)\dagger}\Gamma(t)U^{(m)}]_{\alpha\beta}$.
$\epsilon_{\alpha}$ is an eigenvalue of the effective Hamiltonian $H^{\text{eff}}$ and $U^{(n)}=\int_{0}^{\tau}U(t)e^{in\Omega{t}}dt/\tau$
Let us now consider eq. (\ref{Eq_FloquetEOM}) in the weak coupling limit of the system-reservoir coupling (van Hove limit \cite{VanHove1955}), as done in many of the previous papers \cite{Shirai2015a,Liu2015,Iadecola2015a}.
In this limit, the time evolution of the system of interest follows the Markovian quantum master equation.
Here, we assume the conditions of nondegeneracy and nonresonance ($\epsilon_{\alpha}-\epsilon_{\beta}+n\Omega=0 \Leftrightarrow \alpha=\beta,\ n=0$).
Then define the dissipation rate by $\gamma :=\int_{0}^{\infty} \Gamma(t)dt$ and take the limit of $\lim_{\gamma t\rightarrow \infty}\lim_{\gamma/(\epsilon_{\alpha}-\epsilon_{\beta}+n\Omega)\rightarrow 0}$,
that is, take the weak system-reservoir coupling limit $\gamma/(\epsilon_{\alpha}-\epsilon_{\beta}+n\Omega)\rightarrow 0$ ($\alpha\neq\beta$) first, then take the long time limit $\gamma t\rightarrow \infty$.
In this limit, only the diagonal part of the dissipation term $\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{nm}(t)$ ($\alpha=\beta$, $n=m$) contributes to the results and eq. (\ref{Eq_FloquetEOM}) can be solved as
\begin{equation}
c_{\alpha}(t)=\sum_{k,\beta}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\frac{U^{(n)\dagger}_{\alpha\beta}(\lambda_{k,\beta})^{\ast}e^{-i(\epsilon_{k}-n\Omega)t}}{\epsilon_{k}-\epsilon_{\alpha}^{(n)}+i\Gamma_{\alpha}^{\prime}(n\Omega-\epsilon_{k})}A_{k}, \label{Eq_SolutionOfEOM}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma_{\alpha}^{\prime}(\omega)=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\int_{0}^{\infty}dt\Gamma_{\alpha\alpha}^{nn}(t)e^{i(\omega-n\Omega)t}$ and $\epsilon_{\alpha}^{(n)}=\epsilon_{\alpha}+n\Omega$.
Consequently, we end up with the simple expression for the occupation number of the Floquet state,
\begin{equation}
\braket{c^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(t)c_{\alpha}(t)}=\frac{\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\Gamma_{\alpha}^{n}f_{T}(\epsilon_{\alpha}+n\Omega)}{\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\Gamma_{\alpha}^{n}},\label{Eq_FlouetOccupationNum}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma^{n}_{\alpha}=[U^{(n)\dagger}\tilde{\Gamma}(\epsilon_{\alpha}^{(n)})U^{(n)}]_{\alpha\alpha}$ (for the details of the calculation, see the Appendix \ref{appendix_a}).
The occupation number of the Floquet state is time independent.
The similar expression can be obtained for the time correlation functions.
We can easily extend this formula to the multiple reservoirs cases, and in the two reservoirs case, our result is reduced to the one obtained by Iadecola and Chamon\cite{Iadecola2015a}.
Obviously, eq. (\ref{Eq_FlouetOccupationNum}) is different from the occupation number obtained for the Floquet Gibbs state in general.
The expression (\ref{Eq_FlouetOccupationNum}) allows us to regard the driven system as a sum of infinite number of bands \cite{Tien1963} which are shifted by $n\Omega$ because there is a sum of the Fermi distribution functions in the numerator and each Fermi distribution function is shifted by $n\Omega$ in eq. (\ref{Eq_FlouetOccupationNum}).
We call the shifted band as the $n$th sideband.
The contribution from the $n$th sideband to the occupation number is determined by the weight $w_{\alpha}^{n}=\Gamma_{\alpha}^{n}/\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}\Gamma_{\alpha}^{m}$.
This expression is invariant under the gauge transformation $G(t)=\exp[iN\Omega t], N_{\alpha\beta}=n_{\alpha}\delta_{\alpha\beta}\ (n_{\alpha}\in\mathbb{Z})$ which transforms $\epsilon_{\alpha}$ and $\Gamma^{n}_{\alpha}$ into $\epsilon_{\alpha}+n_{\alpha}\Omega$ and $\Gamma^{n+n_{\alpha}}_{\alpha}$.
We here examine, in the light of eq. (\ref{Eq_FlouetOccupationNum}), what is meant by the previously proposed special conditions for the emergence of the Floquet Gibbs state \cite{Shirai2015a,Liu2015,Iadecola2015a}. If those conditions are applied for our results, only the $0$th band contributes to the occupation number, that is, $w_{\alpha}^{n}=0$ for $n\neq 0$, and
thereby the system is indeed described by the Floquet Gibbs state rigorously $\braket{c^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(t)c_{\alpha}(t)}=f_{T}(\epsilon_{\alpha})$.
This means that the $0$th band describes the Floquet Gibbs state while the other sidebands describe the deviation from the Floquet Gibbs state.
When we can apply the Magnus expansion \cite{Magnus1954,Blanes2009} to obtain the quasi-energy spectrum, $U^{(n)}=O((A/\Omega)^{n})$, the deviation from the Floquet Gibbs state is $O((A/\Omega)^2)$, where $A$ is the amplitude of the external driving.
In our expression the conditions for the emergence of the Floquet Gibbs state can be written as $[U^{(n)\dagger}\tilde{\Gamma}(\omega)U^{(n)}]_{\alpha\alpha}=0$ for $n\neq 0$.
\subsection{Generic properties of the system in the high frequency regime of the external field}
We are now ready to extract general properties of the long time asymptotic state from eq. (\ref{Eq_FlouetOccupationNum}) in the high frequency regime.
We show below that the low-energy properties are equivalent to those of the Floquet Gibbs state if the frequency of the external driving is much larger than the energy cutoff of the system-reservoir coupling $\omega_{c}$.
The low-energy means the energy shell of $|\epsilon| < \omega_{c}$ because the system is coupled to a reservoir whose chemical potential is taken as zero. In other words, the chemical potential plays a role as the origin of the energy.
Then, we take the quasi-energy spectrum as $-\Omega/2 \leq \epsilon_{\alpha} < \Omega/2$, and these definitions, we obtain the result mentioned above.
We introduce the energy cutoff of the system-reservoir coupling $\omega_{c}$ (or equivalently energy cutoff of the reservoir) such that $|\tilde{\Gamma}(E)|/|\tilde{\Gamma}(\epsilon)|=O(\omega_{c}/E)$, where $|\epsilon| < \omega_{c}$ and $|E|\gg\omega_{c}$.
This means that the coupling between the system and the states with energy $\omega$ in the reservoir is cut off by $\omega_{c}$ smoothly because $\tilde{\Gamma}(\omega)$ determines the coupling strength between the system and the states with energy $\omega$ in the reservoir.
We consider the case where the frequency of the external driving is much larger than the energy cutoff of the system-reservoir coupling $\Omega \gg \omega_{c}$.
We then classify the Floquet states into two regions;
(i) states with $|\epsilon_{\alpha}|<\omega_{c}$,
(ii) the other states, i.e. states with $|\epsilon_{\alpha}|\geq \omega_{c}$.
In this case, if $U^{(0)} \gtrsim U^{(n\neq 0)}$ is satisfied, the occupation number of the Floquet states in the region (i) is written as
\begin{equation}
\braket{c^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(t)c_{\alpha}(t)}=f_{T}(\epsilon_{\alpha})+O(\omega_{c}/\Omega). \label{Eq_ApploxOccupationNum}
\end{equation}
This is because the contribution from the $n$th sideband is written as $\Gamma_{\alpha}^{n}=[U^{(n)\dagger}\Gamma(\epsilon_{\alpha}+n\Omega)U^{(n)}]_{\alpha\alpha}$ and $|\Gamma(\epsilon_{\alpha})|/\Gamma(\epsilon_{\alpha}+n\Omega)|=O(\omega_{c}/\Omega)$.
When we can apply Magnus expansion to obtain the quasi-energy spectrum, $U^{(n)}$ is obtained as $U^{(n)}=O((A/\Omega)^{n_{0}+n})+O((\Delta/\Omega)^{n_{0}+n})$, where $A$ is the amplitude of the external field and $\Delta$ is the band width of the system.
If the energy spectrum of the system without the external field lies in the range from $(N-1/2)\Omega$ to $(N+1/2)\Omega$, we have $n_{0}=N$.
Therefore, if the chemical potential of the reservoir lies in the energy spectrum of the system, $U^{(0)}\gtrsim U^{(n\neq 0)}$ is satisfied and the occupation number of the Floquet states in the region (i) is written as eq. (\ref{Eq_ApploxOccupationNum}).
We can show similar results for the case where we need a time periodic unitary transformation in order to apply Magnus expansion. This case includes the resonant driving cases and the $A \gtrsim \Omega$ cases such as the system for which the dynamical localization occurs.
In this case, $U(t)$ is written by the product of two time periodic unitary transformations $U(t)=V(t)W(t)$. $V(t)$ transforms the original time periodic Hamiltonian into the form to which the Magnus expansion is applicable.
In the resonant driving cases, $V(t)$ eliminates the resonance and in the dynamical localization case, $V(t)=\exp[-i\int_{0}^{t}H_{\text{ext}}(\tau)d\tau]$. After applying this unitary transformation $V(t)$, we can apply Magnus expansion, and thereby $W^{(n)}=O((\Delta/\Omega)^n)$ and $U^{(n)}=V^{(n)}+O(\Delta/\Omega)$, where $\Delta$ is bandwidth of the system after applying the time-periodic unitary transformation $V(t)$.
Therefore, if $|V^{(0)}|\gtrsim |V^{(n\neq 0)}|$ (this is satisfied in the resonant driving cases and the dynamical localization case) is satisfied, the Floquet states in the region (i) is written by eq. (\ref{Eq_ApploxOccupationNum}).
Above discussion does not depend on the details of the reservoir. However, the occupation number of states in the region (ii) depends on the details of the reservoir in general and we cannot extract the properties which are independent of the details of the reservoir.
From these observations, we come to the conclusion that the occupation number of states in the region (i) which controls the low-energy properties of the system is given by that of the Floquet Gibbs state when the frequency of the external driving is much larger than the energy cutoff of the system-reservoir coupling.
The same thing can be also proven for the time correlation functions.
Therefore, in order to obtain the low-energy properties of the Floquet Gibbs state, we merely need high frequency external drivings so that the frequency exceeds the energy cutoff of the system-reservoir coupling.
Fine tuning of the system-reservoir coupling, which was required for the previous treatments \cite{Shirai2015a,Liu2015,Iadecola2015a}, is not necessary in this case.
Our results are consistent with the numerical results by Shirai {\it et al.} \cite{Shirai2016} and do not require the special condition which Shirai {\it et al.} \cite{Shirai2016} assumed.
\subsection{Example}
Here, we show an example of the model we discussed above.
We consider the following fermionic toy model:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&H_{\text{S}}(t)=\sum_{\alpha}H_{\alpha}(t)\\
&\begin{aligned}
H_{\alpha}(t)=(E_{\alpha}+\Omega)&a^{\dagger}_{\alpha,1}a_{\alpha,1}+E_{\alpha}a^{\dagger}_{\alpha,2}a_{\alpha,2}\\
&+\Delta(e^{-i\Omega t+i\theta}a^{\dagger}_{\alpha,1}a_{\alpha,2}+h.c.)
\end{aligned}
\end{aligned}\label{Eq_RabiExample}
\end{equation}
In this example, we can eliminate the time dependence of the Hamiltonian by the time-periodic unitary transformation $W(t)=\prod_{\alpha} \exp[i\Omega n_{\alpha,1} t]$.
The quasi-energy of the system is given by $\epsilon_{\alpha,\pm}=E_{\alpha}\pm\Delta$, and the contribution from the $n$th sideband can be obtained as follows:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{\alpha,\pm}^{n}=\begin{cases}
D(\epsilon_{\alpha,\pm})|\lambda_{\alpha,2}(\epsilon_{\alpha,\pm})|^{2} /4\pi & n=0\\
D(\epsilon_{\alpha,\pm})|\lambda_{\alpha,1}(\epsilon_{\alpha,\pm})|^{2} /4\pi & n=-1\\
0 & n\neq 0,-1.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Because $W(t)$ only contains $n=0,-1$ Fourier components, there are no contributions from sidebands except for $n=0,-1$ sidebands.
We consider the case where the system-reservoir coupling is independent of the index $j$ (i.e. $\lambda_{\alpha,j}(\omega)=\lambda_{\alpha}(\omega)$) and $D(\omega)\lambda_{\alpha}(\omega)=C_{\alpha}\exp[-(\omega/\omega_{c})^2]$, where $\omega_{c}$ is the energy cutoff of the system-reservoir coupling.
The occupation number of the Floquet states $c_{\alpha,\pm}=(a_{\alpha,1}\pm e^{-i\theta}a_{\alpha,2})/\sqrt{2}$ in the asymptotic state is shown in Fig \ref{Fig_ExampleRabi}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{Example.eps}
\caption{The occupation number of the Floquet states for the model (\ref{Eq_RabiExample})
($\omega_{c}/\Omega=5$, red dashed line; $\omega_{c}/\Omega=1$, yellow dashed line; $\omega_{c}/\Omega=0.5$, green dashed line; $\omega_{c}/\Omega=0.3$, blue dashed).
The blue solid line represents the Fermi distribution function and the temperature is taken as $T/\Omega = 0.01$.}
\label{Fig_ExampleRabi}
\end{figure}
We can observe that the difference between the occupation number of the Floquet state and the Fermi distribution function gradually becomes small as $\omega_{c}/\Omega$ decreases.
The deviation from the Fermi distribution function is small in the range $\epsilon_{\alpha,\pm}<-T$ because $n=0,-1$ sidebands only contribute to the occupation number, that is, the occupation number of the Floquet state is written by the sum of $f_{T}(\omega)$ and $f_{T}(\omega-\Omega)$, and $f_{T}(\omega)\simeq f_{T}(\omega-\Omega)\simeq 1$ when $\omega<-T$.
As we discussed above, when the energy cutoff of the system-reservoir coupling is smaller than the frequency of the external field (see the blue dashed line), the deviation of the occupation number in the region (i) (i.e. $|\epsilon_{\alpha,\pm}|<\omega_{c}$) from the Fermi distribution function becomes small.
\section{Results for finite system-reservoir coupling}\label{Sec_FiniteCoupling}
So far we have focused on the general properties of the periodically driven open systems under infinitesimal dissipation.
Let us now investigate the finite-dissipation effect.
Especially, we consider the case where there are no energy cutoffs in the reservoirs to investigate the pure dissipation effect.
When the dispersion of the reservoir is linear $\epsilon_{k}=uk$ without cutoff ($u$ is the velocity) and the system-reservoir coupling is independent of the wave number $\lambda_{k,\alpha}=\lambda_{\alpha}$, eq. (\ref{Eq_SystemClosedEOM}) becomes Markovian \cite{Kohler2005}:
\begin{equation}
i\frac{d}{dt}a_{\alpha}(t)=\sum_{\beta}(H_{\alpha\beta}(t)-i\Gamma_{\alpha\beta})a_{\beta}(t)+i\xi_{\alpha}(t),\label{Eq_MarkovSystemClosedEOM}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}=\lambda_{\alpha}^{\ast}\lambda_{\beta}/2u$ and $\xi_{\alpha}(t)$ is the same noise term as the previous one.
We can solve this differential equation by the Floquet theorem {\it without restriction of the weak system-reservoir coupling limit}.
The Floquet theorem guarantees the existence of a set $\{\ket{\psi_{\alpha}(t)}\}$ of solutions of the time periodic Sch\"{o}dinger equation $id/dt \ket{\psi(t)}=(H(t)-i\Gamma)\ket{\psi(t)}$ which can be written as
$\ket{\psi_{\alpha}(t)}=e^{-(i\epsilon_{\alpha}+\gamma_{\alpha})t}\ket{u_{\alpha}(t)},\ \ket{u_{\alpha}(t+\tau)}=\ket{u_{\alpha}(t)}$, where $\epsilon_{\alpha}$ and $\gamma_{\alpha}$ are real and we can take $|\epsilon_{\alpha}|<\Omega/2$.
The time periodic part of the wave function $\ket{u_{\alpha}(t)}$ satisfies $(H(t)-i\Gamma-id/dt)\ket{u_{\alpha}(t)}=(\epsilon_{\alpha}-i\gamma_{\alpha})\ket{u_{\alpha}(t)}.$
Because the operator $H(t)-i\Gamma-id/dt$ is not Hermitian, we also define the left eigenstate $\bra{u^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(t)}$.
Then, the occupation number of an arbitrary basis of the system is obtained as,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\braket{a^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(t)a_{\alpha}(t)}&=\sum_{\alpha^{\prime},\beta^{\prime}}\sum_{k,k^{\prime}\in\mathbb{Z}}\braket{a_{\alpha}|u_{\alpha^{\prime}}(t)}\braket{u_{\beta^{\prime}}(t)|a_{\alpha}}e^{i(k-k^{\prime})\Omega t}\\
&\times \int \frac{d\omega}{\pi}\frac{\braket{u^{\dagger(k)}_{\alpha^{\prime}}|\Gamma|u^{\dagger(k^{\prime})}_{\beta^{\prime}}}f_{T}(\omega)}{(\omega-\epsilon^{(k)}_{\alpha^{\prime}}+i\gamma_{\alpha^{\prime}})(\omega-\epsilon^{(k^{\prime})}_{\beta^{\prime}}-i\gamma_{\beta^{\prime}})},
\end{aligned}\label{Eq_MarkovOccupationNum}
\end{equation}
where $\ket{u_{\alpha}^{(n)}},\ \ket{u^{\dagger(n)}_{\alpha}}$ are the $n$th Fourier coefficients of $\ket{u_{\alpha}(t)},\ \ket{u^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(t)}$ and $\epsilon_{\alpha}^{(n)}=\epsilon_{\alpha}+n\Omega$.
The formula (\ref{Eq_MarkovOccupationNum}) is exact and applicable for any $\Omega$ and $\Gamma$.
If we take the weak system-reservoir coupling limit $\gamma_{\alpha}\rightarrow 0$, eq. (\ref{Eq_MarkovOccupationNum}) is reduced to eq. (\ref{Eq_FlouetOccupationNum})
Therefore, the expression (\ref{Eq_MarkovOccupationNum}) is an extension of eq. (\ref{Eq_FlouetOccupationNum}) to the case with finite-dissipation effect.
When $H(t)$ is time independent, $\ket{u_{\alpha}^{(n)}}=\ket{u_{\alpha}^{\dagger(n)}}=0$ for $n{\neq}0$.
Therefore the formula (\ref{Eq_MarkovOccupationNum}) can be interpreted as that for an equilibrium system which has an infinite number of energy bands $\{ \ket{u^{(n)}_{\alpha}},\ \epsilon^{(n)}_{\alpha} \}$ except for the phase factor $e^{-ikt}$.
These energies are broadened by the width $\gamma_{\alpha}$, but the states in the different sidebands are not orthogonal even though the system-reservoir coupling is taken as zero.
Namely, different sidebands are not independent but just duplicated \cite{Tien1963}.
To simplify the analysis, we consider the high frequency regime of the external driving.
We take the initial temperature as zero.
Both the system-reservoir coupling and the energy difference between the different sidebands is much smaller than the frequency of the external driving.
The corresponding conditions read:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\gamma_{\alpha}}{\Omega},\ \frac{\gamma_{\alpha}}{\min_{\alpha,\beta}|\Omega-(\epsilon_{\alpha}-\epsilon_{\beta})|}\rightarrow 0.\label{Eq_HighFrequencyCondition}
\end{equation}
If the first condition is satisfied, the second is also satisfied when the Magnus expansion applicable.
The second condition means that the overlap between the different sidebands which is caused by the width $\gamma_{\alpha}$ vanishes.
In this limit, the occupation number can be obtained as,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\braket{a^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(t)a_{\alpha}(t)}&=\sum_{\alpha^{\prime},\beta^{\prime}}\braket{a_{\alpha}|u_{\alpha^{\prime}}(t)}\braket{u_{\beta^{\prime}}(t)|a_{\alpha}}\\
&\times \int \frac{d\omega}{\pi} \frac{\Gamma_{\alpha^{\prime}\beta^{\prime}}^{(0)}f_{T=0}(\omega)+\Gamma_{\alpha^{\prime}\beta^{\prime}}^{(-)}}{(\omega-\epsilon_{\alpha^{\prime}}+i\gamma_{\alpha^{\prime}})(\omega-\epsilon_{\beta^{\prime}}-i\gamma_{\beta^{\prime}})}
\end{aligned}
\label{Eq_MarkovHighFrequencyRegime}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{(k)}=\braket{u^{\dagger(k)}_{\alpha}|\Gamma|u^{\dagger(k)}_{\beta}}$ and $\Gamma^{(-)}_{\alpha\beta}=\sum_{k<0}\Gamma^{(k)}_{\alpha\beta}$.
We can consider that the second term $\Gamma^{(-)}_{\alpha\beta}$ in eq. (\ref{Eq_MarkovHighFrequencyRegime}) represents the excitation from the $T=0$ state because there is only $0$th sideband when $H(t)$ is time independent.
When we use the Magnus expansion to obtain the quasienergy spectrum of the system, $\Gamma^{(-)}_{\alpha\beta}=O((A/\Omega)^2)$, where $A$ is the amplitude of the external driving \cite{Iadecola2015b}.
This is of the same order of magnitude as the contribution from the sidebands to the occupation number in the weak system-reservoir coupling limit, thereby implying that we cannot suppress excitations by simply considering a stronger dissipation.
This is because the high energy excitations can be created through the reservoir by the external driving.
\section{Summary}\label{Sec_Summary}
To summarize, we have investigated fundamental properties of periodically driven open quantum systems, which are independent of the detailed nature of the reservoir, and the finite dissipation effect particularly focusing on free fermionic systems.
We have revealed the following two properties.
(i) Low-energy properties are equivalent to those of the Floquet Gibbs state when the frequency of the external driving is much larger than the energy cutoff of the system-reservoir coupling even though there is no fine tuning of the system-reservoir coupling.
(ii) Finite system-reservoir coupling cannot suppress the excitations in the system because external drivings can create the excitations through the reservoir if the frequency of the external driving is smaller than the energy cutoff of the system-reservoir coupling.
Therefore, the external driving whose frequency is larger than the energy cutoff of the system-reservoir coupling is required to obtain the thermodynamic properties of a effective Hamiltonian.
As further studies, clarifying the general feature of asymptotic states of the periodically driven open many body quantum systems and non-Markovian quantum systems is an intriguing and important problem as we have investigated Markovian free fermionic systems in both infinitesimal and finite system-reservoir coupling cases.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was partly supported by a Grand-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas (JSPS KAKENHI Grant No. JP15H05855) and also JSPS KAKENHI (No. JP16K05501).
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{Section-Introduction}
Mathematical models describing physical, biological, and other real-life phenomena contain parameters whose values must be estimated from data. Over the past decade, a powerful framework called ``sloppiness'' has been developed that relies on Information Geometry \cite{Amari2007} to study the uncertainty in this procedure \cite{Brown2003,Daniels2008,Transtrum:2010ci,Transtrum:2011de,Transtrum:2014hr,Transtrum:2015hm}. Although the idea of using the Fisher Information to quantify uncertainty is not new (see for example \cite{Fisher1925, rao1945information}), the study of sloppiness gives rise to a particular observation about the uncertainty of the procedure and has potential implications beyond parameter estimation. Specifically, sloppiness has enabled advances in the field of systems biology, drawing connections to sensitivity \cite{gutenkunst:pcb:2007,Erguler:2011bu,sloppycell}, experimental design \cite{Apgar:2010di, Mannakee2016,gutenkunst:pcb:2007}, identifiability \cite{ar-jk-mps-mj-jt:comparisonIdentifiability,Transtrum:2015hm,Chis2016:SloppinessIdentifiability}, robustness \cite{Daniels2008}, and reverse engineering \cite{Erguler:2011bu,Clermont:2015}. Sethna, Transtrum and co-authors identified sloppiness as a universal property of highly parameterised mathematical models \cite{Waterfall2006,Transtrum:2010ci,Tonsing2014,gutenkunst:pcb:2007}. However, the precise interpretation of sloppiness remains a matter of active discussion in the literature \cite{Apgar:2010di,keh-trm-rwa:nonlinIdent,mf-asm-ak:bootstrap}.
This paper's main contribution is to provide a unified mathematical framework for sloppiness rooted in algebra and geometry. We extend the concept beyond time dependent models, in particular, to statistical models. We rigorously define the concepts and building blocks for the theory of sloppiness. Our approach requires techniques from many fields including algebra, geometry, and statistics.
We illustrate each new concept with a simple concrete example. The new mathematical foundation we provide for sloppiness is not limited by current computational tools and opens up the way to further work.
Our general setup is a mathematical model $M$ that describes the behavior of a variable $x\in\mathbb R^m$ depending on a parameter $p\in P\subseteq \mathbb R^r$. Our first step is to explain how each precise choice of perfect data $z$ induces an equivalence relation $\sim\!\!_{M,z}$ on the parameter space: two parameters are equivalent if they produce the same perfect data. We then characterize the various concepts of structural identifiability in terms of the equivalence relation $\sim\!\!_{M,z}$. Roughly speaking, structural identifiability asks to what extent perfect data determines the value of the parameters. See section \ref{Section-EquivalenceRelation}.
Assume that the perfect data $z$ is a point of $\mathbb R^N$ for some $N$. The second crucial step needed in order to define sloppiness is a map $\phi$ from parameter space $P$ to data space $\mathbb R^N$ giving the perfect data as a function $\phi(p)$ of the parameters known as a ``model manifold" in the literature \cite{Transtrum:2010ci,Transtrum:2011de,Transtrum:2014hr,Transtrum:2015hm}, which we rename as a model prediction map. A model prediction map thus induces an injective function on the set of equivalence classes (the set-theoretic quotient $P/{\sim\!\!_{M,z}}$), that is, the equivalence classes can be separated by $N$ functions $P\to \mathbb R$. See Section \ref{Section-ModelPredictions}.
The next step is to assume that the mathematical model describes the phenomenon we are studying perfectly, but that the ``real data'' is corrupted by measurement error and the use of finite sample size. That is, we assume that noisy data arises from a random process whose probability distribution then induces a premetric $d$ on the parameter space, via the Kullback-Leibler divergence ( see start of Section \ref{Section-Sloppiness} ). This premetric $d$ quantifies the proximity between the two parameters in parameter space via the discrepancy between the probability distributions of the noisy data associated to the two parameters.
The aforementioned premetric $d$ has a tractable approximation in the limit of decreasing measurement noise using the Fisher Information Matrix (FIM). In the standard definition, a model is ``sloppy'' when the condition number of the FIM is large, that is, there are several orders of magnitude between its largest and smallest eigenvalues. Multiscale sloppiness (see \cite{dvr-ja-ap:SloppinessDhruva}) extends this concept to regimes of non-infinitesimal noise.
We conceptually extend the notion of sloppiness to a comparison between the premetric $d$ and a reference metric on parameter space. We demonstrate that using the condition number of the FIM to measure sloppiness at a parameter $p_0$, as is done in most of the sloppiness literature \cite{Brown2003,Daniels2008,Transtrum:2010ci,Transtrum:2011de,Transtrum:2014hr,Transtrum:2015hm}, corresponds to comparing an approximation of $d$ in an infinitesimal neighborhood of $p_0$ to the standard Euclidean metric on $\mathbb R^r\supset P$. Note that considering the entire spectrum of the FIM, as is done newer work in the sloppiness literature (eg, \cite{Waterfall2006}) corresponds to performing a more refined comparison between an approximation of $d$ in an infinitesimal neighborhood of $p_0$ to the standard Euclidean metric on $\mathbb R^r\supset P$. Multiscale sloppiness, which we extend here beyond its original definition \cite{dvr-ja-ap:SloppinessDhruva} for Euclidean parameter space and Gaussian measurement noise, avoids approximating $d$, and so better reflects the sloppiness of models beyond the infinitesimal scale. Finally, we describe the intimate relationship between sloppiness and practical identifiability, that is, whether generic noisy data allows for bounded confidence regions when performing maximum likelihood estimation. See Section \ref{Section-Sloppiness}.
The following diagram illustrates the main objects discussed in this paper:\\
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{diagram.pdf}
\section{An equivalence relation on parameter space}\label{Section-EquivalenceRelation}
A mathematical model $M$ describes the behavior of a variable $x\in X\subseteq \mathbb R^m$ depending on a parameter $p\in P\subset \mathbb R^r$, with measurable output $y=g(x)\in Y\in \mathbb R^n$. We further specify a choice of perfect data $z$ produced for the parameter value $p$. The nature of perfect data will be made clear in the examples discussed throughout the section. We think of the perfect data $z$ as belonging to the wider \emph{data space} $Z$ that encompasses all possible ``real'' data. Data space will be defined rigorously in Section \ref{Section-Sloppiness} when measurement noise comes into play.
An example where the measurable output $y$ differs from $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ is when only some of the $x_i$'s can be measured (e.g., due to cost or inaccessibility of certain variables). The perfect data is extracted from the measurable output, as illustrated by examples \ref{eg-2BiasedCoins1}, \ref{eg-Line1}, and \ref{eg-ODESoln1}.
The behavior of the variable $x$ may also vary in time (and position in space, although this will not be addressed here). In the time dependent case, the perfect data often consists of values of the measurable output $y$ at finitely many timepoints, that is, a \emph{time series}. An alternative choice of perfect data would be the set of all stable steady states. We are also interested in what we will call the \emph{continuous data}, that is, the value of $y$ at all possible timepoints or, equivalently, the function $t\mapsto y(t)$ for $t$ belonging to the full time interval. For a statistical model, the measurable output is the outcome from one instance of a statistical experiment, while a natural choice for perfect data is a probability distribution belonging to the model, or any function or set of functions characterising this probability distribution.
Given a model $M$, a choice of perfect data $z$ induces a \emph{model-data equivalence relation $\sim\!\!_{M,z}$} on the parameter space $P$ as follows: two parameters $p$ and $p'$ are equivalent ($p\sim\!\!_{M,z}p'$) if and only if fixing the parameter value to $p$ or $p'$ produces the same perfect data. We now provide a more concrete description for a selection of types of mathematical models.
\subsection{Finite discrete statistical models}
The most straightforward case is when the perfect data is described explicitly as a function of the parameter $p$. Finite discrete statistical models fall within this group, with the perfect data $z$ being the probability distribution of the possible outcomes depending on the choice of parameter. Such a model is described by a map
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{align*}
\rho\colon P &\to [0,1]^n\\
p &\mapsto (\rho_1(p),\ldots,\rho_n(p)).
\end{align*}
The model-data equivalence relation then coincides with the equivalence relation $\sim\!\!_\rho$ induced on $P$ by the map $\rho$, that is, $p\sim\!\!_{M,z} p' \text{ if and only if } \rho(p)=\rho(p')$.
\begin{eg}[Two biased coins \cite{sh-ak-bs:sle}]\label{eg-2BiasedCoins1}
A person with two biased coins, picks one at random, tosses it and records the result. The person then repeats this three additional times, for a total of four coin tosses. The parameter is $(p_1,p_2,p_3)\in[0,1]^3$, where $p_1$ is the probability of picking the first coin, $p_2$ is the probability of obtaining heads when tossing the first coin (that is, the bias of the first coin), and $p_3$ is the probability of obtaining heads when tossing the second coin. Here, the measurable output is the record of a single instance of the statistical experiment described and perfect data is the probability distribution of the possible outcomes (there are five possibilities). The map giving the model is then
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{alignat*}{3}
\rho &\colon & [0,1]^3 &\to&& \mathbb R^5\\
& & (p_1,p_2,p_3) &\mapsto&& (\rho_0, \rho_1, \rho_2, \rho_3, \rho_4),\end{alignat*}
where $\rho_i$ is the probability of obtaining heads $i$ times. Explicitly we have
\begin{align*}
\rho_0 &= p_1(1-p_2)^4+(1-p_1)(1-p_3)^4,\\
\rho_1 &= 4p_1p_2(1-p_2)^3+4(1-p_1)p_3(1-p_3)^3,\\
\rho_2 &= 6p_1p_2^2(1-p_2)^2+6(1-p_1)p_3^2(1-p_3)^2,\\
\rho_3 &= 4p_1p_2^3(1-p_2)+4(1-p_1)p_3^3(1-p_3),\\
\rho_4 &= p_1p_2^4+(1-p_1)p_3^4.
\end{align*}
Two parameters $(p_1,p_2,p_3)$ and $(p'_1,p'_2,p'_3)$ are then equivalent if $\rho(p_1,p_2,p_3)=\rho(p'_1,p'_2,p'_3)$, or equivalently, if $\rho_i(p_1,p_2,p_3)=\rho_i(p'_1,p'_2,p'_3)$ for each $i$.
We next study the equivalence classes. As we cannot distinguish between the two coins, we will always have $(p_1,p_2,p_3)\sim\!\!_{M,z} (1-p_1,p_3,p_2)$, and so the equivalence class of $(p_1,p_2,p_3)$ contains the set $\{(p_1,p_2, p_3),(1-p_1,p_3,p_2)\}$.
Furthermore, the equivalence class of $(p_1,p_2,p_2)$ will contain $\{(q_1,p_2,p_2) \mid q_1\in [0,1]\}$. The equivalence class of $(0,p_2,p_3)$ will contain $\{(0,q_1,p_3) \mid q_1\in [0,1]\}$ and $\{(1,p_2,q_2) \mid q_2\in [0,1]\}$.
The ideal $(\rho_i\otimes 1-1\otimes \rho_i \mid i=0,\ldots ,4)$ in $\mathbb C[p_1,p_2,p_3]\otimes \mathbb C[p_1,p_2,p_3]$ is the ideal cutting out the set-theoretic equivalence relation $\sim\!\!_\rho$ on $\mathbb C^3$ induced by extending the function $\rho$ to $\mathbb C^3$. Indeed, the zero set of this ideal is the set of pairs $((p_1,p_2,p_3),(p_1',p_2',p_3'))\in \mathbb C^3\times \mathbb C^3$ such that $(p_1,p_2,p_3)\sim\!\!_\rho (p_1',p_2',p_3')$. Using a symbolic computation software, we compute the prime decomposition of its radical and conclude that the equivalence class of $(p_1,p_2,p_3)\in\mathbb C^3$ is
\begin{align*}
&\{(p_1,p_2,p_3),(1-p_1,p_3,p_2)\} & \text{ if }p_1\neq 0,1,1/2~p_2\neq p_3,\\
&\{(q,p_2,p_2) \mid q\in \mathbb C\} & \text{ if } p_1\neq 0,1,1/2~p_2=p_3,\\
&\{(0, q_1, p_3) \mid q_1\in\mathbb C\}\cup \{(1,p_2,q_2) \mid q_2\in\mathbb C\} & \text{ if } p_1=0,1,\\
&\{(1/2,p_2,p_3)\} & \text{ if }p_1=1/2.
\end{align*}
Therefore, the equivalence classes in $[0,1]^3$ must be contained in the intersections of the above sets with $[0,1]^3$. Thus the equivalence class of $(p_1,p_2,p_3)\in [0,1]^3$ is
\begin{align*}
&\{(p_1,p_2,p_3),(1-p_1,p_3,p_2)\} & \text{ if }p_1\neq 0,1,1/2~p_2\neq p_3,\\
&\{(q,p_2,p_2) \mid q\in [0,1]\} & \text{ if } p_1\neq 0,1,1/2~p_2=p_3,\\
&\{(0, q, p_3) \mid q_1\in [0,1] \}\cup \{(1,p_2,q) \mid q_2\in [0,1]\} & \text{ if } p_1=0,1,\\
&\{(1/2,p_2,p_3)\} & \text{ if }p_1=1/2.
\end{align*}
In particular, we obtain a stratification of parameter space as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:coin}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\coordinate (O) at (0,0,0);
\coordinate (A) at (0,2,0);
\coordinate (B) at (0,2,2);
\coordinate (C) at (0,0,2);
\coordinate (D) at (2,0,0);
\coordinate (E) at (2,2,0);
\coordinate (F) at (2,2,2);
\coordinate (G) at (2,0,2);
\coordinate (H) at (2 /2,-.2,2);
\coordinate (I) at (2.6,.20,2);
\coordinate (J) at (3,1.5 ,2);
\coordinate (K) at (2,2,2);
\coordinate (L) at (2/2,0,0);
\coordinate (M) at (2/2,2,0);
\coordinate (N) at (2/2,2,2);
\coordinate (P) at (2 /2,0,2);
\draw[gray,fill=white!30] (O) -- (C) -- (G) -- (D) -- cycle
\draw[gray,fill=white!30] (O) -- (A) -- (E) -- (D) -- cycle
\draw[blue,fill=blue!30,opacity=0.6] (C) -- (G) -- (E) -- (A) -- cycle
\draw[green,fill=green!30,opacity=0.6] (O) -- (A) -- (B) -- (C) -- cycle
\draw[green,fill=green!30,opacity=0.6] (D) -- (E) -- (F) -- (G) -- cycle
\draw[gray,fill=gray!30,opacity=0.6] (L) -- (M) -- (N) -- (P) -- cycle
\draw[blue,fill=blue!30,opacity=0.2] (P) -- (M)
\draw[gray,fill=white!20,opacity=0.2] (A) -- (B) -- (F) -- (E) -- cycle
\draw (H) node {$p_1$};
\draw (I) node {$p_2$};
\draw (J) node {$p_3$};
\draw (C) node [label={[xshift=-0.1cm, yshift=-0.5cm]0}]{};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Stratification of parameter space for the two biased coins example. Blue: $\{(p_1,p_2,p_3)\mid p_1\neq 0,1,1/2~p_2=p_3\}$ Green: $\{(p_1,p_2,p_3)\mid p_1=0,1,1/2\}$, Grey: $\{(p_1,p_2,p_3)\mid p_1=1/2\}$ the rest of the cube (interior and faces) is the generic part $\{(p_1,p_2,p_3)\mid p_1\neq 0,1,~p_2\neq p_3\}$.}
\label{fig:coin}
\end{figure}
We remark that almost all equivalence classes have dimension zero, although some equivalence classes have dimension one. As the points with zero-dimensional equivalence classes form a dense open subset of parameter space, we say that the dimension of an equivalence class is generically zero. Note that since all these zero-dimensional equivalence classes have size two, we say that the equivalence classes are generically of size two. \hfill $\triangleleft$\end{eg}
\subsection{time dependent models and the $2r+1$ result}
Let $M$ be an explicit time dependent model with measurable output $x$. That is, the behavior of the variable $x$ is given by the map
\begin{alignat*}{3}
\rho &\colon & P\times \mathbb R_{\geq 0} &\to&& \mathbb R^m \\
&& (p,t) &\mapsto && x(p,t),
\end{alignat*}
and $x$ can be measured at any time $t$. Perfect time series data produced by the parameter $p$ will be $(x(p,t_1),\ldots,x(p,t_N))$, where $0\leq t_1<\cdots<t_N\in\mathbb R_{\geq0}$ are timepoints. We denote the corresponding model-data equivalence relation on $P$ by $\sim\!\!_{M,t_1,\ldots,t_N}$. The continuous data is the map $\mathbb R_{\geq 0}\to \mathbb R^m$ given by $t\mapsto x(p,t)$. We denote the equivalence relation induced by the continuous data on $P$ by $\sim_{M,\infty}$.
We particularly consider ODE systems with time series data. For such a model $M$, the behavior of the variable $x$ is described by a system of ordinary differential equations depending on the parameter $p\in P$ with some initial conditions:
\begin{alignat}{3}\label{eq-ODE1}
&\dot x &=& f(p,x)\\
&x(0)&=& x_0.\nonumber
\end{alignat}
When initial conditions are known or we do not wish to estimate them, they are not considered as components of the parameter. The measurable output is $y=g(x)$, and perfect data is then $(y(t_1),\ldots,y(t_N))\in\mathbb R^{Nn}$ for $0\leq t_1<\cdots<t_N\in\mathbb R_{\geq0}$. The continuous data is given by the function $\mathbb R_{\geq0}\to\mathbb R^n,~t\mapsto y(t)$, which supposes that a solution to the given ODE system exists, a valid assumption in the real-analytic case.
The key result when working with time dependent models with time series data is the $2r+1$ result of Sontag \cite[Theorem 1]{Sontag:2rplus1}, which implies that there is a single ``global'' model-data equivalence relation: the equivalence relation $\sim_{M,\infty}$ induced by the continuous data. Precisely, we suppose that the model $M$ is real-analytic, that is, either an explicit time-dependent model given by a real-analytic map or an ODE system as in (\ref{eq-ODE1}) with $f$ a real-analytic function. We additionally assume that the variable $x$, the parameter $p$, and the time variable $t$ belong to real-analytic manifolds. If we suppose that $P$ is a real-analytic manifold of dimension $r$, then for $N\geq 2r+1$ and a generic choice of timepoints $t_1,\ldots, t_N$ the equivalence relation $\sim\!\!_{M,t_1,\ldots,t_N}$ coincides with the equivalence relation $\sim_{M,\infty}$.
An important consequence of the $2r+1$ result \cite{Sontag:2rplus1} is that for real-analytic time-dependent models with time series data, the model equivalence relation is a \emph{global} structural property of the model, and one need not specify which exact timepoints are used.
\begin{rmk}
Note that in many applications the variable $x$ belongs to the real positive orthant, which is indeed a real-analytic manifold. The condition on the time variable can be relaxed to include closed and partially closed time intervals.
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk}
A choice of $N$ timepoints corresponds to a choice of a point in the real analytic manifold $T:=\{(t_1,\ldots,t_N)\in \mathbb R_{\geq 0} \mid t_i<t_{i+1}\}$. The use of the word ``generic'' in the statement means that there can be choices of $N$ timepoints that will not induce the equivalence relation $\sim\!\!_{M,\infty}$, but that these choices of timepoints will belong to a small subset of $T$, so small that its complement contains an open dense subset of $T$.
\end{rmk}
In cases where no results like the $2r+1$ result \cite{Sontag:2rplus1} hold, there is no ``global'' equivalence relation. Therefore, a finite number of measurements will never induce the same equivalence relation on parameter space as the continuous data. In other words, by taking more and more measurements we could obtain an increasingly fine equivalence relation without ever converging to $\sim\!\!_{M,\infty}$.
\begin{eg}[{A model for which the $2r+1$ result does not hold, cf \cite[Section 2.3]{Sontag:2rplus1}}]
The model, while artificial, is an explicit time dependent model given by the map:
\begin{alignat*}{3}
\rho&\colon & \mathbb R_{>0}\times\mathbb R_{\geq 0} &\to&& \mathbb R\\
&& (p,t) &\mapsto&& \gamma(p-t),
\end{alignat*}
where $\gamma\colon\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$ is a $C^\infty$ map that is $e^{1/s}$ for $s<0$ and zero for $s\geq 0$.
Suppose for a contradiction that evaluating at timepoints $t_1,\ldots,t_N$ induces the same equivalence relation on $\mathbb R_{>0}$ as taking the perfect data to be the maps $t\mapsto \rho(p,t)$. Take $p_1>p_2\geq t_N$, it follows that $\rho(p_1,t_i)=0=\rho(p_2,t_i)$ for each $i=1,\ldots,N$. On the other hand, we will have $\rho(p_1,\nicefrac{p_1+p_2}{2})=0\neq\rho(p_2,\nicefrac{p_1+p_2}{2})$, and so we have a contradiction.\hfill $\triangleleft$\end{eg}
\begin{eg}[Fitting points to a line]\label{eg-Line1} This example is motivated by one of the examples found on the webpage of Sethna dedicated to sloppiness \cite{js:FittingPolynomials}. We consider an explicit time dependent model where the variable $x$ changes linearly in time:
\[x(t)=a_0+a_1t,\]
that is, $x$ is given as a polynomial function in $t$ depending on the parameter $(a_0,a_1)\in \mathbb R^2$. Hence by the $2r+1$ result \cite{Sontag:2rplus1}, taking the perfect data to be the measurement at $2\cdot 2+1=5$ sufficiently general time points induces the same equivalence relation as taking the perfect data as the continuous function $t\mapsto a_0+a_1t$. In fact, taking measurements at two timepoints will suffice, since there is exactly one line going through any two given points.
We have that $(a_0,a_1)\sim_{M,\infty} (b_0,b_1)$ if and only if
\[a_0+a_1t=b_0+b_1t,~\text{for all } t\in\mathbb R_{\geq0}.\]
It follows that $a_0=b_0$ (taking $t=0$), and then $a_1=b_1$ (taking $t=1$), thus $[(a_o,a_1)]_{M,\infty}=\{(a_0,a_1)\}$. Naturally, this coincides with the equivalence classes obtained with taking the perfect data to be noiseless measurements at $t=0$ and $t=1$, that is, $(x(0),x(1))=(a_0,a_0+a_1)$.\hfill $\triangleleft$\end{eg}
\begin{eg}[Sum of exponentials]\label{eg-SumExponentials1}
The sum of exponentials model for exponential decay, widely studied in the sloppiness literature \cite{Transtrum:2010ci,Transtrum:2011de,Transtrum:2014hr}, is an explicit time dependent model given by the function
\begin{alignat*}{3}
\rho&\colon & \mathbb R_{\geq 0}^2 \times \mathbb R_{\geq 0}& \to &&\mathbb R \\
& & (a,b,t) &\mapsto&& e^{-at}+e^{-bt}.
\end{alignat*}
By the $2r+1$ result \cite{Sontag:2rplus1}, the time series $(e^{-at_1}+e^{-bt_1},\ldots,e^{-at_5}+e^{-bt_5})$ with $(t_1,\ldots,t_5)$ generic induces the same equivalence relation on the parameter space $\mathbb R_{\geq 0}^2$ as the continuous data. This model is clearly non-identifiable. Indeed, for any $a,b\in \mathbb R_{\geq 0}$, the parameters $(a,b)$ and $(b,a)$ yield the same continuous data since $e^{-at}+e^{-bt}=e^{-bt}+e^{-at}$ for all $t$. It follows that the equivalence class of a parameter $(a,b)$ will contain the set $\{(a,b),(b,a)\}$.
Suppose $(a,b)\sim_{M,t_1,t_2}(a',b')$ where $t_1\neq t_2$ are positive real numbers, thus
\begin{align*}
e^{-at_1}+e^{-bt_1} &= e^{-a't_1}+e^{-b't_1},\\
e^{-at_2}+e^{-bt_2} &= e^{-a't_2}+e^{-b't_2}.
\end{align*}
We can reduce it to the case $t_1=1,~t_2=2$ by rescaling the time variable via the substitution $t\mapsto \nicefrac{(t+t_2-2t_1)}{(t_2-t_1)}$ in $\rho$. Simplifying further with the substitution $x=e^{-a},y=e^{-b},u=e^{-a'},v=e^{-b'}$, the equation becomes:
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{align*}
x+y&=u+v\\
x^2+y^2&=u^2+v^2.
\end{align*}
It is then easy to see that the only solutions $(u,v)$ to this system are $(u,v)=(x,y)$ or $(u,v)=(y,x)$. As the exponential function is injective it follows that $(a',b')=(a,b)$ or $(a',b')=(b,a)$.
Therefore, the equivalence class of a parameter $(a,b)$ is
\begin{align*}
&\{(a,b),(b,a)\}, & \text{ if }a\neq b,\\
&\{(a,a)\}, & \text{ if } a=b.\\
\end{align*}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\coordinate (O) at (0,0);
\coordinate (A) at (2,0);
\coordinate (Aa) at (2.2,0);
\coordinate (B) at (0,2);
\coordinate (Ba) at (0,2.2);
\coordinate (C) at (2,2);
\draw[white,fill=green!30,opacity=0.6] (O) -- (A) -- (C) -- (B) -- cycle
\draw[green,fill=green!60] (O) -- (A)
\draw[gray,fill=green!60,->] (A) -- (Aa)
\draw[green,fill=green!60] (O) -- (B)
\draw[gray,fill=green!60,->] (B) -- (Ba)
\draw[blue,fill=blue!30,opacity=0.6] (O) -- (C)
\draw (Aa) node[below] {$a$};
\draw (Ba) node[left] {$b$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Parameter space of sum of exponential example. Green: $\{(a,b)\in\mathbb R^2_{\geq0}\mid a\neq b\}$, Blue: $\{(a,a)\mid a\in\mathbb R_{\geq0}\}$}
\label{fig:sum-exp}
\end{figure}
\hfill $\triangleleft$
\end{eg}
\begin{eg}[An ODE system with a solution]\label{eg-ODESoln1}
We consider the ODE system with variable $(x_1,x_2)\in\mathbb R_{\geq0}^2$ and parameter $(p_1,p_2)\in\mathbb R_{>0}^2$ given by
\begin{align*}
\dot{x}_1 &=-p_1x_1\\
\dot{x}_2 &=p_1x_1-p_2x_2
\end{align*}
with known initial conditions $x_1(0)=c_1$ and $x_2(0)=0$, and observable output $(x_1,x_2)$. Set $U:=\{(p_1,p_2)\mid p_1\neq p_2\}$. For $(p_1,p_2)\in U$, a solution to this system is given by
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{align*}
x_1(t) &=c_1e^{-p_1t}\\
x_2(t) &=\frac{c_1p_1}{(p_2-p_1)}\left(e^{-p_1t}-e^{-p_2t}\right).
\end{align*}
When $p_1=p_2$, the ODE system becomes
\begin{align*}
\dot{x}_1 &=-p_1x_1\\
\dot{x}_2 &=p_1(x_1-x_2),
\end{align*}
and a solution is given by
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{align*}
x_1(t) &=c_1e^{-p_1t}\\
x_2(t) &={c_1p_1t}e^{-p_1t}.
\end{align*}
The $2r+1$ result \cite{Sontag:2rplus1} implies that, for general $(t_1,\ldots,t_5)$, the time series data $(e^{-at_1}+e^{-bt_1},\ldots,e^{-at_5}+e^{-bt_5})$ induces the same equivalence relation on the parameter space $\mathbb R_{\geq 0}^2$ as the continuous data. As in the previous example, we will show that this can be achieved by taking a time series with two distinct nonzero time points. We can again reduce to the case $t_1=1,t_2=2$. Suppose that $(p_1,p_2)$ and $(p_1',p_2')$ are two parameters that produce the same perfect data. The first case we consider is when they both belong to $U$, then we have
\begin{align*}
c_1e^{-p_1}&=c_1e^{-p_1'},\\
c_1e^{-2p_1}&=c_1e^{-2p_1'},\\
\frac{c_1p_1}{(p_2-p_1)}(e^{-p_1}-e^{-p_2})&=\frac{c_1p_1'}{(p_2'-p_1')}(e^{-p_1'}-e^{-p_2'}),\\
\frac{c_1p_1}{(p_2-p_1)}(e^{-2p_1}-e^{-2p_2})&=\frac{c_1p_1'}{(p_2'-p_1')}(e^{-2p_1'}-e^{-2p_2'}).
\end{align*}
The first equation implies that $p_1=p_1'$ since $c_1\neq0$ and the exponential function is injective. Using the last two equations we find that we have
\begin{align*}
e^{-p_1}+e^{-p_2}=\frac{\frac{c_1p_1}{(p_2-p_1)}(e^{-2p_1}-e^{-2p_2})}{\frac{c_1p_1}{(p_2-p_1)}(e^{-p_1}-e^{-p_2})}=\frac{\frac{c_1p_1'}{(p_2'-p_1')}(e^{-2p_1'}-e^{-2p_2'})}{\frac{c_1p_1'}{(p_2'-p_1')}(e^{-p_1'}-e^{-p_2'})}=e^{-p_1'}+e^{-p_2'},
\end{align*}
And since $p_1=p_1'$, it follows that $p_2=p_2'$. Next, if we suppose that neither belongs to $U$, that is, $(p_1,p_1)$ and $(p_1',p_1')$ produce the same perfect data, we then have
\begin{align*}
c_1e^{-p_1}&=c_1e^{-p_1'},\\
c_1e^{-2p_1}&=c_1e^{-2p_1'},\\
{c_1p_1}e^{-p_1}&={c_1p'_1}e^{-p'_1},\\
{2c_1p_1}e^{-2p_1}&={2c_1p'_1}e^{-2p'_1}.
\end{align*}
The first equation already implies that $p_1=p_1'$. Finally, we suppose that one parameter is in $U$ and the other is not, that is, $(p_1,p_2)$ with $p_1\neq p_2$ and $(p_1',p_1')$ produce the same perfect data. We then have
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{align*}
c_1e^{-p_1}&=c_1e^{-p_1'}\\
c_1e^{-p_1^2}&=c_1e^{-p_1'^2}\\
\frac{c_1p_1}{(p_2-p_1)}(e^{-p_1}-e^{-p_2})&={c_1p'_1}e^{-p'_1}\\
\frac{c_1p_1}{(p_2-p_1)}(e^{-2p_1}-e^{-2p_2})&={2c_1p'_1}e^{-2p'_1}.
\end{align*}
The first two equations imply that $p_1=p'_1$ and so the last two equations become
\begin{align*}
\frac{c_1p_1}{(p_2-p_1)}(e^{-p_1}-e^{-p_2}) &={c_1p_1}e^{-p_1}\\
\frac{c_1p_1}{(p_2-p_1)}(e^{-2p_1}-e^{-2p_2}) & ={2c_1p_1}e^{-2p_1}.
\end{align*}
If $p_1=0$, then $p_2$ is not further constrained. If $p_1\neq0$, the equations simplify to
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{(p_2-p_1)}(e^{-p_1}-e^{-p_2}) &={}e^{-p_1}\\
\frac{1}{(p_2-p_1)}(e^{-2p_1}-e^{-2p_2}) &={2}e^{-2p_1},
\end{align*}
and so
\begin{align*}
e^{-p_1}+e^{-p_2}=\frac{\frac{1}{(p_2-p_1)}(e^{-2p_1}-e^{-2p_2})}{\frac{1}{(p_2-p_1)}(e^{-p_1}-e^{-p_2})}=\frac{{2}e^{-2p_1}}{e^{-p_1}}=2e^{-p_1}.
\end{align*}
But this implies that $p_1=p_2$, a contradiction. Hence, the third case was not possible in the first place.
We conclude that the equivalence class of the parameter $(p_1,p_2)\in P$ is
\begin{align*}
&\{(p_1,p_2)\} & \text{ if } p_1\neq 0,\\
&\{(0,q) \mid q\in \mathbb R_{\geq 0}\} & \text{ if }p_1=0.
\end{align*}\hfill $\triangleleft$
\end{eg}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\coordinate (O) at (0,0);
\coordinate (A) at (2,0);
\coordinate (Aa) at (2.2,0);
\coordinate (B) at (0,2);
\coordinate (Ba) at (0,2.2);
\coordinate (C) at (2,2);
\draw[white,fill=green!30,opacity=0.6] (O) -- (A) -- (C) -- (B) -- cycle
\draw[green,fill=green!60] (O) -- (A)
\draw[gray,fill=green!60,->] (A) -- (Aa)
\draw[blue,fill=red!60,->] (O) -- (Ba)
\draw (Aa) node[below] {$p_1$};
\draw (Ba) node[left] {$p_2$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Parameter space of ODE example. Blue: $p_1 = 0$, and
Green: $\{(p_1,p_2)\in\mathbb R^2_{\geq0}\mid p_1\neq 0\}$. }
\label{fig:ode}
\end{figure}
Example \ref{eg-ODESoln1} is an exception. In general one cannot so easily find an exact solution to an ODE system. Nevertheless, describing the equivalence classes can still be possible. Indeed, there are various approaches to building what is called in the literature an exhaustive summary (see for example \cite{otc-jrb-ebc:MethodsForIdentifiability}). An \emph{exhaustive summary} is simply a (not necessarily finite) collection $E$ of functions $P\to \mathbb R$ that makes the model-data equivalence relation effective, that is, $p\sim\!\!_{M}p'$ if and only if $f(p)=f(p')$ for all $f\in E$. The differential algebra approach, introduced by Ljung and Glad \cite{Ljung} and Ollivier \cite{Ollivier}, relies on using exhaustive summaries. For an ODE system with time series data given by rational functions, one derives an input-output equation whose coefficients (once normalized so that the first term is one) provide an exhaustive summary for a dense open subset of parameter space.
Additional details on exhaustive summaries are given by Ollivier \cite{Ollivier} and Meshkat et al. \cite{Meshkat:2011is}, and software is available for computing input-output equations \cite{DAISY}. Exhaustive summaries are useful for determining identifiability (subsequently defined) and finding identifiable parameter combinations.
\subsection{Structural Identifiability}\label{Subsection-Identifiability}
We formulate a definition of structural identifiability in terms of the model-data equivalence relation defined at the beginning of this section. We base our rigorous understanding of the various flavors of identifiability in Sullivant's in-progress book on Algebraic Statistics \cite{ss:as} and Di Stefano III's book on Systems Biology \cite{DiStefanoIII-book}.
\begin{defn}[Structural Identifiability]
Let $(M,z)$ be a mathematical model with a choice of perfect data $z$ inducing an equivalence relation $\sim\!\!_{M,z}$ on the parameter space $P$.
\begin{itemize}
\item The pair $(M,z)$ is \emph{globally identifiable} if every equivalence classe consists of a single element.
\item The pair $(M,z)$ is \emph{generically identifiable} if for almost all $p\in P$, the equivalence class of $p$ consist of a single element.
\item The pair $(M,z)$ is \emph{locally identifiable} if for almost all $p\in P$, the equivalence class of $p$ has no accumulation points.
\item The pair $(M,z)$ is \emph{non-identifiable} if at least one equivalence class contains more than one element.
\item The pair $(M,z)$ is \emph{generically non-identifiable} if for almost all $p\in P$, the equivalence class of $p$ has accumulation points (or are positive dimensional).
\end{itemize}
\end{defn}
\begin{rmk}
In the definition above, ``almost all'' is used to mean that the property holds on a dense open subset of parameter space with respect to the usual Euclidean topology on $\mathbb R^r\supset P$. Recall also that $q\in Q\subseteq P\subseteq \mathbb R^r$ is an accumulation point of $Q$ if every open neighborhood of $p$ contains infinitely many elements of $Q$.
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk}
In the ODE systems literature, where local identifiability is the main concern, ``non-identifiable'' is often used to mean what we have called ``generically non-identifiable''. \end{rmk}
\begin{eg}[The sum of exponentials]\label{eg-SumExponentials2}
We revisit Example \ref{eg-SumExponentials1} where we computed the equivalence class of any parameter $(a,b)\in\mathbb R_{\geq 0}$. We found that $[(a,b)]=\{(a,b),(b,a)\}$, where $[(a,b)]$ denotes the set of parameters equivalent to $(a,b)$. It follows that this model is not globally identifiable, and so non-identifiable. This model is locally identifiable since every equivalence class has size at most 2.\hfill $\triangleleft$\end{eg}
\begin{eg}[Two biased coins]\label{eg-2BiasedCoins2}
We revisit the model considered in Example \ref{eg-2BiasedCoins1}. We showed that the equivalence class of a parameter $(p_1,p_2,p_3)\in[0,1]^3$ is
\begin{align*}
&\{(p_1,p_2,p_3),(1-p_1,p_3,p_2)\} & \text{ if }p_1\neq 0,1,1/2~p_2\neq p_3\\
&\{(q,p_2,p_2) \mid q\in [0,1]\} & \text{ if } p_2=p_3\\
&\{(0, q, p_3) \mid q\in [0,1] \}\cup \{(1,p_2,q) \mid q\in [0,1]\} & \text{ if } p_1=0,1,1/2 ~ p_2\neq p_3,\\
&\{(1/2,p_2,p_3)\} & \text{ if } p_1=1/2.
\end{align*}
This model is not globally identifiable (in fact no equivalence class is a singleton), but it is locally identifiable. Indeed, the equivalence classes have size two for almost all values of the parameter; only the parameters in the 2-dimensional subset $\{(p_1,p_2,p_3) \mid p_1(p_1-1)(p_2-p_3)=0\}$ have positive dimensional equivalence classes.\hfill $\triangleleft$\end{eg}
\begin{eg}[Fitting points to a line]\label{eg-Line2}
We revisit the model discussed in Example \ref{eg-Line1}. We saw that $[(a_0,a_1)]=\{(a_0,a_1)\}$ for all possible values of the parameter, therefore this model is globally identifiable.\hfill $\triangleleft$\end{eg}
\begin{eg}[An ODE system with an exact solution]\label{eg-ODESoln2}
For the model studied in Example \ref{eg-ODESoln1}, the equivalence class of a parameter $p=(p_1,p_2)\in P=\mathbb R^2_{\geq0}$ is
\begin{align*}
&\{(p_1,p_2)\} & \text{ if } p_1\neq 0,\\
&\{(0,q) \mid q\in \mathbb R_{\geq 0}\} & \text{ if }p_1=0.
\end{align*}
As some equivalence classes are infinite, this model is not globally identifiable, but it is generically identifiable. Indeed, the equivalence classes of parameters belonging to the dense open subset $\{(p_1,p_2)\in P \mid p_1\neq 0\}$ have size 1.\hfill $\triangleleft$\end{eg}
\begin{eg}[{A nonlinear ODE model, see \cite[Example 6]{gm-er-mjc-hpw:DiffAlgIdent} and \cite[Example 5]{nm-me-jjd3:CombosAlgo}}]\label{eg-NonlinODE}
We now consider a model given by an ODE system with time series data and describes the behavior of a variable $(x_1,x_2)$ depending on a $5$-dimensional parameter $(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4,p_5)$ with measurable output $y=x_1$. The ODE system is given by:
\begin{align*}
\dot{x}_1 =&p_1x_1-p_2x_1x_2\\
\dot{x}_2 =&p_3x_2(1-p_4x_2)+p_5x_1x_2
\end{align*}
The differential algebra method produces an exhaustive summary
\begin{align*}
\phi_1=\frac{p_3p_4}{p_2}-1,~ \phi_2=\frac{-2p_1p_3p_4}{p_2} - p_3,~ \phi_3=-p_5,~\phi_4=\frac{p^2_1p_3p_4}{p_2} + p_1p_3,~ \phi_5=p_1p_5.
\end{align*}
That is, there is a dense open subset $U\subseteq P$ on which the model-data equivalence relation coincides with the equivalence relation given by the map
\begin{alignat*}{3}
\phi&\colon& U&\to &&\mathbb R^4\\
& &(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4,p_5)&\mapsto && (\phi_1,\phi_2,\phi_3,\phi_4,\phi_5)
\end{alignat*}
We may take $U$ to be the set of parameters such that all $p_2$, $p_5$ and $2p_2+p_2p_3+p_1p_2-4p_1p_3p_4$ are nonzero. Then for $(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4,p_5)\in U$, we have
\begin{align}\label{eqn-phi-inv1}
p_1&= -\frac{\phi_5}{2\phi_3}, \quad \quad \quad
p_3=-2-\phi_2- \frac{2\phi_1\phi_5}{\phi_3},\\
\frac{p_4}{p_2}&=\frac{\phi_3(1+\phi_1)}{-2\phi_3-\phi_2\phi_3-2\phi_1\phi_5}, \quad \quad \quad
p_5= \phi_5. \label{eqn-phi-inv2}
\end{align}
Let $\rho\colon U\to \mathbb R^4$ be the map given by $(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4,p_5)\mapsto (p_1,p_3,p_4/p_2,p_5)$. The map $\phi$ factors through $\rho$, and the formulas \eqref{eqn-phi-inv1},\eqref{eqn-phi-inv2} above provide an inverse for the induced function $\phi\colon \rho(U)\to \phi(U)$, and so in particular this function is bijective. It follows that for $(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4,p_5)\in U$ the function $\rho$ determines the model-data equivalence relation. Therefore, the equivalence class of $(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4,p_5)\in U$ is
\[\left\{ \left(p_1,q_1,p_3,\frac{p_4}{p_2}\cdot q\right) \;\middle|\; q\in \mathbb R\right\}.\]
Hence, all parameters in $U$ have a 1-dimensional equivalence class and we conclude that the model is generically non-identifiable.\hfill $\triangleleft$\end{eg}
The main strategy we employed in the above examples was to construct a map $\phi\colon P\to\mathbb R^N$ for some $N$, such that $p\sim\!\!_{M,z} p'$ if and only if $\phi(p)=\phi(p')$, that is, a map making the equivalence relation $p\sim\!\!_{M,z} p'$ effective. The model we considered was given in this way, or we evaluated an explicit time dependent model (or a solution to an ODE model) at finitely many timepoints, or else we used an alternative method to obtain an exhaustive summary and thus such a map. When the model-data equivalence relation can be made effective via a differentiable map $f\colon P\to \mathbb R^N$, that is, when we can find $f$ such that $\sim\!\!_{M,z} =~\sim_f$, it is also possible to determine the local identifiability of the model by looking at the Jacobian of $f$. The model is locally identifiable if and only if the Jacobian of $f$ has full rank for generic values of $p$. Indeed, this is an immediate consequence of the Inverse Function Theorem. This method is regularly employed in algebraic statistics when considering specific models (see for example \cite[Proposition 15.1.7]{ss:as}).
In the case of ODE systems for which we do not have a solution and are unable to obtain an exhaustive summary, there are computational methods for establishing the (local) identifiability, see e.g. \cite{otc-jrb-ebc:MethodsForIdentifiability}, \cite{ar-jk-mps-mj-jt:comparisonIdentifiability} for a survey of the techniques available.
\section{Model Predictions}\label{Section-ModelPredictions}
In this section we provide a rigorous definition and a more mathematically correct name for ``model manifold'', a geometric object that takes center stage in the sloppiness literature \cite{Transtrum:2010ci,Transtrum:2011de,Transtrum:2014hr,Transtrum:2015hm}.
\begin{defn}
Let $M$ be a mathematical model with parameter space $P$ and a choice of perfect data. Suppose that the perfect data produced for each parameter value $p\in P$ is a point of $\mathbb R^N\!$ for some $N$. A \emph{model prediction map} is a map $\phi\colon P\to \mathbb R^N$ that expresses the perfect data produced for the parameter value $p$ as a function $\phi(p)$.\end{defn}
A model prediction map is a geometric realization of the quotient $P/\!\!\sim\!\!_{M,z}$ in the sense that it factors through the set-theoretic quotient $P\to P/\!\!\sim\!\!_{M,z}$ in such way that the induced map $\overline{\phi}\colon P/\!\!\sim\!\!_{M,z}\to \mathbb R^N$ is injective.
A model prediction map is meant to be more than just a map making the model-data equivalence relation effective: we want to use this map to perform parameter estimation by finding the nearest model prediction (in the image of $\phi$) to a given noisy data point (in the data space, possibly off the image of $\phi$).
\begin{rmk}
The sloppiness literature uses the term ``model manifold'' for the image of a model prediction map \cite{Transtrum:2010ci,Transtrum:2011de,Transtrum:2014hr,Transtrum:2015hm}. Although in general the image of $\phi$ is not a manifold as such, using the term manifold has the benefit of bringing into focus the geometric structure of mathematical models.
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk}
Note that we do not require a model prediction map to satisfy the universal property of a categorical quotient, that is, we do not require that any map that is constant on the equivalence class factors through $\phi$.
\end{rmk}
Each fiber of $\phi$ is a single equivalence class. As a consequence, when there is a model prediction map, then $\sim\!\!_{M,z} =~~\sim\!\!_\phi$, that is, the model-data equivalence relation coincides with the equivalence relation induced by $\phi$. Therefore, identifiability can be characterized in terms of model prediction maps:
\begin{prop}
Let $M$ be a mathematical model and suppose there is a model prediction map $\phi\colon P\to \mathbb R^N$ for some $N>0$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item The pair $(M,\phi)$ is \emph{globally identifiable} if $\phi$ is injective.
\item The pair $(M,\phi)$ is \emph{generically identifiable} if $\phi$ is generically injective.
\item The pair $(M,\phi)$ is \emph{locally identifiable} if almost all non-empty fibers of $\phi$ have no accumulation points.
\item The pair $(M,\phi)$ is \emph{non-identifiable} if $\phi$ is not injective.
\item The pair $(M,\phi)$ is \emph{generically non-identifiable} if almost all non-empty fibers of $\phi$ have accumulation points.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
In some situations, it may be possible to construct a model prediction map only on a dense open subset of parameter space. A subset $E\subseteq P$ is \emph{$\sim\!\!_{M,z}$-stable} if $p\in E$ and $p'\sim\!\!_{M,z} p$ implies $p'\in E$, that is, $E$ is the union of equivalence classes.
\begin{defn}
A \emph{generic model prediction map} is a model prediction map $\varphi\colon U\to \mathbb R^N$ that is defined on a $\sim\!\!_{M,z}$-stable dense open subset $U\subseteq P$ of parameter space.
\end{defn}
We will use the notation $\varphi\colon P\dashrightarrow \mathbb R^N$ borrowed from rational maps in the algebraic category to denote generic model prediction map when the exact domain of definition is unknown or not important. Three of the above notions of identifiability can be rephrased in terms of generic model prediction maps:
\begin{prop}
Let $M$ be a mathematical model and suppose there is a generic model prediction map $\varphi\colon P\dashrightarrow \mathbb R^N$ for some $N>0$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item The pair $(M,\varphi)$ is \emph{generically identifiable} if $\varphi$ is injective on its domain of definition.
\item The pair $(M,\varphi)$ is \emph{locally identifiable} if almost all non-empty fibers of $\varphi$ have no accumulation points.
\item The pair $(M,\varphi)$ is \emph{generically non-identifiable} if almost all non-empty fibers of $\varphi$ have accumulation points.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
In the algebraic category, we have an additional notion of identifiability:
\begin{defn}[Rational Identifiability]
Let $(M,\phi)$ (resp. $(M,\varphi)$) be a mathematical model with and algebraic model prediction map defined over $\mathbb R$ (resp. a generic model prediction map given by a rational map with real coefficients). We say that $(M,\phi)$ (resp. $(M,\varphi)$) is \emph{rationally identifiable} if and only if each parameter $p_j$ can be written as a rational function of the $\phi_i$'s (resp. the $\varphi_i$'s), or equivalently if the fields of rational functions are equal: $\mathbb R(p_1,\ldots,p_r)=\mathbb R(\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_n)$ (resp. $\mathbb R(p_1,\ldots,p_r)=\mathbb R(\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_n)$).
\end{defn}
Note that rational identifiability implies generic identifiability. The implication is strict because we are working over a non-algebraically closed field (i.e. $\mathbb R$).
\begin{eg}[An example of global identifiability, but not rational identifiability]
Consider the model $M$ with model prediction map $\phi:\mathbb R\to \mathbb R$ defined on the parameter space $\mathbb R$ by $p\mapsto p^3+p$. First, we show that $M$ is globally identifiable. Let $a$ and $b$ be two real numbers such that $a^3+a=b^3+b$. We can rewrite $a^3+a=b^3+b$ as $(a-b)(a^2+ab+b^2+1)=0$. The polynomial function $a^2+ab+b^2+1$ has no real zeros, since for any given $b\in \mathbb R$, it is a polynomial of degree 2 in $a$ with discriminant $-3b^2-4<0$. It follows that $a=b$, and so the model is globally identifiable. As $x$ is not a rational function of $x^3+x$, $(M,\phi)$ is not rationally identifiable.\hfill $\triangleleft$\end{eg}
The case of finite discrete parametric statistical models is again the simplest case, since the parameterization map is a model prediction map.
For the two biased coin model studied in Examples \ref{eg-2BiasedCoins1} and \ref{eg-2BiasedCoins2}, the map $\phi$ is a model prediction map. It is possible to have non-isomorphic sets of model predictions, and also, as in the following example, we may have model prediction maps belonging to different categories (real-analytic vs algebraic).
\begin{eg}[Gaussian Mixtures]\label{eg-GaussianMixtures1}
We consider the mixture of two 1-dimensional Gaussians, a model that can be used to describe the behavior of one measurement we make on individuals belonging to two populations. The model goes back to Pearson in 1894 who developed the methods of moments while studying crabs in the Bay of Naples. We follow the treatment by Am\'endola, Faug\`ere and Sturmfels \cite{Amendola:2015um}. The parameter is 5-dimensional: $(\lambda,\mu,\sigma,\nu,\tau)\in[0,1]\times \mathbb R\times \mathbb R_{\geq 0}\times \mathbb R\times \mathbb R_{\geq 0}=:P$. The mixing parameter $\lambda$ gives the proportion of the first population, the remaining four coordinate parameters are the means and variances of the two Gaussian distributions: $\mu,\sigma$ and $\nu,\tau$. Note that this model is at best locally identifiable. Indeed, since we cannot tell to which population an individual belongs, the parameters $(\lambda,\mu,\sigma,\nu,\tau)$ and $(1-\lambda,\nu,\tau,\mu,\sigma)$ will induce the same probability distribution (that is, the same perfect data) and so we will have $[(\lambda,\mu,\sigma,\nu,\tau)]\supseteq\{(\lambda,\mu,\sigma,\nu,\tau),(1-\lambda,\nu,\tau,\mu,\sigma)\}$, that is, the equivalence class of a parameter includes its orbit under an affine action of the symmetric group on two elements. It follows that generic equivalence classes will have size at least 2. Non-generic special cases will include the case where both populations have the same behavior, that is, $(\mu,\sigma)=(\nu,\tau)$, and the case where only one population is actually present, that is, $\lambda=0$ or $\lambda=1$. In these cases the equivalence class of a parameter contains certain subsets as follows:
\begin{align*}
[(\lambda,\mu,\sigma,\mu,\sigma)]&\supseteq\{(q,\mu,\sigma,\mu,\sigma) \mid q\in[0,1]\} &&& \text{if }(\mu,\sigma)=(\nu,\tau)\\
[(0,\mu,\sigma,\nu,\tau)]&\supseteq \{(0,q_1,q_2,\nu,\tau),(1,\nu,\tau,q_1,q_2)\mid q_1\in \mathbb R,~q_2\in\mathbb R_{\geq0}\} &&& \text{if } \lambda=0\\
[(1,\mu,\sigma,\nu,\tau)]&\supseteq \{(1,\mu,\sigma,q_1,q_2),(0,q_1,q_2,\mu,\sigma)\mid q_1\in \mathbb R,~q_2\in\mathbb R_{\geq0}\} &&& \text{if } \lambda=1
\end{align*}
In particular, some non-generic equivalence classes will be 1 and 2-dimensional.
As well as a cumulative distribution function $F(x)$, this model has both a probability density function $f(x)$ and a moment generating function $M(t)$; either characterizes the model. The
probability density function is the map
\begin{alignat*}{3}
f&\colon & \mathbb R\times P &\to&& \mathbb R\\
&& x &\mapsto&& \lambda\left( \frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{(x-\mu)^2}{2\sigma^2}}\right)+
(1- \lambda)\left( \frac{1}{\tau\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{(x-\nu)^2}{2\tau^2}}\right),
\end{alignat*}
the cumulative distribution function is the map
\begin{alignat*}{3}
F&\colon & \mathbb R\times P &\to&& \mathbb R\\
&& x &\mapsto&& \lambda\left( \frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{\infty}^x e^{-\frac{(t-\mu)^2}{2\sigma^2}}dt \right)+
(1- \lambda)\left( \frac{1}{\tau\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{\infty}^xe^{-\frac{(t-\nu)^2}{2\tau^2}}dt\right),
\end{alignat*}
and the moment generating function is
\[M(t)=\sum_{i=0}^\infty \frac{m_i}{i!}t^i=\lambda e^{\mu t+\sigma^2t^2/2}+(1-\lambda) e^{\nu t+\tau^2t^2/2}.\]
Note that the $m_i$'s are polynomial maps in the five parameters and $M(t)$ is defined on some interval $(-a,a)$. Thus $M$ can be seen as a function $M\colon (-a,a)\times P \to \mathbb R$. The statement that these three functions characterize the distribution means that the equivalence relations they induce on $P=[0,1]\times \mathbb R_{\geq 0}^4$ coincide with the model-data equivalence relation. By the $2r+1$ result \cite{Sontag:2rplus1}, it follows that for generic $x_1,\ldots,x_{11}$ and $t_1,\ldots,t_{11}$ each of the functions
\begin{alignat*}{3}
\phi_1 &\colon & P &\to&& \mathbb R^{11}\\
&& p &\mapsto&& (f(x_1,p),\ldots,f(x_{11},p)),
\end{alignat*}
\begin{alignat*}{3}
\phi_2&\colon & P& \to&& \mathbb R^{11}\\
& & p &\mapsto&& (F(x_1,p),\ldots,F(x_{11},p)),
\end{alignat*}
and
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{alignat*}{3}
\phi_3&\colon & P& \to&& \mathbb R^{11}\\
& & p& \mapsto && (M(t_1,p),\ldots,M(t_{11},p))
\end{alignat*}
also induce the model-data equivalence relation. Let $X_1,...,X_K$ denote a random sample from the distribution. As the moment generating function can be estimated from the sample via $\frac{1}{K}\sum_{i=1}^K e^{tX_i}$, the map $\phi_3$ is a model prediction map. As the cumulative distribution map can be estimated by the empirical distribution function, $\phi_2$ is also a model prediction map. The probability density function can also, in principle, be indirectly estimated from the sample by numerically deriving the empirical distribution function that estimates the cumulative distribution function. Thus $\phi_1$ can also be also be considered as a model prediction map.
This model also has algebraic model prediction maps. Indeed, the set of moments $\{m_i \mid i\geq 0\}$ determines $M$, which implies that this set of polynomial functions $P\to \mathbb R$ will also induce the model-data equivalence relation. To obtain an algebraic model prediction map it will suffice to find a finite separating set $E\subset \mathbb R[m_i \mid i\geq 0]\subseteq \mathbb R[\lambda,\mu,\sigma,\nu,\tau]$, that is, a set $E$ such that whenever two points of $\mathbb R^5$ are separated by some $m_i$, there is an element of $E$ that separates them (see \cite{gk:si} for a treatment of separating sets for rings of functions). As $\mathbb R[\lambda,\mu,\sigma,\nu,\tau]$ is a finitely generated $\Bbbk$-algebra, by \cite[Theorem 2.1]{gk:si} finite separating sets exist, and for $d$ large enough the first $d+1$ moments $m_0,m_1,\ldots,m_d$ will form a separating set. In fact, through careful algebraic manipulations it is possible to show that the first $7$ moments already form a separating set (see \cite[Section 3]{Amendola:2015um} or \cite{dl:InjectivityGaussianMixture}). As it is possible to estimate moments from data (via the sample moments $\frac{1}{K}\sum_{i=1}^K X_i^j$ for $j\geq 1$), we have a fourth model prediction map
\begin{alignat*}{3}
\phi_4&\colon & [0,1]\times \mathbb R_{\geq 0}^4 &\to&& \mathbb R^6\\
&& p &\mapsto&& (m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4,m_5,m_6).
\end{alignat*}\hfill $\triangleleft$\end{eg}
Let $M$ be given by a real-analytic ODE system with time series data or an explicit time dependent model with time series data. Then by the $2r+1$ result \cite{Sontag:2rplus1}, we know that there exist model prediction maps that capture all the time series information. For the explicit models it is simply a matter of choosing timepoints. For ODE systems, we would in principle need an exact solution. First, some examples of explicit time dependent models:
\begin{eg}[Fitting points to a line]\label{eg-Line3}
By the discussion in Example \ref{eg-Line1}, the model-data equivalence relation coincides with the equivalence relation induced by evaluating the variable $x$ at the timepoints $t_1=0$ and $t_2=1$. As there is an invertible linear transformation taking any two distinct timepoints $(t_1,t_2)$ to $(0,1)$, any choice of two timepoints will give a model prediction map
\begin{alignat*}{3}
\phi_{t_1,t_2}&\colon &\mathbb R^2&\to&&\mathbb R^2\\
& & (a_0,a_1)&\mapsto&& (a_0+t_1a_1,a_0+t_2a_1).
\end{alignat*}
Each corresponding set of model predictions, that is the image of $\phi_{t_1,t_2}$, actually fill up $\mathbb R^2$. The set of model predictions we would obtain by taking more timepoints would still be isomorphic to $\mathbb R^2$.\hfill $\triangleleft$\end{eg}
\begin{eg}[Sum of exponentials]\label{eg-SumExponentials3}
By the $2r+1$ result \cite{Sontag:2rplus1}, any generic choice of 5 timepoints will provide a model prediction map, but as we saw in Example~\ref{eg-SumExponentials2}, two timepoints suffice. As in the paper \cite{Transtrum:2011de}, we use the three timepoints $t_1=1/3,t_2=1,t_3=3$ to define a model prediction map
\begin{alignat*}{3}
\phi &\colon & \mathbb R_{\geq 0}&\to&& \mathbb R^3\\
&& (a,b) &\mapsto&& (e^{-\nicefrac{a}{3}}+e^{-\nicefrac{b}{3}},e^{-a}+e^{-b},e^{-3a}+e^{-3b}).
\end{alignat*}
The image of $\phi $, the corresponding set of model predictions, is a surface with a boundary given by the image of the line $\{(a,b)\mid a=b\}$. A set of model predictions obtained by measuring at two timepoints will consist of a closed subset of the positive quadrant of $\mathbb R^2$.\hfill $\triangleleft$\end{eg}
For an ODE system with time series data, if we have an exact solution then we can easily construct a model prediction map as in the explicit time dependent case. In the absence of a solution, it may still be possible to construct a model prediction map, at least on a dense open subset of parameter space. For example, the coefficients of the input-output equations used in the differential algebra approach to obtain an exhaustive summary can be estimated from data (see for example \cite[p. 17]{fb:DiffElim}). Hence, in this case one can construct a rational model manifold. For example, in Example \ref{eg-NonlinODE} the map $\phi\colon U\to \mathbb R^5$, when seen as a rational map on the whole parameter space, is a rational model prediction map. In general, however, the best one can do is solve the ODE system numerically and build a \emph{numerical model prediction map} as is done in the sloppiness literature \cite{Transtrum:2010ci,Transtrum:2011de,Transtrum:2014hr,Transtrum:2015hm}. A numerical model prediction map will provide some information on the model equivalence relation induced by an exact model prediction map; the quality of this information will depend on the quality of the numerics.
\section{Sloppiness and its relationship to identifiability}\label{Section-Sloppiness}
We consider a model $M$ with a fixed choice of model prediction map $\phi$. A similar analysis can be made for a model with a generic model prediction map $\varphi$ by replacing $P$ with the domain of definition of $\varphi$ where needed. For the rest of this paper we focus on models with model prediction maps.
We now consider the situation in which the data are model predictions corrupted by measurement noise with a known probability distribution. Hence, according to our assumption, the \emph{noisy data} is the result of a random process. We define the \emph{data space} $Z\subseteq \mathbb R^N$ to be the set of points of $\mathbb R^N$ that can be obtained as a corruption of the perfect data; how much it extends beyond the model predictions will depend on the support of the probability distribution of the measurement noise. The probability density function of the noisy data that can arise for the parameter value $p\in P$ is denoted by $\psi(p,\cdot)\colon Z \to \mathbb R$; it is the probability density of observing data $z \in Z$, which, for each $p\in P$, depends on the model prediction $\phi(p)$ rather than depending directly on the parameter $p$.
The \emph{Kullback-Leibler divergence}, used in probability and information theory, quantifies the difference between two probability distributions \cite{sk-ral:klDiv}. We define a premetric on parameter space via the Kullback-Leibler divergence:
\begin{align}\label{eq:tildeDformula}
d(p,p') &:= \int_{Z} \psi(p,z) \log\left(\frac{\psi(p,z)}{\psi(p',z)} \right) dz.
\end{align}
Gibb's Inequality \cite{tmc-jat:infTheory} proves that the Kullback-Leibler divergence is nonnegative, and zero only when the two probability distributions are equal on a set of probability one. It follows that $d$ is a \emph{premetric}, that is, $d(p,p')\geq 0$ and $d(p,p)=0$. Furthermore, $d(p,p')=0$ if and only if the probability distributions $\psi(p,\cdot)$ and $\psi(p',\cdot)$ are equal on a set of probability one, which is equivalent to $\phi(p)=\phi(p')$, since the dependance of $\psi$ on $p$ is only via the model prediction $\phi(p)$. Note that in general the Kullback-Leibler divergence and the premetric $d$ are not symmetric and do not satisfy the triangle inequality.
\begin{eg}[The case of additive Gaussian measurement noise]\label{eg-AdditiveGaussianNoise1}
Suppose the observations of a model prediction are distributed as follows:
\begin{align}
z \sim \mathcal{N}(\phi(p), \Sigma), \label{eq:gaussianNoise}
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{N}(\phi(p), \Sigma)$ denotes a multivariate Gaussian distribution with mean $\phi(p) \in \mathbb R^N$ and covariance matrix $\Sigma$, a $N\times N$ positive semi-definite matrix. This is equivalent to specifying that $z=\phi(p)+\epsilon$ where $\epsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \Sigma)$, that is, the measurement noise is additive and Gaussian. We let $K$ be the number of experimental replicates, or the size of the sample. The density of a multivariate Gaussian then gives $\psi(p,\cdot)$ as
\begin{align*}
&\psi(p,z) = \left(2\pi\right)^{-\frac{NK}{2}} |\Sigma|^{-\frac{K}{2}} \exp \left( -\frac{K}{2} \big\langle \left(z - \phi(p) \right), \Sigma^{-1} \big(z - \phi(p) \big) \big\rangle \right),
\end{align*}
where $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle$ denotes the inner product.
The computation of \eqref{eq:tildeDformula} then yields :
\begin{align}
&d(p,p') = \frac{K}{2} \Big\langle \phi(p) - \phi(p'), \Sigma^{-1} \big(\phi(p) - \phi(p') \big) \Big\rangle, \label{eq:gaussianTildeD}
\end{align}
(details provided in \cite{Duchi:LinAlgDerivations}). Thus $d(p,p')$ is a weighted sum of squares, and so it is symmetric and satisfies the triangle inequality, and hence $d$ is a pseudometric. In particular, if $\Sigma$ is the identity matrix, then $d$ is induced by half of the square of the Euclidean distance in data space. The pseudometric $d$ is a metric exactly when the model is globally identifiable, since then $d(p,p')=0\Leftrightarrow\phi(p)=\phi(p')\Leftrightarrow p=p'$.\hfill $\triangleleft$
\end{eg}
It is often possible to equip parameter space with a metric, a natural choice being the Euclidean metric inherited from the ambient $\mathbb R^r$. For instance our model might be of a chemical reaction network, where the coordinates of the parameter correspond to the positive, real-valued rate constants associated with particular chemical reactions. In this case, a reasonable choice of reference metric is the Euclidean distance between different points in the positive real quadrant. The reference metric on parameter space may not be Euclidean. For example, the natural metric on tree space that arises in Phylogenetics, the BHV metric, is non-Euclidean \cite{BHV:Treespace2001}.
We can now offer a new precise, but qualitative, definition of sloppiness. We discuss two different quantifications in the following two sections:
\begin{defn}\label{defn-Sloppiness}
Let $(M,\phi,\psi,d_P)$ be a mathematical model with a choice of model prediction map, a specific assumption on the probability distribution of the noisy data, and a choice of reference metric on $P$. We say that $(M,\phi,\psi,d_P)$ is \emph{sloppy} at $p_0$ if in a neighborhood of $p_0$ the premetric $d$ diverges significantly from the reference metric on parameter space.
\end{defn}
\subsection{Infinitesimal Sloppiness}\label{subsection:inf-slop}
We first provide the generally accepted and original quantification of sloppiness found in the literature, which we explain in terms of our new qualitative definition of sloppiness (see Definition \ref{defn-Sloppiness}). The sloppiness literature makes the implicit assumption that the reference metric on parameter space is the standard Euclidean metric, and we make the same assumption in this section.
Fix $p_0\in P$ and consider the map $d(\cdot,p_0)\colon P\to \mathbb R_{\geq 0}$ mapping $p$ to $d(p,p_0)$. Suppose that $d(\cdot,p_0)$ is twice continuously differentiable in a neighborhood of $p_0$. By definition, $d(p_0,p_0) = 0$, and furthermore $p_0$ is a local minimum of $d(\cdot,p_0)$, implying a null Jacobian. Therefore an approximation of $d(p,p_0)$ for $p$ in a neighborhood of $p_0$ is given by the Taylor expansion
\begin{align}\label{eq:infTildeD}
d(p,p_0) = \frac{1}{2}\Big\langle (p-p_0), \left(\nabla_p^2d(p,p_0)\right)|_{p=p_0} (p-p_0) \Big\rangle + \mathcal{O}(\|(p-p_0)\|_2),
\end{align}
where $\|\cdot\|_2$ is the Euclidean norm and $ \nabla_p^2d(p,p_0)$ is the Hessian of the function $d(p,p_0)$, that is, the matrix $\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial p_i\partial p_j}d(p,p_0)\right)_{i,j}$ of second derivatives with respect to the coordinate parameters. This Hessian evaluated at $p=p_0$ is known as the \emph{Fisher Information Matrix (FIM) at $p_0$}.
Local minimality of $d(\cdot,p_0)$ at $p_0$ ensures that the matrix $\left(\nabla_p^2d(p,p_0)\right)|_{p=p_0}$ is positive semidefinite, and so the FIM at $p_0$ induces a pseudometric on parameter space
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{alignat*}{3}
d_{\rm{FIM},p_0}&\colon & P\times P &\to&& \mathbb R_{\geq 0}\\
&& (p,p')& \mapsto && \frac{1}{2}\Big\langle (p-p'), \left(\nabla_p^2d(p,p_0)\right)|_{p=p_0} (p-p')\Big\rangle.
\end{alignat*}
Note that the pseudo-metric $d(\cdot,p_0)$ is not the Fisher Information metric. When the FIM is positive definite, the Fisher Information metric is the Riemannian metric induced by the FIM by computing the line integral of the geodesic linking two parameters $p,p'\in P$ \cite{Amari2007}.
\begin{eg}[The case of additive Gaussian measurement noise]\label{eg-AdditiveGaussianNoise2}
In the sloppiness literature, measurement noise is assumed Gaussian, as in Example \ref{eg-AdditiveGaussianNoise1}, and for $K=1$ the FIM $\left(\nabla_p^2d(p,p_0)\right)|_{p=p_0}$ is known as the \emph{sloppiness matrix at $p_0$}.
Explicitly, the sloppiness matrix is
\begin{align}
\left(\nabla_p^2d(p,p_0)\right)|_{p=p_0}= \frac{1}{2} \left((\nabla_p \phi(p))|_{p=p_0}\right)^T \Sigma^{-1} \left((\nabla_p \phi(p))|_{p=p_0}\right), \label{eq:sloppinessFormula}
\end{align}
where $(\nabla_p \phi(p))|_{p=p_0}$ denotes the Jacobian of $\phi$ with respect to the coordinate parameters evaluated at $p=p_0$.\hfill $\triangleleft$
\end{eg}
\begin{rmk}[Structural identifiability and the FIM]
The FIM is intimately linked to structural identifiability. Indeed, a result of Rothenberg \cite[Theorem 1]{Rothenberg} shows that
$M$ is locally identifiable if and only if the FIM is full rank at some $p_0$. If we assume additive Gaussian noise, then Equation \ref{eq:sloppinessFormula} implies that the rank $r_0$ of the FIM at $p_0$ is equal to the rank of the Jacobian of $\phi$ at $p_0$, and so for generic $p_0$, the dimension of the connected component of $p_0$ in its equivalence class is $r-r_0$ (cf discussion near \cite[Equation 85]{cc-jjdIII:StructuralIdentifiabilityReview}). As one can compute the rank of the FIM by computing the singular value decomposition and employing a sound threshold \cite{Donoho:2014}, the FIM can then be used to numerically determine the dimension of generic equivalence classes. Further approaches for giving probabilistic, and sometimes guaranteed bounds on identifiability using symbolic computation at specific parameters have been developed and applied in \cite{Anguelova2007,Sedoglavic2008,Anguelova2012}.
\end{rmk}
The Taylor expansion \eqref{eq:infTildeD} shows that, for parameters very near $p_0$, the premetric $d$ is approximately given by the pseudometric $d_{\rm{FIM},p_0}$. Therefore, in a neighborhood of $p_0$, the map $\phi$ giving the model predictions is maximally sensitive to infinitesimal perturbations in the direction of the eigenvector of the maximal eigenvalue of the FIM at $p_0$, referred to as the \emph{stiffest} direction at $p_0$. The direction of the eigenvector of the minimal eigenvalue of the FIM at $p_0$, which gives the perturbation direction to which $\phi$ is minimally sensitive, is known as the \emph{sloppiest} direction at $p_0$.
\begin{defn}
Let $(M, \phi,\psi,d_2)$ be a mathematical model with a choice of model prediction map, a specific assumption on measurement noise, and the Euclidean metric as a reference metric on $P$. We say that $(M, \phi,\psi,d_2)$ is \emph{infinitesimally sloppy} at a parameter $p_0$ if there are several orders of magnitude between the largest and smallest eigenvalues of the FIM at $p_0$. We define the \emph{infinitesimal sloppiness at $p_0$} to be the condition number of the FIM at $p_0$, that is, the ratio between its largest and smallest eigenvalues.
\end{defn}
\begin{rmk}
First note that this definition is only meaningful when the FIM at $p_0$ is full rank. In this case, the condition number of the FIM at $p_0$ corresponds to the aspect ratio of the level curves of $d_{\rm{FIM},p_0}$, which is one way to quantify how far these level curves are from Euclidean spheres. Thus, using the condition number of the FIM as a quantification of sloppiness implies that the reference metric on $P$ is the Euclidean metric.
\end{rmk}
The FIM possesses attractive statistical properties. Suppose $(M, \phi,\psi,d_2)$ is locally identifiable and that maximum likelihood estimates exist generically, that is, for almost all $z$, there are parameters minimizing the negative log-likelihood:
$\hat{p}(z) = \min_{p \in P} (-\log \psi(p,z))$. Let $z\in Z$ be a generic data point and let $\hat{p}(z)$ be the unique maximum likelihood estimate. Suppose that the ``true'' parameter is $p_0$, that is, $z$ is a corruption of the model prediction $\phi(p_0)$. When the FIM at $p_0$ is invertible, the Cramer-Rao inequality \cite[Section 7.3]{gc-rlb:statsBook} implies that
\begin{align}
[\left(\nabla_p^2d(p,p_0)\right)|_{p=p_0} ]^{-1} \preceq \operatorname{Cov}_{p_0} \hat{p}(z), \label{eq:crLB}
\end{align}
where
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{Cov}_{p_0} \hat{p}(z) :=& \int_{Z} \hat{p}(z)\hat{p}^T(z) \psi(p_0,z) \ dz\\
&\hspace{1.5cm}- \left(\int_{Z} \hat{p}(z) \psi(p_0,z) \ dz\right) \left(\int_{Z} \hat{p}(z) \psi(p_0,z) \ dz \right)^T
\end{align*}
is the covariance of the maximum likelihood estimate with respect to measurement noise, and $A\preceq B$ if and only if $B-A$ is positive semi-definite. This inequality provides an explicit link between the uncertainty associated with parameter estimation and the geometry of the negative log likelihood. Meanwhile, the sensitivity of $\phi$ is related to the uncertainty associated with parameter estimation via \eqref{eq:crLB}. The asymptotic normality of the maximum likelihood estimates implies that the Cramer-Rao inequality \eqref{eq:crLB} tends to \emph{equality} as $K$ tends to infinity \cite[Section 10.7]{gc-rlb:statsBook}. Formally,
\begin{align}
\lim_{K \to \infty} [\left(\nabla_p^2d(p,p_0)\right)|_{p=p_0}]^{-1} = \operatorname{Cov}_{p_0} \hat{p}(z). \label{eq:sloppinessValid}
\end{align}
The list of regularity conditions required for \eqref{eq:crLB} and \eqref{eq:sloppinessValid} to hold are provided in \cite[Section 7.3]{gc-rlb:statsBook}, and are easily satisfied in practice.
\begin{rmk}
A sufficient condition for $d_{\rm{FIM},p_0}$ to be a good approximation for the premetric $d$ on a neighborhood of $p_0$ is to have a very large number of replicates. In practice, however, questions of cost and time mean that the number of replicates is often very small. Accordingly, the sloppiness literature generally assumes the number of experiments is one ($K=1$), though the effect of increasing experimental replicates in mitigating sloppiness has been explored in \cite{Apgar:2010di}.
\end{rmk}
\begin{eg}[Fitting points to a line]\label{eg-Line4}
We revisit once more the model first considered in Example \ref{eg-Line1}. We consider the model prediction map obtained by evaluating at timepoints $t_1=0$ and $t_2=1$ as in Example \ref{eg-Line3}. We assume that we are in the presence of additive Gaussian error with covariance matrix $\Sigma=I_2$ equal to the identity matrix as discussed in Examples \ref{eg-AdditiveGaussianNoise1} and \ref{eg-AdditiveGaussianNoise2}. As in Example \ref{eg-AdditiveGaussianNoise1} the premetric $d$ is induced by half the square of the Euclidean distance on the data space $\mathbb R^2$. We can explicitly determine $d$:
\begin{align*}
d((a_0,a_1),(a'_0,a'_1))&=\frac{1}{2}\left( (a_0-a'_0)^2+(a_0+a_1-a'_0-a'_1)^2\right)\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\left(2(a_0-a'_0)^2+2(a_0-a'_0)(a_1-a'_1)+(a_1-a'_1)^2\right)\\
&=\frac{1}{2} \left\langle \begin{pmatrix} a_0 -a'_0 \\ a_1-a'_1\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix} 2 & 1\\1 &1\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}a_0-a'_0\\a_1-a'_1\end{pmatrix}\right\rangle.
\end{align*}
We see that $d$ itself is a weighted sum of squares given by a positive definite matrix, and so $d$ is a metric. As the positive definite matrix giving this sum of squares is constant throughout parameter space, it follows that the sloppiness of the model is also constant throughout parameter space. Note that the same phenomenon would happen for any model such that the model manifold is given by an injective linear map (see Proposition \ref{prop:LinearPredictions} below). In particular, the same situation would arise when considering the problem of fitting points to any polynomial curve, as the corresponding model prediction map will be linear.
We next compute the FIM. The map $d(\cdot,(b_0,b_1))$ is given by
\begin{align*}
d((a_0,a_1),(b_0,b_1))=\frac{1}{2}\left( (b_0-a_0)^2+(b_0+b_1-a_0-a_1)^2\right)
\end{align*}
and so its Hessian, that is, the FIM is
\begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{2}\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial a_0^2} d((a_0,a_1),(b_0,b_1)) & \frac{\partial^2}{\partial a_0\partial a_1}d((a_0,a_1),(b_0,b_1))\\
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial a_1\partial a_0} d((a_0,a_1),(b_0,b_1)) & \frac{\partial^2}{\partial a_0^2} d((a_0,a_1),(b_0,b_1))
\end{pmatrix} =\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 1\\
1 & 1\end{pmatrix}
\end{align*}
We conclude that in this case, the pseudometric $d_{\text{FIM},(a_0,a_1)}$ coincides with $d$ on the entire parameter space, which we will see in Proposition \ref{prop:LinearPredictions} is a consequence of the linearity of the model prediction map.
\hfill $\triangleleft$\end{eg}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:LinearPredictions}
Let $(M,\phi, \mathcal{N}(\phi(p),\Sigma),d_2)$ be a mathematical model with parameter space $P\subseteq\mathbb R^r$, a choice of model prediction map, additive Gaussian noise with covariance matrix $\Sigma$, and the Euclidean metric as a reference metric. If the model prediction map $\phi\colon P\to\mathbb R^N$ is linear, then $d_{\text{FIM},p_0}=d$ for all $p_0\in P$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Our assumption that $\phi$ is linear implies that there is a $N\times r$ matrix $A$ with real entries such that $\phi(p)=Ap$. By the discussion in Example \ref{eg-AdditiveGaussianNoise1}, we have
\begin{align*}
d(p',p)&=\frac{K}{2}\Big\langle(Ap'-Ap),\Sigma^{-1}(Ap'-Ap)\Big\rangle\\
&=\frac{K}{2}\Big\langle(A(p'-p)),\Sigma^{-1}(A(p'-p))\Big\rangle\\
&=\frac{K}{2}\Big\langle(p'-p),(A^T\Sigma^{-1} A)(p'-p)\Big\rangle.\\
\end{align*}
On the other hand the FIM is given by
\begin{align*}
\nabla_p^2d(p,p_0) &= \nabla_p^2 \left( -\frac{NK}{2}\log(2\pi)+\frac{K}{2}\log(|\Sigma|)+\frac{K}{2}\Big\langle(Ap_0-Ap), \Sigma(Ap_0-Ap)\Big\rangle\right)\\
&=\frac{K}{2} \nabla_p^2 \left(\Big\langle(Ap_0-Ap),\Sigma^{-1}(Ap_0-Ap)\Big\rangle\right)\\
&= \frac{K}{2} \nabla_p^2 \left(\Big\langle(Ap),\Sigma^{-1}(Ap)\Big\rangle\right)\\
&=\frac{K}{2}A^T\Sigma^{-1} A,
\end{align*}
completing the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{eg}[Linear parameter-varying model]\label{eg-linparvar}
We consider a standard model arising in control theory, which falls under the case of real analytic time
dependent models. Specifically, we consider models of the form
\begin{alignat*}{3}
&\dot{x} &=& A(p)x,\\
&y &=& Cx, \\
&x(0) &= &x_0,
\end{alignat*}
where $A(p)$ is a $m\times m$ matrix with polynomial dependence on the parameter $p\in \mathbb R^{r-1}$, $C$ is a known fixed $n\times m$ matrix with real coefficients, and $y$ is the measurable output. Note that $y$ depends on the initial condition $x_0$, which we will consider as an extension of parameter space. We assume further that $A(p)$ is Hurwitz for all $p$ considered. We denote by $y(t,(p,x_0))$ the output of the system at time $t$, given the parameter $(p,x_0)$. If we measured the system at a finite number of time-points, assuming Gaussian noise-corruption, then the distance function $d((p,x_0),(p',x'_0))$ would be the Euclidean distance between the model predictions at the chosen set of timepoints.
For any pair of parameters $(p,x_0)$ and $(p',x'_0)$, the following integral can be explicitly computed and is a rational function of $(p,x_0)$ and $(p',x'_0)$ (cf \cite[Theorem 1]{Raman2016}, which assumes that $A(p)$ is linear in the parameters, but whose proof holds more generally):
\begin{align*}
d_{\infty}((p,x_0),(p',x'_0)) := \int_{0}^{\infty} \|y(t,(p,x_0)) - y(t,(p',x'_0))\|_2^2 \ dt.
\end{align*}
Note that $d_{\infty}((p,x_0),(p',x'_0))$ is equal to the $L^2$ norm of the function $y(t,(p,x_0)) - y(t,(p',x'_0))$, and so $d_{\infty}((p,x_0),(p',x'_0))=0$ if and only if $y(t,(p,x_0))=y(t,(p',x'_0)$ for almost all $t$. As $y$ is real-analytic, it then follows that $y(t,(p,x_0))=y(t,(p',x'_0)$ for all $t$. Therefore $d_{\infty}((p,x_0),(p',x'_0))=0$ if and only if $(p',x'_0)\sim\!\!_{M,z}(p,x_0)$, and so the equivalence class of $(p,x_0)$ is given by the zeros $(p',x'_0)$ of the rational function $d_{\infty}((p,x_0),(p',x'_0))$. \hfill $\triangleleft$
\end{eg}
\subsection{Multiscale sloppiness}
We now present a quantification of sloppiness that holds for non-Euclidean reference metric and is better suited to the presence of noninfinitesimal noise. In this section, we sometimes make the assumption that for generic $p_0\in P$, there is a neighborhood of $p_0$ where the reference metric $d_P$ is strongly equivalent to the Euclidean metric inherited by $P$ as a subset of $\mathbb R^r$. The BHV metric \cite{BHV:Treespace2001} mentioned at the beginning of the section satisfies this property.
In Section \ref{subsection:inf-slop} we saw how the FIM approximates the premetric $d$ in the limit of decreasing magnitude of parameter perturbation, which is realizable in the limit of increasing experimental replicates or sample size. In a practical context, however the limit of increasing replicates may not be valid. Indeed examples are provided in \cite{keh-trm-rwa:nonlinIdent} and \cite{mf-asm-ak:bootstrap} of models for which the uncertainty of parameter estimation is poorly approximated by the FIM. Even when the approximation is valid, numerical errors in sloppiness quantification are often significant, due to the ill-conditioning of the FIM \cite{Vallisneri2008}. We describe a second approach called \emph{multiscale sloppiness} introduced in \cite{dvr-ja-ap:SloppinessDhruva} for models given by ODE systems with time series data under the assumption of additive Gaussian noise and with the standard Euclidean metric as a reference metric. We extend this quantification of sloppiness to a more general setting.
\begin{defn}[Multiscale Sloppiness]
Consider a model $(M,\phi,\psi,d_P)$ with a choice of model prediction map $\phi$, a specific assumption on measurement noise, and a choice of reference metric on $P$. We define the \emph{$\delta$-sloppiness at $p_0$} to be
\begin{align*}
& \mathcal{S}_{p_0}(\delta) := \frac{\sup_{p \in P} \{ d(p,p_0) \mid d_P(p,p_0) = \delta\}}{\inf_{p \in P} \{ d(p,p_0) \mid d_P(p,p_0) = \delta\}}
\end{align*}
If $d_P$ is strongly equivalent to the Euclidean metric on a neighborhood of $p_0$, then for $\delta$ sufficiently small, the (non-unique) \emph{maximally} and \emph{minimally} disruptive parameters at length scale $\delta$ at the point $p_0\in P$ are the elements of the sets
\begin{align}
&D^{max}_{p_0}(\delta) = \arg\max_{p \in P} d(p,p_0) : d_P(p,p_0) = \delta \label{eq:maxDisrupt} \\
&D^{min}_{p_0}(\delta) = \arg\min_{p \in P} d(p,p_0) : d_P(p,p_0) = \delta, \label{eq:minDisrupt}
\end{align}
respectively.
In this case, the $\delta$-sloppiness at $p_0$ is
\begin{align}
& \mathcal{S}_{p_0}(\delta) = \frac{d(p_{p_0}^{max}(\delta),p_0)}{d(p_{p_0}^{min}(\delta),p_0)},
\end{align}
where $p_{p_0}^{max}(\delta)\in D^{max}_{p_0}(\delta)$ and $d(p_{p_0}^{min}(\delta)\in D^{min}_{p_0}(\delta)$.
\end{defn}
Note that since the set $\{ d(p,p_0) \mid p\in P \text{ and } d_P(p,p_0) = \delta\}$ is a closed set of real numbers with a lower bound (zero), the infimum is actually a minimum, hence $D^{min}_{p_0}(\delta)$ is always well-defined.
\begin{rmk}
Computation of $\delta$-sloppiness would seem to require the solution of a (possibly nonlinear, nonconvex) optimization program for each $\delta >0$. However, assuming the reference metric on parameter space is the Euclidean distance and that we are in the presence of additive Gaussian noise, finding $p^{min}_{p_0}(\delta)\in D^{min}_{p_0}(\delta)$ for continuous ranges of $\delta$ can be formulated as the solution of an optimal control problem relying on solving a Hamiltonian $dH/dp = 0$ as described in \cite[Section 5]{dvr-ja-ap:SloppinessDhruva}. With this method, computation of $\delta$-sloppiness is possible for large, nonlinear systems of ODE. Note that this formulation as an optimal control problem does not fundamentally rely on the assumption of a Euclidean metric on parameter space, and so the principle likely applies to more general classes of metric.
\end{rmk}
If we choose the usual Euclidean distance as the reference metric on parameter space, then as the length-scale $\delta$ goes to zero, infinitesimal and multiscale sloppiness coincide:
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\delta \to 0} \mathcal{S}_{p_0}(\delta) = \frac{\lambda^{max}\left(\nabla_p^2d(p,p_0)\right)|_{p=p_0}}{\lambda^{min}\left(\nabla_p^2d(p,p_0)\right)|_{p=p_0}},
\end{align*}
where $\lambda^{max}$ and $\lambda^{min}$ denote the maximal and minimal eigenvalues of their argument. Indeed, the Taylor expansion (\ref{eq:infTildeD}) implies that as $p$ approaches $p_0$, $d(p,p_0)$ approaches $d_{\rm{FIM},p_0}(p,p_0)$, and so the level sets $\{p\in P \mid d(p,p_0)=\delta \} $ tend to the level sets $\{p \in P \mid d_{\rm{FIM},p_0}(p,p_0)=\delta\}$ as $\delta$ goes to zero.
Multiscale sloppiness, or more precisely the denominator of $\mathcal{S}_{p_0}(\delta)$, is closely related to structural identifiability:
\begin{thm}
Let $(M,\phi,\psi,d_P)$ be a mathematical model with a choice of model prediction map, a specific assumption on measurement noise, and a choice of reference metric $d_P$, which we assume is strongly equivalent to the Euclidean metric. The equivalence class $[p_0]_{\sim\!\!_{M,\phi}}$ of the parameter $p_0$ has size one if and only if $\inf_{p \in P} \{ d(p,p_0) \mid d_P(p,p_0) = \delta\} > 0$ for all $\delta>0$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that the equivalence class $[p_0]$ of $p_0$ has size one, then for any other parameter $p$, we will have $d(p,p_0)>0$. In particular, this will hold for $p^{min}_{p_0}(\delta)\in D^{min}_{p_0}(\delta)$, for any $\delta>0$. Hence $\inf_{p \in P} \{ d(p,p_0) \mid d_P(p,p_0) = \delta\}=d(p^{min}_{p_0}(\delta),p_0)>0.$
Suppose on the other hand that $\inf_{p \in P} \{ d(p,p_0) \mid d_P(p,p_0) = \delta\} > 0$ for all $\delta>0$ and suppose, for a contradiction that $p\in[p_0]$ is distinct from $p_0$. Set $\delta':=d_P(p,p_0)$. As $p\neq p_0$, we have $\delta'>0$ and
\begin{align*}
0=d(p,p_0)\geq \inf_{p \in P} \{ d(p,p_0) \mid d_P(p,p_0) = \delta'\},
\end{align*}
which is a contradiction, since $\inf_{p \in P} \{ d(p,p_0) \mid d_P(p,p_0) = \delta'\} > 0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{eg}[Sum of exponentials]\label{eg:SumExpInfDelta}
We highlight that sloppiness is a local property: it depends on the point in parameter space and the precise choice of timepoints. In this spirit, let us revisit Example \ref{eg-SumExponentials1}, again adding Gaussian measurement noise with identity covariance and taking the model prediction map to be evaluating at timepoints $\{1/3,1,3\}$. We are in the situation considered in Example \ref{eg-AdditiveGaussianNoise1} and so $d$ is again half the squared Euclidean distance between model predictions:
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{align*}
d\left( \ (a,b), (a',b') \ \right) = \frac{1}{2} \|\phi(a,b) - \phi(a',b')\|_2^2,
\end{align*}
where
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\begin{align*}
\phi(a,b) = (e^{-\nicefrac{a}{3}}+e^{-\nicefrac{b}{3}} ,e^{-a}+e^{-b},e^{-3a}+e^{-3b}).
\end{align*}
The Jacobian of the model prediction map at $(a_0,b_0)$ is therefore given as
\begin{align*}
(\nabla_{a,b}\phi(a,b))|_{(a,b)=(a_0,b_0)} = \begin{pmatrix}
-\frac{1}{3} e^{-\nicefrac{a_0}{3}} & - e^{-a_0} & -3 e^{-3a_0} \\ -\frac{1}{3} e^{-\nicefrac{b_0}{3}} & - e^{-b_0} & -3 e^{-3b_0}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{align*}
The FIM at $(a_0,b_0)$, in this case, will be given as
\begin{align*}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{9} e^{-\nicefrac{2a_0}{3}} + e^{-2a_0} + 9 e^{-6a_0} & \frac{1}{9} e^{-\nicefrac{(a_0+b_0)}{3}} + e^{-(a_0+b_0)} + 9 e^{-3(a_0+b_0)} \\
\frac{1}{9} e^{-\nicefrac{(a_0+b_0)}{3}} + e^{-(a_0+b_0)} + 9 e^{-3(a_0+b_0)} & \frac{1}{9} e^{-\nicefrac{2b_0}{3}} + e^{-2b_0} + 9 e^{-6b_0}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{align*}
We compute infinitesimal sloppiness and $\delta$-sloppiness of $(M,\phi)$ at $p_0=(a,b)=(4, 1/8)$ in Figure~\ref{fig:multiscale}: the difference between these notions of sloppiness becomes clear.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=5.75cm]{a4b18-3timepointsv1-eps-converted-to.pdf}
\caption{Infinitesimal sloppiness vs $\delta$-sloppiness of sum of exponential (Example \ref{eg:SumExpInfDelta}). For a given parameter $p_0 = (a = 4, b = 1/8)$ and time points $\{1/3, 1, 3\}$, level sets of $d$ are drawn (colors). The vector field consisting of the eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue of the FIM is plotted across the grid. We compare the flow of this vector field initialised at $p_0$ (gray curve), with the most delta-sloppy parameters with respect to $p_0$ over a range of $\delta$ (orange curve). }
\label{fig:multiscale}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:VaryingTimepoints} illustrates how the change of model prediction map, in this case different choices of timepoints, changes the premetric $d$. This suggests that sloppiness should be taken into consideration when designing an experiment: some choices of timepoints will allow for better quality parameter estimation. Figure~\ref{fig:VaryingParameters}, on the other hand, illustrates how the premetric $d$ changes in parameter space. In particular, these two figures illustrate that unlike identifiability, sloppiness is not a global property of a model.\hfill $\triangleleft$
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node at (-4.1,0) {\includegraphics[trim = 20mm 5mm 19mm 5mm, clip, width=4.5cm]{19Augv2TimepointsOneThirdAndOneAndThree-eps-converted-to.pdf}};
\node at (0,0) {\includegraphics[trim = 20mm 5mm 19mm 5mm, clip, width=4.5cm]{19Augv2TimepointsOneNinthAndOneThird-eps-converted-to.pdf}};
\node at (4.1,0) {\includegraphics[trim = 20mm 5mm 19mm 5mm, clip, width=4.5cm]{19Augv2TimepointsOneAndThree-eps-converted-to.pdf}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Sloppiness for different choices of model prediction map for the sum of exponentials (Example \ref{eg:SumExpInfDelta}). For a given parameter $p_0 = (4, 1/2)$, we draw the level curves of $\sqrt{d(\cdot,(4, 1/2))}$ for timepoints $\{1/3,1,3\}$ on the left, for timepoints $\{1/9,1/3\}$ in the center, and for timepoints $\{1,3\}$ on the right are shown. Taking the square root changes the spacing of the level curves, but not on their shape.
}
\label{fig:VaryingTimepoints}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node at (-4.1,0) {\includegraphics[trim = 20mm 5mm 19mm 5mm, clip, width=4.5cm]{Three-time-points-4-onehalf-eps-to.pdf}};
\node at (0,0) {\includegraphics[trim = 20mm 5mm 19mm 5mm, clip, width=4.5cm]{Three-time-points-3-3-eps-to.pdf}};
\node at (4.1,0) {\includegraphics[trim = 20mm 5mm 19mm 5mm, clip, width=4.5cm]{Three-time-points-2-6-eps-to.pdf}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Sloppiness at different parameters given a choice of model prediction map for the sum of exponentials (Example \ref{eg:SumExpInfDelta}). With the model prediction map given by timepoints $\{1/3,1,3\}$, we draw the level curves of $\sqrt{d(\cdot,(4, 1/2))}$ on the left, of $\sqrt{d(\cdot,(3, 3))}$ in the center, and of $\sqrt{d(\cdot,(6, 2))}$on the right are shown. Taking the square root changes the spacing of the level curves, but not on their shape.
}
\label{fig:VaryingParameters}
\end{figure}
\end{eg}
\subsection{Sloppiness and practical identifiability}
Determining the practical identifiability of a model corresponds to asking whether one can arrive to some estimate of the parameter from noisy data, that is, whether based on an assumption on measurement noise, noisy data constrains the parameter value to a bounded region of parameter space. Part of the literature uses the FIM in the manner of infinitesimal sloppiness to define practical identifiability(see for example \cite{Vajda1989,Chis2016:SloppinessIdentifiability}), but we will see in Example \ref{eg-NotSloppyNotPI} that this method of evaluating practical identifiability can lead to problems. We thus favor an approach more in line with Raue et al \cite{Raue2009}.
Practical identifiability depends on the method used for parameter estimation. We focus on practical identifiability for maximum likelihood estimation, one of the most widely used methods for parameter estimation (see, for example \cite{ll:LjungSystemIdentification}). Accordingly, in the remaining of this section, we consider models $(M,\phi,\psi,d_P)$ with a choice of model prediction map, a specific assumption of the probability distribution of measurement noise and a choice of reference metric on $P$ such that maximum likelihood estimates exist for generic data.
For the noisy data point $z_0\in Z$, supposing the existence of a unique maximum likelihood estimate $\hat{p}(z_0)$ (i.e. supposing the model is generically identifiable, see Proposition \ref{prop-MLEequiv} below), we define an \emph{$\epsilon$-confidence region ${U}_\epsilon(z_0)$} as follows:
\begin{align*}
U_{\epsilon}(z_0) = \{p \in P \mid - \log \psi(p,z_0) < \epsilon \}.
\end{align*}
The $\epsilon$-confidence region therefore denotes the set of parameters that fit the data at least as well as some cutoff quality of fit, predicated on $\epsilon$. The set $U_{\epsilon}(z_0)$ is often known as a Likelihood-based confidence region \cite{Vajda1989, gc-rlb:statsBook}, and is intimately connected with the Likelihood Ratio Test: Suppose we had a null hypothesis $\mathcal{H}_0$ that data $z_0$ was generated (modulo noise) through a parameter $p_0$, and we wished to test the alternative hypothesis $\mathcal{H}_1$ that $z_0$ was generated through some other parameter. By definition, a Likelihood Ratio test would reject the null hypothesis when
\begin{align*}
\Lambda(p_0,z_0):= \frac{\psi(p_0,z_0)}{\psi(\hat{p}(z_0),z_0)} \leq k^*,
\end{align*}
where $k^*$ is a critical value, with the significance level $\alpha$ equal to the probability $\text{Pr}(\Lambda(z_0)\leq k^* | \mathcal{H}_0)$ of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is in fact true. The set of parameters such that the nul hypothesis is not rejected at significance level $\alpha$ is
\[ \{ p' \in P \mid \\log\psi(p',z_0)<-\log-\psi(\hat{p}(z_0),z_0)-\log k^*\},\]
that is, $U_\epsilon(z_0)$, where $\epsilon=-\log-\psi(\hat{p}(z_0),z_0)-\log k^*$.
\begin{prop}[{closely related to \cite[Theorem 2]{eac-bjtm:ParameterRedundency}}]\label{prop-MLEequiv}
Let $(M,\phi,\psi)$ be a mathematical model with a model prediction map, and a specific assumption on measurement noise. Suppose that maximum likelihood estimates exist for generic data. If $\phi$ and $\psi$ are real-analytic, then for almost all $z_0 \in Z$, the set of maximum likelihood estimates $\hat{p}(z)$, consists of exactly one equivalence class of $\sim\!\!_{M,\phi}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $z_0\in Z$ be a generic data point. Solving the likelihood equation corresponds to finding the model prediction ``closest'' to the noisy data, as measured via the negative log-likelihood. We can assume without loss of generality that there is a unique solution to the likelihood equations. Indeed, under our assumptions, the set of data points where the closest model prediction is not unique will be contained in the zero set of analytic functions. Thus, the set of maximum likelihood estimates will consist of a single equivalence class. We can further assume that this equivalence class has generic size.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
The ML degree \cite{sh-ak-bs:sle}, where the acronym ``ML'' stand for maximum likelihood, is defined as the number of complex solutions to the likelihood equations (for generic data). The ML degree is an upper bound for the number of solutions for the maximum likelihood equation, in particular it is an upper bound on the size of the equivalence classes when maximum likelihood estimates exist.
\end{rmk}
Even if for generically identifiable models the maximum likelihood estimate is unique with probability one, the parameter may not be identifiable in practice, meaning that noisy data does not constrain the parameter value to a bounded region of parameter space for a significant portion of the data space. More precisely, we refine the definition of Raue et al \cite{Raue2009}:
\begin{defn}[Practical identifiability]
Let $(M,\phi,\psi,d_P)$ be a mathematical model with a model prediction map, a specific assumption on measurement noise and a choice of reference metric $d_P$ on $P$. Suppose that maximum likelihood estimates exist for generic data. Then $(M,\phi,\psi,d_P)$ is \emph{practically identifiable at significance level $\alpha$} if and only if for generic $z_0\in Z$, there is a unique maximum likelihood estimate and the confidence region $U_{\epsilon}(z_0)$ is bounded with respect to the reference metric $d_P$, where $\epsilon$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
p'\in U_{\epsilon}(z_0) \Leftrightarrow \text{Pr}\Big(-\log \psi(p',\hat{z})<\epsilon ~\Big{ | }~ \hat{z}\in Z \text{ is a corruption of }\phi(\hat{p}(z_0)\Big)=1-\alpha.
\end{align*}
The model $M$ is \emph{practically unidentifiable at significance level $\alpha$} if and only if there is a positive measure subset $Z'\subset Z$ such that for $z_0\in Z'$, the confidence interval $U_{\epsilon}(z_0)$ is unbounded with respect to the reference metric $d_P$ on $P$.
\end{defn}
A model is practically identifiable at significance level $\alpha$ if generic data imposes that the parameter estimate belongs to a bounded region of parameter space, but this confidence region could be very large. Hence practical identifiability in this sense may not necessarily be completely satisfactory to the practitioner. One can further quantify practical identifiability to take into account the size of confidence regions, see for example \cite{dvr-ja-ap:SloppinessDhruva}.
Sloppiness and practical identifiability are complementary concepts. Practically identifiable models can be very sloppy, for example if the estimation of one component of the parameter is much more precise than that of another, see example below.
\begin{eg}[Practically identifiable, but sloppy]
Models with linear model prediction maps, Euclidean parameter space and standard additive Gaussian noise are always practically identifiable according to our definition, but these models can be arbitrarily sloppy.
We consider a model with 2-dimensional Euclidean parameter space and a linear model prediction map $\phi$ given by $(a,b)\mapsto (10^Na,b)$. We assume further that the measurement noise is Gaussian with identity covariance matrix. By Proposition \ref{prop:LinearPredictions}, $d=d_{FIM,p_0}$ for any $p_0$ and at any scale, the level curves of $d$ are ellipses with aspect ratio $10^N$.
Our assumption of additive Gaussian noise implies that for any $z_0$, for each $\epsilon>0$, the confidence interval $U_\epsilon(z_0)$ is an oval whose boundary ellipse is the level set of $d$ centered at the maximum likelihood estimate $\hat{p}(z_0)$. Thus the confidence intervals $U_\epsilon(z_0)$ are bounded for any $\epsilon>0$, and so the model is practically identifiable.
\hfill $\triangleleft$
\end{eg}
In the following, we give an example of a model that is almost everywhere not sloppy at the infinitesimal scale, but is not practically identifiable. This model, however, exhibits some sloppiness at the non-infinitesimal scale. We see that the boundedness of level curves of $d$ almost every where does not imply the boundedness of confidence intervals almost everywhere.
\begin{eg}[Not sloppy at the infinitesimal scale, but not practically identifiable]\label{eg-NotSloppyNotPI}
Consider the mathematical model $(M,\phi,\mathcal{N}(\phi(p), I_2),d_2)$ given by
\begin{alignat*}{3}
\phi :& [1/2,\infty)\times \mathbb R & \to& \mathbb R^2\\
& (a,b) & \mapsto & \left(\frac{a}{a^2+b^2}, -\frac{b}{a^2+b^2}\right),
\end{alignat*}
additive Gaussian noise with identity covariance matrix, and parameter space $P=[1/2,\infty)\times \mathbb R$ equipped with the usual Euclidean metric.
The model prediction map $\phi$ is a conformal mapping that maps the closed half plane $[1/2,\infty)\times \mathbb R$ to the closed disc of radius 1 centered at $(1,0)$ minus the origin. Since it is a conformal mapping, it preserves angles, and so infinitesimal circles are sent to infinitesimal circles. Under our assumptions on measurement noise and with the standard Euclidean metric as a reference metric on $P$, the model is not sloppy at all at the infinitesimal scale at parameters belonging to the open half plane $(1/2,\infty)\times \mathbb R$, but becomes increasingly sloppy at larger and larger scale, especially away from the parameter $(1/2,0)$. The injectivity of the map $\phi$ on $P=[1/2,\infty)\times \mathbb R$ implies that the model $(M,\phi)$ is globally identifiable.
Our assumption on measurement noise implies that the maximum likelihood estimate is the parameter whose image is closest to the data point $z_0$, it will exist for any data point outside the closed half line $(-\infty,0]\times \{0\}$. The confidence region $U_\epsilon(z_0)$ is then the preimage of the Euclidean open disc of radius $\epsilon$ centered at $z_0$. Whenever the closure of this open disc contains the origin, the corresponding confidence region will be unbounded.
\hfill $\triangleleft$
\end{eg}
The final example illustrates that the uniqueness of the maximum likelihood estimate is independent from the boundedness of the confidence regions:
\begin{eg}[Bounded confidence regions but not practically identifiable]
Consider the mathematical model $(M,\phi,\mathcal{N}(\phi(p), I_2),d_2)$ with model prediction map
\begin{alignat*}{3}
\phi :& [1/2,\infty)\times \mathbb R & \to& \mathbb R\\
& (a,b) & \mapsto & a^2+b^2,
\end{alignat*}
additive Gaussian noise with identity covariance matrix, and parameter space $P=[1/2,\infty)\times \mathbb R$ equipped with the usual Euclidean metric. The equivalence class of the model-data equivalence relation are the concentric circles $\{(a,b)\mid a^2+b^2=r\}$ for $r\geq0$, and so the model is generically non-identifiable. By Proposition \ref{prop-MLEequiv}, the set of maximum likelihood estimates for a generic $(a_0,b_0)\in \mathbb R$ is also a circle centered at the origin and the model is practically non-identifiable on any open neighborhood of $(a_0,b_0)$. On the other hand, as the measurement noise is assumed to be Gaussian and the equivalence classes of $\sim\!\!_{M,\phi}$ are bounded, any confidence region will be bounded as well. Indeed, the confidence region $U_{\epsilon}((a_0,b_0))$ will be either an open disk $\{(a,b)\in \mathbb R^2 \mid a^2+b^2<a_0^1+b_0^2+\epsilon\}$, when $\epsilon>a_0^1+b_0^2$, or an open ring $\{(a,b)\in \mathbb R^2 \mid a_0^1+b_0^2-\epsilon<a^2+b^2<a_0^1+b_0^2+\epsilon\}$, otherwise.\hfill $\triangleleft$
\end{eg}
\section{Future of sloppiness}
There are a number of interesting future directions for the theory and application of sloppiness. While we explained sloppiness via identifiability, this is only the beginning. An important next step is understanding sloppiness in the context of existing inference and uncertainty quantification theory. In terms of applications, there are some models where the reference metric on parameter space is non-Euclidean and we believe the computation of multiscale sloppiness can be adapted. While beyond the expertise of the authors, we would be excited to learn how the presented geometry of sloppiness extends to stochastic differential equations.
We highlighted how sloppiness is a local property, dependent on the parameter and timepoints of experiment. This dependence is reflected in model selection studies where a different model is selected depending on the choice of timepoints \cite{Silk:2014} or experimental stimulus dose \cite{Gross:2016}. We believe quantifying the shape of $\delta$-sloppiness in relation to identifiability will have direct impact on parameter estimation.
\section{Acknowledgements}
HAH gratefully acknowledges the late Jaroslav Stark for posing this problem. The authors thank Carlos Am\'endola, Murad Banaji, Mariano Beguerisse D\'iaz, Sam Cohen, Ian Dryden, Paul Kirk, Terry Lyons, Chris Meyers, Jim Sethna, Eduardo Sontag, Bernd Sturmfels, and Jared Tanner for fruitful discussions. Additionally, we thank the anonymous referees for their helpful comments. This paper arises from research done while ED was a postdoctoral research assistant at the Mathematical Institute in Oxford funded by the John Fell Oxford University Press (OUP) Research Fund, and DVR was supported by the EPSRC Systems Biology Doctoral Training Center. ED is now supported by an Anne McLaren Fellowship from the University of Nottingham. HAH and DVR began discussions at the 2014 Workshop on Model Identification funded by KAUST KUK-C1-013-04. HAH was supported by EPSRC Fellowship EP/K041096/1 and now a Royal Society University Research Fellowship.
\bibliographystyle{plainurl}
|
\section{Introduction}
The triangular lattice Ising antiferromagnet is arguably the simplest model of a highly frustrated magnet and was probably the earliest such system to be studied in detail \cite{tlafm}. At low temperatures it is both highly fluctuating and strongly correlated; indeed, it remains disordered down to zero temperature and has a macroscopically degenerate ground state. The combination of fluctuations with correlations is typical more generally of highly frustrated magnets, which in this regime have been termed cooperative paramagnets or classical spin-liquids \cite{review}.
In this paper we consider three-dimensional (3D) Ising antiferromagnets built from triangular layers that are stacked in such a way that nearest-neighbour interlayer interactions are frustrated, and make comparisons with the unfrustrated stacking. We focus on low-temperature behaviour in systems with weak interlayer coupling, where correlations within each layer are necessarily strong but correlations between layers are controlled by a competition between fluctuations and interactions. Using a combination of perturbative and non-perturbative analytical techniques and Monte Carlo simulations, we show that this competition leads to a classical spin liquid regime, in which strong correlations exist without long range order.
Models for frustrated magnets can be classified at the mean-field level according to the properties of the matrix of exchange interactions.
In this approach, the eigenvectors associated with the minimum eigenvalues of the interaction matrix provide candidate ordering patterns. These minimum eigenvalues appear at isolated points in reciprocal space for unfrustrated systems, but may be highly degenerate for frustrated systems. For example, for nearest neighbour interactions on the kagome and pyrochlore lattices, the subspace of minimum eigenvalues forms a flat band that spans the entire Brillouin zone \cite{review,kagome,pyrochlore}. Other cases display intermediate behaviour: on the diamond lattice with nearest and next-nearest neighbour interactions, the minimum eigenvalues form a two-dimensional surface in the 3D Brillouin zone \cite{bergman}. The systems we discuss here are distinctive in having minimum eigenvalues that lie on \emph{lines} in the 3D Brillouin zone \cite{rastelli}. One of our central findings is that these systems have a cooperative paramagnetic regime in which they develop strong correlations that are centred near these reciprocal-space lines.
The three different ways of stacking triangular layers that we compare in this work are indicated in standard notation by
$aaa$, $abc$, and $abab$:
see Fig.~\ref{fig:stacking_interactions}. Of these, the first provides a reference model without interlayer frustration, while the $abc$ stacking yields minimum eigenvalues along helices in the Brillouin zone, and the $abab$ stacking gives minimum eigenvalues on a ring around the Brillouin zone corner. The $abc$ stacking with equal in-plane and interlayer interactions is equivalent to a nearest-neighbour model on the face-centered-cubic (fcc) lattice, while the $abab$ stacking forms the hexagonal-close-packed (hcp) lattice.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth]{ss_interactions.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth]{fcc_interactions.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth]{hcp_interactions.pdf}
\caption{The three different ways of stacking triangular lattices that are considered in this paper: $aaa$ (top left), $abc$ (top right), $abab$ stacking (bottom). In-plane interactions $J$ and interlayer interactions $J_\perp$ are indicated with full and dashed lines, respectively.
}
\label{fig:stacking_interactions}
\end{figure}
Moving beyond a mean-field classification, the theoretical understanding of stacked triangular lattice Ising antiferromagnets (TLIAFMs) that we develop here is based on the height model description of low-temperature states for a single layer \cite{heightmodel,zeng}. This long-established model represents ground states of a layer in terms of an emergent height field, with a simple effective Hamiltonian that captures the entropy of fluctuations. A spin-flip excitation fractionalises into an unbound vortex-antivortex excitation pair in the height field, and the vortex separation sets the correlation length at finite temperature in the single-layer model. In the following we derive and study height models for weakly coupled multilayer systems, showing how the interplay of interlayer coupling and vortex excitations allows strong correlations to develop between layers, without long-range order. We also use the results of extensive Monte Carlo simulations to test these conclusions and to examine behaviour when interlayer coupling is not weak.
Our study is motivated in part by observations \cite{yamada, radaelli} of charge ordering in the materials LuFe$_2$O$_4$ and YbFe$_2$O$_4$. The charge states of $\text{Fe}^{2+}$ and $\text{Fe}^{3+}$ ions in these systems can be represented using Ising pseudospins, with antiferromagnetic coupling between pseudospins arising from screened Coulomb interactions \cite{yamada,harris}. The pseudospins occupy the sites of an $abc$-stacked triangular lattice, though with an alternating layer spacing that is not included in the models we study. Experimental studies \cite{yamada,radaelli,fe-review}, in particular of YbFe$_2$O$_4$ \cite{radaelli}, find helices of scattering intensity in a temperature range above a three-dimensional charge-ordering transition. These helices mirror in their reciprocal space location the positions of minimum eigenvalues of the interaction matrix discussed above. While an accurate description of these materials would require treating additional (magnetic) degrees of freedom \cite{fe-review}, the results we present in this paper demonstrate how strong interlayer correlations can arise over an extended temperature range without long-range order.
Past theoretical work on charge ordering in these materials has included quite detailed mean-field treatments \cite{yamada,harris} and Monte Carlo simulations of a bilayer model \cite{nagano}, but has not made use of the understanding of single-layer TLIAFMs provided by height models, or used simulations to study correlations in the paramagnetic phase with the detail we present here.
TLIAFMs with other stackings have been examined previously in a variety of contexts. Treatments of the $abab$ case include mean-field theory, a low temperature expansion, and Monte Carlo simulations \cite{domany,kallin, diep}. That work has probed the ordering transition, but without examining the limit of weakly coupled layers or correlations in the paramagnetic phase. TLIAFMs with unfrustrated ($aaa$) stacking have been of long-standing interest \cite{kallin-aaa}. They display a continuous phase transition that, strikingly, is in the 3D XY universality class despite the absence of a microscopic continuous symmetry \cite{coppersmith,ma}. The two components of the order parameter represent ordering at the two inequivalent Brillouin zone corners, and the XY symmetry is broken in the ordered phase by dangerously irrelevant six-fold anisotropies. This model and transition are also important as an imaginary time representation of the quantum dimer model on the hexagonal lattice \cite{moessner2001}.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. We introduce the models studied and give an overview of their physical behaviour in Sec.~\ref{overview}. We describe Monte Carlo results in Sec.~\ref{MC}. We introduce height models in Sec.~\ref{height} and analyse their behaviour in Secs.~\ref{behaviour} and \ref{beyond}. Results from our different approaches are compared in Sec.~\ref{discussion}. Some technical details are described in a series of appendices. An outline of some of the results has been presented previously in Ref.~\onlinecite{previous}.
\section{Models and overview}\label{overview}
The starting point for our investigation is the nearest neighbour Ising antiferromagnet on stacked triangular layers with anisotropic couplings. Each spin is coupled to its six in-plane neighbours with an exchange constant $J>0$ and to the closest spins in the layers above and below with an exchange constant $J_{\perp}$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:stacking_interactions}). The Hamiltonian is
\begin{align} \label{TheHamiltonian}
H &= J \sum_{\langle ij\rangle, z} \sigma_{i,z} \sigma_{j,z} + J_\perp \sum_{\{ ij\}, z} \sigma_{i, z} \sigma_{j,z+1} + H^{(1)}
\end{align}
where $H^{(1)}$ indicates further-neighbour interactions, which may be present in the bare Hamiltonian or may represent terms generated under renormalisation. Here $\sigma_{i,z} = \pm1$, the notation $\langle i,j \rangle$ denotes nearest neighbour pairs of sites from the same layer, and $\{i,j\}$ nearest neighbour pairs from adjacent layers.
The sign of $J_\perp$ may be taken positive without loss of generality, since it can be reversed by the transformation: $\sigma_{i,z} \to \sigma^\prime_{i,z} = (-1)^z\sigma_{i,z}$.
We are concerned with the statistical mechanics of these models as a function of temperature $T$ and the interaction strength ratio $J_\perp/J$. At $J_\perp/J=1$, one expects ordering below a temperature $T_{\rm c} \sim J$, while for $J_\perp/J=0$ the system of uncoupled layers remains disordered at all temperatures. A schematic phase diagram obtained by interpolating between these limits has the form shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:schematic_phase_diag}. For $J_\perp/J \ll 1$ the paramagnetic phase extends to temperatures $T\ll J$. In this regime, spins are highly correlated within each layer. Our objectives are to understand interlayer correlations and the form of the phase boundary for small $T/J$ and $J_\perp/J$, in each of the three stackings. For the two frustrated stackings we find that at small $J_\perp/J$ there is a low-temperature regime in which the correlation lengths, both in-layer and inter-layer, are much larger than the lattice spacing. A system in this regime is termed a {\it cooperative paramagnet} or {\it classical spin liquid}. This regime is smoothly connected to the conventional paramagnetic state at $T\gg J$ but distinguished from it by strong correlations.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=0.25\textwidth]{schematic_phase_diagram.pdf}
\caption{Schematic phase diagram for stacked triangular lattice Ising antiferromagnets. The full line represents the phase boundary, and the dashed line indicates a smooth crossover.}
\label{fig:schematic_phase_diag}
\end{figure}
For orientation it is useful to have a simple approach that gives an initial indication of likely behaviour. Mean field theory can often be employed in this way but fails here, wrongly predicting an ordering temperature set by $J$, even for small $J_\perp$. An alternative that has been widely applied in geometrically frustrated magnets is the self-consistent Gaussian approximation (SCGA) \cite{SCGA}. It is well-controlled only for $n$-component spins at large $n$, but is known in some instances to be quite accurate even for Ising systems \cite{isakov}. In the SCGA, correlations are given in terms of the interaction matrix ${\bf J}$ and the inverse temperature $\beta$ by
\begin{align}
\langle \sigma_{i} \sigma_{j}\rangle = \left[\left(\beta \mathbf{J} + \lambda \mathbf {I} \right)^{-1}\right]_{ij}\,.\label{scga_correlator}
\end{align}
Here, $\lambda$ is a parameter fixed by the consistency condition $\langle \lvert \sigma_i \rvert^2 \rangle = 1$, which can be satisfied throughout the paramagnetic phase. Using a spectral decomposition of $\bf J$ in terms of its eigenvalues $\epsilon_{\mathbf{q}}^l$ and eigenvectors $u^{l}_{\mathbf{q}}\left(\alpha\right)$, where $\alpha$ labels sites within a unit cell and $l$ labels the bands of $\bf J$, the SCGA expression for the structure factor is
\begin{align}\label{SCGAS(q)}
S(\mathbf{q}) &=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i,j} \left[\left(\beta \mathbf{J} + \lambda \mathbf {I} \right)^{-1}\right]_{ij}e^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot(\mathbf{r}_i-\mathbf{r}_j)}\nonumber\\
&= \sum_{l,\alpha,\alpha'} \frac{u^{l*}_{\mathbf{q}}\left(\alpha\right) u^{l}_{\mathbf{q}}\left(\alpha'\right)}{\beta\epsilon_{\mathbf{q}}^l+\lambda}
\end{align}
From this it is apparent [barring cancellations in the sum $\sum_{\alpha,\alpha'}u^{l*}_{\mathbf{q}}\left(\alpha\right) u^{l}_{\mathbf{q}}\left(\alpha'\right)$] that maxima in $S({\bf q})$ arise from minima in $\epsilon_{\mathbf{q}}^l$.
Applying the SCGA to stacked triangular lattice antiferromagnets, the paramagnetic phase extends to temperatures $T\ll J$ if $J_\perp \ll J$, and in this regime the maxima in $S({\bf q})$ are sharply defined. To find the location of these maxima in reciprocal space, we examine the minima of $\epsilon_{\mathbf{q}}^l$. We take axes with $\hat{z}$ perpendicular to the triangular layers, unit spacing between neighbouring layers for the $aaa$ and $abc$ stackings, and unit spacing between neighbouring $a$-layers in the $abab$ stacking, which has two sites per primitive unit cell. We choose in-plane lattice vectors
\begin{equation} \label{latticevectors}
{\bf a}_1=(1,0,0) \qquad {\rm and}\qquad {\bf a}_2=(1/2,\sqrt{3}/2,0),
\end{equation}
The corresponding in-plane reciprocal lattice vectors are ${\bf A}_1 = 2\pi(1,-1/\sqrt{3},0)$ and ${\bf A}_2 = 2\pi(0,2/\sqrt{3},0)$. We use $\bm{\delta}$ to denote the separation vector between neighbouring sites in adjacent layers. Hence $\bm{\delta} = (0,0,1)$, $(1/2,1/(2\sqrt{3}),1)$ and $(1/2,1/(2\sqrt{3}),1/2)$ for the $aaa$, $abc$ and $abab$ stackings, respectively.
The contribution to $\epsilon_{\mathbf{q}}^l$ from in-plane interactions has a minimum at the $K$-points of the triangular lattice Brillouin zone:
\begin{equation} \label{Kpoints}
\mathbf{K} = (\frac{ 4 \pi}{3},0) \qquad {\rm and}\qquad \mathbf{K}^\prime = (\frac{ 2 \pi}{3},\frac{ 2 \pi}{\sqrt{3} }).
\end{equation}
Upon inclusion of small $J_\perp$, these minima evolve in different ways for each of the stackings we consider. For the $aaa$ stacking, they lie at isolated points, undisplaced in-plane and at $q_z =\pi$. For the frustrated stackings, their locations can be specified in terms of the wavevector-dependent complex scalar $\zeta = 1+e^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{a}_1}+e^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{a}_2}$. In the $abc$ case they lie on the curve
\begin{equation}\label{Qabc}
\zeta = -\frac{J_\perp}{J}e^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot\bm{\delta}}
\end{equation}
and in the $abab$ case they lie on
\begin{equation}\label{Qabab}
\lvert \zeta\rvert = \frac{J_\perp}{J},\quad q_z=0\,.
\end{equation}
These conditions respectively define helices and rings centred on the zone corners, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:scga_plots}. Further discussion of the interaction matrix eigenvalues is given in Appendix~\ref{scga_app}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textwidth]{scga_helices.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.37\textwidth]{scga_rings.pdf}
\caption{Location of surfaces on which eigenvalues of the interaction matrix are constant and close to the minimum, for (top) the $abc$ stacking, and (bottom) the $abab$ stacking, at $J_\perp/ J = 0.2$.
}
\label{fig:scga_plots}
\end{figure}
\section{Monte Carlo Simulations}\label{MC}
We use extensive Monte Carlo simulations to find the ordering temperature for all three models and to study correlations in the paramagnetic phase of models on the $abc$ and $abab$ stacked lattices.
The primary observables computed are the energy $E$, specific heat $C$, and the structure factor $S(\mathbf{q})$,
which is obtained from the Fourier transform of magnetisation
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\sigma}(\mathbf{q}) = \sum_{i} e^{i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}_i}\sigma_i\label{fourier_spins}
\end{equation}
as
\begin{equation}
S\left(\mathbf{q}\right) = \frac{1}{L^2L_z}\langle \lvert\tilde{\sigma}(\mathbf{q})\rvert^2 \rangle.\label{struct_fact}
\end{equation}
Because of the complex energy landscape arising from geometrical frustration, we employ a parallel tempering algorithm with single-spin-flip Metropolis dynamics\cite{Swendsen1986,Parisi1992}. Specifically, we simulate $N_\text{r}$ replicas (taking $ N_\text{r} \sim 100$) at geometrically spaced temperatures, with the highest temperature $\sim 5J$. A Monte Carlo sweep involves one single-spin-flip attempt per site, followed by one parallel tempering swap attempt between replicas at adjacent temperatures. A system consists of $L_z$ rhombic layers, each of size $L \times L$ lattice constants, with periodic boundary conditions in all directions. A typical simulation treats $\approx 10^5$ sites $\left( L = 72-200, L_z = 12-48 \right)$ using $10^5$ sweeps. We measure $E$ and $C$ each sweep, and $S(\mathbf{q})$ every $N_\text{r}$ sweeps. Further details of the data analysis are presented in Appendix \ref{num_app}.
\subsection{Ordering Transition}
Phase diagrams as a function of $T$ and $J_\perp$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phase_diagram} for both the unfrustrated ($aaa$) and the frustrated ($abc$ and $abab$) stackings. For a given strength of interlayer coupling, the ordering temperature (determined from the maximum of the heat capacity) is much lower in the systems with frustrated stackings compared with the unfrustrated one. In addition, over most of the range of $J_\perp/J$ studied, the transitions in the systems with frustrated stackings are strongly first order: the probability distribution of the energy is strongly bimodal at the transition unless $J_\perp/J\ll 1$. The discontinuity in the energy at the transition decreases with decreasing $J_\perp$, and for $J_\perp \lesssim 0.05J$ the order of the transition is not discernible from the simulations. Differences in transition temperature between the two frustrated stackings are very small for $J_\perp/J\leq 1$. Our results for the $abc$ stacking at $J_\perp=J$ can be compared with earlier work on the fcc lattice, and are in good agreement with the transition temperature of $T_c \approx 1.72J$ found in Refs.~\onlinecite{FCC1980,FCC2006}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{phase_diagram_combined_boundary.pdf}
\caption{Phase boundaries for the unfrustrated ($aaa$) and frustrated ($abc$ and $abab$) stackings. Points: data from Monte Carlo simulations. Lines: fits to theory of Sec.~\ref{phasediagram}; see discussion in Sec.~\ref{discussion}.
}
\label{fig:phase_diagram}
\end{figure}
Examples of the energy distribution at different temperatures are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:output206_equilibration}. We monitor the overlap of distributions at adjacent temperatures in the parallel tempering scheme, as substantial overlap is a requirement for effective exchange of replicas. The top panel demonstrates that this is the case in our simulations. At a first-order transition, the energy distribution is bimodal. The middle panel illustrates this. Finite size shifts in our estimates of the transition temperature are a few percent, as indicated by a comparison of the middle and lower panels.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{histogram_output206_equilibration.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{histogram_output206_transition.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{histogram_L96_Lz1224_01.pdf}
\caption{Distributions $P(E)$ of energy $E$ for the $abc$ stacking with $J_\perp = 0.1J$. Top: temperatures in the range $0.4J\leq T \leq 0.65J$. Middle: temperatures $T = 0.50J$, $0.51J$ and $0.52J$ close to the transition. System size $L=72$, $L_z = 12$. The distribution closest to the transition is solid red outlined in black, centered around E = -1.011 in the top panel, and is the middle temperature in the middle panel. Its bimodal form indicates a first-order transition. Bottom: finite size effects, illustrated for $L=96$ and $T=0.52J$.}
\label{fig:output206_equilibration}\label{fig:output206_transition}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Correlation functions}
A characteristic feature of classical spin liquids is the presence of strong correlations and a large correlation length, without long-range order or proximity to a critical point. In this subsection we present correlation functions and correlation lengths for TLIAFMs with frustrated stackings, determined from Monte Carlo simulations.
\subsubsection{The $abc$ stacking}\label{abc}
The behaviour of the structure factor for a system with $abc$ stacking in the classical spin-liquid regime is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:structure_factor_slices}. Combining information from the series of slices in reciprocal space that are shown in this figure, it is apparent that maxima in $S({\bf q})$ lie on helices in reciprocal space. The axes of these helices pass through corners of the triangular-lattice Brillouin zone.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{structure_factor_output178_temp0_slices-crop.pdf}
\caption{Cross-sections of structure factor at constant $q_z$ in a system with $abc$ stacking. For each $q_z$, sharp maxima in $S({\bf q})$ occur near the Brillouin zone boundary, which is shown as a green dashed line. As $q_z$ increases, the maxima precess around the zone corners without significant change in intensity, indicating that they form helices in the three-dimensional reciprocal space. Parameter values are $J_\perp = 0.2J$, $T = 0.8J$, $L=72, L_z = 12$; for this value of $J_\perp$, $T_c = (0.68 \pm 0.01)J$.}
\label{fig:structure_factor_slices}
\end{figure*}
To analyse this behaviour quantitatively, we extract a reciprocal-space radius $Q$ for the helix and a correlation length $\xi_\perp$ by fitting data for $S({\bf q})$ near the maxima to a sum of in-plane Lorentzians
\begin{equation}\label{abcS}
S\left(\mathbf{q}\right) = \frac{I}{\xi_\perp^{2}\left(\mathbf{q}_\perp-\mathbf{q}^0_\perp(q_z)\right)^2 + 1}
\end{equation}
from each helix. Provided any dependence of $|{\bf q}^0(q_z)|$ on $q_z$ is weak, we can make the identification
$Q=|{\bf q}^0(q_z)|$. (See Appendix~\ref{num_app} for further discussion.)
Results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fit_params_v_T}. The correlation length $\xi_\perp$ increases rapidly with decreasing $T$ for $T\lesssim J$, as demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:fit_params_v_T}(a). It reaches large values within the paramagnetic phase if $J_\perp/J$ is small. Its dependence on $J_\perp$ at fixed $T$ is very weak, because its value is determined by the density of vortices in the height field [see Sec.~\ref{behaviour}] and for $J_\perp \ll J$ this in turn is controlled mainly by the value of $T/J$.
The variation of the helix radius $Q$ with $J_\perp$ and $T$ is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:fit_params_v_T}(b). Its value is given quite accurately by the SCGA, Eq.~(\ref{Qabc}), for $T\gtrsim J$, and shows a small increase with decreasing temperature.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth,page=1]{parameter_plots.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth,page=2]{parameter_plots.pdf}
\caption{$(a)$ Correlation length $\xi_\perp$ and $(b)$ helix radius $Q$, as a function of temperature for various values of $J_\perp$ in the $abc$ stacking. $\xi_\perp$ is measured in units of lattice spacing, $Q$ in units of inverse lattice spacing. Dashed lines are SCGA predictions for $Q$ from Eq.~(\ref{Qabc}). Results were obtained in a system of size $L=72, L_z = 12$. Data for each value of $J_\perp$ extend to the lowest temperature employed in parallel tempering that was above $T_{\rm c}$.}
\label{fig:fit_params_v_T}
\end{figure}
In the ordered phase, Bragg peaks are expected in the structure factor, in place of a continuous distribution of weight on helices. We probe the evolution between the two behaviours by computing
\begin{equation}\label{Savg}
S_\text{avg}(q_z) = \frac{1}{L^2}\sum_{q_x,q_y}S(\mathbf{q})\,.
\end{equation}
Results in Fig.~\ref{fig:q_z_modulations} show the rapid development of Bragg peaks as temperature is lowered through the transition. Although we believe that the transition is first order for the value of $J_\perp/J$ studied here, discontinuities are not apparent in the temperature dependence of $S_\text{avg}(q_z)$, presumably because of finite-size rounding. Indeed, since evaluation of correlation functions is more computationally demanding than calculation of energy distributions, the results presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:q_z_modulations} are for smaller system size than those in Fig.~\ref{fig:output206_equilibration}; we find (data not shown) that the energy distribution at the transition is not bimodal for the smaller size.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{q_z_modulations_output234_v2.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Qz_v_Temp_output234.pdf}
\caption{Development of Bragg peaks in the ordered phase for the $abc$ stacking. Top: $S_\text{avg}(q_z)$ [Eq.~(\ref{Savg})] as a function of $q_z$ at four selected temperatures near the transition, in a system with $J_\perp = 0.1J$. Data are for
$T =0.45J$, $0.5J$, $0.52J$ and $0.6J$, in order of decreasing peak intensity, and the transition temperature is $T_{\rm c} \approx 0.54J$. Bottom: $S_\text{avg}(q_z)$ as a function of $T$ for the three values of $q_z$ that are marked with vertical dashed lines in the top panel. Results for both panels were obtained in a system of size $L=36$, $L_z = 48$.}
\label{fig:q_z_modulations}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{The $abab$ stacking}\label{ab}
Because the $abab$-stacked lattice has two sites in a primitive unit cell, the relation between fluctuations and correlations is less direct than for the $abc$ stacking, in which the unit cell has a single site. More specifically, the form of $S({\bf q})$ is affected by interference between contributions from the two sites. Within the SCGA, this is apparent from Eq.~(\ref{SCGAS(q)}), where contributions involving a given eigenvalue $\epsilon^l_{\bf q}$ of the interaction matrix are weighted by a sum $\sum_{\alpha,\alpha^\prime} u^{l*}_{\mathbf{q}}\left(\alpha\right) u^{l}_{\mathbf{q}} \left(\alpha^\prime\right)$ that includes both site-diagonal ($\alpha=\alpha'$) and interference ($\alpha\not=\alpha'$) terms. In order to eliminate these interference effects and expose fluctuations in the $abab$ stacking in a simple way, we compute the structure factor using contributions only from one of the two sites in each unit cell, by restricting the sum in Eq.~(\ref{fourier_spins}) to this set of sites.
We expect from Eq.~(\ref{Qabab}) that this single-sublattice structure factor will have its maxima lying on closed loops in the $q_z=0$ plane. An overview of our data, illustrating this behaviour, is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:structure_factor_slices_ring}.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{ABAB_rings.pdf}
\caption{Cross-sections of structure factor at $q_z = 0$ for systems with varying $J_\perp$ in the $abab$ stacking. Intensity is maximum on a closed loop, which is approximately circular for small $J_\perp/J$ but develops triangular distortions with increasing $J_\perp/J$. Data (from left to right) are for
$T = 1.14J$, $0.71J$, $0.64J$, $0.57J$, obtained in systems of size $L=72$, $90$, $90$, $204$ and $L_z = 12$, $12$, $30$, $6$. Note the changing intensity scale and increasing maximum intensity as $J_\perp$ and $T$ decrease. The ordering temperatures are $T_{\rm c}/J = 0.99\pm 0.008$, $0.680\pm 0.014$, $0.602\pm 0.007$ and $0.502\pm 0.01$.}
\label{fig:structure_factor_slices_ring}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{parameter_plots_ab_layer_fit.pdf}
\caption{Correlation length, $\xi_\perp$, as a function of temperature for various values of $J_\perp$ in the $abab$ stacking, obtained by fitting to the functional form given in Eq.~(\ref{SQabab}).}
\label{fig:parameter_ab_layer_fit}
\end{figure}
A simple way to extract a correlation length $\xi_\perp$ is by fitting data for $q_z=0$ and $q_x,q_y$ close to a selected Brillouin zone corner to the functional form
\begin{align}\label{SQabab}
S\left(\mathbf{q}\right) &= \frac{I}{\xi_\perp^{2}\left(Q -\lvert \mathbf{q}_\perp - \mathbf{K}\rvert\right)^2 + 1},
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{K}$ denotes the location of the Brillouin-zone corner and $Q$ specifies the reciprocal-space radius of the ring of intensity.
This fitting function provides a good description of the data for small values of $J_\perp/J$, where the maximum in the structure factor lies on a circle, but it does not capture the triangular distortions for larger $J_\perp/J$ that are apparent in the left-most panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:structure_factor_slices_ring}. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:parameter_ab_layer_fit}, and as for the $abc$ stacking, the resulting values of $\xi_\perp$ increase rapidly with decreasing temperature but vary little with $J_\perp$.
\subsubsection{Self-consistent Gaussian Approximation}\label{scga}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{side_comparison_structure_factor.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of SCGA and simulation results for $S(\mathbf{q})$ in the $abab$ stacking. $J_\perp = 0.4J, T = 1.36J$}
\label{fig:side_by_side}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{parameter_plots_abc_scga.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{parameter_plots_ab_selfconsist.pdf}
\caption{
Correlation length $\xi_\perp$ as a function of temperature for various values of $J_\perp$ as obtained from the SCGA. Top: abc stacking. Bottom: abab stacking. The data labeled `SCGA' have been derived by imposing the condition $\langle|\sigma|^2\rangle=1$ while the variable $\lambda$ is used as a fitting parameter in the other curves. For clarity, results from the first of these approaches are shown only at one value of $J_\perp$; agreement is similar at other values of $J_\perp$.}
\label{fig:scga_parameter_plot}
\end{figure}
As discussed in section ~\ref{overview},
the SCGA provides a useful description of frustrated magnets in the strongly correlated regime. In particular, it offers a simple theoretical prediction for $S({\bf q})$, which we now show to be a good representation of our simulation data. We use the functional form of Eq.~(\ref{SCGAS(q)}) in two ways, which are distinct in principle but yield very similar results. One of these treats the variable $\lambda$ as a fitting parameter with respect to simulations; the other fixes its value using the SCGA condition $\langle |\sigma_i|^2\rangle=1$.
The SCGA form for $S({\bf q})$ is especially helpful at larger values of $J_\perp/J$, when detailed lattice effects are important. The results of these lattice effects for the $abc$ stacking include a dependence of the helix radius [${\bf q}_\perp^0(q_z)$ in Eq.~(\ref{abcS})] on $q_z$. For the $abab$ stacking they generate correlations that are not represented using the circular maximum in $S({\bf q})$ implied by the fitting function given in Eq.~(\ref{SQabab}). The SCGA gives a good description of this physics.
Most notably, for the $abab$ stacking the SCGA fits are effective in capturing the triangular distortion of the rings, as demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:side_by_side}.
Once the value of $\lambda$ is obtained from the fit, the correlation length can be extracted from the model. The results for $\xi_\perp$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:scga_parameter_plot}. They agree to $\sim 10\%$ with those obtained by fitting the functional forms given in Eq.~(\ref{abcS}) and Eq.~(\ref{SQabab}) for the $abc$ and $abab$ cases respectively (see Figs.~\ref{fig:fit_params_v_T}a and \ref{fig:parameter_ab_layer_fit}). Alternatively, the value of $\lambda$ can be determined without reference to simulations, using the SCGA condition, yielding a theoretical prediction for $\xi_\perp$. From Fig.~\ref{fig:scga_parameter_plot}, it is apparent that both approaches to determining $\lambda$ yield very similar results.
\section{Height model}
\label{height}
\begin{table}[htb]
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|ccc|}
\hline
$h= \frac{1}{3} \left(h_A+h_B+h_C\right)$ & $h_A$ & $h_B$ & $h_C$& $\sigma_A$ & $\sigma_B$ & $\sigma_C$ \\
\hline
$0$ & $0$ & $1$ & $5$ & $+$ & $-$ & $-$ \\
$1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $2$ & $+$ & $-$ & $+$ \\
$2$ & $3$ & $1$ & $2$ & $-$ & $-$ & $+$ \\
$3$ & $3$ & $4$ & $2$ & $-$ & $+$ & $+$ \\
$4$ & $3$ & $4$ & $5$ & $-$ & $+$ & $-$ \\
$5$ & $0$ & $4$ & $5$ & $+$ & $+$ & $-$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{3-sublattice-heights} Heights (all modulo 6) defined at triangle centres (column 1) and at triangle corners (columns 2-4), for each ground state spin configuration (columns 5-7) of the triangle. The spin configuration determines the height configuration up to a global shift. The sublattice labelling is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{HeightsMappings}b.\label{table}}
\end{table}
We now turn to an analytical treatment of stacked triangular lattice Ising antiferromagnets. Although the SCGA, as demonstrated, provides a good approximate description, it is formally correct only for $n$-component spins in the large-$n$ limit. It is therefore not a natural starting point for a systematic approach. By contrast, the height model provides a representation of a single-layer TLIAFM that is known to capture exactly the physics at low temperatures and long distances. Here we use the height model to construct a description of the multilayer system that allows for a controlled treatment of weak interlayer interactions.
Following Bl\"ote {\it et al.} \cite{heightmodel} and Zeng and Henley \cite{zeng}, we map ground states of a single layer Ising model onto states of a height model in such a way that spin configurations with long-range three-sublattice order correspond to flat height configurations. Because of frustration, domain walls can be introduced without energy cost between regions with different types of three-sublattice order. These domain walls correspond to steps in the height field. In a coarse-grained description, steps are represented by a gradient in the height field, and a large value for this gradient carries an entropy penalty.
The mapping is conveniently described in two stages. First we define heights at the sites of the triangular lattice, as in Ref. \onlinecite{heightmodel}. Second, following Ref. \onlinecite{zeng}, we average these site heights to define heights at the centres of triangles, obtaining a height model that is easily coarse-grained.
To map from a spin configuration to heights at lattice sites, we first assign height zero to a reference site. The heights on all other sites of the lattice are then fixed by the requirement that the height difference between the neighbouring sites $i$ and $j$ is +2 if $\sigma_i = \sigma_j$, and $-1$ if $\sigma_i = - \sigma_j$ going anticlockwise around an up-triangle (or clockwise around a down triangle): see Fig.~\ref{HeightsMappings}a. Heights at triangle centres are defined as the averages of site heights at vertices. The advantage of this locally-averaged height field is that ground states with three-sublattice order are exactly flat in these variables: see Fig.~\ref{HeightsMappings}c. In the following, we use the term `height field' exclusively for the locally-averaged quantity.
This mapping is summarised for a single triangle in Table \ref{3-sublattice-heights}. Here the sites of the triangular lattice are divided into three sublattices, labelled $A$, $B$, $C$ and indicated by the three colours of dots at the vertices in Fig.~\ref{HeightsMappings}b. With this convention, the six ground states of each triangle are specified by the orientation of the spin on sublattice $A$ and the location of the frustrated bond. The ground-state spin configuration of a triangle fixes the value of the height $h$ at its centre modulo $6$.
\begin{widetext}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.165\linewidth]{HeightsMapping3.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=.7\linewidth]{HeightConfigs_2.pdf}
\caption{Mapping from Ising spins to heights on the triangular lattice. (a) The height field decreases by 1 (increases by 2) along an unfrustrated (frustrated) bond as an upward-facing triangle is traversed in the counter-clockwise direction. This ensures that the net change in height field around each triangle is zero provided the triangle is in one of its ground states. (b) and (c): Sample patterns of frustrated bonds and height fields. Green (red) edges on the triangular lattice represent frustrated bonds between pairs of up (down) spins; blue edges correspond to unfrustrated bonds. The number at the centre of each triangle indicates the value of the corresponding height variable; the different shades highlight regions with different heights. (b) shows a maximally tilted configuration (height variables at triangle centres decrease as rapidly as possible from left to right), corresponding to the true ground state for the $abc$ and $abab$ stackings; (c) shows a flat, three-sublattice ordered configuration with a single domain wall (height variables differ only along the domain wall). Our convention for the three sublattices of Table \ref{table}} is indicated by the coloured circles: $A$= solid blue; $B$= yellow with dashed border; $C$= open white.
\label{HeightsMappings}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{widetext}
The mapping is unique up to labelling conventions. Permuting the choice of $A$, $B$ and $C$ sublattices (which results from lattice translations or rotations by $2 \pi/3$ about the centre of a triangle) corresponds to a global shift $h \rightarrow h +2$. (By contrast, rotations about an axis passing through a site leave the labelling and hence the height field invariant.) Shifting $h \rightarrow h+3$ corresponds to a global spin flip operation. The remaining possibilities (shifting $h$ by $1$ or $5$) correspond to a combination of the global spin-flip and re-assignment of the three sublattices.
The inverse mapping, from a height configuration to a spin configuration, can be expressed in terms of a function $f(h)$ and a constant $s_\alpha$. The function $f(h)\equiv f(h+6)$ takes the values $f(h)=+1$ for $h=-1,0,1$ and $f(h)=-1$ for $h=2,3,4$. The constant $s_\alpha$ takes values $s_A=0$, $s_B=2$ and $s_C=-2$ on sublattices $\alpha = A,B$ or $C$. The spin orientation is then given by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Spin2H}
\sigma_{\alpha} = f(h+ s_\alpha)\equiv f_\alpha(h).
\end{eqnarray}
For integer $h$ we can represent this function as $f (h) = \frac{4 }{3} \cos \frac{ \pi h}{3} - \frac{1}{3} \cos \pi h $. Note that since each spin is part of six triangles, to fully specify the mapping we must choose which triangle's height dictates which spin. Reassuringly, one can verify that this choice is unimportant: when the height configurations are integers, and can change by at most $1$ between any pair of adjacent triangles, every convention yields the same spin configuration.
Excitations of the spin model consist of triangles in which all spins are up, or all are down. They are represented by vortices in the height field, which is multi-valued in their presence: it increases by $6$ on going anticlockwise around an upward-facing excited triangle, and decreases by 6 around a down-facing triangle. An excited state produced from a ground state by reversing a single spin necessarily contains a vortex-antivortex pair, which may be separated by additional spin flips without further energy cost.
\subsection{Height-model analysis for a single layer} \label{TriHeightSec}
Before discussing stacked TLIAFMs, it is instructive to review how the height model captures the physics of a single triangular layer.
The relative entropic weights of different height configurations are represented by the effective Hamiltonian\cite{heightmodel}
\begin{equation} \label{1LayerH}
{\cal H} = \frac{K}{2} \int {\rm d}^2 {\bf r}\, |\nabla h({\bf r})|^2 + \int {\rm d}^2 {\bf r}\, \tilde{V}(h)\,.
\end{equation}
We can determine the value of $K$ (and verify that (\ref{1LayerH}) captures the correct physics) by comparing the correlation functions of this model with $\tilde{V}(h)=0$ to those of the exact solution for the 2D TLIAFM. Stephenson\cite{stephenson} has shown that at long distances
\begin{equation}
\langle \sigma_{\alpha} ({\bf r}) \sigma_{\beta} ({\bf r'}) \rangle \sim \frac{\omega^s } {\sqrt{ |{\bf r} - {\bf r'} | } } + {\rm c.\ c.}\,,
\end{equation}
where $s=(s_\alpha-s_\beta)/2$ and $\omega=e^{ i 2\pi/3 }$.
The dominant terms in the expression for the intra-sublattice spin-spin correlation function in terms of the height fields are
\begin{eqnarray} \label{TheCors}
\langle \sigma_\alpha ({\bf r}) \sigma_\beta ({\bf r'}) \rangle &\sim& \langle e^{ i \frac{\pi}{3} [h({\bf r}) - h ({\bf r'}) ]} \rangle \omega^s + {\rm c.\ c.} \nonumber \\
&\sim& \text{exp}\left[ - \frac{ 2 \pi}{ 36 K} \ln |{\bf r} - {\bf r'} | \right] (\omega^s + \omega^{-s}) \nonumber \\
&\sim& |{\bf r} - {\bf r'} |^{ - \frac{ 2 \pi}{ 36 K} } (\omega^s + \omega^{-s})
\end{eqnarray}
Hence at zero temperature, to reproduce the long-wavelength properties of the exact solution, we take $K = \pi/9 $.
What about the potential term, which we ignored in the above calculation? Microscopically the heights are integers; we can account for this by
including the potential $\tilde{V}(h) = - v \cos (2 \pi h)$. At short distances $v$ is large and positive. At longer length scales the effective value of $v$ is determined by the {scaling dimension} of the operator $\cos 2 \pi h$, which can be deduced from the 2-point function
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \cos ( 2 \pi h {\bf r}) \cos( 2 \pi h {\bf r'} ) \rangle &\sim& |{\bf r} - {\bf r'} |^{ - \frac{ 2 \pi}{ K} }\nonumber \\
{\rm implying}\ \ \
\int d^2 r \cos( 2 \pi h {\bf r'} ) &\sim& L^{2 - \frac{\pi}{K}} \ \ .
\end{eqnarray}
This yields the scaling dimension $2 - \frac{\pi}{K} = -7$ at $T=0$; hence the effective value of the coefficient $v$ decreases rapidly as we probe the system at longer length-scales, and its effect on the long-wavelength correlations is negligible.
Finally, we can ask about behaviour at finite temperature. To describe the system at finite temperature we must include the possibility of vortices in the height field. Dropping $ \tilde{V}(h)$ in Eq.~(\ref{1LayerH}) but including vortices, we recover the physics of the 2D $xy$ model at an effective temperature that is set by the value of $K$. The scaling dimension of the vortex can be computed by estimating its free energy: for $v=0$ the entropic cost of the gradients in the height field required to insert a single vortex into a triangular layer of side length $L$ is $\delta {\cal H} =\frac{9 K}{\pi} \ln L/a$, where $a$ is the lattice constant. The number of ways to place the vortex in the system is $L^2/a^2$. Together, these contributions to the free energy of a single vortex are
\begin{equation}
\delta F = \left(\frac{9K}{\pi} - 2\right)\ln \left(\frac{L}{a}\right)\,.
\end{equation}
For $K=\pi/9$ this grows more negative with increasing $L$. We are therefore in the high-temperature phase of the $xy$ model, where vortices are unbound. The vortex density, determined by the fugacity associated with the vortex excitation energy $4J$, sets the correlation length. This reflects the fact that the triangular layer, which is critical at $T=0$, is a paramagnet at any finite temperature.
Hence the height model (\ref{1LayerH}) correctly reproduces the phase diagram and correlations of an isolated triangular layer. The potential $\tilde{V}(h)$ is an irrelevant operator and can be dropped from the long-wavelength analysis; however the vortices arising at finite temperature are relevant, making the system paramagnetic for any $T>0$.
\subsection{Coupled layers in the height model description}
\label{derivation}
We now turn to the situation of interest, in which spins in triangular layers are coupled to their nearest neighbours in the planes directly above and below. We will derive expressions for these couplings in the height language, and discuss their effect on the physics of the system.
Frustrated interlayer coupling favours domain walls in the three-sublattice order that is represented by flat configurations of the height field. To minimise the interlayer exchange energy, these domain walls should stack in such a way that a domain wall consisting of up spins sits in the adjacent layer to a domain wall consisting of down spins, as shown in Fig. \ref{DWStackFig}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{DWStackings.pdf}
\caption{\label{DWStackFig} Energetically preferred domain wall stacking.
Arrows at sites of a triangular lattice represent the spin configuration in one layer. The height in this layer increases by $1$ moving from the blue region to the white region. The dashed parallel green and red lines indicate the energetically favourable domain walls in a neighbouring layer, with spin orientations as illustrated. The height difference between adjacent layers determines the orientation of the domain walls.}
\end{figure}
To find the functional form of the interlayer coupling in height language, we use Eq. (\ref{Spin2H}) to express it in terms of the height fields. We then find the scaling dimensions of the various contributions to determine which of these play an important role in the long-wavelength physics. We will show that, as in the SCGA treatment, for frustrated stackings the relevant terms in the nearest-neighbour model lead to one-parameter sets of degenerate ground states in the height models, whose symmetry can be broken by including further-neighbour couplings.
\subsubsection{Unfrustrated stacking}
It is instructive to begin by studying the unfrustrated stacking. For the $aaa$ stacking, the interlayer coupling is
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Stri}
J_\perp ( &\sigma_{A,z}& \sigma_{A,z+1} + \left. \sigma_{B,z} \sigma_{B,z+1} + \sigma_{C,z} \sigma_{C, z+1} \right ) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{8 J_\perp }{3} \cos \frac{ \pi}{3}(h_{z+1}-h_z ) \nonumber \\ &+& \frac{J_{\perp}}{3} \cos \pi h_z \cos \pi h_{z+1} + \ldots
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \ldots $ represents terms of quadratic and higher order in the derivatives, which we drop as they are irrelevant in the scaling sense. The most relevant term is $\cos \frac{ \pi}{3}(h_{z+1}-h_z )$, which has a scaling dimension of $3/2$ for $K = \pi/9$.
The term $\cos \pi h_{z} \cos \pi h_{z+1}$ has scaling dimension $-5/2$ and can be neglected.
Hence the effective Hamiltonian of the height model for the $aaa$ stacking is
\begin{eqnarray} \label{FSSTI}
{\cal H}^{(aaa)} &=&\frac{K}{2} \sum_z \int d^2 r \left \{ | \nabla h_z({\bf r})|^2 \right . \nonumber \\
& & \left. + \kappa_3
\cos \frac{ \pi}{3} (h_{z+1} - h_z ) \right \} \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\kappa_3 = 16 \beta J_\perp/3K$.
The ground states
\begin{equation} \label{aaaGS}
h_z({\bf r}) = \gamma
\end{equation}
of this effective model have a $U(1)$ symmetry under changes of the constant $\gamma$. This symmetry is broken down to a six-fold discrete symmetry by the interaction $\tilde{V}(h)$, which is irrelevant in the scaling sense at the fixed point describing uncoupled layers, and dangerously irrelevant at the three-dimensional ordering transition \cite{ma}.
\subsubsection{Frustrated stackings}
For both the $abc$ and the $abab$ stackings, we consider two neighbouring layers as shown in Fig.~\ref{stacked}. There is a coupling between each site on the black lattice and the three sites around it from an up-triangle on the red lattice, or equivalently between each site on the red lattice and the three sites around it from a down triangle on the black lattice. We denote heights on the black lattice by $h_{z+1}({\bf r})$, and ones on the red lattice by $h_{z}({\bf r})$.
The coupling is
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}_{\perp} &=&J_\perp \sum_{{\bf r} \in A} \sigma_A({\bf r}) [ \sigma_a({\bf r} + {\bf e}_1) + \sigma_b({\bf r} + {\bf e}_2) + \sigma_c({\bf r} + {\bf e}_3)] + \text{symmetry-related terms}\nonumber \\
&=& J_\perp \sum_{{\bf r} \in A} f_A (h_{n+1}({\bf r})) [ f_a(h_{n}({\bf r} + {\bf e}_1 )) + f_b(h_{n}({\bf r} + {\bf e}_2) ) + f_c(h_{n}({\bf r} + {\bf e}_3) )] + \text{symmetry-related terms},
\end{eqnarray}
where `symmetry-related terms' have $B$ or $C$ in place of $A$, and a corresponding permutation of the vectors ${\bf e}_i$. These are defined in terms of the lattice vectors [Eq.~(\ref{latticevectors})] by ${\bf e}_1 =\frac{2}{3}{\bf a}_2 - \frac{1}{3} {\bf a}_1$, ${\bf e}_2 = \frac{2}{3}{\bf a}_1-\frac{1}{3}{\bf a}_2$ and ${\bf e}_3= - \frac{1}{3}{\bf a}_1 -\frac{1}{3} {\bf a}_2$, and are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{stacked} . Expanding $h({\bf r})$ in a Taylor series, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray} \label{HeightHFCC}
{\cal H}_\perp& =&
- \frac{ 4 \pi J_{\perp} }{9 \sqrt{3} }\sum_{\bf r} \left( \cos \frac{ \pi}{3} (h_{z+1}({\bf r}) - h_z({\bf r}) ) \partial_x h_z({\bf r})
- \sin \frac{ \pi}{3} (h_{z+1}({\bf r}) - h_z({\bf r}) ) \partial_y h_z({\bf r}) \right ) + \ldots
\end{eqnarray}
where $\ldots$ indicates RG-irrelevant terms. Thus keeping only the relevant inter-layer couplings leads to the effective Hamiltonian for the $abc$ stacking
\begin{equation} \label{FCCFE}
{\cal H}^{(abc)} =
\frac{K}{2} \sum_z \int {\rm d}^2 r \left \{ \left(\partial_x h_z - \kappa_\perp \cos \frac{ \pi}{3} (h_{z+1} - h_z ) \right )^2
+\left( \partial_y h_z + \kappa_\perp \sin \frac{ \pi}{3} (h_{z+1} - h_z )\right )^2
- \left( \frac{ \kappa_{\perp} }{ K } \right )^2 \right \}
\end{equation}
with
$\kappa_\perp \propto \beta J_\perp$.
For the $abab$ stacking, the derivation is identical except that the vertical unit cell contains two layers, with the layers above and below offset in opposite directions. We use integer $z$ to label unit cells in the vertical direction and $\mu=1,2$ to label layers within each unit cell. The effective Hamiltonian is
\begin{eqnarray} \label{HCPFE}
{\cal H}^{(abab)} &= & \frac{K}{2} \sum_{z} \int {\rm d}^2 r \bigg \{ \sum_\mu | \nabla h_{z, \mu}|^2 - \kappa_\perp \left \{ \partial_x ( h_{z,1}+ h_{z,2}) \cos \frac{ \pi}{3} (h_{z,2} - h_{z,1}) - \partial_y( h_{z,1}+ \ h_{z,2} ) \sin \frac{ \pi}{3} (h_{z,2} - h_{z,1}) \right.
\nonumber \\
&& \left. + \partial_x ( h_{z+1,1} + h_{z,2} ) \cos \frac{ \pi}{3} (h_{z,2} - h_{z+1,1})
- \partial_y( h_{z+1,1} +h_{z,2} ) \sin \frac{ \pi}{3} (h_{z,2} - h_{z+1,1}) \right \} \bigg\} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{height_mapping.pdf}
\caption{Two stacked layers, with sublattice labels and definitions of the vectors ${\bf e}_1$, ${\bf e}_2$, and ${\bf e}_3$.}
\label{stacked}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Symmetries and further-neighbour couplings}
For both frustrated stackings, emergent continuous symmetries not present in the lattice models are displayed by the effective Hamiltonian of Eqns.~(\ref{FCCFE}) and (\ref{HCPFE}) if terms irrelevant at the $J_\perp=0$ fixed point are omitted. Both models have a $U(1) \times U(1)$ symmetry. One $U(1)$ symmetry is associated with global shifts in the height field. It results from the discrete symmetry of the microscopic model related to global shifts in $h$, which -- as for the single-layer height model -- is enhanced to become a continuous symmetry because the pinning potential $\tilde{V}(h)$ is RG-irrelevant and has been omitted. As in the unfrustrated case [see Eq.~(\ref{aaaGS})] we parameterise it with $\gamma$. The second $U(1)$ symmetry is associated with real-space rotations and is reduced to the discrete rotational symmetry of the lattice by irrelevant terms. We parameterise it with $\theta$.
In detail, these symmetries take the following form. Let $R_\theta$ denote a rotation in the $xy$ plane through the angle $\theta$ and write ${\bf r}^\prime = R_\theta({\bf r})$. Then ${\cal H}^{(abc)}$ is invariant under the transformation
\begin{equation} \label{u1xu1}
h_z({\bf r}) \to h^\prime_z({\bf r}) = h_z({\bf r}^\prime) + \frac{3z\theta}{\pi} + \gamma\,.
\end{equation}
Similarly ${\cal H}^{(abab)}$ is invariant under $h_{z,\mu}({\bf r}) \to h^\prime_{z,\mu}({\bf r})$ with
\begin{eqnarray}
h^\prime_{z,1}({\bf r}) &=& h_{z,1}({\bf r}^\prime) - \frac{3\theta}{2\pi} + \gamma \nonumber \\
\mbox{and} \quad h^\prime_{z,2}({\bf r}) &=& h_{z,2}({\bf r}^\prime) + \frac{3\theta}{2\pi} + \gamma\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Ground state configurations of the height model for the $abc$ stacking have the form
\begin{equation} \label{spiral}
h_z({\bf r}) = \kappa_\perp(x\cos\theta-y\sin\theta) + \frac{3z\theta}{\pi} + \gamma\,.
\end{equation}
For the $abab$ stacking the ground states are
\begin{eqnarray} \label{circle}
h_{z,1}({\bf r}) &=& \kappa_\perp(x\cos\theta-y\sin\theta)- \frac{3\theta}{2\pi} + \gamma \nonumber \\
h_{z,2}({\bf r}) &=& \kappa_\perp(x\cos\theta-y\sin\theta)+ \frac{3\theta}{2\pi} + \gamma\,,
\end{eqnarray}
together with a second symmetry-related set.
The symmetry under continuous changes of $\theta$ is not a feature of the microscopic model: it is broken by the leading irrelevant terms in Eq. (\ref{HeightHFCC}). For the $abc$ stacking these have the form
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Hb}
{\cal H}_b&=& \kappa_b\sum_z \int {\rm d}^2 {\bf r} \bigg\{ \left[ \left( \partial_x h_z({\bf r}) \right)^2 - \left( \partial_y h_z({\bf r}) \right)^2 \right ] \cos \delta h_z ({\bf r}) \nonumber \\
&+& 2 \partial_x h_z({\bf r}) \partial_y h_z({\bf r}) \sin \delta h_z ({\bf r}) \bigg\} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where we introduce the notation $\delta_p h_z({\bf r}) = \frac{\pi}{3}[h_{z+p}({\bf r}) - h_z({\bf r})]$ and $\delta h_z({\bf r}) \equiv \delta_1 h_z({\bf r})$. (The form for the $abab$ stacking follows the obvious equivalent pattern.)
Significantly, it may also be broken by {\it relevant} further-neighbour couplings, if these are present microscopically, or are generated under renormalisation.
For the $abc$ stacking, some relevant and marginal couplings that are not included in Eq.~(\ref{FCCFE}) are
\begin{eqnarray}\label{abcH3}
{\cal H}_m &=& \frac{K_m}{2} \sum_z\int {\rm d}^2{\bf r} \,\nabla h_z({\bf r}) \cdot \nabla h_{z+m}({\bf r})\nonumber \\
{\cal H}_{2} &=& \kappa_2 \sum_z\int {\rm d}^2{\bf r} \, \left \{ \partial_x h_z ({\bf r}) \cos \frac{\pi}{3}(h_{z+2} - h_z) \right . \nonumber \\
&& \left.+ \partial_y h_z ({\bf r}) \sin \frac{\pi}{3}(h_{z+2} - h_z) \right \} \nonumber \\ \label{MakeInterEq}
{\cal H}_{3} &=& \kappa_3\sum_z \int {\rm d}^2{\bf r}\, \cos \frac{\pi}{3}(h_{z+3} - h_z)\,.
\end{eqnarray}
${\cal H}_3$ is the most relevant of these three: it breaks the degeneracy of Eq.~(\ref{spiral}), selecting ground states for which $3 \theta =0$ ($ \pi$) for $\kappa_3<0 $ ($\kappa_3>0 $). ${\cal H}_2$ has the same scaling dimension as the bare interlayer coupling. It also breaks the symmetry, again favouring states for which $3 \theta =0$ ($ \pi$) for $\kappa_2<0 $ ($\kappa_2>0 $). ${\cal H}_m$ is marginal, and does not break the degeneracy between the ground states identified above, all of which have the same in-plane gradients in each layer.
Therefore as well as potentially being broken spontaneously at low temperature, the emergent $U(1)$ spiral symmetry of the $abc$ model can be broken explicitly at a scale set by the coefficients $\kappa_2$ and $\kappa_3$. We discuss this scenario in Sec. \ref{behaviour}.
For the $abab$ stacking, the perturbations of interest are interlayer gradient couplings similar to ${\cal H}_m$, and also
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ababH3}
{\cal H}_{3} &=& \kappa_3 \sum_{z,\mu} \int {\rm d}^2{\bf r}\, \cos \frac{\pi}{3}(h_{z+1,\mu} - h_{z,\mu}) ,
\end{eqnarray}
the unfrustrated coupling between spins two layers apart. In contrast to the $abc$ case, ${\cal H}_3$ is not expected to be important in determining the ordering temperature: the minimum-energy solutions of the $abab$ model have a definite value of $h_{z+1,\mu}- h_{z,\mu}$, and so this term does not lift the ground-state degeneracy. Instead, symmetry is broken by the irrelevant coupling ${\cal H}_b$, Eq.~(\ref{Hb}).
\section{Behaviour of the height model}\label{behaviour}
To understand the phase diagrams of these coupled-layer height models, we take two successive steps. First we make a perturbative renormalisation group (RG) analysis of the behaviour of weakly coupled layers, as described in Sec.~\ref{TreeRGSec}. Depending on the values of $T$ and $J_\perp$, the model under scaling may remain weakly coupled: this happens in the weakly-correlated paramagnetic regime. Alternatively, it may flow to strong interlayer coupling. In that case a separate analysis is necessary of the influence of vortex pairs, which is presented in Sec.\ref{VortexFlucSec}. We find that the minimal models with exact $U(1)\times U(1)$ symmetry have anomalously soft excitations. For this reason vortex pairs destroy long-range order, establishing instead a paramagnetic regime with strong interlayer correlations. Symmetry-breaking or `locking' interactions act in competition to vortex pairs, and stabilise the ordered phase when they dominate.
\subsection{Perturbative RG} \label{TreeRGSec}
Our perturbative analysis follows the standard renormalisation-group techniques of Refs.~\onlinecite{KT2,KogutReview}. For small $J_\perp$ and low $T$, this allows us to use arguments similar to those of Sec.~\ref{TriHeightSec} regarding the phase diagram of these models. If unbound vortices proliferate, the inter-layer coupling flows to zero at long distances, while if the coefficient of one of the cosine terms grows large, a strong-coupling analysis is necessary.
The leading-order behaviour of the RG equations is simply determined by the scaling dimensions of the relevant interlayer couplings and vortices. (The intra and interplane gradient terms flow only at higher order.) For the interlayer couplings, these can be calculated either from the two-point functions as described in Sect. \ref{TriHeightSec}, or (as is more appropriate for operators involving derivatives of the height field) using a standard momentum-shell RG (see Appendix \ref{DimensionApp}). Using $\ell$ to denote the short-distance cut-off and following the notation of Eqns. (\ref{FCCFE}), (\ref{HCPFE}) and (\ref{MakeInterEq}), this gives
\begin{eqnarray} \label{TreeScale}
\frac{\partial \kappa_\perp}{\partial \ln \ell} &=& \left( 1 - \beta_1 \right ) \kappa_\perp\,, \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial \kappa_3}{\partial \ln \ell} &=&\left( 2 - \beta_1 \right ) \kappa_3\nonumber \\
\mbox{and}\quad \frac{\partial y }{\partial \ln \ell} &=& \left( 2 - \alpha_1 \right ) y\,.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\kappa_\perp$ is the frustrated interlayer coupling
that acts between neighbouring layers in the $abc$ and $abab$ stackings, and $\kappa_3$ is the unfrustrated inter-layer coupling, which couples nearest neighbour layers in the $aaa$ stacking, second neighbours in the $abab$ stacking and third neighbours in the $abc$ stacking. Finally, $y$ is the vortex fugacity, which
dictates the unbound vortex density. For weakly coupled layers we have
\begin{equation} \label{RGdims}
\beta_1 = \frac{ \pi}{ 18 K} \quad {\rm and} \quad \alpha_1= \frac{9K}{\pi}\,.
\end{equation}
For the unfrustrated stacking the bare value of $\kappa_3$ is $\kappa_{3,0} \sim \beta J_\perp$. For the frustrated stackings
the bare value of the interlayer coupling $\kappa_\perp$ is $\kappa_{\perp,0} \sim \beta J_\perp$. In both cases, the bare value of the vortex fugacity is $y_0\sim e^{-4\beta J}$. The initial value of $\ell$ is the lattice spacing, which we set to unity.
Let us now consider what we learn from these scaling dimensions about behaviour in the three different models, keeping only nearest-neighbour interactions and the intralayer gradient interaction $K$. Using the value $K = \frac{ \pi}{9}$ appropriate for decoupled triangular layers, we have $\alpha_1 = 1, \beta_1 = 1/2$, and single-layer vortices are more relevant than their multi-layer counterparts.
Solving the RG equations (\ref{TreeScale}) gives
\begin{eqnarray}
y &=& y_0 \ell, \ \ \ \kappa_{\perp} = \kappa_{\perp,0} \ell^{ 1/2 } \ \ \
\mbox{and}\quad\kappa_{3} =\kappa_{3,0} \ell^{ 3/2 }.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The calculation reaches its limit of validity at the scale $\ell$ where the largest coupling is of order unity, and the physical state of the system is signalled by which coupling first crosses this threshold. If $y\sim 1$ with $\kappa_\perp$ and $\kappa_3\ll 1$, the system is a weakly correlated paramagnet. If either $\kappa_\perp \sim 1$ or $\kappa_3 \sim 1$ with $y \ll 1$, layers are strongly coupled. We turn next to this regime.
\subsection{Strongly coupled layers}\label{VortexFlucSec}
To understand behaviour of the height models at large interlayer coupling, we examine the effective Hamiltonian for each type of stacking at quadratic order in an expansion about the ground states given in Eqns.~(\ref{aaaGS}), (\ref{spiral}) and (\ref{circle}).
For orientation, consider first the $aaa$ stacking. Let $\varphi_z({\bf r})$ denote the deviation of $h_z$ from a ground-state configuration and introduce its Fourier transform via
\begin{equation}
\varphi_z({\bf r}) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^3}\int {\rm d}^3{\bf q}\, \varphi({\bf q}) e^{i ({\bf q}_\perp{\bf r} + q_zz)}\,.
\end{equation}
The energy cost at quadratic order of this deviation from a ground state is
\begin{equation}
\delta{\cal H} = \frac{K}{2(2\pi)^3}\int {\rm d}^3{\bf q} \, {\cal E}({\bf q}) |\varphi({\bf q})|^2\,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
{\cal E}({\bf q}) = q_x^2 + q_y^2 + \tilde{\kappa}(1- \cos q_z),
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{\kappa}_\perp = (\pi^2/9) |\kappa_3|$. Thus, for this unfrustrated stacking, excitations have a dispersion ${\cal E}({\bf q})$ that is conventional in the sense that it is quadratic in wavevector for all orientations of ${\bf q}$.
An equivalent calculation for the $abc$ stacking (for fluctuations around the ground state with $\theta=0$) yields the quite different dispersion relation
\begin{equation}
{\cal E}({\bf q}) = q_x^2 + (q_y - \tilde{\kappa}_\perp \sin q_z)^2 + \tilde{\kappa}_\perp^2(1-\cos q_z)^2,
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{\kappa}_\perp = (\pi/3)\kappa_\perp$. This is anomalously soft, being quartic in wavevector along the line $q_y=\tilde{\kappa}_\perp q_z$.
The soft modes do not give rise to divergent harmonic fluctuations, since
\begin{equation} \label{Ordh2pts}
\langle [h_{n+1}({\bf r})- h_n({\bf r})]^2\rangle= \frac{1}{K} \int {\rm d}^3{\bf q}\,\, \frac{(1-\cos q_z)^2}{ {\cal E}({\bf q}) }
\end{equation}
is finite provided ${\kappa}_\perp \not=0$.
For the $abab$ stacking, since there are two layers within a unit cell, it is necessary to introduce two fields $\varphi_{z,\mu}({\bf r})$, with $\mu=1,2$.
The resulting quadratic Hamiltonian has two eigenvalues, which for $\theta=0$ are
\begin{equation}
{\cal E}_\pm({\bf q}) = q_x^2 + q_y^2 + 2\tilde{\kappa}_\perp^2 \pm 2\tilde{\kappa}_\perp |\cos(q_z/2)| \sqrt{q_y^2 + \tilde{\kappa}_\perp^2}\,.
\end{equation}
In this case as well, the dispersion relation is quartic for one direction, since ${\cal E}_- = q_x^2 +(\tilde{\kappa}_\perp^2 q_z^2 + q^4_y/\tilde{\kappa}_\perp^2)/4$ for small $|{\bf q}|$, but harmonic fluctuations are bounded for ${\kappa}_\perp\not=0$.
\subsection{Destruction of order by defects}\label{defects}
Our discussion of harmonic height-field fluctuations around ground states of the multilayer model accounts for spin fluctuations within the ground-state manifold of each triangular layer, but a separate treatment is required to understand the effect of excitations out of this ground-state manifold. That is the subject of this subsection.
The excitations are represented by vortices and antivortices. These are unbound in a single layer, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{TriHeightSec}, but acquire a linear confining potential within ordered states of the multilayer systems. More specifically, suppose that the height field in a layer containing a widely separated vortex-antivortex pair has a step of height 6 and width $w$: its energy cost per unit length is $ \sim Kw(w^{-2} + \kappa_\perp^2)$ and is minimised by the choice $w \sim \kappa_\perp^{-1}$. Pairs are therefore bound with typical separation $w$ when interlayer correlations are strong. Remarkably, although in other settings bound vortex pairs are typically irrelevant at large scales, we find that they exert a controlling influence in multilayer height models with frustrated stackings.
Height fields in the presence of vortices are in general multivalued, but can be taken to be single-valued in a domain that excludes a core around each vortex-antivortex pair. The presence of these pairs influences the height field far from the cores. A convenient alternative to an explicit treatment of multivalued height fields is to impose a potential that couples linearly to the height field and has the same effect on the far field as a votex-antivortex pair. In order to demonstrate the required form of this potential, consider a single layer containing a pair centred at the origin with separation vector ${\bf b}$.
This pair is described by the height field configuration
\begin{equation}
({\bf r}) = \frac{3}{ \pi} \left[ \arctan \left( \frac{ 2x + {\bf b} \cdot \hat{x}}{2y+{\bf b} \cdot \hat{y}} \right) - \arctan \left( \frac{2x - {\bf b} \cdot \hat{x}}{2y- {\bf b} \cdot \hat{y}} \right) \right].\nonumber
\end{equation}
For $|{\bf r}| \gg |{\bf b}|$ we have
\begin{equation}
(x,y) \approx \frac{3}{ \pi} \frac{\hat{z} \cdot ( {\bf b} \times {\bf r} )}{r^2
\end{equation}
or equivalently
\begin{equation} \label{FarFieldh}
h({\bf q}) \approx 6 i \frac{ \hat{z} \cdot ({\bf q} \times{\bf b} ) }{q^2 }.
\end{equation}
The same far-field height configuration can be induced by adding a potential term $v{(\bf q})$ to the effective Hamiltonian for the height field. Specifically, for an isolated layer, the effective Hamiltonian $ (K/[2\pi]^2) \int d^2 {\bf q} \left [ \frac{1}{2} {\mathcal E} ({\bf q}) | \varphi({\bf q}) |^2 - \varphi(-{\bf q}) v({\bf q}) \right]$ has the minimum energy configuration
\begin{equation} \label{defect}
{\varphi}({\bf q}) = \frac{ v({\bf q})}{{\mathcal E}({\bf q}) }
\end{equation}
with ${\mathcal E}({\bf q}) = q^2$ for a single layer. Thus choosing a potential
\begin{equation}
v({\bf q}) = 6 i \hat{z} \cdot ({\bf q} \times {\bf b} )
\end{equation}
we recover the desired far-field configuration.
To examine the effect of many pairs $j$ with locations ${\bf r}_j,z_j$ and separations ${\bf b}_j$ we impose on the multilayer system the potential
\begin{equation}
v_{\rm tot} ({\bf q}) = 6i \sum_j \hat{z} \cdot ({\bf q} \times {\bf b}_j) \,e^{-i({\bf q}_\perp{\bf r}_j + q_z z_j)} \,.
\end{equation}
The ground state in the presence of these pairs is again given by (\ref{defect}), but now with the multilayer form for ${\mathcal E}({\bf q})$. We compute the mean square amplitude of the fluctuations these pairs generate, averaged over bound pair positions with a Poisson distribution at a density $\rho$, obtaining
\begin{equation}
\langle[\varphi_z({\bf r})]^2\rangle = \frac{\rho}{(2\pi)^3} \int {\rm d}^3 {\bf q} \frac{\langle|v({\bf q})|^2\rangle}{{\cal E}^2({\bf q})} \,
\end{equation}
where $\langle \ldots \rangle$ indicates an average over pair separations $\bf b$. This integral is convergent at small $q$ for the unfrustrated stacking but divergent for the frustrated systems. Moreover, corrections to a Poisson distribution arising from correlations between pairs appear only at higher order in $\rho$. Vortex-antivortex pairs in the absence of locking interactions therefore destroy long-range order in the frustrated systems.
We can estimate the correlation length in this disordered state by determining the small-wavevector cut-off for which $\langle[\varphi_z({\bf r})]^2\rangle\sim 1$. We write $\langle |{\bf b}|^2\rangle \sim \ell^2$, where $\ell$ is the cut-off scale at which the system reaches the strong-coupling regime with $\kappa_\perp \sim 1$. This scale is $\ell \sim (\beta J_\perp)^{-2}$. Then for the $abc$ stacking the correlations lengths in the in-plane and $z$-directions are
\begin{equation}
\xi_\perp \sim \kappa_\perp^{-1}(\ell^2 \rho)^{-2} \quad {\rm and} \quad \xi_z \sim (\ell^2\rho)^{-1}\,.
\end{equation}
For the $abab$ stacking the corresponding expressions are
\begin{equation}
\xi_\perp \sim \kappa_\perp^{-1}(\ell^2 \rho)^{-1/2} \quad {\rm and} \quad \xi_z \sim (\ell^2\rho)^{-1/2}\,.
\end{equation}
The phase transition to a long-range ordered state involves a competition between this disordering effect of bound vortex pairs, and the opposite tendency produced by locking interactions. A simple estimate for the location of the phase boundary is obtained demanding that the locking interaction at the scale $\ell$, integrated over the correlation volume, is of order unity.
The most RG-relevant locking interaction for the $abc$ stacking is $\kappa_3$ [see Eq.~(\ref{MakeInterEq})]. As this is a coupling between layers three apart, it is not present in the bare description of a system with only nearest-neighbour interactions. It is however generated under the first steps of RG, so that the initial value can be taken to be $\kappa_{3,0} \sim (\beta J_\perp)^7$ (see Sec.~\ref{beyond}). At the scale $\ell$ the locking interaction is hence $\kappa_3 \sim (\beta J_\perp)^4$. Note that an important role is played by the fact that $\kappa_3$ is generated only at high order: if instead one had $\kappa_{3,0} \sim (\beta J_\perp)^3$ as might naively have been expected for a third-neighbour coupling, then the value of $\kappa_3$ at scale $\ell$ would be ${\cal O}(1)$ and independent of $J_\perp$. This would leave no scope for a regime with strong interlayer correlations but no long-range order.
For the $abab$ stacking, we have not found locking interactions that are RG-relevant. The leading (least irrelevant) locking term in this case is $\kappa_b$, given in Eq.~(\ref{Hb}). At the scale $\ell$ it is of order $\beta J_\perp \ell^{-1/2} \sim (\beta J_\perp)^2$.
\subsection{Phase diagram}\label{phasediagram}
Combining results from our discussion of RG for weakly coupled layers with our results on the effect of defects in strongly coupled layers, we can determine regimes of behaviour and phase boundaries for systems with each type of stacking, in the limit $J_\perp \ll J$. The phase boundaries determined theoretically in this section are compared with Monte Carlo results in Sec.~\ref{discussion}.
For the unfrustrated stacking, bound vortex pairs have no important effects. The phase boundary is the point at which $y\sim \kappa_3 \sim 1$. From the results of Sec.~\ref{TreeRGSec}, this implies $\ell \sim e^{4\beta J}$ and $\beta J_\perp e^{6\beta J} \sim 1$. Solving approximately in the limit $J_\perp \ll J$, the phase boundary is at $J_\perp \approx J e^{-6\beta J}$. Interlayer correlations are weak for $J_\perp \ll J e^{-6\beta J}$ while the system has long-range order for $J_\perp \gg J e^{-6\beta J}$. Within the minimal model of Eq.~(\ref{FSSTI}), the set of ordered states has a U(1) symmetry, as displayed in Eq.~(\ref{aaaGS}). This is broken by the (RG-irrelevant) interaction $\tilde{V}(h)$, introduced for a single layer in Eq.~(\ref{1LayerH}). It selects integer values of the height field, corresponding to six possible types of three-sublattice spin order.
In contrast, for both types of frustrated stacking, the condition $y\sim \kappa_\perp \sim 1$ implies $J_\perp \approx Je^{-2\beta J}$. Interlayer correlations in this case are weak for $J_\perp \ll Je^{-2\beta J}$. The paramagnetic regime with only weak interlayer correlations therefore extends to parametrically lower temperatures and larger values of $J_\perp$ in these systems than in the unfrustrated stacking. Moreover, because of the effect of bound vortex pairs in systems with frustrated stacking, long range order appears at still lower temperatures or larger values of $J_\perp$ than strong interlayer correlations.
In the case of the $abc$ stacking, if long range order is stabilised by generation of the RG-relevant third-neighbour coupling $\kappa_3$ the condition $\kappa_3 \xi_\perp^2 \xi_z \sim 1$ implies order for $J_\perp \gtrsim J e^{-5\beta J/3}$. Alternatively, order may be stabilised by residual contributions from the RG-irrelevant coupling $\kappa_b$. Specifically, RG flow stops on the scale at which $\kappa_\perp \sim 1$. At this scale, interactions (whether RG-relevant or RG-irrelevant) that break the $U(1)\times U(1)$ symmetry of Eq.~(\ref{u1xu1}) down to a discrete one will act coherently over a correlation volume. This ordering tendency competes with the disordering effect of bound vortex-antivortex pairs. Since $\kappa_3$ is generated rather slowly under RG, RG-irrelevant interactions turn out to be the dominant cause of locking if microscopic interactions are just nearest neighbour.\cite{correction} The condition $\kappa_b \xi_\perp^2 \xi_z \sim 1$ implies order for $J_\perp \gtrsim J e^{-20\beta J/11}$.
For the $abab$ stacking, locking is driven only by irrelevant interactions. Taking into account the dependence of $\xi_\perp$ and $\xi_\parallel$ on $\rho$ for the $abab$ stacking, the condition $(\beta J_\perp)^2 \xi^2_\perp \xi_z \sim 1$ yields a boundary for long range order at $J_\perp \approx J e^{-5\beta J/3}$.
In summary, with $J_\perp \ll J$, the classical spin liquid regime, in which correlations are strong both within and between layers, extends for both types of frustrated stacking over the interval
\begin{equation}
e^{-2\beta J} \lesssim J_\perp/J \lesssim e^{-c\beta J}
\end{equation}
with $c=20/11$ for the $abc$ stacking and $c=5/3$ for the $abab$ stacking.
\subsection{Spin correlations from the height model}\label{correlations}
In the classical spin liquid regime, in which interlayer correlations are strong but there is no long-range order, the system is approximately ordered within each correlation volume $\xi_\perp^2 \xi_z$ but different correlation volumes are essentially independent. We can compute correlations approximately in this regime as an average over all ground states. The starting point for this calculation is the expression (\ref{Spin2H}) for spin variables in terms of height fields, and the expressions (\ref{spiral}) and (\ref{circle}) for ground states of the minimal height models in the systems with frustrated stackings.
We require Fourier components of the spin density at wavevectors that are close in-plane to either of the corners ${\bf K}$ and ${\bf K}^\prime$ of the triangular-lattice Brillouin zone. To obtain the leading contribution at long distance it is sufficient to use the approximation $\sigma_{j,z} \sim \cos\frac{\pi}{3}(h_z({\bf r}_j) + s_\alpha)$, omitting higher harmonics in $h_z({\bf r}_j)$.
Recalling that $s_\alpha=0,\pm 2$ on the three sublattices, we have for the $aaa$ stacking $e^{i{\bf K}\cdot {\bf r}_{j,z}} = e^{i\pi s_\alpha/3}$ and $e^{i{\bf K}^\prime\cdot {\bf r}_{j,z}} = e^{-i\pi s_\alpha/3}$. The same result holds for the $abab$ stacking on one of the two layers in the unit cell, but for the $abc$ stacking it is necessary to take account of the relative displacement $\bm{e}_1$ of neighbouring sites on the same sublattice in successive layers.
We have (modulo $2\pi$)
\begin{eqnarray}
({\bf K} &+& n_1 {\bf A}_1 + n_2 {\bf A}_2)\cdot {\bf r}_{j,z}\nonumber \\ &=& \frac{\pi}{3}s_\alpha - z({\bf K} + n_1 {\bf A}_1 + n_2 {\bf A}_2)\cdot {\bm{e}_1}
= \frac{\pi}{3}(2pz+s_\alpha)\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with $p=n_1+n_2$, and
\begin{equation}
({\bf K}^\prime + n_1 {\bf A}_1 + n_2 {\bf A}_2)\cdot {\bf r}_{j,z}= \frac{\pi}{3}(2p^\prime z-s_\alpha)\nonumber
\end{equation}
with $p^\prime = 2 +n_1 + n_2$.
Retaining only smoothly varying contributions, we can then write for ${\bf q}_\perp$ small but $q_z$ arbitrary
\begin{equation}
\sum_j \sigma_{j,z} e^{i({\bf K}+{\bf q})\cdot {\bf r}_{j,z}} \sim \int {\rm d}^2{\bf r} \,\, e^{-i\frac{\pi}{3}h_z({\bf r})} \,e^{i({\bf q}_\perp\cdot{\bf r}+[q_z +\frac{2\pi}{3}p]z)}\nonumber
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j} \sigma_{jz} \, e^{i({\bf K}^\prime+{\bf q})\cdot{\bf r}_{jz}} \sim \int {\rm d}^2{\bf r} \,\, e^{i\frac{\pi}{3}h_z({\bf r})} \,e^{i({\bf q}_\perp\cdot{\bf r}+[q_z\frac{2\pi}{3}p^\prime]z)}\nonumber
\end{equation}
where we can include the $aaa$ and the $a$-layers of the $abab$ stacking by setting $p=p^\prime=0$ in these cases.
We use these expressions to evaluate
\begin{equation}
S({\bf K}+{\bf q}) = \sum_{j,z} \langle \sigma_{0,0}\sigma_{j,z} \rangle e^{i({\bf K}+{\bf q})\cdot {\bf r}_{j,z}}
\end{equation}
and the equivalent with ${\bf K}^\prime$ in place of ${\bf K}$, computing the average $\langle \ldots \rangle$ over ground states [Eqns.~(\ref{spiral}) and (\ref{circle})]. For the $abc$ stacking this gives
\begin{eqnarray}
S({\bf K}+{\bf q}) &\propto& \delta(q_x - \frac{\pi}{3}\kappa_\perp \cos [q_z+\frac{2\pi}{3}p] )\nonumber \\
&\times& \delta(q_y + \frac{\pi}{3}\kappa_\perp \sin [q_z+\frac{2\pi}{3}p])
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
S({\bf K}^\prime+{\bf q}) &\propto& \delta(q_x + \frac{\pi}{3}\kappa_\perp \cos [q_z+\frac{2\pi}{3}p^\prime] )\nonumber \\
&\times&\delta(q_y + \frac{\pi}{3}\kappa_\perp \sin [q_z+\frac{2\pi}{3}p^\prime])\,.
\end{eqnarray}
For the $abab$ stacking, following our discussion in Sec.~\ref{ab}, we focus on the contribution to the structure factor from sites on only one of the two sublattices by restricting $\sum_{z,\mu}$ to the layer $\mu=1$. This gives
\begin{equation}
S({\bf K}+{\bf q}) = S({\bf K}^\prime+{\bf q}) \propto \delta(q_z) \delta^{(2)}(q_\perp^2 - [\frac{\pi}{3}]^2\kappa_\perp^2)\,.
\end{equation}
It is reasonable to expect that the main consequence of finite correlation lengths $\xi_\perp$ and $\xi_z$ will be broadening of the delta functions in these expressions for $S({\bf q})$. Making that allowance, we see that the height model calculation produces results similar to the ones from the SCGA and from Monte Carlo simulations.
\section{Renormalisation group flows beyond leading order}\label{beyond}
Our calculation of RG flow is perturbative in interlayer coupling and vortex fugacity. We can improve the estimates of the previous section by including terms to higher order. Qualitatively, this has two potentially important consequences. First, the in-plane stiffness $K$ becomes scale-dependent and interlayer gradient couplings are generated under the RG flow. This in turn modifies the dimensions of the various operators discussed above. Second, for the $abc$ stacking, the relevant further-neighbour couplings that break the U(1) symmetry under spatial rotations are generated from the irrelevant contribution to the nearest-neighbour interlayer coupling, Eq. (\ref{Hb}).
\subsection{Simply stacked triangular layers}
To set the stage, it is instructive to consider the case of $aaa$-stacked triangular layers. The model [Eq.~(\ref{FSSTI})] is simply a 3D $XY$ model, in which the coupling between neighbouring layers is much weaker than the intra-layer coupling. For small interlayer couplings there is a regime where the RG flows are well-described by those of a system of coupled 2D $XY$ models \cite{2D3Dxy,SomebodyElse}. Though this treatment is not adequate to describe the transition between the low-temperature ordered phase and the high-temperature paramagnet, which is in the 3D $XY$ universality class, it represents behaviour well so long as the renormalised interlayer coupling is not strong.
For uncoupled layers, two different ways exist to derive RG equations. The original work by Kosterlitz and Thouless\cite{KT1,KT2} on the 2D $XY$ model used a real-space calculation, integrating out vortex-antivortex pairs separated by less than a minimum length scale $\ell$, and this method has been extended to include models analogous to (\ref{FSSTI}) with vortices \cite{Minnehagen}. Somewhat later, the momentum-shell RG approach was applied to these systems \cite{MomentumShellRG} and we use this second approach, which is more transparent in the case of the frustrated $abc$ and $abab$ stackings. We review the method and give technical details of our calculations in Appendix \ref{RGApp}; here we discuss the physical implications of the results.
Including the most relevant interlayer couplings, the marginal gradient couplings introduced in Eq. (\ref{MakeInterEq}), and a new second-layer coupling term $\cos \frac{ \pi}{3} (h_{z+2}(r) - h_z(r) )$ with coefficient $g_2$, the RG equations additional to (\ref{TreeScale}) to quadratic order in $\kappa_3$ and $y$ are
\begin{eqnarray} \label{RGSTRI}
\frac{\partial K}{ \partial \ln \ell} &=& c_1 \kappa_3^2 - y ^2 K^2 \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial K_1 }{\partial \ln \ell} & =&- c_1\kappa_3^2 \nonumber \\
\frac{ \partial g_2}{ \partial \ln \ell} &=& g_2( 2 - \frac{ \pi}{ 18 K } )- c_2 \kappa_3^3.
\end{eqnarray}
Here we have allowed for the effect of fluctuating bound vortex pairs on the stiffness. A deficiency of the momentum-space approach is that this correction cannot be evaluated easily, and so we take the result computed in the real-space RG using Coulomb gas methods \cite{Nienhuis}.
The constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ are given in Eq.~(\ref{RGcoeffs}).
The RG flow described by Eqs.~(\ref{TreeScale}) and (\ref{RGSTRI}) includes several important effects. First, at this order the stiffness $K$ flows towards smaller values if vortices dominate. As the interlayer coupling $\kappa_3$ is irrelevant if $K$ is sufficiently small, this ensures that the paramagnetic phase is stable to weak interlayer coupling. Second, new interlayer couplings are generated from $\kappa_3$: the marginal gradient coupling $K_1$ and the relevant second-neighbour coupling $g_2$. The latter contributes to stabilising long-range order if vortices are not dominant.
Interlayer gradient couplings change the scaling dimensions of other interlayer couplings and of the fugacity for multilayer complexes of vortices. The scaling dimensions of Eq. (\ref{RGdims}) become more generally
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_1 &= & \frac{\pi}{18} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \frac{ d k_z}{2 \pi } \left [ \frac{1- \cos k_z}{ K_0 + \sum_p K_p\cos p k_z }
\right ] \nonumber \\
\alpha_1 &=& \frac{9}{\pi} \sum_{i,j} \sigma_i \sigma_{j} K_{|i-j|},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\sigma_i$ is the vortex strength in layer $i$.
A striking consequence of interlayer gradient couplings that follows from these results for scaling dimensions is the possibility of a sliding phase, \cite{sliding} in which for appropriate values of $\{K_p\}$ neither vortices nor interlayer cosine couplings are relevant. The window of stability of this phase is however quite narrow, and it does not seem likely that it would be reached by RG flow starting from stacked TLIAFMs with only nearest-neighbour interactions, whether frustrated or not.
\subsection{$abc$ stacking} \label{FCCRG}
We now consider the $abc$ stacking. As for the $aaa$ stacking, under RG at second order the stiffness $K$ flows and further-neighbour interactions are generated. The most important of these are shown in Eq.~(\ref{MakeInterEq}) with coupling constants denoted by $\kappa_2$ and $\kappa_3$. As they break the spatial U(1) symmetry of ${\cal H}^{(abc)}$ [see Eq~(\ref{FCCFE})], their generation involves the RG-irrelevant nearest-neighbour interaction $\kappa_b$ appearing in Eq.~(\ref{Hb}).
The coupled RG equations
\begin{eqnarray} \label{RGeqs}
\frac{\partial K}{\partial \ln \ell} &=& c_3 \kappa_\perp^2 -y^2K^2 \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial K_1}{\partial \ln \ell} &=& - c_4 \kappa_\perp^2 \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial \kappa_b}{\partial \ln \ell} &=& -\frac{\pi}{18 K} \kappa_b \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial \kappa_2}{\partial \ln \ell} &=& \kappa_2\left( 1 -\frac{\pi}{18 K} \right) + c_5 \kappa_\perp \kappa_b \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial \kappa_3}{\partial \ln \ell} &=& \kappa_3 \left( 2 -\frac{\pi}{18 K} \right) + c_6 \kappa_\perp \kappa_2
\end{eqnarray}
and values of the constants $c_3$, $c_4$, $c_4$ and $c_6$ are given in Eq.~(\ref{RGcoeffs}); both $c_5$ and $c_6$ are proportional to $K_1$ for small $K_1$. For each coupling, we have included the flow due to its scaling dimension, as well as (for those not initially present in the nearest-neighbour model) the leading-order term that generates it. Flow of the vortex fugacity $y$ is given in Eq.~(\ref{TreeScale}). For the in-plane stiffness $K$, we have included the leading-order non-vanishing contributions to its RG flow, demonstrating that this is slow.
The most important physical effect captured by this second-order calculation is the generation of the locking interaction $\kappa_3$ from $\kappa_b$ (which appears microscopically in a nearest-neighbour model) via the coupling $\kappa_2$. Since $\kappa_3$ is more strongly RG-relevant than $\kappa_2$ (which has the same scaling dimension as $\kappa_\perp$), it is the key interaction. It is generated only in the presence of non-zero $K_1$, itself produced from the nearest-neighbour interaction $\kappa_\perp$. Combining these steps, we find for a system with initial values $\kappa_\perp = \kappa_{\perp,0}$, $\kappa_{b} \sim \kappa_{\perp,0}$ and $K_{1} = \kappa_{2} = \kappa_{3} =0$, that $\kappa_3 \sim (\kappa_{\perp,0})^7$ is generated after an RG scale change of order one. As discussed in Sec.~\ref{phasediagram}, this locking interaction stabilises long-range order if it dominates over the disordering effects of vortex-antivortex pairs.
We have not examined RG for the $abab$ stacking in detail beyond leading order, since we have not identified RG-relevant interactions that break the continuous ground-state symmetry of the minimal model. Symmetry is instead broken by RG-irrelevant nearest-neighbour interactions that are present microscopically, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{phasediagram}.
\section{Discussion}\label{discussion}
The results from the three approaches we have presented -- the self-consistent Gaussian approximation, Monte Carlo simulations, and analysis of height models -- establish a consistent picture. They show that triangular lattice Ising antiferromagnets with frustrated stackings exhibit classical spin liquid behaviour over an extended temperature range if interlayer coupling is weak. In this regime, there are strong correlations within and between layers, but without long-range order.
The most significant weakness of the SCGA is that it fails to capture the ordering transition, giving instead a finite correlation length at all non-zero temperatures. The SCGA also predicts a temperature-independent value for the helix radius $Q$, while within the height model $Q$ is a function of $\beta J_\perp$. Small increases in $Q$ with decreasing $T$ at fixed $J_\perp$ are apparent in Fig.~\ref{fig:fit_params_v_T}(b), although the anticipated continuum behaviour is not fully-developed.
Some more detailed comparisons between Monte Carlo simulations and height model calculations are possible. The prediction of Sec.~\ref{phasediagram} that the ordering transition is at larger values of $J_\perp$ and smaller temperatures in systems with frustrated stacking compared to the unfrustrated case ($J_\perp \approx J e^{-20\beta J/11}$ or $J_\perp \approx J e^{-5\beta J/3}$ compared with $J_\perp \approx J e^{-6\beta J}$) is clearly consistent with simulation results shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phase_diagram}. For a quantitative test, we fit the phase boundaries determined in simulations to the form $J_\perp = A J \exp(-c\beta J)$. We obtain $c=1.90 \pm 0.08$ for the $abc$ stacking, $c= 1.63 \pm 0.11$ for the $abab$ stacking, and $c=5.44 \pm 0.2$ for the unfrustrated case, in striking agreement with analytical results. Values of the other fitting parameter are $A= 2.87 \pm 0.2$, $A=2.16 \pm 0.27$ and $A=6.43 \pm 0.5$, respectively.
\section*{Acknowledgements.}
We thank F. H. L Essler, O. A. Starykh and especially P. G. Radaelli for discussions. FJB is supported by NSF-DMR 1352271 and Sloan FG-2015-65927. JTC is supported in part by EPSRC Grants Nos. EP/I032487/1 and EP/N01930X/1. LDCJ is supported by the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology
Graduate University.
|
\subsection*{Competing financial interests}
\noindent\textbf{Acknowledgement}
We thank F.\,Federspiel, K.\,Makles, and P.\,Verlot for fruitful discussions, F.\,Chevrier, A.\,Boulard, M.\,Romeo, and F. Godel for experimental support, R.\,Bernard, S.\,Siegwald, and H.\,Majjad for assistance in the STNano clean room facility. We acknowledge financial support from C'Nano GE, the Agence Nationale de Recherche (ANR) under grants QuandDoGra 12 JS10-00101 and H2DH ANR-15-CE24-0016 and the University of Strasbourg Institute for Advanced Study (USIAS, GOLEM project).
|
\section{Introduction}
Physical theories with a less number of independent parameters are not
only more predictive when compared to those with a larger number,
but do also offer a better and more comprehensible description of Nature.
Here we show that the Standard Model (SM) of the electroweak interactions can have
its set of independent parameters significantly reduced \cite{Hollik:2014jda}.
The SM Lagrangian, written in the interaction basis, has the fermion
mass matrices as three by three arbitrary and complex matrices. It is by virtue of a biunitary
transformation that the mass matrices can be expressed in its diagonal form with all its entries
being now real and positive. This set of biunitary transformations are nothing more than the
needed independent rotations which must be, in general, simultaneously applied to the
left- and right-handed fields of each fermion type. Generically, we have the following picture
\begin{enumerate}
\item Weak or Interaction basis:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf M} = {\bf L}^\dagger {\bf \Sigma} {\bf R} = \begin{pmatrix}
m_{11} & m_{12} & m_{13} \\
m_{21} & m_{22} & m_{23} \\
m_{31} & m_{32} & m_{33} \\
\end{pmatrix} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf L}$ and ${\bf R}$ are unitary transformations acting, respectively, in
the left- and right-handed fields of the same fermion type, ${\bf \Sigma} \equiv \text{Diag}
(m_1, m_2, m_3)$ with $m_j \geq 0$, and $m_{ij}$ are complex numbers.
\item Mass basis:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf L} {\bf M} {\bf R}^\dagger = {\bf \Sigma} = \begin{pmatrix}
m_{1} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & m_{2} & 0\\
0& 0 & m_{3} \\
\end{pmatrix} ,
\end{eqnarray}
notice that ${\bf L} {\bf M} {\bf M}^\dagger {\bf L}^\dagger ={\bf \Sigma}^2$
and ${\bf R} {\bf M}^\dagger {\bf M} {\bf R}^\dagger ={\bf \Sigma}^2$.
\end{enumerate}
Up to now, nothing has been said about the charged currents
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal J}_{\text{q,IB}}^\mu \propto \bar{u}_{L,i} \gamma^\mu \delta_{ij} d_{L,j} \qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
{\cal J}_{\ell,\text{IB}}^\mu \propto \bar{e}_{L,i} \gamma^\mu \delta_{ij} \nu_{L,j},
\end{eqnarray}
which in the interaction basis (IB) are diagonal and thus conserve flavor. After moving
to the mass basis (MB), the charged currents suffers the following change
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal J}_{\text{q,MB}}^{\mu} \propto \bar{u}'_{L,i} \gamma^\mu {\bf V}_{ij} d'_{L,j}
\qquad
\text{and}
\qquad
{\cal J}_{\ell,\text{MB}}^\mu \propto \bar{e}'_{L,i} \gamma^\mu {\bf U}_{ij} \nu'_{L,j},
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf V} = {\bf L}_u {\bf L}_d^\dagger$ and ${\bf U} = {\bf L}_e {\bf L}_\nu^\dagger$
are the quark and lepton mixing matrix, respectively.
In fact, they are named after their inventors as
Cabibbo--Kobayashi--Maskawa (CKM) and Pontecorvo--Maki--Nakagawa--Sakata (PMNS)
for the quark and lepton sector, respectively. From this point onwards, they will be
denoted, following tradition, by ${\bf V}_{\text{CKM}}\equiv {\bf V}$ and
${\bf U}_{\text{PMNS}}\equiv {\bf U}$.
A three dimensional unitary transformation requires nine parameters to be fully described;
three of them are real while the remaining six are complex phases. Freedom to redefine the
fields by a global phase
implies five independent transformations per fermion sector. This then translates into a
mixing matrix whose description requires only four independent mixing parameters
(i.e., three real and one complex phase). There is no unique way to parametrize
the mixing among fermions. In fact, different alternatives can be found in the literature
\cite{Kobayashi:1973fv
,Schechter:1980gr, Wolfenstein:1983yz, Chau:1984fp,Hollik:2014jda}.
And it is precisely a mixing parametrization in terms of fermion
masses what we are trying to propose here.
A mixing parametrization can also have all of its mixing parameters purely real.
The only requirement it should fulfill though is that after rephasing all the corresponding
fields the unitary transformation cannot be made real.
A good example of this is the well known
Wolfenstein parametrization which is used in the description of quark mixing in its unitary form.
A basis-independent measure of CP violation can be achieved through the rephasing
invariant quantity called Jarlskog invariant \cite{Jarlskog:1985ht}
\begin{eqnarray}
J_f \sim \Im\left[ \text{Det}\left( [{\bf M}_a {\bf M}_a^\dagger, {\bf M}_b {\bf M}_b^\dagger] \right) \right],
\end{eqnarray}
where $f=q,\ell$, $a=u,\nu$, and $b=d,e$.
Current knowledge about fermion mixing data shows the following values~\cite{Agashe:2014kda}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:CKMPDG}
|{\bf V}_{\text{CKM}}| =
\begin{pmatrix}
0.97427 \pm 0.00014 & 0.22536 \pm 0.00061 & 0.00355\pm 0.00015 \\
0.22522 \pm 0.00061 & 0.97343 \pm 0.00015 & 0.0414 \pm 0.0012 \\
0.00886^{+0.00033}_{-0.00032} & 0.0405^{+0.0011}_{-0.0012} &
0.99914\pm 0.00005 \end{pmatrix},
\end{eqnarray}
with the Jarlskog invariant equal to $ J_q =
(3.06^{+0.21}_{-0.20})\times 10^{-5}$. In the standard parametrization
by the Particle Data Group (PDG), the central values give the following
mixing angles,
\begin{equation}
\theta_{12}^q \approx 13.3^\circ, \qquad
\theta_{13}^q \approx 0.2^\circ, \qquad
\theta_{23}^q \approx 2.4^\circ.
\end{equation}
Whereas the most recent update on the $3\sigma$ allowed ranges of the elements
of the PMNS mixing matrix gives~\cite{Gonzalez-Garcia:2014bfa}
\begin{equation}
|{\bf U}_{\text{PMNS}}| =
\begin{pmatrix}
0.801\rightarrow 0.845 & 0.514 \rightarrow 0.580 & 0.137 \rightarrow 0.158 \\
0.225 \rightarrow 0.517 & 0.441 \rightarrow 0.699 & 0.614 \rightarrow 0.793 \\
0.246 \rightarrow 0.529 & 0.464 \rightarrow 0.713 & 0.590
\rightarrow 0.776
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where the best fit points for the mixing angles are
\begin{equation}
\theta_{12}^\ell \approx 33.48^\circ, \qquad
\theta_{13}^\ell \approx 8.50^\circ, \qquad
\theta_{23}^\ell \approx 42.3^\circ.
\end{equation}
Some remarks now follow. The quark mixing matrix is close to the unit matrix with $|V_{12}|$ being its largest off-diagonal element. In the PDG parametrization this is translated into two very small angles ($\sim 1^\circ$) and a third one with order $10^\circ$. On the other hand, the leptonic mixing matrix is by far quite different from this picture.
Its smallest matrix element is of the
same order as the largest one in the quark sector. In the PDG parametrization this gets translated into two large angles (one of them close to maximal) and one small angle. So we have two mixing matrices that from their structure really seem to come from different origins. This aspect is one of many which are commonly known as the \textit{flavour puzzle}. So how can we understand this observed discrepancy? What we want to show here is that we do not need to go beyond the standard model to understand the observed values in mixing phenomena.
We take the Gatto--Sartori--Tonin (GST) relation~\cite{Gatto:1968ss}, which coincides surprisingly well with the Cabibbo angle,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tan \theta_{12}^q \approx \sqrt{\frac{m_d}{m_s}} \approx 0.22 ,
\end{eqnarray}
as the strongest hint to understand this aspect of the flavour puzzle.
This relation is pointing out to a possibility:
\textit{a mixing parametrization with fermion mass ratios as its mixing parameters}. But, does it make any sense to think on this possibility? We have six masses per fermion sector and only four mass ratios are independent: ${m_{a,1}}/{m_{a,2}}$, ${m_{a,2}}/{m_{a,3}}$,
${m_{b,1}}/{m_{b,2}}$, and ${m_{b,2}}/{m_{b,3}}$. In fact, only in the two and three family cases
we have sufficient (more or an equal number of) mass ratios as mixing parameters \cite{Hollik:2014jda}. Beyond three families we cannot think of building such a mixing parametrization with mass ratios.
In the following, we try to guide the reader through a list of questions and answers.
\section{From where we should start?}
Recall the generic mixing matrix definition
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf V} = {\bf L}_a {\bf L}_b^\dagger,
\end{eqnarray}
where $a=u,e$ and $b=d,\nu$ and ${\bf V}$ equals the CKM or PMNS mixing matrix, respectively.
As we want to find
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf V} = {\bf V} \left( \frac{m_{a,1}}{m_{a,2}},\frac{m_{a,2}}{m_{a,3}},
\frac{m_{b,1}}{m_{b,2}}, \frac{m_{b,2}}{m_{b,3}} \right),
\end{eqnarray}
this implies we should look out for the possibility of
expressing ${\bf L}_f = {\bf L}_f ({m_{f,1}}/{m_{f,2}},{m_{f,2}}/{m_{f,3}})$.
How can we connect this unitary transformations acting on the left-handed fields to the corresponding fermion masses? We need to consider that they diagonalize the left Hermitian product of the mass matrices,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf L}_f {\bf M}_f {\bf M}_f^\dagger {\bf L}_f^\dagger = {\text{Diag}} \left[m_{f,1}^2, m_{f,2}^2, m_{f,3}^2\right].
\end{eqnarray}
Any existing relation between mass ratios and the unitary transformations should emerge from here.
The use of the three matrix invariants gives,
\begin{align}
\text{Det}\left[{\bf M}_f{\bf M}_f^\dagger\right] = x_1x_2x_3 -x_1|y_3|^2 -x_2|y_2|^2-x_3|y_1|^2+2\Re(y_1y_2^*y_3)= m_{f,1}^2 m_{f,2}^2 m_{f,3}^2, \\
\text{Tr}\left[({\bf M}_f{\bf M}_f^\dagger)^2\right] = x_1^2 + x_2^2 + x_3^2 + 2(|y_1|^2 + |y_2|^2 + |y_3|^2) = m_{f,1}^4 + m_{f,2}^4 + m_{f,3}^4, \\
\text{Tr}\left[ {\bf M}_f{\bf M}_f^\dagger \right] = x_1 + x_2 + x_3 = m_{f,1}^2 + m_{f,2}^2 + m_{f,3}^2.
\end{align}
where we have denoted by $x_{i} = [ {\bf M}_f {\bf M}_f^\dagger]_{ii}$ and $y_{1} = [ {\bf M}_f {\bf M}_f^\dagger]_{12}$, $y_{2} = [ {\bf M}_f {\bf M}_f^\dagger]_{13}$, and $y_{3} = [ {\bf M}_f {\bf M}_f^\dagger]_{23}$, the matrix elements of the Hermitian product
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
{\bf M}_f {\bf M}_f^\dagger =
\begin{pmatrix}
|m_{11}|^2 + |m_{12}|^2 + |m_{13}|^2 &
m_{11}m_{21}^* + m_{12}m_{22}^* + m_{13}m_{23}^* &
m_{11}m_{31}^* + m_{12}m_{32}^* + m_{13}m_{33}^* \\
& |m_{21}|^2 + |m_{22}|^2 + |m_{23}|^2 &
m_{21}m_{31}^* + m_{22}m_{32}^* + m_{23}m_{33}^* \\
& & |m_{31}|^2 + |m_{32}|^2 + |m_{33}|^2
\end{pmatrix}. \\
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
No unique and exact solution exists within the SM for this non-linear system of equations.
\section{What about an approximated solution?}
An important feature masses of the charged fermion species share is their observed hierarchical structure
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{f,1} \ll m_{f,2} \ll m_{f,3},
\end{eqnarray}
which in terms of orders of magnitude becomes
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
m_u : m_c : m_t \approx 10^{-5} : 10^{-3} : 1, &\quad\quad
m_d : m_s : m_b \approx 10^{-4} : 10^{-2} : 1, \\
m_e : m_{\mu} : m_{\tau} &\approx 10^{-4} : 10^{-2} : 1.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Even for neutrinos, the two squared mass differences measured from neutrino
oscillations obey a hierarchy although much weaker,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta m_{21}^2 : \Delta m_{31(32)}^2 \approx 10^{-2} : 1.
\end{eqnarray}
Could we use this hierarchical nature of fermion masses to find out our desired approximated solution? The answer is yes.
\subsection{A first step towards an approximated solution}
Two questions must be answered before considering an approximated solution. Which conditions should be met by the fermion masses in order to guarantee that we have a unique solution? Which theorems will support the uniqueness of our approximations?
The answer for the former question follows from the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) of a complex matrix. The two unitary transformations diagonalizing it are unique up to some global complex phases whenever the singular values (fermions masses) have non-degeneracy and can thus be ordered from the smallest to the largest one.
On the other hand, the answer to the second question follows from the following.
When considering some of the singular values as zero (because when compared to the rest are rather small) then
we need to consider a theorem named Schmidt--Mirsky approximation theorem that tells us we are safe to use such lower rank approximations and still guarantee the uniqueness of the computed unitary transformations.
\subsection{A generic treatment}
We choose to work in the interaction basis which has all mass matrices still non-diagonal. From now on we will denote them generically by ${\bf M}$ and its singular values (fermion masses) by $m_i$ ($i=1,2,3$).
The SVD provides the relation,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf M} = \sum_i \ell_i m_i r^\dagger_i = \left[ \left( l_{1}
\frac{m_{1}}{m_{2}} r_{1}^\dagger + l_{2}
r_{2}^\dagger\right)\frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}} + l_{3}
r_{3}^\dagger\right]m_{3},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\ell_i$ and $r_i$ are the singular vectors of each singular value.
This expression points to
the fact that the fermion mass ratios $m_{1}/m_{2}$ and
$m_{2}/m_{3}$ play the dominant r\^ole in determining the structure of
the mass matrix whereas $m_{3}$ sets the overall mass scale.
The lower rank approximations can be obtained from either $m_3 \gg m_2,m_1$
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf M}_{r=1} = m_{3} l_{3} r_{3}^\dagger,
\end{eqnarray}
or $m_3,m_2 \gg m_1$
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf M}_{r=2} = \left( \frac{m_{2}}{m_{3}} l_{2}
r_{2}^\dagger + l_{3}
r_{3}^\dagger\right) m_{3}.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{The rank one approximation}
In general, the SVD tells us that the rank one approximation is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf M}_{r=1} =m_3 \begin{pmatrix}
\ell_{31} r_{31}^* & \ell_{31} r_{32}^* & \ell_{31} r_{33}^* \\
\ell_{32} r_{31}^* & \ell_{32} r_{32}^* & \ell_{32} r_{33}^* \\
\ell_{33} r_{31}^* & \ell_{33} r_{32}^* & \ell_{33} r_{33}^*
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
However, if the first and second families are massless we should expect no mixing among the fermions ${\bf L}(m_1 =0, m_2 =0) ={\bf 1}_{3\times 3}$. Therefore, we actually know the left
Hermitian product
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf M}_{r=1} {\bf M}_{r=1}{}^\dagger = m_3^2 \ell_3 \ell_3^\dagger = m_3^2 \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
In order to find ${\bf M}_{r=1}$ and not only the left Hermitian product we need to remember that it should be possible to consider an electroweak basis which explicitly shows no coupling between the massless families and the Higgs field. In that basis
\begin{eqnarray}
|{\bf M}_{r=1}| = m_3 \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{The rank two approximation}
Setting the mass of the second family different from zero can produce mixing between the second and third fermion generations,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf L} (m_1 = 0, m_2) = {\bf L}_{23}\left( \frac{m_2}{m_3} \right) =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & c_{23} & s_{23} e^{-i\delta_{23}} \\
0 & -s_{23} e^{i\delta_{23}} & c_{23}
\end{pmatrix},
\end{eqnarray}
At this point we still do not know what the relation between the rotation angle $\theta_{23}$ and
the mass ratio $m_2/m_3$ is. But what we do know is the hierarchy which means a small angle $\theta_{23} \ll 1$. This allows us to take the Taylor expansion to first order
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf L} (m_1 = 0, m_2) = {\bf L}_{23}\left( \frac{m_2}{m_3} \right) =
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & \theta_{23} e^{-i\delta_{23}} \\
0 & -\theta_{23} e^{i\delta_{23}} & 1
\end{pmatrix},
\end{eqnarray}
which then gives to second order,
\begin{eqnarray}
|{\bf M}_{r=2} {\bf M}_{r=2}{}^\dagger| \sim m_3^2 \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & |\theta_{23}|^2 & |\theta_{23}| \\
0 & |\theta_{23}| & 1+ |\theta_{23}|^2
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
To know the matrix form of $|{\bf M}_{r=2}|$ we need to assume that the right Hermitian product ${\bf M}^\dagger {\bf M}$ is equal to its left counterpart ${\bf M} {\bf M}^\dagger$. This is equivalent to assuming the mass matrices to be normal. A normal matrix ${\bf A}$ satisfies the relation ${\bf A} {\bf A}^\dagger = {\bf A}^\dagger {\bf A}$. We find to second order a similar expansion as before
\begin{eqnarray}
|{\bf M}_{r=2}| \sim m_3 \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & |\theta_{23}|^2 & |\theta_{23}| \\
0 & |\theta_{23}| & 1+ |\theta_{23}|^2
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
We take this hierarchical structure and translate it into the following matrix form
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf M}_{r=2} = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & m_{22} & m_{23} \\
0 & m_{32} & m_{33}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{eqnarray}
with the two conditions $|m_{23}| = |m_{32}|$ and $|m_{22}| = |m_{23}|^2$. Complex phases are
constrained by a single trascendental equation with tangent functions. Because we expect
$|m_{22}| \sim \theta_{23}^2 \ll 1$ to be much smaller than one, then, when we study the left Hermitian product of the mass matrices ${\bf M} {\bf M}^\dagger$ its appearance can be neglected as it only provides contributions of order three and four, ${\cal O}(\theta^{3})$ and ${\cal O}(\theta^{4})$. Thus we choose to work with the approximation
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf M}_{r=2} \simeq \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & m_{23} \\
0 & m_{32} & m_{33}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray}
In fact, this assumption needs a more careful treatment and its details can be found in \cite{Saldana-Salazar:2015raa}.
It is straightforward to show that $|m_{23}| = \sqrt{m_2 m_3}$ and $|m_{33}| = m_3 - m_2$.
Moreover, we find that the
diagonalization of such a matrix requires the angle of rotation to satisfy a GST-like relation
\begin{eqnarray}
\tan^2 \theta_{23} = \frac{m_2}{m_3}.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Ansatz on the complex phases}
The special unitary transformation diagonalizing ${\bf M}_{r=2}$ has one phase and one angle
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf L}_{23} = {\bf L}_{23} (\theta_{23} , \delta_{23})
\end{eqnarray}
with the angle satisfying the GST relation. However, we cannot expect any new dependence on more free parameters. If the four mass ratios can really behave as mixing parameters no significant effect should come from the complex phases apart from determining if either we have orthogonal transformations in its two varieties: clockwise ($\delta_{23} = 0$) or counter-clockwise ($\delta_{23} = \pi$); or special unitary transformations having an $i$ factor in the off diagonal elements also in its two possible varieties ($\delta_{23} = \pi/2,\; 3\pi/2$). Therefore, we consider this set of four possible values as an \textit{ansatz} that complex phases should follow~\cite{Masina:2005hf,Masina:2006ad}.
\section{What is the effect produced by each complex phase value?}
One can show that complex phases will always appear as phase differences,
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{ij}^a - \delta_{ij}^b.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, from now on we will consider that only one of them takes a value while the other is zero,
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{ij}^a = 0 \quad\quad {\text{and}} \quad \quad \delta_{ij}^b = 0,\; \frac{\pi}{2},\; \pi,\; \frac{3\pi}{2}.
\end{eqnarray}
We will not go here into more details but one can also see that when studying mixing between two families three different cases arise: a minimal ($\delta^b_{ij} = 0$) or maximal ($\delta^b_{ij} = \pi$) value of mixing without CP violation or a medium value of mixing ($\delta^b_{ij} = \pi/2, 3\pi/2$) with CP violation.
Then, when studying mixing in the full rank picture, which basically means within one fermion type
\begin{eqnarray}
L^f = L_{12}^f L_{13}^f L_{23}^f ,
\end{eqnarray}
that is, three successive rotations in the three different two-family planes, what we could, on general grounds, anticipate is the fact that we will be allowed to consider $4^3 = 64$ possible combinations. However, mixing in the 2-3 sector (two families) should not introduce any CP violation. Therefore, we can only consider it to have either minimal or maximal mixing. Then
this reduces our combinations to $4^2\times2 = 32$. Moreover, a symmetry argument pointing to the fact that we should only consider a complex phase implying CP violation in the 1-2 sector now follows. In general, our mass matrices can be considered as rank one rather than rank two. That is, the contribution added from the rank one to the rank two is negligible. Therefore, we should expect our mass matrices to approximately conserved the global and accidental $U(2)^3$ flavour symmetry. Hence, we will constrain our combinations to:
\begin{eqnarray}
L^f = L^f_{12} \left( \frac{m_1}{m_2}, \frac{\pi}{2}\; {\text{or}}\; \frac{3\pi}{2} \right)
L^f_{13} \left( \frac{m_1}{m_3}, 0\; {\text{or}}\; \pi \right)
L^f_{23} \left( \frac{m_2}{m_3}, 0\; {\text{or}}\; \pi \right).
\end{eqnarray}
Implying we will have $2^3= 8$ possible combinations. We lack a principle that could explain us which case we should expect. But what we know is that if the four mass ratios parametrization really works we should find one possible case from the eight agreeing with what has been already observed.
\section{How are the approximations improved?}
In the full rank picture, passing from two massive families to three, we need to set $m_1$ different from zero. But, this in return, as expected from the lower rank approximation theorem, should provide contributions proportional to it in all the matrix elements. Even in the 2-3 sector which we had already diagonalized.
Thus, recall we have already diagonalized the 2-3 sector. However, after moving to the full rank picture we should consider diagonalizing again this sector by some angle proportional to $m_1$. We treat this by introducing the ansatz:
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{23} = L_{23}^{(2)}\left( \frac{m_1m_2}{m_3^2} \right) L_{23}^{(1)} \left(\frac{m_1}{m_3} \right)
L_{23}^{(0)} \left(\frac{m_2}{m_3} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
Similar, for the 1-3 sector we have the ansatz
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{13} = L_{13}^{(2)}\left( \frac{m_1m_2}{m_3^2} \right) L_{13}^{(1)} \left(\frac{m_2^2}{m_3^2} \right)
L_{13}^{(0)} \left(\frac{m_1}{m_3} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
The 1-2 sector has no approximations as rotating this sector already includes the two corresponding masses. Then, we only require a single rotation
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{12} = L_{12}^{(0)} \left(\frac{m_1}{m_2} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
Note that all the new phases appearing in the added two more rotations in the 2-3 and 1-3 sector should be taken such that they either minimize or maximize the initial value if the initial rotation was meant to produce minimal or maximal mixing, respectively.
The complete expression to diagonalize the mass matrix of one fermion type is thus
\begin{eqnarray}
L_f = L_{12} L_{13} L_{23}.
\end{eqnarray}
\section{Discussions and Conclusions}
The quark sector is found to be well described by minimal mixing in both the 2-3 and 1-3 sector, while medium mixing in the 1-2 sector with $\pi/2$. The agreement to experiment is simply great
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:postCKM}
|V_{\text{CKM}}^{\text{th}}| =
\begin{pmatrix}
0.974^{+0.004}_{-0.003} & 0.225^{+0.016}_{-0.011} & 0.0031^{+0.0018}_{-0.0015} \\
0.225^{+0.016}_{-0.011} & 0.974^{+0.004}_{-0.003} & 0.039^{+0.005}_{-0.004} \\
0.0087^{+0.0010}_{-0.0008} & 0.038^{+0.004}_{-0.004} & 0.9992^{+0.0002}_{-0.0001}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{eqnarray}
with the Jarlskog invariant being $J_q = ( 2.6^{+1.3}_{-1.0} ) \times 10^{-5}$.
This approach can be extended to the lepton sector. Knowledge of the electron and muon mass plus the value of $|[{\bf U}_{\text{PMNS}}]_{12}| \simeq 0.54 $ allows the computation of the neutrino masses, which are found to be
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{\nu1} = ( 0.0041 \pm 0.0015 )\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{eV}}, \quad
m_{\nu2} = ( 0.0096 \pm 0.0005 )\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{eV}}, \quad
m_{\nu3} = ( 0.050 \pm 0.001 )\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{eV}}.
\end{eqnarray}
These values in return are then used to calculate the full leptonic mixing matrix, which in the PDG parametrization results into
\begin{align}
\sin^2\theta_{23}^{\text{th}} = 0.54^{+0.03}_{-0.03} \quad\quad
\sin^2\theta_{12}^{\text{th}} = 0.30^{+0.07}_{-0.09}\quad\quad
\sin^2\theta_{13}^{\text{th}} =0.019^{+0.009}_{-0.007},
\end{align}
with the Jarlskog invariant being $J_\ell =- 0.031^{+0.006}_{-0.007}$. Leptonic mixing requires maximal mixing in the 2-3 sector, minimal in the 1-3 sector, and medium in the 1-2 sector with $3\pi/2$.
Hierarchical masses within the quark sector led us to the computed mixing formulas. However, the fact that neutrinos also give an excellent agreement without having such a strong hierarchy leaves the sensation that some mechanism independent of the hierarchy in the masses is being responsible for the way mixing happens. That is, the formulas we found are applicable for all possible values of fermion masses and are not a consequence of hierarchical masses. In this regard, what we called the Flavor-Blind Principle gives a reason on why such Yukawas appear and why the GST relation is not related to hierarchical masses but rather to the symmetrical origin of the Yukawa matrices.
A last remark about the usefulness of this approach is that it has been seen to play an important role in solving the strong CP problem \cite{Diaz-Cruz:2016pmm}.
\ack
I am grateful to Wolfgang G. Hollik for a careful reading of this manuscript.
This work has been supported by CONACyT-Mexico under Contract No.~220498.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
Ion-pair states are generally superexcited states of molecules embedded in the ionization continuum. Such superexcited states can be accessed through photon or electron collisions with isolated molecules that in turn may dissociates into positive and negative ions. \cite{kuchi} Photoion pair formation has been studied quite extensively over the past few decades. \cite{rev:suits} Main emphasis was to determine threshold energy for the process more accurately employing threshold ion pair production spectroscopy (TIPPS).\cite{shiell, martin} However, detailed dynamics have been obtained in the recent times due to the availability of high resolution ion pair imaging spectroscopy (IPIS). \cite{rev:suits, Hao} On the other hand, in the electron collisions, the same ion pair states can be accessed and detailed dissociation dynamics can be obtained by probing fragment anion using high resolution velocity slice imaging (VSI) spectroscopy.
VSI technique has been successfully applied to study negative ion formation due to dissociative electron attachment (DEA) process.\cite{cl:pamir, CO2:pamir, CO:pamir} The same technique has been extended here to study dissociation of the long-range ion-pair states of CO. Unlike DEA process, the anion formation due to dipolar dissociation does not proceed via resonant electron capture.\cite{dea:illenberger} In the latter case, the incident electron transfers some energy to the molecule and excite it to ion-pair states that eventually dissociates into cation and anion. The ion-pair formation is possible as long as the excitation energy is equal and more than the asymptotic ion-pair dissociation energy. The minimum energy position of the ion-pair state usually far away from the equilibrium position of the neutral molecule in the potential energy curve formalism. The ion-pair state may be accessed via direct excitation or indirectly through predissociation of an initially excited Rydberg state of the neutral molecule. The indirect mechanism is more commonly applied in the studies of photoion pair formation.\cite{rev:suits} The detection of ion pair provides information on the electronic structure of a molecule and the dissociation dynamics of its exited states. For electron collision studies, both direct and indirect mechanism may be applicable as discussed in the present article. In electron collision with CO the ion-pair states can give rise to momentum matched anion and cation products, either C$^+$ and O$^-$ or C$^-$ and O$^+$ channels:
\begin{equation}
\text{CO} + e^- \rightarrow \text{CO}^* + \text{e}^- \rightarrow \left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\text{C}^+ + \text{O}^- +\text{e}^-\\
\text{C}^- + \text{O}^+ +\text{e}^-
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The ion pair formation from CO was reported by Vaughan \cite{vaughan} and Lozier \cite{lozier} in the electron collision studies quite long ago. In the dipolar dissociation range, Lozier \cite{lozier} observed equal intensity of C$^{+}$ and O$^{-}$ formation with threshold energy of 20.9 $\pm$ 0.1 eV. Successive studies by several groups \cite{hagstrum1, dorman} also confirmed similar threshold energy. However, no kinetic energy and angular distribution data are available till now. In the current study, both C$^-$ and O$^-$ have been observed in the dipolar dissociation range. However, the count rate for C$^-$ is too low to perform any meaningful VSI study and is not reported in the present article. It is well accepted \cite{lozier, dorman} that the anion formation in the electron collision studies with reported primary electron energy range can only be possible through ion-pair states. Here, it is assumed that the O$^-$ ions are always accompanied by C$^+$ ions but to verify the claim conclusively a coincidence measurement is absolutely necessary. In this article, we first outline the method and provide detailed studies of the dipolar dissociation dynamics in the electron collisions with carbon monoxide (CO) using VSI.
\section{Instrumentation}
The O$^-$ ions produced due to dipolar dissociation are studied using highly differential time sliced velocity map imaging technique. The current experimental setup is similar to the previous report of Nandi \emph{et al.} \cite{rsi:DN} with minor modifications as described by Nag and Nandi.\cite{MST:pamir} The same setup has been used to study the dissociative electron attachment to Cl$_2$, \cite{cl:pamir} CO$_2$ \cite{CO2:pamir} and CO \cite{CO:pamir} in the recent time. In brief, the experimental setup consists of an electron gun, a Faraday cup to measure electron current situated in the same axis, a needle of 1 mm diameter to produce effusive molecular beam and a time of flight (TOF) based velocity map imaging (VMI) spectrometer. The needle directed towards the detector is placed in the spectrometer axis and perpendicular to the electron beam axis.
The basic theme of the experiment is the effusive molecular beam interacts perpendicularly with the magnetically collimated pulsed electron beam. As a result, ions are formed in the interaction zone that are pulsed extracted into the spectrometer and detected by a two dimensional position sensitive detector. The electrons are produced by thermionic emission and the energy of the electrons is controlled by a programmable power supply. Typical energy resolution of the electron beam is about 0.8 eV. The pulse width of the electron beam is about 200 ns and the repetition rate is 10 kHz. After passing through the interaction region the electrons are collected using the Faraday cup that measures the time averaged electron beam current. The VMI spectrometer is a three field time of flight (TOF) type mass spectrometer capable to map all the ions with a given velocity vector to a point on the detector irrespective of their place of birth. The detector consists of three micro channel plates (MCP) with Z-stack configuration and three layers delay line hexanode.\cite{hex1} The TOF of the detected ions are determined from the back MCP signal \cite{MST:pamir} whereas the x and y positions of the ions are calculated from the three anode layers of the hexanode placed behind the MCPs. The TOF (t) and (x, y) position of each detected ions are stored in list-mode format (LMF) using the CoboldPC software from RoentDek.
The experiments are performed under ultra high vacuum condition with base pressure as low as 10$^{-9}$ mbar and 99.9\% pure commercially available CO gas.
To obtain the ion yield curve a different set of data acquisition system has been used. Only the MCP signal is used for this purpose. The MCP signal is first amplified by a fast amplifier and then fed to a constant fraction discriminator (CFD). The output of CFD is fed to STOP of a nuclear instrumentation module (NIM) standard time to amplitude converter (TAC) and the START pulse is generated by a master pulse which is synchronized with the electron gun pulse. The time difference between this START and STOP is the TOF of the O$^-$ ion. The output of the TAC is connected to a multichannel analyzer (MCA, Ortec model ASPEC-927). Finally, it is communicated to a computer via USB 2.0 interface used for data acquisition. Our own LabVIEW based data acquisition system \cite{MST:pamir} is used to obtain the mass spectra and the ion yield curve.
When the electrons are collied with the molecule, `Newton Sphere' of ion is formed. One can obtain the angular distribution information from the projection of the `Newton spheres' onto a two-dimensional position sensitive detector. Ions with higher kinetic energy will fall onto the detector with bigger diameter. In the current experiment, a moderate pulsed extraction field is applied and negative ions are extracted from the source region of the spectrometer. The extraction pulse duration is 2 $\mu$s and applied 100 ns after the electron beam pulse. This delayed extraction provides sufficient time to expand the `Newton Sphere\,' so that we can obtain better time sliced images and also prevent the electrons from reaching the detector. The aim is to obtain the central slice of the Newton sphere containing the kinetic energy and angular distribution information of the detected ions. To obtain the central slice a suitable time window has been selected during offline analysis using CoboldPC software. These sliced images contain the ions ejected in the plane parallel to the detector and containing the electron beam axis. The typical full width at half maximum (FWHM) in TOF of the O$^{-}$ is about 500 ns and a 50 ns time window has been selected for slicing purpose. For low energy ions a thiner slice (25 ns) may be less erroneous. The electron energy calibration has been done using the resonant peaks of O$^{-}$/O$_{2}$ at 6.5 eV and the O$^-$/CO at 9.9 eV.\cite{ref:rapp} The calibration for the kinetic energy distribution measurements have been performed using the kinetic energy released by O$^-$/O$_2$ at 6.5 eV.\cite{o2:dn_cross} Further, this energy calibration has been checked by measuring the kinetic energy of O$^-$ ion produced by dissociative electron attachment to CO$_2$ \cite{co2:slaughter,CO2:pamir} at 8.2 eV.
\section{Results and Discussion}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=.42]{ionyield}
\caption{\small{Ion yield curve of O$^-$ ion produced due to electron collision with gas phase CO molecule. The arrows indicate the energies at which the images are taken.}} \label{ion_yield}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{ion_yield} shows the ion yield curve of the O$^-$ ions produced from CO due to 0-45 eV energy electron collisions. The ion yield curve is in good agreement with previous report.\cite{ref:rapp} A resonant peak at 9.9 eV due to dissociative electron attachment (DEA) is observed. The detailed DEA dynamics have been recently studied and reported elsewhere.\cite{CO:pamir} Increasing the electron energy revealed an access to the dipolar dissociation (DD) process that results the feature observed in the O$^{-}$ ion yield curve. The main focus of the present study is to understand the detailed dynamics occurring at the DD region, i.e., the process beyond 18 eV incident electron energy. In Fig.~\ref{ion_yield}, the arrows indicate the electron energies at which the VSIs are taken. In the following the threshold behaviour of the DD process seen in the ion yield is discussed within the limited energy resolution. The kinetic energy and angular distribution data extracted from VSI of the negative ions formed due to DD process are analysed thoroughly.
Fig.~\ref{threshold2} shows the ion yield curve around the threshold of the DD region. Due to the finite energy resolution of the electron beam instead of being sharp, the curve gets smooth near the threshold value. From the experimental data the appearance energy of the anions is found to be near 19.8 eV. The appearance energy for the DD process can be calculated using the accepted values of the thermochemical parameters. \cite{web:nist}Using the conservation of energy, one can write the following expression for the DD process as,
\begin{equation}
V_e=(E_i+D-A+IP)+E_1 +E_2 \label{eq:threshold}
\end{equation}
where $V_{e}$ is the amount of energy transfer from incident electron to molecule, $E_{i}$ is the energy associated with the possible excited states of the cation, $D$ is the bond dissociation energy, $IP$ is the ionization potential of carbon atom and the electron affinity of oxygen atom is $A$. The $E_1$ and $E_2$ are the kinetic energy associated with the C$^+$ and O$^-$ ions, respectively, at threshold both $E_1$ and $E_2$ are zero. Assuming both C$^+$ and O$^-$ ions are formed in ground state, \cite{locht, lozier, hagstrum1} i.e. $E_i=0$ the threshold can be calculated using the expression
\begin{equation}
E_{Th}=(D-A+IP)
\end{equation}
Using the values for thermochemical parameters \cite{web:nist} threshold energy for DD process of CO molecule can be obtain as $20.8$ eV. Within the experimental uncertainties the observed threshold value 19.8 eV matches well with the thermochemically obtained value. The minor deviation could be due to the contact potentials and finite resolution of the primary electron beam.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.42]{threshold2}
\caption{\small{Ion yield for the O$^-$ ions produced in the dipolar dissociation range. The small circles represent the experimental data points . The threshold energy is shown by the arrow.}} \label{threshold2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=.4]{co_slice}
\caption{\small{(a)-(e): Time sliced images taken with 50 ns time window of O$^-$ ion created due to the ion pair production at the indicated incident electron energies. (f) represents the same image as shown in (d) but without low energy part for better perspective. The arrows indicate the electron beam direction.}} \label{VSI_Im}
\end{figure*}
The time sliced velocity map images for different incident electron energies as indicated are shown in Fig. \ref{VSI_Im}. The kinematically complete information about the DD process can be obtain from these images. For the ion pair formation process, both anion and cation are formed. Images may be taken for either the cationic or anionic fragments as the conservation of linear momentum dictates that they both contain same information. In the present study only the anionic fragments are consider since it gives lower background and conclusive indication of the ion pair formation while cation may arise form other processes as well. Fig.~\ref{VSI_Im} (a)-(e) represent the velocity slice images (VSI) of the fragment anions taken at 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 eV incident electron energies, respectively. Notice that all these images are taken with a constant time window of 50 ns width through the center of the respective Newton's spheres. Fig.~\ref{VSI_Im} (f) displays the same velocity slice image as Fig.~\ref{VSI_Im} (d) except the low kinetic energy part for better perspective. The incident electron beam direction is along the center of each image and from left to right as indicated by an arrow. Close inspection of each image shows a maximum intensity at the center and a ring pattern with larger diameter signifying the production of ions having two kinetic energy bands. The diameter of central pattern as well as annular pattern remain almost unchanged with increasing incident electron energy. These observations indicate two different mechanisms for the ion pair formation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.42]{KE}
\caption{\small{Kinetic energy distribution of the O$^-$ ions created due to dipolar dissociation process for five different incident electron energies.}} \label{KE_dist}
\end{figure}
The kinetic energy distributions of the O$^-$ ions have been extracted from the above sliced images and are shown in Fig.~\ref{KE_dist}. The distributions have been normalised near zero eV. One strong peak near zero eV followed by another broad band between 0.7 to 2.0 eV are observed. In order to obtain a better perspective of the second kinetic energy peak, the region 0.5 to 2.5 eV, in Fig.~\ref{KE_dist}, has been magnified by 5 times. Low and high kinetic energy bands arises in the kinetic energy distribution can be explained by the formation of indirect and direct ion pair process respectively. For the low kinetic energy bands the molecule first excites into a Rydberg state which crosses the ion pair state near the ion-pair dissociation limit. This results the predissociation of the Rydberg state via the ion pair state. In this case the dynamics of the ion pair dissociation is restrict by the degree of coupling between the initially excited Rydberg state and the ion pair state. The presence of low kinetic energy ions clearly indicate that the predissociation process occurs throughout the entire energy range. The higher kinetic energy band occurs due to the direct excitation to the ion pair state. The dynamics of the direct process is determined by the Franck-Condon factor. The initial increase of the kinetic energy with increasing electron energy is due to the access at different repulsive part of the ion pair state. One can calculate the appearance energy for the direct excitation to the ion pair state by calculating the total kinetic energy release by the molecule. From Fig.~\ref{KE_dist} it can be observed that the higher kinetic energy band centred at 1.5 eV. From conservation of energy and momentum the kinetic energy of C$^+$ ion accompanying a O$^-$ ion of 1.5 eV can be found to be 2 eV. Using the values in expression (2) one can obtain that nearly 24.4 eV energy is transferred from the incident electron to the molecule. So in the Franck-Condon transition region the separation between the ground state of CO molecule and the ion pair state is around 25 eV. The truncated shape seen at 25 eV clearly indicates that such an ion pair resonant state enters into the Franck-Condon transition region around that energy.\
From Fig.~\ref{KE_dist} it can be observed that the kinetic energy of the ions remains unchanged for both lower energy as well as for higher energy with increasing incident electron energy. The possible explanation for this behaviour is as the incident electron energy increases, the available energy for the system is increases. Which can turn on some other excitation and ionisation process but the ion pair production proceeds through the population of the very same excited states throughout the energy range. So from these observations one can conclude that for incident electron energy near threshold the ions are formed due to the indirect excitation process whereas, the direct excitation starts near 25 eV of incident electron energy.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.36]{ang-dist1}
\caption{\small{Angular distribution of the low kinetic energy O$^-$ ions created due to the ion pair formation process. Angular distribution data for all incident electron energies are fitted with (a) $\Sigma$ to $\Sigma$ transition, (b) $\Sigma$ to $\Pi$ transition, and (c) $\Sigma$ to $\Sigma + \Pi$ transition. Symbols represent the data points and lines are the fitted curve.}} \label{Ang-dist1}
\end{figure}
The angular distribution of fragment O$^-$ ions coming from the ion pair formation process have been analysed for both the kinetic energy bands. The observed angular distribution from VSIs taken at indicated electron energies and within the O$^{-}$ kinetic energy range of 0-0.4 eV and 0.7-2.3 eV are shown in Fig.~\ref{Ang-dist1} and Fig.~\ref{Ang-dist2}, respectively. A 25 ns and 50 ns thin time slices have been considered for the angular distribution analysis for low and high kinetic energy bands, respectively. In a flat slicing technique for the ions with higher kinetic energy only a fraction of the entire `Newton Sphere' is considered. But the entire `Newton Sphere' contributes in the sliced images of low kinetic energy ions.\cite{co2:moradmand2, inst:moradmand} In order to minimise this effect, thinner slices must be used for low kinetic energy ions. We used VSIs taken with 25 ns slice (not shown here) for the angular distribution of low energy ions. In the Figs.~\ref{Ang-dist1} and \ref{Ang-dist2}, symbols are the experimentally obtained data points and the solid curves are the fit-to-data using the model discussed below. All the data points have been normalised at 90$^{\circ}$. For low kinetic energy ions one dominant forward lobe and one backward lobe are seen whereas, for high kinetic energy ions one dominant forward lobe followed by two backward lobes are observed. However, the distribution becomes isotropic at the higher incident energies for both the cases. Similar results were observed previously by Van Brunt and Keiffer \cite{VanBrunt} and Nandi \emph{et al.} \cite{o2:polar_DN} in the study of oxygen molecule in the dipolar dissociation region. The reduction of anisotropy in angular distribution with increasing electron energy could be explained with the similar argument as given by Zare.\cite{zare} In the study of angular distribution from electron impact dissociation of H$_2^+$ ion, Zare concluded that the decreasing anisotropic nature is due to the $K$ (momentum transfer vector) dependence on $I(\theta)$ which is more near threshold.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.36]{ang-dist2}
\caption{\small{Angular distribution of the high kinetic energy O$^-$ ions created due to the ion pair formation process. Angular distribution data for all incident electron energies are fitted with (a) $\Sigma$ to $\Sigma$ transition, (b) $\Sigma$ to $\Pi$ transition, and (c) $\Sigma$ to $\Sigma + \Pi$ transition. Symbols represent the data points and lines are the fitted curve.}} \label{Ang-dist2}
\end{figure}
In order to obtain the symmetry of the ion-pair state(s) involved in the process, the angular distribution data have been fitted using the similar expression described by Van Brunt. \cite{VanBrunt1} According to Van Brunt \cite{VanBrunt1}, the experimental data can be fitted using the expression as,
\begin{equation}
\small
I\left(\theta\right)=K^{-n}\left|\sum_{l=\left|\mu\right|}^{\infty}i^l\sqrt[]{\frac{\left(2l+1\right)\left(l-\mu\right)!}{\left(l+\mu\right)!}}j_l\left(\kappa\right)Y_{l,\mu}\left(\theta,\phi\right)\right|^2
\label{fit-eq}
\end{equation}
This is similar with the equation derived by Zare.\cite{zare} Where $K$ is the momentum transfer vector between the incident and scattered electron, $\kappa$ denotes the product of the momentum transfer vector $K$ and the distance of closest approach between the impinging electron and the center of mass of the molecule, $j_l$'s are the spherical Bessel function, $Y_{l,\mu}$'s are the spherical harmonics and $\mu=\left|\Lambda_f-\Lambda_i\right|$, where $\Lambda_i$ and $\Lambda_f$ are the projection of the electronic axial orbital angular momentum along the molecular axis for the initial and final states, respectively. The $l$ is the angular momentum of the electron that is participating in the process. For hetero-nuclear diatomic molecules like the present case, $l\geq|\mu|$, whereas, for homo nuclear diatomic molecules, $l$ values are restricted to only even or odd depending upon whether the initial and final states are of same or opposite parity. The summation over $l$ takes care of the involvement of different partial waves. For a transition between two particular states for a given incident electron energy, the values of $K$ and $n$ are fixed and can be treated as parameters. Thus the angular distribution data due to the involvement of one or more than one final state(s) can be fitted using the expression as
\begin{equation}
\small
I\left(\theta\right)=\sum_{|\mu|}\left|\sum_{l=\left|\mu\right|}a_li^l\sqrt[]{\frac{\left(2l+1\right)\left(l-\mu\right)!}{\left(l+\mu\right)!}}j_l\left(\kappa\right)Y_{l,\mu}\left(\theta,\phi\right)e^{i\delta_l}\right|^2
\label{expression}
\end{equation}
Where $a_l$'s are energy dependent weight factors for the different partial waves, and $\delta_l$'s denote the phase differences between each partial wave responsible for the transition with respect to the lowest one. The summation over $\mu$ takes care of the involvement of more than one ion-pair states in the process. In present case, we considered upto four lowest partial waves for each of the state involved.
The solid curves in Fig. \ref{Ang-dist1} and \ref{Ang-dist2} represent the fit-to-data using the expression (\ref{expression}). The ground state of the neutral CO molecule is $^1\Sigma^+\left(\Lambda_i=0\right)$. The experimental angular distribution along with fits have been displayed in Fig. \ref{Ang-dist1} (a, b, c) by considering only $\Sigma$, only $\Pi$ and $\Sigma$ + $\Pi$ final state(s) and lowest four partial waves for the low kinetic energy ions. Similar data are displayed in Fig.~\ref{Ang-dist2} (a, b, c) for high energy ions. If we consider only $\Sigma$ final state transition, the angular distributions are well fitted in the forward and backward directions but underestimate in the perpendicular direction. Similarly, if we only consider a $\Pi$ final state transition, we underestimate in the forward and backward directions while angular distribution in the perpendicular direction fitted quite well. Finally, in order to obtain best fitted data, we need to consider both the $\Sigma$ and $\Pi$ final states transition. The above observations are applicable for both the low and high energy ions. However, we are unable to comment on whether same $\Sigma$ and $\Pi$ state are responsible for the two cases. The best fitted curve is shown in Fig.~\ref{Ang-dist1}(c) and Fig.~\ref{Ang-dist2}(c) for low and high energy ions, respectively. The values of different parameters used in the fit function are enlisted in Table \ref{table1} and Table \ref{table2} with $R^{2}$ values for low and high energy ions, respectively. In both the Tables, $a_0$, $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$ are the contribution of each partial wave for the transition to $\Sigma$ state, $b$'s are the contribution for transition to $\Pi$ state and $\kappa$'s are adjustable parameters. The observed forward-backward asymmetry may be explained in the light of permanent dipole moment as described by Hall {\it et al.} \cite{hall} in the DEA to CO. A $\Sigma$ state contains a large negative dipole moment that favours backward peak in the angular distribution, whereas, a $\Pi$ state contains a positive dipole moment favouring forward peaking. The relative contribution of these two states may explain the observed forward-backward asymmetry.
\begin{center}
\begin{table*}
\small
\caption{Fitting parameters for the angular distribution of the O$^-$/CO ions arising from dipolar dissociation process with low kinetic energy and fitted with $\Sigma\rightarrow\Sigma+\Pi$ transition.}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c } \\ \hline
& 25 eV & 30 eV & 35 eV & 40 eV & 45 eV\\ \hline
Weighting ratio of & & & & & \\
different partial waves & & & & & \\
$a_0:a_1:a_2:a_3:$ & 1.05:1.10:0.12:0.92: & 1.08:1.17:0.33:0.53: & 0.87:1.01:0.27:0.44: & 1.21:1.14:0.33:0.92: & 1.02:1.08:0.27:0.55: \\
$b_0:b_1:b_2:b_3$ & 1:1.36:1.80:0.09 & 1:1.14:1.18:0.06 & 1:1.17:0.60:0.23 & 1:1.20:0.63:0.02 & 1:0.91:0.70:0.03\\
& & & & & \\
Phase difference ($\Sigma$) & & & & & \\
$\delta_{s-p}, \delta_{s-d}, \delta_{s-f}$ (rad) & 1.188, 1.269, 1.083 & 0.858, 1.233, 0.941 & 1.306, 2.072, 1.616 & 0.858, 1.755, 1.301 & 0.719, 1.456, 1.008\\
& & & & & \\
Phase difference ($\Pi$) & & & & & \\
$\delta_{p-d}, \delta_{p-f}, \delta_{p-g}$ (rad) & 0.615, 0.707, 0.675 & 0.941, 0.498, 0.577 & 0.606, 0.266, 0.186 & 0.489, 0.148, 0.085 & 0.693, 0.163, 0.205\\
& & & & & \\
Parameter $\kappa_0, \kappa_1$ & 1.056, 1.524 & 1.091, 1.633 & 1.044, 1.31 & 1.308, 1.342 & 1.133, 1.411\\
\hline
$R^2$ value & 0.98 & 0.95 & 0.91 & 0.89 & 0.88\\ \hline
\end{tabular} \label{table1}
\end{table*}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{table*}
\small
\caption{Fitting parameters for the angular distribution of the O$^-$/CO ions arising from dipolar dissociation process with high kinetic energy and fitted with $\Sigma\rightarrow\Sigma+\Pi$ transition.}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c } \\ \hline
& 25 eV & 30 eV & 35 eV & 40 eV & 45 eV\\ \hline
Weighting ratio of & & & & & \\
different partial waves & & & & & \\
$a_0:a_1:a_2:a_3:$ & 0.26:1.08:0.33:0.56: & 0:0.96:0.46:1.03: & 0.90:0.91:0.27:0.44: & 0.16:0.89:0.16:0.21: & 1.14:1.14:0.18:0.72: \\
$b_0:b_1:b_2:b_3$ & 1:0.82:0.98:0 & 1:1.15:0.48:0 & 1:0.90:0.58:0 & 1:0.36:0.99:0.04 & 1:0.44:1.14:0.04\\
& & & & & \\
Phase difference ($\Sigma$) & & & & & \\
$\delta_{s-p}, \delta_{s-d}, \delta_{s-f}$ (rad) & 1.862, 1.442, 1.532 & 0.281, 0.276, 0.097 & 0.888, 1.344, 1.004 & 0.185, 0.376, 0.204 & 0.9364, 1.675, 1.275\\
& & & & & \\
Phase difference ($\Pi$) & & & & & \\
$\delta_{p-d}, \delta_{p-f}, \delta_{p-g}$ (rad) & 1.082, 1.225, 0.074 & 0.825, 0.637, 0.567 & 1.064, 0.514, 2.072 & 2.287, 0.239, 0.271 & 1.853, 0.161, 0.296\\
& & & & & \\
Parameter $\kappa_0, \kappa_1$ & 1.083, 1.573 & 1.331, 1.255 & 1.096, 1.43 & 0.851, 1.646 & 1.169, 1.594\\
\hline
$R^2$ value & 0.99 & 0.99 & 0.96 & 0.87 & 0.88\\ \hline
\end{tabular} \label{table2}
\end{table*}
\end{center}
\section{Conclusion}
We have studied dipolar dissociation dynamics through ion-pair states of CO populated in electron collisions using velocity slice imaging, a well established method for dissociative electron attachment studies. The anion yield has been measured for threshold energy determination of ion-pair dissociation process. The threshold energy is in good agreement with previous reports. Velocity slice images have been taken at five different incident electron energies in the dipolar dissociation region. The kinetic energy and angular distributions have been extracted from the slice images. Low and high kinetic energy bands have been discussed using the indirect and direct ion pair formation process. A fixed kinetic energy release with increasing primary electron energy indicates that the molecule absorbs a fixed amount of energy from the incoming electron and that the rest of the energy is carried by the out going electrons. The truncated nature in the kinetic energy distribution at lower impact energy allow us to locate the position of the ion-pair states with respect to the ground state. Measured kinetic energy distributions clearly indicate that both direct and indirect ion-pair formation mechanism are responsible for the dipolar dissociation of CO. The angular distribution data strongly suggest the involvement of two ion-pair states in the studied electron energy range. The symmetry of these observed states are $\Sigma$ and $\Pi$ for both direct and indirect ion pair formation. We cannot conclude whether the same ion-pair states are involved or not in the direct and indirect ion pair formation. The peaking intensity in the forward and backward directions is most likely due to the $\Sigma$ final state transition. Whereas small peaks may arise from $\Pi$ final state transitions. The theoretical calculations are badly needed to understand the detailed dynamics for the ion pair formation process.
\section{Acknowledgements}
D. N. gratefully acknowledges the partial financial support from ``Indian National Science Academy" for the development of VSI spectrometer under INSA Young Scientist project ``SP/YSP/80/2013/734".
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.